Redrawing The Middle East Map

Blood Borders

International borders are never completely just. But the degree of injustice they inflict upon those whom frontiers force together or separate makes an enormous difference — often the difference between freedom and oppression, tolerance and atrocity, the rule of law and terrorism, or even peace and war.

The most arbitrary and distorted borders in the world are in Africa and the Middle East. Drawn by self-interested Europeans (who have had sufficient trouble defining their own frontiers), Africa's borders continue to provoke the deaths of millions of local inhabitants. But the unjust borders in the Middle East — to borrow from Churchill — generate more trouble than can be consumed locally.

While the Middle East has far more problems than dysfunctional borders alone — from cultural stagnation through scandalous inequality to deadly religious extremism — the greatest taboo in striving to understand the region's comprehensive failure isn't Islam but the awful-but-sacrosanct international boundaries worshipped by our own diplomats.

Of course, no adjustment of borders, however draconian, could make every minority in the Middle East happy. In some instances, ethnic and religious groups live intermingled and have intermarried. Elsewhere, reunions based on blood or belief might not prove quite as joyous as their current proponents expect. The boundaries projected in the maps accompanying this article redress the wrongs suffered by the most significant "cheated" population groups, such as the Kurds, Baluch and Arab Shia, but still fail to account adequately for Middle Eastern Christians, Bahais, Ismailis, Naqshbandis and many another numerically lesser minorities. And one haunting wrong can never be redressed with a reward of territory: the genocide perpetrated against the Armenians by the dying Ottoman Empire.

Begin with the border issue most sensitive to American readers: For Israel to have any hope of living in reasonable peace with its neighbors, it will have to return to its pre-1967 borders — with essential local adjustments for legitimate security concerns. But the issue of the territories surrounding Jerusalem, a city stained with thousands of years of blood, may prove intractable beyond our lifetimes. Where all parties have turned their god into a real-estate tycoon, literal turf battles have a tenacity unrivaled by mere greed for oil wealth or ethnic squabbles. So let us set aside this single overstudied issue and turn to those that are studiously ignored.



Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works.

Well this sure is an Eye-Opening Article taken from - surpisingly - Armed Forces Journal.

Would RE-Drawing Borders really Help?

Is it yet another Dirty Trick of the Global Elite, to take control over this area, by using Balkanization to further fragmentize the Nations, Nationalities and Religious Groups of Middle East?

According to this Article the New and Democratic Iraq will soon be separated into 3 states (like I have been saying for a long, Long time) - Shia, Sunni and Kurdish; well the Kurds will ofcourse also take a nice part of Turkey as well in their Free Kurdistan.

But as you can see, the Plan is kind of like, creating many, Many smaller states, which actually do not like each other very muchly - since the biggest of Fear of Global Elite in control of Middle East with their main Protectorate in Israel (and now also in Iraq) is that the Muslim/Arab Nations of Middle East Unite once again, like they did 500+ years ago when the Crusaders marched in this Land.

Interesting Read I must say...

Thoughts?

Opinions?

Always Welcome!



[edit on 21/8/06 by Souljah]

That is an interesting read. Most of southwest Asia has been draw up in a very odd fashion. You really have to feel for the Kurds. It really wouldn't be fair to just give them part of Iraq since they occupy a large portion of Turkey and Iran, but maybe it would be a start. Do you think it would help to draw Iraq into Kurd, Sunni, Shiite sectors?

Whatever you do, do not believe that all the conflict within these arbitrarily defined borders are due to European influence, considering the history of tribal and ethnic warfare in those regions prior to European presence. The Red Line did more good than harm. It settled border disputes amongst the warring emirs and caliphates, and did much to quench smaller conflicts.

The Muslim/Arab nations were never united in the first place. There are wahabis, persians, arabs, sunnis, shiites, and countless others. Any individual or entity which attempts to portray the Middle East as every having been completely united is a crock of #.

Originally posted by etotheitheta
The Muslim/Arab nations were never united in the first place. There are wahabis, persians, arabs, sunnis, shiites, and countless others. Any individual or entity which attempts to portray the Middle East as every having been completely united is a crock of #.

Well I guess you do not know your history well - because when the christian Crusades started, Muslim/Arab nations did unite under the banner of Saladin, who completly drove them out of the "Holy Lands". You know how he did manage to unite them? Very simple - he basicly did nothing, all he needed was a COMMON enemy from outside (you know those white knights in shiny armor), and the rest was easy. Comparing that to the situation happening today in Middle East it is only a matter of time, when Muslims start to unite against to common enemies from outside.

No, never happened. Saladin was able to unite a few tribes to fight against the Europeans, but the Middle East has never been completely united. Europe, Asia, India, Africa..etc, have never been united.