I know its not a popular thing to question anything about the existence of the Israeli state, but I figured if I couldn’t ask here then where the heck could I ask. Frankly, most Iranians and Iraqis I run into have not really been really bothered about the existence of Israel but these are the guys that moved to the US for some reason so its kinda like trying to find Communist Cubans in Miami. But the rhetoric coming out of that region seems to be “we hate Israel and we hate the US because they support Israel.”
If there wasn’t an Israel or if Israel was someplace else, would we still be getting rheotiric out of that region of the world on some other topic? Would they still be as dangerous?
I keep hearing people saying that if they laid down their guns we would stop fighting but if we laid down our guns they would kill us. What if we surrendered the state of Israel and relocated all the Jews, would they still kill us or would they lay down their guns?
I keep hearing how they are enemies of freedom and democracy. Would they just kill us because we have a representative democracy and we aren’t muslims? Would we basically have to convert and the whole world become islamic theocracies for them to be happy?
If Israel were not created, there would still be fighting in the Middle East. Iraq & Iran fought a vicious war not that many years ago. The Sunnis and the Shi’ites would be fighting. If anything it is possible the Israel has caused less fighting between Arab states, as they have a common enemy. However if there were no Israel we would probably care less and if there were no Oil we would barely care at all.
I think the Radical Muslims that take to terror will indeed only be happy if everyone converted to their personnel brand of religion.
Oh heavens, no! Until 1956 there was not even an Arab-Israeli spiff. Fights between cousins (Arabs & Jews) are bad, but between brothers (Arabs & Arabs) are much, much worse.
Undefined borders, illegitimate rulers, valuable resources. This place was made in hell as a stadium for war.
A single united enemy has almost certainly reduced the frequency and violence of local wars in these parts.
The war between Iran and Iraq was a mostly western contrived event to counter the new regime in Iran from gaining too much power in the region, particularly with the aid of the most sophisticated military in the middle east at the time.
And no, the Sunnis and Shias were not at each others throats. That feud died down long ago and hadn’t reared its ugly head until recently.
Yes, Israel has served as a great propoganda tool for dictators to imprison and/or kill dissenters, but I don’t agree that it’s brought about much unity in the Arab world. It may have sparked a common outrage, but not enough to call it any meaningful form of “Arab unity”.
col_10022:
I think it’s tough to argue that at least several of the wars in the middle east would not have occured had Israel not been created (or created the way it was). But not all the wars in the region can be traced back to Israel. The Iran Iraq war had its roots in the western world’s attempts to counter communist influence in the region. And if we assume the Iran Iraq war still happens had Israel not been created, then even Gulf War I would still have happened (and subsequently Gulf War II).
But other than those particular cases, I don’t see many of the wars (civil or between states) happening.
The landbridge between Africa and Asia historically has been highly contested, and a point of conflict since long before there was a modern state of Israel.
You’ve got money, politics, race, and religion all wrapped together in one region. Of course there’d be wars in the Middle East. If anything Israel has probably made the Middle East a more peaceful place; it’s given the other countries a common enemy to band together against.
I see a lot of the problems in the region as being caused by demographics.
Quite simply the birth rate is out of control, for example 75% of the Iranian population is under 30 years - Syria is in a similar state and Saudi’s malcontents are young unemployed males.
I’m inclined to agree that the existance of Israel has produced a common focus, which has probably reduced bloodshed.
Why, off course. All Arab states / ME states went to war / aggression because of Israel.
[ul]The Iran-Iraq war, with millions casualties: because of Israel.[/ul]
[ul]The mass murder in Sudan, where the Arab Moslem regime is massacring its black Christian citizens: because of Israel. [/ul]
[ul]Murders of hundreds of civilian at Algeria in one village or another by other Algerians: because of Israel. [/ul]
[ul]Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, endangered Saudi Arabia and butchered his own people: because of Israel. [/ul]
[ul]Egypt used poison gas against Yemen in the 60’s: because of Israel. [/ul]
[ul]Assad (the Father) killed tens of thousands of his own citizens in one week in El Hamma in Syria: because of Israel. [/ul]
[ul]The Taliban controlled Afghanistan and initiated the civil war there: because of Israel. [/ul]
[ul]The Pan-Am flight blown up by the Libyan: because of Israel.[/ul]
Wars in the broader Middle East and North African region have less and less to do with Israel the further away you get from Israel (naturally enough). The Lebanese civil war all through the late 70’s and '80’s had a lot to do with the spillover from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but I don’t believe the very bloody Algerian civil war during the 1990’s can be traced to Arab-Israeli relations (nor the bloodshed of Algeria’s war of independence from France). I think the Kurds would have likely been fighting just about everyone (Iran, Iraq, Turkey, maybe Syria) regardless of whether a Jewish state were established in Palestine. Somewhat further afield from the classical “Middle East” of Egypt, Israel, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and so on, you have Morocco’s attempts to impose its rule in Western Sahara, border wars between Libya and Chad, Sudan’s multiple civil wars against its non-Muslim south and its Muslim but non-Arab west, Somalia’s descent into chaos, and the Soviet-Afghan conflict and its bloody aftermath.
Well put as usual. I should have clarified that I was speaking mostly of the region you referred to as the classic middle east rather than the broader area. As such, I wasn’t considering Afghanistan, Kashmir, and Somalia as being part of the middle east.
I’d say it’s a bit of a stretch to include various acts of violence (state sponsored or otherwise) as qualifying as war.
