Peace talks between Israel and Palestine came to halt in recent days as Israel allowed a freeze on Jewish settlement building in the West Bank to end on Sunday. While no side has officially left the negotiation table, it is clear that talks will not move forward until the construction freeze resumes. According to this article, in an attempt to jump start talks, the Obama administration is trying to secure with Israel a 60-day renewal of the freeze in exchange for various security guarantees. These guarantees include weaponry or even continued support of Israel; however, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has so far not agreed to the renewed freeze. Furthermore, to pressure Israel further, Washington has considered a fallback plan that would include a pledge to Palestinians that the US would "formally endorse one of their central demands for the borders of a future Palestinian state."
Now, in general, I am a supporter of President Obama and his administration, but I am having trouble seeing the logic behind this proposed deal. Sure, if Israel accepts, talks would continue between the embittered rivals for 60 days (and Washington hopes longer), but the pessimistic side of me is having trouble dismissing the fact that these two sides have been talking for decades over this land dispute and with little success. So what will 60 days do for negotiations?
Furthermore, I find it unjust that we're offering Israel security guarantees in exchange for their continued cooperation. I understand that this is part of diplomacy, and without these incentives, Israel would (and still may) keep on building, leading to a Palestinian withdrawal from the negotiations. No one wants that, obviously. However, Palestine regard the Jewish settlement building as illegal and, as stated in the article, are upset that the Israelis should get anything for being "thieves". The US is already looked down upon by Arab states (and that's putting it lightly) for its relationship with Israel, and "siding" yet again with Israel by offering them support cannot help improve that perception.
In my mind, the US should take a firmer stand against Israel on the matter. After all, it was Israel that continued building on disputed land. Whether or not the Israelis see it as their right to do so is not the point. They knew that doing this would only anger Palestinians and lead to a setback in negotiations. I know that the US and Israel are allies, but it's time for Washington to put its foot down and not let Israel take advantage of our relationship. If we are going to be mediators in these talks, it can't appear to others that we're playing favorites. Now, maybe that's not what we're doing, and if I'm wrong, please inform me, but I think perception plays a big part in this. So even if Washington isn't meaning to "favor" Israel, I wouldn't be totally surprised if Palestine (or the rest of the Arab world) saw it as favoritism.
With that said, I do hope that some progress can be made through these policies.
Braeden,
ReplyDeleteTo me it seems as if though Israel were the stubborn child of the U.S. and I agree with you that the U.S. needs to stop tolerating Israel's behavior. It's probably a bad analogy, but the point here is that the U.S. should change its attitude towards Israel if we ever want peace between Israel and Palestine, and in a broader sense among Arabs and Israelis. In addition, I don’t think that a 60 day extension would lead to anything. I consider it an act of defiance the fact that Israel has refused to extend the settlement freeze amid the Obama’s Administration’s request.