Blair the new middle East envoy

[myata]

Story: BBC. Well, I'm not sure that given his role in creating the Iraq mess he'll have enrough credibity to make a positive contribution to fixing the old one. On the good side, it may emphasize Britain's (and West in general) part of responsibility in settling this other hot spot that originated in the times of colonial administration.

[Mad_Michael]

Story: BBC. Well, I'm not sure that given his role in creating the Iraq mess he'll have enrough credibity to make a positive contribution to fixing the old one. On the good side, it may emphasize Britain's (and West in general) part of responsibility in settling this other hot spot that originated in the times of colonial administration.

Agreed.

Blair's personal qualities, N.Ireland experience and international connections make him ideal for the position.

Blair's complicity in the Iraqi debacle and his support of Bush make it unlikely that he will be trusted by anyone or that he will achieve anything.

Oh... and there's no way you can blame the Middle East mess on colonialism. Certainly Britain and France have historically done their best to screw the place up for their own fun and profit, and lately have been joined in the same game by USA and USSR/Russia. But one only has to survey 18th & early 19th century Middle Eastern history (mostly prior to substantive colonialist involvement) to see that every problem presently identified in the Middle East was already in full bloom at that time.

Western colonialism has only magnified or excentuated (and complicated) the inherent problems and tensions that have long inhabited the Middle East.

[myata]

Oh... and there's no way you can blame the Middle East mess on colonialism. But one only has to survey 18th & early 19th century Middle Eastern history (mostly prior to substantive colonialist involvement) ...

If I recall correctly, prior to occupation by Britain (under League of Nations mandate), the place was a part of the Ottoman empire. I'm sure they had some issues at the time but I can't see how it's relevant to today's situation. Then, while under British occupation, there happened to come about a massive immigration of foreign nationals, out of the blue and apparently while British were looking the other way. Then the British protectors themselves were kicked out (or withdrew according to the plan - there're different theories to that). Hard to pretend that it's something that's just happened. Anyways, the British were the protectors of the territory at the time and as such should take their share of kudos for the result. Not to the exclusion of others who pulled through the speedy "settlement" that sparkled the conflict that will last who knows how long. And of course, the main parties themselves who seem so grounded in the past that there's little hope for the future.

[fellowtraveller]

I wonder how Blair or his cronies would measure 'success' in the Middle east?

[Mad_Michael]

If I recall correctly, prior to occupation by Britain (under League of Nations mandate), the place was a part of the Ottoman empire. I'm sure they had some issues at the time but I can't see how it's relevant to today's situation.

Yes, the geographic region that is presently known as Israel, Palestine/West Bank, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Persian Gulf, Iraq, Turkey, Egypt and most of the north coast of Africa was ruled by the Sultan of the Ottoman Turks.

By the late 18th century, the Ottoman Empire became increasingly weak and was falling apart. By the early 19th, they were completely bankrupt. With an ambitious Russia (the ancestral enemy of the Ottomans) likely to defeat Ottomans and take over that region, the Brits & French did their best to 'prop-up' the Ottomans (in order to forstall Russian takeover of Turkey). The Ottoman Empire then choose to support Germany in WW1 and upon losing that war completely collapsed to nothing.

It is at that time that the Brits and the French received their 'mandates' from the League of Nations, making them 'responsible' for Palestine, Jordan, Iraq & Egypt (Britain) and Syria and Lebanon (France).

Then, while under British occupation, there happened to come about a massive immigration of foreign nationals, out of the blue and apparently while British were looking the other way.

Zionism was 'established' in the late 19th century. That was when the Jews began to immigrate to Israel. This was during Ottoman control, 30-40 years before British control of this region was established.

That being said, Jewish immigration to Israel certainly did pick up during the 1920's under the rule of the British 'mandate'. I believe there was an average of 20,000-30,000 Jewish immigrants per year to Israel/Palestine during the 1920's, then an average of 30,000-40,000 per year during the 1930's.

Then the British protectors themselves were kicked out (or withdrew according to the plan - there're different theories to that). Hard to pretend that it's something that's just happened. Anyways, the British were the protectors of the territory at the time and as such should take their share of kudos for the result.

No one has ever denied Britain's 'premier' position in creating the state of Israel. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 is the defining 'evidence' of this fact.

My point about Western European colonialism was entirely to say that ALL of the key problems that bedevil the middle east to this day, were all present prior to the establishment of European colonial rule in the Middle East.

Indeed, prior to WW1, really only Lebanon, Syria and Egypt had substantial western colonial connections.

Not to the exclusion of others who pulled through the speedy "settlement" that sparkled the conflict that will last who knows how long. And of course, the main parties themselves who seem so grounded in the past that there's little hope for the future.

Yes, all of the western nations are 'complicit' in the granting of statehood to Israel.

And I do disagree that there's no hope. Politics can and do change over time. The 'two-state' theory for example. That idea was first (substantively) offered back in the late 1940's and was utterly, completely and contemptuously rejected by the Palestinians at that time. The Jews also completely rejected that proposal. Now, things look quite different upon that particular policy proposal. Reality appears to be creeping in on the hardliners no matter how much they don't like it.

That being said, the militant Jewish aggression in the creation, fortification and maintenance of settlements on occupied Palestinian territory is guarenteed to be a cause for bloodshed for decades to come - no matter what happens with official peace plans. Ultimately, it is these settlers that are the true stumbling block to any real peace deal 'on the ground' there.

I sincerely wish Tony Blair the best of luck in his endeavour. Blair/Britain does offer the opportunity for a 'face-saving' action for Israel that does not pander to the US and that is critically important in the middle east region.

[myata]

My point about Western European colonialism was entirely to say that ALL of the key problems that bedevil the middle east to this day, were all present prior to the establishment of European colonial rule in the Middle East.

OK, ruling by divide and conquer, plotting and interferening, setting up a foreign state, not to mention two world wars and most recent "democratization" campaign, do not amount to a "key problem"? What are the real ones? And how do they relate to reality we see on the ground? Let's see:

Lebanon: certainly it's multi denominational population could be a potential cause for sporadic explosions. A border with Israel contributes not a small bit to already complicated conundrum.

Iran-Iraq war: not a secret that secular Iraqi regime of President Saddam Hussein (later to be known and despised dictator Saddam) enjoyed significant aid from West in its war against Islamic Iran.

Islamism (in Iran and throughout the region): massive support (and occasiounal interference in favour) of quasi-secular or "moderate" regimes is not in the least responsible for polarisation and upsurge in popularity of radical Islamism. This policy is widespread: Iran (removal of Mossadeq replaced by Shah), Saudi Arabia, Egypt.

Israel: surely, the questionnable way in which it was originated and created has added a major hotspot into the region.

Democratization and Iraq: another obvious example of interference to install a friendly regime in a "wanted" country. Apparently the example of Iran and Vietnam haven't taught us much.

I have to admit, I have never studied the history of the region, and probably some major details are missing in this analysis. However, if there're other "key" problems in the region, what exactly would they be?

[Mad_Michael]

OK, ruling by divide and conquer, plotting and interferening, setting up a foreign state, ...

Are you describing the Ottomans or the Western Powers here?

The Ottomans practically invented the art of 'divide and rule'. They were masters at 're-locating' racial minorities around to make sure there was never any dominant racial majority in any given locality that could challenge their rule. The Balkans of Southern Europe and the Middle East are a legacy of this policy of Government by the Ottomans enacted over the last five centuries.

What are the real ones? And how do they relate to reality we see on the ground?

1. The Middle East is host to most of the holy sites for Jews, Christians and Muslims. This has always been a major source of tension in the region. This issue has always fueled beliefs by one religious group of nefarious motives/actions by the other religious groups. This issue is always hot and has endured for over 1300 years so far.

2. Ever since Sultan Mehmet IV's last unsuccessful siege on Vienna in 1683 (commanded by Mustafa), the Muslim world has been on the losing end of just about every major military confrontation with Europeans. Where once the Ottoman army of elite Janissary warriors was much feared, by the late-17th century, European scientific and technical advantages on the battlefield had made the Janissaries pretty much impotent. This fact drives an extraordinary amount of Arabic and Islamic sense of 'humilitation' at the hands of Christian Europe (Arabs apparently define 'humiliation' as anything other than their own victory and/or domination).

3. The Islamic people may rightfully claim that in the 11th century AD, Islamic culture was more advanced and sophisticated, with more advanced science, mathematics, medicine and astronomy than Christian Europe. By the 18th century, the Islamic world lagged far behind Christian Europe in every one of these categories. Again, this fact fuels an extraordinary amount of Arabic and Islamic sense of 'humiliation' at the hands of Christian Europe.

4. The fact that Arabic/Islamic culture lags so far behind the Christian West in science, technology and industry also fuels a second source of division in the Arabic/Islamic world - as to how to address this fact - should Arabic/Islamic society modernize/liberalize/westernize in order to advance their standard of living or remain reliant on western technology and trade? Or close their doors and shut themselves off and pretend that its is still the 14th century?

5. The longstanding political-tribal factionism of Sunni vs Shi'ite complicates all political issues in the Middle East given that society in the Middle East is still primarily based on tribal clans - and every tribal clan is either Sunni or Shi'ite.

6. The failure of the institution of government in the Middle East. Because there is no substantive concept or principle of 'nation-state' or 'good-government' or 'representative government' (or civil society for that matter) in the Islamic world, their governments have always been corrupt, disfunctional, arbitrary and self-serving. Enormous and systematic corruption is why the Ottoman Empire collapsed and the same level of endemic corruption has defined governments in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey ever since. Indeed, it was corruption and incompetent government that brought down the old Caliphate and allowed the Ottomans to take over so many centuries ago. And it is endemic corruption of government throughout the Middle East to this day that makes any progress on any issue, almost impossible to achieve.

7. The failure of nationalism. Nationalism is the method by which the Western nations forged themselves into coherent political unities known as nation-states. This is a very powerful, efficient and effective form of political organisation. In the Middle East, there is an irreconcilable difference between Turkish, Egyptian or Persian nationalism and Arab Islamicism. This is yet another fissure point in Middle East politics. This is often cited as the failure of pan-Arabism. Islamic culture (for the most part) does not admit of the validity of a secular state government.

So there you have a list of some 'endemic' problems of the Middle East. The religious crossroads, the Arab/Islamic sense of inferiority to the West and Christianity, the overwhelming technological, economic, scientific and military power of the Western nations, the conflict between Sunni & Shi'ites as well as the conflict between traditionalists and modernisers, and the conflict between nationalists and Islamicists.

All of these issues and conflicts in the Middle East all predate the arrival of Western colonial power and/or Western military conquests of the 19th and 20th century. As I noted above, the arrival of Western powers directly into the Middle East during the last two centuries has served to magnify and/or intesify all of these long-simmering disputes and fault-lines in the region of the Middle East. But these issues all predate the arrival of the Western powers and the creation of the state of Israel.

Btw, are familiar with the history of Islam and the Jews? They have always been allies and friends for the last 1300 years right up until the advent of Whabbism out of Saudi Arabia (with its own native form of

militant anti-semitism) and Nazi's attempts to develop alliances with Turkey & Iran between WW1 & WW2. At that time, the Arabs acquired a virolent hatred of Jews and that pre-dates the establishment of Israel.

So, there you have it in a nutshell - some of the most long standing issues in the Middle East. Added together, the place is a simmering cauldron of political instability - even without the presence of Israel or Western colonial/imperial powers.

This in no way, shape or form, may be construed as an attempt to paint the Western Powers as lily white and innocent of the present smoulding mess in the Middle East. As you quite rightly pointed out, they are up to their eyeballs in involvement there. But my only point is that the Western powers did not make the Middle East into the mess it is - only contributed & complicated to the Arabic/Islamic mess that long existed there - and has certainly made the whole mess worse and harder than ever to resolve.

Bottom line is that the mess in the Middle East is very much an Islamic issue. They will do everything they can to blame the West for their own problems - and that is what they do all the time - while the Arab/Islamic rulers contintue their mis-rule, with all their corruption and inefficiency and violence towards their own people.

[ScottSA]

Btw, are familiar with the history of Islam and the Jews? They have always been allies and friends for the last 1300 years right up until the advent of Whabbism out of Saudi Arabia (with its own native form of

militant anti-semitism) and Nazi's attempts to develop alliances with Turkey & Iran between WW1 & WW2. At that time, the Arabs acquired a virolent hatred of Jews and that pre-dates the establishment of Israel.

This is a mistake in an otherwise well researched post. Hostility to the Jews is as old as the origins of Islam, when Mohammed slaughtered and enslaved two entire Jewish tribes, branding them "pigs and apes." Since then Jews have lived as Dhimmis under Islam wherever Islam ruled. Naturally, Islamic apologists claim this as "tolerant" behavior, but its far from it.

[myata]

As it appears, we apply different meaning when we say "problem" so there needs to be some clarification here. I'm talking about the problems from the regional stability perspective. Those like: wars, major violence, hot spots and so on. You're obviously looking more into philosophical / social problems. Which is OK and absolutely legitimate, however they aren't the same kind of problems. BTW, no country or society is free of this kind of problems. So, let's see:

1. The Middle East is host to most of the holy sites for Jews, Christians and Muslims. This has always been a major source of tension in the region. .... This issue is always hot and has endured for over 1300 years so far.

While a legitimate issue for cultural and even maybe international policy (e.g. w.r.t access to Holy Sites or treatment of minorities), it was not a major regional stability problem, other than in selected very localized areas (like Lebanon as mentioned in my earlier post) due to the simple fact that Muslim population is (or was before creation of Israel) by far prevalent in the region. You'd have to point to a major confrontation between denominations from within the region (ie. Crusades won't count) to prove otherwise.

2. Ever since Sultan Mehmet IV's last unsuccessful siege on Vienna in 1683 (commanded by Mustafa), the Muslim world has been on the losing end of just about every major military confrontation with Europeans.

.....

3. The Islamic people may rightfully claim that in the 11th century AD, Islamic culture was more advanced and sophisticated, ....

4. The fact that Arabic/Islamic culture lags so far behind the Christian West in science, technology and industry also fuels a second source of division in the Arabic/Islamic world ...

All are important cultural phylosophical issues for the Eastern societies to be concerned with. I don't see how they are related (in any direct manner, as all things in the world are related in some way) to the regional stability. If their technology lags behind, it's up to them to fix it. It does not give us the right to interfere in their affairs, nor teach them how they should live.

5. The longstanding political-tribal factionism of Sunni vs Shi'ite complicates all political issues in the Middle East given that society in the Middle East is still primarily based on tribal clans - and every tribal clan is either Sunni or Shi'ite.

Here my knowledge is in sufficient as is information in your post. I understand that is a major religious divide, however how important is/was it as a stability issue? I.e. can you point to any/many major cases of tensions that did not result, or were strongly affected by interference from outside the region. Such as: US propping Sunni governments (Saudi Arabia) against Shia (Iran), and more recently, actions of the coalition in Iraq. Otherwise it would be just another example of "divide and conquer" strategy which is directly linked to my argument.

6. The failure of the institution of government in the Middle East. Because there is no substantive concept or principle of 'nation-state' or 'good-government' or 'representative government' (or civil society for that matter) ...

7. The failure of nationalism. Nationalism is the method by which the Western nations forged themselves into coherent political unities known as nation-states ...

More socio-philosophy. Definitely something for the Eastern societies to consider, but none of our business nonetheless.

So there you have a list of some 'endemic' problems of the Middle East.

.....

Bottom line is that the mess in the Middle East is very much an Islamic issue.

But there isn't many "endemic" ones that relate to the real actual "mess" on the ground (ie., not counting socio philosophy, which is a topic for another however fascinating discussion). So far we have #1 multi-ethnic tensions in localized hotspots and #5, tensions between major religion dialects, yet to be confirmed as a real stability issue, after discounting all the effects from external interference.

Not much and none has much to with Islam. These kind of problems occur anywhere on the planet whatever ethnicity or religion involved. There're obvious example everybody will be able to point out.

What you may wanted to say is that Eastern societies have deep socio-economical challenges that perhaps can be traced in some aspects to their religiouos culture. That may be correct, but it in no way by itself explains the unacceptable security situation in the region, absolves those who interfered from their responsibility or gives them a reason to continue meddling.

[Mad_Michael]

As it appears, we apply different meaning when we say "problem" so there needs to be some clarification here. I'm talking about the problems from the regional stability perspective. Those like: wars, major violence, hot spots and so on. You're obviously looking more into philosophical / social problems. Which is OK and absolutely legitimate, however they aren't the same kind of problems. BTW, no country or society is free of this kind of problems.

These problems are not duplicated in any other place on the globe. For the most part, they describe major and deep-seated social/cultural divisions within the Middle East.

While a legitimate issue for cultural and even maybe international policy (e.g. w.r.t access to Holy Sites or treatment of minorities), it was not a major regional stability problem, other than in selected very localized areas (like Lebanon as mentioned in my earlier post) due to the simple fact that Muslim population is (or was before creation of Israel) by far prevalent in the region. You'd have to point to a major confrontation between denominations from within the region (ie. Crusades won't count) to prove otherwise.

You mean like the Egyptian invasions of Saudi Arabia and Syria? Or the conquest of Yemen? Or war between Iran & Iraq?

Btw, the situation in Lebanon has been pretty much going on as it presently is for about two centuries now. That place is really fractured by a half-dozen racial-religious groups. This was a direct result of Ottoman policy & Ottoman rule.

All are important cultural phylosophical issues for the Eastern societies to be concerned with. I don't see how they are related (in any direct manner, as all things in the world are related in some way) to the regional stability. If their technology lags behind, it's up to them to fix it. It does not give us the right to interfere in their affairs, nor teach them how they should live.

No, technology doesn't require the West to rule the Middle East. But in actuality, the Arab/Islamic desire for western technology, western science and western weaponry enables, facilitates and essentially 'causes' Western influence to dominate.

The influence of the West then in turn creates more political instability that only more western weapons and western technolgy and western wealth can help to control.

Here my knowledge is in sufficient as is information in your post. I understand that is a major religious divide, however how important is/was it as a stability issue? I.e. can you point to any/many major cases of tensions that did not result, or were strongly affected by interference from outside the region. Such as: US propping Sunni governments (Saudi Arabia) against Shia (Iran), and more recently, actions of the coalition in Iraq. Otherwise it would be just another example of "divide and conquer" strategy which is directly linked to my argument.

Iraq is a perfect example. It was ruled by a tiny Sunni minority (originally supported by Saudi Arabia because it is a fellow Sunni state) over the Shi'ite majority that had no political power.

What you are seeing today in Iraq is what happens when the Sunni strongman was removed (along with the Saudi paymasters). The Shi'ites are re-asserting their numerical superiority and seeking vengence for Sunni rule over them.

And the direct US military support for Saudi only began in 1991 when Saddam invaded Kuwait. The Saudi's rule over their own country is rather unstable at best and they felt very threatened by both Saddam's army and their own people overthrowing the House of Saud in an Islamic revolution (Iranian style). Thus, the King of Saud requested US troops be stationed in Saudi to enforce the rule of the House of Saud against the threat of Islamic revolution in Saudi Arabia.

US support in Egypt serves the same purpose. The Egyptian dictators use US money and US military support to ensure their own control over their own nation against the massive opposition of their own people.

Btw, this Sunni vs Shi'ite split is also at the heart of your beloved and unstable Lebanon. It complicates the Islam vs Christian split in Lebanon.

More socio-philosophy. Definitely something for the Eastern societies to consider, but none of our business nonetheless.

Apparently you believe that it is only the business of the Middle East to blame the West for every problem they have. This absolves the Arabs and Muslim people for their responsibility for their own affairs (which they have handled brutally badly) and it serves the purpose of Arabic/Islamic dictatorships in maintaining their authoritarian rule over their people.

And of course, your supposition completely ignores Arab/Islamic elite complicity in Western power in the region.

But there isn't many "endemic" ones that relate to the real actual "mess" on the ground (ie., not counting socio philosophy, which is a topic for another however fascinating discussion). So far we have #1 multi-ethnic tensions in localized hotspots and #5, tensions between major religion dialects, yet to be confirmed as a real stability issue, after discounting all the effects from external interference.

Not much and none has much to with Islam. These kind of problems occur anywhere on the planet whatever ethnicity or religion involved. There're obvious example everybody will be able to point out.

What you may wanted to say is that Eastern societies have deep socio-economical challenges that perhaps can be traced in some aspects to their religiouos culture. That may be correct, but it in no way by itself explains the unacceptable security situation in the region, absolves those who interfered from their responsibility or gives them a reason to continue meddling.

I don't see any reason or purpose in my continuing this discussion.

You apparently have a hard-core ideolgogical bias here that needs to identify the West as the sole cause of all problems in the Middle East.

I think that is dangerous and one of the major reasons for ever continued instability in the Middle East. A

complete inability to come to grips with Arabic and Islamic responsibility for their won mess. Blaming the west is so much easier to do than to admit any mutual Arabic and/or Islamic responsibility.

And I have been very careful here not to portray the West as innocent here. They aren't. I am approaching this topic with an open mind and awareness of the actual and immediate history of the region. If only the Arabs, Muslims and their apologists would do the same.

[myata]

These problems are not duplicated in any other place on the globe. For the most part, they describe major and deep-seated social/cultural divisions within the Middle East.

So you're stating it before having proved anything. Is it a confidence building thing?

You mean like the Egyptian invasions of Saudi Arabia and Syria? Or the conquest of Yemen? Or war between Iran & Iraq?

No, all countries mentioned by you were of the same religious descent (Muslim). But they would definitely amount to major stability issues, if confirmed. Care to post a reference to those invasions of Saudi Arabia and Syria? I have this link: list of conflicts in the Middle East,, and it doesn't mention either. Nor can I recall them from my memory. Finally, Iran - Iraq war was not without foreign involvement (see the same link).

No, technology doesn't require the West to rule the Middle East. But in actuality, the Arab/Islamic desire for western technology, western science and western weaponry enables, facilitates and essentially 'causes' Western influence to dominate.

The influence of the West then in turn creates more political instability that only more western weapons and western technolgy and western wealth can help to control.

Point taken. But providing technology and weaponry to countries involved in conflicts makes one complicit and partly responsible for the result. Not mention when these are used as the means of indirect influence. I'd question if it's a wise and productive policy in the long run.

Iraq is a perfect example. It was ruled by a tiny Sunni minority (originally supported by Saudi Arabia because it is a fellow Sunni state) over the Shi'ite majority that had no political power.

What you are seeing today in Iraq is what happens when the Sunni strongman was removed (along with the Saudi paymasters). The Shi'ites are re-asserting their numerical superiority and seeking vengence for Sunni rule over them.

It is indeed a perfect example but of an undisguised foreign interference. There's no way one can extrapolate that mindless aventure to the general situation in the country. Perhaps if the people of Iraq had the chance to deal with dictator on their own terms and timescale, they would have come up with a working solution. This opportunitly is now becoming more and more remote.

And the direct US military support for Saudi only began in 1991 when Saddam invaded Kuwait. The Saudi's rule over their own country is rather unstable at best and they felt very threatened by both Saddam's army and their own people overthrowing the House of Saud in an Islamic revolution (Iranian style). Thus, the King of Saud requested US troops be stationed in Saudi to enforce the rule of the House of Saud against the threat of Islamic revolution in Saudi Arabia.

US support in Egypt serves the same purpose. The Egyptian dictators use US money and US military support to ensure their own control over their own nation against the massive opposition of their own people.

Thank you, it confirms my point quite nicely. By getting mired into the internal politics of these regimes, foreign powers 1) lose popularity with the people of the region; and 2) polarize population and encourage the rise of extremism. How? If the regimes did not feel that support, they'd have to compromise with the opposition. That would make the more sensitive to the needs and concerns of the population, but also, bring the opposition into the responsibilities for the governance. Which is a much togher role than blind opposition.

Apparently you believe that it is only the business of the Middle East to blame the West for every problem they have. This absolves the Arabs and Muslim people for their responsibility for their own affairs (which they have handled brutally badly) ..

And of course, your supposition completely ignores Arab/Islamic elite complicity in Western power in the region.

No, but I believe in sticking to the facts. The history of the last century was one of almost continuos interference in the region. It is no wonder that our popularity there is, shall we say, less than desired.

And with the last statement, do you mean to say that the abused people are somehow complicit in their situation because some of them choose to cooperate with the abusers?

I don't see any reason or purpose in my continuing this discussion.

You apparently have a hard-core ideolgogical bias here that needs to identify the West as the sole cause of all problems in the Middle East.

You're certainly free to bail out of this discussion, but that would be because of your choice, not that the label you're putting on the opponent has anything to do with that.

I think that is dangerous and one of the major reasons for ever continued instability in the Middle East. A

complete inability to come to grips with Arabic and Islamic responsibility for their won mess. Blaming the west is so much easier to do than to admit any mutual Arabic and/or Islamic responsibility.

And once again you are mixing up two very different notions of "blame": one, practical blame for the direct results of their policies that caused and continue to cause much suffering, must be assigned where it belongs. Most importantly because perhaps, some time in the future, however distant it could be, it may cause those who committed the deeds (or their descendents) to change their ways. And once they did and the region is allowed to develop on its own, it'll be in the good position to reflect on the (remaining) mess and who or what is to blame.

[Mad_Michael]

So you're stating it before having proved anything. Is it a confidence building thing?

You require 'proof' that Sunni vs Shi'ite is a long standing division in the Middle East?

You require 'proof' that traditionalist vs modernist is a long standing division in Middle East?

You require 'proof' that nationalism vs Islam is a long standing division in Middle East?

You play games.

You mean like the Egyptian invasions of Saudi Arabia and Syria? Or the conquest of Yemen? Or war between Iran & Iraq?

No, all countries mentioned by you were of the same religious descent (Muslim). But they would definitely amount to major stability issues, if confirmed. Care to post a reference to those invasions of Saudi Arabia and Syria?

Link? Sorry, I draw my reference materials from published books. You go play with google if you like.

Egypt under Mohammad Ali invaded Saudi Arabia in 1811 and Yemen in 1818. Egypt invaded Sudan in 1821, and Syria in 1832.

May I point out to you that Mohammad Ali was the first Egyptian to hold the throne of Egypt since the time of the Pharoahs? And he immediately started to make war on his neighbours. And he was totally hated and not supported by any foreign power.

As for the Iran-Iraq war, you cannot (with any credibility anyway) call a war foreign dominated or foreign controlled just because both participants seek out foreign suppliers. Iran and Iraq fought their war on their own terms.

Point taken.

And immediately ignored.

But providing technology and weaponry to countries involved in conflicts makes one complicit and partly responsible for the result.

According to you, if Iraq buys even a single bullet from a foreign supplier, that foreign nation becomes responsible for the Iran-Iraq war?

Your bias is showing.

And your argument makes Iran responsible for the violence in Iraq right now since it is quite likely they are supplying the Shi'ites in Iraq.

I'd question if it's a wise and productive policy in the long run.

No doubt and well you should.

But it doesn't give you the right to proclaim the West guilty of causing every problem in the Middle East and exhonerating the Arabs & Muslims of any responsibility for their own affairs - which is what it appears you are doing here.

It is indeed a perfect example but of an undisguised foreign interference.

You assert that the Iran-Iraq was was nothing more than a Western proxy war?

Your credibility is falling from 'low' to 'none' with that remark.

Thank you, it confirms my point quite nicely. By getting mired into the internal politics of these regimes, foreign powers 1) lose popularity with the people of the region; and 2) polarize population and encourage the rise of extremism. How? If the regimes did not feel that support, they'd have to compromise with the opposition. That would make the more sensitive to the needs and concerns of the population, but also, bring the opposition into the responsibilities for the governance. Which is a much togher role than blind opposition.

I have at no time denied Western involvement in the Middle East. I have at no time excused their behaviour.

But you have denied Arab/Muslim involvement in the Middle East. You have excused their behavour and painted them as poor innocent victims of Western warmongering. According to you, everything that happens in the Middle East is a product of Western powers and influence. That is categorically simplistic and evidence of extreme bias.

No, but I believe in sticking to the facts. The history of the last century was one of almost continuos interference in the region.

And completely ignored every fact of the prior century of continuous Arab/Muslim misrule, violence and corruption, internal division and sectarian conflict.

And with the last statement, do you mean to say that the abused people are somehow complicit in their situation because some of them choose to cooperate with the abusers?

And do you mean to say that the entire population of the Middle East is innocent of their situation?

See? I can play rhetorical games too!

You're certainly free to bail out of this discussion, but that would be because of your choice, not that the label you're putting on the opponent has anything to do with that.

No. The label I'm putting on the opponent has every reason for it. Beating my head against a brick wall is a waste of my time and serves no purpose.

And once again you are mixing up two very different notions of "blame": one, practical blame for the direct results of their policies that caused and continue to cause much suffering, must be assigned where it belongs. Most importantly because perhaps, some time in the future, however distant it could be, it may cause those who committed the deeds (or their descendents) to change their ways. And once they did and the region is allowed to develop on its own, it'll be in the good position to reflect on the (remaining) mess and who or what is to blame.

The reason that the western powers are involved in the region is entirely due to the mismanagement, misrule, corruption and sectarian, racial and linguistic divisions within the region, and a product of their own governance for centuries caused a power vaccum that required and necessatated western security interests in the region when their own governmental system collapsed.

If the region showed even an ounce of ability in maintaining their own affairs without appealing for western 'assistance' against their enemies, the region of the Middle East would have been substantially free of western powers.

You are taking the result of long standing Arab/Muslim governmental problems in the Middle East and postulating it as the cause of those same problems. That is illogical.

Anyway, I'm done here. You may reply and have the last word.

I don't see any basis for a productive discussion. I thought the topic here might be to address the present problems in the Middle East and how they might be addressed by Blair. I was wrong. You just want to bash the west and pretend they are to blame for everything. That is so categorically one-sided that no profitable discussion can take place here. One cannot reason with a fanatic.

Good day.

[myata]

Link? Sorry, I draw my reference materials from published books. You go play with google if you like.

Egypt under Mohammad Ali invaded Saudi Arabia in 1811 and Yemen in 1818. Egypt invaded Sudan in 1821, and Syria in 1832.

And Germany invaded France in 18.. and Britain Russian and so on and on. You were going to prove that it's something that is specific to Middle East and Islam, remember?

According to you, if Iraq buys even a single bullet from a foreign supplier, that foreign nation becomes responsible for the Iran-Iraq war?

...

And your argument makes Iran responsible for the violence in Iraq right now since it is quite likely they are supplying the Shi'ites in Iraq.

Why oversimplify? One bullet is not the same as massive and continuous supply of weapons to friendly regimes. Your lack of understanding is showing.

And yes, definitely Iran will be responsible for its part of causing continuing violence in Iraq if what you're saying is proven.

But it doesn't give you the right to proclaim the West guilty of causing every problem in the Middle

Where did I say "every"? You lack of reading complehension is showing.

It is indeed a perfect example but of an undisguised foreign interference.

You assert that the Iran-Iraq was was nothing more than a Western proxy war?

Your credibility is falling from 'low' to 'none' with that remark.

Ha-ha-ha. You referred to Iraq in the context of american invasion. Check your own post if memory does not serve you anymore.

But you have denied Arab/Muslim involvement in the Middle East. You have excused their behavour and painted them as poor innocent victims of Western warmongering. According to you, everything that happens in the Middle East is a product of Western powers and influence. That is categorically simplistic and evidence of extreme bias.

....

And completely ignored every fact of the prior century of continuous Arab/Muslim misrule, violence and corruption, internal division and sectarian conflict.

That would be according to you (see a note on reading comprehension above). According to me, massive and ongoing interference by foreign powers creates many problems which will and are coming back to haunt them. The best solution is to stop meddling and deal with all countries in the fair and open manner.

...

Specifically by refraning from interfering in any internal conflicts on either side.

Beating my head against a brick wall is a waste of my time and serves no purpose.

Most certainly. Have you considered logical argumentation as an alternative?

The reason that the western powers are involved in the region is entirely due to the mismanagement, misrule, corruption and sectarian, racial and linguistic divisions within the region, and a product of their own governance for centuries caused a power vaccum that required and necessatated western security interests in the region when their own governmental system collapsed.

OK, here we go. Them people not able to take care of their own affairs. Forever the burden of the white man.

BTW, how exactly did it require an necessitated? Maybe some historical examples? Several empires have collapsed in Europe without requiring and necessitaing colonial governance. What was so different in the Middle East? Why couldn't they simply be left to handle their own affairs?

[Mad_Michael]

OK, here we go. Them people not able to take care of their own affairs. Forever the burden of the white man.

BTW, how exactly did it require an necessitated? Maybe some historical examples? Several empires have collapsed in Europe without requiring and necessitaing colonial governance. What was so different in the Middle East? Why couldn't they simply be left to handle their own affairs?

I don't know.

Why don't you ask the League of Nations that awarded the 'mandates' to Britain and France? These countries were legally obliged to rule by order of the League.

[myata]

Why don't you ask the League of Nations that awarded the 'mandates' to Britain and France? These countries were legally obliged to rule by order of the League.

Like, they didn't really want to but out of pure service to humanity?

How many members from the region were there in the League of Nations at the time the mandates were awarded? (hint: 1) How many from Europe and its dominated territories? (hint: great majority). Who were the dominant powers in Europe after the defeat of Germany in WWI? (hint: Britain and France) And who got the mandates? Surprise, Britain and France!

[Rue]

If I recall correctly, prior to occupation by Britain....

What you recall Myata is only that part of the history of the Middle East that suits your political agenda.

I note you fail to make any mention of the creation of TransJordan or the influx of Muslims from outside Palestine precisely because of the British policy of flooding Palestine with Muslims to prevent Jews from coming to Palestine. I also note you refer to "foreign nationals" but make no reference of the fact that the vast majority of Muslims who ended up in TransJordan (80% of the Palestine mandate) were also foreigners.

Your recollections seem to forget the restrictions placed on "foreign nationals" (code for Jews) by the British but no restrictions placed on Muslims from outside the area.

The British deliberately flooded Palestine with outside Muslism to prevent a Jewish state, then created TransJordan out of 80% of Palestine and refused to allow Jews to live there, deliberately to prevent a Jewish state.

Papers released by Winston Churchill, Anthony Eden and High Commissioner Samuel make that crystal clear and make it crystal clear, the British lied to the League of Nations and obtained their mandate to govern Palestine by pledging to set up a Jewish state, while at the same time making it clear tot he Muslim world they would never allow one to come about.

The present mess is precisely because the British carved puppet states in Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States to suit their political purposes as did the French in Syria, Lebanon, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morrocco.

The current insanity is pure and simple. The Muslim world has been able to now forge 55 states, but it continues to struggle with the concept that there is a 56th state, and a tiny one at that, in its perceived world that is not Muslim.

Israel and Jordan are two Palestinian states. Lebanon is an artificial state created by part of Palestine.

Syria which feels it was part of the Assyrian Empire feels Lebanon and Israel and Jordan and the West Bank and Gaza belong to it.

Israel has repeated ad nauseum it accepts a third Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza as long as the terrorists dedicated to eradicating to Israel disband.

Tony Blair is the key. He did something no one else could do. He convinced the IRA to stand down.

If he for some miraculous reason could do the same with Hamas, Hezbollah and the hundreds of other terrorist cells anything after that is possible. If he could convince the terrorists their raison d'existence, the destruction of Israel is not going to happen-then perhaps a third Palestinian state could come about.

The problem is in Ireland the terror was more cohesive and unified. The IRA called the shots. In the Middle East there is no IRA-there are in fact hundreds of terror cells each with their own leader and no one listening to anyone else. Abbas is simply a titular head. He has no control of most of Fatah which consists of hundreds of terror cells. Even Hamas is in fact an umbrella group of terror cells.

For Blair to get terrorists to stand down, he will have to deal with Syrian intelligence operations and their regime, Iran, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia who have all demonstrated they will not support any attempt to disband terrorists.

Mubarak of Egypt showed his true coward colours with Saudi Arabia abandoning King Abdullah of Jordan and Mr, Abbas at the recent summit and refusing to join them in stating to Hamas they must renounce the destruction of Israel and use of terror against ANYONE before unification for a Palestinian government coukd be discussed. Mubarak back-tracked and the Saudis ran. They are petrified if they signed such a manifesto extremists in their own nations would topple their governments.

How Blair will be able to enlist Egyptian and Saudi Arabian support, how he will be able to get Syria and Iran to stand down is anyone'e guess. Abbas, Israel and Jordan have no problem with him but the Iranians despise him and the Syrians hate him since Jordan is seen as their enemy and a British puppet state they feel belongs to them.

Lebanon consists of two factions, one desperately trying to fight Palestinian extremists within its borders and which has been abandon by the French and trusts no one, and the Iranian-Syrian fueled Hezbollah and Palestine terror cells who like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Tanzim Fatah, Fatah Hawks, PFLP, Al Asqa Martyr Brigades, and many other terrorist cells, may feel the need to kill Blair. Certainly Blair is the target of Al Quaeda and the loose network of Taliban-Mujahadeen operatives.

[BC_chick]

s

[BC_chick]

OK, ruling by divide and conquer, plotting and interferening, setting up a foreign state, ...

Are you describing the Ottomans or the Western Powers here?

The Ottomans practically invented the art of 'divide and rule'. They were masters at 're-locating' racial minorities around to make sure there was never any dominant racial majority in any given locality that could challenge their rule. The Balkans of Southern Europe and the Middle East are a legacy of this policy of Government by the Ottomans enacted over the last five centuries.

What are the real ones? And how do they relate to reality we see on the ground?

1. The Middle East is host to most of the holy sites for Jews, Christians and Muslims. This has always been a major source of tension in the region. This issue has always fueled beliefs by one religious group of nefarious motives/actions by the other religious groups. This issue is always hot and has endured for over 1300 years so far.

2. Ever since Sultan Mehmet IV's last unsuccessful siege on Vienna in 1683 (commanded by Mustafa), the Muslim world has been on the losing end of just about every major military confrontation with Europeans. Where once the Ottoman army of elite Janissary warriors was much feared, by the late-17th century, European scientific and technical advantages on the battlefield had made the Janissaries pretty much impotent. This fact drives an extraordinary amount of Arabic and Islamic sense of 'humilitation' at the hands of Christian Europe (Arabs apparently define 'humiliation' as anything other than their own victory and/or domination).

3. The Islamic people may rightfully claim that in the 11th century AD, Islamic culture was more advanced and sophisticated, with more advanced science, mathematics, medicine and astronomy than Christian Europe. By the 18th century, the Islamic world lagged far behind Christian Europe in every one of these categories. Again, this fact fuels an extraordinary amount of Arabic and Islamic sense of 'humiliation' at the hands of Christian Europe.

4. The fact that Arabic/Islamic culture lags so far behind the Christian West in science, technology and industry also fuels a second source of division in the Arabic/Islamic world - as to how to address this fact - should Arabic/Islamic society modernize/liberalize/westernize in order to advance their standard of living or remain reliant on western technology and trade? Or close their doors and shut themselves off and pretend that its is still the 14th century?

5. The longstanding political-tribal factionism of Sunni vs Shi'ite complicates all political issues in the Middle East given that society in the Middle East is still primarily based on tribal clans - and every tribal clan is either Sunni or Shi'ite.

6. The failure of the institution of government in the Middle East. Because there is no substantive concept or principle of 'nation-state' or 'good-government' or 'representative government' (or civil society for that matter) in the Islamic world, their governments have always been corrupt, disfunctional, arbitrary and self-serving. Enormous and systematic corruption is why the Ottoman Empire collapsed and the same level of endemic corruption has defined governments in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey ever since. Indeed, it was corruption and incompetent government that brought down the old Caliphate and allowed the Ottomans to take over so many centuries ago. And it is endemic corruption of government throughout the Middle East to this day that makes any progress on any issue, almost impossible to achieve.

7. The failure of nationalism. Nationalism is the method by which the Western nations forged themselves into coherent political unities known as nation-states. This is a very powerful, efficient and effective form of political organisation. In the Middle East, there is an irreconcilable difference between Turkish, Egyptian or Persian nationalism and Arab Islamicism. This is yet another fissure point in Middle East politics. This is often cited as the failure of pan-Arabism. Islamic culture (for the most part) does not admit of the validity of a secular state government.

So there you have a list of some 'endemic' problems of the Middle East. The religious crossroads, the Arab/Islamic sense of inferiority to the West and Christianity, the overwhelming technological, economic, scientific and military power of the Western nations, the conflict between Sunni & Shi'ites as well as the conflict between traditionalists and modernisers, and the conflict between nationalists and Islamicists.

All of these issues and conflicts in the Middle East all predate the arrival of Western colonial power and/or Western military conquests of the 19th and 20th century. As I noted above, the arrival of Western powers directly into the Middle East during the last two centuries has served to magnify and/or intesify all of these long-simmering disputes and fault-lines in the region of the Middle East. But these issues all predate the arrival of the Western powers and the creation of the state of Israel.

Btw, are familiar with the history of Islam and the Jews? They have always been allies and friends for the last 1300 years right up until the advent of Whabbism out of Saudi Arabia (with its own native form of

militant anti-semitism) and Nazi's attempts to develop alliances with Turkey & Iran between WW1 & WW2. At that time, the Arabs acquired a virolent hatred of Jews and that pre-dates the establishment of Israel.

So, there you have it in a nutshell - some of the most long standing issues in the Middle East. Added together, the place is a simmering cauldron of political instability - even without the presence of Israel or Western colonial/imperial powers.

This in no way, shape or form, may be construed as an attempt to paint the Western Powers as lily white and innocent of the present smoulding mess in the Middle East. As you quite rightly pointed out, they are up to their eyeballs in involvement there. But my only point is that the Western powers did not make the Middle East into the mess it is - only contributed & complicated to the Arabic/Islamic mess that long existed there - and has certainly made the whole mess worse and harder than ever to resolve.

Bottom line is that the mess in the Middle East is very much an Islamic issue. They will do everything they can to blame the West for their own problems - and that is what they do all the time - while the Arab/Islamic rulers contintue their mis-rule, with all their corruption and inefficiency and violence towards their own people.

I disagree then that colonialism had nothing to do with the problems of the Middle-East. All the problems that you mention are internal. The external problems are political, and if you really think terrorism is a jealousy of a technologically-advanced society, why don't I see Sweden being targetted?

[BC_chick]

And completely ignored every fact of the prior century of continuous Arab/Muslim misrule, violence and corruption, internal division and sectarian conflict.

It was a different world then, Europe has also experienced it own share of misrule, violence, corruption, international division and sectarian conflict at that time. So you can't exactly bring up that era as an example.

The thing is, nobody is denying that extremist religious elements are in the Middle-East. But the west has historically supported these elements in order to keep the masses too opiated with religion to realise that they are being robbed by their leaders. Look at Mossadegh when he tries to modernise Iran and look out for the best interests of the country. Look at Saudi Arabia where their backward ways are still 100% supported by the West. Personally, I think Europe saw how devastating religion is to progress, and goes to great lengths to make sure "they win by making the other bastard die for his country."

An argument of pointing out this western tendency to support tyranny in the Middle-East does not try to negate the existence thereof as you imply in this thread. It exists as it does in practically everywhere else in the world. But it is being propagated by the West in order to rake in multi-billion dollar profits since the discovery of black-gold in the region.

[myata]

Rue:

many word can be spent but they don't change facts. And the facts are that during the time of the British mandate, Jewish population of the territories have increased dramatically, both in absolute numbers and in proportion (wikipedia, BBC).

Regarding Blair's role, I doubt he'll make significant change in this matter. It's not a matter or personality or power, but of trust. His role in the Iraq war simply doesn't make him a credible mediator to both sides. Compare with all previous attempts by US administrations to achieve a breakthrough. No matter how high level or presumably well intended they simply do not qualify as impartial mediator which can be trusted by both sides.

[ScottSA]

I disagree then that colonialism had nothing to do with the problems of the Middle-East. All the problems that you mention are internal. The external problems are political, and if you really think terrorism is a jealousy of a technologically-advanced society, why don't I see Sweden being targetted?

Sweden is under constant attack. Just not yet with bombs. Been to Sweden lately?

[Mad_Michael]

I disagree then that colonialism had nothing to do with the problems of the Middle-East. All the problems that you mention are internal. The external problems are political, and if you really think terrorism is a jealousy of a technologically-advanced society, why don't I see Sweden being targetted?

I have not argued or suggested in this thread that European colonialism had nothng to do with the problems of the Middle East.

I have only argued here that all of the 'problems' in the Middle East that make it famously complex and violent are all pre-existing the arrival of the European colonial powers. And yes, western colonial power has had a huge effect on the Middle East, magnifying, complicating and entrenching many of those issues.

And the reason I'm making this argument is because if western colonialism is blamed for all of the problems in the Middle East (as myata wants to do) we can never improve the situation in the Middle East since that view of the 'problem' ignores the Arabic & Muslim contribution to their own problems.

For example, when two kids are fighting, picking out one of them and blaming them entirely for the fight does not resolve the issue they were fighting about - indeed, it tends to make the fight-problem worse when you are not watching.

The problems in the Middle East are manifold and complex. The western European powers are part of those problems, but not entirely the cause.

And I unequivically deny the idea that Islamic terrorism is driven by jealousy or envy of our western technology. I certainly have never suggested anything so outrageous and facile.

[Mad_Michael]

Rue:

many word can be spent but they don't change facts. And the facts are that during the time of the British mandate, Jewish population of the territories have increased dramatically, both in absolute numbers and in proportion (wikipedia, BBC).

Regarding Blair's role, I doubt he'll make significant change in this matter. It's not a matter or personality or power, but of trust. His role in the Iraq war simply doesn't make him a credible mediator to both sides. Compare with all previous attempts by US administrations to achieve a breakthrough. No matter how high level or presumably well intended they simply do not qualify as impartial mediator which can be trusted by both sides.

No. The USA rules the Middle East. No solution is possible without US support. USA has been the principal barrier to any resolution of the Palestinian issue.

Blair has lots of credibility on that side of the equation.

It doesn't matter if the Arab/Muslims don't trust him - they never trust anyone on this issue anyway.

[bush_cheney2004]

No. The USA rules the Middle East. No solution is possible without US support. USA has been the principal barrier to any resolution of the Palestinian issue.

Then it is settled...we already have a solution...the USA rules the Middel East.

[Mad_Michael]

No. The USA rules the Middle East. No solution is possible without US support. USA has been the principal barrier to any resolution of the Palestinian issue.

Then it is settled...we already have a solution...the USA rules the Middel East.

No, that means we've identified yet ANOTHER major problem in the Middle East.