The recent optimism shared by the US and its allies over a proposed three-week ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah quickly dissipated. Shortly after the proposal was unveiled, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made it clear that there would be no ceasefire, as Foreign Minister Israel Katz stated on X. Upon arriving in New York, Netanyahu reaffirmed Israel’s commitment to continuing its military actions against Hezbollah, even releasing a photo that suggested he had ordered a strike on a Hezbollah commander.
Despite these rejections, White House spokesman John Kirby insisted that discussions with Israeli officials about the ceasefire were ongoing. He expressed uncertainty about the rationale for Israel’s refusal, stating, “It’s not clear to us that there isn’t cause for us to continue to have these conversations.” This contradiction—between US assertions of Israeli consideration and Israel’s outright dismissal—has further complicated the US approach to the ongoing conflict.
The Israeli government’s rejection echoed a similar scenario from last year regarding a ceasefire in Gaza after the October 7 attacks by Hamas. The US has often claimed that Israel was supportive of ceasefire plans, only for Netanyahu to later deny any imminent agreements.
Experts argue that the Biden administration has no alternative but to persist with its efforts, interpreting the ceasefire proposal as a signal intended to convey the potential repercussions of Israel’s unilateral actions. Meanwhile, international leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron, have voiced concerns that Netanyahu’s rejection could lead to unmanageable escalations. As pressure mounts domestically—amidst significant displacement of Israelis near the Lebanese border—Netanyahu’s government remains hesitant. A recent statement from his office acknowledged the US’s role in promoting a ceasefire but fell short of endorsing the plan. This ongoing confusion tests the US’s strategy in the region, leaving many to question its effectiveness..