Best hope for peace in Middle East: Total US disengagement, becoming an honest bystander

A Heretical Thought for Peace

By John V. Whitbeck

In early June, the respected Pew Research Center in the United States released the latest of its global opinion surveys, which polled more than 15,000 people in 21 countries in the wake of the invasion and conquest of Iraq. The results attracted considerable attention in the American press.

A primary focus of press reports was the surge of anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world. In traditionally pro-American Jordan, 97 percent of those polled opposed America's "war on terror," while, in NATO member Turkey, 83 percent expressed an unfavorable opinion of the United States. The selection of Osama bin Laden by the publics of five of theeight Muslim countries surveyed (Indonesia, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan and Palestine) as one of the three political leaders they would most trust to "do the right thing" in world affairs did not go unnoticed.

Less noticed, but no less significant, were the responses to another question.Those polled were asked whether the United States is too supportive of Israel. In 20 of the 21 countries surveyed (notably including Israel),most of those polled said "yes." There is no prize for guessing the one country wheremost said "no."

Israeli support for this proposition, while extremely encouraging, should not come as a complete surprise. Israelis have to live in Israel/Palestine. While their existence since Ariel Sharon provoked the current intifada in September 2000 has not been the living hell experienced by Palestinians, their lives have still become unpleasant, insecure and stressful. Increasingly, the essential realization that occupation and security are mutually exclusive is sinking in.

American supporters of the occupation tend to be Christian fundamentalists concerned about being personally raptured up to heaven after the much-to-be-hoped-for Battle of Armageddon, Jews who feel personally guilty to be living prosperously and comfortably in America rather than having emigrated to Israel/Palestine,or politicians interested only in preserving or furthering their personal careers by not offending the other two groups.

Americans in these three groups, which are fundamental to the formulation of American Middle East policy, do not have to suffer the consequences of the occupation or the resistance to it, and their support forthe occupation rarely reflects any genuine concern for the best interests of Israelis (let alone Palestininians). Their militant "pro-Israel" activism is purely self-centered and selfish in its motivation. It is also the primary obstacle to peace.

Those Israelis who feel that America is too supportive of Israel presumably can see that America's involvementsince 1967 has not advanced the cause of peace but, rather, has blocked it, with Washington's periodic pretenses of peacemaking simply providing an "only game in town" cover behind which the occupation could be perpetuated, deepened and made more nearly irreversible. They presumably wish, for their own sakes, that America would "reform." (Perhaps the U.S. needs a prime minister.)

Now—a heretical thought. Virtually all governments and commentators agree, at least in their public pronouncements, that deeper engagement by the United States is essential if Israeli-Palestinian peace is ever to be achieved. Wrong. The best hope for peace would be total American disengagement—and the sooner the better.

Imagine that the U.S. government were to announce that it was washing its hands of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—that it would no longer give any military, economic or diplomatic aid or support to either side, and that it would not use its veto to block any U.N. Security Council resolution with respect to Israel/Palestine, even one imposing sanctions on either or both of the parties to the conflict. Having never been an "honest broker," the United States would at least become an honest bystander.

Israeli politicians and American Christian fundamentalists would, of course, be appalled. However, if the Pew poll is to be believed, many Israelis would be relieved—and finally see light at the end of the tunnel. With the the U.S. out of the picture, the occupation would become, and be recognized to be, unsustainable. The great boulder blocking the road to peace would have rolled itself out of the way, and the road to peace (not to be confused with the "road map") could finally be open for travel.

As a hugely beneficial side-effect, U.S. disengagement would vastly—and quickly—diminish anti-American rage throughout the Muslim world and the consequent threat of further "terrorist" attacks on Americans and American interests. There no longer would be any need to continue the series of wars against Israel's (hence America's) enemies. American civil liberties could be restored, and hundreds of billions of dollars could be redirected in constructive ways that would actually enhance the quality of life of Americans. America might even become respected out of admiration, as it once was, rather than simply out of fear, as is now the case.

A dream?When, perhaps quite soon, the "road map" reaches the dead-end which its own terms appear designed to ensure (hopefully without first producing the Palestinian civil war which appears to be its primary, if undeclared, objective), what will be the better alternative?

John V. Whitbeck is an international lawyer who writes frequently on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.