<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail-top-anchor"></div>
<div id="gmail-toolbar" class="gmail-toolbar-container">
</div><div class="gmail-container" lang="en-US" dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail-header gmail-reader-header gmail-reader-show-element">
<a class="gmail-domain gmail-reader-domain" href="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">mondoweiss.net</a>
<div class="gmail-domain-border"></div>
<h1 class="gmail-reader-title">Blinken’s lies about Hamas rejecting a ceasefire reveal the Biden administration’s true intentions</h1>
<div class="gmail-credits gmail-reader-credits">Mitchell Plitnick</div>
<div class="gmail-meta-data">
<div class="gmail-reader-estimated-time">June 15, 2024<br></div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<div class="gmail-content">
<div class="gmail-moz-reader-content gmail-reader-show-element"><div id="gmail-readability-page-1" class="gmail-page"><div>
<img src="cid:ii_lxhloydp0" alt="53787473469_0c5d61b4c1_k-1536x1025.jpg" width="408" height="272"><br><p>“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.”</p>
<p><a href="https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-with-jalal-chahda-of-al-jazeera/">So said U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken</a>
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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>Biden’s proposal is very similar to the <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/6/text-of-the-ceasefire-proposal-approved-by-hamas">one Hamas accepted</a> on May 6. Notably, the United States at the time <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/us-hamas-claimed-to-accept-ceasefire-offer-but-thats-not-what-they-did/">explicitly said</a>
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.</p>
<p>However, there is a key difference between the May 6 proposal and the current one, and it lies in Phase Two of the plan. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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 <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/israel-official-says-biden-ceasefire-plan-allows-idf-destroy-hamas-1911468">have repeatedly made this clear</a>. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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 <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/11/hamas-and-pij-submit-response-to-un-backed-gaza-ceasefire-plan">told Reuters</a>. That <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67797747">has been the group’s position</a> since the last temporary truce and hostage exchange in November.</p>
<p>Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/01/europe/netenyahu-ceasefire-hamas-contradiction-biden-intl/index.html">has also held fast</a>
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, <a href="https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15723.doc.htm">said after the vote</a>: “We will continue until all hostages are returned and until Hamas’ military and governing capabilities are dismantled.”</p>
<p>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, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/01/europe/netenyahu-ceasefire-hamas-contradiction-biden-intl/index.html">Netanyahu’s office stated</a>,
“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.”</p>
<p>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. </p>
<h2>‘Dead cat diplomacy’</h2>
<p>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?</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>But Israel is portraying this as Hamas being “unreasonable” while Blinken is characterizing at least some of <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czrrw93g9xyo">Hamas’ demands as “unworkable.”</a> And the U.S. is <a href="https://usun.usmission.gov/remarks-by-ambassador-linda-thomas-greenfield-at-a-un-security-council-arria-formula-meeting-on-hostage-taking/">repeating the mantra</a>
that Hamas is the only thing standing in the way of a ceasefire,
despite being contradicted by Israeli leaders themselves at every turn. </p>
<p>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, <a href="https://x.com/aarondmiller2/status/1800930665057382731">tweeted on Wednesday</a>,
“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.”</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>But it is the Biden administration that is most eager to place the dead cat on Hamas’s doorstep. </p>
<h2><strong>Biden’s real red line</strong></h2>
<p>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 <a href="https://www.axios.com/2024/05/29/biden-democrats-israel-gaza-dmfi">pro-Israel corner</a> of the <a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-05-09/hollywood-mega-donor-haim-saban-bidens-weapons-israel-hamas-gaza-rafah">Democratic party</a>. </p>
<p>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 <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv22pl9p212o">and his spokespeople</a> to have to answer reporters’ questions after each massacre, explaining how Israel has not crossed their so-called “red lines.”</p>
<p>Many have observed that what this amounts to is <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTyogFIz-5Q">having no red lines at all</a>.
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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. <a href="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">Lying has never bothered him</a>. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>The UNSC resolution provides a diplomatic basis for such actions. It’s hard to see a ceasefire coming about without them. </p>
</div></div></div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div></div>
</div>
</div>