President Harry Truman, after much dithering, went against the advice of Secretary of State, George C. Marshall, the respected military figure, and supported the creation of Israel.  After 1967 and a shift in French policies, the United States became the main arms supplier to the Jewish state. Except for the Trump years, Washington professed some kind balance in Israeli-Palestinian affairs, and many U.S. diplomats including Henry Kissinger tried to secure a negotiated two-state solution.

But the United States, whether led by Republicans or Democrats, now providing over $3 billion in annual foreign aid to Israel, did not effectively oppose the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank area, the core of any future Palestinian state. More than one analyst believes that Israel has created facts on the ground — in the form of extensive Jewish settlements — that now negate any two-state solution.

Could there be one state of Palestine with Jewish and Arab citizens?  Why would the dominant Israelis give up the only Jewish state?  Since 1977 Israel has been led by right wing, highly nationalist governments clearly opposed to a Palestinian state.  In the current coalition government, in the context of sporadic but sometimes brutal Palestinian violence, there is open discussion of further repressing the Palestinians or even expelling them to Jordan.  The existing status quo has led to charges of apartheid against the state of Israel. But a bi-national state of Palestine, unlikely to be stable, is just unlikely. When Israel withdrew from direct occupation of Gaza in 2005, Hamas, after winning local elections in 2006, responded by burning synagogues there and launching rocket attacks on Israel.

It is in this morass that President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken now find themselves.  The Arab street is in an uproar over Israeli military reprisals — and civilian deaths — in Gaza. While some Sunni Arab governments were normalizing relations with Israel, mass undercurrents of sympathy for the Palestinians are now evident.  The stability of pro-Western governments as in Jordan is not guaranteed.  Shia Iran remains virulently rejectionist, supporting not only Hamas but also Hezbollah and other armed organizations.

Gaza has become a flashpoint for deep frustration with the results of European colonialism and American hegemony in world affairs.  Russia seeks to capitalize.  South Africa has recalled its ambassador to Israel.  (Israel had under-the-table close relations with White South African leaders during apartheid there.)

Immediate pressures, especially from European allies but also from progressive Democrats, for the United States to achieve some restraints on Israeli military maneuvers is evident.  But the Republican Party dominated by Trump manifests many Christian Zionists totally supportive of the Israeli policy to crush Hamas regardless of civilian damage.  There is no doubt but that a tough Israeli policy will pursue this objective, even if the future of Gaza remains uncertain.

Future elections in both Israel and the United States will add to this long and complex conflict.  If and when Hamas is crushed at great civilian cost, Zionist and Palestinian history will remain to confound those seeking a just and honorable peace.

This editorial was republished from the Nebraska Examiner, an editorially independent newsroom providing a hard-hitting, daily flow of news. It is part of the national nonprofit States Newsroom. Find more at nebraskaexaminer.com.