• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Was the role of external forces more a source for stability than instability in Middle East between 1945 and 2000

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

´╗┐Was the role of external forces more a source for stability than instability in Middle East between 1945 and 2000? External forces refer to states or international organisations from outside the region. Middle East refers to the Palestinians and Israelis over the land issue and Arab hostility to Israel due to sympathy for the Palestinians, Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism. The US, USSR, Britain, France, Norway and the UN involvement with the Arab-Israeli conflict have brought about its share of both stability and instability to Middle East. However, real efforts to bring peace and stability to Middle East only began in the early 1970s. External forces have been a source of instability in Middle East but up to 1956. After British withdrew hastily from Palestine, UN took over and divided Palestine between Jews and Palestinians. Despite having a larger population, the Palestinians were given a smaller portion of land. ...read more.

Middle

The superpowers continued and increased involvement after 1967. USSR increased support for the radical Arab states and also spent billions to develop port facilities in Egypt to support their naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean. The US too began to view Israel as a strategic asset, a bulwark against the Soviets and its clients and a bastion or order in the region. US support for Israel for non-Cold War reasons has contributed to instability throughout this period. America has not only funded and armed Israel but it has also contributed to instability by failing to restrain Israel and force to make peace. This is prevalent by US vetoes of UN resolutions condemning Israel. This held back the process of passing a resolution and bringing peace and stability to Middle East. On top of that, US acted as a contributor to rise of Islamic fundamentalism. Hamas was formed as a reaction against continued Israeli occupation and to express their desire to create Palestinian Islamic state on all of Israel. ...read more.

Conclusion

The superpowers were more actively involved in the 1973 war. The last phase of the war despite being the most serious superpower confrontation in the Middle East, they eventually worked together to stop the fighting. At the 1979 Camp David Accords, Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty, the first between Israel and an Arab state with US mediation. Mostly importantly, the role of the Norwegians in facilitating the 1993 Oslo Accords which offered the possibility, for the first time, of a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. In the 1991 Madrid Conference, USSR, US and Spain invited leaders from the Middle East to Madrid to discuss possible peace proposals, which later developed into the Oslo Accords. The Oslo Declaration included recognition of Israel?s right to exist, PLO as official representative of Palestinian people and the end of us of violence. In conclusion, after 1973, it is possible to suggest that external forces became more a force for stability as superpower rivalry in the Middle East ceased, and as the US began to play a larger role as peacemaker. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. Why was the Six-day War of 1967 a Significant Turning Point in the History ...

    This time he was not going to underestimate the Israeli force. By 1967 Egypt had 1200 tanks and 1000 aircraft. The Israelis had 800 tanks and only 400 aircraft and only 400 planes. The Israeli force was easily outnumbered. Nasser was sure of victory but yet again he would turn out to be mistaken.

  2. Armed forces.

    In many ways, these navvies represented one of the largest migrations of Imperial settlers as they moved over from Ireland or as they followed the train tracks around the country and ended up settling in the last place they found work.

  1. The Arab-Israeli conflict 1956, 1967 and 1973.

    Although the Suez-Crisis also played a large part in the contribution to the wars (it started the Suez-Sinai war), it was only in the 1956 war and it had no involvement at all in the other two wars which is why I don't think its the most important factor and

  2. The Arab Israeli Conflict -

    Even though they were encouraged to stay by the new Israeli government, and those who did remain became citizens, many fled at the urging of their Arab leaders who expected a quick victory over the Jews. By 1967, the feelings of the local Arab population around Israel were a climate

  1. UN Middle East 1947

    It is more democratic to assign majority positions in certain areas than it is denying them. It is no surprise that the international community shunned the minority report (Resolution 181[I]). There are still questions of fairness though: the Jews only owned 7% of the total land available (the Arabs owned

  2. The Arab-Israeli conflict.

    Another cause of tension was the movement of the junior judge in Jerusalem, Mohammed Amin al-Hussein, known as the 'Mufti.' This group eliminated Jewish settlers and also any Arab who tried to live with and work with the Jews. In return Britain allowed the Jews to set-up their own defence force, known as the Haganah.

  1. What can you learn form Source A about Anthony Eden's reasons for opposing Colonel ...

    If this is anything to go by, the majority of the British public wanted peace rather than war with Egypt. Source F gives the same impression but with a different approach. It is more to do with the reasons for going to war.

  2. To What Extent Have The Attempts For A Palestinian State Been Blocked By The ...

    Whereas the settlements and security wall are an example of a physical and somewhat militaristic manifestation of this hindrance of a peace deal towards a Palestinian state, economic restrictions upon the Palestinian economy are just as destructive to the aims for a fully autonomous state.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work