One of the heated and contentious conflicts over the last 50 years is without a doubt the Arab-Israeli conflict. With this cauldron of ethnic and religious nationalism, self-determination and territorial disputes it is no wonder why this conflict is so heated. But if one were to examine the impacts of clashing nationalisms between Arabs and Palestinians as well as the rise and Pan-Arabism on the conflict from 1967 to 1993, one will see how the modern state of the Arab-Israeli conflict was formed. These two factors, nationalistic conflict and Pan-Arabism, have had some of the most significant impacts on the conflict because they show the transition of the Arab-Israeli conflict from a regional battle between the Israelis and the Arab States to
…show more content…
This transition is best exemplified through two specific events from the 20th century, the 1967 War and the First Intifada. The impact of this transition made the Arab-Israeli conflict a more localized ordeal that gave the Palestinians a nationalist identity and an international voice. The Middle East in the 1950s saw a series of Arab military coups that replaced former kings with nationalist military leaders in Egypt, Iraq and Syria. Egypt, under Gam Abdel Nasser, became one of the strongest and most powerful Arab states in the region and began to ring the bells of Arab unity. Nasser envisioned a Middle East where the Arabs could form a single union and fight for their common interests. Soon, Egypt and Iraq began to undergo their own respective rivalry, which was complicated even further when Syria and Egypt formed the United Arab Republic, which only lasted until 1961. Despite the breakdown of the United Arab Republic, and the rivalry between the other Arab states, Jordan and Iraq, all of the Arab states were steadfast in their support for the Palestinian cause. The Arab states believed that Pan-Arabism was the best way to achieve victory over the Israelis and liberate the Palestinians …show more content…
Now the Arab states were in total shock, for their philosophy of Arab nationalism and Pan-Arab ideology seemed to have miserably failed. Their grandiose claims that through Pan-Arabism could they could liberate Palestine faulted as the Arab militaries were devastated. As a result, the Arab states did not have the proper leverage to negotiate for the Palestinians because they lacked the military power that would be necessary to do so . Prior to the war, the Palestinians largely were either living under Israeli occupation or under the governorship of the Jordanians and Egyptians in the West Bank and Gaza respectively. With very little arms or leverage of their own, the Palestinians depended on the larger more powerful Arab states to help fight for their autonomy. But after the war, a new sense of indigenous Palestinian nationalism grew that rejected the need for Arab assistance. In Sandy Tolan’s The Lemon Tree, the character Bashir describes how after the war Palestinian could only rely on themselves to deliver their own justice . Suddenly notions of freedom and liberate were emerging that the Palestinians were free to think and act for themselves. This led to a surge in young men who would join to become feyadeen or freedom fighters to liberate Palestine by themselves. The War of 1967 led to a seismic
This transition is best exemplified through two specific events from the 20th century, the 1967 War and the First Intifada. The impact of this transition made the Arab-Israeli conflict a more localized ordeal that gave the Palestinians a nationalist identity and an international voice. The Middle East in the 1950s saw a series of Arab military coups that replaced former kings with nationalist military leaders in Egypt, Iraq and Syria. Egypt, under Gam Abdel Nasser, became one of the strongest and most powerful Arab states in the region and began to ring the bells of Arab unity. Nasser envisioned a Middle East where the Arabs could form a single union and fight for their common interests. Soon, Egypt and Iraq began to undergo their own respective rivalry, which was complicated even further when Syria and Egypt formed the United Arab Republic, which only lasted until 1961. Despite the breakdown of the United Arab Republic, and the rivalry between the other Arab states, Jordan and Iraq, all of the Arab states were steadfast in their support for the Palestinian cause. The Arab states believed that Pan-Arabism was the best way to achieve victory over the Israelis and liberate the Palestinians …show more content…
Now the Arab states were in total shock, for their philosophy of Arab nationalism and Pan-Arab ideology seemed to have miserably failed. Their grandiose claims that through Pan-Arabism could they could liberate Palestine faulted as the Arab militaries were devastated. As a result, the Arab states did not have the proper leverage to negotiate for the Palestinians because they lacked the military power that would be necessary to do so . Prior to the war, the Palestinians largely were either living under Israeli occupation or under the governorship of the Jordanians and Egyptians in the West Bank and Gaza respectively. With very little arms or leverage of their own, the Palestinians depended on the larger more powerful Arab states to help fight for their autonomy. But after the war, a new sense of indigenous Palestinian nationalism grew that rejected the need for Arab assistance. In Sandy Tolan’s The Lemon Tree, the character Bashir describes how after the war Palestinian could only rely on themselves to deliver their own justice . Suddenly notions of freedom and liberate were emerging that the Palestinians were free to think and act for themselves. This led to a surge in young men who would join to become feyadeen or freedom fighters to liberate Palestine by themselves. The War of 1967 led to a seismic