Anyone with even a passing acquaintance with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu understands that he would never wholeheartedly back a permanent cease-fire plan with the Palestinians if it might undermine his domestic political ambitions. So it did not come as a surprise that, just hours after U.S. President Joe Biden announced that Israel had proposed a three-stage plan to Hamas aimed at achieving a permanent cease-fire, Netanyahu “clarified” there would be no permanent cease-fire in Gaza until Hamas’s military and governing capabilities were destroyed and all hostages released.
In a blunt – and kind of rebuffing – statement, Netanyahu said that "Israel's conditions for ending the war have not changed: the destruction of Hamas' military and governing capabilities, the freeing of all hostages and ensuring that Gaza no longer poses a threat to Israel. This statement was strategically kept vague. Notably, it omitted the term “total victory,” a phrase Netanyahu frequently used to describe the Israeli military's aim in Gaza.
The matter is further complicated by the tough resistance from his allies and opposition in the War Cabinet. The resignation of opposition leader Benny Gantz, a key member of Israel’s War Cabinet, calling for early elections “as soon as possible,” is the first sign of this intense pressure on Netanyahu. “Netanyahu is preventing us from advancing to a real victory. That is why we are leaving the emergency government today with a heavy but with a whole heart,” Gantz said while declaring his decision to leave the war cabinet. The resignation came after Gantz had given Netanyahu a June 8 deadline to formulate a clear strategy for Israel’s war on Gaza and its aftermath earlier on May 18.
Similarly, Netanyahu's far-right coalition partners. National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich have also threatened to quit the government if the deal proceeds. Ben Gvir labeled the proposal "a victory for terrorism and a security risk to Israel," vowing to "dissolve the government" if it moved forward. He declared that agreeing to such a deal would be "total defeat," not victory.
This internal political pressure highlights the complex dynamics surrounding Israel's cease-fire negotiations. Biden was also acutely aware of the resistance that Israel’s plan would encounter. “I ask you to take a step back. Think what will happen if this moment is lost. We can’t lose this moment. Indefinite war in pursuit of an unidentified notion of total victory will only bog down Israel in Gaza, draining the economic, military, and human resources and furthering Israel’s isolation in the world,” said Biden. Biden’s tone of desperation is quite palpable. He rightly believes that his efforts in the Gaza peace process could significantly boost his presidential campaign. However, he also knows that the plan has many lacunae for all stakeholders, making it quite difficult to convince them to agree to a cease-fire before Nov. 5.
Although Biden has been striving to satisfy stakeholders – including the Israeli public, Palestinians, Hamas, relatives of hostages, and Netanyahu and his hardliner associates – the plan is riddled with gaps and unanswered questions. These vulnerabilities make it highly susceptible to critique. A close scrutiny of his media talk on the three-phase plan reveals that Biden's main target audience was the Israeli public and relatives of hostages. He presented it as the most viable path to lasting peace in Israel.
Aware that Netanyahu and his hardliner Cabinet colleagues would resist concessions to Hamas, Biden bypassed them, directly marketing the plan to the Israeli people and hostages' families. He emphasized its benefits, understanding that gaining public and familial support was crucial to countering the anticipated Israeli governmental opposition. Biden attempted to assuage concerns by noting Hamas' extremely weakened state, suggesting it lacks the capacity for a major attack again in the near future.
“The people of Israel should know they can make this offer without any further risk to their own security because they devastated Hamas forces over the past eight months,” he tried to convince that Hamas has now completely rendered toothless. He further assured that “All this progress would make Israel more secure, with Israeli families no longer living in the shadow of a terrorist attack. All this would create the conditions for a different future, a better future for the Palestinian people, one of self-determination, dignity, security and freedom.”
However, Biden’s calculation is right about Israel’s internal political dynamics. Massive demonstrations are being held in Israel, spearheaded by families of hostages detained by Hamas, calling upon the government to take immediate action. There's a growing sentiment among the hostages' families that the Netanyahu government has excessively – and deliberately – delayed reaching a deal, resulting in the loss of many lives endured in captivity for prolonged periods. Simultaneously, pressure is mounting from the broader Israeli public on Netanyahu to secure a cease-fire. However, any peace agreement currently poses a challenge to Netanyahu's political survival. His insistence on Hamas's complete destruction as a precondition for a permanent cease-fire is intertwined with his political future, especially as he grapples with the aftermath of the Iron Dome's failure on Oct. 7. Netanyahu’s domestic political compulsions are dominating his tactical plan for the Gaza war.
For obvious reasons, Biden's proposal is bound to enrage many, including college campus protesters who envision a Middle East without Israel, Israeli Jewish supremacists desiring a Greater Israel without Palestinians, and Palestinians seeking to make Israel an international pariah for its actions. However, Biden is desperately gambling that by Nov. 5 elections, he can achieve some semblance of a peace deal. He hopes to tap into the American public’s strong desire for a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But this is the maximum he could do at the moment – lobby for a half-baked peace plan. In addition to these political complications, there are other security and practical aspects that render the Biden plan unworkable. Any peacekeeping force venturing into Gaza must safeguard against insurgent threats. Should Israel's military presence persist, it risks fueling the insurgency, endangering any force recognizing its legitimacy. For Biden's plan to materialize, two pivotal shifts are imperative. Firstly, the Palestinian Authority (PA) must reclaim Gaza and extend invitations to external forces. Secondly, Israel's withdrawal is essential. Yet, Israel adamantly opposes PA's return and asserts its overarching security control. As such, Biden's proposal faces an impasse unless Israel alters its stance.
The alleged strategic objective of Israel's current government revolves around the demographic "thinning" of Gaza's population. Some members of Netanyahu's Cabinet have openly endorsed this stance. The combination of chaotic governance and military control could prompt an exodus from Gaza. Furthermore, certain Israeli ministers propose resettling Israelis in northern Gaza. This vision entails establishing Israeli settlements under military protection in the north, while encouraging Gaza's southern residents to depart, leaving the region ungoverned. Although these scenarios are not predetermined, they represent the likeliest outcomes absent a shift in Israeli leadership calculus. Any such change would necessitate significant intervention, notably from U.S. leadership, which has been conspicuously absent. As the situation unfolds, the role of external actors, particularly the United States, becomes pivotal in steering the region away from a potentially destabilizing trajectory. The ill-prepared attempt by the U.S. team to present a draft resolution to the U.N. Security Council supporting Biden’s proposal for a cease-fire in Gaza without properly co-ordinating its positions with any of the other members, is reflective of complete chaos and disorientation in the Biden camp, which does not augur well for peace in Gaza.
