How Joe Biden's plan for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza depends on Benjamin Netanyahu.

Contrary to recent reports, peace between Israel and Hamas is ultimately not on the verge of being achieved. In fact, the two combatants are still far from an armistice. There has There has been an increase in political pressure for a settlement – ​​perhaps significant, certainly intriguing, but nothing that indicates the war in Gaza is nearly over.

Hopes were raised Friday when Biden delivered a speech revealing that Israel had drafted – and submitted to the Cairo peace talks – “a new comprehensive proposal… a road map for a lasting ceasefire and the release of all the hostages.

What is remarkable is that Biden not only publicly disclosed the proposal, but also endorsed it, thereby sharing the stakes and risks of its success or failure. He delivered his speech after sunset and therefore the start of the Sabbath in Israel, ensuring that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would not respond immediately. Soon enough, however, Netanyahu objected to Biden's speech, saying the US president had misinterpreted his proposal – that Israel's war aims and its determination to continue fighting until political capacity and Hamas soldiers to be destroyed had not changed.

Biden described the proposal as having three sentences. Phase 1 would involve a complete ceasefire, a withdrawal of Israeli troops from all populated areas of Gaza, the return of Gaza citizens to their homes, the deployment of much greater humanitarian aid and the release of a number of hostages, including women. , the elderly and the wounded – in exchange for the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners.

During phase 2, all remaining hostages would be released and, as long as Hamas respected its commitments, the temporary ceasefire would become, in the words of the proposal, “the definitive cessation of hostilities.” During phase 3, the reconstruction of Gaza would begin.

Two things were striking in Biden's summary. First, it didn't seem new; Variations of this three-phase plan – ceasefire, hostage exchange, reconstruction and settlement of the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict – have been on the table for some time. Second, although some commentators presented the proposal as if all the blanks were filled in and all that was left was the handshake ceremony, Biden himself said no such thing.

In fact, after describing Phase 1, Biden said, “Now I'm going to be frank with you. There are a number of details to negotiate to move from phase 1 to phase 2. Israel will want to ensure that its interests are protected. » As for phase 3 (reconstruction), no details have yet been defined.

In his response, Netanyahu stressed that as far as he is concerned, neither phase 2 nor phase 3 will take place until “the destruction of Hamas' military and governmental capabilities” – even if that meant Israel must continue to wage war. Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant made the same point to Secretary of State Antony Blinken. But the fact is that Biden never said the proposal suggested otherwise; this is one of the questions that still needs to be resolved.

This is hardly a minor detail. Hamas's position is that it will not release all the hostages until Israel has withdrawn all its troops and a permanent ceasefire is in place. In this sense – in the ultimate sense of the term – Israel and Hamas are at loggerheads; their positions, which arise from what they consider to be their interests, seem irreconcilable.

Peace talks (which diplomats from the United States, Egypt, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are sincerely trying to advance) have stalled. The war is increasingly ruinous (for Gaza, the Palestinian people, Israel's international reputation, and Biden's re-election prospects). Netanyahu's war goal – “total victory” over Hamas – is, in practice, unachievable (according to US intelligence and several Israeli officers). Israel did put a new proposal on the table, even if the content was not so new.

As Times of Israel columnist David Horovitz said Monday, Biden's “game plan” might simply be to “get the first phase started,” with a vague “hope that the beginning of the process itself might produce some new benefits. It may be “a long-term project”, but “it is perhaps all that the American administration believes it has at the moment”.

Biden proposed a new rhetorical strategy. “Total victory,” as Netanyahu has prescribed, may be not only unachievable, but also unnecessary. “The Israeli people must know that they can make this offer without additional risk to their own security,” Biden said, “because they have devastated Hamas forces over the past eight months. At this point, Hamas is no longer capable of carrying out another October 7” – and this has been “Israel's main goal in this war and, frankly, a just goal.”

He added: “We cannot lose this moment. An indefinite war in pursuit of an unidentified notion of “total victory” will only bog Israel down in Gaza, draining economic, military and human resources and deepening Israel's isolation in the world. It “will not bring the hostages home,” nor “bring lasting defeat to Hamas,” nor “bring lasting security to Israel.”

Trying your luck, he exhorted the leaders of Israel and its people. If things go wrong, America will still be with you, will continue to defend you; and if Hamas doesn't fulfill its end of the bargain, then the whole deal is broken anyway. Biden made the latter point very clearly, putting the blame on Hamas, which started this war with its surprise invasion, killing 1,200 Israelis, most of them civilians. “Israel has made its proposal,” Biden said. “Hamas says it wants a ceasefire; this deal is an opportunity to prove if they really mean it. Hamas must accept the deal.

On Monday, Biden called the emir of Qatar – who has long been an intermediary between Hamas and the rest of the world – to urge him to pressure Hamas to accept the deal, saying Israel is ready to begin phase 1 immediately if Hamas says yes.

Of course, Biden knows that responsibility also lies with Israel, certainly for any steps beyond Phase 1, and the speech is already having effects on Israeli policy. Netanyahu's main far-right coalition partner, Itamar Ben-Gvir, has threatened to leave the government if certain reports about Israel's proposal – particularly those claiming it calls for a permanent ceasefire without destroy Hamas first – turned out to be true. In a speech to the Knesset, Israel's parliament, Ben-Gvir said he had asked to see the written draft of the Israeli proposal, but Netanyahu would not show it to him, leading him to wondering if the Prime Minister was not engaged in an “attempt to whitewash” his true intentions.

If Ben-Gvir and his far-right colleagues resign, Netanyahu's governing coalition would lose its majority in the Knesset – a fact that would trigger new elections, which Netanyahu would likely lose. Netanyahu issued a particularly forceful response to Biden's speech, in part to curb Ben-Gvir's loyalty.

Yair Lapid, the leader of the Israeli opposition movement, said he would strengthen Netanyahu's position, providing him with a “political safety net”, if he supported a permanent ceasefire and thus lost the faction of Ben-Gvir. But Netanyahu is unlikely to believe that promise or want to lead a government of which Lapid is a key member. It is also unclear – and this is the question – whether Netanyahu himself supports a three-phase solution, with or without his far-right partners.

Meanwhile, there are some (unreliable) reports that Qatar is stepping up pressure on Hamas to reach a deal. As the war rages, tensions have resurfaced between Israel and Egypt, including brief fighting along the border with Gaza, threatening the survival of their half-century-old peace treaty – which both countries have a vital interest to protect. Saudi Arabia is eager to resume “normalization” with Israel – for its economic benefits, for its powerful alliance against the common enemy Iran, and for the security guarantees that the United States has presented as an advantage secondary – and it is very it is also in Israel's interest to move these negotiations forward. But that can't happen until the war is over. Everyone involved in this war has a choice to make. Netanyahu's is particularly huge: if he values ​​his career more than the security of his country, and if he sees a way to redefine his career – to reset his political coalition – in the interests of the national state. security.