Israeli politics and the position of Palestinians in the conflict Essay Example for Free

Israeli politics and the position of Palestinians in the conflict Essay The U S and Israel are engaged in extensive strategic Like political and military American aids to Israel specially in project allocations and loans intelligence sharing As according to Lt. Col Abo-sak said that U. S relation with middle east specially focus on America’s involvement in the Palestinian-Israeli crisis . There are few reasons that Israel always stand by American side. The first is that American military ensure security of nation and trade and access to maintain all the facilities of the Israel. American and Israel signed memorandum of understanding which say’s that there would be close security co-operation and co-ordination between the Governments of these two countries. These two nations mutually agree to stand together against terrorism and co-operate in information sharing, investigation, research, and development of policy making. In December 2005 both the state signed agreement to joint against the smuggling of nuclear and radioactive material this agreement is the part of the non- proliferation program of the U. S. Department of Energys National Nuclear Security 2. In 1993 Israel and Palestine signed the declaration of principles to create peace between the two countries. After a radical Israeli opposed to the peace process assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, the Labor party lost the Israeli election of 1996, giving away to the Likud party led by Benjamin Netanyahu. According to Karen (1991) the new government did not commit itself to the peace accords signed by the previous Israeli government, and the peace process was slowed to a standstill giving way to war. A) What happened during Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharons Administrations? During his tenure Barak really work lot on the Israel economic sector and he solve the case of the recession and make boom in economic with 5. 9% annual growth and there was zero inflation, and his Government basically focuses on the peace making process and he led to effort to negotiate on peace making agreement 1stly he went to Syria and later to Palestinian authority with the help of the American ex- president bill Clinton and his administration some how these negotiation didn’t work out. Mr. Barak also said that the whole government is for the national interest and for the looming security challenges and the economic crisis as he also mentioned that labor can play major role for the counterforce inside the government and labor party ‘s dominant role in shaping the Israeli state . After the Barak ,Ariel Sharon became the new prime minster of the Israel and he also negotiate with the Palestinian leader for the peace making process and said that Israel is also full of Jewish population and there should be complete co-operation among two countries and it should be united and indivisible for eternity . The new Israeli government violated the terms of the peace accord by, among other things, building new Israeli settlements in occupied lands, also in contravention of the international law. b) What role have the Palestinians played in this? And what has Hamas done? Palestinians was completely agree to establish peace within and with other countries so far its known that earlier Palestine was completely under the control of Israel and many people of Palestine was homeless and moved to the other countries as refugees and that the conflict had been fight to bring refugees back to Palestine and therefore this was the ultimate reason for the peace process from the Palestine ,such group like Hamas which work for the peace in Palestine and Hamas is also know as terrorist group. Hamas is the largest and most influential Palestinian militant. In January 2006, the group won the Palestinian Authoritys (PA) general legislative elections, and defeated Fatah; the party of the PA’s president, Mahmud Abbas, since coming in power, Hamas has continued refuses to recognize the state of Israel. Historically, Hamas has sponsored an extensive social service network. This group also operated a terrorist wing, carrying out suicide bombings and attacks using mortars and short-range rockets. Hamas is not a terrorist group it is an addition of military wing The basic goal of the Hamas is combined with Palestinian nationalism with Islamic fundamentalism it was to replace PA of Israel with an Islamism state on the west bank and Gaza and to rise the banner of the Allah in whole Palestine . 3. Applying peaceful facts in accordance with the principles of the US constitution would prevent the USA from making bias decisions that are constantly being made by the administrators against Arabs. a) Explain and give examples of these peaceful facts that can be used. The united state Institute of peace (USIP) seeks to here a fair move toward to its work connecting to Arab-Israeli relations by supporting investigate, program and grants that get better sympathetic, expand ability and study the issues in ways that can be helpful to all parties who are looking for peace. Arab-Israeli relationships have deteriorated to their lowly point in an age band, with increasing and widening cruelty. However, the harshness of the evils may force the parties to think again long-stagnant issue and make opportunity for new efforts to decide the disagreement. In order to grab on the forecast for renewing discussions, USIP is conducting both policy-relevant investigation and pioneering training in hold of local initiatives to put up sustain for peace. 4. In the past, the United States officials were on the side of the Israelis and gave bias opinion on the Arabs creating a condition of animosity and terror between the two countries. a) Give examples of this. American strategy in the Middle East has had few successes to speak of—smaller amount still when bearing in mind the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. One reason: With few exceptions (President Carter certainly, President Clinton occasionally), Arabs in general and Palestinians in exacting have not trusted American negotiators, who have always taken sides—Israel’s. The last time American mediation achieved an absolute success was from side to side the Camp David agreement of 1979, when Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty and Israel ceded back the Sinai to Egypt. Last 60 years the United States has claimed a dominant role in Middle East issues. But its evidence is poor. Concerning the Palestinians, it’s almost negligible. Americans have little trust in Palestinian eyes. There’s a reason why. As Aaron David Miller explain in The Much Too Promised Land , each American presidential management live a mediating position in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict takes it for decided that it’s on Israel’s side first and foremost. This is not only the matter of ideology. Miller describes how each text, every peace plan, and every accord that the Americans presented in Palestinian-Israeli talks over the years were vetted first through Israeli negotiators. Ronald Reagan once, in September 1982, announces a peace plan without first informing the Israelis. United States is not only violating the Camp David accords but also the U. S. promise to ask with Israel before responsibility such a plan. As Begin fluctuate between anger, tired acceptance, and a hurt resentment, it became clear that what set him off most was the American choice to organize the proposal in go onward with both the Jordanians and the Saudis. 5. President Obama must now ensure that the historical mistakes that were made by the past regime that lead to massive killings and displacement are not repeated during his reign as the president of the US. To ensure that his legacy remains in the book of records; US human rights groups, non-governmental organizations and research centers hat has been continuously supported by the United Nations to give a conflicting information that has increased insecurity and fear between the two nations. a) How can president Obama do this? â€Å"President Barack Obama said on Wednesday Israeli plans to build more homes near East Jerusalem were not helpful for the Middle East peace process, but he said the issue had not led to a crisis with one of the United States closest allies†. In an interview with FORX news channel’s president Obama said that ‘Israel is one of the closed allies of the America and American and Israeli people have special relationship and bond and that not going away. ’ He also mentioned that there is dissimilarity in terms of peace making process. Whatever action has been taken by Prime Minister (Netanyahu) of Israel didn’t work out so he said that what America need now is both side to recognize and to realize that this move of peace is for their nation interest. 6. Discuss USAs views towards the conflict in the cold war and during the peace process. Due to cold war the United States became intensely occupied in the Middle East after 1945. U. S. officials required constancy in the Middle East on behalf of their objectives in the area and about the world. Stability in the area, these leaders unspecified, would help them safeguard their essential wellbeing and succeed in the Cold War. The Arab-Israeli conflict directly threatened Middle East stability in the late 1940s and 1950s. Israel refused to send home Arab Palestinian refugees, who became a political reason for the leaders of Arab states. Limitations on trade and shipping and disagreement about territorial restrictions and waterways bitter all of the protagonists. Despite the significance of Arab-Israeli peace to regional constancy, however, U. S. officials subsume their peacemaking to other Cold War interests. Government of USA tempered its devotion to conflict resolution with a determination to deny the Soviets any chance to gain political power in the Middle East. In the end, the United States unsuccessful to resolve the overall Arab-Israeli conflict or any of its exact dispute. The United States became fixed in the middle of the Arab-Israeli conflict. U. S. officials felt bound by their global repression policy to intercede in the Arab-Israeli conflict and to protect sound relations with all sides of the argument. U. S. has strategic approach in the direction of the Arab-Israeli argument during the first two presidential administrations after World War II. . Reference: Abo-Sak, Lieutenant Colonel Mohammed F. (1999) US Involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Solution or Complication? Retrieved on 1 May 2010 from http://www. alhewar. com/LtCol. htm Abo-Sak, Lieutenant Colonel Mohammed F. [Gaza: New Dynamics of Civic Disintegration Journal of Palestinian Studies, Summer 1993] Special REPORT with Bret Baier Barack Obama (17th march 2010) available at topics. nytimes. com Hahn, P L (2004) Caught in the Middle East U. S. Policy toward the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1945-1961 Abstract available and Retrieved on 1 May 2010 from http://uncpress. unc. edu/browse/page/393 Tristam P, (n. d. ) Americas Pro-Israel Bias: Why the United States Takes Israels Side A Long-Standing Commitment to Israel in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict Retrieved on 1 May 2010 from http://middleeast. about. com/od/arabisraeliconflict/a/me080707. htm Israel and Saudi Arabia Retrieved on 1 May 2010 from http://www. usip. org/countries-continents