On current political situation in the Middle East, Israel’s relations with the United States and Islamic terrorism (an interview)

2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Raphael Israeli
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Middle East ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Situation ◽  
Islamic Terrorism

The U.S. and Israel: In the Eye of the Storm

Worldview ◽  
1978 ◽  
Vol 21 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 4-9
Author(s):  
Mark A. Bruzonsky
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Middle East ◽  
The United States ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Political Situation ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Palestinian Issue

AbstractWhen I wrote in these pages two years ago that “1977 is shaping up as a year of possibly unprecedented political confrontation between Israel and the United States,” the Ford-Kissinger “reassessment” of American Middle East interests was. still alive, though crippled by what Kissinger termed “the prevailing domestic political situation.” The Brookings Report had emerged a few months earlier, detailing what was to become during the first months of Jimmy Carter's presidency his personal outline for a “comprehensive Middle East settlement.” And the Palestinian issue was just then affecting the American consciousness as one of self-determination and legitimate nationalist fervor.

The United States and the Middle East

1974 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-14
Author(s):  
James Abourezk ◽  
Paul Findley ◽  
Edmund Ghareeb
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Middle East ◽  
The United States

Turkey’s foreign policy priorities in the Middle East and Afghanistan

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (10-3) ◽  
pp. 228-237
Author(s):  
Marina Shpakovskaya ◽  
Oleg Barnashov ◽  
Arian Mohammad Hassan Shershah ◽  
Asadullah Noori ◽  
Mosa Ziauddin Ahmad
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Middle East ◽  
The United States ◽  
Turkish Foreign Policy ◽  
Security Issues ◽  
New Approaches ◽  
East Region ◽  
History Of ◽  
Middle East Region

The article discusses the features and main approaches of Turkish foreign policy in the Middle East. Particular attention is paid to the history of the development of Turkish-American relations. The causes of the contradictions between Turkey and the United States on the security issues of the Middle East region are analyzed. At the same time, the commonality of the approaches of both countries in countering radical terrorism in the territories adjacent to Turkey is noted. The article also discusses the priority areas of Turkish foreign policy, new approaches and technologies in the first decade of the XXI century.

scholarly journals The Danger of Analogical Myths: Explaining the Power and Consequences of the Sykes-Picot Delusion

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 110 ◽  
pp. 132-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toby Dodge
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Middle East ◽  
The United States ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Minor Role ◽  
Historical Significance ◽  
Historical Analogy ◽  
History Of ◽  
Political Units ◽  
Postcolonial States

Even before its hundredth year anniversary on 16 May 2016, the Sykes-Picot agreement had become a widely cited historical analogy both in the region itself and in Europe and the United States. In the Middle East, it is frequently deployed as an infamous example of European imperial betrayal and Western attempts more generally to keep the region divided, in conflict, and easy to dominate. In Europe and the United States, however, its role as a historical analogy is more complex—a shorthand for understanding the Middle East as irrevocably divided into mutually hostile sects and clans, destined to be mired in conflict until another external intervention imposes a new, more authentic, set of political units on the region to replace the postcolonial states left in the wake of WWI. What is notable about both these uses of the Sykes-Picot agreement is that they fundamentally misread, and thus overstate, its historical significance. The agreement reached by the British diplomat Mark Sykes and his French counterpart, François Georges-Picot, in May 1916, quickly became irrelevant as the realities on the ground in the Middle East, U.S. intervention into the war, a resurgent Turkey and the comparative weakness of the French and British states transformed international relations at the end of the First World War. Against this historical background, explaining the contemporary power of the narrative surrounding the use of the Sykes-Picot agreement becomes more intellectually interesting than its minor role in the history of European imperial interventions in the Middle East.

Misusing historical analogies limits US policy options

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Middle East ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Options ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Content Type ◽  
White House ◽  
Decision To Leave ◽  
Us Military ◽  
The Future

Significance The Vietnam analogy implies that President Joe Biden’s decision to leave Afghanistan will have deeply negative consequences for the United States. However, Afghanistan is not Vietnam and the Biden withdrawal needs to be considered within the wider context of his administration’s review of US commitments abroad. Impacts The White House will be pressured to clarify the future of other US military commitments, particularly in Iraq. Biden will seek to reassure allies, particularly those in NATO, that his commitment to multilateralism will not diminish. Biden may seek an opportunity for a military show of force, possibly in the Middle East, to refute accusations of weakness.

The American Perception of the Palestine-Israel Conflict

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Israa Daas ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Middle East ◽  
Political Party ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World ◽  
Us Government ◽  
Source Of Information

Abstract The Palestine-Israel conflict is probably one of the most pressing problems in the Middle East. Moreover, the United States has been involved in this conflict since the 1970s. Therefore, the present research aims to learn more about the American perception of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It was conducted using a survey that addressed Americans from different backgrounds, focusing on four variables: the American government’s position, solutions, the Israeli settlements, and Jerusalem. The research suggests a correlation between political party and the American perception of the conflict. It appears that Republicans seem to be against the withdrawal of the Israeli settlements, and they believe that the US government is not biased toward Israel. Nevertheless, Democrats tend to believe that the US government is biased in favor of Israel, and they support withdrawing the Israeli settlements. Moreover, there might be another correlation between the American perception and the source of information they use to learn about the conflict. Most of the surveyed Americans, whatever their resource of information that they use to learn about the conflict is, tend to believe that the US is biased in favor of Israel. It is crucial to know about the American perception when approaching to a solution to the conflict as the US is a mediator in this conflict, and a powerful country in the world. Especially because it has a permanent membership in the UN council. KEYWORDS: American Perception, Palestine-Israel Conflict, Jerusalem, Israeli settlements

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document