‘Exceptional’ country: Where is US leadership on Palestine?
Jan 9, 2024
(Graphic inserted)
The US proudly proclaims its exceptionalism and leadership of the free world, but in the latest Israeli-Palestinian flareup US leadership has been absent. A lasting peace settlement will require the US to take the lead in pushing forward the widely supported two-state solution.
The war in Gaza is now three months old, and the violence and depredation of the battle are much worse than previously experienced.
First, there was the brutality and depravity of the initial attack by Hamas on Israel, that resulted in 1200 Israeli deaths and the taking of 240 hostages. But in response, Israel has now killed more than 22000 Palestinians in Gaza, 85 per cent of the population is now homeless, there are no safe zones for civilians, and far, far too little food, water and medicines are reaching Gaza.
The US has urged Israel to shift to lower-intensity operations and to take a more targeted approach to eliminating Hamas. However, the US has so far vetoed the various international calls for a ceasefire.
Last week Israel announced that in the north of Gaza it would draw down its forces as it shifted to mopping up operations. But Israeli aircraft and tanks have reportedly stepped up their strikes in southern Gaza where most of the population are now trying to survive. In short, there is no let-up yet in the ferocity of Israel’s attack, so apparently Israel feels that it can ignore the US request.
Furthermore, this latest war has gone on much longer than all previous conflicts between Israel and its Arab neighbours. The 1967 War only lasted six days, and the 1973 War was over in three weeks after a well-structure disengagement agreement brokered by the US.
By contrast, this latest War has already been going for three months, and the Israelis talk about another six months of fighting before they have achieved their goals. To drive that point home, as recently as 25 December Netanyahu said: “We are not stopping, we are continuing to fight, and we are deepening the fighting in the coming days, and this will be a long battle and it is not close to being over.” While for its part the US has announced no plans to restore the peace or even to obtain a ceasefire.
In short, the number of deaths and the scale of destruction is much greater than ever before. And the longer this war lasts the worse the likely outcome. First, the risks of the conflict spreading to engulf Lebanon, Yemen, Iran and perhaps the whole of the Middle East are rapidly rising. Second, the longer the fighting and destruction in Gaza continues, the greater the increase in bitterness and the chances of renewed conflict in future. Third, Hamas will endure as a political movement as long as the denial of Palestinian rights endures, and the only way to end Hamas is to make it irrelevant by addressing the anger and hopelessness on which it feeds.
A key issue is what is Israel’s plan for Gaza and Palestine more generally when the fighting eventually stops? Israel has stated that its goals are to destroy Hamas and demilitarise Gaza. Israel’s leaders have also ruled out both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA) as governing authorities, and all the indications are that Israel wants to occupy Gaza for security reasons for an extended but indefinite future.
Netanyahu has also spoken of “voluntary migration”, which seems to be a euphemism for pushing the Gazans into Egypt, but Egypt has adamantly refused to open its borders. In addition, there are 700,000 Israeli settlers living in Palestinian lands on the West Bank, and as recently as the first half of 2023, Netanyahu’s Government approved permits for another 13,000 housing units in West Bank settlements, the highest number recorded since 2012.
Israel allows these settlers to seize Palestinian farms and the Israel Defence Force aids and abets these seizures. Since October 7 at least another thousand Palestinians have reportedly been forced off their land, with a third of these incidents involving Israeli settlers drawing firearms against the Palestinians.
Furthermore, Israel’s occupation of the West Bank has thus helped render its nominal government, the Palestinian Administration (PA) totally ineffective. Indeed, in an opinion poll conducted just before October 7 a substantial majority of Palestinians considered the PA to be a burden on the Palestinian people, and if Presidential elections were held, then the PA would come last with only 12 per cent of the vote.
But Israel’s hardline militarism and its land grabs have equally turned the world against it. In a recent General Assembly vote, 174 countries voted in favour of Palestinian political self-determination, while just 4 countries, including the US, voted against.
In an important indication of how international opinion is shifting, a few weeks ago the three Prime Ministers of Australia, Canada and New Zealand called for a sustainable ceasefire, while recognising that this “cannot be one-sided”. On the one hand, the Prime Ministers stated that Hamas must release all hostages, lay down its arms, and there cannot be any role for Hamas in the future governance of Gaza. On the other hand, and in return, the Prime Ministers:
· “Support the Palestinians right to self-determination”,
· “Oppose the forcible displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, the re-occupation of Gaza, any reduction in territory, and any use of blockade”,
· “Reaffirm that settlements are illegal under international law, [and that] settlements and violence are serious obstacles to a negotiated two-state solution”
These balanced requirements are consistent with moving to the two-State solution that has previously been widely agreed (including by the Arab states) as providing the only basis for a lasting peace settlement.
Furthermore, in late October last President Biden declared that the region must not return to its pre-October 7 status quo, and the Biden Administration has been reported as not supporting continuing Israeli occupation of Gaza once the fighting ends. But in that case the US needs to undertake bolder policy moves that firmly guide the region toward the two-state solution, that the US has backed in the past.
Accordingly, right now, the critical issue is how best to advance towards a sustainable cease-fire and then a lasting peace settlement in Gaza and Palestine as a whole. In a previous article (November 2023), I suggested that this objective would most readily be achieved if the US led an international push to pass a UN Security Council resolution to establish a peace-keeping force and a UN Trusteeship for the whole of Palestine, including Gaza.
That earlier article discussed in more detail why and how the UN should intervene, but in summary:
· under the auspices of the UN, a US-led peace-keeping force would take initial responsibility for combatting Palestinian terrorism and rebuilding Palestinian security capabilities, and
· the principal purpose of the Trusteeship would be to reconstruct Gaza and build an independent Palestinian state, gradually devolving authority to the Palestinian institutions that the Trusteeship would help to create.
The reality is that it is difficult to see how this intervention can happen without US leadership. The US is, however, reluctant to take the initiative and act, even though it knows that a two-State solution is the only hope for a lasting settlement of the Palestinian crisis.
Of course, none of this peace-keeping intervention will be easy. Biden will face great political and practical pressures if he chooses this bold action. But far greater risks will emerge over time if he doesn’t.
Strangely, for a country that likes to see itself as “exceptional” and as the leader of the free world, right now the political problem is that the US is failing to provide the necessary leadership in relation to Palestine. And as Jeffrey Sachs pointed out (Pearls & Irritations, 3 January 2024): “The US is facing severe and costly diplomatic isolation as it defends Israel’s indefensible actions”; a problem that will only get worse the longer the US delays sponsoring a sustainable peace settlement.
On the practical side, there are obvious risks in undertaking this intervention and it will take some time, say 3-4 years, to:
· Restore the Palestinian institutions of governance to which authority should gradually be devolved as they become more confident and their performance is assured, and
· Ensure that Hamas capability for terrorism has been totally destroyed and to rebuild the security capabilities of the renewed Palestinian Government.
Finally, it is very likely that the US could readily obtain the necessary support from the Arab nations for this proposed UN intervention to end the Israel-Gaza war. At a meeting in early December the Gulf States resolved to work with Jordan, Egypt and Western powers to push for a two-State solution. However, Israel may well oppose it and Netanyahu has made his personal opposition clear, but all the evidence is that his electoral popularity has plummeted, and he may not last long.
Nevertheless, with or without Netanyahu, any such opposition from Israel may well also influence some of the American electorate in what is an election year. Against this, however, the support from the US population for Israel is waning, with 59 per cent of Americans for a ceasefire and only 19 per cent against.
As regards any Israeli opposition to an imposed peace settlement, it should be noted that Israel’s latitude and capability to pursue its stated war objectives would be vastly constrained were it not for the emphatic support of the United States. The stark reality is that Israel has no viable alternative to the help it is receiving from the US.
Thus, if the Biden administration really wants an enduring peace in the Middle East then it is in a strong position to demand more from Israel in support of the US objectives. As Daniel Levy, a former Israeli negotiator reportedly said, “Unless the Israeli system actually feels there’s a cost to going in this direction, I don’t see how you free up some space for different politics”.
Furthermore, the US is in the best position to take the lead in convincing Israel that their legitimate security concerns will be satisfied while also restoring the Palestinian statehood. If not the US, who else would have sufficient credibility with both Israel and the Arabs?
While the US is possibly the only peace broker to be trusted by Israel, it will be equally important to gain the support of the Arab nations and work with them to ensure that they help provide the necessary financial support for reconstruction and play a leading role in the administration of Gaza for an extended period. And if, as proposed, the US works through the UN that should provide the necessary mandate.
In sum we all need the US to demonstrate its leadership and take the bold moves necessary to guide the Israel-Palestine region to a two-state solution.
Michael Keating is a former Secretary of the Departments of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Finance and Employment, and Industrial Relations. He is presently a visiting fellow at the Australian National University.
