The Middle East (or, if you live there, right here)

[findingZzero]

I'm not saying that the creation of Israel and the West meddling there hasn't created problems. I am saying (asking), if Israel didn't exist, and we didn't meddle, would the Middle East be a bastion of calm today?

 

[chezuki]

Dis gon be gud.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

No. The ingrained tribalism in the region would still be creating problems (like it is in much of Africa today). The same thing happened in Germany until Hindenburg united the Germanic tribes under one rule AND somehow simultaneously managed to eliminate the culture of tribalism that had existed before.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I'm not saying that the creation of Israel and the West meddling there hasn't created problems. I am saying (asking), if Israel didn't exist, and we didn't meddle, would the Middle East be a bastion of calm today?

So, you are asking for a list of all wars in the Middle East before the creation of Israel? Can I just give you a top 10 or so?

 

[BogWalker]

The Middle East wasn't exactly the most peaceful place before Israel came into being. While a lot of people blame the violence on the divide between Muslims and Jews, the vast majority of the religious violence seems, at least to me, to be a result of divides within the Islamic religion itself. These divides have existed for thousands of years.

 

[printcraft]

No
If the middle east was it's own separate planet there would be war.
A separate sect of anything will eventually result in one group killing the other.
Another reason why pointing out the differences in us (Americans) isn't really a great thing. Think about it.

 

[eldirector]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_the_Near_East
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_conflicts_in_the_Middle_East

A little light reading.

 

[jamil]

I'm not saying that the creation of Israel and the West meddling there hasn't created problems. I am saying (asking), if Israel didn't exist, and we didn't meddle, would the Middle East be a bastion of calm today?

Yes, the middle east would be a model region if Israel didn't exist. In fact, there were never any conflicts prior to Israel's existence. So it stands to reason that there'd be no conflicts after. Throughout it's history the ME was peaceful until Israel showed up. Middle East society would gladly exchange their AKs and swords for tennis rackets and lawn darts if only Israel would stop oppressing them. Women would wear flowers in their hair, and men would have flowered beards. Their children would grow fat with abundance if only Israel ceased to exist. The ME is a desert now because Israel exists, and their continued existence is really what's behind global warming.

 

[Super Bee]

Dis gon be gud.

Agreed. . pass the corn.

 

[devious169]

I honestly couldn't answer the question, without getting a infraction!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Probably not. Tribal peoples faced with limited resources tend to fight with their neighbors over those resources. We'd just ignore it if it weren't for oil. It's just Rwanda if there isn't cheap energy at stake.

 

[Jludo]

Probably not. Tribal peoples faced with limited resources tend to fight with their neighbors over those resources. We'd just ignore it if it weren't for oil. It's just Rwanda if there isn't cheap energy at stake.

Exactly, as long as we kept the oil flowing from Saudi/Iraq we'd probably get as involved in middle eastern infighting as we do with African infighting today.

Though a more interesting question might be if we hadn't sliced the middle east up on along arbitrary lines would sects keep to themselves within their respective states and keep relative stability in the region?

 

[BugI02]

Exactly, as long as we kept the oil flowing from Saudi/Iraq we'd probably get as involved in middle eastern infighting as we do with African infighting today.

Though a more interesting question might be if we hadn't sliced the middle east up on along arbitrary lines would sects keep to themselves within their respective states and keep relative stability in the region?

I think the Brits actually get the credit/blame for this

 

[ArcadiaGP]

if Israel didn't exist, and we didn't meddle...

 

[Jludo]

I think the Brits actually get the credit/blame for this

Yea by we I meant the allies

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Exactly, as long as we kept the oil flowing from Saudi/Iraq we'd probably get as involved in middle eastern infighting as we do with African infighting today.

Though a more interesting question might be if we hadn't sliced the middle east up on along arbitrary lines would sects keep to themselves within their respective states and keep relative stability in the region?

Always tough to say what would have been different. Maybe Iran runs the whole region by now? In recorded history, the Arabs have never repelled a outside invader without outsider help in the long term. Same reasons the Indians couldn't. Tribalism. Limited resources. Limited population due to limited resources.

 

[chubbs]

As long as there are Islamic groups there will be war over there. I call BULL**** on the media's "Its a peaceful religion".

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I think the Brits actually get the credit/blame for this

Yes, but not without influence from powerful natives. Read Lawrence of Arabia's book, which contains a wealth of information and is a very easy read. It does have a bit too descriptive passage about camel feces after drinking alkaline water, but that aside is well worth it.

As long as there are Islamic groups there will be war over there. I call BULL**** on the media's "Its a peaceful religion".

I lived in the middle east for 2 years, have visited recently, and have many in-laws and do not require the media to tell me one way or the other. It is as peaceful or as warlike as the individual practitioner makes, the same as any other religion. It can be used to better humanity or it can be used to justify atrocities. However to declare an entire religion as violent requires you to ignore the literally MILLIONS of Muslims who haven't hurt anyone at all. That's exactly why I did my thread on living in the Middle East. You call BS on what the media shows you, but you don't get to see anything other than what the media shows you. They show you violence and then say "but they aren't all violent"...and then never show you them not being violent. I get that. Most Americans who've been to the Middle East did so in a war zone. Well, no crap, that gives you a picture of violence. Go to Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain, Malaysia, etc. and it's just mostly regular people going about their regular business, going to work, making a living, using selfie sticks, eating McDonald's, etc. etc.

 

[indykid]

They have been killing each other in the middle east for something like 5000 years. Having a state called Israel just gives them one more name to try to kill.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I am going to step out on a limb here and answer the question with our own history. The United States Navy was originally founded for the purpose of fighting Moslems. This is not disparaged by the fact that the ships were detoured into the quasi-war with France prior to being used for their first purpose. The Barbary Pirates were the state sponsored terrorists of their day and had no connection with us aside from our merchant ships sailing from point A to point C and Tripoli and Tunis just happened to be located at point B. We tried to make friends. It didn't work. We tried to bribe them. We discovered that not only can their loyalty not be purchased, it can't even be rented beyond the time that the check clears. We build a navy (the Revolutionary War navy having for all intents and purposes been destroyed during the war), Commodore Decatur handed their asses to them, and we went for a century or so without any significant problems.

Fast forward to the present. Israel is the favorite target of both rhetoric and directly applied hostility by virtue of its convenient geographic location. Those who would attack Israel would just as happily attack us, especially if Israel were not the low hanging fruit, and have not been shy about saying as much. This brings me to what I consider the single biggest problem with militant Islam, which is that for all their faults, these people are remarkably honest about their intentions, yet for some strange reason we refuse to take them at their word in spite of its consistent reliability.

On one hand, as BBI suggested, it is indeed true that at least 1B Moslems didn't kill anyone today. On the other hand, it still doesn't escape my notice that I can't think of another significant group left that holds religion as a motive for killing people. My purpose is not to argue the internal distinctions within the realm of Islam or explore the reasons for those distinctions or the actions of any given individual or group, but rather to arrive at the conclusion that I consider absolutely defensible that the same people who are actively engaged in hostilities today with Israel as the focal point would be acting no different in principle, but simply would move onward to the next target on their list. In other words, the only thing that changes with the existence/non-existence of Israel is that if Israel didn't exist, they would be attacking someone else.