Israel-Palestine: what is the United States' next move?

In previous writing I argued that what happened immediately after Hamas’s attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 - and perhaps even the occurrence of the attack itself - reflected strategic repositioning of the United States’ relationship with Israel.

Before proceeding let me note that by starting with the 7 October attack I am not in any way suggesting that Palestinians are responsible for the current situation: my view, based entirely on historical facts, is that the loss of life in the region is a direct consequence of the colonial occupation of Palestine and the atrocities that were committed at the time. Moreover, that the Israeli state practices, and is based on, a form of apartheid. However, beyond this basic description there is little benefit from rehashing that history and I will not be saying much more about the background here.

The USA has been the key player in maintaining and expanding the occupation of Palestine and Israel’s military and intelligence capabilities. This was perhaps best encapsulated by none other than the current US president, Joe Biden, in a fiery speech he gave in the US Congress in 1986. I highly recommend watching this before you continue reading:

Israel exists as it does because it was encouraged by Western powers in the Cold War era to create a bulwark in the Middle East. But times change and the positioning of Israel has become an increasing liability. So, I have suggested, the USA is covertly moving to reposition itself in the region and to do so it has to find some kind of more acceptable resolution to coexistence in Palestine.

The tenor of reactions immediately after the 7th of October, and in the subsequent year, confirm - I would suggest - this hypothesis. Although of course many media outlets retain a pro-Israel bias, there has been a dramatic change in the accuracy of reporting. I discussed that in my second piece on this topic.

Plan A and Plan B

Was it the US government and intelligence agencies’ plan that things would play out as they have over the last year? I suspect not. I think the ‘Plan A’ was that the 7 October attack would precipitate a more rapid removal of Netanyahu, likely accompanied by the removal (killing) of Hamas leaders and other retaliation. The next step would have been a ceasefire and peace process. Whether that would have aimed at a one-state solution or two-state solution or some other arrangement is something that I am less sure about. And that uncertainty still matters in the current situation.

So what happened? Well, in essence I think that the US agencies and its allies underestimated Netanyahu’s propaganda capabilities and failed to anticipate how the attack would play out. The available evidence appears to suggest that Hamas envisaged a less successful operation in which they would confront mostly Israeli defence forces and not civilians. Supposedly they were even unaware of the music festival that many of the civilians who were killed and captured were attending. Moreover, the Israeli government successfully disseminated what seems to be entirely false reports of horrific atrocities - especially against women and children. This was especially successful within Israel, but also had the effect of forcing Netanyahu’s international critics onto the back foot.

These and other events necessitated that the US shift to a ‘Plan B’, which was much more reactive and required adapting to Netanyahu rather than vice versa. In the run up to the 2024 US Elections, media sympathetic to the Democrats have sought to suggest that Donald Trump sabotaged Biden’s efforts at a ceasefire. I very much doubt that Trump had any significant effect, but this framing itself is revealing in attempting to reduce Biden’s culpability for what has played out.

In saying this I should note that it does not excuse in any way the active support by the US and its allies (UK, Germany, France, Italy and others) of the subsequent genocidal or quasi-genocidal actions of Israel. It doesn’t matter what the strategic considerations were, backing slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians means active support of war crimes.¹

So what has been this reactive Plan B? It has consisted of two main components. First, giving Netanyahu and his more genocidal colleagues ‘enough rope to hang themselves’. Even former senior US military officers have said that those decision-makers are likely to be held accountable for war crimes. Partially corroborating this is that ICC prosecutor Karim Khan, who at the time of his appointment was clearly aligned to the United States and enthusiastically backed by Israel, has essentially done an about-turn on that alignment and issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his defence minister Yoav Gallant.

Second, in this process, using Netanyahu to remove (i.e. kill) a range of the US’s regional ‘enemies’. Thus far these include: the leader of Hamas (and his deputy and comander of its armed wing), the leader of Hezbollah (along with a number of other senior leaders), and - in my view - the Iranian president and his foreign minister who died in a helicopter crash not long after a symbolic first Iranian attack on Israel. In the latter case, the standard media narrative is that the helicopter crashed in bad weather, while other reports have sought to suggest it could have been an internal conspiracy within Iranian political circles. However, the fact that Israel barely appeared to retaliate for the Iranian attack, when it usually retaliates with actions more extreme than whatever it claims to be responding to, makes it a prime suspect. And the USA would almost certainly have had to ‘approve’ that, although that would likely happen informally.

‘Eliminating’ more radical leaders in the region paves the way for some kind of peace deal that favours US interests even more than its Plan A would have done. And there is no chance of any US politician or official being prosecuted for their support of war crimes given its refusal, though a selection of its less useful allies might be hung out to dry for symbolic reasons. After all, the US is still very keen to claim that it is the global guardian of human rights and democracy - despite over half-a-century of evidence to the contrary.

The end game and the US elections

The remaining question then is: what is the end game from here? As indicated above, I am not at all sure what the plan is for Israel-Palestine itself. Many of those who once advocated for a ‘two-state solution’ now advocate a ‘one-state solution’. The massive destruction in Gaza - in terms of human lives and infrastructure - poses a serious difficulty for either option. Crucially, with the US elections less than two weeks away, the answer partly hinges on that result.

On the face of it, recent election results should be grim for Palestinians. The faction of the ‘Labour Party’ that won in the UK under Keir Starmer has been funded by, and in support of, Netanyahu’s extremists. Starmer, although supposedly a ‘human rights lawyer’, went as far as suggesting that war crimes like cutting off food, fuel and water to civilians were justified - and later lied about saying that. The German foreign minister, Annalena Baerbock, has been in her post since 2021 and despite coming from the Green Party and supposedly supporting a ‘feminist foreign policy’ has been vocally in favour of weapons deliveries to Israel against public opinion, and has gone as far as greenlighting attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure if it’s necessary to ‘destroy Hamas’:

That’s why we have made it clear time and again that self-defence means, of course, not only attacking terrorists, but also destroying them. This’s why I have made it so clear that when Hamas terrorists hide behind people, behind schools, then we end up in very difficult waters. But we’re not shying away from this. This is why I made it clear at the United Nations that civilian sites could lose their protected status if terrorists abuse this status. That’s what Germany stands for – and that’s what we mean when we refer to Israel’s security.

Baerbock’s militaristic and warmongering attitude, including in relation to the Ukrainian war and towards China, is more consistent with her Nazi grandfather whose actions she has not repudiated and appears in one instance to have praised.

In the United States, the only two possible presidential candidates are, in rhetoric, both unapologetically pro-Israel. On the face of it, there is very little difference between their practical positions. Moreover, the supposedly more progressive Harris has received extensive funding from pro-Israel lobby groups and not long ago (2017) gave a speech to the largest of these, AIPAC, where she repeatedly committed to unconditionally support Israel - and suggested that since childhood she had been raising money for Zionist causes. This is another video excerpt worth watching:

However, despite all this, I still hold the view that the United States government (in particular the so-called ‘deep state’) is engaged in a strategic realignment in the Middle East. Harris is completely a functionary of that establishment - as Biden and Obama were before her - so she will toe whatever line has been decided.

It is therefore ill-advised, I suggest, for progressive and other critics to rest their criticism of US imperialism and Harris too heavily on what is happening in Palestine. It is true that based on the track records of both the country and Harris herself, there would seem to be no rational basis for optimism. The Biden administration is demonstrably culpable of aiding and abetting apartheid and war crimes. However, once you consider the prospect of covert realignment, it seems quite possible - even likely - that Harris may after her election seek to distance herself from past actions and inaction, impose an arms embargo, secure a ceasefire and a peace deal.

The main obstacle to this plan is Harris herself: despite an impressive CV on paper [not in terms of ethics or principles I hasten to add], massively higher funding than Trump, the support of the Democrat establishment and many in the Republican establishment, and the support of most major traditional media outlets, she has struggled to hold her lead in the political polls. She is wooden, uncharismatic, unconvincing, contradictory and a prevaricating candidate. But so was Keir Starmer and he won the UK elections for the simple reason that he was backed by the establishment, just as Kamala Harris is.

Trump is a wildcard and if he wins the election I believe the realignment plans described above may be rapidly discarded. For that and many other reasons I think he is unlikely to win, or be allowed to win. But, as illustrated by Trump’s approval of the assassination of Iranian military head Qasem Soleimani, one should not underestimate the ability of the so-called ‘deep state’ to get even someone like Trump to play along with some pre-existing plans and strategies.

I will publish my analysis and prediction of the US election result a day or two before US voters go to the polls.

1. I should also note that the above countries now have leaders who are effectively just US proxies - I’ll write more on that in another post.