Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump. (Design: Palestine Chronicle)
As it stands, there is no chance that a ceasefire can be implemented, according to the current parameters of the Trump-Netanyahu plan.
Originally published in Palestine Chronicle.
In a series of events that shocked the world, Hamas not only issued a positive response to the latest US-Israeli ceasefire proposal, but Donald Trump publicly announced his intention to implement it and called upon his allies in Tel Aviv to halt their attack on Gaza.
The road towards the latest ceasefire equation has been paved with confusion, to say the least. Therefore, in order to make this more digestible, it is perhaps more important to trace the deal’s origins and seek to read what potential outcomes may be ahead of us.
As an entry point to comprehending what has just happened and why so many nations have endorsed the proposal set forth by the US President and his Israeli counterpart, it is necessary to look at the document known as the “New York Declaration”.
On September 12, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) unanimously voted to adopt the declaration, which was popularly reported as a simple vote on Palestinian Statehood. However, UNGA votes approving the so-called two-State solution model have been voted through unanimously for around three decades now.
The real story here was the New York Declaration’s contents. Back in July, France and Saudi Arabia decided to co-chair a UN conference on reviving negotiations for a two-state solution. Days prior, Paris announced its intentions to recognise Palestine at the UNGA in September, a pledge that would also be made by Australia, the UK, Canada, and a number of others.
On August 4, a UNGA document was produced, which then outlined what had come as a result of the French-Saudi initiative. For the purpose of this article, it suffices to say that the different components of the New York Declaration that stand out as rather potentially problematic are the exact same as those outlined by Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu in their plan.
Both proposals demand that Hamas hand over all Israeli captives and disarm, that a foreign military force be deployed to Gaza, and clearly prioritise Israel’s so-called “security” over Palestinian sovereignty.
Ultimately, the key difference between Trump’s so-called “peace plan” and the New York Declaration is that the US-Israeli plan explicitly asserts that there will be no Palestinian State allowed, however small. Whereas, the French-Saudi initiative seeks for the State of Palestine to be a system devoid of any democracy, also making it clear that the Palestinian State they are recognizing is one that will be the only country on earth that will have no military.
Analysing the similarities between both plans makes it more understandable as to why the likes of France and Saudi Arabia, which just pushed for a completely separate plan, are now fully on board and endorse the new Gaza ceasefire proposal. It appears as if this process is one, where offers and counteroffers are being made, but all as part of a process that is meant to encircle the Palestinian people and their cause for national liberation. In my last article for the Palestine Chronicle, I explained this in more detail.
When Hamas came back with its response to the US-Israeli proposal, it did so in an extremely calculated manner, using the rhetoric of acceptance, yet still outlining the need for further negotiation on different points of concern. In all, Hamas had accepted Donald Trump’s plan as a basis for negotiating a ceasefire, in the absence of any real agreement.
What led Hamas to this assumed position was a number of factors, including, on one hand, the total rejection of a surrender plan as it was viewed as unacceptable by the factions in Gaza and, on the other hand, the pressure of Qatar, Turkiye and Egypt to accept the deal.
The so-called “peace plan”, was not a detailed proposal; instead, it was more of a roughly put-together collection of political demands and ill-articulated desires, with no mechanisms to implement it. The only implementable part of the so-called plan was the release of every Israeli captive and their bodies.
However, the White House seemed to indicate that it demands Hamas immediately hand over all Israeli captives held in Gaza within 72 hours, after which they will just have to depend on Israel’s goodwill to uphold their side of the bargain. Considering that Israel decided to violate a much more detailed and phased ceasefire agreement back in March, going on to mass murder over 12,000 civilians afterwards, the idea that Tel Aviv will respect such an agreement is outlandish.
This and many other issues with the Trump-Netanyahu proposal evidently meant that Hamas needs to engage in negotiations to bring about a real deal that is realistic. Therefore, this is what they asked for.
Then came the big surprise: Donald Trump decided to publish a post on ‘Truth Social’ that welcomed the Hamas statement, treating it as an acceptance. He appeared to indicate that details needed to be sorted out, but urged Israel to immediately stop bombing Gaza.
In response to this, Israel escalated its bombardment of Gaza City and its Prime Minister decided to issue his own written response to the developments of the day. Instead of reacting negatively, as Israeli media had been for hours, Netanyahu’s office indicated that they are preparing for Hamas to hand over all of the captives in the first stage of the agreement and welcome it.
So here lies the issue. Hamas seeks to engage in dialogue and it appears as if the US Trump administration was expressing its openness to hashing out the details of a ceasefire deal. Yet, the Israeli government is speaking as if Hamas is just going to start releasing all of the captives and will agree to immediate disarmament. Both cannot be true.
Therefore, this deal will have to go one of two ways: either through negotiations or Israel demands the immediate release of its captives. The latter is not a reasonable assumption, as Hamas would lose all of its bargaining chips; therefore, it will only proceed in the case of negotiations.
Ultimately, the negotiations could either lead to Hamas fully surrendering, which is unlikely, or the talks will begin to evolve towards shaping a ceasefire deal that is closer to what was previously proposed and accepted. It appears however, that the Israelis will attempt to throw a spanner in the works before the talks reach such stages, then blame Hamas for violating the deal.
As it stands, there is no chance that a ceasefire can be implemented – according to the current parameters of the Trump-Netanyahu plan – where the Israelis would actually stop their ethnic cleansing and even the war. If Hamas were to somehow agree to surrender, it would be a death sentence for the future of Palestinian life and self-determination in Gaza.
Although it could appear somewhat unrelated, the US has just deployed its USS Gerald Ford Strike Group to the Mediterranean, as other military assets have been positioned in a posture that points towards a renewed attack on Iran.
It is more than plausible to believe that this so-called “peace proposal” is part of a grander regional strategy. This has been the case in the past, with previous rounds of Gaza ceasefire talks paving the way to the expansion of Israeli-US military operations across various fronts in the region.
While it is impossible to predict the precise series of events that will lead to the outcomes outlined here, it is safe to conclude that this ceasefire deal is far from a strong and detailed agreement; instead, it is closer to the basis for talks.
(The Palestine Chronicle)
Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.
In this week’s segment, we hear about events in the West African nation of Guinea-Bissau, a disputed election, and a so-called coup that was actually carried out on behalf of the president. But first…
Margaret Kimberley was a guest on the Jamarl Thomas YouTube Channel. We present excerpts of the discussion of her contribution to the new anthology China Changes Everything. Her chapter is entitled "…
The West African nation of Guinea-Bissau recently experienced an aborted electoral process followed by what was called a coup d’etat. But the reality differs from the narrative presented by the neo-…
Ajamu Baraka, BAR Editor and Columnist, joins Dimitri Lascaris to discuss the potential US attack on Venezuela and its regional impact. The conversation explores the legality and morality of recent…
U.S. sanctions, violence, threats, and theft are war crimes waged against Venezuela for decades. A scandal about a “double tap” killing should not be the focus of attention.
