The conflict in the Middle East between the Israelis and Palestinians has been an ongoing battle between these two nations since the mid twentieth century. Most of the violence has taken place in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank of Israel. The main points of arguments are over control of Jerusalem and Palestinian rights. While there has been a lot of fighting over the course of this fighting, the conflict is considered to be in a low-level fighting state, mainly between Gaza and Israel. The conflict has been aiming for peace with many other countries believing a two-state solution between the Israelis and Palestinians is the best available option. However, the two states involved in the conflict have opposed views to this. They both believe they are the right party and have been uneasy to give up ground to the other side in this ongoing conflict. With newly elected President Trump’s ideals and his relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu many believe that the U.S. will take the side of Israel in this. Since the U.S. is also close allies with Israel, many people also see this as a reason the U.S. should stay out of the peace talks. Since the U.S. has many of their own interests to protect in the conflict, they should not be involved in the peace talks between the conflicting Israelis and Palestinians. 

The history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a long and messy one. One could say it began with the Zionist Movement which took place between 1880 and 1914. During this movement, thousands of Jewish Europeans began immigrating to Palestine in response to the worsening persecution of Jews in Europe. This movement ended at the start of World War I, which was a key turning point in the history between the Jews and Arabs in the then Ottoman Empire. At the end of the war, the British gained control of the area of Palestine and they became the governing body over the Jews and Arabs living in this area. Then, in 1921, the British gave control of the area east of the Jordan River to Emir Abdullah, forming the country now known as Jordan. This deal resulted in the first major act of violence in the conflict resulting in the deaths of many Jews and Palestinians in the area. The next major act of violence occurred in 1929 beginning in Jerusalem and spreading throughout the country. The conflict was particularly bad in Hebron where 67 Jews were killed. With conflict continuing between the two states, the United Nations recommended that British-Mandate Palestine be separated into two states, one for Jews and one for Arabs. The Zionist leaders accepted this proposal while the Palestinian leaders rejected this believing that it was unrepresentative of the demographics of Jews and Arabs living there. Within months the Zionist leaders declared the state of Israel, resulting in violence between them and the Arabs and British troops pulling out of the area. This begun the Arab-Israeli War of 1948. This war results in 700,000 Palestinians leaving or fleeing the area that once was British-Mandate Palestine. Also, this war resulted in the main conflict over borders still going on to this day. Jordan gained control of the West Bank and the eastern part of Jerusalem and Egypt gained control of the Gaza strip. Israel gained control of the western portion of Jerusalem. This only escalates conflict as many feel the Palestinians should be able to return freely to their homes but given the history of the conflict many don’t feel safe to return. Over the years as violence in the area continues it ends up peaking in what is known as the Six Day War. The war was a pre-emptive attack by Israel which resulted in them expanding their territory and gaining land in the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. This is a key point in the conflict between the Arabs and Israelis in the area because many Arabs now feel their land has been taken from them. The fighting has not stopped since the conflict began in the early 1900s but the two parties have been working towards finding peace more and more. After the September 11th terrorist attacks, the Bush Administration began to make more efforts to help negotiate peace between the Arabs and the Jews. In 2001 Bush even stated that he supported a Palestinian state. While the history of these two warring parties has been a long and messy one, there is a light at the end of the tunnel as many leaders around the world are seeking out options to bring peace to the region.

The current state of the peace talks has not progressed much as neither side wants to give up much ground. The Palestinians believe that Israel took land that rightfully belongs to them and the Israelis believe that this land is their natural right because of its importance to their religious beliefs. Earlier this year a peace conference was held in Paris to promote the two-state solution. The conference was attended by representatives from over 70 countries, not including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and American President Donald Trump. Netanyahu stated that he thought the conference was useless and that he felt as if the conference was a coalition by the French and Palestinians to “force terms on Israel that conflict with our national needs”(Buet CNN.com). In another article published by Fox News, Prime Minister Netanyahu was quoted saying he feels that the conference is “rigged” and that the gathering is an “empty summit.” After this quote by Netanyahu it seems as if it is him and Trump against the world. As Trump’s new administration was preparing to take office just days after this conference, Carol Morello of The Washington Post states that there is widespread concern over Trump being so pro-Israel it could ruin the idea of two-states living in peace. The Palestinian leaders had a very opposed view to this as they welcomed the conference with open arms. Speaking on the conference, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said, “We praise the role of President Hollande and the French government in organizing this international conference, and we call upon the participants to take concrete measures in order to implement international law and UN resolutions”(Buet). Since the Palestinians have been the ones who have seen themselves as the oppressed minority, they feel the conference is a huge step forward for finding peace and prosperity. The main points of the conference were the pre-1967 borders and the movement of the American embassy in Israel. This is the first attempt at peace between the Israelis and Palestinians since the failed U.S.-led effort in 2014. The problem with this conflict is that both parties believe they have done nothing wrong. In Anthony Oberschall’s “The Two-State Solution: Wrong Goal or Wrong Leaders?” he states that, “A significant part of the Israeli population would like a single state but without Palestinians in it, and a significant part of the Palestinians would like a single state but without Israelis”(Oberschall 458). This quote has even more significance now as President Trump has officially backed away from a Palestinian state. In a New York Times article, after stating that Trump has backed off the Palestinian state, Peter Baker says, “At the same time, Mr.Trump urged Mr.Netanyahu to temporarily stop new housing construction in the West Bank while he pursues a deal, echoing a position past presidents have taken”(Baker nytimes.com). The state of peace talks between the Israeli’s and Palestinians is at a very sensitive point right now. With the Palestinian’s having faced years of oppression and President Trump officially backing off a Palestinian State, how long can the Palestinians stay somewhat peaceful and wait?

While the idea of helping find peace in Israel is a very important task amongst most world leaders, the U.S. should not be involved in the peace talks. One reason the U.S. should stay uninvolved in Israel is the cost of war if the U.S. outright stated its support for Israel over the Arabs. Leon Hadar, an author for the Cato Institute, stated, “By contrast, it is possible that high-profile U.S. intervention could exacerbate the situation, boost terrorism, and lead to the formation of regional coalitions directed against Washington. That outcome would substantially raise the costs of a prolonged American Moment in the Middle East”(Hadar cato.org). As Hadar mentions, not only is there a problem with the cost of America intervening but there is also a major safety risk. Many groups in this region view American as the enemy so by putting American citizens there it would just put them at higher risk. Since the U.S. is also close allies with Israel, and many of the Arab groups fighting with Israel see the U.S. as bad, this could cause fighting to actually escalate instead of bringing peace to the region. Also, the U.S. should not be involved in the Israeli conflict because they have too many of their own interests to protect before they try to protect the Israelis or Palestinians. Since, the U.S. and Israel are such close allies it is hard for the U.S. to stay impartial in the peace talks. In a video published by the well-known news source of the Middle East, Al Jazeera, host Mehdi Hassan talks to former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk. Hassan brings up points about how the U.S.’s close relations with Israel make it almost impossible for them to be an impartial peace mediator. In the opening segment of the video, Hassan mentions that the U.S. funds Israeli with around three billion dollars per year. Later in the video Indyk states that most of this money is military assistance for Israel. This is somewhat contradictory to the U.S.’s goals of peace as they are the main funders of the Israeli occupation in former Palestinian territory, making them complicit in the occupation. Hassan then goes on to mention that the U.S. has been acting as Israel’s lawyer in these peace talks, especially in the failed attempt for peace at the Camp David Summit in 2000. Hassan quotes former State Department member Aaron David Miller saying, “U.S. officials acted as Israel’s attorney, catering and coordinating with the Israelis at the expense of successful peace negotiations. Both I and Martin Indyk brought a clear pro-Israel orientation to the U.S. peace process planning”(Al Jazeera 00:04:46-00:05:00). Hassan also mentions that other delegates there believe that Indyk supported Israel more than the Israeli delegates did themselves. Since two important members of the U.S. State Department have been quoted saying they went into a peace summit fully supporting Israel, the U.S. loses credibility as an impartial judge in finding peace in Israel. 

Although many people see the U.S. as an impartial and biased mediator, many also see them as a key part of the peace process. When Barack Obama first took office in January 2009 there was serious speculation that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would finally find peace. Upon the arrival of Obama’s administration in Washington a number of members from the Oslo peace process of the 1990s wrote “how to” or “how-not-to” books with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Among these authors were Aaron David Miller and Martin Indyk. In the scholarly journal “Historical Breakthroughs in Arab-Israeli Negotiations: Lessons for the Future,” written by Ilan Peleg and Paul Scham, they present these ideas of a newfound hope while providing support for U.S. peace-making processes from the past. They state that, “Since the 1967 war, the United States has been an active participant in Middle East peacemaking, and American involvement has usually been considered sine qua non for the successful negotiations of any Arab-Israeli agreement”(Peleg 219). Even though the U.S. was not the main initiator of the peace talks, many feel that they took the initiative to have the main role in these peace talks which ultimately resulted in the agreements from this time period. The authors go on to say that without the presence of personal U.S. leadership the results of the talks could have been disastrous. This is important in defending U.S. involvement because, while the author’s do note their bias towards the U.S. support of the two-state solution, it shows that strong U.S. involvement is important because the two parties were able to reach an agreement, at the time, under the leadership of the U.S. Many of the peace process breakthroughs of the past took place immediately following a major political or military event. The authors then go on to defend their argument by providing a specific example using President Carter’s intent to reconvene the Geneva Conference. They state, “In 1977 it was the election of new, right-wing Israeli leadership for the first time since independence as well as President Carter’s expressed intent to reconvene the Geneva Conference with the Soviet Union (something both Sadat and Begin wished to avoid at almost all costs) that led to the peace process”(220). By leading the efforts to reconvene the Geneva Conference, President Carter showed that the U.S. was willing to do something that other leaders wouldn’t. This is a major step in gaining worldwide support of U.S. involvement because by doing this President Carter was able to show that the U.S. was committed to finding peace and was willing to take extraordinary measures to do so. 

While the U.S. has been heavily involved in the peace-making process of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over its course, it has not always been the best leader. The U.S. and Israel have a strong allegiance to one another making it hard for the U.S. to stay impartial. Even if the U.S. engages in the peace talks with the best of intentions there will always be some bias as long as there is a potential benefit for the U.S. supporting Israel. That is why I believe that the U.S. should not be involved in the peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians. Not only the U.S., but any foreign country with too many personal investments involved within the two states should not be involved or play a major role. In the case of the U.S. I believe that as one of the world superpowers we should not only stay supporting Israel (symbolically as opposed to intervening in peace talks) but also attend all major conferences regarding the peace talks to listen and show support for our ally Israel and show support for peace and future prosperity. By having American political leaders, and ideally all other foreign leaders, attend these conferences quietly instead of intervening it will allow the two states to go through the peace process on their own. This would allow the two states to meet and discuss their goals for the peace process without the pressure from their allies. At the end of the day, too many foreign countries, in this case the U.S., have too many personal interests to truly work for peace. War is one of the best ways to stimulate an economy and there is no better way to use war for this than by making other people fight for you. The U.S. should have zero to very limited involvement in the peace talks of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict due to the overwhelming conflicting personal gain they stand to gain from supporting Israel. 
