Understanding the Modern Middle East
What have I learned this semester about the modern Middle East? First I must start with the conflict between Israeli and Palestinian conflict as well as my understanding of what a modern nationalism is and the advocacy toward the Middle Eastern region.
In order to truly understand the nation states one must have knowledge about modernity. Modernity which seeks accuracy and representation is a hybrid of nature and culture differences. (Lecture 1/26) History assists us with defining modernity because history is the hybridization of current, past and future, which is the “unknown known”. We can tell the future because of the past, history has its way of repeating itself. The past is what we study, historiography. Modernity also goes hand in hand with control the surround regions, relationships and objects tell which regions have the control over the nation-states. Modernity aids economics and provides the particulars of the evolution of history. (Lecture 2/1) Politics are central to history. Geography matters, it is important to the evolution of history. A religion is traditional and provides prologue.
The role of ideology plays a huge part in my understanding of the modern Middle East. Saddam Hussain wanted a secularized government. The issue with his ideology is that secularism is modern, however religion is traditional. Palenstine historically a struggled with existed between secular and theocratic values. Secularism clashes orthodox Judaism and Israeli society. (Video 2/21) He was opposed to Islamic interest. (Lecture 3/20) Gamal Abdul Nasser , the second president of Egypt, and reigned from 1956 until his death. He introduceNassism to us because of these fundamental reason: he wanted to bring unity to all. Abortion of boundaries and is where Nasser wanted to rid the middle east of these boundaries because they do not represent nature order. He wanted to unite all Arab nations so no western influence could govern the Arab/Islam. Nasserism is a revolutionary Arab nationalist and pan-Arab ideology, combined with variably defined and implanted social aspirations. (Film Nasser). “The three states launched their invasion to topple Nasser’s government because the Egyptian leader had proved himself to be a thorn in the side of the three. He had nationalized to Suez Canal, was supporting Algerian insurgents against French rule, obstructed Israeli sea lines, and had just concluded an arms deal with Czechoslovakia that threaten to upset the regional of power. International pressure forced the invading states to withdraw their forces before they could achieve their aim. As a result of the failure of Britain, France, and Israel to relize their goal, the war actually raised Nasser’s political stock both at home and throughout the region. Overall, the invasion had three results for the eastern Arab world and Egypt. First, it convinced Nasser that the free Officers had not yet eliminated the twin threats of domestic reaction and foreign imperialism. From that moment on, the regime would no longerseek accommodation with the forces of reaction and imperialism, but would take control of its own destiny. I t would do that by seizing the property of reactionaries and imperialists using it to finance rapid economic and social development. Finally Nasser’s anti-imperialist stance incited political groupings in Syria to demand unification in Egypt”. (Gavlin247-48)
Nationalism the ideological glue that binds these states. The British purposely restricted the enrollment in secondary schools and universities to a narrow group that could be absorbed into the economy. By doing so, they hoped to prevent the growth of a class of disaffected intellectuals. Disaffected intellectuals would go on to organize the first modern nationalist parties in the Arab world. As in the case of Algeria, it was the very presence of imperialists that encouraged the emergence of Nationalism in Egypt. Building on the work of their khedival predecessors, the British engaged Egyptians in common activities and in common marketplace. In the process they instilled among Egyptians a sense of national community. At the same time, the British presence in Egypt provided the population with a clear target against which to mobilize. Because of this, the Egyptian national movement followed by nationalism in the rest of the Ottoman domains. Over time, that difference would assure the emergence of a distinct Egyptian territorial identity and the dissemination of a national myth that would trace “Egyptianness” backwards to antiquity. (Gelvin95)Nations don’t connect with states. Many more Nations that states which attributes to the conflict. There are many struggles between Sunni and Iraqis Shiite. British’s colonialism brought a fight between nations partially. The major problem is more national, not religion. (Lecture 3-27) These terms leaders and ideologies give rise to why the nation states are in the condition they are in now, no solution states.
Arab Nationalism vs Zionism- One other nationalist movement achieved success as a result of the war; Zionism. Zionism might be broadly defined as Jewish nationalism. Zionist believes that Jews have the same right to self-determination in Palestine. Although Zionism was a product of the nineteenth century, World War I brought the international Zionist movement its first real diplomatic success. In November 1917, the Zionist movement achieved recognition by a world power, Great Britain. This recognition accorded Zionism enough prestige and drawing power to ensure that it would not follow in the footsteps of hundreds of other nationalist movement that had appeared briefly, and then faded into obscurity. During the period between the two world wars, Jews immigration to Palestine soared. This led to first large-scale intercommunal violence between Jewish settlers and the indigenous inhabitants of region. Thus, WWI not only marks a milestone on the road to the establishment of the State of Israel, it marks the point at which the Israeli- Palestine conflict became all but certain”. (Gelvin 183)
Role of AdvocacyTHE two state resolutions referred by President Bush include 139777(2002) and 1514 (2003). All concerned international actors, including Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the European Union, the Russian Federation, and the Arab League, have endorsed the two state solutions as articulated by the Bush administration’s “roadmap”, which outlined steps for a “permanent” two –state solution”. (Marrar 2)The two-state solution persists despite forceful arguments that its time has passed. And while one state for both Jews and Arabs may be the ideal solution for some, the reality is that American policy and international community preferred two states. (Marrar3) American Middle East involvement is an agonizing paradox. On the hand, the US has sought to maximize its ostensible self-interest in the predominantly Arab/Muslim region. On the other, that interest is constrained and oftentimes harmed by its commitment to Israel, a perceived settler colony. (Marrar 8) Pro-Arab advocates tried to ensure a political atmosphere in which the UUS would no longer deny the Palestinianclaim to sovereignty over the territories occupied by Israel. And although the peace process may have been condemned as just an American –Israeli smokescreen to avoid dealing with the reality in the ground, grantingthe Palestinians legitimacy in US foreign policy thought was a decent start when compared to their rejection in earlier decades.(marrar42) The US led mediation the allowed for such agreement also ranked high with Americans. Nearly 77% placed some level of importance on developing a peaceful solution to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. (marra43) Pro-Arab groups are well positioned to invoke both solutions efficiently since their raison d’être is the advancement of rights, something that either one state or two would have to accomplish in order to bring about genuine peace. Second, even if pro-Arab groups fell short in offsetting the pro-Israel lobby’s hindrance of all solutions, they may employ their access to public opinions and policymakers in a push-pull manner;this would involve Arab American organizations pulling public opinion toward favoring Palestiniansequality in Israel whileprivately pushing policy makers to honor the US commitment to two states. (Marrar140-141) Works Cited
Lecture 1-26-12
Lecture 2-1-12
Video 2-21-12
Lecture notes3-20-12
Film Nasser
Gevlin 247-48
Gelvin page 95
Lecture notes 3-27-12
Gelvin page 183 marrar page 2
Marrar page 3
Marrar page 8
Marrar page 42
Marrar page 43
Marrar page 140
Marrar page 141