With the clock ticking down to November 5 and what just about everyone agrees is the most consequential US presidential election in living memory, various of the Biden administration’s top brass have jetted out to the Middle East for one last try to get a deal over the line.

The most likely area where progress could be made is the conflict in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah. The militant group announced the appointment of a new general secretary on October 29. Naim Qassem is, as the BBC puts it, “one of the few senior Hezbollah leaders who remains alive after Israel killed most of the group’s leadership in a series of attacks”. He is reportedly making noises about possible change in Hezbollah policy that would separate any negotiations over the conflict in Lebanon with any talks over Gaza.

If true, it’s a major shift from the policy of recently assassinated leader Hassan Nasrallah, which previously indelibly linked a ceasefire in Gaza with the cessation of Lebanon’s rocket attacks on northern Israel. Full details of the deal remain under wraps, but a draft was leaked to Israel’s state broadcaster Kan.

For Israel’s part, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the initial phase of Israel’s operation inside Lebanon is drawing to a close. As for what comes next, the New York Times reported on October 28 that Netanyahu is “waiting to see who will succeed President Biden before committing to a diplomatic trajectory”.

The diplomatic trajectory has been made more complicated of late by a big spat between Israel and the UN. The two have had a fractious relationship since the very start. But under the Netanyahu government, things have steadily deteriorated to the stage that Israel actually barred UN secretary general António Guterres from entering the country at the beginning of October.

This week Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, passed a new law banning the UN relief and works agency (Unrwa) from operating on any territory it controls. Unrwa was set up after the war of 1948 to help displaced Arabs and has since morphed into what an independent review this year said was an “indispensable lifeline” for civilians in Gaza and the West Bank.

The trouble is that the reason the independent review was reporting at all was that Israel was alleging Unrwa staff had taken part in the October 7 massacres alongside Hamas. Unwra subsequently fired nine staff members. But Israel’s contention that Unrwa is a “rotten tree entirely infected with terrorist operatives” remains unproved.

Lisa Strömbom of Sweden’s Lund University, who has been following the conflict for many years, has traced the deterioration of relations between Israel and Unrwa over several decades. She now believes that Israel’s ban will make it nigh on impossible for Unrwa to fulfil its mission in Gaza. This can only make things worse for a civilian population in Gaza which is already trying to survive in the most difficult circumstances possible.

The Netanyahu government’s decision to ban Unrwa has been roundly condemned on all sides. Some voices have even called for Israel’s membership of the UN to be suspended. That’s a complicated issue, writes Aidan Hehir, who has published widely on conflict resolution and treaty making.

For a start, it would need to get past the UN security council which means being subject to a veto from any one of the five permanent members (P5). We published an article on this issue some years ago with the help of UN expert Emma McClean, which looked at the issues which had prompted members of the P5 to wield their vetos. It found that Israel-Palestine was hands-down the most common issue that led to a veto – and all those vetoes had been instigated by the US.

So suspending Israel from the UN would appear to be a non-starter. But Hehir tells the story of the way the UN managed to circumvent the P5 and suspend South Africa in 1974 over apartheid. Having failed to get the suspension past the security council after the UK and France vetoed the move, the credentials committee of the general assembly simply refused to renew South Africa’s credentials. It remained suspended for two decades until the end of apartheid in 1994.

Meanwhile Israel’s assault on Gaza continues and the death toll continues to mount. Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), supported by airstrikes, continue to bombard what the IDF says are Hamas positions in the towns of Beit Lahia and Jabalia but which the Gaza health ministry say are residential buildings sheltering hundreds of civilians. On October 29, the health ministry said at least 93 people, including 25 children, were killed by an Israeli airstrike.

Much of the population of the north of Gaza has been evacuated south of what is known as the Netzarim corridor. Israel’s Haaretz newspaper claims that it’s part of an operation known as the “generals’ plan”, which calls for the north to be cleared of civilian residents and locked down as a military zone. This is presented as a national security measure, but Leonie Fleischmann reports that there are those who believe the military operation will be followed by an influx of Israeli settlers.

Fleischmann points to a conference held on the Israeli side of the border with north Gaza, attended by members of Netanyahu’s Likud party as well as by several government ministers, which actively promoted the idea of settling north Gaza. Memories and historical legend mingle with ideology that holds Gaza had a Jewish population from biblical times through to 1929, when an Arab revolt killed 133 Jewish people living there and drove the rest out.

The prospect of a land grab is clearly exercising minds at the UK foreign office. UK ambassador to the United Nations, Barbara Woodward said on October 29: “We reiterate that northern Gaza must not be cut off from the south. Palestinian civilians, including those evacuated from northern Gaza must be permitted to return. There must be no forcible transfer of Gazans from or within Gaza, nor any reduction in the territory of the Gaza Strip.”

All eyes on Washington

It’s highly unlikely that we’ll know by this time next week who has prevailed in the US presidential election. But the Middle East will be one of the first big ticket items on the Resolute desk.

The issue has already proved to be a tricky one for Kamala Harris. Her support base is deeply divided on the issue, with large numbers of Democrats – particularly young people, as well as Muslims and black voters – unsettled by her perceived part in the Biden administration’s “steadfast” support for Israel over the past four years.

It’s hard to tell whether these voters consider that the people of Gaza would fare any better under a Trump White House. But Natasha Lindstaedt and Faten Ghosn believe that Netanyahu’s continuing aggression in Gaza may well play out in the Republican contender’s favour.

Meanwhile, to guide us through how the two candidates are likely to approach the big foreign policy issues, we can turn to Garret Martin of the Transatlantic Policy Center at the American University in Washington.