Dear QT:

1) Was peaceful negotiation stymied more as a result of internecine rivalry or as a result of external intervention ie the US (in support of Israel)?

both. you need to state WHEN it was the former or the latter.
when did negotiations happen?
pls zoom in on the reasons for Camp David (events leading up to it), and the outcome of Camp David - did Camp David resolve the important contentious points like jeruselem?did camp david ensure lasting peace?

also zoom in on cases with superpower intervention. i.e. Suez Crisis. thing is, both US and SU outfitted both sidesof the conflict and 'evened' them out. because of detante and US interest in Saudi Oil AND the strong jewish lobby in the US, they actually WANTED peace.

in this case, the lack of peace can possibly be due to the parties themselves. eg: the arabs - particularly Nasser who needed to regain support for his Arab Nationalism, and to regain lost ground in the previous wars

2) Does religious fundamentalism = militant extremism?
as spoken, the latter comes after the former in the case studies we study today. a militant approach is used to further a religious fundamentalist agenda. you want to study about WHY this phenomenon was the case. Were they 'pushed' into a militant approach? was it particular innovations that inspired them?

look at the Iranian Revolution which saw a militant Shite party gain control of a whole country AND overthrow the infidel West (the US) which had been 'subjugating' the east, in the eyes of the arabs. this inspired the sunnis, the 'enemies' of the shites, to take a similar radical approach.

3) Was religious fundamentalism a response to modernity (western structures) or modernism (western values and ideology)?

both. important: fixation with WEST.

4) Hezbollah. Hamas. Fatah. Which organisation reaped the most 'success' and why? Was the criterion for success solely defeat of the Israelis and stirring up anti-Semitic feelings?
not too important in your syllabus. hezbollah is lebanese BTW.
their criterion for success, initially, was for the eradication of israel. PLO eventually changed to seek autonomy through the parliamentary route. this created problems - other parties like Hamas accused it of betrayal.

5) Did the US specifically look towards the Middle East (Islamic threat) to fill the vacuum of the end of the Cold War and collapse of SU communism as a means for validation of its foreign policy? Or was it inevitably sucked into the conflict in a Am public (pro-Israeli) vs. Am govt (pro-Arab for oil) situation?
no. this is a politics inference. pls do not confuse it with the intentions of the US.

there are 2 contending views, which are valid.
1) strong jewish lobby in the US with pro-israeli sentiments
2) desire for oil in the middle east, with strong alliance with Saudi Arabia
--> overall desire for PEACE.
where american national interests are at stake, they will intervene.
intervening has created problems - accusations of imperalistic US/West, view of it as the great infidel and Satan etc etc.