The Biden administration has recently tried to shift away from its initial unconditional support for Israeli actions in Gaza by combining caution with a vague “day after” plan.
Immediately after October 7, President Biden offered the Netanyahu government exaggerated support for Israel’s right to self-defense, its goal of eliminating Hamas, and his pledge of unwavering US support. This response to what had just happened was perhaps understandable, but it is clear that Israel viewed Biden’s words as a green light to inflict heavy losses on the Palestinian people as a whole.
After the death toll increased astonishingly, and Americans saw the horrific damage and the scenes to which more than a million Palestinians were exposed as they walked miles in search of safety, the position of White House officials changed slightly. They warned Israel to be “more strategic” in its air strikes to reduce risks to civilians. Without adding, “If you continue, we will…” these warnings were considered useless in Israel.
While opinion polls in the United States showed increasing rejection of Israeli actions and the administration’s timid response, along with signs indicating growing dissatisfaction in the Arab world regarding America’s refusal to rein in Israel, the administration went further. The main talking points at the White House included: urging Israel to adhere to the “rules of war” that limit civilian casualties, warnings that the United States would not accept the reoccupation of Gaza, and insisting on increased humanitarian aid.
This slight change in tone was not accompanied by any similar shift in policy. The administration has refused to place conditions on future US military aid to Israel or to discourage Israel from resuming its war.
Then the White House, concerned about the lack of a “final solution,” offered some ideas — though they were not “new” or particularly dangerous. They called for the “restructuring of the Palestinian Authority” to administer Gaza, leading to recognition of the West Bank and Gaza as a single entity forming the future Palestinian state, and for Israel to control settler violence in the West Bank.
Two months later, with 15,000 Palestinians killed, 1.7 million others displaced, and half the buildings in Gaza demolished, several questions come to mind. How will renewed bombings not kill more civilian lives? With many Hamas leaders and activists going to the crowded south, how can Israel eliminate Hamas without causing more deaths? How can the Palestinian Authority be reshaped while the Palestinians are living under occupation?
Before the war, Hamas’s popularity was low, and opinion polls now show support rising and the Palestinian Authority losing more legitimacy. Elections under these circumstances will almost certainly lead to a result that the Israelis and the United States will never accept.
Although many ideas coming out of Washington envision replacing Netanyahu’s government with a new coalition, any potential reconstitution of the current Knesset or holding new elections would not produce a government capable of pursuing significantly different policies regarding the Palestinians. It will not include anything close to an independent Palestinian state, nor will it rein in settlers or limit settlement expansion.
Two words that could reverse this downward spiral. The first is “no.” Instead of recalling the rules of war or demanding a reduction in civilian casualties, settlement expansion, or settler violence, the president should just say “no.” No more offensive military equipment or American support in international forums without a permanent ceasefire, measures to disarm violent settlers, and an end to all settlement expansion.
The serious path to a peaceful solution requires a dramatic surgery to remove the cancer that sparks violence and creates extremism on all sides. “No” to the continuation of the occupation.
Then change the American “no” at the United Nations to “yes” and support the Security Council resolution that recognizes Palestine as a state, declares that the continued occupation constitutes a threat to regional peace and security, and orders the establishment of a United Nations peacekeeping force to provide peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians.
There is no doubt that such American moves would shock both societies. The Palestinians will only be able to put their house in order under the security provided by the United Nations mandate. Changing the status of the lands to Palestinian lands would leave the Israelis asking difficult questions such as: Where have decades of unchecked acquisition and expansion led them, and reconsidering the ongoing oppression of the Palestinians with impunity? In the aftershock, sensible voices will emerge, reigniting the forces of Israeli peace and Palestinian moderates. It won’t be easy, but leaving the cancer where it lies will lead to certain death. It takes a shock to the system that begins with a “no” in the United States followed by a “yes.”
*President of the Arab American Institute – Washington
#United #States #Palestine