Madeleine Albright Research Paper

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

Throughout time the decisions made by an individual or a group, such as President Anwar Sadat and his decision to make peace with Israel has dramatically changed the course of history. Every leader in history has made a decision that has affected the world, or just his nation in some way. After many years of struggling to keep peace among the Jews and Arabs, President Anwar Sadat, finally decided to make peace with Israel. Peace between Israel and Egypt would mean great changes were going to take place. This momentous decision would be a large step up for the two nations and would lead to them better lives, in peace. Before the Egyptian Israeli Peace Pact was signed in 1978, Palestine and Israel were enemies with each other in

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 his presidency did not begin with Israel becoming a state, his focus was greatly adjusted and at first there was a noticeable decline in aid and care for Israel’s wellbeing. Israel was also rather vulnerable during this time, due to the fact that there more Jewish refugees entering Israel from surrounding Arab states. President Eisenhower convincingly proved that America had the ability to influence Israel in a good way, although his presidency ended with the Middle East still in a state of war. During Eisenhower’s administration, there were two successful incidents of U.S. management of Israel and in both circumstances, Eisenhower avoided the political compulsions of America’s attachment to Israel and instead forced the Israelis to act upon principle. Unfortunately, his presidency was the last to give Israel undivided focus, for the ones to follow were absorbed in other affairs and did not provide the same constructive support.

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

Though Israel as a state has been around longer than most countries, it has in recent times had a rebirth of sorts. I've chosen the foundation of Israel as my I-Search paper topic, which is a topic I have a moderate amount of base knowledge in. Israel has been in existence for several thousand years ago, but only recently was the modern state of Israel created. This occurred in the aftermath of World War ll, however, the campaign that seceded has begun several decades beforehand. Sovereignty for the country was achieved not through riots or wars, but in the hard work of many lawyers and activists. Despite a peaceful and legal founding, Israel has been in constant defensive warfare fare from other Levantine countries. This nation's view Israel's

Of course it is known that it is in the best interest of both people to find a solution. Many on both sides want a two state solution, but each side has yet to come up with a plan that is workable. Economically, it would be in the best interest of the Palestinians to have peace with Israel. Israel is one of the most advanced nations in the world when it comes to medicine, pharmacology, and technology" ("Stick a label on it; Israel and Palestine."). "They have their own weapons industry, are able to grow crops in the desert, have advanced universities and technical schools. If Palestinian children could share in this they would be able to overcome their stunted past. Socially, both groups share so many of the same features. Their dietary laws are similar, language is similar, even holidays hold similarities. But, they do not seem to be able to get over the fact that so much has transpired that split them apart" ("Primer on Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli

In the 1990s there began a significant shift in social movements in Israel and Palestine. The history of this region has been marked by violence, inequality, and oppression for a long time. The complicated relationships between the two main powers in this area have developed over time and a variety of groups on both sides of the conflict have reacted with by calling for peace. The first intifada had a huge impact on who had the ablity to voice their concerns to fight the injustices occurring in this region. It was during this popular uprising that women’s movements first began to gain traction in both Israel and Palestine. These movements were often defined by traditional and constricting ideals of femininity, however over time they began to branch out with a more grassroots approach. Women’s movements in Israel have many similarities to those in Palestine and the Occupied Territories, however there are some significant differences that separate the women involved in each of these groups and the causes they choose to support. Gender equality is a complex issue with many implications for the modern peace movement in Israel and Palestine, and it is crucial to note both the ways in which these groups face similar challenges while also acknowledging the very different issues faced by Israeli and Palestinian women.

The book “Three Wishes: Palestinian and Israeli Children Speak” by Deborah Ellis offered incredible insight into the lives of the children involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, I found many of the facts – and many of the viewpoints expressed by these children – incredibly upsetting. After reading about the treatment of Palestinians by the Israeli army, I was angered by the lack of action from the international community concerning the complete disregard of children’s basic human rights. Additionally, the world refuses to condemn the Israeli oppression of Palestinians out of fear of coming across as anti-Semitic. Peace cannot be achieved if the world continues to abstain from acting and children of both sides grow up believing that peace is impossible.

A meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar el-Sadat about issues occurring in the Middle East, possible solutions & conflicts, and the creation of the Camp David Accords resulted in a peace treaty. This peace treaty has put an end to the war between Israel and Egypt, promised the withdrawal of Egyptian land, as well as an open conversations about future relations between the two countries. “As we discussed these and other emotional issues, I soon realized that Begin and Sadat were personally incompatible. The sometimes petty, sometime heated arguments that arose between them when we were all in the same room convinced me it would be better if each of them spoke to me as the mediator instead of directly to the other.” Although it seemed difficult to come to a conclusion in the process, the Camp David Accords showed as a success in view of the fact that it created peace between the United States and the Middle East. “Looking back on all of the issues or events that took place, including the Camp David Accords, there is a continuity that is both discouraging and also offers some modicum of hope.” It created hope for those who were worried about the Middle East of even Jimmy Carter himself. We understand the political pitfalls involved, but the situation is getting into an extreme state, and I’m concerned that Sadat might precipitate a conflict in October, as he has

Bill Clinton tried very hard to promote equality and peace about each side to the other. The Palestinians believed that the Israelites had taken over their homeland so they were trying to get it back by going to war with Israel. Israel believed that it was meant to be theirs all along so that they may have a safe land to call home. All though the Palestinians had more will to fight, Israel had a much bigger and better army, which could completely demolish the Palestinians. Bill Clinton’s goal here was to show that two mortal enemy nations could come together and unite in peace, but this proved to be pointless, after he realized that the countries were still true enemies even after they shook hands for the Oslo

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.

On June 2006 in Tel a Viv the word new Middle East was coined and introduced to the world courtesy of the then US secretary of state Condoleezza rice. The term was meant to reduce the more imposing ‘great middle east’. It is a term that was accompanied by hope and despair in equal measure. Secretary Condoleezza Rice claimed that in a press conference that the destruction of Lebanon and Israel attacks was the emergence of the new Middle East and in case the United States joins in the race they must make sure they are moving to the new one but not the old Middle East. However her statements were criticized because of expressing the indifferences to the suffering of a country which had been bombed indiscriminately by the Israel Air forces.

George W. Bush once said, “We will stand up for our friends in the world. And one of the most important friends is the State of Israel. My administration will be steadfast in support Israel against terrorism and violence, and in seeking the peace for which all Israelis pray.” This quote sums up our relationship with Israel very accurately. However, when discussing Israel two questions are always not far away. These questions are is this relationship beneficial to us and why do we even have this relationship with Israel? In this week’s readings, Chapter 5 of McCormick and Chapter 8 of Hook and Spanier, It discusses the aftermath and problems the United States inherited as the leading world power after the Cold War. One topic that both of these

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.