HISTORY AND INSTITUTIONS OF MODERN MIDDLE EAST.docx

**HISTORY AND INSTITUTIONS OF MODERN MIDDLE EAST** 3^RD^ PARTIAL EXAM **THE INDEPENDENT MIDDLE EAST IN THE COLD WAR: NASSERISM AND THE RADICALIZATION OF ARAB POLITICS** *[Cold war shaped Middle East]* through the capacity of the Middle East countries to interplay between US and USSR, they succeed...

**HISTORY AND INSTITUTIONS OF MODERN MIDDLE EAST** 3^RD^ PARTIAL EXAM **THE INDEPENDENT MIDDLE EAST IN THE COLD WAR: NASSERISM AND THE RADICALIZATION OF ARAB POLITICS** *[Cold war shaped Middle East]* through the capacity of the Middle East countries to interplay between US and USSR, they succeeded in shaping and using at their favor the antagonism between the 2 blocs. With the decadence of the colonial empires, [exogenous influences are still channeled into the region but **bipolarism** brought the states in the region] **by appropriating** of this situation, they turned it into an instrument for their own state interest\ \ [How was it done?] **aligning** / **entering** alliances / **pact** with the blocs -\> using them as an instrument to be able get aid (economic aid or military equipment) needed [to go on with the state and national consolidation starting during the colonial period] -\> (50s - 60s) **self-strengthening** and **consolidation** Cold war was a period fostering the **regionalization** of the politics **3^rd^ world notion** to avoid being overcame from other states: creating a 3^rd^ pole, they were able to counterbalance the power of the blocs.\ \ In the Middle East, from the 40s on the mandates are becoming *[semi-consolidated independent]* the states trying to **surf this wave of bipolarism** and use it as a space of **opportunity** for their own **national interest** but also because of the **growth of** **pan-Arabism** (all states the region will also base on this ideal a major project of regionalization in order to be more play an active role in the international level to be less exposed to the influences of the Ussr bloc or the US. Starting from 1949 -\> Truman doctrine: all US security doctrines played a major role in the history of Middle East, but this [calls for the idea of **containment**] [need for the US to patrol the "Northern-tier of Middle East", which means the non-Arab sharing a boarder with Ussr, thus Iran, Turkey, with US availability to provide assistance to countries feeling threatened from the USSR]. - **Iran** was ruled by son of Pahlavi, [Muhammad Reza Shah]. Then power was taken by Mosaddeq, PM, which had a [nationalist anti-imperialist] vision. He was the first one calling for the **nationalization of the oil company** and will bring on the antagonism with the US till the Ajax push, launched with the CIA to restore Muhammad as it was considered more prone to be shaped by the western's ideas. - **Turkey** -\> containment reasons - **Oil monarchy of the gulf** -\> presence of oil resources. For the US was not important to rule over the oil countries as such, but importance to avoid Ussr to take advantage of this oil **[price]** and **[quantity]** pivotal for the US; 2 pillars of US foreign policy. - **Israel** stability of Israel to make sure that the presence of this country would hinder the capacities of the Arabs to form a strong pan-Arabist bloc. It is not a coincidence that we start to see the cooperation the [Israeli-US cooperation], making Israel becoming always stronger. - The **USSR** presence in the region was a response aggressive US policy of interference in the regional order: as a [response to this], most of the revolutionary Arab regimes (as conservatives aligned with the US) normally established closer relations with USSR on the base of strategic reasons. [Bipolarism shaped the policies of the Cold War]: bifurcation -\> - **Revolutionary pan-Arabist countries** -\> USSR - **Conservative pro status quo regimes** like Jordan, Lebanon and the gulf oil monarchies like Iran (US) capacity of each state to act in self-interest and a sort of major attitude of each single state to act based on a shared norm of pan-Arabism in the case of Arab states Cold War in the middle east means also using a multi-scalar approach. We have to apply: - **Domestic analysis**: - [Nation building projects]: boosted by *coeval global economization trends* - [Pan-Arabism:] because the trends of decolonization, regional actors tried to create a sort of autonomy from the metropolitan center by establishing the **Pan-Arabism** norm [sense of supranational political identification shared by the Arab states in the region]: - [Common **historic** reality], all these states were inhabited by majority of Arab population (history of the Arabs and the Islamicate). - [Common **language**] even if subdivided into local unit. - [Same **ethnic background**] -\>After WW1, all the Arab population is divided in mandates, trying to become independent through the time. - [Role played by **religion** was limited]: despite the role of Islam in the history, many Arab communities were non-Mulism (Christians), thus religion is [culturally important] but is not relevant, rather a secular ideology. - [Pan-Arabism used by the elites to launch this **new project of political regionalization**]: [united as Arabs, we should be able to act freely from the extern power interferences]. **What happens at the domestic level?** STEP BACK, the mandates are canceled and independence was reached by all these countries: - Egypt was a different case -\> independent since 1922, sovereignty limited by the UK coopting the local elites. - Lebanon independent from 1943 - Syria independent from 1948 - Jordan independent from 1946 -\> by the end of the 40s, [all mandates are independent despite not being consolidated as states] whereas [Egypt is in the middle of a huge political crisis] The 1940s were a period of crisis for the conservative bloc of notable elites leading the politics in the mandates\ all of the countries suffered from the WW2, they were all characterized by **social and economic dislocation**, gap between ordinary people and the elites (property/unproperty social groups). This widening gap in wealth redistribution worked to delegitimize local elites. By then, they were perceived as [puppets in the hands of western patrons.] **IRAN** **Iran's** crisis with the USSE was occasioned by the Soviet troops' presence in the region post-WW2 end. [In 1945 the province of Azerbaijan], with Moscow support, [declared their autonomy]. [Kurdish patriots followed suit and proclaimed the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad]. The Iranian government lodged a complaint with the UNSC and in the spring of 1946, USSR troops agreed to withdraw from the country. These 2 events showed the aggressiveness and expansionist's ideas embedded in the USSR "*savoir faire*" the reaction from the US arrived, willed to protect their resources through **containments**. of the USSR. This was done through the application of the **Truman Doctrine**: [US should intervein to avoid states to fall under the Communist influence.] This resulted in billions of dollars fueling the Turkish stat reserves, 500.000 men ready to be deployed if necessary. ***The reestablishment of royal autocracy*** Reza Shah's abdication in **1941**, **Muhammad Reza Shah raised to power** in a moment in which his country was under Anglo-Soviet occupation, with little room to maneuver and his monarchy under risk - The [opposition] was mounting from the **Ulama**, which were wishing to retain its power - The **Tudeh Party**, endorsing labor rights and wages - At the same time, the [influences were coming strong from the US, USSR, and Britain] As political instability and foreign interference continued to undermine the government and the economy, the question revolved around who would govern Iran given the lack of strengths of the monarchy? ***Muhammad Mosaddeq*** from the disadvantageous concessions granted by the Qajar shahs to the unfavorable oil agreement signed by Reza Shah in 1933, [Iran's economic development was in the hands of **European entrepreneurs**] -\> Virtually all sectors of Iranian society resented this presence. Mosaddeq succeeded in controlling all these oppositional voices into his power ascendancy.\ **1949**: several political parties and interest groups join Mosaddeq leadership to form the **National Front**. It was composed by: middle class people, Ulama advocating for the *Shari'ah*, Western-educated professionals.\ The **[main topic]**: the **Anglo-Iranian Oil Company**, that by **1940** had built a massive presence throughout the country becoming a real state within the state. When the revision of the pact of the AIOC were sent to the Majlis, the met the opposition of **Mosaddeq** and the **National Front deputies**, calling for the nationalization of the Iranian Oil Industries demonstrations followed until in **1951** the Majlis passed the [legislation nationalizing the oil industry] and invited **Mosaddeq** to become **Prime Minister**.\ \ The [response from the AIOC was the boycott of the Iranian oil]: when the US joined the boycott in 1952, **Iran was prevent from selling its oil in the international market** and the country plunged into a financial crisis. [Mosaddeq] persuaded the Majlis to grant him [emergency powers] and placed the armed forces under the control of the government. Nevertheless, he found increasingly difficult to implement the program on which his popularity depended -\> unemployment, oil boycott, raising prices facilitated the **Tudeh** to reemerge.\ \ \ Fearing that Mosaddeq had lost control in Iran and fearing some possible collateral actions from the Tudeh raise to power, the [USA and UK dispatched CIA agents in Tehran to assist the Iranian officers in organizing a coup against Mosaddeq] the royal dictatorship returned to rule the country. ***Consolidation of the Royal Dictatorship after 1953*** 1. The [oil dispute was quickly resolved] by giving Iran 50% of profits from petroleum. 2. [Diplomatic relations were restored] both with the US and the UK, result of 500 million dollars coming from the US. 3. **The National Front** was disbanded, and the **Tudeh Party** was destroyed. 4. **SAVAK** was established, internal security organization created thanks to the US and Israeli advisers From 1953 to 1979 political freedom did not exist, as the Majlis were controlled and a two-party system was imposed, with controlled elections. The only moment of disturbance was presented by some [protests that occurred 1960 to 1963], created due to the political and economic unrest of the country. **Ayatollah Khomeini** was in power, as he began to preach against the regime and US ally. In 1963 he was arrested by SAVAK, creating even more protest settled only through the help of the military which brought a bloody repression of this act. Khomeini was finally exiled in 1964 to Turkey. [the Shah], once the revolts were quelled, [began a series of acts aimed to restore his bound with the most important figures inside the society]: court patronage, military officials rewarded with luxury goods and high salaries.\ At the same time, the state revenues skyrocketed thanks to the oil's income, reaching 20 billion dollars\ \ **The White Revolution** as much as the shah tried to modernize the productive capacities of Iran, he would not permit any challenges to the institution of the monarchy -\> [the economic and social changes did not corresponded to a modernization of the political outline].\ In 1963 the shah's proposals were regrouped in 12 points around **White Revolution**: the most important were the land reform and the establishment of a literacy corps: - **Strike the large absentee landlords** by [limiting their individual holdings to one village] In the countryside the idea was to impose shah's power and limit its power. - The **Literacy Corps** were aimed to reduce rural illiteracy (80%). As part of the mandatory military service, they spent 15 months in rural villages engaged in educational activities as teaching primary school and conducting night school classes for adults. - **Iran's rising industrial capacity raised**, accompanied by a corresponding **increase in the number of workers** -\> but because the state controlled labor organization deprived wage earners of true collective bargaining rights, wages tended to remain low. - **Improvement were also made in medicine, healthcare and education**. - **Women franchise** was introduced along with **employment opportunities for women**. Over the time, the **White Revolution became the justification for the Shah's rule**. He gave his reformist programs [pseudo-progressive labels, masking the dictatorial stamp] of the revolution. Despite producing substantial advances in social services and economic performance, the White Revolution did not create popular loyalty to the regime.\ Therefore, [the Shah failed to establish the political legitimacy of his dynasty or to project the image of a rulers who cared about Iran and its people. ] The presence of the SAVAK denied Iranians any formal channel through which expressing their grievance. Beginning in late 60s, urban guerrilla groups mounted a campaign of terror against representatives of state and its US ally a more direct opposition was mounted by the religious establishment, objecting the autocracy of the monarch and its corruption. Relying on Western patterns of development was considered as promoting inequality and impropriety. **1975**, as the party responded to the urban guerrillas, **the shah tightened the reins of repressions**: [he scrapped the 2 party system] and [introduced a single organization,] the **National Resurgence Party** **EGYPT**\ 1942, Cairo chances that the new PM could sympathize the AXIS, Ali-Maher, seen as a threat to the UK and their capacity to control the country (geo-politically strategic in the Middle East). The Brits decided to show their power by deploying the army in front of the royal palace. The surrounded king's parliament showed who was in power. The **Abdin incident** was the [demonstration of Egypt being bound to their colonial hegemony] -\> the **politics** was seen **detached** **from the population**. T[he Brits were not ready to give up their control over the Suez Canal] tensions were already arousing, as shows with the Muslim Brotherhood, in a society that saw any kind of political change within an old political establishment as the one of King Faruq + growing gap between rich and poor.\ \ [The **Muslim Brotherhood** profited from this situation]: the [more politics was felt distant from the people, the more the Muslim Brotherhood was radicalizing his views and ideology]. This process meant that a number of **militias para-military** groups started to create from young militants, carrying out guerrillas along the area of the Suez Canal, major spots for the British to control the Egyptian country. The number of people joining the organization reached a stunning 500.000 member.\ [The British targets along the canal were attacked + in 1948 they killed the Prime Minister]. In response, the parliament arrested and executed al-Bannah, founder of the MB.\ \ **1948-49 1^st^ Israeli-Arab war**: with the self-proclamation of Israel independence, a [regional war started where the regional neighboring countries sent the armies to control the Israeli from conquering more territories from those allotted by the UNGA resolution of 1948.]\ Why did these elites goes to war against Israel? We have public official scripts, but also domestic regions were there -\> the Arab neighboring countries talk about the **Arab solidarity**, commitment toward Palestine, ethical need to take a step and directly support Palestinians part of the pan-Arab community.\ **Egypt**, **Syria**, **Jordan** (Jordan tried to find a way to take direct advantage over Palestine, and thus they entered against the Jews because it was ruled by delegitimized political elites and felt the needs to appeal their domestic opponents in order to show off, trying to stand and eliminate the dissatisfaction toward politics) enter the conflict, trying to consolidate their standing vis-a-vis the rising radical cells within the military (armies started to become cell of anti-hegemonic power). [The army intervention meant to show the anti-hegemonic, anti-imperialist ideas fostered by the state and tried to re-legitimize themselves and engaging in the conflicts.]\ \ It is clear that the **defeat** of the **Arab armies** in **1949** with the [cease-fire was signed], had a major role in delegitimize the governments. The political face of former notables' elites in Middle East was decided upon 1948-49 Palestine Nasser described this period and with his comrades they came to articulate the critique of the Egyptian state, elites and commanding chief of the army, starting by criticizing the [institution of the army as an element defending the population, while on the contrary was just the puppet of political elites.] **THE FREE OFFICERS** As a consequence of the turmoil in the country, following the Black Sunday protests of 1951 against the British rule, [in 1952 a group of young military officers carried out a coup d'etat and seized the control of the government]. The leader of the group was **Colonel al-Nasser**: he was of humble villager origins, member of the Egyptian military academy. He also took part in the Palestine campaign in 1948, where with his fellow officers, he witnessed a real humiliation. With Sadat and Naguib, he formed the **Free Officers**. **12^th^ July 1952** the coup is organized: King Faruq was in the seaside, way from Alexandria. On the morning of the 12^th^ he discovered the Free Officers have taken power overnight in Cairo. **White Coup** as no violence was there, they occupied the palace and the radio and broadcasted they had taken power, saying the king was no more in power and left to Italy (saturnia).**\ \ **Guided by patriotic sentiments, their program was not precise but determined to end the British occupation through reforms. They prepared a **[6-point program]**, calling for the [destruction of the British colonialism], the [removal of the Egyptian collaborators], the [end of feudalism], the [end of the political control over foreign capital], [establishment of social justice], [formation of a strong national army and the creation of an healthy democratic life]. [In 3 years, the 3 officers realized that the major defeat was seen as the final test for these notable elites]. All the radicals started to think about outing these elites. The defeat had a crucial role in delegitimize the old rule and legitimize new rules in the middle ranks of the army (sergeants, colonels) of 30-35 years, thus also the idea of a generation making people change their minds bringing about a new radical outlook in politics brining a radical systemic change. **Revolutionism** -\> not popular revolutions (both in the Free Officers' revolution of 1952 or the events leading to the emergence of the *Ba'ath* Party) BUT **armies - small institutions** whereby different cells formed, some of which inspired by the new revolutionary, radical outlook -\> **top-down processes of changes/revolution** NOT based on a broad popular support, broad social forms of mobilization the base of their political organization was the **Revolutionary Command Council** (RCC) that served as the [executive body of the government]. When the revolutionaries were able to take power they **used the concept of mass politics** as a political instrument -\> populist, using the concept of the people/masses (both men and women) as an integral part of the revolutionary project to legitimize themselves as the new political leadership. In doing this, they tried to bring about concepts of **social contract** between the rulers and the population - **progressive social contract:** - Based on ideas of states' **protection towards the individuals**, **granting of socio-economic rights**, state wealth needed to be redistributed (the state had to become the first economic actor in the country - **sovereignty and nationalization**); - **Idea of deference of the masses towards the new leaders -** people needed to be co-opted within a political project -\> supposedly egalitarian, but at the same time very centralized and based on harmonic politics (= dissonant politics aren't allowed, every voice different from the official script, the government's propaganda is not accepted, it's very patrolled).  - [Revolutionary regimes in the ME brought about new social contracts that were egalitarian in terms of class relationships but happened at the detriment of democracy and individual agency] (people tended to be co-opted and socialized into these new political project in very **harmonic ways** - necessity to subscribe to the vision of the leader and the single party). - **Populist authoritarian regimes** - came into being on the falling elitist still authoritarian regimes (previous forms of government in the mandates).  - **liberal facade** (in Egypt: a parliament and a multi-parties system) BUT **autocratic politics** (king - controlled by the British - in charge and controlling the system). Since the second decade of the 1950s until the early 1970s, scholars talk about a period of **[(Arab) overstating in the ME]** -\> the state became the center of the politics, everything was state-centered as the political elites were in control and used the state's institutions as a way to control the system and the population (the single party controlled everything). **The state became the center of power and came to be occupied by the new elites**: - Major feature of ME politics in the 20th century = [the state] - whether in colonial times, but even more maybe in post-colonial times - [as an institution came to be occupied], cannibalized by the referents of power in a way to be able to control all the rest and used as a way for the political elites to stay in power. - [The state was used to co-opt and control the masses, in many cases depriving them of any kind of politically meaningful agency.] - [The state became central in articulating local forms of ideas about development, progress, **technocratic politics**] (case of the Suez Canal, Aswan Dam) incorporating ideas of social justice and wealth redistribution but lacking in terms of political pluralism and democracy. This all happened through a process of **transformation of elite groups within the ME -\>** the radicalization of politics in the ME during the CW starting from the early 1950s signaled a change in the qualities and features of the elites - social rearticulation of elites-making in the ME. - [The new elites didn't belong to the upper levels of the society] (as it had been the case during colonial times, the mandates - local notables were already the main political players in the territories before the end of the Ottoman empire, survived it and still there in the mandates as the power referents) The new political elite in the revolutionary regimes coming into being in the ME in post-colonial times came from the **lower middle classes -\>** empowered by their new revolutionary visions. - That's why they were **populists** - all their political language, idiom that they consciously deployed was based on the idea of a **total identity between the rulers and the masses.** No need for any intermediary body between the government and the people (parties, syndicates and other forms of civil society organizations) as the ruler belongs to the same class and therefore knows the needs of the people. **MAN OF THE PEOPLE** Major point in Nasserist propaganda, [coming from the people], a true Egyptian -\> age old problem of Egypt as governed by political elites (*e.g.* Turco-Circassian elite) NOT indigenous to the place and the leaders embracing a **nativist idiom to legitimize themselves** (Urabi, Saad Zaghlul, Nasser). Nasser really identified himself with an ordinary Egyptian, also in the ways he tried to project his public figure. - In this way, really [akin to Atatürk] - those who are in power come from the same background of the people of whom the government's representative). Idea of being a man of the people, expressing the core values of the local culture and civilization. - [Nasser was very worried about advancing the idea of identification with the Egyptian population]: taking pictures of himself at home to show that he was living in a common empire (dignified, but still normal Egyptian household).  - The **Islam marker was also managed with caution** - Pan Arabism and Nasserism as ideologies weren't secular but neither religious (no political mobilization of Islam - 1st threat to the stability of the revolutionary regime was perceived to be the Muslim Brotherhood) - ***Mansheya incident*** in 1954 in the Nile delta province of Mansheya an attempt at [assassinating Nasser] was carried out by the Muslim Brotherhood. Though till this very day it's still not sure whether the Muslim Brotherhood was really behind the attempted assassination, surely the incident worked well in Nasser's favour: [giving the Brotherhood the responsibility he was able to behead the organization by arresting and jailing its most powerful and influential members.] Among them was Sayyid Qutb - theorist and organizer of the Muslim Brotherhood, who was imprisoned after the incident with the Egyptian regime crackdown on the Islamists until 1959 when he was executed. In prison he wrote a number of treaties and pamphlets, most very influential in determining some aspects of radicalization of Islamist strategies in the ME from the 1970s onwards. - [Political Islam was the first enemy against Nasser's revolutionary regime] -\> he could not allow any sort of political competitor. **New radical political actors coming from the lower middle classes mostly -\>** true for Egypt, but also for Syria, Iraq. - Members of the **Ba'athist cell in Syria** - [those within the military who were able to take the leadership through the organization of a top-down revolution starting from the army] - were coming lower middle classes of rural background -\> families who had migrated from the countryside to the cities during the mandates (early 1920s) - the politics of the mandates (centralization, new schools, army academies...) allowed these people to be invested into the modernist project -\> found new state jobs in the cities, sent their children in the newly founded secular state school. They were the products of **Middle Easter modernism**, not of the elitarian type of modernism BUT [how the Arab rulers had appropriated the idea of modernity and used it as a power tool.] - In the case of EGYPT, by studying the biographies of the revolutionary leaders, it's possible to see that they all came from the countryside, enrolled in army academies in the late 1920s when, because of the necessity to strengthen the army in the bigger project of state strengthening, the government lowered down the fees. This way, the academies were able to receive people coming from the lower middle classes as well and not just the sons of the elites, becoming more **democratically connotated**. Within the army, new young officers started thinking about a new political course for the state and taking power by organizing coups. - This happened also in **SYRIA** with the first **military coup of *Ba'athist* orientation** in 1949. The difference being that Nasser and the Free Officers were very quick in consolidating their power enough to control the situation, while in other contexts, like Syria, the army was more unstable because of the inner power competition between different cells, though sharing a same ideology (Pan Arabist revolutionary outlook). **1952 - the Free Officers in Egypt took power** -\> organized a white coup (nonviolent), occupying the main seats of power, the radio and broadcasting an announcement telling their taking of power. King Faruq left the country from Alexandra and fled to Italy (near Saturnia).  In this period, new elites were able to seize power and able to overthrow the previous notables' elites that ruled Middle East, setting up new independent political power **Nasserism is the blueprint for these movements**: they have in common the act of being projects propelled by military projects. These were low class individuals using the army, and their education in the army, to create a common identity and in the 50s they shifted into new political elites. They take power for their position in the army and start a period of civilianization, turning into civilian elites characterized by different outlooks. All these coups cannot be considered as broad based popular revolution: they were top-down revolution whereas these military cells conquered power and extended it to the society populism was the center mechanism of these regimes: now the new established power is stemming from the people, from the working class, and thus share a common identity and were the emblem of **self-realization** of people **authoritarian forms of populism** representing the popular reality. **NASSERIST IDEOLOGY**\ Some elements of Nasserist ideology are common to other new radical political ideologies of the time, as *Ba'athism:* - **Pan Arabist**, [though *Ba'athism* was more connoted to be Pan Arab]. The **Ba'ath party** was made up of different branches: the major ones being in Syria and Iraq. Most of the party's history in the 2nd half of the 19th century is a very violent struggle between the Syrian and the Iraqi branches (considered themselves as part of the same party but defined by a specific nationalist framework). Besides this, the *Ba'ath* party had the **long-term project of creating a Pan Arabist state in the ME with the dissolution of Arab states.** Though the *Ba'athist* party always branding itself in terms of its objective of creating a Pan Arabist Arab *umma*, at the same time the *Ba'ath* needs also to be understood in its national content and the big animosity among its branches. [Nationalist politics were stronger than any appeal to Pan Arabism.]  - **Nationalist** at the local level -\> actively promoting a political discourse of **anti-colonialism, anti-imperialism, nationalism,  national sovereignty and total autonomy and independence from external forces**. In the context of the CW and within a larger framework of global decolonial politics, these same things were happening worldwide at the same time. In the case of Arab people in the ME, they had in common **being Arab.** [That's why Pan Arabism was in tension with state forms of nationalism] -\> national politics in tension with the Pan Arab realm, beyond the national level. - All these new political ideologies were very much based on forms of **charismatic leadership**. In this context one leader was very central to the launch of the new political project: very visible in Nasserism - Nasser's charisma imbued the new nationalist project. In other contexts, like Syria or Iraq, this was less true: **the parties and some personalities within them** largely defined the local politics, until later stages when some charismatic leaders ascended to politics (1970 - Hafez al-Assad in Syria, 1978 - Saddam Hussein in Iraq) at a time where these leaders were able to impose their own personal power and charisma over the different cells within the party. In this case, the *Ba'athist* Syria and Iraq trajectories were different from Egypt's where the main mind behind the coup in 1952 was able to impose himself as the power face and the leader of the new political project. - **Nativism** importance of self-realization of a certain culture and people and self-determination. He talked about **Arabism** (cultural authenticity) and **Egytpianness** (feeling of being Egyptian). Nativism meant that every single act of the government needed to be promoted as an act of self-realization of the Egyptian as a population. In the 3^rd^ World frame of action, all the so [called "3^rd^ World Countries" were defining an idea of cultural authenticity], which was: local, willed to find a local way of implementing the notion of modernism and find a sort of national way of modernizing a country and consolidating strong countries. This idea went hand in hand with actual politics aimed to enlarge state capacity -\> deploying certain politics will help us to collect the resources making us able to act as free and independent state capable to work in an international framework - On one side these countries still depending on other countries "**active neutralism**", [Egypt was not aligned with the one of the 2 blocs] (non-aligned movement) and this idea was to use a **neutral position** of being equally distant from the blocs as a strategy to get aids from both of them whenever the chances presented. With Nasser, this strategy worked till 1956, but in general terms it proved to be a strong strategy to get funds by the state and have more financial capabilities to: modernize, improve its infrastructures and institution, economic sector. - **Populism** -\> the political program represented people's will. The creation of single parties signals the advent of a new course of non-participatory politics, idea that single parties were expressing this was fictional but in the whole of the Arab countries were used as a tool of control of the population not as a conduit (not bottom-up).\ Populism also called the articulation of socially broad welfare politics - [National radio] was used to propagate Nasserism and pan-Arabism for political propaganda but also instrument to diffuse new ideas of subjectivity, individuality, the modern Arab person in the modern Arab world.**\ ** - **Arab socialism** all these new regimes were all Arab socialist: as socialist regimes they will theorize the identity of power and masses and articulate politics aimed at filling the gap between "property groups" and "unproperty groups" through [welfare distribution]. Former elites had to accept to give up their richness and this newly acquired wealth had to be redistributed. This cannot be considered as a form of orthodox socialism and this can explain why all the radical countries cannot be said as being organically linked to the western society socialism.\ this because communism and socialism traits could not be shared: they were far from the elimination of private property + they were not atheist (the religions did not play a central role but in terms of cultural constructs were really important -- Egyptian Islam and Coopt Egyptians. The only element of anti-religion was the Nasser attack on Muslim Brotherhood, not for their creed, but because they used as a political tool Islam. They were not anti-religious or atheist (most of the population profoundly religious), not anti-capitalist (there is no repudiation of private property) as the major focus is on the need for redistribution. In most of these post-colonial countries the newly emergent regimes occupied prominent positions in the state-economies, able to redistribute. But the economic and financial assets were nationalized, and the newly independent countries recurred to programs of nationalizations to collect the resources they needed to finance broad reforms especially in the economic sector. **1952-54** Nasser acted mostly behind the scenes, didn't want to go public yet. He was wise in testing before if the population would have identified with the revolution, through letting a more reassuring figure being the face of the movement - **general Nagib** - so that it was perceived as a smaller rupture.  **NASSER'S FORM OF GOVERNING** - As soon as he came to power, he forced King [Faruq to abdicate and to sent him into exile] in **1953 the monarchy itself was abolished, and Egypt was declared a Republic**: the parliament was dissolved, all political parties banned and even the constitution of 1923 was abolished. The RCC created the **Liberation Rally**, a mass party from which conveying all their ideas. - Army assumed complete control of the state: in 1954 a RCC decree prohibited anyone who had held public office from 1946 to 1952 from doing so again, opening new placed for the younger generations. The relations between Nasser and the army saw a new face when struggle for power between Naguib and Nasser himself begun in 1954 he was accused of supporting the Muslim brotherhood, placed under hose arrest. - **Agrarian Law reform**: limited amount of agricultural land a single individual could own (200 feddans) + offering benefits to peasants + break up land estates and reduce the power of landowning elites. One of the firsts actions of these new regimes -\> **political agrarian reforms were the main instrument to restructure in a dramatic way the relations of power within the society**, especially in the countryside where the majority of the population was living. All the projects of industrial takeoff started now, supported by new local understanding of progress and modernization [Agrarian reforms introduced with the aim to transfer the lands from the old notables to the peasants and make them "small landowners"] -\> no agrarian reform was successful because their aims were more political then economic. Since the main objective was to [circumscribe and destroy the power of the previous notable elites], the amount of lands transferred was not that much to be able to change the condition of life of small proletaries in the countryside. In some ways conditions improved but not dramatically the rate of "**rurban migration**" went on, clear indication that reforms did not work out.\ The main objective of these reforms was to demolish the power base of the notables by seizing their lands, nationalizing them transfer of power with the replacement of these new elites with a "patrimonialism outlook", considering the lands to be theirs.\ Life in the countryside did not improve for millions of Egyptians increase casual and semi casual labor and proletarianization in cities like Cairo and Alexandira. At the same time a number of **services** were introduced to coopt the population and buy their allegiance: 1^st^ time were a whole number of services are delivered in Egypt with the beginning of the welfare state, to [coopt] them and [politicize] them: 1. 2. - In 1956 Nasser secured its power, sanctioning the end of the three years' period of transition. The Liberation Rally was substituted with the **National Union** + a plebiscite in 1956 recognized Nasser as President by 99.9%.\ He fostered his image with the promulgation of the **Constitution**: principle of democracy was enshrined by providing a 350 memebrs assembly. The bill of rights avoided discrimination on the base of sex, race, religion.\ This political system was designed to represent his political will and not the one of the population. June 1956 the constitution was accepted, and he was elected as president with the 99.99% of votes. By 1956 Nasser authority was undisputed and limitless. **THE SUDANESE CAUSE AND THE SUEZ CANAL CRISIS** The most pressing foreign policy matter for the RCC was the **relationship with Britain**. By the time the RCC came to power, Britain recognized that **settling the Sudan question** was mandatory. In 1953 they signed the **Anglo-Egyptian** Agreement, recognizing Sudan's right for self-determination: 2 years later, the Sudanese parliament proclaimed independence. **Suez Canal Crisis** After several months of negotiations, the 2 governments signed a treaty in 1954 providing for the evacuation of all British troops from the Suez Canal. Why do we end up in crisis?\ As a new nationalist leader, Defensor of full sovereignty, he wanted to launch **state consolidation, modernization and progress process** he wanted Egypt to become a totally efficient nation, thus he needs [money] and need to gather the state capacities BUT he needs aid.\ He uses "**active neutrality**" to get funds at the beginning, but the way he perceived the US was of them being too aggressive like with the weapons embargo.\ After 1949 the US worked in containing the USSR in Middle East and consolidating the relationship with Turkey and Iran -\> they used pacts (**Baghdad pacts**), which were perceived by regional leaders as problematic. When the US started to talk about the need to acquire weapons for their national defense from the Ussr, [Nasser started to consider this idea of unfeasible and wanted to play full sovereignty to the extent of controlling his power] he finally **refuses the pact**, still he needed those kind of military aid the US had gave to Turkey and Iran [**September 1955** Egypt concluded an **agreement with Czechoslovakia** to purchase 200\$ million work of Soviet military equipment in exchange of Egyptian cotton], a de-facto assertion of Egyptian independence from the Anglo-US grip the financial aid promised by the US (1 billion USD), in accordance with the World Bank, for the construction of second dam across the Nile at Aswan (political show of strength and economically useful: making it higher and create a larger basin in a way that it could provide for the electrification of the whole river Nile and the creation of powerplants from which electricity could be distributed on the whole of the territory) were withdrew by the US **Nasser decided to nationalize the Suez Canal in July 1956**, proclaiming that the revenues from the canal would be used to fund the development projects the West refused to sponsor [ he occupied the offices of the Suez Canal Company that was under the British-French control, most of these people were resident there]. This act was seen as the ending point of the story, stating with the building of the Suez Canal by de Lesseps, seen as an element of colonial subjugation the meaning for the Egyptian was incredible and it was a major political act that resonated through the Arab world: **the figure of Nasser as a pan-Arab hero starts here**. The reaction from regional actors like Israel and their EU allies France and Britain was of a total shock, as they were directly damaged from this action. The reaction of the 3 countries was of extreme hostility: throughout the summer conferences were held to find the solution.\ 29^th^ October 1956 the **Israel strike into Sinai** with the so-called **tripartite aggression** alongside **France** and **Britan**, costing severe damages to the Egyptians. On the 6^th^ November 1956 US already called for an immediate cease-fire, that even the USSR decided to sponsor. [Now the great powers are not ready to accept other powers to interfere with their project over the middle east, so to avoid consequences they preferred cease-fire]. The consequences - **Egypt** it was defeated but came out as ethical and moral winner as Nasser turned a military defeat into a political victory. He comes out as Egyptian and pan-Arab here. This scared most of the conservative and pro-western regimes in the region. In many cases the 1956 Suez crisis needs to be considered to understand why in 1958 we have a number of political alliances repositioning.\ Nasser was able to validate a new norm of international conduct, **pan-Arabism** -\> Nasser advanced it as [THE norm of regionalism in the Middle East from 1956 to 1957]. He also hegemonized pan-Arabism, considered as a share norm to which countries should look at. At the same time, it empowered Egypt as the guiding state.\ All the pan-Arab state for which Nasserism was the blue print, it was a real example and a push to acquire always more an Egypt outlook // non-Arab and conservative pan-Arab state like Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, found pan-Arabism as a menace to their domestic stability. Countries like Jordan and Lebanon in 1958 were on the verge of civil war because of the resonance of pan-Arabism and the impact it had on delegitimizing their elites (Hashemites in Jordan, and the consociativism of Maronites in Lebanon). The elites of these states found themselves vulnerable in the face of the mounting pan-Arabism. - **Israel** -\> his image as aggressor was enhanced in the Middle East - **Britain and France** -\> allying with Israel meant an immense offense to the Arab states. **The philosophy of the revolution (Nasser)** the revolution marked the realization of a great hope felt by the population. Sometimes he felt his action to be stupid and not intelligent in this book he considers the vanguard as those paving the way to free the country and exit from the age of the cold war. Chapter 15 there is an exert -\> Pan Arabism and Nasserism exposed the fragile contracts resulting from the colonial state making. It was disrupted as it exposed the vulnerability of these countries, creating competitivity among the states and animosity between the most conservative states **POLITICAL ACTS CARRIED BY NASSER TRYING TO TRANSFORM PAN-ARABISM FROM IDEOLOGY TO REALITY** - *[Creation of the United Arab Republic]* the UAR, first attempt of merging two countries, Egypt + Syria that became the UAR between 1958 and 1961. In 3 years the Syrian politicians were fed up by the strong Egyptianization of local politics and proved to be unviable (1958 years with the reshaping of the states). It is the attempt to turn pan-Arabism into something concrete. - *[Engagement in 1962-1968/69 Yemen war]* in 1962 the military ousted the ruler of Yemen and declared a Republic. The PM, to regain power, seek for assistance Jordan and Saudi Arabia. At the same time, he calls Egypt for help: the Egyptian losses were that heavy that I 1968 they were obliged to withdrew from the conflict - *[Creation of the Palestinian Organization for Liberation (PLO)]* it was an attempt to Arabize the Palestinian cause and show solidarity to Palestinians. The first PLO was established in 1964 in Cairo, the leader was Shukaeiri, coming from a notable family. Nasser wanted to behave as an **Arab hegemon,** but Egypt did not have any state capacity -\> where it lacked state capacity, he filled that vacuum through propaganda and discourses. Pan Arabism had to be tested by implementing it: it meant creating projects to sustain the idea of common Arab politics in the middle east in order to regionalize it and make it play a major role in the global stage in terms of **non-alignment theory** to make them have more agency with reference to the bloc. 1. **1^st^ attempt to regionalize politics + implement Pan-Arabism** -\> **1958 United Arab Republic**: Brief experience, lasting until 1961, where Egypt and Syria were the same country. Syria gave up sovereignty to merge with Egypt till 1961 and this was a major step toward the final aim of Arab political community.\ [The impetus for the union came from a group of Syrian politicians who were members of the dominant Ba'th Party] an **Arab socialist party**, trying to stand in relation to the communist party which used to be important in Syria -\> the merging with Egypt was the result of the [fear of be subjugated to the Communist party], and the unification meant also support from Nasser itself. Nasser accepted and within a month the U**AR came into being with Nasser as a president**. It lasted only 3 years because there was never a real integration: a. **It was not an integral union**: Nasser imposed the **single party military regime**. Furthermore, Egyptian military and administrative staff took the most important roles replacing the Syrian counterparts, the Syrian political parties were abolished b. The **Syrian economy was cannibalized to the Egyptian one** (Egyptificaiton of Syrian politics in these 3 years) **1958** Post 1956 Nasser is the pan-Arabist leader: also the [blocs started to look at Nasser seriously], because what he was doing was to become a **non-aligned charismatic and powerful leader** which could recall to major regional destabilization and a threat to the capacities of the blocs (US ability to shaped regional politics and safeguard their interests in the region: oil resource, commercial reasons, Israel as something blocking the creation of an Arab state). From 1956 to 1958 [Nasser and pan-Arabism was used to define a new regional political norm and influence all the countries in the region:] lower middle classes were bored by the oligarchies of their states. Where the conservatives or the first Baath cells were ruling the country, Nasserism was emboldening other sectors to have the same politics and behaving in a revolutionary way: it was a **destabilizing factor** for politicians everywhere in the region, whether they were belonging to the pan-Arabist side or the conservative pro-western side. 1958 was a year characterized by multiple events: - **Iraqi revolution** [one of the pillars of Western bloc strategy gave up]. Until that time Iraq was independent but had been ruled by a parliamentary monarchy of the Hashemites. All of the parties were linked to notable families and the crown were client of the British. In this year one of the major component of the pro-conservative axis in Middle East loses its main component -\> **shockwave for the middle east** and **other conservative regimes** Unlike the Nasserist revolution, this saw a major popular participation with multiple components of the society willed to overturn the status quo (conservative oligarchy monarchy and parliament) and it was violent -\> the members of the oligarchy were killed. - **Lebanon and Jordan** -\> despite their differences in the political system (Republican government in Lebanon and Parliamentary Hashemite monarchy) they were [vulnerable] and [fragile] in social cohesion and social contract, the elite felt they were delegitimized and felt exposed to this revolutionary wings. Despite some events (Lebanon entered the Baath pact to avoid the fact of being conceived to western) the local elites had only the chance to follow one strategy: calling into play military forces from abroad. - **Jordan** 1958 King Husayn called for military assistance to be able to counteract the increasing pressure put on his cabinet by pro pan Arabist element within his country. At the same time, the **King became the target for anti-Hashemites propaganda from Egypt and Syria,** 2 other radical Pan-Arabist countries which merged and together using pan-Arabism as a norm to consolidate their status as vanguard of pan-Arabism. [From 1958 on every single state in the region had to define itself under a norm]: pan-Arabism was the most popular one and in also Cold War shaped this period (radicals more inclined to USSR and get their aid; pro-status quo pro-West so US) -\> there was a cha**nnel through which bi-polarism was transferred into the region** but also because of it, **pan-Arabism** could exist, as it was able to define its own role it worked as a common norm for the Arab countries so that we can speak of **Arab cold War: radicals USSR and pro status quo US** [the pan-Arabist norm was characterized by being used by each countries to delegitimize the other.] In the long run these dynamics proved to be inviable: each single country could use the principle to legitimize itself or delegitimize the other basing on how much they were steaking to the norm. **EGYPT, THE SOVIET UNION, AND THE UNITED STATES** - **USSR** **1958 they finance the Aswan Dam** + **provide military and technical assistance** up to the moment when Egypt became increasingly dependent on Moscow for weapons and spare parts. Even if ideologically distant, the relations were pragmatic: [Nasser received from the Soviets the weapons that gave credibility to the Egypt's leadership, and the Soviet obtained in Egypt a center of influence in the Middle East to contain the US] - **US** **Eisenhower Doctrine**: contained promises of economic and military assistance to countries resisting communism. Even if looking at the US with suspicion, Nasser kept open his country's ties with the US. The US aid was sporadic and consisted mainly on buying wheat from Egypt. [Nasser didn't wat to commit Egypt to the Western Bloc supporting Israe] **SYRIA** Syria, in the post WW2, had an insecure parliamentary and political institution leading the country, remanence of the "dividi et impera" that was imposed by the French mandate the instability in the region is explained also by the numerous coup d'état succeeding in the following years. - **Al-Quwwatli** overthrown in 1949 by **Colonel Za'im**, bringing and end to the urban notable class, the one educated in Ottoman or European schools -\> free space to young men trained in Syrian military academies. - **Colonel Abid Shishakli** overthrows Za'im and stays In power till 1954. He establishes a centralized military dictatorship: he was characterized by a neutralist policy and refusing to participate in the WEstenr-sponsored defense pacts, [fostering a Pan-Arab Union] - **The Military overthrown Shishakli** from 1954 to 1958. The fragmentation of Syrian politics is the cause of a multiplicity of factors: 1. **Dividi et impera** Syria's politics came to be divided on religious, regional and ethnical lines in expense of loyalties to the Syrian nation as a whole 2. **Factionalization and politicization of the officer corps** a. Syrian army lacked a leader b. [Emerging political parties] -\> Syrian Communist Party, the Ba'th Party: officially a party from starting from 1946, it was dedicated to revolutionary activism aimed at bringing about a complete transformation of the Arab society, [achieving Arab unity and equating Islam and Arabism]. Their final aim was to end social injustice, class exploitation, tyranny, by establishing freedom, democracy, and socialism -\> everything could be achieved through a social revolution, thus attracting young Arabs. 3. **Struggle in the Arab World** in the mid-1950s Egypt and Iraq were the main rivals for supremacy, both wishing to bring Syria under their control the UAR came into being in 1958 when the Ba'thist approached Nasser; experience lasting until 1961. **IRAQ** From the end of WW2, Iraq remained under the control of the Hashemite monarchy and its agents **Faysal II came to power in 1953**; outside the palace, **Nuri al-Sa'id** was keeping tight rein on the political process and directed Iraq's foreign policy: sign of the **Baghdad Pact in 1955** (pro-West).\ \ [The majority Shi'a community was underrepresented] in the political system and resented the concentration of political power and economic benefits in the hands of the Sunnis, opposing Pan-Arabism The **Kurdish minority** was perceived as a threat: firmly anti-Arabism, they were threatening the creation of a Kurdish state.\ To these tensions, we must add the disparities of living between urban and rural inhabitants: in the 50s, 80% of the Iraq's population remained in rural and lived in abysmal conditions [The govern had thus a narrow base of support, and were not willed to implement any social reform for fear of alteration of the status quo] in July 1958 **Al-Karim Qasim** overthrew the regime in a bloody military coup in [which he killed King Faysal II, Prince Abd al-Ilah, Nuri al-Sa'id].\ Qasim established a personal military dictatorship lasting until 1963 (when **Colonel al-Salam Arif** assumed the title of president died in a plane crash and followed by his brother **al-Rahman Arif** till 1968). Qasim proclaimed Iraq to be a "republic", even if elections were not there emergence of ideological political parties like the **Communist Party**, rapidly shut down. Once overthrown the monarchy, he issues an **agrarian reform to limit the landowners supporting the Hasmites**, [willed to reduce the wealth and power of the landed elite and improve the living condition of the peasantry].\ \ **Foreign policy** -\> he withdrew from the Baghdad Pact and establishes ties with the USSR, agreeing on Soviet military and economic assistance. The US policy received a big blow from this choice, as Egypt, Iraq and now Syria (pillars of the ME), came under Soviet Influence furthermore, pressures internally were coning from Pan-Arabist nationalist willed to join the UAR, and the Communist -\> still, [he resisted these pressures and decided to retain independence]. **Arif** becames president in 1964, preparing the full unification of Egypt and Syria in terms of military and economic policies. By 1966, years of the anticipated union, little progresses were made and the unity was never reached as he dies in the same year **JORDAN** [In 1946 Amir Abdallah obtains the independence of Transjordan by the British], establishing as the king of the country the outcome of the Arab Israeli war 1948 had profonde territorial and demographic implications for his country: Palestinian exodus (500.000 Palestinians), the annexation of the West Bank (400.000 Palestinians) -\> [the Palestinian presence discontented majority of the first organized political opposition to the Jordanian monarchy] Abdallah tried to insert them in the political life, allowing citizenship and offering some places in the cabinet in 1951 he is **assassinated** by a Palestinian, obliging his grandson **Husayn** to succeed to throne in 1953 till 1999: his longevity is due to political astuteness, a loyal army, economical US aids.\ After assuming the throne, he was in the [middle between Nasserism and Western alliance:] Nasserism offered hope to the Palestinians in the refugee camps -\> he finally decided to withdraw from the Baghdad Pact: the Brits cancelled their aids, replaced by Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syrian ones. He had also to deal with the [Nasserist, Ba'athist and Communist streams]: pressure from Palestinian citizens, from high ranking civilian and military officials brought Husayn not only to distance from the Brits but also to **proclaim martial law and suspend the constitution**. Under these terms, the requested US military support and economic assistance: [under the Eisenhower Doctrine, 10 million USD were given + the 6^th^ fleet.\ ]This choice was with a huge anti-Hashemite propaganda from both Egypt and Syria. King Husayin commitment to the Western alliance was rewarded, in the following years, by a **yearly 50 million USD provision coming from the US**. Following the 1958 crisis, he was target of constant propaganda campaign from Egypt and Syria -\> what made his fortune was his position, never too Pan-Arabist nor too socialist revolutionary. **LEBANON** **Beirut** was the **jewel of the eastern Mediterranean**: the nationalization laws in Cairo, Damascus, and Baghdad, **brought entrepreneurs in the city** also thanks to the assurances granted by the Lebanese government, willed to bring foreign capital inside the country it became home for political exiles and a heaven of free expression, with university attracting student from all over the Arab world + luxury hotels, casinos, nightclubs. **Political structure** deep sectarian differences were always present: Lebanon unique political system had communal loyalties to be institutionalized, still [communal differences were not resolved but, rather prevented from achieving dominance].\ Politics was dominated by **established families**, deriving political and economic prominence from the long-lasting tradition of leadership the political boss, the ***za'im***, was the center: still, it did not give rise to ideological political parties by to the formation of a [sectarian-based blocs loyal to a single individual. ] - **Phalange 1936** influence by the European Fascits, this young party developed into an armed militia controlled by [Gemayel], ready to defend the notion that [Lebanon was a Maronite country]. - **Progressive Socialist Party 1949** founded by **Jumblatt**, this party of Druze origins, became prominent in the politics as it was able to put together leftist coalitions, challenging the Maronite supremacy and welcoming Pan-Arabism. The National Pact ensured that the president would be a Maronite Christian, and the constitution conferred upon the head of the ate exceptionally strong power relative to the parliament: 1. 1^st^ President **Al-Khuri** his inclination to overlook corrupt financial practices by his relatives and supports contribute to the development of a current of opposition to him, that strong that he was forced to resign in 1952 2. 2^nd^ President **Chamoun** committed to the Western alliance and the preservation of the free enterprise system, his presidency coincided with the rise of Nasser and the demand of Lebanon's Muslim -\> the Muslims were calling for a new census as the country grew in numbers of Muslims people.\ Chamoun had to dace this question: [whether to commit to the Western quest of to the Arab heritage]. In an attempt to keep both communities satisfied, **he withdrew from the Baghdad pact, still emphasizing Lebanon friendship with the West**. **THE CIVIL WAR** Muslim opposition to Chamoun's' develop into a full-scale rebellion in Tripoli and Sidon. When Chamoun asked the military to oppose the rebellion, the general Shibab of the army refused to act, thus he had to call the US for help 15.000 marines came to help to calm the situation: Chamoun stepped down and Shibab came to power, restabilizing the Muslim-Christian relations -\> in an effort to modernize the state, he ensure more Muslim to cover administrative posts, while expanding the power of the government to social reforms+ sectarian reconciliation. **ISRAEL** Within the Arab States, the memories of the Israeli victory in 148 and the Israeli invasion of Egypt became active part in the political consciousness: - **From Arab perspective**: Israel was an expansionist arm of Western imperialism, widespread belief that Israel would sooner or later launch a full-scale attack on the Arab countries to gain territory - **From Israeli perspective**: accepted the Arab propaganda at face value and watched with alarm the Soviet expansion in Egypt, Syria and Iraq. Multiple confrontation happened in the Jordanian-Israeli boarder, especially from the Palestinian resistance organizations. Palestinian guerrillas based in Syria conducted raids inot Israel through Jordanian territories; Israel would then retaliate in force against targets in Jordan **6 DAYS WAR OF 1967\ ** among the destabilizing factors of 1958 and those that forced the pan-Arabist leaders to act more decisively in 1958 (UAR created, Revolutionaries in Iran moved forward to do a golpe) was the fact that **by 1958 we are living in the mist of the Palestinian diaspora** started already in 1948 : [most of them relocated around Palestine in refugees camps that became real towns and cities which served as hub of political ideas]. The regional leaders were feeling these to be *boiling pot* that should be treated with **caution** as the leaders should live up to the expectations as the Palestinians question was fundamental for pan-Arabism (all Arab countries should protect and protect Palestinians against the Jews) [the politicization of the diaspora between 1948-58 played a role in the radicalization of the Arab politics post 1956]. In 1964 Nasser tried to channel this political activism to control it by creating the **organization for the liberation of Palestine**. Founded in 1964 in Cairo, **the Palestinian Liberation Organization** was created with the aim to provide pan-Arabist [backing to the Palestinian cause], and [control the political impact to the nationalist Palestinians claims in order to control the backfire]. The president of the PLO was not a radical, he was pan-Arabist, but a member of the old Palestinian families that left Palestine in 1948 -\> not radical initially as for Nasser not so radical meant controlling them.\ \ **1948 the Nakba** // **1967 is the Naxa** -\> downfall, it [became a watershed with reference to the Palestinian movements that realized that they should tried to reappropriate their national cause], giving up any expectation on Arab countries because if they wanted to have a free national state, sovereign and free, they had to work by themselves using different technicques (diplomacy for example). This made for the radicalization of Palestinian politics and radical strategy signaling by the ascendancy of Al-Rafat. [The mounting radicalization of the Palestinians camps was a major point of instability + fueled the pan-Arabist radical competition, necessary to understand this Cold-War in Middle East. ] The **PLO** meant to move this idea into something more **political**, with the **direct engagement** of Egypt in the Yemen war where Nasser wanted to support and military aid the revolutionary fringes against conservative government placed there. The contribution went on from 1962 to 1968-69, right after the Naxa of 1967 Nasser was called to disengage as Egypt was on the verge of bankruptcy, and thus moderate his politics with a reproachment with the US. **THE WAR** in May 1967 Soviet and Syrian intelligence reported that Israel was preparing for a large-scale military operation against Syria for its sponsorship of Palestinian guerrilla activities. **Nasser responded to the threat by deploying troops into the Sinai Peninsula**. He requested the UN forces to be withdrawn from Sinai, which were evacuated, and in those territories Nasser occupy -\> [pan-Arabist state were not constrained, but almost compelled to deliver aggressive and belligerent discourse that came to be perceived as a justification to act and implement their security doctrine]. This exigency is provided by pan-Arabis not be based on state capacity but on setting the bar higher and higher up to the moment in which Nasser as pan-Arabist leader, had to do something, **closing the straits to Iran.**\ \ He [thought of a possible USSR / USA intervention, which never arrived] on May 30^th^ Husayn, king of Jordan, fled to Cairo to sing a mutual defense pact, joined by Iraq in the following days. The Israeli government led by PM Levi Eshkol could not tolerate the blockade of the Straits of Tiran and decided to act. The closing was the **casus belli**, [considered as a threat to the sovereignty and national interest of Israel to the extent that they would have to attack].\ The decision-making process was not linear: different groups within the elites and not all of them were favorizing this attack ( some pragmatist were not pro, but the groups winning were the belligerent Ben Gurionist supported by the military as a way to deliver to prove Israel was strong and it was needed to attract more aid and support from the West). 5^th^ June 1967 Israeli air force destroyed the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian air forces. The Israeli forces later advances in the east bank of the Suez Canal. The cease-dire was reached in on the 9^th^ June 19671967 9^th^ June, the **number of territories** conquered by Israel were **huge**, as they occupied they whole of the **West Bank** which had been incorporated by Jordan from 1948-68, the **Golan Heights** were taken from Syria and then the whole of **the Gaza strip** was occupied, administered by Egypt, along with **Sinai** [6 days war sanctions the emergence of Israel as a new regional and military power that changed the relationship with the US that from 1967 onwards considered the relations with Israel as fundamental for their foreign policy in the Middle East]. **THE AFTERMATH** Egypt, Syria and Jordan lost in both material and psycological terms: Jordan lost the West Bank, Syria lost the Golan Heights, Egypt lost 12.000 men and 80% of its army, not to mention the problem of even more refugees.\ Israel, by capturing all these territories, found himself to compel with 1.5 million people. the war showed the strong superiority of military capabilities, as in 6 days they conquered fundamental targets -\> the **phycological shock** discredited the old regimes of landed elite, urban notables, and wealthy monarchs.\ \ Arif 's Iraqi regime fell to a Ba'thist coup in July 1968; the Syrian regime survived for a time, but in November 1970 it, too, was overthrown, and Hafiz al-Asad began his long rule in Damascus. Nasser managed to retain his authority: the arrest and suicide of Nasser confidant and commander in chief of the armed forces was a big blow, [even if the USSR helped Egypt to rebuild all the lost army's elements]. No ceasefire was signed, because the US were not interested on that but happy with the promises of the Israeli self-sustaining attack and able to enlarge their territory autonomously. The occupation has not lifted ever despite the UN resolution 242 calling for the Israeli retirement from the occupied territories. Another result from the war confrontations was the impetus it gave to the rise of Palestinian military and political organizations. On September 28 1967, Nasser died. **ORIGINS OF THE WAR**: combination of factors, some of the reasons are traced back to the shaping form of the Israeli security doctrine 1948-1967 Israel, because of its ideology before the self-declaration, have a sort of **expansionist drive** engrained in itself, because it was not an ordinary nationalist project but a Zionist project.\ \ [Israel was created with a mission, to provide the safe heaven for global jews: one of the first law established was the **law of return**] -\> if you are a true jew and all you can prove to be jew, you can go there and obtain the citizenship. This meant to be able to maintain the control on the territory: by 1948 we have other Alyot implemented by the Israeli government from the Middle East there was a kind of geographic war as they needed to be able to control the territory, having a territorial base and be able to call back and host as many jews as possible to maintain a stable presence on the ground and a demographic strong base to fill the gap in number with the Arabs. [Expansionism], [demographic balance], [boarders which the war of 1949 left vulnerable]: the boarders were not agreed, there were ceasefire to calm the situation and frozen the boarders, still not recognized. [For both the belligerent's part conflicts were an opportunity to change boarders but for Israeli was a vulnerability as boarders were continuously disputed] -\> Jordan river used to develop their country.\ By 1967 the concept of **Iron Wall** comes to be institutionalized within a **security doctrine** which we could define with the phrase "*[the best attack is the best self-defense]*", a byproduct of their vulnerabilities in the process of state formation. If we think that during the second half of the 50s onward [pan-Arabism was perceived by Israeli and western power as a threat, and from the late 50s Israel started to be armed by the US and bought from France] (western powers had interest), by 1967 the power balance of a small state surrounded by other big states, less technological advanced and less institutionalized and politically advanced, the asymmetry is such that Israel has not interest in not attacking. **ISRAELI POLITICAL SYSTEM AND POLITICAL CULTURE** Israel **self-declaration of independence** on the 15^th\ of^ May 1948 and the **Six-Day** **war** were the 2 events which showed the [international community that Israel was there], [strong and independent]. During the 50s and the 60s, Israel consolidated itself as a **sovereign nation state** -\> now process of national and state building as it was organized and managed by the Israeli authorities.\ This process was facilitated by the high level of *intra-communitarian organization*: the **Yishuv** [is characterized by a fair level of organization, background that played an important role in the international recognition of Israel as a state.]\ There was no clear-cut discontinuity between the former Yishuv institution and the newly established national one: the **[Yishuv]** political leadership of the **[Mapai]** **Labor Party**, led by Ben Gurion at the beginning from 1949-1977, devoted itself to extend its authority and being [recognized as legitimate leadership by other components of the Yishuv like the "Older visionist" extreme rights groups, and its militias].\ The first task of Ben Gurion was to make itself recognized as the leader also by the other groups, especially securing its authority over those right-wing fringes.\ **\ 1949 Incident of Altalena**: right after the proclamation of the state, and during the first Israeli Arab War (1948-49), the Ben Gurionist were concerned to impose themselves on the future components of the political sphere -\> as soon as Israel became independent, the various **Haganah** (paramilitary self-defense groups) units had to be re-organized into the **Israeli Defense Forces** **(IDF)**, and placed under the authority of the **Civilian Minister of Defense**.\ 2 dissident right wing groups, the **Irgun** and the **Lehi**, [refused initially to recognize the supremacy of the Haganah.]\ **The event** a ship of weapons arrived in Altadena; weapons destined to the Irgun. These arms were coming from EU, and arriving to Israel as the right-wing elements were trying to gather weapons to subvert the Haganah. Ben Gurion ordered the IDF to prevent the arms from being unloaded: an arm struggle subsequent, and the ship was sank, some elements of the Irgun were killed. Following, the remaining military groups were incorporated in the army.\ \ From 1949 till 1977, the leftist was in power. In 1977 for the first time the left-wing coalition (always like this in Israel) was led by a relative majority party but that year the new coalition was led by a right wing party (Likud) and that happened because of a number of transformation within the Israeli society. [Until 1763, Ben Gurion, prominent figure since the 2^nd^ aliah, was PM and subsequently minister of defense]. 1949-63 he controlled 2 of the most powerful political positions. Even in the case of Ben Gurion, as it happens in other parts of Middle East in post-colonial times, we can appreciate how the role of the **personal charisma and** **vision** of the leader [shaped the government, to the point that political historian use "**Ben Gurionism**" to define this historical period.] The first goal was reached: [establish the authority of the state over the previous diverse community of the Yishuv.] **THE POLITICAL STRUCTURE** By 1949 all the main characteristics of the Israeli political system were all formed. - Israel was a **parliamentary democracy** with **unicameral** **legislation KNESSET** made of **120 elective members of a term of 4 years**. - All citizens, male and female, received **suffrage at 18**. - [All candidates are running on a national level] [and are elected according to a pure **proportional system**] -\> 25% of national vote translated into 30 seats in the Knesset and they go to the first 30 names on the National Slaves. - What can be the consequences of this electoral system? the **political system had to be representative**. [With all these aliyot communities and ideologies, with different background had to be accommodate], still they had to be able to **resist any kind of pressure coming from external environment** (Arab countries all around Israel.) - This idea was translated into a minimum threshold of 1.5% for a party to be officially recognized in the political system (2% in 2003) - Low thresholds meant **coalition governments** -\> 10-15 parties coalition thus **relative majority parties**. **HOW THE POLITICAL SYSTEM WORKS** - When elections are announced, a list of candidates is published - Voters select their party - The numbers of votes are translated proportionally into **seats in the Knesset**. Proportional vote means that party orthodoxy was very encouraged, so no political career outside the party: be into politics would be coherent with the major ideology and line of thought favored by the leader of the party if you wanted to have real chances of being elected. As a result of the [existence of different fringe of Zionist] (left, right, Marxist) and existence of the dichotomy between [secular jews and some groups of religious jews coming back to Israel] (Haridim, Hassidim) **many parties** + **low electoral threshold** = **coalition government** [the influence of the radical wings came to be disproportionated] , able to **influence** the overall system in a disproportionate way those few votes of uninfluential parties became the important to win the election: this [favorized the radicals and thus the most vocal parties with extreme position were able to capitalize a lot out of this electoral system]. This resulted in **a political democratic culture** (representative) but is the opposite of the Egyptian harmonious politics (no different opinion was allowed) -\> **everyone has a say**, [reasoning in a contentious and vociferous political culture]. It was also a way to make the system stronger while letting oppositional vociferous views to be vent out continuously : [it proved to be a stabilizing factor rather than stabilizing]. During the Ben-Gurion era, stable coalitions were assembled between opposites: [the secular socialist Mapai allied with the orthodox religious Right to create a parliamentary majority that endorsed either the Mapai's program and conceded a voice also the religious parties. ] **NATIONALITY, RELIGION, STATE** the question was to [define the identity of the state], [should Israel be a Jewish state or the state of Israeli regardless of their religious affiliation?]\ Zionists were secular, as an ideology, so any idea of citizenship is enjoyed by all the people living in the territory; but [Jewishness is defined by belonging to a precise religious confession], thus **Israel** came to be the **state** of all the **people living in a certain territory** but **distinguishing between Israeli of Jewish confession and Israelis not born as jews**, [those Palestinians Arabs who were never displaced] (native Palestinians not displaced). The larger question was a question the Zionist society had to figure: what is the role of the religious authority? To what extent secularism should be go? Once again decision was taken on the [principle of compromise as in politics]: the Zionist, despite being secular, thought that **religion was important in the national** identity and decided to grant religious authorities a certain level of power [there was a status quo letter, signed with the Ashkenazi Rabbinate, including religion in the public realm]: **secularism states for a clear cut between the political sphere and the religious one**. In this case, religion is a main component in the public sphere and thus it can't be defined Israel as a secular state in toto. The authority of the Rabbinate meant that some specific religious authorities were in charge of power, similar to what happen in Arabs countries. This is something scarcely noted: - [During Shabbat there are no companies working as it is the religious day of the week]. - Kosher food, the religious authority to accept them (similar to the halal norm). it is important that everyone is able to eat in a right way. This **institutional system** [reflected decision made by the Israeli leaders]: a state solid and unified state-\> one of the main bases of Ben Gurionism is that **compromise and pragmatism** is [needed to make the state survive from the hostilities of being surrounded by millions of Arabs waiting for the destruction of Israel]. Because of this engrained notion of necessity of Israel to defend itself from outside threats, multiple characteristics of the defense doctrine came to exist since the very beginning of the state of Israel - Use of disproportionate force accepted to protect from the neighbors being Israel a small country -\> Siege Mentality and the Iron Wall. In the secular space, the **new Israeli national culture** took shape and make the Israeli Jews distinctive from Jews living elsewhere. [This brand-new type of Jewish identity is Israeli, identifying itself from being spurred from the diasporic conditions]. The focus on the characteristics of power, force, bravery -\> [establishment of **Hebrew** as **national language**], already in 1920: [new state, new language, new political imagination, new characteristics to define the new Jews] (**Sabra**). There is a distancing practice from the historical legacy and the perception to the European Jewish In Europe, with all their weaknesses live through the century distancing and replacing their traditional Jewish names with names in modern Hebrew to express new ideas, virtues and values to shrine with the new **Israeliness** (replacement of the Iddish surnames with Shamia, Peleh, Oz). **THE ROLE OF THE RELIGION** [ The creation of these elements, clashed with the religion role posed] -\> accommodation with the [Ashkenazi Rabbinate], creating a sort of hierarchy between different components of Jewish religious authority in Israel. The orthodoxy and the power were in the hands of the **Ashkenazi** as **opposed** to the **Sephardic rabbinate**. This society which seem so united, was characterized by internal hierarchies and difference -\> those citizens that arrived in Israel in 1950 when, based on the **law of return** [the state of Israel started to manage a program of state funded aliyot] (post-independence aliyot[) in order to fill the demographic gap with the neighboring countries], through the ideas of becoming a **safe haven for all the jews** all over the globe (base mission of the Zionists).\ The law return became a foundational principle in the new state, all jews can become Israeli -\> [being born from a Jewish mother: once the paper is fine and the Rabbinate does all the right research, you can become Israel]. The Palestinian Arab in Israel came to discriminate as they did not have any link with the culture. **DEMOGRAPHY** -\> beside defining who is deserving the citizens, it is also important to increase the number of people living inside the boarders of the state -\> aliyot founded by the state to attract Jewish people abroad. [This post dependence Alyot attracted people from the Mediterranean basis whereby because of the political transformation], all Jewish communities felt no welcomed in their own states and started to migrate from Yemen, Morocco, Tunisia, Iraq to Israel. These Mizrahim communities were also discriminated in respect to the European Ashkenazi Sabra, controlling most of the economic and social capital. This society comes with a specific hierarchy and a certain understand of the color line: you are dominant if you are white, coming from the EU or Anglo countries; the others were considered to be a plus. From 1948 to 1951, the Jewish population of Israel grew from 650K to 1.3 millions, result of 684K immigrants these people, coming through the state-founded Alyot, included the **Sephardic Jews** (Orientals) and the **Ashkenazi Jews** (Europeans). At the same time, the long-time established communities in Egypt, Yemen, and Morocco decided to move to Israel. They did not integrate as the Ashkenazim -\> throughout the years, also the **gap with the Sephardim widened**, creating palpable tensions.\ Alongside the Jews, also the Arabs were granted in 1952 nationality, only if they proved their long-standing residence in Palestine. From 1948 to 1966, areas of **Arab concentration** were placed under the **authority** of a **Military Administration**. [Until mid-70s, Israel's effective system of economic and social controls prevented the Arab minority to form association and express their grievances], something that will change with the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967 **SECURITY AND FOREIGN RELATIONS** -\> the **siege mentality** gave high **priority** to issues of **defense** and **security** to protect themselves and, if the possibility present itself, they can try to enlarge their territories. [Surrounded by Arab states remaining technically at war] (1949 first war ended with a ceasefire, not comprehensive peace, boarders not recognized) [and Arab leaders willed to revenge the defeat of 1949, the Israel society was devoting financial and social resources for its protection]. Ben Gurion talked about the need for Israel to become a **nation in arms** if it wanted to survive. **Absence of a distinction between a civilian sphere and military sphere** idea that, in order to defend the state, [all citizens need to operate together in the service of the state]: it explains the system of army of Israel, with a compulsory conscription for both man and women for a period of 3 years, and with a system of reserve lasting till 45-46 years, and time to time you need to do some courses to make every citizen able to contribute the protection of the state.\ The core principle of **Ben Gurionism**, in the defense, is that [every Arab act of aggression will be met by an arm of response not proportioned to the initial attack] while doing so, this was hoped to be used as a "*détente*" from entering into hostilities with Israel. Some acts could also be [interpreted as casus belli which legitimate a disproportionate attack]: if we think about 1957, the [closure of the Straits of Tiran] was considered the casus belli but was not offensive in the territory interpretation of something coherent with this doctrine which became the defining doctrine of security in the state. In terms of **Cold War Relations**, they adopted a neutral position: [with the extension of the conflict, they ended up placing special emphasis on relations with the United States]. Especially after the June War, US policymakers came to view Israel as a potential strategic asset to US Middle Eastern policy -\> Nixon and Johnson administration reached the pick of 693 million USD in military aid. 1. Hoping that **Israel military superiority** to contribute to the stability to the region and work as a **deterrent** from any kind of confrontations 2. [US envisaged Israel as a **barrier to Soviet expansionism** in the Middle East.] **THE PALESTINIAN FACTORS POST 1948 -- THE DIASPORE AND ITS CONSEQUNCES** Between April 1948 and May 1948, most of the [ethnic cleansing] happened and 750.000 -- 800.000 Palestinians left their lands. Israeli military operation [aimed to make territories under Israeli control most homogeneous as possible]. The vast majority of Palestinians who fled move to the **West Bank**, to the **Gaza strip**, **Syria** and **Lebanon** where they settled in refugee camps. Most of the Palestinians considered themselves exiled as they were obliged to flee from their villages (Nakba: "dispossetion", already from November 1947 till May 1948) in 1948 to various degrees. Only 150.000 Palestinians did not move, lands that became Israel from 1948, 20.8% of Israeli population From 1967, we have Palestinians under occupation in the occupied territories of the 6 days war + refugees' community in refugee camps all over middle east in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. Distinction between the outsiders and the insiders (Israel or under occupation in the West Bank from 1967 until 1995 Oslo Accords whose administration depended on the area in which they were residing). [The resolution 194 of the 11^th\ of^ December 1948 recognized the right to return or recompensated for the Palestinian evicted from their lands] the state of refugees was encountered with the **UNRWA** [UN Relief and Works Agency], created for the peculiar problem Palestinians in Arab countries **refugee camps**: the majority of Palestinians ended up in this situation, the few who had the chance fled to Europe and the US. Overtime, many camps took a permanent structure and resembled villages with all the services needed to the population. - **Jordan** already in 1949, when the west bank was implemented in their territories, [Palestinians got the nationality] - [They were 1/3 of the total population and it was a strategy of political cooptation by the Jordanian crown elites.] They were too many to be ignored by the crown. - **Syria** laws were promulgated, paving the way for [social and economic but not political integration]. Palestinians enjoyed the [same rights of the Syrians exept for land property], but nationalization was not conceived due to pan-Arabism: in order to stick with it, the Baath rulers decided that nationalization of Palestinians should not be granted this nationality as it made no sense if they were all Arabs + [nationalization meant to dismantle the importance of the right of return; on the contrary, it had to be fostered.\ ] - **Lebanon** In Lebanon [Palestinians] were regarded by the Maronites as a [threat to the sectarian balance of their] country, thus they came to be [marginalized] and their presence could resonate with the Muslim minority. In terms of radicalization of Arab politics in the 50s and the 60s, Palestinians started to become an element of politics radicalization especially a threat to those conservative pro-status quo regimes dominated by self-referential Maronite oligarchy.\ Because of their potential unsettling effect, they were considered [apoliti], without nationality. They were [restricted in mobility, residency, and employment]. Palestinians' status of refugees as recognized by the international law would made up for the case of not having a state. **UNRWA** The **letter on the position of Palestinians refugee** where mister Gordon Klap describe the plight of the refugees and called for the specific creation of Palestinian refugees -\> [United National Relief and Works Agency] -\> they set up camps both in historical Palestine and in the surrounding countries for the refugees crossing state boarders. **1^st^ duty** **provision** **of basic services and subsidies**, **health care** and **education** for registered Palestinians refugee, whose normal residence was Palestine from 1946 and 1948 and lost their house from 1948. [From now on there is the proliferation of registration rights, with these rights passing from generation to generation.] In the field of education, through 650 primary and secondary schools the education revolution was achieved, and they became the national groups with highest level of education all over middle east in 60s and 70s, especially in technical skills. From the 50s onwards, Palestinians were able to use their education skills in the job market by having position in the oil countries. **PLO** founded in 1964 under the auspices of the Arab League, it was based in Cairo where it was closely scrutiny by Nasser's security agencies. The majority members of the PLO's executive council were of traditional Palestinian notability.\ Palestinians were also the [hot bag for the politicization and radicalizing of a new political elite]s which wrestle the head position of the PLO from the notable families. As part of the pan-Arabist cause, Nasser thought that every decision should be taken by all the Arabs, he was opposed to arm struggle and favoring a political solution with Palestine.\ \ **The impact of the June War:** it altered the Palestinian circumstances and aptitudes, as Palestinians lost additional territories. [Several small guerrillas developed]: - **Al-Fatah**, a party formed by Al-Rafat in the late 50s, decided to move its operations to Jordan where they rapidly emerged as the most formidable and independent commando organization they idealized a straightforward ideology that emphasized Palestinian nationalism above all else. The PLO was thus an umbrella organization under whose authority several different resistance groups coexisted. **[Al-Rafat]**, and his main comrades that fled to Gaza in 1948, and then formed Al-Fata which [became the main organization in the PLO collecting different groups and vision when it comes to the strategies to deployed in Palestine whether violent or not]. They decided to Refuse the **UN resolution 242**, basing on 2 considerations: 1. The [resolution recognized Israel's right to exists] 2. It [mentioned the Palestinians only as a refugee problem, not as people with the right to to a homeland] The final goal of PLO was the liberation of all Palestine, the creation of a Palestinian state comprising the West Bank and the Gaza Strip throughout the time they succeeded in creating a network of committees and agencies engaged in providing social services to Palestinians. **Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine** (PFLP) was more orthodox-Marxist and framed the Palestinian cause from a more proletariat point of view, more transnational. We also have the **Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine** (DFLP) **Black September (1970)** the aftermath of the June War brought the creation of the Palestinian resistance: they were external from their territories and thus required a base for their operations. Jordan was the first hub: King Husayn by 1970 had no more authority. The tensions reached the breaking point in Septmeber when the PFLP hijacked 4 civilians airliners and threatened to blow them up. King Husayn decided to restore order and from 15^th^ to the 25^th^ September killed 6K Palestinians, that finally transferred its control hub in Lebanon. **ISRAELI AND THE PALESTINIANS IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES** The occupied Palestinian territories: [West bank, Golan Heights and Gaza after the 6 days war]. The creation of settlement in these territories started as a modest endeavor from 1967 until 1977. From [1977 the creation and the foundation of the Israeli settlements] (settler colonies) started to [grow bigger and bigger] -\> due to an **important change in the Israeli political government**: right wing coalition government won the election, [the **Likud Bloc**, led by their leader **Begin**]. As a main party of right-wing coalition, it came forward with different approach to the occupied territories: maximization of resources. [The CUD was composed of smaller parties which were combining right wing Zionism and religious fundamentalism]. The religious Zionism right: originally Zionism was not religiously motivated, it was a Jewish form of secularism -\> religious right-wing elements came to influence the politics of the state, especially with governmental coalitions.\ **1977 is the year of electoral earthquake**: the labor party is defeated by the Likud party, and their [electoral success was coming from those small Zionist religious party] they allowed the creation of **new settlements** in occupying territories. Being able to occupy and settle in these territories was considered as a [religious duty], convinced that settling there was essential to bring about their **Judaization** of a whole territory [the final aim was that the whole of the land should become Jewish.] No form of Israeli state should not compromise about their religion duty, to occupy and make the land Jewish.\ \ Already in 1976 there is the identification of territories key for the survival of the settlements. From 1977 on they will be catalyzed by the Likud, this coalition of small religious party was called "[Believers Bloc" -\> maximalist vision of Jewish presence all over the territory]. This meant for the Israeli state to being ready to incorp also **huge cost of security and safety**: [securing the citizens in these illegal settlement] (never recognized by the International Law) and all their [activities] (like housing) was fundamental and should be always safeguarded by the state. This called for the **deployment of military forces on the ground** so that all these activities (Palestinian-Israeli questions) should happen under the eye of the army, even if the Palestinians were massively discriminated\ -\> [at the **heart** of the Likud Bloc, lied the idea of establishing **Jewish settlements** throughout the **West Bank** and the **Gaza Strip**]\ Some settlements were created to catalyze this idea creation of the settlement (still existing) in the city of Hebron, occupied by US based Zionist. It is still distinctive as settlement were not created inside Palestinian cities, normally they are outside in order to be easily connected one another, with roads where only Israeli plates could circulate. These kinds of islands were made to marginalize the Palestinians, and they were planned in a specific way. In **Hebron** it was created in the middle of a city populated by 80.000 Palestinians: security and safety were thus massive with a [huge presence of Israeli military]. It came to be one of the most important reasons of animosity between Jews and Palestinians. Most importantly, in Hebron there is the "Tomb of the Patriarch", considered sacred for both Jews and Palestinians. Abraham is considered relevant for both as father of monotheism, so this place is divided, but is a sensitive spot -\> [1994 the Hebron massacre happened when the US Zionist opened fire against the Palestinians assembled while praying.]\ [Acres of lands were taken during the 6 days war and turned into big project for settlement housing, directly founded by the government] -\> **settlement housing plans** meant that [lands were expropriated from their original Palestinians owners with no recompensating]: the Palestinians were mostly peasants and thus lost their main source of living and surviving.\ \ With the occupation, through the years and especially after the Oslo's accords (missed opportunity for peace, growing literature demonstrating that the Oslo accords were incorporating Palestinians territories into Israel) [always more traits of land to newly established Palestinian national authority]; in exchange of this limited authority, [the overall plan enabled the consolidation of settlements and the incorporation of Palestinians economy to the Jewish one in a subordinate] [position]. During the 80s, 90s and post-Oslo, **Palestine is becoming the basin for cheap workforce** **for the