Teddy Minch's column published in The Tufts Daily on March 17, 2010, expressed that "the United States should have instilled great fear in the Israelis and made sure they understand who dictates policy in this international relationship" after Vice President Joe Biden's trip to Israel mid-March. Yet, with a sharp understanding of the international arena, it is clear that the United States-Israel relationship that has been cultivated for decades is vital to both sides, and it is not Israel but rather the United States that is tearing the alliance apart in the past few months. The United States and Israel face many of the same threats, including Iranian nuclear proliferation and state-sponsored terrorism. Many claim that Israel is the only true, stable democracy in the Middle East and has worked with the United States to overcome aggressors in the region and to support moderate regimes.
According to Minch, "soon after Biden's arrival, Israel's Ministry of the Interior announced that it had approved construction of 1,600 new settlements." This is inaccurate and academically lazy; 1,600 refers to the apartment units to be constructed in Jerusalem, not "new settlements" — Israel, the size of New Jersey, is far too small to ever see construction of 1,600 new towns out of the blue. The announcement regarding housing construction in Jerusalem is a regrettable incident because of the poor timing. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has apologized for the awkward announcement, and yet the Obama administration has decided to start a pointless fight with Israel. President Obama's current stance of overwhelming, one-sided demands from Israel are unlikely to advance the peace process; he has demonstrated that he is not committed to Israel's rights, as poignantly evident in his demand that Israel halt construction in Jerusalem. Indeed, just as recently as November 2009, the Obama administration had applauded Netanyahu's announcement to make an unprecedented concession: a ten-month moratorium on new Jewish housing in the West Bank. Netanyahu said he did it to "encourage resumption of peace talks with our Palestinian neighbors." The agreement did not, in fact, apply to Eastern Jerusalem, which is home to around 180,000 Israelis. Furthermore, according to the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, it is U.S. policy that "Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected." Now, Israel's announcement to construct housing in Jerusalem in the neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo has been greeted with much U.S. hostility and a diplomatic mess.
Israel wants peace more than anyone, but without a partner for peace, there is no hope. President Obama is not pressuring the Palestinians to commit to peace talk and action; on the contrary, his policies discourage the Palestinian leadership to negotiate because they simply have no incentive for peace. Netanyahu has taken bold risks and made serious concessions in the name of peace in the past months: Netanyahu has endorsed a two-state solution with a demilitarized Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state of Israel, a 10-month construction halt of homes in the West Bank, the removal of more than 210 checkpoints and the release of Palestinian prisoners. On the other hand, the Palestinian leaders are still unwilling to meet with their Israeli counterparts, and moderate Arab states fail to support a peace process with Israel.
The obstacle to peace lies not in Jewish housing construction but in the Palestinian refusal to accept a new state next to Israel, instead of one replacing it. A brief examination of history paints the picture clearly: Between 1949 and 1967 there were no Jewish settlements, as the West Bank was under Jordanian control and Gaza under Egyptian, and yet neighboring Arab States refused to make peace with Israel. On the other hand, in 1977, Likud, the Israeli party intent on settlement construction, signed a peace treaty with Egypt. Likewise in 1994, Israel signed a peace treaty with Jordan while the number of Jews living in the territories was actually growing. In 2005, Israel withdrew completely from the Gaza Strip; in return, instead of building a state, the terrorist organization Hamas gained control of the region, and attacks unto Israel magnified.
As is the case with any relationship, no state is perfect, and there will be times of tension and disagreement between Israel and the United States. Nevertheless, the United States needs to keep the larger picture in mind when it comes to the Middle East, for U.S. security is intertwined with Israel's. The current U.S. administration is not behaving like a mediator dedicated to peace in this conflict, while just last spring, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told The Washington Post that he has no intention of negotiating with Israel. Indeed, this has been the approach of the Palestinian Authority since the current U.S. administration took power — to agree to nothing and to wait for the United States to pressure Israel. Abbas told The Washington Post on March 21, "the Americans are the leaders of the world … They can use their weight with anyone around the world ... I will wait." Israel has demonstrated a commitment to peace; the Palestinians have not. Now, it seems that the United States is trampling on the Israeli relationship instead of objectively approaching the peace process.
--
Ariella Charny is a sophomore who has not yet declared a major. She is a Tufts campus fellow for the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.
