Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Israel Publication Year within 25 Years

1771. A Two-State Solution Requires Palestinian Politics

Author:
Michele Dunne
Publication Date:
06-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Successful Israeli–Palestinian negotiations, whether the indirect talks begun in May 2010 or direct talks, will require a Palestinian leadership that enjoys adequate support in the West Bank and Gaza. Building the institutions of a Palestinian state is also crucial and long overdue. Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's two-year plan for institution building, announced in August 2009, is laudable but has significant limitations. That plan, and Palestinian decision making, suffer from a common problem: the suspension of normal political life since the 2007 rift with Hamas and Gaza coup. Without a presidential election, legitimacy is draining away from President Mahmoud Abbas; without a functioning Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) and its ability to make laws, institution building is severely limited.
Political Geography:
Israel and Palestine

1772. An Arms Control Process for the Middle East

Author:
Anthony H. Cordesman and Abdullah Toukan
Publication Date:
04-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Abstract:
Arms transfer to the Middle East are not the sole cause of the regional problems. In fact the acquisition of arms has been the product of the unresolved political settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict as well as other conflicts in the region. Over the past five decades there have been a number of arms control proposals and attempts for the Middle east. One main weakness of these proposals was that they were not integrated into a political process. The continued Arab-Israeli conflict made it practically impossible to formulate and implement formal arms control agreements, resulting in a failure from the beginning. Therefore, in any move towards arms control and regional security in the region, the linkage between both conventional and non-conventional weapons and the ongoing peace process must be made. A peaceful solution to the Arab –Israeli conflict should proceed alongside any arms control negotiations, specially in the establishment of a Weapons of Mass destruction Free Zone (WMDFZ) in the region. It is quite evident that peace cannot be achieved while still being threatened by a weapons of mass destruction capability of a neighboring country, nor can a WMDFZ be achieved without the context of a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement. This has been recognized by the Obama administration as being a “vital national security interest of the United States”. The position of many countries in the region is that they find it difficult to enter serious arms control negotiations until some form of regional peace is fully established. This stems from their perception that nations in the region still consider military force as the only viable source to achieve their policy objectives. The danger from this underlying reasoning, if perceived as the only alternative to preserving a regional security balance, is that it could give rise to an uncontrollable arms race and to a parallel proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Any massive rearmament will surely create an unrestricted arms race in the Middle East which will automatically be accompanied by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The fear is that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction could give rise to states announcing a so-called “in-kind” deterrence or “the right to retaliate in kind”. Unless controlled this arms race will give rise to another military conflict with catastrophic human and environmental consequences.
Topic:
Security and Armed Struggle
Political Geography:
United States, United Kingdom, Middle East, Israel, and Arabia

1773. Israel and America's Flotilla Follies (and How To Avoid Them in the Future)

Author:
Craig Biddle
Publication Date:
07-2010
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Objective Standard
Institution:
The Objective Standard
Abstract:
On May 31, 2010, a flotilla of six ships manned by alleged "peace activists" motored toward Gaza, which, since 2007, has been controlled by the Iranian-sponsored terrorist group Hamas. But because Hamas openly seeks to destroy Israel and has already fired "more than 4,000 rockets and mortar shells [into the state] from Gaza," Israel has imposed a blockade on the region. The "peace activists" ostensibly sought to breach the blockade and reach Gaza to deliver "humanitarian aid." Their real goal, however, was revealed by their own words and actions.
Topic:
Government and Islam
Political Geography:
America, Iran, Israel, Palestine, and Gaza

1774. The Best Defense?

Author:
Abraham D. Sofaer
Publication Date:
01-2010
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Foreign Affairs
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
After 9/11, U.S. President George W. Bush announced his determination to do whatever was necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks against the United States. Following the lead of several countries that had recently come to similar conclusions after their own bitter experiences -- including India, Israel, Japan, Russia, Spain, and the United Kingdom -- the United States tightened its immigration laws; increased the protection of its borders, ports, and infrastructure; criminalized providing "material support" for terrorist groups; and tore down the wall between the intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies, which had crippled counterterrorist efforts for decades. Washington did not authorize preventive detention, as other countries had, but it used other measures to hold persons against whom criminal charges could not be brought -- thereby preventing terrorist attacks. The U.S. government also led or joined various international efforts aimed at warding off new dangers, such as the Proliferation Security Initiative, through which over 70 states cooperate to interdict the movement of nuclear materials across international borders. But the Bush administration's call for preventive action went further: it endorsed using force against states that supported terrorism or failed to prevent it. This was a particularly controversial position, since using (or threatening to use) preventive force across international borders is generally considered to be a violation of international law: the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and most international legal authorities currently construe the United Nations Charter as prohibiting any use of force not sanctioned by the UN Security Council, with the exception of actions taken in self-defense against an actual or imminent state-sponsored "armed attack."
Topic:
Security and United Nations
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Japan, United Kingdom, Washington, Israel, and Spain

1775. Fresh sanctions on Iran : Will these help?

Author:
Kingshuk Chatterjee
Publication Date:
08-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute of Foreign Policy Studies, University of Calcutta
Abstract:
By all reckoning, the latest round of UN sanctions on Iran (Resolution 1929, 9th June 2010), backed up by further extension and expansion of the scope of US sanctions (June 2010) and imposition of EU sanctions on 26th July 2010, should make life very difficult for the Islamic Republic. The continued tightening of the sanctions regime indicates the serious concerns that Tehran have aroused over the development of its nuclear programme. Iran professes its commitment to only a civilian nuclear programme in conformity with its obligations under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT); a large number of states of the international community suspect Iran of developing a military programme behind the cover of its legitimate civilian one. Tehran's protestations of innocence of the charge have regularly been dismissed by most of its neighbours, and even the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has not been fully satisfied on this point by Tehran. The issue has generated a set of proposed responses from various members of the international community, ranging from extreme options of surgical strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities (favoured by Israel, and under consideration in some segments of the US administration), through moderate options of international sanctions regime (favoured by most of the states, including USA and the EU) to the softer options of persuasion by continued and growing diplomatic engagement (China and Russia). Over the past two years, international opinion has steadily drifted towards a tight sanctions regime, reflected in the UN Resolution in June 2010 and that of the EU in July. Valid questions are, however, being raised about the efficacy of the international sanctions regime.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, United Nations, and Sanctions
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, China, Iran, Israel, and Tehran

1776. Drums of War: Israel and the "Axis of Resistance"

Publication Date:
08-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
International Crisis Group
Abstract:
Of all the explanations why calm has prevailed in the Israeli-Lebanese arena since the end of the 2006 war, the principal one also should be cause for greatest concern: fear among the parties that the next confrontation would be far more devastating and broader in scope. None of the most directly relevant actors – Israel, Hizbollah, Syria and Iran – relishes this prospect, so all, for now, are intent on keeping their powder dry. But the political roots of the crisis remain unaddressed, the underlying dynamics are still explosive, and miscalculations cannot be ruled out. The only truly effective approach is one that would seek to resume – and conclude – meaningful Israeli-Syrian and Israeli-Lebanese peace talks. There is no other answer to the Hizbollah dilemma and, for now, few better ways to affect Tehran's calculations. Short of such an initiative, deeper political involvement by the international community is needed to enhance communications between the parties, defuse tensions and avoid costly missteps.
Topic:
Islam, Armed Struggle, Hegemony, and Peacekeeping
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, Israel, Tehran, Arabia, Lebanon, and Syria

1777. US Hamas policy blocks Middle East peace

Author:
Henry Siegman
Publication Date:
09-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Norwegian Centre for Conflict Resolution
Abstract:
Failed bilateral talks over these past 16 years have shown that a Middle East peace accord can never be reached by the parties themselves. Israeli governments believe they can defy international condemnation of their illegal colonial project in the West Bank because they can count on the US to oppose international sanctions.
Topic:
Peacekeeping
Political Geography:
United States, Middle East, Israel, Greece, Spain, Italy, and Ireland

1778. The East Asian Loophole in Iran Sanctions: Encouraging Compliance by Our Allies and China

Author:
Christina Lin
Publication Date:
08-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
Starting in August, U.S. officials are visiting East Asia, Latin America, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to garner support for tightening Iran sanctions under UN Security Council Resolution 1929. Robert Einhorn, the U.S. State Department's special advisor for nonproliferation and arms control, and Daniel Glaser, deputy assistant secretary of the treasury for terrorist financing and financial crime, started with a trip to Japan and South Korea and are planning a trip to China in late August. On July 29, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing entitled "Implementation of Iran Sanctions" in which both Einhorn and Glaser expressed concern over China's compliance, with Einhorn emphasizing the "need for [China] not to 'backfill' when responsible countries have distanced themselves from Iran."
Topic:
United Nations
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, Israel, Latin America, and United Arab Emirates

1779. The Gaza Flotilla Incident: Impact on Three Key Arab Actors

Author:
Robert Satloff
Publication Date:
05-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
The following summary is part two of Robert Satloff's presentation to a June 18, 2010, Washington Institute Policy Forum on the impact of the Gaza flotilla incident. Part one, issued yesterday as PolicyWatch #1670 , focused on implications for U.S. policy. For full audio of the event, which also included presentations by Michael Eisenstadt, Soner Cagaptay, and David Makovsky, click here. The Gaza flotilla episode pitted Israel versus Turkey, with Arabs as bystanders and observers. Yet reverberations of the incident have had a keen impact across Arab capitals.
Topic:
Politics
Political Geography:
Israel, Arabia, and Egypt

1780. The Gaza Flotilla Incident: Implications for Middle East Politics and U.S. Policy

Author:
David Makovsky, Michael Eisenstadt, Robert Satloff, and Soner Cagaptay
Publication Date:
05-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
Although a full narrative will have to wait until the ongoing Israeli inquiry is complete, it is possible to sketch the outlines of what happened on the Turkish ferry Mavi Marmara . The six boats of the "Free Gaza Flotilla" departed Turkey on May 28, and Israeli naval vessels began shadowing them two days later, around 11:00 p.m. on May 30. At that time, Israel requested that the boats divert to Ashdod to allow inspection of their cargo for contraband, but they refused to comply.
Topic:
Political Violence, International Law, and Politics
Political Geography:
United States, Turkey, Middle East, and Israel