Why Israeli-Egyptian peace didn't spread? Paper ideas?

[Stan187]

So I gotta write a paper basically explaining how after the 1973 Yom Kippur War, both sides were humbled and it was prime time for negotiations and peace settlements. Yet it only happened with Egypt. I'm tasked with explaining why it happened this way, and no other peace deals were signed.

Any ideas on theories, documents to look into?

I'm starting tomorrow and have to finish by thursday night, and its gonna be like 12 pages about.

Damn you finals...

[Shek]

Originally Posted by Stan187

So I gotta write a paper basically explaining how after the 1973 Yom Kippur War, both sides were humbled and it was prime time for negotiations and peace settlements. Yet it only happened with Egypt. I'm tasked with explaining why it happened this way, and no other peace deals were signed.

Any ideas on theories, documents to look into?

I'm starting tomorrow and have to finish by thursday night, and its gonna be like 12 pages about.

Damn you finals...

Sorry, Yom Kippur, Camp David, and Lebanon are not my cup of tea. If I had to venture a guess as to where to start looking, the Cold War dynamic and the waning influence of the USSR, the fading of pan-Arabism and Nasserism provided an opportunity for a clean break for Egypt with the past, and the rise of the Iranian revolution and the potential involvement of them and Syria in Lebanon probably all factored in to the different paths. However, that is a complete rectal extraction and only where I'd start to look. If I'm even remotely close when all is said and done, it'd be nice to know that. Good luck!

[astralis]

stan,

when looking at states it's important to look at the cost-benefit ratio on both sides. what advantages would israel gain in making peace with all of those arab states, and what advantages would the arab states gain in making peace with israel?

in egypt's case, america held out the offer of lots and lots of money if they would come to the peace table. was this also the case with the other arab states?

also, the '73 war, both in the way it was going for the arabs at first and also the way the arabs held up the global economy, was such that despite the defeat, they came off feeling stronger/more confident of their own capabilities. that should be factored in.

finally, look what happened to sadat. the arab leaders sure did.

[Stan187]

Originally Posted by astralis

stan,

when looking at states it's important to look at the cost-benefit ratio on both sides. what advantages would israel gain in making peace with all of those arab states, and what advantages would the arab states gain in making peace with israel?

in egypt's case, america held out the offer of lots and lots of money if they would come to the peace table. was this also the case with the other arab states?

also, the '73 war, both in the way it was going for the arabs at first and also the way the arabs held up the global economy, was such that despite the defeat, they came off feeling stronger/more confident of their own capabilities. that should be factored in.

finally, look what happened to sadat. the arab leaders sure did.

Yes that's true, but what happened to Sadat happened a little later.

Here is what i got so far

1.Economic importance of Suez
2.border distance/strategic interests (compared to say the Golan)
3.Leadership personality (Sadat as compared not Asad)
4.US, third party assurances/influence/benefits
5.Regime type (authoritarian vs. totalitarian vs. Islamist) of Arab countries.
6. Regime stability

[Bluesman]

I think that in Syria's case, it comes down to Assad himself. He was a hard-ass, so getting anything from him even when his military got spanked would have been tough.

ALSO, his whole act as a dictator was maintaining that hard-ass image. Can't do that if you're caterwauling about taking a beating so bad you're ready to admit it.

And although Jordan had not signed anything in any formal sense, they were still Washington's second-favorite from the neighborhood, and when you're Arab and playing second fiddle to the Israelis, you're still 'A' list, baby. They weren't going to sign anything with a huge, restive population of overwrought, under-employed Palestinians about to slip their leash and revolt against the Kingdom...AGAIN.

And I think the rest of 'em just didn't feel any real push to sign anything; they just waited and hated.

[troung]

So I gotta write a paper basically explaining how after the 1973 Yom Kippur War, both sides were humbled and it was prime time for negotiations and peace settlements.

Egypt wanted to talk before 1973. No one took Sadat that serious so he had to go back to the battlefield to create conditions.

I think that in Syria's case, it comes down to Assad himself. He was a hard-ass, so getting anything from him even when his military got spanked would have been tough.

They got very close. It fell apart over a few meters in the 1990s (which takes one to the issue of water access).

And although Jordan had not signed anything in any formal sense, they were still Washington's second-favorite from the neighborhood,

They made peace in "officially" 1994. They had been on good terms for years.

A good case can be made for their friendly relations since 1948 when they divided up Palestine down the middle.

in egypt's case, america held out the offer of lots and lots of money if they would come to the peace table. was this also the case with the other arab states?

Debatable but America did put out the branch in the late 1970s for Syria to talk and probably would have made similar offers.

[Stan187]

Originally Posted by troung

Egypt wanted to talk before 1973. No one took Sadat that serious so he had to go back to the battlefield to create conditions.



They got very close. It fell apart over a few meters in the 1990s (which takes one to the issue of water access).



They made peace in "officially" 1994. They had been on good terms for years.

A good case can be made for their friendly relations since 1948 when they divided up Palestine down the middle.



Debatable but America did put out the branch in the late 1970s for Syria to talk and probably would have made similar offers.

You got a good place I can cite stuff from about negotiation with the Syrians? Both America's offers in 1970s and the 1990s negotiations. My college is pretty small, so our library is also.

[Ironduke]

Because Arab and Muslim public opinion has been turned against Israel for the last six decades by their political leaders, the ill-feelings have taken on a momentum of their own, and it would be extremely dangerous for any political leader to change course.

It's like extremist politicians in the West who single out a Muslim bogeyman, the population now has an enemy to focus their energies on, and will ignore the economy, government policies, etc., the difference being that in alot of Islamic nations its overt government policy itself, and not a minority position.

You could tie in alot of stuff about Hitler singling out the Jews to rise to power, extremist right-wing politicians in Europe singling out Muslims, 19th and 20th century politicians singling out the rum/rebellion/romanism Catholics in the US, anti-Chinese/Japanese immigration laws, the EU restricting immigration from new member states despite obvious economic benefits as shown in the UK and Ireland, UK and Irish reaction toward Poles whose immigration was not restricted upon admission of Poland to the EU, German xenophobia regarding Auslanders, US colonial America's upper class's creation of African blacks as a permanent underclass bound in hereditary slavery to unite the white lower classes behind them, etc.

Same game, different name, different time, different groups.

You may find this of use:

Hate Week is an event in George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, designed to increase the hatred for the current enemy of the Party, whichever of the two opposing superstates that may be. During one particular Hate Week, Oceania switched allies, though the disruption was minimal: the posters against the previous enemy were deemed to be "sabotage" of Hate Week conducted by Emmanuel Goldstein and his supporters, summarily torn down by the crowd, and quickly replaced with propaganda against the new enemy, thus demonstrating the interchangeability of the two other superstates, and the ease with which the Party directs the hatred of its members. All members of Oceania must show appropriate enthusiasm during hate week as well as two minutes hate, ensuring that they are very against the opposing party and still very much allied with Big Brother.

Hate Week is officially celebrated from April 4th to April 10th. The events during that time include waxwork displays, military parades, speeches and lectures. New slogans are also coined and new songs are written. The theme of the Hate Week is called the Hate Song. It is mentioned that a unit from the Fiction Department was assigned to make atrocity pamphlets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_week

It's an fictional example taken to the extreme, but relevant.

There's also irredentism:

Irredentism is an international relations term that involves advocating annexation of territories administered by another state on the grounds of common ethnicity and/or prior historical possession, actual or alleged. It is a feature of identity politics and cultural and political geography. Since most borders have been moved and redrawn at one point, a great many countries could theoretically present irredentist claims to their neighbours.

However, some countries are the subject of potential irredentism from birth. Post-WWI Eastern Europe had borders carved out by the Allies that left many of the new countries in that region unsatisfied due to minority populations and conflicting historical claims. Many of Africa's borders were artificially imposed by European colonial powers. The result split ethnic groups between different countries, such as the Igbo who are divided among Nigeria, Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea.

An area that may be subjected to a potential claim is therefore sometimes called an irredenta. Not all potential irredentas are involved in actual irredentism.

Again, much the same process, leaders uniting populations behind them, getting them to ignore all else, pointing to perceived historical wrongs that must be righted. Examples would include Germany in WWII with regards to Poland and the Treaty of Versailles, China with regards to Taiwan, India and Pakistan with regards to Kashmir (don't mean to offend anyone here, but there are individuals who use the issue to further their political ends), the Israel/Palestine and Arab states with regard to territorial issues, Greek attempts at conquest in Turkey in the 20's, pan-Slavism of the 19th and early 20th centuries, the Bosnia and Kosovo conflicts, Aztlan (fringe group) designs on the southwestern US, and the list goes on.

Hope this helps,

Matt

[Ironduke]

US efforts pursuing peace talks between Israel and its adversaries must also be looked at in an economic context. Basically, the US purchases political stability in the Middle East through foreign aid, and can ostracize and isolate those nations who do not go along with it, for the sake of its own economic stability. This is realpolitik, gentleman.

I should note that this is a bit of an oversimplification... of course there are political realities in many states which justify foreign policy decisions toward them in others, and so many other factors at play that should be taken into account, which when viewed in totality explains why the US will pursue one course with nations such as Egypt and Jordan, and another course with nations such as Iran or Syria.

For example, there are so many grounds on which the US can adopt a hostile policy toward a nation like Iran (which has adopted the same policy toward the US), that the US can knock out two, three, or more foreign policy birds with the same stone.

[troung]

You got a good place I can cite stuff from about negotiation with the Syrians? Both America's offers in 1970s and the 1990s negotiations. My college is pretty small, so our library is also.

Do you have the book by William Quandt called the "Peace Process"? It's long but gives a lot of information on the different events in depth from 1967 up to the Roadmap for peace and covers the Shepardstown talks with Syria along with the Israeli Palestinian talks (including smaller ones) and Camp David-II and Sinai-II. And it gives an analysis on different leaders and so forth.

[Stan187]

Originally Posted by troung

Do you have the book by William Quandt called the "Peace Process"? It's long but gives a lot of information on the different events in depth from 1967 up to the Roadmap for peace and covers the Shepardstown talks with Syria along with the Israeli Palestinian talks (including smaller ones) and Camp David-II and Sinai-II. And it gives an analysis on different leaders and so forth.

No, it was actually listed as being in the library, but wasn't there, some jackass hid it somewhere probably trying to be funny.


In other news, my efforts to keep awake have been reduced to the futile chewing of roasted, ground coffee in the same way one chews Skoal. *shudder*

[sappersgt]

Originally Posted by Stan187

In other news, my efforts to keep awake have been reduced to the futile chewing of roasted, ground coffee in the same way one chews Skoal. *shudder*

Yeah, it makes sense. I mean why dilute it?