Human, Jew, American

I've been watching the diplomatic back-and-forth between Israel and the United States over Israel's announcement to build 1600 new homes in East Jerusalem. In many ways, that's nothing new. What's new is that the announcement was made on the same day as talks between Israel and Palestine were supposed to be hosted in good faith by the Americans. That's not an oversight. That's an arrogant and insulting move on the part of the current Israeli government.

In diplomatic terms, making an announcement that ruins the credibility of a benefactor's efforts at helping a situation is the equivalent of raising a pair of middle fingers with sparklers tied to them so the whole world can see them flicked at you from miles away.

I like to say that first I'm a human, then I'm a Jew, then I'm an American. This time, it's the American part of me that's insulted, and insulted enough to override at least the second part of that triad. But not the third.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is more often used as a justification for victimhood than as a claim of justice on the part of one side or another.

The most constructive message you get from groups like AIPAC are claims that there is little or no geopolitical justification for solving this dilemma; that Al Qaeda will still threaten the West even if a peace agreement is reached between Israel and all its neighbors. Why not wait until there is a viable representative of Palestinian interests? In the meantime, why not build Jewish suburbs of Jerusalem on their land?

Such a stance could be construed as good for me as an American, bolstering Israeli militarism in order to ensure a strong ally in a tough neck of the woods, or that it's good for me as a Jew, supporting settlements on highly disputed land to achieve expanded vision of a Jewish homeland.

As an American and a Jew, this could all be well and good, but as a human, it turns my stomach. Endless occupation and siege of a people is no way to run a state born out of such a crisis, with high ideals of its own. A solution must be found.

Then again, as Americans, I really don't under stand our diplomatic motivation for endless talks. Are we afraid Israel will become a client state of someone else if we abandon them or threaten their interests? Do we depend on Israel for significant resources? Israel needs America far more than America needs Israel, yet the game is played as if we were equals.

And as a Jew, I don't believe that expansion of settlements into Palestinian territory is good policy for Jews. There's the sticky issue of denying a vote to people based on their race. There are the endless moral dilemmas that come from endless occupation. There is the unknown amount of prosperity from regional and global trade foregone due to instability, insecurity, or ill will.

And as a human, enough said.

I've heard all the arguments. Israel cannot guarantee its security once a border is established. Palestinians must have sovereignty over their land before they will even come to the negotiating table. All of the arguments are rational. If they weren't, this conflict could have been solved long ago. But there is an underlying assumption that pervades both sides of the discussion. It's in what a final agreement will look like.

Everyone imagines two nations side-by-side, honoring treaties with one another, ensuring each other's security. But with increasing radicalism on both sides, who can imagine a scenario in the near term where either entity could ensure the security of the other? How can Fatah negotiate knowing that Hamas wants to take over? How can Likud or Labor negotiate, knowing that Shas and the settlers stand ready to fight their own nation to the death?

Defining borders and coming up with the agreements would be a lot easier if both sides could honestly negotiate in good faith. Just follow the logic. They cannot negotiate in good faith until their mutual security is ensured. Their mutual security cannot be ensured between the negotiating parties alone. A third party must ensure security at the same time as brokering a binding agreement between the negotiating parties. It could be America, it could be NATO, it could be something else.

After numerous attempts, diplomatic humiliation, billions in aid, and geopolitical difficulty, I don't understand why America allows Israel to do whatever it wants. I just don't get it.

If America, and the world want peace between two sovereign states, they must demand that security be handled by an outside, mutually agreed upon, neutral force. First peace, then sovereignty. On both sides.