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 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
The religious rhetoric of the American President George W. Bush has raised many debates in the study of politics, it becomes clear to everybody that believing in the Bible prophecy could have profound political outcomes, and for George W. Bush, he believed heavily that God called him to office in order to spread democracy and protect America from the evil-doers. This idea started precisely since the events of 9/11 which changed the course of the American political regime from domestic to foreign interests. This section, then, introduces the words and messages of G. W. Bush towards Israel, and shows his huge support to the Jewish. Therefore, the American President admitted in his dialog with the Palestinian minister Nabil Shaath that he is conducted
The impact of variety of lobbying groups on the US foreign policy has been an issue for debate for a long period. Since US foreign policy inevitably shapes the entire globe, numerous lobbying groups recognize its power and tend to shape their agendas in favorable manner. Despite variety of interest groups in US, particularly focused on Washington DC, Jewish lobby is deemed as the most successful. In the context of the foreign policy, the US presence in the Middle East and democracy-oriented reforms recently define the attempts and goals of the Israel lobby. Since the Middle East has been critical and strategically important, lobby’s task is to influence not only the US government but also the public perception on the invisibility of interests. In addition, Israel’s strategic position during the Cold War or alliance in the War on Terror may be justifiable reasons for further mutual cooperation between two countries. Due to the Israel’s isolation in the Middle East and constant perceived threats from Arab countries, US has been its greatest ally as well as diplomatic and material supporter. Moreover, direct causal relationship between US and Arab countries such as Iraq, Syria or Iran has developed mostly due to close ties with Israel as their direct enemy. Therefore, the US policy on terrorism issues, nuclear development or similar issues in the region is
John Kerry is the current U.S. Secretary of State under President Barack Obama. He has made many contributions to the conflict in the Middle East more commonly known as the Arab-Israeli conflict. John Kerry generally supports the Palestinian side of the conflict. But at times he has also expressed support for Israel, who is also a U.S. ally, although some would say that he must pick one side to support. In December of 2015, Kerry has said many times that he believes a two-state resolution is the only route to resolve the ongoing conflict and would allow both groups to control their own pieces of land that they can each call official countries for their ethnic groups.
“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 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 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
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.
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.
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
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 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
President George W. Bush in his June 24, 2002 address to the nation said this:
Keeping these thoughts in mind I will investigate some key issues that affect the progress towards peace in the region including the relationship that exists between the United States and Israel; the 2002 Road Map to Peace and why it failed; and finally the effect of Arafat?s death and the implications for the future.