Archive for October, 2009


Influential Factors During the Suez Crisis

October 10, 2009

egypt during suezEgyptian leader Nasser and the decisive actions that he orchestrated were most influential in shaping and changing the entire world during the 1950’s—and beyond.

 Egypt lost the “battle” of the Sinai in the terms of warfare but they won the “war” in a political way.   After the Suez crisis, everyone had a different view of the Egyptian leader Nasser and he became biggest influence in the entire Middle East, and ultimately the entire Arabic Nation—to the point of uniting the people in a way that they had never been, at the time and post the time of the Suez Crisis. Nasser could also be seen as the biggest contributor of this crisis because he was the one that closed the Suez Canal but it didn’t stop there. Nasser was determined to make a major influence in the Middle East and he wanted to do it all on his own. One of the major projects was the building of the Aswan High Dam. Originally, America agreed to help fund the dam but later took it back. Nasser also rejected America’s financing for the Aswan High Dam project because he feels that the Egyptians could complete the project themselves and would give them a chance to nationalize on their own. When it came to economic and military aid, America came to Egypt’s side again. The offer from the US was going to give Egypt a significant amount of money for supplies and funding that they needed but there were strings attached that would have limited Nasser’s ability to influence so the offer was rejected. On the contrary, Nasser decided to take military funding from the Soviet Union, which brought the Cold War from predominantly Europe to the Middle East, causing more conflict and globalization than necessary.  

The biggest movement that Nasser was in charge of was leading the Arab economic boycott and closed the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aquaba to Israeli shipping and this halted Israel’s economic growth. There was a pattern with Nasser’s intentions and this is to put all of the other nations down that were not Arab countries. This was ultimately going to lead to his final goal of creating Arab unity in the Middle East. He was also interested in his own country and their wellbeing, so his goal for Egypt was to eliminate foreign control so they could become nationalized and independently run. It is very clear that Nasser was a very major influence throughout the whole world at this time.


OPVL Israel Proclamation of Independence

October 5, 2009

israel proclamation

Origin: The proclamation of Independence was written by the Provisional State Council specifically David Ben-Gurion in Tel Aviv, Israel on May 14, 1948. This is a declaration of Independence for Israel .

Purpose: States the unfairness that the Jews went through and what they now deserve, represents the Jewish people that need a homeland, proclaims the establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine, calling it Israel and declaring the termination of the British Mandate. Israel will be an independent state, open to immigration, fair to all and peaceful with neighbors.

Value: This has great value because it is all about the meeting where the state of Israel was established and what will be expected from this time forward. This is also a historical benchmark because it ends the British Mandate and finally gives a place that the Jews can call home. This brings back a problem about immigration because that has been a reoccurring problem in the state.

Limitations: This article was written by the Jews for the Jews so there is bias to the Jewish side. While the idea was a good one, in reality today there are still people that don’t like to recognize Israel as a state, are not peaceful with them, and feel that they do not deserve the land. They act like the Jews are the only ones that will be affected, but there are Arabs currently living in the state of Israel that are being ignored.


Evaluate the Following: “After it’s all said and done, no single group, government, or institution is responsible for the manner in which the British Mandate of Palestine was partitioned.”

October 2, 2009

Palestine plan on partition

The breakup of Palestine can’t be attributed to any one group, government or institution due to historical realities. The reason the blame cannot be placed on ones shoulders is because local history and politics determined the breakup of the British mandate not any particular action.  Originally the League of Nations were the ones that divided the territory into the mandates, so they were seen as responsible for the division of the land. The League of Nations made the mistake of not correctly dividing the land because they divvied out land based on geography, not socio-economic, political, religious or cultural boundaries. During the mandate period, Syria and Lebanon was awarded to France, and Iraq and Palestine were awarded to Britain. This became a major problem because the land was divided in the wrong places, for example there were Arabs that became under control of the French and some under control of the British while the Jews were also misplaced and under the wrong control. One could say that the fault could be placed on the League of Nations because they gave the wrong land to the wrong people causing an outrage and the different groups such as the Arabs and the Jews tried to change these British ways. Over time, a major change took place when the United Nations was established. The UNSCOP institution was the best and the worst thing that happened to the land at the time. The biggest conflict that this caused was the fact that the UNSCOP institution had one plan, while the Arabs had a different one, and the Jews separate from that. The task of the UNSCOP was to plan out the partition of Palestine and instead of looking into the common interests of the people; they took it upon themselves to divide Palestine their own way. As this may seem like it is now the fault of UNSCOP, they are still not the ones to blame because they situation was set up by the mandates earlier in history. The only thing that we can blame this on is the history of the land and the politics at the time.