Why there is NO PEACE in the MIDDLE EAST?

Talk about a Centuries Old Battle scholars are still bamboozled beyond a baldness on a Wooly Bear. Why? Well, this Texan now answers-

The reason why there is no peace in the middle east is because of jealousy, and here’s just one reason-A Sunni can’t go into a Shia mosque and a Shia can’t go into a Sunni mosque. And God loves us more than you. God protects us. And God does this for us, but not none of y’all.

During the rule of certain empires, such as the early Babylonian, Assyrian, and Persian Empires, relative peace was established for decades at a time, with civil wars and succession crises erupting every so often. But tons of people have tried to answer why there is No Peace in the Middle East?

After the rise of the Roman Empire, the middle east enjoyed a relative peace for almost four centuries, albeit with frequent civil wars and wars on the eastern frontier against Parthia. But this is arguable.

After the fall of the Byzantines to the Arabs, the middle east was peaceful mostly, apart from feuds between different local Princes, with the occasional succession crisis in the Arab Empire, resulting in the Fatimid, Ayyubid, and other Dynasties.

Rather in contrast to popular conception in the modern world, the Muslim Empire was rather peaceful, especially when contrasted to the ever-infighting fiefdoms and kingdoms in Europe at the time.

A short period of Crusading in the middle east was actually most of the wars in the Levant during the First Arab Era.

After the fall of the Arab Empires to the Mamluks, the area was relatively quiet until the Mongol Invasions, which shattered the social order and stability that held until then.

After the Mongol Ilkhanate and various other Turkic Khagnates took control of the middle east, the area fell into a seemingly endless war, which ended when the Ottoman Caliphate conquered the region, marking the Second Caliphate Era, and the last proper Caliphate Era to this day. For almost 300 years, the middle east was extremely peaceful, with very few wars, as the Ottoman Empire was the strongest power in the Western World. This changed when around 1700 the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Polish Empire and Russia began successfully pushing the Ottomans out of Europe, resulting in a power struggle for the middle east, which ended in the First World War, when Great Britain and France divided the middle east between them, with the Sykes-Picot agreement.

It was only after the Europeans came, dis-stabilized the region, and left while creating unstable monarchies, such as Iraq and Jordan, that the region descended into the utter chaos it is in today. And all of this is still arguable.

People in the West see Arabs and can’t understand why they all dont get along. However, these people are divided into many subgroups. First of all you have the Israel/Arab or Jewish/Muslim Conflict. For most of history Jews and Muslims got along as long as the Muslims ruled and Jews were second class citizens. Not to say that some Jews did very well under that system, but as long as the Jews knew their place and were a minority, all was good. A Jewish dominated majority in Israsel doesn’t sit well with the rest of the Arab World. Secondly, you have the Sunni Shia divide. All of them are Muslims but they don’t get along. Sort of like the Protestant Catholic disputes and wars of Europe. Then you have groups like the Druze and Alawites who are Muslim but aren’t liked by neither the Sunnis nor the Shias. They are different forms of Muslims and the rest don’t like them. Then you have Christians and other non Muslim groups who are mistreated by the rest of the Middle East. At the core of the Middle East, you have Arab tribes and clans who are loyal to themselves. IN many cases, as a result of European meddling, these groups were put together to form nations. These group dont get along very well and they typically have a dictator who holds it all together. In addtion, like Assad of Syria, they are usually from smaller groups like the Alawites who control over either majority Sunni or Shia groups. Lets not forget the Iranians who aren’t like at all. While Muslims, they aren’t Arabs and are historically hated because of their domination of Arab lands. That also holds true for the Turks who controlled the Middle East through the Ottoman Empire until they lost it after WWI. And all of this is arguable.

During the struggle to establish the State of Israel, David Ben Gurion once told his colleagues, “Five years are nothing next to eternity, but not all years in history are alike, and in the next five years the fate of our generation may be decided, if not the fate of generations.” A year later, Ben Gurion confided in his diary, “There is no greater danger to political thought than inertia. The world is never static, and certainly history is not.”

These messages are a fitting description not only for the tumultuous events surrounding the birth of Israel, but for the five years that began to unfold in 1989 with the peaceful revolutions in Eastern Europe that led first to the end of the cold war, and then to the end of the Soviet Union itself.

The Cold War spawned its own vocabulary — military containment, political rigidity, ideological competition. But although at times there were superpower conflicts by proxy, mercifully that war stayed cold. The Middle East has been, as all of us know, a different matter. Its vocabulary has been one of violence, terror, and wars which were anything but cold.

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/challenges-to-peace-in-the-middle-east

And all of this is arguable. All points seem to be arguable because of the vastness of the various degrees of different thought that exists in the Middle East.

Peace is not possible in the Middle East because values and goals other than peace are more important to Middle Easterners. Most important to Middle Easterners are loyalty to kin, clan, and cult, and the honour which is won by such loyalty. These are the cultural imperatives, the primary values, held and celebrated. When conflict arises and conflict-parties form based on loyal allegiance, the conflict is regarded as appropriate and proper.

Westerners will never comprehend things like “honor killings”. Placing predisposed ideologies in the front of any discussion is only hampered when everyone at the Peace Table doesn’t accept all that each brings to that table.

A Deal Today is Broken TOMORROW.

Peace today, tomorrow, and in the future is all arguable and destroying the landscape will never bring Peace any closer…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.