Wilmington Falls

Author(s):  
Philip Gerard
Keyword(s):  
The West ◽  

The U.S. Army marches on Wilmington in two wings, one up the eastern peninsula and other up the west bank of the Cape Fear. Ironclad monitors provide artillery support form the river itself. Nine regiments of USCT attack the entrenched line at Sugar Loaf, but cannot breach it. Across the river, local blacks act as scouts, and under their guidance 6,500 troops commanded by Maj. Gen Jacob D. Cox are able to flank the rebel positions at Fort Anderson and Town Creek, forcing an evacuation of the Sugar Loaf position directly across the river as well. On Washington’s Birthday, Wilmington surrenders to US. troops.

2003 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-160

The separation wall, one of the largest civil engineering projects in Israel's history, has been criticized even by the U.S. administration, with Condoleezza Rice stating at the end of June 2003 that it ““arouses our [U.S.] deep concern”” and President Bush on 25 July calling it ““a problem”” and noting that ““it is very difficult to develop confidence between the Palestinians and Israel with a wall snaking through the West Bank.”” A number of reports have already been issued concerning the wall, including reports by B'Tselem (available at www.btselem.org), the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (available at www.palestinianaid.info), and the World Bank's Local Aid Coordination Committee (LACC; also available at www.palestinianaid.info). UNRWA's report focuses on the segment of the wall already completed and is based on field visits to the areas affected by the barriers, with a special emphasis on localities with registered refugees. Notes have been omitted due to space constraints. The full report is available online at www.un.org/unrwa.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Presya Ramadhan

This paper examines the role of Middle East Investment Initiative (MEII) in development in the West Bank, Palestine in the U.S.-Palestine Partnership (UPP) framework. Answering the question of how the role of the Middle East Investment Initiative (MEII) in development in Palestine in the US-Palestine Partnership (UPP) framework and how the contribution of Public-Private Partnership (PPP) to development in Palestine, the author's thesis statement is that amid diplomatic and territorial disputes, The Middle East Investment Initiative (MEII) as a public-private partnership becomes the main channel for collecting and channeling development assistance such as resources and private sector investment that can benefit the West Bank and bring prosperity to people Palestinians. While the private sector such as the Middle East Investment Initiative (MEII) cannot do much to address diplomacy or security issues, the private sector can play an equally important role through the contribution of resources and investment to conflict areas such as Palestine to help economic development In the West Bank, Palestine.


2010 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 66-81
Author(s):  
Philip J. Dermer

The following document, previously unpublished, was written in March 2010 by a recently retired ( June 2009) U.S. Army colonel with thirty years experience in the Middle East, including tours of duty and advisory roles (in both military/security and civilian domains) from North Africa to the Persian Gulf. The subject of the informal report is the author's first two trips as a "civilian" to Israel and the West Bank, where he had served two tours of duty, most recently as U.S. military attachéé in Tel Aviv during Israel's 2005 unilateral disengagement from Gaza and the formation of the U.S. Security Coordinator's (USSC) mission to reform Palestinian Authority (PA) security forces. Written as an internal document for military colleagues and government circles, the report has been circulating widely——as did the author's earlier briefings on travel or missions in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, and especially Iraq——among White House senior staff, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Defense Intelligence Agency, CENTCOM (U.S. Central Command), EUCOM (U.S. European Command), and the USSC team. The document's focus is the state of the "peace process" and the current situation in the West Bank, with particular attention to the PA security forces and the changes on the ground since the author's last tour there ended in mid-2007. But the real interest of the paper lies in the message directed at its intended audience of military and government policy officials——that is, its frank assessment of the deficiencies of the U.S. peace effort and the wider U.S. policy-making system in the Israel-Palestine arena, with particular emphasis on the disconnect between the situation on the ground and the process led by Washington. The critique has special resonance in light of the emerging new thinking in the administration fueled by the military high command's unhappiness (expressed by CENTCOM commander General David Petraeus and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Michael Mullen) with the State Department's handling of Middle East diplomacy, especially with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, on the grounds that diplomatic failures are having a negative impact on U.S. operations elsewhere in the region. For most JPS readers, the report has additional interest as an insider's view of the U.S. security presence in the Israel-Palestine arena. It also reflects a military approach that is often referenced but largely absent in public discourse and academic writings. The author, in addition to his tours of duty and peacekeeping missions in various Middle Eastern countries, has served as advisor to two U.S. special Middle East envoys, the U.S. negotiating team with Syria, General Petraeus, Lieutenant General Keith Dayton, Vice President Dick Cheney, and, more generally, to CENTCOM, the Department of Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, among others. In retirement, he has worked with CENTCOM as a key primary subject matter expert in the development of analyses and solutions for its area of responsibility, leads predeployment briefings for army units heading to Iraq, and travels frequently to Iraq and elsewhere in the region as an independent consultant. He is currently in Afghanistan with the CENTCOM commander's Afghanistan-Pakistan Center of Excellence. The report, made available to JPS, is being published with the author's permission.


2020 ◽  
pp. 125-146
Author(s):  
Ayfer Erdogan ◽  
Lourdes Habash

The 2017 inauguration of Donald Trump as the U.S. president opened a new chapter in U.S. policy making toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Several developments that have taken place under the Trump Administration mark a clear rupture from the Oslo Accords in favor of support for Israeli plans to annex a large fraction of the West Bank and design a new settlement of the conflict according to its interests. While the U.S. policy toward the Palestinian issue is not radically different under Trump, he does break from former presidents in that he overtly indicates a sharp pro-Israel tilt and has been more transparent about the U.S. position in the conflict. In this context, in light of the developments that have taken place in the last three years, this article aims to investigate the main pillars of the U.S. foreign policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to analyze how far the Trump Administration’s policies toward the conflict indicate a shift from those of his predecessors. It also offers some insights into the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by providing three prospective scenarios and discussing their repercussions.


2020 ◽  
pp. 125-146
Author(s):  
Jerome Slater

Despite the Israeli myths, the 1967 war was not “a war of no choice.” Before the war, Israeli political and military hawks hoped to use another war to seize the West Bank and the Golan Heights. Israel deliberately provoked Syria into war. Egypt was forced by its alliance with Syria to come to its assistance, but did not intend to start a war with Israel. U.S and Israeli intelligence knew this and anticipated that Israel would easily defeat Egypt, even if the Egyptians attacked first. Though strongly pro-Israel, Lyndon Johnson did not want the U.S. to be drawn into the war. Therefore, the Israeli military attack on Egypt in June 1967 was not forced on Israel. During the war Israel seized the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. After the war Israel decided to keep its conquests and to ignore signals from the Arab states for compromise peace settlements.


2010 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-59
Author(s):  
Ahmad H. Sa’di

AbstractAlthough Israel’s constructed wall in the West Bank has been discussed in a voluminous literature, some basic questions have largely remained unanswered. This paper tackles two such questions: Firstly, what is the relationship between Zionism and the conception of the wall? This question follows an assumption that the wall’s idea is neither new, nor was it solely triggered by immediate security considerations. Secondly, why do European countries (in addition to the U.S.) oppose the imposition of sanctions against Israel for breaching international law by building the wall? A post-colonial perspective has been employed to discuss the role that borders (particularly hard ones) have assumed in the colonial encounter in the stages of expansive and contraction colonialism. Moreover, through this perspective, the common experience of Israel and the European colonial heritage with regard boundaries is considered.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document