The dawn massacre of civilians was Netanyahu's response to the tripartite statement

A few days after the assassination of the Hamas political bureau head, Ismail Haniyeh, in Tehran at the hands of the vile, criminal Zionists, and a few hours after the movement chose Yahya Sinwar as his successor, the US, Egypt and Qatar rushed to issue a new statement on the situation in Gaza. They said that they are working to reach a ceasefire and prisoner release deal; that they will not accept excuses for further postponement of such a deal; that they are willing to submit a final proposal to settle matters related to implementation; and that they are considering the principles proposed by US President Joe Biden on 31 May and voted on by the UN Security Council as the frame of reference for the statement.

Here we must pause for reflection and analyse the tripartite statement that is suspicious in its timing and content, because its issue cannot be separated from the tension that dominates the Zionist entity as it awaits the axis of resistance to carry out its threat to respond to the assassination of its leaders. The goal with the timing of the statement is to absorb the tension and ease the anxiety of the occupation state, which has paralysed its airports, ports and factories, and panicked its citizens. This is confirmed by Zionist media outlets and officials. All evidence suggests that a response from the resistance is coming because its credibility is at stake; Washington and Tel Aviv are convinced about this. Something was needed to curb the response.

That was the other goal of the suspicious statement; to postpone the response and allow the US and the Zionist state to create conditions on the ground that make it more complicated, politically and militarily.

There is no doubt that the statement aims to pull the resistance into the web of pointless and endless (if experience is anything to go by) negotiations.

More than 80 days have passed since Biden’s statement regarding the ceasefire. Who manipulated this period to their advantage and gave themselves time to kill Haniyeh and Hezbollah’s Fuad Shukr? The tripartite statement is not a sponge to absorb the tension, but an US-Zionist position in which neither Egypt nor Qatar has a role except to play the game of “proxy diplomacy”. Thus, the US position is a combination of mobilising a military force to deter the resistance (intimidation) on the one hand, and employing sponge diplomacy (enticement) on the other.

READ: FM’s admission that Netanyahu is hindering truce confirms Israel’s ‘lies’, Hamas says

And what was the response to the latter by apartheid Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu? He bombed a school housing displaced Palestinians in central Gaza while the dawn prayer was taking place, massacring at least one hundred of them. According to the civil defence teams and others who rushed to the scene, the type of US-made bomb used in the cowardly attack ensured that there were no complete bodies left to take to the mortuary. Body parts were collected in plastic bags.

This attack, which disgusted millions of decent people around the world, confirmed that the Zionist entity is intent on continuing with its genocide, in which the US is fully complicit, having announced shortly before the massacre that it would release $3.5 billion for Israel to buy more American arms and munitions. The US administration of Joe Biden bears full responsibility for this massacre and the continuation of the Israeli offensive now in its tenth month.

This suspicious tripartite statement was only ever intended to distract us all and try to cover up America’s active participation in the genocide of the Palestinians.

All American talk of a ceasefire agreement being as close as ever was and is just a smokescreen to buy time for more massacres to be committed by the occupation army, as well as more pressure to be put on the Palestinians. I have said this before and presented evidence for my words, but now everything is out in the open for all to see. This is America’s genocide as much as Israel’s, and it’s hard to tell which tail is wagging which dog.

We are entitled to ask why the tripartite statement ignored the issue of the withdrawal of the Zionist occupation forces from Gaza, and the issue of humanitarian corridors and other matters related to essential aid. The Zionist hostages are the “core of the Israeli position”, as talk of their release tops every American demand and text, while Palestinian rights are only there to be “negotiated”, but why, and with whom? With the US or the Zionist entity? The victims of crimes must negotiate with the criminals for the crimes to stop? What sort of world is this?

I suggest that the axis of resistance must act as if this deceptive statement had not been issued and it must work to prolong the tension and fear within the Zionist community. It must announce, with Iranian participation in a separate statement, a draft resolution for the UN Security Council to adopt under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, so that it is binding for the occupying state to implement., calling for a permanent ceasefire and the withdrawal of the occupation army from Gaza within a specified timeframe, making it an introduction to the issue of the prisoners on both sides, and not just the Israelis held in Gaza.

The resistance statement about its response to the political murders carried out by Israel must be ambiguous and open to interpretation, in order to keep the door open in the event that it is not implemented. To further strengthen this position, the resistance must escalate its operations while the issue of a response is still alive. There should be no debate about it unless the proposed Security Council resolution under Chapter VII is responded to. If Netanyahu and his far-right cronies can act unilaterally (albeit with US connivance and support) as if mediators are not involved, then the resistance must also regard the tripartite statement as not being worth the paper it is written on.

READ: Major US academic group approves boycott of Israel in a historic U-turn

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.