What World War I Did to the Middle East

[questionmark]

World War I may have ended in 1918, but the violence it triggered in the Middle East still hasn't come to an end. Arbitrary borders drawn by self-interested imperial powers have left a legacy that the region has not been able to overcome.

Damascus, year three of the civil war: The 4th Division of the Syrian army has entrenched itself on Kassioun Mountain, the place where Cain is said to have slain his brother Abel. United Nations ballistics experts say the poison gas projectiles that landed in the Damascus suburbs of Muadamiya and Ain Tarma in the morning hours of Aug. 21, 2013 were fired from somewhere up on the mountain. Some 1,400 people died in the attack -- 1,400 of the more than 100,000 people who have lost their lives since the beginning of the conflict

Baghdad, in the former palace quarter behind the Assassin's Gate: Two years after the American withdrawal, Iraqis are once again in full control of the so-called Green Zone, located on a sharp bend in the Tigris River. It is the quarter of Baghdad where the Americans found refuge when the country they occupied devolved into murderous chaos. Currently, the situation is hardly any better. On the other side of the wall, in the red zone, death has once again become commonplace. There were over 8,200 fatalities last year.

Read more

[+and-then]

Apparently time IS a river... of blood...

[lightly]

Redrawing borders in the Middle East, India, Africa, Korea, Vietnam, the list goes on and on and on ... has been a major cause of conflict down through the ages. A Lot of times it's done with that in mind, as part of a plan.

[stevewinn]

religion more than borders causes wars in the middle east. like the current and ever intensifying sunni versus shia which is spreading across the whole middle east. and more interesting is theUSA in the very near future will no longer be reliant on middle east oil and gas. the US already have their eyes on the Asia Pacific region. the middle east is going to become one hell of a mess. i just hope we stay the hell out of it.

[Kaa-Tzik]

WWI and the collapse of Ottoman Empire was the prime cause for the mess we see today. The Arabs were given false expectations by the British who cynically used T.E. Lawrence (An innocent party in the subterfuge) to prod them into rebelling against the Turks. Sure the Arabian peninsula was liberated from Ottoman rule and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was created, but the Arabs did not get want they wanted for themselves, they got what Britain and France wanted via the Sykes-Picot agreement. Combined with the Balfour declaration, everything else follows from that. I think I have said before, that while I support the right of peoples to their own land and self determination, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire was a disaster for the Middle East. But, we are where we are, some sort of hell....

http://en.wikipedia....Picot_Agreement

http://en.wikipedia....our_Declaration

Edited February 1, 2014 by Kaa-Tzik

[Peter B]

Redrawing borders in the Middle East, India, Africa, Korea, Vietnam, the list goes on and on and on ... has been a major cause of conflict down through the ages. A Lot of times it's done with that in mind, as part of a plan.

With the greatest of respect, I think you're giving politicians a bit too much credit. They seem to have trouble thinking beyond the next election, and more likely not beyond the end of the next news cycle.

[Mr.United_Nations]

Oil and lots of other valuable resources and trade cities

[lightly]

lightly, on 01 February 2014 - 07:56 AM, said:

Redrawing borders in the Middle East, India, Africa, Korea, Vietnam, the list goes on and on and on ... has been a major cause of conflict down through the ages. A Lot of times it's done with that in mind, as part of a plan.

With the greatest of respect, I think you're giving politicians a bit too much credit. They seem to have trouble thinking beyond the next election, and more likely not beyond the end of the next news cycle.

With equal respect... i think you may be giving politicians too much credit as well... politicians implement changes, that they may or may not understand, that facilitate the plans of Others. They are often misguided , along with the rest of us.

[RavenHawk]

Zand's synopsis I believe is accurate but his conclusion is too obvious and flawed. He puts the blame of the violence in the ME on England and France. I think that it goes beyond that and is more indigenous. As was mentioned, borders change all the time in history and it's the victor who establishes those borders. That is universal. This was not a concept introduced to the ME by colonial powers. What the allied powers did was their right. Conquered peoples have no say in their fate unless the conquerors grant them that right. The new form of Socialism had not yet infected England and France as it had in Germany and parts of the American leadership.

Zand bases his conclusion on Faisal's dream of a greater Arab Republic. But that is all it was. If it had any substance, then when the Mandate Powers had left and these newly establish nations got their independence, then there should have been nothing to stop them from merging. So, if Faisal had gotten his wish, would his new nation still be united today? One also needs to consider the fate of the Kurds. They were getting screwed not only by the Colonials but also by the Turks, Persians, and Arabs. When would the dream of mythical Kurdistan be realized?

The bigger question would be, what if the Ottoman's had stayed neutral or even joined the Allies? There would have been no Gallipoli or Lawrence of Arabia. And the Arabs would have remained under Ottoman rule and perhaps Faisal and Ali would have been killed as insurrectionists? But I think revolt would have still festered until it exploded, it still festers today. It doesn't matter who is the ruling elite.

If Ottoman's had not backed Germany, would Ataturk have come to power? Would he have sought more freedoms to the Arabs, Kurds, and Armenians? His reforms carried over from the Tanzimat period. With these reforms in place, would we still see backers like the Rothschilds giving money to purchase more land for a Zionist movement and eventual State of Israel? This would be another indication that Israel is not the source of conflict in the ME and that what conflict there is, is manufactured, perhaps by those intent on seeing the return of the 12th Imam?

Edited February 2, 2014 by RavenHawk

[Mr.United_Nations]

Zand's synopsis I believe is accurate but his conclusion is too obvious and flawed. He puts the blame of the violence in the ME on England and France. I think that it goes beyond that and is more indigenous. As was mentioned, borders change all the time in history and it's the victor who establishes those borders. That is universal. This was not a concept introduced to the ME by colonial powers. What the allied powers did was their right. Conquered peoples have no say in their fate unless the conquerors grant them that right. The new form of Socialism had not yet infected England and France as it had in Germany and parts of the American leadership.

Zand bases his conclusion on Faisal's dream of a greater Arab Republic. But that is all it was. If it had any substance, then when the Mandate Powers had left and these newly establish nations got their independence, then there should have been nothing to stop them from merging. So, if Faisal had gotten his wish, would his new nation still be united today? One also needs to consider the fate of the Kurds. They were getting screwed not only by the Colonials but also by the Turks, Persians, and Arabs. When would the dream of mythical Kurdistan be realized?

The bigger question would be, what if the Ottoman's had stayed neutral or even joined the Allies? There would have been no Gallipoli or Lawrence of Arabia. And the Arabs would have remained under Ottoman rule and perhaps Faisal and Ali would have been killed as insurrectionists? But I think revolt would have still festered until it exploded, it still festers today. It doesn't matter who is the ruling elite.

If Ottoman's had not backed Germany, would Ataturk have come to power? Would he have sought more freedoms to the Arabs, Kurds, and Armenians? His reforms carried over from the Tanzimat period. With these reforms in place, would we still see backers like the Rothchilds giving money to purchase more land for a Zionist movement and eventual State of Israel? This would be another indication that Israel is not the source of conflict in the ME and that what conflict there is, is manufactured, perhaps by those intent on seeing the return of the 12th Imam?

The French, and English installed, well tried to control the ME, unfortunately do to some stupid actions by the French, Syria spoke up

[Kaa-Tzik]

If Ottoman's had not backed Germany, would Ataturk have come to power? Would he have sought more freedoms to the Arabs, Kurds, and Armenians? His reforms carried over from the Tanzimat period. With these reforms in place, would we still see backers like the Rothschilds giving money to purchase more land for a Zionist movement and eventual State of Israel? This would be another indication that Israel is not the source of conflict in the ME and that what conflict there is, is manufactured, perhaps by those intent on seeing the return of the 12th Imam?

Yet the Balfour declaration cannot be discounted here at all. If the problems we have in the Levant began since Iranian Revolution, then it may be seen as reasonable to blame them to some degree, but these problems predate 1979 by a long way. What substantial involvement was there by Iran/Persia prior to them setting up Hezbollah in 1985, and what involvement, if any, before 1979. Iran may be the prime motivator now, but it is certainly not the originator of the problems. That the borders of various countries in the area are a mess, to put it mildly, because of the British and French is not really in doubt, but the Arab v Jew issue is, IMO, and I simplfy this, an issue created by both equally. We have the desire of Jews to have their own country in their place of origin, and the desire of Arabs to continue to live in areas of Palestine long vacated by Jews, and some areas may never have ever been occupied by Jews. Who can say which side has most blame? who can say Jews cannot have a home? who can say Arabs should be turned out of their homes they have occupied for more than a millenia. To some this is an easy question in either direction, but some of us have to be convinced either way. Does a Jew whose family have been living in Warsaw or Minsk for centuries, no matter what horrors they suffered from the nazis, have the moral right to turn an Arab out of their home in turn? A genuine question, and I am aware of the missed opportunities that occured, the errors made after 1945, and that there were some "own goals" by Arabs. Does not the Levantine problem we have now, originate primarily with one lot of people wanting to live were another group were already living, and them not liking this?

Edited February 4, 2014 by Kaa-Tzik

[+and-then]

Yet the Balfour declaration cannot be discounted here at all. If the problems we have in the Levant began since Iranian Revolution, then it may be seen as reasonable to blame them to some degree, but these problems predate 1979 by a long way. What substantial involvement was there by Iran/Persia prior to them setting up Hezbollah in 1985, and what involvement, if any, before 1979. Iran may be the prime motivator now, but it is certainly not the originator of the problems. That the borders of various countries in the area are a mess, to put it mildly, because of the British and French is not really in doubt, but the Arab v Jew issue is, IMO, and I simplfy this, an issue created by both equally. We have the desire of Jews to have their own country in their place of origin, and the desire of Arabs to continue to live in areas of Palestine long vacated by Jews, and some areas may never have ever been occupied by Jews. Who can say which side has most blame? who can say Jews cannot have a home? who can say Arabs should be turned out of their homes they have occupied for more than a millenia. To some this is an easy question in either direction, but some of us have to be convinced either way. Does a Jew whose family have been living in Warsaw or Minsk for centuries, no matter what horrors they suffered from the nazis, have the moral right to turn an Arab out of their home in turn? A genuine question, and I am aware of the missed opportunities that occured, the errors made after 1945, and that there were some "own goals" by Arabs. Does not the Levantine problem we have now, originate primarily with one lot of people wanting to live were another group were already living, and them not liking this?

Perhaps the Jews view it from their perspective of constantly being turned out, their goods taken from them and they being put on the road over and over through the centuries? I'm not arguing here or even asking for pity. If they were accustomed to such things then maybe one can understand why they would expect others to be likewise accustomed? When the state was created, Jews were turned out from most Arab nations and their goods and property seized. They moved to Israel and started over. When it happened to the Arabs they were not allowed to "move on", they were kept in squalor as an ever present indictment against the Jews of Israel. If everything you bring up is true it still will never solve an intractable problem - only give it better focus. People here think me foolish for saying it over and over but it is simply true and self evident now. The last great war of humanity will start because of this hatred between these two groups - and it will spread into a conflagration that will be unlike anything we've seen before. Think of the sad irony of that when you look at a map of the territory involved.

[Kaa-Tzik]

Perhaps the Jews view it from their perspective of constantly being turned out, their goods taken from them and they being put on the road over and over through the centuries? I'm not arguing here or even asking for pity. If they were accustomed to such things then maybe one can understand why they would expect others to be likewise accustomed? When the state was created, Jews were turned out from most Arab nations and their goods and property seized. They moved to Israel and started over. When it happened to the Arabs they were not allowed to "move on", they were kept in squalor as an ever present indictment against the Jews of Israel. If everything you bring up is true it still will never solve an intractable problem - only give it better focus. People here think me foolish for saying it over and over but it is simply true and self evident now. The last great war of humanity will start because of this hatred between these two groups - and it will spread into a conflagration that will be unlike anything we've seen before. Think of the sad irony of that when you look at a map of the territory involved.

And what I bolded is what I meant by my saying that opportunities were lost, errors made and own goals scored in the years after 1945, and by both sides. But we are where we are, and I personally think it is long past the stage of pointing fingers of blame anywhere as nothing will change, though of course plenty from both sides want only to beat heads against the imovable wall of the past, (hmm....). Anyway, what is to be done? who knows what is to be done? who can do it? none here I think.

[RavenHawk]

Yet the Balfour declaration cannot be discounted here at all.

Sure it can. The Arabs had no place to complain about it. They lost that land in WWI. In a conversation I had in the distant past with a Muslim not associated with this forum or any recent forum, we were discussing the loss of al Andalus in 1492. I asked if the terrorism that we were seeing (a few years after Tehran) had anything to do with reclaiming Spain? And he told me that it was not the Muslim way to try to regain territory lost in war. He gave me supporting quotes from the Quran of which I don’t recall but I noted his main statement and have not forgotten it. If this is still true, then Muslims have no recourse on the loss of Palestine. Besides, 99% of the land had since been returned. You’d think that anybody else would be happy with that. That’s why Balfour is just another excuse for violence. The British and French (however impractical) could have depopulated the entire region and made it desolate. Take what you have and be happy that you are no longer under the yoke of the Ottomans. The British may have done a poor job in divvying up territory but there is nothing stopping anyone from reorganizing now. Saddam thought he was going to do it, thinking himself the new Saladin. That didn’t turn out too well.

If the problems we have in the Levant began since Iranian Revolution, then it may be seen as reasonable to blame them to some degree, but these problems predate 1979 by a long way. What substantial involvement was there by Iran/Persia prior to them setting up Hezbollah in 1985, and what involvement, if any, before 1979. Iran may be the prime motivator now, but it is certainly not the originator of the problems.

Iran isn’t the first or only belligerent. It was just the main current one. We could go back to Nasser in 1967. Or Algiers in 1830. Or the Barbary Pirates in 1786. Or even the Conquest of Hispaniola in 711. There are many places we can go back to and point that this is where it started. The fact is, is that it was cumulative.

That the borders of various countries in the area are a mess, to put it mildly, because of the British and French is not really in doubt, but the Arab v Jew issue is, IMO, and I simplfy this, an issue created by both equally.

If the Mandate powers had just left the borders up to the locals or even allowed Faisal to create his Pan-Arab nation that we wouldn’t be seeing the turmoil we are today? I think we would be more heavily engaged in that region than we are now. The British and French did the best job possible. It just wasn’t good enough. I don’t think that any plan would have worked out anyway. But the issue with Israel is strictly an Arab creation and a self-fulfilling demon. Speaking of TE Lawrence, I think Alec Guinness faithfully portrayed Prince Faisal. Knowing what Faisal faced in captured Damascus was only a hint of the troubles he would have faced holding together a Pan-Arab nation. The real man was definitely one that I would have wanted to see more prevalent in history.

We have the desire of Jews to have their own country in their place of origin, and the desire of Arabs to continue to live in areas of Palestine long vacated by Jews, and some areas may never have ever been occupied by Jews.

But the thing is, is that for most Palestinians, they are squatters on land that they don’t own and perhaps half of all deeds are bogus. There has never been any mechanism to confirm any of the deeds. It legally didn’t matter who lived there, was there undisputable proof that someone owned the land? This region was depopulated by Rome. Such an action takes some time before populations return. By that time, that land was owned by absentee non Palestinians (and I don’t mean the semi nomadic herdsmen that eventually settled there). This was land granted to citizens of the Ottoman Empire that distinguished themselves in battle, etc. and this land stayed in families for hundreds of years. It was land that most had no use for or no desire to put into it in order for the land to produce. But even the squatters underutilized that land. The region changes hands after the war and the Zionist legitimately show up with a good plan in a troubled land. Why should the British not pay attention?

Who can say which side has most blame?

I agree that both sides share a portion of the blame, but I think it is very clear as to who holds the most blame. That is the Arab side. The Israeli reaction has always been measured but resolute.

who can say Jews cannot have a home? who can say Arabs should be turned out of their homes they have occupied for more than a millenia. To some this is an easy question in either direction, but some of us have to be convinced either way. Does a Jew whose family have been living in Warsaw or Minsk for centuries, no matter what horrors they suffered from the nazis, have the moral right to turn an Arab out of their home in turn? A genuine question, and I am aware of the missed opportunities that occured, the errors made after 1945, and that there were some "own goals" by Arabs. Does not the Levantine problem we have now, originate primarily with one lot of people wanting to live were another group were already living, and them not liking this?

A squatter is still a squatter. Zionists had been legally buying land from the absentee land owners and kicking the squatters off the land which was their right. Then as violence was brought toward the Jews and it was shown that the Jews had more desire to fight for a homeland than squatters, more land was captured as the outcome of conflict. In this case, it doesn’t matter how long or where the Jews had lived in exile, it is about the culture and not individual families. But I think it has been very obvious how the land bows before the Jew showing that the Covenant still exists. The land produces in a way for the Jew that it never could for the Palestinian. We see this in the Israel of today. The Palestinian should have been more proactive during the Ottoman Empire to acquire the land from the rightful owners and assure that the land deeds were properly recorded (but even in the Ottoman Empire, the Palestinian was unwanted). If that had been the case in the first place then, Balfour could have never taken hold as the recorded land deeds would have shown a heavily indigenous ownership. It is obvious now that a separate Palestinian state will never happen and over time that territory will slowly dwindle away. But the remaining Palestinians can still have a place in Israel, if they become fully Israeli as many have. But they would have to become more fiercely loyal than any Jew. They would have to raise a Palestinian division that would march into Lebanon and take out Hezbollah. If they did that, then they should receive full citizenship. If that doesn’t happen then I could see a Gandhi like opposition (as opposed to suicide bombers) and if that happened, then the *ENTIRE* world would line up at the door to petition for full citizenship. You would see a true roadmap to a lasting peace.

[RoofGardener]

I suspect there is far more to it than the usual "Western Powers Drawing Lines", though that certainly happened.

The 20th Century - including the early portion thereof - saw an unprecedented rise in the transmission of ideas. In addition - with the Bolshevek revolutions - people saw that "The Establishment" was not the all-powerful, unchallangeable structure that people had previously thought. The extension of Democratic mandates reinforced this. Suddenly, it seemed that your positon in life was no longer pre-ordained, and the sky was the limit.

A second factor arising out of WW1 was the importance of Oil in modern warfare (tanks, Oil-fired Boilers - both for battleships and the Suffraget movement - et al). This resulted in some Arab states having more money to play with than previously, (though nothing LIKE the post-OPEC bonanza), as the Western powers bought up oil reserves.

It was against this background that Arab Nationalism started to evolve, and to question the hegonomy of foreign occupiers (Turkish, British or whoever). It also - coincidently or otherwise - saw the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, who where looking to restore the military-political supremecist aspects of Islam.

Meanwhile, the local nerds - who normally existed to have sand kicked in their faces and generally pushed around - had been serving with the British forces, (in BOTH world wars) and suddenly wheren't quite as easy to push around as they previously where. And then they invited a bunch of friends over and declared Israel.

A heady mix.

Sure, Western "line-drawing" was involved, and the "West" interfered one way or the other for the rest of the Centry, but I don't think the turbulance in that region was JUST down to de-colonialisation.

[Guest]

The situation in Palestine could not really have been avoided since Zionists had already infiltrated the British and American Governments to such an extent that the foundation of the state of Israel was all but inevitable. It was simply the opportunities afforded by the two world wars and the useful tool that was Lawrence of Arabia which allowed them to press their case to a conclusion.

We are all suffering the unfortunate consequences of their undue influence on British foreign policy.

Br Cornelius

[+and-then]

Brutha do you honestly believe that the "Palestinian problem" is at the root of our suffering today? That if they had even ALL of Palestine back, the world would find peace? You know better.

[Guest]

No I do not and I never claimed any such thing. My point was simply that some might assume that there were some careless mistakes made when dividing up the Ottaman Empire and that those mistakes were unfortunate. The reality is entirely different, the break up of the Ottaman Empire was engineered to make the formation of Israel an inevitability and the British Empire was a dupe to the Zionist interests that did it. The disturbance's happening across the middle east are still a product of that manipulation and the ongoing interference in Middle eastern affair by the Zionists who are still embedded in the British and American governments.

We had a chance to follow through with the promises made by Lawrence, which would have made the Arabs our Allies for a considerable time, but we chose to p*** that away because it was not going to deliver the state of Israel to the Zionists. That was more than unfortunate and we still have the very real prospect of an Invasion of Iran at the request of the NeoCon Zionists in Washington - all to protect the Zionist project in Palestine.

Br Cornelius

[+and-then]

No I do not and I never claimed any such thing. My point was simply that some might assume that there were some careless mistakes made when dividing up the Ottaman Empire and that those mistakes were unfortunate. The reality is entirely different, the break up of the Ottaman Empire was engineered to make the formation of Israel an inevitability and the British Empire was a dupe to the Zionist interests that did it. The disturbance's happening across the middle east are still a product of that manipulation and the ongoing interference in Middle eastern affair by the Zionists who are still embedded in the British and American governments.

We had a chance to follow through with the promises made by Lawrence, which would have made the Arabs our Allies for a considerable time, but we chose to p*** that away because it was not going to deliver the state of Israel to the Zionists. That was more than unfortunate and we still have the very real prospect of an Invasion of Iran at the request of the NeoCon Zionists in Washington - all to protect the Zionist project in Palestine.

Br Cornelius

That "project" as you so casually dismiss it, is about 6 million human beings who now have been living and working in that land for nearly 7 decades. If that isn't reason enough to offer help then you might consider the consequences of them being backed into a corner by the neighbors who still outnumber them many multiples to one. It will lead to a bad outcome for the whole world, not just those that are part of the "project".

[Guest]

That "project" as you so casually dismiss it, is about 6 million human beings who now have been living and working in that land for nearly 7 decades. If that isn't reason enough to offer help then you might consider the consequences of them being backed into a corner by the neighbors who still outnumber them many multiples to one. It will lead to a bad outcome for the whole world, not just those that are part of the "project".

The bad outcomes started when the Zionists manipulated the British and Americans into giving away another peoples lands for their "Zionist project".

Br Cornelius

[RavenHawk]

The bad outcomes started when the Zionists manipulated the British and Americans into giving away another peoples lands for their "Zionist project".

The Zionists didn’t manipulate the British and Americans. The Americans didn’t have anything to do with Israel until after the Yom Kippur war (other than moral support). The British were presented with a positive solution (Balfour) to a troubled land. It was the best plan available. If you recall, the lands of the ME were captured from the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were the owners of the land until they relinquished it. Ownership just didn’t somehow magically revert to the indigenous peoples. Any prior claims to the land especially by indigenous peoples became null and void. The ME was a clean slate. Are you with me so far?

The British did their best to return the land to the rightful indigenous owners and for 99% of the land they did. Much of the land in Palestine was owned by absentee owners. But too many of the indigenous had improper deeds or bogus deeds if at all. They were just squatters and the rightful owners were incapable or unwilling to remove them. That’s why that land remained unorganized territory until Israeli statehood. Zionists legally purchased land from the rightful owners and then evicted squatters and that was well within their rights to do so in unorganized territory. Obviously that created resentment among the various Arab tribes. But they have no one but themselves to blame. They were given many chances to organize themselves and they refused. They were not Palestinians; they were a conglomeration of tribes fragmented by disagreements and blood feuds. That’s what caused the bad outcomes.

[MordorOrc]

Let's just forget the Zionists for a minute here; there's more to conflicts in the Middle East than simply "Jews vs. Arabs". Let's look at the plight of the Kurds, who have suffered from persecutions from both the Arabs, the Turkish and the Iranians. This was also the result of the end of the Great War.

[+and-then]

Let's just forget the Zionists for a minute here; there's more to conflicts in the Middle East than simply "Jews vs. Arabs". Let's look at the plight of the Kurds, who have suffered from persecutions from both the Arabs, the Turkish and the Iranians. This was also the result of the end of the Great War.

I agree, but you'll have trouble raising any point that goes against the anti Zionist crowd here. The state of Israel is the root of all evil with them - they mouth it reflexively.

[MordorOrc]

I agree, but you'll have trouble raising any point that goes against the anti Zionist crowd here. The state of Israel is the root of all evil with them - they mouth it reflexively.

I'm not trying to make a point against the Zionists. I'm saying that conflict would arise out of the Middle East with or without Israel. If Israel didn't exist, there'd still be thousands of people dead from conflicts and revolutions anyway, be them Kurds, Arabs or any other persecuted religious or ethnic minorities.

If we take the extremely loose definition of what constitutes the Middle East (i.e to include North Africa), we'd still see conflict and tensions there. Algeria for example had a civil war that killed thousands during the 1990's that barely made headlines.

[Guest]

I'm not trying to make a point against the Zionists. I'm saying that conflict would arise out of the Middle East with or without Israel. If Israel didn't exist, there'd still be thousands of people dead from conflicts and revolutions anyway, be them Kurds, Arabs or any other persecuted religious or ethnic minorities.

If we take the extremely loose definition of what constitutes the Middle East (i.e to include North Africa), we'd still see conflict and tensions there. Algeria for example had a civil war that killed thousands during the 1990's that barely made headlines.

Just as there were right up until the 1800's in Europe - your point is rather obvious. It doesn't however make the planting of settlers into the Middle of it any less wrong. As an Analogy the situation in Ireland where Scottish settlers were planted into N.Ireland caused 400 years of conflict which would not have happened if the Colonialists had never have caused the plantation in the first place.

And RavenHawk - you are just plain wrong - colonialism doesn't cause the rights of the indigenous population to be null and void - thats just crazy talk. The simple logic is that by that logic Native American Indians should have no rights to their own lands which is patently not true. Additionally the Balfour declaration represented a solution to only one problem - the completion of the Zionist project. It benefited the British in no other way and created many subsequent problems. How did it benefit the British to give a way territory to the Zionists - other than stopping the acts of terrorism that the Zionists were perpetrating on the British Colonial forces and the native Palestinians. Surely the4 better solution would have been to crack down on the terrorists - the approach I am certain you would advocate for Muslim terrorists today. There is innate racism in your position.

Br Cornelius

Edited February 28, 2014 by Guest