[News] Blinken’s lies about Hamas rejecting a ceasefire reveal the Biden administration’s true intentions

[Anti-Imperialist News]

mondoweiss.net
<https://mondoweiss.net/2024/06/blinkens-lies-about-hamas-rejecting-a-ceasefire-reveal-the-biden-administrations-true-intentions/?ml_recipient=124297427370902873&ml_link=124297409854441078&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=2024-06-16&utm_campaign=Daily+Headlines+RSS+Automation>
Blinken’s lies about Hamas rejecting a ceasefire reveal the Biden
administration’s true intentions
Mitchell Plitnick
June 15, 2024
------------------------------
[image: 53787473469_0c5d61b4c1_k-1536x1025.jpg]

“The proposal that President Biden laid out 12 days ago was virtually
identical to one that Hamas had accepted and put forward itself on May the
6th.  So there’s no reason why this agreement should not be reached.  The
only reason would be Hamas continuing to try to change the terms.”

So said U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken
<https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-with-jalal-chahda-of-al-jazeera/>
in an interview with Al Jazeera on Wednesday. The statement is part of an
extended campaign of deception that Blinken has spearheaded. It featured
President Joe Biden’s dramatic unveiling of a ceasefire proposal, followed
by a U.N. Security Council resolution and Blinken’s latest tour of the
Middle East — all ostensibly to reach a ceasefire.

The subtlety hidden in the term “virtually identical” that Blinken used
attempts to hide some crucial differences, and betrays the real point of
Blinken’s public relations sojourn.

Biden’s proposal is very similar to the one Hamas accepted
<https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/6/text-of-the-ceasefire-proposal-approved-by-hamas>
on May 6. Notably, the United States at the time explicitly said
<https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/us-hamas-claimed-to-accept-ceasefire-offer-but-thats-not-what-they-did/>
that Hamas had not accepted the proposal. Blinken’s blatant contradiction
of his own agency’s words is typical of the prevarication that the United
States and Israel have maintained throughout recent weeks, during which the
Biden administration has gone to great lengths to create the illusion of
pressing for a ceasefire.

However, there is a key difference between the May 6 proposal and the
current one, and it lies in Phase Two of the plan.

Biden’s plan calls for a negotiation during Phase One that would lead to a
permanent ceasefire. He even noted, as did the Security Council, that if
negotiations need longer to succeed, Phase One, including its temporary
ceasefire, will be extended for as long as it takes.

But crucially, the plan also says that if Israel decides Hamas is not
negotiating “in good faith,” it can resume its murderous rampage through
Gaza. And if that happened, it would be doing so with the full public
blessing of the U.S. — a blessing even more explicit than it has given
until now.

The May 6 plan, by contrast, sees Phase Two as the final exchange of living
hostages and prisoners, the full withdrawal of all Israeli forces from
Gaza, and a permanent ceasefire put in place. Phase Two moves forward if
the two sides fulfill the practical obligations they would have committed
to. In other words, there is no need for “negotiation” because the
fulfillment of the terms in Phase One leads to the execution of the terms
of Phase Two.

Essentially, the difference is that under Biden’s plan, Israel can free
many hostages — though not all — and can then simply accuse Hamas at its
own discretion of not negotiating in good faith, thereby resuming the
genocide. Israeli officials have repeatedly made this clear
<https://www.newsweek.com/israel-official-says-biden-ceasefire-plan-allows-idf-destroy-hamas-1911468>
.

That has been the sticking point all along. In essence, Israel wants a deal
that frees the hostages and also allows it to “finish the job.” Hamas,
quite reasonably, wants the slaughter and siege to end, Israel to withdraw,
and reconstruction to immediately commence.

Neither side is ambiguous about this. “The Hamas response reaffirmed the
group’s stance [that] any agreement must end the Zionist aggression on our
people, get the Israeli forces out, reconstruct Gaza, and achieve a serious
prisoners swap deal,” a Hamas official told Reuters
<https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/11/hamas-and-pij-submit-response-to-un-backed-gaza-ceasefire-plan>.
That has been the group’s position
<https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67797747> since the last
temporary truce and hostage exchange in November.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also held fast
<https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/01/europe/netenyahu-ceasefire-hamas-contradiction-biden-intl/index.html>
to his position that Israel will not stop its onslaught until all its aims
have been achieved. Indeed, when the UNSC passed its ceasefire resolution
this week, Israel reiterated this position, as its representative to the
UNSC meeting, Reut Shapir Ben Naftaly, said after the vote
<https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15723.doc.htm>: “We will continue until all
hostages are returned and until Hamas’ military and governing capabilities
are dismantled.”

This is consistent not only with Israel’s talking points throughout the
Gaza genocide but also with statements from Netanyahu even after Biden
presented what he claimed was Israel’s proposal. The day after Biden
presented the proposal, Netanyahu’s office stated
<https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/01/europe/netenyahu-ceasefire-hamas-contradiction-biden-intl/index.html>,
“Under the proposal, Israel will continue to insist these conditions [which
the statement described as “the destruction of Hamas military and governing
capabilities, the freeing of all hostages, and ensuring that Gaza no longer
poses a threat to Israel”] are met before a permanent ceasefire is put in
place. The notion that Israel will agree to a permanent ceasefire before
these conditions are fulfilled is a non-starter.”

That directly contradicts Biden’s proposal, which both the President and
Blinken have sold as a plan for achieving a permanent ceasefire, making no
mention of these conditions. Indeed, the conditions Israel set forth are
not possible within any conceivable ceasefire — certainly not one that
Hamas would ever say “yes” to.
‘Dead cat diplomacy’

Despite this, Blinken continues to insist that it is Hamas, not Israel,
that is preventing the deal from going through. How does that make any
sense?

If we look at the proposal on the table with rational eyes, Blinken’s
claims cannot be squared with reality. But if we consider the proposal in a
more cynical light, it can.

Hamas is clearly unwilling to agree to a deal that does not guarantee an
end to the slaughter in Gaza. While we don’t have all the details of the
proposed deal (even the UNSC resolution only contained a broad summary of
the proposal) or confirmation of the specific amendments Hamas requested,
it’s not hard to see that the major difficulty is the same one it’s been
all along: Hamas wants an end to the genocide, and Israel doesn’t.

The proposal Biden put forth could guarantee that Phase Two would initiate
a permanent ceasefire, if both parties comply with their obligations under
Phase One. It is reasonable to assume that Hamas’ proposed amendments are
geared toward that outcome. It is eminently sensible that Hamas would not
leave the question of restarting Israel’s campaign in the hands of
Netanyahu and Biden. They would want clear guarantees, which means specific
actions that lead inexorably to a complete Israeli withdrawal.

But Israel is portraying this as Hamas being “unreasonable” while Blinken
is characterizing at least some of Hamas’ demands as “unworkable.”
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czrrw93g9xyo> And the U.S. is repeating
the mantra
<https://usun.usmission.gov/remarks-by-ambassador-linda-thomas-greenfield-at-a-un-security-council-arria-formula-meeting-on-hostage-taking/>
that Hamas is the only thing standing in the way of a ceasefire, despite
being contradicted by Israeli leaders themselves at every turn.

Blinken’s act has a different motive. Aaron David Miller, a long-time
diplomat who served in both Democratic and Republican administrations as a
leading Middle East envoy, tweeted on Wednesday
<https://x.com/aarondmiller2/status/1800930665057382731>, “The more this
plays out, [the] more it resembles what my former boss James Baker called
dead cat diplomacy. The objective is not to reach a deal but to ensure if
it fails, the dead cat is on [the] other’s doorstep. Even if a deal is
reached, likely won’t go beyond phase 1 for that reason.”

He is likely right about the prospects and certainly is right about the
“dead cat diplomacy.” Given the impasse over a guaranteed path to ending
Israel’s rampage, all parties are engaging in that game. But the character
is different for each.

Hamas has no interest at all in prolonging this campaign but also has no
reason to agree to a deal that leaves the decision to resume the violence
in the hands of Israel and the United States. If they release the hostages
and Israel starts the campaign again, much of the already insufficient
protest movement in Israel will dissipate and Netanyahu will have a
politically freer hand. It is also likely to reduce American pressure,
meager though that is. Yet it’s important for them to communicate to the
people of Gaza that they are trying to end this slaughter.

Israel would love to see Hamas painted as the rejectionist party, as it
would add more fuel to the bloodlust of those who are cheering their
genocidal campaign on and would put more pressure on the few in Washington
who are actively opposed to Israel’s war on the civilian population of
Gaza.

But it is the Biden administration that is most eager to place the dead cat
on Hamas’s doorstep.
*Biden’s real red line*

Despite the constant disdain that Biden, Blinken, and the entire
administration have shown for Palestinian lives, it has become clear that
their support for Israel’s genocide is hurting them politically. Yet even
the obviously feigned concern they occasionally try to show for Palestinian
civilians has not sat well with the pro-Israel corner
<https://www.axios.com/2024/05/29/biden-democrats-israel-gaza-dmfi> of
the Democratic
party
<https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-05-09/hollywood-mega-donor-haim-saban-bidens-weapons-israel-hamas-gaza-rafah>
.

This creates a dilemma. All things being equal, they would, at this point,
prefer to see Israel stop the genocidal campaign, and have tried to
convince Netanyahu to do so. All their pleas have fallen on deaf ears in
Israel, and it has been embarrassing for Biden and his spokespeople
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv22pl9p212o> to have to answer
reporters’ questions after each massacre, explaining how Israel has not
crossed their so-called “red lines.”

Many have observed that what this amounts to is having no red lines at all
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTyogFIz-5Q>. But that’s not quite right.
There is one red line that Biden will not cross. He will not stop arms
shipments to Israel or use any other means to actually force Israel to stop
what it’s doing. That is the true red line in all of this.

As long as that red line is there, Netanyahu has a largely free hand. He
vacillates between open defiance of Biden in public with some conciliatory
words about how he appreciates Biden’s support, and, in private, he
doubtless is telling Blinken and Biden enough of what they want to hear for
them to be able to report that Israel agrees to this deal that they keep
rejecting publicly.

But in the end, Netanyahu does as he pleases and the arms, the money, and
the diplomatic cover continue to flow from Washington, free of charge. Lying
has never bothered him
<https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-06-13/ty-article/.premium/netanyahu-conned-the-u-s-now-biden-must-make-tough-decisions-on-how-to-end-the-gaza-war/00000190-11e7-df06-adb8-71e717240000>
.

As long as that self-imposed red line is there, Biden needs to find another
way to appease voters at home. Miller’s dead cat, Biden hopes, will allow
him to appease the moderate liberals in the party who are uncomfortable
with genocide but are looking for a reason to vote for Biden out of fear of
Donald Trump, even while he continues supporting Israel’s genocide. He also
hopes that ongoing support will appease major pro-Israel donors and others
who could throw their support either behind Trump or behind Republicans in
Congressional races.

What does not figure into this calculus, as usual, are the lives of the
Palestinian people in Gaza, who will continue to pay the price for these
political games.

Hoping Biden will put actual pressure on Israel is a fool’s errand. Few
conceivable events would be more shocking than a halt to arms shipments or
trade restrictions from the U.S. That’s exactly why protest movements all
over the world, including in the United States and Europe, must join their
calls for a ceasefire with demands for an arms embargo, as well as
boycotts, divestment, and, especially sanctions.

The UNSC resolution provides a diplomatic basis for such actions. It’s hard
to see a ceasefire coming about without them.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20240616/846f8f3d/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 53787473469_0c5d61b4c1_k-1536x1025.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 217642 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20240616/846f8f3d/attachment-0001.jpg>