Is the US a suitable actor for a mediation role in Gaza?

Six weeks later, the conflict in Gaza between Hamas and the Israeli state will have continued a full year. More than 40,000 Palestinians have been killed, nearly 100,000 wounded, and the entire Territory devastated through the Israeli leadership’s willingness to ignore all rules of war, international law and human rights.

Yet, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is no closer to eradicating Hamas than it was 10 months ago when I expressed scepticism about that goal. Instead, Netanyahu seems bent on prolonging his political career at the expense of Palestinian and Israeli lives. With former US President Donald Trump on the electoral horizon, Netanyahu clearly feels that time is on his side.

The Biden administration, for its part, is confronted by the Democratic Party’s progressive wing, which wants to end US military aid to Israel. Since last October, the Biden administration has striven to present an appearance based on two fundamentally contradictory stances: On the one hand, administration officials presented the US as a mediator capable of finding middle ground between Hamas and the Israeli government. In that capacity, US President Joe Biden made light criticisms of the ultra-violence unleashed by the Israeli state on the Gazan population.

OPINION: The relentless brutality of settler-colonialism must not be overlooked

However, America’s 2024 presidential election was also approaching. That meant that US military aid to Israel would never face any sort of true obstacle from the Biden administration, despite the fact that this was the only serious leverage that the administration had against the Israeli leadership. Simply, potential electoral backlash prevented (and continues to prevent) the application of any serious pressure on the Israeli government. When most Americans share a similarly pro-Israel perspective, and the electoral opponent is an even more fervent supporter of Netanyahu’s policies, cutting off military aid to Israel would mean certain doom for the Democrats on 5 November.

Washington as mediator?

In light of the above facts, a neutral observer would find the claim that Washington might function as a mediator between the two sides to be clearly ridiculous. No current US official with important decision-making capacity can afford, politically, to take meaningful action to rein in the Israeli leadership. Israel already has overwhelming military superiority over Hamas, and the US supplies the same weapons that Israel uses to wreak wanton destruction across Gaza.

After 10 months of pretending to be even-handed, US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, recently shook off the remaining thin pretences and tried to pressure Hamas to accept the current ceasefire proposals. Unsurprisingly, a Hamas spokesperson immediately rejected Blinken’s statements.

At the risk of repetition, the current situation in Gaza is not fundamentally different than it was six months ago, when I first criticised Secretary’s Blinken’s mediation efforts. The essential reality is that US politicians cannot and will not bring the Israeli government to a rational negotiating stance. No other Western states have the credibility necessary to fulfil a mediation role, and no regional states have the logistical, military or political capability to carry out such a task.

Except one.

The only option is Turkiye.

Only Turkiye has all of the capabilities necessary to fulfil the mediation role needed to bring about a ceasefire in Gaza. Qatar and Egypt have been the main public intermediaries for Hamas, but all actors involved in the situation are aware of Turkiye’s quiet role.

That reality is why the New York Times (NYT) has devoted attention, especially in the past month, to attacking Turkiye’s mediation credentials. Turkiye’s competence and effectiveness were on display during last month’s prisoner/hostage swap between the West and Russia that Turkish intelligence services were responsible for overseeing. The NYT was quick to downplay a possible mediation role in Gaza for Turkiye, but the authors only mention Israel and the US as opposed to Turkiye’s mediation.

What the authors omit is that almost all other state actors recognise Turkiye’s mediation capabilities, and only Israel and Israel’s facilitator, Washington DC, refuse to acknowledge the positive influence that Ankara could bring to bear on the situation.

In the same way that the NYT eventually had to admit that Netanyahu’s professed aim of “eradicating” Hamas is unrealistic, eventually they will also have to admit that Turkiye is the only viable mediator in Gaza. The sooner the NYT editors accept this reality, the sooner they can contribute to turning public perception in that direction, to helping a ceasefire be achieved, to enabling both the Israeli and Palestinian hostages to go home, and to establishing a lasting peace in the Eastern Mediterranean.

READ: The untold terms of the new American ceasefire proposal

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.