The relations between the United States and Israel are deemed very vital for the government of the United States general policy in the region. Besides, the Congress has put substantial weight on the preservation of a supportive and close linkage. The United States has been evidenced to offer support to Israel, especially foreign aid, a kind of support that is not offered to other countries. Since 1985, the United States Congress has been offering around three billion U.S. dollars annually as grants to Israel, signifying Congressional support. According to the studies, Israel is the main annual receiver of the United States aid between 1976 and 2004, and in addition, it is the major cumulative beneficiary of American aid, since the World War II. Besides, the Congress has screened the issue of aid to Israel among other matters in bilateral relations. Its concerns have swayed administration policies (Kurtzer and Lasensky, 2008, p.191). Currently, the United States assistance to Israel is in the form of military aid, as compared to the previous years, when the country obtained considerable economic aid. The research points out that strong Congressional aid to Israel have led to the latter obtaining assistance, which is not provided to other nations.
Mutual relations have been developed from the preliminary United States policy of support and sympathy for the establishment of the Jewish homeland in 1948 to an extraordinary partnership, which unites a military powerful but small Israel, reliant on America for its military and economic power, while at the same time, the United States superpower has been striving to stabilize other opposing interests in the state. This United States bias towards Israel has been questioned by various individuals, who also offer their own views towards the same. For instance, some persons in the United States have questioned a general commitment and degree of aid to Israel, and they have put forth that the U. S. favoritism towards Israel functions at the expense of the enhanced linkage with Muslim and Arab governments (Kurtzer and Lasensky, 2008, p.191). On the other hand, other persons argue that Israel is a strategic supporter, and as a result, the relations between United States and Israel strengthen the presence of the former in the Middle East. Besides, in the Middle East, Israel is one of the major original United States non-NATO allies, although presently there are seven main non-NATO allies in the Middle East.
In the Middle East, American policy has had not many successes, especially while taking into consideration the Palestinian-Israel conflict. As revealed by the studies, one major reason for this is that Arabs in general and Palestinians specifically do not trust U.S. negotiators, who all the time has always supported Israel. In fact, the last time, when the United States diplomacy attained an absolute success, was in 1979 through the agreement of Camp David. During this time, Egypt and Israel signed a peace agreement, and the latter surrendered the Sinai back to Egypt. Although since then the two nations have lived in peace, they are not good friends. On the other hand, Camp’s agreement between Israel and Palestine was a betrayal of Egypt and the United States. The two countries left behind the issue of Palestinians with an aim of attaining a separate peace with the Israelites.
United States has declared a central position concerning the Middle East for the previous 60 years; however, its record is believed to be poor. Concerning the Palestinians it is nearly zero. The trust the Americans have in the eyes of the Palestinians is very slight and the latter base their reason of American bias on Israel. As it has been explained by Aaron David Miller in “The Promised Land”, each American presidential government acting as a go-between in the conflict between the Israelites and the Palestinians takes it lightly, and they are always favour Israel. In fact, the studies have revealed that the United States has been evidenced to offer support to Israel, especially in foreign aid. Therefore, this study explains the American bias to Israel, and the effect of it on the Palestinian-Israel conflict. Besides, the study shows how oppressed the Palestinians have been while living under the harsh Israeli occupation.
The Project Aim, Objectives and Research Questions
The main aim of this research is to explain the American bias to Israel and the effect of it on the Palestinian Israel conflict. The study will show how oppressed the Palestinians have been while living under the harsh Israel occupation. This is based on the fact that the United States has actually favored Israel in all matters both political and economical. In this regard, the research has been carried out into this issue in order to help the reader have a proper understanding of the issue linked with the Palestinian-Israel conflict and the impact of the American bias on Israel. Some of the specific research questions analyzed in the study include:
- What is the extent of the American bias to Israel?
- What are effects of the American bias on the Palestinian-Israel conflict?
- How oppressed have the Palestinians been whilst living under the harsh Israel occupation?
The Outline of Methodology
The study has made use of the secondary sources of data collection. Secondary data are a type of data documented in books, journals, articles, newspapers, among many other sources, relating to the topic of the research. Secondary data have been collected from books, journals, and articles with regard to the topic of the study (Breakwell et al. 1995). Basically, the case studies have been analyzed in the secondary sources to identify and explain the American bias to Israel and the effect of it on the Palestinian-Israel conflict. Besides the study shows how oppressed the Palestinians have been while living under the harsh Israel occupation.
The Structure of the Dissertation
The dissertation has five distinct chapters that explicitly analyze and investigate the American bias to Israel and the effect of it on the Palestinian-Israel conflict and show how oppressed the Palestinians have been while living under the harsh Israel occupation. Chapter I comprises the introduction of the dissertation, the background, the project rationale/project problem, the project aim and objectives and the structure of the dissertation.
Chapter II, also known as a literature review, entails the analysis and the evaluation of the already documented literature regarding the topic under research. It is clear that numerous studies have been conducted regarding the same topic, however, in different contexts, and the findings have been established and stored in books, journals, articles, which are then reviewed to analyze what other authors have said about the topic under the study. Basically, in this chapter contains views of authors.
Chapter III, also known as methodology, gives a description of the methodology applied to the collection and analysis of data. It describes instruments and the procedure applied to collecting data. However, it is worthwhile noting that the type of instruments and procedure applied always depends on the type of information required. For instance, this is a qualitative study, and therefore, the information required will be obtained from the secondary sources.
Buy The American Political Bias essay paper online
Chapter IV contains findings of the study. Basically, after data have been collected analyzed, the findings will be presented in this chapter. The findings will principally be based on what has been obtained regarding the research questions. The purpose of this chapter is to highlight if the results of the study describe the information collected.
Chapter V provides conclusions and recommendations of the study. It highlights if the research questions have been adequately answered and offers recommendations for the same. In addition, this chapter focuses on gaps and recommends aspects or issues that should be researched in the future. The last part of the dissertation presents references and appendices.
The American bias to Israel has been a topic of discussion by many people since the 1970’s. Israel has been evidenced to receive a lot of aid from the United States and currently, the United States assistance to Israel is in the form of military aid, as compared to the previous years, when the country obtained considerable economic aid (Kurtzer and Lasensky, 2008, p.191). The research points out that Congressional aid to Israel has led to the latter obtaining assistance, which is not provided to other nations. This chapter focuses on the Palestinian-Israel conflict and shows how this conflict has been affected by the American bias to Israel and how the Palestinians have suffered from the same issue.
The History of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict
After the establishment of the State of Israel, when the British command over Palestine was terminated in 1948, the war sparked that involved various regimes of Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Jordan invading in the novel established state. (Bickerton, 2009, p. 248). Nevertheless, the Palestinians were frightened as a result of previous wars and psychological impacts of Israel atrocities. Israel worn the war, ended up seizing territory, which was beyond its borders for the projected Jewish state, and extended to the neighboring Palestinian state. As a result of the war, most Palestinians fled away from their homes and became Palestinian refugees, as they are referred currently. These refugees were denied their rights and were also prevented from going back to Israel, whilst the neighboring states denied accepting them. Up to now, some refugees have been still living in camps, and this has become one of the major issues contributing to the Palestinian-Israel conflict.
The Palestinian-Israel conflict is a continuing struggle between the Palestinians and the Israelis started in the 20th century. According to the studies, the conflict is extensive and the phrase is also employed to indicate the earlier period of similar conflict between the Arab population, having lived in Palestine, and the Zionist yishuv (Bickerton, 2009, p. 248). The Palestinian-Israel conflict forms a component of the broader Arab-Israel conflict. Other main issues linked to the conflict include borders, mutual recognition, water rights, security, legalities regarding refugees, Israeli settlements, the control of Jerusalem, and the freedom of movement of the Palestinians. The studies have revealed that the violence resulting from the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has encouraged global actions in addition to other human rights and security matters, between and within both sides, and globally. Furthermore, the violence has cut back tourism expansion in the region that is beset with religious and historic sites, which are of interest to most persons all over the globe.
The Israelis occupied some parts of the Palestinian land in 1948 after announcing its independence. In 1967, the remaining part of Palestine was captured by Israel. The studies reveal that since then, Palestine has been under the authority and occupation of Israel (Abo-Sak, 1999, par. 6). Furthermore, Abo-Sak (1999) added that the fact that Palestinians struggled to free themselves was payed no attention during the rivalry between the West and the East with the purpose of gaining more control in the Middle East, as it was believed to be a strategic region during the Cold War (par. 6). This competition made Israel to gain strong backing in the West (Abo-Sak, 1999). On the other hand, the Palestinians were not capable of persuading the great powers to put into effect the United Nations Resolution 242 and 338 that calls for the withdrawal of Israel from the inhabited Palestinian land (Abo-Sak, 1999, par. 6). The Israelis and the Palestinians, who are divided because of their perception of how negotiations should proceed, have started media campaigns for global support (Abo-Sak, 1999, par. 6). This has resulted in the escalation of tension in the Middle East, re-igniting the fear of wars and hatred.
Various efforts have been taken to offer a solution for the two states, relating to the creation of a sovereign Jewish state (the state of Israel) and a sovereign Palestinian state. According to the research carried out in 2007, most Palestinians and Israelis have preference of the two-state solution as a way of resolving the existing conflict. In addition, a significant number of the Jewish general population perceive the Palestinian claim for a sovereign state as fair, and believe that the Israelis should be of the same opinion about the creation of such a state. Most Israelis and Palestinians perceive the Gaza Strip and the West Bank as a suitable location of the supposed Palestinian state in resolving the conflict using the two-state solution. Nevertheless, there are considerable areas of discrepancy concerning the form of the ultimate agreement and the degree of trustworthiness in upholding fundamental commitments.
Within the Palestinian and Israeli community, the conflict produces a broad range of opinions and views. This brings to light deep divisions that exist both between the Palestinians and the Israelis and within every community. One of the features of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been the degree of violence witnessed for almost the entire period. Paramilitary groups, regular armies, individuals and terror cells have been used to conduct the fighting (Bickerton, 2009, p. 34). Besides, both sides have witnessed a large number of casualties, both the militant and civilian populace.
The conflict has attracted several major actors, engaged in this. The parties, which are involved in direct reconciliations, encompass the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Israeli government. The authorized negotiations are interceded by the global body referred to as the Quartet (the Quartet on the Middle East) characterized by an exceptional representative, which consists of the European Union, the United States, the United Nations and Russia. Besides, the Arab League is a significant actor, which has recommended a different peace plan with Egypt being a main participant in the negotiations. Peace negotiations started in November 2007 at Annapolis, the United States. The main aim of these talks was to have an ultimate resolution at the end of 2008. In September 2010, direct talks between the Palestinian leadership and the Israeli government started. The aim of these negotiations was to reach settling an ultimate and official status.
The United States Backing Of Israel
Throughout the period of the Cold War to the present day, the United States has been an ally to most nations in the Middle East. Such countries encompass Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Oman, Pakistan, Turkey, Yemen, and Iran among others. The United States has been dependent on the region for various reasons, including oil, and the region has acted as a strategic base for America. Most Islamic countries in the Middle East have supported the United States objective of opposing communism, and in fact, the Gulf War of 1991 revealed the willingness of countries in the Middle East to work hand in hand with the United States (Abo-Sak, 1999, par. 9). This is a confirmation that the United States can function in the Middle East exclusive of the Israel personnel, land and equipment.
On the other hand, Israel is believed to lack any strategic, political or social depth in the Middle East. Moreover, the country has no alliance partners. Without a doubt, since its establishment, Israel has been in a condition of war with all of its adjacent neighbors. Furthermore, in 1990 during the alliances led by the United States against Iraq, the United States was efficiently blackmailed by Israel for not being included in the conflict, detaching approximately two billion U.S. dollars in economic support and military equipment. It is evidenced that the United States has greatly been benefiting and enjoying gains from its allies in the Middle East. On the other hand, it has also been proven that Israel has highly been benefiting from a strong support on the part of the United States at the expense of the Palestinians. According to Abo-Sak (1999), the government of the United States has strongly been supporting the government of Israel against the Palestinians with no clear justification (par. 11). Abo-Sak (1999) puts forth that the Israel political sway in the United States administration, media and the Congress evidently proves the allegations (par. 11). The pro-Israel lobby, the AIPAC and Israelis friends are accepted as lawful United States organizations, capable of reacting and acting with an aim of controlling common feelings of the United States bureaucrats. As a result, this causes the United States governmental decisions towards Palestinian legal privileges to be considered as unimportant and that should not be talked about, although the government of the United States has facts regarding the Palestinian-Israel issue. Relating these details in the accord with the doctrines of the United States Constitution may avert the United States from taking sides with Israel and causing constantly biased decisions being made (Abo-Sak, 1999, par11).
Abo-Sak (1999) has given various examples of the United States political bias, particularly with respect to the issue of the Palestinian-Israel conflict, putting forth that the United States research centers, non-governmental organizations, and human rights advocates, have impartially categorized the certainty of what has come to pass to the Palestinians because of United States support of Israel (par. 13). United States benefactors have accepted the routine of Israeli militants’ depredations within the Palestinian inhabited territories. Abo-Sak (1999) mentioned that these incidents have been triggered by the strategy of the Zionist that the United States has taken part in actively shaping it ever since the commencement of this century. In order to put emphasis on this point, Abo-Sak refers to the ideas of Green Stephen. Green (1984) put forward that the government of the United States intelligent projections in 1948 mirrored a bottomless concern that global Zionism was drawing the United States into a risky plan of territorial invasion in the Middle East (pp. 20). The paper on force obligations for Palestine of March 1948 predicted that the Zionist strategy would seek to engage the United States in constantly deepening and widening sequences of functions aimed at securing maximum Jewish goals (Green, 1984, pp. 20-21). Such goals encompass the initial Jewish independence over a part of Palestine, the expansion of Jewish autonomy over the entire Palestine, recognition by the super powers of the right for unrestricted migration, the creation of economic domination and a Jewish military over the whole Middle East, and the extension of Eretz Israel to Transjordan and parts of Syria and Lebanon (Green, 1984, pp. 20-21).
According to Abo-Sak (1999), the major predicament is that Israel persists to inhabit the Palestine territory, continuing to receive adequate military, diplomatic, informational and economic support from the United States (par. 17). Besides, the United States have been evidenced to constantly oppose any resolution put forth aimed at bringing fairness to Palestine citizens, even in circumstances, when Israel has violated Palestinians human rights (Abo-Sak, 1999, par. 17). Since 1972, the United States has prevented thirty two resolutions made by the United Nations against Israel, encompassing the decision, condemning the Israelis for mass execution of more than one hundred of the Lebanese populace at the United Nations compound. Nevertheless, the United States was a single nation, which had rejected the installation of Butrus Ghali, the United Secretary General for the second term, in reprisal for his resolution to make public United Nations report that corroborated that Israel massacre at Qana was deliberate (Abo-Sak, 1999, par. 17).
The action of the United States to support Israel despite of its unlawful behavior made Abo-Sak conclude that the United States could not see anything immoral in the actions of Israel (1999, par. 18). Qana’s massacre, the burning of worship places of the Muslims, the killing of children by Zionist colonists, and the cruel thrashing of innocent Palestinians, which were all pardoned by Israeli courts, did not seem wrong in the eyes of the United States (Arab news, 1996). Apparently, Israel does what it desires; nevertheless it persists to receive steady backing from the United States. It is apparent that the United States cannot be a sincere peace negotiator. The country’s bias and double standards to Israel have been damaged by now and are projected to persist damaging the peace procedure.
In this regard, Abo-Sak (1999) questions the sagacity of morality of the United States. According to him, the lack of political fair imagination in the United States has made policymakers fail ending the Cold War existing in the region and, thus, bringing peace (par. 18. therefore, he puts forth that peace negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis mirror large disparity and are considered profound in the support of the Israelis. Abo-Sak (1999) censures the United States tameness in paying no attention to this potentially volatile condition, cautioning that even the majority of the dedicated Palestinians have been turning out more and more adverse to the negotiation procedure that appears to have deceived their struggle (par, 18).
The Hysteria of the United States bias to Israel
According to the studies, American politicians do not have a capability to deal with the issues in the Middle East fairly because of intrinsic favoritism towards Israel. In fact, according to some scholars, United States politicians might become hysterical dealing with Israel issues, making them act idiotically or make stupid statements (Zogby, 2011). The evidence of such acts is very regular and varied. For instance, in 2011 Mark Kirk, Illinois Republican Senator, demanded the United States to employ military means with an aim for the purpose of stopping Freedom Flotilla 2 headed to destroy the Israel siege in Gaza (Zogby, 2011). According to him, the United States is obligated to offer the entire crucial naval support and special operations to Israel in order to prevent any kind of danger to the lives of Israelis. Nevertheless, various persons who wondered how peace campaigners and unarmed activists could put the lives of Israelis in danger questioned the senator’s call of action. Certainly, the senator was not concerned of the lives of Americans boarding ships, or that any antagonistic action by the United States forces could put in danger the lives of American citizens. Besides, the senator was not bothered with the perception of America in the Middle East because of the wars, in which the United States was involved.
In addition to this, Rick Perry, Texas Governor, requested the United States Attorney General to forbid the involvement of the Flotillas attempting to break the Israel’s unlawful and immoral siege of Gaza terming such an involvement to be illegal (Zogby, 2011). Nevertheless, Perry did not explain under which regulation participation was unlawful, although he did not seem to be bothered by this in spite of the claim that he planned to contend for the United States of America presidency through the Republican Nomination.
The United States Senate was also evidenced to collectively vote for the motion in Washington that expressed its disagreement to bring Hamas into the government of national unity via the current Palestinian ceasefire agreement (Zogby, 2011). According to the Senate statement, Palestinian attempts to acquire acknowledgment for an autonomous Palestine state at the United Nations illustrates a lack of dedication towards the negotiations for peace, which may have impacts on the continuation of the United States support to the Palestinian Authority (Zogby, 2011). Moreover, other American politicians have termed the United Nations attempt to recognize an independent Palestine state as complete and pure nonsense.
Apparently, it is true that the United States politicians are not capable of dealing with the issues in the Middle East neutrally because of the inherent favoritism towards Israel. The resulting economical, political, military and financial cover that they provide to Israel is aimed at supporting hardliners in the government of Israel to expand their aggressive policies and settlements (Zogby, 2011). However, the Palestinian voice is not heard anywhere in the United States. Certainly, these statements offered by various individuals show the extent of the American political bias towards Israel. The statements are direct proof that a fair conclusion of the Palestinian-Israel conflict is a dream that is far to be achieved, and in fact, the United States has destroyed its perception in the Middle East losing its claim of being an honest peace broker.
Negotiating the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: Background
The conflict between Israel and Palestine has generated no breakthrough since the 1993 Oslo agreement. The agreement, conferred as top secrets among the Israelites and the Palestinians over the protection of Norway, ragged as a tragedy. The Palestinian authority was set up by the agreement, when they were also given the territories that had been occupied as a sign of independence. A two-state rule was also introduced as the best means to resolve the disagreement.
Oslo did not lay a hand on two vital deal-breaking basics in the clash between the Israelites and the Palestinians, which were the resettling of the Israelites in the territories that had been occupied and the provision of rights for Palestinian refugees. The continuation of the Israelites resettling in the West Bank and the two vital questions untouched were a clear indication of the failure of Oslo. The outcome led to the second intifada, the growth of Hamas, the traumatized Yasser Arafat authority and his dishonest Fatah organization, Islamic terrorism embracers and militants.
The Road Map for Peace
The Quartet of the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and Russia presented a peace proposal in 2002 that was to act as a road map for peace. However, the peace proposal did no try to decide hard questions, including the fate of Israeli or Jerusalem settlements, nevertheless left that to be talked over at later stages of the negotiation procedure. Nonetheless, according to the studies, the peace proposal did not go beyond the initial stage that called for a stop of the Palestinian and Israeli violence and a stop of settlement constructions among the Israelis, all of which were not attained.
The Arab Peace Initiative
Prince Abdullah initially proposed the Arab peace proposal at the Beirut Summit. The peace plan is a wished-for solution for the entire Arab-Israel conflict, and in particular, the Palestinian-Israel conflict. This peace initiative was first published in 2002 at the Beirut Summit, and later agreed upon in 2007 at the Riyadh Summit. In contrast to the Road Map for Peace, the Arab peace proposal spelled out the ultimate solution borders founded clearly on the United Nations borders created prior to the Six-Day War of 1967. Besides, the peace initiative provided complete normalization of linkages with Israel; nevertheless, this was to take place, if the Israelis withdrew its forces from the entire inhabited territories, encompassing the Golan Heights, in order to acknowledge a sovereign Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, and a fair way out for Palestinian refugees. Certainly, some Israeli bureaucrats have reacted to the peace proposal both with criticism and support. Besides, the Israeli government has articulated doubts of “red line” and concerns, including a Palestinian refugee predicament, and the nature of Jerusalem and homeland security matters. Nevertheless, the Arab League persists to offer it as a likely solution. Besides, meetings have been held by Israel and the Arab League.
The Present Status
The peace procedure has been carried out concerning a “two-state solution”, although queries have been put forth directed to decisions of both sides to bring to an end the dispute. The European Union has greatly criticized Israel policies and settlement development on the Palestinian land stating that it has been gradually undermining the achievability of the two-state solution and operating in contradiction of the Israel-stated pledge to carry on with the negotiations. Besides, in 2011, the United Nations Security Council termed the matter as the main hindrance to the recommencement of negotiations.
According to Israeli officials, the Palestinian Authority has been inciting violence, and this acts as an impediment to the peace procedure. In fact, in January 2012, Binyamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister, put forward that the incitement of the Palestinian Authority was a measure that destroyed confidence. According to him, this is damaging and in order to move towards attaining peace, the populace should be prepared towards the same, but not for atrocious terror.
The campaign for the recognition of the Palestinian state and the acknowledgement of the 1967 border obtained a broader support on the part of the United Nations; nonetheless, various nations criticized the same arguing that it prevented a bilateral negotiation. Besides, Israel Prime Minister censured the Palestinians for evading direct negotiations, whilst the Palestinian authority put forth that the persistent construction of the Israeli settlement was a factor discouraging a practical possibility of the two-state resolution. Various polls were carried out with an aim of obtaining the degree of support of the two-state solution among the Israelis and the Palestinians. The most current poll was performed by the Hebrew University in 2011. The survey revealed that there was a growth in support for the two-state solution by both the Palestinians and the Israelis. Besides, there was an amplifying percentage of populace who wished to put an end to the continuing violence.
The Current Issues
The recent peace negotiations on the Palestinian-Israel conflict face various obstacles. One of the main hindrances is a growing and a deepest mistrust between the members. One-sided policies and the oratory of hardline political blocs, combined with incitements and violence of citizens against each other, have promoted joint embitterment, antagonism and a loss of trust. The Palestinians offered a significant support for Hamas. While a constant call of its members for violence and destruction of Israel remains a threat; most Israelis are concerned about security matters. In this regard, the Israelis have persisted with the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, an action which has made most Palestinians consider that Israel is not dedicated to reach an agreement; however, they are in the pursuit of creating lasting control over the West Bank with an aim of providing security. Some of the main issues linked with the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis include borders, mutual recognition, water rights, security, legalities regarding refugees, Israeli settlements, the control of Jerusalem, and the freedom of movement among the Palestinians.
The Control of Jerusalem
Jerusalem’s border is a specifically delicate matter, with both sides affirming ownership of the city. The Israelis claim that Jerusalem should not be subdivided and should remain united under the political control of Israel, insisting that the city is its indivisible and eternal capital. On the other hand, the Palestinians assert that the parts of Jerusalem that were not of Israel before the six-day war of 1967 should be recognized as parts of Palestine. These disagreements have led to violent relations between the two states with peace attempts carried out by national and international bodies. However, the United States, being a key member of the negotiation team, does not concur with the position of the Israelis and deems that the lasting status of the city is still an issue for negotiations. Nevertheless, the obligatory separate global administration of Jerusalem was founded on the Partition plan for Palestine by the United Nations in 1947. Apart from the Arab nations, which rejected this position, the majority of countries acknowledged it. Therefore, many nations had situated their embassies in Tel Aviv prior to 1967; moreover, Jerusalem city was also situated on the disputed border. Besides, the Oslo Accords and the Declaration of Principles put forth that the city is a subject for lasting status negotiations. The administration of the United States has also constantly pointed out keeping the United States Embassy in Tel Aviv, Israel, that the status of Jerusalem has been still not resolved.
The United States Congress overpoweringly approved the Jerusalem Embassy Act in 1995, which was meant to shift the Embassy to Jerusalem by the end of May 1999. Besides, the Embassy proposed funding penalties for non-cooperation by the State Department. Nevertheless, the executive branch was in opposition to the move based on constitutional queries for Congressional meddling in foreign policy. In addition, a sequence of presidential waivers founded on interests of national security also impeded the proposal by all succeeding administrations, as it was approved during the administration of Clinton. The United States set up various establishments in Jerusalem. This is a reason that can be linked to its generous support for Israel. For instance, the United States Consulate General was initially set up in 1844 in Jaffa Gate. In 1856, a lasting consular office was set up in the same building. The implication of this is that the United States seems reluctant to participate in peace negotiations regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The studies have proven that the United States favors Israel in the negotiations.
Many people, including General David Petraeus, linked the lack of advancement in the peace process in the Middle East with various factors. For instance, according to Petraeus, it resulted in the fomented anti-Americanism, reduced the depth and strength of the United States partnership, weakened reasonable Arab regimes, anticipated the picture of United States weakness, amplified the control of Iran, and acted as a powerful recruiting instrument for Al Qaeda. In addition, Petraeus put forth that there are other significant factors hindering peace talks, among them there are extremist organizations. In 2010, the United States-Israel linkages came under tension after Israel made known that it wanted to build 1,600 novel homes in the part of the Eastern Jerusalem neighboring Ramat Shlomo because of the visit of Joe Biden, Vice President. Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of the United States, termed this proposal as offensive, and this made Israel apologize for the same.
The Palestinian Authority on Americans Bias to Israel
According to the Israeli media, the Palestinian authority restated its criticism of the United States bias in American foreign policy activities following the pass of a current resolution by American lawmakers, which required the administration of President Barrack Obama to refuse the acknowledgment of any unilaterally affirmed Palestinian state. These comments resulted from the meeting held by foreign ministers from the Arab League in Egypt. During this meeting, the United Nations council resolution was called upon by the League of Nations, with an aim of forcing Israel to stop unlawful settlement dealings. However, the United States House asserted its disagreement concerning the acknowledgment of a sovereign Palestinian state, and demanded the Palestinians to bring their attempts to insist on such a move to an end (Lasser, 2011. pp. 96-248). Howard Berman, presiding over the House Foreign Affairs Committee Representative and having brought in the resolution, expressed his disapproval of Palestinian attempts to push the global community (United Nations) to acknowledge a Palestinian state. Howard Berman gave these remarks following the Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay acknowledgement of the Palestinian state with an aim of supporting privileges of Palestinian citizens, the territory of which has been inhabited by the Israelis. In addition to this, the European Union put forth a statement that it restated its willingness when suitable to acknowledge a Palestinian state. Nonetheless, the states of Latin America claimed that they only acknowledged an independent and free Palestinian state in the 1967 borders. The Palestinian authority nonetheless put forward that the negotiations would only take place, when the Tel Aviv stopped its unlawful settlement projects, and it declared that it would continue pushing for the acknowledgement of a Palestinian state by the United Nations as long as Israel refuses to cooperate over the issue of settlement. This certainly shows the extent of the United States support of the Israelites to the extent that they will support them even in unlawful activities (Lasser, 2011. pp. 96-248).
Negotiating the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: the American Role
The United States has declared a central position in matters concerning the Middle East for the previous 60 years; however, its record is believed to be poor. Concerning the Palestinians it is nearly zero. The trust, which the Americans have in the eyes of the Palestinians, is very slight and the reason is behind that. As it is explained by Aaron David Miller in “The Promised Land”, each American presidential government acting as a go-between in the conflict between the Israelites and the Palestinians takes it lightly and states that they have been always favoring Israel (Bardes et al., 2011, pp. 211-389).
It is not a subject of beliefs. Each peace proposal, document and agreement, which the Americans obtained in the talks between the Palestinians and the Israelites, was first scrutinized through Israeli representatives. In September 1982, Ronald Regan declared a peace proposal exclusive of Israel. Menahem Begin, the Israel Prime-Minister, was furious. As explained by Miller, the United States was accused by Begin of violating the Accords of Camp David and the United States obligation to confer with the Israel prior to such a plan. As Begin hesitates between fury, somnolent acceptance and anger, it clearly showed that the decision of America to manage the proposal in advance together with the Saudis and Jordanians was what set Begin off most.
The First Consultation with Israel: American Commitment
Evidently, the United States acquired a paramount responsibility for aiding peace talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis. However, many people criticized the United States for acting as a legal representative of the government of Israel instead of acting as an honest broker, coordinating and catering for the government of Israel at the expense of enhancing peace negotiations. For instance, Israel and the United States implemented the policy of “no surprises”, which meant that the government of the United States should initially confer with the government of Israel any proposals for enhancing the negotiations prior to publicly recommending them (Bardes et al., 2011, pp. 211-389). Certainly, this was seen as a hindrance that purportedly might have striped the United States of the flexibility and independence necessitated for serious peacemaking.
American dedication conferred with the Israel pre-dated Regan at first, but was sooner reinstated after the incident of 1982. It not only affected the American official policy, but also the outlook of specialists and analysts of the State Department, genuine women and men, who prepared state secretaries and ministers and do mumbles work at the back of the scene. Davis Miller was one of the analysts of the State Department. In the 1990’s Miller wrote that they had decided to present ideas of the United States on the degree of further redeployment of the Israelites on security performance and from the West Bank for the Palestinians. According to him, they felt obligated as usual to consider Israel first (Bardes et al., 2011, pp. 211-389). Besides, Miller put forth that, the state department’s head of policy planning, Dennis Ross, had an intrinsic tendency of considering the Israeli politics first instead of that of the Palestinians. This was during the administration of Clinton and Bush. Besides, Miller put forth that not all senior officials involved in the negotiations were capable or willing to fight or present the Palestinian or Arab view.
Palestinian Oppression by Israel
The Israel state was founded vie aggressive stealing of the historic Palestine land. During this time, Zionist militias killed the majority of Palestinians, whilst 750,000 Palestinians were driven away from their homes. To the Palestinians, this event is referred to as a catastrophe or Nakba. Since this displacement of the Palestinians from their historic land, they have faced oppression, exclusion, poverty and mass displacement. In fact, Israel is evidenced to have employed its military to back interests of the superpowers in the western region against the Arab nations that has opposed or challenged them.
In spite of this, the Palestinians continue bravery resisting the Israelis by fighting for their rights and freedoms, whereas the Israelis carry on the construction of unlawful settlements in the West Bank and the siege of Gaza. These actions are seen to be unfair by most Arab countries, and despite attempts to establish a Palestine state, this has not been achieved yet. The resistance by the Palestinians is very inspirational. However, the studies have pointed out that on its own, it is not sufficient to free Palestinians from the Israeli authority. The rebellion of Egypt, which is the most powerful state in the Arab world, indicated that there is an ability to challenge the autocratic and pro-West Arab administration from below. In addition, it indicates that the Middle Eastern region has the power to challenge imperialism and Israel for the purpose of setting the Palestinians free.
Apparently, the state of Israel is growing. The studies have linked this with the theft of the Palestinian land. Their natural resources, including trees, have been destroyed, whilst they themselves have been tortured by the Israeli militias. Besides, the Israelis have imposed checkpoints and this has made travelling difficult for the Palestinians. In addition to this, in most villages and cities, the Palestinians have been prohibited by the Israelis to recite the Quran, basing their decision on the notion that they are bothered by the sound of the Quran. The Palestinian authority complies with such revolting rules to the degree that nearly all mosques in the city and villages have outlawed the recitation of the Quran for pleasing their masters (the Jewish).
The studies have revealed that Israel has the courage of stealing such Palestinian natural resources as water. Although the Israelis have dug deep holes, which act as access points for water, providing enough water for domestic use and farming, they have prohibited the Palestinians to dig water holes. Besides, they are highly restricted to access natural springs. In fact, some sources have revealed that the Palestinians are forced to buy water from the Israelis in case sources run into their dwellings. Moreover, Israeli settlers poison most water supplies, which are sent to the Palestinians. According to the survey carried out in the region, some people from Palestinian villagers pointed out that Jewish settlers usually throw poisonous substances and filthy materials into spring sources during the day and any complaints to the Israeli authority are not taken seriously. The Israelis consume approximately 344 million cubic meters of water annually, whilst the Palestinians consume only 93 million cubic meters; and this indicates that the Israel state has persisted to steal large amounts of water from the Palestinians, and it is not a concern for them.
The Impact of the American Bias on the Palestinian-Israel Conflict
The Israel bias, from the point of view of the United States, in the entire issues of politics and diplomacy, is not questionable or remarkable. Nevertheless, from the point of view of the Palestinians, the bias gives an explanation why the United States arbitration may merely go as far as this in the Middle East, the reason why bilateral trust is an impractical responsibility of the participants of the conflict in the Middle East and why very little has been attained regarding the mediation between Israel and Palestinians. However, some argue that the Palestinians are responsible because of a number of reasons, including Fatah’s corruption, Hama’s terrorism and the lack of imagination and courage for the late Arafat Yasser.
The United States unquestioned bias of Israel has made some individuals from the Arab countries to refer to it as “Americael”. The engagement of the United States and backing of Israel set hurdles to the future of the United States presence in the Middle East. Besides, it has not been acting to serve the interests of the United States populace (Abo-Sak, 1999, par 21).
The impact of the United States bias to Israel on the Palestinians has been destructive. According to Abo-Sak, the Palestinians have been suffering in numerous ways under the authority of the Israelis. Various studies have been carried out by various organizations, which have offered their views regarding the issues. A survey carried out by the Gaza Community Mental Health Program (GCMHP) on the Palestinian children aged between eight to fifteen revealed various impacts on the Palestinians on the part of the Israelis, including tear-gassing, beating fathers in front of their families, home raiding, beating children, shooting killing, imprisoning and detaining family members, whilst other Palestinians have underwent traumas (Roy, 1993). Besides, Roy (1993) pointed out that Gaza children were denied their basic rights, including the right to education and shelter. As a result, during early 1995, approximately 40,000 children required instant psychiatric care (p. 88).
According to some experts, the United States continual support of Israel in the Palestinian-Israel conflict may continue bringing bottomless hopelessness to the region and this may trigger the return of extremism, violence or even terrorism. As it has been put forth by some academicians, this is very discouraging to many persons, who intend to keep peace in the region.
In addition, the position of the United States has also generated distrust, even among the closest America’s Arab allies. This has substantiated the behaviour of other nations and individuals, who have previously not agreed with the United States. Paradoxically, a strong position of the United States in the Middle East would be the interest of Israel, in spite of the fact that the United States is considered the greatest hindrance to peace in the region. Furthermore, while social programs have been reduced in the United States, the majority of American taxpayers have not realized that they bear the burden of funding the Israel war, giving country loans and absolute aid,, and paying the interest of the borrowed funds, which are loaned to Israel. On the other hand, Israel has thoroughly been involved in surveillance functions against the United States. Abo-Sak (1999) warns that apparently the outcomes of these factors may be destructive both to the United States and to the Middle East, probably even reaching the point of using nuclear weapons resulting in the nuclear war (par. 19).
Nevertheless, sufficient blame revolves in both sides. For the entire good aim of the United States in the Middle East, the United States bias for Israel is similar to the policy of the latter, which involves establishing settlements in the West Bank. This is a continuous reminder to the Palestinians that peace talks may only go far, while common trust remains eventually unachievable. According to experts, this is not an excellent prognosis for advancement.
According to the human rights group, the Israel authorities intensified illegal destructions in the West Bank encompassing East Jerusalem, and this resulted in the displacement of the Palestinians from their homes. The increased rate of demolitions, recorded in 2011, was accompanied by the augmented extension of Israeli settlements and the growth of violence committed by settlers. Various organizations were involved in the process of searching for peace in the region. Humanitarian and human rights groups, encompassing the Oxfam International, the Human Rights Watch and the Amnesty International, have been involved in the conflict, calling for the conflicting parties to be held to the global law obligations. As a result, the government of Israel is obligated to instantly invalidate its settlement policies and destruction, which are against the international law. The amplified rate of house demolitions and settlement expansion has been negatively affecting the Palestinians by wiping out their livelihoods and predictions for a durable and fair peace.
Various evidences and situations have been provided, which indicate how the Palestinians are oppressed under the Israel authority. Some of them encompass the increased number of persons displaced by these demolitions. The studies have proven that since the commencement of 2010, over five hundred Palestinian homes, cisterns and wells, including other important structures, have been damaged in the West Bank, encompassing East Jerusalem. This led to the displacement of a large number of Palestinians in 2011, which was revealed to be double of those, who were displaced in the previous year, and indeed, this was the greatest number of displacements evidenced since 2005. Among those Palestinians, who have been displaced, there are children, and the loss of their families and homes is specifically devastating. Besides, a sharp boost in the settler violence is the evidence that has been provided. Various reports have put forth that violent attacks against the Palestinians by settlers have increased by over 50% in 2011 as matched up by 2010. The latter has been evidenced to be the most affected by settler violence. Moreover, settlers have destroyed many Palestinian olive trees, among other ones, and this has undermined the livelihood of many families. Most of this violence (approximately 90%) is reported to have been caused by the Israel police.
The increasing violations by the Israelis against the Palestinians are an indication that the major players involved in the conflict resolution have failed on their part. This is absolutely linked with the United States bias for Israel, which acts as a hindrance of peace. Experts have put forth that the negotiating parties should understand that in order to contribute towards attaining durable and fair solution for the existing conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, they should initially respect the international law.
The Israeli policies impacted the Palestinian residency generally denying the freedom to live and travel to and from Gaza and the West Bank (Lasser, pp. 96-248). This is evidenced by the report released by the Human Rights Watch. This report designates the arbitrary exclusion of thousands of Palestinians by the Israeli military since 1967. In addition, the report contains documents, which state impacts that the kind of exclusion has on individuals and families. Moreover, inclusive in the report is the way that the Military of Israeli exercises its control over the Palestinian population registry. That is the list of the Palestinians considered to be the most lawful residents to Gaza territories and the West Bank. It is apparent that the exclusion has the Palestinians to suffer from separated families. Most couples have lost their jobs and educational opportunities. They have also barred people from entering the territories of Palestine. Furthermore, those inside the territories have also been trapped in them (Lasser, pp. 96-248).
Evidently, Israel has never launched any tangible security for the rationale policies that have made the lives of the Palestinians a nightmare, since they are considered to be unlawful residents on their own territories. As it has been evidenced by the report, contemporary policies have left most Palestinian families separated and trapped on the wrong side of the border in the West Bank and Gaza (Lasser, pp. 96-248). The situation is a perturbing one, and some scholars have felt that Israel ought to revise the policies to enable the Palestinians to live happily with their families whenever and wherever.
It is a requirement of the Israelis, that the Palestinians be included in the registry and should obtain identification cards and passports. This is so for them to be considered as lawful residents. The Palestinians require identification cards to travel freely internally and have access to social amenities, for instance, schools, hospitals, jobs and visit their own families. This happens especially in the West Bank. This is caused by the fact that the Israeli securities in charge of these areas ask for identification cards of individuals before allowing them to pass. In addition, Israeli officials in charge of all West Bank borders necessitate that Palestinians entering or leaving the territory to present an identification card or passport (Lasser, pp. 96-248).
In a number of cases, changes in the arbitrary policies have caused family separation. It is apparent that the Palestinians from Gaza have been denied an entry to the West Bank despite the fact that some of these individuals have lived there earlier or have families within that territory. Moreover, if they are close relatives of people in the West Bank or have foreign-born spouses, they are denied to re-entry to individuals living in the West Bank, who for some reason have travelled abroad. Similarly, on the territories of Gaza, Egyptian officials also necessitate that the Palestinians entering or leaving the region present their ID cards or passports.
In 1967, the Israelis conducted a census within Gaza and West Bank territories after the period of three months since the time they occupied those regions (Lasser, pp. 96-248). The physically present Palestinians were 954,898 in number. Clearly, around 270,000 Palestinians, who had been already living there before the war that took place in 1967, were deliberately not included in the census. This is because they had travelled abroad for education or work. The Israelis in the population registry did not include these Palestinians in the population registry. As a result, they were prevented returning to the territory, as they were seen ineligible to apply for residency. Moreover, the Israelis also removed thousands of the Palestinians from the registry, who had stayed abroad for a long period of time from 1967 to 1994. There were around 130,000 of such Palestinians being restricted from living within the region as permanent residents. According to the study carried out on the Palestinian territories on behalf of the Israelis in 2005, it is evident that over 640,000 of the Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank had spouses, siblings, parents or children, who were unregistered. The Israelis became hard on the Palestinians in 2000, when it completely barred the unregistered Palestinians from Gaza by fully controlling border crossing of Israel and Egypt until 2005 (Lasser, pp. 96-248).
Apparently, the recent decisions by the High Court legitimize clear violations of Israel’s international legal obligations. According to the studies, rulings of the High Court have swerved seriously off the course in an attempt to serve as a last bastion for safeguarding the human rights. Before 2012, the court had been seen to maintain the constitutionality of citizenship and entry to the law of Israel. The law upheld is one, which has barred the entry of the Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and any other region, whereby the operations have been carried out as a threat to the state of Israel in order to provide family unification with Israeli spouses. Evidently, the law is seen to impact Palestinian citizens of Israel together with their spouses from Palestine barred from living together in Israel. The Interior Ministry of Israel first barred family unification between the Palestinians and Israeli citizens in 2002 at the height of the second Palestinian intifada or uprising. The Knesset enacted the policy into the law in 2003, and amended it in 2005 and 2007 (Bardes et al, pp. 211-389). According to petitioners, the law was highly against the right to family life and autonomy. Besides, it has been seen to discriminate on the basis of nationality. The studies have revealed that foreigners from Israel could gain citizenship automatically under the law of return. On the other hand, non-Jewish foreigners, who married citizens from Israel, could only obtain the Israeli citizenship after the period of four years. This means that the law develops classifications on the basis of the national background. The ruling maintained that the blanket barred on the basis that the Palestinian spouses of citizens from Israel were prospective security risks. This was caused by the fact that some of them were involved in attacks on Israeli citizens. As argued by a number of justices, civilians from Israel had the right to family life, but this was something that was not recognized in Israel.
For the period between 2001 and 2010, the ruling designated that 54 Palestinians, who had earlier received their citizenship in Israel or their parents, who had received the residency status, were involved in terroristic activities (Bardes et al, pp. 211-389). Nevertheless, the state did not offer any information regarding the suspects involved or whether any of them received any kind of punishment for the crimes committed. At the time of hearings, judges ascertained that only seven Palestinians, who had already received their residency, had been indicted since 2001 for having committed security crimes. However, two of the convicted had already been released from the prison. It is evident from the ruling that around 135, 0000 Palestinians obtained Israeli residency. In addition, they were allowed, though on temporal basis, to enter Israel on marrying spouses from Israel from 1994 to 2002.
According to some scholars, a sweeping ruling, banning the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza to live together with their spouses in Israel without having assessed them to determine whether individuals could threaten the security, is unjustified. Moreover, it causes harm to the right of the Palestinians and the Israelis to live with their families. Evidenced by its impacts on the Palestinian citizens of Israel as disparate to Jewish citizens, it is clear that the law is also prejudiced, given the dissimilarity in treatment and impact on those civilians, and the lack of defense for such a blanket proscription (Bardes et al, pp. 211-389). Justices, however, in minority, argued that the law ought to have necessitated personal assessments of whether an applicant’s Palestinian spouse posed a security threat and that the right to a family life includes both the right to marry a foreigner and to live with a foreign spouse in Israel (Bardes et al, pp. 211-389).
Besides, the law infringed obligations of Israel under the Agreement on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which was aimed to apply to race national and ethnic origin. Moreover, the law was also applied to a number of rights, which included the right to marriage and the choice of spouse. The committee in charge of monitoring the compliance with the agreement urged that Israel needs to revise it in 2007. This was caused by the fact that the law impacted Arab Israeli civilians wishing to be rejoined with their families in Israel. Further, they designated that such restrictions as targeting a specific national or ethnic group were in desecration of duty to guarantee to all individuals equality before the law. Apparently, it was recommended that the Israelis revised their policies to ensure that they allowed for the unification of families, ascertained that limitations on family reunion were wholly necessary and restricted scope (Bardes et al, pp. 211-389). In addition, they would ensure that the laws were not applied on the basis of residency, nationality, or membership of a specific community. Another problem facing the Palestinians in Israel was abuse on the part of the Israelis in their jobs at the West Bank (Valelly, pp. 125 to 137).
The American bias to Israel has been a topic of discussion by many people since the 1970’s. This bias is highly evidenced in the continuing Palestine-Israel conflict, in which the United States is a major player. The American bias to Israel has affected the conflict greatly hindering the formation of a Palestine state, an action, which has made the Palestinians to remain under the direct authority of the Israelis. The United States has been evidenced to prevent the pass of any resolution aimed at establishing a Palestine state. Besides, America always consults with Israel regarding any issue linked with the conflict. In fact, many people have criticized the United States for acting as a legal represent