Deleveraged

"We're eager to continue working with the [Security] Council on this proposal, one that would see a temporary cease-fire as soon as practicable, based on the formula of all hostages being released," [U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield] said after the vote. The proposal "would get aid into the hands of those Palestinians who so desperately need it," she added.
The U.S. has again vetoed a U.N. resolution demanding an immediate cease-fire in Gaza

So... let me get this straight...

Israel to Hamas: You release all of the hostages that you still hold, and we'll temporarily stop trying to kill all of you.

United States to Hamas: It's a good deal. You should take it.

There's clearly something here that I don't understand, because I'm having a hard time seeing why anyone thinks that Hamas would agree to this, as Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield laid it out. When the United States vetoed Algeria's proposed resolution calling for a humanitarian cease fire, the Ambassador argued that in order for their to be a durable peace, Hamas had to release the remaining hostages. So if the plan expects Hamas to release hostages, why not offer a durable peace, rather than a temporary cease-fire?

The more the United States wants to be seen as instrumental in creating "peace in the Middle East," the more I suspect that the process would do better were the United States to stay out of it. Because in order to be able to work with both sides, the United States has to be seen as an honest broker, and no-one outside of the State Department or the government of Israel sees the nation that way. And with good reason. One can debate the cause, but it's pretty clear that the effect is that the United States is pushing for a settlement that is acceptable to Israel, without regard for what anyone else wants. The White House and other elements within the government make occasional noises about a "two-state solution," but that seems to be the one option that American administrations are unwilling to put any political capital behind.

In the end, the Palestinians have no good options. They can't fight their way into a position that would allow them to deal with Israel as equals, but it seems unlikely that even if they completely gave up the fight, that they'd be granted equal status, given that current Israeli policy insists that any independent Palestine be effectively a client-state of Israel. Palestine can't win a war of attrition; attempting to do so will likely only end in their gradual extermination and/or expulsion from the land they currently hold. If this is really a state of affairs the United States wants to avoid, something needs to change. And Washington is as good a place to start changing things as any.