Shift by US in approach to Mideast would be prudent

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict serves as a potent illustration of the persistent failure of Western nations, particularly the United States, to facilitate an equitable and enduring resolution.

Since the first week in October, the world has been appalled by unprecedented violence, which has prompted critical contemplation of the efficacy of international law and the ramifications of massive civilian casualties that the Western media would otherwise characterize as genocide.

Reactions by Western countries to the ongoing conflict have exhibited divergence, reflecting the varying stances of individual governments. Traditionally, countries with close ties to Israel, such as the US, have vehemently asserted Israel's right to self-defense, emphasizing its role as a pivotal ally in the Middle East. The US, in particular, reinforced its support for Israel by deploying two aircraft carriers to the region, apart from sending arms and intelligence. Simultaneously, the European Union expressed support for Israel's right to self-defense.

The US has consistently taken a pro-Israel stance, failing to act as an impartial mediator in the conflict. This approach disregards the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people and bears resemblance to the historical treatment of Native Americans by the first European settlers.

Another historical parallel is between the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the contemporary failure of the US approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Balfour Declaration, which was issued by the British government during World War I and supported the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people", starkly exemplifies the persistent Western failure in addressing the Palestinian issue, with its glaring deficiency lying in the neglect of indigenous voices.

Similarly, the US approach to the conflict, rooted in the belief that hard power can quell legitimate grievances, has conveyed counterproductive messages, exacerbating violence against Palestinians.

Recent events vividly expose the adverse outcomes of the US approach. The failure by the administration of US President Joe Biden to normalize relations between Israel and Libya, as well as the improbable prospects for Saudi Arabia's inclusion in the Abraham Accords — bilateral agreements on Israeli-Arab normalization signed in 2020 between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain — reveal the fragility of the administration's Middle East policy.

Widespread protests across the Middle East, from Amman, Jordan, to Beirut, Lebanon, have arisen, compelling Arab leaders to denounce Israel and affirm support for the Palestinian cause. These developments have pressured Arab governments to issue active, collective support for the Palestinians and refrain from directly criticizing Hamas, as illustrated by the Saudi Arabia-hosted Joint Arab Islamic Extraordinary Summit on Nov 11.

Increasingly, it is becoming a challenge to imagine the developing Global South taking the US administration's rhetoric on human rights seriously. The glaring hypocrisy of the US and its European allies, who blindly support Israel while restricting aid, water and food to besieged Gaza residents, has not gone unnoticed. The significant failures of Washington's Middle East policy are increasingly difficult to deny.

A significant Western failure, primarily led by the US, is evident in international law. The US has consistently used its veto power to block United Nations Security Council resolutions related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Since 1945, 36 Security Council draft resolutions addressing this conflict have been vetoed, with the US responsible for 34 vetoes, while Russia and China vetoed two. These resolutions aimed to establish a framework for peace, including calls for Israel to adhere to international law, support for Palestinian self-determination, and condemnation of Israeli actions in occupied Palestinian territories.

The US has vetoed 46 resolutions related to Israel, covering issues like the invasion of southern Lebanon and the annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights. Notably, in 2019, the US officially recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. The only instance in which the US abstained from vetoing a draft resolution was in 1972, when an immediate cessation of military operations and restraint with the aim of international peace and security were called for.

A fundamental shift in the White House's approach to the Middle East would be a prudent one, accompanied by a rigorous examination of the circumstances that have led to the current impasse.

However, two principal factors cast doubt on the likelihood of such a shift.

First, the current administration continues to base its calculations on short-term interests, particularly those related to upcoming elections. It clings to the belief that victory at the polls is contingent upon demonstrating unwavering support for Israel, a perspective that is increasingly flawed.

Second, the deeply ingrained personal biases of the US administration, particularly within the State Department, hinder a clear-eyed, independent and America-centric approach to the conflict. Instead, the administration's disposition toward Israel appears to be heavily influenced by personal and familial sentiments of affinity. Undoubtedly, the long-standing US allegiance to Israel remains unwavering.

Meanwhile, as the world cannot tolerate the continued humanitarian disaster in Gaza, it is no longer relevant for the US-led Western countries to continue relegating the Palestinian issue to obscurity. Instead, their only equitable, legitimate and humanitarian path would be to join the rest of the world in pragmatic steps to implement the two-state solution in earnest, and restore peace for both states of Israel and Palestine.

The author is a research fellow at the Institute of Strategic Studies in Islamabad, Pakistan.