Foreign Policy And Decision Making Simulation

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 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

Since the UN partition of Israel and Palestine in 1947, Israel has been placed in many instances of conflict between the Jewish migrants to the region and the Palestinian natives. Several conflicts resulted in open, declared war, such as the First Arab-Israeli War of 1948-1949, and the Yom Kippur War of 1973. In addition, Israel has been involved in the occupation of the West Bank and the blockade of the Gaza Strip. After the last open war, Israel’s occupation of the West Bank has been marked by the military governorate, taking political and institutional control of the region that is ethnically and religiously different than the population that resides in the Jewish state of Israel.

The big question we ask ourselves today is, will Israel and Palestine ever agree to stop fighting? The conflict between Israel and Palestine has been traced all the way back to 1948 through 2005 in The Israel Palestine Land Settlement Problem, written by Charles Rowley and Jennis Taylor. However, this conflict did not end in 2005. This article was written in 2006, so anything within the last 10 years is not included. The conflict between the two counties still continues to this day and still remains a major problem. Israelis and Arabs have been fighting over Gaza on and off for decades now. The three issues laid out in this article are the four major wars that took place, the refugee problem, and the conflict between religions. It concludes with the road map to peace. Throughout his whole book, The Israel-Palestine Conflict, Gelvin speaks of the same historical events that occurred between Israel and Palestine, while the article reveals there are still other conflicts, the land settlement problem has been the major conflict between Israel and Palestine since 1948.

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

Since the Independence of Israel in 1948, there has been a greater tension between the Israelis and the Palestinian community. It is very important to know that both have been living Israel before it was considered an independent state. Not only Palestinians have been in conflict with the Israelis but also Arabs and Muslims. They might not have the same issues with Israel as the Palestinians do, but they both dislike Israelis for different reasons. Palestinians issue has been over property ownership while the Arabs and Muslims community has been over religious reasons. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that Israel belongs to

The simulation exercise learns the students how to make decisions in the U.S foreign policy. The members of the cabinet are instructed by the president to use one model in their decision making process. The secretaries follow a Bureaucratic Politics model, each Cabinet member instructed to make a particular decision based on his/her organizational agendas. The President is free to follow whatever process he find it appropriate. Several situation updates during the exercise according to the crisis atmosphere of the decision making. In the end, students find out that to make decision in the foreign policy is much harder than they thought. Shortage of information, time, and different personal backgrounds and organizational information all get in the way of reaching a dicission.

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.

According to an apocryphal story, Pope John Paul once said that he believes there are two possible solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the realistic and the miraculous. The realistic being divine intervention, and the miraculous being a voluntary agreement by both parties. On September 13th, 1993, it looked like the miraculous had happened when the Oslo Accords were signed by Prime Minister Rabin and PLO Chairman Arafat on the White House South Lawn. However, the objectives of the accords were never fully implemented and the Palestinians remain stateless. Further steps toward peace, including Oslo II and Camp David, have fallen short of the goals of both sides. In the book International Relations of the Middle East the chapter titled “The Rise and Fall of the Oslo Peace Process” details the slow process of the formation of the Oslo accords, as well as attempts at implementation and the fall of the Declaration of Principles. The author outlines the events between 1990 and 2001 and makes the argument that Oslo failed because: (1) it had a bad foundation, (2) the accords did not account for the core issues of the conflict, (3) Israel did not complete of their side of the agreement, (4) Palestinian violence, (5) Israeli West Bank settlements, and (6) the failure to create a Palestinian state.

According to Al-Jazeera English, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has for the first time held his weekly cabinet meeting in the occupied Golan Heights, at the same memory when French got out of Syrian ground, and he said Golan will be under Israel control forever

The USA exercises its foreign policy through financial aid. For example, scarcity relief in North Korea provides not only humanitarian aid but also a base for the development of democratic ideals and bodies.

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.

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.

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.