Table of Contents:
Foreign alignment in the region:
The recent crisis in Syria (2012) has revealed an interesting alignment of foreign powers. With the "West" pushing for reform (perhaps even cheering for regime change), there are two main countries backing Syria -- Russia and Iran.
- March 2012: "Aid will get to the opposition, if only from Arab states, to counterbalance the massive support coming to Assad from Hezbollah, Iran, and Russia. Sooner or later the United States is likely to encourage, and even supply, help to the opposition," writes CFR's Elliott Abrams in the National Review.
- See Stratfor's analysis explaining the relationship between Syria and Iran (and why this relationship matters to the US), as follows: "The current course in Iraq coupled with the survival of an Alawite regime in Syria would create an Iranian sphere of influence stretching from western Afghanistan to the Mediterranean. This would represent a fundamental shift in the regional balance of power and probably would redefine Iranian relations with the Arabian Peninsula. This is obviously in Iran's interest. It is not in the interests of the United States, however."
Many casual observers in the West might wonder...
- Why does the West (US and allies) want regime change in Syria? Students should consider the above analysis from Stratfor and be encouraged to write an essay on this topic
- Why do countries such as Russia and China support Syria and Iran? Consider...
Israel-Palestine conflict:
.png)
Crisis Guide:
a guide to the Israeli - Palestinian conflict from CFR.com: excellent!
www.cfr.org/crisisguide_mideast
Who-is-who in the region...
NON-STATE ACTORS
Refugees
Some 4.4 million Palestinian refugees live in refugee camps or urban areas in Gaza, the West Bank, and neighboring countries. Many of them fled or were driven from their homes in the 1948 and 1967 wars. Now, a majority are the descendants of those who actually experienced flight in those wars, creating an unusual situation in which a large group of people perceive refugeehood as an inherited status. The fate of these Palestinians has become the subject of international concern, and resolving their status will be a necessary component of any peaceful resolution.
Fatah
Founded by the late Yasir Arafat in the 1950s, Fatah is the largest Palestinian political faction. Unlike Hamas, Fatah is a secular movement, has nominally recognized Israel, and has actively participated in the peace process. However, its military wing has proven hard to reign in and occasionally conducts "retaliatory attacks."
Hezbollah
Hezbollah is a Lebanese umbrella organization of radical Islamic Shiite groups and organizations. Listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government, Hezbollah opposes Western influence, seeks to create an Islamic state modeled on Iran, and is a bitter foe of any compromise with Israel. Hezbollah receives financial and material support from Iran and Syria, and is often seen to be acting in those countries' interests.
Hamas
Hamas is regarded as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government. In January 2006, Hamas won the Palestinian Authority's legislative elections. Hamas's refusal to accept the Palestinian Authority's 1993 decision to renounce violence, recognize Israel, and adhere to previous signed agreements has led to crippling sanctions and Western support for its political rival, Fatah. A Hamas putsch ejected Fatah from Gaza in June 2007, splitting the Palestinian movement geographically, as well.
Learn more about Hamas:
|
This CFR Backgrounder provides a profile of Hamas, the Islamist Palestinian group based in the Gaza Strip.
|
|
|
Video Overview
From its beginnings, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been more than a local fight between two groups who want the same piece of land. It has confounded the expectations of the great powers trying to resolve it and created unintended consequences that have had a substantial impact beyond the region.
Arguably no conflict on earth combines so complex a mixture of religious fervor, national aspirations, historical and economic grievances, territorial rivalry, and geopolitical impact.
For Palestinians, and for Arabs and Muslims around the world, the conflict with Israel is viewed through a prism of anger at past humiliations - the bloody crusades of medieval times, centuries of domination of Jerusalem and the Arab world by European colonialists, and a belief that predominantly Muslim Palestinians have been forced to pay with their homeland for the sins of Europeans during the Holocaust.
For Israelis, and for the global Jewish diaspora, the conflict's narrative grows out of centuries of anti-semitism and abuse at the hands of Christians and Muslims alike. From 11th century pogroms against Jews in North Africa, the Spanish Inquisition of the middle ages, to the Holocaust during World War Two, Jews remained outsiders in the lands of their birth. In the nineteenth century, Jewish intellectuals founded the Zionist movement with the intention of establishing a national homeland for Jews, and the land around the holy city of Jerusalem was a natural point of focus.
The seeds of the conflict were already sown when the British government was given a mandate to rule Palestine in the carve-up of the Ottoman Empire after World War One. As part of that mandate was a commitment, the Balfour Declaration, to Jewish national home in the territory. Arabs cite a competing pledge - made by British officers eager to foment the 1916 Arab revolt against Ottoman rule during World War One - to create an Arab state on the same land.
The conflict between Zionist Jews and Arabs - only later would they be Israelis and Palestinians - was simmering and ready to come to a boil.
Starting in 1920 and for the next quarter of a century the British would face riots and uprisings, first from the Arab side and then from the Jewish side. The rise of the Nazis to power prior to World War Two accelerated Jewish emigration to Palestine, though Britain tried to prevent this migration. The Holocaust in Europe, and the pro-Nazi Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who spoke for many of Palestine's Arabs during the Mandate years, also radicalized some groups. A determination 'never again' to be herded into death camps led to extreme measures in support of an independent Jewish homeland, most notoriously the 1946 bombing of British military headquarters at Jerusalem's King David Hotel.
Unable and unwilling to continue governing a territory in which it was under fire from both sides, the British announced in early 1947 they would withdraw from Palestine. The issue of what to do next became an early test for the newly-created United Nations. In November 1947, the U.N. agreed to a partition plan for the territory that was accepted by the leadership of mainstream Zionist groups. But it was rejected by the main Arab leaders, some Jews and the British. In early 1948, Palestine descended into civil war. On May 14, 1948 the day before the British mandate ended, Israel declared its independence. Though Britain abstained, Israel was quickly recognized by the United States, France, and the Soviet Union.
The Arab nations, however, attacked, invading from multiple directions. The Israelis defended themselves, and mounted a series of counter-offensives to regain territory lost in the initial Arab invasion. When a U.N. brokered cease-fire ended the fighting, Israel held about 50 percent more territory than the U.N. partition plan had originally envisioned, though Egypt held the Gaza Strip and Jordan controlled the west bank and Jerusalem's old city. In years following, Jordan prevented Jews from praying at the Western Wall, Judaism's holiest site. Meanwhile, at least a half million Palestinians found themselves refugees, having either fled or been expelled from areas controlled by the new Jewish state. Jerusalem and the refugees would remain emotionally charged issues for all sides in the decades to come.
Israel spent its early years consolidating its independence, absorbing waves of refugees from a devastated Europe, and another wave expelled from Arab lands. Arab states, including several now hosting displaced Palestinians, seethed at what became known as the "nakba" - the catastrophe. As more and more Arab states won independence from France and Britain, the idea of erasing Israel from the map became a unifying aspect of a new pan-Arab ideology.
These resentments came to a head when Egypt's leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser, nationalized the Franco-British-controlled Suez Canal in 1956. Britain, Israel, and France mounted an attack designed to reverse Nasser's move and reduce his stature. But U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower, with larger cold war concerns in mind, including Hungary's anti-Soviet uprising, used economic pressure to force Britain to abort the attack. British and French influence in the region would never recover. America's, however, would become inescapable.
The next decade brought the high water mark of pan-Arabism, with Egypt and Syria even briefly uniting to form a "united Arab republic." But a debacle loomed for the Arabs. The June 1967 war, a pre-emptive action by Israel, thoroughly defeated Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian forces. Israeli tanks rolled to the edge of the Suez Canal, up the Golan Heights and united Jerusalem. But Israel's swift comprehensive victory left the nation in charge of Arabs in the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, and Sinai Peninsula. The 1967 war altered the map in a way that continues to define today's Middle East. It encouraged Israelis to believe they could settle and absorb conquered territories. Far beyond the Holy Land, the war it discredited the leaders of the pan-Arab dream and shook Arab faith in Soviet armaments. It also bolstered Islamists and others fed up with the Arab world's ruling elites, creating a dynamic which fuels modern international terrorism to this day.
The world's response to the 1967 war was U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which called for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict, at the same time it called for the right of every state in the area to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries. But passing resolutions is one thing; changing reality is quite another.
It was the Yom Kippur war of 1973 that more than any single event showed the capacity of this local conflict to threaten the equilibrium of the world. The Egyptian-Syrian surprise attack failed, but pushed the United States and Soviet Union close to a nuclear exchange. For the first time, oil was used as an economic weapon by Arab countries to change the diplomatic balance in favor of the Palestinians. Oil prices rose 400 percent in a few months stimulating great inflation and slowing world economic growth. Yet the oil price hikes enriched the Arab states that controlled much of the world's oil supply, breeding corruption and a regional arms race as western countries vied with one another and the Soviet Union to sell expensive weapons systems.
American efforts, led by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, helped end the 1973 conflict and bring about the separation of Israeli and both Egyptian and Syrian forces. Several years later, diplomacy achieved its first lasting accomplishment in the region. Seizing on a peace initiative launched by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, who paid a dramatic visit to Jerusalem in 1977, President Jimmy Carter brokered a peace between these two most powerful of Middle Eastern adversaries. The 1978 Camp David accords, and the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty that followed in 1979, led to the removal of Israeli settlers from the Sinai Peninsula and its return to Egypt. The resulting peace, critics are quick to note, is a cold one: unpopular among average Egyptians, and still freighted with mutual suspicions. Nonetheless, it broke the "united front" of Arab opposition to Israel's existence, promised further talks on the future of the Palestinians, enhanced Israel's security, and set an important precedent, suggesting that the conflict might not be totally intractable.
Camp David continues to stand out as a rare and durable diplomatic success. It was a Nobel Peace Prize winning effort for its two principals, Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. Sadat would pay with his life, gunned down in 1981 while reviewing troops in Cairo by assassins from Egypt's nascent Islamic militant movement, which two decades later would supply the core of Al Qaeda's leadership.
No lack of energy has gone into subsequent efforts at peacemaking nor have opponents passed up any opportunity to ensure that these efforts fail. Since 1979, American administrations of both political parties have tried to mediate solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and to the dispute over Golan between Syria and Israel. Some notable progress has been achieved - the Madrid Peace Conference, which in 1991 brought together senior representatives of Israel, Arab states, and the Palestinians for the first time face-to-face for peace talks; the 1993 Oslo accords, in which Israelis and Palestinians negotiated a step-by-step plan for peace; the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty in 1994.
Yet forward momentum has proven elusive. In a chilling echo of Sadat's 1981 murder, Israel's Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who signed the Oslo process against the wishes of many of his compatriots, was gunned down by a right-wing Israeli in 1995. The Oslo process foundered and violence flared anew.
Still, determined negotiations came close to agreement again at Camp David in 2000, only to fall short. Since then, unilateral moves changed the situation on the ground. Israel pulled its forces in 2000 from a self-declared "security zone" in south Lebanon after an 18 year occupation. Syria ended a 29-year military presence in Lebanon in 2005. Later that same year, Israel dismantled its settlements and evacuated its citizens from the Gaza Strip. In the wake of each, elements on both sides have sown dissension and filled power vacuums with hardline opponents of compromise that keep the region at a boil.
Irony, too, plays its part. 2006 saw historic Palestinian elections usher into power Hamas, an Islamic resistance movement which recruits suicide bombers and rejects Israel's right to exist. A year later, Palestinian society itself had split. Hamas held sway in Gaza, refusing to countenance talks with Israel and enabling daily rocket attacks on southern Israeli cities. Their Palestinian rivals, Yasir Arafat's Fatah old guard, now led by President Mahmoud Abbas, engaging in new talks through the Annapolis process, and administering the population of the West Bank.
Explore the varied complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the rest of the crisis guide, including the history of diplomatic mediation efforts, the importance of territorial claims, the roles of major state and non-state actors, and the text of treaties, speeches, and other essential historical documents.
source:
www.cfr.org/crisisguide_mideast
Middle East Politics / Peace process
excellent summary -- From the economist: "the hundred years' war" between Arabs and Jews for Palestine—and try to explain how growing rejectionism, the rise of religion, a new military doctrine and a new cold war in the region have kept peace at bay. It is a story of repeated mistakes by both sides, but one which we think is worth telling if only so both sides and their supporters can learn from it—and divide the contested land in the fair, peaceful way that most people on both sides still crave.
From the Economist: "Taking Hamas down a peg is one thing. But even in the event of Israel “winning” in Gaza, a hundred years of war suggest that the Palestinians cannot be silenced by brute force. Hamas will survive, and with it that strain in Arab thinking which says that a Jewish state does not belong in the Middle East. To counter that view, Israel must show not only that it is too strong to be swept away but also that it is willing to give up the land—the West Bank, not just Gaza—where the promised Palestinian state must stand. Unless it starts doing that convincingly, at a minimum by freezing new settlement, it is Palestine’s zealots who will flourish and its peacemakers who will fall back into silence. All of Israel’s friends, including Barack Obama, should be telling it this."
Country Reviews (for investors)
Israel - why is it becoming a technology hub for the world? (Amid such threats of violence?)
See also:
Investment Promotion Agencies
Bahrain Bahrain Economic Development Board
Israel Invest in Israel - Investment Promotion Center
Jordan Jordan Investment Board
Kuwait Kuwait Investment Authority
Lebanon Investment Development Authority of Lebanon
Oman Omani Centre for Investment Promotion & Export Development
Qatar Invest in Qatar- Investment Promotion Department
Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabian General Investment Authority
Yemen Yemen General Investment Authority
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.