91B0FBB4-04A9-D5D7-16F0F3976AA697ED
C9A22247-E776-B892-2D807E7555171534

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has spilled over into 2003 with the double suicide bombing attack on Jan. 5 that left 23 civilians dead as well as the two attackers. As Israel's parliament, the Knesset, prepares for elections (scheduled for Jan. 28), Israeli leaders have vowed to step up military action against militant operations. "Pre-elections terrorist attacks in Israel tend to play into the hands of the terrorists by increasing votes for parties on the right who also want to foil any potential for substantial territorial compromise," says Yael Aronoff, assistant professor of government at Hamilton College.

The U.S. Administration seems to be postponing attention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict until after a potential invasion of Iraq. Aronoff says, "It is true that, if successful and supported by moderate Arab states, there may be additional leverage that can be exerted on both parties in the aftermath of a successful military operation. This proved to be true after the Gulf War when the U.S. pressured Syria, Israel, and a Palestinian delegation to hold the first open and direct negotiations between the parties in Madrid. However, the chances of such a coalition including moderate Arab states are much lower today."

Aronoff continues, "One way to gain this support as well as increase sympathy toward the U.S. in the Middle East would be to prioritize pushing both the Israelis and Palestinians toward negotiations on a permanent resolution of the conflict. Although resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would not appease Al Quaida, who is against the existence of Israel, it would diminish the base of support and sympathy for terrorism in the Middle East."

"Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would do more for the war against terrorism than would an invasion of Iraq. Invading Iraq is a gamble which tries to respond to future worst case scenarios instead of likely probabilities," says Aronoff.  "Invading on the basis of worst case scenarios that do not pose an imminent threat today is likely to create a self-fulfilling prophecy in terms of Iraqi cooperation with terrorists and a future attack against Americans or the United States itself. The probability is that Iraq is deterrable and that it will not use weapons of mass destruction against Americans unless pushed into a corner."

Aronoff researches and teaches courses on international relations, U.S. foreign policy, security and the Middle East peace process. She received her Ph.D. and MIA in political science and international affairs from Columbia University and received her B.A. in international relations from Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs and Public Policy. Aronoff worked as a Jacob K. Javits Fellow in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and was Assistant for Regional Humanitarian Programs in the Pentagon's Office of Humanitarian and Refugee Affairs. She has also interned with a variety of international and domestic human rights and refugee non-governmental organizations. She has published articles including "When and Why Do Hardliners Become Soft? An Examination of Israeli Prime Ministers Yitzhak Shamir, Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and Benjamin Netanyahu," Profiling Political Leaders and the Analysis of Political Leadership: The Cross-Cultural Study of Personality and Behavior, eds. Ofer Feldman and Linda Valenty (Westport: Greenwood, 2000) and "Domestic Determinants of Israeli Foreign Policy: The Peace Process From The Declaration of Principles With The PLO to The Interim Agreement With The Palestinian Authority," The Middle East Peace Process After the Oslo Agreements, ed. Robert O. Friedman (Gainesville: Florida University Press, 1998), co-authored with Myron J. Aronoff.

Help us provide an accessible education, offer innovative resources and programs, and foster intellectual exploration.

Site Search