Geostrategic Media Political Commentary, Analysis, Security, Defense
Melissa Green
The idea that the United States could act as an effective mediator between Hamas and Israel is, to put it bluntly, absurd. In the current political landscape, no U.S. official with decision-making power can afford to take significant action to rein in Israeli leadership. Instead, it is clear that only Türkiye has the necessary capabilities to facilitate a meaningful cease-fire in Gaza.
The conflict in Gaza has persisted for nearly a year, resulting in the tragic deaths of over 40,000 Palestinians, with nearly 100,000 wounded and widespread devastation of the territory. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government shows no signs of eradicating Hamas, a goal I expressed skepticism about nearly ten months ago. Instead, Netanyahu appears more focused on prolonging his political survival than on the lives lost on both sides. With former President Donald Trump looming on the electoral horizon, Netanyahu seems to believe that time is on his side.
The Biden administration finds itself torn by the demands of the Democratic Party’s progressive wing, which advocates for an end to U.S. military aid to Israel. Since last October, the administration has attempted to project itself as a mediator capable of finding common ground between the two sides. President Biden’s criticisms of the violence inflicted upon Gazans have been mild at best.
However, as the 2024 presidential election approaches, the administration’s commitment to Israel remains unwavering. The potential backlash from cutting military aid—a critical lever of influence—has stifled any serious pressure on Netanyahu’s government. With a significant portion of the American public leaning pro-Israel, and with electoral opponents like Trump advocating even more fervently for Netanyahu’s policies, the Democrats face a perilous political landscape.
Washington as Mediator?
Given these realities, it is laughable to assert that Washington can effectively mediate this crisis. U.S. officials are constrained by political considerations that prevent them from taking meaningful action against Israeli leadership. Israel already possesses overwhelming military superiority over Hamas, and the U.S. provides the very weapons that are used to inflict devastation across Gaza.
After months of feigned neutrality, Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently abandoned any pretense of evenhandedness, attempting to pressure Hamas into accepting cease-fire proposals. Unsurprisingly, Hamas swiftly rejected these overtures.
The situation in Gaza today remains strikingly similar to what it was six months ago, when I first criticized Blinken’s mediation efforts. The reality is that U.S. politicians lack the will to compel the Israeli government toward a rational negotiating stance. Other Western nations also lack the credibility needed to mediate, while no regional states possess the logistical, military, or political capabilities to undertake this critical role.
Conclusion
In light of these considerations, it becomes clear that the United States is not a suitable actor for mediating peace in Gaza. Only a genuine, credible mediator—like Türkiye—has the potential to facilitate a cease-fire that could lead to lasting peace. As the conflict drags on, the need for effective mediation becomes more urgent, but it must come from a party capable of transcending the political limitations that currently bind U.S. officials.
