I guess we wouldn’t have Peace without Israel but I get the impression that the violence escalated right around 1947.
Has there ever been peace in the middle east for any great length of time?
Not to my knowledge. I doubt there ever will be either.
The more important question it would appear is “was the giving up of colonialism and the subsequent creation of all the other states in the ME a good idea?” 
You’re all forgetting something.
Not only is all that stuff Israel’s fault, but Israel itself is entirely our fault. Ask around in the Middle East, and they’ll tell you: Israel is nothing but a straw man for the US. Without massive US aid, the nation of Israel would have collapsed in the first five minutes.
Everything is therefore America’s fault. Just ask 'em. They’ll tell you.
So the real question is if the United States had never been created, would we have peace in the Middle East?
Well, President Tatanka Iyotake III would not have invaded Iraq, I can tell you that!
For one thing, with less ability to blame any and all troubles on the Jooooos, Arab states in the region would be that much closer to internal revolution.
Libya and Algeria both lie in the “MENA (Middle East-North Africa) region”, though, as does, arguably, the Sudan, though. And both Libya and Algeria have historic, religious, and cultural ties to the Middle East (due, in large part to large Arabic settlement and cultural influence), so I wouldn’t say it’s wrong to consider them.
There certainly doesn’t seem to be any logic to say “Egypt is in the Middle East and Libya is not”. If you’re restricting the Middle East to just western Asia, you have to reject them both.
Well, the Sinai is technically in Asia, so there is some logic to it.
This map might help.
This is more of a IMHO Forum answer than GD, but it is my personal feeling (having no axe to grind on either side) that the tendency towards conflict exists in the indigenous ME population – whether genetic or social – and violent, frequent conflict is inevitable. The ostensible reason for strife is now Israel, but if modern Israel didn’t exist, something else would take its place as an excuse mechanism and scapegoat.
So to answer the OP, no.
I recall in his Outline of History, H.G. Wells compared the Jews in pre-Diaspora Palestine to “a man who insists on living in the middle of a busy highway.” It would have been the same for any people who lived there.
Possibly, because without U.S. intervention in WWI, the Central Powers might have won and the Ottoman Empire might still exist.
It’s not just the M.E. Look at how many wars it took for Europe to agree on what the borders are. Most of the countries in the M.E. are the results of European nations drawing up borders and are not the end or result of some long process of give and take in the region itself. Anyplace on earth with that history is going to have lots of conflict. It might very well take a few regionally wide wars for the populations to learn how to live in peace. I hope not, but hope is all I’ve got, not optimism.
But the MENA had long periods of general peace in its history. Always enforced by an empire – the Persian Empire, the Roman Empire, the Abbasid Caliphate, the Ottoman Empire. Not that that necessarily makes empire a desirable state of affairs.
I’d like to share with you a little bit of history.
My grandfather was a dealer in scrap metal, just after WWII. He is now passed on, but I have heard the stories of how every sunday, he’d weigh out some special scrap for a jewish man in a fur coat who paid in gold. Scrapped army gear. The man’s name, no doubt assumed, was Mordechai.
So you can clearly blame my grandfather for the entire mess in the Middle East today, for without him, the Israelis wouldn’t have been armed.
Good point, BrainGlutton. Of course, WWII shredded the Ottoman Empire, giving the possessions to the Brits, who were divesting themselves of empire at the same time.
So, even without Israel, there wasn’t going to be a strong hand there.
Eh ?
It was WWI that shredded the Ottoman Empire, and the ME was carved up between the British and French - and was largely ruled by locals. IIRC few places were directly ruled, although a chunk of Palestine was because it was already something of a problem.
The British Empire was going strong from 1918 to 1945
Teach me to say something without double checking, will you? My apologies. The British Mandate was a possession from WWI, which became disestablished as quickly as possible, as the Brits were having issues with people declaring Jihad against them, and partial Arab support of the Nazis, and it was getting too messy to deal with.
Considering that some Arabs were supporting the Axis and some were supporting the Allies, and the major empire in the area was exiting… I don’t think peace was in offering, is my point here.
Probably the Central Powers wouldn’t have won, there would have been a stalemate and a brokered peace. However, that might have left the Ottoman Empire more or less intact.
Actually the British had more of a problem with the Jews than the Arabs.
During WWII the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was an anti-Allies windbag, but I have not heard of the Arabs being much of a problem for the Allies - especially in ‘palestine’.
The Palestinian Mandate (now Israel) was rather depressing for the British, they tried to prevent new immigrants (displaced Jews) from entering Israel, which was ethically difficult, and were subject to terrorist attacks from the likes of the Irgun and the Stern Gang - also there was the King David Hotel atrocity.
It is probably worth remembering that the normal British soldier was pretty fed up, in 1945 there was a Labour landslide, and by 1948 they just wanted to get home.
It was a bit confusing, many Jews had served with the Allies, also many British etc Jews had turned up and were keen to establish Israel.
I suspect that the UN decision came as something of a relief.