Biden's Gaza peace plan announcement is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma

Protesters take to the streets to call on the Israeli cabinet to sign a hostage deal in Tel Aviv this month. EPA

Over the weekend, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he would not agree to any deal that stipulated an end to the war in Gaza. Mr Netanyahu said this less than a month after US President Joe Biden announced what he claimed to be an Israeli proposal to end the offensive.

The Israeli Prime Minister’s statement, which follows a similar rebuttal shortly after Mr Biden’s announcement, has further exposed what was Washington’s most confounding move in the context of the war.

Last month, in a televised speech to the nation, Mr Biden announced a three-stage “peace deal” that he said would lead to an end to the conflict. The plan, he added, had already been approved by Israel and the burden was now on Hamas to accept its terms.

The first phase would entail a complete ceasefire; the withdrawal of Israeli forces from populated areas in Gaza; the release of some hostages and some bodies of hostages; the return of Palestinian civilians to their homes; and a surge in humanitarian aid. The second phase would involve a permanent end to hostilities; the exchange for the release of remaining living hostages; and a withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza. The third phase would focus on a major reconstruction plan for Gaza; and the return of the final bodies of hostages to their families.

Shortly thereafter, Mr Netanyahu released a statement that essentially rejected the plan. In a social media post, he noted that the “actual” plan to which he agreed stipulated no end to the conflict until Hamas had been eliminated; no permanent ceasefire until all hostages are freed and victory was achieved; and no end to an Israeli security role in Gaza.

Palestinians rush to intercept humanitarian aid packages as they land in the northern Gaza Strip, dropped by a UAE plane in a joint effort with Egypt. All photos: AFP

Men carry boxes of aid through the rubble of damaged buildings after the airdrop

The packages are a lifeline for many amid the continuing war in the Gaza Strip

A youth carries a box of aid to his family

The additional supplies – including food – were sent by parachute into remote areas

The UAE has been donating humanitarian relief to Gaza since shortly after the latest war began

A man collects this aid package from the UAE-Egypt airdrop

Why the confusion? Or was it intentional deception?

Some of this was noted in a June 1 statement issued by the Prime Minister’s office, which read: “Israel’s conditions for ending the war have not changed: the destruction of Hamas’s military and governing capabilities, the freeing of all hostages and ensuring that Gaza no longer poses a threat to Israel.

Under the proposal, Israel will continue to insist these conditions are met before a permanent ceasefire is put in place. The notion that Israel will agree to a permanent ceasefire before these conditions are fulfilled is a non-starter.”

When asked for clarification about the discrepancy between what Mr Biden and Mr Netanyahu were saying, both the White House and US State Department spokespeople appeared to accept the latter’s terms.

On national television, US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan called Mr Biden’s proposal the “Israeli ceasefire and hostage deal”. He said: “It’s an Israeli proposal ... The Israeli government has reconfirmed repeatedly, as recently as today, that proposal is still on the table, and now it’s up to Hamas to accept it, and the whole world should call on Hamas to accept it.”

The State Department spokesman elaborated further, noting that if Hamas were truly committed to saving the lives of its people instead of simply saving its own position, then it should accept the “deal”.

To make matters more confusing, on June 10, the US was able to secure passage of a UN Security Council resolution that referred to the May 31 ceasefire proposal as one “which Israel accepted” and “calls upon Hamas to also accept it and urges both parties to implement its terms without delay and without conditions”.

The resolution went on to elaborate the three phases of the ceasefire proposal in greater detail.

US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield listens to speakers during a Security Council vote on a US-drafted resolution backing a proposal for a ceasefire in Gaza. Reuters

Israel is not a member of the Security Council and could not vote, nevertheless its ambassador made a point of stating that Israel rejected this resolution, noting that it ran counter to his government’s goals. And Mr Netanyahu continued to publicly insist on Israel’s goal of “total victory” in Gaza.

Adding confusion, the US leaked what it said had been Israel’s detailed response to the proposals put forward by US and Arab mediators. It differed principally in that it only offered a limited withdrawal in phase one and that a complete withdrawal of its forces would only occur in phase two subject to negotiations – none of which were in either the Biden plan or the UN resolution.

For its part, Hamas largely accepted the Biden plan and the UN resolution with some caveats. For example, it insisted that the end of the ceasefire as described in both leads to permanent peace, and that there be a complete withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Gaza.

While the gaps might have been the subject of further negotiations, it was confounding to hear US Secretary of State Antony Blinken say that “Israel accepted the proposal as it was”, before adding that “Hamas could have answered with a single word: ‘Yes’”.

With Mr Netanyahu doubling down on his previous statements last weekend, we are left with serious questions that require answers.

What exactly was the “deal”? Was it what the White House announced, or was it what Mr Netanyahu said was the “actual proposal”?

If Israel’s disagreements with the plan were known to the US, why were Security Council members asked to vote on a resolution that claimed it had Israel’s acceptance? If the goal was to pressure both Israel and Hamas, why not put the deal forward as a US and Arab negotiators’ plan and demand that both Israel and Hamas accept it?

And, finally, why the confusion? Or was it intentional deception?