The intifada has left Israel and Palestine battered and bloodied. Ariel Sharon now faces pressure from both the left and right wings of his government, simultaneously confronted with the protests of military officers declaring they will not serve in operations against Palestinians, and a right-wing coalition that wants even harsher action taken against the insurgents. Yassir Arafat seems unwilling or unable to control masses of Palestinian radicals determined to sabotage the peace process, and has neither the power nor the freedom even to leave his own compound. However, despite the high costs of the conflict, neither side has been willing to budge on issues such as the continued presence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, nor the Palestinian right of return. The inability to compromise on these issues has so far destroyed any efforts at a diplomatic solution. The United States has also been powerless to broker an agreement, and all sides seem to be locked in a cycle of escalation. The reason for this stalemate is that there has been no real incentive to pursue peace. Israelis felt that compromise would cost them land and give them nothing in return. Palestinians feel they have to convince Israel that the occupied territory isn't worth the price that they are paying for retaining it, and many Palestinians resort to violently displaying their unhappiness. Both sides have an incentive to fight and little incentive to compromise. Now, that could all change. The Saudi Arabian proposal to normalize Arab-Israeli relations in exchange for withdrawing to the pre-1967 borders would give both sides an incentive to pursue peace. The implications of solving the Arab-Israeli conflict are much broader than just promoting regional stability; solving the conflict would have global implications. The United States must seize the initiative and help end the intifada, and commit to seeking a lasting peace.
The Saudi proposal presents a unique opportunity for Israelis, because normalization of relations with the Arab world could end fifty years of attacks by hostile Arab nations and Arab-funded militants. Israel has been targeted repeatedly by groups ranging from Egypt to Hamas and has never had a period of true security. The constant state of uncertainty regarding its own security has lead some to feelings of paranoia, which explains many of Israel's harsh policies towards security threats. It is obvious that the costs of holding onto the West Bank and Gaza Strip far outweigh the potential benefits to Israel's security structure, as worldwide anti-Israeli sentiment has been inflamed by the conflict. Although radicals might argue that Israeli claims to the West Bank and Gaza Strip are Biblical in nature, most recognize that war spoils should not be held if a greater peace is possible. Syria would still refuse to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation, but the threat of an isolated Syria going against the entire Muslim world would be easily marginalized.
The incentives for the Palestinians are obvious; an independent Palestinian state would finally give power to a disenfranchised people and end the violence that has destroyed Palestinian society. The Arab nations also have great incentives to push for peace, as ceasing the constant bickering with Israel will help further relations with the United States and the rest of the Western world. Hopefully, ending the conflict with Israel will put the Arab world on a path towards better relations with the West in general.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the United States has a vested interest in seeing Israel and the Arab world commit to peace. The Arab-Israeli conflict inexorably links America to Israel, and causes widespread resentment of American interests throughout the Arab world. Whether or not one believes we should be funding the Israeli military at all, it is undeniable that our money is being used in ways which cause much of the Muslim world to hate the United States. If bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and other radicals use the plight of the Palestinians as an excuse for their anti-US behavior, why not take away that excuse by solving the underlying conflict? Furthermore, lessening the military threat towards Israel will allow them to scale back their military production, and allow us to reallocate our foreign aid budget to help develop nations that actually need development. Ari Fleisher remarked on Tuesday that only after the violence in the Middle East has stopped can this peace proposal be pursued. In fact, it must be through the realization of this proposal that peace will be achieved. The United States needs to seek peace just as actively as the combatants. Not only because we are the world's leader, but also because through our support of Israel, America has been dragged into the conflict without ever firing a shot.
If the proposal does actually come to the table, the determinant between peace and war will likely be Ariel Sharon. Because of his continuing commitment to the Israeli settlers and his reliance on strong-arm tactics, many have been skeptical whether peace is really his goal. However, his receptiveness towards this offer will determine once and for all whether he is truly interested in peace or extending the war.
The current conflict in Israel must end as soon as possible, and this new peace plan gives all sides incentives to return to the negotiating table. If the Arab world is sincere in its commitment to recognizing Israel, then Sharon must relent and finally grant a Palestinian state. It is time for all sides to abandon their ancient hatreds and realize compromise is the only solution to a conflict that helps no one. It is time for peace. David Sillers is from Potomac, Md. He can be reached at dsillers@princeton.edu.
Read More
An open letter to President Eisgruber and VP Calhoun concerning minoritized student safety
Patrick Jaojoco, Brandi Bushman, and Humza Gondal"We — the undersigned leaders, community members, and allies of cultural affinity groups of Princeton University — condemn in the strongest possible terms the University’s utter disregard for the safety and wellbeing of its students of color."
"We — the undersigned leaders, community members, and allies of cultural affinity groups of Princeton University — condemn in the strongest possible terms the University’s utter disregard for the safety and wellbeing of its students of color."
On the occupation of Clio Hall and the treatment of Graduate School staff
Cole M. Crittenden“There are real power differentials on this campus, and we all have an obligation to be mindful of them. The students, postdocs, and faculty who occupied Clio Hall seem to have abused their privileges in the ways they treated staff as an expression of protest. That is wrong.”
“There are real power differentials on this campus, and we all have an obligation to be mindful of them. The students, postdocs, and faculty who occupied Clio Hall seem to have abused their privileges in the ways they treated staff as an expression of protest. That is wrong.”
Regulations on ‘disruption’ restrict dialogue at Princeton. Let’s change the standard.
Rishi Khanna“When Princeton administrators suppress mere disruptions tied to progressive speech, they effectively suppress a substantial portion of the speech itself.”
“When Princeton administrators suppress mere disruptions tied to progressive speech, they effectively suppress a substantial portion of the speech itself.”
