In An Attempt to Clear Up Some Things About the Middle East:

[Saint_007]

First of all, let me apologize if this thread is unnecessary. What I'm trying to do is present the current situation in the Middle East as is. If it appears biased, my apologies; I am Arab after all. But I will try my best to make it balanced. So let's start out chronologically:

1948: The State of Israel is born.

At this point, Israel is truly the underdog; the few million Jews from Europe, given a new nation among a lot of unwilling - if not positively hostile - neighbors. The inevitable happens, and war erupts.

However, Israel had several things their Arab adversaries lacked: a trained cadre of soldiers (hardened by wars against the Nazis in Europe and against the British in Palestine before the war), and the knowledge that it was "kill or be killed"; that if they lose, that's it, game over, no continues. And they had managed to funnel enough hard cash into training their men and providing them with materiel.

The Arabs came close at times, but they couldn't make the cut; their armies were little more than peasants in uniform, their leaders were unorganised, and their strategy nonexistant.

The result was logical: the double-tough Jews beat back their enemies and forced their nation into being.

The Palestinians who got moved were sore that they lost their land, and were gulliable enough to think their Arab cousins would help them get it back. The Arab masses were sore that they were beaten silly by the end, and vowed revenge. A couple of idiotic leaders were sore that they were beaten, and with their messianic delusions thought that they were meant to cleanse the Jewish filth. Most other Arab leaders, however, couldn't care less, since they now have something to distract the impoverished masses and look good.

Please note that at this point, Gamal Abdul-Nasser was still an army grunt.

1953: A popularly-elected Prime Minister of Iran was aiming to nationalise the oil fields to enrich the country for social projects. The British made a clear threat that unless he was removed, they would be forced to move in. The Shah promptly caves in, and throws him out. The Shah wasn't really popular before, but now the seeds of rebellion are beginning to ripen.

1956: Egypt, having underwent a revolution and changed its decadant monarchy with a cadre of army officers, went on a nationalist spree. In an attempt not to be fettered by the balance of power system that the British and Americans imposed on arms sales to the Middle East, the new Egyptian Prez, Abdul-Nasser, decided to shop from Czechoslovia instead. At this point in the Cold War, the US and Soviet tech were close in terms of power and quality. Israel was terrified of Egypt having a modern army, so it planned a pre-emptive strike. The USA was soured by Egypt refusing to set up US bases in Egypt, and also offended by the Egyptian recognition of Communist China, so cut off aid.

Egypt replied by nationalising the Suez Canal, which had up to that point been a French-British company. Gamal made sure that the owners were recompensed, and the Canal run well, but Anthony Eden and the French were fuming. Not only did Egypt (in a legitamite if dangerous attempt to become a power in the region) buy non-Western weapons and make relations with Communist nations (Please note: at this point, Egypt wasn't socialist yet. It had merely decided to play the US against the Russians to better improve its own bargaining position as a nation), but now it had dared to claim what was "rightfully" theirs, even if the takeover was completely legitamite.

So France, Britain, and Israel plotted the Suez Crisis. What resulted was Egypt gaining prestige by standing up to its aggressors, Israel got US attention to its situation, and the UK and France were finished as world powers. Britain has stuck to being the US' closest ally ever since, and the French were in vicious denial until De Gaulle decided to pull out of Algeria when it became too hot.

Unfortunately, Abdul-Nasser's self-confidence got a bit overblown by the crisis, since it seemed he was unbeatable. Since he was a soldier in the 1948 war, Gamal had made it is doctrine that the Arab nations be united, and that Israel is a "toxic" foreign entity and a threat that must be removed. He started building up towards war with Israel. For his part, Ben Gurion decided that Gamal was the biggest thorn in Israel's side, and swore to take him down a notch.

1967: Tensions were building for a while. Egypt has been constantly sending commandoes to attack Israeli positions, and the Jewish state was getting sick of it. Both sides were building up to war.

Unfortunately for them, Egypt blinked. Gamal was lulled into thinking that Israel won't attack, so that he'd have time to build up even more forces. His C-in-C and trusted friend, General Abdul-Hakeem Amer, was slowly creeping up the power structure, putting his friends in key positions in the Army and Air Force. When Israel struck in June, Amer and his men were partying hard. All the Egyptian airplanes were on the ground.

Israel had planned well. Instead of sending its airplanes straight over Sinai to hit the Egyptian air force, it flew over the Mediterranean, over Lybia (which was ruled back then by the Sanousids; our mad rebel Qaddafi didn't make Colonel yet), flew over the Egypt-Lybia border where Egypt's AA defenses were weakest, blasted the airfields and wiping out the EAF, before flying back over Sinai back to Israel without losing a single plane. After that, Israel rolled over the unprotected Egyptian armies in Sinai and the Jordanian armies in the West Bank, as well as the Syrians in Golan Heights. All in seven days.

Over three wars (1948, 1956, 1967) and the Entebbe Operation, with impressive accomplishments, Israel had cemented its claim as the world's best army. Then it got cocky with its victories. In shock, Gamal offered to resign, but he was re-elected by the Egyptian people. Afterwards, Gamal prepared for the next round of the war with Israel by throwing the incompetant Amer into prison (where he was found dead later; it's still debated whether it was suicide or murder) along with his cronies who had been partying when the IDF ran over the Egyptian defenses. And he started rebuilding the devastated Egyptian army.

In 1970, Abdul-Nasser died, and Israel lost its single greatest enemy. His legacy continues to this day.

1973: Egypt, under Anwar Al-Sadat, and Syria had been building up for another war. Israel had been lulled into a false sense of security, and neglected to keep its guard up. When the well-prepared Arab armies rolled into Israeli territory, it was a complete shock.

Nixon's administration held that it would only be natural for Israel to eventually beat them back. When it was two weeks later and Israel hung by a thread, the US decided to help its ally logistically. Make no mistake; Israel had US help in beating the Arabs back to the borders this time around. It was the USAF that was ferrying IDF to and from the combat lines, and it was US intel that pinpointed the weak points in the Arab armies and passed it onto the IDF.

And so it was that Israel forced the Arabs back; Egypt to Suez and Syria to the 1967 borders. Yet for some reason, people think it was a pure Israeli victory.

1978: Anwar Al-Sadat breaks up from the Arab lines and makes peace with Israel, neutralising the single biggest enemy of Israel and breaking the balance of power. He is later assassinated in 1981.

Here, it would be good to keep in mind that after 1967, Israel was no longer the underdog. Its troops kept getting the best tech and weapons from the USA, they got the best training, and a lot of money in US grants with no strings attached. Even though it nearly was beaten in 1973, it was still the superpower in the Middle East, right up there with Iran, which was ruled by the Shah at the time.

1979: Iran breaks out in revolution against the Shah and the SAVAK. The SAVAK was notorious for its torture techniques, and had a reputation of kidnapping Iranians abroad who protested against the Shah. In short order, the Iranian dynasty fell, and the Shah had to move out.

One thing I keep noticing that people keep stating is that Iran is an Arab state. No, it's not. Arabs only form 3% of the populace, and they were never part of the ruling structure ever since the fall of the Abbasid dynasty in the Middle Ages. Iran is 45-50% Persian ethnic (Shi'ites), 35% Azerbaijani (who are also Shi'ites and intermarry with the Persians a lot, and they have a lot of important positions in Iran, both before and after the Revolution), 3% Arabs and about 10% Kurds, and 2-7% "other", meaning Assyrian and other such small fry.

Iran then turns into a radical Islamic state, and the American Embassy Hostage Crisis is screwed up by Carter. Read this article (http://www.exile.ru/2005-August-26/american_nationalism.html) to see what happened to the USA as a result.

1980: America, still smarting from the Hostage Crisis muck-up, plays Iraq against Iran, taking advantage of the chaos created by the persecution of the mullahs. In eight long years, Iraq and Iran bled white, and all for nothing, as the borders pretty much remained the same. However, the severe cash withdrawals caused by the war forced Saddam to invade Kuwait to refill his treasury. This leads to the Gulf War in 1990, then to the Second Gulf War in 2003.

Contd...

[Saint_007]

1982: The PLO (one of the most overhyped, underperforming organisations in the world) was forced to move to Lebanon ever since the Jordanians kicked them out in 1970. In 1975, the ethnic friction between Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Maronites caused civil war to erupt. The PLO got embroiled, and soon, the Israelis decided it was time to boot the Pals once and for all from the north.

The initial military operation was a resounding success. The Syrian Air Force lost both 90 jets and pretty much all its SAM sites without a single loss in the IDF air force. The Israelis had barged their way clean up to Beirut, supporting the Maronites, and forcing the PLO to leave Lebanon for good. Once in control, they placed a Maronite butcher, Bashir Gmayyil, as Pres of Lebanon.

Just as the going was good, it all went to hell in a bucket. Israel's plan called for an ally in the north, maybe even forming a buffer state south of the Leitani River. After that, Syria would be dealt with eventually.

Only it didn't go so well. Resistance blew up, as well as Bashir Gmayyil in his office. There went the plan. With their ally dead, Israel was facing the turn of the tide.

The Maronites, pissed at the death of their leader, barged into a Palestinian refugee camp and proceeded to rape and slaughter at will - right in front of the cameras, where it was seen worldwide. The problem was that in return for the PLO's complete withdrawal, the Palestinian refugee camps would be unarmed but guaranteed protection from reprisals. Unfortunately, while the Pals held up their part of the deal, Ariel Sharon got sloppy. He turned a blind eye towards the security of these camps, and a massacre resulted. There was evidence to believe that he might have even helped the Maronites, which means he's either criminally negilgent or in conspiracy for genocide, your choice. His reputation was so tarnished that a court martial ordered that he be banned from any military positions for life, including Secretary of Defense.

Then the resistance got nasty. No PLO, but the Shi'ites had quite enough of the IDF, and when the latter didn't get out, the former got straight to work. A 16-year old Lebanese girl, Sanaa' Maheedilly, drove a Peugot filled with explosives right into an IDF convoy, killing 50+ soldiers. After that, it was just boom, boom, boom. 242 Marines and 50 French troops got blown up in their barracks, and Israelis and their cronies, the South Lebanon Army, kept getting blasted. It got so bad that they got out of Beirut, withdrew back to the Leitani river, and stayed there until 2000, when they called it quits.

Now here comes the part where the IDF lost it all; both its legend of invulnerability and its ability to fight like a real army. I remember my mother telling me that when she was a little girl in the early 70's, the children used to tease the IDF soldiers in patrol in Jerusalem, and the soldiers would just laugh back. Back then, Israel had won fair and square, and the Arabs were still really subdued from the thrashing they got. Then when the Intifada rolls around in 1987, the IDF had turned completely sour. Because of their extended Counter-insurgency war in Lebanon and their war in Gaza and the West Bank, the soldiers turned to brutal methods to crush their opposition, since you can't break an insurgency like you can a regular army. And between the Hezzies and the Intifada, the IDF turned into an occupying force.

Please bear in mind that an occupying army lacks the aura of a victorious conquering army. Over time, the occupied stop fearing their masters, realising that they bleed as well. So eventually, an insurgency gathers strength, and the occupiers become more and more brutal and make more and more mistakes.

In 1996, Shimo'on Perez, PM of Israel decided to teach Hezbollah a lesson and launches "Operation: Grapes of Wrath". Bad move; not only did he not really hit anything of value to Hezbollah, he wound up killing a lot of Lebanese civvies, and even blasted a UN safehouse. If anything, it made the IDF look bad and made the rebels look better. In fact, ever since 1982, all Israel did was act as natural selection for the Lebanese, killing off the slow, weak, or those too brave to fight smart. As a result, we have people like Nasrallah; lean, mean, and very, very intelligent. Eventually, they got smart to Israeli warfare style, and kept on fighting till Ehud Barak had enough in 2000 and ordered a general withdrawal without even waiting for the regular Lebanese army or the UN to fill in. As a result, South Lebanon became a purely Hezbollah region, and was run pretty efficiently. Hezbollah simply grew in strength after that.

The events of 2001 helped Israel, since now they had an excuse to bash the Pals and look good under the banner of fighting terrorism. The Pals had been in an uproar ever since Ariel Sharon visited the Dome of the Rock, a Moslem Holy site, and declared his hope that the Temple of Solomon be built in its place sometime within his lifetime. And so the Second Intifada came along. Unlike the Lebanese, the Pals didn't have logistical support or strategic depth, so Israel was pretty much blasting them left and right. All this, combined with the inefficiency, weakness, and corruption of the PLO, meant that Hamas was elected in 2006. The battle for hearts and minds was clearly going bad. The poorly disguised US invasion of Iraq, and the resulting chaos merely speeded up the process.

Contd...

[Saint_007]

Now we come to the recent war that Israel waged. And let's get honest here: Israel was beaten to a pulp. Hezbollah may not have wiped Israel off the map, but come on, they don't have the power to do that. Just standing in the field and holding off the IDF was enough for victory. Yet, not only did Hezbollah hold its own, it was literally chewing up the IDF, and giving better than it took. It completely shut out the Shin Beth and Mossad, the supposedly best intel systems in the world, who had the backing of the US and US technology. Its men were eating up Merkava-4 tanks on the field, the one tank in the one that was hyped to be the equal of the M1A1. And not even Israeli territory and Navy were safe; Hezbollah was shelling the hell out of the north, and they managed to severely damage - if not outright sink - two Israeli ships.

Here's a few illusions some of you might have had:
1) "The IDF has the power to take out any enemy."
Bull****. Ever since 1982, they've gotten soft, blasting away with tanks and aircraft against people with AK's and RPG's. Not really a good excersize for your troops, so they're bound to get sloppy. Hezbollah, OTOH, was fully prepared; ever since 1983 when it was created, they kept training to beat the IDF and its tactics. That's 23 long years, ladies and gentlemen, and the Lebanese learn real fast. Ever since 2000, they've been polishing up for the next round with Israel, and are some of the best troops on Earth, maintaining a discipline that only the Viet Cong could match. And it certainly didn't hurt to have the right equipment and the right tactics.

Another thing you'll notice is the fear factor. Back in the 60's, the Arabs truly believed that Israel was invincible. And all you had to do to scare Arabs was beat their militaries senseless (which wasn't hard to do) and cow them with superior force. But even those tactics get old. People learn to live with anything, be it economic fluctuations, a depression, the Black Plague, Wars, etc... So eventually, the Arabs were no longer so easily cowed. This is very clear in the Iraqi and Palestinian insurgencies, and very very obvious in South Lebanon. Israel was routinely blasting power stations and infrastructure in South Lebanon ever since 1982 and even after they withdrew in 2000. When they started bombing Lebanese infrastructure again in the recent war, the Lebanese weren't really impressed; they've survived much worse.

And let's take the IDF. They relied on two things; airpower and their Merkavas. Airpower never decided anything on its own; land power support always had to be available for lasting effect. Take the London Blitz; Hitler bombed them for years, and the British didn't crack. And the Merkava, while awesome as a tank, is still a tank. Evolution applies to combat and weaponry just as it does to animals and plants. Build a better tank, and people will try and build a better tank-killer. Russia's been developing all types of weapons to take out the M1A1, so it's only logical that even the Merkava 4 becomes a walking bullseye.

2) "Lebanon attacked Israel, so it's their fault."
Again, hogwash. "Lebanon" implies the Lebanese government, which is simply laughable. The Lebanese Regular Army was a joke ever since 1975 (even though it wasn't all that hot to begin with). It's Hezbollah who did the attack. Second of all, it was a kidnap op, not an attack. Israel's been doing those for decades against both Lebanese and Palestinians; why is it that when the IDF does it, it's all right, while when Hezbollah or Hamas does it, it's a crime against humanity? In both cases, the targets are military.

One thing you might want to know is that there are currently three Lebanese civillians languishing in Israeli prisons since 1982, long before Hezbollah was established. They were picked up when the IDF rolled in, and have been stuck in there for 24 years. So Hezbollah wanted, for the sake of national fervour, to earn a few more brownie points with the Lebanese people, took it upon itself to try and bargain them out. So it took two guys who weren't fried when a Merkava blew up. And it tried bargaining.

The Israeli PM, Olmert, wasn't very pleased. He was already embarassed by the kidnap of Gene Shalit by Hamas, and he wasn't about to knuckle under to Hezbollah any more. So he declared a "most moral war". Which brings me to the next point.

3) "Israel was morally right."
Damn. I'm pretty sure the stink from that one has reached Jupiter. That's one of the worst lies about this war; nothing was very "moral". Israel blasted over 900 Lebanese civvies, and even admitted that most of those it bombed were nowhere even near combat lines. Furthermore, it withdrew several announcements that those killed were in positions confirmed to be missile launch sites.

And here's another nail in that coffin: Israeli schoolchildren write notes on bombs that were sent to Lebanese civillians. Yeah, "moral". Riiiight...

Israel didn't start this war for the good of all. IT started it because it didn't want to show everyone that it buckled to Hezbollah. It also wanted to show Hezbollah who's boss, eager to avenge the insult of 2000. Yeah, that worked *real* good: the IDF was incapable of advancing more than 2km from the borders, and they got nowhere near the Leitani river.

4) "It was a war between Israel and Iran, with Hezbollah being Iran's proxy."
Believe it or not, I believed that lie too. Then I sobered up. The USA had been eagerly supporting Israel since day one, and has even shipped several loads of arms and weapons to help them overcome Hezbollah. Several high-ranking commanders even said that this would be a "test run" for an invasion of Iran.

So if anything, this was a USA-Iran proxy war, and the Iranians came out laughing their heads off. The whole point of the war in the Pentagon's eyes was to create a formula of CI warfare in case of an invasion of an enemy (namely, Iran). Now that this excersize was a wash, they're going to have to re-think their plans from scratch.

However, Hezbollah managed pretty well and won this fight for itself. It proved that Israel isn't as high-and-mighty as it acts, and if anything, they bleed just as well as anyone else. While Hezbollah claims that their goal is to remove Israel (come on, Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 and ran an occupation for 18 years, who WOULDN't hate them?), it's smarter than to think it can destroy it utterly. Instead, it settled for forcing the IDF to withdraw. And in that aspect, it succeeded brilliantly.

5) "People in Lebanon hate Hezbollah, or want nothing to do with it"
Well, maybe this was true - once. Only Israel pretty much ensured that the Lebanese will stand by Hezbollah for good, thanks to its indiscriminate bombing. If anything, most Lebanese are staunch Hezbollah supporters.

Those who don't like Hezbollah are few. The "Arab Spring" that was on about a couple of years ago was a Maronite show: according to the numbers, the Maronites are only 17% of the population nowadays. No way they would stand up to Hezbollah as a popular movement. Hezbollah is a Shi'ite movement, and the Shi'ites number almost half of the Lebanese population. So that means that while Hezbollah might not have friends at the top, they've got the mass support, just what is needed for a successful guerilla war.

A few Lebanese parliment members might squawk about Hezbollah ruining Lebanon, but they've got their own agendas. Jumblatt is a known opportunist, siding with those who suit his goals best. Walid Gmayyil is the brother of the late Bashir Gmayyil, and both were commanders of the Maronite militias, the Phalangists, the meanest, blood-thirstiest bastards in the Lebanese war with a long list of atrocities. And Hariri Jr, the son of the late Rafik Al-Hariri, comes off as so slick and slimy a snake would want nothing to do with him. And if they accuse Nasrallah of being an Iranian agent, they themselves are little more than US agents, trying to force a "New Middle East".

And let's keep one thing in mind: when Israel withdrew in 2000, it wasn't the Lebanese Regulars who made them leave, and it wasn't the Lebanese government that prevented things from falling into chaos. It was Hezbollah; Hezbollah guerillas eventually made Israel realise that it was too costly to stay forever, and it was Hezbollah local governments that kept everything flowing smoothly. Even now, Hezbollah is hard at work helping people rebuild their towns. You have to respect that in a group like Hezbollah; they think big. Real Big.

6) "Hezbollah will be disarmed."
BY WHOM?! The IDF has tried just that, and failed horrifically. The UNFIL aren't much threat, both as an authority and as a military force. Sherak has bluntly refused to grant the French troops sent to Lebanon the authority to disarm Hezbollah; he'd already seen what happened to Olmert when the IDF tried it. The peacekeeping forces are from Muslim countries like Indonesia and Malaysia, so not much chance of them helping Israel. And you can forget the Lebanese government; if they couldn't protect themselves from the IDF, what makes you even think that they can take on those who beat the IDF silly?!

Well, that about covers it. Thanks for your time, and sorry again for any annoyance...

[metr0man]

very comprehensive.

err yeah, that's all I've got. Knew most of it already but hadn't really seen it put together in a timeline.

In 1996, Shimo'on Perez, PM of Israel decided to teach Hezbollah a lesson and launches "Operation: Grapes of Wrath". Bad move; not only did he not really hit anything of value to Hezbollah, he wound up killing a lot of Lebanese civvies, and even blasted a UN safehouse. If anything, it made the IDF look bad and made the rebels look better.

Boy, that sure sounds familiar doesn't it?

[Typo Lad]

Intgeresting perspective on many events. Some I disagree with, and many I do agree with.

So it took two guys who weren't fried when a Merkava blew up. And it tried bargaining.

Um, one they blew up - let's be fair.

It's still not a valid negotiating tactic.

Then again, neither is colective punishment, so it's not like Israel had the moral high ground here.


And here's another nail in that coffin: Israeli schoolchildren write notes on bombs that were sent to Lebanese civillians. Yeah, "moral". Riiiight...

This photo has been widely debunked as staged, however, that shouldn't be taken to mean that I think the war was "moral". Please. War is inherrently immoral, for one thing.

this was a USA-Iran proxy war

Abso-freaking-lootly! Glad I'm not the only one who sees this. Iran is taking the USSR's place as the red side of the chessboard that the US sees the Mid East as.

[OrochiNaga]

Ironic considering Shia Iran is largely detatched from the Sunni Al Quieda type movements.

[HomerJay]

Meh. My opinions on the middle-east are based upon the fair and unbiased cartoons of Latuff.

[SOGG]

Well done, Saint. I think this is pretty much what I know as well, but you might want to add the land mine incident as well as the six day and six year war.

The soviet involvement with Egypt might also be instructive since it shows how the big powers of the time -- the US and USSR -- used the world as their proxies.

Very well researched and it also contained quite a bit that I didn't know.

Thanks again.

[Phrozen]

Ironic considering Shia Iran is largely detatched from the Sunni Al Quieda type movements.

Yes, Iran or Persia has had a history of violent revolution due to the belief of the Shia that no one person has the authority to govern the people except for one who was appointed by Allah or was voted leader by the Ummah (all the Muslims in the world). The Sunni sect doesn't tie politics and religion so heavily into one figure so you get relatively more stable dynasties.

Al Qaeda is Wahhabist Sunni and pretty much regards Shi'a muslims as heretics along with several other smaller sects of Islam. Hezballah (roughly translated as 'The Party of God') is who Iran gives material support to as well as Sadr's milita.

[BoosterBronze]

Ironic considering Shia Iran is largely detatched from the Sunni Al Quieda type movements.

Stop spreading that nonsense. The Middle East is a perfectley homogenous region of Arabs who are all the same. That's why it was so easy for Eruropeans to draw new borders and make neat little countries. Everyone there is brown, they're all Islams, and they all hate Freedom.

All you guys trying to confuse the issue are just giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

[OrochiNaga]

All relgious nationalists believe the past was better because people were more purtiant - and this belief is what driaves their society into deeper shit when the reason Arabia was once progreassive for its time, was that it wasnt as puritant as Europe.

This is a pretty epic vicious cycle, because the more shit their countries become, the more it must be the result of foreign opression, and not their own damn problem, created by them (afterall the perfect religion cant be ruining their society) - and the more puritant they try to become as a reaction.

Evangelists will turn the USA like that one day if they get too much power - wahabi natioanlists, evangelists, hindutvva nationalists, confucian nationalists - the lot of them hold the rest of us back.

[Iangould]

Saint, like Typo I agree with most of what you say.

What I'd really like to hear about is attitudes towards Israel, the west and arab governments amongst ordinary arabs.

See there are people, includin peopel who post here, who beliave that the mjaority of arabs want to wipe out the entire Jewish race; that they hate the west; that they want to forcibly convert te entire world to Wahhabi islam and that they don't want democracy in their own countries.

Now I think that's a load of nonsesne but I'm not in a position to dispute those claims based on first hand experience.

[Phrozen]

All relgious nationalists believe the past was better because people were more purtiant - and this belief is what driaves their society into deeper shit when the reason Arabia was once progreassive for its time, was that it wasnt as puritant as Europe.


Not really. Islam absorbed alot of knowledge from the crumbling Persian Empire, Egypt, Lebanon, and Judea. At first the Arabs were extremely strict in Islamic practice but gradually absorbed more culture from the areas they took over. Really, though the first Islamic kingdoms were hardly progressive. They were extremely Sunni Arab centric. Shi'a and non-Arabic Sunni muslims were treated very much like second class citizens. Those two groups were the major backers of the Ummayad dynasty which eventually turned on them. The Caliphate of Cordoba was known for its tolerance out of political neccessity at first (Arabs were the minority and they needed a army to fend of the Ummayads which had chased them to Spain) but was eventually integrated into common culture. The Ottomon's were tolerant towards Jews but much less so to Christian minorities like the Armenians and Orthodox Christians in general. The Greeks were often used as scapegoats.


This is a pretty epic vicious cycle, because the more shit their countries become, the more it must be the result of foreign opression, and not their own damn problem, created by them (afterall the perfect religion cant be ruining their society) - and the more puritant they try to become as a reaction.


History really doesn't show this to be true. Bad government regardless of religion makes countries go to hell and the Middle East is full of bad government.


Evangelists will turn the USA like that one day if they get too much power - wahabi natioanlists, evangelists, hindutvva nationalists, confucian nationalists - the lot of them hold the rest of us back.
Again, bad government is a bigger problem then religious people.

[OrochiNaga]

Who puts those people there? Nationalists. Lets face it - the Ayyatollah is in charge because nationalistic people who believe exactly as I meantioned, wanted him there - so the idea that its bad government alone, is impossible.

History does, on the contrary, show this to be true - socities that are open are sucessfull, societies that are closed are not, because they get left out of the loop of global innovation. What usually closes a society? Nationalism.

The conservative elements of the middle east react to the crap that goes on in their countries, not with 'lets secualrise, democratise, adopt the free market', but with 'we arnt pure enough! reject all decadent "western ideas" like secularism', driving the cycle deeper and deeper.

[OrochiNaga]

double post

[Phrozen]

Who puts those people there? Nationalists. Lets face it - the Ayyatollah is in charge because nationalistic people who believe exactly as I meantioned, wanted him there - so the idea that its bad government alone, is impossible.


The Iranian revolution is much more complicated then just nationalism. It was nationalism combined with a horrible economy (which hasn't gotten any better) combined with an upswing in religious ferver. Not to mention that the Iranian revolutionaries themselves tried to hide themselves in democratic clothing.


History does, on the contrary, show this to be true - socities that are open are sucessfull, societies that are closed are not, because they get left out of the loop of global innovation. What usually closes a society? Nationalism.


Rome was very open, to much so and it fell. Japan was closed for a long time and was the only Asian country to not fall under imperialism. A society being opened or closed rarely has anything to do with if a society will collaspe or not. It is determined by the leader of the top knowing what he is doing or not. (By the way both the Romans and Japanese were fervant nationalists.)


The conservative elements of the middle east react to the crap that goes on in their countries, not with 'lets secualrise, democratise, adopt the free market', but with 'we arnt pure enough! reject all decadent "western ideas" like secularism', driving the cycle deeper and deeper.

Mostly because it is easier to blame someone else then take the blame for crap yourself.

[Iangould]

Japan was closed for a long time and was the only Asian country to not fall under imperialism.

Other than China, Thailand, Afghanistan; Iran, Brunei and Nepal.

[Adam Crocker]

Other than China, Thailand, Afghanistan; Iran, Brunei and Nepal.

China? The same country that by the opening of the twentieth century was mostly carved up between several foreign powers?

[Iangould]

China? The same country that by the opening of the twentieth century was mostly carved up between several foreign powers?

China was never actually conquered though - and seeing as the comparison here is with Japan, compare the treatment of China with the so-called unequal treaties Japan was forced to sign.

Japan avodied the same treatment as China throguh a combination of luck and shrewd statesmanship (and becasue there was less money to be made there so the Europeans didn't push as hard.)

For that matter, to return to the original point being made, Ching china was barely more open to the west than was Tokugawa Japan until the Opium Wars.