For quiet a long time, the city of Jerusalem has been the center of interest for many nations. Many people and religions put claim on the city based on the religious backgrounds associated with it. Eventually, the conflicts of interest concerning the city have spilt into chaos. The main contention at the moment lies between the Palestine and Israel, where both claim ownership to the land. This has brought about much friction between them and they try al means possible to make sure that they have the final ownership. Israel has even gone as far as to claim that its capital city is Jerusalem which is presumably moved from Tel Aviv. This conflict has drawn in many parties, including the US.
The US position on the issue has been evasive in the recent past as the White House has kept away from telling whether the city is actually owned by the Israeli’s or not (Americans for Peace Now Para 5). There are reasons as to why America seems to take this position. These are as explained below.
On the other hand, the US also has its hands tied and cannot fully support Israeli on the ownership of Jerusalem. This arises from the fact that the situation in the Middle East is quite volatile. The region has always been in crises mainly due to strips of land and territory. Furthermore, this is a region that is marred by terrorist groups which would be ready to strike any moment at the slightest provocation. For this reason, the US cannot voice its support for Israeli for the ownership of Jerusalem. Plitnick (Para 3) indicates that such a move would provoke the Middle Eastern countries such as Palestine and Iran, which are anti-American, to strike with even greater force. All these nations have massive investments in weaponry and a war between them would attract a lot of supporters from all over the world. Eventually, there would be a third world war which would have even more devastating results given the fact that nuclear weapons have now been fully developed.
Based on these facts, the US finds itself between a rock and a hard surface and has to make a major decision which can lead to the end of the war on Jerusalem. However, even as the positions are being considered, it is apparent that neither of the parties is willing to give up the city. The religious connotation that the city is associated with makes it such a bone of contention. None of the two is willing to take lose it all. On the other hand, the US is involved in that it has to make sure that peace prevails in the Middle East and that no possible terrorist activities take place. Secondly, the US has to protect its interest in the Middle East. Being such a volatile nation, it has to make sure that the friendly relations with Israeli do not fade off. To this point, Plitnick (Para 5) observes that the Obama administration has hit a dilemma on the issue. It is too bad given that the entire world sits in wait for the position that America takes.
There is a proposition for peace that the nations can adopt so as to co-exist peacefully. All the three parties have to make sacrifices for the sake of meaningful and peaceful co-existence. There is the need to have a deal of compromise. First of all, the US has to sacrifice its position that it must retain very strong bonds with Israeli. As Plitnick (Para 1) observes, this has already started taking effect and the Obama administration has indicated that Israeli needs to take responsibility without relying on the US. Such a position would allow the US to take a neutral position and support it.
However, the greatest sacrifice for peace would have to be made by the two warring sides; Israeli and the Palestine. They should agree to split the city between the two of them so that they can exist peacefully. As it stands now, none of the two is willing to loose the city as a whole. Still, it remains that the two can not mutually own the city since they do not see eye to eye. Therefore, the proposition for peace is that both nationalities should remain with the part of the city they claim ownership to. The Palestinians should take their stronghold and commit not to cross over to the Israeli section. The Israeli should do the same and an agreement should be signed committing the two sides to abide by the peace agreement.
Of course, it is expected that such a proposition is bound to be faced by much criticism and possible rejection by the two sides. However, it is the only option that is left for the two. If they decline to take it, then it is given that they will forever be in conflict with each other. The war that has been fought for years without a solution will persist for another long years. This is quite barbaric in this era. The people need to come together and agree on what they need to do. In this case, the solution is to split Jerusalem into two; the Palestinian occupational side and the Israeli occupational side.
In conclusion, the above discussion has tried to find a lasting solution for the long-term conflict between Palestine and Israel over the city of Jerusalem. The solution has been discussed with reference to the American point of view. It has been realized that in order for peace to be restored in the region, the concerned parties need to take a neutral position on the issue where they agree to agree for the sake of peace not for their personal interests. It has concluded that splitting Jerusalem between the two sides seems like the only option.
Works Cited
Americans for Peace Now. “Jerusalem & U.S Policy.” Peacenow.org, 2013. Web. 4th April 2013, http://peacenow.org/apn-positions/jerusalem-and-us-policy.html
Glick, Carolyne B. “Column One: God, Jerusalem and American Foreign Policy.” The Jerusalem Post, 9th June 2012. Web. 4th April 2013, http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Column-One-God-Jerusalem-and-American-foreign-policy
Plitnick, Mitchell. “Losing American Interest.” Soucian, March 22nd, 2013. Web. 4th April 2013, http://souciant.com/2013/03/losing-american-interest/
