The Biden Peace Plan
Like offering Hitler a ceasefire in February 1945.
Joe Biden has a peace plan for the war between Israel and Hamas. Or, as he puts it, Israel has a plan that the U.S. President thinks is so terrific that he made a point of urging Israel to “stand behind” it. As Scott Johnson of PowerLine acutely observes, “Biden presented the deal as Israel’s proposal, but his own remarks make clear that’s not the case.” There may also be another clue in a curious by-play at the start of the President’s speech introducing the plan. According to the White House transcript, he looked at his watch and said, “Just checking it’s afternoon.” The time was 1:28 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. The time in Israel was 8:28 p.m., 46 minutes after the beginning of the Sabbath. One can’t help suspecting the that timing was designed to minimize the opportunity for a prompt reaction from the Israel government, the alleged initiator of the plan.
If that was the intention, it worked about as well as Biden’s many other clever plans. Following the Maccabean principle that Jews may defend themselves on the Sabbath, Prime Minister Netanyahu xtweeted a response just before nine in the morning local time. We will get to that in due course. I note preliminarily that Israeli media and politicians seem to believe that the PM is less than fully on board with Biden’s concept.
The proposal, whoever originated it, has three phases. Phase One, as described by Biden:
The first phase would last for six weeks. Here’s what it would include: a full and complete ceasefire; a withdrawal of Israeli forces from all populated areas of Gaza; a release of a number of hostages – including women, the elderly, the wounded – in exchange for the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners. There are American hostages who would be released at this stage, and we want them home.
Do the hostages to be released include only “women, the elderly, the wounded”? Do they include all of those? Were children omitted deliberately from the President’s list, or was that a lapsus mentis? Will all American hostages, about whom the Biden Administration has said very little over the past eight months, be released?
Additional [sic], some remains of hostages who have been killed would be returned to their families, bringing some degree of closure to their terrible grief.
“Some remains”? So Hamas gets to hold on even to the dead until a later phase?
Palestinians – civilians – would return to their homes and neighborhoods in all areas of Gaza, including in the north.
Does the President want us to think that only Palestinian civilians will be allowed to return home, that Hamas terrorists will be expected to stay put wherever they are hiding? If so, how would that distinction be enforced?
Humanitarian assistance would surge with 600 trucks carrying aid into Gaza every single day.
With a ceasefire, that aid could be safely and effectively distributed to all who need it. Hundreds of thousands of temporary shelters, including housing units, would be delivered by the international community.
Who will protect the aid from theft by Hamas if the IDF withdraws “from all populated areas of Gaza”? The mighty armies of “the international community”? Does the record of international peacekeepers inspire confidence? Will soldiers from nations that have expressed hostility toward Israel (which is most of them) be sent to suppress Hamas?
All of that and more would begin immediately – immediately.
One naturally wonders what the “more” is.
During the six weeks of ph- – of phase one, Israel and Hamas would negotiate the necessary arrangements to get to phase two, which is a permanent end to hostol- – to hostilities.
Now, I’ll be straight with you. There are a number of details to negotiate to move from phase one to phase two. Israel will want to make sure its interests are protected.
But the proposal says if the negotiations take longer than six weeks for phase one, the ceasefire will still continue as long as negotiations continue.
And the United States, Egypt, and Qatar would work to ensure negotiations keep going – all agreements – all agreements – until all the agreements are reached and phase two is able to begin.
In unvarnished words, Hamas will have breathing room to recover and regroup, free of Israeli interference, and the U.S., Egypt and Qatar will do all that they can to coerce Israel into remaining at the bargaining table, regardless of how intransigent the terrorists are.
It strikes me as unlikely that the parties will ever reach Phase Two, but here is the President’s preçis:
Then phase two: There would be an exchange for the release of all remaining living hostages, including male soldiers; Israeli forces would withdraw from Gaza; and as long as Hamas lives up to its commitments, a temporary ceasefire would become, in the words of the propo- -- the Israeli proposal, “the cessation of hostilities permanently,” end of quote. “Cessation of hostilities permanently.”
What “commitments” will Hamas be expected to live up to? Who will decide whether it has? Who will enforce them? How long will it be before the “temporary ceasefire” becomes “the cessation of hostilities permanently”? Most important of all, who will control Gaza during this phase? Israel will have left completely. Will the United States or Egypt or Qatar or the UN or helpful extraterrestrials restrain Hamas?
Finally comes Phase Three, the Gazan utopia:
Finally, in phase three, a major reconstruction plan for Ga- -- for Gaza wou- -- would commence. And any final remains of hostages who have been killed would be returned to their families.
This plan, as the President presents it, presupposes that Hamas will survive and, indeed, will be part of the post-war Gaza political system. It is the party that is to negotiate with Israel on the crucial transition from Phase One to Phase Two. Does the President expect it to bargain away its own existence?
Prime Minister Netanyahu’s response to Biden’s démarche clearly disagrees on that issue [all emphases added, xtwitter links bracketed]:
Israel’s conditions for ending the war have not changed: The destruction of Hamas military and governing capabilities, the freeing of all hostages and ensuring that Gaza no longer poses a threat to Israel. [1]
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. [2]
The Government of Israel is united in its desire to return the hostages as soon as possible and is working to achieve this goal. [3]
The Prime Minister authorized the negotiating team to present a proposal to that end, which would also enable Israel to continue the war until all its objectives are achieved, including the destruction of Hamas's military and governing capabilities. [4]
The actual proposal put forward by Israel, including the conditional transition from one phase to the next, allows Israel to uphold these principles. [5]
If Israel and the Biden Administration have a marriage of true minds, it is not without impediments. Later in his remarks, the President sought to brush impediments aside:
Israel will always have the right to defend itself against the threats to its security and to bring those responsible for October 7th to justice. And the United States will always ensure that Israel has what it needs to defend itself.
If Hamas fails to fulfill its commitments under the deal, Israel can resume military operations. But Egypt and Qatar have assured me and they are continuing to work to ensure that Hamas doesn’t do that. And the United States will help ensure that Israel lives up to their obligations as well.
That’s what this deal says. That’s what it says. And we’ll do our part.
After October 7th, the President endorsed Israel’s right to defend itself, but he has since added a codicil: “but only in a manner approved by the United States”. Will he continue to demand a veto over the IDF? Does his statement that Israel has the right “to bring those responsible for October 7th to justice” mean anything more than his commitment to Israel’s defense? Is it “bring to justice in a manner authorized by the U.S.”, perhaps complete with Miranda warnings? If Israel captures or executes Yahya Sinwar while the negotiations are going on, will Biden agree that it had the right to do so? What if Sinwar is brought to justice during Phase Three, when the world is “rebuilding” Gaza? Can anyone take seriously this combination of ideas: Israel must strike a peace deal with Hamas and Israel may kill or imprison Hamas’s most prominent leader?
As for Egypt’s and Qatar’s assurances to Joe Biden – where did I put the deed to that bridge?
Post scriptum: As a prelude to “peace in our time”, President Biden favored his countrymen (I suppose that he prefers “countrypersons”) with sanctimonious words about respect for the law:
Before I begin my remarks, I just wanted to say a few words about what happened yesterday in New York City.
The American principle that no one is above the law was reaffirmed.
Donald Trump was given every opportunity to defend himself.
It was a state case, not a federal case. And it was heard by a jury of 12 citizens – 12 Americans, 12 people like you. Like millions of Americans who served on juries, this jury was chosen the same way every jury in America is chosen. It was a process that Donald Trump’s attorney was part of.
The jury heard five weeks of evidence – five weeks. And after careful deliberation, the jury reached a unanimous verdict. They found Donald Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts. Now he’ll be given the opportunity, as he should, to appeal that decision just like everyone else has that opportunity.
That’s how the American system of justice works.
And it’s reckless, it’s dangerous, and it’s irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don’t like the verdict.
Our justice system has endured for nearly 250 years, and it literally is the cornerstone of America – our justice system.
The justice system should be respected, and we should never allow anyone to tear it down. It’s as simple as that.
That’s America. That’s who we are. And that’s who we’ll always be, God willing.
The President said nothing like that when Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted. I’m also highly confident that he didn’t think anything like that.
People who reject a verdict “just because they don’t like” it are indeed irresponsible. On the other hand, prosecutions brought on the principle of “Show me the man, and I will show you the law” deserve a much lesser degree of respect than those that adhere to the principles of impartiality and due process. No man is above the law, but neither is any man below it.
Michael Lind, a fierce critic of Donald Trump’s conduct in office, has this to say about the cases brought against Trump in New York:
In both of these cases, the partisan motives of the Democratic prosecutors and judges were evident. Campaigning as a Democrat for the office of Attorney General in New York State in 2018, Letitia James promised that she would selectively prosecute Trump, and find some excuse, any excuse, to do so: “I will never be afraid to challenge this illegitimate president,” she said. “I will be shining a bright light into every dark corner of his real estate dealings and every dealing.” The civil fraud case brought against Trump by James was presided over by Judge Arthur Engoron, an elected judge and a Democrat who was elected to the First Judicial District of New York in 2015 without any Republican opponent, so rare are Republicans in New York.
The partisanship of the Democratic officials in the hush-money case has been just as blatant. Charges like those brought against Trump in the hush money case were rejected as too weak by Cyrus Vance, the previous Manhattan district Attorney, and they were also rejected as too flimsy by Vance’s successor, Manhattan’s current DA, Alvin Bragg. Bragg only changed his mind and brought charges against Trump after two things happened. The first was the publication of a book – People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account – by Mark Pomerantz, a member of Bragg’s team who resigned in protest in 2022, claiming that Bragg was not doing enough to prosecute Trump. The second was the fact that, by 2023, it was becoming clear that Trump would be the Republican nominee for the presidency.
In the hush money case, Bragg turned what would ordinarily be a minor misdemeanor involving falsifying records into a felony, by claiming that it was somehow part of a nefarious scheme to interfere in the 2016 election. Yet even eminent legal experts find it hard to explain exactly why Trump was charged: last year, even the Left-wing website Vox described the case’s “legal theory” as “dubious”.
In these two New York cases – and a third case in January, in which Trump was fined an exorbitant $83 million for allegedly defaming E. Jean Carroll after another jury in Democratic Manhattan had found him guilty of sexual abuse, but not rape – the legal theories may have been questionable, but the motivations of the prosecution were obvious. It is difficult not to believe that the purpose of the extraordinarily high fines in the civil fraud case and the defamation case has been to cripple Trump’s presidential campaign against Biden. And the manifest purpose of the conversion of a minor misdemeanor into a felony seems just as clear – to allow Biden and other Democrats to brand Trump as a “convicted felon” between now and the November election, and, if possible, to remove Trump from the campaign trail by jailing him.
If the President thinks “That’s how the American system of justice works” and approves, he should say so boldly and openly, not hide behind a tissue of saccharine clichés.