It’s hard to imagine any other country’s birthday eliciting the imported camels, guest D.J.s, and other large-scale celebrations that will adorn Cornell and many other college campuses this year, as the State of Israel turns 60 years old. As co-President of United for Peace and Justice in Palestine — as well as a Jew with strong attachments to Israel — I am both excited and ambivalent about this kind of celebration. Part of the glory of this 60th birthday is our recognition that Israel, despite the existential dilemmas it faced in its youth, is here to stay. But I also want this to be a time of self-reflection. Israel today still faces a lot of the problems that plague young countries, and although many of them are decidedly internal, the most glaring one is the continuing problem of settlements in the West Bank and the way we, as Americans, support them.

Since the late 1960s, the Israeli government has been shifting segments of its civilian population to Palestinian areas occupied in wartime in a clear affront to international laws. The settlers are of two distinct varieties. Some are fundamentalists, who believe that all of biblical Israel should be part of the modern state. Others simply want the economic opportunities possible in moving out of the cramped urban spaces of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

If there is one catchphrase that gets thrown around all of the lectures at Cornell regarding Israel and Palestine, it is the two-state solution — suggesting a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem and the West Bank — and touted by most as the ideal solution to the territorial dispute. It is seen as the ideal way to keep a Jewish state and allow the disenfranchised Palestinian people a state of their own. Yet Israeli settlers, given economic incentives to move into the West Bank by Israeli governments, today control roughly 42 percent of the land. So where then is the room for two-states?

This is the aspect of the dialogue severely lacking at Cornell. In defending and celebrating Israel, we ignore the main obstacle of the two-state solution: the Israeli government’s active colonization of Palestinian land in the West Bank, an area from which — unlike Gaza — no rockets have come in recent memory.

This is why I see no contradiction between my role as co-president of United for Peace in Palestine and my support of Israel. Some of those who consider themselves pro-Israel and pro-Palestine are interested in getting the last jab about who as a larger claim to victimhood. I argue that there are some things most of us can agree upon, even if our opinions do not all line up. Our discussion of the conflict will only begin to revolve around peacemaking — as opposed to finger pointing — when we are no longer overly celebratory of essentialized identities and opinions, and really dig in to specific issues.

Settlements are one of these issues. In addition to the occupation in general, they are one of the largest barriers to the two-state solution, which will guarantee an Israeli state for another 60 years, and this is not lost on Israeli politicians. Ariel Sharon has been very clear about his hopes that the settlements will make a lasting solution to the conflict with the Palestinians impossible without mass population transfer (what most would call ethnic cleansing). The point here is that the settlements were created by one faction of Israeli society, and many in Israel, including moderates and liberals, are strongly opposed to their construction.

Does this matter in America? As citizens of the country that supplies Israel with the greatest amount of aid funding every year, we can encourage our government to add stipulations on how that aid gets spent. This entails countering the incredible influence of the Israel Lobby, represented most notably by AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and their supporters on our campus. In their unconditional support for Israel’s policies, these groups are implicated in the goals of the Israeli right-wing of settlement expansion and thus, perpetual conflict with the Palestinian people.

America’s tacit support of the settlements via AIPAC and similar groups is actually detrimental to Israel because it jeopardizes the two-state solution. This view, advocated by the Union of Progressive Zionists and the 2002 Road Map for Peace, is often seen as an affront to Israel’s existence. In truth, I think that this is the only way to guarantee it. 60 more years will only be possible if Israel — like any nation — recognizes its flaws and attempts to mend them. The only other roads are toward one state, or something like apartheid South Africa. Happy Birthday, Israel. You’re never too old to make a change.

Maurice Chammah is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be contacted at mac249@cornell.edu. Send your Guest Room submissions of 750-850 words to opinion@cornellsun.com