The engagement in the Middle East is spurred by the conflicting theological, political, and overall interests exerted by both Israel, and Palestine does not coincide with one another. In “The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict” it states,“ In January 2006, the anti-Israeli paramilitary and political group Hamas, which has launched deadly armed attacks on Israel since the 1990s, won parliamentary elections in Palestine, setting off a political crisis between Palestinians and Israelis. The Hamas victory was seen as a major blow to peace prospects because Hamas considers the eradication of Israel as one of its goals. “(Israeli-Palestinian Conflict). Hamas is one of the innumerous reason that peace has been hindered in the conflict due to their desire to eradicate Israel all together. However the struggle cannot be centrally blamed on the Palestinians, which Charles Bronfman …show more content…
In an article by Gordon, he stated, “Fourth, after decades of spearheading boycotts of Israel, Arab states are now keen to do business with it. That’s clear from the fact that, aside from visas for athletes, all the Arab gestures under consideration are aimed at facilitating business.”, which expound that many Arabian governments wish to have normalized relations however being hindered in their enterprises by the pending conflict(Gordon). However, he later expands upon the issue,“Just last summer, Israeli pundits from across the political spectrum were united in asserting that normalization with the Arab states would require an Israeli-Palestinian deal.”(Gordon). That shows that most political advancement and deals with other Middle Eastern countries have the same requirement of the conflict to be settled due to Israel’s fear of Hamas importing mass amounts of lethal weaponry from sympathisers in other