Next Gen Journal

Map of Israel and Palestine with surrounding countries.

By Brent Edwards

Improving relations with the Muslim world has been a key element of President Obama’s foreign policy. In his first official news interview as president, Obama spoke on the predominantly Muslim Al-Arabia Station. In a remark about the United States being a part of a peace deal between the Palestinians and Israelis, the President stated:

“Ultimately, we cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what’s best for them. They’re going to have to make some decisions. But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people. And that instead, it’s time to return to the negotiating table” (1/27/09).

What President Obama reiterates is a common theme: a peaceful situation can only arise from the Palestinian and Israeli people compromising and negotiating. However, that does not eliminate the reality that many countries influence Israel as well as the Palestinian state. The United States is the primary financial and military supporter of Israel. President Obama’s 2010 budget allocates $2.8 billion for Israeli aid. However, a majority of Muslim countries support the Palestinian people; they wish to see an independent nation that can be free to have its own army, determine its own laws, and be recognized by the international community.

Despite the United States’ position that Israel is a key ally in the Middle East, President Obama has repeated that it is necessary for Israel to make some changes to how it is currently operating. The United States (as well as the European Union) has called on Israel to stop allowing new settlements in the West Bank. It has been stated that these settlements are illegal, and that a Palestinian state would have the authority to dismantle such areas.

The current head of the Likud party and Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, has denied pressures to halt the creation of the settlements. He states that the settlements, which contain approximately 300,000 residents, should be subject to “Natural Growth.” This growth would allow for the cities to grow in population just as any other city should be allowed to. While the Israeli people view this as a sovereign right, many other nations view this as unacceptable stalling on the issue of Palestinian independence. Obviously this puts the United States and Israel in opposition over a critical issue.
Under what situations would Israel stop making new settlements? Would stopping settlements cause a situation that brings peace towards Israel, or would it allow emboldened terror groups to harass and lead even more advanced attacks as Israel gives up more land? If the U.S promised to defend Israel from an Iranian nuclear attack in exchange for a settlement freeze, would the Israelis accept that bargain?

The future of Israel, Palestine, and the Middle East is hazy. Different nations, religious factions, treaties and other influences all stretch this desert land in ways that often set the stage for conflict. After United States-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, there is still tension and turmoil. Additional military efforts may prove necessary in the case of a nuclear powered Iran. How that could play out is anyone’s guess. Seeing what a legacy of conflict has done to the Middle East leads me to the conclusion that a key part of our national security platform has to include upfront and engaging diplomacy between the United States and countries that are willing to listen and change their ways for the greater good. Finally it is clear (as with much in the Middle East) that on the question of Israeli settlements, there are no easy answers.

Brent Edwards is an 18 year old freshmen at Xavier University. He is currently majoring in Political Science. He is interested in current events, politics and journalism.

The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author.