Many people may remember the beginning of the second Palestinian intifada, when footage of a Palestinian boy allegedly shot by Israeli soldiers circled the world. Muhammad Dura became a symbol of Palestinian " suffering ", intifada and the fight against so-called Israeli brutality, and aroused pro-Palestinian sympathy around the world. Thirteen years later, however, it turned out that the soldiers had not killed the boy, and the whole case was a hoax .
Events in the Middle East from the Camp David summit in July 2000 to the February 2001 presidential election.
The article maps the main attempts and contradictions of the Middle East peace process until 1994. Later events are devoted to the article "Al-Aqsa Intifada".
Hamas is still the center of attention. The following text aims to analyze the changes in its terrorist activities from its inception to the present.
1. US policy and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process Although the United States was involved in the Middle East before World War II, it did not begin to pursue a more active policy in the region until after the end of World War II. However, only since the 1960s can we speak of a "special relationship" between the United States and Israel, which continues to last until today. There are more answers to the question of where the roots of the important relationship between the two countries come from. East after 1945 can be explained on the one hand by the interest in oil, later also by anti-communism and the struggle for spheres of influence within the bipolarism characteristic of the Cold War.
Introduction When we say Middle East today, everyone is probably reminded of the revolution in Egypt, the uprising in Syria, or the fighting in Libya. The Middle East is currently a symbol of the unrest and revolts that could bring about changes in the policies of these Arab countries in the coming years. In connection with the crisis in the Arab world, there is also talk of the future of a small country that has been fighting for its existence since its inception - the future of the State of Israel.
2. Israel and the USA - a special relationship Relations between the United States and Israel have been exceptional since the establishment of the State of Israel. Since the 1960s, there has even been talk of a so-called special relationship, which exists between the two countries and has no analogues in the world. For decades, the two countries have maintained strong bilateral relations based on several factors - common strategic goals in the Middle East (eg Iran, Syria or Islamic extremism), sharing democratic values and historical roots dating back to the very founding of the State of Israel.
3. The Obama administration in the peace process The Obama administration in 2009 was faced with a difficult task during the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Bush's attempts to end the disputes, presented by the Annapol Conference, were in ruins, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert would be forced to resign due to allegations of corruption, and a war broke out in Gaza just before Obama's inauguration.
Conclusion The United States undoubtedly plays an important role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Whether they were negotiators, mediators or observers, they made a significant contribution to advancing the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
When we say Middle East today, everyone is probably reminded of the revolution in Egypt, the uprising in Syria, or the fighting in Libya. The Middle East is currently a symbol of the unrest and revolts that could bring about changes in the policies of these Arab countries in the coming years. In connection with the crisis in the Arab world, there is also talk of the future of a small country that has been fighting for its existence since its inception - the future of the State of Israel.
Operation Cast Lead began on December 27, 2008 and lasted about a month. It was a retaliatory action aimed at preventing further blasting of Israeli territory from the Gaza Strip. The state of Israel was, as usual, again accused of war crimes (ie, deliberately attacking Gazan civilians, civilian objects and civilian infrastructure). As in the case of the "Janin Massacre" or the "Palestinian Massacre on the Beach in Gaza". All these accusations pursue one goal - to denigrate Israel as widely as possible. Now I will try to recapitulate only some of the misinformation that has circled the world.
We often hear the claims of some people that Palestinian Arabs have the right to return to the territory of today's state of Israel. There are even many personalities who say Israel should transform into a binary nation-state. In the rough post-war year of 1947, the United Nations divided the territory of the British mandate into a Jewish and an Arab state. However, the Arabs did not accept this solution and launched an armed attack against Israel.
Egypt is systematically stepping up its fight against the Palestinian Hamas movement, which controls the Gaza Strip. On Tuesday, a Cairo court banned Hamas from all activities and operations in Egypt, making it clear that the authorities did not intend to compromise their intention to completely isolate the movement. The court has ordered the closure of all Hamas offices and the confiscation of its property, and members of the movement living in Cairo may now be arrested. The ban on Hamas is no longer far from declaring it a terrorist organization, which has been its parent Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt since December.
Egypt usually attracts the attention of the Western media only because of the persecution of Islamists and the alleged power ambitions of Field Marshal Abdal Fatah Sisi. Few have noticed that since the overthrow of Islamist President Muhammad Mursi in July, Egypt has been fighting hard against terrorism, especially in the Sinai Peninsula, from where violence spills over into the country. On Friday, he launched the largest offensive to date, firing 60 rockets at Islamist targets in a village near Sheikh Zuwajdi and killing at least 13 terrorists. He destroyed twenty of them in the whole of last week, another twenty this Monday and hundreds since July, and he also lost over 200 soldiers himself. Compared to Syria, these figures may seem low, but the fight against terrorism in Sinai is of great importance to the whole region.
There are many artificially created hatred myths about Israel. And the fact? It is usually far from them.
The history of the 20th century is often referred to as the " history of war ." Wars bring with them immense suffering, death, refugees, the forcible expulsion of the innocent. During World War I, the Turks committed genocide on the Armenian population, during World War II. During World War II, the Nazis murdered more than 1/3 of the entire Jewish population. Immediately after the war, the Allies approved the expulsion of the German population from Central and Eastern Europe at the 1945 Potsdam Conference. Iraq, a wave of refugees has been provoked by the conflict between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. The Soviet Union was a master and far outnumbered other conflicts by, among other things, expelling, relocating, and destroying millions of nations and ethnic groups.
The French historian Marc Bloch, executed by the Gestapo in 1944, recalls in the introduction to his article Defense of History, published posthumously in 1949, the arrival of German troops in Paris and the collapse of the French administration. He asks, "Has history betrayed us?" The scattering of Fatah during the Battle of Gaza in June 2007 and the disappearance of Arafat's historic resistance organization from Gaza's political space put the PLO in a similar situation. Like the French administration in 1940, the rooftop Palestinian national institution may think it has been "betrayed by history."
The world media is intensively dealing with the issue of the Middle East. Unfortunately, it is becoming a sad truth that many media, human rights activists and peace fighters professing the ideology of multiculturalism and political correctness blindly adopt the Palestinian version of story and history and accuse Israel of all wrongdoing. Sufficient lies have been mapped, I will point out another in this article - the accusation that Israelis are stealing water from Palestinians and Syrians.
The case of the photo "Palestinian beaten by an Israeli soldier on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem" entered journal history as one of the biggest anti-Israel lies, along with the aforementioned cases of the so-called Janin Massacre, during which Israel was to commit a colossal massacre of Palestinian civilians, which was not true. Another of the many false pieces of information was the perjury of Israeli soldiers in the murder of Muhammad Dura. This accusation again proved untrue.
The state of Israel faces not only a military and terrorist threat, but also media hostility. In June 2006, journalists accused Israel of a horrific war crime: Jews were to commit mass murder of the civilian population. According to some journalists, Israeli soldiers were supposed to attack and kill an unsuspecting Palestinian family who were resting and having fun on a Gaza beach for no reason. As with all cases published by Pallywood, all objective evidence that could convict Israeli soldiers of prosecutable crimes against humanity was lacking. Of course, the massacre was not authentically captured; the "appropriate" documents were only later provided by journalists from the Pallywood editing room, while the footage was naturalistically arranged.
Israel, considered an illegitimate intruder in that predominantly Islamic region, had to get used to the relentless inconvenience: bombs, rockets, all sorts of intrusions, the penetration of suicide bombers. This led to a decrease in foreign tourists, an outflow of investment, the economy began to suffer, the very existence of the state threatened ...
2013 brought one significant event to Israel and the Palestinians - both sides resumed peace talks. With the exception of brief unsuccessful interviews in 2010, they did not negotiate for five years. Direct talks resumed in late July thanks to the superhuman efforts of US Secretary of State John Kerry, promised by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to stay at the negotiating table for nine months.
Palestinian UN staff appear to have met their demands.
We can often come across the claim that the Jews only brought violence to Palestine, against which the Arabs had the right to defend themselves. Have Arab-Jewish relations really been strained since the founding of the Zionist movement?
Late, but still - this is how Monday's decision of the European Union, which after long hesitation, finally included the Lebanese Shiite movement Hezbollah on the list of terrorist organizations, could be summarized. With only one hook - she did not register them there, but only the so-called " armed wing ".
The topic of this diploma thesis is the question of the EU's involvement in resolving the Middle East conflict and focusing on interfaces and differences with other major actors ( especially the US and the Russian Federation, because in this context I see the UN only as an international forum where interests of individual states and groupings, so this work does not focus specifically on the work of the UN ). The aim is to assess, on the basis of the EU's analysis, its contribution and role in the whole process, what leads the EU to engage in the peace process and whether the EU has the opportunity to play a significant role in this area in the future.
The history of the State of Israel is closely linked to the new state's efforts to survive in an area where the surrounding Arab states have certainly not been in favor of it. Although the settlement of Jewish immigrants from all over the world in the decades before the establishment of the independent State of Israel led to problematic relations with the local Arab ( Palestinian ) population, it was the years after World War II that led to a real acceleration of problematic relations not only with neighboring Arab states, but also with the original Arab population in the former mandated territory of Great Britain.
Rising violence and the Sharon government's attempt to prove that Yasser Arafat was personally responsible for a significant part of the terrorist activities made negotiations between the two sides almost impossible. In this tense situation, the United States-led Quartet agreed at the end of April 2003 on a plan to ensure Israel's withdrawal from the occupied territories, but its implementation proved to be very difficult. This plan was also very ambitious from the point of view of the situation at that time, not only in terms of the set goals, but especially in terms of the set deadlines. In addition, in 2002, Yasser Arafat's residence in Ramallah was surrounded and largely destroyed. The Israeli government has since made no secret of the fact that Yasser Arafat, as a negotiating partner, no longer intends to take much into account.
The region of today's Middle East has been an important region throughout the twentieth century in which the interests of the European powers have clashed. The powers that were interested in this area were mainly Great Britain and France, but of course Germany and Italy also had their interests. In the introductory chapter to this work, the period from the establishment of the state of Israel to the present is chosen for the period for describing the international political dynamics. The reason for this step is, among other things, that shortly before the establishment of the state of Israel ended World War II, which significantly affected the international political arena and brought to the scene two new superpowers ( US and USSR ) and with them two different blocs of states, which began to transform into the international political image of the world that existed at that time. The clash between the two ideologies did not escape the Middle East either.
The collapse of the USSR had significant consequences for the Arab world. Quite quickly, the state withdrew from the Middle East arena, which until then had excelled in its anti-Israel stance and which was close to the Arab regimes and their views on the solution to the Middle East conflict. Only the United States and the EC remained, which, as already mentioned, was solving other problems at that time and focusing more on Europe and the new transforming states of Central and Eastern Europe. The Arab states thus lost the possibility of maneuvering between the two great powers. In addition, the US has focused on the newly independent states, and attention and assistance ( including financial ) has shifted in this direction.
The aim of this section is to focus on some of the specifics of the US and Russian approach to the Middle East peace process, especially with regard to current developments from the early 1990s to the present, and to try to compare them with the EC / EU approach. Although previous parts of the work have already pointed out some differences or interfaces in approaches, the focus will be on a more comprehensive view of the situation, including a brief summary of the context that determined the course of the great powers in the region during the Cold War.
List of abbreviations used
The conflict in the Middle East is a widely discussed topic worldwide, which can provoke highly emotional reactions from local people, politicians and also religious leaders, especially in Arab countries. Several generations of politicians have already considered its possible solution, and none of them has reached a definitive solution. There are several important players in the diplomatic field in this area, who are trying by various means to force the parties to reach a final settlement so that the whole region will be stabilized in the longer term. Their activities are proof that they consider the whole region of the Middle East to be an important area for their future relations with the countries of this part of the world, in the case of individual states especially in the political and economic field.
Protocol of Sevres
European Parliament resolution of 12 July 2007 on the situation in the Middle East
The EU has sufficient financial and administrative resources to play a significant role in the Middle East peace process, but there is a lack of stronger promotion of its own positions and views.
List of literature
Introduction The aim of this work is primarily to analyze the bilateral relationship - the United States versus Israel - and to find the main reasons for this " special relationship ", which has become one of the basic principles of US policy towards the Middle East region. This principle has been in place since the 1960s, and American foreign policy is based on it to this day. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States became the only major player in the region, and most Arab states today see the country as the only player capable of significantly influencing Israeli policy.
1. Theoretical introduction The first part of this work entitled "Theoretical introduction" will deal mainly with the theory of the diaspora, the way of its origin, the characteristics of the diaspora and also the concepts that relate to the Jewish diaspora. In order to deal in more detail with the issue of the influence of the Jewish diaspora on US foreign policy, it is first necessary to realize how this diaspora originated and why its scope in the United States is so unique. I will therefore focus on the oldest history of the Jewish state, the pitfalls the Jewish nation had to overcome in order to settle in its "Promised Land," and finally the expulsion by the Romans in the first century AD, which resulted in the definitive expulsion of Jews from their homeland and the nearly two thousand years of exile and dispersal in the diaspora. I will also address the question of the influence of the Jewish diaspora on international relations and its position in relation to Israel. I would like to conclude the conclusion of this section with a more detailed study of the origin of the diaspora in the United States of America and its formation into its current form.
2. The Impact of the Jewish Diaspora in the United States on American Foreign Policy The question of why the United States is willing to put its own security in the background to support the interests of another state has certainly been asked by many of you.
3. American Foreign Policy and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict In 1948, President Truman announced support for the creation of Israel on Palestinian territory, and since then Israel has held a special place in the hearts and minds of many Americans, Jews, and others. The myths that surrounded this state, as well as the tragedies of the Holocaust, played a major role in creating the so-called " special relationship " between the United States and Israel.
Conclusion Throughout their history, Jews as a nation have been accompanied by a number of different controversies and conflicts, which have made them a very determined, united and firm nation in the faith. Their belief that they were a nation chosen by God led them to feel a superiority over other nations. The land of Israel has always been sacred to them, and it has been very difficult for them to lose it throughout history. The expulsion of the Jews by the Romans in 70 AD meant an unimaginable catastrophe for the whole nation, and the Jewish nation was dispersed throughout the world. From this moment, the Jewish diaspora began to take shape. From the beginning, especially in the surrounding states, where the political conditions were favorable and where Jews were allowed to start a new life. Later, Jews began to move mainly to Western Europe. However, with the strengthening of Christianity, the situation is beginning to escalate here as well, and growing anti-Semitism is forcing Jews to look for their place elsewhere.
The main goal of this work is to analyze the bilateral relationship - the United States versus Israel - and to find the main reasons for this "special relationship", which has become one of the basic principles of US policy towards the Middle East. This principle has been applied since the 1960s After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States became the only major player in the region, and most Arab states today see it as the only player capable of significantly influencing Israeli policy.
The original inhabitants of Palestine ( Canaan ) were Canaanites. In the 13th century BC this area was conquered by Hebrew-Israeli tribes led by Moses' successor Joshua. Here, 12 Israeli tribes were united and later the first state unit was established, the biblical Jewish state of Israel, whose first king, according to biblical tradition, was Saul. His successor David conquered Jerusalem and made it the capital of the kingdom.
The United States was and still is the most important external player in the region. Their important position is caused by several reasons. The United States has long been considered Israel's largest ally, mainly because of the very powerful Jewish lobby, which, although Jews make up only 3 percent of the American population, has a very strong influence on American politics.
In 1947, the Soviet Union, like the United States and many others, backed a UN resolution on the partition of Palestine, hoping that the newly formed state would be socialist and accelerate the decline of British influence in the region. Therefore, three days after the proclamation of the independent State of Israel, the USSR recognized this new state de jure. The Soviet Union's involvement in the region was primarily aimed at combating " Western imperialism ."
The issue of the Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Arab conflicts has been addressed by the United Nations ( UN ) from the very beginning of its existence, ie in the 1940s. Since then, it has been constantly presenting plans and proposals to address the situation in this area. Since the Palestinian question first appeared on its agenda, several hundred resolutions have been issued on Israeli-Arab and Israeli-Palestinian relations. This chapter deals with only the most important resolutions that have had a direct impact on the further development of this conflict.
Since the very founding of the State of Israel, Europe has sought to maintain a neutral position against the Israeli-Arab, and therefore Israeli-Palestinian, conflict. Throughout the era, however, it has not been able to develop a unified policy towards the region, as individual states have constantly changed their positions depending on specific political or temporal contexts. The European powers, even before the creation of the European Community and subsequently the European Union itself, had very close ties to the Middle East. They pursued their power and political ambitions here. In addition, this area was very strategic from both an economic and a military point of view.
All actors, ie the USA, Russia, the UN and the European Union, had one common interest, namely stability in the Middle East. They therefore decided to coordinate their policies, bearing in mind that the most effective results can only be achieved through cooperation, not through competition. That is why they grouped into the so-called " Middle East Quartet ". The last chapter of this thesis therefore deals with the peace activities of the Quartet in the Middle East and analyzes whether they are able to achieve the desired peace in this region, whether they have the necessary resources and whether any progress has been made in the peace process.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its international-political context
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its international-political context
After the great powers of today's international system realized the importance of establishing stability in the Middle East instead of competing for influence, there were countless efforts to finally resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Although at least partial changes have been achieved, most of these peace efforts have unfortunately not led to any concrete result.
The aim of this work is not to analyze the cause and course of this never - ending conflict, but to analyze its international - political context, ie the attitudes and engagement of world powers. At the outset, however, I consider it necessary, in the context of understanding the whole issue, to briefly mention the course of this conflict from the very beginning of its origin to the present.
The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, contrary to many claims, is a matter of the modern era. Both Islam and Judaism have many features and elements in common. Many Jewish biblical figures are recognized and revered by Muslims, especially Abraham, through whom all three world monotheistic religions, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, de facto intermingle. There are many cases in history where Jews and Muslims fought side by side for a common cause.
Introduction The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has been going on for decades, is one of the world's most serious conflicts. Although overshadowed in recent years by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and some other military clashes, its resolution remains a prerequisite for peace in the Middle East, which is of strategic importance to most of the Western world.
1. A brief historical summary of the European Community's (European Union) involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict The countries of Western Europe, as well as the USA and Russia (formerly the USSR), have considered the Middle East one of their strategic areas since World War I. Throughout the last century, therefore, they have tried to keep the region in its sphere of influence. The decisive power position of Great Britain, which lasted from the First World War until the proclamation of the State of Israel in 1948, in the 1950s (especially after the so-called Suez Crisis in 1956) was taken over by the United States, which has maintained it to this day. The United States has long been by far the strongest player in the Middle East and probably the only state with the means to reach a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
2. The EU's official position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, EU-Israel-Palestine relations The European Union's official position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as the Israeli-Arab conflict, is based on the framework established by the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy. The 2003 European Security Strategy, entitled "A Secure Europe in a Better World", identified the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as one of the Union's strategic priorities. The EU believes that peace cannot be achieved without a definitive and universally recognized state arrangement between Israelis and Palestinians
in the Middle East, which is a necessary condition for global stability.
3. EU position on the recent and current issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict In the second half of 2009, pressure from all Quartet members intensified to resume negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, leading to a settlement of all permanent status issues as soon as possible. The EU summarized its views in a document entitled "Council Conclusions on the Middle East Peace Process", issued on 8 December 2009.
4. Possible future developments Although the theory that radicalism primarily stems from poverty is considered simplistic, it is clear that the poor economic situation is one of the factors contributing to a negative and radical climate in society. This has always been the case, and it is still the case in the Palestinian territories, and of course the Gaza Strip. Even during the peace process of the 1990s, when the degree of autonomy of the Palestinian Authority was increasing, it was not possible to start Gaza's economy . The Israeli blockade, exacerbated by the 2007 war between Fatah and Hamas, is contributing to a further deterioration in the region's economic situation. The EU has repeatedly drawn attention to this fact by calling on Israel to end it immediately. The EU acknowledges that easing the blockade in the summer of 2010 is an important step forward, but does not consider it sufficient and considers that its practical effect is not very visible in Gaza.
Conclusion Historically, it has always been difficult for European countries to find agreement on the Middle East. The differing interests of the European powers, led by France and Germany, have long prevented the EU (EC) from taking a common position on the Israeli-Arab issue and, with it, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This was not achieved until the 1990s under the CFSP.
The EU's position has always been rather supportive in the past, but especially in recent years the Union is trying to intervene more actively in peace negotiations, and even though the US still holds the main initiative, the EU's position as a mediator and neutral third party is gaining in importance.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has been going on for decades, is one of the world's most serious conflicts. Although overshadowed in recent years by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and some other military clashes, its resolution remains a prerequisite for peace in the Middle East, which is of strategic importance to most of the Western world.
The Palestinian terrorist movement Hamas is facing increasing difficulties. Since last year's rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, as its offshoot, it has promised a sharp improvement in relations and the economic situation in the Gaza Strip, and has expected the full opening of the borders, or even the creation of a free trade area with Egypt.
Water is a basic necessity of life, it is a condition for the functioning of the economy but also of society as a whole. It is therefore the perfect embodiment of the term strategic raw material. Ensuring its supply is therefore a priority for every state, and this priority comes to the fore, especially in regions where there is a shortage of water. One such region is the Middle East…
The history of Israel / Palestine is burdened by a tragic past, bloody animosity between Jews and local Arabs. Despite the many losses of many of their loved ones, the Israelis believe that the only solution to the situation is to find some way together, and fund any peace settlement project with the Palestinian population, build hospitals, schools, factories, build desalination plants, employ Arab workers from Palestinian Territories. But do Palestinians share similar views?
Who really cares about the basic human rights and a dignified life of Palestinian Arabs?
Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries have strongly warned Israel against violating the human and inalienable rights of Palestinian citizens. However, all Muslim states have done far less for their Palestinian-Arab fellow citizens than the State of Israel.
Some people blame the endless violence between Israel and its Arab neighbors for the state of Israel. Since the events of 1947-1949 have been sufficiently described, I will not return to them. I would just like to remind you that the Arab states did not recognize the Jewish state after the first Arab-Israeli war and refused to conclude any peace treaty with it. Palestinian terrorists ( Fijads ) carried out constant terrorist attacks against Israelis during the 1950s and 1970s, but seldom responded, and the situation worsened in the 1980s.