scholarly journals Le Proche-Orient dans le système mondial

2005 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 691-716 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thierry Hentsch

The Middle East is generally perceived in the West, often in simplistic terms, as an area which is crucial to the West's economic and strategic interests. Given the complexity of this new « Eastern question », the Western perspective is important because it counts for a lot in determining the future of this region and in defining the position the Middle East holds in the world System. This dominant perspective has nonetheless the defect of putting on the back burner the interests of the peoples of the Middle East and the possibilities of a different scenario which corresponds less with the designs of the great powers today and more with the needs of the Middle Eastern countries. The present and future position of the Middle East in the world System should thus be examined from an internal viewpoint as much as from an external one. Seen from the outside, the region appears essentially as a pawn. From this perspective, the deterioration of the Palestinian question permits the great powers (particularly the United States) to keep the Arab governments divided and thus blocks the way to regional cooperation susceptible to putting the energy resources of the oil producers at the service of self-directed development in the region. Seen from the inside, however, this cooperation, beyond its economic advantages, has interesting social and cultural possibilities, It is thus a question of knowing which conditions would develop these possibilities. The question is important because, to a certain extent, the outcome of the Middle Eastern situation will serve as an example to the Third World as a whole to the extent that the Middle East develops a strategy for a new kind of development defined and carried out free from dependency on external powers. The precondition to this effort is clearly the formulation and effective maintenance of a common Arab position which is coherent and realistic on the Palestinian question ; inevitably this is central to all Middle Eastern policy.

Author(s):  
Manar Shorbagy

This essay examines the Kefaya movement in Egypt and what the author calls the new politics of anti-Americanism in Egypt. The essay provides some needed historical background to the era of George W. Bush’s politics and the U.S. hopes for an “Arab Spring.” The essay argues that there has long been a policy in Washington, D.C., toward the Middle East that is a vision and not just a policy, and that it preceded regime change in Iraq. The author argues, moreover, that the U.S. has long sought a Middle East devoid of any resistance to the United States and Israel, that the U.S. has colossally failed in the Middle East, and that this demonstrates the perils of ignoring the complex realities of that area of the world. This essay (drawing on open-ended interviews, statements, newspaper articles, reports, and unpublished documents) presents the Kefaya movement as an example of a Middle Eastern movement with transformative potential, at once a cross-ideological force and an alternative mode of resistance to American imperialism.


Author(s):  
Michael C. Hudson

This chapter examines the roots of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. It begins with an overview of the origins and development of the United States’s involvement in the region over the past century, focusing on the traditional American interests. It then considers the structure of Middle Eastern policymaking and its domestic political context, as well as Washington’s response to new regional tensions and upheavals since the late 1970s. It also discusses new developments in the region, including the rise of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Al-Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the U.S.-led interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Palestinian–Israeli impasse. The evolution of U.S. policy since 2000 in the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama is explored as well. The chapter concludes with an analysis of an ‘Obama doctrine’ and ‘American decline’ in the Middle East and the world.


2004 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Mart

AbstractIn the 1950s, the United States experienced a domestic religious revival that offered postwar Americans a framework to interpret the world and its unsettling international political problems. Moreover, the religious message of the cold war that saw the God-fearing West against atheistic communists encouraged an unprecedented ecumenism in American history. Jews, formerly objects of indifference if not disdain and hatred in the United States, were swept up in the ecumenical tide of “Judeo-Christian” values and identity and, essentially, “Christianized” in popular and political culture. Not surprisingly, these cultural trends affected images of the recently formed State of Israel. In the popular and political imagination, Israel was formed by the “Chosen People” and populated by prophets, warriors, and simple folk like those in Bible stories. The popular celebration of Israel also romanticized its people at the expense of their Arab (mainly Muslim) neighbors. Battling foes outside of the Judeo-Christian family, Israelis seemed just like Americans. Americans treated the political problems of the Middle East differently than those in other parts of the world because of the religious significance of the “Holy Land.” A man such as Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, who combined views of hard-nosed “realpolitik” with religious piety, acknowledged the special status of the Middle East by virtue of the religions based there. Judaism, part of the “Judeo-Christian civilization,” benefitted from this religious consciousness, while Islam remained a religion and a culture apart. This article examines how the American image of Jews, Israelis, and Middle Eastern politics was re-framed in the early 1950s to reflect popular ideas of religious identity. These images were found in fiction, the press, and the speeches and writings of social critics and policymakers. The article explores the role of the 1950s religious revival in the identification of Americans with Jews and Israelis and discusses the rise of the popular understanding that “Judeo-Christian” values shaped American culture and politics.


1993 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahmut Bali Aykan

Since the 1950s Turkish foreign policy toward the Middle East has centered on the question of support for the Arab position on the Palestinian question. Ever since the U.N. General Assembly resolution of November 1947 that partitioned Palestine between the Palestinians and Israelis, all the Arab countries—even though diversity of regime has prevented them from otherwise acting as a unit in Middle Eastern politics—have consistently supported the establishment of an independent Palestinian state (in opposition to the Israelis and the United States) as a condition for stability in the Middle East. In November 1973, the heads of the Arab states declared the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)—created in 1964 through the initiative of the Arab League—to be the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and they have supported its efforts to establish an independent Palestinian state in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip ever since.


2005 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 21-28
Author(s):  
Graham E. Fuller

The DebateQuestion 1: Various commentators have frequently invoked the importance of moderate Muslims and the role that they can play in fighting extremism in the Muslim world. But it is not clear who is a moderate Muslim. The recent cancellation of Tariq Ramadan’s visa to the United States, the raids on several American Muslim organizations, and the near marginalization of mainstream American Muslims in North America pose the following question: If moderate Muslims are critical to an American victory in the war on terror, then why does the American government frequently take steps that undermine moderate Muslims? Perhaps there is a lack of clarity about who the moderate Muslims are. In your view, who are these moderate Muslims and what are their beliefs and politics? GEF: Who is a moderate Muslim? That depends on whom you ask and what that person’s (or government’s) agenda is. Moderate is also a quite relative term, understood differently by different people. For our purposes here, let’s examine two basically different approaches to this question: an American view and a Middle Eastern view of what characterizes a moderate Muslim. Most non-Muslims would probably define a moderate Muslim as anyone who believes in democracy, tolerance, a non-violent approach to politics, and equitable treatment of women at the legal and social levels. Today, the American government functionally adds several more criteria: Amoderate Muslim is one who does not oppose the country’s strategic and geopolitical ambitions in the world, who accepts American interests and preferences within the world order, who believes that Islam has no role in politics, and who avoids any confrontation – even political – with Israel. There are deep internal contradictions and warring priorities within the American approach to the Muslim world. While democratization and “freedom” is the Bush administration’s self-proclaimed global ideological goal, the reality is that American demands for security and the war against terror take priority over the democratization agenda every time. Democratization becomes a punishment visited upon American enemies rather than a gift bestowed upon friends. Friendly tyrants take priority over those less cooperative moderate and democratic Muslims who do not acquiesce to the American agenda in the Muslim world. Within the United States itself, the immense domestic power of hardline pro-Likud lobbies and the Israel-firsters set the agenda on virtually all discourse concerning the Muslim world and Israel. This group has generally succeeded in excluding from the public dialogue most Muslim (or even non-Muslim) voices that are at all critical of Israel’s policies. This de facto litmus test raises dramatically the threshold for those who might represent an acceptable moderate Muslim interlocutor. The reality is that there is hardly a single prominent figure in the Muslim world who has not at some point voiced anger at Israeli policies against the Palestinians and who has not expressed ambivalence toward armed resistance against the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. Thus, few Muslim leaders enjoying public legitimacy in the Muslim world can meet this criterion these days in order to gain entry to the United States to participate in policy discussions. In short, moderate Muslimis subject to an unrealistic litmus test regarding views on Israel that functionally excludes the great majority of serious voices representative of genuine Muslim thinkers in the Middle East who are potential interlocutors. There is no reason to believe that this political framework will change in the United States anytime soon. In my view, a moderate Muslim is one who is open to the idea of evolutionary change through history in the understanding and practice of Islam, one who shuns literalism and selectivism in the understanding of sacred texts. Amoderate would reject the idea that any one group or individual has a monopoly on defining Islam and would seek to emphasize common ground with other faiths, rather than accentuate the differences. Amoderate would try to seek within Islam the roots of those political and social values that are broadly consonant with most of the general values of the rest of the contemporary world. A moderate Muslim would not reject the validity of other faiths. Against the realities of the contemporary Middle East, a moderate Muslim would broadly eschew violence as a means of settling political issues, but still might not condemn all aspects of political violence against state authorities who occupy Muslim lands by force – such as Russia in Chechnya, the Israeli state in the Palestine, or even American occupation forces in Iraq. Yet even here, in principle, a moderate must reject attacks against civilians, women, and children in any struggle for national liberation. Moderates would be open to cooperation with the West and the United States, but not at the expense of their own independence and sovereignty. 


Author(s):  
Jakub J. Grygiel ◽  
A. Wess Mitchell ◽  
Jakub J. Grygiel ◽  
A. Wess Mitchell

From the Baltic to the South China Sea, newly assertive authoritarian states sense an opportunity to resurrect old empires or build new ones at America's expense. Hoping that U.S. decline is real, nations such as Russia, Iran, and China are testing Washington's resolve by targeting vulnerable allies at the frontiers of American power. This book explains why the United States needs a new grand strategy that uses strong frontier alliance networks to raise the costs of military aggression in the new century. The book describes the aggressive methods which rival nations are using to test American power in strategically critical regions throughout the world. It shows how rising and revisionist powers are putting pressure on our frontier allies—countries like Poland, Israel, and Taiwan—to gauge our leaders' commitment to upholding the American-led global order. To cope with these dangerous dynamics, nervous U.S. allies are diversifying their national-security “menu cards” by beefing up their militaries or even aligning with their aggressors. The book reveals how numerous would-be great powers use an arsenal of asymmetric techniques to probe and sift American strength across several regions simultaneously, and how rivals and allies alike are learning from America's management of increasingly interlinked global crises to hone effective strategies of their own. The book demonstrates why the United States must strengthen the international order that has provided greater benefits to the world than any in history.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. p65
Author(s):  
Sri Michael Das

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, situated not only physically at the center of the world has also been the center of some of its most significant moments. These involved the Kingdom’s role in supporting peace between Israel and Egypt alongside former President and Humanitarian Jimmy Carter. Carter, demonized for his Southern style and failures in the Middle East, especially during the Iran Hostage Crisis, engineered one of its greatest diplomatic feats ever: Peace between ancient enemies, Israel and Egypt. Their long-standing vendetta which had real consequences for centuries nearly moved the modern world to the brink of World War 3. In stepped President Carter, Anwar Sadat, Menachem Begin and eventually, the Royal Family of Jordan and all that changed. In this paper I would like to explore the personalities, roles and conditions that brought them together, re-celebrate their achievements, and challenge the world to model their characters and repeat their successes. Once again or even still, Israel is the pearl in the Middle Eastern oyster, and a weary world is eager move on. It is my hope my research will give us an inkling where to begin a process that could once again prevent a Global Conflict.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Israa Daas ◽  

Abstract The Palestine-Israel conflict is probably one of the most pressing problems in the Middle East. Moreover, the United States has been involved in this conflict since the 1970s. Therefore, the present research aims to learn more about the American perception of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It was conducted using a survey that addressed Americans from different backgrounds, focusing on four variables: the American government’s position, solutions, the Israeli settlements, and Jerusalem. The research suggests a correlation between political party and the American perception of the conflict. It appears that Republicans seem to be against the withdrawal of the Israeli settlements, and they believe that the US government is not biased toward Israel. Nevertheless, Democrats tend to believe that the US government is biased in favor of Israel, and they support withdrawing the Israeli settlements. Moreover, there might be another correlation between the American perception and the source of information they use to learn about the conflict. Most of the surveyed Americans, whatever their resource of information that they use to learn about the conflict is, tend to believe that the US is biased in favor of Israel. It is crucial to know about the American perception when approaching to a solution to the conflict as the US is a mediator in this conflict, and a powerful country in the world. Especially because it has a permanent membership in the UN council. KEYWORDS: American Perception, Palestine-Israel Conflict, Jerusalem, Israeli settlements


2021 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-24
Author(s):  
Deanna Ferree Womack

This article considers the history and contemporary reality of Middle Eastern Christianity in light of new demographic information available from the World Christian Encyclopedia. For readers interested in church history and World Christianity, it identifies key lessons to be learned about Christians in and from the Middle East today. It focuses on understanding the region’s Christian diversity, the complexities of recent demographic decline, the relationship between Middle Eastern and global Christianity, and the interreligious realities of Christian life in the region.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document