Wednesday, September 13, 2006
"Religious" conflicts in the Middle East - Part I
Every now and again, I browse The Onion's website for its in depth and insightful coverage of the issues facing the world today (I say this without a trace of irony). Recently, I came across this article about the power of religious faith in keeping the peoples of the Middle East focused and optimistic even as one catastrophe after another hits them.
The article reminds me of a sketch I saw on television many years ago. It concerned a crime gang who was about to embark on a large drug trade and a group of corrupt police officers hoping to bust it, claim the credit and then keep the money too. Both groups prayed to God asking for success. At the end of the sketch, a caricature of God appears asking the audience who he should support and he is confused. In a way the "God" in the sketch was a bit like the last scene of Animal Farm, where "[t]he creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
But is religion really the issue causing trouble in the Middle East? I think not. And in saying that, I am not referring to all the cliches about how a small group of evil people are misusing the holy name of God to commit unspeakable atrocities.
Instead, I think it all comes down to one word: MONEY.
That may seem like a straightforward answer, but it often gets lost amidst the morally and religiously charged rhetoric surround debates over the Middle East. And no, I am not talking only about obvious things like poverty and joblessness amongst those resorting to terrorism. I list below some examples.
Bin Laden the religious fanatic?
First, for all the talk about competing visions for the future, Osama bin Laden and the US essentially broke ranks over money. The US bankrolled bin Laden and his mates to fight the Soviets in the Afghanistan. When that war was won and bin Laden wanted further funding to pursue both his business and politico-military activities, the US refused. All the years of hard work in mostly inhospitable Afghan terrain for no ultimate reward.
No money, no partnership.
Wider historical trends - pre-World War II
Second, Muslims were generally considered some of the most religiously tolerant people in the world. They fervently believed in one God but pretty much let others in their territories do what they want. Indeed, looking further East, the Mughal rulers of India managed to maintain a empire where most of the people did not share their religion. They were even fascinated with Christianity.
It changed gradually when the various Muslim empires started falling behind Christian Europe from 18th century onwards. The process accelerated after the "big brother" of Muslim empires, the Ottomans, were humiliated during the Great War. The change in economic and military fortunes were emphasised when the British took control or enjoyed hegemony over large parts of the Middle East.
The sense of loss and vulnerability was further reinforced when, Zionist Jewish migrants started moving gradually to Palestine en masse. Jewish re-migration to the Middle East was nothing new. After all, many did so in order to escape the ravages of religious pogroms in Europe and even Africa, and they were welcomed with open arms by various Muslim rulers. The difference with the post-World War I Zionists is that whilst previous escapees tended to reach the Middle East penniless, Zionist migrants consisted of sub-groups with a bit of money and a positive agenda to build a life for themselves in their new homes.
Down and out, others with more taking over, resentsent breeds.
But for so long as there is a "wealthier" and a "poorer" group, the resentment is kept in control.
It all changed radically after World War II.
[to be continued]
The article reminds me of a sketch I saw on television many years ago. It concerned a crime gang who was about to embark on a large drug trade and a group of corrupt police officers hoping to bust it, claim the credit and then keep the money too. Both groups prayed to God asking for success. At the end of the sketch, a caricature of God appears asking the audience who he should support and he is confused. In a way the "God" in the sketch was a bit like the last scene of Animal Farm, where "[t]he creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
But is religion really the issue causing trouble in the Middle East? I think not. And in saying that, I am not referring to all the cliches about how a small group of evil people are misusing the holy name of God to commit unspeakable atrocities.
Instead, I think it all comes down to one word: MONEY.
That may seem like a straightforward answer, but it often gets lost amidst the morally and religiously charged rhetoric surround debates over the Middle East. And no, I am not talking only about obvious things like poverty and joblessness amongst those resorting to terrorism. I list below some examples.
Bin Laden the religious fanatic?
First, for all the talk about competing visions for the future, Osama bin Laden and the US essentially broke ranks over money. The US bankrolled bin Laden and his mates to fight the Soviets in the Afghanistan. When that war was won and bin Laden wanted further funding to pursue both his business and politico-military activities, the US refused. All the years of hard work in mostly inhospitable Afghan terrain for no ultimate reward.
No money, no partnership.
Wider historical trends - pre-World War II
Second, Muslims were generally considered some of the most religiously tolerant people in the world. They fervently believed in one God but pretty much let others in their territories do what they want. Indeed, looking further East, the Mughal rulers of India managed to maintain a empire where most of the people did not share their religion. They were even fascinated with Christianity.
It changed gradually when the various Muslim empires started falling behind Christian Europe from 18th century onwards. The process accelerated after the "big brother" of Muslim empires, the Ottomans, were humiliated during the Great War. The change in economic and military fortunes were emphasised when the British took control or enjoyed hegemony over large parts of the Middle East.
The sense of loss and vulnerability was further reinforced when, Zionist Jewish migrants started moving gradually to Palestine en masse. Jewish re-migration to the Middle East was nothing new. After all, many did so in order to escape the ravages of religious pogroms in Europe and even Africa, and they were welcomed with open arms by various Muslim rulers. The difference with the post-World War I Zionists is that whilst previous escapees tended to reach the Middle East penniless, Zionist migrants consisted of sub-groups with a bit of money and a positive agenda to build a life for themselves in their new homes.
Down and out, others with more taking over, resentsent breeds.
But for so long as there is a "wealthier" and a "poorer" group, the resentment is kept in control.
It all changed radically after World War II.
[to be continued]
# posted by Damaskinos @ 2:46 pm 
