Israel settlements undermine peace efforts
Dave Balson
Opinion Editor
Two generations have come of age in a world where war in the Middle East seemed as familiar and normal as television reruns and people hating Monday. In the U.S., presidential and congressional candidates routinely promise to solve the stalemate, and succeeding administrations have seen their efforts stymied by the enduring deadlock. The Obama Administration has faced a familiar, inauspicious first year in mediating the conflict.
On March 9, during a visit to the country Vice President Joe Biden gave a speech vowing the administration’s support for Israel. The Israeli Interior Ministry announced plans to extend Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem by building 1,600 new homes.
Last spring President Obama, in an effort to bring regional leaders to the negotiating table, tried to convince Israel to freeze new settlement in contested parts of the country. Israel initially rejected this, but eventually accepted a 10-month freeze on settlements in the West Bank. While East Jerusalem was not included in the freeze, announcing the planned expansion during the vice presidential visit insulted the administration and was a step backward in the peace process, since Palestinians believe East Jerusalem is rightfully and historically theirs.
The president, vice president, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton all expressed their outrage to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu offered his apology for the poor timing of the announcement, but indicated that he would be moving forward his plans, regardless.
Over the years of the Middle East conflict, lasting peace between Israel and Palestine was mostly considered a foreign interest of the U.S. We liked Israel, thought a free democracy in the Middle East was a fine idea, and had its back if anything went down. But things have changed. Now the stakes are higher, and the consequences hit closer to home.
The “Israeli occupation of Palestine” has proved a great recruiter and fundraiser for Islamic extremist groups and gains sympathy from moderate Muslims around the globe. Because the U.S. is by far Israel’s strongest ally, the hatred toward Israel is easily extended to America. A core demand of al-Qaida is that America withdraw its support for Israel.
I, along with most of the planet and much of the Middle East, take great pleasure in reminding al-Qaida where they can stick their demands. But American soldiers are fighting and dying in two separate wars in the region, and with would-be terrorists stuffing explosives into their tighty-whities to attack the U.S. homeland, solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an urgent necessity.
The good news is a generally agreed upon solution exists. The bad news is that it has been generally agreed upon, but not acted upon, for many years.
Since Israel’s founding, the “two-state solution”—dividing the country into two sovereign nations, Palestine and Israel—has been continually proposed, discussed, endorsed and opposed. Even today, polls show the majority of Israelis and Palestinians favor this plan over any other.
Reasonable minds on both sides know that the two-state solution is what should, and eventually must, happen. But talks break down over small, contested regions, especially Jerusalem. In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton mediated a peace plan to near completion, but neither side would cede or share the Temple Mount.
I’m not opposed to intellectual endeavors, but when two groups of people refuse to end a whole lot of death and murder because each group is committed to an inflexible interpretation of their holy book, I get very offended.
Having a free democracy in a region of the world that generally and consistently gets low marks for both freedom and democracy is a good thing. But Palestinians also have a fair argument. In the messy years that marked the end of the British Mandate of Palestine and the founding of the state of Israel, the Palestinians got the shaft. And the walled, impoverished Gaza strip looks a lot like apartheid.
Though I tend to have more sympathy for those who wish to extend civil rights (Israel), rather than curb them (Palestine), both sides can argue injustices for a literal lifetime. The best we can hope for is that both sides pause their retaliations long enough to make a solid agreement. Announcing new Israeli settlements in territory that Palestinians hope will be returned to them through negotiations hinders that peace effort.
This is a shame, considering the unique opportunity Israel currently has.
Iran has become so politically and militarily ambitious that the entire region considers it a threat. Facing the possibility of a nuclear Iran, nations that have been historically hostile to Israel—Jordan and Saudi Arabia, for example—would probably work with Israel to ensure regional stability. Strong, lasting alliances can be built by nations who seek a common defense.
If and when a two-state solution is reached, hatred toward Israel in the Middle East will turn to reluctant acceptance. But diplomatic engagement is thwarted whenever Israel is publicly seen as unwilling to make the compromises needed to work out the solution.
Israel is justified in refusing to negotiate with Hamas, the militant group which runs the Gaza strip and continually lobs missiles into Israel. But the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, under Mahmoud Abbas, has shown a strong desire for a two-state solution and a willingness to suspend hostilities while negotiations take place.
The U.S. lends its enormous influence to Israel, partly because it’s a democracy and partly because American Jews hold great political and cultural clout, but also because without our support, Israel/Palestine would become very bloody very quickly.
Israel is consistently one of the top recipients of U.S. foreign aid, adding to our deficit spending during a financial crisis. Our alliance engenders hatred in Iraq and Afghanistan, putting American troops further at risk. The one thing Israel can do to lessen those burdens on the American people is to make the concessions necessary to achieve a two-state solution. When Israeli leaders refuse to make those concessions, they make our alliance—their lifeline—much harder to justify.
Opinion Editor
Two generations have come of age in a world where war in the Middle East seemed as familiar and normal as television reruns and people hating Monday. In the U.S., presidential and congressional candidates routinely promise to solve the stalemate, and succeeding administrations have seen their efforts stymied by the enduring deadlock. The Obama Administration has faced a familiar, inauspicious first year in mediating the conflict.
On March 9, during a visit to the country Vice President Joe Biden gave a speech vowing the administration’s support for Israel. The Israeli Interior Ministry announced plans to extend Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem by building 1,600 new homes.
Last spring President Obama, in an effort to bring regional leaders to the negotiating table, tried to convince Israel to freeze new settlement in contested parts of the country. Israel initially rejected this, but eventually accepted a 10-month freeze on settlements in the West Bank. While East Jerusalem was not included in the freeze, announcing the planned expansion during the vice presidential visit insulted the administration and was a step backward in the peace process, since Palestinians believe East Jerusalem is rightfully and historically theirs.
The president, vice president, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton all expressed their outrage to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu offered his apology for the poor timing of the announcement, but indicated that he would be moving forward his plans, regardless.
Over the years of the Middle East conflict, lasting peace between Israel and Palestine was mostly considered a foreign interest of the U.S. We liked Israel, thought a free democracy in the Middle East was a fine idea, and had its back if anything went down. But things have changed. Now the stakes are higher, and the consequences hit closer to home.
The “Israeli occupation of Palestine” has proved a great recruiter and fundraiser for Islamic extremist groups and gains sympathy from moderate Muslims around the globe. Because the U.S. is by far Israel’s strongest ally, the hatred toward Israel is easily extended to America. A core demand of al-Qaida is that America withdraw its support for Israel.
I, along with most of the planet and much of the Middle East, take great pleasure in reminding al-Qaida where they can stick their demands. But American soldiers are fighting and dying in two separate wars in the region, and with would-be terrorists stuffing explosives into their tighty-whities to attack the U.S. homeland, solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an urgent necessity.
The good news is a generally agreed upon solution exists. The bad news is that it has been generally agreed upon, but not acted upon, for many years.
Since Israel’s founding, the “two-state solution”—dividing the country into two sovereign nations, Palestine and Israel—has been continually proposed, discussed, endorsed and opposed. Even today, polls show the majority of Israelis and Palestinians favor this plan over any other.
Reasonable minds on both sides know that the two-state solution is what should, and eventually must, happen. But talks break down over small, contested regions, especially Jerusalem. In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton mediated a peace plan to near completion, but neither side would cede or share the Temple Mount.
I’m not opposed to intellectual endeavors, but when two groups of people refuse to end a whole lot of death and murder because each group is committed to an inflexible interpretation of their holy book, I get very offended.
Having a free democracy in a region of the world that generally and consistently gets low marks for both freedom and democracy is a good thing. But Palestinians also have a fair argument. In the messy years that marked the end of the British Mandate of Palestine and the founding of the state of Israel, the Palestinians got the shaft. And the walled, impoverished Gaza strip looks a lot like apartheid.
Though I tend to have more sympathy for those who wish to extend civil rights (Israel), rather than curb them (Palestine), both sides can argue injustices for a literal lifetime. The best we can hope for is that both sides pause their retaliations long enough to make a solid agreement. Announcing new Israeli settlements in territory that Palestinians hope will be returned to them through negotiations hinders that peace effort.
This is a shame, considering the unique opportunity Israel currently has.
Iran has become so politically and militarily ambitious that the entire region considers it a threat. Facing the possibility of a nuclear Iran, nations that have been historically hostile to Israel—Jordan and Saudi Arabia, for example—would probably work with Israel to ensure regional stability. Strong, lasting alliances can be built by nations who seek a common defense.
If and when a two-state solution is reached, hatred toward Israel in the Middle East will turn to reluctant acceptance. But diplomatic engagement is thwarted whenever Israel is publicly seen as unwilling to make the compromises needed to work out the solution.
Israel is justified in refusing to negotiate with Hamas, the militant group which runs the Gaza strip and continually lobs missiles into Israel. But the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, under Mahmoud Abbas, has shown a strong desire for a two-state solution and a willingness to suspend hostilities while negotiations take place.
The U.S. lends its enormous influence to Israel, partly because it’s a democracy and partly because American Jews hold great political and cultural clout, but also because without our support, Israel/Palestine would become very bloody very quickly.
Israel is consistently one of the top recipients of U.S. foreign aid, adding to our deficit spending during a financial crisis. Our alliance engenders hatred in Iraq and Afghanistan, putting American troops further at risk. The one thing Israel can do to lessen those burdens on the American people is to make the concessions necessary to achieve a two-state solution. When Israeli leaders refuse to make those concessions, they make our alliance—their lifeline—much harder to justify.
0 Response to "Israel settlements undermine peace efforts"
Post a Comment