‘Important but not enough’: What does Israel-Hamas deal mean for US policy?: Analysis

The agreement between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, which includes a temporary ceasefire and the release of captives, has been lauded by advocates in the United States. They see it as a positive step toward ending the violence. However, these advocates emphasize that the truce is not enough, and they will continue to pressure the Biden administration to work towards a long-term ceasefire.

Hassan El-Tayyab, the legislative director for Middle East policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, acknowledges the significance of the break in fighting and the reunification of families. However, he stresses the need for further momentum to achieve a permanent ceasefire, the return of all hostages, unrestricted aid access, and a peaceful resolution for Israelis and Palestinians.

Under the agreement, Hamas will release 50 women and children held in Gaza, while Israel will free 150 Palestinian women and children from its prisons. There will be a four-day pause in the fighting, accompanied by an increase in humanitarian aid to Gaza. The Israeli government approved the agreement, and it is due to take effect on Thursday.

Israel has pledged to continue its military campaign after the pause, but El-Tayyab argues that “more war” is not the solution. He believes that negotiations, an extended truce, and addressing the underlying issues, such as the systemic oppression of Palestinians, are crucial to resolving the crisis.

President Biden has welcomed the deal and expressed gratitude to Qatar and Egypt for their role in brokering it. However, he did not comment on the future of the conflict. The Biden administration has been advocating for humanitarian pauses but has not supported a broader ceasefire until Israel achieves its goal of eliminating Hamas.

Nancy Okail, the president of the Center for International Policy, views the truce as a step in the right direction. She sees the pause as an opportunity to deliver aid, work towards a lasting ceasefire, and ensure the safety of humanitarian workers, medics, and journalists.

The scale of the violence in Gaza has raised concerns about the risk of genocide. Scholars and United Nations experts have warned about this possibility. Additionally, the Israeli army’s displacement of the population has alarmed many, leading to concerns about ethnic cleansing.

Okail urges the extension of the halt in violence to the West Bank as well, where more than 200 Palestinians have been killed since October 7. She also advocates for the US to take a firm stance against war crimes, imposing consequences if US-supplied arms are not used in accordance with international law.

The White House and Pentagon have declined to set any “red lines” restricting Israeli operations in Gaza or the use of American arms. Israel receives significant aid from the US, and President Biden is seeking additional assistance for Israel.

Amnesty International and other rights groups have accused Israel of imposing apartheid on Palestinians. However, calls to rein in Israeli abuses have not garnered much response from the Biden administration. Politico reported that the administration is concerned that the pause could give journalists broader access to Gaza and sway public opinion against Israel.

Despite fears that renewed bombing might target densely populated areas, Biden’s support for Israel is not expected to waver after the pause. Some argue that Biden’s green light for the war has allowed it to continue for an extended period. Juan Cole, a professor of history at the University of Michigan, believes that Netanyahu’s government is incorrigible, and Biden has shown no backbone in standing up to him.

Although opposition to the agreement exists within right-wing circles in Israel, the push for relentless bombing is not close to eliminating Hamas. The group continues to fight Israeli troops, and their top political and military leadership remains intact. Many progressive activists in the US advocate for a political solution that goes beyond the current deal.

Usamah Andrabi, the communications director at Justice Democrats, calls for an end to unconditional support for the Israeli government. He argues that the pause is necessary but emphasizes the need for a permanent ceasefire. Sandra Tamari, the executive director of Adalah Justice Project, characterizes the halt as a “pause of genocide” and urges the US government to call for a complete ceasefire.

Analysis:
This article presents the perspectives of different advocates and experts regarding the agreement between Israel and Hamas. While it includes quotes from various sources, it is important to consider the credibility and potential biases of these sources.

The sources mentioned in the article include individuals from advocacy groups, think tanks, and progressive organizations. These groups often have specific stances and agendas, which can influence their views and the information they present. For example, some of the sources advocate for a complete ceasefire and criticize the Biden administration’s support for Israel. It is crucial to approach these perspectives with a critical eye and consider potential biases.

The article does not provide perspectives from other stakeholders, such as Israeli officials or representatives from pro-Israel organizations. This lack of balance limits the comprehensive understanding of the topic.

The article relies on Al Jazeera as its main source of information. Al Jazeera has been accused of biased reporting in the past, particularly concerning issues related to Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is important to verify the information presented and seek additional sources to ensure a nuanced understanding of the situation.

The article correctly highlights the ongoing violence in Gaza and the need for a long-term solution. It also raises concerns about potential human rights abuses and the impact of US aid to Israel. However, some statements in the article may contribute to misinformation or an oversimplified understanding of the conflict.

The mention of the risk of genocide in Gaza without providing specific evidence may be inflammatory and lacking in context. The assertion that the Israeli army has forcibly displaced most of the population in the north of Gaza is also a bold claim that requires further evidence and analysis.

Additionally, the article touches on the topic of media coverage and public opinion. It suggests that the Biden administration is concerned that the pause in violence could lead to broader media access and turn public opinion against Israel. While this claim is attributed to a Politico report, it is crucial to critically evaluate how media narratives and political considerations can shape the coverage and analysis of conflicts.

In the context of the political landscape and the prevalence of fake news, the information presented in this article can contribute to a nuanced understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, the sources’ potential biases and the limited representation of different perspectives indicate the need for further research and seeking multiple sources to form a comprehensive view of the topic. It is essential to be cautious about the influence of fake
Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/23/important-but-not-enough-what-does-israel-hamas-deal-mean-for-us-policy