On Wednesday, a glimmer of hope emerged as the United States and its allies introduced a proposal for a three-week ceasefire aimed at halting the violence between Israel and Hezbollah. The announcement followed encouraging remarks from Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, suggesting a potential pathway toward de-escalation. However, this optimism was swiftly countered by resistance from Israeli leadership, particularly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Foreign Minister Israel Katz took to social media platform X to assert, “There will be no ceasefire.” Shortly after, Netanyahu arrived in New York, reiterating Israel’s commitment to continue its military operations against Hezbollah. His office released a striking image during his flight that depicted him instructing a strike on a Hezbollah commander, underscoring the firm stance of his administration.
Despite this pushback, White House spokesperson John Kirby maintained that discussions with Israeli officials regarding the ceasefire were still active. “It’s not clear to us that from a practical perspective, there isn’t cause for us to continue to have these conversations with the Israelis,” Kirby remarked, highlighting the contradictory narratives from both sides.
This discord is reminiscent of past negotiations concerning a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, particularly after the militant group’s attack on October 7 of the previous year. The U.S. has often asserted that Israel was close to agreeing on ceasefire terms, only for the Israeli government to dismiss these claims.
Also read: China’s new nuclear submarine sinks, raising concerns over military oversight
Experts argue that the Biden administration has no choice but to persist in its diplomatic efforts. Mara Rudman, who has worked on Middle Eastern issues in past administrations, commented that the ceasefire proposal was intended to signal to Israel the potential repercussions of unilateral military actions.
In the lead-up to the ceasefire announcement, the U.S., France, and other nations formed a broad coalition to advocate for this initiative. Yet, both U.S. and French officials seem to be overlooking Netanyahu’s rejection in hopes that he may reconsider.
French President Emmanuel Macron cautioned that Netanyahu risks accountability for any escalation if he dismisses the Lebanon plan. Meanwhile, significant domestic pressure mounts on Netanyahu, as tens of thousands of Israelis displaced near the Lebanese border seek to return home.
Later in the week, Netanyahu’s office expressed gratitude for the Biden administration’s efforts, recognizing their “indispensable” role in promoting a ceasefire, though it stopped short of endorsing the proposed arrangement.
Diplomats familiar with the situation noted that the U.S. has faced embarrassment in its dealings with Israel, particularly as the latter openly disregards American requests. This sentiment was echoed by Senator Tim Kaine, who indicated he would vote against supplying offensive weapons to Israel, labeling them as “an accelerant to ongoing hostilities.”
As the Biden administration navigates complex political landscapes and pressures from various constituencies, it appears to believe that signaling expectations for a deal may influence Netanyahu’s approach. However, experts suggest that merely expressing these hopes without leveraging real pressure may not yield the desired results.
