The Israel-Palestine conflict has been a persistent issue in Middle Eastern politics. It has been shaping international relations for decades. Given its influence in the region, the role of the United States in this conflict is crucial.
Historically, the United States has maintained a complex and often controversial stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict. The US has been a staunch ally of Israel, providing it with military, financial and diplomatic support. This unwavering support has frequently been criticized for exacerbating tensions and perpetuating a cycle of violence.
Despite the efforts to pacify the conflict, the US has often been perceived as biased towards Israel, undermining its credibility as a neutral mediator. This perception has been further fueled by the inconsistent responses to Israeli actions in the Palestinian territories.
This fluctuation has contributed to a lack of consistent and effective policy, leaving many to question the true intentions of the US in facilitating a lasting peace in the region.
While the US has called for ceasefires and condemned attacks on civilians, these statements have rarely been accompanied by concrete actions or consequences for the parties violating the international law.
In recent years, the US has faced increasing pressure to take a more active role in ending the conflict, especially in light of escalating violence and humanitarian crises in Gaza. Rather than substantive policymaking, the US government’s actions have majorly been only symbolic.
For example, the Biden administration’s response to the current conflict has been seen as largely reactive and, thus, insufficient. Despite consistent calls for a ceasefire and expressions of concern for civilian casualties, the US government has not taken significant steps to pressure Israel or Hamas to halt the violence. This inaction has led to frustration among many observers who believe that the US has the power but lacks the political will to effect meaningful change.
The level of US support for Israel has varied significantly between different administrations. Under President Trump, US-Israel relations reached new heights, with several controversial policy decisions that widely favored Israel. These included the relocation of the US embassy to Jerusalem, the recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and the brokering of the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states.
Trump’s approach was characterized by a clear and unapologetic support for Israel. This stance resonated well with his base, including evangelical Christians and pro-Israel lobbyists, who viewed his policies as a fulfillment of long-standing promises. However, this approach also drew sharp criticism for ignoring Palestinian rights and further entrenching divisions in the region.
In contrast, the Biden administration has taken a more traditional approach to US-Israel relations, emphasizing support for a two-state solution and calling for a balance between Israel’s security needs and Palestinian rights. However, Biden’s policies have been criticized for not going far enough to address the root causes of the conflict or to hold Israel accountable for actions that violate international law.
Biden’s more measured approach reflects an attempt to balance competing interests within his party and the broader electorate. While maintaining strong support for Israel, he has also tried to address humanitarian concerns and the aspirations of the Palestinian people. This balancing act, however, has often resulted in policies that lack clarity and decisiveness.
Former President Trump has signaled that, if re-elected, he would continue his unreserved support for Israel. This potential shift in US policy could have profound implications for the Israel-Palestine conflict.
The US government’s approach to the conflict is not monolithic. Differences do exist within the administration. Vice President Kamala Harris has been notably critical of Israel’s military actions and calling for a balanced approach that addresses the rights of Palestinians.
In the latest move, Harris decided not to preside over Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech in Congress. This decision exhibits a clear departure from the administration’s official stance.
The American involvement in the Israel-Palestine conflict is motivated by its interests. Supporting Israel aligns with US strategic interests in the Middle East. Israel serves as a key ally in a region.
Politically, strong support for Israel resonates with influential domestic constituencies, including the pro-Israel lobby and evangelical Christians. The pro-Israel lobby, in particular, has been effective in shaping US policy through lobbying efforts, campaign contributions, and forming public opinion.
The US also benefits economically from its relationship with Israel. The defense industry bags huge profits from arms sales to Israel. Such interests make it difficult to adopt a balanced approach.
The question of whether the US will ever play its vital role in achieving a ceasefire between Israel and Palestine remains open. While the US has the diplomatic resources to broker peace, its ability to do so is hampered by domestic political considerations and strategic interests.
For the US to play a constructive role, it would need to adopt a principled approach that holds the guilty side accountable and prioritizes the humanitarian needs of civilians. This would require a significant shift in the policy, mainly moving away from unconditional support for a specific party and ignoring the other. Whether the US can muster the political will to make this shift remains to be seen.
The potential for change now depends on the outcome of the presidential election and the policies of the coming administration. A more progressive administration might be more willing to challenge the status quo and push for a fairer resolution to the conflict. But according to the polls, there are chances Trump might find his way back to the White House. In that case, the prospects of pacifying the Israel-Palestine conflict remain bleak.
