WSJ.com 3.5.09
This Video goes along well with another article published by WSJ.com entitled "U.S. to Press Netanyahu to Curb Settler Activity" that explains the situation in more detail.
The thought of the U.S. shifting greater support for a two state solution is very interesting. I find it encouraging that the U.S. is beginning to speak out against some Israeli actions in the West Bank. At the moment though, I would not say that this was that strong of a signal from the Obama administration. The article talked briefly about the Obama administration's policy of refusing to support a unified Palestinian government until Hamas formally recognizes Israel's right to exist, renounces all violence and recognizes international agreements signed in the past by the Palestinian Liberation Organization. I thought that given the current situation there it almost seems unreasonable to hold a group to such constraints before recognizing it. I also wonder about what will happen if tensions build between Israel and the U.S. as a result of an increased effort from the U.S. to promote two separate states. These talks from the U.S. secretary of State Hilary Clinton could be the first sign of a shift in the stance of the United States.
I don't think that the U.S. should condone Israel's actions as much as they have in the past, but I don't know what direction they should take. I don't think it would be wise of the U.S. to try to force a two state solution down another countries throat. I feel that any solution must come within. It may be possible for the U.S. to aid in some sort of solution, but they should definitely not forcefully push their own agenda in this region. This issue is so complicated I do not see an easy solution with two separate states. This is a very complicated issue and I am concerned that the U.S. may become to involved in something they don't understand and, as a result, will not be able to predict the effects of their actions within the region. What level do you think the U.S. should get involved with this issue? What do you think of the two state solution?
Posts
I also think Clinton's comments, and the fact that she spoke to both sides of the conflict, are encouraging. However, her comments were not earth shattering, she said Israel's actions were "unhelpful," which is a pretty lukewarm word. That's not to say I think she should have said anything more than that, because these relationship the U.S. has with both sides needs requires careful and intentional rhetoric and involvement. With the U.S.'s history of support for Israel, the Obama administration cannot say too much too soon. It will be interesting to see if the Obama administration will inch forward with an increasingly more critical critique of Israel, or remain relatively uncritical of Israel.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I agree that a solution needs to come from with in the conflict, however, at this point, neither side really seems to genuinely want to compromise. I think that this is where international pressure, not just from the U.S., to come to a long-term solution and peace agreement is necessary. I do not think it is the U.S.'s job to "fix" it, nor should the U.S. try to, but the U.S. is a powerful member of the global community and has more power than other nations to help in the situation.
I agree that the US doesn't really have the authority to try to fix it, however they have made the situation so much worse for so long, they do have some duty to help fix what they broke. We can no longer unconditionally back Israel, with only a slap on the risk ("unhelpful" is a bit of an understatement) when Israel violates Human Rights Laws!
ReplyDelete