Question: Should the Obama administration continue to support Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Answer:
The war between Israel and Palestine is one of the most multifaceted and enduring crusades in world history. With more than world boundaries at stake in this conflict, President Obama stated in his first interview that it is important for the United States to become involved “right away” and aims to bring both sides to the negotiating table. His new approach entails listening rather than dictating, as many past United States presidents who attempted to mediate the conflict have done.
However, as President Obama stated, it’s impossible to ignore the possible ramifications of United States involvement on the side of its ally, Israel. US relations with Afghanistan and Iraq are neither positive nor diplomatic. Israel itself does not have a friendly reputation in the Arab world, due largely in part to its history of war with the Gaza Strip and settlements in the West Bank. The most recent outbreak of violence in the region in late 2008, in addition to Israel’s botched elections and political turmoil, has made the nation look even worse in the Palestinian world view. With so much currently at stake not only for the Palestinians and the Israelis, but for the reputation of US foreign policy in the Middle East, should the Obama administration continue to support Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
On May 14, 1948, the State of Israel was officially proclaimed. Arab armies from five nations invaded Israel on May 15 as British troops withdrew, but were crushed by the Israeli army. Unrest continued and, in 1964, Arab governments wanting an organization under their control voted to created the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The conflict came to a head in 1967 during six days of fighting known as the Six Day War. During these six days, the Israeli army claimed the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank. These events prompted the UN to create Security Resolution 242, calling for “the withdrawal of Israeli armed force from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” Yasser Arafat took over the PLO in 1969.
The unrest continued through 2000, during which time President Clinton called Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat to Camp David for peace negotiations that were ultimately unsuccessful and resulted in the Second Intifada. In 2002, the Israelis began building the barrier along the West Bank. This decade has been marked by an endless cycle of violence, invasion, and failed negotiation attempts. In late 2008, shortly before President Obama’s inauguration, Israel invaded the Gaza Strip and pulled out in early 2009.
Some say Israel is not ready for peace, given its reluctance to accept variations of a two-state solution. But in order to realistically approach peace, both sides must renounce violence completely; something that may require the intervention of an international power prepared to use force. As the United States is the only power prepared to do this, President Obama would then have to send troops into the area at a time when US presence in the Middle East is increasingly unpopular at home and abroad. Due to this reality, many say it would be better for the United States to not become involved in the conflict.
However, others argue that the United States is the only world power with enough clout in Israel to realistically bring both sides to the negotiating table and mediate a peaceful solution. But the way the Obama administration approaches peace negotiation with Israel cannot be the coddling treatment given by the Bush administration. He must address Israel’s transgressions in terms of defense and aggression as well as impose accountability for settlements in the West Bank. If necessary, President Obama should use the massive amount of foreign aid given Israel on an annual basis as a tool for negotiating peace.
Despite these competing viewpoints, it is ultimately necessary for the United States to be involved is resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The US’s historical relationship with Israel insofar as ensuring its security, providing it more foreign aid than any other country, and promising to support its new government regardless of who is elected, dictates that it must be involved. Resolving the conflict would also pave the road to better foreign relations with the rest of the Arab world. But, that said, there must be a change in President Obama’s approach to peacemaking in the region. He cannot continue to coddle Israel and side with its government on every issue; his approach as a serious mediator must be three-pronged:
- First, President Obama must address the violent behavior of both Israel and Palestine. Both sides have been accused of war crimes and both sides must be held accountable for the violence and terrorism executed.
- Second, President Obama must be willing to maintain independence as a mediator. He cannot continue to run ideas past the Israeli government before implementing them, as George W. Bush did.
- Third, Israel receives more foreign and military aid than any other country under American auspices. President Obama must be able to use this as a negotiation tool in bringing Israel to peacemaking discussions.
There will always be those who say that Israel is the land of the Jewish people, that the Jews are God’s people and the land was promised to them in the Bible. According to Jackie Mason, it is the Biblical right of the Jewish people to be there. Given that opinion, some would say the United States, specifically the Christian right, should heavily support Israel and force out the “Palestinian terrorists.”
Additionally, those like Congressman Ron Paul who hold an isolationist viewpoint do not believe that the Obama administration should interfere in a foreign conflict at all, let alone take a side. During a time when United States borders are not secure and the country faces the worst economic crisis in recent memory, resolving the country’s problems at home before solving the problems of the world seems a promising solution.
Ultimately, there is too much at stake for the United States, the Israelis, the Palestinians, and the world for the Obama administration to not take advantage of the US’ special position with Israel in order to attempt to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Leave a Comment