Inter National Relations

From a Realist's point of view on the second level of analysis, the actual reason for this war is imperialism. Especially western imperialism, right now we are in a war that is getting more and more horrible with every turn. A Realist would argue that western influence is the main cause of war, that we are too democratic and that the Middle East doesn't want our western ideals, they are grounded with in their own believes to go with ours. Imperialism always brings war and conflict, so if we stop Democratic imperialism, we can better solve this war. This of course brings back the first image; there is a definite mixture, because quite frankly one can't have one of them, without the other.

On the third level of analysis, a Realist would state that, democracies don't fight with other democracies. It's obvious that if one conforms to democracy, or establishes a Wal-Mart in your country, one can definitely find peace. The Western imperialist won't want to help spread conflict simply because that particular nation, no longer poses as a threat. A Realist would argue that if there is a balance of governments, there wouldn't be as much or at least conflict wouldn't be as severe. Essentially, if we all believed in the same government, and all had the same aspirations and values, there would be no need for conflict, because we'd all agree on the same issue. Unfortunately, this is becoming more Liberal then Realist, simply because, as a Realist would argue that something like that wont ever happen. People are more isolated and passionate about their own personal aspirations, than others.

A Liberal on the other hand would, bring a much lighter path to the whole situation, beginning with the first image. Firstly, they are much more optimistic about the Middle Eastern Crisis than a realist. They believe that there can be cooperation and that hearts are malleable; people can change and do what is best for peace. All the people in the Middle East are suffering from something, whether it is, heart ache, or anger, they are all suffering, and a Liberal certainly believes that here can be a way to change this. The people's pain and hardship won't exist; if they just try to change themselves, everyone else will do the same.

The also believe that antidemocratic governments and dictatorships cause wars. Liberals know that if governments weren't dictatorial, the Middle East would have any conflicts and the people would be content. Governments that promote revolution also are a huge issue to the Liberal, they feel that these governments only lead to more conflicts and issues and that hey are pointless. A democratic country is essentially the best type of government one needs to be a thriving nation without conflicts and economic disasters. A Liberal is a firm believer in hope and change; they know that if the governments became more peaceful, "preferably democratic" they would surely cease to have problems.

Interestingly enough, like the Realist, a Liberal argues that democracies just simply don't fight with one another, but unlike the Realist, the Liberal believes that if everyone was democratic, there definitely would be peace. The Liberal is more certain in a change of hearts and Nations entirely, instead of its pessimistic neighbor the Realist. Liberals strongly believe that the Middle Eastern crisis can be solved if their nation becomes democratic, simply because the people would be at peace, and not hostile. While Liberals do believe that here are people who don't want change and despise, democracy, they feel that even those people could change once they saw how truly wonderful a democracy would be in their lives and for the entire Nation. Essentially the Liberal is for "Hope Dust" all around!

From a Marxist perspective, the first image solely involves abandoning false consciousness. Once people get rid of the idea that hey are above any one else, and that they are individuals, they will be able to live in a utopia. Basically the Marxist would tell the Middle Eastern people to forget about fighting each other, and to take down the government with revolution. A revolution can and will solve everything. If one wants peace, have a revolution, and then the sate can take over from there, and after that, the sate will diminish and every one would live in a peaceful society. So in the end, a Marxist would say that the Middle Eastern should embrace Marxism in order to end this crisis.

For the second level of analysis from a Marxist perspective is again that revolution at home brings peace. But more than that, the true root of all war is "evil" capitalism. In effect if the Palestinians and Israelis abandon there own religion and embrace a set in payment for everyone, then there wouldn't be any conflict between the people.

Thirdly like the rest of their "non violent" solution, anarchy is definitely the way to go with Marxism. All of the Middle Easterns essentially need to revolt, then abandon their religions and trust only in the anarchy of Marxism. Unfortunately-for the Marxist any ways-revolution, has always lead to more conflict with in the Middle East there fore their theory, is difficult for supplying a solution.

After evaluating the main theories on how to bring peace into the Middle East, I have come up with my own solution. My philosophy is a mixture of both realism and Idealism (liberal). I enjoy the idea of "hope dust" and also realize that many people in the Middle East are severely scared by the horrors that are taking place over there. It seems best if the Middle East did allow a democratic government to be set forth out there simply because it could bring peace a lot faster. While the Marxist's ideals were extreme, it is understandable to see why one would feel the only way to have peace is through violence or revolution. Unfortunately history has shown time and time again, that revolutions simply don't work, they only cause more conflict within the next generation to come. Once nations become communist, it's only rare that their communist societies work. This is where Wal-Mart comes into play. I think that maybe if the Middle East did establish a Wal-Mart, there might be more peaceful solutions. Simply because, Wal-Mart provides opportunities for Nations to work together, like China and the US. I just hope that there can soon be peace with in the Middle East, so that people can live in harmony, and without conflict.

In conclusion, the problems within the Middle East can only be solved if we all combine all of our solutions together, except for Marxism, which much too radical. The first image is more important than the any of the other images, simply because it deals with the internal person. Because of this person, levels two and three are possibly. Without levels two and three though, the Nations would still get nowhere with out influence from the state and government.

Works Cited

Waltz, Man the State and War. London, New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.

Gladdis, John-Lewis. Strategies of Containment. London, New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.

Sharpiro, Goldberg., Carlos, Justine, B.Z., Bolado. "P.O.V. Promises". PBS. 2001 <www.pbs.org/pov/pov2001/promises>.

Colbert 1