Yesterday I devoted my entry completely to giving the story of our travels without adding much commentary of my own. While I know it will still take weeks, months, even years before I fully can internalize and understand all the nuances and contradictions inherent in this conflict, I feel I should today dedicate a dairy to my own opinions. To do otherwise is a cop out, and anyways today was more of a relaxing day floating in the Dead Sea (if you've never done it you don't know what you're missing) and climbing Masada. While I had an amazing time, I suspect no one back home really cares how many dragonflies and Ibex's (a kind of middle eastern goat or gazzelle) I photographed today in the Wadi David nature reserve.
So instead I'm going to dedicate this diary to the one thing that I do understand to a large degree: U.S. politics. Specifically, what should and/or can the U.S. do to help bring about a peaceful solution to this conflict.
I am sure that no one here as much faith in the Bush administration when it comes to much of anything, especially in foriegn affairs. The incompetence and arrogance shown by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld etc. has put our nation back 50 years in terms of our global leadership on important issues from global warming, to international law and human rights. The main fault I have always had with Bush is his inability to see complexity and nuance in any situation even so far as to criticize those who do. With us or against us, black and white, all the time.
With this in mind, maybe it is best that Bush has largely ignored the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians over the last 6 years. In contrast to Clinton, H.W. Bush, Reagan, and Carter, George W. Bush has shown no initiative to ending the confict beyond a few surface handshakes and proclomations without any follow up whatsoever. I have always suspected that the only reason Bush put pressure on Sharon to meet with Abbas at Sharm el Sheik (before which Abbas negotiated a cease fire with Hamas that has held firm) was as part of a deal with Tony Blair in return for Blair's support in Iraq.
So maybe Bush just would of messed things up worse if he was as intimately involved in this conflict as Clinton was. I honestly don't know. What is important to realize, however, is that there is no way that this conflict will ever end without the United States playing the leading role.
The U.S. gives the state of Israel (hardly the neediest state in the region) billions in foriegn aid every year. For the most part, I have no problem with this, Israel is a strong and democratic ally of ours in the middle east. We do the exact same for the state of Egypt, despite their numerous human rights abuses. This alone makes our participation vital. In addition, as the "sole superpower" (I'm increasingly hesitant to use this term, but that's a whole other topic) remaining in the world, we are looked to as mediators in conflicts, whether we like it or not.
So what can we do? There are many things constraining our options, having to do with American, Israeli and Palestinian politics. In the U.S., it is almost political suicide to criticize the actions of the state of Israel, even when criticism is definately warranted. AIPAC and the Christian Zionist right together wield incredible political power that dwarfs anything comperable for the Palestinians interest. This cannot be illustrated better than the recent overwhelming passage of HR 4681, which imposes even more severe finanical restrictions on the Palestinian Authority than already exist. Even the Bush Administration was opposed to this bill, yet it passed with only 40+ 'no' votes recorded.
Obviously the election of Hamas has left Israel facing a government with whom they cannot negotiate with. If someone says they are pledged to kill you eventually, but agree to negotiate with you in the meantime, that's a definition of bad faith if I've ever heard it.
So what do we do? I'm not claiming to have specific answers. What is clear to me is that we must re-engage in the region in order to come up with creative solutions. Remember that Oslo was negotiated in secret due to the fact that there was a similar impasse with the P.L.O's refusal to recognize Israel. I give credit to Bush for pushing Olmert to negotiate with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas was the P.L.O. signitory on the Oslo accords along with Shimon Peres. Israel cannot claim that he doesn't recognize the state of Israel or is committed to violence. They merely claim (not without merit) that he is too weak in Palestinian society to enforce any agreements. Today Abbas took a bold step by proposing a national referendum in the Palestinian territories that would recognize Israel's right to exist and calls for a two state solution along the green line, along with the return of the refugees of 1948.
The fact that Israel will never agree to this is to miss the point of this proposal. It's not meant to be a final peace agreement with the Israelis, but instead to unite the Palestinian factions under the same demands in order to at least get Israel to the table before Olmert sets final borders unilaterally.
I'm conflicted about the Sharon/Olmert disengagment or convergence plans. Most Palestinians I've met on this trip feel that the restriction on movement is the most oppressing feature of the occupation because it directly effects thier ability to live normal lives and make a living. On the other hand, there cannot be a unilateral peace. it just doesn't work that way. It may buy some temporary calm, but a long term peace is only possible through reconcilation and negotiations.
But I've rambled on way to long and it's again past my bedtime here in Jerusalem. What are some of your ideas? What can/should we do to resolve this conflict?