Introduction:
In Egyptian colloquial language the 1967 war against Israel is dubbed elnaksa meaning “the great crisis”? This term signifies the great loss of Egyptian pride and identity that have become greatly synonymous with this war for Egyptians. Perhaps what made matters worse was the fact that the Egyptian people felt betrayed by their leader Gamal Abd El Nasser who had greatly disillusioned them and was greatly disillusioned himself into believing that Egypt could enter this war and emerge victorious. The question therefore becomes “Why did Egypt decide to escalate conflict with Israel by embarking on the 1967 war?”
There are two main factors which greatly motivated Egypt towards in escalating the pre-emptive attack by Israel into a full scale war. The first factor is the anti-western sentiment present in the domestic and foreign policy initiatives of Egypt under Nasser; these initiatives are collectively known as Nasserism and reflect a larger ideological paradigm of post-colonial identity politics and Egypt’s aspiration of achieving a regional hegemony. The second factor can be attributed to how Nasserism and this aspiration interacted with Nasser’s choice to with and the USSR under the bipolar power structure of the Cold War. Thus, it was the interaction between certain ideological aspects of Nasserism and the bipolar division of power that led Egypt to escalate the 1967 pre-emptive Israeli attack into war.
This paper will begin by outlining its theoretical
The Yom Kippur War happened in October 1973, which involved the Arabs and the Israelis, as well as two superpowers, the USA and the USSR. At the end of the war, the Israelis had won. However, the Israeli government and people were shocked by how the Arabs did. The Yom Kippur War has led to a number of effects on the Arab-Israeli relations, which can be classified as two aspects, short term and long term.
The superpowers, namely the USSR and US were in engaged in a war by proxy, which is very easy to identify if you analyze the conflicts in the Middle East from 1948 until, and including, the Yom Kippur War of 1978. The superpowers would employ tactics such as supplying their various ‘allies’ in the Middle East with weapons and finances which would afford them the ability to engage in the many conflicts that took place in that period such as the Suez Crisis, Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War. All of this was done without either superpower’s putting their own men on the ground to fight, for fear of an all out war between each other. However much the superpowers might have fuelled the conflicts with supplying the Arabs and Israelis with weapons and finances, they were not the cause for the conflicts as they are much deeper rooted. Israel and the Arab states have always seen tension as per their culture and religious differences, and the growing nationalism of the Arab states and Zionism in Israel, which amounted to extreme actions such as the three major conflicts during the time period 1956-1978.
The Suez Crisis was an incident that first commenced on the 29th of October, 1956, in which Israeli military forces entered the Sinai Peninsular and attacked Egyptian positions, driving them back. By the next day, Israeli forces had reached the Suez Canal, after taking a majority of the Sinai Peninsular. (Best, Hanhimaki, Maiolo & Schulze, 2008, p.432). Britain and France then both issued an ultimatum, for both Israeli and Egyptian forces to withdraw from the Suez Canal, citing its safety from the violence of war as extremely important. After Gamal Abder Nasser, Egypt’s President at the time, rejected the ultimatum, on the 30th
Israel found an ally in the United States, yet when the Nixon administration had information that indicated the possibility of an attack, there was no action taken by neither . The U.S. had intelligence that Arab states were making efforts to build an offensive military. With continual bluff from Egypt’s President, Sadat, Israeli forces were readily mobilized creating accruing costs by having an army readily available. There was evidence that Arab states were beginning to transfer and move around military equipment and any combative tool that could be utilized in war. All the effort that was allotted to the movement and distribution was not something to have been taken lightly or oblivious to. The U.S. had intelligence of the movements being made and yet both Israel and the U.S. underestimated the Arab states. Leading up to October 6, 1973, the buildup of troops still did not alarm Israel enough to
In October, 1956 Israeli armed forces pushed into Egypt toward the Suez Canal, causing the Suez Crisis. They were then joined by French and British forces, creating a serious Cold War problem in the Middle East. Egypt was supported by Soviet arms and money, and also furious with the United States for reneging on a promise to provide funds for a promise construction of the Aswan Dam on the Nile River, Nasser ordered the Suez Canal seized and nationalized, forbidding passage of British and French goods. On October 14, Nasser said “ I am not solely fighting against Israel itself. My task is to deliver the Arab world from destruction through Israel’s intrigue, which has its roots abroad. Our hatred is very strong. There is no sense in
Did you know that the Fall of Ancient Egypt was the period of time where the Greek Ptolemaic Kingdom took over Egypt. This occurred in 30 BC. Then It fell to the roman empire and became a roman province.
Following the partition plan in 1947, the state of Israel was created in 1948. I will be discussing the extent to which the creation of Israel was a turning point throughout a hundred year period. The conflict can be split up into 3 different strands which include: Arab Israeli, Palestinian-Israeli, Western involvement. The Arab-Israeli conflict is the regional conflict that erupts in 1948 when the newly created Arab states invade Israel and is partially resolved by 1996. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the local conflict throughout the 100 year period between the native Palestinians and the Israeli’s, it is still unresolved. Western involvement represents the foreign nations that were associated in the conflict. My main argument is that the creation of Israel was the principle turning point for the Arab-Israeli dispute strand because; it transformed a civil war to an interstate conflict. I also feel that it was the principle turning point for the Palestinian-Israeli strand because, it saw a huge change in policy and led to the dissolution of the Palestinian people with many fleeing into surrounding Arab nations, this is known as the Palestinian problem. The Suez crisis was the pivotal moment for the Western Involvement strand because it saw a new era with the start of the Cold War’s influence in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
In 1978, during Jimmy Carter’s administration, he was trying to fix the war between egypt and israel. The war broke out in 1948 and it wasn’t going well. The Us offered the defacto recognition of israel provisional goverment , during the war united states couldnt do anything because the stayed in arms embargo. The un sparked a conflict with the jewish, arab groups within palestine. In the first three wars israel always defeated the egyptians
On October 6, 1973 Egyptian and Syrian forces launched an attack on Israel to regain land won by Israel during a previous war. Knowing that military forces would be preoccupied with their holy holiday, the two armies attacked Israel. Other Arab nations contributed to the fighting or the supplying of weapons in a later time. Israel asked The United States for help numerous times but the Nixon administration was hesitant to offer immediate aid. Many factors had to be considered before The US could come to a decision. With the Cold War still being fought during this time the US wanted to negotiate a peaceful end with the Soviet Union, who was backing the Egyptians with military supplies. The Soviets agreed to a negotiation but the Egyptians did not, which seemed to
The United States has engaged in numerous international interventions in the Middle East. The two major events that have shaped the politics of U.S. foreign policy, Israel, and the Arab states are the Suez Crisis of 1956 and the Six Day War of 1967. President Eisenhower and President Johnson each took different approaches while confronting these crises. The personalities, motives and predispositions of the Presidents and their circle of closest advisors explain how they shaped their policies and how they responded to the events. The decisions these Presidents made have had a long-lasting effect on the region. Over the course of this paper, I will compare Eisenhower’s policies in the 1956 Suez Crisis and Johnson’s policies in the 1967 Six
On May 15, Anwar Sadat, the Speaker of the National Assembly would visit Moscow, where he would be told by the Soviets that Israel had planned to invade Syria during the May 16 through May 22 time frame, all of this would prove to be false. Soviet intelligence cited the fact that Israeli troops parading in western Jerusalem, for Israel’s Independence Day, were doing so without heavy weapons, which they said were being amassed along the northern border with Syria. The reason as it turns out they were devoid of weaponry during their parades is to ease Arab tensions in the area. Sadat would pass this information along to Egypt and President Nasser, who would then parade Egypt’s forces through Cairo along its way to the Sinai Peninsula (Cleveland, 2009).
With the development of human society, civilization is incessantly progressive. One aspect of human civilization’s progress is political civilization. Democratic politics can be considered to be the representatives of political civilization. When people refer to the history of human progress, they find that human beings struggle to achieve this great goal and no one can stop the human desire for political freedom. In 2011, one more country took a step towards democracy. Egypt is in the ancient, sacred and conservative Middle East. Egyptians are cheering for their own political aspirations as they overthrew Mubarak’s dictatorship, and are gradually making efforts to establish a democratic and peaceful country.
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 Suez war began in 1956 when the President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. Due to the canal’s great importance to the British and they colluded with Israel and France to regain control of the canal. The Suez Canal was especially important to the British because it connected the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean through the Red Sea. (Milner) This strategic location allowed them to trade and move across the world giving them control of their colonies. However, on July 26, 1956 President Nasser decided to nationalize the Suez Canal due to his anger at the British for withdrawing their loan offer to Egypt. (Milner) Consequently, the nationalization of the canal was a strategic move to lessen the British’s economic and political control of Egypt, which had lasted since 1882. Many Egyptians were unhappy with British’s occupation of their country so Nasser’s policies were popular in the Middle East. This was because the “expression of national
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”.