By Victor Chalhoub

Initial American responses to the hostage exchange deal between the Islamic Resistance Movement Hamas and Israel ranged from describing it as a “breakthrough,” in the words of Ben Rhodes, the former deputy national security advisor under former President Barack Obama. 

In their view, it is nothing more than a stop in a war that is likely to “get worse before it gets worse.” But overall, it was treated as a hole in the wall of the crisis, whether promising or fleeting. Its fate in the end depends to a large extent on how the American administration deals with the war from now on.

Today, hours before the announcement of the deal, in which the Qatari role was praised, the White House issued a signal indicating a desire for an amendment, even if it was late and not essential, in this approach.

National Security Council media coordinator John Kirby said that the US administration “will not support the expansion of Israeli military operations in the southern Gaza Strip unless Israel presents a plan to ensure the safety of civilians.” What is strange is that his administration over the past weeks has not followed through on such a required guarantee as a condition. It contented itself with dealing with the civilian catastrophe with a mixture of expressions of “sorrow” and a reminder that it did not stop drawing Israel to its duty to “protect civilians,” while giving the latter mitigating reasons by calling for understanding of the difficulties faced by military operations in a densely populated city.

Suddenly, the administration now discovers the idea of the plan that it ignored at the beginning of the invasion, before the Israeli death machine claimed more than 13,000 innocent Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Of course, its discovery of this is not an awakening as much as it is a necessity with some correction. 

The administration, with its open support for Israel, is losing the public relations battle, as the numbers indicate. 70% of those between the ages of 18 and 34 are against the US administration’s policies in the Gaza war. The division in the Democratic Party over this issue is expanding at the level of its electoral base as well as in its ranks in Congress. There are increasing criticisms of President Biden for his laxity in the issue of civilians and the violation of hospitals, in addition to the slowdown caused by Israel in passing humanitarian aid.

It would have been better for the president to “pick up the phone and tell Netanyahu that enough is enough,” according to Aaron David Miller, a former diplomat and expert on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Among the objections that are echoed even in Jewish and democratic circles is that Biden left the reins to Netanyahu, who is “in no hurry” regarding the time limit for military operations in Gaza, and that his, that is, Biden’s, Israeli policies are overshadowed by his “personal” inclinations towards Israel, which he once expressed by saying that "A Zionist, even if he is not a Jew."

Even Jews like Aaron Miller criticized Biden for this exaggeration, which makes him more royal than the king, and which may lead to involvement in a broader and longer conflict that does not serve the White House in an election year. This atmosphere and pressure may have contributed to the shift, even if it was minor, in John Kirby’s words today, unless his motive was to mitigate the criticism that had begun to affect or threatened to affect the electoral calculations.

In any case, the test lies in what the next few days will bring after the completion of the exchange process. In this regard, more than one possible scenario was mentioned, such as extending the truce or temporary ceasefire into intermittent “truces” for the purpose of completing other exchanges or continuing negotiations, with promising hints that Netanyahu may not be able to ignore in light of the pressure from the public and families of the October 7 hostages.

But all of this is hypothetical and depends on the administration’s determination to make a shift in the extent of its embrace of Israel’s war in Gaza. Precedents do not encourage betting on a red line that Biden draws for Israel, especially since he is still adhering to the rejection of a ceasefire and that Republicans are watching him.

Source: Alaraby Aljadeed