Proceeding from a simplistic perception of regional stability, Washington utilized the surrogate strategy to control the outcomes of regional interactions in the Middle East and chose Israel to play the role of regional surrogate. But Israel, in many cases, instead of maintaining regional stability on behalf of the US, served its own interests which were not always consistent with US interest in regional stability. The Israeli violations, however, were either condoned or even approved by the US administrations. These reactions comprised what this chapter addressed as a pro-Israel model of intervention.
The pro-Israel intervention represented the US foreign policy reaction when the violation to regional stability was committed by Israel. The cases discussed above were evaluated against the US reaction to Israel’s regional behaviour; in terms of whether the Israeli behaviour served or hampered US interest in maintaining regional stability and whether or not the US opposed Israel when it acted in ways that the United States deemed undesirable. It was concluded that, as a general rule, Washington was ready to intervene to address any violation to the status quo in the Middle East system except when this violation was committed by its regional surrogate. Israel had contributed directly in destabilizing the Middle East system (pushing the system out of its equilibrium point) in several cases, four of which have been discussed above. 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. During this crisis President Eisenhower credibly threaten to withhold US aid to Israel after the Suez War. This balanced policy towards the conflicting parties rendered the Middle East system in a better equilibrium and cleverly de-escalated an international crisis.
To keep with the “true neutrality” the United States initially refused to aid either side with supplies or economic assistance. Once the battles became entrenched and a “war of attrition” began, the European nations continued to look toward the United States for aid. As American financial institutions and exporters sought guidance from Wilson’s administration they received a different answer: “short term loans and credits by American financial institutions to belligerents in connection with trade were acceptable” (Zieger, 11). Americans could not over look the potential economic boost that could be achieved by supplying the European nations with food, supplies and weapons orders being requested.
Madison tried to solve his problems by talking to the leaders of Britain and France. “If you agree to stop attacking.” Madison said, “.the United States will stop trading with your enemy”(Hart 168). This reveals how at first, intervention seemed so farfetched and out of the question, and intervention was a first priority.
In the Middle East, by July 1956, tensions were rising. The Egyptians were denied funds from the Us, Britain and the World Bank for the creation of their Aswan dam to affiliation with the Soviet Union. In desperate need of funds for the dam project, the Egyptian government had nationalize the Suez Canal Company, froze its assets in Egypt, and proposed to use canal tolls to pay for the dam (Hillmer, 1999, p. 226). In fear of the Egyptians cutting off the transportation of Arabian oil and Asian goods, the British, French, and Israel secretly planned an attack on Egypt. Meanwhile, the Israelis and the Arab states, including Egypt, were having an arms race. Israel was concerned with self-preservation while the Arabs, who had opposed Israel's creation, wanted to destroy it. The Americans opposed the British, French, and Israeli invasion of Egypt because it didn't want to offend the Arab states where US oil companies were drilling. On the other hand, the US was wiling to supply Israel with weapons if the Soviet Union sent arms to the Egyptians. Such military support could inevitably have lead to a nuclear war. Through ties with Britain, Canada was expected to aid in the invasion pf Egypt but Canada was reluctant and saw how much actions might put their relationship with the Americans in danger.
Since the beginning of time, war has been the go to method for a conflict resolution. War itself has sparked turmoil. Yet no matter how many protest, war will most likely remain the best way to solve a global issue until the day peace has been unanimously settled. The war of 1812 lasted about 3 years. Britain's efforts in restriction the U.S. trade lead to this war. America had taken numerous devastating losses, such as the capture of Washington D.C. The ratification of the Treaty of Ghent on February 17, 1815, ended the war. The war of 1812 was known as second war of independence and was called the beginning an era of partisan agreement and national pride, or the “Era of good feelings”. “The Era of good feelings” was an inaccurate label for
At the end of the 18th century, an undeclared war was going on between the United States and France because of the recent XYZ affair; triggering a positive reaction by Federalists like Fisher Ames to convince the authorities to make the war official. Not knowing what to do, President John Adams appointed former-President George Washington as commander of the army to hopefully resolve the issue with France through diplomacy (as was Washington's stance).
In his book, “Woodrow Wilson Revolution, War, and Peace” by Arthur Link, Link walks step by step through President Woodrow Wilson’s career beginning from the time he was born and focuses on his role during and after World War I. Through his entire book, Link acts as an apologist for the actions of Wilson as well as argues against the opinions of other historians. Link speaks about Wilson almost as if he idolizes him; as if despite what other historians and public opinion might say that he can do no wrong.
Washington’s farewell address mainly focused on foreign policy, but he does express concern for his other ideas such as religion and unity. Today’s foreign policy differs from what Washington had hoped for through his Farewell Address but, his policy today would have many different positive and negative manifestations. With his strong use of diction that strengthens his tone as well as his appeal to ethos, Washington’s address has definitely played a role in America’s current position today.
The Middle East has since time immemorial been on the global scope because of its explosive disposition. The Arab Israeli conflict has not been an exception as it has stood out to be one of the major endless conflicts not only in the region but also in the world. Its impact continues to be felt all over the world while a satisfying solution still remains intangible. A lot has also been said and written on the conflict, both factual and fallacious with some allegations being obviously evocative. All these allegations offer an array of disparate views on the conflict. This essay presents an overview of some of the major literature on the controversial conflict by offering precise and clear insights into the cause, nature, evolution and future of the Israel Arab conflict.
As he sat down to compose his congressional address proposing war, the uncertainty of his decision. overwhelmed him. He confided to a member of his cabinet, Frank Cobb, that He had never been as unsure about anything in his life as the judgment he made for the nation (Baker 506). Through a rhetorical analysis of Wilson’s points of argumentation and his style in the presentation to the war. congress, we can gain a better understanding of the president’s purpose.
The United Nations General Assembly 36-103 focused on topics of hostile relations between states and justification for international interventions. Specifically mentioned at the UNGA was the right of a state to perform an intervention on the basis of “solving outstanding international issues” and contributing to the removal of global “conflicts and interference". (Resolution 36/103, e). My paper will examine the merits of these rights, what the GA was arguing for and against, and explore relevant global events that can suggest the importance of this discussion and what it has achieved or materialized.
Since the inception of an Israeli nation-state in 1948, violence and conflict has played a major role in Israel’s brief history. In the Sixty-One year’s Israel has been a recognized nation-state, they have fought in 6 interstate wars, 2 civil wars, and over 144 dyadic militarized interstate disputes (MIDs) with some display of military force against other states (Maoz 5). Israel has been involved in constant conflict throughout the past half century. Israel’s tension against other states within the Middle East has spurred vast economic, social, and political unity that has fostered a sense of nationalism and unity in Israel not seen in most other states. Over the next several pages I will try and dissect the reasons for why the nation state of Israel has been emerged in constant conflict and how this conflict has helped foster national unity and identity among the people of Israel.
BIBLIOGRAPHYSachar, Howard M. A History of Israel From the Rise of Zionism to our Time.Yalowitz, Gerson, U.S. News and World Report, "How Bad Can it Get?" December 10, 1990, Vol. 109.____________, A Letter From Israel, Halva, Jerusalem (1992).__________________, Israel Today, Halva Press, Jerusalem (1992)._______________, U.S. News and World Report, "A Chilling Effect With Israel," (December 31, 1990), Vol. 109, p. 14.
The Middle East has historically rebuked Western influence during their process of establishing independence. When Britain and France left the Middle East after World War II, the region saw an unprecedented opportunity to establish independent and self-sufficient states free from the Western influence they had felt for hundreds of years. In an attempt to promote nationalistic independence, the states of the region immediately formed the League of Arab States in 1945. The League recognized and promoted the autonomy of its members and collaborated in regional opposition against the West until 1948 when Israel declared independence. Israel represented then and now an intrusive Western presence in the Arab world. The ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict typifies this cultural antagonism. The Cold War refocused attention to the Middle East as a site of economic and strategic importance for both sides, yet the two hegemons of the Cold War now needed to recognize the sovereignty of the Middle Eastern states. With their statehood and power cemented, the Middle Easte...
...ed to nationalize the Suez Canal through which three fourths of all European oil is passed. After several months of negotiations Britain, France and Israel attacked Egypt and retook the canal. United Nations condemned their actions and forced them to give up the canal to Egypt once again. As a result of the Eisenhower convinced Congress to approve the Eisenhower Doctrine that would “assist any nation in the region that required aid against aggression from any nation controlled by International Communism.” The Eisenhower administration was very careful not to alienate any Middle Eastern countries that could provide the country with a steady supply of oil and this affected his foreign policy and the policy of containment.
For example, in 1898, the U.S got involved in the Spanish-American War for the purposes of helping Cuba gain independence. After guaranteeing the independence of Cuba, the U.S created the Platt Amendment, an amendment to a U.S army appropriations bill. It had 8 conditions in which Cuba had to agree before the withdrawal of U.S forces. One of the conditions mentioned an agreement to sell or lease territory for naval bases to the U.S. On the map, “The Spanish American War” by Joy Hakim, it displays U.S exerted control over multiple islands in the Pacific Ocean between 1867 and 1903 (Hakim). The Platt Amendment allowed us to have U.S naval bases in Cuba, which was beneficial to our military because we have more power in multiple parts of the world. These actions were the justified actions to take because it gave the U.S an advantage in further preventing and protecting their power and resources.