When I travel I collect ideas like butterflies as they flutter by. I jot them down, never knowing if they will find a place in something yet to be composed. Here are some random, thought-provoking “idea butterflies” I caught but didn’t know what to do with. I’m not saying they are right, so all you hair-trigger partisans should hold your fire for this one. These are just some ideas I found interesting and wanted to share:
I was told that 400 years of Ottoman control — followed by European colonialism — destroyed the social fabric of the Middle East. In other words, much of the frustration we have with the lack of progress in the Middle East is due to centuries of occupation, colonization, corruption, and dictatorship brought on by the Ottomans and the West.
When I consider the many extreme political ideologies that I believe undermine peace — from fringe groups in the USA to fundamentalist organizations that inherit power for lack of any good competition in places like Egypt and Iran — I find that many have a foundation in religious passion. When you travel, you understand how fundamentalism (whether your religion’s or someone else’s) can lead to fear and violence.
I was once told that a “massacre” is when at least five people are killed by force without fighting back or without an opportunity to fight back. It occurred to me that this is arbitrary…but then I wondered, what makes a “massacre?”
Someone explained the rise of Islamists throughout the region this way: Autocrats and dictators have long kept the left-wing opposition in their countries weak by giving conservative religious groups room to grow and organize politically. Suddenly, with the Arab Spring, the dictators are gone, but there’s nothing organized on the left. So the right-wing religious groups (as we see in Iraq, Egypt, Syria, and Gaza) grab power over the less-organized, secular left. Also, in many troubled places like these, locals wanting freedom have a choice: the USA-supported faction or the religious right. The effect is just the opposite of what the neocons who brought us the Iraq War predicted: a “domino effect” yes…but of right-wing fundamentalist Muslim “democracies” almost inheriting power by default.
Islamists — from Cairo to Kabul — are smart. They build outside of politics. Over time, they infiltrate society by providing people what governments should (e.g. decent schools and a social safety net). Today, there are more veils on the street than ever. Even girls from modern secular families feel the pressure at school, and many come home requesting that their parents get them scarves. They just want to fit in.
A person in a poor and ramshackle city told me, “I remember my first time in USA. I saw old people bagging groceries. We have only a little money, but our old people will never be treated that way.”
You meet far fewer tourists in the West Bank than elsewhere, but those you do meet are really interesting.
Right from the horses mouth! What better way.
Hi Rick,
I don’t know if we can talk about a character of the middle east that is free of outside occupying powers. Is it Arab? But isn’t the origin of “Arabism” is Arabia?
I think because this area is in the junction of Europe, Asia and Africa it’s always been a place where people from other regions moved to and out.
During the Roman empire for example parts of nowadays middle east was considered part of the empire just like Italy of today.
The middle east of today is being thought of as Arab, I think mainly because all its people speak Arabic, share to a large extent an “Arab” culture, Muslim religion etc.
But that hasn’t been the case always. At some points the Arabs came to the middle east and gave it its Arab characteristics.
I think most of the problems in the middle east are not caused by religion but by more basic things like culture, mentality, education.
I think it’s something to do with the stagnation of the Arab world and culture. Be it in the relations in the family, the status of women, the concept of personal freedom, human rights, democracy etc. I don’t think that the outside powers that conquered the Middle east created the chaos and stagnation, not that there is something in Islam that inhibits advance in Middle east but it’s the Arab culture and mentality which the Arabs can’t seem to free themselves of.
Most regions in the world were conquered by different empires. Turkey which was the Ottoman empire once is a fairly modern and successful country. If it were something that the Ottomans did to the Middle east that ruined it then it shouldn’t it affected the Turks, the Ottomans as well?
As someone who lives in Jerusalem (west Jerusalem) I come in contact with Arabs on a daily basis as more and more Arabs from east Jerusalem make Jerusalem center and west Jerusalem a place to hang out in, shop, work etc. That’s actually a big change that is happening in the last 1-2 years and which changes the demographic character of Jerusalem drastically, because up until recently the Jews lived and hung out in the Jewish parts of town (center and west Jerusalem) and the Arabs in east Jerusalem. There wasn’t much contact between the populations. That is being changed now as Arabs come on a regular basis now to west and center Jerusalem.
I mention this because frankly I’m worried about this process. I think that all over the middle east, as in Jerusalem, the Arab society consists of a small minority which is educated and culture and a majority of people who are not very educated or civilized (the way I perceive the term “civilized”). I’m worried because I don’t want the Israeli/Jewish character of center and west Jerusalem to become more “Arab”. The way I see it, there’s not much good in having Arab characteristics. It is associated in my mind with backwardness, violence, loudness, messiness, laziness, corruption, no consideration to the environment etc. I don’t think that the Ottomans are responsible for that. I think it’s what Arab children see and get at home from their parents that makes them into the grown up they become and to the societies and countries they turn out to be.
Interesting thoughts by Rick and an Israeli. If it were just repression, should not Israel be more like the Arab states. There were certainly repressed. Could the difference have something to do with English Common Law? England’s former colonies generally seem to be more democratic. Besides Israel, consider India, Australia, Canada, Belize, and the USA. It can not be just the religion as Muslim countries were much more tolerant than the Christian world in medieval times. Jews had a golden age in Muslim Spain. No one except Catholics did well during the Inquisition.
I think that Rick is right, that it is the fundamentalism. An Egyptian guide pointed out that monotheistic religions are logically, fundamentally exclusive. The polytheistic ones are more inclusive. Egyptians had no problem with the Greeks. You can always add and share a few more gods.
To Craig,
Israel is not the usual case of an ex-colony of western empire. What differs Israel from its Arab neighbors is the fact that it’s founders were European Jews. Most came from religious Jewish homes in eastern and central Europe but they themselves turned their back on religion and were mostly secular. We’re talking about a totally different culture, mentality, values, education than that of the Arab societies. These pioneers built the fabric of the future state of Israel from scratch. They introduced modern agriculture, medicine, industry, education. They built cultural and political institute that were very different from their Arab surrounding. Arabs in the holy land lived in a primitive way of life – like most Arabs in the Middle east then.
These Jewish pioneers from Europe are laid the foundations to the future Jewish state and because of their European background Israel still has a western character even after huge waves of immigration of Jews from Arab countries and Ethiopia came to it.
These non western immigrants changed the Israeli society and made it less western by influencing its culture, mentality, etc., however thanks to the strong and healthy foundations that were laid by the exceptional pioneers and their children and grandchildren, Israel is still a much healthier, just, open and modern society than the Arab societies surrounding it.
I also want to add that I don’t hate Arabs. I just think that if Israel and Jerusalem lose their Jewish majority, there’s a risk that they will lose all the good things that differ them from Arab countries and towns.
Individual Arabs can be great people, but I’m not so impressed by the nature of their societies and by the countries and cities that they built for themselves.
To M Craig:
There was a problem posting a longer response that I wrote so I’ll try posing a new one:
That difference between Israel and its Arab neighbors stems from the fact that it has a different kind of population. The founders of Zionism and Israel were European Jews – mainly eastern and central Europe. They had a totally different culture, mentality, education, capabilities than the local Arab population in Ottoman Palestine and in the middle east in general.
Their upbringing was European. they introduced modern agriculture, medicine, industry. They built political, social, cultural fabric of Zionist life in Palestine that was very modern and different than the Arab way of life.
Even though after the founding of the state of Israel in 1948 there were waves of Jews from non western countries to Israel – mainly Jews from Arab countries and Ethiopia, the basis and character of the state as was laid out by the first European Jews pioneers remained a character of Israel which differs it from its Arab neighbors.
I also wanted to add that I don’t hate Arabs, there are individual Arabs which are good people like there are good people in any society. But I do think that the social and political norms and mentality of the Arab society in general are not very developed or just, and the fact is that ALL Arab countries are characterized by problems like violence, bad treatment of women, lack of personal freedom etc.
And I also think that Israel should not be in a situation where it loses its Jewish majority and become an entity which is half Israeli half Arab because then, among other things, it will be in a risk of becoming yet another not so functioning and not so advanced Arab country. That’s why I mentioned the process that is going on now in Jerusalem. I think Israel should give east Jerusalem and the whole of the west bank (with some modifications) to the Palestinians to protect its unique character which stems from the fact that most of its citizens are not Arabs.
To an Israeli
I agree with you completely. It is not inconsistent with what I wrote. The English common Law is part of that culture. The Israeli government was modeled after that law. India also has a very different culture, yet it seems to have a stable government, modeled after the English. Belize the same thing and lived in a neighborhood of dictatorships. I know that Israel had to fight for independence from the English as did the USA. Yet, looking at the colonies of England, in general they seem more stable. Israel took this form of government rather than the type of government from the many other countries from which grew. As you know many of the early Zionists believed in the writings of Marx.
How about the Islamists accepting Israel’s right to exist and not vowing to destroy Israel? That seems like a nice place to start for peace but it’s not going to happen. Tyranny also comes from the left so classifying the Arab Spring victors as right wing is misleading. We’re seeing the tyranny of the left in the U.S. as I write this.