exam questions Flashcards
OIL, extent did the west meet their key aims in the middle east?
-first discovered 1908, by 1914 Brits had controlling shares in AIOC, needed use for fighting capacity of army so was a key aim.
-they protected it by protecting Suez, 1916 stopping Ottomans from taking it and WW’s by military protection and 1953 and 1956.
-Brits left 1956 and US came and still had key aim of oil but differed as they just didn’t want USSR to get hold, seen by 1957 Eisenhower doctrine.
-1980-8 Iran Iraq war and 1991 gulf war still protected oil.
SECURITY, what extent did west meet key aims?
-Brits, protecting Indian empire as allowed quick transport of troops and oil and did this by control of Suez, which itself was also security aim as allowed opportunity to expand and maintain trading links with ME.
-Brit secured security of Suez firstly by stopping Ottomans from having it in WW1 by McMahon letters and Palestine as a mandate as an additional buffer zone.
-protected again 1936 rebellion and upto 1956.
-US still had security aim but changed as main aim was to stop USSR influence and did this by Eisenhower doctrine 1957 and close allies with Israel.
-until 1980 when security aim became stopping Hussein in Iran Iraq war and 1991 and 2003.
ISRAEL, extent did the Middle East meet their key aims
-largely seen through US, but Brit tried to support and started by Balfour dec, but also sided with Palestine 1939 white paper Jewish immigration limited to 15,000 a year for the next 5.
-Brit eventually unable to calm unrest and in contrast to Britain the US wanted to use commitment to Israel and Zionism to stop influence of soviets and make Jewish Americans happy.
-used Israel seen as an unbeatable force by 1967 and 1973 to demonstrate soviet allies of Egypt and Syria weren’t stronger and Soviets wouldn’t help them defeat Israel.
-not always successful as had to force Israel to secure oil during 1973 embargo.
ECONOMIC, ‘the most important turning point in relations between the Great powers and the middle East was the Gulf War of 1991’ how far do you agree?
-disagree
-economic relations in the middle east had two parts: oil and the Suez.
-Britain’s position in Egypt from 1869 as a result of their aim of using the Suez as the benefited hugely from the shared ownership of the Suez Canal company as it was for many years an important trade route, allowing a cut through.
-therefore the Suez Canal crisis 1956 severed their economic tie to the region and forced the removal of Britain and France and the benefits and this then led to the US involvement.
-in contrast, the Gulf war did not have the same economic impact as the Suez Crisis did, it did not reach the same level of turning point but the warfare and need to ensure oil routes did draw them to the conflict, this is because invention had already happened for the oil wealth and relationships had been redefined.
-in 1973 with the oil embargo as a result of the 2.2 billion package to Israel in Yom Kippur war, led to economic dynamic change and no longer US and west who had sole control with the middle east expressing need for control.
-seen by the 400% increase in oil prices throughout 1970s.
-so these two key turning points.
Syrian, to what extent did Syrian policies influence Pan-Arabism in the period from 1908-2011?
-highlighted involvement through the climax of Pan-Arabism in the 1950s and 1960s especially with the creation of UAR 1958 and defence agreement between Syria and Egypt 1966.
-Syria as a population of only 4 million felt vulnerable to the US who was trying to exert influence and crack down on communism following the US persuading Turkey to move forces to border with Syria, created UAR.
-although ended in 1961, can be seen as climax as it saw two Arab states officially being unified.
-this is also seen militarily through the defence agreement, although the UAR was more successful and important than the agreement as it just led to the 1967 war, and was an official unification.
-Baathists in power 1963 and their movement was a Pan-Arabism one and so influence increased, called for more action against Israel and seen by being one of the main financiers and suppliers of PLO in late 1960s and encouraged Palestinian raids into Israel from Syria and Jordan.
-can be seen to be more singularly Syria’s influence and this is different to previous as Syria did not consult other Arab countries.
-1970s onwards huge decline, supported Lebanese Christians in civil war 1975 on same side as Israel and supported non-Arab Iraq in Iran-Iraq war 1880-88 and created Fatah-intifada as an opposing force to Arafat and Fatah.
Egypt, to what extent did Syrian policies influence Pan-Arabism in the period from 1908-2011?
-arguably greater extent than Syria
-Nasser became leader figure and his aims surrounded Pan-Arabism evident in his standing up to the west.
-1955 Czech arms deal from Soviets, shocked west and 1956 nationalised Suez and Suez crisis led to him being seen as leader of pan-arabism movement.
-helped the formation of UAR in 1958 and also they helped create PLO at Cairo conference 1964, designed to unite Palestinians with their fight for their cause.
-different to suez crisis and Czech as it shows more of a anti-Israeli and therefore can be potentially more influencial.
-downhill 1970s, Sadat policies less focused on Pan-Arabism and he recognised Israel 1979 and Treaty of Washington signed and created peace between the two.
-rest of Arab world betrayed Sadat murdered 1981
Western policy, to what extent did Syrian policies influence Pan-Arabism in the period from 1908-2011?
-biggest influence and opposition first started with 1920s mandates which created forceful imperialism and discontent and resentment towards the west like Iraq’s resentment to British control of oil.
-also seen by the creation of MB in opposition to the British in Egypt with the Suez and policy.
-this hatred was increase and Pan-Arabism can been seen to have increased with the US domination of the middle east through their support of wars.
-US’s 2.2 billion arms deal package was given to Israel during 1973 war and led to oil embargo led by the Sauds, ended when US convinced Israel to remove from Suez.
-and other wars.
Political relations, the most important turning point in relations between the Great powers and the middle East was the Gulf War of 1991’ how far do you agree?
-political relations have changed drastically from mandate rule to war on terror.
-however they did have a constant political interest and this was seen in the gulf war of 1991 of oil.
-mandate system and introduction of Britain and France allowed emphasis placed on stability and modernising the countries and continuing oil.
-before this the Ottomans maintained unified empire and so when the countries forced into political change of EU style would be one of the greatest political interventions of the GP.
-second major turning point resulted by the Suez war in which the US and UN altered GP influence in the region.
-seen again by the Czech arms deal by Egypt 1955 led to a closer tie between Israel and again altered political dynamics.
-gulf war in contrast was relatively minor compared to these, however it did set precedence for US intervention on the gulf which continued to be followed by 2003 and bigger political turning point seen as 9/11 as the result of war on terror as it defines to this day the relationships between the west and the region
conflict, the most important turning point in relations between the Great powers and the middle East was the Gulf War of 1991’ how far do you agree?
-perhaps the most important relationship which exists between the two and was not most significantly altered by the war in 1991.
-intervention in conflict began with Britain in Turkey when the Sevres agreement made part of turkey greece.
-most important conflict GP involved themselves in is the Arab Israeli conflict and this originated with the balfour declaration 1917 and led to intervention of many conflicts to follow, most significant being the 1956 Suez crisis, 1967 war and Yom Kippur war of 1972.
-1956 was a crucial turning point as it removed existing GP’s and removed with UN and US.
-1967 acted as a proxy war between us and USSR and was defined by the superiority of US arms making Israel an undefeatable power .
-1973 war most significant affects that it had on oil as Saudi owned 1/4 oil supplies.
-another turning point was end of cold war which meant that subsequent conflicts would only be influenced by one superpower US and although 1991 gulf war revealed this it itself was not an important turning point.
dependent on Leaders, ‘zionism was the most important influence on attempts to resolve the Palestinian issue from 1908 to 2011’ how far do you agree?
-zionism was an important influence to resolve the Palestinian issue at different points but this was dependent on the Israeli leader in power and led to the peace process halting and starting again and whilst there were alot of more extreme leaders there were some who were mode moderate in their ideology and so were prepared to compromise for peace and this allowed zionism to be an important influence.
-first seen in 1937 when Ben Gurion accepted the British Peel Commission which introduced the idea of two states and if Palestinians would have agreed potentially could have been resolved.
-more important leaders influence was Rabin as he was actually able to sign peace agreements like the Oslo Accords of 1993 in which he compromised on the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza and parts of West Bank but he did not compromise on the removal from Jewish settlements or Jerusalem.
-Rabin assassination in 1995 led to a change and the influence of attempts largely halted as Netanyahu came into power in 1996 and 1997 a new hardline government started to build Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem largely killing chances of a resolution for peace.
-Barak 1999 and camp David 200 Arafat hard agreement
-this increase with introduction of Sharon and Olmet from 2001-2009, with Sharon having gone as far as purposefully angering Palestinians after visiting the temple mount.
-this is also seen by leaders involving themselves in and creating wars, and wars in general have negatively impacted the influence of zionist to resolve the Palestinian issue, the wars of 1948 and 1967 and the Arab loss of land after 1948 is one of the biggest disagreements to this day.
great powers, ‘zionism was the most important influence on attempts to resolve the Palestinian issue from 1908 to 2011’ how far do you agree?
-during the whole period the great powers have had huge power over the Arab states specifically the US over Israel and this meant they were able to force peace and restrict conflict. first seen with Britain in 1921 with Arab-Jewish riots in Jaffa, they were able to stop the fighting by immediately limiting Jewish Immigration, seen to deal with it again in 1937 during the Great Arab rebellion with the Peel Partition plan, if this was accepted by both than this could have largely fixed the issue, however Britain were never able to fully fix the issue and at some points made it worse, largely by allowing excessive jewish immigration.
-unlike Britain, once they left the middle East the US was able to achieve more than they had and force agreements as Britain only ever really pushed to fix fighting until another fight came along and Jewish and Arabs were given choices as wether to agree to propositions like the partition plan, this was due to the end of the Cold War in the 1990s with the US in control of the middle East they did not have to pursue an Israel first policy, this also meant that Arabs were now dependent on US for funding.
-this meant they pushed Israel into peace making and threatened to withdraw 10 billion in loans unless talks were made in the Oslo Accords of 1993, but then the Israeli leaders changed after assassination of Rabin and extremist leaders were willing to sacrifice things like funds and US support and whilst there was Bush’s roadmap for peace it’s shown failure was in the second intifada and the continued violence to this day
Palestinian leaders, zionism was the most important influence on attempts to resolve the Palestinian issue from 1908 to 2011’ how far do you agree?
-without the presence of Palestinian moderate leaders to accept peace it would not have gone as far, but the influence to resolve the Palestinian issue changed throughout the period with the PLO putting terrorism first at some points, in 1964 after meeting in Cairo they agreed to get land and onwards held an protracted guerrilla war against israel in 60s 70s and 80s.
-this changed in 1974 with arafat slowly coming to accept peace by suggesting to the UN that he extends an olive branch and a rifle, this implied that if they didn’t accept his peace then he would continue with his violence and allowed the peace talks to be opened and in 1988 he went as far as to renounce terrorism due to US persuasion as they were now able to apply more pressure financially, this had a domino effect and led to the temporary peace of the Oslo Accord of 1993 and 1995 and if the Israelis had not of disrupted the peace process then they would have eventually been able to reach a peace agreement
-2000 Camp David seen to be harsh demands
social needs, ‘authoritarian dictatorships in the middle east met the needs of their people how far do you agree?
-most successful in social needs with many dictatorships maintaining traditions and provided some security and a basic standard of living for considerable change, however this largely changed with all the countries in the middle east in different time periods and there is large evidence to suggest that many countries were not happy with their conditions in these different time periods and so therefore definitely suggests that for the most point the authoritarian dictatorships did not fully meet the social needs of their people, although this did change.
-this was first seen very early on with the Mandate system, mostly all of the Arabs opposed western intervention from the British especially those in Palestine as their intervention led to them losing most of their homeland to Jews due to the Balfour declaration and this was largely seen through the Arab rebellion in the different revolts especially the 1936-39 arab revolt as the living conditions of the Arabs were not improved and destroyed by the Jewish population.
-whilst in other countries this can slightly shows that some authoritarian dictators met the needs of their people at different times due to :
-1933 Nur-Al said Iraq economic development huge and high education rates however no even distribution, seen to be a theme.
-1933 Attaturk white revolution.
-sauds
-Nasser
-however did not also meet needs through:
-arab spring uprising
-Turk uprisings.
political needs, authoritarian dictatorships met the needs of their people how far do you agree?
-it is largely clear that throughout the time period the authoritarian dictatorships did not meet the political needs of their people throughout the time period, except for democracy with Attaturk. however whilst they clearly did not meet this need by not allowing the electorate to vote for those in power and by some leaders like Nasser banning political parties, it has largely been suggested that the idea of democracy is a western ideology that is not needed in the middle East, but it is clear that many themselves wanted a say in the politics of their country and this is seen by the demonstrations and uprisings suggesting they wanted a say.
-this can be suggested by the dominance of the one party baathist regime in Syria, which suggests that many would not have been allowed to make any political decisions, however whilst definitely not given any political decisions in 1954 when Nasser came to power it has been suggested that the socialist ideology and pan-arabism ideology of the Nasser era allowed for not a want for a say in politics, and only when those of a poorer working class were not treaty fairly or the reiging class did something extremely unpopular was there a need for political say, however Nasser is a one-off.
-this need for a political say can definitely be highlighted in Palestine in response to the Brits allowing the immigration of the Jews, which led to a suggestion of a political body.
-also seen through the young Turk revolution and very much so by the Arab Spring.
religious needs authoritarian dictatorships met the needs of their people how far do you agree?
-it can be seen that Arab leaders in some respect largely met the religious needs of those under there rule, however at certain points they definitely did not meet the religious needs.
-for most arab states, they met the needs by enforcing Arab law this is most clearly seen in the rich arab oil states like Saudi Arabia and is especially seen in the reign of the Ayotollah when new laws were passed based on the Koran and education was purged of un-islamic influences, women had to cover heads alcohol and pop-music banned and people voted for this party the Islamic Republican party.
-however, this is not seen clearly through Saddam’s Husseins treatment of the Kurds and of the Shiites, of which after 1979 when he became president, in 1980 there were mass expulsions of shiites and 1,200,000 million were transferred to Iran as their loyalty was not proven, and the Kurds had an even worse fate under saddam with many being executed or driven into exile and 1988 Halabja bombing 5,000 killed instantly and 12,000 later and also through the mandate rule in which the British control did not allow fully for Jewish or Islamic to meet religious needs.
