Amid growing doubt in Washington regarding Israel’s planned invasion of Rafah, where approximately 1.4 million displaced Palestinians seek refuge, the America Israel Public Affairs Committee has been actively lobbying Congress this week to garner support for the operation.
AIPAC’s talking points, which were shared with congressional offices on Tuesday and reviewed by The Intercept, argue that the invasion of Rafah is the only viable strategy to eliminate Hamas, stating that Israel has no alternative. The talking points assert, “There is no recent military history example of defeating a force like Hamas in Rafah without entering the city. Commando raids and arms embargoes may have a positive impact but will not lead to the defeat of Hamas.”
Despite opposition from Washington officials towards Israel’s intentions to invade Rafah, President Joe Biden announced on Wednesday that the U.S. would cease providing heavy weaponry to Israel if it proceeds with its plans. Biden also acknowledged that Israel has caused civilian casualties with U.S. bombs. In a letter to Biden last week, 57 House Democrats urged him to halt weapon shipments, deeming an offensive invasion of Rafah by Israel as unacceptable. As a result, the Biden administration paused one shipment of offensive weapons to Israel and is currently reviewing other arms shipments.
The AIPAC memo characterizes the invasion as a “limited operation” aimed at targeting Hamas, emphasizing that Israel is directing Palestinian civilians to relocate to “humanitarian zones” in the north.
Disturbing images from this “limited operation” have already surfaced, including a severely burned boy beside his decapitated father, young children trapped under the debris of their bombed residence, and rescue teams sifting through the remains of Palestinians. For hundreds of thousands of hungry, injured, and sick Palestinians who have faced repeated displacement over the past seven months, Rafah was meant to be their final safe haven.
In its communication with Congress, AIPAC contends that Israeli forces have taken measures to minimize civilian casualties. However, Israel’s ongoing bombings in Rafah over several months paint a starkly different picture. A series of Israeli airstrikes in late April resulted in the deaths of a man, his pregnant wife, their 3-year-old child, and 17 children and two women from an extended family.
AIPAC further argues that the “continuation of war in Gaza is necessary because Hamas persists in refusing to surrender and release the hostages.” Hamas currently holds an estimated 132 hostages captured on October 7, a matter central to ceasefire negotiations. Despite this, Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu pledged to invade Rafah regardless of a hostage deal.
In its talking points, AIPAC dismisses Hamas’s acceptance of a ceasefire proposal as a “cynical ploy,” noting that Hamas endorsed its own proposal rather than one previously accepted by Israel. The proposal, brokered by Egypt and Qatar, was reportedly guaranteed to Hamas through U.S. mediators, with Israeli officials claiming the U.S. was informed yet chose not to participate in negotiations.
Nonetheless, AIPAC insists that Hamas’s refusal to end the war by surrendering and releasing the hostages justifies the invasion of Rafah and the removal of Hamas from power. Chaim Rubenstein, a former spokesperson for the hostage families, revealed that Hamas offered to release all hostages immediately after October 7 if the Israeli Defense Forces refrained from invading Gaza, an offer rejected by the Israeli government.
During a temporary ceasefire in November, Hamas released 105 hostages, with Israeli forces rescuing three more during operations. The Israeli military has also killed at least four hostages during its Gaza military activities, contributing to the over 34,000 Palestinians killed.
Prior to the Rafah operation, Rubenstein expressed concern that hostage families were not informed of the invasion and its potential risks, accusing Netanyahu of obstructing hostage releases.
AIPAC did not provide a response to a request for comment.
Please rewrite this sentence.
Source link
