For the past few months, the Middle East has been in the frontlines due to the numerous conflicts and revolutions against the dictatorship and the lingering political ideology that pushes people to call for democracy and freedom. Out of the most recent conflicts and uprisings in the region, nothing is more diverse and complex than the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict that is still ongoing since the 1940s. The conflict, which began after the proposal of creating a Palestinian state after the Second World War, continues to escalate as the Israelis pressure the Palestinians out of their homes and assert their power as a legitimate state. The reaction of both the international community and the neighboring countries around the contested territories have expressed immediate resolution of the conflict as it stretches on aspects such as mutual recognition, border and security concerns, and even the importance of Jerusalem to both parties. In the case of the US’ response to the issue, the US firmly supports the resolution of the conflict as it would ensure peace and sustainability to return to the region, improving its Middle Eastern image and thwart possible security threats that may occur if the US fails to ensure the resolution of the conflict.
The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict can be traced back in 1947 upon the announcement of the 1947 UN Partition Plan that would relinquish British control over the Gaza region to the United Nations. As part of the plan, the UN had created a special committee to handle the transition process and divide the newly mandated Gaza for both the Jews and the Palestinians. The proposal suggested the creation of three areas – a Jewish state, a Palestinian state, and a neutral territory handled by an international administration. Despite the proposal of getting their own states within the Gaza region, the proposal was met in scrutiny and hostility, especially the Arabs and Palestinians as they believed that they have the original rights over the British mandate. For the Zionists handling Israel, the proposal itself was beneficial to create Israel as a state. Conflicts slowly escalated regarding the Partition Plan – which also influenced the beginning of the Arab-Israeli Conflict- and eventually, Israel had gotten the upper hand to declare their independence on May 14, 1848 with a much larger state than what was allotted to them under the plan. Israel had then been under siege by the Middle Eastern neighbors, however, Israel had stood firm especially against the Palestinian militia and had been recognized as a legitimate state by the international community after its independence.
With Israeli continuously resisting the invasions and threats, Israel had slowly claimed Palestinian territories or the al-Nakba (Disaster) to stop the creation of a Palestinian state. An armistice had been signed in 1949 to identify the territories and provide an official border for all the parties involved: Israeli territories were labeled under the “Green Line” and the Egyptians were given Gaza. While Egypt retained their control around Gaza for 19 years, Israel had managed to overturn their control in the 1967 Arab-Israeli Conflict. Since Gaza, under the Egyptians, allowed the Palestinians some sentiments of a home, the conflict had led them to flock the West Bank or become refugees throughout the globe while Israel clamed Gaza and the West Bank. Israel acknowledged the value of the two areas on history and the population, however, the Palestinians continued to see the Israeli control over the two regions as a means to crush the Palestinians out of the Middle East. This then lead to the 1980 protest or the Intifada protesting against the continuous refusal of Israel to let go of the two territories, supported by the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the public. A second Intifada happened in 1987 before the international community reacted with Madrid Conference of 1991 (establishing the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Talks) and the UN Security Council Resolutions Number 242 and 338 to facilitate the negotiations. The Palestinians wanted to call for the Israeli withdrawal within the contested territories before accepting the negotiation. However, the discussion did not take place due to the Israeli’s refusal to accept the Palestinian request. Regardless, secret deals between the Israelis and the PLO had enabled the creation of the Declaration of Principles on September 13. 1993 to create an interim period that would stop any conflict within the contested territories. The discussions progressed to the Oslo Accords that enabled the interim period to continue under the Cairo Agreement of 1994, allowing the Israelis to vacate Jericho and Gaza to create the Palestinian National Authority .
The Oslo Accords had continued in 1995 under US support to outline the Palestinian autonomy in the contested areas through 1996 to 1999. After the Oslo Accords, Oslo II had added the guidelines in outlining the territories in three groups - Areas A, B, C- similar to the 1947 Partition Plan set by the UN. Area A would be led by the Palestinians once Israel withdraws its forces. Area B would be controlled as a neutral territory that is supported by the Israeli military in terms of security. Finally, Area C would become an Israeli led territory with its military as a core security actor. The interim period was then supported by the Wye Memorandum and the Hebron Protocol, established to ensure that Israel would keep their word in not attacking or deploying in Palestinian territories. However, in recent years, the problems within both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank between both Israel and Palestine continued as Israel proceeded in moving against the Palestinians. While both parties had a small truce in 2001 due to the War on Terror, Israel slowly blocked the Gaza Strip considering it is a neutral territory. Today, the tensions continue to prosper as the Palestinians continue to fight against Israel’s control despite the negotiations in the past decades .
Since the beginning of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the United States has been alarmed with the rift in the oil-rich region. For the United States, getting the conflict to end peacefully would improve the region’s competitiveness to the international community, at the same time, improve the US image in the region as a proponent of peace. Upon the end of the Second World War, the US was one of the leading nations that encouraged immediate resolution of the conflict despite being Israel’s political and economic ally since the 1940s. With its assistance packages sent to Israel and Egypt, the United States used its leverage to ensure both countries would adhere to the negotiations and try fostering sustainability in the region. The trend had continued for the next few years as Washington wanted both parties to abide to the accords without losing either nation. In some of the negotiations, the US and its fellow nations had witnessed both Israel and Palestine’s openness to try out peaceful negotiations regarding Gaza and West Bank without the use of violence, guiding both nations in administering autonomy for Palestine and create commitments for both groups to fulfil to ensure peace in the region. The US had continued to send high level US officials to facilitate talks between Israel and Palestine even in the height of the War on Terror, ensuring the continuation of peaceful talks between both parties
While the US firmly supports the resolution of the conflict as a negotiator/mediator to improve US image and foster Middle Eastern development, the US also treats the conflict as a potential security threat to the country as the conflict may cause the US to lose its ally, Israel, if they cannot agree with Palestine in the peace process. Prominent figures like Presidential Adviser David Axelrod and General David Petraeus had stated that if the US fails to resolve the conflict, it is likely to fuel Islamic extremism and possible challenges to the US by the arguing parties that may affect America’s strategic interests and image in the region. As the ally of Israel, the US would have to be cautious in demanding Israel to cease its activity within the contested areas as it would further incite conflict. With this in mind, the US would have to address the conflict in caution to ensure Israel continues to remain its ally and improve US cooperation within the Muslim states. If aggravated further, Israel may directly challenge US’ power within the region and may seriously damage American power not just in the region, but also within American territory. Further aggravation of the Israelis may even complicate the tensions within the Middle East that may cause further rebellions, protests and revolutions to occur .
As the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians continue to threaten any possible peace in the territories, the United States continues to locate solutions and advocate to its ally Israel and with the Palestinians to resolve the conflict before it further influences insurgency throughout the contested areas. Resolution of the conflict will ensure that Israel (the US’ ally) and Palestine (another potential partner) can ensure prosperity within the contested regions of Gaza and the West Bank, showing that the US would support the region upon the end of the conflict as a partner and ally. The US also saw the conflict as a potential security threat as a wrong move would cause Israel to break ties with the US, losing the country’s only Middle Eastern ally and disrupt America’s intension of ensuring peace in times of conflict and violence in the region. With their insistence on peace, especially after the War on Terror, the US government strives on ensuring that Israel would still remain as an ally of the US despite implications of the US’ demands in Israeli security.
Works Cited
Alianak, Sonia. Middle Eastern Leaders and Islam: a precarious equilibrium. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2007. Print
Burke, Edmund. Struggle and Survival in the Modern Middle East. London: University of California Press, 2006. Print.
Butterworth, David. "U.S. Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict." PBS News Hour. 11 May 2006. Web. 27 July 2013. <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/middle_east/jan-june06/us_05-11.html>.
LaFranchi, Howard. "Why US sees Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a security threat." The Christian Science Monitor. 19 March 2010. Web. 27 July 2013. <http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2010/0319/Why-US-sees-Israeli-Palestinian-conflict-as-a-security-threat>.
Mikaberidze, Alexander. Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2011. Print.
