How do you explain Nasser’s triumph in the 1956 Suez conflict in contrast to his devastating loss in the 1967 War? Explain what had changed for Nasser to make the outcomes of each war so different. See uploaded document for all instructions.
Sample Solution
Nasser’s triumph in the 1956 Suez conflict was due largely to the efforts of international actors, particularly those of the United Nations and its Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld. Acting as a mediator between Egypt and its former colonial ruler, Britain, Hammarskjöld helped broker a ceasefire that forced Britain, France, and Israel to withdraw from Egyptian territory. This was a great victory for Nasser who had stood up to foreign intervention by refusing to accept British control over his country’s economy. His success in this conflict further entrenched his reputation as an Arab leader with the willingness and capability to stand up for Arab interests against Western interference.
In contrast, Nasser’s devastating loss in the 1967 War was brought about by changes in political dynamics on both regional and global levels which had occurred since 1956. Firstly, during this intervening period there had been growing tensions between Egypt and other regional powers such as Syria and Jordan – culminating with Egyptian troops occupying Sinai Peninsula following skirmishes with Syrian forces. These internal divisions made it difficult for Nasser to rally a unified response when war broke out between Israel and several Arab nations including Egypt in June 1967.
Sample Solution
Nasser’s triumph in the 1956 Suez conflict was due largely to the efforts of international actors, particularly those of the United Nations and its Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld. Acting as a mediator between Egypt and its former colonial ruler, Britain, Hammarskjöld helped broker a ceasefire that forced Britain, France, and Israel to withdraw from Egyptian territory. This was a great victory for Nasser who had stood up to foreign intervention by refusing to accept British control over his country’s economy. His success in this conflict further entrenched his reputation as an Arab leader with the willingness and capability to stand up for Arab interests against Western interference.
In contrast, Nasser’s devastating loss in the 1967 War was brought about by changes in political dynamics on both regional and global levels which had occurred since 1956. Firstly, during this intervening period there had been growing tensions between Egypt and other regional powers such as Syria and Jordan – culminating with Egyptian troops occupying Sinai Peninsula following skirmishes with Syrian forces. These internal divisions made it difficult for Nasser to rally a unified response when war broke out between Israel and several Arab nations including Egypt in June 1967.
Vocabulary knowledge is often viewed as a critical tool for second language learners because a limited vocabulary in a second language impedes successful communication. Underscoring the importance of vocabulary acquisition, Schmitt (2000) emphasizes that “lexical knowledge is central to communicative competence and to the acquisition of a second language” p. 55) Nation (2001) further describes the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and language use as complementary: knowledge of vocabulary enables language use and, conversely, language use leads to an increase in vocabulary knowledge. The importance of vocabulary is demonstrated daily in and out the school. In classroom, the achieving students possess the most sufficient vocabulary. Researchers such as Laufer and Nation (1999), Maximo (2000), Read (2000), Gu (2003), Marion and others have realized that the acquisition of vocabulary is essential for successful second language use and plays an important role in the formation of complete spoken and written texts. In English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) learning vocabulary items plays a vital role in all language skills (i.e. listening, speaking, reading, and writing (Nation, 2011). Rivers and Nunan (1991), furthermore, argue that the acquisition of an adequate vocabulary is essential for successful second language use because without an extensive vocabulary, we will be unable to use the structures and functions we may have learned for comprehensible communication. Research has shown that second language readers rely heavily on vocabulary knowledge and the lack of that knowledge is the main and the largest obstacle for L2 readers to overcome (Huckin, 1995). In production, when we have a meaning or concept that we wish to express, we need to have a store of words from which we can select to express this meaning or concept. ‘‘When students travel, they don’t carry grammar books, they carry dictionaries’’ (Krashen, as cited in Lewis, 1993, p25). Many researchers argue that vocabulary is one of the most important-if not the most important- components in learning a foreign language, and foreign language curricula must reflect this. Wilkins (1972) states that: ‘‘There is not much value in being able to produce grammatical sentences if one has not got the vocabulary that is needed to convey what one wishes to say … While without grammar very little can be conveyed, without vocabulary nothing can be conveyed’’ p97). Other scholars such as Richards (1980) and Krashen (1989), as cited in Maximo (2000) state many reasons for devoting attention to vocabulary. “First, a large vocabulary is of course essential for mastery of a language. Second language acquirers know this; they carry dictionaries with them, not grammar books, and regularly report that the lack of vocabulary is a major problem’’.
