Answering a question about Israel’s conflict with Hamas in Tuesday’s presidential debate, Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris declared: “This war must end. It must end immediately, and the way it will end is we need a cease-fire deal, and we need the hostages out.”
Such a deal is in fact in the interest of both Israel and the Palestinians. Why, then, has it not been sealed yet? Because the negotiated deal’s framework allows Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who does not want the war to end, to sabotage it every step of the way. The framework must be changed to achieve a breakthrough.
An end to the war is clearly in the interest of both Israelis and Palestinians. For Palestinians, it will end the devastation the war has brought to Gaza. For Israelis, it will bring back 101 hostages held captive by Hamas, allow the rehabilitation of the communities destroyed on Oct.7, facilitate an end to the confrontation on Israel’s northern border and remove the imminent threat of a regional conflagration.
Mediators from the U.S., Egypt and Qatar have spent an incredible amount of political capital to bring the deal to a conclusion.
The current framework has been on the table, with relatively small changes, since December. It is a phased deal, meant eventually to lead to the release of all the hostages and the end of the war, with details to be agreed upon before each step can begin.
But this framework accommodates both Netanyahu’s refusal to commit in advance to ending the war and Hamas’s insistence on exactly that. It also allows each side to claim that they did not compromise. The mediators assume that the initiation of the first stage will preclude a return to fighting.
However, Netanyahu repeatedly acts to thwart the deal. He wants the war to continue because ending it would bring an official investigation into his responsibility for Israel’s security failure on Oct. 7, renew his criminal trials, and risk the collapse of his governing coalition.
Hence, he sabotages the agreement by making public statements against it that contradict what he agreed to in the negotiation, insisting on fighting until the (unlikely) destruction of Hamas, assassinating Hamas and Hezbollah leaders at important junctions in the negotiation room and blocking attempts to raise an alternative to Hamas for governing Gaza. Netanyahu’s recent insistence on Israel occupying the Philadelphi Corridor indefinitely is his latest maneuver.
A new deal needs to preclude this behavior. In May, President Biden took a bold step by making public the draft agreement that Israel itself proposed and urging both sides to sign, but Netanyahu then publicly rejected it.
This time, as with previous attempts, the prime minister complained that the agreement (meaning the first stage) provides for the release of only some Israeli hostages, but at the same time stated that he wouldn’t end the war, a condition for the release of all the hostages in the following stages.
Too much time has passed and too many lives have been lost. It is urgently necessary to examine the foundational assumptions and the reasons for the lack of success, and change strategy.
An alternative framework should be simple, clear and sharp: Instead of constructive ambiguity (common in diplomacy), the language of the framework should present both Israelis and Gazans with a blunt choice that will prevent manipulations. This framework might be even more difficult for Netanyahu to agree on, but it will be obvious to the public that he is the one refusing a deal.
What should this new framework include? The immediate return of all Israeli hostages (those still alive and those who are not) in return for the release of a set number of Palestinian prisoners, a long-term cease-fire, including a total withdrawal of the Israel Defense Forces from the Gaza Strip and a massive surge of international aid to Gaza.
The new framework should also be presented publicly rather than behind closed doors. Since the new framework will be easier to understand, keeping it public will prevent manipulation and will be more effective in mobilizing public opinion on both sides to demand sealing the deal.
Ideally, the mediators will present the agreement as a complete package for each side to make one simple choice: “Yes” or “No.” “Yes but” will not be an option.
The timelines for this agreement must be condensed. We cannot afford the many months outlined by the current agreement; the recent murder of six more hostages by Hamas underlines this urgency. The longer it takes, the more room there will be for spoilers to operate.
The hostages, as well as the people of Gaza, have run out of time.
Boaz Atzili is a professor of international relations in the Department of Foreign Policy and Global Security at American University’s School of International Service. Hamas killed his cousin in its Oct. 7. attack and still holds his body in Gaza. His cousin’s wife returned home as part of November’s exchange deal.
