Article:
Harris’ stance on supporting a Palestinian state has incited passionate comments from a myriad of global security experts, who caution that this could inadvertently provide a reward for terrorism. In September 2021, she echoed a call for a two-state resolution during an interview with AJC, demonstrating support for the idea that the fundamental rights of both Palestinians and Israelis should be respected.
The key issue at hand, as opined by Fred Burton from the Centre for Strategic Studies, is that the act of rewarding terrorism can lead to an escalation of violence. Acknowledging the Palestinian national struggle can be seen as spurring ‘terroristic activities’, especially if Palestinians perceive this acknowledgement as an endorsement of their tactics. Rewards, tangible or intangible, often provide incentives for the continuation of such activities.
The implications of Harris’ stance are profound, particularly moderating peace negotiations. Her supportive words could inadvertently nudge the involved parties towards dead ends. This creates a challenging scenario where concessions may be seen as rewards rather than compromises to reach an agreement. It is a paradox of peace-making that while it emboldens dialogues, it weakens the possibility of meaningful compromises.
Critically, it’s not just peace negotiations that could be affected. Widespread acknowledgement of the struggles faced by Palestinians can also increase sentiments, which propels terrorism. This is due to historical reasons that have bred deeply rooted hatred and anger. Validating these struggles can simulate a sense of righteousness, thereby amplifying the emotional fuel for terrorism.
Harris, in her considered statement, underscored that a resolution must take into account the rights of both Palestinians and Israelis. She highlighted that a two-state solution should be negotiated directly between the two parties. While her intentions for peace seem clear, experts argue that the situation is far more complex.
In the same manner, Harris emphasized America’s commitment to Israel’s security. And here lies the conundrum – how to express sympathy for the Palestinian cause without inadvertently inciting or rewarding those who employ violence? Successfully navigating this question is crucial in shaping the outcomes of the conflict.
Jim Phillips from the Heritage Foundation expounded on this further, the seemingly innocent quest for recognition could promulgate violence in a situation where there is already a backlog of unresolved disputes. Up to this point, violent conflicts have only resulted in deep-seated resentment and more violence.
Finally, it’s not only about accepting two states but is also about the principles that support the foundation of a Palestinian state. If these principles give room to terrorist organisations or breed a culture of terrorism, it’s likely to result in an unraveled security situation.
In retrospect, moving forward requires a careful balancing act. It should not be perceived as a reward for terrorism, but as a peaceful means to resolve a long-standing issue. This narrative is essential in shaping public opinion, the views of Palestinians, Israelis, and the International community, leading hopefully to a lasting peaceful resolution of the conflict.
In conclusion, while Harris’ intentions seem reasonable, the ripple effects of her statements have raised alarm among experts. As this conflict is layered and multifaceted, a resolution must tread lightly, ensuring peace negotiations do not inadvertently stimulate or reward violence.
