Should the United States Assertively Promote the Implementation of Two State Solution in Israel Palestine conflict
Right there is mounting tension in the middle east between Israel and Palestine. With the escalating violence there have been talks for a Two State Solution and if this could possibly end the conflict or not. Also should the United Sates even be part of the conflict at all?
You can also add to the debate by leaving your comment at the end of the page.
Peace talks helps US image in the Arab region.
If the US were to take part in the talks between Israel and Palestine, it will make us look as if we care for the issues happening in the middle east. This in turn will help our image in the region.US foreign policy is already struggling with issues of credibility and double standards in the Middle East, particularly during the Arab spring, and aligning with Netanyahu-Liberman agenda will worsen the increasingly fragile American relations with the region.
Peace talks that get somewhere might, peace talks that continually fail simply build up and then dash hopes, probably leaving the US image worse off. As a result of peace talks the US for the moment seems to simply be getting a reputation for not being able to persuade its ally to give enough concessions.
Single state option is not an option
A binational state would require a degree of mutual understanding and respect that does not now exist and is unlikely to exist in the near future. It would also mean the end of a Jewish-majority state in Israel, an option most Israelis would resist. Even those who find the ideal of a binational state appealing must acknowledge that binational states are extremely difficult to forge and are often with violence.
What this quotation means is that a single country would not work. The reasoning is that most Israelis don’t want a single country, and a binational country in the past has normally been violent and difficult to manage.
US is needed to make sure the peace talks go accordingly
On their own, the parties will not reach a solution anytime soon. Without the active involvement of the United States, a solution will not be found. If Washington clings to the flawed notion that it can’t want peace more than the parties themselves, the peace will not be possible. And this will impact U.S. national security interests. The United States needs to lead. A two-state agreement is possible. A majority on both sides wants such a solution, but they also want somebody to put it on the table because neither side on its own can do that now.
While the US is very useful as a broker in peace talks it is unclear whether it is actually needed - the US has failed to make any progress in the past and has so far shown itself to be unwilling to put enough pressure on both sides to get them to compromise. If the US is not willing to use pressure to force compromises then someone else could do the job better as they could be seen as more neutral.
US credibility has already been harmed by participation in the peace talks
For Obama and his administration, one can only feel disappointment. The president did the right thing by taking on the critical job of attempting to broker Israeli-Palestinian peace from day one. In doing so, however, he raised the mistrust of Israelis and their supporters at home, something from which he has yet to recover. Today, there is a growing realization that the United States cannot be the only leader of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. At the UN, Arabs, Europeans, and those from the newly emerging powers such as Brazil, India, Russia and China speak openly about the diminished credibility of the United States. More deeply, its perceived weakness on this issue is seen as symptomatic of the general decline in U.S. power in global affairs. The American role serves to exacerbate that asymmetry rather than defuse it. Given the Palestinians' lack of leverage and Israel's impunity, only two rational outcomes can be anticipated: Palestinian capitulation, or deadlock based on Palestinian refusal to capitulate—which is indeed a rather accurate potted history of the negotiations.
Would the US really have been more credible as a peacemaker if it had not even tried? The criticism would simply be different - Obama would not be credible because he would have been seen as not caring enough about the issue to take any action while he would not be credible to the Israelis because of his support for the Arab Spring and the upheaval this has cause in Egypt which was previously a secure neighbour.
What do you think?