Joe Biden seeks a legacy-making deal in the Middle East.
He shouldn't count on it.
The Washington Post reports that Joe Biden hopes to seize on Israel’s deal with Lebanon to obtain a regional pact that would, among other things, end the fighting in Gaza:
“Just as the Lebanese people deserve a future of security and prosperity, so do the people of Gaza. They, too, deserve an end to the fighting and displacement,” Biden said in remarks from the White House Rose Garden. “The people of Gaza have been through hell. Their world was absolutely shattered. Far too many civilians in Gaza have suffered far too much.”
Biden then said that the cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah — designed as a permanent end to the fighting that will take hold over 60 days — creates an opportunity for a long-sought broader Middle East deal that he and his top aides have talked about for years. That deal would see a normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, provide a pathway for a Palestinian state, and include a security pact and economic guarantees that the United States would provide Riyadh.
“As for the broader Middle East region, today’s announcement brings us closer to realizing the affirmative agenda that I’ve been pushing forward during my entire presidency: a vision for the Middle East, with peace and prosperity integrated across borders,” Biden said. “The United States remains prepared to conclude a set of historic deals.”
I suppose one can’t blame Biden for wanting a grandiose Middle East deal to fill the void of positive accomplishment that is now his legacy. And something less grandiose — an end to the fighting in Gaza before he leaves office — isn’t entirely out of the question. But fundamental differences between Israel’s war against Hamas and its war with Hezbollah suggest that even a meaningful cessation of hostilities isn’t likely under his watch.
Since October 7, 2023, Israel’s focus has been on crushing Hamas. It never wanted a second front. Nor, unlike Hamas, did Hezbollah want to fight Israel. That’s why it took so long for the war in Lebanon to begin in earnest.
With Hamas under fierce attack, Hezbollah felt compelled to do something to help its fellow Iran client, and it’s likely that Iran applied pressure to that end. But instead of opening a second front in the war, Hezbollah was mostly content to send missiles into Northern Israel.
The disruption these missiles caused was profound, but it didn’t lead to a second front for Israel for almost a year. Israel’s thinking, I suspect, was that when it concluded the war in Gaza, either (1) Hezbollah’s attacks would stop or, if not, (2) Israel would then turn its undivided attention to fighting Hezbollah.
But the war in Gaza dragged on. Eventually, it became unacceptable for approximately 70,000 residents of the North to be displaced from their homes with no return in sight.
Thus, in early October, Israeli forces invaded Lebanon, taking on Hezbollah in earnest and with considerable success. Israel’s objective, though, was not to crush Hezbollah the way it intends to crush Hamas. Rather, the objective was to deal this adversary a serious setback and to make Northern Israel safe once more.
The only realistic way to accomplish both of these goals quickly was to hit Hezbollah hard and then reach a peace agreement. This is what Israel has done (though whether the peace agreement will hold remains to be seen).
The situation in Gaza is very different. There, Israel has a single goal — to crush Hamas. This means killing as many of its fighters as possible, destroying as much of its terrorist infrastructure as possible, and making sure that Hamas plays no part in post-war Gaza.
Hamas hoped that a second goal — freeing hostages — would enter Israel’s calculus. And, of course, Israel would like to free the hostages who are still alive. But this aspiration never really moderated Israel’s assault on Hamas. That’s why, with the exception of a brief ceasefire that brought the release of some hostages, Israel has fought relentlessly in Gaza for more than a year.
It’s also why a negotiated end to the war in Gaza during Biden’s presidency remains a longshot. The Washington Post realizes this, even if the lame-duck president doesn’t. Calling a Gaza deal “distant,” the Post explains:
Despite signs of momentum, significant gaps remain between Israel and Hamas over key issues, including the shape of any withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and the long-term role, if any, that Hamas will play in the enclave, which it had governed for more than 15 years.
A top Israeli demand is for Hamas to release dozens of hostages who were captured during its assault on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Hamas, however, has little incentive to relinquish this trump card unless its demands are met, said Mkhaimar Abusada, a Palestinian political analyst.
What are Hamas’ demands?
Hamas said it would “cooperate with any efforts” to bring an end to the war in Gaza but set conditions, including the withdrawal of Israeli forces, the return of displaced people, and a “real and complete” prisoner exchange deal. Hamas has said it is still interested in playing a political role in Gaza — a condition that Israel and the United States have rejected.
(Emphasis added)
A political role for Hamas in post-war Gaza is, indeed, unacceptable to Israel. Israeli occupation, designed in part to preclude such a role, seems like a more likely outcome.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition depends on support from far-right lawmakers who have called for a “total victory” in Gaza and are unlikely to accept a cease-fire with Hamas, analysts say. Israeli forces have emptied much of northern Gaza of Palestinian residents, and several top Israeli officials, including Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, have called for Israel to reoccupy Gaza permanently.
Arguably, the ceasefire in Lebanon increases the likelihood that Israel’s military efforts in Gaza will intensify:
The Israeli military, now freed from fighting on the northern border, could intensify its campaign in Gaza, said Yaakov Amidror, a former Israeli national security adviser, in a briefing with reporters.
“Our ground forces can cope with the issue of Hamas in a much more intensive way than today and for a very, very long time,” he said.
It’s possible that the end of the second front and the resulting intensification of Israel’s military efforts in Gaza will cause Hamas to moderate its demands, thereby leading to an agreement with Israel. The New York Times suggests such a scenario.
For the reasons presented above, it’s not likely to happen between now and the end of Biden’s term. And if it does, Biden may have to share credit with Donald Trump whose impending presidency might induce sober thinking in Gaza and Tehran, and whom Biden reportedly has enlisted in his peace-making effort.