Muslim Civilization meltdown?

So let’s say no Israel in the middle east, no “Palestinian problem”, would the Arab nations’ meltdown still be on the cards, would the imploding Muslim world at this time, the shia-sunni conflict, be on the cards as inevitable for the 21st century? Or is it that the existence of the state of Israel has served to radicalize the Muslim world?

Muslim world =/= Middle East nor Arab Middle East…

Since you start with a fallacy it is impossible to continue

The existence of the state of Israel certainly adds some extra fuel to the fire, but other factors are also involved here: the unequal distribution of oil wealth, the marginalization of rural residents, authoritarian regimes widely perceived as corrupt, etc. The Iranian Revolution, e.g., had very little to do with Israel, and the Saudi-Iranian breach has quite a bit to do with radicalizing parts of the Muslim world.

Let’s try this in Great Debates for now.

Yeah, you are mixing a lot of things here as Ramira said. Parsing it, I think you are asking if parts of the Middle East would still be melting down if there was no Israel. The answer to this is probably yes…Israel has certainly had an impact, but there are other factors that have gone into making the issues in the region what they are today, and taking Israel out wouldn’t solve most of them. I think that the fundamentalist movement within Islam (what you are calling ‘the Muslim world’, which is pretty inaccurate) would still be happening with or without Israel, since religions all seem to go through fundamentalist phases (such as the various fundamentalist sects in Christianity).

Recall that over 62% of the world’s Muslim population is in South and Southeast Asia, and only about 20% of it in the Middle East and North Africa.

While the meltdowns in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria are disastrous and tragic, Afghanistan and Iraq each have less than 2% of the world’s Muslims and Syria less than 1.5%. These catastrophes just aren’t typical of life for average Muslims worldwide.

Israel actually *unites *the Arabs. Without Israel, the Arab division and strife would be even more pronounced.

The focus on Israel is ridiculous. Look at a globe and see how tiny the territory of Israel actually is.

According to what fantasy history does this occur?

This is either astoundingly silly or a gigantic whoosh.


I think that’s a disingenuous answer, and as far as I can tell translates to “you are an ignoramus that doesn’t understand these distinctions, so take your question and go away.”

You understand the question perfectly well, I suspect, and might actually be one of the few posters with really worthwhile insight.

Everything is interconnected, and given the seemingly inhostile spirit of the question, how about putting some energy into fighting the ignorance rather than just ridiculing it?

To be fair, Ramira does a lot of ignorance-fighting about Islam on these boards already.

It’s neither. Islam is not entitled to Israel.

That was your point? OK. I was confused, as the idea that Israel’s–or any state’s–influence is in any way tied to its geographic size is bizarre.

ISIS could also be a creation of Israeli secret service for all we know. Islam has obvious faultlines which can be exploited.

Note that it doesn’t exonerate Islam if Israel created ISIS. Islam is still a piece of cr@p.

Personally, I figure Israel is just one excuse among many that incompetent repressive theocratic governments use to lie to their people. If it wasn’t them, it’d just be the Americans more often.

When theocratic European governments did that, they also blamed Jews. And witches.

Ramira is right, in this instance. Look at the thread title and then the OP. He’s using Muslim and Arab interchangeably. I can’t make hide nor hair of the OP, as stated. Neither the Muslim nor Arab world is either melting down or imploding. A few nations are, most are not.

(A bit off-topic, but I’d like to reply)

When Syria was tightly under the dictatorship of Assad, one of the ways he stabilized his society was the hatred of Israel. Assad defined patriotism as being anti-Israel. It was the only way to unite the ethnic groups who otherwise had no reason to identify themselves as Syrians.

When Nassar created modern Egypt in the 1950’s, he renamed it the “United” Arab republic, because he wanted to be the number one leader in the Arab world.As part of his justification for this, he made Israel the major focus of his foreign policy-- proudly declaring that he was the only one who had the power to throw the Jews into the sea, therefore he was the leader of the entire Arab nation.

And the main thing that unites the Palestinians today is their mutual hatred of Israel. Otherwise, Hamas and the secular Palestinians would be conducting a full-blown civil war among themselves.

It might be worth recognizing a distinction between Arab nations (i.e. ethnic groupings) and Arab states (i.e. countries in the modern sense that ostensibly have citizens, not clans or ethnicities). The latter is often regarded, somewhat rightly, as an artificial construct with borders drawn up by former colonial powers.

That’s true, but Egypt is the exception, in that it’s both a nation and a state.

That’s the main reason why, incidentally, it hasn’t collapsed into civil war in recent years, despite upheaval in its government.