Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is the cause of the majority of Middle Eastern conflict due to creation of Israel?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Is the cause of the majority of Middle Eastern conflict due to creation of Israel?

    Note: This is not an anti-Jew or anti-Israel thread.

    But the question must be asked: Would the Middle East be a safer, better place if Israel was never created as a state. Let's take this from 1915 on. No Balfour declaration, no Zionist movement, but World War I and World War II end effectively as they did. And now it's 1948. How does the Middle East progress? Does it have friendly relations with the west? Does it 'westernize'? Do Britain and France pull out of the area circa 1950s? Does it have internal inter-state conflict for hegemony? Does PanArabism take shape? Terrorism? 9/11? Does the US try to keep a stronghold in the region?

    Post your opinion/comments on the subject
    "Chegitz, still angry about the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991?
    You provide no source. You PROVIDE NOTHING! And yet you want to destroy capitalism.. you criminal..." - Fez

    "I was hoping for a Communist utopia that would last forever." - Imran Siddiqui
    Tags: None
  • #2
    No. Arab countries aren't to friendly with each other either. Plus it is a little much to suggest that one country is holding the entire region back in terms of political development.
    I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
    For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

    Comment

    • #3
      Yes, but this in itself is not a sufficient argument against Israel's creation.
      12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
      Stadtluft Macht Frei
      Killing it is the new killing it
      Ultima Ratio Regum

      Comment

      • #4
        DinoDoc - what would you expect to happen, then? Hightened Shiite Sunni conflicts? Fundamentalism vs. Secularism?

        Frogger - no, of course not. It's just a "hypothetical" thread.
        "Chegitz, still angry about the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991?
        You provide no source. You PROVIDE NOTHING! And yet you want to destroy capitalism.. you criminal..." - Fez

        "I was hoping for a Communist utopia that would last forever." - Imran Siddiqui

        Comment

        • #5
          No.

          Read al Qutb or Maududi.
          When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."

          Comment

          • #6
            Originally posted by orange
            Frogger - no, of course not. It's just a "hypothetical" thread.
            Just making sure I was clear on that...

            Anyhow, the ME would still be a dangerous place without Israel ever having gotten on the radar screen, IMO...

            Just not as dangerous.
            12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
            Stadtluft Macht Frei
            Killing it is the new killing it
            Ultima Ratio Regum

            Comment

            • #7
              Shallow answers. Post what you think the region's history would be.
              "Chegitz, still angry about the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991?
              You provide no source. You PROVIDE NOTHING! And yet you want to destroy capitalism.. you criminal..." - Fez

              "I was hoping for a Communist utopia that would last forever." - Imran Siddiqui

              Comment

              • #8
                None of these people are named Kreskin.
                Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
                "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
                He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

                Comment

                • #9
                  No. The Arab nations have rarely cooperated together, and when they have, it's usually been because they were attacking Israel.
                  "I read a book twice as fast as anybody else. First, I read the beginning, and then I read the ending, and then I start in the middle and read toward whatever end I like best." - Gracie Allen

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Speaking of Jews, did Moses get a bad deal, or what ?
                    Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
                    "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
                    He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      No, the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of the modern Middle East by Britain and France (without Israel of course) are the causes of the problems in the Middle East. Not only did Britain and France create states that are fundamentally unstable (see Iraq) but also placed inept rulers who were seen by the Arabs (correctly) as puppets of the West.
                      When one is someone, why should one want to be something?
                      ~Gustave Flaubert

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Originally posted by orange
                        Shallow answers. Post what you think the region's history would be.
                        Well, it's too easy to come with a lot of different possible outcomes. But assuming that anything not Israel-affected would remain the same, I would say that Iraq would have had the bomb when they attacked Kuwait. That would have made a big difference, I should think.

                        Whether or not Iraq would take over Saudi Arabia or whether the US manages to frighten off Saddam from attacking SA I dunno. But either option isn't that great. Either you have Saddam controling a large chunk of the middle east, or you have a large US presence in SA, which will bring out radicals like Bin Laden.

                        I'm guessing Jordan might be picked on more because of it's relative closeness to the US as well as it's relatively moderate govenment, although given that it's also would be pretty close to Iraq, maybe that would counteract it.

                        I wonder if Saddam would have had nukes before the end of the Iraq/Iran war.
                        "I read a book twice as fast as anybody else. First, I read the beginning, and then I read the ending, and then I start in the middle and read toward whatever end I like best." - Gracie Allen

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Originally posted by ThePantaloonDog
                          No, the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of the modern Middle East by Britain and France (without Israel of course) are the causes of the problems in the Middle East. Not only did Britain and France create states that are fundamentally unstable (see Iraq) but also placed inept rulers who were seen by the Arabs (correctly) as puppets of the West.
                          Yep. What he said.
                          "I read a book twice as fast as anybody else. First, I read the beginning, and then I read the ending, and then I start in the middle and read toward whatever end I like best." - Gracie Allen

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Originally posted by orange
                            DinoDoc - what would you expect to happen, then? Hightened Shiite Sunni conflicts? Fundamentalism vs. Secularism?

                            Frogger - no, of course not. It's just a "hypothetical" thread.
                            i think somethn like this. Many Arab countries use Israel as a scape goat for their violence. If it werent Israel, then it would be somethn else that would be the 'source' of conflict.
                            "I bet Ikarus eats his own spunk..."
                            - BLACKENED from America's Army: Operations
                            Kramerman - Creator and Author of The Epic Tale of Navalon in the Civ III Stories Forum

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Yes, Israel could have been established in other locations the British offered them a homeland within the
                              empire in various locations ie Cyprus, Uganda, Kenya etc. Some like cyprus were a mixed bag of people, the
                              African locations had no peopleThe Jews turned them all down for religious reasons. (it had to be Judea).

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X