The Al-Aqsa Intifadah (which began, I believe, in about 2000 when the Camp David talks were then stalling) was begun by PLO and still exists today (much less actively than from about 2000 to about 2004, roughly) under the PLO umbrella.
3) Democratic nations including Great Britain and the United States have long called for democratic elections in Palestine. Now that Hamas was the unexpected winner of the first elections, should it be recognized by the United States?
No; at least not officially, since Hamas has been from its 1987 outset, and clearly is today, an overtly, aggressively and ruthlessly terrorist organization recognized internationally as such. Still, Hamas should definitely be talked to by the United States, as horrendous a prospect as that might well seem (and is). And unfortunately, it has become almost risible in today's world that Great Britain or the United States could still even semi-seriously think Palestinians care what sort of elections they would prefer to see there. This is the West's blind spot.
Hamas's longstanding complaints against extreme Israeli aggression against Palestine should also be seriously listened to; and Israel should cease with its brutality. American (and Israeli) bullying of Arab or other Islamic states and nations has not and will not win friends; but I can think of no foreign situation, now or in the past, in which dialogue, rather invited or accepted by America, ever did harm. Hamas is convinced Israel (and by association the United States, which supports Israel) are evil infidel invaders of Palestinian territory; and in the strict Islamic sense (i.e., of encroaching physically on Palestinian territory) Hamas is right.
Under George W. Bush especially (e.g., one might consider the President's recent refusal to talk to Syria), the United States has developed, especially in recent years, the bad habit of disregarding the ancient Chinese general Sun Yat Sen's timeless advice within his military classic the Art of War: "Keep your friends...
The U.S. And Russia reportedly have about 90% of all the nuclear weapons in the world. So if this treaty makes sense for both sides, and shows a newfound sense of cooperation between the two nations that were Cold War enemies, why would there be dissention in the U.S. Senate? That question can be answered a couple different ways. For one, there is a very divided and hostile political situation
" that one administration official observed, "I can assure you a young generation of terrorists is being created" (Zaharna 2003). At present, "The current [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict is mortgaging the future of both nations. A new generation of Palestinians is coming of age. More than 50% of the population of the West Bank and Gaza is under the age of 15," which means that the U.S. must act now before a new
It is difficult to state that the national security apparatus is underperforming when you have clear statistical results: no attacks in the last five years. This means that something must be functioning at full parameters there and that the informational community is also operating with those in other countries to obtain these results (the attacks planned for London and stopped are a good example in this sense). On the other
Foreign Policy of President Reagan Before the disastrous Vietnam War, the U.S. held an undisputed dominant position worldwide, recognized locally as well as by other nations. The nation's historic actions towards defending freedom, by restraining the fascist faction during the Second World War, followed by organizing a large free-state coalition for combating communism, were supported by profound and sweeping domestic consensus. This consensus was destroyed by America's decision to wage war
Politics of Violence in Pinter's Late Plays When Harold Pinter received the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2005, he spoke quite directly about the subject of political theatre: Political theatre presents an entirely different set of problems. Sermonising has to be avoided at all cost. Objectivity is essential. The characters must be allowed to breathe their own air. The author cannot confine and constrict them to satisfy his own taste or disposition
Ronald Reagan Foreign Policy: Annotated Bibliography Tucker, Robert W. 1989. "REAGAN'S FOREIGN POLICY." Foreign Affairs 68, no. 1: 1-27. The author of this article maintains that Ronald Reagan assumed the Presidential role rebuking the 70s' arms control attempts. As a majority of Reagan's fellow politicians were highly suspicious of any arms control pacts with Russia, the general belief was that the newly sworn-in President shared the same view. The cold-war agreement with
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now