The Way Forward in the Middle East

The US must begin revising its policy in the Middle East as soon as the next president is sworn into office. Our current policy is far too short-sighted and unrealistic, and has been responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of inhabitants of the region. Our current policies are also responsible for the growth of regional and global terrorism, despite our attempt to shield our impotence behind the semantics of a "war on terrorism." Many politicians are already aware of how much the war in Iraq is hurting our country and its interests. We need a direct commitment to a final withdrawal of our forces from Iraq within a short period of time; we have bankrupted this country to fight someone else's war and hand the region's oil to America's wealthiest corporations. We have no more money to fight this war, and every day that we do we not only come closer to complete economic disaster, we also help our enemies recruit the next generation of soldiers to fight against us. Looking beyond these salient facts, however, our relations with Israel (together with Israel's own domestic and foreign policies) are also outdated, and do not take into consideration the current demographic developments in Israel. If we do not revise this policy soon, our policies will result in further misery and a national policy failure equivalent to that which occurred in Vietnam.

Ever since the creation of the modern state of Israel, the US has been Israel's principal ally and supporter, and Israel owes much of her ability to maintain herself to American military and economic support. This support has been based on a number of factors, such as the prevalence of Jewish political support within the US for the Jews "back home"; guilt for our nation's failure to stop Nazi aggression against the Jews of Europe, and sorrow for the horrendous slaughter that we allowed through our inaction; and the Soviet support for the Arab nations which opposed Israel (and for the PLO). Americans should be proud of the support which our nation has given to Israel as a nation with some impressively democratic characteristics. Nonetheless, for the twenty-first century, our policy needs some serious re-thinking.

Israel has raised itself up to become a capable industrial and technological power in its own right. Israel has developed the capability of building its own tanks and fighter aircraft (virtually the only Middle East nation that is able to do so), and several other major items of strategic military equipment. Israel still depends heavily on continued financial backing from America, but strategically, Israel builds its own weapons and has achieved a certain degree of material independence. The United States should not see its support for Israel as the key to Israeli survival any more, so much as a bulwark to assist Israel's continued economic and social development. But we need to maintain a measure of influence as to how that development proceeds if we are to continue funding it as extensively as we have done.

There are now in place two decisive peace treaties between Israel and her neighbors. She has now been at peace with Egypt for 35 years, and both she and Egypt have invested a great deal in the continued state of peace between them. Israel also now has a treaty with Jordan, and in fact Israel has been at peace with Jordan for even longer than it has been with Egypt. The only remaining national threat to Israel's security is Syria, which continues to maintain a large Soviet-style armored army and air force, and is heavily armed with relatively contemporary vehicles, weapons, and equipment. Only having the one threat, however, enables Israel to concentrate her forces against Syria if a crisis emerges between the two antagonists.

The eradication of two of the three main threats to Israeli security also allows Israel, in the lack of a major crisis with Syria, to focus her attentions on operations in the occupied territories and in the north against the ever-problematic Lebanon. Despite the initial progress that had been made after the 1987 Intifada, Israel has mostly given up on fulfilling its treaty obligations to conduct even limited withdrawals from the West Bank, and so the Palestinian desire for independent statehood remains unfulfilled as well. The US seems content to sit on the sidelines while Israel ignores her own treaty obligations and continues to oppress a people who are making a legitimate fight for their freedom. Israel also continues to involve herself both politically and militarily in the Lebanese morass; it must of course be understood that Israel feels a strong necessity to defend herself in the north against both Syrian and Iranian interference in Lebanese affairs, as both Syria and Iran are goal-oriented to see Lebanon built into a base of operations against Israel. Israel does have legitimate security concerns in Lebanon so long as both Syria and Iran continue their interference there as well.

Nonetheless, Israel has abandoned whatever commitment it may have had towards a peaceful resolution of the Palestinian diaspora. This failure of the Israeli commitment has prompted a new generation of Palestinians themselves to abandon the moderate attitudes of their predecessors who had finally managed to win a peace treaty with Israel. The Palestinian cause is now back in the hands of extremists who wish to pursue a program of violence against Israel (and perhaps also her supporters, such as the US), because Israel herself has communicated to them that violence can be their only recourse at this stage of the game.

The US needs to get more closely involved in the peace process, or we will find more of the attentions of the Palestinian fighting organizations directed against our nation and our people. More precisely, the US needs to make its intentions all too clear to both Israel and the Palestinians, as it did after the 1987 Intifada, and those intentions must be for a peaceful resolution that gives the Palestinians their own independent state and a security arrangement to protect that state's existence in just the same way that the US currently protects Israel's existence. The aims of US policy should no longer be to protect Israel from all of her opponents, but to bring her into peaceful co-existence with those powers that now oppose her. The process of 1987 showed us clearly that powerful, moderate forces do exist on both sides, and these forces need once again to come together empowered and committed to peace.

The fact that the US is more concerned with maintaining the security of an Israeli state that is now capable of defending herself against her remaining national threats, than we are concerned with peace or with the needs of the Palestinian people, stands out as a strong recruiting argument for any organizations fighting against American interests. Is is all too easy for Arabs, Palestinians, Persians, and other inhabitants of the region to look upon America as an inherently hostile and aggressive antagonist, as we continue to back an oppressive Israeli regime which is able to use our support for their own purposes. It is difficult for the US to sell itself as a "democratic force" in the region when we have attacked and invaded their nations and supported their oppressors and torturers.

It should not be thought that a commitment to peace would in any way involve abandoning Israel. However, we need to make our continued support contingent upon an active Israeli involvement in the peace process, and specifically a final commitment to Palestinian statehood within a specified time-line of as short a duration as possible. We also need to work with the Palestinian Authority, and with the independent organizations of Palestine (including those which we have labeled as "terrorist"), to ensure as we did in 1987 that Israel's continued survival remains an American security objective. But we must revise our vision of Israeli survival, to include a peaceful coexistence with her neighbors, rather than a continued survival of diametrically opposed and heavily armed powers committed to each other's ultimate oppression or destruction.

What is needed is a complete revision of our international security objectives in Palestine. In addition to supporting and defending Israel, our objectives need to be expanded to include the creation, support, and defense of a complete and fully autonomous Palestinian state. Our objectives should include our direct involvement in assisting Israel and Palestine in coming to terms under these conditions, and in mediating a beneficial and benevolent relationship between the two powers. There would be great advantages for our nation if we do so. Besides having a friend where we currently have adversarial terrorist recruiting grounds, we would have a powerful and well-located listening post in the Arab world, situated where we would have access to Arab public opinion as well as an outreach capability. This would help to expand the dialogue between our world and theirs; many of the problems that occur in American relations with Arab nations is the lack of a successful or complete dialogue, and the many misunderstandings between us that result from that lack. A Palestinian state friendly with both the US and with Israel would help greatly in counter-balancing the more extremist groups in the Middle East that would argue for war and hatred, and in neutralizing the main recruiting grounds for anti-American and anti-Israeli groups (outside of Iraq at least, which will still remain the primary anti-American recruiting ground as long as US forces are deployed there). Maintaining friendly and supportive American relations with Palestine will help maintain the momentum of change from extremism to moderation.

An important point here is that the Zero Sum Game theory of politics has failed. Helping Israel today can be done far more easily and effectively, and with far longer-term results, if we include as a part of that policy helping some of the forces that are currently arrayed against Israel. Israel cannot and will not survive indefinitely if her current policies remain unaltered. For Israel to survive the 21st century, she needs to live in a friendly and healthy environment. Furthermore, American strategic interests are being hurt both by our continuing need to back Israel against parties with legitimate concerns, and by our obvious involvement from the Arabs' perspective as an alien adversary. Both Israel and the US need peace established in Palestine, and this requires Israeli and American compromise, and our commitment to Palestinian statehood.

A revision of our security objectives is also needed to take into account recent changes in Israel's population. Israel is rapidly becoming "less Jewish," as the non-Jewish sectors of her population are rapidly outgrowing her Jewish population. Jewish immigration into Israel has slowed to a trickle (due to several factors, including the state of tension and open violence there now), and the Jewish population of Israel has a relatively low birth rate (similar to other modern, industrialized nations' birth rates). The Arab and Bedouin populations of Israel, however, while much smaller than the Jewish population, have substantially higher birth rates and are starting to catch up in overall numbers. Also, for various complicated reasons, the Christian population of Israel is also vastly outpacing Jewish population increases (largely due to actual immigration, especially of Russian Orthodox, but also due to higher birth rates as well). By the middle of the century it is highly likely that Jews will become a minority in their own state. If Israel continues to exist as a "Jewish state" with a largely non-Jewish population, then it will become a definitive apartheid state, with a revolutionary impulse for change and an increased tendency for both internal and external violence. If the Jews of Israel don't make peace with their neighbors soon, they may once again find their neighbors and themselves at each other's throats, and the final American act in Israel may be merely to watch the slaughter.

The US needs to prepare itself for this change, and to accept this as not merely inevitable but desirable. If Israel peacefully develops itself along these lines, then the new Israel that develops over the next century should continue to receive American support whatever its demographics are, in order to ensure all the inhabitants of the Middle East that we are supporting not merely Jews, but all peoples. We also need to be able to operate in the new environment as it develops, and not remain unrealistically wedded to the past. But we must not get bogged down in supporting an apartheid state, especially if that would antagonize that state's neighbors.

Another way in which the US must modify its Middle East policy is in its program of relations. In the past quarter of a century, international relations have grown far more complicated as independent and popular organizations have achieved greater power, influence, and overall importance (due in part to the growth of the internet, and other technologies that enable people to reach out to each other and develop agencies outside of official state structures). Two excellent examples are Hezbollah, which as an organization has achieved practical statehood in Lebanon, almost completely marginalizing the actual Lebanese government; and Hamas, which competes with the Palestinian Authority for legitimacy amongst the younger generations of the occupied territories. The US refuses to converse with either organization, naming them both (with some justification) as terrorist organizations. Nonetheless, refusing to speak to what are now the powers that be is not conducive either to productive relations or to realistic expectations for the future. Furthermore, the US must bear in mind that its relations with the PLO were developed over time as we basically "weaned" the moderate factions away from terrorism and towards responsible negotiations. Our negotiations with the PLO were started initially as discussions with a group that we had still at the time considered to be a terrorist organization. Eventually, after some discussions, the PLO was convinced that further work with the US justified abandoning their terrorist-type operations, and this became official PLO policy shortly afterwards.

The US should look to Hezbollah and Hamas as two major powers in the Middle East, worthy of negotiations and discussion. As all organizations do, Hezbollah and Hamas will take advantage of any opportunity to achieve their objectives, and the wealthy and powerful US is in a great position to offer both carrot and stick. The stick these organizations are already all too familiar with; we present it to them virtually every day, either directly, or indirectly through Israeli actions involving the expenditure of American ammunition. We should now show them the carrot as well; the opportunity to have American wealth and influence fighting for them rather than against them. Just as we won over the PLO, we can win over either these two powerful organizations, or large moderate forces within the organizations that can moderate their actions. As powerful as these organizations now are, it is highly unrealistic to think that peace can be achieved without their direct involvement; especially when they are so highly committed to their goals, and heavily armed, socially and politically entrenched, and elaborately organized.

Other organizations and groups in the Middle East are similarly deserving of official American relations, such as Al Jazeera, which is a powerful medium for influencing Arab popular opinion. In the modern information age, the US needs to give the independent and popular groups greater consideration, and include them in the peace process. Ultimately, it is really their peace that we are trying to help them achieve. If the popular forces of the Middle East are not involved in the peace process, then whatever the national politicians agree to, there cannot be a lasting peace.

A final point on American policy in the Middle East touches upon a vital point which fortunately is understood by many Americans already: the war in Iraq. Many Americans, and many politicians already understand very well how much the war in Iraq is killing America's economic security, political security, and moral legitimacy throughout the world. It has become almost cliche that the next president's first and most vital mission will be the extraction of the US armed forces from the Iraqi abyss. However, it is in the direct strategic interests of the United States to re-think our Middle East policies beyond our Iraqi exit strategy, and our relations with Israel. Israel has finally grown up, and it is time for us to take a look at the region around her, and figure out how the state that we spent so much money trying to protect is going to survive in such a hostile environment. Israel has learned the hard lessons of how to fight with her neighbors and survive on a military level; it is now time for Israel to learn how to survive on an international political level. Israel needs to live with her neighbors, not just be able to kill them efficiently and occupy their lands. In this new struggle, Israel needs our help, as do her neighbors, who past events have shown are capable of compromise if they can be assured of achieving some of their objectives. Not providing our help, especially if we continue to back Israel, will ultimately result in more young men and women joining ranks with our enemies than we can kill off in battle. As independent and popular organizations become more sophisticated and better armed, it becomes more and more a vital strategic objective for us to help these people, rather than ignoring them and killing them.