Newsplaining

A Church State in Action: Israeli settlements depict complications of religious government
     In a surprise that shocked global politics, the US turned the other cheek while the United Nations Security Council sponsored and passed a resolution condemning Israeli settlement into occupied territory (The West Bank), at the end of December. The action is being dubbed by political pundits as both a sabotage in relationships with Israel and the incoming Trump Administration, and the eruption of heated tensions between the Obama Administration and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
     Netanyahu previously came to America to give a speech to a Republican House of Representatives advocating the stoppage of the Iran deal, and has also gone against Obama’s recommendations to curtail settlements while a two-state solution is created (a two-state solution has been a stance held by many US Presidents from both parties). In short, the two have been on short leashes with each other for much of Obama’s tenure in office, and December’s abstention turned into an unspoken agreement with the international community about the ethics of allowing settlements to continue.
     President-elect Donald Trump, in anticipation of the vote, personally spoke with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Netanyahu, about delaying a vote. The resolution was instead called to vote by Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal and Venezuela, according to the New York Times. According to the newspaper, those four countries are relatively powerless in the UN, but with an American abstention, its influence was eliminated.
     The Arab-Israeli conflict has been a decades-old conundrum, creating a riff between Israel, the media and the international community. Its solutions are baffling as they are rooted both in religion and politics. A logical solution of facts and sense completely ignores the religious motivations by both sides. A religious solution continues hostilities until one of them admits that their beliefs are inferior. The Israeli government makes none of these solutions more plausible because of its inconsistencies in policies towards these settlements.
     The settlement problem dates back to when modern-day Israel was two states, Israel and Palestine, in 1948. Here’s a quick refresh attempt without the nuances:
     After the United Nations and Britain authored the deal that would create the two state solution, Palestine rejected the territory it was given as resentment towards colonialism that would displace thousands of Palestinians, and went to war with the Jewish state. Israel won the war, with a cease fire established, granting modern day Jordan the modern day Gaza Strip and West Bank.
     In 1967, a six-day war broke out in which Israel seized control over the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula. The Peninsula was given back to Egypt but both the Gaza Strip and West Bank weren’t so easily granted; if your neighboring country goes to war with you twice and you give land back once, and win the second time, do spoils of war go to the winner (though wars are in reality just attempts at land grabs)?
     While Israel debated what to do with occupied land in both areas, Israeli citizens, mostly driven by religious nobility, moved into the occupied territory and settled in their “holy land,” promised to them by God in the bible, while living side-by-side with Palestinians under colonial rule, who thought they had first right to the “holy land” as promised by their God in their bible.
     In 1967, the UN decried Israeli settlement as illegal while a decision was being made about either absorbing the Palestinian territory, offering a separate state, or giving the land back to Jordan.
     The Camp Oslo Accords (1993), brokered by President Bill Clinton between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Negotiator Mahmoud Abbas, attempted to create a solution that basically normalized settlement in the territories. The agreement let Palestinians have self government in 17 percent of the occupied territory, gave Israeli security to 22 percent of the remaining Palestinian-settled territory and gave the remaining 66 percent of the territory Israeli resources and protection for the Israeli settlers. While the Palestinian settlements did get self governance, Israel was clearly the beneficiary, as it was able to retain the natural resources and give special treatment to its settlers. Israel has never gone on record to condemn the settlers, nor has it banned settling entirely.
     Since that time, many countries in the UN have called out Israel’s enabling of the settlements through special funding (approximately $905 per person is spent in the West Bank, while less is spent on a citizen in Tel Aviv, according to Vox). Israeli settlements continue to increase, a network of highways continue to be built by the government, and massive suburban developments occur, while farm land and water is remains a prime resource for Israelis, land locking Palestinians. Israelis are free to move about in the territory while Palestinians pass through multiple checkpoints of security.
     As I write this, I see the solution as simple. With the evidence, Israel appears to be in the wrong. It can’t leave an entire civilization in the balance for over 40 years, not knowing whether they’re incorporated in a nation, owned my another or can have self-rule. It also shouldn’t allow its citizens to be opportunistic and live in the land that is technically only occupied territory, which there is no impending decision upon. Israel also can’t just declare that it owns all water and farming resources, and build highways that only benefit settlements, while denying the Palestinians access to basic necessities of life.
     Then again, in 1948, Palestine was granted control of what is considered holy land, that displaced both Jews and Palestinians. The Jews declared independence but Palestine wanted more and wound up losing.
     Then again, in 1967, Jordan occupied Palestine went to war with Israel again and lost more land. Israel offered land for peace, but unless all of Israel became Palestine, there was no negotiation. Several times in less than a century, Palestinians were given chances to exist in their own state, and denied them.
     One could argue that Britain and the UN were ignorant of the middle east tensions and wrongly drew borders that started these tensions. One could also argue that the Jews have been the most persecuted group of individuals in history (Spanish Inquisition, Greece, the Holocaust to name a few times). But one could argue that of Palestine.
     Politically, Israel could just absorb the West Bank and become a larger, more legitimate Israel. The catch would be that the Palestinians would need to adopt Israeli policies (much of Israel’s political parties are dominated by how religious they are). Israel is the Jewish state. It advertises itself as that, and lives by that motto that it is the Jewish homeland. Making the Palestinians “Israeli” is making them “Jewish” by the transitive property, and they will not go for that, and have not.
     While most who settle in the current millennium do not site their religion as a reason to settle, it’s on their list somewhere, according to a Vox documentary series. Giving the West Bank back to Palestine means approximately 400,000 Israelis are under a Palestinian government. The Palestinian government, much like Israel, prides itself on its religious state. It would want its policies to reflect a Muslim population, which the Jewish settlers would not support.
     While many would like to go to war with Israel and try taking the land back for good, there are too many super powers at play with the US, Russia, Egypt and Turkey, all involved in what could be catastrophic war.
     What we see here is what happens when religion has a firm grip on politics. An inherent Jewish and Muslim holy right to land stops any chance for peace. We can talk about hindsight being 20/20, and maybe had Israel made a decision to give the land back in1967, this problem doesn’t look to be Israel’s fault. But there’s no telling if that would have been the last war in that area.
     The UN resolution doesn’t technically do anything. It just states that the settlements are illegal. Netanyahu has said that things will continue as normal, however, the resolution can be used as evidence in international court about unjust treatment of Palestinians, but its rather uncertain about what happens now, except for strained relations in a profitable relationship with the US and Israel.
     It’s strange how history repeats itself, and how countries' dichotomies some times mirror our own.
     In 1898, America invaded Puerto Rico as part of the Spanish-American War. The natives didn’t like the colonizing Spanish, nor did it like the attempted take over of the US. When the Spanish seceded the island to America that same year, America still maintained colonial status, fighting revolutionaries on the island.
     America didn’t at first grant independence to the islanders, who had been passed around as a colonial gateway to the Caribbean. Revolutionaries attacked the US military in several skirmishes until the US decided to grant the nation a government system with a constitution, and their leader selected by the US proper, while the people voted for their legislature. Many Puerto Ricans pushed for independence, but becoming a US Common Wealth was more advantageous at the time. Still today, they cannot vote for president, and its leaders are corrupt and placed in control by the US itself.
     The same occurred in Hawaii when the US backed a revolutionary to overthrow native rule, which led to a commonwealth and then statehood.
     Not only America, but Britain too, has colonized much like Israel has, most notably South Africa during the apartheid.
     In each of these cases however, the end outcome has been either to become a state or common wealth. For Israel and Palestine, this solution  has been forgone because of ideological attitudes spurred by religion.
     In our country today, the 2016 election brought about the attitude that many in the US are receiving benefits they shouldn’t. People who shouldn’t qualify get free welfare, while others slave away and get nothing. Some believe that the rights guaranteed in the constitution are unfairly being granted to those who aren’t citizens. In Israel, the same is occurring. Jews who feel they are entitled to rights guaranteed by the bible and their government, belong exclusively to them, while neighboring territories of a different religion, suffer because of disadvantageous policies. Palestinians feel the same way, that Jews are taking away right guaranteed by their bible and government.
     What can be done in Israel? Nothing, until religion takes a back seat to politics. But the hotbed of holy wars in the middle east don’t seem to be easing up soon, so we must wait and hope for the best. But the Arab-Israeli conflict shows us what happens when religion and politics are one-in-the-same.