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.

Ismail Haniyeh’s Hamas “Blog” (srutonim via YouTube; January 2009)

YouTube user srutonim created a satirical animated video parodying disputed PNA Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh’s response to the Israeli invasion in early 2009.

Topic: Should the Obama administration continue to support Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Category: Citizen: Witness

What is it? An animated video

Publication Information: srutonim via YouTube; January 2009

Author: Blogger handle srutonim
Location: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZWPxcM1Qno

Accessed: March 12, 2009

Support:
Ismail Haniyeh

Audience and Agenda:

Although not many details in English could be found on the creator of this video, s/he has created many other satirical videos commenting on aspects of the Israeli government. This video has nearly 4,000 views. YouTube itself has at least 80.6 million US visitors per month.

Usefulness:

This video is not particularly useful in answering my question, but it does provide an interesting look at the Israeli perspective of the Palestinian National Authority and its reaction to the Israeli invasion of 2009. This video implies PNA leader Ismail Haniyeh is incredibly inept and is, in fact, being held hostage by the Israelis, although his “vlog” insists that he has captured an Israeli soldier.



Works cited:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZWPxcM1Qno

http://www.youtube.com/user/srutonim
Quantcast.com

Topic: Should the Obama administration continue to support Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Category: Citizen: Commentator

What is it? An interview with Miguel Lopez
Publication Information: Interviewed March 12, 2009
Author: Interviewed by Alex Matthews

Support:
Miguel Lopez

Miguel Lopez speaks about US support of Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Audience and Agenda:
Miguel Lopez is a student at the University of Oregon who is studying international relations with a focus on the Middle East. He is also taking Arabic, which, he says, contains an element of education on the culture and politics of the Middle East as well as the language. In addition, he considers himself a news and politics enthusiast and reads various Middle East papers in his free time.

Usefulness:
Miguel spoke of his reluctance to take a side in the conflict, citing its long and complicated history. He also said, however, that if any major world power would be able to bring peace to the region through negotiations, it would be the United States. “Nobody else really seems to be doing anything,” he said.

Works cited:
Miguel Lopez

Ron Paul: Israel created Hamas (C-SPAN, January 2009)

US Representative Ron Paul speaks out against the House’s Gaza Strip Resolution, which voiced the US’ support of Israel in the Gaza Strip conflict in early 2009.

Topic: Should the Obama administration continue to support Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Category: Institutional: Government

What is it? A video of Ron Paul’s speech to the House of Representatives
Publication Information: C-SPAN; January 9, 2009
Author: Congressman Ron Paul
Location: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z6vMAoFwf4
Accessed: March 12, 2009

Support:
Congressman Ron Paul

Ron Paul spoke to the United States Congress regarding his opposition to the Gaza Strip Conflict Resolution.

Audience and Agenda:
Ron Paul is a congressman in the United States House of Representatives. According to his website, “Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.” He maintains the United States should be more concerned with securing its borders at home rather than waging wars abroad. This video of his speech against the Gaza Strip Conflict Resolution has nearly 169,000 views. YouTube itself has at least 80.6 million US visitors per month.

Usefulness:
Congressman Ron Paul suggests that the United States is to blame for the conflict in Gaza. Israel, he says, supported and encouraged Hamas’s development as a reaction to Yasser Arafat. The United States then encouraged Democratic elections in the area; as a result, Palestine elected Hamas. The bill was ultimately bassed 390-5. Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported the reactions of some United States members of Congress. Congressman Nick Rahall commented that “when these events occur, there’s almost a knee-jerk reaction of Congress that endorses 1,000 percent of what Israel is doing.”

Works cited:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054234.html
Quantcast.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z6vMAoFwf4

Topic: Should the Obama administration continue to support Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Category: Citizen: Stakeholder

What is it? An interview with Professor Chris Holman
Publication Information: Interviewed March 12, 2009
Author: Interviewed by Alex Matthews
Location: Available for download here

Support:
Professor Chris Holman
Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister-designate of Israel

Audience and Agenda:
Chris Holman is a professor of Arabic language at the University of Oregon. As a member of the US Army, he studied Arabic in North Africa and the Persian Gulf region from 1998-2000, serving as the official translator for the US Embassy in Kuwait. He came to the University of Oregon in 2001 as a geography student and started the Arabic language program in 2006.

Usefulness:
Professor Chris Holman suggests the United States must support Israel, not only because of its historical relationship with Israel, but because of its role as a power broker in the region. Prime Minister-designate does not see eye-to-eye with President Obama regarding a two-state solution, which could cause problems with regard to peace negotiations. Additionally, the US’s military support for Israel may need restructuring. Solving the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, however, would help the United States’s reputation and effectiveness in the region. Professor Holman suggests that, once the US’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has calmed down, it will be easier to focus on Israel.

Works cited:
About Professor Chris Holman

Topic:
Should the Obama administration continue to support Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Category: Citizen: Expert
What is it? An interview with Professor Jane Cramer

Publication Information: Interviewed March 9, 2009

Author: Interviewed by Alex Matthews
Location: Available for download here

Support:
Professor Jane Cramer
George Mitchell, Special Envoy to the Middle East

Audience and Agenda:

Jane Cramer has been a professor of political science at the University of Oregon since 2002. She holds a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in political science. She specializes in international relations and international security. The classes she has taught include United States intervention in conflict and weapons of mass destruction and nonproliferation.

Usefulness:

Professor Jane Cramer makes the case for American support of Israel, but from a tougher point of view. From her perspective, if there is to be peace between Israel and Palestine through a two-state solution, the United States will be the one with the power to coerce peace negotiations. While US support is important, it cannot be the coddling treatment that the Bush administration gave. President Obama must be tougher with Israel, even going so far as to threaten to pull funding in order to forge negotiations.



Works cited:
Professor Jane Cramer: Faculty Profile

Jackie Mason on Palestinian suicide bombers (Jackie Mason via YouTube.com; March 7, 2009)

Topic: Should the Obama administration continue to support Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Category: Citizen: Witness

What is it? A video blog post from YouTube
Publication Information: YouTube; May 13, 2007
Author: Jackie Mason
Location:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjnWGcalb_g
Accessed: March 12, 2009

Support:
Jackie Mason

Audience and Agenda:
Jackie Mason is a stand-up comedian with a history of pro-Israel politics. He currently hosts a radio show called The Talk Radio Network, which deals with political issues. He also writes for the Jewish Press and the Jewish World Review. This particular video blog post has nearly 12,000 views. YouTube itself has at least 80.6 million US visitors per month.

Usefulness:
Jackie Mason does not seem to have a solid understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He claims throughout the course of the video that the Israeli government has offered the Palestinians “more land than they asked for.” He also alleges that the Israelis are so peace-loving that they never prepared for a war. The recent invasion of the Gaza Strip alone proves this is the opposite of the truth. However, he also provides the perspective that the American Christian Right is on the side of Israel when many European countries in the UN are not.

Works cited:
About Jackie Mason
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheUltimateJew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjnWGcalb_g
Quantcast.com

Israelis Love Falafel (YouTube, March 2009)

Vlogger Nic visits Jerusalem, Israel and shows an Israeli falafel stand that he frequents.

Topic: Should the Obama administration continue to support Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Category: Citizen: Witness

What is it? A video blog post from YouTube
Publication Information: YouTube; March 7, 2009
Author: Blogger handle “verynico”
Location: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88MoCCmGB3I
Accessed: March 12, 2009

Support:
verynico
Falafel shop owner

Audience and Agenda:
YouTube user verynico currently lives in Jerusalem, Israel. With his video blog, he hopes to document a side of everyday live in the area that is not shown by the mainstream media. He attempts to “tell it like it is, or at least how it appears to [him.]” Some of his videos have several hundred hits. YouTube itself has at least 80.6 million US visitors per month.

Usefulness:
Falafel is the cause of a cultural riff between Israel and Palestine. Both claim the sandwich as its national dish, despite its probable Egyptian origins. Falafel is traditionally an Arab food, but the rapid rise of the Zionist movement caused the need for an Israeli national identity, beginning with the food of a new geographic area. Israel has claimed falafel as its “national snack” since the 1950s, but calls for peace between Palestine and Israel has led to the view of falafel changing from cultural to regional. In this video, Nic, a vlogger living in Jerusalem, visits a famous Israeli falafel stand.

Works cited:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88MoCCmGB3I
http://www.youtube.com/user/verynico
A History of the Mideast in a Humble Chickpea
Falafel Fact Sheet
Falafel: A National Icon
Quantcast.com

The Apartheid Wall (Associated Press; July 2003)

Activists form the International Solidarity Movement protest with graffiti the barrier between the West Bank and Israel alongside Palestinians, calling it “an apartheid wall.”

Topic: Should the Obama administration continue to support Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Category: Journalistic: Mainstream

What is it? A photo from the Associated Press
Publication Information: The Associated Press; July 2003
Author: Lefteris Pitarakis
Location: http://tinyurl.com/bf8zka
Accessed: March 12, 2009

Support:
6 young men, both Palestinian and members of the International Solidarity Movement
Graffiti 

Audience and Agenda:
The Associated Press, a cooperative owned by its contributing members, has been around for over 150 years. In addition to written news stories, AP publishes radio and television broadcasts and owns a a photograph library consisting of over 10 million images. Its main website, ap.org, has an estimated 2.7 million visitors per month from the United States. Its photo library at apimages.ap.org has an estimated 4.3 thousand visitors per month.

Usefulness:
While some see the Israeli-West Bank barrier as a necessary means to peace, Palestinians and the UN Court agree it is illegal and unnecessary. According to the UN Court, it gravely infringes on a number of rights of Palestinians in the West Bank. Palestinians accuse Israel of attempting to unfairly establish a legal border without negotiations. In this photo, Palestinians and activists protest the wall using graffiti, calling it an “apartheid wall.”

Works cited:
UN Court rules West Bank wall illegal
http://tinyurl.com/bf8zka
Quantcast.com
The New Associated Press