My Comparison of Different Perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian Situation

                  In a recent opinion column for New York Times, Thomas L. Friedman wrote about the increased radicalization of the Israeli government that has been signified by the absolute rejection of a two-state solution and by the new Defense Minister Lieberman.  The previous defense minister was removed following his condemnation of an Israeli soldier who shot a Palestinian.  Netanyahu and Lieberman have both shown support for the Israeli soldier and the killing.  According to the author, this step was only a small part and “meanwhile, Israel sinks ever deeper into a de facto binational state controlled by Jewish extremists”. This article only briefly touches the issue of religion in regards to Israeli-Palestinian relations, but it does quote the army’s deputy chief of staff who said these killings resemble the events that took place in Europe and symbolized its descent into the Holocaust.  It is not clear whether the author is in favor of a secular approach to government, but he is very clear that he believes the extremist Jewish views are only damaging the country.  The perspective provided in this article demonstrates one side of the Israel-Palestine conversation.

                  In the book Jerusalem, Jerusalem: How the Ancient City Ignited Our Modern World, James Carroll writes about a different perspective.  The book’s central assertion is that Jerusalem, the Holy Land, has ignited a religious fervor throughout history.  The religious fervor and captivation is the key to creating sustainable peace.  Instead of viewing religion as a dividing force, Carroll views it as a force that can bring people together.  Jerusalem, the symbol of the three main monotheistic religions, has this power to bring people together.  Although the book emphasizes the importance of religion, it makes certain to draw important distinctions.  In the final section the book, the author emphasizes the fine line between secular and sacred.  In order for there to be peace, Jerusalem must not be viewed from a secular or sacred perspective but somewhere in between.  It goes further and emphasizes a balance between humanist views and religion.  Ultimately, however, the author believes that Jerusalem and everything it signifies is necessary for creating sustainable peace.

                  These two writings demonstrate incredibly different opinions on how to solve the crucial problem that exists between Israel and Palestine.  Despite their differences, both writers emphasize the need for a solution.  It is no longer and issue that can be avoided and pushed aside.  Besides obvious humanitarian reasons for quickly finding a solution, politicians and individuals should be motivated by the potential for a peaceful future.  The first step to peace is education.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/25/opinion/netanyahu-prime-minister-of-the-state-of-israel-palestine.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FIsrael&action=click&contentCollection=world&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=7&pgtype=collection&_r=0