SGQ7, September 28, 2009

MWH p. 405-412

How did the Communists come to power in China?

1. Revolution and the warlord era

    a. Explain the three major crises of this era?

        i. Europeans began forcing their way into China to take advantage of trading opportunities. For instance the British fought and defeated the Chinese in the Opium Wars (1839-42). They forced China to hand over Hong Kong and to allow them access to certain trading ports. Eventually western nations had rights and concessions in about 80 ports and towns, and Europeans became very unpopular in China. 

        ii. The Taiping Rebellion lasted from 1850 to 1864, spreading all over southern China. It was both a religious movement and a political reform movement that aimed to set up a 'Taiping tianguo) or a "Heavenly Kingdom of Great Peace". Provinces began asserting their independence from the central government which would eventually lead to the Warlord Era many years later. 

        iii. The Japanese fought a war with China in 1894 and 1895 and defeated them. The Chinese lost territory and a Chinese uprising (The Boxer Rising) against foreign influence took place 4 years later, lasting until 1900, when it was defeated. China lost more land to Japan in the Russo-Japanese war in 1904-1905 as well.

    b. What was the immediate cause of the 1911 revolution?

The immediate cause was that provinces continued to distance themselves from the central government (which had become unpopular) so much, because the government began introducing reforms, promises of democracy and setting up elected provincial assemblies. The revolution began in 1911 among soldiers and provinces quickly declared themselves independent of Beijing. 

    c. What were the two important positive developments that took place during the Warlord Era?

        i. In 1919, in May the Fourth Movement began with a student demonstration protesting the warlords and traditional Chinese culture. This movement was anti-Japanese and this was good because the 1919 Versailles settlement gave Japan the right to take over German possessions in the Shantung province. 

        ii. The Kuomintang (Nationalist Party) grew stronger, succeeding in bringing the warlords under control by 1928. This was good because the warlords were not overly concerned with the well-being of the people under their control. 

2.  The Kuomintang, Dr. Sun Yat-sen, and Chiang Kai-shek

    a. What were Sun Yat-sen's three goals for China?

        i. Nationalism - to rid China of foreign influence, and to build her into a respected, strong, and united power

        ii. Democracy - for China to be ruled by the people themselves rather than by warlords. The people would need to be educated to equip themselves for self-government first however.

        iii. Land reform - 'the people's livelihood' - Sun announced a long-term policy of economic development and redistribution of land to the peasants.

    b. What three steps did Chiang take to consolidate power?

        i. In 1926 he set out on the Northern March to destroy the warlords of northern and central China. The KMT captured Hankow, Shanghai and Nanking by 1927 and Beijing in 1928. 

        ii. In 1927 Chiang decided the communists were becoming too powerful so he expelled all communists from the KMT and a 'purification movement' was launched in which thousands of communists, trade unions and peasant leaders were massacred. 

        iii. Chiang achieved Sun's first principle but no moves were made toward democracy or land reform.

3.  Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist Party

    a. How did the Communists survive the extermination campaigns?

They took to the mountains between Hunan and Kiangsi provinces and there, built the Red Army. When Mao's base area was surrounded by KMT armies, Mao decided the only way to survive was to break through Chiang's lines and set up a base somewhere else which they did. The Long March began in October of 1934 and included 100,000 communists. 

    b. Why did Mao and the Communists gain support?

        i. The inefficiency and corruption of the KMT in government - the KMT didn't offer reform and spent too much time looking after industrialist interests, bankers, and landowners and therefore didn't organize mass support. This enabled Mao and the Communists to attempt to gain mass support where they were not. 

        ii. Lack of improvement in peasant poverty - Droughts and bad harvests caused famine in rural areas. There were high taxes and forced labor as well, and in the south of the country, the communists took land from the rich landlords and redistributed it to the peasants. They tried to make sure everyone, even the poorest people, got a bit of land after the temporary truce with the KMT during the war with Japan. 

        iii. Little improvement in factory conditions - Laws that were put in place to remove the worst abuses in poor industrial working places were not enforced, so the worst abuses (child labour in textile mills for instance) continued. 

        iv. The KMT put up no effective resistance to the Japanese - Chiang spent so much time trying to destroy the communists rather than to resist the Japanese. Chiang was taken prisoner by some of his own troops, who demanded that Chiang turn against the Japanese, but he was unwilling. He eventually agreed to a national front against the Japanese and an alliance with the CCP, which benefitted the communists greatly. 

4. Briefly summarize how the CCP won their struggle with the KMT, and give 2 reasons

When the KMT forces were defeated by the Japanese during the war in 1937 between China and Japan, the communists, who remained undefeated, took this as an opportunity to present themselves as patriotic nationalists. They won support amongst the middle class and peasants this way and by 1945 had controlled 100 million people. The Japanese were defeated in 1945 and the KMT armies began to disintegrate once they were challenged by communist armies directly. The communists took Beijing in 1945 and what remained of Chiang's forces fled and went to Taiwan. In 1949, Mao proclaimed the People's Republic of China, and himself as Chairman of the CCP and President of the republic. Two reasons that the CCP won their struggle with the KMT were that KMT administration was inefficient and corrupt, and also that the communists continued to win popular support by their restrained land policy. 

IBHL 1 SGQ6, September 24, 2009

 

A.  Reforms under Nicholas II

    1. How was Nicholas able to survive the 1905 revolution?

        i. his opponents were not united

        ii. there was a lack of central leadership (due to the revolution having flared up spontaneously)

        iii. he was willing to compromise at the critical moment by issuing the October Manifesto which promised concessions

        iv. most of the army remained loyal

   

    2. What reforms did Nicholas institute?

        i. improvements in industrial working conditions and pay

        ii. cancellation of redemption payments (the annual payments to the government by the peasants (the former serfs) in return for their freedom and land)

        iii. more freedom for the press

        iv. genuine democracy in which the Duma would play an important part in running the country

    3. What happened to the Dumas?

- The First Duma (1906) wasn't democratically elected. This is because all classes were allowed to vote so the system was rigged so that landowners/the middle classes would be the majority. This put forth demands that angered Nicholas such as the confiscation of large estates, a democratic electoral system, and the right of the Duma to approve the Tsar's ministers, the right to strike, and the abolition of the death penalty. Nicholas had the Duma dispersed by troops after ten weeks.

-The Second Duma (1907) suffered the same fate, and Nicholas then denied peasants and urban workers the right to vote.

-The Third Duma (1907-12) and the Fourth Duma (1912-1917) lasted longer. They had no power because the Tsar controlled the secret police and ministers, so the Dumas criticizing the government had no effect whatsoever.

B. Strengths of the regime

    1. how did Stolypin gain support of some peasants?

        i. Redemption payments were abolished

        ii. peasants were encouraged to buy their own land

        iii. what is a kulak? A comfortably-off peasant on whom the government could rely for support against revolution.

    

    2. how did the regime gain support among industrial workers? 

There were signs of improving working conditions, and in 1912 a workers' sickness and accident insurance scheme was introduced.

    3. other positive signs for the regime

        i. Programme announced to bring about universal education within ten years, 

        ii.  50000 primary schools were opened by 1914.

C. Weaknesses of the regime

    1. why were Stolypin's land reforms failing?

        i. The peasant population grew too rapidly (at a rate of 1.5 million a year).

        ii. Farming methods were not effective enough to support this growing peasant population adequately.

    2. what was the trend with industrial strikes in the years leading to WWI?

The shooting of 270 striking goldminers in Siberia in 1912 set off several industrial strikes. There were over 2000 separate strikes in 1912, 2400 in 1913, and over 4000 in the first half of 1914. This happened before WWI broke out.

    3. what three groups did the government especially target for repression?

        i. Peasants

        ii. Industrial workers

        iii. Intelligentsia (educated classes)

    4. revolutionary parties - what did each hope for?

        i. Bolsheviks - Marxist. They wanted a small, disciplined party of professional revolutionaries, who would work full-time to bring about revolution. 

        ii. Mensheviks - Marxist. They were accepting of a party membership that was open to anyone, and they believed that Russia would need to be fully industrialized before a revolution could take place. They had little cooperation from peasants, who were one of the most conservative groups in Russian society. 

        iii. Social Revolutionaries -Not Marxist. They didn't want increasing industrialization and didn't think in terms of a proletarian revolution. They wanted an agrarian society after the overthrow of the tsarist regime and wanted peasant communities operating collectively to be the base of the new society.

    5. How was the royal family tainted by scandal?

        i. Stolypin's death - It was believed that Nicholas was a party to Stolypin's murder, who was shot by a member of the secret police. Nothing was proved but Stolypin was becoming too liberal for the Tsar's comfort so it's believed that his death was not a disappointment.

        ii. Rasputin - He claimed he would be able to cure the son of Nicholas and Alexandra of haemophilia, but he eventually became a real power behind the throne himself.

D. World War I

    What were considered failures in Russia's effort in WWI?

        i. Poor transport organization and distribution, therefore arms and ammunition were slow to reach the front, and food didn't get to the cities in significant quantities.

        ii. Police and troops mutiny, and no one was left to defend the autocracy.

        iii. Nicholas made the mistake of appointing himself supreme commander, and therefore threw away all of the advantages won by Brusilov's offensive, and drew on himself the blame for later defeats and a high death rate, with his tactical blunders.

        iv. Bread was scarce and very expensive. 

        v. There was an incompetent and corrupt organization and a shortage of equipment.

Pages 301-309 Reading & Questions; September 21, 2009

GERMANY: Modern World History p. 301-309
Why did the Weimar Republic fail?
A. Disadvantages
1. why was Versailles "humiliating" and "unpopular"?
i. It imposed arms limitations on the Germans.
ii. It asked the Germans to pay reparations to the countries they fought against.
iii. It implied that Germany was the bad guy in the war and to blame.
2. who did people generally believe should run the country?
i. They believed the army and "officer class" were the rightful leaders of Germany.
were the German people justified in the view? why/why not?
ii. The Germans were justified in this view. The Germans believed that the army had been 'stabbed in the back' by the democrats and that the army was not actually defeated, and it was the democrats who had agreed to the Versailles Treaty. The reason the Germans were justified is because they did not at the time know all of the facts, including the fact that it was General Ludendorff who had asked for an armistice while the Kaiser was still in power. They were justified because they were making a judgment based on what they thought they knew, and all the facts were not revealed to them enough for them to make an informed decision.
3. what weaknesses existed in the Weimar parliamentary system?
i. It was based on proportional representation meaning that all political groups would be evenly represented.
ii. There were so many political groups being represented that none could win with a significant majority.
4. why did the political parties have no experience?
i. Before 1919 the Riechstag had not controlled policy, it was the Chancellor. But now, it was the Riechstag that had to make the final decision and in this area there was not enough experience for that to effectively work.
how did the political parties deal with their bitter rivalries?
ii. Some of the parties organized their own armies for self defense (well, the initial reason for forming the armies was for self defense but eventually the purpose for the armies was to overthrow the republic). The creation of these private armies increased the likelihood of civil war, which in turn led to outbreaks of violence.
B. Outbreaks of Violence
1. Sparticists
i. who was behind it? Communists.
ii. how bad was it? Although they occupied every major city in Germany, it was not too bad because the government was able to defeat the communists.
iii. how was it defeated? The government accepted the help of the Freikorps (independent volunteer regiments raised by anti-communist ex-army officers) and the two communist leaders were clubbed to death.
2. Kapp Putsch
i. who was behind it? Right-wing groups who wanted to seize power.
ii. how bad was it? It was bad because the government did not take any action because the generals sympathized with the political right. It took a strike which paralyzed Berlin in order for the government to gain control again.
iii. how was it defeated? The workers of Berlin assisted the Social Democrat government by called a strike which was detrimental to the capital, and Kapp resigned and the government regained control. Kapp was imprisoned.
3. assassinations
i. who was behind it? Ex-Freikorps members.
ii. how bad was it? Very bad. The court let right-wing offenders off the hook and the government was not able to do anything about this. The right-wing party sympathized with the criminals, who had killed people suck as Walter Rathenau (Jewish Foreign Minister) and Gustav Erzberger (leader of armistice delegation). This was detrimental to the republic because the legal/teaching professions, the civil service, and the Riechswehr were anti-Weimar.

4. Beer Hall Putsch
i. who was behind it? Adolf Hitler
iii. how bad was it? Not bad. The police easily broke up Hitler's march and he was sentenced to five years' imprisonment, and there were no serious effects of this event (for instance Hitler did not succeed in destroying the government in Berlin with the Beer Hall Putsch).
iii. how was it defeated? The police broke up Hitler's march and Hitler was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment (even though he only served 9 months).
5. private armies
i. who was behind it? Nazis and Communists for the most part.
ii. how bad was it? Bad, because there was little the police could do to prevent street fights between any of the private armies, showing that the government could do little to maintain order and had little control of its people, and therefore respect for the government began to rapidly decrease, and people began favoring other forms of government.
iii. how was it defeated? It wasn't defeated, in fact since it COULD NOT be defeated, many people began to turn on their government and would prefer an authoritarian government that would be able to keep the public under control.
C. Economic problems
1. why was Germany facing bankruptcy? The enormous expense of WWI, which lasted longer than expected therefore more money spent than originally planned.
2. what was the problem with the reparations payments? The Germans did not have the money to pay the reparations and having to pay the reparations on top of being almost bankrupt proved to be very difficult for the Germans. The Germans requested to suspend payments until they were able to pay them but France refused, making matters worse.
3. how did France attempt to deal with the reparations issue? The French refused to allow the Germans to suspend the payment of their reparations. In January 1923, French troops occupied the Ruhr (important German industrial area) and tried stealing goods from factories/mines.
E. Nazi popularity
1. how did the Nazis propose to fulfill their promises?
i. They proposed that they were going to ensure that Germany would become a great power again by ridding it of all of the people who caused it to decline, including Marxists, Jesuits, Freemasons, and Jews.
ii. They promised to overthrow the Versailles settlement by bringing all Germans into the Reich.
2. i.What was the SA? It was the Nazi private army.
ii. Why was the SA so popular? It gave all young people who were out of work a small wage and uniform.
3. Where did the fear of communism come from? The fear of communism came from the fact that the Nazis hated them and that the Nazis were financed by industrialists from the early 1920s as an anti-communist force. Therefore, Nazi followers were brainwashed into fearing communism.
4. What were Hitler's political abilities?
i. Tremendous energy
ii. Will-power
iii. He was an amazing public speaker
iv. He used modern communication techniques including rallies, parades, radio, film and was able to speak to a lot of people that way and he was represented well in the media.
5. What kinds of people supported the Nazis? The kind of people who supported the Nazis were those who were unhappy with the condition of Germany at the time and wanted some sort of reform. The people who didn't like the Weimar Republic liked the Nazis and from them, expected a strong, decisive government and a restoration of national pride.

IRL 2, September 19, 2009

URL; http://www.newser.com/story/64781/israel-to-us-we-wont-halt-housing-in-jerusalem.html

This is a news article posted on Newser.com concerning the Israeli refusal of the US request that Israel stop an American millionaire's housing project in East Jerusalem, an area that is largely populated by Arabs. The article was written by a journalist named Neal Golgrass, based on information from an Israeli news site called The Jerusalem Post, as well as the Associated Press. This article relates to what we are studying in class because we are studying the origins of the Arab-Israeli crisis, which began when massive Jewish immigration to Arab-occupied land led to a series of conflicts between the two groups. In THIS article, it is explaining that the Jewish people in Israel are refusing to stop building on land that is mainly Arab-occupied (which in a sense is similar to the massive Jewish immigration in that both affect the lives of the Arabs that live in the area), and this action could lead to further clashes between the two groups. This adds value to what we're studying in class because the event that is being described (Israeli refusal to stop building on Arab occupied land) is an example of how the Israelis feel entitled to the land and as a result, are going to do what they want in Israel regardless of how it will affect the Arab people living there, and this is in part what sparked the Arab-Israeli conflict as a whole (although of course there were other contributing factors). Another reason that this adds value for me is that I am alive to see the results/consequences of this action, and it will help give me a clearer picture of what happened many years ago when the conflict first began. The main limitation that I came across with this source was that it was very one-sided. It stated that the Israeli refusal to stop building in East Jerusalem (which is largely Arab occupied) has the potential to spark problems, but it didn't state what these problems could be and it didn't give an Arab perspective on the Israelis building in East Jerusalem. It only stated the American perspective (that Israel should stop building on that land) and the Israeli perspective, which was that they refuse to listen to America's request. 

Study Questions Set 4, September 14, 2009

1. Why was the struggle for Jerusalem so important for the Israelis?

The struggle for Jerusalem was so important for the Israelis for two reasons. The first is that the city of Jerusalem contained the Jewish holy places. The second is that Jerusalem was invaded by the Arab Legion of King Abdullah of Transjordan, and they were the most powerful of all the Arab armies, so the Israelis believed if they could defeat this army, all of the others would collapse as well.

2. Who won and who lost in the war?

The Israelis won the war, and had successfully pushed the invading Egyptians back into Egypt. In addition, only 6000 lives had been lost, which was one percent of the Jewish population of 650,000 at the time. The Israelis also controlled 79% of Palestine, rather than the 55% allocated to the new Jewish state by the UN, which was considered a victory for the Israelis and a disaster for the Arabs. 

3. What was agreed under the armistices?

Between Egypt and Israel it was agreed that they would go back to their pre-war borders, and the Gaza area of Palestine would be under the control of the Egyptian military. Between King Abdullah of Transjordan and the Israeli government it was agreed that King Abdullah would govern the area of Palestine known as the West Bank and it would become incorporated into the Kingdom of Jordan. This area of land included the Old City of Jerusalem. The Israelis got the western part of Jerusalem. Reaching an agreement between Israel and Syria took longer but it was eventually agreed to that the Syrians would withdraw from ceasefire lines if the vacated area became a demilitarized zone (meaning Israel couldn't put weapons/troops/military there) and the benefit of this was the absence of Syrian troops on Israeli territory and a buffer zone. 

4. Why was there no peace treaty?

There was no peace treaty because there were some issues to which no solution could be agreed on. One of the issues was that of refugees. The Arabs believed that the refugees needed to be compensated by Israel or had the right to return to their homes, while the Israelis believed that the whole problem with the refugees was due to the Arab invasion of Israel and these refugees should be settled somewhere outside of Israel. Another reason that there was no peace treaty was that there was a growing anti-Israeli sentiment in the Arab nations, who were very bitter about their defeat. Israel wanted to negotiate with the Arab nations but didn't want to give up any of their land in order to do so. It is for these reasons that there was no peace treaty. 

5. Which side had the stronger military forces?

The Israelis had the stronger military forces. It didn't start out that way though - at the start of the war the Israelis only had 30,000 soldiers and their weapons were not as good as those of their Arab enemies, but by December 1948 they had about 100,000 in arms. The Arabs had about the same number of soldiers at the beginning of the war as the Israelis  but their number did not grow at the same rapid rate. The Israelis were also poorly equipped at the start of the war but they received so many supplies from Europe that they were the better armed side for the rest of the war, which is the contributing factor to their victory against the Arabs. 

6. What were the war aims of King Abdullah of Jordan?

He believed that the Palestinian Arab state wouldn't be able to survive on its own so it was his plan to incorporate it into his own kingdom. He saw himself as the leader of this Arab state. Telling Jewish leaders he would not invade territory allocated to the new Jewish state, his Arab Legion advanced to defend the Old City of Jerusalem, and they held onto it. The Arab Legion didn't invade Jewish territory to the west and expressed no interest in West Jerusalem, and they stayed neutral and didn't back the Egyptians when they invaded. The big goal was to take and control Arab Palestine without destroying the Jewish state. 

Study Questions Set 3, September 14, 2009

1. What was Zionist policy in Palestine in the late 1930's?

The Zionist policy in Palestine was that the Jewish Agency would make decisions about Jewish settlements and the education of Jewish children. In 1937 for instance the Jewish Agency agreed to the British plan for partition (to give some of the land in Palestine to the Jews and some to the Arabs). In addition, the Jews supported the war effort.





2. How did Zionist policy change after the war?

Zionist policy called for an independent Jewish state that would not be ruled by Britain. The reason that this policy changed was because so many Jews had been killed in the Holocaust and the war made them tougher and they didn't want to negociate when they heard that Britain had decided there wouldn't be a separate Jewish state after all.






3. Why was US support so important for the Zionists?

The US was so important for the Zionists because of the large population of Jewish Americans that had all eventually become Zionists and supported the idea of a "Jewish commonwealth" in ALL of Palestine. Only the US could put the pressure on Britain needed to enable this Jewish commonwealth to be established, as the US was the other major superpower at the time.




4. Why and how did the Zionists resort to terrorism in Palestine?

The Zionists targetted the British in Palestine. Their goal was to obstruct the British and increase illegal Jewish immigration to Palestine. The reason for doing this was because the British stopped boatloads of illegal Jewish immigrants from reaching Palestine and because the British knew that if Jewish people kept immigrating, it would anger the Arabs and cause a civil war, they stopped Jewish immigration. This is what angered the Jews enough to resort to terrorism. The Jews wanted the British to leave Palestine and leave it to be governed by them.


5. What was the response to the UNSCOP report?
The Jewish Agency accepted the UN plan to give the areas of Palestine that were mainly Arab-populated to the Arabs and to give the areas of Palestine that were more Jewish-populated to the Jews. The Jews were pleased that they now had international support when it came to their concerns about having a Jewish state, but they were not happy that Jerusalem would be a part of the Arab state and that some areas that were populated by Jews to some extent would also. The Arabs did not like this and they wanted all of the land in Palestine to belong to them and weren't willing to divide the land.





6. Why was there a civil war in Palestine?
There was a civil war in Palestine because the Arab Higher Committee proclaimed a three-day strike and it led to violence against Jewish civilians. In 1948 when the British announced that they were leaving Palestine it only intensified the conflicts between the Arabs and the Jews. The problem got even worse when Arabs from Syria and Iraq crossed over into Palestine to assist the Arabs. The Jews fully expected this, knowing that the Palestinian Arabs and the other Arab countries would not be happy about the establishment of a Jewish state.


* I did not receive the documents in Google Docs when I checked yesterday at night, therefore I wasn't expecting the questions to have been due today, but it was most likely an error on my part.

Study Guide Questions 2 - September 9, 2009

Why were Palestinian Arabs angry about Jews immigrating to Palestine after WWI?

The Palestinian Arabs were angry about Jews immigrating to Palestine after WWI for a number of reasons. For one, the Arabs felt that Palestine was their land and that the Jews, who were buying land from Arab landowners, were taking land that wasn't theirs. In addition, the Arabs who were working the land were often evicted once the land was purchased by a Jewish person because the Jews would often employ only other Jews. The Arabs felt that the Jews were taking over their land and that Britain was siding with the Jews and helping them right along. 

Why did British rule lead to an Arab rebellion in Palestine?

British rule (indirectly) led to an Arab rebellion in Palestine because the Arabs felt that the British were allowing the Jews to take over their land, and in a sense the British were doing this but in a way so that it wouldn't be completely obvious that they were showing favoritism to the Jews. The Arab Rebellion, which occurred from 1936 to 1939, began when Arabs attacked Jewish settlements out of anger. The British hanged Arab leaders, helped organize and train the Jewish Defense Force, and helped teach the Jews to defend themselves shortly after.

Why did the British decide on, and later reject, the partition of Palestine? 

The British decided on and then later rejected the partition of Palestine because at first, Britain was going to attempt to end the conflict by creating two separate states out of Palestine - one Jewish and one Arab. The reason that Britain changed their mind and rejected this idea later on had to do with the approaching war. The British feared a growing friendship between the Arabs and Germany and most likely felt that the Arabs would be angry if there was the creation of a Jewish state at all (also probably thinking that the Arabs would look to Germany for assistance in getting back ALL their land in Palestine), and since the British needed to maintain close ties with all of the Middle East so that oil and other materials would continue to reach Britain from this region, they instead limited Jewish immigration and tried not to do anything to greatly offend either side. 

Crisis in the Middle East pages 3-9, September 8, 2009

What was the Jewish claim to Palestine?

The Jewish claim to Palestine was that it was the land where their ancestors (the Israelites) lived some thousand years ago, before the Romans expelled the Jews. The land that was known as Palestine was, according to the Jews, their "Promised Land".

What was the importance of the Balfour Declaration?

The importance of the Balfour Declaration is that it was the first time that the British government expressed their interest in creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The British government showed sympathy for the Jewish people in part because they were in the middle of the war with Germany and they thought the Jews in America could influence their government's actions and therefore bring the US into the war on Britain's side. Another important thing to note  about the Balfour Declaration is that it stated that by creating a homeland in Palestine for the Jewish people, it would in no way harm the people that lived there at the present time, which as we can see today has not been the case. 

What was the Arab claim to Palestine?

The Arabs originally lived in what's now Saudi Arabia and they all spoke Arabic, and converted to Islam in the seventh century AD. From then on, they spread their language, religion, and culture to the rest of the Middle East (including Palestine) as well as northern Africa. Arabs now form the majority of the population of the Middle East. The Ottoman Turks conquered a lot of the Middle East in the sixteenth century and the Arabs, hoping to re-establish Arab unity in the Middle East, beginning with rule over the lands they once owned, including Palestine. In 1913, the Arab Nationalist Manifesto, calling for Arab unity and independence, was published. Arabs wished to rule all of the land they once ruled, which included Palestine. 

To what extent was WWI a turning point in the struggle for Arab independence?

It was a turning point for the struggle for Arab independence in part due to Britain. Britain had been using oil to fuel its ships during WWI and this oil came from Persia (now known as Iran). Fearing that their oil supply would be cut off by Turkey, the British encouraged the Arabs to fight against the Turks and try and gain their independence. Great Britain promised Hussein, the Sharif of Mecca, in 1915 that if the Arabs fought against the Turks, Britain would support their cause for independence. In 1916 the Arab Revolt occurred and it ended with Britain taking the city of Damascus, Syria, from the Turks. 

Why did Britain and France want mandates in the Middle East?

Britain and France wanted mandates in the Middle East for a few reasons. For one, the war was not going well and Britain wanted to maintain close ties with France, and working together in the Middle East would encourage this. Also, trading links between the Middle East with France and Britain were important to maintain. Finally, Britain wanted access to the Suez Canal because it would make trips to India (part of the British Empire) easy and also, Britain wanted access of newly discovered oil fields in the Persian Gulf. Britain also saw Palestine as a buffer zone between the Suez Canal and the land to the east. Mandates in the Middle East were beneficial to Britain and France for these reasons.

Question of the Week; To what extent was the west responsible for the creation of Israel?

From what I can see, the west was very responsible for the creation of Israel, although I don't have all of the facts yet. The idea was proposed by European Jews originally and then through Britain, the idea gained support in both Britain and the United States. I feel like without Britain and the US, the Jews would not have had enough outside support to be able to create their own homeland in an already occupied area.

IRL; Israeli and Palestinian perspectives

Palestinian perspective; http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/viewsource.asp?ID=001709

Israeli perspective; http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/viewsource.asp?ID=001967

These are the viewpoints of two well-informed people on opposite sides of the Israeli-Arab conflict, with two different viewpoints on what should be done in the future to ensure that there is less conflict between Israel and Palestine. The quotes on these sources are from 2003 and 2004. The connection between this and what we are learning in class is that we are learning about both sides of the conflict in the Middle East, and one of our Paper 1 topics is about the Arab-Israeli crisis so it is beneficial to hear from both sides. The importance of these two sources is that they quote two people who are important on a larger scale, one who believes that Israel shouldn't be so aggressive with Palestine and that the two countries need to work together and find a common ground, and another who believes that giving in to Palestine will promote terrorism. There are a few things that should be taken into consideration about these sources; they are not too recent and therefore, the perspectives of these people as well as other people may have changed significantly since the time they were quoted, which means the information may not be 100% up-to-date. Another concern is that the views of these people may not represent those of the general Israeli and Palestinian populations, or that of their supporters in other countries. It's just the perspectives of two individuals. Finally, the sources don't specifically identify the issues that were going on in the Middle East at the time, they just offer potential solutions to the problems as a whole.