Gaza between the “Biden Doctrine” and Netanyahu’s plan

A banner depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, US President Joe Biden, French President Emmanuel Macron, and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Galant (Reuters)

Aside from the repercussions of the Security Council resolution that was recently issued, demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, and the rift it showed in the relationship between the American administration and the government of Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, we would do well to take two steps back to try to understand the nature of that disagreement.

In early February, American Jewish writer Thomas Friedman - who is closely linked to President Joe Biden and the Democratic Party - announced what he called the “Biden Doctrine,” and toward the end of the same month, the Prime Minister of the Zionist entity, Benjamin Netanyahu, issued what was called “ His vision or plan for the post-war period.”

Former US President Jimmy Carter stated, weeks ago, that his success in achieving a breakthrough in the Egyptian-Israeli peace file was due to the intense pressure he exerted on Israel, as he was the only president in whose election AIPAC had no influence.

Biden's doctrine is based on three points:

Containing Iran by reducing its influence in the region, through a policy of comprehensive military confrontation with its agents who are inherently hostile to the Zionist entity, and what is meant here is Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen.

An initiative to recognize a demilitarized Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, after credible Palestinian institutions and security capabilities manage the scene, so that this state is viable and does not threaten Israel’s security in any way.

Establishing a broad security alliance between the Palestinians, Israel, the United States, and Saudi Arabia, including the normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel.

As for Netanyahu’s vision, he included a document of one and a quarter pages, entitled: “The Next Day After Hamas - Principles,” which he presented to the mini-cabinet. It included the following items:

Destroying Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which means the army will remain in Gaza; To disarm the sector. Appointing “local officials” with administrative experience and not linked to any (terrorist entities) to manage services in the sector. Israel takes greater control of the southern border of Gaza, in cooperation with Egypt “as much as possible,” and establishes buffer zones on the border; To prevent smuggling, and ensure that no more attacks occur. Dissolving and replacing the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) in Gaza and the West Bank. Not allowing the reconstruction of Gaza to begin until it is disarmed and the “anti-extremism operation” begins. The reconstruction plan should be financed and led by countries acceptable to Israel. Strengthening a plan to “counter extremism” in all religious, educational, and social care institutions in Gaza. This will be done with the participation and assistance of Arab countries with experience in this field.

Recognizing the establishment of a Palestinian state after the events of October 7 would “prevent any future peace settlement.” Failure to do this recognition takes the Palestine card out of Iran’s hand.

Thus, it turns out that there is great ambiguity in Biden’s doctrine, and relative clarity in Netanyahu’s vision, despite what he may see as the impossibility of achieving this or that vision.

The American President’s talk about a Palestinian state is nothing more than propaganda, and the presidents of both parties, the Democratic and Republican, have become accustomed to repeating it without taking real steps on the ground.

The secular or biblical Zionist right in Israel is decisively opposed to this, yet this step is de facto postponed at best until after the end of 2024; Because no presidential candidate can promise it in an election year; For fear of losing when AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) mobilizes votes against him.

Former US President Jimmy Carter stated, weeks ago, that his success in achieving a breakthrough in the Egyptian-Israeli peace file was due to the intense pressure he exerted on Israel, as he was the only president in whose election AIPAC did not have a hand.

The Palestinian state, which Netanyahu rejected completely and in detail, Biden did not want to delve into its details, as there was no talk about its borders, nor about the return of refugees, nor about the status of Jerusalem, nor about resources, water, and ways of life between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. He knows that this path faces many thorns and obstacles, especially since he has no way to convince Congress to put pressure on his Zionist ally, as Carter did.

In light of the available data, opportunities are only available to establish a formal state devoid of substance, that is, a state completely subordinate to the Zionist entity, and carrying the seeds of its annihilation.

Unlike Netanyahu, Biden also seemed to intend to create a state of fluidity and indeterminacy regarding the post-war phase in Gaza, which is understandable. Because he does not want to lose his appearance as a mediator, unlike the Israeli Prime Minister who is known for his extremism, not to mention that the issue is related to his borders, security, and personal image.

It is important here to point out that Netanyahu’s document seems dreamy, as it talks about creating entities of Gaza’s notables capable of managing the affairs of the Strip, despite the resistance in its organized or unorganized form. It is certain that these people will be accused of treason and collusion, and they came to power on a tank. Zionism.

The only thing that is clear in the “Biden Doctrine” is that he wants Israel to take its time to clean up Gaza, so that he can implement his vision after declaring his victory, if he will win, which is revealed by his lax and manipulative positions regarding the ceasefire, and his complete silence about the crimes of genocide committed with weapons. American.

As for Iran, the “Biden Doctrine” clearly referred to it, and was almost ignored in the Netanyahu document. Biden's vision reveals his courtship of the Zionist entity, by affirming his administration's commitment to Israel's security, in the face of the surrounding enemies in the resistance countries, by directing painful blows to all those supported by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in the region. However, he avoided referring to a direct military confrontation with Iran, which is the opposite of what Israel had aspired to for years, to crush the Iranian nuclear program.

It is clear that Washington does not want to slide into a direct war with Iran, at a time when its policy towards Russia in the Ukrainian file is confused, and it is engaged in a fierce confrontation with China. It assesses that direct confrontation with Iran will exacerbate security risks and lead to a state of regional and international instability that the world has not witnessed since World War II. In light of this, America chooses to remain silent about the repeated and painful Mossad operations inside Iran, and about the strikes on its arms in Syria and Lebanon.

Finally, the greatest reward comes to Israel, which is the completion of the normalization process, and here Biden clearly refers to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the normalization project with it, which was halted after the “Al-Aqsa Flood.” He confirms that cooperation between Saudi Arabia, Israel, the United States, and the Palestinians is sufficient to establish peace, and to pass everything that would be overlooked. Among the final status issues in the occupied territories: (refugees - Jerusalem - water).

In his clarification of the Biden doctrine, Friedman insinuates that economic gains will succeed in silencing all parties, especially the Palestinians who are candidates for an entity without identity or sovereignty. When he insinuates that there will be one model of “prosperity,” he refers to the economic corridor that was approved. At the G20 Summit in New Delhi (September 10-11, 2023).

It is also considered that good things will come to Saudi Arabia in the form of a strategic defense agreement, a nuclear reactor for civilian purposes, and squadrons of F-35 aircraft.

As for Netanyahu’s document, it did not refer to the normalization file, but it hinted at the necessity of cooperation with Arab countries, and mentioned Egypt, which it expects to cooperate in enforcing the siege on Gaza, and referred to other Arab countries that it did not name when it talked about assigning the reconstruction of Gaza to “acceptable countries,” as well as when I spoke about combating extremism in Gaza in cooperation with Arab partners, and the allusion here seemed to be directed to Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

One thing unites the two visions, which is that they seek to achieve through politics and negotiation what they failed to achieve in the field after months of demolishing homes and killing civilians, women and children.

In view of this, steadfastness seems to be the only solution. To thwart these plans, especially since their two owners compete in weakness, as Biden, who began his rule with a humiliating exit from Afghanistan, is about to end it with a humiliating electoral defeat, and Netanyahu is anticipating, with the end of the war, an investigation that may lead him to prison.

The Arab countries, collectively or individually, must not stand silent while their capabilities are exposed to new usurpation. If peace is a strategic choice for the Arabs, then what the “Al-Aqsa Flood” sought was to make that peace dignified and just.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.