To achieve peace, hold U.S. aid until Israel stops building on disputed land

Under the disputed and polarized interpretations of the historical facts regarding Palestine and Israel are universal principles and paths for a mutually beneficial peace.

One principle: The U.N. was created on the principle to end the use of force to gain control over land. The U.N. authorized the creation of the modern Israel. When Israel and the U.S. repeatedly ignore U.N. legal findings and resolutions like Resolution 242 regarding Israel’s expansion onto disputed land, Israel is undermining the source of its very creation.

A second principle: the more powerful neighbor should be the more magnanimous. A magnanimous neighbor is a welcomed and admired neighbor anywhere and anytime. On the other hand, throughout history, a neighbor whose goal is about controlling more land, and who uses violence to take its neighbor’s land, is an expansionist neighbor. Expansionist neighbors are not wanted anywhere anytime.

A path that lacks consistency: After the U.S. vetoes U.N. resolutions against the settlements, the U.S. tells Israel that new settlements are a roadblock to peace. But then the U.S. gives Israel unconditional aid that subsidizes building more settlements. How do Congresspersons explain their votes on these inconsistencies?

A consistent path toward peace has been a long-standing resolution in the Iowa Democratic Party platform: Eliminate U.S. aid to Israel until she stops building settlements on disputed land. This would change U.S. aid from a subsidy for expansionist, illegal settlements to a subsidy for a mutually beneficial peace.

Clark Rieke

Cedar Rapids