Search

The 1994 "Treaty of Peace between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan" prescribes "good neighborly relations of co-operation" and security between the two countries. Towards the goal of fulfilling the dictates of this treaty, the mayors of Muaz Ben Jabal (Jordan), the Bet She'an Valley Regional Council (Israel), and the Jordan Valley Regional Council (Israel) signed a 2007 memorandum of understanding (MOU) to build the Jordan River Peace Park (J.R. Peace Park). Joining other studies that consider the role of peace parks in fostering neighborly relations and cooperation (Ali 2007; R. Duffy 2007; T. Duffy 1997; Francis 2008; Hammill and Besancon 2007; Trisurat 2007; Van Amerom, Marloes and Buscher 2005), this study analyzes the J.R. Peace Park initiative in the context of the Middle East. Moreover, this research relates to the broader environment and security literature by investigating the role that environmental issues play in promoting inter-state cooperation. Since the J.R. Peace Park is still a "work in progress" initiative, the paper considers several other peace parks, examining how well such projects have worked towards advancing peace in the respective regions. Based on this comparative analysis, the paper then turns to the J.R. Peace Park, addresses lessons learned, and considers the future prospects of the J.R. Peace Park in promoting cooperation between Israel and Jordan. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Westphalian style of state building has been the main method of state construction ever since the peace of Westphalia. This system of construction is being replaced by the fragmentation of states into zones or territories that continue to have substantial geopolitical importance, which depict the motivations behind relations between states. This paper will show how the establishment of Israel has rearranged the traditional mode of state building. International institutions are now taking a bigger role in building states externally. Borders are becoming more less important as territory becomes more structured externally. Critical geopolitics offers a way to examine state building in a structural way, and sets up certain ways to define territory in this new age of geopolitical analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A heated debate rages in American academia and policy-making circles about what drives US policy towards Israel, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Scholars are split over whether it's the "Israel Lobby" or strategic considerations that drive US policy in this regard. A common error in scholarly inquiries into this issue is the treating of US policy towards Israel on the one hand, and US policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the other, as the same thing. This paper emphasizes that there is a distinction there. Since it's the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that makes US Israel-policy controversial, this paper will start with a brief historical account of the conflict to identify the remaining core contentions, before engaging the policy debate. The paper argues that while Israel is of strategic utility to the US, current US policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict contradicts US interests. Thus, the general close US-Israel alliance may be attributed to strategic US interests in the region, while US policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular may be attributed to the powerful domestic Israel Lobby in the US. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With so much discussion of the powerful pro-Israel lobby's impacts on American foreign policy in the Middle East, little attention is paid to the pro-Arab groups in Washington, DC. While appreciating the strength of the former, this paper attempts to outline how the latter try to shape American policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. From research conducted with assistance from the American Political Science Association's Centennial Center, I look at pro-Arab political action in three overlapping settings. First, I contrast pro-Arab efforts with those of the pro-Israel lobby, particularly the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. I ask, why are pro-Arab groups weak compared to the pro-Israel lobby? Second, I look at pro-Palestinian efforts within the larger pro-Arab lobbying background. In particular, I am interested in contrasting similarities and differences between the pro-Palestinian and pro-Arab organizational missions. Third, I examine the interaction between the pro-Arab networks and American policy. From interviews conducted with leaders of pro-Arab organizations in Washington DC, this paper inspects the efforts to influence American foreign policy toward the two-state solution in the post-Cold War world and during the war on terrorism. I find that while pro-Arab lobbying pales in comparison to those of the pro-Israel lobby, the end of the Cold-War, the current war on terrorism, and clear American and international support for the two-state solution as manifested by public opinion polls, policymakers' statements, and United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1397 and 1515, provide the pro-Arab lobby with a crucial opportunity to realize its vision of Palestinian statehood. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

American Responses to Israeli Foreign Policy InitiativesThe origin of the US-Israeli relationship can be found in President Harry S. Truman's support for the new state of Israel on May 14, 1948. While support to Israel has varied during presidential administrations from Dwight D. Eisenhower to George W. Bush, strategic interests have steadily defined the nation's responses to Israel. Important works in the literature delve deeply and in detail to describe the US-Israeli relationship (Quandt 2005, Spiegel 1985; Oren 2007, 2002). The literature, however, does not rely on empirical studies to try to explain what causes positive or negative US responses to Israeli foreign policy initiatives. Empirical research measuring US responses to Israeli foreign policy initiatives can lead to understanding of US foreign policy in the Middle East and Israel; and such knowledge serves the public interest. In order to measure US reaction to Israel, this empirical study conducts a content analysis on US statements published in the New York Times following four Israeli military initiatives: the 1967 Six-Day War, the 1976 Raid on Entebbe, the 1981 Raid on Osirak, and the 2006 Lebanon War. The research reveals that the US reacts more positively to Israeli reactive than to anticipatory and preemptive self-defensive actions. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After years of vacillating on Palestinian national aspirations, the majority of Americans have come to favor "the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank and the Gaza strip." Reflecting that shift in public opinion, through the "roadmap," President George W. Bush has committed US foreign policy to that end, calling for "establishing two independent states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side within secure and recognized borders." Consequently, the main question asked by Arab Lobby and US Foreign Policy is why the US has shifted from an "Israel only" position toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to supporting an "Israel and Palestine" formula for peace. In order to address this question, American public opinion, the pro-Israel lobby, and the pro-Arab lobby were examined for interactions with US decision-making toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before and after the end of the Cold War, specifically from the Camp David period of the late 1970s until the invasion and occupation of Iraq during the mid 2000s. Arab Lobby and US Foreign Policy concludes that while international factors such as the end of the Cold War cannot be overlooked, changes in domestic public opinion and lobbying had significant impacts on the US led international community's efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with two states. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]