The United States must end or drastically alter its attempts to broker peace in the Middle East. With the election of Ariel Sharon to the position of Israeli Prime Minister, observers world-wide wonder what implications the Likud Party head’s leadership will have for peace in the region. While many see Sharon’s election as a reaction by Israeli voters to the increasing violence that has sprung up between Israelis and Palestinians of late, many analysts predict that a government headed by Sharon is more likely to clash with Palestinians than a Labor Party government. Meanwhile, the Bush administration takes charge of a United States government that has repeatedly attempted to broker peace in the Middle East region. Those attempts have been unsuccessful thus far, and for good reason. The problem with a peace brokered by the United States is that the United States cannot be even-handed with respect to Israel. Israel has long been, and is likely to remain, the most powerful ally of the United States in the Middle East region. And appropriately so. The prowess of Israel’s army makes such an allied relationship very desirable, and the large Jewish population of the United States makes it politically expedient. Clearly, the United States government is acting in the best interest of its citizens as it courts Israeli leadership. But courting Israeli leadership while pretending to act as an impartial mediator between warring parties is in no way ethical.

Even if the United States was able to placate Israel enough, and bully Palestinians enough, to enter into a peace accord with one another, the peace achieved would be fleeting. It could not last because the conditions of a US brokered agreement would be disproportionately favorable to Israel. For the politically weak Palestinian people, an unfair peace, even if agreed to by PLO leadership, will lack legitimacy. PLO leadership is not strong enough to force Palestinian citizens to live under a peace agreement that is clearly unfair. Violence would erupt among Palestinian citizens and the peace process would have to begin again.

Only a neutral party can broker lasting peace in the Middle East. This is particularly true given the great disparity in power between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators. Palestinians have no superpower allies to force their will at the negotiating table. They have no secret police to undermine the political organization of their adversary.

But while the United States must refrain from acting as a lone mediator in the crisis, it must also encourage the international community to take steps toward solving the problems of the Middle East. The framework is primed for such action.

In fact, the United Nations has addressed the Israel/Palestine question before. A partitioning plan divided the region and called for a two-state solution over a half century ago. The time has come for the UN to reevaluate its decision in light of the many complex events that have occurred since that time. The United Nations has failed to reexamine the issue of late because the United States backs Israel when it claims that the UN is anti-Israel.

Finally, until a peace treaty is signed by both Israel and Palestinian leadership, the UN should assign monitors to the occupied territories to monitor the Israeli army officials and secret police, and to assure that the Palestinian Authority is allowed to rule in those areas where it has been invested with authority by treaty. The United States must back this UN action, or at the very least abstain from the vote.

There is nothing wrong with a nation placating its strategic allies. Acting in the best interest of its citizens is at the very core of what a nation is supposed to do. At the same time, a nation must not pretend to be capable of acting in a neutral manner if there is ever to be a bilateral, good faith attempt at brokering peace. The United States might be powerful enough to impose a less than fair peace on Palestine. But the result will only be more violence in the long run as bandaged but unhealed conflicts erupt anew.