Peace Requires Courage: Rethinking America’s Unconditional Support for Israel

Zamir Ahmed Awan

The Middle East is once again standing at the edge of a dangerous abyss. What began as a localized conflict has expanded into a wider regional crisis involving Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, and major global powers. Every new military strike increases the possibility of a broader war whose consequences could extend far beyond the region.

Recent developments have raised important questions about the future of American policy in the Middle East. Reports suggesting that President Donald Trump expressed frustration with Israeli military actions in Lebanon indicate growing concern within Washington itself. If true, such concerns reflect an important reality: military escalation has not brought peace, stability, or security to the region. Instead, it has generated greater instability, humanitarian suffering, and geopolitical uncertainty.

The central question today is straightforward: If the United States genuinely desires peace in the Middle East, should it continue providing virtually unconditional military, diplomatic, and political support to Israel?

This is not a question of hostility toward Israel or support for its adversaries. Rather, it is a question of accountability, responsible statecraft, and the pursuit of lasting peace.

For decades, Israel has been the largest cumulative recipient of American foreign assistance. According to the Council on Foreign Relations and U.S. government data, Israel has received well over $300 billion in American assistance since its establishment, when adjusted for inflation. Under the current ten-year Memorandum of Understanding, Israel receives approximately $3.8 billion annually in military assistance. Following the Gaza conflict that erupted in October 2023, Washington approved an additional $16.3 billion in military aid.

The scale of support extends beyond financial assistance. The United States has supplied advanced fighter aircraft, missile-defense systems, precision-guided munitions, intelligence-sharing capabilities, cyber-security cooperation, surveillance technologies, and logistical support. Israeli officials have stated that approximately 90,000 tons of military equipment have been delivered through hundreds of aircraft and maritime shipments since the Gaza conflict began.

Equally significant is the diplomatic protection provided by Washington. The United States has repeatedly exercised its veto power at the United Nations Security Council to block resolutions calling for immediate ceasefires or stronger international pressure regarding military operations in Gaza. While American policymakers justify these actions as necessary to protect a strategic ally, critics argue that such support weakens incentives for restraint and accountability.

The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza has become one of the defining tragedies of our time. Tens of thousands of Palestinians have reportedly been killed during the conflict, according to Palestinian authorities and widely cited international reports. Entire neighborhoods have been reduced to rubble. Hospitals, schools, and civilian infrastructure have suffered extensive damage. Millions have faced displacement, shortages of food, medicine, water, and basic necessities.

International humanitarian organizations, including various United Nations agencies, have repeatedly warned of famine conditions and severe humanitarian distress. Human rights organizations have raised serious concerns regarding civilian casualties and alleged violations of international humanitarian law. International legal institutions continue to examine allegations concerning war crimes and genocide. Israel strongly rejects these accusations and maintains that its military operations are directed against armed groups rather than civilians.

Regardless of legal determinations that may emerge in the future, the scale of human suffering is impossible to ignore.

The crisis extends beyond Gaza.

• The occupied West Bank continues to witness settlement expansion, which much of the international community considers contrary to international law and an obstacle to a viable two-state solution. Palestinian communities face increasing uncertainty regarding land rights, mobility, and security.
• Lebanon has repeatedly experienced military confrontations that threaten regional stability. Israeli military operations and cross-border exchanges have increased fears of a wider war involving multiple actors. Every new escalation risks drawing neighboring countries deeper into conflict.
• Syria remains affected by recurring military strikes and territorial disputes. The Golan Heights continues to be a source of international disagreement, with much of the international community maintaining that the territory remains occupied Syrian land despite Israeli control.
• The confrontation with Iran presents perhaps the most dangerous dimension of all. Direct military conflict between Israel and Iran risks transforming a regional crisis into a global security emergency. Such a conflict could disrupt international energy markets, threaten maritime trade routes, increase inflationary pressures, and destabilize economies worldwide.

The overwhelming majority of people across the Middle East do not want endless war.

• Israelis want security.
• Palestinians want dignity, justice, and statehood.
• Lebanese citizens want stability.
• Iranians want peace and economic opportunity.
• The people of the region desire prosperity, development, education, healthcare, and hope for future generations.
• Ordinary people pay the highest price whenever leaders choose military solutions over diplomatic alternatives.

History repeatedly demonstrates that wars rarely solve the political problems that create them. Military campaigns may achieve tactical objectives, but they seldom produce lasting peace. The destruction of infrastructure, economic disruption, psychological trauma, and loss of human life often generate grievances that persist for generations.

The United States occupies a unique position in this equation. No other country possesses comparable influence over Israeli strategic decision-making. This influence creates both power and responsibility.

• If Washington genuinely seeks peace, it possesses practical tools to encourage de-escalation.
• Military assistance could be linked to compliance with international humanitarian law.
• Diplomatic pressure could encourage meaningful negotiations.
• Humanitarian access could be expanded and protected.
• Support could be directed toward political solutions rather than military escalation.
• Confidence-building measures could be promoted between adversaries.

Such policies would not constitute abandonment of Israel. Rather, they would reflect a broader understanding that genuine security cannot be achieved solely through military superiority.

True friendship requires honesty. Genuine allies help one another avoid strategic mistakes. They encourage wisdom, restraint, and long-term thinking.

The broader international community also has responsibilities. China, the European Union, Russia, Türkiye, Pakistan, Gulf countries, and the United Nations all have important roles to play in supporting diplomacy and reducing tensions. Peace cannot be achieved through unilateral action. It requires collective commitment.

The world today faces enormous challenges. Climate change, poverty, economic uncertainty, public health crises, energy security concerns, and technological disruption already demand unprecedented international cooperation. Humanity can ill afford additional wars that consume resources, destroy lives, and deepen divisions.

Wars may benefit a limited number of actors in the short term, but they almost always impose devastating long-term costs on societies. The true beneficiaries of peace are entire populations.

Peace should therefore become a global movement rather than merely a diplomatic objective.

• Governments should prioritize dialogue over confrontation.
• Religious leaders should promote reconciliation over hatred.
• Civil society should advocate coexistence over division.
• Academics and media should encourage understanding rather than polarization.
• Citizens everywhere should recognize their shared humanity.
• The ultimate measure of leadership is not the ability to wage war but the wisdom to prevent it.

The future of the Middle East should not be determined by missiles, bombs, sanctions, blockades, or military campaigns. It should be shaped through diplomacy, economic cooperation, regional integration, technological development, cultural exchange, and mutual respect.

• Lasting security cannot emerge from perpetual conflict.
• It must be built upon justice, dignity, sovereignty, and international law.

At this pivotal moment, peace-loving nations, organizations, and individuals should unite behind a simple principle: war must never become the default instrument of policy.

• The people of the Middle East deserve peace.
• The world deserves peace.
• Humanity deserves peace.

The path forward is undoubtedly difficult. Yet history reminds us that the greatest achievements of civilization have emerged not from endless wars but from courageous acts of reconciliation.

Today, the international community faces a defining choice: continue the cycle of escalation or embrace a future based on dialogue and coexistence.

For the sake of future generations, the choice should be clear.

Author:

Prof. Engr. Zamir Ahmed Awan,

Sinologist – Diplomat – Advisor – Consultant,

Founding Chair Global Silk Route research Alliance.

(E-mail: awanzamir@yahoo.com).