International Scientific Journals
of Scientific Technical Union of Mechanical Engineering "Industry 4.0"

The Middle East is a geographical and political region whose boundaries vary with analytical purpose. Depending on whether the emphasis is placed on security, politics, or economic integration, the region may be defined expansively—from Morocco to Pakistan (the ―Greater Middle East,‖ a term popularized in the early 2000s)—or more narrowly, in line with traditional Orientalist framings, from Egypt to Iran. Although the region’s spatial scope is contested, one defining characteristic is widely recognized: chronic instability. At the center of this instability lies the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
Since Israel’s establishment in 1948, the confrontation has evolved from an element of a broader Arab–Israeli conflict into a distinct and enduring dispute with regional and global ramifications. Although the conflict concerns a relatively small territorial space (approximately 20,000 square kilometers), it has repeatedly expanded in political significance—from local contestation to regional polarization and, ultimately, to internationalization. It remains salient across the Muslim world and continues to command sustained attention from global policymakers, who for more than seven decades have failed to broker a durable settlement.
The conflict often generates sharply polarized views and is frequently approached through simplified narratives that obscure its historical depth and institutional complexity. While its modern dynamics emerged in the twentieth century, both parties draw on longer historical, religious, and cultural claims in legitimizing competing rights. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has also been instrumentalized by external actors, from Cold War geopolitics to post–September 11 security discourses. This article argues that the persistence of the Israeli–Palestinian dispute is best explained as a product of interacting political, structural, psychological, and international factors. By analyzing ten obstacles to peace, the paper offers a framework for understanding why repeated negotiations have failed and why conflict management has often substituted for conflict resolution.

The Middle East has been of primary interest for the following American presidents and administrations since the mid-20th Century. The Israeli Palestinian conflict is an indisputable element of the Middle East and is nearly as long as American strategic interest in the region. Shaping American policy towards the Israeli Palestinian conflict has been of different importance to U.S. Presidents, but the twostate solution has predominantly dominated as a viable solution, despite the fact that Israel has been favored. Donald Trump had a different approach towards the actors of the conflict and the possible solution, in action, discontinuing efforts towards the two-state solution. The current U.S. President, Joe Biden, in his approach towards Israel and Palestine is loyal towards the more traditional American stance. This paper, based on the study of key documents, presents a comparative analysis of the former and present U.S. Presidents, showing how a contemporary, more even-handed, approach, building civil societies, and engaging regional players, might result in future peace between Israel and Palestine.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict (originally Israeli-Arab conflict) has been of interest to the current and former American presidents. The long-agreed U.S. policy regarding finding a solution to the conflict – the two-state solution, through a series of decisions, has been undermined by Donald Trump. Joe Biden, the current American president, has reversed, frozen, and continued some of Trump’s decisions to establish a new Israeli-Palestinian conflict environment aimed at restarting negotiations between the conflicted parties. A comparative analysis of Trump’s and Biden’s approach towards the conflict strengthened by the analysis of a formal White House document allows for the presentation of the current administration’s policy towards the conflict and the actors of the conflict. In this paper I have presented an analysis of ten vital aspects of Biden’s policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during his first term in office.

The process of decision making in developed democracies is a difficult one. Arriving at a decision or shaping new legislation is time-consuming, demanding, and requires extensive knowledge. It is a natural state that the decisionmakers and legislators need external experts to guide and advise them. That is the role of lobby groups, bodies, and individuals. The Middle East is a strategic region for the USA for a number of reasons such as: the presence of strategic natural resources; the existence and possibility of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and is the home to two of America’s most vital partners in the region, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Therefore, the shape of American Middle East policy is of fundamental importance. This policy is also important for the local states in the region who want American policy to be in line with their expectations and interests. This policy is also vital for ethnic minorities and Americans who can trace their roots to the Middle East. These minorities, organized in formal and informal lobbies, work alongside the policymakers consulting and advising them, aiming for a more preferential policy towards the country of their interest.
Therefore, comparing and contrasting the pro-Israeli and the pro-Arab lobby helps to understand the process of shaping American policy towards the Middle East. The two lobby groups, while operating in a common environment, differ significantly: the size of the lobby, the wealth, and also their place in American society, all have implications as to the effectiveness of their actions. Understanding American Middle East policy, how the USA shapes and executes its interests and policies in this strategic region, requires understanding of the pro-Israeli and pro-Arab lobby in the USA. This knowledge is also essential to formulate our own opinions and positions on this difficult subject.