Is America to blame for the continuation of the Middle East Conflict?

Yes

For use throughout this article, please refer to:

For decades, the United States of America has been involved in the Middle East Conflict between the Palestinians and the Israeli's as has the rest of the world. Its involvement has always been stated as one pursuing an end to the conflict that results in a fair and just peace between the Palestinians and Israelis. However, its actions in the last 40-plus years suggests the US is actually, at least in part, to blame for the continuation of the conflict.

In the history of the conflict, the US has consistently armed and protected Israel from international scrutiny and action. This policy picked up momentum following the 1967 Six Day War launched by Israel to obtain more land, including the Old City in East Jerusalem from is Arab neighbors. The US may have been a signatory to United Nations Resolution 242, which demands Israel returns to her 1967 borders and give Palestinian refugees the right to return, but it has never acted in a way lending to its actual fulfillment.

In the 1970's, President Jimmy Carter staged the first Middle East Peace Talks between Israel and its neighbor Egypt. Following the negotiations, the Camp David Accords were signed into international law. In essence, Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in exchange for Israel returning to its 1967 borders. This includes Israel withdrawing from the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Sheba Farms and Southern Lebanon, and from the Syrian Golan Heights. Also, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat had negotiated for the West Bank and Gaza to be used as the starting point and as the framework for the creation of a Palestinian state. The Israeli settlement project in the West Bank was to come to an end. At this point, it seemed as though US policy was truly intended to resolve the conflict.

However, in the 1980's Ronald Reagan, an Evangelical Christian, became President and the majority of the Camp David Accords became obsolete. Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 and was protected from War Crime tribunals by a veto administered by Reagan at the UN Security Council on numerous occasions. At the same time, Israel began to really move its colonial settlement project in the West Bank and East Jerusalem by building tens of thousands of Jewish Only colonies. Reagan never once even threatened international action against Israel for stealing Palestinian land and making thousands of families homeless. Instead, he doubled US Military support to Israel by increasing it from $500 million to $900 million annually, and he provided Israel with one and half times its typical economic aid by increasing it from $525 million to $725 million. By the end of his Presidency, US Military aid to Israel ballooned to $1.8 billion a year and economic aid ballooned to $1.2 billion a year.

Sabra & Shatila Genocide Committed by Sharon and the Christian Phlange (see videos below)

In 1988, the Conflict should have come to an end. Yasser Arafat and the PLO accepted the state of Israel and were willing to settle for only the West Bank and Gaza, which is only 22% of Palestine's land. For 24 years now, everyone has known the following is the only rational and possible settlement between the two parties:

Israel returns to 1967 borders
Palestine becomes a state on the West Bank and Gaza
Israel must recognize the Palestinian Right to Return - exactly how this is enacted must be discussed between Israel and the Palestinian Refugees
Israeli Settlements within Palestine must come to an end. Some settlements will have to be removed and Israel must exchange land with the Palestinians in proportion to settlements they agree can remain
East Jerusalem becomes a part of the Palestinian State

Reagan virtually ignored and obstructed any progress occurring while he remained President, but the next President, George H. Bush, became involved in secret talks between the Palestinians and Israelis. He is the only President to withhold Financial aid to Israel because of its continued construction of settlements. He unequivocally stated:

"The United States policy on settlements in the occupied territories is unchanged and is clear: we oppose new settlements in territories beyond the 1967 lines - settlements [are] contrary to the United States policy; and I will continue to reiterate the policy, and try to persuade the government of Israel that it is counterproductive to go forward with additional settlements in these territories. Our objective is to get the parties to the peace table."

The US has basically bankrolled Israel's continued colonial project in the West Bank, and thus such a threat actually had an effect. He demanded Israel completely halt all settlement activity to receive financial aid and they did, at least temporarily.

In my opinion, only the first President Bush actually tried to do the right thing. He tried to stop the settlements and actually threatened Israel. No other President has ever done that. It was his hands on approach that led to the parties gathering at the negotiations table. He understood the basis of the Occupation was land, not religious or defensive as Israel and its supporters claim. The Palestinians want to live free and equal to the rest of the people of the world on their land, and Israel wants to kick the Palestinians off that land by building more colonies in the West Bank for Jews only and claiming it as part of Israel. President Bush, however, lost his reelection campaign against Bill Clinton.

President Clinton continued the negotiations between the Palestinians and Israeli's, but did not confront Israel's colonial expansion. While he was in power, he oversaw the Oslo Peace Process and witnessed the horribly unjust Oslo Accords. It was supposedly the outline for beginning an overarching peace between the two people, but it instead enabled and encouraged the further colonization of Palestine in the West Bank. It divided the regions of the West Bank into A, B, and C zones.

Zone A - The PA has complete control over all civilian administration, and its paramilitary police force is in charge
of security. 3% of the West Bank was Zone A
Zone B - The PA has full civilian authority but it shares security responsibility with Israel. Joint Israel-PA patrols
operate here. 23% of the West Bank was Zone B
Zone C - Israel has full control.Israel was committed to handing over more parts of Area C to the Palestinians every
six months, but in practice this process occurred only irregularly. 74% of the West Bank was Zone C

As can be seen in the Map, Israel maintained virtual control of the entire West Bank. The idea the PLO was in any actual control of the West Bank during Clinton's Presidency was a complete facade. By maintaining this control, Israel embarked on a major colonial expansion project and was able to add hundreds of thousands of illegal Jewish-only settlements on land stolen from the Palestinians in the West Bank. The international community attempted to step in on numerous occasions, but Clinton either "persuaded" them to change their minds or administered a US veto at the UN to block international action.

The Oslo Accords were a failure and their shelf life was rapidly eroding towards the end of President Clinton's tenure. During his reign, he administered vetoes to block international scrutiny and sanctions against Israel for colonizing Palestine and increased US financial and military aid to Israel. In other words, he gave Israel the money and the means to continue the Conflict and to continue to steal and ethnically cleanse Palestinian land.

After Clinton, another Evangelical Christian, George W Bush, became President of the United States. During Bush's administration, the Conflict reached its worst condition since the ethnic cleansing of Palestine that occurred from the 1940's through the 1960's. Bush basically allowed Ariel Sharon to do whatever he wanted. Israeli and US policy became one and the same under Bush. The Oslo Accords were completely thrown off the table as Israel reoccupied the small areas of the West Bank it had previously withdrawn from. This caused tensions to be high and following Sharon's visit to the Al Aqsa Mosque with the Israeli army, the second intifada, the Al Aqsa Intifada, was launched by Palestinian's in an attempt to resist the injustice of the Israeli Occupation.

It was during Bush's presidency, Israel began plans to construct the Apartheid Wall, which would create cantons of Palestinian reservations enclosed by a wall which reaches 30 feet high. Israel claimed it was building a "Separation" barrier between them and the Palestinians, and had no other intentions. However, the route of the wall and Israel's actions suggests otherwise.

The Wall's stated purpose tells us Israel's plan was to racially separate its Jewish citizens from its Arab Palestinian citizens and neighbors. It would keep the Palestinians walled in the world's largest open-air prison, preventing them access to the outside world except for having to go through and being subjected to interrogations to be able to plead with and hope Israel allows you to get out. The Wall's route carves the Palestinian population into Islands separated from each other. It would not follow the line of the pre-1967 borders, but instead it would be placed within the West Bank swallowing half of its territory.

On July 9, 2004, the International Court of Justice - the UN's principal judicial organ - issued an advisory opinion saying the separation barrier was illegal and that construction must stop immediately. The Court also said Israel should make reparations for any damage caused, and that the Assembly and the Security Council should consider what steps to take "to bring to an end the illegal situation" created by the barrier. The US was the only country to vote against the advisory opinion.

Next, on July 22, 2004, the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly voted on a resolution demanding Israel comply with the ICJ's advisory opinion. Again, the US voted against the resolution. The General Assembly, however, has no enforcement mechanism and leaves such decisions as sanctions or other actions to be taken against a nation state for the UN Security Council to decide. After passing the matter to the UN Security Council, Bush vetoed the matter allowing Israel to begin to create the map below:

As the map clearly indicates, the Apartheid Racist Wall allows Israel to steal half of the land in the West Bank, and President Bush supported this policy. Not only did he support it, but he actually increased US financial and military aid to Israel following the beginning of its construction. Anybody that argues using the term "Apartheid" to describe the wall as unjust, false, or offensive is absolutely clueless as to what Apartheid means. Israel itself calls the wall the "Separation" Barrier. Apartheid is merely a synonym for separation. The word "Apartheid" literally means separation. So Israel, in its own terms, is basically referring to is as the Apartheid Wall.

Like presidents before him, President Bush also protected Israel from international scrutiny via pressure or the administration of a US veto. He did so following Israel's reoccupation of the entire West Bank, which in turn allowed Israel to begin constructing the Wall. He also turned a blind eye as Israel was able to build hundreds of thousands of more settlements. Many times, Bush was even willing to use or threaten the use of a US veto in opposition to his European counterparts...none more horrific and inhumane than the veto Bush used in January 2009 just prior to leaving office.

The Apartheid Wall

On the eve of the 2008 US elections, Israel launched military attacks on the Gaza Strip leading to the death of at least fifteen Palestinians. This would lead to the end of an Israeli-Hamas truce in mid-December, and then Israel launched Operation Cast Lead. The United Nations scrambled to meet and attempt to put an end of the Israeli massacre but the US bullied them in Israel's favor and prevented the Security Council from being able to take action. After abstaining from a UN Security Council Vote on a resolution written by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Bush would later use a veto to block UN General Assembly Resolution which had passed 142 member states in favor, 4 oppose, and 8 abstentions. Instead of joining the international community in condemning Israel and trying to find a way to put an end to the massacre, Bush sent Israel more weapons resulting in the murders of 1400 Palestinians, including 400 children, in the Gaza Strip in three weeks.

Israel's murderous rage ended on the eve prior to President Barack Obama being sworn into office. The Operation seemed to be coordinated to begin on US election day and then end it just prior to the non-Evangelical Christian Democrat, Barrack Obama, took office.

President Obama's election brought new hope to the Palestinians and other Arab countries that they finally had a US President that would do the right thing. After all, he said the Palestinians were suffering more than any other people in the world and many other things the Palestinians and Arabs had been waiting decades to hear from a US President. However, Obama has not lived up to expectations and has instead, thus far, continued US policy.

Three major events define the current Obama Presidency in relation to the Middle East Conflict. The first occurred on February 18, 2011. The UN Security Council attempted to condemn Israeli plans to expand construction of its colonies, and Obama chose to use the US veto. Once again, actions taken by the US can only be explained as continuing the conflict. There is no other possible outcome from supporting Israel's continued theft of Palestinian land and ethnic cleansing of its people.

The second major event occurred a few weeks ago when Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas presented the Palestinian bid to Statehood at the UN. Obama and the US has actively attempted to derail the Palestinians from seeking statehood via this manner. Obama vows to vote against the UN vote for Palestinian Statehood and use a veto if the matter is directed to the Security Council.

The hypocrisy reflected and the depth of the lies told in US and Israeli positions on the Palestinian statehood initiative have reached new highs. On several occasions, people acting on behalf of either Israel and America have said that a state can't be granted by the UN. Really!? How do they sleep with themselves at night after telling such hypocritical and ironic lies? I have one question for them...How did Israel become a state? Exactly! Via the UN! The Palestinians are essentially using the same method as Israel.

The third major event took place recently when the US decided to make cuts in Palestinian humanitarian aid. Obama and Congress threatened President Abbas they would do this if he continued his UN bid, and it appears at least Congress has kept its word by passing a veto proof resolution calling for $200 million in aid to be frozen. Surprisingly, the UK Independent article cited above reports the "decision to delay the payments runs counter to the wishes of the Obama administration and reflects Congressional anger at Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's so far unrealised pursuit of Fatah-Hamas reconciliation and statehood recognition at the UN." Actually, Obama does not support such actions, however, the resolution to freeze $200 million in aid to the Palestinians is veto proof. If the President were to exercise his veto, Congress has the votes to overturn him. In this case, a veto by the President would actually be counterproductive and a political nightmare for him.

I believe the US is to blame for the continuation of the Middle East Conflict. Without US military aid, Israel would not be able to ethnically cleanse the Arabs from Palestine. Israel uses the military aid provided by America to protect its illegal settlement and to enable the farther construction of more Jewish only settlements on Palestinian owned land. It uses US financial aid to pay for the supplies and development of the settlements. Furthermore, when Israel becomes the target of an international probe, America blocks the UN from taking any action.

To restate and simplify, the US uses American tax dollars to give Israel both military and financial aid (which Israel is exempt from having to repay the loans). Israel uses its military to ethnically cleanse the West Bank and oppress the Palestinian population in order to develop Jewish only settlements. They also use the military might to forcefully imprison the Palestinians and completely control their lives. After using tanks and bulldozers to clear an area, Israel uses the financial aid the US sends them to pay for the supplies and construction of the new Jewish only settlements that are usually built directly on top and in the spot previous Palestinians lived.

The settlement activity is illegal and is repeatedly condemned by the international community, except by the US, of course. American tax payers pay for the military equipment and weapons Israel uses to continue to occupy and oppress the Palestinians. American tax payers and donors paid for the Apartheid Wall.

America arms Israel to the teeth. In fact, Israel is considered the world's 10th largest army even though the nation consists of only 6.5 million people. And Israel does not just collect and show off its weapons, she is constantly using them against the civilian population of the Palestinians. When the international community tries to put an end to Israeli War Crimes, America ALWAYS steps in to shield and enable Israel to continue to commit human rights violations against the Palestinians.

This is clearly not in the best interest of US security. To put this in perspective, Bush's protection and support of Ariel Sharon from the ICJ, for example, is equivalent to an Arab leader protecting and supporting Osama bin Laden. See The Crimes of Ariel Sharon to farther understand this point. Americans would obviously be pissed at Arabs that protected and supported bin Laden. Likewise can be said about Bush's support and calling Sharon a "Man of Peace" knowing he has murdered tens of thousands of Arabs and Palestinians in cold blood. Arabs are and were rightfully pissed this occurred.

If the US did not do these things, I believe the international community would have already resolved this issue.

I've provided an outline of the major actions the US has taken towards the conflict in recent history and my opinion.

What do you think?

Is America to blame for the continuation of the Middle East Conflict?