By Fadi Amer
Although Jonas Green correctly concludes that both Arafat and
Sharon are key obstacles to peace in the Middle East, his
submission (“Arafat, Sharon Stand in Way of Peace,”
Viewpoint, Mar. 1) fails to make the critical link to the third
party that is also responsible: the United States. The simple and
harsh truth is that without the unwavering support of the United
States, Israel would have compromised and ended its occupation a
long time ago.
As a Palestinian, I am fully aware of the complexity of the
issues involved. If there is anything that should be noted about
the Middle East, it should be to acknowledge how both sides have
done their share in contributing to the cycle of violence and
revenge. However, I am convinced that the United States’s
unconditional support for Israel has made, and continues to make, a
bad situation much worse.
No other country comes close to Israel in receiving more
military, economic or political support from the United States. And
even though Israel has a well-advanced economy, it continues to
receive more U.S. aid than all of sub-Saharan Africa. This support
has nothing to do with Israel being a democracy, especially since
there are more than three million Palestinians under occupation
with no citizenship or voting rights. Neither is Israel, as a
nuclear power, in desperate need of military assistance.
But what is most imperative, and often missed in evaluating the
conflict, is the unequivocal political backing Israel enjoys from
the United States. The implications go far beyond what 5 billion
U.S. dollars do every year. They extend to the heart of the Israeli
political posture as well, because Israel is less likely to
compromise when it knows the world’s superpower is right
behind it.
From vetoing U.N. resolutions condemning Israel and its
occupation to blocking any sort of international intervention or
fact-finding commissions, the United States has consistently
ensured Israel a politically cost-free occupation. If one spares
the rhetoric of “restraint” and “controlled
response,” the United States has given Israel the green light
to take revenge collectively on the Palestinian population, from
house demolition and tank bombardments to endless sieges and
inhumane curfews.
It is truly astonishing that the United States is still fully
backing Israel, even with the full knowledge ““ as the Israeli
public is slowly learning ““ that Sharon’s policies
embody no formula for peace whatsoever. Even Israelis themselves
understand that force will not solve the current conflict ““
examples of this include a decline in Sharon’s approval
rating and reservists refusing to serve in the Territories ““
the United States continues to unequivocally support Israeli
policies and counter reprisals.
To reinforce my point, I urge you to pick up any American
newspaper you believe is respectable ““ i.e., The New York
Times or The Wall Street Journal ““ and read a story about the
events in the Middle East. First, you will quickly notice the
extreme disparity of attention/coverage given to Israeli casualties
over the Palestinian losses. But what is perhaps more bewildering
is that if you were to go and compare the coverage with that of any
major Israeli newspaper like the Yediot Aharonot or Haaretz, you
will find the Israeli reporting is much more critical of their
government and its policies against the Palestinians.
If you are still unconvinced with the level of impact a balanced
U.S. policy would bring, ask yourself this question: why should
Israel, with all its might, feel compelled to negotiate and
compromise when it knows the Palestinians are clearly much weaker
than they are? Now take this already-skewed situation and add the
world’s only superpower to the already more powerful Israeli
side and you will see precisely the picture of how things are
today.
The logic here is very simple, yet the implications are
profound. The unequivocal American support has allowed Israel to
explore and maintain policies that are mainly held by Rightist
elements which are clearly not conducive for peace. Expropriating
land and building settlements in the midst of Palestinian towns
serve as an excellent example.
Even though fully aware of the gross illegality and the
tremendous problems these settlements produce for future peace
plans, the United States, after strong international pressure, only
went as far as prohibiting Israel from directly using U.S. aid,
toward the building of settlements.
Better yet, look at the logic behind the occupation itself. Does
Israel really want to annex the West Bank and Gaza with more than 3
million Palestinians living in them? What about the Jewish
character that Israel consistently uses to argue against allowing
the 1948 refugees from going back to their homes? The implicit goal
of the occupation, at least as advanced by the Right, is to make
life so difficult for the Palestinians that they will simply pack
up and leave.
Regardless of whether you think Israeli policy is morally right
or wrong, the fact that its success is unlikely ““ as seen
from the 1987 and 2000 Intifadas ““ is sufficient to warrant
its end. Instead, the occupation is approaching its 35th
anniversary with Israelis and Americans still naively hoping
Palestinians will surrender or go away.
If the United States truly wants to see peace in Palestine, it
should no longer accept the zero-sum analysis that is consistently
advanced by the powerful Israeli lobby. Being more sensitive and
fair toward Palestine does not mean Israel will be harmed. If
anything, it will be a major step toward peace, which will benefit
all.