Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Israel

841. The Israeli Exception

Author:
John Feffer
Publication Date:
05-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Foreign Policy In Focus
Abstract:
North Korea and Israel have a lot in common. Neither is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and both employ their nuclear weapons in elaborate games of peek-a-boo with the international community. Israel and North Korea are equally paranoid about outsiders conspiring to destroy their states, and this paranoia isn't without some justification. Partly as a result of these suspicions, both countries engage in reckless and destabilizing foreign policies. In recent years, Israel has launched preemptive strikes and invaded other countries, while North Korea has abducted foreign citizens and blown up South Korean targets (including, possibly, a South Korean ship in late March in the Yellow Sea).
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Human Rights, and International Affairs
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, South Korea, and North Korea

842. The Really Really Long War

Author:
John Feffer
Publication Date:
04-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Foreign Policy In Focus
Abstract:
Let's imagine that the Cold War was a detour. The entire 20th century, in fact, was a detour. Since conflicts among the 20th-century ideologies (liberalism, communism, fascism) cost humanity so dearly, it's hard to conceive of World War II and the clashes that followed as sideshows. And yet many people have begun to do just that. They view the period we find ourselves in right now - the so-called post-Cold War era - as a return to a much earlier time and a much earlier confrontation. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq aren't discrete battles against a tyrant (Saddam Hussein) or a tyrannical group (the Taliban). They fit together with Turkey's resurgence, the swell of Muslim immigration to Europe, and Israel's settlement policy to form part of a much larger struggle.
Topic:
Cold War, Islam, Terrorism, and Bilateral Relations
Political Geography:
Europe and Israel

843. China and the South China Sea: Two Faces of Power in the Rising China's Neighborhood Policy

Author:
Erik Beukel
Publication Date:
01-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Danish Institute for International Studies
Abstract:
The South China Sea is subject to competing claims of sovereignty by the littoral states. Due to the number of claimants and the complexity of claims, it is called the “mother of all territorial disputes”. China is far the biggest country in the region and claims sovereignty over almost all the South China Sea. This Working Paper elaborates the claims and considers the implications for China's neighborhood relations and the alignments in the Asia-Pacific. The focus is on two faces of power in China's policy, military power and soft power, after China's seizure of Mischief Reef in 1995 that upset its neighbors. China attaches great weight to developing good neighborhood relations and has become an advocate of soft power. However, when it concerns the South China Sea the soft power approach is combined with a continuing use of military power to strengthen its position. It is concluded that the two faces of power present China with new unwieldy challenges.
Topic:
International Relations and Territorial Disputes
Political Geography:
China, Israel, and Southeast Asia

844. The Origins of the U.S.-Israeli Relationship: Truman and the Jewish State

Author:
Allis Radosh and Ronald Radosh
Publication Date:
05-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
When Harry Truman became president in April 1945, he had not thought deeply about the exact form a Jewish national home in historic Palestine would or should take. Following his landmark decision to recognize the state of Israel in May 1948, he would suggest that his support for such a development had been unwavering, and that his decisions had come easily. Yet the record shows otherwise. Between Truman's first days as president and Israel's formation, his approach to the idea of a Jewish state evolved significantly, at times seeming to change in response to the last person with whom he met. Although he ultimately made the historic decision, a Jewish state had never been, in his mind, a foregone conclusion.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, and Bilateral Relations
Political Geography:
United States, New York, Middle East, and Israel

845. Proximity Talks: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

Author:
David Makovsky
Publication Date:
05-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
U.S. special envoy for Middle East peace George Mitchell is currently in Jerusalem amid wide expectation that on Saturday the Palestinians will approve proximity talks with Israel. For its part, Israel has already agreed to the talks.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, and Bilateral Relations
Political Geography:
United States, Middle East, and Israel

846. 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

847. 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
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

848. 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

849. 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

850. Filistin 2010

Author:
Ali Balcı
Publication Date:
01-2010
Content Type:
Journal Article
Abstract:
This study attempts to analyze political developments in the context of the Palestinian Question during the year 2010. It mainly focuses on two. The first one is the peace talks between Palestinian Authority and Israeli government under the auspices of the United States and the second is the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. While the Israeli and Palestinian sides came together in the context of the aproximity talks during the first part of the year, and the USA forced the sides to start direct talks.
Political Geography:
United States, Israel, and Palestine