The Creation Of Historical Formation

While the aftermath of World War II is often referred to as one of the primary creators of deep rooted turmoil in the Middle East region, the effects of the Cold War and the United States often over-zealous battle against communism is just as much a contributor if not more. The Arab world and the Middle East region were clearly going through quite an extraordinary period throughout World War II and its conclusion, primarily with the creation of most of the states we recognize today and struggling with the continuation of colonialism. These factors set the stage for the emergence of strong nationalist sentiments and Pan-Arab movements across the Middle East. Unfortunately, and much to the detriment of the region, the leaders of these young

Amongst the turbid and dysfunction that is the Middle East lies the nation of Egypt. Egypt, a major country of the Middle East, is habitually considered stereotypical of Middle Eastern civilization, but further research guides one to the conclusion that Egypt is far from a generic Middle Eastern country. Egypt has a strong tradition of nationalism that has been formed during its history, giving it a national unity that is often non-existent in other Middle Eastern nations (1). This, as well as other advantages that Egypt has gained during its past, has allowed it to rise above the problems plaguing the rest of the Middle East and to form basically its

The Arab world is now dominated by one strong and fierce religion. But, during the

The Arab-Israeli conflict, initiated over one-hundred years ago and still continuing, has confounded both policy-makers and citizens; despite the best efforts of foreign leaders, only one substantial accord has materialized in the decades of negotiations: the Israel-Egypt peace treaty of 1979. Before one undertakes to understand such a complex topic as the Israel-Egypt peace treaty, however, a broad knowledge of the historical background of the two countries involved is essential to understanding the motivations and aspirations of both parties, which in turn will shed light on the peace treaty itself. Foreign policy can’t be viewed in a vacuum; rather, each country must be viewed as a nation with legitimate historical and political

Historically, the Sunnis and the Shi'ites have been at opposite sides of the ethnic/cultural/religious and political fence. Such differences have led to numerous violent encounters between the two groups, with neither group appearing to be willing to make any concessions regarding their differences. This paper will discuss the differences between Shi'ites and Sunnis based on the thesis that these differences are based on conflicting beliefs related to the successor of their Prophet Mohammad.

During the years 1900-2001 a number of significant interventions occurred which affected the growth and nature of Arab nationalism. Several key pressures considerably influenced a change in the nature of nationalism; including, economic levers, agreements and military presenses in the Middle East. Arab nationalism arose out of the fear of the possibility and later the certainty of European or American dominance. The emerging ideology believed all Arabs to be united by both a shared language and history. Foreign intervention in the Middle East long predated the First World War, dating back to during the

In “The Need for Understanding the West” the author talks about the necessity for Arabs to learn and adopt Western ideologies and societies to have a better future. Khashan praises Europe for their open mindedness, stating that this aspect of European society is responsible for them becoming the economic and the political focus of the world. He also talks about the failures of Arab societies from foreign perspectives and also discusses how Arab nations are viewed as failures by other nations due to their lack of successful leaders, and for not having a behavioural system that encourages hard work, punctuality, and human rights. Finally, he asks Arabs to take a few notes from the West as a step toward modernity, but not before they resolve their

Disputes between the Arabs and Jews date back to the 1800s, when Zionism was first introduced. Zionists bought land off oblivious Palestinian landowners which lead to the eviction of the arabs who worked on the land. As Jewish migration increased, the Arabs became aware of Jewish intention to take over their land. Not only did this result in unease between them but it spread fear within the Arab community forming a need for nationalism. Good afternoon year 11, This speech will highlight how bad British decisions and conflicting promises eventual escalation of the Arab-Israeli conflict. As well as British promises, I will also be speaking about other factors that contributed to the conflict.

(Delong-Bas 2004, page 23). Lastly, the states erected by the Western powers on the ruins of the Ottoman empire in the Middle East, such as Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon have gone through a period of weakening due to the Arab spring and other recent events. In the power struggle that has ensued in those countries, Iran and Saudi Arabia are currently involved in a power struggle, in cahoots with their proxies, for regional supremacy. The modern processes of state formation and rise of nationalism ( Halliday, page 26) are the main forces driving animosity between Islamic republic of Iran and sunni Saudi Arabia. National leaders often resort to narratives and myths to rouse nationalist sentiment when they realise the need to rationalize their legitimacy in the state-building process. When the regimes try to position themselves as saviours of particular brand of a religion, an explosive element is added to the narrative which can heighten geo-political tensions ( Halliday 2000, page 29).

The document is an extract taken from the book al-Mar’a al-Jadida (The New Woman, 1900) written by Qasim Amin (1863-1809), an Egyptian lawyer ‘renowned for his support of women 's liberation in the Islamic world’. Amin’s strong will to stand up against public opinion in Egypt 's contemporary society as well as his aristocratic background and attitude toward the masses and politics, led him to see reform from a special position. Although Amin despised politics in general, he makes mention of authoritarianism in the extract, which he believed was a root of Muslim decline in Egypt. The majority of the extract focuses instead on the reform of social and ethnic conditions.

These scholars view all modern systems as “alien to Islamic principles, a creature of imperialism...” and seek “a ‘truly Islamic’ state, applying the shari’a and unifying the fragmented umma under a revived caliphate...” [Zubaida 104]. Others would contend that some of today’s nations, albeit influenced by Western culture and politicized through modern statecraft, are no less Islamic, understanding that the “diversity of historical circumstances in which they try to apply that ideal introduces a necessary element of relativity and imperfection...” [al-Turabi 241]. An ‘Islamic State,’ it seems, is a conjectural model, which can maintain varying practical paradigms.

aggression as an opportunity to eradicate the Pan-Arabist movement and the potential existential threat it could pose in the future.8 The tense political and military environment was bolstered by Cold War hostilities between the U.S. and the USSR.9 Why did Israel go to war with Egypt in June 1967? To answer this question, this essay considers Egypt’s provocative maneuvers yet argues that Israel did not truly perceive an existential threat. The 1967 war was a result of culminating hostilities within the Middle East, proliferated by Cold War intervention and Nasser’s desire to be seen as a decisive leader of the Pan-Arabist movement. However, Israel launched what the weight of evidence best concludes was a preventative attack that galvanised

The Arab world today is shrouded in controversy. Political instability and armed conflicts are portrayed as the norm throughout the Middle East. According to the pseudo regional specialists, the causes behind all the conflicts faced are obvious, religion and radicalism. Yet this fails to answer the question, “why”, which opens the door to better understand the foundation of the present day Arab states. This questions the origins to why the Arabs chose to leave the Ottoman Empire and take support from the British Empire, which at the time seemed contradictory. Unless British involvement with the Arabs had enticed the revolution, then to what extent did European Jihadist propaganda sway the Arabs to revolt against the Ottoman Empire in 1916? This paper will discuss that the Arab revolt against the Ottomans was in an effort take control of the Arab territories for themselves without the need for external influence to push them into making the decision. As such, the alternative explanation would be that Sharif Hussein was influenced by the British into believing that the revolt was his opportunity to liberate the Arabs from the Ottomans. Illustrating this point will be by examining circumstances that had led to the Arab’s decision, understanding how European intervention and motives shaped the revolt, and assessing the incentives the Arabs had for revolting.

The fifty years between the Second World War and the nineties in Egypt were colored by a great number of political, social, economic, and cultural changes. Following the Coup in 1952, the Egyptian nation became a symbol for the decolonization movement and Third Worldism. This level of hegemony would have a lasting effect on the sociopolitical and economic sphere for years to come. Nasser and his Free Officers, much like the fathers of the ‘Liberal Experiment’, made grandiose promises to the Egyptian people: a nation all their own, freedom from all the oppressors, universal economic equality, human rights, the list goes on. Although the goals of Egyptian socialism were noble, they were not fulfilled. The problems of an authoritarian and militant state, defeat in the 67 war, political corruption, economic instability, and cultural bankruptcy kept Nasser, as well as his successors, from giving the people what was promised. And, as history would show, when citizens of a nation are promised something and they do not receive it, dissidence occurs - in Egypt specifically with political Islam and the revival of fundamentalism. What makes these elements of Egyptian history so valuable is that they intersect with one another - the details of each social, political, cultural, or economic element provide understanding for the ‘big picture’ in Egypt. Looking at the events of the past, one can gain a more concise understanding of Egypt in present day.

Middle East considers one of the most studied areas in the world due to its rich history of politics, social, economic, and its culture and civilization. Its borders are still arguable geographically, generally in the west it starts from morocco until Iran in the east, however, many scholars don’t agree on including Turkey either as a Middle Eastern or as a European country (Milton-Edwards, 2006. P: 4). The origin of the name was invented by the colonies as a necessity to describe the place geographically, which was the era of bringing “Middle East” the language of academic writings and political scientists. Changes, innovations, and new ideologies create gaps between the transformations of any perspectives to a different