Furthermore, in my notes I asked for certain points in the Jordanian case to be included like past relationships with Israel and the Faisal/Weizmann agreement. Moreover the US role both agreements has to be highlighted as the main factor that pushed the agreement forward. and in the Jordanian agreement part you've mentioned something about Hezbollah . How is that relevant? and in the conclusion you've mentioned a point about Arabism vs. Islamic brotherhood, could you please elaborate on that?
Bilateral vs. the multilateral negotiations: From my perspective the issue here is clear cutit is easy to negotiate a deal between two parties, particularly those where the broker, in this case the USA, already has a relationship between these states. This was the case in both the Egyptian and Jordanian pacts. Whilst both states benefit from the deals that have been struck, there is a payoff for the USA in selling itself as seeking a peaceful end to issues within the region’s political dynamics. In the case of multi lateral agreements, such as those attempted under the Bush Jnr. era and by Condalessa Rice, these are more difficult to achieve since there are a number of different states present, all of whom will have their own preset agendas and criteria’s to be realised. For example, how can Iran and Israeli politics be settled in this way when the two states refuse to recognise each other? Indeed it is when multilateral discussions have been attempted that the issue of Palestine comes up time and time again. Similarly, where regional alliances come into play this will result in other states ‘ganging up’ in order to thwart potential solutions. This scenario can be placed in relation to Assad’s Syria, Iran and their associations to, for example, Hezbollah or to a lesser extend Hamas. As such bilateral v multilateral ? It’s about political brokerships and the likelihood for successful outcomes to talks. I hope this makes sense.
Faisal/Weizmann agreement: Whilst this agreement is not without being noteworthy, its relationship to the Balfour agreement (highlighted in the LR section of the outline) suggests to me that this particular agreement was ruined before it got a chance to flourish. However with the realignment of Middle Eastern borders during this era, the likelihood for any sustainable impact will be minimal. I would suggest that this agreement is noted as an example where Arab/Zionist agreement is possible, in the current climate it would be extremely difficult to sell such a similar agreement but also where it is to be remembered that a lot of water has passed under the bridge since this time, particularly when you consider that the region has been on a state of military readiness since 1948! Crikeyhow many conflicts since this time?
US role both agreements: Although i did not discuss this as a stand alone aspect of the paper, it is to be discussed throughout, as part of the Cold War Chess board, as part of relations between USA and specific states (Egypt and Jordan), aid, political support for unpopular regimes, etc etc. Indeed, this additional paper has already covered some aspects in the bilateral vs multilateral section. Further to this it is to be remembered that that USA went against its accepted thought processes after WW” and supported the creation of Israel as opposed to supporting the Arab world, which was proposed by a number of leading US politicians and academics.
Hezbollah: The days of conventional conflict in the Middle East are now over, it is highly unlikely that Israel will be attacked by conventional forces from another state. NGOs such as Hez and Hamas are likely to attack Israel on behalf of other states, such as Iran. As such this brings into play the Palestinian proxy wars. This inclusion further reduces the possibility of a multilateral agreement particularly since these NGOs are provided with state sponsorship from Iran and Assad’s Syria.
Arabism vs. Islamic brotherhood: You mean the Muslim Brotherhood? When Nasser attempted to become theleader of the Arab world he launched Pan Arabism. However his policy failed and was replaced by political Islam, of which MB has been a fore runner for a number of decades. Pan Arabism failed after the Arab world failed to militarily ‘deal’ with Israel. Had it not have been for this, or of the creation of the MB in the 1920s then groups such as the PLO, Islamic Jihad, Hez, Hamas and indeed AQ would not have been created. There is a clear generational line from MB to AQ. Again, i hope this makes sense. If you need to ask anything else then please do not hesitate to ask.
