There have been promising words lately about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “Peace,” “calm” and “security” have been much in evidence. Less mentioned in American public discourse on the Middle East have been “justice,” “human rights” and “international law.” Neither do we hear much said of this country’s national interests, or the implications for Americans’ safety.

Why is this? We cannot know with full assurance. But we can ask: Who benefits from the words – and silences? The answer is clear: Israel, its American supporters and the majority of politicians in both our national parties who support Israel, usually uncritically.

America’s relationship with Israel has been shaped by interest group politics, at which Israel’s supporters have excelled. This is the history: The America Israel Public Affairs Committee and its allies lobby, the Congress passes pro-Israeli resolutions, the executive’s scope for action is curtailed, and the lobbyists’ constituency is reassured that Israel, the foremost recipient of U.S. foreign aid, is strong and secure. Those few in political life who have dissented have been largely ignored, or made to regret such dissent.

In the media, there is sometimes incisive coverage of the Middle East. However, the press takes its cue by and large from the official agenda. If the president mainly emphasizes security, then security is the story. And pro-Israeli pressure groups monitor reportage, and mount protests against accounts which cast Israel in a bad light. The temptation to avoid aspects unpalatable to partisans is surely great.

We get half the story. The reasons for this seem clear. Today, most Americans see Israel as the long-suffering victim of fanatical suicide bombings. If it grants concessions to the Palestinians, it will be from its own generosity. For President Bush to assure Ariel Sharon that Israel can retain major settlements in the West Bank, and that a right of return by Palestinians to former homes in what is now Israel is out of the question, appears both logical and right.

If, however, cognizance is taken of the view, dominant outside the U.S. and Israel, that the later’s post-1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, its settlements, its wall and other tactics used to defend the settlements are all illegal under international law, then the picture changes. It also changes if it is acknowledged that the Fourth Geneva Convention provides solid ground for the Palestinians’ claim to a right of return. Israel’s image and negotiating position erode, resistance to the occupation is legitimized, and even the entitlement of Israelis to lands in Israel from which Palestinians had to flee is called into question. Mr. Bush’s promises become irresponsible, and American backing for Israel, and media neglect of these telling aspects of the Palestinian case, become, at best, an embarrassment and, at worst, indefensible.

More than one analyst has pointed to our one-sided support for Israel as a major factor in the hostility that spawned Sept. 11. We know also that Americans are trying in Iraq to bring some good from a war that has created about as many evils as it has remedied. Among the most prominent advocates of that war have been neoconservatives at least partly motivated by a desire to secure Israel against the threat of a strong rival in the region. The same people call for a hard-line toward Iran and Syria, with similar motives.

On his European trip, President Bush seemed to indicate that he too may wonder if we should continue on a path that provokes anger against us, and puts us at odds with world opinion. It is particularly encouraging that the president, who once called the combative Ariel Sharon “a man of peace,” has now expressed the need for a “just and lasting” peace, and pointed out at least some of the things necessary for such a settlement.

The president’s words help. Will they be followed by useful changes in American policy? Will Israel, and our politicians, allow the Palestinians truly to be heard and have their interests fairly addressed? A lasting peace depends on this.

It has been said that war is too important to be left to the generals. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is too dangerous to be left solely to the politicians and the pressure groups that besiege them. A broader public needs to speak up. Those in office need to hear the public tell them to deal with the Middle East on the basis of fairness and, above all, American national interests and security. A lasting peace in the Middle East is possible. It will not come about if we continue the one-sided bias of the past, and limit discussion in accordance with a pro-Israeli agenda.

Ed McCarthy is the co-founder of Maine Peace and Justice in Israel and Palestine. He can be reached at [email protected].