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.
This situation undercuts Washington’s efforts to promote democracy abroad and makes it look hypocritical when it presses other states to respect human rights. U.S. efforts to ... ... middle of paper ... ... West Bank or its broader regional agenda. Open debate will expose the limits of the strategic and moral case for one‐sided U.S. support and could move the United States to a position more consistent with its own national interest, with the interests of the other states in the region, and with Israel’s long‐term interests as well. To sum up: Jews wield immense power and influence in the United States. The “Jewish lobby” is a decisive factor in US support for Israel.
These fears came about from the fact that Syria was generally pro Ba’... ... middle of paper ... ...o-Western Iraqi government prompted Chamoun to seek U.S. help and intervention. The U.S. could not deny this request because to do so would have consequences for the West’s political and military influence in the region. Using the Eisenhower Doctrine, the United States landed its troops in Beirut. By doing so, the United States acted towards its own interests in the region and solidified its role in crushing Arab nationalism. This intervention also solidified the perception of the U.S. as being imperialists in the region.
Directly after World War II the US effectively “shut the door” on all communist nations. A red scare descended on the US as the iron curtain enclosed around Eastern Europe. Mistrust and misunderstanding led to decades of arms races and close calls with a people that helped us to defeat Hitler and Japan. Meanwhile, the “open door” in China was slammed in our faces by our own ignorance and suspicion. Though the confrontationist policy of the US may have been an effective tool to use in wartime while dealing with a dictator, it was not correct to use in peacetime.
The first argument is in his discussion of the Israeli view to rightfully possessing the West Bank. This argument is supported by the Israeli perception that Biblically they have a right to this land but the author disproves this argument by pointing out how other Arab nations view this occupational standpoint as one that is very hollow. Other Arab nations view Israeli governmental financial and protective b... ... middle of paper ... ... which not only has been shown by history but is also reflected in the author’s analysis. This viewpoint most likely comes from my personal conscious assumption and general knowledge of the subject and how it has been an issue of great debate and animosity between both sides involved. A question that I had prior to this piece and one that was not really addressed by this article is why did the Camp David Summit of 2000 fail?
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... ... middle of paper ... ...996. Print. Huntington, Samuel P. Political Order in Changing Societies.
Their relationship was worsening due to this, as Russia was less likely to talk peace if they believed America’s leader was weak. Two years earlier, when Eisenhower was still p... ... middle of paper ... ... Limitation Talks 1 (SALT 1) in 1972. In this the two countries agreed to limit some types of missiles and to hold talks of limiting more. It is a result of the Cuban missile crisis as both countries learnt that having a lot of missiles and weaponry is not a good thing as it could very easily cause a war.
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.
Since either side did not want to enter into negotiations, there could be no settlement between them. Small compromises between the two s... ... middle of paper ... ...d stability throughout the region. For there to be peace and stability throughout the region, Jordanians and Palestinians must have a new mindset and work towards a peace process while working together on a new foundations. Much of the conflict was due to different parties being stubborn and unwilling to compromise on peace and stability throughout the region. For the Arab-Israeli conflict to be solved there has to be numerous steps taken beginning with Israel.
The partition plan that was going to be put in place after WWII was rejected by the Arabs because it violated their right to choose their own destiny, and they stated that they would make Israel’s life impossible. Then, the Oslo Accords seemed like a great way to solve the conflict because it met the Palestinians right to self- determination and made possible the State of Israel recognition by the Palestinians, except that two big mistakes were made; it did not create a Palestinian state and the United States refused to put pressure on Israel when it started to expand its o... ... middle of paper ... ...ria. Attacking the problem at its roots would prevent future terrorist groups to rise up. It is clear the US military intervention in Iraq was a mistake because it left the country more unstable than it was before and it triggered the anger of many people that had feared foreign occupation, but President Obama’s unwillingness to intervene and put pressure on Maliki to stop his actions against the Sunnis was also a mistake. As with the Yemen conflict, the government has to gain the trust of the different groups and ensure them that they will not be oppressed again.