Participants in a discussion panel held that the United States and Israel are following an agenda of colonization of Arab regions during a Monday event sponsored by Hopkins Students for a Free Palestine (HSFP).
Carl Messineo, from the Partnership for Civil Justice, argued that U.S. government, like the Israeli government, is firmly pursuing an agenda based on "a policy of colonization of regions of Arab lands and people."
At the forefront of the discussion was the question of Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and whether the occupation of Arab nations should be tolerated anywhere in the Middle East.
"It is impossible to understand the war in Iraq without understanding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," said Hussein Agrama, a graduate student and member of HSFP. "It's through this type of discussion that people become educated on the issues."
The speakers began by providing some background on the current state of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is essentially a fight for control of land," said Geoffrey Aronson, a member of the Foundation for Middle East Peace. "In that sense, it's a zero sum game--if you have it, then I don't."
Aranson described the ongoing efforts to solve this conflict as a "roadmap," a step-by-step process that will eventually end with the creation of a Palestinian state. The major stumbling block, according to Aronson, is Israeli settlements, which are scattered throughout the West Bank and Gaza, which came under Israeli control after Jordan and Egypt invaded in 1967.
In order to successfully implement the next step in the "roadmap", Israel will have to do two things: 1) They will have to dismantle any settlements established after Sharon's election and 2) They will eventually have to implement a complete freeze on settlement expansion.
But according to Aronson, this is not a practical option for the Israeli government.
"The settlement system is based in Israeli law and political organization," said Aronson. "[Dismantling the settlements] would only be possible in the context of a government willing to evacuate Israelis."
The root of the problem, according to Aronson, is the fact that the Likud government doesn't really want a Palestinian state and has no incentive to freeze Israeli settlements. Aronson predicted that the issue of settlements creates a deadlock that will prevent the "roadmap" from achieving its goal: the eventual creation of a Palestinian state.
According to the panelists, the failure of the "roadmap" and the presence of Israeli settlements in Palestine are extremely relevant, because there is similar situation in terms of the U.S. policy toward Iraq.
Messineo compared Bush's intention of a "benign occupation" of post-war Iraq to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and the existence of settlements in the disputed territories.
"There really is no such thing as a 'benign occupation'," he said, "because occupation can only be maintained in the presence of a military force."
"The U.S. does not really want to deal with humanitarian aid," said Messineo. He argued that the war with Iraq is not a humanitarian mission, but rather a political move to ensure the expansion of global capital and the status of the U.S. as a superpower. These factors, which have very little to do with the stated goals of the Bush administration, set a dangerous precedent for the occupation of post-war Iraq, said Messineo.
Alan Shapiro, founder of the International Solidarity Movement, seconded this view, saying that the current Israeli occupation of Palestine sets a precedent for the future U.S. occupation of Iraq. Shapiro, who lived for a year and half in the West Bank town of Ramallah, described the Israeli occupation as a state of "constantly perpetuated violence" against individuals.
"Any conception of what you will do during the day is not up to you--it is up to the military," he said.
He criticized the Israeli settlements in the West Bank, saying that in taking away the land, the Israelis are effectively destroying the Palestinian economy, which is largely based in agriculture.
"There are 400,000 Israeli settlers in the occupied territories and 2.2 million Palestinians in the West Bank," he said. "The settlers have the ability to choke off their livelihood, even though they are one-fifth the size."
He compared these economic effects to the role of the U.S. in post-war Iraq, arguing that if U.S. companies are allowed to control businesses and oil wells, Iraq's future "will be squeezed and controlled by the occupation."
For Iraqis and Palestinians alike, Shapiro stressed the importance of national self-determination and warned of the danger of having the Iraqi reconstruction take place under U.S. direction. "It is better to use the established structure than to have foreign countries employing the Iraqi people."
He warned that a long-term U.S. occupation of Iraq will only exacerbate the current problems in the Middle East.
The panel discussion provoked mixed responses from the audience.
"I thought they did a really good job of reminding us that these are not mutually exclusive and isolated issues," said Maha Jafri, sophomore. "The Israeli-Palestinian issue becomes separate from other Middle East issues because of very clear U.S. issues ... when they are very close and related."
Brooke Neuman, also a sophomore, argued that there was little connection between the Arab-Israeli conflict and the U.S. war with Iraq.
"The three panelists who spoke could come up with nothing concrete to relate the two "occupations,' other than the speculations of the aftermath of Iraq," said Neuman. "People need to understand that the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza is to protect the citizens of Israel, and that U.S. preemption in Iraq is a situation apart.
