The article major expresses the doubts by the editorial on the possibility of President Obama’s administration succeeding in the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. According to Safty the success will not depend on the amount of force the U.S President will employ to deliver to its vows. He explains that this is because the approach that the US administration has taken in pursuing peace has been refuted by the Israeli leaders. According to the Safty the only way to realize a lasting peace between the Israeli and the Palestine is to convince Israeli leaders to accept to change from pursuing their old Zionist tenet of redeeming land and accept the international consensus on the requirement for peace in Palestine.
The author gives an example of the reason given by the US Middle East Envoy George Mitchell to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu which he refutes. The Envoy had told the Prime that the only way for realizing peace would be to freeze the construction of colonies in the West. The author also explains that US seems to be in agreement with his positions as it has also criticized Israeli over her colonies in the occupied territories.
The author has tried to prove that even the American delegation of Republican congressmen seemed not to be in agreement with Israeli position. He reports that the congressmen too had claimed that the policy Obama was employing would not succeed. They had clamed that the policy overemphasized the issue of colonies while ignoring the bigger threat caused by Iran. In supporting his position further, the author also used the perceive position of the international Community. He explained that the international community seems to have reached a consensus that the only way forward would be peaceful settlement of the Palestine conflict.
To him the focus should be towards changing the Israeli policies against the Palestinians but not on seeking ways of justifying Israeli actions. The author also cited the proposed Mathew Sheppard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. He stated that the interpretation of the bill would obviously criminalize any criticism against Israel. According to Safty, Israeli is taking chance of the support it receives from the US government to illegally silence its critics. To him, this authoritarian tactics will as well not serve the interest of the Israelites since they deter peace. He finalizes his arguments by emphasizing that the real problem is the preference of land over peace by the Israeli.
First, there is an assumption by the US administration that the Israeli colonies in the occupied territories are an obstacle to the peace negotiation process. That this deters the Arab states from normalizing its relations with Israel. There was also an assumption by the American delegation of the Republican congressmen that peace would only come if Obama would change his policies. Another assumption is that the international community is unanimously for the support of peaceful settlement of Israeli-Palestine conflict. Lastly, there was an assumption that lasting peace will only be realized when only when Israeli leaders drop their interest of land and put the need for peace first.
According to the report from the Ruling by the international court as spelled in the Palestinian Fact Monitor Sheet updated on the 15th of March 2010, the Israeli settlers are often willing to use violence against both Israelis and Palestinians to have their way. The court found out that Israel was increasing its act of terror and intimidation over the Palestinians. The court seemed to have concluded that the major problem was the persistence by Israel to legitimize the existence of settler movements in its territories.
Stephen Lendman agrees with Joel Koel’s statement that Israel is “a machine for the manufacture of human rights abuses”. He adds that this abuse of human rights is led by terrorists posing as democrats in reference to the support Israel receives from the US administration. He observes that all along, the Israeli policy towards Arabs has been unfavorable to Palestine. Lendman noted that the Israeli leaders had been pursuing peace through the use of violence and not by peaceful not diplomacy.
According to the report released on January 14, 2008 by the Anti-Imperialist News Service, peace would only be realized when Israeli would stop its daily operations in the occupied territories of the west Bank and Gaza. Hellon and Bork (1) seemed to agree with the views that these operations have continued to choke off Gaza depriving Palestinians their basic rights. In addition, the reporter, saw a further complication of the issue in the fact that the US government had relented on its promise to play honesty in the leading the piece talk between the two nations.
It therefore remains debatable whether the policies advanced by the American Administration’s in its attempt to addressing this issue will succeed. As the biasness practiced by the United States becomes more open to its critics, it remains to be seen the direction which this process will take. The U.S seems t be in a special mission to pursue a special relationship with Israel. Their effort is therefore being seen as a mere political game with the president of France noting that there would be need for incorporation of more parties in the talk. Zogby observes that the U.S administration has been criticized from across the world of its effort to defend Israel’s behavior while paying disregard to the issues affecting the Arab World.
Though I am in agreement that the issue of Israel insisting on the possession of the land remains to be the greatest challenge to the process of peace negotiation, I think there is more to this. I think that apart from the problem caused by the settlements and the settlers, what must be addressed is the larger security apparatus and infrastructure which unites the settlers to Israel. However, I also see political interest as playing a role in the failure in pursuing peace and change in these nations. It is clear that the United States have openly overshadowed its values in the Arab regions for its own interests.
A number of questions therefore remain to be answered. First is whether President Obama’s administration can be trusted with the process of delivering peace to the Arab world or whether other bodies should join in the process. Second, is whether there is any political interest and its effect in this process? This is especially bearing in Mind that Obama has declared his interest in second term in office. Israeli and its supporters are without any doubt very significant to the president if this holds true. Finally, it is good for the concerned begin asking themselves if the would be better alternative ways which would be utilized other than leaving the whole process in the hand of the American administration.