Advertisement

The Political Dimensions of the Dispute

Chapter
  • 74 Downloads

Abstract

In assessing the political dimensions of the Jordan River dispute, one must analyze the political importance of the Jordan River to both the Arabs and the Israelis and the relationship of the dispute to the broader complex of international issues known as the Cold War. The most superficial analysis will reveal that the basic political fact in the dispute is the attempt of each of the disputants to establish a power situation favorable to itself. The Arabs are attempting to increase their power while, at the same time, preventing any increase in Israeli power. Israel, meanwhile, is attempting to maintain the advantage which she already has and, if possible, to add to it. Toward explication of this very general political fact, it is necessary to examine: (1) the advantages, political as well as economic, which are likely to accrue to Israel as a result of the development of the Jordan River waters; (2) the Arab reaction to Israeli plans for Jordan River development in the light of vital Arab interests which might be affected; and finally, (3) the ways in which these issues affect, or are affected by, the wider and more complicated power struggle of the Cold War.

Keywords

Middle East Political Dimension Arab State Western Power Unify Plan 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Richard A. Easterline, “Israel’s Development: Past Accomplishments and Future Problems,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 75 (1961), p. 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 4.
    J. C. Horowitz, “The Role of the Military in Society and Government in Israel,” in S. N. Fisher, ed.The Military in the Middle East (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 1963), pp. 96–97.Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    Stephen Longrigg, The Middle East (Chicago: Aldin Publishing Co., 1963), p. 37 See also: Lenczowski, op. cit., p. 340.Google Scholar
  4. 3.
    Joseph E. Johnson, “Arab vs. Israeli: A Persistent Challenge to Americans.” Middle East Journal, Vol. 18 (1964), p. 4.Google Scholar
  5. 3.
    Manfred Halpern, The Politics of Social Change in the Middle East and North Africa (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1963), p. 382.Google Scholar
  6. 1.
    John C. Campbell, Defense of the Middle East (rev. ed., New York: Harper and Bros., 1960), p. 320.Google Scholar
  7. 2.
    Don Peretz, Israel and the Palestine Arabs (Washington: Middle East Institute, 1958), p. 24.Google Scholar
  8. 2.
    A. L. Tibawi, “Visions of Return,” The Middle East Journal, Vol. 17 (1963), p. 511.Google Scholar
  9. 4.
    Don Peretz, “The Arab Refugees: A Changing Problem,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 41 (1963), p. 564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Georgiana G. Stevens, ed., The United States and the Middle East (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall., 1964), pp. 117–118.Google Scholar
  11. Fred J. Khoury, “The U.S., the U.N. and the Jordan River Issue,” Middle East Forum (May 1964), p. 20.Google Scholar
  12. 1.
    John Foster Dulles, “Economic Aid to Israel,” Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 29 (November, 1953), pp. 674–675.Google Scholar
  13. 2.
    John Foster Dulles, “Report on the Near East,” ibid., Vol. 38 (1953), Pt. II, p. 832.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands 1968

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations