Ever since the first air strikes on Taliban and Al-Qaeda terrorist forces during Operation Enduring Freedom, the United States has involved itself in regional conflicts in one of the most unstable geopolitical regions in the world. Through its so-called “Global War on Terror,” which has killed at least 4.5 million people and displaced 38 million people, the US has become inextricably linked to the conflict in the Middle East (Watson Institute). However, after two decades of warfare, toppled governments, and bombed weddings, the United States seemed ready to leave, at least militarily, from the region. Starting under Former President Donald Trump, the US performed a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan, finalized under President Joseph Biden’s oversight. 

 

Strategic U.S. Interest in the Region

In light of Hamas’s October 7 attack, the U.S. Government’s choice to withdraw neglects their moral and political responsibilities to the Middle East. It is imperative that the U.S. facilitate peace before leaving the region, not only to compensate for the war on terror, but to also prevent resentful, fractured and desperate nations from furthering ties with geopolitical rivals such as China and Russia. While it would be fruitful to address the historical implications within the region, it lies within the U.S.’ best interests to pursue a lasting peace, rather than to entangle itself in historical regional animosity. 

Given the United States’ role in the region, I believe the most straightforward way to achieve this goal is the implementation of the US-backed Two State Solution. 

 

Two State Solution

The Two State Solution, which in this article will refer to the creation of a separate and permanent Palestinian state, is not only the official stance of President Biden and UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, but is also that of a wide array of other world leaders. Arab nations in the region also back this proposal, maintaining that they are willing to cooperate with Israel in exchange for the statehood of Palestine (Kaye, Vakil, Foreign Affairs). The namesake of the solution itself fulfills the Arab countries’ precondition for cooperation, which is essential for establishing a lasting peace beyond Israel and Palestine. 

 

Cultivation of Public Support

However, even with widespread international support for the Two State Solution, there is one major condition that must be met: the cultivation of Israeli and Palestinian public support. Both parties must be willing to work together for a lasting peace to be established. The latter seems to be relatively straightforward. Israel is now the clear aggressor in the war, given that it has dropped 29 thousand tons worth of explosives in Gaza in the first month of the conflict alone (Al Jazeera). Thus, it makes sense that Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, the putative governments of the Gaza strip and West Bank, would support peace negotiations resulting in the creation of a Palestinian state. However, cultivating Israeli public support is not as simple. For a Two State Solution to work, it needs support from the Israeli public, more specifically—its people.  

While Prime Minister Netanyahu officially supports the Two State Solution, his actions, even before October 7, suggest otherwise. Rather, Netanyahu has more closely followed a method of containing the Palestinian Authority and Hamas while maintaining the unstable “status quo.” (Lynch, Foreign Affairs) He has increased tensions by creating Israeli settlements in the West Bank before the war, and his current policies seem aimed at the end goal of Israeli conquest of the Gaza strip. Despite being deeply unpopular with the Israeli public— only 15% of Israeli citizens want him to continue being the Prime Minister—Netanyahu has managed to cultivate public support for the war exploiting regional tensions (Reuters). Therefore, the U.S. needs to turn public support away from Netanyahu’s cult of the offensive and towards peace. 

 

Current U.S. Response

The U.S is currently pursuing a carrot and stick diplomacy to Israel: military support and political criticism. While the U.S. gains much from the former, it undermines its own interests with the latter. 

By supplying weapons to Israel, the U.S. has led the Israeli public to believe that the U.S. is on their side, this support being critical to changing public opinion in favor of the two-state solution. However, though the U.S. government’s political critique of Israel’s response to the war might increase its international credibility, it also undermines that same cultivation of Israeli public support the US needs. 

In addition, the U.S.’ desire to build a moral high-ground through criticism is fraught with irony. Given its recent actions in the region, US credibility in the Middle East is less than recognized or even defensible. Ever since the brutal retaliation for the 9/11 Attacks during the War on Terror, America has forfeited its moral high ground by committing human rights violations of its own.

It also doesn’t help that the U.S.’ banner of “human rights” is staked on weapon shipments for Israel to use in its assault on the Gaza strip. If the US were to meaningfully support human rights, it would need to  halt providing weapons in the first place. Yet the Biden administration has staunchly refused to cut military aid to Israel on numerous occasions, despite calls from across the political spectrum. 

As a result, the carrot and stick approach not only fails to establish a moral high ground, it also loses Israeli public support for the Two State Solution in the process, creating a lose-lose situation. US’ criticisms of the IDF, rather than pressuring Israel to not commit human rights violations, has only undermined the sentiment of the Israeli public that the US is “on their side”, the exact sentiment necessary for the US to enact its Two State Solution. 

 

Appeasement Policy

Therefore—while seemingly counterintuitive—pursuing a policy of appeasement of the Israeli public, seems to be a more effective course of action. 

The first step would be for Biden and the United States government to halt criticism of the Israeli response to prevent the alienation of Israeli moderates. Instead, the US should look to solving the tasks necessary to end the war. 

It has already been established that at this point in the war from an objective perspective, Israel is the aggressor at this point in the war. In order to shift Israeli public support away from pursuing further carnage, the US must address one of Israel’s motivations for Israel fighting—the hostages that Hamas still holds captive from its initial attack on October 7th. 

If the US can play a pivotal role in securing the release of its hostages, it would give them the leverage needed to nudge the Israeli public toward the Two-State solution, and paint itself as an alternative to Neyanyahu’s warmongering.

 

Peace?

A lasting, sustainable peace should be the U.S.’ primary goal. Therefore, the ends justify the not-so-positive means of influencing Israeli public opinion and aiding the Israeli Defense Forces. The U.S.’ strategic interests lie not in preserving Netanyahu’s grasp on Israel, but rather protecting the Israeli people through peace. 

The U.S. is playing hot potato meddling in the Middle Eastern regional conflict. Calculated and effective usage of its influence in the region must be executed in order to prevent further war and establish a lasting peace. 

Sources: 

Foreign Affairs, Volume 103, Number 2 

Martin Indyuk, The Strange Resurrection of the Two-State Solution 

Marc Lynch and Shibley Telhami, The Two State Mirage 

Dalia Dasse Kaye and Sanam Vakil, Only the Middle East Can Fix the Middle East 

Aluf Benn, Israel’s Self-Destruction