I. IntroductionWhy the U.S. needs Israelto agree to a two-state solution?Before leaving the White House, President Barrack Obama signed a new financial agreement that guarantees the Israeli government $3.8 billion dollars each year for the next ten years (5-6 Sharp). This amount does include missile defenses, which were not included in the last agreement. The guaranteed figure is only slightly higher than what the United States currently offers, which is $3 billion a year. Though congress had recently added another $500 million to the total making the official commitment $3.5 billion per year. Back in September, this was shocking news that was also ironic. Obama and Israelis Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had what many would call a rocky relationship. This was in part due to Obamas belief that Netanyahu could establish a two-state solution (Goldberg). To mend US Israeli relations, a new financial agreement was reached between Obama and Netanyahu. Politically, the spending package was partly a response to the nuclear deal that the United States and other world powers finalized with Iran in July of last year (Green). Many questioned at the time what the agreement meant for solving the feud that remains in existence between the Israelis and Palestinians. Was the United States now backing down towards the strong commitment to a two-state solution? Peace between both parties remains distant and many are looking up towards the United States to spark meaningful discussion and provide unbiased mediation. These discussions would not only advance U.S. interests, but it would also begin the process of solving a conflict that has affected so many. To properly solve the conflict, Israel will first have to cease settlement activities, take part in talks and agree with a two-state solution. Otherwise the Israel we know today could very well change. II. Reasons for ChangeTo fulfill a mediation role, the United Stateshas to be blatantly honest with both Israel and Palestine. The U.S. will needto provide them with substantial reasons to make peace. This can only happenafter both sides agree that the United States can competently mediate with theunderstanding of both partys wants and needs. Only with this underlying trustcan the U.S. successfully bring a fair compromise to both the IsraeliGovernment and the Palestinian Liberation Organization. That is why thecomments made by former Secretary of State John Kerry were important late last year.Friends need to tell each other the hard truths, and friendships requiremutual respect (Stein). His comments contained criticisms over extensiveexpansion efforts by the Israeli government. Kerry was being brutally honestwhen he said, The Israeli prime minister publicly supports a two-statesolution, but his current coalition is the most right-wing in Israeli history,with an agenda driven by its most extreme elements. Israelis took thosecomments as an insult. The fact is its the truth.Settlements in the West Bank have been an issueever since the six-day war in 1967. Jordan, who had control of the west bank,lost it in the war and Israel was either going to annex the land or give it toa new state. As debate dragged on some Israeli Jews moved to the west bank forreligious reasons. The international community was against these settlementsand continues to be against these settlements. The population within thesesettlements has risen as depicted by a graph from Americans for Peace Now. In1990, the Israeli population in the West Bank was around 65,000 people (Zarracina). That number spiked to over 300,000 people in2010. This massive increase can be explained by the numerous housing benefitsIsraeli settlers receive in the West Bank. For instance, 31 percent of theIsraeli Housing Ministrys Rural Construction budget in 2011 was used onsettlements (The Price of the Settlements). Its important to note that only 4 percent ofIsraels citizens are settlers (The Price of the Settlements). The Israeli government is not only okay withsettlements, but they actively are trying to incentivize citizens to move tosettlements. With more Israeli citizens living in the West Bank it becomesincreasingly harder for Israel to accept a two-state solution. The settlementissue not only makes it harder for a solution between the Israelis andPalestinians, but it also puts the United States in a difficult positioninternationally. UNResolution 2334 states that Israel must, immediately and completely cease allsettlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including EastJerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in thisregard (2 UN Security Council 2). Israel has no plans of complying with theresolution, which is why their parliament has recently passed a law that seizesland owned by Palestinians for Jewish settlements. With the new Knesset lawdirectly violating UN resolution 2334, it puts the United States in a difficultinternational position. Therefore, the United States abstained from the UNresolution 2334 vote. Due to the conflict of interest, the United Statesrepresentative declined to vote but made clear that, settlements undermined Israels securityand eroded prospects for peace and stability (UN Security Council 1).Internationally, this situation makes U.S. foreign policy look negligent.Israel receives 3.8 billion from the U.S., yet they defy UN rulings. The UnitedStates government provides no repercussions other than statements that voiceour countrys concerns. The United States does have a greatrelationship with Israel currently, but that could change under a one statesolution. A one state solution may limit the rights of the Israeli Arabpopulation. David Shipler points out in his book, Arab and Jew, that Israel has responded to Arab population concernsbefore. In 1976 a theory was proven true when funds from the Interior Ministrystarted to become limited, while rules started to become over bearing in theIsraeli town of Migdal in Galilee (405 Shipler). Out of a fear that the Arabpopulation in the Galilee would soon exceed the number of Jews there, theofficials urged that government subsidies to large Arab families be reduced(405 Shipler). This encouraged many to go abroad and not return. It was alsosuggested that, authorities begin a harsh crackdown on Arabs who evade incometaxes, that the number of Arab employees in Jewish-owned enterprises berestricted, and that increased surveillance be conducted of the Communist Partyand other politically recalcitrant groups (405 Shipler). This example showsthat when Arab population threatened Jewish nationalism, the Israeli governmenthad no problem limiting aid and creating new restrictions that discriminateagainst Israeli Arabs. A one state solution assumes that Israeli will controlall the land and grant full citizenship to all the occupants of that land. With1.7 million Arabs living in Gaza (World Fact Book Gaza), and 2.1 million livingin the West Bank this problem will inevitably arise (World Fact Book West Bank).Israel has a population of 8.1 million people (World Fact Book Israel). Out ofthose 8.1 million people, 25 percent mostly view themselves as Arabs, meaningthe actual Jewish population of Israeli stands just over 6 million Jews (WorldFact Book Israel). If Israel accepts a one state solution, the Arab populationwould rival the Jewish population with 5.8 million Arabs. These numbers shouldbe alarming to Israel, but right wing politicians in Knesset continue tobolster the one state option. This was the point John Kerry was trying to make.Since the Israeli government is a democracy, Arab citizens under a one statesolution would be able to vote for their candidates and their interests. Thiswould undoubtedly change the state Israel and may even undermine its Jewishstatus. Would the Jewish elites allow this to happen?To answer the question, its important to lookat the Zionist movement. In the early 1900s, Jewish people started to agreewith the idea that the Jewish people needed their own state. Jews had alwaysbeen persecuted and many believed this was the only solution to the problem.After World War I, the British Mandate for Palestine allowed Jews to populatethe lands. Zionism was cemented as a must after World War II. The holocaustshowed not only to the Jews, but the world that these people needed their ownJewish state. The foundation that is Israel rests on the fact that they are a Jewishstate. It is the one factor that many believe cannot change. If the Israeligovernment wants to prevent the inevitable change that would happen under a onestate solution, they would have to limit the rights of Arab citizens. OtherwiseIsrael starts becoming influenced by people they view as their counterparts. Withoutequal rights for all, Israel suddenly isnt a democracy. This compromises theUnited States position in the middle east and eliminates the only democracythat exists in the region. Without a democracy, the United States would likelycease relations with the country. This conclusion is based on reasonableassumptions that most likely would transpire. To avoid this scenario a two-statesolution is necessary not only for Israels sake, but also for the U.S. Itsimportant to understand what a one state solution could do to Israel and howthat might impact the United States.Currently Israel is on the path towards a onestate solution using government funds and resources to promote settlements inthe West Bank. The United States needs to step up and tell Israel that therewill be consequences if you do not comply with UN law. Acting against internationallaw is a serious offense and it also jeopardizes United States relationstowards the international community. Israel depends on the funding receivedeach year from the United States, which is why officials should consider takingthat money away. Israel currently has no interest in negotiations. To bringthem to the table, you would likely have to take measures against theirfunding.Solving the settlement issue is only one steptowards peace between Israel and the Palestinian people. With this issue aside,reasonable talks can now occur. The Palestinian Liberation Organization hasalready agreed to the 1967 borders. Of course, discussion around settlers wouldensue as well as issues like Hamas and Gaza. What is crucial though is thatdiscussions would be taking place. The theatrical ball is in Israels court.The United States needs to do its part and spark talks that can solve this conflict,which would end years of violence but would also improve U.S. relations in thearea. Israel must comply with a two-state solution. Otherwise there will be notalks. III. Policy OptionsA congressional report on Israeli relations, written by Jim Zanotti, was released earlier this year suggesting there could be at least four possible initiatives that congress and President Donald Trump could act on. One action that could be taken is either increase or decrease U.S aid towards Israel and Palestine (CRS REPORT 2017. Another option could be the formation of a U.S. policy towards a two-state solution (CRS REPORT 2017). The United States could rely on the international community like the United Nations to help solve the conflict (CRS REPORT 2017). The final initiative stated in the report states that the U.S. could ask other regional or international actors to help solve the conflict (CRS REPORT 2017). There are a couple of other options the United States has that the congressional report doesnt touch on. The most obvious option would be to do nothing. Trump and the administrations could ignore the conflict and focus on the other facets that surround U.S. Israel policy. Another option would be to advocate for a one state solution, which above has been stated as a risky option. While there are a lot of options, they can be mixed and matched to formulate the correct approach for the current administration on U.S. Israeli Policy. The first option, which islikely to happen, is continue to do nothing. Within the congressional report,it explains that early signs within the Trump administration has looked lessengaged with regards towards the settlement activities (CRS REPORT 2017). Italso says that other relevant actors do not expect the U.S. to intervene (CRSREPORT 2017). Side effects of doing nothing could result in a wide variety ofaction. With no deal in sight between both sides, doing nothing could result ina third intifada. Hamas and PLO supporters could join forces and attempt tocause havoc for the Israeli government. A third intifada would likely havelittle impact on the U.S. It would be doubtful that troops would be deployed toaid Israel. There could be a budget proposal that would temporarily give Israelmore money to aid in their fight. A doubtful but possible reaction could comefrom the PLO leadership. With the United States turning a blind eye the PLO maygive up and succumb to Netanyahus recent demands. First Palestinian leadershipmust recognize Israel as a Jewish State. Second, agreement that Israel has theright to an indefinite security presence in the Jordan Valley area of the WestBank. This would be extremely unlikely but could be possible. If it does happenyou should expect Palestinians to turn against their leadership. Another likelyeffect is the continuation of settlement building in the West Bank, which onlymakes a two-solution harder. Doing nothing would be the correct response forthe administration if they viewed the conflict as not important, or if they sawno issues with a one-state solution.Another option is to getIsrael to the table to negotiate for a two-state solution. A two-state solutionis the plan that is widely praised by the international community. It wouldcreate a Palestinian state within the West Bank and Gaza. Choosing this optionwould likely result in U.S. pressure on the Israeli government. The U.S. couldpush Israel to negotiate with PLO leadership by providing more money or thepromise to cease funding. The Palestinians want to come to the negotiatingtable and work out a deal, because right now they have nothing. Israel haseverything to lose and the Palestinians have nothing to lose. Settlementbuilding into the West Bank would have to come to a halt. Recent settlementbuilding has demonstratively hurt this option. Even if we were to force Israelto the table there would be no guarantee of cooperation. If this option waschosen, the U.S. would likely receive help from the United Nation and itsmembers. Its important to remember that many Israeli officials are still upsetabout the result of the Camp David Summit and the second intifada which wouldfollow. The Israeli mindset is, we have tried and they are unwilling tonegotiate. Regardless, many countries do not excuse settlement building in theWest Bank, which goes against international law. This option would be praisedinternationally and should be acted on if the Trump administration wants toproduce a solid solution.Another option does existthat would include other regional actors. Theoretically, the option wouldinvolve Egypt and Jordan splitting up land that Israel has had since the six dayin 1967. Egypt would receive the Gaza Strip and Jordan would get some of the WestBank. This solution assumes that Jordan and Egypt would grant Palestinianscitizenship. Jordanian leadership has already expressed opposition towards thisplan. Egypt would have to deal with Hamas in Gaza and somehow get them out ofthe city. Under this plan, Palestinians would receive no state. Israel wouldprobably find this type of a deal attractive but they would have to convinceEgypt and Jordan. I doubt they would. It is an interesting proposition though. IV. RecommendationsUltimately, the United States should do what is in the best interest of the county. Israel is a crucial asset for the U.S. in the middle east and we must protect them to ensure relations can go on. Obama and Kerry have both admitted that a two-state solution is the only way to ensure an Israeli Jewish democracy. They understand the demographic numbers and how detrimental current settlement actions are. Further development only makes peace talks harder between Israel and the PLO. Obama believed that Netanyahu could agree to peace, but he chose not to. This is the solution that last administration viewed as vital toward the future of Israel. Palestinians are obviously on board with this solution, but in good faith they will need to publicly announce Palestines recognition of the Jewish state. Israel will likely need something in exchange for negating. Giving the Israeli government more money is an option that I would like to see. Taking away money that was guaranteed to them would be a move that would only enrage Israel. Giving them more money to come to the table is the most viable option. The international community might be willing to help contribute towards this initiative, which would only put more pressure on Israel. Ideally when negotiating the U.S. and other international countries would attend these talks to provide mediation and council. Hopefully both sides would come to an agreement, but it wont be without its controversies. Both sides want Jerusalem and water resources while they differ on the West Bank settlements. These negations will have to start on the small issues before talking about big issues like Jerusalem. The international community and past U.S. administrations have both agreed that the two-state solution is the best solution for the future of Israel and the Palestinians. It is recommended that the Trump administration act on the two-state solution. V. ConclusionThere are multiple ways to look at the problem and there are usually multiple solutions. The two-state solution provides the Palestinian people a home and hopefully provides Israelis a peace that has been long overdue. A one state solution would only enrage the Palestinians and test Israels humanity. Would they be allowed citizenship? A two-state solution avoids the Israeli government from answering that question. The three-state solution requires Jordan and Egypt to acquire land that they dont want and people that they dont want. Israel would likely be more willing to have conversations about this solution rather than others. After examination, the best Israel policy option moving forward is to attempt to solve the issue between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Action now can and will prevent the situation from getting worse. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the U.S. to do our part in advancing talks regarding the two-state solution. BibliographyGoldberg, Jeffrey. The Obama Doctrine. The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, Apr. 2016. Web. 14 Feb. 2017.
Recent Comments