Skip to main content

The old partition of the Middle East is dead


 

 
 
 
 
Fighters of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)
Arab revolt 1916
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On the 17th March 2013, I wrote a piece in this Blog (http://new-agenda2012.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/huffington-post-generates-debate.html, part of the text is reproduced below), commenting on the artificial creation of "countries" in the Middle East by the "Sykes-Picot Agreement" following the end of the First World War.  In view of the present situation in Iraq and Syria, and the recent advances of the Fighters of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), it seems appropriate to remind ourselves of the background to the current situation, as the history of the region is invariably forgotten or ignored by the governments of the "West" and their ardent supporters in the press and media.
 
 
"Having spent some considerable time in the Middle east, including Syria, it seems to me that there is a significant body of opinion in the west which is based not on experience or personal observation, but on the comments, reporting and often biased news coverage from the media, and from some western politicians with their own covert agendas. Generally, the collective "Arab" mistrust of the west is based firmly in the history of the region and the way in which peoples have been betrayed by the west for hundreds of years. First the Ottoman's then the Europeans have imposed rulers in these artificially created lands (have you ever wondered why there are so many straight line borders between the countries of the Middle east?) which have been installed not because they are wanted by their peoples, but because they are friendly and cooperative towards western governments. They also purchase vast quantities of "defence equipment" to maintain their positions and provide "bases" for the western nations to retain a foothold in the region.
When these artificial regimes are overthrown and replaced by administrations which may well be Islamist, but are sometimes secular, they are immediately condemned and isolated by the west for no better reason than that western influence and values have been rejected. Just because an administration is Islamist, it does not automatically follow that it is wrong or unpopular within its own borders. The west does not have the right to assume that if countries do not follow the "western model" they are automatically hostile. The hostility of many of the emergent administration is brought about by the duplicity of the west with previous administrations and their role in the "uprisings". 
 
 
For additional reading, go to: "Chickens coming home to roost" at
 http://new-agenda2012.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/chickens-coming-home-to-roost.html
 
 
 
 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Northern Ireland and Brexit. The return of "The Troubles"

Northern Ireland: police attacked in another night of disturbances | Northern Ireland | The Guardian When the "Brexit" debate was still filling our newspapers and our television screens, readers may remember why I had changed my mind since voting to leave at the referendum vote. Apart from the economic arguments, which had become crystal clear after peeling away all the lies and misrepresentations trotted out by Bozo Boris and his "Get Brexit Done" conspirators, there was always the problem of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Would it be possible to have a border between the European Union and the United Kingdom where people, goods and services could pass freely between the two nations without customs restrictions, tariffs, duties and all the other formalities? Would it be possible to have one part of the United Kingdom treated differently from other parts of the United Kingdom, particularly when Scotland for example had voted overwhe...

Enough of this hysterical nonsense

  http://style.uk.msn.com/royal-baby/how-will-the-royal-baby-look-as-he-grows-up Media generated hysteria.                           This is too much. For the last 36 hours (thought it seems more like 36 days) there has been wall to wall news coverage, media and television comment and reporting, with Sky News taking first prize for frenzied minute by minute reporting from the Palace, the hospital, from a village somewhere in England, from the studio and anywhere else that Burley, Botting and company could stick a microphone into some obscure "celebrity's" face and ask for yet another banal quote. All this galvanising the mass hysteria of some elements of the public, (who the media would have you believe is the reaction of "the whole world",) with their flag waving, dancing, singing and cheering over what is after all, no more than a woman having a bab...

A perverse and rather sinister media obsession to discredit, smear and undermine Jeremy Corbyn

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/venezuela-jeremy-corbyn-blasted-for-not-condemning-president-maduro-a3606156.html#commentsDiv Venezuela: Jeremy Corbyn blasted for not condemning socialist President Nicolas Maduro as violent conflict escalates There is a perverse and rather sinister obsesseion with the media and particularly television "interveiwers", in seeking to secure from Jeremy Corbyn a "condemnation" of some person or organisation or event. This time it is connected with events in Venezuela and the actions of President Nicolas Maduro and the bloody crackdown on protests against the result of last weeks poll which inaugurated a constituent assembly . The media "stories" and the interrogation by the television interviewers, are as subtle as a sledgehammer being nothing more than a variation on the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question, which so many repoters use in order for them to make themselves appear very ...