Would the arab countries have produced terrorists in any event or is the radicalization of Islamic terrorists a direct result of the creation of the state of Israel and the resulting Palestinian refugees?
Would we be knee deep in Brazilian terrorists if the zionist movement had decided that Rio was a more attractive homeland than Palestine, was there some other way that Israel could have been created in palestine that wouldn’t have ticked off the entire former ottoman empire?
Terrorism is not aimed solely at the Israel-Palestine issue. For example, it is just as prevelant in the Afganistan war, and in the conflict with India, neither of which has anything to do with Palestine.
Islam has a long history of the use of religiously-motivated killings for political effect as a mechanism of assymetric warfare, mostly aimed at other factions within the world of Islam.
For example, some sections of the Ismailis were famous for using terror tactics against the majority Sunnis - the so-called “Hashshashin” (from whom we deriave the English word “assassin”).
This suggests that the techniques are indigenous to the region and are simply being used against contemporary enemies, whomever they may be.
Seeing as how terrorism and terrorist activities in the ME predate the creation of the state of Israel, I’m going to go with ‘no’…the State of Israel is merely one factor in terrorism in the ME.
We would if a large percentage of the worlds oil was in Brazil…whether or not there was a Zionist movement or an Israel. You are making assumptions based on flawed conclusions. We are involved in the ME (and consequently terrorism in the region) because of oil, not because of Israel.
As to your other question, I suppose if Israel had been created somewhere else than where it logically was created, then that would be one less thing that was pissing off the people in the region. At a guess Palestine would still not have been a country (probably would have been part of Jordan) anyway, and it would be a backwater. And we’d STILL have terrorism and strife in the region, unless you magically transported the oil to Brazil instead…
-XT
I would agree that oil is a major cause of Islamic terrorism. Two reasons come to mind:
It encourages other countries to meddle in the affairs of the middle east, increasing resentment toward the outside world.
It provides the financing for local hotheads to take their grievances to the world stage.
Without all the oil money sloshing around the middle east, it would be a backwater. The Arabs might still hate the Israelis, but it would be a regional problem, not an international one.
Besides oil, it’s also been (and still remains) a rather strategic location for commerce/trade and militarily, since it sits on one of the major cross roads. If it didn’t have the oil, however, it would probably be of less importance today than it was in the past, with or without Israel.
-XT
Islamic terrorists are already radicalized by definition, we don’t know of any moderate terrorists.
But the radicalization and in many ways the creation of Islamism predates the creation of Israel in '48. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem allied with the Nazis more than half a decade before Israel was created.
[
](http://www.securityaffairs.org/issues/2005/09/robbins.php)
Qutb, in turn, wasn’t enraged by Israel, but by western culture itself.
[
](http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/presence-feb06.html)
While it’s often difficult to distinguish, given how things look from the prism of western existence, where everything Muslim gets tarred with the same brush, I think it’s important to distinguish in your question between terrorists who are primarily Islamists, and those who are terrorists that happen to be Islamic.
E.g. the terrorists that shot up politicians in Delhi were primarily fighting over Kashmiri self-determination: they are not Wahhabists. Similarly the troubles in southern Thailand are primarily about rights, education, and governmental neglect and abuse rather than the reestablishment of the Caliphate; ditto those in the Philippines and Chechnya. These groups could be seen as primarily having more in common with non-Islamic terror groups such as those formerly in Northern Ireland, the Tamil Tigers, ETA, etc.
I use the word “primarily” advisedly here, though, since of late these groups’ goals are getting increasingly blurred, as Islamists infiltrate and offer assistance to any terror/paramilitary group with Muslim background. (The fact that any Islamic group that is even vaguely non-religious in motivation tends to couch pronouncements in religious language makes it even more difficult to make the distinction.)
Initially the PLO was in a similar territorial struggle as the non-Muslim groups mentioned above: the struggle was primarily about land, property, etc., and while not entirely secular, it certainly had non-religiously motivated, pan-Arabist roots.
And while there was certainly internecine tribal warfare prior to the creation of Israel, it really comes down to the definition of terrorism.
What do you mean by “terrorism” here? Is a tribal militia (given that they couldn’t muster something we would recognize as an army) going into battle terrorism? Does someone riding in on a camel and shooting up his rival’s village constitute terrorism? How many groups were hijacking airplanes/cruise ships and demanding the right to return, prior to the creation of the state of Israel? Was there export of violence beyond the ME region before the creation of the state of Israel?
My answer to all of my rhetorical questions is “no”. I think xtisme’s response is dismissive of the scale and nature of the terrorism fomented by the establishment of Israel - or at least fomented by the circumstances that surrounded its creation.
Well, your first question is constructed such that it can only be answered “no”. It’s like asking “were any people fighting on behalf of Group A’s claims on Subject B before Group A or Subject B existed?” As for the exportation of violence, why is that the defining characteristic? It can certainly be argued that the Muslim/Hindu conflicts in India contained examples of terrorism. The exportation of violence, though, wouldn’t have happened before the fall of the Ottoman Empire since foreign powers (and foreign enemies/grudges) didn’t play a substantial role while the region was under Turkish rule.
I believe Bernard Lewis said that contemporary pan-islamism is a response to the decline of muslim civilization in the world stage as a source of political, scientific or military influence on global events. So even w/o Israel it would still be an issue. Bin Laden was angry about US troops in Saudi Arabia. Chechen muslims are angry about Russian invasions. The Kashmir region isn’t about Israel, neither is what happens in Afghanistan or Indonesia.
He also said/implied that Pan Arabism was an earlier attempt to cope with this loss of status, and it was a popular ideology several decades ago. In fact Saddam Hussein subscribed to it (the goal of creating an arab superstate that can use oil to pressure global events). Had Saddam successfully conquered Kuwait and parts of Saudi Arabia (which he was trying to do in the first gulf war) he would’ve controlled 40% of global oil reserves.
So, no I don’t think so. What happens in Kashmir, Chechnya, Indonesia, or even Al Qaeda (Al Qaeda was formed because of events in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, not Israel) etc. isn’t due to Israel.
The underlying theme does seem to be a fear of invasion and conquest by outsiders though. But those ‘outsiders’ can be Indians, Soviets, Americans, Russians or Israeli.
I understand that terrorism has been around for millenia and all that so let me rephrase. Would things have gotten this bad if Israel was created in Brazil instead of the Middle East?
I worded the OP poorly. I should have said would terrorism in the middle be as prevalent as they are now? I know that terrorism predates Israel but wasn’t there a pretty big surge in terrorist activity with leading up to and after the creation of the state of Israel?
I do not believe that Israel is a large source of the world’s oil.
I am not really concerned about our involvement per se but a frequent sentiment you run into is that creating Israel in the middle east was like setting fire to a hornet’s nest. It radicalized the entire region over time (much in the same way that some people think that the abortion issue has radicalized the right). IOW if Israel had not been created in Palestine, there would have been low level violence due to poverty and the normal list of social ills but you would not have outfits like al Qaeda targetting western countries.
I was talking to a fellow who was talking about a book der judenstaat written by an early zionist. Apparently the only reason Palestine was a logical place to create Israel was because the zionist movement made a concerted effort to create concentration of Jewish population in Palestine. In fact this early Zionist had advocated negotiating with the Caliph of the Ottoman Empire for a little place the Jews could call home. He noted the historical preference the arabs had for Jews over the Christians (something about Jews and muslims not being subject tot the draft.
I don’t think Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt, Afghanistan or Israel are large oil exporting countries, I guess Syria produces some but it hardly seems to be the source of the terrorism there.
I think Syria is the only one of Israel’s neighbors that exports oil.
Your second sentence shows that you understood what I was getting at. Your third sentence seem to imply that allying with Nazis made you a terrorist (or radicalized). The Mufti’s actions seemed driven more by the sort of racism you see among Arizonans towards Mexicans (much worse because we’re talking about nazis but my impression the Mufti was more worried about all the Jews showing up or as Herzl put it:
"The Jewish question persists wherever Jews live in appreciable numbers. Wherever it does not exist, it is brought in together with Jewish immigrants. We are naturally drawn into those places where we are not persecuted, and our appearance there gives rise to persecution. This is the case, and will inevitably be so, everywhere, even in highly civilised countries—see, for instance, France—so long as the Jewish question is not solved on the political level. The unfortunate Jews are now carrying the seeds of anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America.
[/quote]
I will note that there are some of the more liberal places in America are not particularly anti-semetic (at least not anymore).
He sounds like a loon. But how did crazy talk like that suddenly start to find fertile ground in the middle east whereas before, the level of craaazy in the middle east was not that much higher than the average level of crazy in the rest of the world.
So this is the death rattle of the ottoman empire? Is the problem that we chopped up the ottoman empire? (BTW why did we chop up the Ottoman Empire and leave everyone else intact?)
So Israel is little more than an after the fact excuse or rallying cry for those who were already going to be terrorists because they were upset there wasn’t a caliphate anymore?
Ah, so at least now we’re getting at the actual thrust of the OP: Israel’s existence, threat or menace?
The amount of Palestinan international terrorism is comparatively minor, and you’ve already had Qutb’s influence and ideology cited for you. Al Quaeda was based on Qutb’s ideology, not the PLO’s.
It was much more like setting fire to a titan’s pet pegasus, as the claim is completely fictitious. When the regional sovereign fell there were Jews living there who were part of a nationalistic movement. By the time the British withdrew those Jews, and those who joined them, had not decided to forgo self determination. Even if the UN had not written some words on a piece of paper (in, yet again, a non-binding resolution that was never ratified by all the parties involved, was never implemented and which never informed the actual situation once the Mandate ended), the Zionists still would have created Israel through their defensive war, quaint ideas that the Jews wouldn’t have dared desire self determination without other people’s approval.
Yet again, Qutb has already been cited for you. His influence largely grew out of Wahabism, which has nothing to do with the PLO but which formed a fertile ground for Qutb’s Islamist ideology. Violent Islamists would have still existed, they still would have had the ideological motivation that they do, and they still would have objected to Western influence in what they view as a Waqf.
That “early Zionist” was Theodor Herzl.
The only reason? The reasons don’t include the fact that “next year in Jersualem” and ““If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither.”” have been a part of Jewish prayers for ages? That Jews had an ideological and historical connection to the land?
You’re actually claiming that the First Zionist Congress in Switzerland settled on Palestine because… why exactly? Some other nameless “Zionist movement” settled on Palestine? To say nothing of the fact that Jews started immigrating to the region beginning the early 1800’s? You also seem to be ignorant of the fact that Zionism itself refers to Zion, a reference to Jerusalem.
Yes, there were discussion of other locations for a potential Jewish homeland, but your blithe dismissal of all of the considerations that went into the Zionist movement simply smacks of a lack of knowledge.
No, Iran is the source of the terrorism that Syria supports.
Yes, it’s a fairly safe guess that allying with the Nazis for the purpose of committing genocide was be a bit of a radical course of action. And the Mufti’s actions with whipping up violence against Jewish civilians clearly marks his ideology as terroristic. What relevance this has to the Mufti’s potential worried about Jews buying land… is unclear.
Wahabism was in existence for some time before Qutb. The Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization, was created just a few years after the Ottoman Empire fell.
I am with jjim, if you label tribal militias raiding and the like “terrorism” then the term is emptied of real meaning.
Terrorism is a very modern, 20th century phenomena.
Or rather less profoundly biased, allying with the Nazis for the purpose of kicking out the Colonial power (Great Britain) and thus stopping Jewish immigration that was changing the balance of power in his stopping grounds.
If you look at the other end of that region, the French colonies you see the opposite phenomena. France loses, goes Vichy and quasi Nazi allied, imposes even more harsh rule in the colonies. The Arab leadership ends up refusing to let Nazis touch “their Jews” And they get lovey dovey with the Allies (well Americans) on the principle, enemy of my enemy. Realpolitik…
Neither of which are ipso facto terrorist. Hyper Conservative, sure. But that’s not a synonym.
Nevertheless, it seems rather delusional to think that the ongoing Israel-Palestine issue, with the perceptions in the Muslim world of “The West” ganging up on the Palestinians and supporting Israel are not a major contributor to radicalization. I’m sure it would exist anyway in some circumstances, but it certainly gives a damned useful focusing narrative directed at ‘The West.’
I suppose it would help if there were some consistent definition. For example, were the Ismali “hashisheen” ‘terrorists’? They were hardly “tribal militias raiding and the like”, but seemed to have a rather sophisticated (and for a while, successful) strategy of using trained murderers willing to commit suicide in attacks designed to spread fear among the enemies of the faith - in medieval times. That sounds more like continuity to me than like the 20th century version is a unique development.
Certainly their methods have changed - the “hashisheen” hid among their enemies with assumed civilian identities, and killed with knives or poision - but the box-cutter-weilding terrorists who took down the twin towers were certainly using much the same MO.
Well besides the fact that most of what is known about them, to my superficial understanding is anti-Ismaili writings by their Sunni enemies, I hardly think assassinating political leaders in the context of the Middle Ages mores is terrorism. Especially in a time period where “State / Non State” ideas are at best fuzzy. Even the concept of “civilian” versus not is really 19th-20t century talk.
Also the idea of “continuity” when you have centuries long gap between these events (never mind an entirely different religious group, Sunnis) is stretching the idea of continuity to the breaking point.