Since the founding of Israel, over 50 years ago, America has taken the fledgling country under its wing . The sympathy of the American people towards Israel has wavered little despite the ups-and-downs Israel has been through in its short history . Especially throughout the Clinton administration, America has taken a soft stand towards Israel, favoring them over Palestine, even while trying to keep a neutral stance during peace negotiations. During the last five years, however, American foreign policy has wavered back and forth depending on the negotiating tactics of the President. President Clinton took on peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine as a primary goal of his administration. President Bush has been less inclined to focus his energies on peace in the Middle East.
[...] Page 6. Column ibid. ibid. Hiro, Dilip. Sharing the Promised Land: A Tale of Israelis and Palestinians. (Interlink Publishing Group, Inc. New York. 1999.) Pg 111 ibid. ibid. ibid. Hiro Quandt, William B. Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab- Israeli Conflict Since 1967. (Brookings Institution Press. Washington D.C. 2001.) Pg 351-2 ibid ibid. ibid. Quandt 353 ibid. ibid. ibid. Quandt ibid. Quandt 358-9 ibid. ibid. Quandt 359 ibid. ibid. ibid. [...]
[...] April http://www.twf.org Tyler, Patrick E. U.S. Pledges Push for Mideast Peace. New York Times. Foreign desk. Kentucky. November Weigand, Edda and Marcelo Dascal. Negotiation and Power in Dialogic Interaction. Amsterdam. Benjimins Waller, Douglas. The Peace Breakdown. TIME Europe. August http://www.time.com/time/europe/timetrails/israel/is00 0807.html Zunes, Stephen and Toensing, Chris. FPIF Talking Points: Israeli- Palestinian Conflict. Foreign Policy in Focus. April http://www.foreignpolicy- infocus.org/commentary/2002/0204israeltalk_body.html Goldberg, Carey and Connelly, Marjorie. For better or for Worse, Israel is ‘Special' in U.S. Eyes. (New York Times. Foreign Desk. April Section 1. [...]
[...] It veered away from making a stand on important issues between Palestine and Israel, allowing the two parties to reach agreements on their own.[23] This more neutral position was a result of political restraints put on Clinton in the domestic arena.[24] Although he was not looking to get re-elected, his wife and his vice president were campaigning for political offices and would not have appreciated the possibility of low public support if Clinton put pressure on either Israel or Palestine.[25] Unfortunately, the American neutrality approach got negotiations nowhere.[26] It was not until the Camp David II Summit, in July of 2000, that any progress was even forecasted in the movement towards a peaceful agreement between Israel and Palestine.[27] Prior to the Camp David Summit, congress was “proclaiming that ‘only the United States' [could] end the bloodshed and mediate another Arab-Israeli accord”.[28] The reason that America needed to take such an important role in the negotiations was due to left over sentiments from the Cold War about national security being breached if such conflict was not defused.[29] Because of the stalemate between Israel and Palestine, as well as the fact that Clinton was leaving office shortly and wanted to leave his impact on history, America took a strong role in the Camp David Summit.[30] Clinton even went as far as proposing joint sovereignty over East Jerusalem.[31] Although a compromise could not be reached, at least important issues had been discussed for the first time, such as control of Jerusalem.[32] America had played a key role as mediator during these talks, trying to keep negotiations on track while still taking a neutral stance.[33] In the end, the summit failed, not because of American foreign policy, but because neither side had ever before discussed the sensitive subjects brought up during the talks.[34] Therefore, there had been no time for either Israel or Palestine to get accustomed to the other's position on these touchy subjects.[35] Shortly after the summit ended, Clinton helped boost Barak's fading popularity in Israel by publicly praising his role in the conference.[36] This upset the Palestinian people, who took the interview as slander towards Arafat.[37] With Clinton openly supporting Barak, American foreign policy shifted back to its historically pro-Israeli stance.[38] Pro-Israeli continued even after conflict erupted in the region. [...]
[...] Column 4. Sciolino, Elaine. U.S. Says It Did Not Help Israel Seize Ship. New York Times. Foreign Desk. January Section A. Page 5. Column 4. Shenon, Philip. U.S. Seems to Rule Out Meeting Between Clinton and Netanyahu. New York Times. Foreign Desk. November Section A. Page 9. Column 1. Stoessinger, John G. Why Nations Go To War. 8th edition. Bedford/St. Martin's Pp 169, 139- The State Department of the United States of America: The Middle East Peace Summit. Summit homepage. [...]
[...] ibid. ibid. Hadar, Leon. U.S. Should Stay Out of Arab-Israeli Conflict. (Cato institute. Washington D.C. October 12, 2000.) ibid. Quandt ibid 365 Waller, Douglas. The Peace Breakdown. (TIME Europe. August http://www.time.com/time/europe/timetrails/israel/is000807.html) Quandt 365 ibid. ibid 367 ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid 369 ibid. ibid ibid 371 Tyler, Patrick E. U.S. Pledges Push for Mideast Peace. (New York Times. Foreign desk. Kentucky. November 20, 2001.) Bennet, James. Mideast Turmoil: Mideast; U.S. Envoy Meets Arafat as Israel Steps Up [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
