The Middle East has always been remembered as a dwelling for war and misunderstandings. There is a constant fight for territories and resources. The constant religious belligerence has caused the entire region to be painted with the color red; red being the color of blood that has been spilled for no logical reason. There is one supreme power that is continuously looking down at the Middle East with a concerned face and that super power is the United States.
The dilemma in the Middle East is very complicated, but in no way is it unsolvable. The Middle East conflict is a considerable snag in global peace and the forceful, immediate removal of the malevolent regimes is the only solution.
First off, most people might not understand the location of the Middle East. The Middle East is composed of North African countries, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey, Jordan, Israel, and several other smaller countries. Major geographical features include the Persian Gulf, the Suez Canal, and the Mediterranean Sea. The Middle East is rich in resources. Most of the oil in the world is exported from here.
The socio-economic structure of the Middle East is primarily focused on the wealth of its leaders. The average income in these countries is significantly lower than that of the United States. The average income for a family in Egypt is only $1,180. However, in Kuwait the income raises exceedingly to just over $22,000. In addition to low incomes, the life expectancy in the Middle East is equivalent.
The average life expectancy in Somalia is only 46. In other third world countries in the region you will find the same thing. Nevertheless, with outside help from foreign nations, life can be a lot better for these people. In Kuwait the life expectancy is higher than the United States being 77. This is no doubt thanks to the aid and assistance of other countries (Studies).
We can see conflicts originating in the mid-1940s. Though this was not the last time these two groups will fight over the holy lands of the Middle East. The world saw problems continuing into the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. The primary purpose in this ongoing war is the control of the holy territories of Palestine.
The Jewish state of Israel is a focal point in this war. The Jews thought they had rightful ownership of the territory. But the Arabs knew it was their divine right to live there. After 1964 the Arab opposition began calling themselves the Palestine Liberation Organization, or as the world knows best, the PLO. Their goal was and still is to create a state for Palestinian Arabs.
In 1967, Israel gained control of the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip which were previously controlled by Egypt. In addition to parts of Egypt, Israel seized the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. Later on that year, the United Nations began a campaign calling all Israeli to withdraw from those territories in exchange for Arab recognition of their independence. However, neither side met the conditions and the attacks continued.
The world knew it was time for foreign intervention. In 1970, the United States brokered a cease-fire, which stopped the conflict from escalating into a full-scale war. With the peace being stuck between a rock and a hard place, there was not much breathing room for the leaders of the Middle East. The former USSR showed support for the Arab nations in their conflict.
Nevertheless, neither the USSR or the United States was fully aware of the conflicting differences the leaders of the Middle East had. But everyone understood that their ultimate goal was the regaining of the territories they thought they were entitled to (War).
In another part of the Middle East another conflict had erupted. In 1956, shortly after the United States and the United Kingdom decided not to fund the construction of the Aswan High Dam, the Egyptian government seized the Suez Canal. Later on that year, Israeli troops invaded Egypt. Then two days later, British and French forces stormed Egypt to allow free passage through the canal. The Egyptian government effectively blocked the canal by sinking 40 ships.
A truce was finally signed in November after intervention of the United Nations. The canal was then reopened 1957. This area provided further battle grounds in the future between Egypt and Israel. After an international task force was sent in, unrestricted Israeli use of the canal began in 1979 (Suez).
Throughout these conflicts, the people of the United States' support swayed between the Arabs and the Israeli. It started with the U.S. recognition of the independent state of Israel in 1948. At that time, 36% of the American people favored the Jews, while 14% percent sympathized with the Arabs. In 1964, nearly twenty years later, the American support of the Jews was at 25% with the Arab support lowering to only 7%, with the mass majority of the United States indifferent of the entire conflict.
After the Six-Day War in 1967, the Israeli support nearly doubled. Put simply the Americans loved winners. They saw the success and determination of the Israelis and began supporting them time after time. In recent polls, we see American support at nearly half, leaving 15% in agreement with the Arabs. It is the United States' policy not to get involved in this war. We play two roles, a enthusiastic supporter of Israel and an honest adviser in the pursuit of peace (Mid-East).
As we focus on the territorial disputes of the nations of the Middle East, it is hard to see what is really being effected, the people. On April 21, 2002, the Secretary of State talked on ABC's This Week about the crisis building in the Middle East. Powell says, "There is a lot of work to be done on the humanitarian side. (2). Powell is speaking, of course, about moving to help the people.
"There are leaders in control who could care less about the citizens under them." Powell also speaks about the concept of a global democracy in this quote, "We support the community of democracy that exists here in our hemisphere (4)." Powell goes on to discuss the obvious benefits of the spread of democracy that we know in the United States (Powell).
With the massive collection of resources in the Middle East, we see an easy way for the leaders of that region to control the world. It's a straightforward idea, you cut off the world of precious oil and they come to their needs. But what the leaders on the oil rich Iraqi nation don't understand is that when they cut off oil to us they hurt their own people.
In the White House Report on the Middle East and Iraqi Oil, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer talks about the ramifications of Iraq's actions. "It's another sign of Saddam Hussein willing to hurt his own people (1)." The United States has always seen Hussein as a malicious madman that will put his own interest in front of his own supporters. Even the other oil rich nations of the Middle East do not condone this course of action. But cutting the world of oil will only starve the people of Iraq (Oil).
As the conflicts become more and more troublesome for the global community, we see the United States doing more troubleshooting than observing from a safe distance. On April 6th, 2002, President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair assemble to discuss a plan for Lasting Middle East Peace. President Bush starts off the discussion by saying, "We share a vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and in security (1)."
This showing the world that the United States and the United Kingdom both have a unified goal of lasting peace and prosperity. Both Bush and Blair agreed that Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction can only cause further global instability and must be stopped. We have seen in the past Hussein denying U.N. inspectors to take notice of his future plans for the world.
Bush also pays tribute to the support that the United Kingdom has given on the war on terrorism, "No nation has been stronger in fighting global terrorism than Great Britain (1)." The United Kingdom has stayed by Americans side in our own conflict with those who threaten our security, because they knew an enemy to us is an enemy to the world. Hussein has shown that it is capable of being an enemy to world peace.
Bush talks about the United States being friends to the people of Israel. His goal in having Israel fall back, will cause the Arabs to turn it's back on it's terrorist principles and look on to peace in the Middle East. Blair points out here "that murdering innocent people will go nowhere, the bloodshed and the carnage and innocent people dying, in the end, is not a solution to this issue (5). The issue of global peace is at hand. And standing around doing nothing while people are killed over and over again will not solve this crisis (Peace)."
The one solution that Bush brought up is the removal of these malevolent leaders. "The policy of my government is the removal of Saddam and all options are on the table (5)." Meaning that Bush is willing to take Saddam out of a position of power, but he and the United States could not do it alone. Bush and the leaders in the United Kingdom have both agreed that if Saddam was to hook up with a terrorist network, it could bring terrifying results in the efforts of eliminating terror in the world.
In addition to Hussein, the topic of Yasser Arafat was brought up. Bush says, "Arafat has not yet kept his word. He said he would fight off terror. He hasn't (7)." Showing that Arafat is a possible enemy to global peace (Peace). Two great leaders on the free world both agree on one thing, the hasty extraditing of immoral rulers is the easiest solution to a complicated problem.
The removal of uncooperative leaders in the Middle East will result in progressive peace in the Middle East. For over sixty years there have been conflicts in the Middle Eastern countries. The Jews and Arabs want control of the Palestine territory. There are leaders who are willing to starve their own people for their high gain. Finally, there is the development of weapons of mass destruction which are in the wrong hands.
The only reasonable and quickest removal of the regimes in power is by force. The only hope for peace on earth is getting leaders who have that idea in mind and will devote their lives in achieving it. The world has moved immense wars into the favor of global peace before, and it could do it again.