It would be a safe bet to say that for everyday I have been alive an article has appeared in the local paper regarding the conflict between Israel and Palestine. It would also be safe to say that everyday of my life I grow increasingly confused. In the introduction to U.S. Policy on Palestine: Wilson to Clinton, editor Michael Suleiman addresses what I believe to be the cause of my confusion:
The making and execution of foreign policy decisions are affected by a number of factors of unequal weight. Which particular factor plays a more critical part depends on the actual situation...the personalities and backgrounds of the decision makers, especially those in the highest positions, certainly influence foreign policy decision making.From Wilson to Clinton (yes, I am excluding the current president), the varying methods of addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are far-ranging. I'm not sure I've quite pinpointed Carter's policy (I'm not sure he has either), but I've concluded that no two U.S. presidents had a similar policy. Though the U.S. policy is pro-Israel, Eisenhower's policy was drastically different from Nixon's and George H.W. Bush's policy different from Truman's. No wonder Americans can't quite understand what exactly the U.S. policy on Palestine is.
I'm not going to offer a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict nor refer you to the biblical support of who the land belongs to-- which is essentially the problem and the reason the U.S. is involved, but I will recommend a book: Blood Brothers by Elias Chacour. As Americans we are constantly open to the pro-Israel news and commentary, but Chacour's book offers the Palestinian perspective.
Reading current news is deja vu with this issue. The death of Arafat,a s much as I hate to say it, hasn't really benefited the situation. Cease fires, peace agreements, and road maps to peace are merely sentiments in a situation that will find no resolution.