As was covered in a previous article, Labour stated that they wanted to see a ceasefire upon coming to power. Biden claimed last week that a ceasefire is “closer than it ever has been”. Will a ceasefire occur and what does it mean for the UK?
What Would a Ceasefire Look Like?
The Biden administration initially opposed a ceasefire, voting down UN attempts to create an internationally recognised ceasefire framework.
In characteristic UN pettiness, when the United States eventually began supporting an immediate ceasefire in June, Russia abstained from voting for a ceasefire almost identical to the one they had supported a few months earlier.
The UN’s so-called ‘three-phase ceasefire deal’, has been strongly pushed by the United States. Like the name suggests, it would consist of three phases.
Phase one would see the partial return of hostages, the release of some Palestinian prisoners and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from populated areas. Phase two would see the total withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and the full return of hostages. Phase three would see the beginning of an international reconstruction effort in Gaza as well as the return of the bodies of killed hostages.
When American support for the ceasefire was announced, Biden claimed that Israel was in favour of the plan, something that Israel has so far remained unaware of.
Israel have repeatedly rejected the US-backed three-phase ceasefire plan, whilst Hamas endorsed the plan following negotiations with the United States.
However, yesterday Israel accepted a “bridging proposal”, in which they agreed to a modified version of the plan.
Hamas accused the bridging proposal of being biased towards Israel and a significant revision to the three-phase framework previously agreed.
Details of the proposal are yet to be released to the public, but Israel’s main objection to the three-phase plan has been the release of Palestinian prisoners.
Does Israel Support a Ceasefire?
The Israeli government’s hesitancy towards a ceasefire is surprising given that the Israeli public is generally in favour of one. A poll conducted by the JPP in mid-June found that 60% of Israelis supported Biden’s three-phase ceasefire plan that would return hostages.
Most of the Israeli government is ideologically opposed to a ceasefire. With the opposition arguing that Israel should accept a ceasefire deal in return for hostages, the Netanyahu ministry has justified the continuation of war as necessary to ensure that Hamas is “completely destroyed”.
Many Israeli ministers hold views far beyond the dismantlement of Hamas, however.
Netanyahu has long rejected the legitimacy of a Palestinian state. Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir calls for the territorial expansion of Israel.
A symbolic motion to reject Palestinian statehood last month won an overwhelming majority in the Knesset.
Netanyahu himself has little political reason to support a ceasefire.
More moderate members of the Israeli government coalition criticised the hardline stance taken by the prime minister towards a ceasefire.
Benny Gantz, whose party joined the government in solidarity following the October 7 attacks threatened resignation if the government didn’t soften its terms and eventually followed through.
At no other point in Israeli history have parties left a national unity coalition.
With the withdrawal of moderates, Netanyahu is increasingly reliant on far-right ministers such as Ben-Gvir to ensure his majority.
Opposition leader Yair Lapid has tried to offset this by stating that he would provide support for the Netanyahu government if he accepted the US backed ceasefire, securing his majority in the Knesset.
It seems unlikely that Netanyahu will accept this offer.
The Netanyahu ministry is haemorrhaging popularity. With parties already taking the unprecedented move of leaving the coalition during war time, Netanyahu’s government would likely not survive long if the national crisis were no more.
This would be especially the case if Israel accepted a ceasefire that returned hostages but maintained Hamas, given that the government has justified the continuation of hostilities over a deal to return hostages under the guise of ‘destroying’ Hamas.
Historically, Golda Meir’s perceived failure in the 1973 Yom Kippur war led to the rapid collapse of her government once hostilities ceased.
Ideological convictions aside, Netanyahu has little practical incentive to support a ceasefire. It’s in this context that Netanyahu’s ‘maximalist’ alleged by US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken yesterday during ceasefire negotiations makes sense.
As well as for ideological reasons, politically Netanyahu needs to maximise Hamas concessions regardless of long-term effects on Israel’s foreign relations and its effect on Gaza.
Does Hamas Support a Ceasefire?
Hamas has publicly expressed openness to a ceasefire. Hamas accepted the terms of the US backed ceasefire on May 6, a day after its announcement. However, the Hamas that accepted the ceasefire in May is not the same Hamas which now faces negotiations with America.
American negotiations with Hamas were carried out through Hamas Political Bureau Chairman, Ismail Haniyeh. Haniyeh is the foreign representative for Hamas and leads Hamas’ ceasefire negotiations.
Or at the very least, he did before he was killed in a suspected Israeli assassination last month.
In characteristic understatement, Biden criticised the assassination of Haniyeh as “not helpful” to the ceasefire process.
Haniyeh’s successor, Yahya Sinwar is a hardliner who has acted as the de-facto governor of Gaza since 2017, five years after being freed from an Israeli captivity as part of a prisoner. Sinwar’s rule over Gaza saw renewed persecution of enemies, particularly homosexuals.
His new position as both Chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau and as leader of the Gaza Strip simultaneously gives Sinwar an unprecedent amount of power over the organisation.
According to messages leaked by the Wallstreet Journal, Sinwar is strongly opposed to any kind of ceasefire, referring to the 37,000 killed during Israel’s attack on Gaza as “necessary sacrifices”. The messages, which make comparisons to the eight yearlong Algerian war of independence, express a desire for the conflict to continue as long as Hamas is able to put up resistance.
Rather than diminishing the will of Palestinians, Sinwar’s messages allege that the blockade and bombing has strengthened Hamas’ support, something borne out by polls.
During Biden’s ongoing attempt to secure a ceasefire, mediating Arab countries have allegedly noted that Hamas intends to escalate the conflict.
Hamas have denied allegations that they are intentionally trying to sabotage talks.
After Biden told reporters that Hamas was “backing off” from ceasefire negotiations, Hamas criticised these comments as ‘misleading’. Hamas claims that its objections are only to Israel’s deviation from the three-phase plan and “American bias towards the Zionist occupation” during negotiations.
Hamas state that they are still support the three-phase plan and that Israel, rather than Hamas are the ones sabotaging talks.
How Will the US Election Affect Negotiations?
Trump has reportedly called Netenyahu to inform him that if he held out in negotiations, he would receive better terms under his administration.
This strategy echoes that of Richard Nixon, who told South Vietnamese President Nguyen Thieu to withdraw from peace negotiations during his 1968 run for president under a similar pretext. The collapse of Johnson’s peace summit contributed to Nixon’s victory.
Unlike Nixon and Thieu, however, Trump and Netanyahu aren’t on the best terms.
Trump was greatly angered by Netanyahu’s recognition of a Biden victory in 2020, telling an Israeli journalist “F**k him” when asked about his relationship with the Prime Minister in 2021. Netanyahu has since condemned Trump’s meeting with Kanye West and Nick Fuentes.
In April, Trump said that Netanyahu had “rightfully been criticised” for allowing the attack, suggesting that Benny Gantz should replace Israel’s Prime Minister.
A potential Harris victory is likely putting pressure on Israel to agree to ceasefire terms.
As previously covered by Chamber UK, Harris has attempted to portray a harder line on Israel. It’s possible that as a Kamala victory looks increasingly likely, Netenyahu will be increasingly incentivised to strike a deal whilst Washington is still friendly to Jerusalem.
What Does This Mean For the UK?
In the run up to the election, polling showed that an increasing majority of the British public support an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
Labour’s election manifesto committed the party to push for a ceasefire once in government.
However, with the shutdown of pro-Palestinian university encampments and with the aftermath of the riots affecting the country, Gaza is no longer one of the UK’s main political issues. The fact that no major pollster has examined opinion on the issue indicates the degree to which domestic concerns have begun to drown out the conflict.
Final Thought
A ceasefire looks increasingly unlikely.
In both Israel and Gaza, moderates have lost power and hardliners have grown in influence. In this context, it’s increasingly hard to see a clear path to peace.
Netenyahu is increasingly reliant of far-right coalition partners, who have advocated not only the complete destruction of Hamas, but also for the annexation of Gaza.
Haniyeh for his part appears to hold an ideological belief in the inevitability of Hamas’ eventual victory and little regard for Gaza’s mounting casualties.
Blinken has called these negotiations “the best, maybe the last, opportunity” for a ceasefire in Gaza. Failure now will enable the conflict to continue.
With Gaza becoming a less crucial issue, and with the UK taking a harder stance, the likely failure of ceasefire negotiations are less likely to hurt the UK government than it would have earlier in the conflict.
This article was written by Chamber’s features writer, Alex Connor.