Why Israel should reject Biden's cease-fire plan, in eight words

And why Israel should ignore Biden's complaint about creation of a buffer zone

Joe Biden plans to send CIA Director William Burns to the Middle East to try to broker a deal between Israel and Hamas. Under this deal, Hamas would release all remaining hostages and Israel would accept a two-month cease-fire. Hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, including avowed terrorists, would also be set free.

Burns might be a skillful negotiator. I have no reason to believe he isn’t. But Biden could send the reincarnation of Henry Kissinger to push this deal. Israel would be crazy to accept it.

To understand why, consider this op-ed by David Ignatius, the unofficial voice of the liberal foreign policy elite, arguing in favor of the deal. In a piece called “Israel and Hamas probe for a pause that both sides need” Ignatius writes:

For a traumatized Israel, release of the hostages is a paramount aim. For a Palestinian population on the edge of famine and pandemic disease, a new cease-fire is an existential requirement. For Hamas leaders trapped underground, the deal offers the possibility of political survival.

Those final eight words are precisely why Israel should flatly reject the proposed deal. Israel’s objective in this war has been, and must remain, the destruction of Hamas, including its fighters and, above all, its leaders. If these leaders are trapped underground, Israel must do everything it can to prevent their survival — political and otherwise.

By conceding that the cease-fire offers trapped Hamas leaders the possibility of political survival, Ignatius undermines the case for the very deal he and the foreign policy establishment are promoting.

Ignatius asserts that release of the hostages “is a paramount [Israeli] aim.” “Paramount” means more important than anything else. Thus, there can only be “the” paramount aim, not “a” paramount one.

Since the horror of October 7, Israel’s paramount aim has been to crush Hamas to the maximum extent the IDF can. Release of the hostages has always been a secondary aim. If it had been the paramount aim, Israel would already have secured the release of many more hostages by making the necessary concessions.

As for Ignatius’ characterization of Israel as “traumatized,” he’s right. But Israel is traumatized because Hamas was able to attack it so effectively. Thus, the remedy isn’t the release, via concessions, of more hostages, a move that would provide terrorists with additional incentive to take more hostages in the future. The remedy is continuing to hammer Hams so as to minimize its chances of survival or at least of pulling off another attack.

It’s also important to remember that, while accepting a two-month cease-fire will irrevocably assist Hamas (as Ignatius concedes), rejecting it at this point will not preclude the release of hostages down the road. Hamas won’t kill hostages if Israel rejects Biden’s deal. It might well release some (and maybe even all) of them down the road, as its situation becomes ever more desperate.

I also want to address the recent flap over Israel’s move to create a buffer zone to protect itself from future attacks emanating from Gaza. The zone would consist of a small amount of territory — extending about half a mile out from the border) that now belongs to Gaza. It entails the destruction of some structures and that destruction apparently is already underway, to the usual howls of protest.

The Biden administration opposes the creation of a buffer zone. It insists that Gaza lose no territory as a result of this war — not even the small amount at issue here..

This demand should be ignored for two reasons. First, there’s nothing unusual about the losing side in a war having its territory diminished, especially when the losing side was the aggressor. Here, the amount of territory lost would, as noted, amount to only about half a mile across the length of the border.

Second, in this case the loss of territory wouldn’t be punitive. It would be soundly based on Israel’s need, as a matter of its national security, to protect itself from future attacks.

Biden’s opposition seems ironic given his administration’s constant refrain that Israel must have a plan for “the day after” this war ends. I don’t know whether Israel has a grand plan or not. But creating a buffer zone is certainly an element of a plan, and any rational, unbiased observer should view it as an important element because of the additional protection it provides Israel. Moreover, it’s an element that might cause Israel to back away from more draconian plans, such as the re-occupation of Gaza.

What drives the Biden administration’s quest for a cease-fire, its objections to a buffer zone, and its ridiculous calls for a two-state solution? In part, I think it’s the desire to appease the American left, upon whose support Biden relies.

If so, the mission is futile. The anti-Israel left won’t forgive Biden for the support he’s already given Israel.

But I think there’s more to Biden’s posture than the political opportunism of appeasing the left. In his old-age, Biden has drifted into a reflexively leftist mindset, himself. The horror of October 7 shook him out of that mindset, as it applied to Israel, for a while.

Now, however, he’s back to his default pro-Palestinian mode.

Israel can string Biden along to a limited degree, but in the end it must ignore him.