By John Q. Hosedrinker 
An independent Israeli negotiator revealed that the terms of the recent deal between Hamas and Israel were initially agreed upon in September 2024, during the Biden administration, but were disregarded by U.S. officials and rejected by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. According to the negotiator, the same terms were presented to Hamas in September, but negotiations collapsed after an Israeli bombing. Eventually, through back channels to Trump’s envoy, negotiations were revived, leading to a ceasefire on January 19th and the signing of the current deal. The collapse of the initial deal resulted in a siege and offensive in Gaza and ultimately a return to the original terms, though many months later.
Read the original article here
Joe Biden and Netanyahu were offered Gaza deal a year ago, says negotiator.
It seems like a bombshell of a revelation has come to light, with a negotiator claiming that a deal concerning Gaza was on the table a year ago, and both Joe Biden and Benjamin Netanyahu were aware of it. The implication, of course, is that this deal could have potentially prevented a year of conflict, loss of life, and widespread destruction. It’s a claim that demands careful consideration, as it raises some very serious questions about the motivations and actions of key players in this complex geopolitical situation.
The core of the issue appears to be that Hamas had, according to the negotiator, agreed to terms for a deal as far back as September 2024, in the final months of the Biden administration. The suggestion is that Biden officials seemingly disregarded the agreement, while Netanyahu flatly rejected it. This immediately casts a shadow over the past year, leading one to wonder if the path to peace was intentionally obstructed. The idea that a potential resolution was within reach, only to be dismissed, is certainly difficult to accept.
The narrative gets even more complex when we consider the political undertones. Some have pointed to the possibility that Netanyahu was more interested in seeing a Trump victory, hoping to strike a deal under a different administration. The prospect of political calculations taking precedence over human lives is a deeply troubling one, and it’s understandable that people would feel outraged at this possibility. It’s crucial to dissect any such claims of external influence during the negotiation process.
The parallels drawn to the 1980s, where the Iranian Hostage Crisis allegedly had a similar political undercurrent, are definitely disturbing. If true, this is a story of political gamesmanship, where the suffering of innocent people was a pawn to be used for political advancement. It’s a scenario that shakes the foundations of trust and raises fundamental questions about the integrity of those in power.
The reactions to this revelation are far from unified. Some are quick to blame Netanyahu and Trump, seeing this as a clear case of prioritizing political gain over the well-being of Israelis and Palestinians alike. Others are less quick to condemn Biden, highlighting the complexities of Middle Eastern politics and the various factors that might have influenced the administration’s decision-making process. It’s not hard to imagine that internal disagreements within the Biden administration and the constraints of the ongoing negotiations also played a role.
The fact that a potential deal existed at the time but was apparently rejected raises the possibility of a missed opportunity, and the consequences of that missed opportunity. The potential loss of life, the displacement of people, and the destruction of infrastructure are all factors that weigh heavily on the conscience. It is clear that the people of Gaza have paid a terrible price for the continuation of this conflict.
Furthermore, the details of the proposed deal are critical. Was it a viable long-term solution? What were the specific terms of the agreement? What guarantees were in place to ensure its success? Without this information, it’s difficult to assess the merits of the deal or determine whether its rejection was truly justified. Was it an attempt at a ceasefire or a true resolution?
There are also questions about the timing of this revelation. Why is this coming out now, a year after the supposed rejection of the deal? What are the motivations of the negotiator who is making this claim? And how credible is their information? Understanding the circumstances and potential biases of the source is important.
The broader implications of this matter extend to the role of external actors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The United States, in particular, has a long history of involvement in the region. The question of how much leverage it has and how that leverage is used is a critical one. How the United States navigates the interests of all parties and the potential for bias cannot be ignored.
The idea that Biden could have ended the conflict at any time, but chose not to is a grave accusation. The role the U.S. played in supplying weapons and blocking UN votes is a matter of intense debate. These factors highlight a complex web of issues, where questions of morality and political interests collide.
In conclusion, the revelation that Biden and Netanyahu were offered a Gaza deal a year ago is a serious one. It raises profound questions about the motivations of the key players, the influence of external actors, and the price of political maneuvering. The full story has yet to be told, but the implications of this alleged failure to seize a moment for peace will no doubt be felt for a long time to come.