The Arab/Israeli conflict has been present for the longest time in the global political history. The depth of this conflict goes beyond diplomatic disagreements. The conflict is based on mostly religious and social views the two parties hold deeply and firmly. Many nations and international bodies have tried to come up with solutions to end this conflict but this has not changed its scope.
According to Gelvin (2005) only the two involved countries are capable of changing the scope of the conflict: a fact neither of the two parties are willing to do. However, recent years have shown the will of the two nations to come a peace agreement but political analysts have argued that the influence of outside forces is greater than their will to negotiate a peace deal. One significant external force directly linked to this conflict is the United States.
The United States is perceived as a great ally of the Israeli nation. At the same time the nation is directly involved in the quest for peace in the region. In an argument by Citron (2006) the relationship between the United States and Israel is the greatest hindrance to a peace strategy between the Arab and the Israeli.
The author further argues that the United States protects nuclear activities carried out by Israel but greatly condemn if any Arab nations use the same weapons. With this intervention, the quest for peace in the region has become an imagination that may never be achieved. It is also an obvious assumption that the Arab population has a significant level of hate against the United States. And their involvement in the conflict in the Gaza does not make the situation better.
One could easily argue that the role of the United States in this particular conflict is to safeguard its interest and their diplomatic relationship with Israel. However, to their defense the United States government has on several occasions claimed that its involvement in the conflict is based on its responsibility to stop the use of dangerous nuclear weapons rejected across the globe. Additionally, its significance in the global political front puts the nation in a position whereby it has the obligation to act as the negotiator in this conflict.
In an argument by Citron (2006) with the majority of the Arab nation against the role of the United States in the conflict, would it be better if the negotiating responsibility was given to a neutral nation? The same notion is shared by Maoz (2006) who argues that the Arab/Israeli conflict has been heightened by the constant interference of the United States. The author further argues that the conflict has reached a point where the perception of the citizens matters a lot than the interests of the involved nations.
Many analysts against the involvement of the United States in the conflict argues that Israeli attacks in Gaza are never condemned by the United States as they argue that it was an act of ensuring security policies are not breached. On the other hand, attacks made in Israeli are condemned by the American nation and fully support the revenge attacks. However, the involvement of a terrorist group in the conflict gives the United States all the right to stop the activities of this group by all means.
References
Citron, S. (2006). The Indictment: The Arab-Israeli Conflict in Historical Perspective. New York & Jerusalem: Gefen Publishing House
Gelvin, J. (2005). The Israel-Palestine Conflict: 100 Years of War. New York & Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge UP
Maoz, Z. (2006). Defending the Holy Land.
