With the Israel-Iran War, Gaza Becomes a Secondary Issue
The US-Israel relationship began with the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. The Truman administration was among the first to recognize the new state, combining moral obligations following the Holocaust with strategic interests in the Middle East. During this early period, US involvement in the West Bank and Gaza was minimal since these territories were under Jordanian and Egyptian control, respectively.
The Six-Day War of 1967 marked a turning point. Israel’s victory led to its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, along with East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula. The US response to these developments was nuanced. Washington viewed Israel as a critical ally in the context of the Cold War, reinforcing its position against Soviet influence in the region. However, it also expressed concerns about the increasing Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank. It maintained that the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank should be resolved through negotiations based on United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories in exchange for peace.
The 1970s and 1980s saw a series of initiatives aimed at resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Camp David Accords of 1978, brokered by President Carter, were a landmark achievement that led to a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. While the accords addressed the Palestinian question, the plans for the West Bank and Gaza fell short of expectations.
In the 1990s, the Oslo Accords, facilitated by President Bill Clinton, were also seen as a significant attempt towards achieving the two-state solution. The agreements established the Palestinian Authority and granted limited self-rule in parts of the West Bank and Gaza but fell short of resolving core issues such as the settlements, borders, and the status of Jerusalem.
After the breakdown of the Oslo process in the early 2000s and the Second Intifada, Israel, under the leadership of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005. A year later, elections were held in the West Bank and Gaza. The result, in what turned out to be the Palestinians’ last parliamentary election, was a stunning victory by Hamas, reflecting their disenchantment with their leadership. Soon, Israel and Hamas were in armed conflict in Gaza, leading to continued loss of life and devastation.
In a remarkable, must-read Foreign Affairs essay titled “America and Israel Follow the Same Old Script”, Mr. Aluf Benn, Editor-in-Chief of Haaretz, explains that US administrations, while pushing against Israel from time to time in line with Washington’s geopolitical interests in the Middle East, have given Israel a free hand in the West Bank and Gaza.[i]
He says, “No U.S. president, not even the most liberal of them, has forced Israel to stop building settlements or to end its occupation of the Palestinian territories… Instead, successive administrations have essentially given the Jewish state a free hand to expand its settlements in the West Bank, which are aimed at preventing a future Palestinian country from emerging and have been Israel’s key national project since 1967. U.S. presidents have sometimes criticized the settlements for legal and strategic reasons, but their tough talk was just that—talk. Washington has never done anything tangible to stop the incessant building, limiting intervention to a few key Palestinian areas.”
Europe’s Middle East policy was no different.
A planned conference co-sponsored by France and Saudi Arabia in New York this week, which supporters of Palestine had hoped would prompt more Western governments to recognize a Palestinian state, has reportedly diminished its ambition and will instead aim to agree “on steps towards recognition,” diplomats have said. The change in the conference’s objectives marks a retreat from an earlier plan that sought a joint declaration of recognition of Palestine as a state by a large group of countries, including permanent members of the UN Security Council, France, and the UK.[ii]
Spain, Ireland, and Norway officially recognized Palestinian statehood at the end of May 2024, prompting an angry response from Israel. Today, the State of Palestine is acknowledged by 147 of the 193 member states of the UN. Would a “successful” conference and the “recognition of Palestinian statehood” by more countries change anything on the ground? No.
In brief, this week’s conference in New York, organized by France and Saudi Arabia, was not expected to yield significant changes to begin with. Furthermore, Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear sites, military bases, and the killing of senior Iranian commanders and scientists have rendered the meeting futile. While Western countries continue to refer to the so-called “rules-based international order” in cases of their choice, such as the war in Ukraine, Mr. Netanyahu has now declared an “Israeli rules-based Middle East order.” A Palestinian state does not figure in this order. With former adversaries Iraq and Syria out of the Middle East balance of power, Mr. Netanyahu’s short-term target could be Iran’s nuclear program, but his long-term plan is regime change in Iran.
Regime change through external intervention is not something for any nation to take pride in. Today, Iran is under attack, and the call of patriotism demands national unity. However, at some point in the future, Iranians need to reflect on the 46 years since the 1979 revolution and consider whether their country, with its rich history, strategic location, and oil wealth, could have been somewhere different. They toppled the Shah in pursuit of democracy, economic progress, and fair distribution of national income, but ended up with Islamist tyranny. Choosing a different path would not have stopped them from opposing Israeli policies in the occupied territories, advocating for a free Palestine alongside other nations, and condemning Israeli military operations in the West Bank and Gaza. On the contrary, this might have enabled Tehran to play a more effective role in regional politics.
Israeli aircraft reached their Iranian targets, most probably over Syria. Would Damascus protest Israel for airspace violations? No, because this would only display its weakness against Israel.
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has warned that Israel will face “severe punishment” for the attacks. Perhaps starting with drones and missiles, but how long Tehran can sustain its current level of missile attacks is a question. Will Israel continue to strike Iran with mounting severity? Definitely. Can Tehran effectively fight Israel’s intelligence capabilities across the broad Middle East? No. This is a tough task, as evidenced by Israel’s successful targeting of Iran’s senior figures on more than one occasion, as well as Mossad’s role in last Friday’s strikes.
Moreover, the war between Israel and Iran is likely to divert attention from Gaza and the West Bank, allowing Mr. Netanyahu to move forward with his plans for the two enclaves.
On the broad diplomatic front, Washington will stand by Israel politically and militarily, no matter what. European countries would express concern over the war and call for restraint. China and Russia have denounced the Israeli attack, but they would not get involved. They would hope that the US gets bogged down in the Middle East once again. Gulf countries have also denounced the Israeli strikes and urged a diplomatic resolution to the conflict. Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan have issued similar statements. But on the whole, Arab countries would remain on the sidelines.
As for Türkiye, the Turkish democracy, once on the path to becoming the Northern Star of the tumultuous Middle East, has taken a dramatic downturn. The country is witnessing a rapid erosion of its democratic institutions, masked by disingenuous rhetoric about the rule of law and judicial independence. The AKP is engaged in a dubious attempt to change the constitution to perpetuate its power, regardless of the cost to the country’s future. Moreover, the Turkish economy is experiencing its worst crisis in decades. What does all that leave us with on the diplomatic front? Only a few cards and futile rhetoric.
Sixteen years ago, on April 6, 2009, President Barack Obama delivered a speech before the Turkish parliament.[iii] He said:
“… This morning I had the great privilege of visiting the tomb of your extraordinary founder of your republic. And I was deeply impressed by this beautiful memorial to a man who did so much to shape the course of history. But it is also clear that the greatest monument to Atatürk’s life is not something that can be cast in stone and marble. His greatest legacy is Turkey’s strong, vibrant, secular democracy, and that is the work this assembly carries on today…”
What a sad journey from April 6, 2009, to the present.
[i] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/america-and-israel-follow-same-old-script
[ii] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/07/saudi-arabia-conference-to-recognise-palestinian-state-weakens-scope-ambition-diplomats-say?CMP=share_btn_url
[iii] https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-obama-turkish-parliament