• 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. 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

  1. Armed forces.

    Navvies from Ireland, Scotland and the North of England scarred the landscape with viaducts, bridges and tunnels in the pursuit of the smooth gradients that trains required to travel at their most efficient level. They were paid a pittance for excruciating and dangerous work.

  2. UN Middle East 1947

    20%).8 This point largely doesn't take into account that the remaining land was state-owned land - meaning that 73% of Mandate Palestine's land was to be inherited to the state that would accept it. It also fails to understand that the issue isn't private land, but sovereignty - the Arabs

  1. The Arab Israeli Conflict -

    Today the Palestinian Refugee problem continues to grow, as the number of children born to refugees have increased in the camps in the belief of "raising an army to destroy the Jewish infidels", but the main problem for the Israelis to worry about is the continuation of Arab Nationalist Terrorist Organisations such as the P.L.O (Palestinian Liberation Organisation).

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

    the construction of the wall in the Occupied Territories'...and is [in] contradiction to relevant provisions of international law'. The International Court of Justice called the wall 'contrary to international law'. Combined with the effect of the illegal settlements within the Occupied Territories, the role Israel plays in hindering and stopping

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

    England ended the war whilst they were in a very bad way. Of the 3 sources this is the only one which supports Eden's idea. Source E is a picture with quite a different perspective. People in England looked like they did not want war.

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