A bit of history

[t.]

This was my contribution to another forum a while ago when i was posed with a question. And i hope it might be of some use here, as far as understanding of the situations go. So here you go, let me know if you knew most of this or not:
___________________________________


Firstly, the most important thing for all people that have grown up in the west to do is to take a university middle-east history class. There is so much that regular people in the middle-east know about the region's history that westerners do not know simply because they don't care.
This would be ok, if the west wasn't constantly tampering with the politics of the middle-east.
No one in the middle-east burns Chinese flags, or Japanese flags. Why?
Because pretty much everyone in the region has grown up with a burning hate towards America, UK, and Israel.

"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do." - Samuel P. Huntington

Firstly you have to understand what happened in the middle-east.
I'm reading a book called 'A Peace to End All Peace' by David Fromkin. I HIGHLY suggest it to all even remotely interested in modern politics. This is an excerpt from the back:

"In A Peace to End All Peace, David Fromkin reveals how and why the Allies came to remake the geography and politics of of the Middle-East, drawing lines on an empty map that eventually became the new countries of Iraq, Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon. Focusing on the formative years years of 1914 to 1922, when everything - even an alliance between Arab nationalism and Zionism - seemed possible and oil was not a political issue, Fromkin shows how the choices narrowed and the Middle East began along a road that led to the endless wars and the escalating acts of terrorism that continue to this day."

The key words here, are 'how the Allies came to remake the geography and politics of the Middle-East, drawing lines on an empty map'.

During WW1, the western Allies wanted to open up another front to fight the Ottoman Turks who were giving them a rough time.
They then began to contact local leaders in the Hejaz area of Saudi Arabia. The Hejaz area is western Saudi Arabia and includes the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.
At that time there was a Sherif of Mecca. His family was directly descended from the Prophet and that clan had ruled Mecca for 1400 years.
The British decided that he was the best bet to start an Arab independence war against the Ottomans.
They began sending him weapons and money.
Meanwhile, another part of the British colonial empire had decided that a strong tribal leader in the east of Saudi Arabia was a good bet.
They began to send money and weapons to Ibn Saud.

Now it is important to remember 2 things.
1) The entire Arabic speaking region had been more or less 1 country since Muhammad. There existed no countries such as Lebanon, Kuwait, etc.
2) The Arabian Gulf was home to bedouins, and they had a very complex system of tribal warfare. That's how they lived, clans allied with each other much like in Scotland and other places in the world.
The Meccan Sherif's clan had a blood feud with the Ibn Saud clan, and had ejected them from the Hejaz ages before.

The Ibn Saud clan were Wahhabis. If you don't know what Wahhabis are, look it up because that is important to this whole discussion.
They had been ejected from the Hejaz, and they resided with some other Wahhabis in eastern Saudi Arabia, and in Kuwait.
Before WW1 Ibn Saud had amassed an 'army' of about 200 and had attacked Riyadh repeatedly. This is why he was considered a strong leader.
The Wahhabis were the equivalent of the Mormons in the US.

Anway, so eventually the Sherif of Mecca decides to take on this cause, as the Arabs were generally sick of the Ottomans by this time.
His sons amassed an army from all of Arabia. There were modern-day Syrians, Egyptians, Indians, Moroccans, Algerians, Iraqis, etc etc.

They began to fight the Turks with the aid of T.E. Lawrence (or Lawrence of Arabia as he is known to some).
They were successful, and in a few short years they had taken control of all of Arabia past Damascus in Syria.
In 1920, one of the sons, Feisal, finally declared himself King of Greater Syria.
Their plan was a country called Greater Syria, that lay between Persia and Egypt.
Think about that for a second. The geography would have been Egypt, Greater Syria, Iran. That's it.

His reign as king lasted a few short weeks.
Why?

The UN had a meeting in France a few weeks after Feisal became king, and there, they decided to divide the region as they saw fit.
What was an Arab effort to control their own lands, became a European effort to control the lands.
Feisal was kicked out by the French following a battle. He went to Europe, where with T.E. Lawrence he lobbied at the UN to try to take back control.
Want to know what happened to him?
The Brits needed to appease the family, so they named Feisal king of Iraq, and his brother king of Jordan. Thus they dispersed the Hashemites from Mecca.


"I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes." - Winston Churchill, 19 February, 1920.

Meanwhile, the British had been sending arms and money to Ibn Saud in Kuwait, and were urging him to attack.
Wikipedia:
"Ibn Sa'ūd did not, immediately make war against Ibn Rashid, despite a steady supply of weapons and cash (£5,000 Sterling per month) from the British. He argued with the British that the payment he received was insufficient to adequately wage war against an enemy as powerful as Ibn Rashid. In 1920, however, Ibn Sa'ūd finally marched again against the Rashidis, extinguishing their dominion in 1922."

The Rashids controlled the region in between Mecca and the lands controlled by Ibn Saud.

"In 1925 the Sa'ūds captured the holy city of Mecca from Sherif Hussein ibn Ali ending 700 years of Hashemite tutelage of the Islamic holy places. On 10 January 1926 Ibn Saud was proclaimed King of the Hejaz in the Great Mosque at Mecca."

Thus, Wahhabis had taken control of the Arabian Gulf. The armies of the Meccan Sherif had scattered after fighting for Arab independence for several years. They were no match for Ibn Saud's new found wealth and military strength.

This event can be explained to westerners by saying that it is the equivalent of the strictest Mormons taking control of the US with foreign aid, and then instilling their rules and values on them.

The Wahhabis would be overthrown tomorrow if they didn't find oil in the region right after Ibn Saud named his area after himself. Ever since then America has been best pals with the Wahhabis.
Why didn't the US attack Saudi Arabia after 9/11 if 90% of the hijackers were Saudis?
Thanks to the west, the Wahhabis have had 90 years to make as much propaganda in the area as they wanted.
Egypt and Syria have always had a policy of deporting radical extremists.
When the Wahhabis took control of Mecca they began inviting these radicals to teach in Saudi universities.

Bin Laden was influenced most by an Egyptian radical who said that Jihad should be changed from a defensive war, to an aggressive war.
Jihad in itself is a concept that requires more reading, so perhaps I'll explain it some other time. But for now suffice to say that Jihad in the context of holy war is only a defensive measure. You cannot have a jihad and attack someone for no reason.

Europe then created all of the countries you know today.
They divided the area into 'zones of influence'.
I won't even speak of the Sykes-Picot agreement and the Balfour declaration.

All that you need to know is that the Arabs were promised Palestine would remain Palestine.
Then the British changed their mind.



So to answer your question, why do people take to the streets when Europeans publish cartoons of the prophet and not when people in Palestine blow themselves up?
Because they understand the feeling of despair that drives those suicide bombers.
They don't agree with it, but they understand it.
Just as the Irish did it when fighting the English, so do the Palestinians do it when fighting the Israelis.
The Egyptians still resent the British for their colonial rule, as do modern-day Pakistanis.
They run anti-extremist commercials on Arabic television now.
You cannot enter a mosque in the Arab world and talk about politics anymore.
But why do they take to the streets and burn flags?
Because it is yet another example of the way in which the West doesn't give a damn about what it has done in the East.
The west CREATED these political problems. But then they blame the religion, and not themselves.
That's why the people take to the streets.

This is why they hate the US:

They hate them because they support Bin Saud, Qaddafi, Mobarak, Israel,
Bin Laden (before he bombed them), Saddam (before he bombed Kuwait),
alSabah, alMaktoum, alThani, NONE of whom are democratic.

They hate them because they armed and funded Saddam, gave him the weapons
that he used to bomb his own people.

They hate them because they send Arab torture victims to Eastern Europe
and North Africa and run a Gulag in Guantanamo.

They hate them because they overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh
in Iran to be replaced by the Ayatollah. Think about that.
The country that spreads democracy by the sword overthrew Mossadegh by bombing mosques and claiming it was Mossadegh.

They hate them because they bitch at Palestine to become democratic then
sanction their asses when they elect someone they don't like. ie. Hamas

They hate them because they fund terrorists in Afghanistan, fund
terrorists in Palestine, fund terrorists and minority militias in the
Lebanon, and created and funded Bin Laden as well as causing the Ayatollahs of Iran to come into power.
And after all this, they bitch at the spread of Islamic extremism.

They hate them because they protect the corrupt Saud clan - members of the
minority Wahhabi sect who allow Egyptian and Syrian deportees to teach
at their universities - then bitch at the spread of violent Islam some more.

They hate them for backing and funding Mobarak, who wins 'elections' by 99%.

They hate them for supporting and sending billions each year to Israel,
and sending them boat-loads of arms, planes, and bombs, which were
spent on Lebanon and on Palestine every day.

They hate them because 10% of them have passports, but 40% of Canadians do.

They hate them because their politicians take orders from AIPAC for
millions in campaign donations.

They hate them for the Balkanization of the Middle-East and of the Balkanization of Iraq and for re-igniting a Sunni-Shia conflict that has been buried for 1000 years.
Ask any Arab you meet whether he cared whether someone was a Sunni or a Sheei when he was young.
They have unearthed it from the bowels of history and are using it to Balkanize the region to keep it weak so that they may exploit the natural resources.
It has NOTHING to do with democracy, or religion.


The spread of extremism is just as much the fault of the west as it is the fault of Muslims themselves for being gullible enough to believe it.
All Arabs know what these wars are truly about, but Americans still think it is about spreading democracy.
People fail to understand that it is not about religion anymore, it is purely politics.
Any cab driver in Egypt could tell you what I have just told you.
But who do the Americans decided to elect?

It's very interesting when you think about it, the slaves who left here to go to America, because of their steadfast and their religion and their belief in freedom, helped change America.
--George w. Bush

Dakar, Senegal
07/08/2003

__________________________________________________________________________________________

I'll leave you with some quotes that I find reflect what has happened in the Middle-East this past 100 years:


"[the Middle East is] a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history." - U.S. State Department, 1945

"... somehow we find it hard to sell our values, namely that the rich should plunder the poor." - former US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles


"The U.S.A. has supplied arms, security equipment and training to governments and armed groups that have committed torture, political killings and other human rights abuses in countries around the world." - Amnesty International [October 1998]

"(We need an) ..Arab facade ruled and administered under British guidance and controlled by a native Mohammedan and, as far as possible, by an Arab staff.... There should be no actual incorporation of the conquered territory in the dominions of the conqueror, but the absorption may be veiled by such constitutional fictions as a protectorate, a sphere of influence, a buffer state and so on”. - Lord Curzon on installing Feisal as King of Iraq

"It's really not a number I'm terribly interested in." [When asked about the number of Iraqi people who were slaughtered by Americans in the 1991 "Desert Storm" terror campaign (200,000 people)] - General US General Colin Powell

"If Kuwait grew carrots, we wouldn't give a damn." - Lawrence Korb, assistant defense secretary under Reagan

The meeting had gone on for five grueling days with no compromise in sight. So one night in late November 1922, Cox, Britain's representative in Baghdad, summoned to his tent Sheik Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud, soon to become ruler of Saudi Arabia, to explain the facts of life as the British carved up the remnants of the defeated Ottoman empire. "It was astonishing to see [ibn Saud] being reprimanded like a naughty schoolboy by His Majesty's High Commissioner and being told sharply that he, Sir Percy Cox, would himself decide the type and general line of the frontier," recalled Harold Dickson, the British military attaché to the region, in his memoirs. "This ended the impasse. Ibn Saud almost broke down and pathetically remarked that Sir Percy was his father and mother who made him and raised him from nothing to the position he held and that he would surrender half his kingdom, nay the whole, if Sir Percy ordered." Within two days, the deal was done. The modern borders of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait were established by British Imperial fiat at what became known as the Uqauir Conference. - Journalist Glenn Franke


"Our strategic and security interests throughout the world will be best safeguarded by the establishment in suitable spots of 'Police Stations', fully equipped to deal with emergencies within a large radius. Kuwait is one such spot from which Iraq, South Persia, Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf could be controlled. It will be worthwhile to go to considerable trouble and expense to establish and man a 'Police Station' there." - British Foreign Office, policy memo, 1947


"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." winston churchill

"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist, not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushu'a in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab Population."

Moshe Dayan, Israeli war hero, Address to the Technion, Haifa (as quoted in Ha'aretz, April 4, 1969)

[nico]

Thanks t.
I have learned a great deal. I am glad you joined this forum. I look forward to your next posts.