| Papers [1-14] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 8] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 —> | Search results on "HEZBOLLAH ISRAELI ARAB ENMITY": |
|
|
Hezbollah: Israeli/Arab Enmity, 2007.
This paper examines the history and ideology of Hezbollah.
2,603 words (approx. 10.4 pages), 9 sources, APA, £ 55.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper examines Israeli/Arab enmity in the Middle East and the problem of religious extremism. The paper discusses the need for true democratization to emerge in Muslim states and for the replacement of current corrupt political systems controlled by leaders who manipulate their people in order to demonize Israel and maintain their power. The paper maintains that American and Israeli policies have been counterproductive, for they have radicalized millions of Muslims, who have responded with unprecedented support for extremist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas.
From the Paper
"Examining the history and ideology of Hezbollah indicates that there is much merit to the accusations of the American and Israeli governments that it is a terrorist organization led by religious fanatics intent upon the destruction of Israel. In response, the leaders of Hezbollah and its supporters and sympathizers reject accusations that they are terrorists and religious fanatics, and insist that Hezbollah and similar groups such as Hamas are simply defending the rights of Muslims against American and Israeli aggression."
"As is the case with most controversies, the truth is somewhere in the middle, for the philosophical observation that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter certainly applies in the context of current Middle East unrest. According to Military.com (2006) Hezbollah's emergence in the aftermath of the Israeli occupation of Beirut and southern Lebanon in 1982 reflects these diametrically opposed perceptions, for it was due to the determination of Shi'ite Muslims to resist the Israeli presence and support Palestinians in their fight for statehood."
| |
|
Comparative Analysis of the Events in the Israeli-Arab Conflict, 2002.
A comparative analysis of the 1950 UNCCP Geneva Conference and the 1983 Israel-Lebanon Agreement.
1,745 words (approx. 7.0 pages), 6 sources, MLA, £ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares and contrasts the two events in light of the political climate and psychological obstacles affecting the negotiations. Influential factors discussed include Arab League talks, economic boycott of Israel, attacks on Northern Israel from Lebanon, and attitudes and expectations on both sides.
From the Paper
"The 1950 United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine conference in Geneva attempted to create an agreement between Israel and the Arab States through indirect negotiations with a UN mediator. This conference failed because neither side was willing to compromise their plans. The Israelis refused to negotiate unless they had proof of the Arabs commitment to peace, and the Arabs refused to negotiate unless the Israelis first implemented paragraph 11 of the UN resolution 194 from December 11, 1948. The Arab States attended the conference as one unit, where as the Israelis wished to deal with each state individually. Israel got a chance at a negotiation more to its liking, or so it thought, individually with Lebanon in 1983 with the Israel-Lebanon Agreement. Just 4 years after the Camp David Peace Accords with Egypt, the Israel-Lebanon Agreement was Israel?s second attempt at individual negotiation with an Arab state. It failed because Israel approached the agreement thinking that it could easily manipulate Lebanon, and both Israel and Lebanon seriously underestimated Syria and the Arab agenda. For similar reasons that the Geneva conference failed; neither side was after a true peace, they just wanted to further their own goals."
| |
|
Arab Israeli Conflicts, 1997.
Examines the historical backdrop to the Arab-Israeli conflicts. Discusses the current state of the conflicts. Reviews Arab/Israeli relations in both the Middle East and the U.S.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 3 sources, £ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Arab-Israeli relations are influenced by problems between the two groups extending back centuries, and the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 today remains a sore point in the Arab world. Arab-Israeli relations can be seen as a majority/minority relationship, but interestingly, this relationship offers one configuration in the Middle East and another in the United States. In the Middle East, the Israelis are the minority population and are surrounded by Arab nations. In the United States, the Jewish population is much larger than the Arab population and more visible as well. Tensions in the Middle East are great, while in the United States those tensions are much less given the American position of tolerance of differing opinions and intolerance of violence.
The international political economy of the Middle East is ..."
| |
|
The Arab - Israeli Conflict, 2002.
A detailed look into the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
3,044 words (approx. 12.2 pages), 2 sources, APA, £ 63.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Since the recognition of Israeli as an independent state in 1948 by the United Nations, the country has endured conflicts with its Arab neighbours who refuse to accept its legitimacy as a state. This paper traces the Arab-Israeli conflict, from 1948 through the Six-Day War and the 1973. The paper focuses on the 1977 Camp David agreement between Israel and Egypt, where, for the first time, an Arab state formally accepted Israeli's statehood and laid the foundations for negotiations to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict which continues to the present day.
From the Paper
"During September 1977, Israeli foreign minister Moshe Dyan and Egyptian deputy prime minister Hassan Tuhami met in Morocco. Tuhami said that Sadat was serious about peace and believed it was only possible if Israel withdrew from all the occupied lands, including East Jerusalem. Dyan believed that Begin and Sadat needed to meet to discuss the issues and sort out their differences.
Sadat was serious about peace. Decades of war had left his country devastatingly poor, and Israel could not be beat through military means without raining down destruction on the Arab world. He felt that if peace could not be reached soon, a new war would start. He also might have had the feeling that time was not on his side. He had had several heart attacks and was getting older."
| |
|
The U.S. and the Arab/Israeli Conflict, 2005.
Examines the role of the United States in the Arab/Israeli conflict in the United States.
675 words (approx. 2.7 pages), 2 sources, £ 18.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this paper it is shows that the origins of the Israeli/Arab conflict reflect the Jewish Nation, and how American funding helped to build their army. In this manner, the creation of a military helped to oust the Palestinian who now had to leave due to the Jewish presence in the region. The paper argues that by creating a military complex through U.S. support, Israel used their military to validate land acquisitions, which they could not defend. Also, through American military support and training, the Jewish state was encouraged and fostered in its earliest stages through American intervention.
From the Paper
"This political study will examine the origins of the military intervention by the United States in Israel, as well as the economic aid that began the conflict with the Palestinians in the region. By understanding how the United States funds the military complex of the Israeli military, one can realize how the 'conflict' between Arab and Jew was created and propitiated through violence and political struggle between the two societies. The early aspects of the Israeli-Arab conflict in Palestine can be defined from the past financial international military aid America has given to Israel since the 1960s. The growing rate of military aid up until 1982 was of paramount importance to stability in a region with strong ties to American Jewish lobbyists and others interested in formulating a Jewish state since the end of World War II."
| |
|
Religion in the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 2005.
This paper discusses the role of religion in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
1,700 words (approx. 6.8 pages), 10 sources, APA, £ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper states that, although there are significant political, cultural, historical and geographical aspects of the dispute over the "Holy Land", the Israeli-Arab conflict is based on deeply rooted religious beliefs and attitudes held on all sides. The author stresses it is essential to understanding of the basic beliefs of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, their similarities and differences, conditions for the permissibility of war and killing and the significance of the Holy Land. The paper concludes that when religion is involved a peaceful reconciliation can come from the differing faiths only when their interests are combined.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Judaism
Christianity
Islam
Conclusions: Is Peace Possible?
From the Paper
"Islam shares some key beliefs with the other two faiths. For example, Muslims believe in the total "unity" of God much like in the Jewish faith. Further, Muslims also share the same Prophets with Judaism and Christianity. These include Adam, Noah, Moses, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus (whom they regard as a prophet, and not divine). Further, they also believe that Jesus was born of a virgin birth just as in Christianity. Even in areas of practice, Islam shares some striking similarities with the other faiths. For example, Muslims do not eat pork (like observant Jews), and they also share many of the same moral rules (no sex outside of marriage, the prohibition of killing and stealing, etc.). However, Islam differs radically from Judaism and Christianity in that it does not allow the drinking of alcohol, does not observe the Sabbath on the same day, and considers Jewish and Christian believers to be in grave error due to their rejection of Jesus and Muhammad as legitimate prophets."
| |
|
The Arab-Israeli Conflict, 2002.
This paper is an examination of the Arab-Israeli Conflict.
3,050 words (approx. 12.2 pages), 11 sources, MLA, £ 63.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents an interesting look into the Arab-Israeli conflict. It covers the conflict from the early 1900s, up to and including the current Intifada that began in 2000. It also discusses such subjects as the historical background of European Zionism, the emergence of Zionist terrorism during the ill-fated British Mandate and the birth of Israel as the result of a UN vote. According to this author, it is the continued Israeli occupation and not, the refusal of many Arab countries, or of the Palestinians, to recognize the right of Israel to exist, that is at the root of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
From the Paper
"Since 1967, the Palestinians have become bitterly reconciled to the existence of the state of Israel. They have no choice but to do so: Israel is the only power in the region with nuclear weapons. It also has the US for its major backer. (Each year Israel receives between $4 billion and $5 billion a year, mostly in military aid, from American taxpayers.) What Palestinians have demanded since 1967, and are still demanding, is that
Israel withdraws from the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, so that the Palestinian state envisaged in the UN resolution of 1947 can be created. In the meantime, they live in a ?protracted state of political subjugation and economic dependence? (Morris 568).
The most critical development in recent years is the Israeli policy of settling the occupied territories with Jewish families. Settlement expansion into the occupied territories was first advocated by the Movement for the Whole Land of Israel and has been official policy in Israel since the rise of the Menachem Begin?s Likud (Revisionist Zionist) party to power in May 1977. Between 1977 and 1984, one hundred new settlements were built on occupied land (Morris 567). By 2001, as many as 400,000 Israelis had been settled in areas of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem and its environs. As a result of the illegal settlements, public opinion in many countries has grown much more sensitive to the Palestinians? plight. During the 1970s and early 1980s, the Palestinian cause was not always highly regarded outside the Muslim world on account of its resort to sensational acts of terrorism. However, by the mid-1980s, the PLO was viewed increasingly as representing the victims of the conflict. Many informed people have since come to the conclusion that the well-armed and financed Israelis are no longer simply defending the right of their tiny little state to exist, but are actively using their powers to oppress the Palestinians and prevent them from founding the state to which they are entitled."
| |
|
Arab-Israeli Wars between 1948 and 1982, 1994.
This paper analyzes the political and military aspects and results the Arab-Israeli wars: 1948 War for Independence, 1956 Sinai Crisis, 1967 Six-Day War, 1973 Yom Kippur War and 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
5,400 words (approx. 21.6 pages), 15 sources, £ 95.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"This paper will discuss the political and military aspects of the Arab-Israeli wars. The specific conflicts covered will be the 1948 War for Independence, the 1956 Sinai Crisis, the 1967 Six-Day War, the 1973 Yom Kippur War, and the 1982 invasion of southern Lebanon. Besides providing accounts of each conflict, the paper will also examine some of the long-term political and military trends which can be found in the wars. Finally, the paper will discuss some of the reasons for the consistent military successes of the Israelis.
1948 War for Independence
After the First World War, Palestine was mandated to Great Britain by the League of Nations and the Treaty of Versailles. Conflict between the Palestinian Jews and Arabs was minimal, mainly because ... "
| |
|
The Arab-Israeli Conflict, 2002.
A discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East.
2,108 words (approx. 8.4 pages), 8 sources, MLA, £ 46.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at how the recent history of the Middle East has been dominated by the long-standing Arab-Israeli conflict or more specifically the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It evaluates the strategic importance of the area because of its vast oil reserves makes the continuing volatility in the area doubly important. It explores the history of the problem, identifies some key areas of controversy and looks at the differing perspectives of the people belonging to the left, the neoconservatives and the far right in the U.S.. It also examines which branches of the U.S. government have been involved with the issue and analyzes whether the government?s response has been effective and according to the people?s wishes.
From the Paper
"Following a UN Resolution calling for a partition of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, Israel declared its independence On May 14, 1948. Several wars have been fought between the Arabs and Israelis since then. The first was fought immediately after the formation of Israel which the Jewish state surprisingly won. The war also resulted in the displacement of a large number of Palestinian refugees who settled mostly in refugee camps in the neighboring Arab countries. Most Palestinians still live in those camps. The second Arab- Israeli war followed the nationalization of the Suez Canal by Egypt in June 1956, and the third was the pre-emptive strike in 1967 by Israel on Egypt, Syria and Jordan. In all of these wars, the Arabs were thoroughly humiliated. The six-day 1967 war resulted in the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights and all of Jerusalem. It also resulted in a second wave of Palestinian refugees."
| |
|
The Arab-Israeli Conflict, 2002.
An analysis of the on-going Arab-Israeli conflict, focusing on the land issues.
1,411 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 4 sources, MLA, £ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper argues that the present manifestation of the Arab-Israeli conflict is basically a conflict over land. The paper claims that this conflict is rooted in the strong and ancient claims of two peoples--Jews and Palestinians--to the same small piece of land in the Middle East. A history of the State of Israel is presented, including a synopsis of the wars fought. The different Israeli prime ministers and governments are discussed.
From the Paper
"Ben-Gurion stepped down as prime minister in June 1963. His efforts at building the Israeli state had brought him into conflict with his own party's ideology, and the international Zionist movement. Gathering about him a group of younger leaders in 1965, notably Shimon Peres and Moshe Dayan, Ben-Gurion organized a new political party, Rafi, though he eventually retired from politics permanently in 1970 when that party failed to generate support. Ben-Gurion's successor, Levi Eshkol , had much less experience in defense issues and relied heavily on Rabin. Neither the Jordanian nor the Syrian borders were quiet during the years leading up to the Six-Day War, but all Israelis were taken by surprise when in May 1967 increasingly violent clashes with Palestinian guerrillas and Syrian army forces along Lake Tiberias led to a general crisis."
| |
|
America's Position in the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 2002.
An examination of the U.S. role and position throughout the Arab-Israeli conflict.
2,170 words (approx. 8.7 pages), 7 sources, MLA, £ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the U.S. role as a superpower in the Arab-Israeli conflict and the position that the U.S. has taken throughout. American policy is analyzed in light of its respective relationships to the Arab world and to Israel and the Jews.
From the Paper
"As World War II drew to a close, and the planet was forced into a recalibration of unprecedented proportions, the United States began its long emergence as the most expansive super-power that had yet been known. Its influence, that would compete virulently with the post-war Soviet influence for half a century, has since disseminated into every facet of the geopolitical theatre. As such, American support can operate as the determining factor in the success of a national agenda. Likewise, American dissent can be the stifling roadblock that sets nations adrift in failure and, consequently, resentment. So it's important to acknowledge that a nation's complaint of American neglect is more than just the bitter rhetoric of the disenfranchised. The emphasis placed on American approval and volition is fairly justified when one considers the weight and implication of the US stance on any given topic. And it's certainly fair to say that American intervention has been as significant a factor in the Arab-Israeli conflict as have been the opposing belief structures characterizing the two sides. As such, it's also reasonable to suggest that, as present evidence would purport, Israel's ascension to power and success in spite of violent opposition from all of its borders, could only be an indication of America's intense support."
| |
|
The Arab-Israeli Conflict, 2007.
An analysis of the book "Origins and Development of the Arab-Israeli Conflict" by Ann M. Lesch and Dan Tschirgi.
974 words (approx. 3.9 pages), 1 source, MLA, £ 24.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This book covers the reasons for the Arab-Israeli Conflict and its escalation. The paper describes how the book presents an historical overview of events that all combined to lead up to the conflict. The paper quotes the authors who maintain that European intervention provoked the Muslim world in the late 1700s causing the Muslims to established a long-standing tradition of fighting to hold on to their land and their way of life. The paper notes the professionalism and techniques employed throughout this book. The paper concludes that Israel and the Arab world need to work together for peace, but this book suggests that there may simply be too many barriers in the way of that ever actually occurring.
From the Paper
"Ultimately, the two groups fighting seem to be fighting a no-win war. The text calls this the "zero-sum" approach and notes, "[O]bservers argue that Arabs will never really accept Israel's legitimacy and its permanent presence in the region and that Israelis will never accept the right of the Palestinians to national self-determination and statehood. This view holds that the conflict is zero-sum" (Lesch, and Tschirgi 4). However, others do not hold to this approach and believe that somehow peace can ultimately be achieved in the Middle East. Some cite the American and European involvement in current affairs as adding fuel to the conflict, and others cite how the two nationalist movements are so dissimilar, accord will be extremely difficult to reach and maintain."
| |
|
Arab-Israeli Conflict, 2005.
This paper discusses the Arab-Israeli conflict, especially attempts to bring peace.
1,290 words (approx. 5.2 pages), 5 sources, APA, £ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that, even though Israel was establish in 1947 after the Holocaust of World War II, both Arabs and Jews had lived there together for thousands of years in Palestine. The author points out that the Arabs viewed the giving of the area to the Jews by the United Nations and Great Britain as another colonial land-grab. The paper concludes that the core difficulty has not been Israel versus the Arab countries so much as whether and when Palestine would become a sovereign state with its own land and the right to self-determination.
Table of Contents
Introduction
20th Century Wars
Attempts to Bring Peace
Conclusion
From the Paper
"After Camp David in 1978, Israel itself began to recognize the necessity to tackle the Palestinian dimension of the Middle East conflict (Jonah, 2002). This was followed by peace conferences in 1991 (Madrid, Spain) and the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, which recognized the Palestinian demand for self-determination as an important part of any solution. However, another meeting at Camp David in 2000, brokered by President Bill Clinton, grappled with governance over Jerusalem and the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their former land in Israel and was less successful."
| |
|
The Arab-Israeli Conflict, 2005.
Examines the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1948 as seen through three perspective lenses.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 5 sources, £ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper is a review of the half-century modern battle between Israel and Palestine in the Middle East. The paper looks at the situation from a Realist, Marxist and Liberal perspective to reveal how each approach changes dramatically as one interprets the actions of both Israelis and Palestinians during this long-running feud that shows no signs of letting up.
From the Paper
"Since 1948, Arabs and Israelis have been, figuratively and literally, "at one another's throats". This paper will begin by examining the history of the conflict; the paper will then review the bitter feud by looking at the Middle East debacle from a realist, Marxist and liberal perspective. Ultimately, what should emerge from this paper is an understanding that there are few heroes in this conflict - except for the civilians who have found a way to survive in brutal circumstances - and that the truth may ultimately prove to be stranger than fiction. The modern-day conflict between Palestine and Israel has been destructive and tragic for both sides (Cohen 1987, 1-100)."
|
|
|
