The relationship between the State of Israel and the United States of America has blossomed into a significant bilateral alliance. The ‘special relationship’ between the two countries has been the driving force behind much of the progress of the United States’ push into middle east democracy, and has helped place Israel in the company of countries who will stand by her in times of trouble. As of late, there have been increasing pushes by the Untied States for Israel to once again enter into peace talks with the Palestinians, a topic which seems to be the source of constant international commentary. These developments have brought to the forefront a rather interesting facet of the Israeli/American relationship, one which this author …show more content…
Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon went on record calling Kerry “obsessive” and “messianic. ” Although ad-hominem attacks do little to reflect on wide-sweeping foreign policy aims of a country, it is clear that the Israelis feel as though Kerry, and on a wider basis the US, are motivated more by making themselves look like the brokers of peace, than in any actual peace settlements that would result. Ya’alon went so far as to accuse Kerry of caring only about receiving a Nobel Peace prize as his motivation behind the peace talks. Others have repeated these sentiments, as accusations flew that the apparent goal of Kerry and indeed Washington as a whole, was to use the latest round peace talks, and any potential progress resulting from them as a “bragging point”. Negative sentiments towards John Kerry didn’t stop with Ya’alon, although his were the most pointed at Kerry himself, many others spoke out regarding the effects negotiations would have on Israel regardless of how such negotiations would make the US look: Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz – “It [is] impossible to expect Israel to negotiate with a gun to its head,” Meretz leader Zehava Gal-On – (On the Americans) “I respect them, but their policies are incorrect, ” Economy Minister Naftali Bennett – “Flawed decision making on the part of the US government has endangered the security of Israel,” and perhaps most severe of all, Likud MK Moshe Feiglin claiming that
The role of the Middle East has been very crucial to the United States, especially after WWII. The U.S. had three strategic goals in the Middle East and consistently followed them throughout various events that unfolded in the region. First, with the emergence of the cold war between the Soviet Union and the U.S., policymakers began to recognize the importance of the Middle East as a strategic area in containing Soviet influence. This also coincides with the U.S. becoming increasingly wary of Arab nationalism and the threat it posed to U.S. influence. Secondly, the emergence of the new Israeli state in 1948 further deepened U.S. policy and involvement in the region while also creating friction between the U.S. and Arab states which were
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has proven to be one of the most complex and “intractable” conflicts of modern history – or as some may even add – of all time. And after many decades of failed attempts at peacemaking in this region, there still seems to be no conceivable end to the conflict. During those same decades, most of the parties involved as well as the international community have embraced the idea of a two-state solution, but the question we pose today asks whether this solution is still a viable option considering the present context, and if not, is it finally time to consider a one-state solution? This essay will argue that although a two-state solution remains the more
The Jewish State tries to convince other nations that Israel is only working towards good things. “...Israel and America...stand together because we are fired by the same ideals and inspired by the same dream, the dream of achieving security, prosperity, and peace...” (Source A). This excerpt from a speech given by Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, shows him almost advertising the progress Israel is making to solve international issues. With this, he is also trying to show his reasoning for Israel’s lack in human rights. “...My Friends, We are gathered here today because we believe in those ideals. And because of those ideals, I am certain that Israel and America will always stand together.” (Source A). The U.S. is allies with Israel, which means the they are not allies with Arab states, such as Iran. In Netanyahu’s speech, he uses the U.S. support to challenge Iran and other Arab states about their lack of respect and recognition of Israel as an international figure. One of the tactics the Jewish state uses to convince international authorities of their “right to exist”. “...The future of the Jewish state can never depend on the goodwill of even the greatest of men. Israel must always reserve the right to defend itself…” (Source A). One of the parts, to Israel, of international recognition, it the promise to always reserve the right to protect
“The United States recognizes the provisional Government as the de facto authority of the new State of Israel.” These are the words of President Harry Truman from a speech he gave shortly after Israel became a recognized nation in 1948. Consequently, the political leaders of the United States have brought America on a rough journey to the current state of foreign policy and relationship with Israel. Since 1948, the United States’ active position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has seen very little change or progress towards achieving settlement between these two nationalistic states. In the last 65 years, the majority of U.S. presidents repeated mistakes made by their predecessors in office, and this in turn has had little
The Israel-Palestine conflict is one of the most long-term, pressing, and largely confounding social, political, and national quandaries of our age. Since we have been moving with surprising velocity into the vast horizons of globalization, the conflict has built up tremendous momentum and has called into question the adequacy of our current attempts at coming to a peaceful resolution that can simultaneously and successfully address both sides of the struggle. The purpose of this paper has been to understand the prospect of a two-state nation solution for Israel and Palestine. The discussion arises a retrospective view of the context behind the present analysis. We begin with a discourse that informs the reader of the historical narrative between the Jewish inhabitants of Israel and the Palestinians who also seek to live in the lands which comprise Israel. At the forefront of the discussion are some key issues such as trends in Israeli settlement expansion over time, the manner in which these settlements create political challenges towards the prospect of a two-state solution, and the fragmentation of power within Palestinian political parties which inhibit the opportunity for proper negotiations amongst the two parties. Finally, we delve into a discussion on nationalism, it’s importance in the discussion of a two-state solution, and the challenges posed when trying to formulate US Foreign Policy towards the matter.
Despite current misconceptions of the tensions between Muslims and Jews, the current political conflict began in the early 20th century. The Palestinians, both muslims and christians, lived in peace for centuries. Control of the city had historically, since 637 AD, been under Muslim control with guarantee of Christians’ safety, right to property, and right to practice religion. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire led to European nations colonizing many of its former lands, and the British gained control of Palestine. Social and political issues prompted European jews to flee from political unrest from their homes in Europe, and migrate to Palestine. Seeing the influx of Jews as a European colonial movement, the Arabs fought back. The British couldn’t control the violence, and in 1947 the United Nations (UN) voted to split the land into two countries. The continued political unrest in the Middle East is the cause of United States involvement.
This essay will focus on how theorists of peace and conflict have analysed the conflict in recent history. Especially, the peace process after the first Palestinian intifada and the 1993 Oslo-agreements will be analysed. In addition, this essay will shed light on the involvement of the United States in the
The Arab-Israeli conflict, initiated over one-hundred years ago and still continuing, has confounded both policy-makers and citizens; despite the best efforts of foreign leaders, only one substantial accord has materialized in the decades of negotiations: the Israel-Egypt peace treaty of 1979. Before one undertakes to understand such a complex topic as the Israel-Egypt peace treaty, however, a broad knowledge of the historical background of the two countries involved is essential to understanding the motivations and aspirations of both parties, which in turn will shed light on the peace treaty itself. Foreign policy can’t be viewed in a vacuum; rather, each country must be viewed as a nation with legitimate historical and political
On behalf of the State Department I was involved in an Israeli foreign policy and decision-making simulation where members were to agree upon various minimal peace terms and implementations. This brief for General H. R. McMaster will provide the most thorough analysis of the outcomes from this simulation to provide the best suggestions for the United States involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The opening remarks by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were that the ministers must agree in consensus or the proposition shall not pass, the cabinet must decide on their most minimal peace terms, and at the conclusion of deliberations all ministers must agree or resign. (February 27 Minutes) Netanyahu met
Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s current Minister of Foreign affairs, plays an important role in the ongoing conflict involving the Jewish and the Palestinians, the Arab-Israeli conflict. From the time he was in college to today, he’s been referred to as a more radical person. His actions toward the conflict involve the Lieberman Peace Plan and other proposals. Even though he himself is not the biggest fan of the Palestinians, he still strives for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, though his methods may be somewhat biased or harsh in some peoples eyes. Because he does strive for peace, his future plans involving the conflict consist of making peace with surrounding areas, and carrying out his proposed peace plan creating a two-state
President George W. Bush in his June 24, 2002 address to the nation said this:
For many centuries, Judaic and Arabian societies have engaged in one of the most complicated and lengthy conflicts known to mankind, the makings of a highly difficult peace process. Unfortunately for all the world’s peacemakers the Arab-Israeli conflict, particularly the war between Israel and the Palestinian Territories, is rooted in far more then ethnic tensions. Instead of drawing attention towards high-ranking officials of the Israeli government and Hamas, focus needs to be diverted towards the more suspect and subtle international relations theory of realism which, has imposed more problems than solutions.
After more than 50 years of war, terrorism, peace negotiation and human suffering, Israel and Palestine remain as far from a peaceful settlement as ever. The entire Middle Eastern region remains a cauldron waiting to reach the boiling point, a potent mixture of religious extremism, (Jewish, Christian and Islamic), mixed with oil and munitions.
Since the early 20th Century, Israelis and Palestinians have been fighting over the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. With the assumption that Palestine is a state to facilitate discussion, this report sketches out the most significant elements of the conflict on the three levels defined by Kenneth Waltz, and applies the Realist theory of international relations (IR) to the “Two-State” solution.
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been an issue that definitely defined The U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Israel is an ally of the U.S. that receives a lot of foreign aid from the states. It’s a priority for the U.S. to protect Israel so it’s obvious where its’ loyalty lies. Israel also has good relations with Egypt; Egypt is crucial to the security of Israel, so that makes them an automatic ally that receives quite a bit of funds as well. It’s an on-going issue that makes pointing out allies clear as well as seeing who the top