Judaism, Christianity and Islam

Monotheistic religions of the Middle East and the pursuit of power by any means
Danilo Anton

These thoughts only seek to show some aspects of organized monotheistic religions that virtually  since their inception were used as tools to obtain and retain power and to gain control of territories, resources, societies and minds.
From the point of view of the number of believers and their influence on the political and social geography of these nations the three main religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the most important in the world history. All three of them originated in the Middle East.

Judaism emerged as a set of traditions, originally transmitted orally, that narrate the legendary history of a people influenced by the intervention of one God, Jehovah (in Hebrew יהוה transliterated YHWH). This story is contained in the Torah, a sacred book that contains the foundational narrative of the Jewish people: their trials and tribulations, and its covenant with God. It describes a way of life to follow embodied in a set of moral and religious obligations and civil laws. While the first prophet (Abraham) has lived in the twentieth century BCE and the second prophet, Moses, who received the divine commandments in the twelfth century BC, Most biblical scholars believe that the Torah was actually written between the sixth and fourth centuries BCE, although some components may have been recorded in earlier times.
The second monotheistic religion that acquired historic importance was Christianity, which was derived from Judaism. It is based on the teachings of a prophet, Jesus, whose life is chronicled in a holy book usually called New Testament, which consists of four officially approved (or canonical) Gospels (Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). Christianity also includes the ancient sacred books of Judaism, generically called Old Testament. The actual existence of Jesus was only confirmed by the gospels, not only official ones, but also several others that have been preserved or its fragments are known, but were not recognized by the ecclesiastical authorities. According to the biblic historians, at the beginning, the gospels were transmitted orally and only were written between 65 and 100 DEC or more than 30 years after the date on which Jesus was (probably) crucified.
Like Judaism, Christianity bases its religious system in the existence of one God and on the confirmation of the arrival of the Messiah announced by the prophets of the Old Testament, and whose death would redeem mankind from their sins. The books include also the  moral teachings transmitted by Jesus during his life.

Islam, who is also a monotheistic religion, developed in Arabia where a prophet (Muhammad), considered by his followers as sent by God (Allah), preached a faith based on the ancient jewish and christian sacred books. Muhammad added a new final divine message, the Koran, which contains the fundamental premises of the new religion.

A basic belief of the religion was that "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet". The Quran also defines the obligations of Muslims (followers of Islam) including Islam five pillars, profession of faith, daily prayers, zakat (alms), fasting in the month of Ramadan and pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in life, and various moral teachings, many of which were included in the other holy books (Old and New Testament). They included also the life stories of the previous prophets Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Like the Torah and the Christian Bible, the Quran was memorized by Muhammad's followers and was only written or compiled several years later. Ultimately the three monotheistic religions began as oral traditions and only some years, decades or centuries later were recorded in writing.

The faithful of these three religions are numerous. There are about 2,000 million christians, 1,500 million muslims and 15 million jews. For that reason, largely, thoughts and actions of many societies that embrace these faiths are directly or indirectly influenced by the moral, social or political mandates (fulfilled or not) of these religions.

We must consider that ALL these religions originated in the Middle East (Palestine, Israel, Arabia) and since its inception the have disputed for the control of the territories and peoples of that region. The history of the Middle East is largely the confrontation of organized groups on behalf of these religions who fought successive wars for the control of lands, resources and societies.

These religions were the reason or the excuse for wars, bloody clashes, killings, rapes, looting, torture, racial or religious intolerance, enslavement or ethnic cleansing that began more than twenty centuries ago and still continue today. Not only they have these religions have violently confronted among them but their different organized divisions or sets also have bloodily fought to obtain or preserve power. These concepts apply to these organized religions, their churches, and mainly to those leaders who base their power in religion.
In that sense we can consider that monotheistic organized religions organized, almost from the beginning were used as unscrupulous tools to obtain and retain power, and to better manage resources, territories, societies and minds.
And still they are.

The Middle East: a region of low rainfall and many people

Danilo Anton
The Middle East has a characteristic that is found in all the countries of the region: lack of rainfall and general aridity. In addition to this dryness, aggravating the environmental conditions, there is a normal occurrence of high and very high temperatures, particularly during the summer season.
In almost the entire region the rain is minimal. Even in very populous cities where water needs are important, average rainfall is usually very scarce.
In Cairo, capital of Egypt, which in its metropolitan area has 20 million inhabitants, it rains 24.7 mm per year, while in Luxor a city in southern Egypt with 250,000 inhabitants, it rains almost never (0 mm). In addition to Cairo, six other capitals have very low rainfall: Riyadh in Saudi Arabia (61 mm), Baghdad in Iraq (122.8 mm), Damascus in Syria (131.8 mm) and Amman in Jordan (269.3) or scarce: Tehran in Iran (429 mm) and Ankara in Turkey (402.2 mm) ..
In many other important cities the rains do not reach 500 mm: Basra and Mosul in Iraq (152 mm and 363.6 mm respectively), Alexandria in Egypt (196 mm), Jeddah in Saudi Arabia (61 mm), Aleppo in Syria (328.8 mm) and Ahvaz, Shiraz and Mashhad in Iran (209.2, 305.6 mm and 251.5 mm).
Rain shortage affects agricultural production. Dryland agriculture practically impossible due to the extension of drought periods. Most of the countries in the region depend on irrigation. In particular, in Egypt and Iraq, which are important agricultural producers, almost all of the crops are irrigated. Jordan, Syria and Afghanistan also depend on irrigation agriculture. In Turkey, Iran and Lebanon, where there are restricted areas with somewhat more important rainfall, irrigated agriculture remains a fundamental element of its agricultural production.
The lack of water is also experienced in urban areas, which frequently see their water sources contaminated or depleted. Local rivers and streams become more easily contaminated due to the large population inhabiting its banks. Due to the limited rains in their recharge areas and excessive pumping the aquifers depress their levels or salinize.
These problems of aridity and demographic concentration are historical. Middle Eastern countries, particularly populations along the Nile and the Tigris and Euphrates rivers have developed irrigated crops for 5,000 years. 
This persistent use of irrigation in areas with very little rain and high temperatures, complemented by the construction of dams in the high basins, has led to the gradual degradation of many soils, which are salinized and depleted of nutrients, due to sedimentary retention in the reservoirs.
All of this occurs in a time of accelerated growth of urban agglomerations that require a growing supply of water and food products for the population.
From "Lands of little rain and much blood", Danilo Antón, Piriguazú Editions.

Middle East: the lands of little rain and much blood
D.Anton

Some reflections:
1) The history of the Middle East is very long and complex
2) Political power has historically been associated with military force.
3) Religions have played an important role throughout history, especially as one of the causes of political and military confrontations.
4) The last 1400 years were marked by conflicts and wars between religious organizations and churches, in particular, monotheistic beliefs: between Christians and Muslims, Shiites against Sunnis, Muslims with Jews, among others. In conclusion, religion appears stripped of its spiritual and philosophical content and becomes an instrument of power.

5) Ethnic and cultural differences have also had a strong influence, along with religious beliefs. Both have made possible to justify wars, massacres and genocides.
6) Current wars are related to ancient religious and ethnic conflicts.
7) Conflicts in the Middle East have often been stimulated by external powers (France, Britain, Russia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Italy, and in recent years the USA).

8) In general, political power has emerged from armed force, emperors, kings, caliphs, sultans, dictators and presidents came to their positions and maintained them through arms and violence
9) Power is usually hereditary, forming dynasties that can last several generations.

10) Power tends to be dominante by men. It has been very rare for women to have exercised power in the region.
11) The dominant classes have always been minority groups enjoying the privileges granted by the government, while the majority of the population remains dominated and impoverished.
12) The power is obtained and maintained by force. It is common to kill enemies and adversaries, They can even be tortured to obtain information or simply to make them suffer.

13) Slavery and servitude have been common throughout Middle East history. Only in the last 100 years have these institutions been eliminated, but in practice they continue to have effects on societies.
14) Discrimination on grounds of religion, belief, racial or gender origin was the rule throughout the history of the Middle East and still is.
15) The democratic processes have been exceptional or nonexistent.
16) The few electoral processes that have taken place led to fraud, which was sometimes very evident.
17) Given the age and persistence of this social and political situation, it does not seem likely that these societies can establish democratic systems that are reliable in the short term.
18) The presence of important natural resources (hydrocarbons) has exacerbated conflicts and foreign intervention.
19) In today's global world, the conflict in the Middle East affects and will affect all countries and regions of the world, whether economically, politically or by the influx of migrants and refugees.
20) It can be predicted that these conflicts will continue and even worsen due to the lack of sustainability of regional societies with high population densities, vast unproductive arid territories and extreme differences between a privileged few and a large number of impoverished people.
21) The struggles for territorial and resource control by the world powers will continue to be expressed in the Middle East and various armed conflicts will continue to occur.
22) For some powers with important military industries, particularly the US actual and potential wars will continue to represent opportunities for the sale of large volumes of armaments as well as for the deepening of their respective geopolitical influences. For that reason they will have interest in continuing to promote regional wars independently of the dramatic consequences of death and destruction for the populations of those countries.
Extracted from "Lands of little rain and much blood" by Danilo Antón, Piriguazú Ediciones.

  War is cruel and always was
In The lands with very little rain"  of the Middle East, many methods were used to control the people. War and forced dominance were and are the most common. 

The aim of the war is to cause damage to the enemy in order to defeat it. To do so, it is necessary to kill, destroy, and if possible, annihilate the opposing forces and their main bastions.
In the 5,000 years of history of the Middle East there were hundreds of wars, tens of thousands of battles, hundreds of millions of dead, innumerable human works destroyed, entire societies eliminated, cultures excluded, mass emigration, ethnic cleansing, slavery, systematic torture.
We shouldn't think that the societies of the Middle East are worse than many other societies in the world. They are only very ancient peoples which therefore had more time to develop state expansionism and imperialism, expressed in their multiple forms.
Nor should we forget that for a long time and on multiple occasions, Middle Eastern societies were  also victims of expansionism and imperialism of external powers. 
In the last centuries these aggressions were very frequent. The powers of Western Europe, Tsarist Russia and later Soviet, the United States, began to intervene in the Middle East in order to seize their resources. 
To achieve this they took advantage of internal dissensions, which already existed, for their own benefit. They promoted sectarian struggles, Christians against Muslims, Muslims against Jews, Shiites against Sunnis. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in the first decade of the 21st century (which still are on going) and the war in Syria, unleashed by the United States and its allies with various excuses, and from existing contradictions, triggered forces of hatred and aggression that led to massacres and destruction in those countries. To this we must add the political and military intervention of Russia, related to its own interests in the Middle Eastern region. The external powers injected increasingly deadly armaments, that multiplied death and destruction.
The price is the blood spilled by the people who can no longer work, interact peacefully or live productive and harmonious lives. Only remains death, destruction and emigration.
Anyway, in the Lands of Very little Rain a lot of blood is still being spilled.
From the book "The Lands of Little Rain and Much Blood, by D. Antón, Piriguazú Ediciones.

Jordan2  Series Peoples and Nations

THE WORLD:

Geography, History and Something More

Jordan: a Kingdom specially made (by the United Kingdom)

Part 2

Chapter 2

Danilo Anton

Historically the territory of what is now Jordan is closely linked to countries that are located to the West of the Jordan river, Palestine and Israel.   Its area is 89,000 km2 with a population of 10,000,000 inhabitants, including 2.1 million Palestinians and 1.5 million Syrian refugees.

More than 4 million people live in Amman, the capital.

                                                                            View of Amman

Traditionally it was said that "Jordan was Palestine desert" but when the history of the region is analyzed recognizes that it is more than that. For thousands of years the lands east of the Jordan River, formed by fertile valleys and oases interspersed in a vast desert have been home to many peoples, kingdoms and cultures, from the distant times of the Moabites, Ammonites and Edomites to Jordan overpopulated and current tourism.

However,  it should be remembered that  the creation of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was a geopolitical maneuver of the European powers, especially Britain and France, to maintain economic and strategic control of the Middle East and the eastern Mediterranean. The fall of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, allowed the Great Arab Revolt which wanted to unite the countries of Arab culture taking advantage of the feeling of pan-Arabism that reigned in all the Arab countries that once was dominated by the Ottomans.

                                                         Hussein, King of Hejaz

Britain and France would not allow a strong and difficult to master Arab state, so they sought to maintain politically fragmented the region transforming the old Ottoman provinces in "Protectorates"

Thus, through mandates of the League of Nations, Britain received the protectorates of Palestine, Iraq and Transjordan.

In the case of Transjordan the British were to find a monarch who could handle and had some kind of legitimacy. We should remember that in Muslim culture, lineages are fundamental, the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad, the descendants from Abraham, those belonging to the oldest and tribes and clans provide the political and religious legitimacy that is used by the economic and social elites to control the countries. .

For that the Britain found an ideal character in Hussein bin Ali, who they  had supported when he got his title of Sharif of Mecca, then under Turkish rule, and who, in 1916, when the rebellion spread, proclaimed himself king of Hejaz with British imperial complacency.

In its strategy of regional domination, Britain imposed the second son of King Hussein of Hejaz, Hussein bin Abdulla, who was appointed as Emir of the British Protectorate of Transjordan. Abdulla, who was born in Mecca and had never lived in the territory of Transjordan, had antededentes as a combatant in the Arab Revolt against the Ottomans (fighting alongside Lawrence of Arabia) something the British were well aware. To Muslim eyes, he had the legitimacy of being « sharif »  (descendant of Muhammad) and belonged to the tribe of the Hashemites with Abrahamic traditions.

During his reign, first under British orders, and then as their unofficial trustee when the country was granted independence, Abdulla acted on the facts as defender of the interests of the UK.

In 1946 Transjordan declared its independence and Abdulla became monarch of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan.

Two years later (1948) took place the war in Palestine which ended with the creation of the State of Israel. Abdullah took advantage of the confusion to occupy the West Bank which became part of the Jordan, which changed its name to "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan ".

The formal annexation of the West Bank took place in 1950 with the general condemnation of international public opinion and from most of the governments in the Arab world.

                                                      Death of King Abdulla

In 1951 the King Abdulla was killed and briefly succeeded by his son Talal I bin Abdullah. He was forced to abdicate for health reasons (apparently for psychiatric problems) taking his lace Abdulla’s young grandson: Hussein bin al-Talat (who was very young with 17 years of age).. Hussein continued his grandfather pro-Western policies, and maintaining a relatively friendly relationship with Israel.

In 1967, in the Six-Day War, unexpectedly Israel attacked Egypt, and at same time invaded Syria and Jordan, taking control of the Sinai Peninsula (which later would be reintegrated to Egypt), occupying Gaza, the Golan Heights in Syria and the West Bank. The Golan Heights and the entire West Bank remain under Israeli control while Gaza is completely surrounded and blocked by Israel.

After the war, Jordan returned to the old borders of Transjordan. His policy remained largely unchanged, continued to be an ally of Western powers.

When the king died Hussein of Jordan was succeeded by his son Abdulla, whose full name would be "Abdulla bin al-Hussein, bin al-Talat al-Abdullah bin. bin al-Hussein "summarizing the monarchical genealogy of the Hashemite Kingdom.

Policies Jordanian monarchs today as yesterday remain pro-Western, maintaining good relations with Israel.

Of course presently the situation in Jordan today is far from idyllic. with 10 million inhabitants in a largely desertic country, with 2,100,000 Palestinian refugees (of whom 400,000 live in refugee camps), 1.5 million Syrian refugees, and tens of thousands of Iraqis and Lebanese refugees.

 Jordan is having enormous difficulties to sustain a large population in a country with limited resources.

It should be clarified that the majority of the Jordanian population is in fact Palestinian of origin but many Palestinians in Jordan prefer not to be identified as such for obvious reasons.

                                             Palestinian refugees in 1948

For now an unstable equilibrium is maintained, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has been saved from the wars that have plagued its neighbors and has sought to take advantage of some unmentionable alliances, but if something teaches Middle East history is, that sooner or later, waters return to their course. Greater Syria, which involves the bloodied Syria proper, Lebanon, Palestine (in spite of Israel) and, of course Jordan will be what the fighters of pan-Arabism sought in the great revolution of the early twentieth century, a country of tolerance and respect for diversity that unfortunately have been lost in the explosions, deaths and ruins caused by war.

Bloodshed in the Lands of Little Rains

The societies of the Middle East are probably the first human groups organized in states, with all the advantages and disadvantages that this type of organization offers. In fact, approximately 5,000 years ago they had already been living in organized communities in the Nile River Valley, and the plains of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. They were fertile areas with a lot of sunshine but lacking rain and moisture in the soil. However, the presence of three large rivers, allowed to provide water to potentially agricultural lands and develop high productivity crops. To get water to large areas by building dams and digging canals, it was necessary to join the efforts of many communities that had to be coordinated by a central authority. This was the beginning of the Sumerian states of Mesopotamia and Pharaohs of Egypt.

 Once the first states appeared, this social organizational modality was extended and deepened. New states were created that expanded and conquered their neighbors to better exploit their resources and work. They began to develop kingdoms and empires. Periodically the subordinate peoples rebelled and confronted their rulers, and on many occasions they developed their own kingdoms and empires.

Since then the history of the Middle East is a succession of imperial and monarchical states that imposed their rule through war and military force.

At the same time that the states appeared, religions were developed that facilitated the control of the populations without the use of force. The first religions that in many cases emphasized divinities related to land and fertility, often female, were changed by others that glorified war and triumphant aggressiveness. Frequently the state authorities were confused with the religious authorities. The king was the supreme priest. Even the king or emperor was attributed a divine character.

The struggles for power and resources began to use religious arguments. Each society had its own gods or its own interpretations of religious histories and traditions.

To the religions that ascribed a divine or magical character to the elements of nature, there were others that reduced the world and the universe to the power of a single god. This facilitated the control of the minds. Thus arose monotheistic religions that would constitute the religious and spiritual context for many millennia and up to the present.

The wars, the conquests and the oppression continued but it was tried to dress the economic interests, of power and protagónicos, of a religious and spiritual clothes.

 Wars are cruel and always were

 Many methods were used to control the people, but the most common was war and domination by force.

The objective of the war is to cause damage to the enemy to defeat him. This requires, kill, destroy, if possible, annihilate the opposing forces and their main strongholds.

In the 5,000-year history of the Middle East there were hundreds of wars, tens of thousands of battles, hundreds of millions of deaths, innumerable human works destroyed, entire societies eliminated, excluded cultures, mass emigrations, ethnic cleansing, slavery, systematic torture.

Do not consider that the societies of the Middle East are worse than other societies that exist in the world. They are only older, and therefore had more time to develop state expansionism and imperialism, expressed in its many forms.

Nor should we forget that for a long time and on multiple occasions, the societies of the Middle East were victims of expansionism and imperialism of external powers. In the last centuries these aggressions were very frequent. The powers of Western Europe, Czarist and later Soviet Russia, the United States, began to intervene in the Middle East in order to seize their resources. For this they took advantage of the internal dissensions, which already existed for their own benefit. They promoted sectarian struggles, Christians against Muslims, Muslims against Jews, Shiites against Sunnis. The wars of Afghanistan and Iraq in the first decade of the 21st century (which still continue) and the war in Syria, unleashed by the United States and its allies with various excuses, and from the existing contradictions, unleashed forces of hatred and aggression that led to killings and destruction in those countries. To this was added the political and military intervention of Russia that has its own interests in the Middle Eastern region. The external powers injected weapons, more and more deadly, that multiplied death and destruction.

The price is the blood shed by people who can no longer work, relate peacefully or live productive and harmonious lives. There is only death, destruction, emigration.
In short, in the lands of little rain bloodsheds are still going on.
Reproduced from "Lands of Few Rains and Much Blood", D.Antòn, Piriguazù Ediciones

Who is more respectful of Christmas celebrations? Iran and Syria, or Saudi Arabia and Israel?

Christmas is a time of goodwill to all men. Or at least it should be. But while the West’s Middle East ‘bad guys’ Iran and Syria, showed the Yuletide spirit (period of several days around and including Christmas day), its closest allies, Saudi Arabia and Israel, failed to do so.
Iran is demonized by Western neocons and we’re meant to see the country as an evil, ‘monster‘ regime of foaming-at-the-mouth religious fanatics who hate everyone.

So it goes against the dominant narrative somewhat that Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif tweeted a Christmas message and wished ‘peace and joy to all in 2019’, on Christmas Eve.

From Javad Zarif:

The angels said, "Mary, God gives you good tidings of a Word from Him whose name is Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary; high honored shall he be in this world and the next, near stationed to God. (QURAN 2:45)
May the blessings of the birth of Jesus usher peace and joy to all in 2019.

It also goes against the narrative, that Zarif, back in September, wished Jews, in Iran and across the world, “a very Happy New Year filled with peace and harmony.”

He also wished well to all Jews worldwide:

Iran's Zarif wishes 'happy Rosh Hashana' to Jews worldwide http://dlvr.it/QkLdKd 

We’re told repeatedly that the Iranian ‘regime’ is ‘anti-Semitic’, but do ‘anti-Semites’ wish Jews a happy ‘Rosh Hashanah’? If so, it's a rather strange definition.

The Iranian Foreign Minister also tweeted on December 26 a message of goodwill to Iran’s Zoroastrian community.

In fact, despite the large number of Christians from other countries who work in the country, including many Britons, the holding of any Christmas-related services or commemorations in Saudi Arabia is strictly banned. “The Christmas season – often a season where Christians around the world are most visible – is a tense time for Christians in Saudi Arabia, who have to celebrate the holiday in secret, risking arrest and deportation,” said Jeff King, President of the International Christian Concern, in 2016.

Imagine being a Christian and not being able to openly celebrate the birth of Christ. It happens in Saudi Arabia, yet Western leaders, so keen to lecture others about ‘human rights’ and ‘religious freedom’ stay silent, preferring to pick on Iran – where Christmas can be openly celebrated.

Syria is another country ‘monstered’ by the endless war lobby but where, against all the odds, the Christmas spirit is still maintained. Big seasonal celebrations were held this year in Aleppo and Damascus. Remember Aleppo?

It was recaptured by the Syrian Arab Army from Islamist ‘rebels’ two years ago this month, and the neocon/’liberal interventionist’ commentariat, and most of the political class portrayed it as a most terrible thing. Ian Austin MP said that people in Aleppo faced ‘slaughter’.

John Woodcock MP called the Morning Star newspaper ‘traitorous scum’ for referring to the recapture of Aleppo by Syrian forces of their own territory, as a ‘liberation’. But if you look at the pictures of Christians celebrating Christmas there once again, which they were forbidden to do under the western-backed head-chopping ’rebels’ you can see that the ‘L’ word was indeed appropriate.

Author: Neil Clark
Reference:
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/447671-christmas-iran-syria-israel-saudis/

Foolish Wars Have Consequences

Fifteen years ago, we were still in the early stages of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, “the war that would change everything.” Looking at the Middle East today, I feel an overwhelming sadness as I consider the far-reaching and devastating impact that the Iraq war has had on my country and the region and its peoples.

Neoconservatives had been aggressively pushing the Bush administration to launch a war against Iraq beginning immediately after the horrific terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. They argued that America needed to forcefully respond to the attacks in order to demonstrate that we were not to be trifled with. A decisive show of strength, they claimed, was necessary to clearly establish America’s hegemony and to forestall any move toward multi-polarity in the post-Cold War era. 

It bears repeating that the war was based on lies, and by that I don’t mean the lies about Saddam’s nuclear program or his connection to the 9/11 terrorists. Rather the more insidious lies were: that the “war would be a ‘cake walk,'” that it wouldn’t require a significant troop commitment or expenditure of resources, that it would be over quickly, that we would be greeted as liberators, that democracy would take hold in Iraq, and that the entire Middle East would be transformed.

Fifteen years later, only one of these claims turned out to be true: the region would be transformed. But it was not the transformation envisioned by the neo-cons.

Again, it bears repeating just how devastating that war has been. The war itself exposed the deep fissures in Iraqi society, while the US occupation’s uninformed bungling only served to exacerbate these divides. With Iraq’s army and ministries dismantled, the country fell into chaos with competing sectarian militias unleashing a civil war. This resulted in the massive displacement of civilians—millions of whom became refugees or internally displaced—and the decimation of vulnerable religious minority communities. All of this occurred on Bush’s watch.

An additional tragic consequence of the war was the spread of extremism. Al-Qaeda, far from defeated, metastasized into newer and more deadly forms in Iraq, its immediate neighborhood, and countries beyond.

In this weakened and fractured Iraq, Iran found a foothold which it parlayed to its advantage. Today, Iran remains a major player in Iraq and not only there. Another unintended consequence of the war was the unleashing of Iran as a regional power.

Subdued, for a time, by its rival Iraq, Iran now felt empowered to extend itself beyond its borders. Preying on growing anti-American sentiment and sectarian tensions in other countries, “revolutionary Iran” was emboldened to meddle in regional affairs. This gave rise to the Arab Gulf states feeling the need to assert themselves against this growing and destabilizing Iranian threat.

The neocons’ war also emboldened Israel to more aggressively pursue its agenda to subdue the Palestinians and to expand its colonial enterprise.

The US, once seen as the dominant super power that had won the Cold War and built an international coalition to liberate Kuwait, now found itself bogged down in a war it could not win with its military weakened and demoralized by losses. The US also stood discredited in the Arab World as a result of its bloody failure and abhorrent behavior in Iraq and its stubborn refusal to confront its client/ally Israel.

The neoconservative’s blindness to Middle East realities did indeed give birth to a “New Middle East,” but it was exactly the opposite of the one they had imagined.

As the region descended into multiple new crises—with deadly wars in Syria and Yemen—the impact of the Iraq war became even more pronounced. Iran was a player in each of them. The Gulf states also became involved seeking ways to combat aggressive Iranian advances which challenged and threatened them. Al-Qaeda and its offshoots played an new and deadly role in Iraq and Syria. And new players like Russia and Turkey, each defending what they saw as their interests, also emerged as regional actors.

All the while, the US, weakened diplomatically and still licking its wounds from the war in Iraq, was too war weary and wary of becoming directly involved in new regional crises. Some blame the Obama administration for passivity. But this fails to recognize the reality that the post-Iraq, the US military cautioned against engagement in conflicts they could neither manage nor see how their entry, without a long-term commitment—in which they loathed to engage—could help bring about a resolution.

In this new chaotic multi-polar world, conflicts spin out of control, becoming more deadly and destabilizing as they grew. The Syrian conflict has taken the lives of a half-million while forcing over five million to become refugees. This has created new pressures in neighboring countries and unleashed an xenophobic tidal wave that is now challenging democracies in Eastern and Central Europe. And the battle in Yemen, which began as an effort to restore the legitimate government that had been overthrown by a rebel faction, has morphed into a draining regional conflict and a humanitarian disaster.

And so here we are fifteen years later, with the US reduced to playing a supporting role in a deadly conflict in Yemen and a backup role for minor players in Syria. The mono-polar world envisioned by the neo-conservatives has given way to a multi-polar region—with Iran, Russia, Turkey, the Gulf States, and the US all engaged, in varying degrees, in conflicts—all, seemingly, without end. This is the house that the Iraq War built.

At this point, one can only imagine what the Middle East would be like if fifteen years ago, we had not engaged in that foolish war. Iraqis might still be struggling against their dictator, but one million Iraqis would not have died and their society would not have been destroyed. Iran’s people would still be struggling against its regime, but Iran would be contained. And the US, its capacity for leadership and prestige still intact, would be in a position to play a far more constructive role in regional diplomacy and conflict resolution.

I write this not to “cry over spilt milk,” but as a cautionary note. Foolish wars have consequences with which we are forced to live. We need to learn from them in order to not be so foolish in the future.

by James J. Zogby 

Reference: https://lobelog.com/foolish-wars-have-consequences/

About Kamal Salibi, deconstructing official religious history in the Middle East

• by Robert Fisk 
  

"Almost two decades ago, recording a BBC radio programme on Islam, I dropped by the American University of Beirut to interview an old Christian Protestant friend, Kamal Salibi. I asked him the same question I had already put to many Muslims: what happens after death? They, of course, assured me of their belief in an afterlife. Salibi, the great breaker of historical myth, did not share this conviction. "After life is nothing," he said, eyes cast slightly upwards, his voice almost shaking with indignation. "It is the end. We are dust."

I sincerely hope not. For Salibi, who died last Thursday after a stroke, was perhaps the finest historian of the modern – and the old – Middle East, fluent in ancient Hebrew as well as his native Arabic, his English flawless, a man whose work must surely shine into the future as it has illuminated the past. In one sense, his desire to deconstruct history, his almost Eliot-like precision in dissecting the false story of the Maronites of Lebanon, his highly mischievous – and linguistically brilliant – suggestion that the tales of the Old Testament took place in what is now Saudi Arabia, rather than Palestine, made him a revolutionary.

In one sense, his wish to live in a world unstifled by the texts of dictators made him one of the founders of the new "Arab awakening", 30 years before his time and scarcely 40 years after George Antonius first used the phrase as the title of his great work on the British betrayal of the Arab revolt. History, Salibi believed, should not only draw on original sources but should have a beginning and a middle. He was a "chronology" historian – such creatures are now back in fashion, thank God – who was also the first Lebanese writer to confront the country's civil war. His Crossroads to Civil War, Lebanon 1958-1976 was published less than 12 months after the 15-year conflict began."

Reproduced from:   http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/kamal-salibi-scholar-and-teacher-regarded-as-one-of-the-foremost-historians-of-the-middle-east-2350184.html

Destruction and death in the country of two rivers

Reflections on the war in Iraq and the emergence of the Islamic State (ISIS)

D. Anton

The situation in northern Iraq is extremely complex. 
The predominant population in the northeast of the country is of Kurdish origin. Iraqi Kurdistan consists of about 8 million inhabitants in 78,000 km2, with capital in the city of Erbil with 1.5 million inhabitants. 
Most of the population in this area is bilingual in Kurdish and Arabic languages. Also Aramaic (Assyrian neo-Aramaic), Turkic and Armenian are spoken by their respective communities.
Sunni-affiliated Islam is the main religion with little expression of Shiite Muslims (who are mostly in southern Iraq). There are other religious groups of varying importance. Assyrians of Aramaic speakers (about 80,000 people) are Christians, Yezidis, who are ethnically Kurdish but not Muslim (estimated at about 500,000) have their own religion that is related to ancient Persian Zoroastrianism.
To make the situation more complex, it is known that in Iraqi Kurdistan there are vast hydrocarbon deposits (at least 45 billion barrels) that make it the sixth oil reserve in the world. Several companies have signed agreements with the Kurdish government (usually with opposition from Baghdad) including Exxon, Total, Chevron, Talisman, GenEnergy, Hunt Oil, Gulf Keystone Petroleum and Marathon Oil. Effective extraction under Kurdish control began in 2007. Due to its economic power and geopolitical position, the Kurdish state (which is not internationally recognized) in fact is functioning as such.
The northwestern sector of Iraq (outside Kurdistan) is composed of mountainous and arid areas and is crossed by the Tigris River whose sediments generate the main agricultural lands. The population of this area is predominantly Sunni with small Shiite, Assyrian-Christian and Yazidis minorities. The main city of this area is Mosul with more than 1.5 million inhabitants.
The successive wars in Iraq, the US invasion, the overthrow and the death of Saddam Hussein, led to deep political instability triggering contradictions that were controlled during the dictatorship of Hussein.
The Kurds took advantage of the situation by creating a controlled area that has practically transformed itself into an independent state.
On the other hand, the continued military, political and cultural intervention of the Western powers in the Middle East led to an energetic reaction of the radical sectors of Islam, particularly the Iraqi and Syrian Sunnis, which led them to connect with the violent groups of Al Qaeda. From this alliance emerged an ultra-radical movement seeking to build an Islamic state (called the "caliphate") in northern Iraq and Syria. This group (ISIS) is extremely fundamentalist, trying to convert the non-Islamic groups by force and terror. The local communities (mainly Assyrian-Christian and Yasidis) who have managed to conserve their religions for many centuries do not wish to convert to Islam. 
The strategy of forcing the conversion led to measures of extreme cruelty with these populations. The details of these abuses are only partially known, and disturbing images have appeared in the media. It is clear that ISIS is systematically violating the human rights of Assyrian Christians, Yasidis and Kurdish communities in the territory they control. The only force capable of stopping this advance of ISIS seems to be the Kurdish army (peshmergas). With the support of the US and Western European countries the Kurds have recovered part of the areas previously under the power of the ISIS. The complexity of the situation makes it difficult to anticipate the political future 
However it seems that there are two ethnic-religious causes that deserve international support: the survival of the religious minorities, and the right of the Kurds to have their own state. For this to happen, the Kurdish communities have committed themselves fully to the autonomist struggle including the female peshmergas brigades. This fact, in violently patriarchal societies, shows a social, political and military aspect that calls attention and allows us to hope that in the future this discriminatory situation may begin to change. The Islamic State, on the other hand, represents the unbridled, discriminatory and fundamentalist reaction to the cultural and political changes that have taken place in the Iraqi.East Syria regions.
In fact, the extreme sectarianism of the Islamic State has managed to unite the political protagonists against it and it seems that it will not last long as a viable territorial force.  
However, after the disappearance of ISIS the conflicts for control of the area will continue. These territories are very important from a strategic point of view, particularly because they are the regiona thorugh which oleoducts and gasoducts are planned to transport the valuable Gulf hydrocarbons towards the Mediterranean coast and Europe.
From "Lands of Little Rain and Much Blood", Danilo Anton, Piriguazu Ediciones.

Egypt and its insoluble problems

Danilo Antón

Egypt is a paradoxical country. It is extremely arid, but of great fertility in its main river valley. It is overpopulated, with more than 95 million inhabitants in just 45,000 km2 of productive land has one of the greatest population densities of the planet in its agricultural and urban areas. At the same time it possesses some of the most desolate and warm deserts in the world that extend for 950,000 km2.
The existence of this enormous human flow is possible for only one reason: a river that is emissary of the humid African tropics and contributes its imposing flow of water and sediments to the arid lands of the North. That is why more than 95% of the Egyptians live in the Nile Valley. 

The rest of the country is sparsely populated. There are few population centers in the coastal strips of the Mediterranean and Red Sea where there are some fishing villages and tourist destinations, and a few oases associated with saline depressions.
In Cairo, the capital of the country, with 25 million inhabitants in the metropolitan area it rains just over 25 mm per year. In Luxor, to the south of the country, which has 500,000 inhabitants, it rains less than 1 mm of rain per year, so that for all practical purposes it can be said that it never rains.

The Nile Valley proper houses almost 90 million inhabitants, 95% of the country's total. This means 2000 inhabitants per km2, one of the highest densities in the world.
The almost unique characteristics of the Nile River were privileged places for the emergence of the first civilizations. They were numerous and close communities that required cooperation to use the water resources of the river to develop their irrigated crops.
At present, however, the agricultural production of the exploitable lands of the country is not enough to supply and provide labor for the large population, giving rise to multitudes of unemployed young people who are unable to enter the labor market.

This social instability is manifested at the political level. Islamic radicalism, expressed by the Muslim Brotherhood and some even more extremist groups, contrasts with the conservative and authoritarian political elite based on the armed forces.
The income that compensates these productive deficits comes from tourism (which is hampered by insecurity in Egyptian cities), repatriation of funds from Egyptian migrants (several million economic emigrants) working in oil countries, contributions and investments of some countries of the Gulf region (eg, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates), and US military support.

These contributions are not enough. In the first place, because prevailing corruption prevents resources from being distributed among the general population, secondly because ethnic-religious conflicts (between Muslims and Coptic Christians, between Sunnis and Shiites, etc.) discourage investment and tourism, and thirdly, because environmental degradation (including degradation of agricultural soils) lowers productivity.
In the near future, the situation is not likely to improve, emigrant contributions and contributions from Gulf states are affected by low oil prices, tourism and agricultural production is declining, and population growth continues.
In short, the country's social, environmental and political situation is unsustainable. This will result in greater instability, radicalization of religious extremism, greater violence and insecurity and increased poverty of the great urban and rural majorities.
The incorporation of Egypt into the Saudi-Emirate Alliance in the Yemen War and the blockade of Qatar will not help to resolve the situation, rather it will create new problems.
In the next few years the 100 million Egyptians will enter a difficult and uncertain future of inequality, poverty and social, ethnic and religious conflicts.
From "Lands of little rain and much blood" by Danilo Antón, Piriguazú Ediciones.

Reflections
Middle East: on imperialism, authoritarianism and human nature
D.Anton

Some reflections:

1) The history of the Middle East is very long and complex
2) Political power has historically been associated with military force.
3) Religions have played an important role throughout history, especially as one of the causes of political and military confrontations.
4) The last 1400 years were marked by conflicts and wars between religious organizations and churches, in particular, monotheistic beliefs: between Christians and Muslims, Shiites against Sunnis, Muslims with Jews, among others. In conclusion, religion appears stripped of its spiritual and philosophical content and becomes an instrument of power.

5) Ethnic and cultural differences have also had a strong influence, along with religious beliefs. Both have made possible to justify wars, massacres and genocides.
6) Current wars are related to ancient religious and ethnic conflicts.
7) Conflicts in the Middle East have often been stimulated by external powers (France, Britain, Russia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Italy, and in recent years the USA).

8) In general, political power has emerged from armed force, emperors, kings, caliphs, sultans, dictators and presidents came to their positions and maintained them through arms and violence
9) Power is usually hereditary, forming dynasties that can last several generations.

10) Power tends to be dominante by men. It has been very rare for women to have exercised power in the region.
11) The dominant classes have always been minority groups enjoying the privileges granted by the government, while the majority of the population remains dominated and impoverished.
12) The power is obtained and maintained by force. It is common to kill enemies and adversaries, They can even be tortured to obtain information or simply to make them suffer.

13) Slavery and servitude have been common throughout Middle East history. Only in the last 100 years have these institutions been eliminated, but in practice they continue to have effects on societies.
14) Discrimination on grounds of religion, belief, racial or gender origin was the rule throughout the history of the Middle East and still is.
15) The democratic processes have been exceptional or nonexistent.
16) The few electoral processes that have taken place led to fraud, which was sometimes very evident.
17) Given the age and persistence of this social and political situation, it does not seem likely that these societies can establish democratic systems that are reliable in the short term.
18) The presence of important natural resources (hydrocarbons) has exacerbated conflicts and foreign intervention.
19) In today's global world, the conflict in the Middle East affects and will affect all countries and regions of the world, whether economically, politically or by the influx of migrants and refugees.
20) It can be predicted that these conflicts will continue and even worsen due to the lack of sustainability of regional societies with high population densities, vast unproductive arid territories and extreme differences between a privileged few and a large number of impoverished people.
21) The struggles for territorial and resource control by the world powers will continue to be expressed in the Middle East and various armed conflicts will continue to occur.
22) For some powers with important military industries, particularly the US actual and potential wars will continue to represent opportunities for the sale of large volumes of armaments as well as for the deepening of their respective geopolitical influences. For that reason they will have interest in continuing to promote regional wars independently of the dramatic consequences of death and destruction for the populations of those countries.
Extracted from "Lands of little rain and much blood" by Danilo Antón, Piriguazú Ediciones.