It is widely assumed that, with its Security Council veto and stranglehold on the Middle East "peace process", the United States can continue indefinitely to prevent the achievement of peace and that the rest of the world is powerless. Understandably, this produces a sense of hopelessness and despair. However, the rest of the world is not powerless. All that is lacking is political will and the courage to pay more than lip-service to international law.
During the first half of this century the US played a major and constructive role in building the structures of international law and in opposing the venerable principle that "might makes right" which it now seems to embrace. In 1956, when Britain, France and Israel, three of America's closest friends, invaded Egypt, President Eisenhower demanded their immediate withdrawal, threatening sanctions. At least then it was not a question of who was doing it to whom, as it has more recently been when Iraq invaded Iran or Israel invades Lebanon or Turkey invades Iraq. In 1967, Israel conquered and occupied portions of the territory of all of its neighbours except Lebanon (an omission which it has since rectified), the US cheered and its long, downhill slide in respect for international law began. Repeatedly over the past three decades (most recently on four occasions this spring), the US has found itself on the short end of 14-1 votes in the Security Council and 150-2 votes in the General Assembly, standing alone in support of behaviour which the rest of the world recognises as constituting gross and unequivocal violations of the Geneva Conventions and international law generally.
Europeans, on the other hand, still tend to view international law as having an important role to play in making the world a better place. When they join the rest of the world in opposing Israel and the US at the UN, it is not because they dislike Israelis and Americans (quite the contrary) but because they believe it is important to affirm and support basic principles of international law and human rights and to take a clear position for right against wrong and for justice against injustice.
Yet, at least until now, they have seen their role as ending there. When, in effect, Israel and the US spit in their faces and do as they please, the Europeans turn the other cheek, returning on the next occasion to steadfastly affirm what international law requires and to be rebuffed yet again. It is a process which ultimately diminishes respect for the very principles of international law which the Europeans seek to affirm.
Europe's problem is not powerlessness. It carries on substantially more trade with Israel than does the US. Europe's problem is political will, but, in the new post-Cold War world, European subservience to US dictates should no longer be viewed as a perpetual infirmity.
US Middle East policy is a function of US domestic politics. US politicians, like most human beings, are motivated principally by the desire to remain employed, which requires (or is at least perceived to require) not offending any rich and powerful special interest group. While not actively hostile toward Middle East peace, US politicians from President Clinton down rank it in priority well below their personal job security and will always do so.
After much hesitation, the US government opposed apartheid in South Africa and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia because significant domestic constituencies opposed them and few Americans dared to speak out in favour of them. The US government continues to give unstinting support to apartheid and ethnic cleansing in Israel and Palestine because the most powerful of all domestic constituencies supports them and virtually no American dare speak out against them. There is no reason to hope for any constructive American role in the Middle East.
FOR Europe, on the other hand, the Middle East is its "own backyard", and peace and stability in the Middle East are fundamental national interests.
In addition, domestic political pressures which would oppose taking positions consistent with international law, basic principles of human rights and national self-interest are much weaker in Europe than in the US.
Imagine that the 15 states of the EU were to belatedly adopt the Eisenhower Principle and to issue a joint declaration to the effect that, if Israel has not complied with international law and UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 425 and withdrawn to its internationally recognised borders by a specified date (say, six months hence), the EU would have to consider the imposition of economic sanctions against Israel, including the banning of all aviation links between Israel and EU countries.
This spring's US vetoes supporting Israel's huge new illegal settlement construction in occupied East Jerusalem have sent the Netanyahu government the clear message that it can do whatever it wishes, including destroying the world's hopes for Middle East peace, without fear of any adverse consequences. Such a European declaration would send the opposite message with thunderous resonance. It is unlikely that sanctions would ever have to be imposed, since, as in 1956, Israel's politicians could honestly recognise and convincingly explain to their electorate that such a small country cannot refuse to comply with such an ultimatum.
While such a declaration would not make Middle East peace inevitable, it would, overnight, make it likely. By forcing Israel to "do the right thing" and thereby liberating Israelis from the role (so tragic in the light of Jewish history) of oppressors and enforcers of injustice, European governments would be showing more genuine concern for the long-term welfare of Israelis than the unthinkingly and abjectly subservient US government. They would also revive respect for international law generally and for Europe as an independent force in world affairs.
Is this merely a dream? Is this unimaginable in the real world? Or might Europe finally summon up the political will and the courage of its convictions to utter the words which could produce peace in the Middle East?
John V. Whitbeck is an international lawyer who writes frequently on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. His Two States, One Holy Land framework for peace was the subject of a three-day conference of 24 Israelis and Palestinians held in Cairo in November 1993.