Hassan Nafaa* detects a qualitative shift in Washington's thinking on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict Will the US intervene militarily between the Palestinians and Israelis? Will its forces "temporarily" occupy the West Bank and Gaza until a final settlement is reached and then withdraw? Not too long ago anyone suggesting Washington might follow such a course of action would, at best, have been written off as a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist, at worst as stark raving mad. Not anymore. The possibility is not just being bandied about in the media, it is being actively promoted within some of the most influential US think-tanks. Some of those currently advocating such a step have been not only directly involved in formulating US policy on the Palestinian issue, but are closely connected to the Zionist lobby. One such, Martin Indyk, in an article appearing in Foreign Affairs of May - June 2003, proposed placing the Palestinian territories under a US trusteeship, mandated by the UN, until a final status settlement is reached. Long one of the most active members of AIPAC, bastion of Zionist influence in the US, Indyk served as US ambassador to Israel from 1995 to 1997, when he was appointed assistant secretary of the State Department for Near Eastern Affairs. After serving another tour as ambassador to Israel from 2000 to 2001 he became director of the Saban Centre for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institute, the prestigious Washington think-tank. Indyk was a major architect of US foreign policy on the Middle East during President Clinton's two terms. An ardent supporter of Israel, with in-depth knowledge on Israeli policy and affairs, he is thoroughly familiar with the lines drawn between the permissible and impermissible in both US and Israeli policy. It is difficult to imagine a person of his standing proposing such an idea were the ground for it not already being prepared. Foreign Affairs, the magazine that published Indyk's article, is close to the centres that formulate US policy and, in the opinion of many pundits, accurately mirrors the ideological trends currently dominating US political life. Indeed, Indyk's article is precisely pitched to make mouths water in American foreign policy circles. Not surprising, then, that Indyk's ideas should attract considerable attention, not only within specialised academic and policy centres, but also in Congress. It would be useful, at this point, to run through recent trends in American thinking on how it should react in response to events in Palestine. At least then, contrary to custom, we won't be taken by surprise should we wake up one morning to find US and allied forces patrolling the streets of Jerusalem, Ramallah and Jenin, just as today they are patrolling Baghdad, Takrit and Basra. A closer look at Indyk's article in Foreign Affairs is a good starting point. Indyk proceeds from the premise that the roadmap, in its current guise, cannot succeed. It lacks any mechanism for implementation on the ground and faces the opposition of forces more determined than ever to thwart peace efforts. The only viable solution, therefore, is to place the occupied Palestinian territories under a UN mandate. The mandate, or "trusteeship", would be administered by an international force, led by the US, and last for a maximum of three years, during which time negotiations would be held to reach a final status agreement leading to the creation of two independent democratic states -- Palestine and Israel -- living side by side in peace. This is all quite lofty and grandiloquent. It could, moreover, have generated a useful shift in American thinking on the Palestinian issue had Indyk followed through on his premises in a detached and disinterested manner. He does not. At no point does he state explicitly that the proposed "trusteeship" will not be established on all Palestinian territories occupied since June 1967. Nor is it part of the proposal that international forces, even if purely American and under American command, will oversee the conduct of free and honest elections for a democratic Palestinian government, representing all shades of Palestinian opinion, with which Israel would then have to negotiate until a final status agreement is reached. But we can hardly expect such impartiality from someone so completely biased in favour of Israel: Indyk, after all, has long promoted the interests and security of Israel, which granted him citizenship and allowed him to speak in his adopted nation's name during the Middle East negotiating process, above all other considerations, including the interests of the US. The international force Indyk envisions being sent to Palestine is to be made up of US, British, Australian and Canadian forces placed under US command. This force will be deployed only in those parts of Palestinian territory labelled areas A and B in the Oslo accord, as well, perhaps, as a portion of area C. The total area of deployment will constitute between 50 and 60 per cent of the West Bank and most of Gaza. Indyk stresses from the outset that this is not a peace-keeping force. Rather, it will consist of special combat units trained to fight terrorism and its primary mission will be to pursue and kill elements from Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and to dismantle the infrastructure of these organisations. In order to allay American anxieties over possible loss of life among US troops, he states that losses will be sustained by the other participating forces because US forces will only be in charge of securing and defending key control positions and, therefore, not engaged in intensive combat operations. Nor does he forget to point out that some participation by Israeli forces -- to hunt down terrorist elements or to supply logistic aid and intelligence -- may be unavoidable; indeed, it may be desirable and welcome in order to ensure the success of certain operations. When the international force has completed the first phase of its mission -- eliminating Hamas and the PIJ -- it would then supervise the elections of a new Palestinian government and the reconstruction process and would then help translate Palestinian- Israeli agreements into practical, executable steps. Some might think that Indyk's proposal contains nothing new. His plan conforms to Sharon's preferred recipe for a solution, which is to create a Palestinian state on no more than half of the territories occupied since June 1967, or approximately 11 per cent of historic Palestine. The Palestinian government that would be created to rule this entity will be above all suspicion of "terrorism", which is to say free of any connection with armed resistance against the occupation. It would be a "democratic" government subordinate to Israel, along the same lines as the proxy "democratic" government that Washington is trying to manufacture in Iraq. Indyk's proposals, though, do appear to represent a qualitative shift in American thinking, not least because they reflect a concern that Sharon is unable to achieve a military solution of his own in the West Bank and Gaza. The belief appears to be growing in US foreign policy circles that giving Sharon the green light to use all the means available to him in his arsenal could potentially backfire, creating a situation that will spiral out of the control of the Israeli prime minister. Indyk, therefore, thinks that it is time for the US to lend Sharon a helping hand so that Sharon can get exactly what he wants but with international participation and US supervision under the UN flag. * The writer is professor of political science at Cairo University.
