Convergence of interests between Trump and Biden may result in an agreement to end the war in Gaza
Wednesday, November 27, 2024
No comments
Trump has been consistent with his demand that "finishes the job in Gaza quickly." In fact, he wants the war to end before he takes office so that he can focus on his domestic agenda which is expected to take most of his energy. Biden, who has been involved in a balancing act of supporting Israel and listening to young Americans most of whom see the war in Gaza as genocide, to enable his party to win elections is now free to focus on his personal legacy and achieve something in the Middle East. This convergence of interest may lead to an end of the war in Gaza, which will bring down the level of tension in the region.
With a temporary ceasefire in Lebanon in place, Biden is now looking to end the war in Gaza, which will reduce violence in the region. To this end, Biden will launch a new push on Wednesday to reach a ceasefire in Gaza and release hostages, after Israel and Hezbollah agreed to a truce in Lebanon, his national security adviser Jake Sullivan said.
The truce that began early Wednesday in southern Lebanon means Hezbollah is no longer fighting in support of Hamas in Gaza. It will increase pressure on the Palestinian movement to accept a ceasefire and release the hostages, Sullivan told MSNBC.
Biden spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu just before the US- and French-brokered truce with Hezbollah was announced Tuesday and they agreed to try again to reach a deal on Gaza, Sullivan said.
“President Biden intends to begin this work today by engaging his envoys with Turkey, Qatar, Egypt and other actors in the region,” he said.
“We believe this is the beginning of an opportunity for a more stable Middle East where Israel’s security is assured and the interests of the United States are secure,” he added.
The agreement between Israel and Hezbollah was seen as an achievement for Biden as he prepares to leave the White House and hand over power to Donald Trump on January 20.
In parallel with announcing the agreement on Tuesday, Biden said that the United States, Turkey, Egypt, Qatar and Israel will again seek a ceasefire in Gaza, where Israel is still fighting a war against Hamas after an October 7, 2023 attack on its territory.
Biden confirmed that Washington will also push for a long-discussed agreement to normalize relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Media review: reactions to the ceasefire in Lebanon
Israeli media focused on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's announcement that the Security Cabinet had agreed to a ceasefire with Lebanon under US mediation. While politicians opposed the agreement and considered it a surrender, analysts and journalists welcomed it, saying that there were political and military circumstances that pushed for signing it with all its negatives and loopholes, as they described them.
Kan 11 political affairs correspondent Suleiman Masouda said, "There are circumstances that are not only political, but also operational (military) that push for signing this agreement. We are entering the winter season, and the United States has not been supplying Israel with all the ammunition it requests for a while now, and there is a broad arms export ban."
Doron Kadosh, military affairs correspondent for Army Radio, described the agreement as "bad and with negatives and loopholes," but said that the army is demanding the agreement.
However, the Israeli correspondent explained that "there are immediate positives regarding ammunition and the issue of reserve soldiers who are collapsing under the pressure of military service and are no longer able to endure, in addition to the need to focus efforts on the Gaza Strip and recover the kidnapped soldiers."
For his part, Channel 13 military affairs analyst Alon Ben David explained that they in the security establishment acknowledge that the agreement with Lebanon "is not an ideal agreement, but from the beginning the army did not claim that it would eliminate Hezbollah's military power, because that would mean occupying all of Lebanon."
Former head of the Military Intelligence Division, Amos Malka, said that the war in Lebanon could end in three ways: the first is: "with the proposed agreement, the second with a security belt, and the third with a war until the last breath in an attempt - as National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said - to eliminate Hezbollah."
He pointed out that the third possibility is not possible "because it will be a different war, and I do not think we have international support, and I do not think we have military plans for that."
Moshe Saada, a member of the Knesset for the Likud party, commented on the subject of the agreement with Lebanon by saying: "The situation is very complicated, and there are threats to ban the supply of weapons to us, and there are threats of UN resolutions against Israel."
As for the head of the "Israel Beiteinu" party, Avigdor Lieberman, he said, "This is a short ceasefire for 5 or 6 years, until the Fourth Lebanon War breaks out," noting that within 5 or 6 years "they (Hezbollah) will have 40,000 drones in Baalbek."
For his part, Yair Golan, leader of the opposition Democrats party and a former deputy chief of staff, described the agreement as “an interim agreement with clear justification, which we reached with a very exhausted army.”
"Hasty and irresponsible decision"... Anger in Israel over ceasefire agreement with Lebanon
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented the agreement in the context of what he said were “unprecedented achievements” made by Israel over the past year of war on seven fronts.
He said that Israel had set Hezbollah back decades and that it was no longer the same group it once was, according to the BBC.
Netanyahu indicated that the ceasefire would also allow Israel to “focus on the Iranian threat,” stressing that his country would retain full military freedom to confront any new threat from Hezbollah.
But Netanyahu’s political rivals, and even some of his allies, view the agreement as “de facto surrender.”
A poll conducted yesterday indicated that more than 80 percent of Netanyahu’s support base opposes the agreement, and that residents of northern Israel, who have been evacuated in large numbers due to Hezbollah strikes in the area, are also angry.
In Israel, the deal was deeply divided. One poll showed that 37 percent of Israelis support the ceasefire, 32 percent oppose it, and 31 percent do not know that there is an agreement at all.
Shelly, an English teacher in the town of Shlomi, said the ceasefire was “an irresponsible, hasty political decision.”
Rona Valenci, who was evacuated from Kibbutz Kfar Giladi in northern Israel on October 8 last year, said she wanted to return home and that a ceasefire was necessary, but the idea of Lebanese residents returning to villages near Kfar Giladi, such as the Lebanese village of Adaisseh, gave her “a sense of anxiety and fear”.
“The only thing I can hope for is that Hezbollah does not infiltrate such nearby villages and build a new network there,” she said.
“There is nothing real that can make me feel safe except for these villages to be completely wiped out, and for no one to be there.”
The BBC said it had spoken to many Israelis who believe Netanyahu should continue the war in Lebanon, and wonder why the prime minister, who has vowed to continue fighting in Gaza until “complete victory”, would sign a ceasefire in Lebanon?!
Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir opposed the agreement, calling it a “historic mistake”.
“This is not a ceasefire, it is a return to the concept of quiet for quiet, and we have already seen where this leads,” Ben-Gvir wrote in a post on the X website explaining his opposition to the agreement. He predicted that “in the end we will need to return to Lebanon again.” In contrast, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich asserted that “this agreement may guarantee Israel’s security forever.”
Le Figaro: 4 reasons why Israel accepted a ceasefire in Lebanon
Le Figaro reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced a ceasefire in Lebanon on Tuesday, saying that the duration of the agreement depends on what happens there, and asked about the military and diplomatic issues that could explain this agreement. To shed light on this, the French newspaper met with researcher David Khalfa, co-director of the North Africa and Middle East Observatory, and responsible for the "geopolitical meetings" of the Jean Jaurès Foundation, to decode this announcement.
Experts to Asharq Al-Awsat: Ceasefire agreement does not prevent Hezbollah from returning to what it was
So far, the contents of the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hezbollah are still unclear. Does the agreement, which appears to have been divided between Hezbollah and Israel, mean that Hezbollah’s military hand will remain free in Lebanon, despite talk of transforming it into a political party?
Hezbollah will continue its policies
Asharq Al-Awsat posed questions to two American researchers regarding the expected agreement to be signed. Michael Rubin, a senior researcher at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, expressed his fear that “Hezbollah will continue to maintain its capabilities to continue its policies,” while David Daoud, a senior researcher at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, said that “although the language of the agreement seems stronger than the language of Resolution 1701,” it does not seem sufficient to stop Hezbollah’s activities in the future.
The draft ceasefire agreement includes a 60-day transitional period during which the Israeli army will withdraw from southern Lebanon, the Lebanese army will deploy in areas near the border, and Hezbollah will move its heavy weapons north of the Litani River. The deal includes a US-led oversight committee to monitor implementation and address violations.
The ICC and Hezbollah’s Money
“It is true that there has been significant progress, but it is unfortunate that the ICC’s accusations against Netanyahu have shifted these matters in another direction, forcing some mediators in the region to halt direct visits to Jerusalem and prevent Netanyahu from traveling to third countries,” said Michael Rubin. “My greatest concern about Hezbollah is that its financial and criminal network in Africa and South America remains intact. If Hezbollah turns its guns on the rest of the Lebanese, it will have the financial means to support itself,” Rubin added.
According to the agreement, the United States agreed to give Israel a letter of guarantees that includes support for Israeli military action against imminent threats from Lebanese territory, and to take measures to disrupt operations such as the re-establishment of Hezbollah’s military presence near the border, or the smuggling of heavy weapons. Under the agreement, Israel will take such action after consulting with the United States, if the Lebanese army does not deal with the threat.
Israel’s approval is incomprehensible
David Daoud says: “Although the language of the agreement seems stronger than the language of international resolution (1701), the Netanyahu government’s approval of this type of agreement cannot be explained, as long as international law gives the right to any country that is attacked, or sees that there is an imminent attack on it, to respond to it.” He pointed out that “Hezbollah’s breach of the agreement without causing a new imminent war is possible, as it can, for example, build a weapons factory that does not, according to the text of the agreement, constitute a direct threat to Israel.”
“The agreement guarantees Hezbollah’s continued dominance and control over Lebanon in light of the Lebanese people’s inability to confront it, and the Lebanese army’s inability to enter into a war with it, and cause a new civil war,” he said. Daoud believes that “the new reality resulting from the International Criminal Court’s decision against Netanyahu may complicate matters, and the internal Israeli situation may put him in a predicament, which may expose the agreement to collapse... Despite that, we are facing a 60-day agreement, which may give the new Trump administration (credibility) that it has entered an era free of wars in the Middle East, but nothing guarantees that it will not explode again in the coming years if its causes are not (removed).”
Did Israel's war in Lebanon achieve its goals?
Israeli leaders argued that the war was necessary to remove the threat of Hezbollah so that Israelis can return to their settlements in the north. The ceasefire agreement does not include any stipulation that could realize those aims. Hezbollah will not disarm, and at best will be expected to limit its presence south of Litani river. However, given that Hezbollah's rockets reached south of Tell Aviv just days before the ceasefire, 30 miles north of the border will not make any difference. This conclusion is clear in the mind of most Israelis, especially those of the north who are yet to start returning, and they may not return until after the 60 days had passed to see if this 60-day agreement is going to be made permanent. making the agreement permanent may depend on another ceasefire in Gaza; without an end to the war in Gaza, resumption of violence is a possibility and that will prevent many Israelis from returning to the north. Military solutions rarely produce permanent solutions unless they are followed by a political solution. Israeli leaders have no interest in settling the conflict with the Palestinians in a way that will make wars unnecessary.
Posts
