Biden and Macron’s Failed Peace Plan Escalates Middle East Conflict

It appears that there was a ray of hope for a temporary cease-fire in the Middle East. Diplomats had hoped that the looming dark clouds of a spiraling war would dissipate. There was optimism. After all, a proposed clarity of agreement for a three-week cease-fire was being drafted by representatives from the United Nations, France, and the United States. This was seen as a significant step towards preventing a major conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, both parties were privy to the draft ceasefire and they were positive regarding the agreement.

Amplifying this positivity was Israel’s apparent intention to endorse the statement. Israel, represented by a White House envoy, purportedly signaled their readiness to back the statement. Reflecting this sentiment, Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, too had reportedly shown approval for the cease-fire through an intermediary. The stage for a potential breakthrough seemed to be set on September 25th when world leaders assembled in New York for the United Nations General Assembly.

In the hope of encouraging the warring factions to embrace peace publicly, President Biden and French President Emmanuel Macron took the lead to announce the peace plan. However, in a surprising twist just two days later, the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, proclaimed an entirely contrary view. His call, unveiled at the same United Nations gathering, was not for a ceasefire but to ‘defeat Hezbollah in Lebanon’.

A sense of dread descended when a devastating bombing wiped the southern outskirts of Beirut off the map, killing Nasrallah. The peace deal that had seemed so close suddenly appeared no more than a fleeting dream. The conflict escalated sharply; Lebanon, which the peace efforts had sought to keep out of the war, was now up in flames and on the brink of a broader regional war.

In the face of Israel’s relentless rejoinder and clashes with Hezbollah, officials privy to the peace talks shared some shocking insights. Despite the promising progress towards the cease-fire, it was decimated with the abrupt assassination of Nasrallah. Abdallah Bou Habib, the Lebanese Foreign Minister, reflected the growing frustration by accusing the Israeli government of snuffing out the possibility of peace, ardently stating, ‘They want to continue fighting.’

Israel’s argument for their approach reflects a desire to safeguard over 60,000 displaced citizens that they aim to bring home. Israeli officials have expressed doubt that a simple cease-fire would be sufficient to meet this objective. A high-ranking official from Israel confessed anonymously that there did exist preliminary talks of a potential cease-fire, but reaching an agreement during Netanyahu’s visit to New York had been unexpectedly low on their expectation list.

The fraught situation Lebanon found itself in was reminiscent of the dire previous year, where numerous diplomatic attempts to defuse the battle between Israel and Hamas at Gaza yielded no results. The goal of the cease-fire initiative was to block a second similar and possibly worse conflict from unfurling between Israel and Hezbollah.

To throw a light on the egregious situation, it is important to note that this isn’t the first time Israel had sabotaged a ceasefire situation. They had previously targeted and killed a militia leader, Ismail Haniyeh, the political leader of Hamas, which had a pronounced ripple effect, causing the hardening of that group against any Gaza cease-fire proposal.

The killing of Nasrallah marked a turning point in the conflict. Hezbollah had started retaliating against Israel’s outpost in support of its ally, Hamas, which had carried out a deadly assault on Israel the preceding October. The violence escalated rapidly, backed by Israel’s counterattack, displacing over 150,000 people on both sides of the border.

An all-out Israeli ground invasion appeared imminent, and desperate attempts were made by the United States, France, and the United Nations to negotiate another temporary cease-fire and stall the ground assault. Netanyahu received these willingly initially, further reinforcing the hope of an agreement. However, a shift began to manifest when officials from Israel started to voice opposition to the cease-fire idea, causing American officials to anxiously await Netanyahu’s public endorsement.

American and French officials remained upbeat and reassured their Lebanese counterparts, waiting with bated breath for the anticipated endorsement. However, it was only late that night when they saw a lukewarm statement from Netanyahu stating, ‘Israel shares the aims of the U.S.-led initiative.’ They were hopeful that the following day, September 27th, they could work out a finalized cease-fire agreement.

High expectations were set on Netanyahu, with US officials anticipating him to show support for the cease-fire during his address at the United Nations. What transpired, though, was the exact opposite. In a stunning defiance of the anticipated support, Netanyahu decided to stick to an aggressive stance, omitting to mention the proposed cease-fire and vowing that Israel would maintain its fight.

The final blow came right after, as Israeli jets carried out a bombing that led to the death of Nasrallah. The cease-fire prospect that once seemed possible was now a distant past. Those involved in the negotiation were left puzzled over Israel’s sudden shift in stance. Speculations were rife. Whether it was internal pressure Netanyahu faced from hardliners or the too-good-to-resist opportunity to assassinate Nasrallah, or whether Israel was insincere in its agreement with the Americans – the truth remains shrouded in mystery.