Omar Ahmed
Omar Ahmed
International condemnation of the excessive civilian death toll has manifested in political pressure on the UN by a reluctant US to formulate a lasting truce – which will ultimately end in a strategic failure for the zionist regime.
Thus, much has been made of the fact that US President Joe Biden has repeatedly attempted to pressure Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to agree to a permanent ceasefire.
But are his intentions honest?
Why the US push for a ceasefire
The success of the media-optics campaign by various forces within the Axis of Resistance, not least Hamas, has convinced a wide range of political forces in the US to take a firmer stance against the occupation state.
In light of Washington’s deep alliance with Tel Aviv and its military support for it, the US regime has been at the front and centre of political vitriol.
Indeed, protests in major cities and at campuses of many universities around the country have reached a boiling point in support of the Palestinian resistance, albeit with a few unfortunate incidents also occurring. The police gave a free hand to Israeli supporters to attack peaceful pro-Palestinian groups. Had the situation been reversed, reaction of the police would be very different.
The continued diplomatic and military support for the zionist entity in the form of munitions despite the massive global backlash has an easily understood reason: Israel is a dependable regional ally for the US that helps it project influence in West Asia.
The other states that fulfil a similar role are compliant Arab client regimes such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. It is only Israel that the US has found to be the most workable. But that does not mean that the US can afford to completely alienate its Arab Muslim allies who wish to see the so-called “two-state solution” realised – as unrealistic and impractical as that may be.
Maintaining good relations with Saudi Arabia and Jordan is not only important for its posturing against Iran but also for the purpose of taking the Abraham Accords further to complete the “normalisation of relations” with Israel.
In Israel’s favour only
The US seeks a permanent ceasefire that favours Israel. However, Hamas’s campaign of resistance continues despite the systematic efforts of the occupation military to eliminate their operational spaces.
With all the negotiations for a potential ceasefire since the beginning of the war, Hamas has played hardball by taking advantage of the failure of Israeli ground forces to achieve the regime’s stated objectives. The occupation army is, after all, known to being averse to high casualties among its ranks.
What must be understood here is the fact that despite Hamas’s inability to prevent the Israeli military from driving them all the way to Rafah, a clear victor has not emerged. That would have been the case had one side agreed to unilaterally give up arms.
That is what the occupation state wants. The precondition for a permanent ceasefire as set by the Netanyahu regime is the elimination of Hamas as a fighting force. That would mean the permanent end of Hamas as an organisation capable of spearheading Palestinian resistance, along with the loss of power for its leaders.
That is why both parties have been reluctant to reach an agreement quickly. A lot of it is, therefore, completely out of the US’s hands. It may need to reconsider supporting Israel’s absolutist stance on a potential permanent ceasefire.
Largely ambivalent
Realistically for the US, it is of no consequence whether a proper two-state solution is achieved at a significant loss to Tel Aviv’s regional ambitions. In the pursuit of deeper relations with Saudi Arabia and making way for normalisation, it would be within Washington’s interests if Israel were not led by an extremist far-right fundamentalist regime.
However, as much as Hamas plays hardball with the ceasefire negotiations, so does the occupation regime with the way it pursues goals of occupation at the expense of the Palestinian people. This undoubtedly causes problems for US regional strategic goals. In recent months, analysts have begun to wonder whether Israel is becoming a liability for the US instead.
Then again, Washington would probably not mind if Palestine were to be completely subsumed by Israel without the maelstrom of global condemnation and the destabilisation of all of West Asia.
Major world powers are driven to closely support humanitarian appeals if they serve geopolitical goals in some way, or if inaction leads to harsh public relations nightmares. Outwardly, the US foreign policy goal for West Asia does prioritise the resolution of the “Israel-Palestine conflict.” The resolution would simply have to be in a form that is politically advantageous for both the US and Israel.
If we are to truly judge whether the US is an honest broker in the ceasefire deal, we have to think of it differently.
Washington probably may honestly want the onslaught on Gaza to stop, but not necessarily to save the lives of Palestinian children. This is much the same way that other brokers such as Egypt and Qatar have approached Hamas and Israel.
All eyes are locked on geopolitical gains.
Interests over ideology
International relations are inherently complex. It is tempting to simplify the global order by categorising states based on religious or cultural traits, grouping them into coalitions that appear either strictly opposed to or allied with one another.
However, each state pursues its own set of interests, shaped by the ideologies and perspectives of its ruling class. Geopolitics is like a dense forest, where navigating towards national objectives often involves traversing multiple layers of intersecting interests.
As 19th-century British Prime Minister Henry John Temple astutely observed, “We have no eternal allies, we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
This principle remains a cornerstone of geopolitics. Beneath the surface of partisanship and humanitarian rhetoric, this is how global mechanisms truly operate. In this light, it becomes clear that no world power is entirely sincere.
No comments:
Post a Comment