The US administration has promised over the last few days to elaborate a new proposal to be sent to Israel and Hamas in an attempt to overcome the obstacles to reaching a ceasefire and hostage deal in Gaza.

The much-awaited new proposal would be on a take it or leave it basis, which means that if either side, whether Israel or Hamas, rejects it, the Gaza war, and as a corollary other fronts in the Middle East and the Red Sea, would remain trapped in a vicious circle of violence with the attendant risk of escalation.

For the last three months, the Biden administration has been caught between its interest in de-escalating the situation in the Middle East through a ceasefire deal in Gaza and an obstinate Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who is not interested in bringing this unjust war to an end. Permanent war on various fronts suits him and his governing coalition.

The dilemma of the Biden administration is how to reconcile its policy of supporting Israel militarily in the name of the false principle of enabling it to “defend itself” and its larger interests in the Middle East.

Its position is all the weaker owing to the election cycle in the United States. Foreign policy has never been a priority for US voters as long as the country is not directly involved in a war.

However, the question of how far the US would go in defending Israel has become a subject of debate between the two candidates in the presidential elections, namely the Democrat candidate Kamala Harris, also Biden’s vice president, and the Republican candidate, former president Donald Trump.

Neither candidate will want to be seen as wavering or hesitant in supporting Israel in an election year.

Harris has been trying to walk a fine line between two positions, on the one hand mirroring the official position of the Biden administration on the war on Gaza and on the other showing an understanding of the suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza after 11 months of war, mayhem, and devastation at the hands of the Israeli Army. This understanding is meant to appeal to Americans of Muslim and Arab origin, especially in swing states like Michigan.

As far as Trump’s position is concerned, he has not shown any sentiment of empathy for the plight of the Palestinians. On the contrary, he has said, according to the Israeli media, that the surface area of Israel is small and that he has been reflecting on how to address this. Of course, he meant to be ambiguous, for he is interested in drawing the Jewish vote in the US to vote for him and to persuade leading Jewish donors that he is squarely on the side of Israel.

One leading Jewish donor had said that she would contribute handsomely to Trump’s campaign on condition that he promises that if he wins a second term he will agree to the annexation of the West Bank by Israel, for example.

In the light of the above, it would be risky to predict an end to the war on Gaza anytime soon or downplay the prospects of a major military confrontation in Southern Lebanon. Over the last two weeks, the Israeli Army has left no one in any doubt that it is ready for a major military campaign against Hizbullah if diplomacy fails to allow the return of the 68,000 Israelis who have evacuated their homes in northern Israel since 7 October last year.

On 7 September, the UK newspaper the Financial Times published an unusual opinion piece by Director of the CIA William Burns and Chief of the UK Secret Intelligence Service Richard Moore.

 They wrote that their services have been cooperating through intelligence channels “to push hard for restraint and de-escalation” in the Middle East. They stressed that they would continue to work together, with help from “our Egyptian and Qatari friends, to de-escalate tensions in the region.”

In a later chat with Editor of the Financial Times Roula Khalaf, Burns said that 90 per cent of the text of an agreement for phase one, being the Biden roadmap of 31 May, has been completed but the last 10 per cent has been very difficult to finalise.

The two sticking points have been the insistence on the part of Israel to keep a permanent military presence in the Philadelphi Corridor along the Egyptian border with the Gaza Strip and the swapping of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners and detainees, he said.

Burns said that work would continue “as hard as we can” to reach a ceasefire and a hostage release deal because there is no other “good alternative.” He added, and rightly so, that “we have to remember that despite all the work that needs to be done, this is ultimately a question of political will.” He called on Israel and Hamas to make some “hard choices and difficult compromises.”

However, it is questionable whether the two sides will be ready to heed such a disinterested appeal, at least until the US presidential elections on 5 November. In the meantime, peace and stability in the Middle East and the Red Sea will remain elusive.

*The writer is former assistant foreign minister.

* A version of this article appears in print in the 12 September, 2024 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly