Ceasefire Offered, Then Disputed: Israel’s Changing Stance as Genocide Is Declared by Leading Scholar
When you watch this unfold, it’s hard not to feel like the mask slipped and the word “civilized” lost its meaning; a lot of people are traumatized, and the old team jerseys don’t matter when civilians are being crushed. Left and right can meet at first principles: no genocide, no collective punishment, no silencing of dissent, no erasing people from their homes, and no special rules for the powerful.
If land can be taken by force and paperwork, it becomes a blueprint others will copy, and the frontier of abuse keeps moving. The antidote is simple, old-fashioned, and American: due process, equal protection, freedom of speech and press, the sanctity of the person, and real accountability for officials—applied consistently, even when it’s inconvenient for “our side.”
That means demanding an end to attacks on civilians, full access for aid, independent investigations with consequences, the safe return of the displaced, and negotiated guarantees that stop the cycle instead of just pausing it. You don’t have to change your politics to stand there; you only have to decide that human life and the rule of law are non-negotiable.
From that ground, people who never agreed on much can still lock arms and say: not in our name, not with our money, and not to anyone, anywhere.
Over the last year, the main ceasefire plan for Gaza has followed a simple path: the United States announced an Israeli-backed, three-phase proposal in mid-2024; the U.N. Security Council endorsed it; and by January 2025 the White House said a ceasefire-and-hostage deal had been reached. Yet in practice, Israel’s government later disputed or delayed key terms, which is why some observers now say Israel “rejected its own deal.” At the same time, the International Association of Genocide Scholars issued a formal resolution saying Israel’s campaign in Gaza “legally constitutes genocide,” while the world’s top court has not made a final ruling but ordered Israel to prevent genocidal acts.
What was in the plan? The Security Council’s Resolution 2735 (June 10, 2024) welcomed a three-phase process: an immediate six-week ceasefire with hostage–prisoner exchanges, Israeli withdrawal from populated areas, scaled humanitarian aid, and steps toward reconstruction. President Biden described the same framework and later announced a ceasefire-and-hostage deal in January 2025, noting staged exchanges and negotiations for a second phase.
On paper, Resolution 2735 sounded clean and simple—pause the fighting for six weeks, trade hostages and prisoners, pull Israeli forces out of crowded areas, ramp up aid, then move toward rebuilding—but the fine print left room for delay and leverage. “Withdrawal from populated areas” didn’t spell out who controls border corridors or tunnels, so either side could slow the clock while saying they’re complying. Phased exchanges turned people into bargaining chips, making every list, route, and verification a new standoff. “Scaled humanitarian aid” depended on checkpoints and security reviews that could be tightened or loosened at will, and “steps toward reconstruction” were tied to promises about demilitarization and oversight that no one fully trusted. When President Biden later announced a deal built on this same framework in January 2025, backers called it a pathway to calm; skeptics saw a face-saving script that let leaders claim progress while keeping options open for more strikes, more conditions, and more negotiations that go in circles.
Where did the “rejects its own deal” line come from? In September 2024, amid protests, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he would not join ceasefire talks unless Israel kept control of Gaza’s Egypt border corridor, a condition outside the spirit of the plan’s withdrawal language. Through August 2025, Israel told mediators it would respond to a new Hamas-accepted truce proposal but pressed demands and timelines that slowed movement, including immediate release of all remaining hostages.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/19/israel-to-respond-by-friday-gaza-truce-plan-hamas
Israel’s position has been that any ceasefire must ensure Hamas cannot rearm, that border control and tunnel destruction are addressed, and that hostages are released on firm terms. Reports show these conditions—especially control over the Philadelphi Corridor and sequencing of releases—became the main sticking points after the broader framework won diplomatic support.
Israel frames its conditions as basic security needs—no rearmament for Hamas, control of the border, destroyed tunnels, and hostages released on clear terms—but each piece also works like a lever that can stall any truce. Control of the Philadelphi Corridor isn’t just about weapons; it’s a pressure point that lets Israel decide what crosses in or out, while “tunnel destruction” requires open-ended operations underground that rarely fit neat timelines. The sequence of releases turns people into bargaining chips: if one side doubts the other’s next step, everything pauses. To supporters, these safeguards prevent another October 7 and force real demilitarization before aid and rebuilding scale up. To skeptics, they look like moving goalposts—conditions broad enough to keep Israeli forces in key zones, ration humanitarian access, and delay withdrawals while leaders say they’re still “working the plan.”
The September 1, 2025 vote by the International Association of Genocide Scholars doesn’t put Israel on trial, but it does put a clear label on what many officials avoided saying out loud. Their resolution says the Gaza campaign meets the legal definition of genocide in the 1948 Convention, which raises a practical question for other governments: if there’s a serious risk of genocide, they must act to prevent it, not just issue statements. That pressure can show up fast—in court filings, calls to condition or halt arms transfers, export-license reviews, sanctions debates, and divestment pushes by universities and pension funds. Israel rejects the charge and says it targets Hamas, not civilians; supporters of Israel call the vote biased and political. Backers of the resolution point to mass civilian deaths, forced displacement, starvation warnings, and the wrecking of basic services as signs of intent. The bottom line is that this expert vote won’t end the war by itself, but it will be cited in every major argument from here on out—by judges weighing complicity claims, by lawmakers deciding aid, and by allies deciding whether they can keep saying “business as usual” while the bombs keep
The International Court of Justice hasn’t decided the genocide case yet, but its January and May 2024 orders changed the ground rules: the judges said there’s a “plausible” risk of genocidal acts and told Israel to prevent them, open the way for aid, stop and punish incitement, preserve evidence, and report back on what it’s doing. That’s not a final guilty verdict, but it’s not a suggestion either—these are binding steps that trigger duties for other countries, too. Governments that keep supplying weapons or political cover now have to explain how they’re not helping a “plausible” crime, which is why you’re seeing lawsuits, export reviews, and calls to pause arms transfers. Israel says it targets Hamas and follows the law; critics point to collapsed services, aid blockages, and mass displacement as signs the orders aren’t being met. The bottom line is simple: even without a final ruling, the court raised a legal red flag, and the world is expected to act like it matters.
The International Criminal Court track targets people, not states, so warrants for Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Gallant mean prosecutors believe there’s evidence that specific crimes may have been committed—and that those two bear responsibility.
Even if Israel rejects the ICC’s authority and the U.S. punishes court officials, the warrants still matter: they can limit travel to countries that cooperate with the court, complicate diplomacy, and push allies to review arms transfers and intelligence sharing. Supporters of the warrants say this is how the law should work—no leader is above it, and accountability can deter future abuses.
Critics argue the court is politicized, that Israel has its own investigations, and that dragging wartime decisions into The Hague will only harden positions and prolong the conflict. Either way, judges’ refusal to withdraw the warrants keeps the pressure on: evidence must be preserved, victims’ testimony protected, and governments that say they back the rule of law will be asked if their policies match their words.
Supporters of Israel’s approach argue that any pause without firm security guarantees would leave Hamas in place and hostages at risk, so hard conditions are necessary even if they slow the deal. Critics counter that Israel initially backed the framework, then moved the goalposts, and that the gap between public diplomacy and battlefield policy has prolonged suffering in Gaza while eroding trust in negotiations.
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4051310?v=pdf
https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-documents/document/s-res-2735.php
What to watch next is whether the latest truce proposals are accepted without new preconditions, how humanitarian access changes on the ground, and how courts and governments act on the scholars’ genocide declaration and existing legal orders. These decisions will shape whether the ceasefire framework turns into a lasting stop to the war or becomes another plan that stalls in practice.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/19/israel-to-respond-by-friday-gaza-truce-plan-hamas
https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192
Complete reference list
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4051310?v=pdf
https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-documents/document/s-res-2735.php
https://www.pbs.org/video/amid-protests-netanyahu-rejects-calls-to-reach-cease-fire-1725315875/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/19/israel-to-respond-by-friday-gaza-truce-plan-hamas
https://www.ft.com/content/470b61ff-aa1c-487f-a9ae-477b5c142a53
https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203447
https://www.icj-cij.org/node/204091
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/sc-9650th-meeting-10jun24/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x_2M9V-3Gc
Please Like & Share 😉🪽
@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment