Chethana Janith, Jadetimes Staff
C. Janith is a Jadetimes news reporter covering science and geopolitics.
Looking at current events, it is safe to say that the Biden administration is at a crossroads. On the one hand, there is massive military support for Israel; on the other, there are attempts to promote its own interests in the Middle East.
Why do attempts by professional negotiators fail?
We all know the famous saying: “you can’t sit in two chairs at once”. American diplomats either do not know it or, with a 100 per cent probability, have forgotten it. Either way, their actions are nothing but a laughing stock.
Officials in the current US administration promised some time ago to draw up a new version of an agreement to be sent to Israel and Hamas to overcome the obstacles to a ceasefire and hostage deal in Gaza. The long-awaited new proposal would be based on the principle of “agree or disagree”, meaning that if either side, Israel or Hamas, rejects it, the war in Gaza, and by extension other fronts in the Middle East and the Red Sea, would remain trapped in a vicious cycle of violence with the attendant risk of further escalation.
It should be recalled that for the past three months, representatives of the Biden administration have been literally torn between their “interest in de-escalating the situation” in the Middle East through a ceasefire agreement in Gaza and the “stubborn” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has no interest in ending this unjust war or the slaughter of Palestinian civilians. Constant war on several fronts suits him because it effectively postpones the death of his political career and the bringing to justice of his many crimes.
The Biden administration’s dilemma is how to reconcile its policy of military support for Israel in the name of false self-defence with its larger interests in the Middle East. His position has been further weakened by the election cycle in the United States, where all eyes are on domestic politics. Foreign policy has never been a priority for American voters unless the country is directly involved in war.
However, the question of how far the US would go in defending Israel has been the subject of debate between the two candidates in the presidential election, Democratic candidate Kamala Harris and Republican candidate Donald Trump. Interestingly, neither candidate wants to be seen as wavering in their support for Israel in an election year. Harris is trying to walk a fine line between the two positions, echoing the Biden administration’s official position on the Gaza war, and showing “understanding” of the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza after 11 months of war, chaos and devastation at the hands of the Israeli army. This understanding should appeal to Muslim and Arab Americans living in prosperous states like Michigan.
As for Trump’s position, he showed no sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians. On the contrary, according to the Israeli media, he said that Israel was small and that he was thinking about how to solve the problem. Of course, he wanted to be ambiguous because he is interested in attracting the Jewish vote in the US and convincing leading Jewish donors that he is totally on Israel’s side. Incidentally, the American press has published the opinion of a leading Jewish donor who said that she would make a significant contribution to Trump’s campaign if he promised that, if he won a second term, he would, for example, agree to Israel’s annexation of the West Bank.
In conclusion, it would be risky to predict an imminent end to the war in Gaza or to downplay the prospects of a major military confrontation in southern Lebanon. Over the past two weeks, the Israeli army has left no one in any doubt that it is prepared to launch a major military campaign against Hezbollah if diplomacy does not allow the return of the 68,000 Israelis who have been evacuated from their homes in northern Israel since 7 October last year.
The opinion of the Knights of the Cloak and Dagger
On 7 September, the British newspaper Financial Times published an unusual opinion piece by CIA Director William J. Burns and the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, Richard Moore. They believe that their services are actively cooperating through intelligence channels “to press for restraint and de-escalation” in the Middle East. They stressed that they would continue to work together with the help of “our Egyptian and Qatari friends to de-escalate tensions in the region”. The Grand Knights of the Cloak and Dagger don’t say so explicitly, but it’s pretty clear that this ‘de-escalation’ of theirs will only be in Israel’s interest.
Later, speaking to Financial Times editor Roula Khalaf, CIA director Burns said that 90 per cent of the text of the agreement for the first phase, Biden’s 31 May roadmap, had been completed, but that the last 10 per cent was very difficult to finalise. Two stumbling blocks were Israel’s insistence and brazen demand that it maintains a permanent military presence in the Philadelphi Corridor along Egypt’s border with Gaza, and the exchange of Israeli hostages for Palestinian prisoners held without trial in Israeli jails.
Burns said that work would continue “as hard as we can” to achieve a ceasefire and hostage release agreement because there was no other “good alternative”. He added, quite rightly, that “we must remember that for all the work that needs to be done, it is ultimately a matter of political will”. He called on Israel and Hamas to make “hard choices and difficult compromises”.
Israeli criminal actions under American cover
Meanwhile, Netanyahu, whose views do not reflect those of most Israelis, relies, as always, only on aggressive action against the Palestinians. It should be remembered that Israel actively and extensively used military force to expel the Palestinians as early as 1948, and continued acts of ethnic cleansing to pave the way for Jewish settlers and to create and maintain a Jewish majority in Palestine.
Violence has been and remains the main constant in Israeli strategy. Nevertheless, before 7 October, much was made of Israel’s “deterrence”. Much was made of the fact that Hamas would never dare to attack Israel, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli intelligence encouraged this kind of thinking. Israel’s continued attacks on Palestinian refugee camps in Jenin, Tulkarm, Tubas and elsewhere in the West Bank for the first time in nearly 22 years can be seen in this light, as part of the use of pre-emptive violence. Ostensibly, the idea is to prevent the West Bank from becoming another war front, which would place an additional burden on the Israeli occupation forces already engaged on the fronts in Gaza and Lebanon. But remarkably, the attacks coincided with a Knesset vote to repeal provisions of the 2005 Disengagement Law and authorise the resumption and intensification of settlement expansion in the West Bank.
In light of the above, it is highly doubtful that either side – Israel and Hamas – will be willing to heed the call for an end to the state of war, at least until after the US presidential elections on 5 November. In the meantime, peace and stability in the Middle East and Red Sea region will remain elusive, and the region itself will teeter on the brink of another major war.
