Group items tagged

I chose this article about the Israel-Palestine conflict because it talks about how this conflict is not an isolated battle between Israel and Palestine. The Op-Ed columnist David Brooks writes that because of all the conflict in the Middle East each country, group, or "political contour" that is striving for power influences the actions of either the Palestinian or Israeli parties. For example, Brooks mentions how Egypt blocked 95% of the tunnels that connected Egypt to Gaza, which costed Hamas $460 million a year. Hamas could not attack Egypt, so they attacked Israel instead. The public dissatisfaction caused Egypt to end the blockade. Thus, the external parties in the Middle East have a large effect on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and Brooks says that the conflict should therefore be analyzed from a different perspective: "It, like every conflict in the region, has to be seen as a piece of the larger 30 Years' War" (Brooks). This article shows us that we need to think a little more broadly when analyzing certain conflicts.

I think it's interesting that these outside countries are involving themselves by using all the deaths of the Israelis and Palestinians as leverage to get what they want. The violence in Gaza negatively influences all of its surrounding regions. Violence only brings more violence.

This article was a great way to clear the air on many misconceptions that have been floating around that make the Israel-Palestine conflict seem like a very straightforward conflict. This makes it clear that many of the warfare between Israel and Palestine isn't related to conflict between these two nations, rather in some cases it is attempts by Palestinian states and Muslim rebels to show dominance to other Middle Eastern countries and sects in order to make political and economic moves. With so much intertwining of conflict with the Egypt and the Islamists at the Arab Spring and the closing of the 95% of the tunnels being closed between Egypt and Gaza. The Brotherhood, ISIS, and other militant groups are vying for power throughout the Middle East and flexing their muscle on anybody and everybody to establish political dominance.

matthew says this is important

The ferries that once shuttled tourists to and from the little islets in Iran's Lake Urmia sit rusty, unable to move, on what is rapidly becoming a salt plain. Just two decades ago, Urmia was the Middle East's biggest lake, its local economy a thriving tourist center of hotels and restaurants.

I have often heard about droughts here in California, but I feel like droughts in many places around the world remain under the radar, even when they have a much larger chance of affecting the political and economic situations of the countries they are in.

Good find, Kylan. I didn't know about this lake: "Lake Urmia is an endorheic salt lake in Iran. The lake is located between the provinces of East Azerbaijan and West Azerbaijan in Iran, and west of the southern portion of the Caspian Sea". "endorheic" means there are no waterways going in or out of it. "closed drainage basin that retains water and allows no outflow to other external bodies of water, such as rivers or oceans, but converges instead into lakes or swamps, "

Interesting new development. It seems that the US and NATO have been pursuing peace much more seriously than previously thought. Also, the Taliban denies that any peace talks have been taking place.

This recent development is a clear indicator of the difference between Bush-era foreign policy and that of the Obama administration. It remains unclear whether this new approach to Middle East peace will prove effective, but given the failures of the last administration, it will be interesting to see where such discussions with the enemy, who we have long considered to be a terrorist group, will lead. President Obama has made significant strides in terms of the conflicts in the Middle East, withdrawing combat troops from Iraq, but the effectiveness of these actions have yet to be proven; what distinguishes this strategy, and perhaps leads to the optimism surrounding it, is that a renewed effort to negotiate peace and draw down American presence in the Middle East is so radically different than before: different, yes; effective, maybe; we will have to wait and see.

While more children are being schooled and the literacy rate is rising, MENA schools are not sufficiently preparing their students for work, especially considering the GDPs of these countries and the percent of these GDPs they are spending on education.

This article talks about why the middle east is becoming less important to the US. It mentions a decrease in reliance on foreign oil, the increase in strength of Israel, and the increase in use of diplomacy to solve conflicts. Because of these factors among others the US can safely take a small step back.

Great find, Brian! "(2) Nobody wants America to play Mr. Fix-It. One thing is clear: We've likely seen the last of the big transformative-interventionist schemes to change the Middle East from the outside in the name of U.S. security, a freedom agenda, or anything else. I say this knowing that there's little historical memory here, that the military gives a willful president all kinds of options, and that the world is an unpredictable place. But watching the public, congressional, and even expert reaction to the prospects of a limited U.S. strike against Syria, there's clearly zero support for intervening militarily in somebody else's civil war."

This article discusses the troubling possibility of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, which is especially pertinent today since President Obama has shown his commitment to reducing American troop levels in the region.

Turkey as potential mediator in Middle East peace talks.

Drone attacks are actually a major topic in this year's debate resolution (about troops in several countries, including countries in the Middle East). A major argument against the use of drones is the fact that they are unmanned. This means that the risk of losing soldiers is taken out of the equation when ordering military strikes. This risk has been one of the foremost deterrents against unnecessary military operations in the past. While the operations may be effective, many civilians are killed in the process, and there is significant collateral damage. Lastly, since the drones are stealthy, it is easier for the U.S. to evade accusations by not confessing to owning or using drones.

Drone attacks are a key part of the US's couterterrorism strategy in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.They have proven fairly successful at targeting militants but they also often kill innocent civilians by accident. Many see drones as being much more cost effective then other counterinsurgency or nation building efforts in those countries. A growing debate in the military now is the shift from counterinsurgency (nation building) to counterteorrism (drones) because it is much more cost effective and it requries less military casualties. Originally the drones were only used in Afghanistan, but now they have started targetting terrorists in Pakistan. The civilian lives lost in drone attacks in Pakistan hurt US-Pakistan relations.

Disagrees with Samuel P. Huntington's thesis

I think that is important to look at news from all over the world, and we have not been looking at latin america hardly at all in class. This article provides a snippet of what is going on in Brazil with corruption, and the article also gives a peek into the world of oil outside of the middle east.

March 19 marks the 10th anniversary of the American invasion of Iraq. But the U.S. conflict with Iraq began long before that. Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990, and American forces were fighting Iraqis continuously for the 13 years that followed in order to enforce UN-mandated no-fly zones, punish Saddam Hussein for attempting to assassinate former President George H. This timeline lays out (literally) all of the United States' involvement in Iraq. Again, it's very important to have a thorough understanding of the history of a country before analyzing the present as you can see patterns and determine motivations based on past occurrences and trends.

The Trump administration is reducing funding funding the Palestinian refugee support group of the U.N. (Unrwa), which could exacerbate the refugee crisis in the Middle East

What happened to Tunisia after the Arab Spring (which started there); autocrats in the Middle East hope that Tunisia's democracy will turn to a strongman government.

This situation reflects on Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" in an interesting way. It appears that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad prioritized Syria's relationship with Iran, what some might call a civilizational tie, over the political interests of Syria as an individual state in his decision to turn down a deal with Israel that would have returned the Golan Heights to Syria's control. The discussion of the influence of upcoming elections in Israel and the US on the release of this news also adds an interesting dimension. Is it the Obama administration that is manipulating the facts about these peace talks so as to appear more effective in Middle East policy? Or is it Netanyahu who is misrepresenting his involvement in an effort to appear strong and unyielding towards the rest of the Arab world in an election year?

Interesting!

This article poses the important question of how the Muslim world would react to a strike on Iran, either from Israel or the United States. The article points out that given the recent hostility towards the West from the Innocence of Muslims film, most violence would be directed to the US. It is important to consider the way that Muslims outside of Iran would react to a strike on the nation.

I find the idea that should a physical threat be made against Iran that other Muslim occupied countries would unite to be quite accurate and terrifying. As alluded to in the Clash of Civilizations, I believe there to be a great possibility of an impending war based on religious beliefs. The Islamic community was already infuriated, especially with the U.S., by the Mohammed film. Any further attack (whether theoretical or physical) by the United States or by its allies could result in a quite dangerous situation.