How can the US end the conflict with a phone call? I think that is unlikely because I suspect those phone calls have already been had.
And really the only way we are resolving this is by actually solving the underlying issue, which is that there are a set of people essentially locked up in a prison for 30 years and/or slowly being shot by settlers in the West Bank.
Press release: "We're halting all arms shipments to Israel". There's even a legal basis for it, the so-called "Leahy laws" [1]. Israel cannot exist without hte largesse and political cover the United States provides.
I agree about solving the underlying issues and the injustices that have historically taken place but the above is intended to answer the question and engage in analysis rather than arguing the merits, which is likely an unproductive conversation.
Israel is a net exporter of arms. Israel supplies a long list of countries with technologically advanced and strategically important weapons systems that are difficult to substitute. A US embargo would be economically painful, but Israel is perfectly capable of living without US military aid and exports.
- Giving up access to the Temple Mount for a peace treaty with Jordan
- Repeatedly offering peace deals to the Palestinian leadership following the Oslo Accords ('2000 Camp David Summit, '2001 Taba Summit, '2007 Olmert offers etc.)
> Shlomo Ben-Ami, then Israel's Minister of Foreign Relations who participated in the talks, stated that the Palestinians wanted the immediate withdrawal of the Israelis from the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, and only subsequently the Palestinian authority would dismantle the Palestinian organizations. The Israeli response was "we can't accept the demand for a return to the borders of June 1967 as a pre-condition for the negotiation." In 2006, Shlomo Ben-Ami stated on Democracy Now! that "Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well."
Multiple members of Clinton's negotiating team also dispute that interpretation:
> Robert Malley, part of the Clinton administration and present at the summit, wrote to dispel three "myths" regarding the summit's failure. First myth, Malley says, was "Camp David was an ideal test of Mr. Arafat's intentions". Malley recalls that Arafat didn't think that Israeli and Palestinian diplomats had sufficiently narrowed issues in preparation for the summit and that the Summit happened at a "low point" in the relations between Arafat and Barak.
> The second myth was "Israel's offer met most if not all of the Palestinians' legitimate aspirations". According to Malley, Arafat was told that Israel would not only retain sovereignty over some Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, but Haram al Sharif too, and Arafat was also asked to accept an unfavorable 9-to-1 ratio in land swaps.
> The third myth was that "The Palestinians made no concession of their own". Malley pointed out that the Palestinians starting position was at the 1967 borders, but they were ready to give up Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, and parts of the West Bank with Israeli settlements. Further, the Palestinians were willing to implement the right of return in a way that guaranteed Israel's demographic interests. He argues that Arafat was far more compromising in his negotiations with Israel than Anwar el-Sadat or King Hussein of Jordan had been when they negotiated with Israel.
---
2001 Taba Summit
[2]
> A new round of talks was held at Taba in January 2001, during the last few days of the Clinton presidency, between President Arafat and the Israeli foreign minister, and it was later claimed that the Palestinians rejected a "generous offer" put forward by Prime Minister Barak with Israel keeping only 5 percent of the West Bank. The fact is that no such offers were ever made.
They’ve fought them all before and repeatedly won. Before they had US funding, before they had nuclear weapons, before they had an overwhelming advantage in material and technology.
US funding of Israel is used to buy votes in the US, and to buy some influence in Israel, it will not change the military situation much.
Israel hardly needs those arms to continue their war in Gaza. It's nice, certainly, and the precision weapons help reduce Palestinian deaths, but Israel does not require it.
You also forget that Israel has fought all its major wars without the US.
And Israel's GDP is ~500billion, of which ~25b is spent on defense. So, that 3.8b would be a dent, but not insurmountable.
Economic measures could be a different story, but pulling that lever on an an ally of 75+ years would damage the US's credibility. Not to mention to the domestic impact in the US. I don't think any decision makers weighing national interest would go there.
Plus, if the US successfully isolated Israel, it's highly likely the whole region would be at war in short time. Hard to imagine the West not getting involved again at that point, except now in a significantly worse position.
The issue is not the genocide in Gaza. The issue is restocking iron Dome, and the ability for Israel to defend against attacks from Hezbollah and Iran… assuming other powers don’t change their stance towards Israel.
The lack of working Iron Dome would mean that Israel would have to go on a big offensive. The lack of US aid will elevate Israel's war posture, not decrease it. People seem to keep forgetting this is an existential war for Israel, there is no clear end goal for Israel's enemies besides its destruction. Of course Israel will never "give up", give up what? Its existence?
Palestinian leadership has not shown willingness to take peace offerings that would improve the lives of their people
- '2000 Camp David Summit offer
- '2001 Taba Summit offer
- '2007 Olmert offer
In fact, during the peace talks between '2000 and '2001, the Palestinian leader at the time, Arafat, with control over the main armed faction in PLO at the time, Fatah, has failed to thwart the waves of violence against Israeli citizens, for the following 4-5 years, known as the Second Intifada.
No, but completely eliminating Israel isn't (and shouldn't be an option), so hopefully 1967 borders is where it can end. Israel returns occupied territories, Palestine/Hamas stops wanting revenge for everything Israel has done, international community puts pressure on both sides to accept that. Probably not gonna happen, but I think it's the optimal outcome.
And really the only way we are resolving this is by actually solving the underlying issue, which is that there are a set of people essentially locked up in a prison for 30 years and/or slowly being shot by settlers in the West Bank.