Few cities have caused as many headaches as Jerusalem. On Thursday, President Donald Trump continued in the tradition of his predecessors in keeping the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv, Israel’s metropolis on the Mediterranean, rather than moving it to Jerusalem, Israel’s proclaimed undivided capital. In the wake of Trump’s announcement, social media has seemingly come to a consensus: Trump broke a campaign promise. Sure, he did. But like everything else involving Jerusalem, it’s not that simple.

Status of the Holy City

When the United Nations officially recognized the State of Israel in 1947, it also sought to designate Jerusalem “corpus separatum,” or an international protectorate, apart from the Arab and Jewish states being created between the Jordan River to the east and the Mediterranean to the west. That did not happen. Instead, after Israel officially declared itself a sovereign nation in May 1948, an attack was launched–Arab armies assaulted Israel, which eventually won the war.

But Jerusalem, which saw heavy fighting in the war, was split: Jordan captured the eastern half, which contains Judaism’s holiest sites (as well as Islamic and Christian holy sites), while Israel held onto the western half. Jordan governed the Holy City for nearly two decades. Under Jordanian rule, Jews were not allowed to visit their holiest site, the Western Wall. Jewish synagogues and cemeteries were destroyed or deconstructed. In the 1948-49 war, Jordan also captured the West Bank.

The Six-Day War in 1967 changed the status of Jerusalem, and shifted the conversation for decades to come. Israel captured a number of land parcels during the war: the Gaza Strip from Egypt; the Golan Heights from Syria; and the West Bank and east Jerusalem from Jordan. Soon after, Israel annexed the Golan Heights and east Jerusalem, moves that the international community did not–and still does not–recognize. Since then, all of Jerusalem–save the Temple Mount, a holy site for all Abrahamic faiths, which remains in Jordan’s hands–has belonged to Israel, which deems the city its undivided, eternal capital.

The U.S. Embassy

The U.S., like all other countries, has kept its embassy in Tel Aviv for decades. Israel has urged U.S. presidents to move the embassy to Jerusalem, home to Israel’s parliament, Supreme Court, and numerous cultural and business institutions. In 1995, the Clinton Administration signed a bill that set a clear path for the embassy move.

The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 found that the U.S. “maintains its embassy in the functioning capital of every country except in the case of our democratic friend and strategic ally, the State of Israel.” The bill continued: “The United States conducts official meetings and other business in the city of Jerusalem in de facto recognition of its status as the capital of Israel.”

The bill dictated that the U.S. move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem by May 31, 1999. However, it also allowed presidents to waive the move, if it “is necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States.” Like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Trump made a campaign promise to move the embassy. But on Thursday, despite his firm insistence he would buck the trend and actually go ahead with the move, Trump decided to renew the waiver, which will last for six months.

Despite delaying the embassy move, a White House statement said, “no one should consider this step to be in any way a retreat from the President’s strong support for Israel and for the United States-Israel alliance.” It continued: “President Trump made this decision to maximize the chances of successfully negotiating a deal between Israel and the Palestinians, fulfilling his solemn obligation to defend America’s national security interests.” The White House said “the question is not if that move happens, but only when.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed disappointment, but reiterated the U.S.-Israel partnership. A statement from his office said: “Though Israel is disappointed that the embassy will not move at this time, we appreciate today’s expression of President Trump’s friendship to Israel and his commitment to moving the embassy in the future.”

To Dan Shapiro, the U.S. ambassador to Israel from 2011 to 2017, Trump made the right decision:

1. Trump was right to issue the Jerusalem embassy waiver today. But I hope it’s the last waiver, allowing the move later this year.

— Dan Shapiro (@DanielBShapiro) June 1, 2017

He said Trump has leverage in the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, and a hasty move could have squandered trust. Shapiro said that once all sides, including Sunni Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, are on the same page, then the embassy move would be prudent:

6. Then establish the embassy in W Jerusalem. Shatter Pal myth that Israel has no Jerusalem claims & treat Jerusalem as the capital it is.

— Dan Shapiro (@DanielBShapiro) June 1, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump to Keep U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

For a quarter century, the U.S. has exhaustively tried to broker the deal of all deals: an independent Palestinian state. And it has been seeking lasting peace in a region that has been rife with violence for a century. On Wednesday, during a meeting with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority leader, President Donald Trump expressed confidence that he would achieve what none of his predecessors have been able to.

“We will get this done,” Trump said. Striking a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians has been one of Trump’s more consistent priorities. He has appointed a former Trump Organization lawyer, Jason Greenblatt, as the liaison for negotiations. Greenblatt, an Orthodox Jew, has garnered wide praise for his willingness to listen to all of the involved parties–Israelis, Palestinians, and leaders from nearby Arab states like Jordan and Egypt.

Trump insisted he is “committed” to brokering an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians that “allows both people to live, worship and thrive and prosper in peace.” During a February meeting at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump did not explicitly support a two-state solution–sovereign states for both Israel and Palestinians–instead saying he favors “the one that both parties like.”

Abbas, speaking in Arabic, said a Palestinian state is the only solution to the decades-old conflict, calling on the pre-1967 borders–the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem–as the template for a future state. Ceding East Jerusalem, home to Judaism’s holiest sites, to the Palestinians as their future capital has long been a contentious point for the Israelis. The last stab at peace, mediated by former Secretary of State John Kerry, folded in 2014 after the two sides could not agree to the specifics of a peace deal.

According to Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, in a private sit-down with Abbas after their public remarks, Trump told the Palestinian leader that a key to lasting peace is for the PA to stop sponsoring terrorism. According to the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, the PA, which receives foreign aid, including from the U.S., pays $315 million each year to the families of “martyrs,” or men who commit suicide attacks against Israeli civilians.

For Abbas, the “occupation of our people and of our land” must end before a peaceful solution can be reached. “After 50 years,” he said, referring to Israel’s capture of the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 Six-Day War, “we are the only remaining people in the world that still live under occupation.” Abbas, like Trump, expressed confidence the quest for peace is not finished. Switching to English, he turned to Trump and said: “now, Mr. President, with you, we have hope.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump on Israeli-Palestinian Peace Deal: “We Will Get This Done” appeared first on Law Street.

Hamas, the militant group that governs the Gaza Strip, announced a new charter on Monday, aiming to bolster its appeal to the international community by adopting a slightly less militant stance against Israel. Many analysts see the document, a sort of sequel to its 1988 founding charter, as a way to stake its claim as a legitimate leader of the Palestinian people, and to recast its message in a more politically-oriented sheen in place of its traditional religious dogma.

Revealed in Doha, Qatar on Monday, two days before Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas is scheduled to meet with President Donald Trump in D.C., the document is the culmination of a decade-long attempt to retool the optics of a group that the West–and a number of Arab countries–considers a terrorist organization. Hamas’ new charter lightens the group’s tone on Israel, omitting calls for the Jewish State’s destruction–though it does call for an “armed struggle”–a stance it has espoused for decades. But it does reject “any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea,” adding:

However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.

The document envisions a provisional Palestinian state within the pre-1967 borders, known as the “Green Line.” During the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel captured the Gaza Strip from Egypt, and the West Bank and east Jerusalem–home of Judaism’s holiest sites–from Jordan. Hamas 1988 charter essentially called for the destruction of Israel, and a return to the pre-1948–the year Israel achieved statehood–reality.

Founded in 1987 as an offshoot of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas assumed control of Gaza in 2007, two years after Israel recalled its settlements in the tiny strip of land on the Mediterranean coast. Since then, Israel and Hamas have fought three wars. The group has launched hundreds of attacks on Israeli civilians, shooting rockets indiscriminately across the border, and sending assailants through tunnels that snake under the border. Hundreds of Israelis have been killed. A few thousand Palestinians have died in the fighting.

The new charter comes at a precarious time for Gaza’s leadership–and its citizens. Last week, Mahmoud Abbas–the internationally-recognized leader of the Palestinian people, and a thorn in Hamas’ side–decided to stop funding Gaza’s flow of electricity from Israel. Supplied by Israel and paid for by the Palestinian Authority, Gaza has historically relied on these two neighbors for its energy. Gaza residents already face frequent blackouts and now with Abbas’s decision to withhold the PA’s funding, access to electricity will be severely limited.

Israel, which celebrated its 69th Independence Day on Monday, is taking the new charter as the same product with new branding. A statement from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office called the document a “smokescreen,” adding: “We see Hamas continuing to invest all of its resources not just in preparing for war with Israel, but also in educating the children of Gaza to want to destroy Israel.”

A spokesman for Netanyahu, David Keyes, echoed that sentiment: “Hamas is attempting to fool the world but it will not succeed,” Keyes said. “They dig terror tunnels and have launched thousands upon thousands of missiles at Israeli civilians,” he said. “This is the real Hamas.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Hamas Policy Document Omits Calls for Israel’s Destruction appeared first on Law Street.

At a convention center on the banks of the Jordan side of the Dead Sea on Wednesday, leaders of 21 Arab states reaffirmed their commitment to a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The 28th Arab League Summit had a simple, unifying message: ties with Israel will not be fully normalized until a peace deal with the Palestinians is reached.

As the Arab world deals with a coterie of conflicts–civil wars in Syria, Yemen, and Libya; Islamic State and other terror groups; Iran’s proxy adventures and missile program–leaders showed the decades-old conflict still serves as a unifying force in the region.

The summit meeting comes as the Trump Administration mounts an aggressive campaign to strike a peace deal. President Donald Trump has not thrown his whole weight behind the two-state option, instead opting for whatever approach “both parties like.” And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has broadened his language as well; in recent speeches, he eschews the “two-state” label while still saying he supports peace.

Trump is set to meet with a trio of Arab leaders–Jordan’s King Abdullah II, Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and the Palestinian Authority’s President Mahmoud Abbas–in the coming weeks. Trump’s envoy for the conflict, Jason Greenblatt, was an observer at Wednesday’s gathering. A statement from the U.S. Embassy in Jordan said Greenblatt “listened to their views and ideas, and held a round of bilateral meetings with Arab leaders and other foreign delegations to discuss U.S. perspectives and policies.”

“He reaffirmed President Trump’s personal interest in achieving a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians and his belief that such a peace agreement is not only possible, but would reverberate positively throughout the region and the world,” the statement added.

Affirming their support for normalizing ties with Israel in exchange for a sovereign Palestinian state, the Arab leaders referenced the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative as a blueprint for a future deal. That initiative calls for a “just and comprehensive peace,” including “full Israeli withdrawal from all Arab territories occupied since” the Six Day War in 1967, in which Israel captured the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and east Jerusalem.

Israel has rejected the initiative, because it fails to recognize the Jewish people’s ties to east Jerusalem, which contains the religion’s holiest site, the Temple Mount complex. Jordan is a custodian of the fiercely contested site; Jews are currently allowed to visit, but not pray at the site. The initiative also failed to include land swaps for areas of the West Bank inhabited by Israeli settlers, which lay beyond the pre-1967 boundary, a condition Israel says is a pre-requisite for any peace deal.

But for Arab leaders, the West Bank settlements are illegal intrusions on Palestinian land. “Israel is continuing to expand settlements and undermining the chances of achieving peace,” Jordan’s Abdullah said at the summit. In their closing statement, the Arab leaders seemed to recognize the importance the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has for region as a whole, saying “peace is a strategic option” for Arab nations.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arab Leaders Throw Support Behind Two-State Solution for Israel-Palestine appeared first on Law Street.

In the words of President Donald Trump, it would be the “ultimate deal.” But it is a deal that has flummoxed the negotiating partners for 70 years: the elusive partitioning of historic Palestine into two states, Israel and Palestine. For decades, the U.S. has been a vital broker for and backer of a two-state path. But with Donald Trump in office, the standard, seemingly immortal U.S. position may be in question. In a Wednesday press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump said he is “looking at two-state and one-state” solutions, and he prefers “the one that both parties like.”

Trump’s statements cannot be chiseled in stone to represent a permanent shift in the U.S. stance. For one, Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations directly contradicted Trump on Thursday at a Security Council session on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “We absolutely support a two-state solution,” Haley said. “But we are thinking out of the box as well, which is–what does it take to bring these two sides to the table, what do we need to have them agree on?”

David Friedman, Trump’s choice for ambassador to Israel, also expressed support to the two-state solution in his confirmation hearing on Thursday. “It still remains the best possibility for peace in the region,” he said. And despite the fact that Friedman has poured millions of dollars into an Israeli settlement in the West Bank, he said settlements “may not be helpful” for peace, adding that it “makes sense to tread very carefully in that area.”

Present Dilemma: Waning Desire for a Two-State Solution

So while Trump’s envoys say one thing, he says another. Though he has not decisively aborted the two-state route, he has said he is open to other, less popular routes. But as we have seen, a fleeting statement at a press conference might not always coalesce into a sturdy position for Trump.

For instance, after he won the election, he accepted a call from Taiwan, infuriating China, which worried he would abandon the decades-old “One China” policy. Trump further compounded China’s fury when he explicitly questioned the wisdom of “One China.” But then Trump backtracked. He recently told Chinese President Xi Jinping the U.S. will recognize the longstanding policy. The threat of an unprecedented U.S. pivot subsided.

Now, a rogue Taiwan provoking Trump into undermining “One China” is not quite on the same scale as a true shift in U.S. policy regarding the two-state solution. But Trump has shown that he can be in flux, and say one thing on Monday, and another thing on Thursday.

Regardless of the American position on the intractable conflict, alternatives to the two-state solution seem to be gaining steam. It is unclear what other paths to peace would look like, but one thing is fairly clear: a slim majority of Israelis and a large minority of Palestinians still support two states. According to a Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research poll, 55 percent of Israelis, and 44 percent of Palestinians back a two-state solution. Support for a single, bi-national state is fractured in Israel, as 19 percent of Israeli Jews and 56 percent of Israeli Arabs support that idea. Thirty-six percent of Palestinians support a single state.

But despite popular support on both sides, the political will to strike a deal is withering. The Palestinian leadership is fractured among the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank and Hamas–a designated terrorist group by the U.S., Europe, and Israel–in the Gaza Strip. And in Israel, an emboldened right-wing government that is calcifying its position that a two-state solution is an impossible by encouraging more settlement growth. Netanyahu still supports two states, though of late he has primarily alluded to his position than thrown his full weight behind it.

Past Failures

It is useful to understand the history of the two-state ordeal. In 1937, before Israel was established as a state, a British commission recommended partitioning the land of Palestine into two states–one for Jews, one for Arabs. In terms of land mass, the proposed Arab state would have dwarfed the Jewish state. The Jews accepted the plan, and the Arabs declined. A decade later, in 1947, the U.N. voted for a similar partition plan. Again, the Jews accepted the internationally-backed plan; the Arabs did not, instead deciding to launch a full-scale war against Israel, after it was established as a state, in 1948.

Israel won the War of Independence but ceded the territory now known as the West Bank and Gaza to Jordan and Egypt respectively. In June 1967, Jordan and Egypt prepared to launch a second war against Israel, with the promise of obliterating the Jewish State. Israel launched a preemptive strike, won the war, and control of the West Bank and Gaza changed hands: from that point on, Israel occupied the territories that would make up any future Palestinian state.

The next opportunity–and the last true glimmer of peace–came in 2000 during the Camp David Summit. In late July, President Bill Clinton, the first U.S. leader to attempt to broker a two-state solution, announced the two sides were unable to reach an agreement. Jerusalem, which both sides claim as their capital, was the ultimate, insurmountable obstacle to lasting peace.

Future Success?

And now, nearly two decades later, here we are: Israeli settlements are slowly creeping along the hills of the West Bank; Hamas fires rockets indiscriminately into Israel; the PA glorifies violence against Israelis and praises martyrs. The two-state solution is looking more dim and unlikely than ever before.

So where does the U.S., the most important international player in the conflict, stand? Of course, before Trump, there was President Barack Obama, who, like previous U.S. administrations, steadfastly supported two states. Trump has shown less opposition to Israeli settlements than his predecessors, and he has expressed an openness to other solutions in a way that is unprecedented for a U.S. president.

But, though reading the tea leaves of Trump’s mind is a precarious business, it seems that he is in favor of two states. As many people still believe, and as U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres recently said, “There is no Plan B to the situation between Palestinians and Israelis but a two-state solution.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Does the U.S. Stand on the Two-State Solution? appeared first on Law Street.

The United Nations recently passed a resolution regarding Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian lands. The most significant takeaways from this development are that the United States allowed the U.N. resolution to be passed and the specific language included in the resolution. This is particularly true when coupled with the language used by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to criticize the United States and President Barack Obama after the resolution’s passage. Read on to find out what exactly the resolution means for Palestine, Israel, and the United States as well as the history of the conflict that led to the resolution in the first place.

The Resolution

So what does this resolution do and why has it made the leadership of Israel so upset? The U.N. resolution declares that Israeli settlements are a violation of international law and calls for an immediate end to all settlement activities. The actual determination in the resolution is nothing new, in fact, it has been the view of the international community for some time. What is new is that the Obama administration allowed it to pass without vetoing it as well as the emerging context surrounding the dispute–many are now starting to doubt whether the long sought after two-state solution is still a viable option.

After the resolution was passed, Palestinian leaders indicated that they would use the resolution to support their case against Israel in international courts, a move strongly opposed by Israel. While the condemning language and the reaction of Palestinian leaders are significant, they pale in comparison to accusations leveled by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu against President Obama. Netanyahu has effectively accused Obama and his administration of plotting against Israel and even crafting the resolution in the first place, which the Obama Administration denies.

The resolution that did pass is not actually binding; while it may condemn Israel’s actions it cannot forcibly stop them. Additionally, President Donald Trump has already vowed to veto any resolution that would actually force Israel to cease and desist settlement activities. The video below looks at the U.N. resolution:

The History of the Conflict

The origins of the conflict between the two sides go back to the 19th century. Initially, the territory in question was part of the Ottoman Empire. However, during World War I, when it was clear that the Ottomans would lose, Britain and France created their own plan for the region following the war with something known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement. This agreement effectively carved up Arab lands in the Middle East between France and the U.K., which went against earlier promises for an Arab state following the end of the war.

In 1917, the U.K. issued the Balfour Declaration, in which it announced its support of establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine. British responsibility for creating an Israeli homeland was reaffirmed by the Palestinian Mandate in 1921, which gave it control over former Ottoman lands along the terms agreed upon in Sykes-Picot. However, neither the mandate nor the earlier Balfour Declaration mentioned anything about creating a Palestinian homeland, despite the wishes of the Palestinian population.

This resentment, coupled with earlier broken promises to create an independent Arab state and the continuing and increasing Jewish migration, led to persistent conflict. In the 1930s Jewish militias helped the British put down the Arab uprising hoping to rekindle support for their independent state. Instead, they were betrayed again by yet another British agreement known as the White Paper of 1939, which would limit further Jewish migration, even as the Holocaust occurred in Europe.

After World War II the British ended its mandate in the area, transferring the land and the problems that went with it to the United Nations. The U.N. then attempted a two-state partition that instead led to more fighting and eventually the first Arab-Israeli War, which ended with an armistice in 1949. Per the terms of the agreement, Israel took control of 77 percent of the original mandate, Jordan received control over the West Bank and East Jerusalem and Egypt acquired the Gaza Strip, Palestinians did not control any territory following the fighting. This also led to a mass exodus of Palestinians and a huge refugee problem that continues to this day. The biggest flare of violence between Israel and its neighbors after this, until 1967, was a joint British-French-Israeli effort to take back the Suez Canal after it had been nationalized in 1956.

While the root of the general conflict can clearly be traced back further, the root of the modern conflict can trace its most direct route to the 1967 war, known most commonly as the 6-Day War. After a series of Palestinian attacks from surrounding countries and Israeli retaliation, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Iraq started mobilizing their militaries. However, Israel then took a surprise early offensive, decimating much of its adversaries’ air force and went on to capture a dominant victory. As a result of the victory, Israel won and occupied the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank, all of Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. In the process of the war, hundreds of thousands more refugees were forced to leave their homes and more than a million Palestinians fell under the direct rule of Israel.

Another conflict emerged in 1973 when Egypt launched a surprise attack on Israel. The attack prompted the United States to step in and seek a diplomatic resolution. After several years, Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty that included the return of the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt.

However, since 1967, there has been an almost unstoppable pace of settlement in occupied territories by Israeli settlers. As of 2013, there were over 200 settlements and outposts of Israeli settlers in lands occupied since the end of the 6-Day War, namely in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. These settlements, even the outposts that the Israeli government considers illegal, are encouraged and supported by the government through subsidies and tax breaks on housing, education, and opening new businesses.

Apart from incentives, Israeli settlers also enjoy many other advantages over their Palestinian neighbors in the occupied territories. One is a separate legal system that greatly benefits settlers over Palestinian natives who instead are governed by military law. Another is access to resources such as water, transportation, and electricity, which settlers get from the Israeli government. The settlements have led to perpetual conflict, despite numerous efforts at peace. The following video gives a good description of the roots of the conflict:

The United States, Israel, Palestine and the History of Peace Talks

Since the end of the 6-Day War, there have been several efforts aimed at achieving peace between Israel and Palestine and establishing some framework in which both peoples can have states of their own. This started with two other U.N. resolutions, namely 242 and 338, which put an end to the 1973 War and also called for Israel to withdraw from the territories it occupied. Building off of the 1973 War were the Camp David Accords, which led to Israel withdrawing from the Sinai Peninsula and Egypt recognizing it as a state. But these talks did not involve the Palestinians.

The Madrid Conference in 1991 was aimed at similar goals, namely ensuring recognition of the state of Israel. Ultimately, it led to peace between Israel and Jordan, but none of the other combatants. While the Palestinians were represented at the Madrid Conference, the first deal to actually incorporate them was the Oslo Accords in 1993. In exchange for promising to incrementally withdraw Israeli troops from Gaza and the West Bank, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, or PLO, would acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. Opposition groups in Palestine and settler groups in Israel opposed the deal, which led to violence. The agreement was never fully implemented.

Probably the closest the two sides ever came to lasting peace was the second Camp David Accords in 2000 when both sides offered land swaps, however, they were not quite enough to entice the other to agree to a peace resolution. A last ditch effort in Taba in 2001 and an Arab Initiative in 2002 both also failed. In 2003 President Bush submitted his road map to peace and became the first president to call for an independent Palestinian state. Unfortunately, another set of negotiations, the Geneva Accords of 2003, attempted to fix the same problem from another direction. Both attempts were unsuccessful. Two more rounds of talks in 2007 and 2010 seemed close to reaching deals at times but both ultimately fell short as well.

This history led President Barack Obama to seek some positive action before his term ended. Without having to worry about reelection, he allowed the recent resolution to pass. While his actions are not unprecedented, they are still controversial. Other resolutions have been passed regarding Israeli-Palestinian relations, but this was the most recent one to condemn settlements since 1980. Additionally, while Obama is not the first U.S. president to allow a resolution related to this conflict to pass without a veto, it is the first time in his presidency. The accompanying video looks at the peace process as it currently stands and the remaining inherent trouble:

Moving Forward

While the resolution is non-binding, it is not entirely toothless. What it does is create a template for future negotiations and potentially other resolutions that would be binding. While a January 15 International Peace Conference seemed to offer a forum to draft that kind of resolution, no such progress was made. Instead, the focus was mainly on reopening dialogue between the two parties and reiterating support for past ideas, such as a two-state solution and the return of land occupied by Israel to Palestine.

Aside from creating guidelines, the recent U.N. resolution also eliminated many of the legal arguments Israel could have used to justify settlements. The resolution may also lead to subsequent efforts to apply sanctions on Israeli goods made in the occupied territories or force Israel to go to the International Criminal Court.

President Trump has already denounced the resolution and promised to repeal it. However, that seems unlikely as he would have to introduce a new resolution and, like the current one, get it through the Security Council without a single veto, which is unlikely. However, Trump and the Israelis can cut funding to the United Nations, which would be significant, as the U.S. supplies 22 percent of the organization’s budget. Israel can also go after the nations who voted for the resolution, summoning ambassadors from countries that supported the resolution.The U.S. embassy, notably, was not among those targeted by Israel.

In the meantime, the settlements continue to be built and expand further into Palestinian occupied lands. There are now 600,000 Jewish Israelis living in either East Jerusalem or the West Bank where once there were none. In other words, nearly 10 percent of the country’s Jewish population lives beyond the borders established in 1967 and in territory recognized as Palestinian.

As a result, Palestinians view these settlements as an unjust seizing of the land that they would receive if a two-state solution ever came to fruition. The Israelis view these settlements as a necessary buffer and feel justified through scripture. They also contend that since Jordan, which once laid claim to these areas of land, is no longer interested in the lands, there is no sovereign power who has control over them. However, even Israel will not go so far as to claim the disputed lands in the West Bank as part of its own sovereign territory. Any solution to the problem will likely have to include land swaps, among other things, something that Israel has shown it is not totally against, such as when it abandoned a settlement in the Gaza Strip in 2005.

Conclusion

The issues in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process are not going to be resolved by one U.N. resolution. However, that was never the point as the resolution was non-binding. The idea behind the resolution was to create some type of momentum for negotiations–or possibly block the momentum of efforts that many believe run against the interests of a peace settlement. In this circumstance, the onus was put on Israel, as the international community sought to make a strong statement on settlement building.

The likelihood of reaching an actual deal depends on more than just these two countries. While the rest of the Security Council, and the world in general, have an interest, the United States has played a key role in many past peace attempts. This U.N. resolution then could signal an important step forward if all sides involved are willing to look past politics and are serious about achieving some sort of two-state solution. However, it appears unlikely that the incoming president will take the same line on Israeli settlement building, which could cause many to question the negotiation process given that most view settlements as an important obstacle to a lasting resolution.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What a Recent U.N. Resolution Means for the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this month Israeli authorities convicted 20-year-old Israel Defense Force (IDF) soldier Elor Azaria of manslaughter over the killing of Palestinian Abdel Fattah al-Sharif. The January 4 ruling has since triggered an outpouring of nationwide support for Azaria, with an estimated 70 percent of Israelis asking for a full pardon.

The incident began last March when al-Sharif stabbed an Israeli soldier in the West Bank city of Hebron. After al-Sharif was shot and neutralized, cellphone footage showing Azaria shooting the incapacitated assailant in the head went viral. Originally Azaria was going to be tried for murder, but his charges were reduced to manslaughter for violating protocol, essentially shooting at a non-perceived threat.

While the decision to press charges against Azaria may indicate that Israel is holding its soldiers accountable after decades of contentious military engagement in Palestine, others consider Azaria to be innocent of any wrongdoing, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

This past weekend, protests were held across Israel in support of Azaria. In Jerusalem one group assembled outside of President Reuven Rivlin’s home to demand the charges be dropped. Seven demonstrators were reportedly arrested after failing to follow police order and disrupting traffic. Following this event, two individuals were also arrested for ¨inciting violence¨ over social media against court officials in Azaria’s case.

Among Azaria’s supporters, some believe that the manslaughter charges could set a poor precedent for future military operations. For example, on January 8 a deadly truck attack occurred in Jerusalem when an Arab-Israeli citizen ran over a group of soldiers, killing four and injuring 15. Until service members realized that this wasn’t merely a car accident (made apparent when the truck went into reverse) the Jerusalem Post reports that some soldiers hesitated to fire knowing they could face similar charges as Azaria.

There are also some speculations that the Israeli army originally wanted to ignore the Azaria trial altogether to avoid ¨airing the military’s dirty secrets¨ to the world. According to Aida Touma-Suleiman, a Palestinian member of Israeli Parliament, Israel is particularly concerned about attracting more attention from the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its inquiries into war crimes.

“In a clear-cut case like this, it is important for Israel to look as though it is taking war crimes seriously, otherwise the ICC might itself decide to investigate,” said Touma-Suleiman. “But the case has caused problems because it has upset right-wing politicians and much of the Israeli public, who expect absolute impunity for soldiers.”

This is the first high-profile manslaughter indictment since 2005 when Taysir Heib killed a British photographer and pro-Palestinian rights activist, Tom Hurndall. Oftentimes cases involving military wrongdoings against Palestinians are simply dropped. According to MPCID (Investigations into the Circumstances Surrounding the Death of Palestinians Convictions and Sentencing) 120 out of 186  investigations into Israeli soldiers committing crimes against Palestinians were closed and only seven prompted disciplinary action.

Based on this lack of accountability for Palestinian lives, some Palestinian advocates consider the incriminating evidence caught on video to be the only reason Israeli officials are even pushing charges.

“The only difference between this case and others is this was caught on camera,” said Palestinian Knesset member Hanin Zoabi. “Hundreds of Palestinians are murdered every year and nobody pays attention to it, and only because this was on camera did it go viral in the media here and internationally and made big news —  but really it is something that happens every single day.”

Azaria could face up to 20 years in prison, which is the maximum sentence for manslaughter charges.

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Israelis Want Elor Azaria to be Pardoned After Manslaughter Conviction appeared first on Law Street.

After a discussion with Israeli officials on Thursday, President-elect Donald Trump broke decades of U.S. protocol, urging the current administration to veto a UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank. But in a UN Security Council (UNSC) vote on Friday afternoon, the U.S. abstained, flouting Trump’s suggestion, and acting in contrary to decades of vetoing similar resolutions. Fourteen of the 15 members of the UNSC voted for the resolution.

The resolution, introduced by Egypt and co-sponsored by New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela, and Senegal, called the settlements a “flagrant violation under international law” that are “dangerously imperiling the viability” of a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. Since none of the five permanent UNSC members–which includes the U.S.–vetoed the resolution, it will be adopted.

Though the UN Charter’s Article 25 calls on member states to “agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council,” a senior Israeli official said there was “zero chance” the country would follow the resolution and discontinue its settlement policy. The vote was initially set for Thursday, but Egypt withdrew its own resolution after Israel, fearing President Barack Obama would try to back the resolution or abstain, lobbied Trump to interject on the matter.

In a Facebook and Twitter message, Trump did just that, saying “peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations.” He added: “This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis.”

Both Obama and Trump upended decades of protocol. Obama’s administration did so by abstaining on a vote the U.S. usually vetoes (as Obama did in 2011), and Trump for meddling in U.S. foreign policy matters before taking office. Obama has had a fraught relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu throughout his tenure, and the abstention could be seen as a parting shot to Israel’s leader.

Netanyahu is hopeful Trump will steer the U.S. into a cozier relationship with Israel, as he has signaled his support of the West Bank settlements, which the international community largely condemns, and appointed a pro-settlement bankruptcy lawyer, David Friedman, as the next ambassador to Israel.

In a speech after Friday’s vote, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power said the settlements “seriously [undermine] Israel’s security,” but reiterated that the U.S. will continue to stand by its side. After the vote, Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, condemned the vote and tweeted, “I have no doubt that the new US administration will usher in a new era.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post With U.S. Abstention, UN Passes Resolution Condemning Israeli Settlements appeared first on Law Street.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo declared Sunday that he would sign an executive order to divest funds from any company or organization in his state participating in the Boycott, Divestment, or Sanctions (BDS) movement, a global campaign aimed at ending the Israeli occupation of Palestine through economic pressure. The Palestinian-led movement targets corporations and products that contribute to the violation of Palestinian rights, and calls for sanctions to be placed on the Israeli state.

Cuomo’s announcement took place Sunday at the Harvard Club in New York, the same day that the Governor participated in the Celebrate Israel parade along with Mayor Bill de Blasio, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and other public figures, as well as celebrities, organizations, and companies. Cuomo followed his announcement with a series of tweets in which he harshly criticized the movement and its participants:

We made a unity trip to Israel because they were under attack. Today, Israel is under attack on a different level. https://t.co/O3oXmEdnXp

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) June 5, 2016

This BDS movement is an economic attack and generating a corporate enemy to Israel. We cannot allow that to happen.

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) June 5, 2016

I am signing an Executive Order that says very clearly we are against the BDS movement. If you boycott Israel, New York will boycott you.

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) June 5, 2016

Why a state government feels the need to get involved in one of the most complex foreign policy issues of our time is unclear, but Cuomo’s actions highlight the deep roots of the U.S.-Israel alliance, in which an “attack” on Israel is treated as an attack toward the U.S. The official executive order declares that New York and Israel “enjoy a special historical relationship and share a commonly forged cultural bond,” and that the state “stands firmly with Israel.”

The order also declared the governor’s intentions to compile a blacklist of sorts, targeting companies and institutions that have participated in BDS activities and threatening to divest if they are proven to have participated in the movement. Once an organization has been added to the publicly-available list, it’s not easy to be removed: it must submit “written evidence” demonstrating that it no longer participates in BDS activities, and a “good faith” determination will be made by the Commissioner of General Services. The punishments make it nearly impossible for any organization to get involved in the BDS movement without facing major repercussions.

The order is already being criticized by many for being a blatant violation of free speech; Palestine Legal calls it a “dangerous precedent reminiscent of McCarthyism.”

The list of companies and organizations participating in BDS will be compiled in the next 180 days, according to the order. Once released, it will undoubtedly have a major impact on a large number of businesses throughout the state.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post New York Governor Andrew Cuomo Bans Boycotts Against Israel appeared first on Law Street.

The current conflict in Gaza between Israel and Hamas has been met with repeated declarations by American politicians about Israel’s right to defend itself. Now in its fourth week, the Israeli Defense Force’s “Operation Protective Edge” has claimed the lives of more than 50 Israeli soldiers, three Israeli civilians, and upwards of 1,500 Palestinians — 80 percent of whom the United Nations estimates are civilians.

With death tolls that lopsided, it’s worth taking a look at self-defense: what does each side consider it to be and do Israel’s actions legally qualify? Here’s the breakdown, starting with the origins of the current conflict.

First Shots

One common narrative to explain how the fighting started has dominated the media. That storyline claims that on June 12, members of Hamas kidnapped and killed three Israeli teenagers, prompting a massive search of Gaza and the West Bank for the victims. The kidnapping led a group of Israeli settlers to kidnap and burn alive a Palestinian teenager in a revenge attack. Hamas, it is said, then launched rocket fire into Israel in response, leaving Israel with no choice but to retaliate.

What is often buried in this narrative is that before any rockets were launched from Gaza in the current conflict, Israel led an operation in which it arrested more than 500 Palestinians while searching for the three missing teens. Nine palestinians were killed in that campaign, known as “Operation Brother’s Keeper.” More importantly, Israeli officials knew from early on that the teens had been dead — despite their claims that they were searching for the boys alive. There’s evidence that one of the kidnapped boys managed to phone the Israeli police. The boys were killed during that phone call, but the recording and the knowledge of the deaths were under a gag order that wasn’t lifted until July 1. All of this calls into question why Israeli authorities carried out their search under the misinformation that the boys may have been alive.

There’s also some confusion over who took the young men: while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu initially blamed members of Hamas as the kidnappers and murderers of the three Israeli teens, officials later admitted that they believed the culprits were acting as “lone cells.”

The question of who sparked this conflict absolutely depends on how you frame recent events. But to say that it began with Hamas’ rocket fire ignores Israel’s provocative and questionable actions.

Israel’s Right to Defend Itself

Netanyahu, President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and the U.S. Senate have publicly maintained that Israel has the right to defend itself from thousands of rockets being launched over the border from Gaza by the al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas’ military wing. The problem is that nearly all of those rockets either land in open fields or are intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome system.

While anyone can argue that any state has the right to defend itself from outside attacks, Israel is an occupying power in the Gaza strip according to international law. That means Israel needs to uphold the tenants of occupation law, which dictates that it is responsible for the safety and security of all Gazans.

Stemming from the Hague Regulations of 1907, the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and the Additional Protocols of 1977, occupation law identifies an occupation as “when a State exercises an unconsented-to effective control over a territory on which it has no sovereign title.”

Since Israel defeated its Arab neighbors in the 1967 war and took control of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights, Israel has been a military occupant in Gaza. Therefore the current offensive by Israel in Gaza is not technically self-defense. Israel can defend itself against rocket attacks, but since Hamas’ rocket attacks are coming out of territory that Israel itself controls, it must operate in accordance with occupation law, and use nothing more than police force to restore order.

Israel claims that it is no longer occupying the Gaza Strip since it withdrew 8,000 settlers in 2005. But that argument skips over the fact that Israel still maintains control of the Gazan airspace, territorial waters, and its border crossings, in conjunction with Egypt. Israel’s regulation of what goes in and out of Gaza is so strict that it even counts the calories in the food that is imported. Whatever Israeli officials may claim, evidence of an occupation abounds.

On the ground

If we forget for a moment about international law and assess what is happening on the ground in Gaza, Israel’s actions are hugely disproportionate and cannot be considered self-defense. Israel has ensured that Gaza is no threat to its civilians, through the military occupation of Gaza and through implementation of the Iron Dome. Israel’s U.S.-funded military is a giant compared to Hamas’ guerrilla fighters and collection of rockets that it can’t even aim.

Israel has claimed that it is only targeting Hamas operatives and is taking any and all precautions necessary to avoid civilian deaths. But the 80 percent civilian death toll suggests otherwise. Israel is known to use phone calls, leaflets, and “roof knocking” — hitting a building with a small missile before blowing it up — to warn civilians of an impending strike. But the civilians often have no time nor place to evacuate in the tiny, overcrowded area. Israeli strikes on Gaza are also suspected to have several times hit U.N. facilities that function as schools, shelters, and hospitals, even after being given their exact GPS coordinates. The most recent incident drew public condemnation to both sides from U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, who called it “a moral outrage and a criminal act.”

Israel’s attempts to deter criticism by claiming that Hamas stores and fires weapons near these civilian areas and uses civilians as human shields. This argument is hard to defend since, in the 140 square mile strip home to nearly two million people, you’d be hard-pressed to find non-civilian areas. This argument also attempts to absolve Israel of any wrongdoing by blaming Palestinians for their own deaths.

After multiple failed ceasefires, the current conflict seems to be coming to its final moments as Israel withdraws most of its ground troops from Gaza. To say that Palestinians are tired of being on the losing side of things is an understatement. But as public opinion about the decades-long conflict shows signs of shifting, especially in the younger generations, and as the the death toll continues to rise, some Palestinians are calling for a third intifada. Palestinians may feel that they have no choice but to rise up if Israel continually dodges international accountability.

True and swift consequences for Israel’s violations are highly unlikely to happen in the U.N. with the U.S.’ imminent veto in staunch support of its ally. And Israel never ratified the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court, and doesn’t have any legal obligations to it. Palestine, however, which is recognized in the U.N. as a non-member observer state, could accede to the Court, granting the prosecutor jurisdiction to investigate war crimes that happened in Gaza.

__

Zaid Shoorbajee (@ZBajee)

Featured image courtesy of [Mohammed Al Baba/Oxfam via Flickr].

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hamas Isn’t Entirely to Blame for Sparking the Current War in Gaza appeared first on Law Street.

It’s an all too familiar occurrence: violence has broken out between Israelis and Palestinians. This time, the fighting is over the murder of three Israeli boys and the apparent subsequent revenge killing of one Palestinian boy. Read on to learn more about the latest chapter in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

UPDATE: July 9, 2014

Why is there tension between Israelis and Palestinians?

Israelis and Palestinians have been fighting for nearly a century over the rights to the land known today as Israel. Like many contemporary Middle Eastern conflicts, Britain shoulders some of the blame.

It all started in 1916 when Britain convinced the Arab people to turn against the Ottoman Empire during World War I by promising them an independent Arab state, including Palestine. One year later, however, British Foreign Minister Lord Arthur Balfour declared that Britain supported a Jewish state in the land of Palestine. These contradictory promises laid the groundwork for the current fighting. The two have fought violent battles ever since the United Nations gave Israel the majority of land in 1947, and Israel has gradually gained more land through these wars.

For a full recap and explanation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, click here, or watch the video below.

Today, Israelis and Palestinians fight over a variety of issues. Palestinians argue that the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank are a violation of human rights, and that Jewish settlements in these lands are illegal acts by Israel to gain more land from the Palestinian people. Israelis argue that they live under constant fear from Hamas rocket strikes and terrorist attacks from Gaza and the West Bank, and that these occupations are meant to protect themselves.

Who are the major players in this conflict?

There are three major organizations interacting with each other in this story.

First is the Israeli government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It has control over the Jewish portions of Israel.

Second is Fatah, also known as the Palestinian Liberation Organization. This is the largest political party in the Palestinian regions of Israel, mainly the West Bank. The West Bank is land east of Israel that belongs to the Palestinian people. Jewish people have routinely settled in the West Bank. The legality of these settlements often come under question and are a major sticking point in peace negotiations

Third is Hamas, which took large control over the Gaza Strip after intense fighting with Fatah. Gaza is a small strip of land on the Western border of Israel. Hamas is labeled a terrorist organization by many governments across the globe and is responsible for rockets fired from the Gaza border into Israel.

Recently, Fatah and Hamas created a unity government to more effectively branch the West Bank and Gaza together. This has infuriated Netanyahu, who was previously working with Fatah to try to maintain peace.

What happened to these three Israeli boys?

On June 12, 2014, Eyal Yifrah, Gilad Shaar, and Naftali Frenkel went missing in the West Bank. A massive search ensued to find the boys. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), which led the search, detained 400 Palestinians suspected of terror activities in the process.

The boys were found buried in shallow graves on June 30 in the West Bank city of Hebron, apparent victims of an execution.

One of the teenagers made an emergency phone call shortly before he was killed. You can listen to parts of that call here:

Who kidnapped and killed them?

Israel has identified Marwan Qawasmeh and Amer Abu Eisheh, two members of Hamas, as primary suspects. The two have since fled and are being searched for by Israeli and Palestinian forces. For a good profile on the family deemed responsible for this tragedy, click here.

Hamas has denied responsibility for the attacks and is claiming that the two men acted alone, not as representatives of the organization.

How has Israel’s government responded?

The Israeli government does not believe Hamas’ claim distancing itself from the killing. Netanyahu has said that Hamas will pay and referred to the killers as “beasts.” Watch his full statement below:

Hours after the boys’ bodies were found, Israel launched air strikes on the Gaza Strip. Israel says that these are retaliation for both the murder of the three Israeli boys and for the resumption of rocket fire from Gaza into Israel. The homes of the suspects were also destroyed.

Israel has moved ground troops to the Gaza border, but claims it is not seeking escalation, but rather that this is a defensive tactic.

How have the Israeli people responded?

The majority of Israelis and Palestinians have not reacted to this tragedy with racism and violence; however, those who have reacted this way are threatening to ratchet up tension and violence in a country that already has high levels of both.

On July 2, 2014, 16-year-old Palestinian boy Mohammad Abu Khieder was found murdered and badly burned in a forest section of Jerusalem. Authorities in the area have concluded that Kheider was most likely killed by Jews in an act of revenge.

Many Israelis have come out strongly against the killing, including family members of the Israeli victims. The Frenkel family released a statement that said, in part, “There is no differentiating between blood and blood, murder is murder, whatever the nationality or age.”

Shelly Yachimovich, an Israeli politician, referred to the killing as “a barbaric challenge to the sovereignty of the state, to the army, the police, the courts, and the government.”

This revenge killing is not the only example of a visceral reaction from Israeli citizens. Watch this rally of mourners turn into an angry protest. The protesters are screaming “death to Arabs.”

Thousands of Israelis have posted on a Facebook group calling for vengeance over the death of Israelis. The moderators of the group claim that they are not calling for the murder of innocents, but for the murderers of the three boys to be brought to justice. Some comments, however, appear to support the revenge killing of Khieder.

This, along with reports of random attacks against Palestinians by Israelis, has created a very tense environment.

How are Palestinians responding?

Palestinians are outraged over the revenge killing of Khieder, and the protests are already getting violent. Some have responded by clashing with Israeli security forces. Protesters have been throwing molotov cocktails and stones at security, who have been responding in kind with tear gas and stun grenades.

Watch this Associated Press report about the clashes:

There are also reports that hundreds of Palestinians lit train stations on fire in east Jerusalem.

Hamas has stated that they are also uninterested in escalating the conflict, but are having trouble convincing rogue militants to hold their fire.

Conclusion

The execution of three Israeli children, the revenge killing of a Palestinian boy, and the return of Gaza rockets are all dangerous developments for Israelis and Palestinians. Both sides need to exercise caution and restraint in order to spare more lives.

UPDATE: July 9, 2014

On July 8, Israel began Operation Protective Edge, a military offensive that has attacked more than 450 targets in Gaza. Different sources report different casualty numbers, but according to public health officials in Gaza, 35 people have been killed by these attacks, including 16 children.

This operation is a response to a massive number of rocket attacks on Israel coming from Hamas in Gaza. Hamas has fired more than 160 rockets at Israel in the past week. These rockets are reaching further into Israeli land than they ever have before. Warning sirens have sent Israelis running for bomb shelters, and many schools have canceled classes.

All observers agree that this is the worst violence the region has seen since 2012. The Israeli military has called up 40,000 reserve troops, 10,000 more than were called up in 2012. With Netanyahu’s supporters pressuring him to use ground troops and Hamas trying to prove they can stand up to Israel, the death toll and number of rocket strikes are likely to rise.

Resources

Primary

Jewish Virtual Library: The British Palestine Mandate

Additional

Global Issues: The Middle East Conflict: a Brief Background

Guardian: Air Strikes Hit Gaza as Israel Blames Hamas

Breaking Israel News: Bodies of Three Kidnapped Teens Found by IDF

Buzzfeed: Who Are the Kidnappers?

The New York Times: Deeply Divided Israel Unites in Grief

The New York Times: Israel Mobilizing Forces Around Gaza

Jerusalem Post: US Says Hamas Involved in Death of Three Boys

Yahoo: Hamas Member Killed After Death of Three Boys

The New York Times: US Envoy Blames Distrust for Problems

The New York Times: Arab Boy’s Death Escalates Clashes

Buzzfeed: Revenge Attack on a Palestinian

Fox News: Palestinians Clash With Israeli Police

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kidnapping and Revenge: The Latest Chapter in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict appeared first on Law Street.