Middle East Uprisings

        The readings in the Economist address the conflicts of the Arab world and how they continue to be a prominent issue with no resolution in sight. The Arab Israeli conflict has caused the United States as well as outside actors to step in and try to implement their own traditional ideals and values. Uprisings in the Middle East have become the norm this year and will most likely only continue to grow. When states within close proximity to each other are seeing uprisings and revolutions taking place it only causes them to push for change as well. It is a chain reaction, and as long as Western democratic ideals continue to be present in the Middle East conflict will be present amongst opposing ends.

            One of the main conflicts addressed in the readings is the conflict between the Arabs and Israelis. I will use this conflict as a way to exemplify Durkheim, Weber and Marx’s traditional workings.  The Arab-Israeli conflict has been ongoing since the creation of a Jewish state in 1947. Many groups from around the world, including active participants within the state have unsuccessfully tried to resolve the conflict between the two groups. Many outside influences have supported the various sides and actors seeking to promote peace within the region.  A one state resolution has continued to be a prominent issue between the two groups. The current state of Israel has historic religious background that both the Arabs and Israelis feel they have claim over the land without the other group being present. This has proven to be a difficult task to resolve since neither group is willing to live side-by-side in a one state resolution. The problem here is that the religious cleavages run too deep to simply split the land evenly into two separately governed sovereign states; having each group strongly opposed to the others ideals and religious beliefs, it seems as if neither side is willing to extend their solution set in order to come up with a win set.

             Durkheim would view this conflict as a conscious collective from the group and that their uprisings are due to religious ideals and value an act of worshiping social life. Durkheim would attribute the ongoing conflict as a growth in population and increasing interconnectedness problem. With outside international actors pushing for a one state resolution it only heightens the conflict and causes both sides to continue to resent the other. The United States is a stable ally to the state of Israel causing the Arabs to view this as a negative attack against them, which in turn causes actors within close proximity to the state of Israel to take the Arabs side. All of this can be attributed to the constantly growing conflict. Each side is unwilling to give up their land and refuses to live peacefully until the opposing side admits their wrong doing or surrenders the land. Both of which are unlikely to happen anytime in the near future.
           One of the main reasons the conflict has carried on with no solution set is because both the Arabs and Palestinians continue blaming each other for the problems that have caused civil turmoil for years, without taking into consideration the role the international community has played. It is important to view this civil conflict form a top-down perspective rather than a bottom-up. The Jewish and Arab populations continue to focus on previous years of unrest and turmoil, focusing solely on the bottom-up point of view. By not considering the top-down perspective, they miss the outside factors that have in fact played a large part in this conflict for many years. The theory of social construction used by Weber can be linked to the bottom-up viewpoint and can be used to explain why the Arabs and Israelis continue to have unrest; they have been conditioned to assign meaning to the conflict at hand and have acquired this point of view from years of learning and listening. Their shared understandings and expectations in relation to the social structure will ultimately determine how they perceive the knowledge of the conflict and how they have assigned meaning to their own interpretations of the situation, which has continued to link negative emotions to the opposing side. Years of conditioned hatred on both sides has continued to be the driving force behind why neither side is willing to give the other side a chance.  In this case human nature is a fundamental reflection of political behavior and will only change in the event that future generations break away from this learned conduct.

             Unless domestic society recognizes that their own leaders and international leaders are a large part of this problem they will continue blaming the other side, and thus the vicious cycle continues with no clear resolution in sight. Weber would argue that in order for this to happen the conflicting sides would need to recognize this on their own, without the help from outside actors. Weber would also argue that the Arabs and Israelis continue to focus on their own distorted views of reality and focus on the biased ways in which people have assigned motives and develop underlying explanations. When groups are involved in an ongoing conflict with no end in sight they tend to overestimate the importance of external factors when explaining their own sides’ behavior and underestimate factors when explaining the opposition’s behavior, leading to biased opinions on both sides only fueling the conflict.          

            The international community has worked toward a peaceful negotiation within the region by promoting peace talks and implementing new ideals into both communities. With outside actors persistent on making progress in the region it is important to understand why they are intervening in a situation that does not directly involve them. Israel’s geographic location makes it a target state for actors around it who do not approve of the state’s legitimacy. The United States is the main actor in the defense of Israel as a legitimate sovereign state within the international community. This causes tension with the rest of the world since they feel Israel should not be recognized and that the land was unfairly given to them. The United States views Israel as one of its main allies and supplies the country with aid. The promotion of democracy is very important to the United States. With Israel being the only democratic state in the Middle East they feel strongly about continuing their role in Israel and continue to recognize them as a legitimate state. This has caused great hostility both with the Arabs and Israelis as well as the surrounding states. They view the United States as a radical country threatening their traditional ideals and beliefs. This is another reason as to why the conflict has continued on for so long and why it will most likely continue until both conflicting parties, as well as the international community, come to an agreement that encompasses all actors win sets.

            Marx would argue that the United States is acting in a selfish manner as a way to control certain aspects in a foreign land. Marx would interpret the United States as acting in this manner as a way to maximize their own self-interested goals and as a way of exercising their power over the state of Israel but the entire Arab region as well. With the United States having influence over Israel it also hinders actors around Israel to come up with an agreement most suitable for the region. With the push of democracy it is no wonder that in a region such as the Middle East unrest and conflict continue to grow in present day. They are unfamiliar with the way the West functions and to try and implement these new regimes and governments only causes them to continue to view the West in a negative light. The geographic location of Israel is too precious to the international community to allow the two opposing sides to engage in resolution on their own. Israelis’ strategic location for the United States military bases and weapons is the driving force behind the United States presence and main linkage to the area. The conflict will continue on unless the United States cuts its ties with Israel, the international community recognizes Israel as a legitimate state, or the Arabs and Palestinians can come to terms with the conflict and live civilly in a one state resolution.

            All of these factors can be attributed to the growing uprisings and civil war in the Middle East. Some want change, some want things to stay the same. Either way, when a superpower such as the United States is pushing for democracy in a foreign land actors will either latch on to the idea of change or fight it. A similar conflict has emerged this year in the state of Egypt where the political leader Mubarak has oppressed the citizens for years. After the Egyptians caught wind of the uprisings in Tunisia due to social networking sites such as Facebook it only caused them to fight the regime even more. This uprising and uprisings in the Middle East can be attributed to the growth of globalization and how states are more and more connected to each other. Without tools such as the internet civilians would not have learned about other suppressive regimes and how other citizens were fighting back to have a voice. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/world/middleeast/14egypt-tunisia-protests.html?pagewanted=2&sq=middle%20east%20protests%20from%20karl%20marx&st=cse&scp=2)