Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
54 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Shari'a |
difference between theology and Islamic law-the integration of religion and society and make them one, does not necessarily mean Islamic Law Sunnah and Hadith (sayings and acts) Disputes among Muslims and non-Muslims (dhimmi)- to protect religious identify and protect Muslim predominance. It would be administrated under Sharia law-which gave a favorable outcome for the Muslim |
|
|
Tanzimat Era |
The reforms (reorganization during 1839-1876)
An exercise in promoting a sense of equality but also an institutionalization of preferential treatment for the Muslim citizens of the Empire until the Tanzimat reforms of the 19th century. characterized by various attempts to modernize the Ottoman Empire and to secure its territorial integrity against nationalist movements from within and aggressive powers from outside of the state. The reforms encouraged Ottomanism among the diverse ethnic groups of the Empire, attempting to stem the tide of nationalist movements within the Ottoman Empire.The reforms sought to grant emancipation to non-Muslim subjects of the Empire and to integrate non-Turks more thoroughly into Ottoman society by enhancing their civil liberties and granting them equality throughout the Empire. |
|
|
Millet System |
rule over disparate (ethnic and religious communities) different ethnicities, it helped manage their diverse ethnic communities Modernization and constitutional parliamentary system Ethnic composition:Turks, Arabs, Jews, Kurds, Berbers The empire was organized according to religious affinity: the Greek orthodox, the Armenian, Catholic, and the Jewish communities in order to allow them to have their own personal status laws-heritage-marry, and divorce |
|
|
The Suez War |
1956 Period of 1914-1956: Britain's moment in the ME-1956 ended British involvement with the sUEZ cANAL war, a war against Egypt by British, French and Israel, then US and Russia became more involved, filled the void left by the British and by 1973 |
|
|
Zionism |
its roots and leaders did not originate from the Balfour Declaration Uganda-Kenya The Zionist Conference argued that they had no claim to the land and would prefer to go to a place where they had a historical significance The West Bank had a biblical affinity , native to the land, and there was a minority of Jews in Palestine |
|
|
Maghreb (west) |
Includes Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya |
|
|
Irgun |
underground resistance/terrorist organizations the Zionist underground terrorist group going after the British commissioner for the contradictory favoring the Arab, two of their leaders became Prime Ministers |
|
|
Aliya (migration waves) |
Jewish immigration to Palestine 1881-1900- first aliya 1932-39-fifth aliya |
|
|
Hijra |
622 The year in which the Prophet migrated from Mecca to Median mostly done because of the resistance to Islam in Mecca |
|
|
al-Nakba |
disaster, 1948 Jewish State Britain withdrew its last forces from palestine |
|
|
al-Naksa |
Al Naksa (setback, 1967)- The 1967 War (June 5-10)- the most humiliating war that happened to the Arabs-Nasser’s demand to the United Nations Emergency Forces (UNEF) be withdrawn was granted on May 16, 1967.-On May 22, Nasser ordered the closing of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships, and armies of Iraq, Syria, and Jordan began mobilizing along Israel’s frontiers.-The “Six-day war” (al-Naksa: “setback” or “set backward”) began on June 5, 1967.-A short war and pre-emptive strike (surprise attack).-On June 5, Israel launched lightning attacks against Egyptian airfields, destroying the bulk of the Egyptian air force on the ground. (in less than 12 hours, they destroyed 71% of the Egyptian Air force: more than 300 of a total of 420 Egyptian combat aircraft were destroyed that day)-attack at the seven in the morning and when all the aircraft are on the ground-The attack occurred at dawn (7:30-7:45 am) when the air force was entirely on the ground.-Israel never expected the attack to be the overwhelming success that it was.-Israeli troops attacked the Golan Heights in the ensuing days and eventually forced the Syrians from their fortifications. |
|
|
Hezbollah |
group of Lebanon, the largest number of sects in Lebanon, have been supported by Iranians, and have been attacked by Israel many time, strong Islamist, local people do not considered terrorist, US and Israel does, have won seats in parliamentShiʿite Hezbollah still defies the central authority of the state and represents something of a state-within-a-state in Lebanon. In July and August 2006, Israel launched a massive military assault on Lebanon following a Hezbollah attack on an Israeli patrol, leading to the death of more than a thousand Lebanese civilians and the widespread destruction of property and infrastructure. Hezbollah, with alleged Iranian support, proved itself to be a worthy opponent to Israel, but only at great human and infrastructural cost. |
|
|
Intifada/al-Asqa intifidah |
Palestine: occupation and imposition of military governments in the territories stimulated Palestinian nationalist sentiment and led eventually to the Intifada-open uprising in December 1987 First Intifada (Shaking off)-In December 1987, local uprisings erupted-International attempts to balance the situation had failed.-Israelis were creating new settlements and immigrating into the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in the thousands.-Built up tension overflowed and spread across the occupied Palestinian territories.-Intifada was a backlash to all these conditions-A violent but unarmed uprising |
|
|
the Six Day WAR |
Buildup to War: 1956-1967-period of stagnation and a lot of conflict between Arab countries, tensions between Egypt and Saudi Arabia in how there were approaching the problem in the tension, period of quiet nothing is going on-“A period of relatively quiet one in Israel’s foreign relations, as Israel’s Arab neighbors, fearful of another military encounter, seemed more intent on confronting each other than on confronting Israel” (Freedman, 2013:95)-“In early 1967, the eastern Arab states were more concerned with inter-Arab affairs than with Israel. The quarrels between the monarchies and the socialist states seemed more likely to escalate into armed conflict than did any of the tension between Israel and its neighbors.” (Cleveland/Bunton, 2013:314)-Iraqi revolution of July 1958 (the end of Hashemite Dynasty in Iraq; Free Officers’ takeover in Iraq)-Water disputes and water diversion schemes (1950s and 1960s) Jordanian river-Egypt and Syria drew up a military pact to confront Israel (May 4, 1967)-Egypt and Jordan signed a mutual defense pact (May 30, 1967)-Egypt and Iraq signed an agreement to that effect (June 4, 1967)-Israel Point-of-View-thinking Egypt is building it military power and might attack the country, the perception right?-maybe, but Nasser might have been bluffing, he was not going to attack -In May 1967, the Soviet Union had led the government in Damascus and informing Nasser as well to believe that Israel was planning an all-out invasion of Syria (Kamrava, 2013:117)-who leaked this-no one knows, might have been an Israel ploy, might have been actual wrong information and that it was Egypt and not Syria that Israel was going to attack-Nasser believed this information even if there was no proof -There was no evidence about the authenticity of this information, but at the time was taken to be true. (Cleveland/Bunton, 2013:315)-Syria shared this misinformation with Nasser.-The Egyptian leader closed the Gulf of Aqaba to shipping, cutting off Israel's oil supplies-Nasser’s action play into the Israeli hands-Israel used this as an act of war-He also ordered United Nations peacekeepers to leave the Sinai Peninsula-UN emergency forces, Israel saw this as an excuse or putting it together to conclude a possible attack,-Egypt and Syria organized their pact and working together, this war is the most devastating, no evidence that Nasser in 1967 had intentions of attacking Israel, he was actually bluffing, his resources were invested in Yemen and did not has the resources to attack, going through difficult economic times-Nasser also deployed troops in the Sinai Peninsula (the reasons for his action are in dispute. The common assumption is that Soviets informed him of an imminent Israeli attack on Syria).-Because Egypt and Syria were bound by a military pact signed on May 4, 1967.-There is no evidence that Nasser was going to attack Israel, nevertheless. |
|
|
Yom Kippur War |
Sadat’s Strategy-The 1967 War was a defeat of historic proportions. Sadat had to find a way to put an end to the country’s festering national humiliation (Kamrava, 2013:127)-so humiliated that he wanted to have the opportunity gave pride to the military-Even a minor Egyptian success would change the military equilibrium and force a political settlement that would lead to a final settlement.-Sadat … “undertook war as an instrument of diplomacy.” (Cleveland/Bunton, 2013:371)-he cannot defeat Israel but he gains an upper hand on Israel, show soldier's bravery he can gain some form of legitimacy |
|
|
UN Resolutions 181, 242, and 338 |
UN Resolution passed in 1947 Jews were consisted of seven percent of the Palestine population, while Arabs were at forty-two, though the Jews received fifty-six perecent of the land while the Arabs received forty-two This included 400 (out of more than 1000) Palestinian villages within the designated Jewish state (Pappe, 2006: 34) UNSC Resolution 242: “Land for Peace,” November 22, 1967:-1) Withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied territories-interpretation left to the party Israeli-it was not clear which land we should give up, today some Israeli said they are not occupied but disputed territories-2) Termination of all claims or state of belligerency and respect for and the acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of every state (Kamrava, 2013:125).-Arab states accepted: implicit recognition of the right of the state of Israel to exist.-Egypt and Jordan (1967) and then in Fez (Morocco) in 1982, all Arab states (except Libya) accepted it.-Syria accepted it after 1973, and PLO after 1988.-Israel: accepted it, but stressed bilateral deals (Kamrava, 2013:125).The Fallout-UN Resolution 338: (“Land for Peace”) based on 242-Israeli internal crisis: Israeli leadership shaken up by the war: Moshe Dian (DM) and Golda Meir (PM) resigned.-Labor Party was swept from power. Israel formed a new right-wing (conservative government) in 1977 by Menachem Begin.-Diplomatic solution: Disengagement talks (Kissinger’s Shuttle Diplomacy).-The UN Resolution 338 (Oct. 22, 1973)-1. Calls upon all parties to the present fighting to cease all warring actions-2. Calls upon the parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967)-3. Decides that negotiations aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East (Lesch, 2009:251-269).-Palestinian in 242 are label as refugees and not as national in 338 very minor thought on them-1948 and 1956 it Israel was not attacked by the Palestinian but by the Arab countries and they were the once to always loose land |
|
|
Muhammad Mossadeq (Iran) |
had emerged as one of the main champions of Iranian nationalism, especially with regard to British control over the country’s oil resources. Despite the steady erosion of the powers of the parliament beginning in 1949, in March 1951 Musaddiq managed to get an oil nationalization bill passed in both the Majles and the senate, following which the shah was left with no alternative but to appoint his old foe as the new prime minister. Protracted and bitter negotiations followed with Britain over the fate of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), which Musaddiq now replaced with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC). In the end, the negotiations were to no avail. In retaliation for the nationalization, Britain imposed a blockade on the export and sale of Iranian oil, resulting in a drastic deterioration of the country’s economy.-1953 Coup against Mossadeq, the Shah was called from a shopping mall in Paris that he could come back and regain his monarchy, UK put sanctions on Iran can created instability and people protested on the street-Mossadeq died in 1967 under house arrest |
|
|
Shah |
The first Shah, Reza Shah (1925-1941)-Pahlavi dynasty in 1925 by Reza Shah and lasted until his forced abdication in 1941. during this period the Iranian monarchy laid the foundations of a new state, one that was heavily dependent on the person of the king.parliament (the Majles), and therefore a prime minister, though neither the Majles nor the prime minister was allowed to play a meaningful role in the country’s political process. Throughout Reza Shah’s rule, the parliament remained a rubber stamp, set up to provide the appearance of democracy, and the prime minister’s tenure in office depended solely on the whim of the shah. Despite some chronic weaknesses, the state managed to institute an unprecedented level of political centralization. Tribal challenges to the central government were quashed, although occasional instances of banditry and scattered armed opposition to government soldiers continued to occur.4 Additionally, the clergy, whose cultural influence had long pervaded all layers of society, were effectively suppressed, and their opposition to the state’s modernizing agendas was largely neutralized.5 By the end of his reign, the state that Reza Shah had established had acquired a number of pronounced features. The shah’s primary goal was to turn Iran into a “modern” country, an endeavor he saw as synonymous with secularization. The state was not only authoritarian but highly personalist, with the person of the shah dominating all of the state’s other institutions (e.g., the Majles, the bureaucracy, political parties). Personal dominance and control should not be confused with legitimacy and staying power. The personalization of the system undermined its long-term consolidation in relation to society, and the regime continued to be relatively fragile. When the British removed Reza Shah from his throne in 1941, it was only under their initial protection that his twenty-two-year-old son could stay in power.-The British justified their removal of Reza Shah on the grounds of his pro-German sympathies. While the charge was to some extent true, the real reason for the shah’s removal had more to do with Britain’s desire to move war supplies to its ally, the Soviet Union, through Iran with little or no Iranian resistance.The Second Shah (1941-1953 and then again in from 1953 )-This was a time of profound political instability, with none of the country’s political institutions or actors able to deal effectively with the various crises that at the time engulfed Iran. Reza Shah’s removal unleashed the various centrifugal forces that he had once suppressed. shah had long had a distaste for parliamentary democracy. The constitutional powers granted to the monarchy were already extensive, and the Majles was weak and fractured. Nevertheless, to strengthen his hand against the Majles, the shah forged close ties with the military and with those in the upper echelons of the bureaucracy. In some ways, his privileged position in handing out patronage and cementing clientelistic ties made such an alliance inevitable, and the powers of the Majles steadily eroded as those of the monarchy increased. When in February 1949 the shah was slightly wounded in an unsuccessful attempt on his life, he seized the initiative by sponsoring legislation that further augmented his constitutional powers and limited those of the Majles. Also, new elections were called for a senate, which had been stipulated in the constitution of 1907 but had never convened. The senate, half of whose members were to be appointed by the shah, significantly strengthened the powers of the monarchy in relation to the Majles. -1953-1975 (royal absolutism)-third phase Pahladvi Dynasty-“The crown, and more specifically the person of the shah, became the state.” (Kamrava, 2013:145)-A person that has the most absolute power, since he had a strong army he controlled the means of coersion and controlled the military-Reliance on the army and distraction from civil politics-1978 when there were protest, the Shah and advisers had no idea what was happening with the population, lost touch with the population, who was leading the revolution-the religious leaders, most of his advisers were western people, Samuel Huntington was one of his adviser, he told him to modernized so that he will worry about the clergy, because people will become more secular, he wrote Clash of Civilization, which argue that the Islamic world will paired up with Chinese and go against Western and Christianity world-Modernity-secularization thesis failed (the failure of the Weberian idea of secularization of culture over historical time)-not necessarily true, US and Turkey religious force are very predominant -The fourth phase (1975-1979): budget deficit-Preconditions: mismanagement, arbitrary rule, poor planning, and rampant corruption (as a result of the rise in Iran’s oil wealth) (Kamrava, 2013:148)-Iranians have three Identities: they are Iranians, Muslim and have been heavily influence by the Western world-the Shah did nationalized the oil but still collaborated with French and British companies to invest, the large portion was still for Iran-Iran would modernize and move away from religious establishment Flaws in Shah’s Plans-(1) The shah’s modernization programs led to the creation of and superimposition of a modernized system on an old decrepit order => dualism-part modern and part modern, the Shah failed to consolidated union in the society, some are moving in modernity and some stay in the tradition 1975 Iran did not know what to do with the money mismanagement and corruption 1977, agriculture and other sectors decline because all resources went for oil, economic mismanagement, many farmers came to the city to study-1975-1979- oil is increasing and is getting rich but is going for the people, not adequate institution to redistributed the wealth-(2) While the economic system became modernized, the political system remained archaic (economic growth and political underdevelopment)-the gap cause problem and let to the revolution, Bahrain and Qatar, Kuwait, large in oil and low on population is ok to have political underdevelopment because they can throw money at the problem, but not in a country that has 35 million people -(3) The political system lacked a solid ideology to legitimize the process and thus failed to create a broader popular base of support (Milani, 1988:127). |
|
|
The Balfour Declaration |
1917 In order to appeal to the US, Russian, and German Jewish populations, Britain agreed to favor the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. The Balfour Declaration of November 1917 manifested itself in a letter from Foreign Secretary James Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild, a prominent British Zionist. The goal of the Balfour Declaration was to keep both Russia and the US engaged on the side of the Allied war effort. The Balfour Declaration was favorable to Zionist aspirations, which would allow Great Britain to carry on extremely useful propaganda both in Russia and America, President Wilson’s advisors, Brandeis and Frankfurter, were avid Zionists, which would earn Britain some brownie points with the US. Russia’s Leon Trotsky was of Jewish descent, which would earn Britain brownie points with Russia. Also, it attracted Jewish financial resources to support the war. There were also geo-strategic reasons, to freeze out France and anyone else from any post-war presence in Palestine and secure post-war British control of Palestine as a buffer to Egypt and the Suez Canal. |
|
|
Hussein-MacMahon Correspondence |
1915-16 In the early 20th century, Britain was concerned about Islamic solidarity in the Ottoman Empire, so it sought the help of Sharif Husayn ibn Ali, a man who sought the title Amir of Mecca, a position that belonged to a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad and thus bore the honorific title of Sharif. In July 1915, Husayn sent a letter to the British high commissioner in Egypt, Sir Henry McMahon, setting forth the conditions that might persuade him to enter into an alliance with Britain. The Husayn-McMahon Correspondence was an exchange of ten letters that lie at the root of an immense controversy over whether Britain pledged to support an independent Arab state and then reneged on the pledge. Britain was receptive to the idea. The most difficult issues to resolve in the letters was the issue of frontiers. Hussayn wanted the Arab-speaking world east of Egypt in exchange for his commitment to lead an armed rebellion against the Ottomans. To the British, the areas lying west of a line from Damascus, Homs, and Hama could not be included in the proposed Arab state because its inhabitants were not purely Arab. Britain didn’t want to give Husayn Syria because control over the Syrian coast was prior claimed by France in a secret deal it had with Britain. In the end, Husayn did consent to a temporary British postwar occupation of these territories until a stable administration could be established. Britain pledged to recognize and uphold the independence of the Arabs in all the regions lying within the frontiers proposed by the sharif of Mecca. What resulted from the Husayn-McMahon Correspondence was the Arab Revolt (June 1916-1918). |
|
|
Iran's Green Movement |
2009 |
|
|
Sykes-Picot Agreements |
1916 The Sykes-Picot Agreement, otherwise known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret treaty in May 1916 between Britain and France. It initially included the Russian tsarist government as a minor party. The two zones of British and French would have indirect influence and under the terms of the agreement, Palestine was to be placed under international administration. After the Russian Revolution of October 1917, the Bolsheviks exposed the agreement in November 1917. There resulted great embarrassment between the allies and growing distrust between the West and its Arab allies. Applying the Sykes-Picot Agreement on a map would show a vast expanse of territory under British rule spatially below the French domain of territorial control. |
|
|
War of 1973 |
(October 6-25)-Getting the Sinai back was now more than a matter of political or even national vindication. Increasingly, it was a matter of economic survival (Kamrava, 2013:127)-getting the Sinai means getting the Suez Canal and some oil in there, helpful because Egypt was suffering economically-Experts: in a brilliantly coordinated and executed blitz, Egyptian and Syrian troops started their operations on October 6, 1973.-The key to the plan’s success lay in its secrecy- US were never informed-The Israelis did not think the Arabs would attack during Ramadan, when observant Muslims fast and certainly not in broad daylight—2 p.m. (Kamrava, 2013:121).-Tides will be favorable for crossing the Suez Canal.-Egyptian SAMs proved to be deadly effective against the Israeli aircraft.-It took less than 48 hours for the Egyptians to establish a penetration three to five miles deep on the east bank of the Suez Canal.-The Egyptian/Syrian surprise attack: (also known as the Yom Kippur War in the Israli side, Ramadan War in Arab side) restored confidence and morale in Egyptian and Syrian soldiers-look for an opportunity to gain their credibility-Israelis lost a total of 115 aircraft (Kamrava, 2013:133).-A symbolic—moral-political—if not a military victory for the Arabs. -Israel recovered, but for the first time, its army did not appear invincible.-Jordan was excluded from war planning by Egypt and Syria.-Two-front attacks: Egypt and Syria-The Israeli maneuver cut off the Egyptian Third Army (45,000 men) on the Sinai side of the canal.-The US massive airlift of military and supplies (tanks and aircrafts) to Israel-Soviet Union hinted that it might send volunteers.-President Richard Nixon then ordered U.S. forces on “red alert.”-The US government put pressure on Israelis not to attack the Egyptian Third Army.-Moral victory, but not a military victory (Sabat knew he could not defeat Israel, but he did it for pride and get a negotiation with Israel and US to negotiated)-sort of a proxy war between US and USSR |
|
|
The Ottomans |
The Ottoman centuries can be divided three periods. The first period from the early establishment of the dynasty around 1280 to the end of the reign of Suleyman I (1520-66), was one of unprecedented growth in power, prestige, and territorial size of the empire. First ten sultans, all of them were competent administrators, successful military commanders, and sagacious rulers. Ottoman empire emerged as a gunpowder empire, excellent military tactics and technology, conquering lands of the Europe and the Middle East. Military prowess bolstered by well-trained corps of infantry soldiers called janissaries. Janissaries were drafted into the service of the empire at childhood and were raised as future administrators or soldiers. They were provided with firearms and “used phalanx tactics to combine massed musket firepower with artillery.” The second period began approximately after 1566 and lasted until the early 1800s. This was the beginning of the end. This period was filled with frequent military defeats, territorial retreat and retrenchment, administrative decay, and industrial under-developments. The Empire lost significant territory, but only with the help of European powers were they able to regain Syria, but their loss of Egypt was permanent. There were few victories, but the many defeats were a result of innate conservatism and lack of adaptability that permeated Ottoman rule including warfare and conquest. There were multiple causes for the decline of the empire.Decay began at the top with the royals and the janissaries. Janissaries lost their strict discipline, quality of training deteriorated, many began using their prestigious position for personal pursuits. The janissaries were eventually replaced with the sultan’s new army called “the Victorious Muhammeden Soldiery: when they mutinied against proposed reforms.-There were also incompetent sultans who were only interested in the pursuit of worldly pleasures than in attending to the affairs of the state. On the whole, the overall quality of the government saw a precipitous decline over time.-Also, the Russians became a larger imperial power. Everyone was advancing but the Ottomans, so the empire essentially became the “sick man of Europe.” They were stuck in the past, they had little regard for modernization, preferring the old ways. They did not experience the Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, or Industrial Revolution. They ultimately entered the 18th century economically, technologically, and militarily weaker than most of their traditional European adversaries. The third period began in the 19th century when the systemic malaise of the Ottomans became apparent. This was the era of reforms and demise. Sultans sought to revamp the empire’s central administration, reinvigorate the army, give order to the chaotic and inefficient tax collection system, and introduce modern industrial machinery such as printing presses. A second set of reforms occurred during from 1839 to 1876, otherwise known as the era of Tanzimat, or reorganization. The tanzimat saw the introduction of a postal system, telegraph, steamships, and construction of railway. Not surprisingly, such changes were often viewed with suspicion and angst by the established political and economic hierarchy, not the least of whom were courtiers and the ulama (Muslim clerics). In fact, it was the ulama that instigated Selim’s deposition in 1807 and the end of his New Order. |
|
|
Turkish nationalism |
more info |
|
|
The Safavids and the Qajars |
-Caught between the Ottoman Empire (1299-1921) and the Mogul Empire (1526-1857)-Traced their genesis to religious mystics (Sufis) who were Shiites.-Shi’ism became state religion of Iran-Fought several wars with the Ottomans over the control of Mesopotamia (“land between rivers” => today’s Iraq).-Signed the Treaty of Zuhab (1639) with the Safavid Empire that placed today’s Iraq under the Ottoman’s sovereignty- since then Iran and Turkey has never been at war, even though Turkey joined NATO, their peaceful co-existence goes back to this treaty, even though they disagree fundamentally, but is Syria, Iraq wars conflict proxy wars between them, is more with Saudi Arabia and Iran than Turkey because Sunni Shi’ite problem between Saudi Arabia and Iran, but Turkey is very dependent on the oil from Saudi and Qatar and so it took a stand with Syria, Iran and Turkey needs oil and gas from Iran good example of Geo-political economic relations |
|
|
PLO |
1967 to 1987, although the PLO was officially established in 1964. Palestinian nationalist sentiments once again assumed their local, indigenous character beginning in late 1987. This time they took the form of a spontaneous uprising, the intifada, that took the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by storm, lasting into the early 1990s. This prompted the signing between Israeli authorities and PLO officials of the Declaration of Principles, commonly referred to as the Oslo Accords, in 1993,first leader Yasser Arafat, second leader Mahmoud Abbas-he was part of the Fateh |
|
|
Fitra |
-God has endowed each and every individual with an intrinsic nature (fitra): a nature that gives them the power of intuitive reason- you have the capacity to reason because you have fitra, by instinct degree of rationality regardless of education, endowed with reason-Another inherent characteristic that enables humans to exercise the capacity to perform obligations as God’s creatures and to relate with one another as members of a universal human community is human dignity (karamat)-Inherent dignity and moral worth-feel for people who they might not share their experience |
|
|
Hamas |
more info |
|
|
Fateh |
Guerilla military unit of the PLO that later became the PNA, Palestinian National Authority, due dislussioment and power struggle within the organization, and the apparent lack of many any progress for the Palestinian nation cause had made an opportunity for Hamas to deepen its base of support and legitimacy across Gaza. With the “Islam is the answer” propelled it to victory in the Palestinian legislative elections that were held for the first time in a decade in 2006. The elections signified an almost complete divorce of the Fatah-dominated West Bank, led by the PNA, and the Gaza Strip, now controlled by Hamas. |
|
|
ljtihad |
independent reasoning Sources of Islamic law: Prophet Sunna and Hadith ( act and saying) , the Quran, Ijma (consensus from religious leaders), Ijtihad (interpretation through human reason), Qiyas (interpretation by precedent), also Dhimmi(the act of treating minorities fairly). Feminist in the Islam World challenge the establishment with this, because there is rational thinking, no everyone has the ability of Ijtihad because you need to have some knowledge be an expert of what you are talking about, topic good comprehensive, but it allows you to have merit legitimacy in interpreting the Qu’ran that has place in the world and time of today, have comprehension of the world from 7th century, feminist argue that the teaching have to be adapted to the modern world of today, change the laws |
|
|
Janissary |
more info |
|
|
Yishuv |
by the end of the nineteenth century, the Jewish community in Palestine, the Yishuv, had grown to approximately fifty thousand individuals. During the second aliya, from 1904 to 1913, the Yishuv grew considerably, this time with significant support from the expanding network of Zionist organizations and with financial assistance from wealthy European philanthropists, chief among whom were members of Britain’s Rothschild family. The second wave of immigrants was mostly farmers and laborers. Since they had had little or nothing in their original countries to return to, they were determined to succeed in their new land. Thus the Yishuv increasingly assumed the characteristics of an integrated polity, more realistic and attuned to the conditions of its environment, and there to stay. Significantly, most of the leaders of the new state of Israel in 1948 would emerge from this aliya. The third aliya, generally dated from 1919 to 1923, brought thirty-seven thousand new immigrants to Palestine, expanding the Yishuv to about eighty-four thousand. Another seventy thousand Jews immigrated to Palestine between 1924 and 1928, during the fourth aliya, this time mostly urban and mercantile in orientation. With them came the rise of Jewish urban settlements and an increase in the organizational strength of industrial laborers. The fifth and last aliya, coming at the rise of fascism and the onslaught of the Second World War in Europe, occurred between 1932 and 1939, by the end of which the Yishuv’s population had grown to some 445,000, or about 30 percent of the total population of Palestine. |
|
|
Wezmann |
Russian Jew, he had key access to cabinet members of the UK government, and put fort his agenda
Helped with the Balfour declaration |
|
|
Ariel Sharon |
Former Israeli Prime Minister; part of the Likud Party; He was a major figure in many defining events in the Middle East for decades, including his decision to turn over Gaza and parts of the West Bank to Palestinian control. As a general in 1967, he led his tank battalion to victory over the Egyptians in the Sinai during the Six Day War. His greatest military success came in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War – surrounded Egypt’s Third Army and led tanks and men over the Suez Canal. Died in 2014 after being in a coma for eight years following a stroke. On September 28, 2000, Ariel Sharon, visited the Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem, flanked by more than a thousand Israeli soldiers. Campaigning for the office of prime minister, Sharon wanted his visit to signify Israel’s control over the religious compound and Likud’s unwillingness to negotiate it away, caused uproar from the Palestinian that let to massive protest and violence that led to heavy casualties on both sides |
|
|
Yitzak Rabin |
more info |
|
|
Ehud Barak |
more info |
|
|
Ehud Olmert |
|
|
|
Theodor Herzl |
Wrote the Jewish State in 1896- changed the idea of Zionism to a very political and social global movement Assumed that Jews would have troubles assimilating to Germany, France, and the UK Did not see Palestine as the solution a non-religious Jewish |
|
|
Ben Gurian |
Primary founder of the state of Israel and the first PM of Israel, known as “Israel’s Founding Father,” led Israel during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, considered a de-facto leader of the Jewish community in Palestine and led the fight for an independent Jewish state. |
|
|
Rentier States |
states with resource endowments (oil) that use its revenue from the resources to appease the population and prevent uprisings by granting them tax exemptions or just by giving the people nice stuff for low prices. |
|
|
masjid |
more info |
|
|
Hassan Rouhani |
more info
|
|
|
The Peel Commission |
more info
|
|
|
Ataturk |
Opposing the Treaty of Sevres The Treaty of Sevres- beginning of the end of the Ottoman Empire-The division of the former Ottoman territories under the treaty of Sevres (France), August 10, 1920. The treaty officially put an end to the Ottoman Empire-Turkey agreed to British and French protectorate over Mesopotamia (Iraq), Greater Syria (Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan and Palestine), recognized independence to Hejaz, Asir and Yemen, granted autonomy to Kurdistan (the province of Diyarbekir and southern part of Van province), ceded Izmir and Eastern Trace to Greece and Western Armenia to the Armenian Republic.-The treaty was rejected by the new nationalist government formed in Ankara by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (1921)-The new government of Atatürk embraced Thrace (European portion), the straits (Bosporus and Dardanelles), and all of Anatolia (Asian portions of Turkey: “East”) so important to Turkey that Ataturk did not want to give up toThe Lausanne Treaty-The Treaty of Lausanne was a peace treaty signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on July 24, 1923, that settled the Anatolian and East Thracian* parts of the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire by annulment of the Treaty of Sèvres (1920) that was signed by the Ottoman government.-The treaty of Lausanne was ratified by the Greece, Turkey, Great Britain, Italy and Japan.-This treaty was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on September 5, 1924.-Turkey does not have oil, or gas but have location countries have to be granted access by Turkey to pass and export their oil, more practical and cost effective
|
|
|
Nasser |
The military coup that overthrew the monarchy in Egypt in (July 23, 1952) was bent on reviving the Arab pride under leadership of Nasser and has great consequences, anything that happens in Egypt, has great consequences, the most populous country in the region the largest, the central piece of the Arab Middle East, Nasser was talking about nationalist leader, nationalized land reform econ equality and nationalized Suez Canal and British and France planned to contained Nasser to prevent spread in the other regions, ally British, France and Israel and led to the war of 1956-He projected a spirit of hope and preserving Arab independence in the face of external pressures from the British.-He proclaimed the abrogation of the 1936 treaty with the British government.-Internal challenges: corruption and landed aristocracy and he spoke in populist language, to gain popularity and talked about nationalist and populist ambitions-Nasser approached the US with arms deal and assistance has several meetings and connection wanted the US on their side, but he was not welcomed, internal domestic problem in the US prevented US/Egypt collaboration and so he approached the Soviet Union and they financed a dam for Egypt and it lean towards the Soviet Union, Egypt is crucial and important in the region-Nasser never said to alliance with the Soviet Union and not the US, he approached them but they backed down, so if you in Egypt and want to established infrastructure you will turn to people that can help you-British and France were looking for an excuse, and this was the reason, -Nasser: land reform and the proclamation of Arab Socialism-Sept. 1955: The Czech arms deal became considerable annoyance in Washington and London.-Soviet-Egyptian arms deal of 1955-In late 1955: the World Bank approved a loan package ($70 million) for building a dam across the Nile at Aswan.-In July 1956: the U.S. government abruptly announced that it was withdrawing its loan offer.-The 1956 national elections were a factor in Dwight D. Eisenhower’s decision in this regard.-On July 26, 1956, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal. Nasser proclaimed that the revenues from the canal would be used to fund the development projects the West refused to sponsor.-The Suez Canal, built with Egyptian labor but operated by a French company and used as a lifeline of the British Empire.-Nasser’s bold action was greeted with tremendous enthusiasm, in both Egypt and the Arab world. But nationalization of Canal was met with fierce resistance by both France and England. US Decision-The action drove Egypt further toward an alliance with the Soviet Union and was a contributing factor to the Suez Crisis later in 1956.-The Soviets rushed to Egypt's aid, and the Aswan Dam was officially opened in 1964.-In October 1956, British, French, and Israeli forces attacked Egypt, claiming that they were protecting the Suez Canal.-The invading forces withdrew from Egypt in early 1957The 1956 War-The (Oct. 29, 1956) war internationalized a regional conflict (Israel, France, and Great Britain).-Nasser was expected to block the Straits of Tiran (opening to Red Sea but close to Sharmal Shaik) and the Gulf of Aqaba. Consequences-Egypt suffered another humiliating defeat, but Nasser emerged from the conflict with even more established credentials-the colonial powers attacked Egypt and the war was not an embarrassment for him but a popular outcome, national unity for Egypt and the Arab regions of the Middle East, tapped to nationalist sentiment, did not change the balance of power-Pan-Arabism spread throughout the region-The Soviet Union was judged an eager supporter of the Arab cause against Zionism and Western imperialism.-Military success, however, was not translated into political achievement for Israel-Calls for pan-Arab unity à formation of the United Arab Republic (1958-1961): a union between Egypt and Syria-Power-sharing, centralization of the government, a coup in the Syrian Army, among other things à termination of this alliance-Egypt was up until 1971 still known as the UAR.-Egypt became embroiled in North Yemen (1962-1967): supporting a coup there.-Nasser initiated wide-raging reforms in education, health care (universal health care), women’s rights, family planning programs, and housing provisions.-His popularity reached its apex in the region, especially in Iraq, Syria, Algeria, and North Yemen-In 1964: Nasser helped create the Non-alignment Movement (along with Yugoslavia, Ghana, India and Indonesia) |
|
|
Sadat |
Nasser-disappointed in the Soviets, given wrong information and trust them, died in 1970 and was succeeded by Anwar el-Sadat, friend of his, brings his own way of thinking-The Jordanian-PLO clash caused several thousand casualties and forced the PLO to reestablish it’s headquarter in Beirut.-During 1972-73: “outbreaks of student demonstrations that stood as criticisms of the government’s apparent lack of resolve.” (Cleveland/Bunton, 2013:371)-is in turmoil, poor governance-No analysts could tell whether Sadat was interested in displaying Egyptian power-Sadat made a move to disassociated with the nationalist and secular and play favoritism Islamist toyed them but is dangerous because they want to shared power in Brotherhood to counter balance the forces in Egypt-Shift of Sadat’s “revolution of rectification”-Infitah: opening policy where previously nationalized Egyptian industries were deregulated and privatized.-Attempted to shore up his own domestic support through an ideological reorientation toward an emphasis on Islamic legitimacy—a maneuver that proved too powerful for the regime to handle (MacQueen, 2013:156).-Egyptian economy in trouble-The cost of the Yemen War-Credibility of Sadat was disintegrating-Attitudes of Israelis: taunting and arrogant-because they had defeating three times by now-Détente was not working in Egypt’s favor-Deception: Sadat’s was Egypt’s Churchill; he was just as good as at deception as Churchill had been at Normandy-The 1967 War was a defeat of historic proportions. Sadat had to find a way to put an end to the country’s festering national humiliation (Kamrava, 2013:127)-so humiliated that he wanted to have the opportunity gave pride to the military-Even a minor Egyptian success would change the military equilibrium and force a political settlement that would lead to an final settlement.-Sadat … “undertook war as an instrument of diplomacy.” (Cleveland/Bunton, 2013:371)-he cannot defeat Israel but he gains an upper hand on Israel, show solders bravery he can gain some form of legitimacyThe 1973 War (October 6-25)-Getting the Sinai back was now more than a matter of political or even national vindication. Increasingly, it was a matter of economic survival (Kamrava, 2013:127)-getting the Sanai means getting the Suez Canal and some oil in there, helpful because Egypt was suffering economically-Experts: in a brilliantly coordinated and executed blitz, Egyptian and Syrian troops started their operations on October 6, 1973. -1978: Camp David-March 26, 1979: Begin and Sadat signed a historic peace treaty at the White House alongside President Carter.-Egypt got back the Sinai-Israel received formal recognition from Egypt.-The Palestinians were not yet part of the process. Autonomy—not independence—for the Palestinians was mentioned in the Camp David Accords.-Hindsight he did the best for the nation, they got the Sinai back and they have not been at war with Israel, and today Israel is now being accepted, historically he did what was best for the country-Sadat’s behind-the-scenes diplomatic contacts with Kissinger in the early stages of the war (Lesch, 2008:249)-Sadat traveled to Israel (Jerusalem) in 1977 and later signed a separate peace treaty with Israel in 1979 (Camp David Accords).-These actions were immensely unpopular in the Arab world. Egypt was expelled from the Arab League. -Islamists within the army orchestrated this assassination attempt.-Unrest spreading throughout the general population-Key government institutions were infiltrated by members of radical organizations.-A common trend across the region toward an emphasis on religious over nationalist ideology and legitimacy (MacQueen, 2013:157) |
|
|
Mubarak |
Mubarak comes at a time when Egypt was being ostracized by the Arab world and after the assassination of Sadat. His main task was to resolve the contradiction between the standards of nationalist legitimacy established under NAsser and the combination of close US and israeli connections and isolation from the Arab world brought on by Sadat’s policies.Egypt was readmitted into the Arab League with in 1989Due to the end of bipolarity Mubarak position Egypt as a moderator and stabilizer of the Arab World. He position Egypt as a key player against Islamic terrorism.
|
|
|
Arab Revolt |
1916 -Husayn tribal forces attacked the Ottoman garrison at Mecca on June 10, 1916.-The revolt took two years.-Husayn was not an Arab nationalist and did not think in terms of the ideology of Arabism. His was an attempt to acquire a hereditary kingdom or principality for his family (dynasty).-The Arab revolt did not constitute a popular uprising against the Ottoman Empire.-Sharif’s son, Amir Faysal, was assisted by a group of Iraqi ex-Ottoman officers and a small contingent of British military advisers, among them Captain T. E. Lawrence (Cleveland/Bunton, 2013:148-149)Amir Faysal-Field commander of the Arab Revolt and later King of Syria, at the Paris Peace Conference, 1919 -After the defeat of his Syrian forces by the French in 1920, he was exiled -He was then selected by the British to become the first king of Iraq -King Faysal was overthrown by the army officers in 1958 |
|
|
Land Question |
Land Question (1920-1931)-land speculation, need money perhaps-they scope expanded, the Palestinians they were not afraid about minorities buying land, but did not expect waves of people (Jewish) coming more and more over time, did not feel threated-now TODAY-Jewish population (75%) over populates over the Arabs (20%)-Why should we pay the price of the Holocaust in Europe, and have to relinquish their land to Jewish, European sympathy for the Jews facilitated move migration to Palestine-Palestine was booming because wealthy Jew was investing in Palestine during the interwar period even during the Great Depression, but land without tenants, increasing losing the land, landless class, disenfranchised, marginalized |
|
|
Iranian Revolution |
-The 1979 Islamic Revolution was unique for the surprise it created throughout the world.-It was a popular, spontaneous uprising beyond the imagination. (Kamrava, 2013:141).-It lacked many of the customary causes of revolution: such as defeat at war, a financial crisis (not major), peasant rebellion, or disgruntled military A Blend of Forces-old and new forces and sort of forge an alliance-The Iranian professionals and intellectuals were determined to utilize the American human rights policy (enunciated by the Carter administration) to wedge an opening by publishing their grievances, hoping to widen the crack in order to change government policies (Keddie, 2006:215).-The “moderates” started the revolution-because they can make coalitions of different group and the “extremists” took it over- because moderates are unable to keep people together, and extremist are able to take over and force their will (Keddie: 2006:215)-Ideologue: Dr. Ali Shariati: blend of Islam with modern ideas. National Front-blend secularism and religious in their ideology of fighting against corruption they were in jail-An alliance of different parties, groups, tendencies, leaders, and perspectives-Fedai’yan-e Khalq (leftist, socialist guerrillas)-Mojahedin-e Khalq (mainstream guerrillas forces associated with religious wing of the Front)-Freedom Movement (Mehdi Bazargan (became the first Prime Minister after the revolution) and Ayatollah Mahmoud Taleqani (was in jail during the revolution)) |
|
|
Explain/analyze the gradual erosion of secular nationalism in the Arab World |
Key Point: Nasser, he was in no economic place to aid secular movements-This was especially the case with Syria’s proposal for union with Egypt in early 1958, and with the plea for military and other forms of assistance by revolutionary Yemenis in 1962. As the self-proclaimed leader of Pan-Arabism, Nasser could not possibly reject either of these requests. Both undertakings turned out to be costly misadventures with disastrous consequences. This same self-constructed trap put a reluctant Nasser on a collision course with Israel in 1967, resulting in his devastating military defeat and humiliation in the Six Days’ War-Baʿth members were also disenchanted with the union because of their increasing political marginalization. The heavy hand of the Egyptian bureaucracy, Nasser’s penchant for personal political control, and his ill-advised plans to implement statist economic policies in Syria as he had done in Egypt only heightened popular Syrian anger against the unification process-Sensing tensions, in the summer of 1961 Nasser made some adjustments aimed at placating the brewing opposition in Syria. He ordered the transfer of an unpopular Syrian military commander (Abdel Hamid Sarraj) from Damascus to Cairo, promised to spend four months a year in Damascus, and gave Syrians more visible positions in his administration. But these efforts proved to be too little and too late. On September 21, Syrian army units marched on Damascus and, in yet another of the country’s many coups, proclaimed Syria’s independence from the UAR. The coup and Syria’s separation from the UAR were a crushing blow to Nasser. In many ways, he was defeated at his own game and by his own actions. This time, unlike in 1956, Nasser could not blame Western imperialist or Zionist conspiracy for his troubles. And he could not, even if he wanted to, turn this defeat into some sort of imagined victory. This was a defeat through and through—political, diplomatic, economic. As if to underscore the futility of the whole endeavor, Nasser made a halfhearted attempt to reverse the coup but then acknowledged the irreversibility of the secession in a radio broadcast the next day. Perhaps to hang on to some vestige of the unity experience, Nasser retained the name United Arab Republic for Egypt-But Nasser and Nasserism were never quite the same again. Different ideological currents made their presence felt in “street politics,” and on February 20, 1968, the regime was jolted by massive protests by an estimated forty thousand to fifty thousand workers and students. |
|
|
Implications of the 1967 War |
Casualties/Consequences-Fewer than a thousand Israelis—both civilian and soldiers-Twenty thousand soldiers on the Arab side-Twenty-six thousand square miles of lost territory-Thousands of prisoners of war-500,000 new Arab refugees in addition to the Palestinian refugees from 1948 (Kamrava, 2013: 121).-will not give up west bank because of the water resources, water will be crucial in the regionCIA was right: Soviets would not intervene and the war was going to be short, not after Cuban Missile CrisisThe USSR Weighs In-June 10, 1967: Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin: “The Kremlin foresaw a ‘grave catastrophe’ and threatened to take ‘necessary actions’ … including military if the Israelis did not halt their advance across the Golan Heights.-President Johnson dispatched the Sixth Fleet to the eastern Mediterranean-Five years after the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis: The specter of another confrontation looms large-A cease-fire later day was reached that led to the UN Resolution 242 The Upshot-Israel occupied and expanded its borders:-The West Bank, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and the Sinai Peninsula as well as the Golan Heights.-Israel brought more roughly 1.5 million Palestinian refugees under its administration—a costly and uncertain venture- are they citizens, do they have rights are you a democracy or autarky -Nasser stayed on but Nasserism was damaged-big humiliation, his ideology secular Arab nationalism, they lost the confidence of the power of the country that they believe of Egypt and Soviet Union, -A big humiliation for the Arabs: losing confidence in Soviet support.-This was not an event that President Nasser could somehow turn into a victory. “It was a defeat through and through” (Kamrava, 2013:122)-he could not recover-Signaling the decline of Egyptian hegemony and of the Egypt-centric Arab politics-Dealing a mortal blow to pan-Arab dreams-It started the process of Arab acceptance of the permanence—if not the legitimacy—of Israel (Hinnebusch, 2014:43) Resolution 242-origin of negotiation between Arab and Israeli, formal cease fire-UNSC Resolution 242: “Land for Peace,” November 22, 1967:-1) Withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied territories-interpretation left to the party Israeli-it was not clear which land we should give up, today some Israeli said they are not occupied but disputed territories-2) Termination of all claims or state of belligerency and respect for and the acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of every state (Kamrava, 2013:125).-Arab states accepted: implicit recognition of the right of the state of Israel to exist.-Egypt and Jordan (1967) and then in Fez (Morocco) in 1982, all Arab states (except Libya) accepted it.-Syria accepted it after 1973, and PLO after 1988.-Israel: accepted it, but stressed bilateral deals (Kamrava, 2013:125). Other Consequences-Egypt: the 1967 war marked the true end of the Nasser Era; the Arab public entered a period of disillusionment and despair.-Israel: victory polarized politics between those who favored a peaceful settlement-negotiated and those who opposed any territorial concessions: the ambition of Greater Israel-not give up the land, because is for the greater good of the nation (Hinnebusch, 2014:44)-Palestine: occupation and imposition of military governments in the territories stimulated Palestinian nationalist sentiment and led eventually to the Intifada-open uprising in December 1987-Loss of credibility in secular and corrupt governments-Crisis mentality à experiencing new paths and alternatives.-The rise of Islamists and Islamism in the region.-Hence “Islam is the solution” mantra-Point of rise of Islamism-you can say it was in 1928 with the Muslim brotherhood, or 1950, Nasser opposed religious sentiment that led to Islamism, or in 1979 with the Iranian Revolution, it gave a major push Professor POV: as a school of thought and opposition was the 1967 war and the end of Pan-Arabism, finished nationalism, because the Palestinian left that they are left out, their allies abandoned them, it failed-which movement is able to fill the void and bring non-arab muslim and arab muslim Pan-Islamism, it started 1967 as a principle three important developed WWI end of Ottoman Empire, 1956 decline of colonial power in the region and 1967 war when the nationalism and secular movement was defeated, was next- religious movement |
|
|
Camp David Accords |
Egypt would have liked to negotiate the return of its lost territory before the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, (the return of the Sinai Peninsula that it had lost during the 1967 war).The return of the Sinai Peninsula was key for Egypt’s economic survival.without a solution to the Sinai’s occupation there were few prospects for economic and political revitalization.Nasser at this time could not negotiate with Israel since he did not have any type of leverage and any deal reached would have been a disadvantage.Golda Meir (Israeli PM) viewed the Arab bargaining position as too weak to merit negotiations.Soviets assisted the Egyptian army in rebuilding their crushed military. They would be expelled before the war started. The 1973 Arab-Israeli WarDuring the first part of the war Syria and Egypt made extreme gains--which they were unable to keep due to a lack of a coherent strategy for holding on to gains. Attacked the military command centers and destroyed over 100 fighter jets.Israel was able to create a counter attack after regrouping. The initial shock of the event started to wear off.Israel was back up by the US with military airlifts to Israel. The US actually put it’s aerial defense in jeopardy to assist Israel replace its lost planes.Israelis were able to push back the Arabs and no territory was lost.Aftermath:The Arab psychological state was raisedIsrael was no longer an invincible military powerResolution 338 passedcalled for a cease fire and for negotiations making reference to resolution 242 and decides that negotiations should be aimed at establish a just and durable peace in the Middle East.Kissinger who had visited the various capitals during the war headed the peace process.At this point the Egyptians had a better hand and Israel was willing to negotiate. |
