As the conflict in Gaza continues to rage, with civilian casualties mounting and humanitarian conditions deteriorating, the United States’ role in brokering a potential ceasefire agreement has come under increasing scrutiny and criticism. While the Biden administration has put forward a framework for a ceasefire and prisoner exchange, its handling of the negotiations and apparent favoring of Israeli interests have raised questions about its neutrality and effectiveness in resolving the long-standing conflict.

The US National Security Council spokesperson, John Kirby, stated that Washington “fully expects” Israel to accept the proposed ceasefire if Hamas agrees to it. This statement, along with the administration’s close alignment with Israel’s demands, has drawn accusations of bias from observers. Critics argue that the US is using its diplomatic leverage to push for an outcome that favors Israel, despite Hamas’s willingness to engage in negotiations.

The proposed agreement, which includes an initial six-week ceasefire, partial withdrawal of Israeli forces, and the release of some prisoners, has been met with skepticism from both sides. Hamas has insisted on a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza before any agreement can be reached, while Israel has refused to budge from its demands for the destruction of Hamas’s military and governing capabilities.

The US’s insistence on pushing forward with negotiations despite these disagreements has been viewed as irresponsible and ineffective. Many argue that the administration should be using its diplomatic weight to press both sides to make concessions in order to reach a sustainable peace, rather than favoring one side and forcing the other into a disadvantageous position.

Moreover, the US’s handling of the negotiations has been called into question due to its apparent disregard for the humanitarian situation in Gaza. With over 100,000 people displaced and limited access to food, water, and medical care, the urgent need for a humanitarian ceasefire is clear. However, the US has failed to prioritize this need, focusing instead on political and strategic objectives that are unrelated to the immediate suffering of civilians.

In conclusion, the US’s role in brokering a potential ceasefire agreement in Gaza has come under intense criticism due to its perceived bias towards Israel, its ineffective handling of the negotiations, and its disregard for the humanitarian situation. As the conflict continues to take a devastating toll on civilians, it is imperative that the international community, including the US, prioritize the needs of those affected and work towards a just and sustainable peace.