What Ifs of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

interest.Before getting to the meat of the thesis, it is important to discuss the beginnings, development, and status quo of the conflict in a more balanced way. In other words, it is important to understand the conflict in a non-American-media-spun way. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict started with the Jewish influx during the first half of twentieth century—especially during World War II. The floodgates opened, and Jews came in masses.

Contrary to popular belief, relations between the groups were relatively good for a time. According to the film “Occupation 101”, relations were riendly enough wherein Arabs and Jews were babysitting each other’s children. Boiling under the surface, though, was the Zionist movement among a small group of Jews. They held the belief that Jews were entitled to the land of their fathers—the Holy Land—Palestine (Omeish 2007). This, however, proved to be problematic: the land was already full of a culturally-established people who had been there for innumerable generations; furthermore, Palestinians could effectively argue Abrahamic entitlement just as well as any Jew.

Jewish sympathies in mind, lands began to be stripped from the Palestinian locals. The U. N. split up the territory between the two feuding groups. Israelis seemed to have an unfair advantage as they were given greater amounts of fertile land. The Palestinians began to be systematically shuffled around, and the Israeli army instituted a bit of ethnic cleansing.

A full-scale occupation ensued—some calling it illegal (Omeish 2007). Today, Palestinians are classified as refugees. Many do not have basic necessities and are regularly beaten and harassed by a well-funded and well-armed Israeli military.In response to the occupation, the Palestinians have taken matters into their own hands. This included the

1982 Watershed Mark and the 1987 Intifada.

Under the leadership of Rabin, Israelis responded with “force, power, and blows”—also known as the “break the bones” tactic. Over time, repeated Palestinian efforts failed against a stronger Israeli force. During the Rabin government of 1992, human rights conditions quickly deteriorated in Gaza and the West Bank. Palestinians were finding that they were not getting results.The dire conditions were making so-called terrorist groups such as HAMAS more and more popular.

HAMAS was sympathetic to the needs of the Palestinian people, and they knew how to get results—even if their tactics seemed extreme. Palestinians, with and without the help of HAMAS, resorted to poor-man’s retaliation: terrorism. For this, they have often been labeled as a rag-tag group of criminals, when, generally-speaking, they are the victims who have few, if any, alternatives. That said, the criminalization of Palestinian retaliation is unfair. This is especially shown in Robert A.Pape’s article “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism.”

Pape makes the following argument: while it is the common belief that HAMAS-style terrorism is unorganized, irrational, and isolated to a particular group of individuals, it is actually the opposite: these efforts are organized, strategic, rational, carried out by a broad group of individuals, coercively effective, and are perpetuated by a nation’s endeavors to conquer and occupy lands. Palestinian retaliation may be considered harsh, but it no more criminal than the actions of the Israelis.Palestinians just happen to have different retaliation tools to work with. These things known, Americans should take pause and at least understand how their tax dollars are impacting the conditions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The U. S. is the sole-supporter of Israel with “about $3

billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli dwarfing support given to any other state” (Mearsheimer and Walt 2007). Israel could not do what it does without American financial sustenance.Some would argue that the U. S., by association, is greatly behind the subjugation of Palestinians. A moral issue is clearly present. Moral arguments, however, are often relative. What one person may think is immoral is perfectly appropriate to another.

That said, many Israelis believe their acts to be just. Palestinian moral issues considered, one may ask: if Israel is a drain on the American economy, and if Israelis are a bunch of villains, why should the U. S. continue to support them? Why not just cut off financial support completely and let them fend for themselves?Many scholars believe that Israel has proved to be a valuable asset to the United States. They helped contain Soviet expansion during the Cold War, provided useful intelligence about Soviet capabilities, and have a prime Middle Eastern location that may prove valuable for the U. S. military.

Some argue that Israel, although weak without American support, proves to be a useful ally. Why, then, would the United States care to change the status quo when it has strategic and legitimate interests in supporting Israel?The answer is this: America’s best interests lie in a stable Middle East, and stability will be best found when just peace is established through the ending of the Israeli occupation. American support, financial and otherwise, should be used as an aggressive mechanism to coerce Israel to comply with U.N. resolutions—which include an end to

the occupation. Some argue that the United States should support Israel in the current manner it does because the two nations share the threat of terrorism; however, Mearsheimer and Walt argue that such a case “has the causal relationship backwards: the U.S.has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around .

The terrorist organizations that threaten Israel do not threaten the United States, except when it intervenes against them. ” In other words, our current support methods help the Israelis to subdue Palestinians; they, in turn, retaliate with terrorism while other Islamist groups—including those that do and do not threaten Israel—resound I told you so with respect to the threat of the west—further fueling their efforts.

In fact, Mearsheimer said that “U. S. support [of Israel] relates to what happened on September 11th”—which rocked the United States in every imaginable way. Bin Laden’s speeches repeatedly referred to the plight of the Palestinians—long before 9/11 (Rand 2007). Palestine holds a tender place in the hearts of many—many who have and can damage the United States. As previously stated, American financial support should be used as an aggressive mechanism to coerce Israel.

This statement is qualified with the word aggressive, because somebody already tried it. In 2001, the Bush Administration tried to “reduce anti-American sentiment in the Arab world and undermine support for terrorist groups like Al-Qaida by halting Israel’s expansionist policies in the Occupied Territories and advocating the creation of a Palestinian state. ” A poll indicated that many Americans were willing to withhold aid from Israel if it resisted conflict settlement, yet the administration botched the matter

and nothing changed.Over time, American rhetoric began to move away from Bush’s dreams of change, and American sentiment began to once again align with Israeli rhetoric (Mearsheimer and Walt 2007). In short, the Bush Administration did not get the job done. The security of the United States will continue to be threatened by terrorism until an aggressive effort—unlike Bush’s—is made to stop the occupation, and such will be most easily achieved through financial leverage.

Perhaps this aggressive effort can only be applied after weeding out the Israel Lobby—a cancer to America in the eyes of Mearsheimer and Walt.One way or another, though, the job must get done. The United States must engage in open debate and “expose the limits of the strategic and moral case for one-sided support and should move the U. S.to a position more consistent with its own national interest, with the interests of other states in the region, and with Israel’s long-term interests as well” (Mearsheimer and Walt 2007). The United States can no longer be nice when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Any realist would argue that nice guys not only finish last, but they get stomped into the ground as well.When it comes down to it, the only state that has the U.S. ’ interests at heart is the U. S. , so everything that can be done to protect its security is of utmost importance—including financial manipulation. Security is survival, and survival should be at the top of America’s to do list—even if it means harshly changing the relationship with our Israeli pals. In sum, not all so-called terrorist groups are created equally.

There is a vast difference between

groups such as HAMAS and Al-Qaeda.One might say that some of these groups, namely HAMAS, can easily justify their behavior. That behavior in combination with Israeli behavior, however, contributes to an unstable Middle East. The U. S.

should realistically look at the conflict for what it is and make a concerted effort to stabilize the region and thereby increase U. S. security. An unstable Middle East is an unstable world, and the U. S. has sufficient power to do something about it.

Works Cited

1. Mearsheimer, John, and Walt, Stephen. 2007. The Israel lobby.London Review. At < http://www. lrb.co. uk/v28/n06/mear01_. html>. 03 June 2008.
2. Omeish, Sufyan and Abdallah. 2007. Occupation 101: voice of the silenced majority. 90 min.Triple Eye Films. DVD. Pape, Robert A. 2003.
3. The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. The American Political Science Review 97 (August): 343-361.
4. Rand, Matt. 2007. US support for Israel spurred 9/11. The Jerusalem Post. At <http://www. jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle %2FShowFull&cid=1191257274889>. 03 June 2008.