US leader Joe Biden is opting for a political solution in the Gaza Strip in which the government after the fighting would not be exercised by the military administration of Israel, but by the “renewed” Palestinian Authority, which currently rules the West Bank (the second Palestinian enclave). Biden published his appeal on this matter in the Washington Post, which may mean that the Democratic administration is trying to push its ideas in the Middle East through media pressure. From the beginning, Biden emphasized that the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip would be a problem for the US.
A clear US position
Biden’s peace proclamation reads: “In the pursuit of peace, Gaza and the West Bank should be reunited under a single governance structure, ultimately under a renewed Palestinian Authority, as we all work toward a two-state solution. I have strongly emphasized to Israel’s leaders that there must be an end to extremist violence against Palestinians in the West Bank and that those committing this violence must be held accountable (Biden writes about Israeli settlers – editor’s note). The United States is ready to take its own steps, including issuing visa bans for extremists who attack civilians in the West Bank. The international community must commit resources to support the people of Gaza in the immediate aftermath of this crisis, including interim security measures, and establish a reconstruction mechanism to sustainably meet the long-term needs of the Gaza Strip. It is also imperative that no terrorist threat ever again comes from the Gaza Strip or the West Bank. If we agree on these first steps and take them together, we can begin to imagine a different future. In the coming months, the United States will redouble our efforts to establish a more peaceful, integrated, and prosperous Middle East – a region where a day like October 7 is unthinkable.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to some extent commented on Biden’s words. He stated that “the Palestinian Authority currently has no competence” to govern the Gaza Strip. Netanyahu criticized Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, for not condemning Hamas for the October 7 offensive. This is not entirely true, as Abbas has distanced himself from Hamas and stated that “Hamas’ actions do not represent the Palestinians.” Abbas himself is criticized by Palestinian “hawks” seeking war with Israel and politicians such as Netanyahu. However, the elderly Palestinian politician is the West’s favorite in talks about peace in the region.
“Abbas bet on the international community, believing that it would force Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories and return the state to the Palestinians,” said Ubai Al-Aboudi, director of the Bisan Center for Research and Development, a think-tank in Ramallah, in an interview with “AFP” . “Yet the international community has shown that it cares little about the blood shed by the Palestinians and their suffering, hence the widespread anger,” Aboudi told AFP.
Mahmoud Abbas has been associated with the national liberation and secular Fatah since 1965. He was the chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Abbas was one of those Palestinian activists who supported the implementation of the Oslo peace agreements. He is considered the successor of Yasser Arafat. It is no coincidence that Western countries, led by the USA, see Abbas in charge of the Gaza Strip. After all, this is the only rational solution in this Middle Eastern Gordian knot, as I wrote about many days ago. The question is whether Abbas will take over the odium of ruling the ashes of Gaza?-
“The perception of Hamas by supporters of the war against the Palestinians is currently taking revenge on Israel’s policy, because Hamas was convenient for those who were looking for a casus belli to crack down on Palestinian enclaves. Hamas, with its adventurous tactics, buried the idea of an independent Palestine in the world, so it dismissed the prospect of a “Two-State Solution” (the creation of Palestine next to Israel), which was also used. In 2007, a civil war broke out between two Palestinian groups: Fatah and Hamas. In the Gaza Strip, Hamas won the fighting, ruling the enclave in a dictatorial manner even now while not allowing civilians to go south or into tunnels where they could take shelter from the bombings.
It seems that Fatah would be an ideal alternative to Hamas after Operation Iron Swords. The problem is that from Fatah’s perspective, this would mean the odium of collaboration after the Palestinians lost the fight – because we are talking about the situation after the end of the “Iron Swords”. It has been known for a long time that Netanyahu cannot count on Fatah. Let us recall that Netanyahu ordered the transfer of troops from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank, seeing the main threat from the Palestinian Authority. President Mahmoud Abbas, being a supporter of the “agreement” with Israel and a fierce enemy of Hamas, and a personal enemy of Haniyeh (whom he dismissed as prime minister of the Palestinian Authority government, which resulted in the outbreak of a civil war), did not go to Jordan for the peace summit because there was an accident in a hospital in Gaza to the explosion.
Even Abbas, who is critical of Hamas, would not allow himself to support the occupation of the Palestinians under the banner of Fatah. Moreover, it would increase support for Hamas and politically sink the already marginalized Fatah. The political scenario of replacing Hamas with another group is perhaps convenient, but difficult to implement,” I wrote in the text “Israel’s Plans for the Gaza Strip.”
This, however, did not discourage Washington. There was information in the American media that Abbas agreed that he could rule the Gaza Strip after the war. Abbas clarified his declarations that he could talk about it as long as the topic of the “Two-State Solution” came back, which appeared in Biden’s appeal. Interestingly, the second favorite of the West – in Israel – is ex-Prime Minister Ehud Barak. This experienced politician and military man became the main commentator in the Western media. Barak advocates that the war should end with “an independent Palestine in the interest of Israel to secure its country.” From the Western perspective, Barak, not Netanyahu, would be the best partner to calm the situation.
The internal political scene in Israel is completely different. Netanyahu repeats his various pro-war statements to keep a group of hawks at his side seeking war with the Palestinians. Interestingly, this includes: Ehud Barak was behind millions of protests against Netanyahu, so the solution after Operation Iron Swords related to the Gaza Strip may be the result of private feuds between Israeli and Palestinian politicians.