| Input | Output |
|---|---|
| Link | Youtube |
| Published | 2024/04/11 |
| Theme | |
| Status | article incomplete |
Beau says:
Beau explains foreign policy questions and Biden's unexpected call for a unilateral ceasefire, differing in approach from US policy.
Policy analysts, activists
In-depth analysis and background information on the Israel-Palestine conflict and the implications of various ceasefire approaches.
#ForeignPolicy #CeasefireNegotiations #USPolicy #BidenStatement #IsraelPalestineConflict
Well, howdy there, internet people.
Let's bow again.
So today we are going to talk about two questions,
two foreign policy questions,
and something that Biden said that was really odd,
very unusual, because it is not in line
with stated or signaled US policy.
So we'll go through the two questions first, they're pretty quick, and then we will get to the the
thing that he said. Okay, first question. I've been following the ceasefire negotiations and I don't
understand what the holdup is. What is the main sticking point? Everything seems so close. I mean
WTF. Yeah, right? When you are looking at the phases and the exchanges and the
numbers, it does. It all seems very close. They seem like gaps that could be
bridged, right? It's a little bit more complicated than what I'm about to say,
But the big kind of unstoppable force meets immovable object sticking point is
relatively simple. The Palestinian side wants a permanent ceasefire. The Israeli
side wants a temporary one. The negotiators want a temporary one. On one
side a permanent one on the other. Why? From the perspective of the Israeli
negotiators, they don't want to provide a permanent ceasefire until they get all
of their people back. From the Palestinian side, those negotiators, they
don't want to give up all of their leverage until they get a permanent
ceasefire. That's the main hold-up. That's where the issues kind of lie.
Now, the obvious solution here would be a temporary to permanent as it moves
through the phases. That's what negotiators would tend to work out.
That's not happening. Now, from a US policy standpoint, they appear, or at least
appeared, we'll get to the odd statement here in a second, they appeared to be
very much behind a temporary ceasefire in going that route. My read on it is they
want the temporary ceasefire so they can use the urgency created by the
temporary nature of the ceasefire to push through a peace deal. That's
my read on why they're leaning towards the temporary one. That takes us to the
next question. You've been pretty good at explaining the signals from the
administration and what they mean and you've been mostly emphasis theirs,
right? When you're talking about the admins desire to use a temporary ceasefire
it sounded like you disagreed with that approach and not in the I disagree but
this is how foreign policy works way, but in a they're doing it wrong way.
I don't seem like I agree with the administration's position of using that temporary ceasefire
to create the urgency to get the peace deal.
I don't seem like I agree with it because I don't.
I don't.
I don't think that's necessary.
My concern is that we've talked about it on the channel before.
When you are talking about cyclical violence, you have these moments where peace is possible.
Those moments are short.
very short windows of time and if people get acclimated to the situation, the moment passes.
I don't think it is necessary to create the urgency to get the peace deal.
I think that if they got a permanent ceasefire, the US could do what the US does and keep
people at the table and they could get it hammered out.
So that is one of the things that I think they're doing it wrong.
Now, just a small caveat, because if anybody else had said what I just said, I would say
this, I'm going to say it about me too.
That guy on YouTube does not know everything that State Department knows.
And there may be a reason, some piece of information or a known posture from one of the negotiators
or something like that, that is causing them to use that route.
Back to me, I cannot think of a single piece of information that would change my opinion.
But I have to acknowledge that it might be out there.
I don't believe it's necessary to get through the temporary route.
I think that they can get it now.
Okay, so what did Biden say?
I'm just going to read this.
What I'm calling for is for the Israelis to just call for a ceasefire.
Allow the next six, eight weeks total access to all food and medicine going into the country.
I've spoken with everyone, from the Saudis to the Jordanians to the Egyptians.
They're prepared to move in, they're prepared to move this food in.
And I think there's no excuse to not provide for the medical and the food needs of those
people.
It should be done now.
That certainly sounds like Biden just called for Netanyahu to just call a unilateral ceasefire.
Just them decide to do it on their own.
And the way this went out in an interview like this, this isn't signaling.
There's no way that the way this is phrased is the first time Netanyahu heard it.
None of this has been telegraphed to the public.
And that's a big departure because up until now, up until this statement, the US policy
was to tie any ceasefire to a release.
This doesn't have any of that in it.
So what do you make of it?
Well it could be that Biden said something in an interview that he shouldn't have.
That this was something they were considering and they haven't said this to Netanyahu yet.
They said it in private and didn't really want it to go public yet, but he said it anyway.
Um, the other option is that this has already taken place and this is their way of trying to
push the issue. But I have not seen this framing of a unilateral ceasefire anywhere else. It's,
It is odd.
As somebody who is mostly good at reading the signals, this hasn't been there.
I don't know what to make of it.
It would not surprise me if there was a push to get this done now.
It also wouldn't surprise me if Netanyahu was really mad that this went public.
This seems different than all of the other signaling that has come before.
And it is a definite departure from everything that was signaled up until just a couple of
days ago.
And my understanding is that this interview took place before then.
So it is, it's out of step and I don't know what it means but it's definitely worth noting.
It's also worth noting that in this, when he's talking about the Saudis and the Jordanians
and the Egyptians, that might be the regional security force as well.
Those might be the countries involved.
It's just an odd statement to kind of just mark and see what comes of it.
Anyway, it's just a thought, y'all have a good day.
{{Shirt}}
{{EasterEgg}}