As the United States declines financially and geo-politically, Israel would do well to push for peace - before it is pushed.
Presidential candidate Barack Obama has been hammering home the message that the United States should bring the Iraq war to "a close." Why, he asks, is America still sending billions of dollars to Iraq when Iraq has a $79 billion surplus from windfall oil profits?
At a time of great economic pain in America, this message finds ready ears. But what about US aid to Israel? Israel's economy outperformed America's last year. Israel's GDP per capita was estimated at over $23,000 for 2007, just ahead of Portugal. (Iraq's hovered at around $2,000.)
Why is the United States sending billions to one of the richest countries in the world? Of course, given the strength of the Zionist lobby, this is not a palatable question for an election year. But it may become easier to ask when the US starts the gargantuan task of balancing its books.
Peace would be so much cheaper. And quicker.
"We could have peace in two days," Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas said, in response to outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert recent astonishing remarks to Yediot Aharonot.
Israel, Olmert declared, would have to give up almost all the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights for peace (land to which Israel is not in fact legally entitled.) Olmert, who as premier doubled the pace of settlement construction from one year to the next, saw the light only after he was relieved of the burdens of office.
Ironically, US aid is perhaps the most important obstacle to peace. While the US war in Iraq has greatly impacted the US economy, US aid has cushioned Israel's economy from the costs of occupation of Palestinian land.
Many will argue that Israel needs the aid to bolster its security. But a country cannot expect to feel secure when it is taking other people's land. Only peace can bring security. Besides, Israel not only uses US arms to violate international law; it also violates US laws. The US Arms Export Control Act limits an aid recipient's use of US weapons to "internal security" and "legitimate self-defense." Surely this is a cause for concern?
Others will argue that US security requires a militarily strong Israel. But Israel already has one of the strongest militaries in the world. And polls consistently show that the US policy that most upsets Arabs and Muslims is its unquestioning support for Israel's actions. This weakens US security.
And yet the aid pours in. The Congressional Research Service calculates that between 1949 and 2007 the US has sent more than $101 billion in aid to Israel. Under the US-Israel agreement signed by George Bush last year, Israel will be receiving $30 billion in military aid over the next decade.
Even if this aid survives the financial crisis, Israel should seriously seek peace for geopolitical reasons. The US military debacle in Iraq eroded its superpower mantle and the financial crisis is finishing the job. Besides running out of cash, the United States will be too weak to provide the diplomatic cover that shields Israel from the political consequences of its occupation.
Other countries may now be emboldened to demand that Israel uphold international law. The European Union, in particular, may finally play a more active role.
Europe has a more pressing interest than the United States in Middle East peace, given its proximity to the region. The Europeans must feel some apprehension as the ideologically driven part of the Israeli settler movement flexes its muscles -- most recently in a bomb attack against a respected Israeli Jewish professor dedicated to ending Israel's occupation of Palestinian land.
The settlers are now strong on the ground and in the army. What if one day they take control of government, and of Israel's nuclear arsenal? Peace between Israel and the Palestinians as well as with the Syrians would remove a major threat to stability in Europe's back yard.
As the financial and political muscle of its superpower patron weakens, Israel will find the world much cooler to its colonial enterprise. From an Israeli perspective, it would do better to go for peace before it is pushed.
From a Palestinian perspective, the seismic geopolitical shifts in response to the US financial crisis provide the basis for new approaches. It is encouraging that, after long waiting in vain for strategic leadership from their elected officials, Palestinian civil society has re-engaged in strategic thinking to seek a way out of endless occupation.
And from a US perspective, less aid would quickly bring the occupation to "a close," buy more security for all concerned -- and help to balance its tattered books.
Nadia Hijab is a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies in Washington D.C.
ZNet Articles