Biden Administration floats new plan for postwar Gaza that is a real headscratcher

Politico reports that four officials were “granted anonymity to detail very sensitive discussions” about the future role of the US in Gaza, i.e., it’s a trial balloon to test the reactions of the public and various diplomatic players. It also reports having accessed to “a classified State Department paper” that contains a similar concept.¹

The general outline Politico gives is this:

[T]he Biden administration expects to be at the center of what happens to Gaza long after the guns go quiet. The U.S. would therefore be partly responsible for what comes next, including improving the lives of 2.2 million Palestinians who are suffering in the decimated territory.

The adviser would never enter Gaza itself, the officials said — an indication of the desire to avoid any implication that the U.S. would be dictating the future of the territory.

Two officials said the adviser could be based in Sinai and another said it could be Jordan. The proposal for the adviser and peacekeeping force also has been circulating within the administration for months.

The U.S. is already a major player in the conflict, supporting Israel’s military campaign against Hamas while pushing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza. Now, during an intense planning phase, the administration is working to have multiple partners inside and outside the U.S. converge around ideas to stabilize postwar Gaza — namely to maintain security and avoid an insurgency that could plunge the enclave into more turmoil. [my emphasis]

For most of us mortals, working out what all that means is something in the nature of trying to interpret the Zohar without knowing Hebrew. But anything that sounds plausible at this point would have to include some Kabbalistic twist.

The phrase “avoid an insurgency” is a big key to how problematic this whole thing sounds. What the Biden Administration appears to have in mind is for the US to be the face and scapegoat for a Palestinian military force that would have the task of carrying out a protracted counterinsurgency campaign against Hamas on behalf of Israel. While Israel, still the occupying power of Hamas in international law since 1967, would presumably remain free to continue Netanyahu’s mowing-the-grass strategy of having small wars against the Palestinians every few years and to cut off food, medicine, and electricity to Gaza any time they want.

But since America would be officially leading – excuse me, advising – the counterinsurgency, Israel can blame every problem on the US while demanding more and more money and weapons. But Israel would then be free to devote additional military resources to expanding the illegal settlements in the West Bank as part of the goal of incorporating it into an Israel from the river to the sea, to borrow a concept from Likud’s founding charter.

It's looking now like the Biden Administration Middle East policy all along has been to continue with the Abraham Accords concept of negotiating better relationships between Israel and various Arab countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, in an arrangement that would give Israel relief from any Arab countries pressure around the Palestinians and solidify and regional alliance against Iran.

The Biden administration is trying to convince Arab states such as Egypt, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates to join the peacekeeping force, a second official said, as regional countries continually demand that the U.S. have a heavy hand in Gaza’s postwar future. “It’ll be easier to get them to come along if we’re there playing a part, and we’re prepared to play that role,” the official said about what Arab countries want from the U.S.

The State Department paper Politico references contains this concept:

The U.S. would not send troops to Gaza, but the document proposes appointing an American civilian as “Director-General” to coordinate with Israel and help train and advise the force’s members. Washington would also provide intelligence support against threats, namely from Hamas and other Gaza-based militants.

The force would start small in a “limited area of responsibility” focused initially on “key humanitarian assistance hubs” and then “gradually expand.”

“The eventual geographic scope of the TSMG’s mission would be Gaza-wide,” according to the document.

What would the American-led counterinsurgency operation on Israel’s behalf look like? Here’s a hint:

Gen. C.Q. Brown, the Joint Chiefs chair, on Monday offered a rare public rebuke of Israel’s military strategy, stating that chaos in Gaza is in large part due to the way the campaign has been waged. “Not only do you have to actually go in and clear out whatever adversary you are up against, you have to go in, hold the territory and then you’ve got to stabilize it,” he told reporters.

Is there a coherent and realistic purpose for this concept?

Thinking back over the US experience with counterinsurgency over the last couple of decades in Iraq and Afghanistan, the question comes to mind: What could possibly go wrong?  

There is nothing in the report about these plans being tied to a larger peace process leading to either a two-state solution or a democratic and secular nation of Israel from the river to the sea. A two-state solution seems less likely than ever, not least because Israel has established so many illegal settlements and controlled areas dividing up the West Bank, all of which add massively to the challenge of creating a viable Palestinian state.

Netanyahu, who has a strong personal and political interest in prolonging, the current war as long as possible – and certainly until his preferred candidate Donald Trump is elected for a second term – has refused to come up with a proposed postwar plan for Gaza. Because his plan for Gaza is obviously settlement, ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, and eventual annexation to his vision of Ersatz Israel, i.e., “from the river to the sea.”

As the Times of Israel reports:

The administration of post-war Gaza, often referred to as the “day after” issue, has been central in the strategic discourse surrounding the war. Israel, however, has not committed to a clear post-war plan, drawing criticism from its allies and creating internal political rifts.

In particular, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been non-committal regarding the issue, leading Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to publicly call on him last week to rule out the possibility of Israeli military or civilian administration of Gaza. Later, war cabinet minister Benny Gantz announced that if a post-war plan was not conceived by June 8, his party would leave the coalition.²

Netanyahu in February proposed a non-plan for postwar Gaza, in which “called in the immediate term for the IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] to retain security control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank once the Gaza war is over, with a local Palestinian governance of technocrats ruling the enclave.”³

Direct Israeli control with a figurehead puppet regime, in other words, and indefinitely repeated rounds of “mowing the grass”.

1. Ward, Alexander (2024): US preparing for ‘prominent’ role in postwar Gaza. Politico 05/23/2024. <https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/23/us-postwar-gaza-00159723> (Accessed: 2024-25-05).

2. Biden administration said to weigh US-led Gaza peacekeeping force after war ends. Times of Israel 05/24/2024. <https://www.timesofisrael.com/biden-administration-said-to-weigh-us-led-gaza-peacekeeping-force-after-war-ends/> (Accessed: 2024-25-05).

3. Lazaroff, Tovah (2024): 'The day after Hamas': Netanyahu reveals his plans for a post-Hamas Gaza Strip. <https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-788475> Jerusalem Post (Accessed: 2024-25-05).