President Joe Biden’s announcement of the three-phase plan and threat to withdraw military support for the war in Gaza seems a strategic intent to end the nearly eight-month war. But is the back-off threat enough to change the dynamics of aggression, silence fatal bombings in Gaza, and the devastating sufferings beyond? NGOZI EGENUKA reports.
American President, Joe Biden, recently announced a truce proposal by Israel and passed by mediators of the crisis.The three-part proposal would begin with a six-week ceasefire in which the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) would withdraw from populated areas of Gaza.
There would also be a “surge” of humanitarian aid, as well as an exchange of some hostages for Palestinian prisoners.
The deal would eventually lead to a permanent “cessation of hostilities” and a major reconstruction plan for Gaza.
Hamas said it views the proposal “positively”.
Speaking at the White House on Friday, Mr Biden said that the first phase of the proposed plan would include a “full and complete ceasefire”, the withdrawal of IDF forces from populated areas and the exchange of hostages for Palestinian prisoners.
“This is truly a decisive moment,” he said. “Hamas says it wants a ceasefire. This deal is an opportunity to prove whether they really mean it.”
The ceasefire, he added, would allow more humanitarian aid to reach the beleaguered territory, with “600 trucks carrying aid into Gaza every single day”.
The second phase would see all remaining living hostages returned, including male soldiers. The ceasefire would then become “the cessation of hostilities, permanently.”
Among those who have urged Hamas to agree to the proposal was UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron, who said on X that the group “must accept this deal so we can see a stop in the fighting”.
“We’ve long argued a stop in the fighting can be turned into a permanent peace if we are all prepared to take the right steps,” Lord Cameron added. “Let’s seize this moment and bring this conflict to an end.”
The United Nations’ Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, also welcomed the development in a post to X, formerly known as Twitter. He said the world had “witnessed too much suffering (and) destruction in Gaza” and said it was “time to stop”.
“I welcome [President] Biden’s initiative [and] encourage all parties to seize this opportunity for a ceasefire, release of all hostages, guaranteed unhindered humanitarian access [and] ultimately a durable peace in the Middle East,” he added.
As recently as a few days ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was letting it be known that he was implacably opposed to agreeing to end the war as part of a ceasefire deal – making Mr Biden’s reference to the war’s end particularly significant.
While the plan includes many of the details from previous, ultimately failed rounds of talks, the U.S. calls for a permanent ceasefire appear to be a significant concession designed to try and draw Hamas back to negotiations on terms they have already said they would agree to. A permanent ceasefire has been one of the group’s key demands.
The third phase of the proposal would see the final remains of any deceased Israeli hostages returned, as well as a “major reconstruction plan” with U.S. and international assistance to rebuild homes, schools, and hospitals.
In the truce, Netanyahu insisted that there would be no permanent truce until Hamas’s military and governing capabilities were destroyed and all hostages released.
About 250 people, mainly Israeli civilians, were abducted on Oct. 7, then more than 100 were freed in a short truce in late November and early December. Israel says about 80 hostages are believed to still be captive, alongside the remains of about 43 others.
Israeli bombardments and ground offensives in Gaza, which Hamas has ruled, have killed more than 36,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry, which does not distinguish between combatants and civilians.
But will the truce plan and U.S. withdrawal of support for defiant Israel’s aggression change the dynamics of the crisis and possibly end the obnoxious war?
Professor of International Relations and Strategic Studies, University of Lagos (UNILAG), David Aworawo, said that if the war was between Israel and Gaza alone, the former would be able to prosecute the war without America’s support, but given that the war in Gaza is not just against Hamas, but also against Iran and elements in Lebanon, it would be difficult for Israel to prosecute the war successfully.
He explained that the U.S. is the biggest supporter, providing military equipment and financial aid to Israel, which has helped them achieve their current support, adding that the dynamics of the war cannot be handled by Israel alone.
Reacting to the implication of the war in Africa, Aworawo, said that Africa, which belongs to the global community has been negatively affected visibly in relations, as some hitherto cordial countries have now become sour.
“For instance, Israel and South Africa (SA) relations are now adversarial and several other African countries have maintained the same position as SA. However, they are at the forefront because of the case they have filed against Israel in the ICJ,” he added.
He noted that though Nigeria tried to maintain a neutral position, she recently became more verbal, expressing grave concerns regarding the approach that Israel has adopted in its engagement in Gaza.
“We, however, don’t know how Israel will respond to Nigeria’s statement, but they have had the same response for every country that opposes them. Since the West has continued to support Israel, it has also pitched some countries against the West,” he said.
The don explained that on multiple levels, bi and multi-lateral, the impact on global stability has been visible, adding that Israel sent some of its military forces to occupy parts of the Rafah crossing which Egypt controlled recently, which has led to Egypt threatening to reduce its engagement in efforts to meditate on the conflict. “With issues like this, one can predict that the negative impact will expand further,” he said.
Professor of political science, Lagos State University, Sylvester Odion, said the ongoing war is that of unequals, as Hamas doesn’t have the military might to confront Israel, irrespective of U.S. or UK support for Israel.
He noted, however, that Israel’s defiance of international laws is due to the support it receives from the West.
He suggested that America won’t go through the threat to withdraw support from Israel as funding for most of the government campaigns comes from the Israeli lobby as the Jewish community controls a lot of wealth in America and the UK.
Similarly, Professor of political science, Lagos State University (LASU), Kayode Soremekun, believes that the U.S. taking away its support for Israel would be elusive as that action has domestic consequences for the president, which he may be unwilling to risk.
He noted that already the support raised other consequences where on one hand, Biden’s support might cost him his election and a lack of support might have the same outcome due to Israel’s role in American politics.
“Without America’s support, Israel would be isolated as other Western countries are drawing away their support from Israel. However, based on military strength, Israel can handle it,” he declared.
The ongoing war between Israel and Gaza is the fifth since 2008, a component of the larger Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the biggest military build-up in the area since the 50-year-old Yom Kippur War.
Since the commencement of the war, analysts predicted that it would hurt the financial and oil/ gas sectors in Nigeria and other developing countries, especially because Nigeria relies on the importation of petrol since local refineries are down and out.
Associate Professor, Joshua Bolarinwa, is of the view that there are global, regional, sub-regional, religious, and legal impacts of the war, noting that globally, the world is now divided along two lines, with support for Israel and the other for Gaza, resulting in protests in various countries.
He noted that owing to the conflict, people no longer have access to basic needs such as water, shelter, and food. The movement has also been restricted.
For Nigeria, he said a major effect would be that Christians who want to go on pilgrimage to Israel would have to shelf their plans due to the instability.
Bolarinwa said the Middle East crisis is taking on another dimension, which is pointing towards the resurgence of a two-state solution.
He noted that in the past seven to five years, the idea of a two-state solution was experiencing a natural death, but that has been reignited with the recent attacks in the region.
He, however, explained that the two-state solution conversation, which started in 1937 is problematic.
“In 1947, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 180 was adopted, and a two-state solution was agreed upon, but between 1947 and 1948 when the State of Israel was created, the Palestinian Arabs didn’t like it and their sponsors didn’t support the idea. They wanted only a Palestinian state, not an Israeli state.
Bolarinwa, who is also the Head of the Division of Security and Strategic Studies, Research and Studies Department, Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA), expressed optimism about a truce between Israel and Palestine while expressing concerns over the involvement of Iran, urging the latter to be cautious as Israel and its allies could retaliate.
“Iran should tread with caution as its ally, Russia has been unable to defeat Ukraine. Iran doesn’t know what Israel has or what Germany, France, Britain, or the United States would make available to Israel.
“Unfortunately for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and a few Arab states are not in support of their position. For the first time in the history of the Israeli-Arab conflict as a whole, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan are not parties to it, which could imply that the majority of the Arab states are not in support of Iran,” he pointed out.
