In 1948, we pressured our ally, Britain, into releasing their control over Palestine so that it could become the Jewish homeland, displacing thousands of Palestinian Arabs in the process.
Yet now, every other week or so, I hear on the news that some president of some nation or other wishes the US to negotiate peace in the region.
A great number of older Palestinians well remember losing their homes to the Jews America supported, and we give Israel $3 billion a year or so, I understand.
Why is there an expectation that we could ever be seen as an impartial moderator for the two sides?
Because the US is the world leader, like it or not. It’s really that simple. And, of course, we give Israel a ton of money every year, so it’s not unreasonable to think that we might be able to exert some pressure on that country-- something no other country even has a change to do.
That part is mostly it. The US is the only country that has the actual ability to twist Israel’s arm into doing something it might not otherwise want to. While the US stands firmly in Israel’s corner political realities change and it is in the United State’s interest to see some kind of resolution as regards Palestine.
The US is the only power with sufficient influence to pressure Israel to make a reasonable peace deal resulting in a viable Palestinian state; that is the basis for the “hope” as you put it. However I agree that with elections coming up it’s unlikely that Bush will alienate the pro-Israel lobby and actually use this potential influence though I hope I am wrong.
As for history while the pro-Israel bias of the US has been clear it has played a useful role on occasion: eg. Camp David accords, ending the Suez war, Madrid peace conference etc.
but when was the last time we twisted Israel’s arm? The Camp David talks with Egypt? That wasn’t even the same kind of situation. We never booted Egyptians out of anywhere to give Israelis land before those talks, did we? Why would the Palestinians expect us to keep their interests equal with those of Israel?
They shouldn’t. If by “the Palestinians” you mean the Palestinian Authority, we do not consider the interests to be equal. The US will never (I hope) give any legitimacy to the idea of destruction of Israel, and doesn’t like the PA itself very much because of the level of corruption. I have no interest in twisting Israel’s arm to do anything without twisting Arafat’s first, and evidently others feel the same because it is the US plan.
There is no question that the US bias leans strongly in favor of Israel. What the US can and does do is maybe force Israel to the negotiating table and maybe give up slightly more concessions than they otherwise might. The Israelis might be racalcitrant and have no intention of seeing anything real accomplished but it’s a start as it is certain absolutely nothing will happen if the two parties refuse to talk to each other at all.
It’s not the US but the Brits who “gave” Palestine to the Jewish Community.
“Then, the British found themselves in a tight spot in the midst of World War I. They sought Jewish help in accelerating US entry into the war. In return for their help, the Zionists got the vital support they wanted. In the infamous Balfour Declaration of 1917, the British promised “to use their best endeavour” (what charming language) to facilitate the creation of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine.”
“The British occupied Palestine in December 1917 and immediately opened it up to Jewish immigration. At the end of the war, according to the terms of a secret agreement, the British and French vivisected the Arab territories of the Ottoman Empire to splinter Arab unity. Syria was carved up four ways: Lebanon, to create a Maronite-dominated state; Jordan, to reward one of the sons of the collaborating Sharif Hussein; a French-controlled Syria; and the British mandate of Palestine, the future Israel. Soon, the Jews of Europe came pouring into British-occupied Palestine, setting up a parallel government with their own military.”
I may not agree with everything in this article, but it sure does give a different view of the US - Israel relationship
Where did you get this from? It is absolutely not true.
Both the Jews and the Palestinians had nationalistic goals under the mandate and wanted the British out of the area. Eventually, the Brits got sick and tired of the whole mess, threw up their hands and said to the UN, “Here, you can have it”
There was no US pressure. In fact, the US State department was leery of the whole idea, recognizing how contentious/destabilizing the presence of a Jewish state in the region would be. Russia saw this too, which is why *they *supported the partitioning plan.
I realize that the idea of US pressure in the creation of Israel may jibe with your particular world view, but you may want to read a little history before posting.
I believe I got that “fact” from a documentary on the founding of Israel that emphasized some post-WWII tension between the US and Britain. Teaches me to trust them dang filmmakers.
It’s somewhat tangential to my main point however, given that no one can mistake the fact that the US is firmly on Israel’s side. My question is, why are other leaders requesting that the US take the center postition at the bargaining table, when the Palestinians could have no reason to trust such an arrangement?
It seems to me that the US belongs on one side of the table, urging moderation to Israel, while allies of the Palestinians are on the other doing the same thing, with a rep of some neutral power mediating. Has such an arrangement been suggested? If not, why not? I don’t see a hope of a negotiated peace with only the US, Israel, and the Palestinian authority the only players in the room.
It is purely due to our funding of Israel. It would fold like a house of cards without it. They simply don’t generate enough money to maintain an army capable of defending their land. The Arabs would crush them in a land war without our financial support. Jets rule the sky but it takes people with guns to hold land. The best the Israelis could do is a mutually assured standoff with nukes and I wouldn’t want to be there when THAT theory is tested.
I agree that the U.S. is the best hope for peace in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. America is the only country with enough influence over Israel to even get them to a negotiating table. America is also the only country that will be able to get Israel to make any concessions that might be necessary for a peace process. Once a peace plan is put into action, the U.S. is also the only country with enough influence and military power to make sure neither side steps out of line.
Sorry, but that is humbug. The EU is the single largest trade partner Israel has, and has given Israel considerable special treatment. All these gratifications can be cancelled, however the EU has deliberately chosen not to do so so far, in order to “be part of the solution, not the problem”.
As far as the US being the world leader, that’s nationalistic humbug on anything but the military level, and I doubt that the White House has any plans to sending the Big Red One to Jerusalem any time soon.
That’s why the recent plan has been developed by a Quartet which includes the UN, the EU and Russia. The EU is both the most important trade partner of Israel and the most important donor to the Palestinian Authorities in terms of infrastructure (a lot of which has already been wasted again by the IDF). Israel has so far felt it can ignore the European position, but given the state of the Israeli economy and the problems Israel has had, for example, with Poland as a result of its less than courteous treatment of polish citizens traveling to Israel -Poland being on the way to join the EU-, more and more people in Israel are considering the days of that disrespect counted.
The reason why the US is put into the front seat is quite simple: The US, especially the current administration, has shown quite well that closed-door diplomacy is not something they are very proficient at, and with the US in the front seat, enough pressure can be created on Israel without the EU having to increase tensions and threaten to scratch their economic special treatment. At the same time, the EU can use its influence behind closed doors on Arab governments -good relations exist for example with the Gulf Cooperation Council.
I’d suggest that anyone who sees this US administration as a “hope” for the Middle East (whatever that means) is delusional – Bush will pay lip service to Tony Blair’s request for getting behind the ‘Middle East Road Map’, then he’ll just jump as high as the US-based pro-Israeli lobby will tell him to jump.
Bush needs that second term and the pro-Israeli lobby was more media influence than any other lobby group. He’s not going to be rocking the boat.
Sure. If it makes you feel better to think that, fine, but who is expected to solve the Israel-Palestine problem? America. Who is expected to deal with N.Korea? America. When it was decided to go after the Serbs in Kosovo, who led the way? America. Etc.
America is the ‘world leader’, as far as such a thing exists.
Brutus, I doubt if anyone expects the US government to do anything other than serve it’s own interests. US foreign policy is a tool of domestic politics, always has been, always will be.