Upheaval and Renewal in Egypt and Syria

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

Syria and Lebanon are two dramatically different states with a deeply intertwined history. They were both born out of French interventionism following World War 1, and have experienced complex and strained relations ever since. The two nations have both experienced prodigious political turmoil since gaining their independence, with both suffering from civil wars and conflict with their mutual neighbor, Israel. The war and turmoil that has plagued these two countries can be traced back to various competing national interests, as well as a struggle for regional power. The various religious groups in the area have historically formed transnational advocacy networks with the intent of influencing regional politics. These groups have proved to of been a major factor in the history of both nations.

In the Middle East, each country has it’s own form of government. These forms of governments have been consistently changing throughout time. Throughout all the revolutions and overthrows, the national identity of the Middle East has slowly changed, some parts more than others. Over many years, overthrows in countries such as Egypt and Libya have led to a more democratic government. However, many other countries such as Iran and Iraq have remained more oppressive. The Middle East is still changing to this day. For example, Egypt recently overthrew their president Hosni Mubarak. There are also many protests currently going on in Libya.

A key decision- maker in Syria during that period, and a direct witness, Abdul-Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian vice President of Hafez Assad, who spoke to the «Middle East» for that period, saying: «before the Iranian revolution in 1979, Syria had relations with the people who were preparing for the Iranian revolution of Khomeini's group via Musa al-Sadr. Musa al-Sadr was a friend and one of Khomeini's groups.

In the post -World War II era, the competition of global supremacy between the superpowers of the time, United States and the Soviet Union resulted in the Cold War. Many countries in the world were pulled into this rivalry including many of the states of the Middle East. Allies against the Soviet Union received substantial quantities of United States aid and were encouraged to purchase weapons of Western means. Those who were in opposition to the United States’ power received economic and military assistance from the Soviet Union. The United States were inclined to view the rivalry between them and the Soviet Union as a vie for global supremacy. The challenge of attaining democracy in the Middle East has been insufficient leadership specifically in those who shared a common border and were in proximity to the Soviet Union. The United States, in their determination to impede the threat of expansion of the borders of the Soviet Union as well as contain the spread of communion, provided economic and military assistance to keep Iran, Iraq and Turkey politically stable. Although this was the goal of the United States, they actually impeded the democracy and political stability of these countries through its persistent influence in government affairs, determining its future’s livelihood.

This time, we went a little more back in time when Amenhotep IV was Pharaoh.

As a child, I moved from Egypt. My race was different than other kids in school, I was a minority. I experienced a whole new culture as a child. Dealing with other students that had different culture bases affected the way I think about race. Moving from Egypt built an idea of race, the idea of everyone being treated equally. This idea was built only on my experience which was serverilly wrong. After engaging in a classroom that studies American History as the main topic, my perspective of race has changed. Human race is an enormous section of the American culture that may lead to many misunderstanding. A reason I believe that race is heavily studied during this course is it’s plain importance. The American culture has fought for many years

The author achieves his goal but also fails in certain aspects. Sahner prefaces the book with the statement that he will provide an understanding to the rich history of Syria and the multiple sects that proliferate its landscape. What he fails to do is provide an encompassing view to this landscape but instead undertakes the executive decision to focus on specific snapshots of Syria’s history. Consequently, he skips almost entirely the later parts of the Islamic Caliphate and subsequent Ottoman rule that dominated a large part of Syria’s history in the second millennium A.D. Overall, the author weaves a tale that is well written but could have expounded more upon the certain epochs in Syria’s history. Nonetheless, it overwhelmingly succeeds in personifying a culture and country often dismissed and simplified as “just another tragic, religious conflict”.

The term “Arab Spring” has emerged in academic literature as well as in the general media from about early 2011. It refers to the “awakening” of some Arab nations and the movements to replace authoritarian regimes with democratic ones. The theme of “spring” and “awakening” seems to have been borrowed from the 1989 reform movements in the former Eastern-block nations, such as in the former German Democratic Republic or Hungary. However, this comparison has been criticised by some analysts since both the circumstances which have led to these movements as well as the outcome of these reform efforts seem to differ quite a lot. Yet, the Arab Spring term seems to be still widely used and even found an extension in the creation of the term Arab Winter which refers to events that happened in 2012 in some Arab countries during which these reform movements seemed to have “cooled-off” and particular nations, such as Egypt, attempted to go back to the status-quo of the pre-2011 era.

One day you're arguing with your boyfriend about mundane things like holding hands in public, the next day you're wondering where to go that's safe from falling asteroids, earthquakes, falling buildings and marauding crowds of looters.

The current Ba’athist Regime came to power in 1963 following a coup d 'etat led by an Alawite minority dominated military, overthrowing the Sunni majority, Western-oriented, capitalist Sunni majority. Prior to the coup, Alawites utilized the military as a means of social mobility in an otherwise Sunni dominated state. Dissatisfaction with the effects of Sykes-Picot, and the puppet regimes of European imperialism that were in place, led to the Socialist Ba’ath party’s nationalist platform. Once in power, the Ba’ath party established state sponsored capitalism in an effort to take control of the landed elite-dominated agrarian portion of the economy. Interparty turmoil eventually brought Hafez al-Assad to power in 1970, who ruled until his death in 2000, when his son, Bashar al-Assad (the current president) took over.

Egypt’s political structure is considered an Arab Republic Democracy. However, its citizens tend to believe otherwise. Due to the immense amount of corruption and scandal in Egyptian politics, Egypt has been closely compared to a hierarchical pyramid of mafias. In this pyramid, power is gained through coercion and extortion. Those at the top, in charge of the country’s decision-making process, are likely the most politically corrupt and wealthy.

As the Ottoman Empire’s fall drew closer, the concept of Arab representation and its manifestation as both a valid state and successor rose as a strong candidate towards a new rule. However, the Arab world is faced with two distinctive parties that wish to establish their own set of rules of national identity. The first party belongs to the Pan-Arab movement that wishes to unite all the Arab people from the farthest east to its west of the Arabic speaking world. Meanwhile, the second party involves advocates of separate national identities that are distinguishable between each nation instead of one solid nationalist vision. Both parties contain an argument as to what is the most beneficial towards the Middle Eastern and North African region. With Pan-Arab leaders, such as the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party’s Michel Aflaq and Salah al-Din al-Bitar, advocating a strong anti-imperialist sentiment in the face of European involvement in the Arab world and caution of the Ottomans’ gruesome history repeating. Additionally, Pan-Arab nationalism and socialism was advocated by prominent leader Gamal Abdel Nasser. On the other hand, prominent state nationalists that wanted their own independent countries to rise came forward with leaders such as Lebanese intellectuals like George Samné and Antoun Saadeh, who recognized the sovereignty of their own Syrian statehood and defied the concept of a more group inclusive ideal.

The Arab Spring has been a life changing phenomena, not only for the people who are attempting to overthrow their governments but for political scientists everywhere. The events originating in the North African country of Tunisia have led to the snowballing of several other Middle Eastern, predominantly Muslim, nation states. The figurative breaking point might have finally been reached as the oppressed peoples of the Middle East have risen up to overthrow long-standing dictatorial governments in hopes of revolutionary change; change that is subject to the will of the people.

The second pillar is that of the army being the most powerful institution in the entire country. For many in the nation, the armed forces, in spite of its role in being the chief destabilize of the state, holds a revered place in society in noting the position that the country takes in regards to its role as main force of socialization in the entire state since it was known that the poorest members of society were able to move up in standing by enlisting (see Drysdale 1982 and Zisser 2002 for more). It could also be said that the ongoing hostility towards Israel puts Syria on a constant war footing to which arguments for increasing the military budget seem “non-controversial” in spite of the pressures that it places on society (Perthes 2000: 157). This notion was not lost on the Assad regime who for that matter saw an increase in the military power of the Syrian state ever since he took power. In 1947, the Syrian army contained