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.
The pro-Israel intervention represented the US foreign policy reaction when the violation to regional stability was committed by Israel.
…show more content…
Washington overlooked the Israeli violation to the regional stability and put no pressure on the Israelis to withdraw from the territories they had occupied. The United States did provide increased arms supplies while doing relatively little to encourage Israeli concessions in the various peace talks that occurred during this period.
Similarly, the US was expected to intervene in a decisive way to prevent Israel from proceeding in its WMD plans, but it did not. In contrast to Washington's long-standing opposition to the spread of weapons of mass destruction, the United States had practically supported Israel's effort to maintain regional military superiority by turning a blind eye toward its various clandestine WMD programs. Even when the US administration decided to intervene to restore regional stability disrupted by its surrogate, as was the case in 1982 when the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and its complicit role in the massacre of innocent Palestinians by a Christian militia at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps made the region less stable, the US aligned itself with the pro-Israel groups and engaged in a civil war that had nothing to do to the US interests in the region.
The above cases illustrated the weakness of the surrogate strategy and the fact that the model of intervention that grew out of it (the pro-Israel model) was arguably counter to US interest in securing regional stability. In the previous cases the US behaviour was characterized by
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
After World War 2, the United States took over Britain’s job of overseeing the Middle East. The United States tried to avoid conflict while preventing the spread of communism. They successfully stopped the spread of communism, but couldn’t have done much worse trying to prevent conflict and stabilize the Middle East. The United States policy destabilized the Middle East, Iraq in particular, by overthrowing the Hussein regime at a poor time and deepening the anti-Western attitude in the Middle East.
Israel has used tactics to defend itself, and to get the international “right to exist”. Israel has used security tactics to feel safe, but these tactics are endangering the civil and human rights of the citizens of Israel. “...No country has a recognized God-given or otherwise right to exist, only responsibilities under international law and moral responsibilities…”
“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
Everyday problems are occurring in the middle east. Millions of refugees are being displaced and ISIS is gaining land. Many Americans do not care about these conflicts but we should if we are the cause of them.America grants Israel more foreign aid than any other country mostly in arms and weapons. The foreign aid America gives to Israel is clearly unlawful and inhumane. The United States should stop this program immediately because it goes against many government policies preventing the formation of militaristic countries and giving arms to Israel will help them commit more human rights violations against the Palestinians that the United Nations already
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
In 1978, during Jimmy Carter’s administration, he was trying to fix the war between egypt and israel. The war broke out in 1948 and it wasn’t going well. The Us offered the defacto recognition of israel provisional goverment , during the war united states couldnt do anything because the stayed in arms embargo. The un sparked a conflict with the jewish, arab groups within palestine. In the first three wars israel always defeated the egyptians
Brown’s “Rules of the Eastern Question Game provided an interesting approach to the politics and diplomacy in the Middle East. What became of the poorly crafted agreements by Western powers have been long-lasting wars and conflicts that defined the Middle East and its inhabitants except Israel, of course. These rules made or gave: Western powers, eventually the United States too, the powerbrokers that partially dictate political decisions in regional conflicts; desire to establish Western style democracy; supports for oppressed government that control radicalism; and the ability to realign their political interests when political powers
Kupchan and Trubowitz, Moravesik, and Zegart, all observe, from different angles, the problems in the way the U.S.’s divided government approaches foreign policy, ultimately pleading for a change in both the way decisions are made and actions are taken in order to preserve the U.S.’s influence and role within the international community.
As one can see this issue directly impacts the Middle East because it drives all actions that develop there. Whatever attacks that come from this area are more than likely directly related the Arab-Israeli conflict. Recently a survey conducted in EU of 7,515 people in 15 EU countries said “yes”60% of the time to the question of if Israel presents a threat to peace. This percentage put Israel ahead of Iran, North Korea, and the U.S. each of which had a 53% “yes” vote. This survey, not knowing the sampling population, reflects a general notion that Israel is a threat to global security. This may or may not be true, but what is true is that the Arab-Israeli conflict is a threat to regional security, and some of the threats
However, the U.S. has been criticized for its non-intervention policy, especially with the rise in the level of violence and the spread of conflict to other areas of the country, and even to its borders with Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey.
Many of the problems in the Middle East today are a direct result of actions undertaken in the region 's colonial past. I will argue that both imperialist ineptitude, deliberate meddling and outright deceit by colonial powers have sown seeds of distrust that linger in the Middle East today towards the West. I will claim that artificial boundaries, government structures and societal schisms created in colonial times have entrenched animosities and created internal structural instabilities in the area that are still being resolved. The imposition of Israel into Palestine, I will argue, remains an unresolved product of colonial rule. I will discuss how the discovery of oil and the regions importance as a trade route caused the World Powers to remain engaged in the area and oppressive in their demeanour. Finally I will argue that perhaps the greatest ongoing legacy of colonialism in the Middle east is an imperialist attitude by the west which continues to this day.
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
Between the period of 1948 and 1973 there was quite a bit of animosity and conflict between the Arab world and Israeli’s. This was caused by a struggle for land in the state of what was known as Palestine but to many it is now known as Israel. This conflict in the Middle East caused many wars between Israel and its surrounding Arab states. At the same time both USA and the USSR were trying to spread their ideologies and get a foothold in the Middle East because of strategic position, they would have access to the Indian and Mediterranean Oceans through the Suez Canal. They would also gain a resource advantage of oil as the Middle East is rich in oil. The involvement of these Superpowers was not the initial cause of the conflict it did “add fuel to the fire”. However the USSR and USA did not engage in any of this conflict because they did not partake in any of the wars by sending no troops what so ever so it could be said that they had little if any involvement in the conflict happening in the Middle East.
the conflict in the middle east between 1948-1973 was not purely fuelled by the interest and concerns of the superpowers but rather of a series of conflictual incidents, aswell as the main wars that took place from the years from 1948-1967 such as the: 1948 War, The Six Day War of 1967 and the Yom Kippur war of 1973. But although the conflict was not fuelled by the superpowers, the influence of the superpowers and the reach of the superpowers into the Middle East was evident in the years both prior and following 1978. But even despite the influence and interests of the superpowers between and including 1948-1967 being undeniably evident, the extent of this influence cannot be said to have “fuelled the conflict”.