12132017What's Hot:

Who really created the modern jihad?

Nice speech, Donnie. I'm sure the turban-clad towel-wearing moustached folks with the long names sitting in their gold thrones driving their Rolls Royces must have nodded a few times in agreement with you, Donnie. Now trot along, and keep feeling good about yourself.

Well, the conflicts are not going to end any time soon. Especially those involving (and/or generated by) Islam.

And who are the most frequent culprits? Or at least the ones most frequently accused for inciting the conflicts? Well, let's see. America, Russia, the Sunnis and Shia, Germany's inexplicable hospitality to migrants (actually it could be explained with their fear of being accused of Nazism again), etc.

In reality, the root reason for most of what's happening in the Middle East and hence Europe, is way back in history. It's hidden in a deal that was made a century ago, prompted by greed and the nationalistic ambitions that won over common sense.

The Jihad against the West in its ugliest form, terrorism, doesn't originate from the time of the Crusades. It was actually born in Berlin, Paris and London. The modern, ever more radicalized Islam, is not a result of the natural development of Islam. It's a perverse result of twisted nationalism, and religion being politicized.

https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/91/187391-004-F45D75C6.jpg

It all started in May 1916. British diplomat Mark Sykes and his French counterpart Francios George-Picot struck a secret deal that remained in history as the Sykes-Picot Agreement. It divided the last remaining Medieval empire, the Ottoman one, between Britain and France, long before they had even won WW1. The French would get the territories of the then Turkish South-east, through North Iraq and Syria to Lebanon. The British would get South and Central Iraq. The rest, where Jordan is now, plus West Iraq and the NW part of the Arab peninsula, was supposed to become a new Arab kingdom under British/French protectorate. The borders were drawn arbitrarily, without anyone giving two shits about religion, politics, the locals' traditions or wishes. Just like that, so typically for the Great Powers.

Germany reacted by urging its ally, the Ottoman empire to start a Jihad. Using the caliph of Istanbul, the highest religious institution of the Sunni, Germany called for the Arabs to start a holy war against the British. In turn, Britain signed a pact with Hussain ben Ali, the guardian of the holy places in Mecca and Medina, and second most important religious authority after the caliph. Ben Ali's son, Faysal ben Hussain headed the Arabs. Together with British agent Thomas Edward Lawrence, the so called Lawrence of Arabia, he managed to push the Ottomans out of most of the Middle East.

This wasn't a national but a religious war. After the allied victory in 1922, Faysal asked France and Britain to give him the conquered territories, where he'd establish a caliphate of his own. However, the Great Powers decided to stick to the Sykes-Picot plan. Just a year later, Britain removed Trans-Jordan from Palestine, creating Jordan. And to counter France's plans, Britain created the emirate of Kuwait.

The result of all this map drawing has been a century of ceaseless war and conflict all across the Middle East.

What's more, these artificially created Arab states were forced to look for a new justification for their existence, a new national identity – and they found it in radical Islam.

Right now, the religious doctrines mostly championed by Saudi Arabia are using the most extreme interpretations of the Muslim holy scriptures. An Islam as radical as this has probably never been professed, even at the time of the Crusades. The conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Saudi Arabia itself, and even Turkey (the first national Islamic state), are largely caused by placing peoples of totally different beliefs, traditions and social mores within the same borders just for the sake of it.

This is the most eloquent, and most painful proof that nation-building ends with bloodshed more often than not. Something that Europe has realized first-hand too (France 1789, Russia 1917). Except, in the Arab countries the social slogans are now substituted with religious ones.

Amidst all this chaos initiated by the Sykes-Picot plan, in the 2nd half of the 20th century the USSR and US got involved too. Instead of working to solve the conflicts, they inherited the problem and deepened it by exploiting the various warring factions to their own ends, as part of the so called Cold War. In result, today the problems in the region are so deep that there's practically no long-term solution. At least not in the frames of the existing Sykes-Picot system. But of course it's already too late to change that.

Source: Talk politics.

comments powered by HyperComments

More on the topic