The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is a dangerous and volatile situation that has attracted American attention for some decades. The conflict is a sensitive subject that produces strong emotions in people. This conflict deals with Jewish nationalism, distribution of resources, and politics.
Since the eruption of Israeli-Palestinian hostilities in September 2000, the United States has faced the dilemma of formulating a policy response. The nature of the violence is clear and almost predictable in its routine. Not so U.S. policy, which has been ambivalent—so ambivalent that it may well have become a factor in prolonging the violence itself (Palestinian Cease-Fire Compliance, 3-6).
While the causes of the Oslo breakdown are the subject of debate, even contradictory explanations tend to converge on a single point: the Palestinian Authority (PA) under Yasir Arafat refused to conclude a comprehensive peace agreement with Israel. The hostilities, whatever view one takes of their immediate causes, have been characterized by Palestinian initiation of armed attacks against Israeli military personnel and civilians, both inside Israel and in the West Bank and Gaza. They involve shooting attacks on Israeli soldiers and civilians; murder on highways through sniping and roadside bombs; shelling of Jewish residential areas; and, most destructively, suicide bombings in Israeli cities (Singer, 3-12).
Yet the United States initially did not identify Palestinian malfeasance as the source of the violence. And as the battle enters its second summer, U.S. policy continues to be marked by ambivalence. True, the United States has not abandoned Israel, but it criticizes most measures adopted by Israel at any given time. It does not oppose Israel exercising its right to self-defense in principle—merely in practice. It regards terrorism as a distinctive "evil," but denounces Palestinian terrorism and Israeli retaliation as equally "unacceptable." It points occasionally to Palestinian failure to dismantle terrorist organizations.....
