Washington must actively manage Israel-Palestine conflict it can’t end

The administration of US President Joe Biden entered office expecting to take a less proactive approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than many of its predecessors. Four days into the recent war between Israel and Hamas this approach was evident. 

Biden responded to a question,“I have spoken to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel had a right to defend itself, and that he hoped the fighting would be over sooner rather than later.”

The conflict requires management, because conditions simply do not exist for its resolution. Sadly, Biden administration has not yet put an ambassador in Israel (even an interim one) or a consul general in Jerusalem to deal with the Palestinians. Instead, management was left to one poorly staffed, midlevel official in the State Department. The Biden administration deserves credit for intervening at a higher level to get Netanyahu to stop the evictions, marches, and Israeli police violence in East Jerusalem.

Before the outbreak of this latest conflict, there was hope that a new government would be formed in Israel that would put an end to Netanyahu’s rule. Yair Lapid (the head of the Yesh Atid party) and Naftali Bennett (the head of the Yamina party) were about to cobble together a left-center-right coalition that would depend on the support of Arab parties to scrape together a majority vote of confidence.

Then a shocking spate of mob violence broke out between Jews and Arabs, spreading from Jerusalem to other Israeli cities. This severely complicated the task of building a government. Even if a unity government emerges, its first prime minister will be Naftali Bennett. Among Israel’s leaders, he is the most dedicated opponent of an independent Palestinian state and the most dedicated proponent of annexing the West Bank.

In the coming days, once the IDF has completed its destruction of Hamas’s infrastructure and eliminated as many of the leaders of its armed wing as it can find, Netanyahu will likely be willing, too. Usually cautious, he will not want to go into a fifth election with a war raging. Already, he is being blamed for the disruption to Israeli life. 

The world has seen Israel-Hamas wars before—the last one was in 2014. This time it is alleged that Hamas, with the assistance Iranian-backed Palestinian Islamic Jihad, fired rockets indiscriminately. Israel retaliated disproportionately. The United States supports Israel's right to defend itself. Europe wags its finger at Israel. Hamas eventually decides it has made its point. Qatar and Egypt mediate a cease-fire based on the usual “quiet for quiet” deal. Both sides bury their dead, clear the rubble, and go back to business as usual while the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Hamas’s Ezzedeen al-Qassam Brigades prepare for the next round.

The Biden administration’s approach suggests that Washington will be comfortable with another ceasefire, as it has other priorities. These include pandemic, economic recovery, climate change, China’s rise and Iran’s nuclear ambitions, to mention a few. The president’s deference to Netanyahu’s timetable is indicative of this change in approach, in which the parties are left to deal with the conflict.

Every crisis creates an opportunity. Could the circumstances this time create an opportunity for Washington to step up its engagement? Could the United States progress toward its avowed goal of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. The status quo actually suits both sides quite well and neither has an interest in changing it. Hamas was upset by the cancellation of Palestinian elections, in which it hoped to extend its influence to the West Bank. In exchange for that it took advantage of a confluence of Jewish-Arab confrontations in East Jerusalem to extend its influence there. It fired rockets toward Jerusalem. That in turn enraged Netanyahu, who was content to have Hamas rule in Gaza but not in the West Bank, and certainly not in East Jerusalem.

Hamas hopes to enhance its standing among Palestinians; Israel hopes to reestablish its deterrence against Hamas’s attacks on its citizens. Neither side is interested in having the United States broker a two-state solution. Hamas is dedicated to a one-state solution in which Israel does not exist; Netanyahu is committed to a three-state solution in which Hamas rules in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority presides over West Bank enclaves.

The third party to this conflict—Abu Mazen—would love to see the United States re-engage, because that would help make him relevant again. But American negotiators have had enough experience with Abu Mazen and believe that he is in no position to accept the compromises necessary to achieve a two-state solution. He fears, he will be denounced as a traitor by Hamas for any concession he makes to Israel, Abu Mazen intends to go into the history books as the leader who refused to compromise Palestinian rights.