The creation of Israelin 1948 exposed the lack of a common ideology or strategy between the Arab countries in how to deal with the newly formed state.On the one hand Jordan had begun direct negotiations with Israel by 1949,while Syriaremained unmoved from its position of non-co-operation with Israel. [1] Despite the Arab League’s declarationsinsisting there was unity between the Arab countries in fighting for the Palestinian cause,[2] Jordan was pursuing its own interests through negotiations with Israel, showing the ideological bareness of the League after the 1948 war.However, it can be argued that the creation of Israel, and the ongoing conflict, added to the strengthening of Arab nationalism among the Arab populations in the region,despite the disunity among the individual countries.The 1948 war and the creation of Israel contributed towards the Egyptian revolution in 1951 which saw
Fish starts off his essay by stating that there are three things that oppose rhetoric. "First, between a truth that exists independently of all perspectives and points of view and the many truths that emerge and seem perspicuous when a particular perspective or point of view has been established and is in force" (HB, 1611L). Here, Fish is stating that the first opposition is truth that exists outside of bias and perspective (Doll, Lueders and Morgan, 2006). The second opposition according to Fish is "an opposition between true knowledge, which is knowledge as it exists apart from any and all systems of belief, and the knowledge, which because it flows from some other system of belief, is incomplete and partial (in the sense biased)" (HB, 1611L). This means truth that exists outside of bias and perspective (Doll, Lueders and Morgan, 2006).
Tony Judt described to the New York Times that he believed the real purpose of outspoken denunciations of him and others was to stifle their harsh criticism of Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians. [2] "'The link between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is newly created,' [Tony Judt] said, adding that he fears 'the two will have become so conflated in the minds of the world' that references to anti-Semitism and the Holocaust will come to be seen as 'just a political defense of Israeli policy. '"Judt, who advocates for a binational solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, states that he "[doesn’t] know anyone in a respectable range of opinion who thinks Israel shouldn’t
U.S. President Harry Truman’s decision to help Israel become a sovereign country has many pros and cons. Nazis had oppressed Jews for several years, and when they were finally liberated, the U.N. felt they deserved to have a country of their own. The president’s studies of the Bible influenced him to believe that the Jews should immigrate to Palestine and divide it so that the surviving Jews can have their own sovereign country, Israel. However, this choice has advantages and disadvantages, as one might expect. One disadvantage to Truman’s decision to support Israel in becoming a sovereign country is that U.S. relations with the Arabs can be affected.
U.S. is fighting against Iraq and Afghanistan to bring back democracy and freedom to those countries. In Iraq they were only in search for resources, they wanted oil. The previous President, George W. Bush had claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.” (George Bush: 'God Told Me to End the Tyranny in Iraq', Oct. 2005) This sounds familiar to what President Polk was saying back in 1846, on how God has given them the mission to proceed with the invasion of these countries. U.S. is trapped in a cycle of maintaining that it is going to war for another country’s benefit. However, this is just an excuse to justify their own selfish reasons for going to war.
Causes of Six Day War (5th – 10th June) Arab refusal to recognise Israel since 48 and rise of Arab Nationalism is important in understanding long term reason for war. Arabs suffer humiliation in ‘48 – ‘49 conflict and this leads to Nasser and Arab Nationalism in ‘52, further military humiliation in Suez Crisis but political victory for Nasser. Although long term it explains Nov ‘66 Syrian Egyptian Mutual Defence treaty which is a more short term leading to Egyptian deployment of troops on May 15 after false Russian report. Israeli confidence – arrogance makes them provocative and overreact important in understanding Israel’s role in causing the conflict; Israel had emerged from 1948 war as a fighting Jew and it was determined that its Arab neighbours should get used to the idea that even if they haven’t recognised it’s right to exist it was not worth fighting Israel, Dayan said in 1976 interview that Israel provoked 80% of conflicts like the 7th April ‘67 tractor incident which resulted shooting down 6 Migs and victory pass over Damascus. Importance evident from fly over Damascus and Dayan’s statement but Dayan had radical political views and often inconsistent.
The Yom Kippur War of 1973 & the subsequent Oil Embargo Few countries can reflect on the fact that their right to be recognized as a formal state had to be earned through conflict, war and hardship. One such state is that of Israel who on the 14th of May, 1948 declared their independence; and who would one day later enter into what would essentially be more than a half-century of confrontations that included three major wars with most of the Arab World and two conflicts with Lebanon. Each of these confrontations was extensively documented with its own unique causes and consequences, and each of these would warrant its own essay. We can talk at length about how the war of 1948 proved to the Arab countries that Israel was a formidable adversary, or how the Six Day War of 1967 propagated the myth of Israel’s invincibility, or how the conflicts with Lebanon were justified in the wake of the attacks on Israeli soil and citizens by Hezbollah. But perhaps the most important of all these conflicts was the Arab-Israeli war of 1973, or the Yom Kippur war, especially from the Egyptian point of view.
Such was the case with the Sinai desert, won by Israel in 1967, which was the territorial asset that Israel traded for a peace treaty with Egypt, just a little more than a decade later. In the immediate aftermath of the war, however, Resolution 242 didn't have as many takers. The Israeli cabinet on June 19th came up with a blueprint for trading most of their gains on the battlefield for peace, but tragically, it was met with the three 'no's of the Arab summit in Khartoum. A 'plastic moment' in history was missed. Subsequently, there would be missed opportunities on both sides.
How far do you agree that the most important reasons for Arab disunity in the years 1945-79 was the self-interest of individual Arab states? Arab disunity | Other | * Arab Israeli wars:-1948 Egypt and Jordan used the war to gain land-1956 Nasser wanted more power-1967 Syria and Lebanon didn’t join the Arab forces-Camp David Egypt were kicked out-Balance could be that they all had a common cause to help Palestine * Iranian revolution-Iran Iraq war * Palestine (PLO)-desire to create the state of Palestine-Lebanese civil war | * Religious differences-Lebanese civil war-Sunni and Shai Muslims * Islamic fundamentalism-Iranian revolution * Western involvement-Camp David * The creation of Israel | the Arab disunity was caused by different factors between the years 1945-79. The self-interest of individual Arab states caused alot of diunity between the Arabs but it wasn't thw only reason. Religious differences and western involvement also created disunity amonst the Arabs. The self-interest of individual Arab states was a major role in the causing of Arab disunity.
NATO and Humanitarian Action in Kosovo The 1999 Kosovo War has raised notable attention throughout the world not only due to its shocking and cruel human rights abuses executed under Milosevic's leadership, but also because it served as a foundation for the first sustained application of force by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. During the Kosovo war NATO acted without the consent of the UN Security Council and accordingly initiated an intense debate over the justifications for military inference, justifying its mission upon its humanitarian advocacy to bring human rights abuses to a halt. Kosovo's case fundamentally put the notion of state sovereignty into question and altered the perceptions of the laws of Westphalia and led to the rise of concepts like the responsibility of the international community to protect human rights within all states, and not only its domestic ones. This essay will focus on and discuss the concept of military intervention based on moral motives, and on NATO's performance in Kosovo taking into consideration its strategic intentions and the legality of its interference as well as the actual military execution carried out during the Kosovo war. Contrary to popular belief, although mediation was considered highly necessary in order to avoid a second 'Bosnia' within Europe, the supposedly humanitarian fulfilment by NATO has fundamentally failed due to a faulty legal system accompanied by disruptive strategic intentions as well as inconsistent performances during its war campaign.