Question
Examine the importance of economic and political factors as causes of the 1979 revolution in Iran.
Answer/Explanation
Ans:
Candidates must demonstrate a clear understanding of the importance of economic and political factors. The main focus should be on these; however a range of other factors may be considered in order to reach a judgment on “importance”.
Indicative content
Political and economic factors:
• There may be discussion of economic issues such as the total dependency on oil, high military spending, inflation of 20 per cent by 1977 and high unemployment, especially in Tehran. The perceived extravagance of the regime also led to criticism.
• Political issues such as limited civil rights, the fact that Iran was a single-party state from 1976 and the use of the political police (SAVAK) to stifle dissent caused discontent amongst more liberal Iranians.
• Further to the above, there was the alienation of different groups such as the bazarri, the Ulema, unemployed workers and young educated Iranians who wanted political reform.
Other factors:
• The impact of westernization also played a role, although this was largely in the cities and did not extend to rural areas. Westernization tended to be limited to urban middle and upper classes and was seen by traditionalists as anti-Islamic, particularly by the clergy.
• The events of 1978/1979 were the culmination of a range of factors, including political, economic and religious. The inconsistent response of the regime, which veered between repression and conciliation raised the levels of tension and led to the Shah leaving the country.
The above material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. However, it is not exhaustive and no set answer is required.
Examiners and moderators are reminded of the need to apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and to award credit wherever it is possible to do so.
Question
Examine the reasons for Israel’s military dominance in the Middle East between 1949 and 1973.
Answer/Explanation
Ans:
Candidates may focus more closely on particular conflicts to support their analysis. Key factors may vary from conflict to conflict; however conclusions should try and determine whether or not there was continuity throughout the period with regard to one or two key factors. Arguments should be supported with detail from specific conflicts.
Indicative content
• Arab disunity was certainly a factor in the 1948/49 conflict. There was no unified military leadership and there was also suspicion as to the motivation of King Abdullah of Jordan who seemed more focused on gaining territory. In the Suez conflict Egypt was acting alone although Nasser had the support of Arab states in the United Nations. Jordan was to some extent a reluctant ally in 1967 whereas in 1973 Arab nations worked together and Sadat had the support of Syria and financial support of Saudi Arabia.
• Israeli military experience and training could be seen a key factor in 1948/49 as much of the Israeli army had fought with the Allies during the Second World War and were well trained and experienced. On the Arab side only the Jordanian Arab Legion was well trained and led. Subsequently the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) were formed with the ability to rely on well trained reserves. The IDF had a highly-trained leadership with well-developed strategies.
• Superior equipment could also be considered. Israel, although lacking arms initially in 1948/49, was able to use a ceasefire to buy more with the assistance of overseas funding, largely from the US. The US continued to supply aid throughout the 1950s and 1960s, enabling the IDF to purchase the most up-to-date armaments. Furthermore, Israel’s developed economy also supported defence spending. Arab nations tended to rely on Soviet support, which was not always consistent. In 1973 the Egyptian forces were well equipped and had the element of surprise but were still defeated.
The above material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. However, it is not exhaustive and no set answer is required.
Examiners and moderators are reminded of the need to apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and to award credit wherever it is possible to do so.
Question
Compare and contrast the domestic policies of Nasser and Sadat.
Answer/Explanation
Ans:
The focus here is on the similarities and differences in key domestic policy areas such as political power, the economy and social policy. Candidates may well argue that both Nasser and Sadat led largely authoritarian presidential regimes but had significantly different attitudes to the economy; Nasser being perceived as a “socialist” and Sadat, to some extent, an advocate of capitalism and a free market.
Indicative content
Comparisons
- Both were dominant political leaders as president and ultimately controlled policy direction.
- Both relied on the support of the military as a power-base although Sadat did not allow the army so much political influence.
- Both relied on repression and a secret intelligence service to deal with potential opposition (the Mukhaberat under Nasser and the Central Security Police under Sadat).
- Both had powerful parties that dominated politics. Nasser led the Arab Socialist Union and Sadat the National Democratic Party, although Sadat allowed small opposition parties to operate.
Contrasts
- Nasser pursued “Arab Socialism” via Land Reform Acts, reform of Labour Laws and State control of the economy; State Capitalism was implemented in the First Five Year Plan (1960). He also reduced foreign involvement in the economy via actions such as the nationalization of the Suez Canal in 1956.
- Sadat encouraged the development of the private sector in Egypt and also encouraged foreign investment. In agriculture his policies favoured the richer landowners. In general, under Sadat there was a declining standard of living for workers and peasants.
- Socially, Nasser appeared to favour change, allowing some progress in the legal status of women whereas Sadat favoured a much more traditional role for women.
- Nasser refused to allow the Muslim Brotherhood to function openly, whereas Sadat relaxed tight controls as long as the Brotherhood focused on religion.
The above material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. However, the list is not exhaustive and no set answer is required.
Examiners are reminded of the need to apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and to award credit wherever it is possible to do so.
Question
“The issue of the Occupied Territories was the major obstacle to peace in the period up to 2000.” Discuss.
Answer/Explanation
Ans:
Responses are expected to identify the main factors that have, at various stages, been a hindrance to peace between Israel and its neighbours. Apart from the Occupied Territories (Gaza and the West Bank) these could include issues such as recognition of Israel’s right to exist, the Palestinian refugee problem, terrorist activities, the “right of return” and the problem of Israeli settlement.
Indicative content
- The initial stages of the peace process were the Camp David Agreements (1978) and the Washington Treaty (1979). At this point the Occupied Territories were not a key issue in negotiations.
- The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) kept the issue of Palestinian refugees alive throughout the 1970s. However as early as 1974 Arafat indicated that he would accept a Palestinian state in Gaza. The 1988 Intifada brought the issue of the Occupied Territories to the fore. Israel rejected the suggestion of a two-state solution, maintaining that the Occupied Territories preserved its security.
- After the end of the Cold War, the US was willing to put more pressure on Israel and the PLO to make peace. The Oslo Accords of 1993 and 1995 agreed moves towards a measure of self-government and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza and parts of the West Bank. However, there were still significant problems that remained unresolved; the continued presence of Israeli troops in parts of the West Bank, the question of whether Israel would recognize a Palestinian state, the settler issue, the status of Jerusalem and the “right of return”.
- The emergence of groups such as Hamas, terrorist attacks, the death of Rabin, the election of Netanyahu in 1996 and the Israeli military clampdown in 1997 were also factors that hindered attempts to reach a peace agreement in the years up to 2000.
The above material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. However, the list is not exhaustive and no set answer is required.
Examiners are reminded of the need to apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and to award credit wherever it is possible to do so.