A week ago, US President Joe Biden claimed that a “ceasefire” agreement in Gaza was imminent and could come into effect as early as March 4. “My national security adviser tells me we are close,” he told reporters while eating ice cream in New York. The city of York.
But ice cream or not, Biden’s actual stance wasn’t quite so mild. A subsequent statement from a senior Biden administration official claimed that Israel had “basically agreed” to a proposed temporary pause in fighting. But on March 4, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Mossad director still refused to send a delegation to Cairo, where negotiations with Hamas were underway.
The Biden administration’s eagerness to claim victory in its search for some sort of temporary truce shows how it is feeling the heat of growing global and domestic pressure demanding an immediate ceasefire, an end to the genocide Israeli government, an end to the threat of a new escalation against Rafah, which is overflowing with refugees, and an end to the siege of Gaza and the immediate and unhindered provision of massive humanitarian aid.
Despite Washington’s vain hopes for March 4 and the unofficial goal of a ceasefire by the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan on March 10, agreement remains elusive. Media reports say Biden is telling Qatari and Egyptian leaders that he is pressuring Israel to agree to a truce and exchange of captives.
But its claim to pressure Israel is undermined by persistent U.S. vetoes of ceasefire resolutions at the United Nations Security Council, most recently on February 20, as well as the continuing flow of American weapons and money to Israel to enable its assault.
The vetoed resolution, presented by Algeria on behalf of the Arab Group, demanded an immediate humanitarian ceasefire and deplored all attacks against civilians. It specifically rejected the “forced displacement of the Palestinian civilian population, including women and children” and called unconditionally for unhindered humanitarian access to Gaza and “the urgent, continued and sufficient provision of humanitarian assistance.” in large scale “.
Significantly, the text referred to the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) January order that Israel is committing or plausibly preparing to commit genocide in Gaza, and imposes a series of interim measures requiring that Israel ends its practices.
Linda Thomas-Greenfield, Biden’s ambassador to the U.N., only vetoed the Algerian resolution and instead offered an alternative U.S. text, saying he also supported a ceasefire.
But the language proposed by the United States does not call for an immediate or permanent ceasefire or an end to the Israeli genocide; it does not prevent an attack on Rafah or end the Israeli siege. The US-proposed resolution is not intended to end Israel’s deadly war on Gaza – nor is the deal currently being negotiated in Cairo.
On the contrary, the provisions of the US draft resolution reflect the Biden administration’s true intentions regarding its continued support for Israel, and reveal the limits of the truce it is trying to orchestrate.
Although the US draft resolution uses the dreaded term “ceasefire” – which has been banned from the White House for months – it does not call for an immediate end to the bombing, only “as soon as possible”. , with no indication of when this may be the case. Nor does he call for a permanent ceasefire, leaving Israel free to resume its genocidal bombings – presumably with continued US support.
Virtually everything the American project demands is undermined by what is left out. The demand to “remove all obstacles to the delivery of large-scale humanitarian assistance” to Gaza certainly seems quite strong. But that’s only until you realize that the text’s failure to challenge or even name the main obstacle to aid entry – Israeli bombing – means it’s not about a serious plan to end the murderous siege of Israel.
It should surprise no one that “the Biden administration does not plan to punish Israel if it launches a military campaign in Rafah without ensuring the safety of civilians” – as Politico reported – although it says it wants a plan credible to ensure the security of the Palestinians. No one in the Biden administration has even hinted at imposing consequences for Israel’s consistent rejection of vapid calls for restraint – such as conditioning aid on human rights standards (as required by law). American) or completely eliminate American military aid. This is what real pressure would look like.
A clearer picture of Washington’s approach to Israel’s war on Gaza is the continued pipeline of American weapons to make Israel’s murderous attack on Gaza more effective, efficient and deadly.
According to the Wall Street Journal, “the Biden administration is preparing to send bombs and other weapons to Israel that would supplement its military arsenal, even as the United States pushes for a cease-fire in Gaza.” . The weapons that the United States intends to hand over to the Israeli army include MK-82 bombs, KMU-572 joint direct attack munitions and FMU-139 bomb detonators, worth several tens of millions of dollars. It is more than likely that the administration will make another attempt to hijack the US Congress to send the weapons without relying on congressional approval, as it did at least twice last December.
Regardless of the wording of Washington’s proposed UN Security Council resolution and likely the eventual temporary truce agreement, the words of National Security Council spokesman John Kirby continue to resonate as a best reflection of the Biden administration’s policy: “We will continue to support Israel…and we will continue to ensure that they have the tools and capabilities to do so.” »
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Tel Aviv Tribune.
