Political & Historical Essay Examples & Outline
Are you in High School, College, Masters, Bachelors or PhD and need assistance with your essay or research paper? All you need is to buy an essay written by a specialist in your academic field . When you buy a research paper from us, we offer you an original, nil plagiarized dedicated proofreader, writer and editors who is PhD or Masters qualified. taogoba.info is an experienced service with over 9 years experience having delivered over 83,000 essays over the years.
Egypt and Syria Attack Israel; Egypt Requests Soviet Aid
When Egypt and Syria attacked Israel, they received support from a number of other countries which included Jordan, Palestine, Algeria, Morocco and the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union had been involved with Israel and Egypt some time back when the Israelis took land that did not belong to them. The Egyptian president at the time promised the Israelis that there would be a war if they did not return the land so they asked help from America but were turned down. They then asked help from the Soviet Union who also turned them down and in turn the Soviets were kicked out of Egypt. This is why the Soviet Union would be the most unlikely country to collaborate with Egypt especially after the incident.
During this war, some of the decisions made were based on how much the countries wanted to benefit from each other and how much power each of them had. The fact that the countries collaborated against each other showed that they all had a point of interest or a common feature that held them together. Most of the strategies undertaken were based on political matters and each of the decisions made was based on the political implications or economic implications that they would have. In order to maintain respect and peace between the countries, there are decisions that had to be made in regard to this and each of the decision would have a significant effect on the involved parties.
America had tried to convince the Soviet Union against supporting Egypt in the war but their efforts were futile. Once it failed, America joined Israel in fighting against Egypt and all the other countries that supported it (The Middle East, 221). The countries involved offered supporting by giving aircraft squadrons of fighters and bombers, several hundred tanks as well as men who participated in battle. On the other hand, Israel was also supplied with the necessary equipment by America.
This shows that America and the Soviet Union did not fight directly but there was clear conflict between the two countries. The two countries were fighting against one another in an effort to prove who was more powerful than the other so they used other countries to demonstrate how much power they have and who would prove to be the best at that.
The war has had a number of implications on the political, economic and societal sectors of most of the countries involved. These implications may either be positive or negative depending on what sector of the economy was affected. It was also during this war that the loyalty of the different countries was tested. For example, the president of Jordan was not willing to take part in the war since he observed that the forces he had could not manage to go against the Israelis (Hadden, 196). In spite of that, he had to portray brotherhood to Egyptians giving some of his best troops and a number of tanks. This saw to it that he honored the brotherhood code of the Arabs.
Since the United States was so intent on proving to Egypt that they could not win a war with the support of the Soviet Union, they had to do things out of the normal procedure in order to achieve what they wanted. Initially, the Soviets were very involved in supporting Egypt by providing all the essential equipment such as weapons which were airlifted to the region. On the other hand, the United States gave Israel some ammunition and spare parts although they were not willing to extend their support (Burns, 99).
The Soviets kept supporting Egypt whole heatedly offering more material for the war. This proved as a threat to the United States who decided to increase their supplies to Israel. This is also another example of the struggle for power that existed between them and the need for either one of them to win and the lengths they would go to in order to ensure that this happened.
One of the most significant impacts of the attack against Israel was that concerning oil production and the prices of oil. Most of the Arab countries were the main oil producers in the world and they had so much influence on world oil prices as well as the distribution of oil all over the world. That meant that they could control what happened in countries where they exported the oil and this would in turn have an economic impact on the countries in question. This is the strategy they had in mind in a bid to attack America through the economic sector.
The plan was to cause a shortage of oil in America by reducing the amount of oil that they exported (Meytal, 63). By doing so, oil prices would automatically fluctuate and this would take a toll on the American economy. In light of this, the Arab countries proved to be more powerful than the United States in terms of how their product was depended upon and how much effect it had on the economy.
Other than affecting the economy, the main purpose of using oil to get to the United States was an attempt by the Arab states to get the United States to support them. A good number of the countries that depended on the Middle East countries were greatly affected by the new oil prices and had to act fast before the problem became worse. The only way out was to collaborate with the Arab states against Israel (Jabber, 79). This means that they collaborated against their own state in spite of the fact that they had been supporting them during the war. Out of this plan, there was meant to be a picture that Israel was the one to blame for the changes in oil prices and the effect that it had on the economy. By the time, the oil embargo was lifted; the oil crisis had had a huge effect on the economy which is still felt until now.
The Soviet Union was not intent on maintaining peace in Egypt, which were proposed by the United States. This is why they were not ready to sign any peace treaty or peace agreement that would make the way come to an end. It was during this period that the war started to favour the Israelis who appeared to be on the winning side. There were calls made that were aimed at stopping the way which was becoming much worse than the way it was at the beginning. When the Israeli forces almost destroyed the opposing troops, there was a resolution by the UN Security council which was meant stop countries from fighting which would lead to further damage.
It was during the process of looking for a peace agreement that the United States tried to make an agreement with Syria which was quite a process. This was done after 37 soldiers had been killed when Syrians attacked Israelis. The separation of forces agreement that was meant to ensure peace was used to create a police buffer zone, reduction in troop deployment among others (Official Records, 54). The president in Syria was offered financial aid by the United States in an effort to get something in return which in this case ought to be negotiating for a peace agreement. Instead of enhancing peace, the president was seen to be in support of the war for his own personal reasons. He felt that the peace agreement would lead to a loss on the Egypt side and also the fact that Syria may not get a solution for the grievances of his country.
The war also had an effect on the administration of the some of the countries involved such as Israel. The Israel intelligence was analysing the initial stages of the war and observed that there had been enough warnings concerning then impending attack and how much this would affect them. There was also a case of failure to communicate or interpret information correctly which may have been the case in this situation. Those who were involved in the Israel intelligence were up for questioning and some were blamed by the public for not correcting their mistakes (London, 104). Examples of such people were the prime minister and the defense ministers who were not questioned in regard to the mistakes that the public viewed to be made by them. The end opinion in this case was that military career officials did not deserve the blame that they received since the political leaders were the ones to be blamed.
By the end of the war, Egypt felt that they had won the war in spite of the fact that they had been defeated. Their opinion was that they could have won the war if Israel had not received support from America. Since they were almost able to win the war, it was considered a win situation for them and they were ready to sign the peace agreement eventually (Meri Report, 58). This was led to a closer relationship between Egypt and the Soviet Union. These countries were involved in training programs and economic aids which were not entirely what they wanted; instead the country was looking for political influence of the political elite in Egypt.
The war saw to it that each of the countries held a significant lesson to it which they hang on and depended upon. For instant, the Middle East countries learned to be a lot more cautious when it came to making collaborations especially in line with the effect that the war had on them. For example, most Middle Eastern states have learnt to be suspicious of powerful states that were interested in the pursuit of policies in the region. The Middle Eastern countries claim to not be under the influence of the Soviet Union in spite of the fact that they had been provided with military support hence making their personnel stronger and more competitive. Once the Soviet Union took away their military personnel, the army in the Middle Eastern countries became weaker showing that there was a level of dependence between the countries.
Burns, William J. Economic Aid and American Policy toward Egypt, 1955-1981. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1985. Print.
Golan, Gallia. Yom Kippur and After: The Soviet Union and the Middle East Crisis.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Print.
Hadden, Briton, and Henry R. Luce. Time. New York, etc: Time Inc., 1923. Print.Jabber, Paul. Not by the War Alone. , 1981. Print.London, Lurt. The Soviet Impact on World Politics. , 1974. Print.
Meri Report, Egypt. London: C. Helm, 1985. Print.
Meytạl, Yôrām. Egypt's Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977. Gainesville [u.a.: Univ. Press of Florida, 1997. Print.
Official Records: Proces-verbaux Officiels / Nations Unies, Conseil De Securite. New York: s.n., 1946. Print.The Middle East, Abstracts and Index. Pittsburgh, Penn: Library Information and Research Service, 1978.