On Wednesday, the United States and its allies experienced a short moment of excitement when they announced a three-week cease-fire proposal to end the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah. It did not last long.
Hours after introducing the idea, amid good signs from Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, the US ran into opposition from a leader who has frequently thwarted US hopes to calm Middle Eastern turmoil: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the government.
The contradictory messaging – the US insisting Israel is considering its proposal, and Israel insisting it’s not – further perpetuated a trend that’s come to define the conflict and raised fresh questions about the US strategy to try to end it.Israel’s rejection bore strong echoes of a dialog that revolved around the bid for a ceasefire to halt the fighting between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip nearly a year after the militant group’s Oct. 7 attack.
Repeatedly, the US has said Israel was onboard with its plan and an accord was close, only for Netanyahu and his government to say they don’t see a ceasefire coming anytime soon.
Experts, analysts, and government officials contend that the Biden administration has little choice but to stick with the approach, no matter how flawed it is.
They speculated that Lebanon’s three-week truce plan, signed by a dozen countries including the EU, was intended to send a message to Israel. “I see this as critical US leadership fully leveraging diplomatic alliances to sharpen Israeli understanding and appreciation of the costs of unilateral action,” said Mara Rudman, who worked on Middle East issues under the Clinton and Obama administrations. “It will be heard and perhaps needs to sink in.”