Palestinian prayer protest with IDF soldiers (photo courtesy of The Portland Press Herald) EVERYTHING IS FINE... US President Trump’s announcement on Wednesday acknowledging Jerusalem as the capital of Israel has certainly stirred the pot. Hamas has threatened an attack on Israel. However, the only action I’ve heard of were rockets from Gaza on Friday, intercepted by Israel, resulting in no casualties. The protests in Jerusalem and Hebron have proved to be more violent, unfortunately resulting in hundreds of injuries and one death of a Palestinian. Meanwhile, Tel Aviv feels very safe. The Israelis sure know their security. In fact, it’s only the non-Israelis who seem at all concerned about the possible implications of Trump’s announcement. Will there be another intifada? Will there be increased small-scale terrorist attacks in Israel and abroad? We will have to wait and see. So far, the US seems to be taking the potential consequences seriously. Just two days before Trump’s announcement, a friend reported US military presence and planes in Gaza, perhaps preparing for potential backlash. I have also been receiving travel alerts from the US Embassy in Tel Aviv almost everyday with updates. So far, it is the same message as before, warning of the risk of going to the West Bank. Nothing has physically changed. There will be no movement of the US Embassy to Jerusalem for years to come. In addition, Jerusalem has already been under mostly Israeli authority. ...WELL, KIND OF FINE... But at the same time, there is an aura that everything has changed. Why is that? Why does one representative of one country have so much clout, even when the UN remains neutral? The answer is, the US does not alone have the power to make Jerusalem the capital of Israel. However, its standing as a superpower, position as a permanent member in the UN Security Council, and its allies allow the US to sway international support. For instance, the US might use their economic and military power as leverage to gain support on the Jerusalem dilemma from other members of the UN who do not have interests in Palestine. However, this would mean the US having to make a concession as well. Does the US care enough to do this? ...EVERYTHING IS NOT FINE I do not think so. Trump’s announcement is a stance on terrorism that has no political significance, but that has already and may continue to cause deaths, propelling the cycle of violence. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is ultimately a land dispute. Both the Palestinians and the Israelis want it all for their people. However, they have very different methods for achieving their goals. On September 11, 2001, a faction of Arabs made a bold move in an effort to be noticed and recognized by the Western community. Before this, terrorism did not get the hype that it does today. Whereas 9/11 may have had the intended results for this minority of Arabs, it has had a detrimental impact on the Arab community as a whole. Racial profiling, fear, misunderstanding, and separation of Westerners and Arabs, even those that have lived peacefully in North America and Europe for decades. Even worse, with the normalization of Islamist terrorist attacks, “terrorist” has become synonomous with Muslim, which is not reflective of the majority of the world’s Muslim population. 9/11 affected Trump’s announcement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, a move that is sure to cause more violence and hault the peace process in the coming years. If 9/11 hadn’t happened, our current world might look very different. Perhaps the US would be more willing to facilitate the peace process and be more generous towards Palestinians. We will never know. I do know that we have two powerful movements in a cycle of conflict, which one is the initial offender depends on who you talk to. Some Arabs might say that the West made the initial offense through years of colonization and empty promises (e.g., Hussein-McMahon Correspondence). However, from a Western perspective, it is easy to see that 9/11, the largest, most devastating terrorist attack on American soil, was an offensive act. And one that has changed American policy. According to my International Law Professor, Daniel Reisner (Head of the IDF’s International Law branch from 1995-2004), the US used to condemn Israel for their harsh treatment of terrorists. However, as a direct result of 9/11, the US established laws in which, if you are accused of plotting a terrorist attack, you are denied legal representation, many human rights, and can be detained indefinitely. This is in contrast with laws pertaining to criminals in the US, which legally require you to have committed a crime in order to be detained. Why then are terrorists treated differently? According to Reisner, there is more fear around terrorism because, whereas criminals commit crimes for selfish reasons, terrorists commit crimes because they are intending to change the system. They are ideological criminals that do not accept our judicial system as a means of crime and punishment. Instead, they assume « punishable by death » for all who oppose their beliefs. This is understandably a terrifying prospect to most and one that has legitimized Israel’s extreme reactions to such ideological forces to some. While it is known that Israelis have committed atrocities against Palestinians, they have never committed atrocities against the US, and that is an intelligent political move, one in which we have seen positive results from time and time again, from the Balfour Declaration to Trump’s announcement yesterday. Looking at this scenario from a realist point of view, it is easy to see why the US President has metaphorically given Jerusalem to Israel instead of Palestine. What if you have intelligence that a bomb is going to blow up your house with your family inside? The only way to prevent this from happening is to blow up the compound where the bomber is launching the rocket from, which may have the bomber’s family in it. What would you do? How many people are you willing to kill to save your family? Yourself? These are questions that unfortunately intelligence and security officers have to answer on a daily basis. And I believe it is only getting worse. The more extremist Muslim groups attack Western countries, the more the West is going to retaliate with violent force and political statements, such as Trump’s. Moreover, while the UN is currently hoping for a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine, many of the permanent members (US, UK, France, Russia, China) have been recent victims of terrorist attacks. Before we know it, the UN might too give up the two-state solution and solely side with Israel. I suspect that Trump’s decision is going to surely cause more terrorist attacks. These attacks, in turn, will further decrease sympathy for Palestinians and Arabs on the whole, which will again cause more terrorist attacks. Wouldn’t it be nice if I could walk up to Hamas, Fatah, Hesbollah, al Qaeda, PLO and ISIS, and say, “Hey guys, maybe you’d have better luck getting your Arabic nation if you played by the West’s rules instead of opposing them? I’m not saying you have to agree with them, but maybe try offering sanctions, trades, or concessions to get what you want instead of bombs?” It reminds me of the kid in school who everyone avoids and picks on because he just doesn’t understand social norms. Some may feel bad for the guy, but at the same time, keep their distance because he makes them feel uncomfortable and - let’s be honest - everyone else is doing it too. The more and more the West becomes afraid of Palestinians and their radical supporters, the more and more they are digging themselves into a political hole they might not be able to climb out of. In alienating potential Western allies, terrorist attacks do a disservice to Palestinians in their pursuit of an independent state. Israel, an international recognized Jewish state, exists because the Zionists found a way to be useful to Western superpowers that made it possible. Though many Palestinians are on board with peaceful negotiations, I believe it is unlikely at this point that they will ever get all of the land they believe is theirs through this channel. Therefore, it is just as unlikely that the Islamist groups that have sworn to stop at nothing to get this land will stop being a threat. There is a clear dilemma here because the reality of what the Zionists have built through political strategy conflicts with the interests of the Palestinians. Even if the Palestinians were to make concessions in favor of peace, I doubt that this would appease all of the radicalists. I feel saddened by this. I have come to love the land of Israel/Palestine and have received warm hospitality by both Israelis and Palestinians. Whether you are pro-Palestine or pro-Israel, once you come to live on the land, the conflict takes on a more personal nature. It’s no longer just another war zone on the news or a strategic power-play between superpowers. You realize that political statements, whether they have legitimacy or not, are no longer just words. They are lives lost. |
Details
ArchivesCategories |