Essay On The Rearmament Of The War

Furthermore, the involvement and conflict-resolution approaches of the international community during the South-African ordeal differed greatly from those of today, since Israel has a more complex relationship with the United-States than South-Africa ever did and an international boycott of Israel would ultimately fail as it would be interpreted as a repetition of the Holocaust, which began with the simple slogan “Don’t buy from the Jews” and which no one in their right mind desires today! (5)

The Suez Crisis was an incident that first commenced on the 29th of October, 1956, in which Israeli military forces entered the Sinai Peninsular and attacked Egyptian positions, driving them back. By the next day, Israeli forces had reached the Suez Canal, after taking a majority of the Sinai Peninsular. (Best, Hanhimaki, Maiolo & Schulze, 2008, p.432). Britain and France then both issued an ultimatum, for both Israeli and Egyptian forces to withdraw from the Suez Canal, citing its safety from the violence of war as extremely important. After Gamal Abder Nasser, Egypt’s President at the time, rejected the ultimatum, on the 30th

Since the middle east had rich oil the Soviet Union and western powers fought for territory and influence. The Soviet Union tried to control the countries Iran and Turkey, but the U.S. won them over by giving them military help and financial aid. But the Arab nations betrayed the U.S. trust by helping Israel their enemy. The Soviet Union saw that and saw that as an opportunity to take the Arab countries.

When it comes to international conflicts, countries choose a side to fight with, creating alliances between nations. A variety of factors such as the advantages they will be able to receive from each other are always put into consideration. The 1956 Suez Crisis was fought over the control of the Suez Canal, and brought together the alliance of three influential and dominant countries; Britain, France, and Israel (Pearce 215). These nations hoped to gain numerous benefits such as western domination, being able to remove Nasser, Egypt’s president from power, a stronger military force, security, and control over the Suez Canal for their country by being allies during the Suez Crisis.

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

Back in 1948 when Israel was founded, World War II was over, and the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union was just beginning. This paved the way for the United States to make a strategic move that has shaped the course of American policy to this day. In order to attempt to keep communism from spreading to the volatile region that is the Middle East, the United States created an unwritten alliance with the only country in the Middle East that was willing to do so: Israel. Fast forward to present day and the Cold War is no longer relevant to the purpose of “special relationship” between the US and Israel, but many new benefits have arisen that make the alliance worth maintaining. Critics of the alliance cite the idea that Israel receives more in aid than the United States get in return in benefits and that having Israel as an ally is more of a burden than it is worth. The three main categories in which the United States receives benefits from its alliance with Israel are political, economic, and military. Although critics of the United States’ alliance with Israel believe it is much too burdensome, the political, economic, and military benefits outweigh the negatives and make maintaining the alliance valuable in the future.

The United States has engaged in numerous international interventions in the Middle East. The two major events that have shaped the politics of U.S. foreign policy, Israel, and the Arab states are the Suez Crisis of 1956 and the Six Day War of 1967. President Eisenhower and President Johnson each took different approaches while confronting these crises. The personalities, motives and predispositions of the Presidents and their circle of closest advisors explain how they shaped their policies and how they responded to the events. The decisions these Presidents made have had a long-lasting effect on the region. Over the course of this paper, I will compare Eisenhower’s policies in the 1956 Suez Crisis and Johnson’s policies in the 1967 Six

“The Soviet-Egyptian arms deal of September 1955 seemed doubly troubling because it signaled new departures both in Soviet assertiveness in the region and in an Arab state’s receptivity to Soviet aid.” (Hahn 151)

Osama bin-Laden and his supporters have claimed their hostility toward the West is partly a result of the United States' past support and involvement with Israel. U.S. involvement began during the conflict between Egypt and Israel, Great Britain, and France when their diplomatic intervention persuaded the countries to withdraw. The United States, however, continually supported Israel by aiding them financially and militarily. Israel proceeded to engage in the Six Day War of 1967, which caused the oil producing Arab States to issue a 15 percent reduction of oil production and an embargo of shipments to the United States. The October War soon broke out in 1973, and the same countries issued yet another reduction, this time a 25 percent reduction, causing the United Nations to call a cease-fire. The Arab nations and Israel both refused direct diplomatic relations with one another, solidifying their conflictual positions. American administrations however became intent on breaking the diplomatic barriers between the two groups. This brought the Arab nations and Israel into the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. Large advances in the acclimation of peace were facilitated by America's Henry Kissinger in 1973. The Camp David Accords were drafted, facilitated by U.S. President Jimmy Carter, and Israel and Egypt were promised large amounts of amounts of military aid, and the two countries signed a peace

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.

Throughout the Cold War, the United States aimed to contain communism all over the globe. The Middle East was a strategic location, considering that it contained a huge percentage of Earth’s oil, which was a vital resource, while the Suez Canal was a key feature, due to its geographical location. By diminishing the influence of communism in the Middle East, the United States achieved its objective of spreading its political and economic ideals. American actions in the Middle East predominantly were aligned with U.S. value of capitalism. Despite the fact that, some of these actions in this region such as Operation Ajax and the Suez Crisis, contradicted the value

Also, another issue was there had been a power vacuum caused by the loss of prestige by Britain and France. As such, the Soviet Union was posed to step in and fill this void. Nasser was spreading his Pan-Arab policies and forming “volatile relationships’ with Syria and Jordan. The US wanted to fill that void before the Middle East comes under Soviet influence (Eisenhower Doctrine, 2009).

On May 15, Anwar Sadat, the Speaker of the National Assembly would visit Moscow, where he would be told by the Soviets that Israel had planned to invade Syria during the May 16 through May 22 time frame, all of this would prove to be false. Soviet intelligence cited the fact that Israeli troops parading in western Jerusalem, for Israel’s Independence Day, were doing so without heavy weapons, which they said were being amassed along the northern border with Syria. The reason as it turns out they were devoid of weaponry during their parades is to ease Arab tensions in the area. Sadat would pass this information along to Egypt and President Nasser, who would then parade Egypt’s forces through Cairo along its way to the Sinai Peninsula (Cleveland, 2009).

The political issues between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 20th century resulted in global complications. Each of the major powers were attempting to spread their respective ideologies to emerging countries all around the world. While there was never any physical fighting, during the Cold War period the US and the USSR were always on the threshold, ready to fight. Nasser, Egypt’s president, was an independent leader who sought to develop Egypt’s economy and country. In order to do this he did not desire the engagement of foreign powers, but these goals required money that he did not have. As a result, he was forced to ally with either the US or USSR. The sole purpose of this alliance would be he could receive more benefits

Source A is a book titled, 20th Century World History. This book contained information regarding the League of Nations and their role in the Arab-Israeli conflict. This source is credible because it is a history book from which students are taught, and the information in the book is cross checked by multiple authors. The source of origin is valuable because it lays out the facts and shows the involvement of the League of Nations in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The book itself is a secondary source, however it includes primary sources, making it valuable for this investigation. The primary