The United States strongly supports Israel in its war against Hamas, but is increasingly at odds with its Middle East ally over what will happen to the Gaza Strip once the war winds down.
Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, this week announced that Israel would retain an open-ended security presence in Gaza. Israeli officials talk of imposing a buffer zone to keep Palestinians away from the Israeli border. They rule out any role for the Palestinian Authority, which was ousted from Gaza by Hamas in 2007 but governs semi-autonomous areas of the occupied West Bank.
The United States has laid out a much different vision. Top officials have said they will not allow Israel to reoccupy Gaza or further shrink its already small territory. They have repeatedly called for a return of the internationally recognized Palestinian Authority and the resumption of peace talks aimed at establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
These conflicting visions have set the stage for difficult discussions between Israel and the U.S.
Well...without a reliable way to stop the rockets shooting into Israel, I guess they'd have to make sure the rockets aren't launched in the first place.
So yeah, they'd probably step up the war, only now with the explicit objective of wiping out all of Gaza since it's the only way they can prevent attacks.
Israel is VERY aware that support might disappear for them someday. That's the entire point of the nation, so that Jews, who have been persecuted for over two thousand years, do not need to rely on the benevolence of others to defend them. They have their own munitions stockpiles and factories and are themselves an advanced technological nation, not dependent on the US to fight Hamas. They are perfectly capable of wiping out the Gaza strip without outside assistance.
Plus, your question is based on a false premise anyway. Iron Dome is a system invented, developed, designed, and built in Israel. The US did put some money into it, but not an amount Israel could not have. So without US aid, Israel would be somewhat worse off, but overall totally fine.
I think this is pretty close to the truth. However, Netanyahu is pragmatic and knows he can't actually kill them all. Rather, his goal is to make conditions in Gaza so unliveable that the Palestinians will have to leave.
What will the US do? It will keep pushing the 2-state solution. Since neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians are ready for that yet, it effectively means that the killing will continue until the Gazan Palestinians leave or are so beaten down that they'll agree to almost anything, or until average Israelis cool down and push the conservative coalition government out of power. Getting to those conditions will still take months.
I don't think that most of the rest of the world gives a shit. Sure, some people will protest Israel's actions, but all the big countries, East and West, have more pressing problems. Putin is already at war with Ukraine. Xi frets about Taiwan and the South China Sea, slowing economic growth, and is busy with another round of internal purges. Europe is far more worried about Ukraine than Gaza. They have to spend billions ramping up their militaries again, and Germany's economic engine is sputtering. The US is too embroiled in its own domestic political problems. The US is also, rightly, much more concerned about the serious geostrategic competition coming from China. Even the surrounding Arab countries don't care all that much. They aren't going to go to war against Israel again, that's for sure.
The hard truth is that Gaza just doesn't matter that much geo-strategically.
That will never happen. Israel is the US's main base of power in the Middle East. That is the US government's number one priority here.
We could have videos of IDF forces chopping off Palestinian babies' heads and the US would not stop supporting Israel. They would just have some strong words to say about it.
This is going to take time. What to do with Gaza and Palestinians is going to take a lot of commitment. The US wants to unite the West bank with Gaza, and the current power level is opposed.
That would be hard, considering the west bank exist exclusively on paper. In reality, Palestinians only have a couple dozen of hamlets surrounded and guarded by Israelis who subject them to an apartheid. The rest of the west bank is Israeli settlements.
Both should fuck off and restore Palestine. There would be no "terrorists", if the people were allowed to live in the first place. Are you blind or dishonest?
The ideology of Hamas has deep support in Gaza; no matter how thoroughly the organization is destroyed now, it will be rebuilt unless it is kept actively suppressed. I don't see how that's possible without an occupation, and I suspect American leadership would privately agree, given the experience of the USA in Iraq and Afghanistan. (How much of what the USA publicly announces is the same as what it says to Israel in private?)
An occupation would be expensive, bloody, and globally unpopular - it can't last forever and the only way I see of ending it eventually without a return to the pre-war status quo is to find some organization that is capable of both coexisting with Israel and ruling Gaza. If that's not the Palestinian Authority, what is it? The Israelis opposed to a two-state solution haven't offered a realistic alternative.
The problem is that you can't just roll in an army, shoot anything that pokes its head out, and call it a day. Without extensive efforts to build infrastructure and create jobs to give people a sense of normalcy and belief that their lives are improving, you'll just build up resentment. That's what the US did for Germany and Japan post-WWII, and any other such endeavors will require at least that same amount of ongoing commitment. Admittedly, German and Japanese rehabilitation was also greatly helped by the fact that the USSR existed as a convenient external enemy to point at, and I don't think there's anything nearly as convenient in the Middle East, given that for most Israel would be said external enemy.
The ideology of Hamas has deep support in Gaza; no matter how thoroughly the organization is destroyed now, it will be rebuilt unless it is kept actively suppressed.
I think this is a mistake. Hamas's popularity doesn't come from the fact that their ideas are wildly popular, but because Fatah was exposed as horrendously corrupt in the late 90s and early 2000s. Hamas's radical ideology is not a core part of Palestinian identity - it is simply a result of circumstances that were in no small part urged on by Israeli manipulation.
Their popularity also comes from how peace is just not working. Which is why even if it's destroyed, another armed resistance organization will spring up. Hamas is the only logical answer to a situation where peace 100% won't work, while violence only 90% won't work.
And let’s no forget that Israel was the one who started and funded Hamas. Eventually the citizens of Gaza then elected Hamas as their governing body.
All that to say, a single state is the best we can hope for. Israel is repulsed by that but after this shit show it’s the only thing that makes any sense.
But isn't that kind of the point? Their "experience in Iraq and Afghanistan" is what's telling them this is a stupid idea that only creates problems and solves nothing.
I think that's oversimplifying the American experience: occupation doesn't generate goodwill and lay the groundwork for an occupier-friendly local government, but it does keep the area relatively quiet and secure. America wanted goodwill and a friendly local government; eventually we gave up when that didn't happen. Israel wants to keep the area relatively quiet and secure. They can do that if they're willing to pay the high cost indefinitely.
find some organization that is capable of both coexisting with Israel and ruling Gaza. If that’s not the Palestinian Authority, what is it?
Abbas, the president of the PA, is incredibly unpopular. He only has like 20% approval rating among Palestinians
The PA wasn't capable of ruling Gaza, they were deposed by Hamas
The Israelis opposed to a two-state solution haven’t offered a realistic alternative.
I presume that alternative involves another Nakba and more annexation, probably slowly via settlements. Palestine's best bet would be choosing a strong leader who is willing to abandon fruitless intifada, negotiate for peace, make realistic concessions, and enforce it.
I presume that alternative involves another Nakba and more annexation, probably slowly via settlements. Palestine’s best bet would be choosing a strong leader who is willing to abandon fruitless intifada, negotiate for peace, make realistic concessions, and enforce it.
How many times since the first nakba has that been tried already and sabotaged by outside forces or by israel directly? No really, I want you to go look it up so you will not need to repeat a silly thing like this again.