Who Is Herbert Norman

Diamond’s third notion came from a variety of political and institutional problems that are one the main obstacles for the Middle East region. For one, these regimes have become extremely adept at repressing anyone who speaks against them within their societies. For another, they have started to use short bursts of political reform to relieve temporary demands for reform while leaving intact executive monopolies over state resources. Further, they efficiently divide opposition parties and civic forces, often by imposing electoral rules and regulations that make it impossible for civil society-which is generally weak and fragmented-to, mount concerted campaigns against the state apparatus. Diamond’s last explanation speaks on the dual issues of Islamism and the Arab-Israeli conflict, and how it plays into each side’s regime survival strategy. Authoritarian incumbents play up the

In 1950 the emergence of the Second Red Scare’s driving force, Senator Joseph McCarthy, appeared and gave a speech proclaiming that America will soon be lost to communism if the people do not stand up to combat it. He revealed that night a list of 205 people working for Soviet Russia in the United States’ State Department whose intentions were to mold America from the inside to become a socialist nation. (Fitzgerald, p. 14) It was thanks to this newfound hysteria that began to break out thanks to McCarthy’s claims that the HUAC and other like-minded organizations began to gain momentum during this time period.

One particularly interesting perspective is his opinion on how the conflict has somewhat freed the identity of Palestinians from a shared land, and that for some Palestinians that can escape the occupation, there is a the creation of a transnational, transgressive life. (Suleiman, 2003, 73) Thus exists multiple outcomes from one identity. He further supports this by commenting that Palestine does not have borders, does not actually exist in the sense of geography, but it still has a sense of space. The Palestinian people are this space, and the people are how we define what is, and what is not Palestine. People are separated geographically, but defined by identity and community, and this creates a unique sense of freedom outside of a defined nation-state. (Suleiman, 2000, 96) This lets the definition of this identity be more fluid. He says that in his work he purposefully moves away from a centralized view of Palestinian identity and uses cinema to present the differences in viewpoint, perception, and narration that exist within this conflict. Not only between Israelis and Palestinian's but between all Palestinian's. (Suleiman, 2000, 97) He purposefully moves away from a singular form of Palestinian identity and states “My films are Palestinian because I am Palestinian.” (Suleiman, 2000, 99) This movement from a

Not many people recognize what the Suez Crisis is, but to those who do, they all know that Lester B. Pearson played a crucial role in the neutralization of the situation. In 1956 3 , Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal, thus triggering a crisis. Britain and France soon joined in a coalition along with Israel, in order to topple the Egyptian government. The invasion was halted due to pressure from the U.N. Lester B. Pearson understood that France, Britain and Israel could not all hold onto the Suez Canal without consequences, most thought of a war of some sort. He also understood that the war would cause NATO and the Commonwealth to crack under the pressure. Knowing this, Lester B. Pearson convinced the U.N. peacekeeping force in an impressive 57-0 4 fashion, thus diffusing the Suez Crisis altogether. For his contributions, he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace. This is a defining moment in Canadian history and is often regarded as the start to Canada’s humble and nice keeping persona and it all started because of this man.

Arias: It’s nice to finally to put three of the greatest minds concerning the Israel/Palestine conflict together for one night! I’m Erika Arias and I’ll be mediating the discussion tonight. Tonight, joining us we have Professors Shapira, Gelvin and Pappe. I’ll give them a few minutes to introduce themselves and give us the three main points

Post World War 1 there was a manifestation of Communist influence in the United States. The influence began forming itself in 1919. There was a division within the country between those who followed the beliefs of Communism and those who were against it. However the majority of Americans were against Communism and the spread of it. In J.Edgar Hoover’s testimony before the HUAC,

In the article, “Nixon's Second Term: Policy Prospects in the Middle East,” Malcolm Kerr discusses Richard Nixon’s first presidency, Nixon’s current state in his second term as commander in chief, and gives a hypothesis about what Nixon would do for the remainder of his term as President. I thoroughly enjoyed this article because often when you think about Nixon, you automatically think about the Watergate scandal and Nixon’s resignation from presidency. This article was written only months prior to the scandal surfacing, so it gives a neat perspective on the sentiments towards Nixon that is different than most post-scandal articles do.

The Age of McCarthyism marks a sinister period of time consisting of convoluted accusations and fabrication of a sensitive topic regarding communist infiltration within America. Joe McCarthy’s unfounded allegations naming supposed ‘communist subversives’ instilled fear and anxiety among Americans. This was exacerbated by the anxiety associated with the concerns of an escalating Cold War. McCarthy was motivated by his political ambition and thus used the anti-communist crusade as a scapegoat, to benefit his political career. It became increasingly apparent that the accusations were made against innocent individuals. Despite resorting to sensationalism and eventually lies to exploit American fears of a growing undercurrent of Socialist

By the 1930’s, the anticommunist network had expanded, and begun to strengthen. The struggles brought on by the Great Depression and the political partisanship from the creation of the New Deal; Communist Party involvement in unions became a political issue. Instead of Liberals and Conservatives blaming each other for the country’s woes, they could instead turn their blame on to the Communists, just like the businesses. The opposition to the New Deal and the American Communist Party’s adaptation of Stalin’s “Popular Front”

Nazism sympathy never quite spread over here like Stalinism did. In its pure form it stressed the brotherhood of the common people that made up the land. These thoughts were easily appealing to many people. Before the war communist and socialist ideas were quite on the rise here because the depression emphasized capitalism’s push towards the lonely individual and how free enterprise basically failed. Whitfeild refers to these communists who feel that they are progressives as Stalinists because they stand for ending American civil liberties that they saw as only for the upper class. So Whitfield argues that it is wrong to extend much sympathy to these American communists as their rights were wrongfully stripped away because this stripping of rights is what they aspired for everyone in the end. This new

Most believe Gaddis’ book is well-written; getting positive reviews from popular writers, Time, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, and even Henry Kissinger. Whilst there are positive aspects of the book—including how some descriptions of what happened are accurate and make it effective—there are still negative views and the just reason being the fact that bias exists in the book.

Many of the problems in the Middle East today are a direct result of actions undertaken in the region 's colonial past. I will argue that both imperialist ineptitude, deliberate meddling and outright deceit by colonial powers have sown seeds of distrust that linger in the Middle East today towards the West. I will claim that artificial boundaries, government structures and societal schisms created in colonial times have entrenched animosities and created internal structural instabilities in the area that are still being resolved. The imposition of Israel into Palestine, I will argue, remains an unresolved product of colonial rule. I will discuss how the discovery of oil and the regions importance as a trade route caused the World Powers to remain engaged in the area and oppressive in their demeanour. Finally I will argue that perhaps the greatest ongoing legacy of colonialism in the Middle east is an imperialist attitude by the west which continues to this day.

For many centuries, Judaic and Arabian societies have engaged in one of the most complicated and lengthy conflicts known to mankind, the makings of a highly difficult peace process. Unfortunately for all the world’s peacemakers the Arab-Israeli conflict, particularly the war between Israel and the Palestinian Territories, is rooted in far more then ethnic tensions. Instead of drawing attention towards high-ranking officials of the Israeli government and Hamas, focus needs to be diverted towards the more suspect and subtle international relations theory of realism which, has imposed more problems than solutions.

The graphic novel Palestine, published by Maltan journalist Joe Sacco in the early ‘90s, is a journalistic piece that represents his recollections of two months spent talking to and living with Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. The casual narrative style, which some might say is too shallow for such heavy subject matter, in fact allows Sacco to avoid many of the pit falls that have made Western reporting on non-Western conflicts unhelpful at the very least and more often incredibly damaging.

the conflict in the middle east between 1948-1973 was not purely fuelled by the interest and concerns of the superpowers but rather of a series of conflictual incidents, aswell as the main wars that took place from the years from 1948-1967 such as the: 1948 War, The Six Day War of 1967 and the Yom Kippur war of 1973. But although the conflict was not fuelled by the superpowers, the influence of the superpowers and the reach of the superpowers into the Middle East was evident in the years both prior and following 1978. But even despite the influence and interests of the superpowers between and including 1948-1967 being undeniably evident, the extent of this influence cannot be said to have “fuelled the conflict”.