Contemporary Middle Eastern History - Essay Example

Contemporary Middle Eastern History 1. Origins of the Arab-Israeli dispute Gelvin, 2007, Ch. 14 deals with the subject matter of the origins of the Arab-Israeli dispute. Historically, the Jews lived peacefully under Muslim rule. The origins of the Arab-Israeli dispute as it exists today go back to the artificial creation of the state of Israel and further still to the beginnings of the Zionist movement. As such, it is not essentially a religious dispute between Muslims and Jews though it appears to take on those dimensions nowadays. Rather, it is a land dispute and the forceful displacement of its original inhabitants viz. the Palestinians, and the injustices and cruelty meted out to them. For example, the British demolished Palestinian houses during the Great Revolt (Gelvin, 2007, Pg. 213). From the Jewish perspective, the creation of Israel was justified for the fulfillment of prophecy because like the Kurds today, the Jews then had no homeland of their own, and many of their numbers in Europe had either perished or just escaped from the Holocaust during World War II. The Khater anthology on ‘Ideas of Nationalism’ traces the origin of the concept of a ‘Jewish Homeland’ to a Zionist intellectual Leo Pinsker in 1882. (Khater, 2003, Ch. 4.1) Ahad Ha-Am’s counterargument fifteen years later in ‘The Jewish State and the Jewish Problem’, as we all know failed to dissipate the proposal because the state eventually came into existence in May 1948. Prior to this, the support for a Jewish homeland had kept on growing in the early part of the last century. In the famous Balfour Declaration in November 1917 “the British [openly] endorsed the Zionist goal of establishing a ‘national home’ in Palestine for Jews around the world.” (Gelvin, 2007, Pg. 179; also Khater, 2003, Ch. 4.4). A couple of years later, the Zionists solicited further support for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine at the Peace Conference in Versailles. (Khater, 2003, Ch. 5.2) Then US president Harry Truman also issued a statement supporting Jewish ‘immigration’ into Palestine on October 4, 1946 (Khater, 2003, Ch. 5.13). The whole Middle East at that time was undergoing a period of great reshaping due to the waning of colonialism. It is within this environment that the Jews too took an opportunity to form their own state. What makes this nationalism contested and the situation so complex though is that like the Kashmir dispute it has peoples of two different religions as the opposing parties. But even more than that is the deeper religious, cultural and historical significance of this part of the world to not just those two but the Christian religion also. Like typical land disputes, it is largely a matter of how far back you go that determines who has greater claim of ownership. Both Palestinians and Zionists lay claim to Palestine. “… their descendents, united by their adherence to the nationalist ideology of Zionism, and the Palestinian Arab inhabitants among whom the Zionists settled both claim an exclusive right to inhabit and control some or all of Palestine.” (Gelvin, 2007, Pg. 206) The Jews may feel that they are a chosen race and state that their religion is older than Islam, but technically all the Jewish prophets are recognized in Islam too. The prophet Muhammad (saws) was just the last in the line of Muslim prophets who perfected the existing religion since prophet Adam (pbuh) (Holy Quran). It is also pertinent to point out that Arabs and Jews are both the descendents of prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) through his two sons and are therefore cousins. As regards solutions or hope for the future, an adjacent mini Palestinian state on the Gaza strip and West Bank, ‘internationalization’ of Jerusalem etc. could be suggested along with advocating better understanding between the two religions and so on, but realistically the roots of the problem are too deeply entrenched. The idea of a ‘bi-national state’ is not new either. The Arabs touted it in 1946 (Khater, 2003, Ch. 5.12) but it failed to materialize. For Muslims, this suggestion is tantamount to humiliation and defeat anyway. Besides, the so-called ‘Jewish settlers’ are settling on lands belonging to the Palestinians. It is like outsiders taking over a house and telling the occupants to go camp outside. And, whereas the ‘Goliath’ Israeli forces are armed with sophisticated weapons supported by ‘uncle Sam’, the ‘David’ Palestinians are left to defend themselves with mere stones. The Jews too or more precisely the Zionists, cannot accept coexistence either because it is against their expansionist plans of a greater Israel according to the protocols of the elders of Zion. A long lasting ‘solution’ will await either the ambitious success of the Zionists, or the dispersion of the Jews once again after the full reawakening and united strength of the Muslim civilization. In the latter case, the existence of Israel is just a blip in history whilst the Muslim world is divided and getting itself back together. If any resolution is to be brought about otherwise it requires mutual understanding, cooperation and a great joint effort by both Muslims and Jews i.e. real liberal and peace minded fundamentalists – and a backing off by the three obstacles to peace viz. the external power elite that is currently America, Islamic militants who resort to violence in the name of religion, and Zionists who are disillusioned and the perpetrators of inhumane treatment. “Economic prosperity and stability will never come to the Middle East as long as the Foreign Elite call the shots. Only the awakening of Arabs and Jews to the deceitful practices of the foreigners can alter the status quo.” (Hartwell) 2. Origins and main motives for US involvement in the region. The author of The Modern Middle East: A History states “The U.S. government, like the governments of every nation, privileges what it considers to be its national interest over the humane ideals of its citizenry.” (Gelvin, 2007, Pg. 306) But it is the fact that it currently enjoys sole superpower status that it faces no challenge to exercising these ‘interests’ and therefore does so freely. Moreover, there is a discrepancy between officially stated motives of US involvement in the Middle East and actual motives. The officially stated motives are not even worth discussing as they amount to nothing but Western propaganda, lies and deceit. Foreign policies of irreligious states are never based on morals or high ideals but greed and exploitation of the weak and poor. The origins of the US involvement in the Middle East probably go back to the time of Woodrow Wilson and his endorsement of the Balfour Declaration, and then the breakup of the Ottoman Empire in the early part of the 20th century. At that time, America was not a major power but Great Britain, France, and other European countries were though their powers were gradually declining. America aspired to become the new power and with the development of the atomic bomb towards the end of World War II, it guaranteed that it did. But the other major development that had a direct bearing on America’s relations with the Middle East was the invention of the automobile and of course the importance that this made to the supply of oil to satisfy America’s growing economy. For the latter half of the 20th century then, the Middle East became a battling ground of sorts between the two superpowers (USA and USSR) for influence and control. The next stage of far more direct involvement however, came about after the collapse of the USSR and the First Gulf War against Iraq. American interests in the region can be categorized into three types - Strategic military interests, strategic commercial interests, and strategic top-secret interests. The latter is beyond the scope of this work as it deals with conspiracy theories, so I shall briefly mention only the first two. Military interests during the Cold War were shaped by rivalry with the USSR. Since the collapse of the USSR and the US becoming the sole superpower, the target is now the Muslim world as a whole. It simply suits America to reign supreme by maintaining the divisions in the Muslim world especially by way of political separation rather than have to face the Muslim world united. Commercial interests include the ‘black gold’ that is oil, and weapons sales. So economic exploitation involving oil and arms are key American interests. The US was not at all right in getting involved in the Middle East in the way that it did, and will pay by going down the same path as the former USSR. The same greed that dictates US involvement in the Middle East, underpins the very foundations of the capitalist system that we all now see is crumbling around us. This is the basic or fundamental mistake of America as with previous civilizations that have now become history. 3. Why Turkey has been a model for developing nations True to its geographical position as a ‘bridge’ between Asia and Europe, Turkey is seen as a role model for developing nations due to the way it has demonstrated a successful blend of eastern and western socio-cultural, economic and political values. Although it has a predominantly Muslim population, it is also a secular country. It shares its history, religion, culture etc. with the Middle East yet is also enjoying friendly relations with the West. In particular it is looked upon for how it has handled issues of secularization, westernization, democratization and modernization. “The Turkish model presents a case of successful democratization despite several hurdles, and adverse conditions… it also displays a unique endeavor of secularism in a predominantly Muslim country… The Turkish experience may provide invaluable insights for Middle Eastern countries into how to deal with such hurdle… Turkey may provide a model for those countries that are pressed between the demands of their societies, the impositions of the West and regional security problems.” (Cig­6d6e6m, Nas,6 2005) Human rights activist Yilmaz Ensaroglu discussed the role of the army in 1997. In the same year, grassroots environmental movements surfaced, and again in 2000. (Khater, 2003, Ch. 9) The process of modernization however began with Mustafa Kemal Ataturk even before the country came into existence. It was his vision that defined how Turkey should be formed and how it should develop. (Khater, 2003, Ch. 4) After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the Turkish Republic adopted a rather neutral stance in international relations and inward focus on socio-economic and national development. Modernization was thus given priority, and it distanced itself from entanglement in the affairs of the Middle East. Turkey made efforts to negate “underdevelopment, religious influences, ethnic and religious antagonisms… and western interests were prioritized by the foreign policy establishment” (Cig­7d7e7m, Nas,7 2005) This attitude may have helped advance the secularization, westernization and modernization of Turkey, but it also hindered Turkey’s early influence in the Middle East and created a ‘gulf’ in mutual understanding and appreciation between Arabs and Turks. Consequently, this has isolated Turkey in the region. Since the end of the Cold War and First Gulf War in the early 1990s however, the situation in Turkey has changed somewhat. Turkey’s support for the American led alliance against Iraq and its alignment with Israel eventually led to “growing radical movements, ethnic strife and religious fundamentalism” (ibid). It is a reminder of Turkey’s close religious and cultural affinities to the Middle East. Nonetheless, its unique position enables it also to help tie peaceful relations between the Middle East and the West. So Turkey has a pivotal role to play in this regard. 4. Differences between Arab nationalism, Islam, and Islamism. The hadith of the holy prophet Muhammad (saws) mentions the virtue of love for one’s country (hibbatul watan). But beyond this, there is no concept of nationalism as such in Islam. Instead, the Muslim ummah (nation) is recognized as the collective body of all the Muslims throughout the world irrespective of their race, colour, or the modern concept of state to which they may belong. Moreover, the Arab race no longer makes up the major proportion of the ummah. There are more Muslims in countries like Indonesia and Pakistan who are non-Arabs than there are in Arab countries in the Middle East. It is also pertinent to note that the British and other colonialists artificially demarcated many Arab countries in the previous century. So, their distinct political identities are relatively recent phenomena. Islam on the other hand has a history that spans over 1400 years to prophet Muhammad (saws) and further still in its previous form. Therefore, when we talk of Arab nationalism, we refer to a select race within the body politic of different Arab nations that serves only to reinforce their distinct political identity rather than strive to reintegrate with other Arab or non-Arab nations. “In the traditional Islamic world… nations and countries often had a strong sense of national and regional identity. The three major peoples of Middle Eastern Islam, the Arabs, the Persians and the Turks, were proudly conscious of their national heritage – their languages and literatures, their history and culture, their presumed common origins, their distinctive manners and customs.” (Lewis, 1995) Arab nationalism for example in Egypt was thus a sentiment grounded in the original Egyptian civilization that gave them their distinct identity. Some historians trace the origins of Arab nationalism to attempts made by the Young Turks to ‘turkify’ the Ottoman Empire in the early twentieth century.” (Gelvin, 2007, Pg. 202) In contrast, Islamism is a more comprehensive movement for all Muslims whether they are Arabs or non-Arabs and with no regard to nation states. However, it is a term that is generally used to describe various ‘upliftment’ or resurgent processes that are taking place for the welfare of the Muslim ummah. For example, the development of civil society, social welfare projects, establishing Islamic modes of banking, Islamisation of the education system, and so on. Some key thinkers regarded as Islamists in the Middle East include Jamal al-Din al-Afghani and Sayyid Qutb. But in this sense the term ‘Islamist’ is unnecessary because they were simply Muslim reformers promoting the Islamic ideology. Islamists are by definition Islamic fundamentalists i.e. moderate otherwise they would better be referred to as extremists. To summarize, Arab nationalism and Islamism are localized movements i.e. both spatially and temporally, whereas Islam is an eternal religion or way of life (din). Arab nationalism is a recent phenomenon in history that began with the creation of the Arab nation states, and even more recent are the various Islamisation processes underway as a natural reaction to the decadence that had set in the Muslim ummah and particularly the attack upon it by the West. It is these present-day circumstances that has stirred many Muslims to take on higher profile, political or mass movement measures which in the west is referred to as Islamism. 5. Causes and Impact of Muslim resurgence on world history since 1945; why the West is having difficulty coping with this movement, and the increase in terrorist activities The Muslim civilization was at very low ebb in the previous century, and this was in stark contrast to its glorious past. Resurgence has been an ongoing effort ever since and is gaining momentum despite the heavy onslaught by America in the last few decades. It is a jihad (struggle) to cleanse corruption and decay, curb secularization, implement Islamic laws and systems, counteract the Western onslaught, regain the lost glory and so on. In addition, there is also a deliberate mislabelling in the West of ‘Islamic militants’ as representing Islam, though in reality Islam by definition is a peaceful religion (derived from the same root word as peace). And, although there may be terrorist activities to an extent, this term has been grossly misapplied. For example, to Israelis and their western supporters, Palestinians are terrorists. But they are really fighting for their freedom. Terrorists are only terrorists it seems, if and so long as America says so. It is noteworthy that the PLO was once considered a terrorist organization but not anymore. That is, we need to distinguish between freedom fighters and terrorists, the latter being those who are ‘hell-bent’ on killing innocent people. But even then, we would need to further define who is innocent, and question how ‘innocent’ America is in particular. The western perception has popularised and focused on the more militant variety of resurgent Muslim movements. And importantly, this is despite the fact that many of these are creations of the West itself and can only loosely be identified with Islam. The West’s relationship with Islamic movements and the Muslim world in general is characterized by extreme prejudice, manipulation and exploitation. The West is therefore only having complications with its own policies gone wrong. It is not a difficulty with Islam. Whether this is deliberate or not is another matter beyond the scope of this work. Take the Taliban (lit. ‘students’) movement for example, declared by America as terrorists. From a Muslim perspective, the Taliban are simply a highly religious ethnic sect of the deobandi school of thought predominantly comprised of Pathan tribesmen known for their courage and bravery. Their efforts at Islamisation are in themselves sincere although many would agree that they are incapable of grasping the essence of the shariah (Islamic law) and understanding the complexities of modern life especially with respect to their mistreatment of women. For this reason they far from represent mainstream Islam. Their association with terrorism and in particular the alleged attack on the World Trade Centre are only American propaganda. And, American actions in Afghanistan and the western tribal belt of Pakistan smacks of other ulterior motives. If we identify the actual origins of such ‘terrorist’ movements, we can clearly and better see America’s true relationship and complications. Through the ISI (Pakistan’s intelligence services), America sought to assist the Taliban in taking over Afghanistan so that they could establish trade routes as well as the multi-billion dollar oil and gas pipelines to Central Asia. Also, although the Taliban movement itself came about in the mid 1990s, many of its members are veterans of the resistance to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan who were supported financially and militarily by America in the 1980s. In other words, America initially trained the Taliban for its own ends in containing the Soviet inroads into South Asia during the Cold War. It is a similar story to the existence of Saudi Arabia for example. Many ordinary non-Muslims are unaware that the extremist Wahabi sect that now dominates Saudi Arabia and which is also closely associated with deobandis, was a creation of the British for the purpose of their own strategic interests. All that has changed is the one who is exploiting. Before, the British and other European countries had their ‘field day’ and now current events in the Middle East are the ‘dirty business’ of America. The ‘terrorist’ movements and activities of today are the outcome of and very intricately related not with Islam but US strategic interests in the region. The Muslim resurgence has had only limited and isolated impact on world history since 1945. We could give examples of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and the Iranian revolution (Gelvin, 2007, Ch. 19) in 1979 but the influence of these has subsided. There is currently an inner struggle of the Muslim civilization in getting to grips with itself and it will take a while before the more Islamic, liberal and peaceful initiatives of the majority at true Islamisation gain hold. It is only whilst that is going on that militant Muslim groups and puppet regimes on one hand and Western powers on the other are running amok in Muslim lands and tarnishing the image of Islam. References Gelvin, J.L. (2008). The Modern Middle East:  A history (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.  ISBN 13: 9780195327595/ISBN 10: 0195327594 Hartwell, Dean. (n.d.). Everything You Always Wanted To Know About the Middle East Conflict but Were Never Told. Retrieved Feb. 15, 2009 from: http://www.deanhartwell.com/MiddleEastWhy.htm Khater, Akram Fouad. (Ed.). (2004).  Sources in the History of the Modern Middle East.  New York:  Houghton-Mifflin.  ISBN 0-395-98067-4 The Koran, New York:  Penguin Classics. ISBN 0-14-0449205 (translated by N.J. Dawood, 2004) Lewis, Bernard. (1995). The Middle East: 2000 Years of History from the Rise of Christianity to the Present Day. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Pg. 327. Matinuddin, Kamal. (2000). The Taliban Phenomenon: Afghanistan (1994-1997). Oxford University Press. South Asia Terrorism Portal. Available at: http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/usa/Taliban.htm Read More