Module 8 The Ottoman Empire & Arab Israeli Conflict Reflection Paper Reflection Paper. Kindly make sure you follow all the instructions. Ensure a plagiaris

Module 8 The Ottoman Empire & Arab Israeli Conflict Reflection Paper Reflection Paper. Kindly make sure you follow all the instructions. Ensure a plagiarism and grammar error free paper. I have attached the readings we required to do with the assignment rubric. Kindly see the word document with all the instructions and information that needs to use. Also, the PDF documents are the extra readings to grab a couple of quotes from. Do not use any other sources. If you quote information from the word document please say from modules. Reflection Paper Assignment Instructions:
First Topic. 1.5 page
During and after World War I, vast expanses of the Middle East broke free from Ottoman rule. Arab
Ottoman provinces had joined the war on the Allied side in the hopes that the British and the French
would make good on their promises to support Arab independence after the war. Non-Ottoman lands
such as Iran and (partially) Egypt also hoped to form strong national governments in control of their own
destiny. Most of these countries (with the exception of Saudi Arabia) initiated aggressive programs of
reform and modernization, drafting secular constitutions, limiting or suppressing the Sharia in favour of
European-style laws, and building or improving national infrastructure. None of these measures seemed
to bring peace, stability, or meaningful development in the Middle East.
How would you assess this “failure” in relation to the role and policies of European powers in the
region?
You need to answer/analyse/assess the highlighted question above for this assignment. So a simple
summary won’t suffice. I’m interested in your views. However, your assessment must show evidence of
meaningful engagement with course materials and readings.
READ THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT ON THE END OF THE OTTOMAN ORDER USE AT LEAST TWO QUOTES
FROM THIS SOURCE.
Second Topic. 1.5 page
As you saw in Modules 7-8 the Arab-Israeli conflict has a long, complicated, and tortuous history. People
on both sides argue that their right to independence and security must be respected. Meanwhile, there
seems to be no end to the conflict, daily killings and injuries, and unrest. As you saw in the course
materials, despite numerous international attempts to bring a lasting peace between the two sides, all
attempts have failed thus far. The US government’s role in the conflict has shifted from peace broker to
partisan involvement as well. For this reflection paper, please write your thoughts on the following
questions:
What is your take on the Arab-Israeli conflict? Is there hope for a lasting peace between the two sides in
your opinion? How would you assess the current US administration’s approach to this issue? What is the
way forward in your opinion?
READ THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT ON MODULE 7 AND MODULE 8 USE AT LEAST WO QUOTES FROM
EACH READING
Format: Your response paper should be minimum 1.5 pages for each topic. (it’s ok if you go over), single
spaced, font size 12, with standard margins. There is no need for a bibliography, but you do need a title
displayed on top. Your full name and student number should be in the header.
Deadline: End of week 3 – Friday June 5
This assignment is worth 40% of your final grade. Evaluation: I will use the following rubric to mark your
response papers. This rubric will be attached to your paper on Blackboard for your review.
This is important to follow
Needs improvement
Content – Does not show evidence of having done the readings
Development – Some scattered ideas are present though not developed
Organization Writing is difficult to follow and lacks coherence
Accuracy – Contains many errors in grammar and/or punctuation
Satisfactory
Content -Shows some awareness of and engagement with course readings
Development – some interesting Ideas are present but need further development
Organization – Some degree of organization but needs improvement
Accuracy – Some errors in grammar and/or punctuation but does not impede comprehension Paper is
generally free from errors
Excellent
Content – Shows clear awareness and thorough engagement with course readings
Development – Ideas are engaging and fully development
Organization – Paper is well organized (intro., body, conclusion)
Accuracy – Paper is generally free from errors
TOTAL PAGES 3 SINGLE SPACE.
READINGS FOR FIRST TOPIC
Introduction
This module briefly deals with the early modern period. There are many definitions
of “early modern,” depending on the area or type of history you’re dealing with.
Here, in the context of the Middle East, we define early modern as the period
between the late 13th century to the end of the 17th century when in 1699 the
Ottomans lost Hungary to the Habsburgs of Austria.
Why these dates? The answer lies in the fact that the period between the 13th to the
17th centuries witnessed the rise of some powerful military states in the Middle East while the
end of the 17th century marks the decline of the Middle East as a world power and the rise of
Europe to ascendancy.
The Il-Khanids, descendants of the Mongols, became Muslims and adopted Persian culture
when they were masters of the Middle East. Their reign prepared the conditions for the rise of
some powerful Muslim military states in the region: the Mamluks in Egypt and Syria, the
Timurids in Central Asia and later India (where they became known as the Mughals), the
Safavids in Persia and Iraq, and the mighty Ottomans in Anatolia, the Arab lands, and the
Balkans (Figure 1).
Before we briefly deal with each dynasty, it’s important to note that the early
modern period was the age of gunpowder. Though gunpowder had been used in
China since antiquity for fireworks, in the early modern period gunpowder
technology was put to military use. Any state that wished to survive had to obtain it.
Both Middle Eastern and European armies were using gunpowder technology as
early as the 14th century. The Muslim states, though, were generally slower in
adopting and perfecting this technology compared to the Europeans, particularly
England and the Netherlands. These two countries (and Europe in general) were also
quicker in making the transition from a government system ruled by landowning
aristocracy to one based on a strong administrative system driven by commercial
interest.
These were the determining factors in the gradual decline of Muslim Middle East and the
corresponding rise of Europe to global supremacy.
Let us now briefly examine the military dynasties mentioned above
The Ottomans
The Ottomans rose from the ashes of a disintegrating Seljuk sultanate. Their
ancestor, Ertugrul, was a Turkic-speaking former slave soldier, now a general,
who helped the Seljuks in battle, receiving, in return, an iqta’ near Sogut in
northwest Anatolia. This iqta’ would serve as the starting point of what is
perhaps the mightiest Muslim state: the Ottoman Empire which ruled much of
the Middle East and Eastern Europe from the 13th to the 20th centuries (1923
to be exact).
After Ertugrul’s death, his son Osman (from which comes the name
“Ottoman”) took power. He followed a Sufi master who gave him a special
sword with special powers, according to legend, and ordered him to wage
jihad against Christian Europe. From then on, the Ottomans became a mighty,
sprawling, and feared Muslim empire.
Volumes have been written about the Ottomans and their magnificent empire.
Here, we briefly look at some highlights. In 1453, Mehmet the Conqueror did
what many Muslim rulers had tried but failed to do: the conquest of
Constantinople. Mehmet captured Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine
Empire, and made it the Ottoman capital. The city eventually came to be
known as Istanbul and still carries that name today. Its population under the
Ottomans was comprised of Greek Orthodox Christians, Muslims, Jews,
Turks, and Armenians. Each group was given religious autonomy and had a
patriarch managing its civil and confessional affairs.
This came to be known as the millet (people) system, a progressive one
compared to the intolerant Christian West at the time, where a multi-cultural,
multi-faith city could be managed effectively and peacefully. The Ottomans
had transformed the umma system into the more modern, more
inclusive millet system.
Under Mehmet, the Ottomans reached Rome and almost marched on it. But
Mehmet’s death spared the Roman Church from sharing a similar fate with the
Greek Orthodox Church which was now under Ottoman rule. Soon after, the
Ottomans defeated the Mamluks in Egypt, Syria, and Arabia and annexed
these lands. The Ottomans were now masters of much of the Middle East,
North Africa, and the Balkans (Figure 5).
Among the Ottomans’ legacies is the perfection of slave boy recruitment in
creating a disciplined standing army. Under a system known as devshirme (boy
levy), slave boys (the majority of whom were Christian) were taken from their
families, trained in special, highly disciplined military garrisons, and enlisted in
the Sultan’s elite army. Some of these boys made it to the sipahi (horse soldier)
branch of the army where they received estates, called timar, in return for their
service. Others remained janissaries (foot soldiers) bonded together by their Sufi
brotherhood called the Bektashis.
Under the Ottomans, the ulama (learned men), or religious experts, became
a separate branch of the government and their chief official, known as the
Shaykh al-Islam, played a similar role as the Jewish rabbis and Christian
patriarchs in managing the civil and religious affairs of the Muslim population
within the millet. In time, they’d gain more and more political power as well.
By the end of the 16th century, however, the Ottoman Empire had begun its
gradual decline. This was due to a number of factors some of which had been
initiated decades earlier. With the discovery and exploitation of the New World
by the Europeans, the Middle East was no longer the main trade rout between
East and West. Economic conditions deteriorated. Meanwhile, England and
the Netherlands led the rest of Europe in innovations in commerce and
manufacturing, willing to seek national interests beyond their borders.
Additionally, the Ottoman ulama had become too conservative by this time,
initially even blocking the importation of the printing press. The merit-based
system of ascending Ottoman high office had gradually given way to nepotism
and favouritism.
The Ottoman might was being alarmingly depleted even as a new world
power was taking shape in Europe.
WATCH THIS YOUTUBE VIDEO AND READ THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT
https://youtu.be/YMpfdpHPNDE
READINGS FOR the SECOND TOPIC
MODULE 7
Zionism
Zionism holds that Jews are a nation and should have rights like all other nations.
This may sound strange because we do not refer to Protestants or Buddhists as a
nation. Nevertheless, political Zionism is founded on this belief.
Everyone who is Jewish by faith is not necessarily a Zionist. Likewise, all Zionists are
not Jews. Those who oppose Zionism are not necessarily anti-Semitic (many Jews
oppose Zionism). Those who support Zionism may be Christians who either feel
guilty for the atrocities Christian governments had committed against Jews over the
centuries (culminating in the Holocaust). Or they simply opposed Jews being
assimilated in gentile (non-Jew) society, as many Europeans did for generations.
Some support Zionism for religious purposes: Christians believe that the second
coming of Christ will be realized only when Jews have been restored to Israel.
Likewise, those who support the Arab cause are not necessarily anti-Semitic either (though
some may be). They either do so to uphold human rights (including those of Arab Palestinians),
or because they think Zionism has tarnished the Jews’ image. Even some Jewish rabbis oppose
Zionism because, according to Jewish belief, there should be no Israel until God sends the
Messiah.
Originally the word “Jew” meant “a person from Judea,” the area which includes the
city of Jerusalem. Only later did the word come to signify Judaism. For over two
thousand years, most Jews were not Judeans (the majority lived in what is Poland
today, or in the Habsburg and Ottoman states). Most didn’t even speak Hebrew. It
was Christian Europe’s mistreatment of Jews, especially in the modern era, that
sparked the idea among Jews of a Jewish home free from discrimination. The idea of
Jews as a nation (Zionism) was not new. But the idea of making Palestine the home
of the Jewish nation (political Zionism) had its birth only in the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries.
WATCH VIDEO https://youtu.be/7um59knzmGo
Britain’s Role and the
Balfour Declaration
At the beginning of World War I, most Jews favoured the Central Powers: Germany,
Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire, firstly because most Jews lived in these
regions. Another reason for this support was the hatred among Jews of czarist
Russia’s treatment of their brethren. The British move to court the Zionists was
aimed at turning the tide and bringing the Jews over to its own side.
Then British foreign secretary Lord Arthur Balfour announced in a letter dated
November 2nd, 1917 the British support for the creation of a “national home for the
Jewish people” in Palestine. The letter was addressed to a leader of the Jewish
community in Britain, Lord Rothschild. This letter is considered the founding
document of political Zionism (Figure 2). In it, the British government publically
announced its support for the Zionist cause. Though it said Britain will support the
creation of a national home in Palestine for Jews, it did not say it will turn Palestine
into a Jewish state. It also specified that such support is premised on protecting the
rights of the non-Jewish (Muslim or Christian Arab) population already living in
Palestine, which at the time constituted 93% of the population. The Balfour
Declaration is celebrated by Zionists as the founding document of their nation, while
it is mourned by Arabs as a catastrophe (al-nakba) stripping them of their ancestral
lands. Meanwhile, the legacy of the British role in this event continues to impact the
lives of millions of innocent people on both sides.
WATCH VIDEO https://youtu.be/ljzfsxOx_r0
Palestine Mandate and the Beginning of Arab-Israeli Tensions
In 1922, the League of Nations gave Britain the Palestine mandate, with the
condition that the British must oversee the implementation of the Balfour
Declaration. No one at this time spoke of a Jewish state. Internationally, Britain
supported the Zionist cause while in Palestine they sided with the Arabs in an
attempt to win the favour of Muslim public opinion in neighbouring Arab countries
and in India. By the time then Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill rejected the idea
that Britain had promised a Jewish state in Palestine, both the Arabs and the Zionists
distrusted Britain. Angered by Britain’s double-dealing, some Arabs attacked Jewish
communities. Zionist organizations, too, such as the Revisionists, resorted to violence
against the Arabs and calling for an all-Jewish state cleansed from the Arab
population. The Revisionists’ philosophy has since informed the policies of Israeli
prime ministers such as Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Ariel Sharon, and
Benjamin Netanyahu.
In the 1930s, with the rise of the Nazi party, many Jews, in Germany and Poland
specifically, felt unsafe. Most European countries, as well as the U.S., refused to
admit German Jews. This opened the floodgates of Jewish migration into Palestine.
Arabs felt resentment because they felt they were paying the price for European
atrocities against the Jews. This resentment led to a general strike and then an open
rebellion in 1936, led by Hajj Amin al-Husayni, the British-appointed mufti (legal
officer) of Jerusalem. The British government sent in a commission of inquiry, called
the Peel Commission. The Commission’s report recommended partition. The Arabs
bitterly resisted partition. As they had done before, Britain first backed down and
then retracted the plan.
In an attempt to restore peace, the British called for direct negotiations between Arabs and
Jews in London in 1939 (Figure 3). The negotiations failed. As World War II was looming and
Britain needed Arab support, they issued a White Paper (policy statement) announcing that the
Palestine mandate would end in 10 years’ time and Palestine would become an independent
state. They also promised to limit Jewish immigration to 15,000 per year until 1944, after which
further immigration would be possible with Arab consent. The sale of Arab lands to Jews was
restricted as well. Now the Jews felt backstabbed by the British who had promised to oversee
the implementation of the Balfour Declaration.
Figure 3. The London Conference, 1939. Public Domain.
At the outset of World War II, some (not all) Arab leaders sided with Germany, not because
they supported Nazi treatment of Jews, but because they hoped with the aid of Germany, they
would finally be able to rid themselves of British imperialism. On the other side, most Jews,
fearing annihilation, supported the Allied cause even though they were still angry with the
British.
Growing U.S. Role in the
Palestinian Question
As the Zionists’ disillusionment in British support receded, they increasingly sought
American support. Besides, anti-Semitic sentiment was quite strong in the U.S. at this
time, so the general public did not want Jewish refugees or immigrants, though the
Zionist lobby was quite strong within the U.S. government. So in 1942 American
Zionists drafted what came to be known as the Biltmore Program. It demanded that
the British government withdraw the White Paper that denied the promise of
Palestine to the Jews and to make good on this promise. The World Zionist
Organization ratified this resolution.
As World War II was coming to an end and terrorist Zionist groups (such as the Irgun
Tzvei Le’umi or National Military Organization and the Stern Gang) mounted violent
activity and bombings (including blowing up British installations), the U.S.
government pressured its British counterpart to support a Jewish state and to lift all
restrictions on Jewish immigration into Palestine. To this end, an Anglo-American
Committee of Inquiry went in to investigate. The result was the recommendation to
accept 100,000 Jewish refugees from Europe at once and to lift all future restrictions
on Jewish purchase of land. The British government at the time rejected these
recommendations, suggesting instead an Arab-Jewish federated Palestine. This was
rejected by everyone, and finally Britain announced to the UN General Assembly in
February 1947 that it was ending its Palestine mandate.
The UN Partition Plan for
Palestine
After the takeover of the British Palestine mandate by the United Nations, the
General Assembly sent in an investigation commission. At this time two-thirds of
Palestine’s population was still Arab. Initially a joint Arab-Jewish state was proposed,
but it was rejected. Then the UN proposed partitioning Palestine into seven
principalities, three of which would be given to the Jews, three to the Arabs, and the
seventh, which included Bethlehem and Jerusalem, would be international citystates administered by the UN (Figure 4). The partition plan passed in the General
Assembly. It was rejected by all Arab member states but accepted by the Zionists.
Renewed tensions broke out between Arabs and Jews in Palestine with both sides
committing acts of terrorism and violence against civilians. There were many
incidences, but two famous ones are the massacre at Dayr-Yasin, a village on the
outskirts of Jerusalem, where 254 innocent civilians (including children) were
murdered by members of the Irgun (a Zionist paramilitary group operating between
1931-1948, an offshoot of the larger organization Haganah). This was followed by an
Arab ambush on a bus carrying medical staff going to the Hadassah Medical Centre
and killed 75 Jewish doctors, nurses, and professors. The Arab League threatened to
start a war to stop the partition plan. Meanwhile, King Abdallah of Jordan negotiated
with the Zionists in an attempt to annex the Arab lands of Palestine to his kingdom,
to the bitter opposition of other Arab leaders. The remaining British troops watched
as these tragic events unfolded.
Israel: A New State Is Born
The violence on both sides was so bad that the American representative at the UN
suggested in March 19…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment