Tom Friedman Explains Biden’s Mideast “Strategy”

"Netanyahu Ceasefire" by Nancy Ohanian

One of the more puzzling questions of the ongoing ethnic cleansing in Gaza is why the U.S. has resolutely supported the Israeli government while the IDF has created a trail of death and destruction since last October. Worldwide opinion and essential elements of the Democratic re-election coalition have grown increasingly vociferous in opposition to this support, yet, the Biden Administration has never wavered for a moment. As painful as it is to do so, anyone who’s looking to understand why Biden & Blinken Back Bibi without reservation should force themselves to skim Friedman’s recent court stenography laying out what passes for foreign policy thinking in this White House.

In particular, these paragraphs are worth pondering: 

On the second track would be an unprecedented U.S. diplomatic initiative to promote a Palestinian state— NOW. It would involve some form of U.S. recognition of a demilitarized Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that would come into being only once Palestinians had developed a set of defined, credible institutions and security capabilities to ensure that this state was viable and that it could never threaten Israel. Biden administration officials have been consulting experts inside and outside the U.S. government about different forms this recognition of Palestinian statehood might take.

***

[T]he U.S. will never have the global legitimacy, the NATO allies and the Arab and Muslim allies it needs to take on Iran in a more aggressive manner unless we stop letting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hold our policy hostage and we start building a credible, legitimate Palestinian Authority that can one day govern Gaza and the West Bank effectively and as a good neighbor to Israel along final borders they would negotiate together.

The level of delusion here is utterly mind-boggling. Exactly what kind of “demilitarized state” is Team Biden envisioning in Gaza? Better yet, what kind of “defined credible institutions” are they envisioning? Have they noticed that most of Gaza (especially the north end) is a massive pile of rubble now? 

Even if the bombing were to halt today, are there any habitable spaces left in Gaza? Health care facilities have deliberately been almost completely degraded.

Businesses, schools, and other essential features of modern daily life also have all been destroyed. Whenever the bombing/shelling finally stop, Gaza (which was densely populated in October) will require a rebuilding and re-inhabitation process that presumably will cost tens (if not hundreds of billions) and require years (if not decades) to carry out. There is no indication as to who might carry out (and, more importantly, pay for) such a process. 

Such a process would seem to be a prerequisite to setting up any sort of halfway stable government. People sleeping in tents who have no means of supporting themselves, who have no schools for their children, and who have no viable health care system have more basic concerns than the form of their governance. They’re not likely, furthermore, to quietly acquiesce to a government that had to meet the prior approval of Israel and the U.S. and that will be viewed as subservient to Israel and the U.S.

Words are not capable of describing the level of rage that has been and is being engendered among the Palestinian people during this onslaught. It’s not like they were content with events of the previous 75 years, but outsiders can only imagine how people now feel as their family and friends are killed and maimed on a daily basis and when they live under mortal fear that they be next. It will likely take generations before there will be even the possibility of any degree of trust between Palestinians and any Israeli government. It’s also unlikely that there will be any degree of trust towards any U.S. government for decades to come.

In this context, any Palestinian “defined, credible institutions” as defined by the U.S. (and, presumably, Israel) would be viewed as quisling regimes by the Palestinian people. It would be interesting to know who Friedman (and his White House sources) might have in mind to fill key positions in those institutions. It would also be interesting to recall that various administrations have over 75 years of experience in setting up “defined, credible institutions” as defined by the U.S. in scores of countries across the globe, and the track records of such institutions has been less than inspiring.

Curiously absent from Friedman’s musings is a recognition that Netanyahu’s recent statement that he:

“[W]ill not compromise on full Israeli security control of the entire area west of the Jordan River— and that is irreconcilable with a Palestinian state.”

Even assuming that it was possible for the U.S. to create a “credible, legitimate Palestinian Authority that can one day govern Gaza and the West Bank effectively and as a good neighbor to Israel,” there’s no evidence that the Israeli government would have any interest in having such a neighbor. In fact, Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, in fact, recently urged Jewish settlers to return to Gaza.

Finally, this apparent summary of administration aims studiously ignores the likely multi-billion dollar price tag. Who will pay to rebuild Gaza? Who will decide how it’s rebuilt? How will hundreds of thousands of refugees be cared for in the interim, and who will pay for it? Who is going to keep them from starving and/or dying from inadequate medical care in the near term?

It’s hard to tell which is more disturbing— the fact that a long-tenured op-ed columnist for our paper of record could write such a shallow and a superficial analysis, or that this “analysis” is, presumably, a summary of current White House thinking. Little kids are getting killed and maimed every day, and those who are not wounded face malnourishment. Our country’s decision-makers (who we’re supposed to help re-elect) are enabling the slaughter based upon purported goals that are not remotely capable of being accomplished.

That’s the state of our system in 2024. In order to defeat a past insurrectionist and future potential dictator, we have to vote to retain people who are pursuing morally repugnant and practically unachievable policies. Our system has offered us multiple bad “choices” in presidential elections dating back to 1980, but this purported choice may be the worst.