August has been dominated by discussions of Russia’s war on Ukraine, including both the August 15 summit in Alaska and the gathering at the White House three days later. Meanwhile, however, developments in the Gaza War have continued along two tracks, in off-and-on negotiations and in escalating fighting.
Attention is likely to return to this conflict, linked to various timelines: the survival of the Israeli hostages still languishing in Hamas’ tunnels, the scope of the civilian suffering as a result of the war, and negotiations to end the conflict, in the shadow of the upcoming meeting of the United Nations General Assembly on September 27. All this poses complex challenges for US interests. There are humanitarian reasons to end the war, but there are also important political concerns for Washington.
International Declarations and Negotiations
To complicate matters, on July 24, French President Macron announced his intention to recognize Palestine at the UN. He was likely prompted by domestic political pressure from the left in a context where his grip on power is eroding rapidly.
The immediate consequence of his declaration was the collapse of the negotiations with Hamas that were taking place in Doha; if Europeans were going to embrace Palestinian statehood with no conditions, then Hamas had little incentive to show flexibility. With discussions stalled, Israel decided to ramp up pressure. On August 7, Prime Minister Netanyahu announced a plan to attack Gaza City, the last major Hamas stronghold.
The Gaza City campaign, dubbed Gideon’s Chariots II, has begun, albeit slowly, with assaults on the eastern suburbs. Eventually, it may include as many as 60,000 reservists. Yet in the meantime, and clearly as a response to the Israeli initiative, negotiations with Hamas have begun again, both in Cairo and Doha. Therefore, the conflict is playing out both in military confrontation and politically in negotiations. Clausewitz’s famous linkage of war and politics could not be clearer.
Objectives on Two Sides of the Battle
There is no secret about each side’s goals. Israel wants the hostages released, and it wants to ensure that Hamas cannot pose a threat in the future. The tension between those two desiderata has been playing out in Israeli domestic politics, with hostage advocates calling for an end to the campaign against Hamas. Yet promises by Hamas leadership to repeat attacks like October 7, 2023, have stiffened Israeli resolve.
Israel also wants to see a post-conflict governance of Gaza that is compatible with its security and does not include Hamas or the Palestinian Authority. On the other side of the negotiation table, Hamas wants to survive the war; it wants Israeli forces to withdraw fully from Gaza (with no buffer zone), and it has never given up on its commitment to eliminate the State of Israel.
If Hamas were suddenly to offer to release all the hostages in return for a cease-fire (with terms to be defined), the conflict could end very quickly. The Netanyahu government would have a difficult time turning down an offer of that sort. However, Hamas understands that its only real negotiating tool is its hold on the remaining hostages. It is therefore very unlikely to pursue that strategy until it is prepared to concede defeat. Hence, an apparent stalemate.
External Pressure for Peace
Given the distance between these positions, negotiations will only succeed if external pressure is brought to bear. The most likely scenario involves the IDF proceeding against Hamas in Gaza City, combined with pressure from Egypt and perhaps Qatar, with their channels to Hamas, to cut a deal. This conclusion could include safe passage for the Hamas leadership out of Gaza and an agreement on a joint Arab force, including Egypt, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia, to manage Gaza after Hamas and Israel exit. Hamas might be able to survive if it departs from Gaza, but there is no way now that it can defeat Israel on the ground. Hence, its efforts to ramp up the media campaign concerning allegations of famine and deaths of journalists. It may have lost the war on the ground, but it has had success in public relations.
The clock is therefore ticking for both the military campaign and the negotiations, framed by the prospect of reaching a conclusion or at least a new equilibrium before the meeting of the General Assembly. The United States has a set of clear interests beyond support for Israel, whose standing as a key ally has been emphasized by the administration repeatedly. In addition, Washington has emerged as the decisive, indeed the sole international power in the region. In this age of great power competition, it is the US alone—not Russia, not China, and certainly not the European Union—that has the opportunity to define the shape of the region.
Bringing the conflict to a conclusion on American terms will enhance American influence and standing globally, a correction to the legacy of the Biden administration’s defeat in Afghanistan. Therefore, the US should be pushing hard on Cairo and Doha to pressure Hamas, while also building the joint-Arab force for a post-conflict Gaza.
Progress on Gaza can restart the stalled Abraham Accords process, the signature project of the Trump administration. It may be able to bring Saudi Arabia into the Accords, probably linked to security guarantees and some other concessions, such as a civilian nuclear program. A further piece of the new Middle East could include progress soon on the Syria file and on Syria-Israel relations. There is a way for America to emerge stronger through progress in the region.
There is, however, a threat as well. The French initiative to recognize Palestine without conditions–no reform of the Palestinian Authority, no disarmament of Hamas, no hostage release–has hardened Hamas’ position, and all the more so since other countries have followed in France’s wake. Paris’ decision has subverted the Oslo Accords process, which envisioned a Palestinian State at the end of bilateral negotiations, not at the start.
All this puts France at odds with American foreign policy and the agenda of the Abraham Accords in particular. Thus, just as the Europeans have been pleading with Washington to support them in Ukraine, Paris, London, and others have made the strange decision to act at cross purposes with US goals in the Middle East. The Trump administration, with its transactional reputation, may soon find an opportunity for payback. More important in the long run, however, is that the French decision to work against the US in the Middle East will provide fuel for that wing of the foreign policy community, especially the MAGA isolationists, to do less for Europe in the future.
Macron’s initiative may help him marginally domestically, but its net effect includes lasting damage to the transatlantic alliance.
About the Author: Dr. Russell A. Berman
Dr. Russell A. Berman, the Walter A. Haas Professor in the Humanities at Stanford University, is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a co-chair of The Working Group on the Middle East and the Islamic World. At Stanford, he is a member of both the Department of German Studies and the Department of Comparative Literature, with a specialization in European and Middle Eastern politics and culture. He has served in numerous administrative positions at Stanford, including as chair of the Senate of the Academic Council. He is a member of the National Humanities Council and, during the Trump administration, served as a Senior Advisor on the Policy Planning Staff of the State Department.
Military Matters
The F-22 Raptor Just Keeps Getting Better
doyle
August 25, 2025 at 8:44 pm
US peace efforts in gaza are a carbon copy of israeli peace efforts in the same place.
Eradication of them gaza people by bombs, shells, bullets, grenades, mortars, starvation, medicide, genocide and extermicide.
End result is the full possession of gaza by netanyahu.
But that could be permitted and achieved solely by negotiations, not by extermicide and genocide.
It’s because the leaders and bigshots in US and Israel are driven by feelings of anger and pure hatred.
Thus no need for negotiations and adherence for basic civil human rights, just only genocide, hungercide and extermicide.
To achieve ‘peace’ in gaza.
One-World-Order
August 26, 2025 at 5:43 am
False, there ain’t no rift.
With regard to the totally unspeakable plight of gaza today, there are three sides to the story.
One is netanyahu, who, on aug 29 2018 during a visit to dimona explained why Israel must be strong, super duper strong, like samson.
Echoing the very exact words of the very most famous aloizovitch, netanyahu said “the weak are slaughtered, erased from history. The strong, for good or for ill survive.”
Next is trump, who on gaza, shares 100% common ground with genocide joe biden. The gaza people must be removed as they pose a grave threat to Israel.
The last one is the large massive group headed by UN, arab states, europe, asia and most of the rest of the world.
What’s their agenda.
To only watch the slaughter in gaza and at the same time paying generous ‘lip service’ to the innocent gaza people.
Recognize palestine ??? ???
Since W-H-E-N was there a state called palestine.
Before the lightning quick june 1967 invasion, there was the west bank and gaza, occupied and controlled by arab countries. Palestine was Israel itself.
People should call or holler for the CREATION of Palestine not a recognition of Palestine which today still doesn’t exist.
Providing lip service is What france is doing exactly today.
The HELL with france !
Macron, biden, netanyahu and zelenskyy and others are truly the aloizovitch of our time.
Multiple-World-Order
August 27, 2025 at 5:31 am
Dear One-World-Order,
I understand that this topic raises strong emotions, and it is difficult to discuss it calmly. Still, some points deserve clarification.
On the existence of Palestine
The Palestinian people have long had an identity, culture, and presence in the region. The absence of a formally recognized state in the past does not mean the people themselves did not exist—just as the Jewish people existed before the creation of Israel in 1948. Whether one speaks of creation or recognition is a political matter, but it cannot erase historical and demographic realities.
On international positions
It is inaccurate to reduce the actions of the UN, Europe, or Arab states to mere “lip service.” Many countries have officially recognized Palestine, and the UN has passed multiple resolutions supporting a two-state solution. While these efforts may not yet have achieved the desired results, they represent genuine attempts at progress.
On the rhetoric used
Equating today’s leaders with Hitler or resorting to insults adds nothing constructive to the debate. Such comparisons oversimplify a complex issue and risk closing the door to dialogue, which is the only real path to a lasting peace.
In short, while the human tragedy in Gaza must be acknowledged and condemned, it is important to do so without distorting historical facts or delegitimizing either people. The complexity of this conflict requires nuance, not exaggeration.