U.S In the Middle East

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 found an ally in the United States, yet when the Nixon administration had information that indicated the possibility of an attack, there was no action taken by neither . The U.S. had intelligence that Arab states were making efforts to build an offensive military. With continual bluff from Egypt’s President, Sadat, Israeli forces were readily mobilized creating accruing costs by having an army readily available. There was evidence that Arab states were beginning to transfer and move around military equipment and any combative tool that could be utilized in war. All the effort that was allotted to the movement and distribution was not something to have been taken lightly or oblivious to. The U.S. had intelligence of the movements being made and yet both Israel and the U.S. underestimated the Arab states. Leading up to October 6, 1973, the buildup of troops still did not alarm Israel enough to

The relationship between the State of Israel and the United States of America has blossomed into a significant bilateral alliance. The ‘special relationship’ between the two countries has been the driving force behind much of the progress of the United States’ push into middle east democracy, and has helped place Israel in the company of countries who will stand by her in times of trouble. As of late, there have been increasing pushes by the Untied States for Israel to once again enter into peace talks with the Palestinians, a topic which seems to be the source of constant international commentary. These developments have brought to the forefront a rather interesting facet of the Israeli/American relationship, one which this author

Throughout the Arab-Israeli conflict, a multitude of people were extremely influential, either for good or for bad. Among the growing list is the 39th President of the United States, James Earl Carter Jr., although people know him better as Jimmy Carter. He is known for publishing multiple books on this controversial affair, receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts toward trying to resolving the issue, and overseeing and participating in the Camp David Peace Accords. Although he was originally not on a particular side in this conflict, in the more recent years he has strongly favored the Arabic side, also known as the Palestinians, who want a state of their own.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an informative comparison between the constitution of the United States and that of Israel. Although Israel does not have an official constitution in place, there are sets of basic laws and rules that will be used to draw conclusions about how they address human rights, government power and structure, and how this may affect the allied relationship with the United states. There is a rather controversial debate regarding the importance of such an ally which brings into question the benefits of large sums of financial aid sent to Israel on a yearly basis. While the United States continues the quest for worldwide democracy, many argue that funding Israel is essential for maintaining a positive

On May 15, 1948, the United States became the first country to recognize Israel as an independent state. Many advisors of President Truman’s had advised not to, and that creating a land for the Jews would pit the Arab nations against us. He went ahead anyway, because he didn’t want to lose the American-Jew vote; and in doing so, accepted the idea of the U.N.’s Partition Plan. However, he quickly lost much of the control over the policy-making process. ( Miller Center, 2016 ) 1

The religious rhetoric of the American President George W. Bush has raised many debates in the study of politics, it becomes clear to everybody that believing in the Bible prophecy could have profound political outcomes, and for George W. Bush, he believed heavily that God called him to office in order to spread democracy and protect America from the evil-doers. This idea started precisely since the events of 9/11 which changed the course of the American political regime from domestic to foreign interests. This section, then, introduces the words and messages of G. W. Bush towards Israel, and shows his huge support to the Jewish. Therefore, the American President admitted in his dialog with the Palestinian minister Nabil Shaath that he is conducted

Following the partition plan in 1947, the state of Israel was created in 1948. I will be discussing the extent to which the creation of Israel was a turning point throughout a hundred year period. The conflict can be split up into 3 different strands which include: Arab Israeli, Palestinian-Israeli, Western involvement. The Arab-Israeli conflict is the regional conflict that erupts in 1948 when the newly created Arab states invade Israel and is partially resolved by 1996. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the local conflict throughout the 100 year period between the native Palestinians and the Israeli’s, it is still unresolved. Western involvement represents the foreign nations that were associated in the conflict. My main argument is that the creation of Israel was the principle turning point for the Arab-Israeli dispute strand because; it transformed a civil war to an interstate conflict. I also feel that it was the principle turning point for the Palestinian-Israeli strand because, it saw a huge change in policy and led to the dissolution of the Palestinian people with many fleeing into surrounding Arab nations, this is known as the Palestinian problem. The Suez crisis was the pivotal moment for the Western Involvement strand because it saw a new era with the start of the Cold War’s influence in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

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

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

For the America, maintaining the “special relationship” with Israel is in line with its interests. First, due to the special geography, Israel can serve as an important backing for the U.S. to preserve its dominance in the Middle East. Second, a powerful Israel with strong military capacity can help the U.S. fight against Islamic extremists and terrorists. Third, supporting Israel is in accord with the broadest conception of the American national interest --- supporting like-minded societies, because US-Israel relationship is based on moral obligation, shared cultural and political values and common strategic interests. Therefore, Israel constitutes “the most enduring and the most immediate interest” (Pollock

However, when faced with the true reality of the situation, it seems simple to reach the conclusion that the British, and to some extent the United States, put aside the events of the Holocaust in favour of securing oil interests over an aggressive Soviet expansion, thus delaying the inevitable establishment of the Israeli state. Nevertheless, it is of great importance that the American and British political stances be analysed. Firstly it is essential to note the Jewish presence within the United States. Despite 1.5 million Jews being assimilated into society, anti-Semitism still existed with Jews being excluded from joining certain organisations and clubs and restrictive immigration laws operating under a quota system, thus limiting the number of Jews admitted. Despite this however, Zionist leaders saw it as essential that they enlist the American Jewish population in an attempt to get US government support for a Jewish state. In terms of the American view of Palestine, prior to the war the American government had regarded Palestine as a British responsibility. However, by March 1943, the US state department became concerned about

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 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