Israel Agrees to Gaza Ceasefire What are its provisions?

Media outlets are reporting that Israel has agreed to terms for a Gaza ceasefire.  There are two separate accounts of the proposed agreement. They differ in significant ways.  While the first version is more concrete, it is also more limited in scope.  The second is more expansive, but it is also more vague.

ABC News reports:

Israel has agreed to an updated framework that would establish a six-week cease-fire in Gaza in exchange for the release of 40 hostages, an Israeli source told ABC News…

While Israel says it’s waiting to hear back from Hamas on whether it will accept the updated language from this weekend’s talks, Israel is pushing forward with plans to enter Rafah. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu posted on X that operational plans and evacuation plans in Rafah are ready to be approved by his cabinet.

As part of the proposed deal, Israel has agreed to release jailed Palestinians at a higher ratio than the previous deal, which was 3 to 1. Up to 400 Palestinian prisoners could be released in this new deal.

The Israel Defense Forces will redeploy but not withdraw from Gaza.

We know the source of this report is Israeli.  My guess is that it is either from Benny Gantz or Gadi Eisenkot, members of the war cabinet who favor a ceasefire.  But they are not the decision-makers, despite their political roles.  Netanyahu makes the decisions, and it’s hard for me to see what is in this for him.  He stops a war whose continuation keeps him in power and potentially out of jail.  He gets less than half the Israeli hostages back, but has to give up as many as 400 Palestinian prisoners in exchange.

Netanyahu answers to his far-right coalition partners. They hold more sway over him than Opposition leaders like Gantz and Eisenkot.  They do not want a ceasefire.  They want dead Palestinians. They want vengeance. They want ethnic cleansing, even genocide.  How can Bibi dare to declare a ceasefire under these terms?

There may be side deals they’re not revealing say, with Saudi Arabia or the Americans, that sweeten the deal.  But this is pure speculation.

The second option originates with Israeli reporter, Barak Ravid:

🚨🚨🚨The updated U.S. framework for a Gaza hostage deal, per sources familiar with the issue: pic.twitter.com/ft4SBFz7Eq

— Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) February 24, 2024

He declares this a “US framework.” Thus, it is the Biden administration version of the ceasefire.  Though there is some overlap, the US clearly has more ambitious goals that go beyond the leaked Israeli version.  It declares, for one, that among the released Palestinian prisoners will be those who “killed Israelis.”  This will be a deal-breaker for Ben Gvir and Smotrich.  They will bolt the government if Bibi even comes close to agreeing to do this.

If, according to this detail, Hamas releases 40 Israelis then there will be 40 days of ceasefire (hence the “six week” duration).  Presumably, Hamas will release one hostage each day to ensure Israel abides by the ceasefire.  It is wise enough to remember scores of previous Israeli ceasefires promptly violated when it was convenient.

The Biden administration wants “an initial and limited return” of Gazans to their homes in northern Gaza.  Netanyahu has essentially rejected this in his own post-war “plan” which he released this week (more below).  Again, the far-right will never accept the return of Gazans to their homes.  It wants them out. Entirely out.  Not just of their former homes, but out of Gaza entirely.  It will not countenances such a return.

The US has made clear that it expects Gazans to return and that it will not agree to an Israeli annexation or occupation of Gaza territory.  These two are both part of Bibi’s postwar plan.  Israel intends to bulldoze a strip in the north, including 20% of the enclave, as a no-go security zone. It’s unclear how the US will finesse this, unless it concedes the point to Israel and permits it to do whatever the hell it wants (which is likely).

The contentiousness of the issue of Gazan return is clear from the language. It will start once an unspecified “stage of the deal” is “implemented;” and “under conditions defined during detailed negotiations.”  All of you reading this will know how much this is worth.  Israel never agrees to do anything it defines as not in its interest unless forced to do so.  Vague language like this is a guarantee Israel will never implement this. Gazans will never return if this is the framework.

Ravid notes that the US expects “a significant increase in humanitarian aid” for Gaza.  Again, this isn’t worth a damn. Unless there is clear, detailed language defining what Israel must do, it will never happen.  There must be a specified number of trucks entering each day from a specified crossing. Contents of the trucks must be agreed in advance so Israel cannot arbitrarily turn back aid on a whim as it’s doing now.  There must be sanctions in place if Israel doesn’t hold to its end of the agreement.  Without this the parties are whistling in the wind.

Bibi’s “Plan”

The prime minister’s post-war plan for Gaza, as recounted by the NY Times, stands in diametrical opposition to the view of the Biden administration:

…Netanyahu’s first detailed postwar plan for Gaza was carefully written to postpone long-term decisions about the territory’s fate and to avoid irreversible confrontations with both domestic allies and foreign partners, analysts said.

It’s unclear what “analysts” the journalist consulted (this is the NY Times after all, and protecting Israel comes before good journalism). But whoever it was, is dreaming.  If they think that “foreign partners” (ie the US) will buy this bill of goods, they are mistaken. At least one can hope that Biden will never sign off on this.

But of course, Biden’s weakness is that he’s never willing to have a confrontation with Netanyahu. In the game of chicken, Bibi always wins. I’ve outlined here the reason why. Hint: it rhymes with “honey.”

Mr. Netanyahu’s position paper…said Israel would retain indefinite military control over the enclave while ceding the administration of civilian life to Gazans without links to Hamas. If carried out, it would make it nearly impossible in the short term to establish a Palestinian state comprising Gaza and the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

How ironic to call what Bibi produced a “position paper.” It suggests a gravitas that’s simply not there.

Bibi claims he rejects an Israeli military occupation of Gaza. Yet he affirms that Israel will be responsible for “demilitarizing” Gaza. In other words, the IDF will take responsibility for security there.  There is no other way of describing this than a resumption of the Israeli occupation of the enclave which existed from 1967 till 2005.

The only accurate statement in this passage is that the prime minister’s plan would eliminate the possibility of a Palestinian state.  This rejection flies in the face of almost all the other parties including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and the US.  According to media reports, the Saudis have made clear that they will not normalize relations unless there is a clear timeline leading to statehood.  Of course, there is no guarantee that Palestine’s current Arab “champions” will maintain their allegiance to the Palestinians, if it’s in their interest not to.

…The vagueness of its wording signaled to the United States and other foreign powers pressing for Palestinian sovereignty that there is still room to maneuver.

More wishful thinking from Israel’s leading media cheerleader. How does Bibi’s proposal permit room for maneuver?  What do they expect the Israeli leader to concede?  This is yet another example, of Biden (and the Times) seeing and hearing what they want; rather than what is right in front of their eyes. That is, Israel’s intention to stiff them all and do whatever the hell it wants to the Palestinians, and Gaza in particular.

…Netanyahu…want[s] to retain military control of both Gaza and the West Bank; subcontract the management of civilian affairs to Gazan administrators; and retain control of buffer zones lining Gaza’s borders with Egypt and Israel.

“Subcontracting management” of Gaza is a nice turn of phrase. It means appointing Palestinian flunkies to do all the dirty work.  All the nitty-gritty of running a place Israel has turned into a shithole.  A shithole it wants nothing to do with.

“The administration of civilian affairs and the enforcement of public order will be based on local stakeholders with managerial experience” who are not “affiliated with countries or entities that support terrorism…”

Who in Gaza has “managerial experience” that is not based on jobs they formerly did under the rule of Hamas?  Will Israel invent engineers, doctors, police officers, teachers, builders, etc?  Will it draw them from thin air and dump the job in their lap?

Bibi declares none of its Palestinian flunkies can have ties to “terrorism.”  This rules out pretty much every Palestinian since, in Israel’s eyes, all of them are terrorists.  But while Israel professes to hate the PA and declares that it is little better than a terror outfit, it would fit the bill perfectly.  It is Israel’s subcontractor in the West Bank.  It prevents terror attacks in Israel.  It suppresses resistance against Israel occupation.  It does nothing to defend Palestinian interests or protect its subjects.  It is a bloated, corrupt regime that should have been put out of its misery long ago.  But it has lingered on on life support for decades.

Considering Hamas has run Gaza for the past 20 years, it is almost a certainty that no one will step forward to take on the task.  Not only is it a thankless and even impossible one, it will bring with it tremendous danger.  Collaborators do not have much longevity in Gaza. Among them is the Palestinian Authority, which the US wants to take over governance there.  Not only does Netanyahu reject this idea, it’s clear that the PA is incapable of doing it, since it barely functions as the ruler of the West Bank.

Here the Times tacitly admits that virtually everything in this package is bullshit:

He included no new ideas, choosing instead to repackage proposals that he has presented several times before. Nor did he directly rule out any of the options promoted by the United States.

A truer word was never spoken.  This isn’t old wine in new bottles. This is the old shit in new toilets.

The plan also rejected the idea of foreign countries unilaterally recognizing a Palestinian state, a move recently hinted at by Britain and France.

This misses the point.  Unilateral recognition of Palestine does not require Israeli approval.  The entire reason for unilateral recognition is Israel’s decades-long rejection of the concept.  This new approach would present Israel with a fait accompli.  If it escalates its occupation with greater violence or theft of Palestinian lands, it will place itself in deeper jeopardy before international bodies like the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, and even the UN Security Council–where the US might no longer provide the blank check veto it has for years.

The document even leaves open the possibility of “a permanent arrangement with the Palestinians…”

I’ll bet it does.  Bibi’s idea of a ‘permanent arrangement’ is a servile entity with no sovereignty, no power, and virtually no territory, since that will be “appropriated” by the Israeli state and its settlers.  The permanent arrangement favored by many Israelis is ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.  It’s reminiscent in that sense, of the phrase, “the final solution” [of the Gaza conflict], shockingly used by US ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, as she vetoed yet another Security Council ceasefire resolution.

…The plan buys Mr. Netanyahu time because it satisfies his base while giving foreign leaders hope that he could still change course before it is too late.

That is the game Bibi’s played throughout his career.  Tell everyone enough of what they want to hear that they continue to hold out hope he will come around to their point of view.  While never intending to give anyone anything they want, unless it’s in his political interest.  He’s often bragged that he has America and its leaders eating out of his hand.  Any foreign leader who puts any stock in this pastiche of nonsense, essentially wants to be deceived.  There is no longer any excuse for anyone to believe anything he says.  Israelis call him shakran ben shakran (“liar, son of a liar”). Yet far too many do, because stopping him is simply not politically palatable.  And that is Israel’s recipe for getting away with genocide.