We discussed the involvement of other Arab nations over the Palestinian-Israeli issue, Nasser’s need to lead the Arabs in order to remain in a prominent position among the Arab nations.
The prominence of the U.S. in the in conflict is important to Israeli’s historical advantage, and that is why the Obama administration’s reaction to the new prime minister’s negative attitude to peace talks could possibly give a bit of hope to the situation. Though minister Netanyahu is not for a two state solution, saying a Palestinian state would be a threat to Israeli security, pressure from the United State could be an important factor for the future. Obama has made it clear that the current situation is not acceptable, and American support is important for Israel. This is discussed in this BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7963503.stm. Foreign influence has proven to be an important part of the developments in this conflict, starting with the British at the beginning of the twentieth century and eventually transferring to the U.S., and now we seem to be changing our stance on the issue (from what I understand). I wish we could spend more time on this topic, though we have read so much about it, the conflict is so controversial and complicated it would be helpful as an American citizen for more information.
We watched and later finished the documentary on the rise of Khomeini and the Islamic revolution that put him in power, to the shock of the U.S. I was surprised to find that so many groups could support this figure, communists and religious clerics, mostly because he was against U.S. influence and the shah. It is difficult to discuss Khomeini objectively, since take over of the U.S. embassy and holding hostages has always been a hot topic in my family. Even now that I understand the angry response to American influence and the harboring of the hated shah it is hard to understand the violence towards ambassadors and diplomats.