Lessons of the Middle East

Some VERY cool animated depictions of the Imperial History of the Middle East and the spread of religion throughout history. Looking at them reminded me of some books I had read a long time ago about the effect of this type of Imperial fluctuation on regional stability. In the Imperial History map, the area between Jerusalem and Bagdhad is conquered 20 times during the 3500 years shown on the map (1450 BCE Egypt to present). This is an amazing amount of political unrest. In the spread of religion map, the massive expansion of both Christianity and Islam in the last 750 years lead to significant conflict between the 2 religions. The combination of these evolutions in the Middle East creates the environment we see there today. The area is rich with conflict and used to it. With the current conflict in Iraq between Sunni and Shiite, I decided that an understanding of their differences was in order. Some good information on the subject is here. It appears that the central divide is the relative importance of bloodline vs. teachings as it relates to the religious leadership after the death of Muhammed. The Sunnis chose Abu Bakr, Muhammed's advisor, as thier new leader. The Shiites favored Ali, Muhammed's cousin and son-in-law. This, and the resultant strife that it created, seems to be that major ideological reason for the violence between the 2 groups. (Lest we explode from smug condensation, remember the Christian divides and violence; Spanish Inquisition anyone? Not that one, this one...) The Imperial map also shows the nations of the Middle East and northern Africa being created. As the borders were created by colonial powers (England, Holland, etc.) there was very little consideration given to the make-up of the population within the newly created country. We see this happen again when the United States helps to create Israel in 1948, trapping the Palestinians and starting more religious warfare. In Iraq, the controlling Shiite government is obviously in opposition to the Sunni-dominated insurgents (Al Qaeda among them), but its stance on Shiite-led Hezbollah is less clear. His support for Lebanon (and Hezbollah, indirectly) against attacks from Israel in this article: Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a Shiite, has criticized Israel over its assault on targets in Lebanon. Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr -- who has a strong following in the Shiite neighborhood -- also has denounced Israel. Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, was supported by people who now lead the insurgents. Osama bin Laden is also a Sunni; this does not, however, mean that the 2 were allies. So, what are we to learn from all of this? Perhaps, if the colonial powers had paid attention to social interactions in the terretories before drawing the borders, some of this could have been avoided.