These crises, in spite of their negative effect on regional stability, witnessed minimal US reaction. For example, in the Six-Day-War and the volatile period that followed it; known as the phase of no war and no peace, it was supposed that Washington had a definite interest in intervening swiftly to addres... ... middle of paper ... ...US support for Israel, contributed in making US interests more magnetic targets for outraged groups. This relation is not the only grievance of these groups, of course, but it is a central one, and it makes advancing other U.S. interests more difficult. However, it is worth mentioning that this general rule of US inactiveness in the face of the Israeli adventures was broken only once, namely, in the Suez Crisis, when the US intervened to address the imbalances caused by the tripartite aggression against Egypt in 1956, and forced Israel to relinquish the territories it had occupied; the Sinai desert.
This also causes uprises since people want to free themselves from this dictator who makes their life hell. The Israel Lobby, the fight against Wahhabism, and the exploitation of other countries’ resources are only a few examples of US foreign policy. The US does so much more stuff which cause instability and conflict and uprisings in these areas the US interferes in. The US just has to interfere with all international affairs and it even interferes with domestic affairs in countries which the US considers to be important. The US foreign policy is primarily based on it keeping its global hegemony.
So the jewish lobby supports whichever party has the most beneficial foreign affair... ... middle of paper ... ...t almost happened. One may argue that the reason for it's quick disappearing from the media was because of the general american view on Islam and its practicers. For example the USA have entered numerous wars on the background of a "war against terror" supposedly launched by the 9/11 terror act performed by muslim terrorists. Since the American government is currently in war, trying to destroy muslim terrorists. They don't want the population realizing any other enemies, and especially to not have compassion with muslims.
Without he... ... middle of paper ... ...lims and Jews have different religious views, but only the Jews are violating the other party’s religious rights. If Palestine was granted statehood, no longer would its residents be having their rights violated, but their interpretation of the word of their founder would be upheld. Israel has a strong economy, and no one can argue with that, but an economy is not the most important facet of a strong, stable country. Its national security is threatened because Palestinians are sick of oppression, and the Israeli ideas do not coincide very well with the Palestinian ideas of government. As King Abdullah II said, Israel needs to move past the violence and occupation, to create better lives for all of the people living there.
Israel had the military might and international support to control this region (see appendix c). Under Yasser Arafat the country was brought together as he declared Palestine to be a State (Al Jazeera 2009). He worked to negotiate peace, yet his rule was marred with corruption and discrimination. So while he worked to move Palestine forward as a State there was resistance from the internatio... ... middle of paper ... ...e potential to lower the unemployment rate by increasing demand. Additionally, there is an advantage to making trade agreements with regionally as it will allow Palestine to be seen as an independent State (Botta and Vaggi 2012, 226).
Peace in the Middle East is their great enemy, which will deprive them of a great issue to mobilize money and support for their war against America and Arab regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. There is no way any peace agreement can satisfy their demands, because they wish Israel not to exist at all. Israeli worries about coalition deals with Arab states behind its back are understandable and such deals have to be avoided. However, a more forceful U.S.engagement in the peace process, which will result in security for Israel and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state alongside it, is a key interest of both the United States and Israel. All the better if such an outcome will "appease" the mode... ... middle of paper ... ...endations about confidence-building measures should be a first step in reviving the peace process one year after it collapsed.
Each group denied the existence over the other and so ensued the struggle over controlling the same territory. Although the Arab-Israeli Wars brought drastic changes to the Arab nations by dispelling the idea of Arab unity, it had the most significant effect on Israel , because it turned Israel into a powerful nation and a force to be reckoned with by the surrounding Arab nations in the Middle East. Before the war of 1967, Israel was a small territory surrounded by members of the Arab League who backed the destroyed country of Palestine. These Arab nations did not recognize Israel as a nation in the Middle East , because they did not believe that Zionism could be used as nationalist movement . They saw the Zionists as Europeans and members of the Western world who were not Arab and did not have attachment to the territory.
I believe that the Palestinians must be given their rights. I fully understand that Israel is extremely concerned about it’s safety as it is mostly surround by enemy’s however I do not believe that the oppression and ultimate control of the Palestinians will bring this safety they long for, but do the very opposite instead. Works Cited (1986). Holy bible. (NIV ed.).
The policies and attitudes toward Palestinians deal with demographic issues that dictate the political environment in the state of Israel. The identity and borders of the Jewish state are incredibly complex to define. Some Israeli officials have extracted Israeli settlers from the Gaza Strip and constructed a barricade in the West Bank; while supporting contentious legislation that would prevent any Palestinian who married an Israeli to become a citizen of Israel. Aimed at preserving the primary population of Jews in the state, these decisions are a pillar to maintaining the national survival of Israel. Forcing Israelis to face a concrete and delicate question about their national identity has not surpassed religious and cultural differences and had resulted in a multicultural identity.
For one, elected officials had to curry favor with their constituents if they wanted to remain in office. Beyond that, though, this public outpouring was symbolic to others of Israeli intentions, which perhaps shaped Palestinian public sentiment as well. This inkling is empirically verifiable in that strong public support of a two-state solution allowed for prosperous negotiation in Oslo (120). Such a notion is even reverse causal in Dowty’s conclusion on public relevance where he argues “Even if Camp David had ended with an agreement, it is highly doubtful that Barak had the political stamina to carry through his amb... ... middle of paper ... ... reading too, in that it theorizes that states will be more likely to take actions if they have a wide backing among the international community. In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this thesis on the salience of norms matters in understanding why Palestinian people feel the right to a state in the first place.