The Biden Doctrine: An Independent Palestinian State and a US- Israel Defense Treaty are the Right Solution
We are in the midst of war and uncertainty. Exercising the necessary analytical caution, it would seem that the only acceptable solution to end the Gaza War and at the same time to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the establishment of an independent Palestinian State alongside Israel. Not for reasons of morality or abstract justice. Not only for the justified reason of the right to self-determination. Not only for reasons of political opportunity. But for strategic reasons essential to Israel’s security. Because of the breakdown of Israel’s defense concept as a result of the Hamas surprise attack on October 7, and the urgent need to quickly rehabilitate it. The time element is critical.
An independent demilitarized Palestinian State is at the core of Biden’s new doctrine. In US eyes, it is an essential component for ending the Gaza War. To prevent Israel from sinking into the mud of never ending war. A war which has no defined goals because the “absolute victory” over Hamas declared by Netanyahu is not an achievable military goal. It turns out that a Palestinian State is the unique conceptual location where all the paths to calming the situation and the security stabilization of the Middle East and a return to the order that unravelled with the Hamas surprise attack meet. In US eyes, an independent Palestinian State is an essential and double condition: both as a solution to the conflict and as a crucial component in the establishment of a regional framework led by the US against the Iranian axis.
In his New York Times article, Tom Friedman presented the main elements of the New Doctrine for achieving the US’s political and security goals. And also Israel’s. It is not a case of Friedman’s emotions or wishful thinking. The “big plan” presented by Friedman, who has excellent access to the White House, is based on discussions with administration officials. His conclusion is in line with my analysis of Secretary of State Blinken’s statements and comments during the recent leg of his shuttle diplomacy in the region. This is a watershed moment, a game-changer for US policy in the Middle East. No more general amorphic statements about a “vision of two states” but the outlining of a clear roadmap with concrete steps for the establishment of an independent Palestinian State in the near future that will be tightly incorporated into the new US strategy. This is at one and the same time a move in the post Netanyahu era and a move in the here and now in the near future. For many Israelis this is the hard decision that Israel will have to take.
Biden understands what many Israelis have not understood. Only a reduction in the Palestinian motivation for violence and terror can bring peace and calm to Israel. It is possible to achieve this goal by providing an answer to the Palestinian aspiration for their own independent state. A demilitarized state that does not stand in contradiction to Israel’s national security. This is what we can learn from this week’s surprising declaration from UK Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs David Cameron that the UK is considering full recognition of an independent Palestinian State, including UN membership. Not at the end of the peace process which could take a very long time, but at an early stage in the efforts to reach a solution so as to create “an irreversible process” in efforts to reach a solution. And thus to put the Palestinian side for the first time in the history of the conflict on an equal standing with Israel.
The UK, the past Mandatory power, has a particular responsibility for the negative developments that we have seen in the history of the conflict, and now also for the positive developments in assisting to find a solution to the conflict. In this context, it is important to emphasize: the UK is tightly coordinated with the US in the international arena through the framework of the “special relations” that exist between the two superpowers – a unique strategic alliance that has no parallel in international relations. We can understand that this week’s statement of the UK Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs reflects the position of the Biden administration. Clear proof of the strategic coordination between the UK and the US can be found in the exclusive participation of the UK with the US in the wide ranging attacks on pro-Iranian militia targets in the Middle East.
The Biden doctrine works like a lever, and one thing leads to the next: the establishment of a Palestinian State will bring Saudi Arabia back into the picture. It will bring back Biden’s integrated initiative for peace and normalization with Saudi Arabia from the summer of 2023 before the war. The initiative had been intended to outline a new order in the Middle East, but it appeared to have collapsed with the October 7 surprise Hamas attack. But the opposite happened. The strategic result of the Hamas surprise attack created an element of urgency and concreteness to the Saudi initiative.
It appears that Saudi Arabia is no longer talking in non-binding general terms of a solution to the Palestinian issue as stages in negotiation as was the case last summer. From now on, in common with the Biden administration, the Saudis see the establishment of an independent Palestinian State as a necessary condition for the peace and normalization roadmap. And this would be within the new blueprint of the new Biden doctrine – a demilitarized territorial unified entity composed of its two parts in Gaza and the West Bank under the rule of the “new Palestinian Authority”.
The Saudi agreement to grant Biden what is most important to him in the Israeli-Palestinian context derives from a strategic consideration of self interest and not necessarily out of a love for the Palestinians. Furthermore, it fits in with Biden’s new security doctrine. The Saudis want to achieve as soon and quickly as possible their goal, which fits in with the Biden roadmap and takes a central place in it: a formal defense treaty with the US against the Iranian threat.
The Saudis requested a defense treaty with the US in the binding format of NATO’s Article 5. Up till now, the sides have kept this issue confidential. According to Tom Friedman’s analysis, “an expanded security alliance” with Saudi Arabi is a central component of the Biden doctrine. This brings us to the question which is the missing link in the Biden doctrine.: where is the defense alliance with Israel? Blinken indeed hinted in one of the legs of his shuttle diplomacy at “security guarantees” for Israel but did not provide any details. In the new context and following the blow that Israel received in the October 7 surprise attack and the trauma that it left, Israel needs far more in order to renew its citizens’ feeling of security.
The October 7 surprise attack created a profound shock to something very fundamental. To Israel’s strategic credo according to which Israel can under all circumstances protect itself by itself. It is possible that a public defense alliance with the US would be an answer to the collapse of the Israeli defense doctrine which was built on deterrence, freedom of action and preventive war scenarios. The answer to the shock of the conquest for a full day of territory in the south of the country and to the excess load on the IDF in a simultaneous multi front war. All of Israel’s enemies in the Middle East understand perfectly the high value of a defense alliance that would make clear to Iran and to any possible coalition of enemies that an attack on Israel is an attack on the US. Because at the edge of Israeli deterrence stands American military power. A defense alliance would provide Israeli citiznes with a renewed sense of security after the shock.
The dramatic leap in strategic cooperation between the US and Israel following October 7 (sending the aircraft carrier task force, the daily airborne supply of military munitions and equipment, the participation of senior US officials at the IDF high command post) created a situation of “almost a defense alliance” and was a strategic achievement of the first order. But there remain two weak spots for the implementation of a full formal defense alliance commitment. This may be the reason that the Biden administration has been vague on the subject. Blinken spoke in general terms about granting “security guarantees”.
The first weak point. A defense alliance is intended to protect territory from massive military attack. How can a defense alliance be applied to a state lacking defined borders? An independent Palestinian State in a peace agreement would reduce the problem by defining the borders. But the US would find it difficult to sign a defense treaty with Israel before peace agreements were signed that defined its borders and sovereignty also vis a vis Lebanon and Syria. At the end of the day, Israel’s secure borders are the borders that receive international recognition and legitimacy. From the international community’s point of view, we are talking about the armistice lines drawn at the end of the 1949 Independence War.
The second weak point. The US is ready to sign a formal defense alliance only with states that are party to the NPT. Israel is one of the sole four countries that have not signed the most universal treaty in the world for the prevention of nuclear proliferation. This brings us to the nuclear issue: a formal defense alliance with the US would likely require a dramatic conceptual change in Israel’s traditional nuclear ambiguity doctrine.
A defense alliance with the US would have a central role in the context of peace agreements that would define Israel’s borders. Peace agreements to end the state of war require territorial concessions. Therefore a defense alliance with the US and integration within the regional strategic system led by the US could provide the ultimate compensation for withdrawal from territories that were conquered in the Six Day War. This would constitue a set of guarantees of the highest order for Israel’s security.
Shemuel Meir is an independent Israeli strategic analyst