CommentariesMain

A tactical disagreement, not a strategic one

Much has been said about the causes of “partial transformation.” In the American discourse in support of the Zionist entity in the aggression against Gaza, but what is important is to analyze its consequences. The new dispute that has emerged between the administration of US President Joseph Biden and the Prime Minister of the Zionist entity, Netanyahu, is still within the framework of the “discourse.”

To what level can this “transformation” In American discourse? There is still talk about two main things: first, setting a practical schedule for Israeli operations, and moving from a “high intensity level” to “low intensity” (Note the introduction of new terms to distinguish between the shared space and the difference between the two parties.) The second is for the next day’s stage in Gaza (assuming victory over Hamas militarily). Here the disagreement seems more clear, with the nos of US Vice President Kamala Harris (no to displacement, no to occupation, no to establishing Israeli buffer zones in Gaza), then the different language of President Biden towards Israel, especially his speech before the Jewish community in America (which was considered a turning point). ), and successive statements issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs showing a decline (at the level of perception and discourse) in the previous absolute support for Israel, and borrowing terms used by Arab diplomacy, especially Jordanian, such as saying that the solution is political and not military, and that Hamas is an idea and the idea cannot be defeated, etc.

On the other hand, there is still clear support for Israel in American discourse and on the ground, represented by affirming the military goals of eliminating the rule of “Hamas.” And its military ability in Gaza, and not to cease fire unless this is achieved. But another new term has been proposed, commensurate with the relative transformation, and it is represented by “long-term humanitarian truces.” Which may allow for deals related to the exchange of prisoners, and for political deals or settlements and arrangements for the next stage, with the resumption of Israeli military strikes in a more focused manner, thus reducing the extent of global, American and Arab anger at the catastrophic and humanitarian atrocities committed in Gaza, and thus allowing Biden to re-market himself between two contradictory parties. First, support Israel (while weakening Netanyahu personally). The second is to mitigate the significant losses in the moral image of his administration, and attempt to restore some of the relationship with Arab Americans before the next presidential elections.

There is another undeclared disagreement, but it can be perceived between the lines of discussion between the two parties, and it is represented by the Biden administration’s awareness that Netanyahu’s project goes beyond the issue of military victory over “Hamas.” To create a new reality in Gaza based on re-occupation and displacement, and a clear trend towards another scenario in the West Bank, which is most important for the religious extreme right in Israel, which seeks a process of ethnic cleansing and spatial control over Jerusalem and most areas of the West Bank. Therefore, we find the American moves in an attempt not to aggravate the situation in the West Bank, and the feeling that the Israeli right has an agenda that has come to govern Israeli policies, and completely excludes the two-state solution or any political horizon, which is what Biden tried to pass on to the Jewish community in America and the world, by hinting that this agenda It represents a danger to the Jewish people themselves (as he said and used the term “literally”), meaning that there is another struggle between the Biden administration and the Democrats over “the spirit of the Zionist entity.” With the extreme right-wing movement, which usually finds in the Republican Party a stronger ally than the Democrats, for its agenda, with the two parties, the Democratic and the Republican, agreeing to “protect Israel.” as a principle.

The Biden administration has proposed another way out to give the Israeli aggression a period of time to complete the killing and slaughter, which is represented by a period of weeks, and then the aggression will turn to a “low pace,” which is the period that the entity will use to carry out even greater heinous acts of genocide! Netanyahu will bet on three things: That this time period gives him room to maneuver with the Biden administration. Biden is getting weaker and is not interested in entering into a clash with Israel today, on the cusp of the American elections. He (Biden) is surrounded by Israel’s loved ones and followers, and they will work to mitigate the severity of the transformation and round the sharp corners in the relationship between the two men.

In conclusion, it is not possible to truly bet on this transformation or its consequences on the ground, at least in the short term, as it will not stop the aggression, nor will it lead to a ceasefire, and in the medium term what is required is a change in tactics, not in the main goals.

Mohammad Abu-Rumman

Back to top button