Political Reform, the United States and the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Abstract
There seem to be two constants in Arab politics: authoritarian government and the conflict with Israel. While there is occasional movement in both arenas (indeed, at the present, there is rare movement on both), pessimists who predict stasis are more often than not correct. Is there a relationship between the two constants? To what degree have Arab governments used the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and other conflicts as an excuse for limiting a more pluralistic government? Until fairly recently, there was another constant as well: the United States opposed creation of a Palestinian state. American opposition to the idea eased during the 1990s, but it was not until the Bush Administration that Palestine as a place sometimes replaced the Palestinians as a people in official parlance and American support for a state of Palestine became explicit. What is the impact on popular opinion within the Middle East of American statements in support of a Palestinian state and the peaceful co-existence of Israel and Palestine? These two questions are based on rival cynical assumptions that political reform and the Arab-Israeli conflict are related or rather that the inaction on both fronts is related. According to one cynical assumption, the conflict provides an opportunity to existing regimes to suppress or ignore their own populations in the name of the Palestinian cause. In the second cynical view, the United States actually undermines its supposed support for democratic change by ignoring the conflict that matters the most to people from the region. Neither cynical view is accurate.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- Apr 21, 2005
- Accession Number
- ADA435045
Entities
People
- Nathan J. Brown
Organizations
- George Washington University