URL; http://www.adl.org/durban/zionism.asp
This is an article from the Anti-Defamation League, designed to "stop the defamation of the Jewish people ... to secure justice and fair treatment for all." This article is explaining Zionism, which is one of the aspects being acknowledged in my IA, in the process of determining to what extent Israel is a product of British involvement in the Middle East. Zionists, who are Jewish nationalists, were also one of the groups that contributed to Israel's development and establishment, so this serves as a background for me as to what Zionism really is, and when it became prominent.
It is described here as the Jewish national movement of rebirth and renewal in Israel, the birthplace of the Jewish people. Ever since the Jews were expelled from this land, the desire to return has been a key part of Jewish literature, prayer, ritual, and culture. Zionism emerged to prominence in the late 1800s as a result of anti-Semitism in Western Europe and persecution of Jews in Eastern Europe, and the "father" of modern Zionism was Theodor Herzl, an Austrian journalist who advocated for a Jewish state and homeland. Today, Zionism is a guiding national movement among many Jews, and some believe it is responsible for their determination to remain in Israel despite opposition among many.
The value of this information is that it shows me that in part, the establishment of Israel is in part due to intense Jewish nationalism, and the fact that the Jews have managed to fight opposition and remain established there for these turbulent 60 or so years shows me that they are a very proud and determined people, due to their desire to maintain their culture and establish a homeland for themselves once again. Zionism had been brought up in class and in my reading for my IA, but this clarifies for me what it actually means to the Jewish people.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
Key Issues, Pages 45-50 of "Crisis in the Middle East".
1. How did Israel develop into a strong, modern state?
The Israeli Army, which helped to not only protect the nation but to shape it as well, were a major contributing factor. The "Law of Return" gave Jews from all over the world the right to be a citizen, and as a result, nearly 700,000 new immigrants arrived. In the army, they all received a similar training and learned Hebrew. Army experience helped to make the immigrants true Israelis, and with financial aid from the United States and reparations from Germany, the Israelis had the money to cultivate vast areas of desert. Also, new industries formed in the 1950s and 1960s such as cars, chemicals, and defense, and much money was spent on the armed forces to defend the country. Also, high quality education helped to push the country forward.
2. What part did Fatah play in the developing conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors?
Fatah was part of the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization), whose aim was to win back the land that the Palestinians had lost to Israel. In 1965, Fatah carried out its first raid of Israel, and had its bases in Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon, all of which border Israel. The Jordanians and Lebanese tried to restrict PLO activities because they were afraid of Israeli reprisals, but the Syrians supported it and supplied men and arms.
3. Who was to blame for the outbreak of war in June 1967?
Neither side was to blame more than the other, as the region was sliding into a crisis that it could not control. Israel issued several threats to attack Syria if Syria did not stop supporting Palestinian attacks on Israel, and then on the other hand the USSR intervened on the side of Syria. The Soviets warned the Egyptians that Israel was planning to attack (which was untrue), causing Nasser to act in defense of Egypt. So really, neither side is to blame more than the other because there was a situation that could not be controlled all too well.
The Israeli Army, which helped to not only protect the nation but to shape it as well, were a major contributing factor. The "Law of Return" gave Jews from all over the world the right to be a citizen, and as a result, nearly 700,000 new immigrants arrived. In the army, they all received a similar training and learned Hebrew. Army experience helped to make the immigrants true Israelis, and with financial aid from the United States and reparations from Germany, the Israelis had the money to cultivate vast areas of desert. Also, new industries formed in the 1950s and 1960s such as cars, chemicals, and defense, and much money was spent on the armed forces to defend the country. Also, high quality education helped to push the country forward.
2. What part did Fatah play in the developing conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors?
Fatah was part of the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization), whose aim was to win back the land that the Palestinians had lost to Israel. In 1965, Fatah carried out its first raid of Israel, and had its bases in Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon, all of which border Israel. The Jordanians and Lebanese tried to restrict PLO activities because they were afraid of Israeli reprisals, but the Syrians supported it and supplied men and arms.
3. Who was to blame for the outbreak of war in June 1967?
Neither side was to blame more than the other, as the region was sliding into a crisis that it could not control. Israel issued several threats to attack Syria if Syria did not stop supporting Palestinian attacks on Israel, and then on the other hand the USSR intervened on the side of Syria. The Soviets warned the Egyptians that Israel was planning to attack (which was untrue), causing Nasser to act in defense of Egypt. So really, neither side is to blame more than the other because there was a situation that could not be controlled all too well.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
IRL 18. April 11, 2010.
URL; http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/
On the menu on the left, is a link to a list of quotes of people from Israel and the Arab countries made during the time of this war or the time preceding it, compiledon a British website dedicated to the Six Day War and providing details about all aspects of it. These quotes give much insight into how the leaders in these countries felt in regards to the situation, and as this war has been discussed in class as well as a couple of quotes (one of which stated that the Syrians would not make peace with Israel and wanted to drench the land in their blood and toss them back into the sea), these quotes will further my understanding. The following quotes stood out to me as particularly significant;
"In view of the fourteen incidents of sabotage and infiltration perpetrated in the past month alone, Israel may have no other choice but to adopt suitable countermeasures against the focal points of sabotage. Israel will continue to take action to prevent any and all attempts to perpetrate sabotage within her territory. There will be no immunity for any state which aids or abets such acts." - PM Levi Eshkol speech
This quote is significant because it demonstrates the Israeli motive to fight for what they perceived as their need to survive in the Middle East. Mention is made of 14 incidents of sabotage and infiltration, which would've been the reasons they would have needed to fight; if they wanted to survive, they would need to make every attempt they could to protect themselves when every country around them is against them. Their fate depended on it.
“All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel” - Cairo Radio
The significance here is that Egypt (and most likely other Arab nations who shared common goals) would do anything to eliminate Israel, showing the hatred these surrounding countries had for Israel and how they desperately wanted to destroy Israel.
The limitations of these quotes are that although they were made in context of this war, it is not guaranteed that EVERYONE in Egypt for instance hated Israel and wanted a 'total war' in order to end Israel's existence. These quotes reflect the beliefs of those who could publicize their beliefs. Someone else who would have had no way of letting their opinions reach the public might have disagreed. But these quotes do say much about the popular opinion at the time.
On the menu on the left, is a link to a list of quotes of people from Israel and the Arab countries made during the time of this war or the time preceding it, compiledon a British website dedicated to the Six Day War and providing details about all aspects of it. These quotes give much insight into how the leaders in these countries felt in regards to the situation, and as this war has been discussed in class as well as a couple of quotes (one of which stated that the Syrians would not make peace with Israel and wanted to drench the land in their blood and toss them back into the sea), these quotes will further my understanding. The following quotes stood out to me as particularly significant;
"In view of the fourteen incidents of sabotage and infiltration perpetrated in the past month alone, Israel may have no other choice but to adopt suitable countermeasures against the focal points of sabotage. Israel will continue to take action to prevent any and all attempts to perpetrate sabotage within her territory. There will be no immunity for any state which aids or abets such acts." - PM Levi Eshkol speech
This quote is significant because it demonstrates the Israeli motive to fight for what they perceived as their need to survive in the Middle East. Mention is made of 14 incidents of sabotage and infiltration, which would've been the reasons they would have needed to fight; if they wanted to survive, they would need to make every attempt they could to protect themselves when every country around them is against them. Their fate depended on it.
“All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel” - Cairo Radio
The significance here is that Egypt (and most likely other Arab nations who shared common goals) would do anything to eliminate Israel, showing the hatred these surrounding countries had for Israel and how they desperately wanted to destroy Israel.
The limitations of these quotes are that although they were made in context of this war, it is not guaranteed that EVERYONE in Egypt for instance hated Israel and wanted a 'total war' in order to end Israel's existence. These quotes reflect the beliefs of those who could publicize their beliefs. Someone else who would have had no way of letting their opinions reach the public might have disagreed. But these quotes do say much about the popular opinion at the time.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
IRL 17, March 31, 2010
URL; http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/causes_suez-crisis-1956.htm
This is an outline of the Suez Canal War of 1956, which we have discussed in class. This page comes from a British site for history learning, and describes how the Suez Canal War ended the political career of Sir Anthony Eden (the British Prime Minister at the time) but advanced Gamal Abdel Nasser's reputation in the Arab world. It states here that the war began in 1956 when Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, that is, took control of it and its profits and prevented Britain from benefitting. Britain had ruled Egypt for all of the 20th century and their presence in Egypt was not welcomed by many Egyptians, and Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal was one of the acts which drove the British out of Egypt, which many Egyptians wanted. After the British (and the French, who had joint control over the Canal) agreed to a ceasefire in the war and left the canal under Egyptian control, Nasser's reputation improved even more, while the British and the French, and by default, Eden were seen as international bullies. In order to further better the Egyptian economy, Nasser wanted to build what would become the Aswan High Dam, and wishing to regain some control in the region, both Britain and the United States agreed to support the project financially. The significance of this outline to what we have studied in class is that both support the idea that the Suez Canal War made relations between Britain and Egypt worse, portrayed Nasser as a hero in the Arab world for standing up to the British and the French (who they saw as oppressors), and made the British and the French appear to be international bullies. The main limitation with this source is that it does not specifically state how this incident ended Anthony Eden's political career, although it is stated in the first part of the reading that it did, and that information would be useful, since it effectively describes how Nasser's reputation improved due to the war.
This is an outline of the Suez Canal War of 1956, which we have discussed in class. This page comes from a British site for history learning, and describes how the Suez Canal War ended the political career of Sir Anthony Eden (the British Prime Minister at the time) but advanced Gamal Abdel Nasser's reputation in the Arab world. It states here that the war began in 1956 when Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, that is, took control of it and its profits and prevented Britain from benefitting. Britain had ruled Egypt for all of the 20th century and their presence in Egypt was not welcomed by many Egyptians, and Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal was one of the acts which drove the British out of Egypt, which many Egyptians wanted. After the British (and the French, who had joint control over the Canal) agreed to a ceasefire in the war and left the canal under Egyptian control, Nasser's reputation improved even more, while the British and the French, and by default, Eden were seen as international bullies. In order to further better the Egyptian economy, Nasser wanted to build what would become the Aswan High Dam, and wishing to regain some control in the region, both Britain and the United States agreed to support the project financially. The significance of this outline to what we have studied in class is that both support the idea that the Suez Canal War made relations between Britain and Egypt worse, portrayed Nasser as a hero in the Arab world for standing up to the British and the French (who they saw as oppressors), and made the British and the French appear to be international bullies. The main limitation with this source is that it does not specifically state how this incident ended Anthony Eden's political career, although it is stated in the first part of the reading that it did, and that information would be useful, since it effectively describes how Nasser's reputation improved due to the war.
Monday, March 29, 2010
7 "Key Questions", pages 36-44 of "Crisis in the Middle East". March 29, 2010.
1. There were several causes for the tension along Israel's borders. The first is that after the Arabs had been defeated by the Israelis, the Israelis had militarized their border with Syria. The Syrian side was also militarized and there were other sources of tension as well, including an Israeli attempt to push Arabs across the border in order to create more Jewish settlements, and there were frequent incidents of shelling from both the Israeli and the Syrian sides. There were Israeli reprisals every time Jordanians crossed the border into Israel, where the Israelis targeted Arab villages. Many more killings occurred along Israel's border with Egypt than anywhere else, with raids and reprisals accompanying the killings.
2. Many Egyptians resented the British presence in their country because they felt they could only be truly independent after the British left, and they saw the British presence as imperialism. The Egyptians didn't like that the British had so many troops stationed along the Suez Canal and that the canal was so vital to the British, especially given that so many Egyptians had died in the process of its construction in the 1880s. They also saw their government as inefficient and they blamed its weakness on British influence, where they felt that King Farouk had been manipulated by the British. They accused their government of supplying them with limited and weak weapons, leading to their defeat by the Israelis.
3. The Egyptian monarchy was overthrown by a group of young officers, known as the Free Officers, who secretly plotted to overthrow the government and eventually succeeded. They built support within the army, taking their time while simultaneously avoiding being uncovered by the security police. In July of 1952 they took over key government buildings and announced the revolution's success by way of radio, and after allowing the king to flee the country, General Neguib was appointed head of the new government. When Egypt became a republic in 1953 he became president.
4. The Israelis attacked Gaza because they wanted to teach Nasser a lesson because Egypt encouraged Palestinian raids into Israel. They hoped to remove Nasser from power and wanted to expose him as militarily weak in the process. Israeli troops attacked the Egyptian army headquarters in Gaza and killed 35 Egyptian soldiers.
5. Britain, France, and Israel decided to attack Egypt because Nasser decided that he would nationalise the Suez Canal and that Egyptians would run it themselves. He said Britain and France could 'choke on their rage'. Britain and France were determined to stop this, and they were determined not to appease Nasser as they had Hitler in the 1930s, and one person even referred to Nasser as "Hitler on the Nile". The French also wanted to topple Nasser because they believed he had given aid to the Algerians in their fight for independence against the French themselves. Israel, a country with a close relationship to Britain, of course would share a similar viewpoint.
6. In the Suez War, Israeli forces invaded Egypt in October of 1956. The next day, the British and French ordered Egypt and Israel to each withdraw 10 miles from the canal and if either side refused, the British and French would use force. The Israelis agreed, the Egyptians refused. The British and French then destroyed most of the Egyptian air force, and bombed Port Said. Egypt responded by sinking their ships. The Arab states condemned this Anglo-French action and ceased sale of oil to the West, and the UN ordered the British and French to withdraw.
7. The Egyptians and the Israelis were winners of the war each in different ways. The Egyptians now had complete control of the Suez Canal, and Nasser now had the respect and admiration of many Arab states, because he had finally stood up to Britain and France, who had controlled the region for far too long. Nasser also could claim that the Egyptian army was only defeated by the Israelis due to British and French support. The Israelis' victory over Egyptian forces in the Sinai and in Gaza proved their Israeli Defense Forces to be the strongest in the Middle East, and UN forces now prevented further raids on Israel.
The losers of the war were Britain and France. They failed to overthrow Nasser and failed to regain control of the Canal. The Anglo-French domination of the Middle East was ending.
2. Many Egyptians resented the British presence in their country because they felt they could only be truly independent after the British left, and they saw the British presence as imperialism. The Egyptians didn't like that the British had so many troops stationed along the Suez Canal and that the canal was so vital to the British, especially given that so many Egyptians had died in the process of its construction in the 1880s. They also saw their government as inefficient and they blamed its weakness on British influence, where they felt that King Farouk had been manipulated by the British. They accused their government of supplying them with limited and weak weapons, leading to their defeat by the Israelis.
3. The Egyptian monarchy was overthrown by a group of young officers, known as the Free Officers, who secretly plotted to overthrow the government and eventually succeeded. They built support within the army, taking their time while simultaneously avoiding being uncovered by the security police. In July of 1952 they took over key government buildings and announced the revolution's success by way of radio, and after allowing the king to flee the country, General Neguib was appointed head of the new government. When Egypt became a republic in 1953 he became president.
4. The Israelis attacked Gaza because they wanted to teach Nasser a lesson because Egypt encouraged Palestinian raids into Israel. They hoped to remove Nasser from power and wanted to expose him as militarily weak in the process. Israeli troops attacked the Egyptian army headquarters in Gaza and killed 35 Egyptian soldiers.
5. Britain, France, and Israel decided to attack Egypt because Nasser decided that he would nationalise the Suez Canal and that Egyptians would run it themselves. He said Britain and France could 'choke on their rage'. Britain and France were determined to stop this, and they were determined not to appease Nasser as they had Hitler in the 1930s, and one person even referred to Nasser as "Hitler on the Nile". The French also wanted to topple Nasser because they believed he had given aid to the Algerians in their fight for independence against the French themselves. Israel, a country with a close relationship to Britain, of course would share a similar viewpoint.
6. In the Suez War, Israeli forces invaded Egypt in October of 1956. The next day, the British and French ordered Egypt and Israel to each withdraw 10 miles from the canal and if either side refused, the British and French would use force. The Israelis agreed, the Egyptians refused. The British and French then destroyed most of the Egyptian air force, and bombed Port Said. Egypt responded by sinking their ships. The Arab states condemned this Anglo-French action and ceased sale of oil to the West, and the UN ordered the British and French to withdraw.
7. The Egyptians and the Israelis were winners of the war each in different ways. The Egyptians now had complete control of the Suez Canal, and Nasser now had the respect and admiration of many Arab states, because he had finally stood up to Britain and France, who had controlled the region for far too long. Nasser also could claim that the Egyptian army was only defeated by the Israelis due to British and French support. The Israelis' victory over Egyptian forces in the Sinai and in Gaza proved their Israeli Defense Forces to be the strongest in the Middle East, and UN forces now prevented further raids on Israel.
The losers of the war were Britain and France. They failed to overthrow Nasser and failed to regain control of the Canal. The Anglo-French domination of the Middle East was ending.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Who was responsible for the creation of Israel? March 25, 2010.
The West, particularly the British, were responsible for the creation of Israel. For one, the Jews in Europe and particularly in Britain had been pushing for assistance in establishing a Jewish homeland, and when the British implied in a very vague and ambiguous manner in the Balfour Declaration that they would do such, this encouraged mass immigration to Palestine. The UN and Britain were responsible for the land being divided up amongst the Jews and Arabs and pretty soon, the United States expressed their support for Israel. The Jews gained military and experience from the British that they would later use in fighting for the land that they wanted, and they ended up getting that land, and eventually Israel was established. Without the Balfour Declaration to imply that the Jews could settle in Palestine, there would never have been a mass immigration there that would have been sufficient enough to develop a Jewish community that would push for their own country there, so that was the initial spark that enabled everything else to happen as it did. Without the British and their military training, the Jews could not have successfully fought against the Arabs and been able to get the land they wanted either. I see the West as a key reason why Israel was able to become what it is today.
Monday, March 22, 2010
IRL 16, March 22, 2010
URL; http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1155171.html
This is an article from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, and much of it comes from the perspective of Joe Biden, our Vice-President, relating to the Israeli decision to approve 1,600 new homes in an ultra-Orthodox East Jerusalem neighborhood. This article is significant to what we were discussing in class today because our class is transitioning back into discussions about the Arab-Israeli crisis, and the mention of the plan to build Israeli homes in East Jerusalem, the traditionally Muslim part of the city, came up in class today. According to the article and Joe Biden, this plan to build Israeli homes in that area is "precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now", and the article also states that this action undermines Middle East peace talks. I believe that the Israelis are building homes here for a number of reasons; 1. to expand into other parts of the region and 2. to assert their authority in the area, and both of these ideas were brought up in class today. It is interesting to think that such an action like this could make problems worse in Jerusalem or the country as a whole, but it's very probable and the Israelis don't seem to care. I also found it interesting that Joe Biden says this, given that the United States traditionally supported everything the Israelis did. However I agree, I think that such an act will anger the Muslim/Arab/Palestinian population of East Jerusalem and will prevent cooperation. One limitation of this article is that it only gives one perspective, and it does not give the perspective of East Jerusalem residents to either back up Biden's claim that the Israeli homes being built will disrupt peaceful cooperation, or refute the idea.
This is an article from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, and much of it comes from the perspective of Joe Biden, our Vice-President, relating to the Israeli decision to approve 1,600 new homes in an ultra-Orthodox East Jerusalem neighborhood. This article is significant to what we were discussing in class today because our class is transitioning back into discussions about the Arab-Israeli crisis, and the mention of the plan to build Israeli homes in East Jerusalem, the traditionally Muslim part of the city, came up in class today. According to the article and Joe Biden, this plan to build Israeli homes in that area is "precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now", and the article also states that this action undermines Middle East peace talks. I believe that the Israelis are building homes here for a number of reasons; 1. to expand into other parts of the region and 2. to assert their authority in the area, and both of these ideas were brought up in class today. It is interesting to think that such an action like this could make problems worse in Jerusalem or the country as a whole, but it's very probable and the Israelis don't seem to care. I also found it interesting that Joe Biden says this, given that the United States traditionally supported everything the Israelis did. However I agree, I think that such an act will anger the Muslim/Arab/Palestinian population of East Jerusalem and will prevent cooperation. One limitation of this article is that it only gives one perspective, and it does not give the perspective of East Jerusalem residents to either back up Biden's claim that the Israeli homes being built will disrupt peaceful cooperation, or refute the idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)