On March 20, President Barack Obama visited Israel for the first time since his presidency began. This visit occurred in order for President Obama to repair the damage done to his administration’s “Israel friendly” image. He accomplished this by reaffirming the relationship between Israel and the United States and addressing the security threats that Iran and the general instability in the region pose to Israel.

On this visit, President Obama affirmed “America’s commitment to the state of Israel,” announced that, “Israel will receive approximately $200 million this fiscal year” and claimed that “the only way for Israel to endure and thrive as a Jewish and democratic state is through the realization of an independent and viable Palestine.”

In my book, Obama was one for three: I do not support “America’s commitment to the state of Israel” nor do I support providing Israel with foreign aid; I do, however, support a two-state solution.

My first concern regards Israel’s human rights violations. According to Amnesty USA, “for decades, the Israeli authorities have held Palestinians without charge or trial under renewable detention orders, denying them any semblance of justice.”

A U.N. Human Rights Council report found that during conflicts in Gaza, Palestinian children were being used as human shields and “civilian targets, particularly homes and their occupants, appear to have taken the brunt of the attacks, but schools and medical facilities have also been hit.”

My second concern is that Israel is guilty of violating U.N. resolutions and sanctions. In 1979, during apartheid in South Africa, weapons shipments to South Africa accounted for 35 percent of Israel’s weapons exports. Israel provided South Africa with “training and weapons systems that helped the South African military suppress internal revolts against apartheid.”

The provision of weapons and military assistance to South Africa was the subject of U.N. Resolution 181. The resolution “[called] upon all states to cease the sale and shipment of arms, ammunition and military vehicles to South Africa.” The sanctions became mandatory on November 4, 1977, so Israel clearly violated the mandatory sanctions, but was never held accountable for its actions.

Furthermore, according to international law Israel is an apartheid state. The treatment to which the Israelis subject the Palestinians is analogous to the treatment of non-white persons in South Africa during apartheid. Palestinians are subjected to military checkpoints, discriminatory marriage laws, separate roads, economic isolation and “inequities in infrastructure, legal rights, and access to land and resources.”

A two-state solution would provide the Palestinian people with their own state, end the “Jewish-only settlements, separate roads for Israeli and Palestinian citizens, military checkpoints, discriminatory marriage law, the West Bank barrier, use of Palestinians as cheap labour, Palestinian West Bank enclaves, inequities in infrastructure, legal rights and access to land and resources between Palestinians and Israeli residents in the Israeli-occupied territories […]” and therefore provide Palestine with the means of self-determination.

Given Israel’s violation of human rights and U.N. resolutions and sanctions, one has to wonder why the United States continues to ally itself with the state of Israel. I have found that the popular narrative is that Palestine is a “terrorist” state, Israel faces existential threats and the Israeli-American alliance is geopolitically strategic.

I disagree that Palestine is a “terrorist” state. Given Israel’s human rights violations and occupation of Palestinian land (Israel has no right to land beyond its pre-1967 borders), I argue that the Palestinians largely act in self-defense.

Admittedly, Iran has stated that it intends to annihilate Israel with the nuclear weapons that it is attempting to acquire. However, warring with any country purely based upon rhetoric and the acquisition of weapons is not good policy, nor does it correspond with international law. As it stands, Iran currently does not pose an imminent threat to Israel’s existence.

The only truth that I see in the argument for America’s support for Israel is that the American-Israeli alliance is geopolitically strategic. Israel’s location enables it to “move forces from front to front rapidly, allowing for sequential engagement” of enemies.

All this considered, Israel should be left to its own devices. The United States should no longer intervene in Palestinian and Israeli conflicts unless that means pursuing or facilitating a two-state solution.

—Jeremy Markel is a junior from Dunwoody majoring in communication studies

(3) comments

Swazz en Hinger
Swazz en Hinger

What view are you entitled to have on the issue? Have you ever been to Israel? Nearly every day they're attacked with explosives from their "neighbors" who target Israeli children and blow themselves up for no logical reason. Their reasoning is just as illogical and unwarranted as this horrible job of an opinion piece.

Ask North Korea, Iran, Palestine, Iraq, and whoever else what they think of your chief source the "UN". The UN has never accomplished anything worth mentioning. Leave Israel to their own devices and let them have another 7 day war, then the Arab world might actually be civilized.


This piece reflects poorly on the author and the editor. Not due to the stance taken, as that is inconsequential in an opinion piece. Rather, due to the ignorance of the author and his failure to better educate himself before voicing his opinion. Sometimes it's best to remain quiet until you are more educated on a subject. Otherwise you make yourself look foolish as seen above.


Jeremy, don't you remember the Middle East Peace Summit in 2000 at Camp David between Bill Clinton, Yassar Arafat and Ehud Barak. In a nut shell, the Palestinian  Authority was given the opportunity to have their own state at that time.  Most all of their demands were agreed to by Israel. All they had to do was agree to live in Peace with Israel...to agree that Israel had the right to exist. This was the best opportunity for the Palestinians to have their own state and be a peace. Clinton really wanted this so he would be forever known as the President who brought peace to the Mid East. Arafat turned them down!  He rejected the offer!  He and the Palestinian Authority did not want to make peace, they failed to grasp this opportunity for a Palestinian State.  There cannot be peace if one side does not want it.

As a budding journalist, you should be a little more informed. You are acting like a low information writer.    

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.