[Originally published in the Rutland Herald.]
Here we are in the midst of yet another Middle East summit meeting, the purpose of which, as always, is to find a solution to the persistent Palestine problem. So far, for a variety of reasons, nothing conclusive has come from these meetings. Nevertheless, it does present the United States with one more opportunity to look at its national interests in the region and then, hopefully, decide on a policy that serves those interests.
U.S. policy on the Palestine issue has been pretty consistent, at least since the 1967 war. We have supported Israel on virtually every substantive issue of importance. We have vetoed over two dozen resolutions in the U.N. Security Council that have condemned Israel for one thing or another, and we have supported or at least turned a blind eye to their Gaza and West Bank settlement policies, which have been deemed illegal under international law.
The “land for peace” solution is still on the table. That idea was incorporated in 1967 in U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 in the aftermath of the six day Arab-Israeli War. Under “land for peace,” the Palestinians would get back roughly their pre-1967 borders, and the Israelis would get peace, security and recognition of their national legitimacy. The West Bank settlements are important in the upcoming summit meeting because in order to satisfy “land for peace,” Israel would have to give them up. There is broad traditional support for such a solution in Europe and in the U.N. General Assembly.
Some Palestinians who would like to throw the Israelis into the sea and some Israelis, particularly Israeli settlers, oppose that formula. They are supported here in America by the more fervent Israeli supporters, including many American Jewish Zionists, as well as substantial numbers of fundamentalist Christians — the “Christian Zionists” — who believe the second coming of Christ will not happen until Israel occupies the entire West Bank. The settlements lead to just such a situation.
Israelis are far better informed on this issue than Americans simply because there is a passionate, ongoing, public debate in Israel on the subject. There is virtually no discussion of it here in America. The issue of the settlements is at the heart of Israeli national interests. The real question here is whether or not continued American support for the settlements is in the U.S. national interest.
Osama bin Laden probably doesn’t care much about the plight of the Palestinians. What he cares about is the eradication of western influence in the lands of Islam. And yet, the resolution of the Palestine issue is at the heart of America’s issues, not only in the Middle East, but in its overall dealings with fundamentalist Muslim terrorism. The Palestine issue is not a cause of our problems with terrorism, but it is a constant irritant. As long as Muslims continue to believe that the Palestinians are being wronged by the Israelis and by extension by a pro-Israel ally, the United States, the Muslim world will remain a rich recruiting ground for terrorist foot soldiers as well as for political and financial support from a sector of the moderate Muslim world which is not naturally aligned with the fundamentalists.
President Bush has consistently supported the two-state solution- of Israeli and Palestinian states living side by side, undergirded by the precept of “land for peace.” He seems to be politically isolated in that position. In the recent debates between both Republicans and Democrats, no candidate comes to mind who supports “land for peace.” This may well be because none of those individuals believes in such a solution. It also may be because of the generally held perception in American politics that a candidate who is not 100 percent supportive of Israeli national interests cannot be elected to significant national public office.
Israeli and American national interests, where they often coincide, are not always identical. In the case of “land for peace,” and despite varying but persistent support in Israel over the past 40 years, they are quite divergent. If a settlement of the Palestine issue leads to a two-state solution in which both states are absolutely guaranteed the right to exist in peace and security, then it is in American national interest to support that solution with more than words. Anything we can do to diminish support for Muslim terrorism is in our national interest. The Israeli settlements are not.
This kind of opportunity doesn’t come around very often, and it is critical to support it when it does, particularly when non-support is likely to increase our problems with fundamentalist Muslim terrorism.
Haviland Smith is a retired CIA station chief who served in Eastern and Western Europe, Lebanon and Iran and as chief of the agency’s counterterrorism staff. He lives in Williston.
Rural Ruminations 