Strictly speaking, Sunni Arab fundamentalism pre-dated the raise of Arab nationalism.Originally Posted by Azor
Fundamentalism can be traced back to at least the Mahdists of Sudan and spread of Sauds and Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia, of 19th Century. In turn, at least the ideology of the latter can be traced back to the 14th Century.
Arab nationalism developed in Syria and then Egypt, of the 19th Century.
It could even be said the USA insisted on local self-determination, while British and French blindly followed their imperialist ambitions and screwed up wherever they only could (see findings of the King-Crane Commission and various of President Willson's demands from 1919-1920 and compare these with Sykes-Picot agreement and all the related nonsense).The West, including the United States, wanted stability and access to oil, irrespective of whether these conditions were created by monarchs or dictators, Western-oriented advisors or fundamentalist clerics, nationalists or supra-nationalists.
So far, 'everything's clear'. What really went wrong was what happened afterwards. The British and the French created a number of states that simply can't survive on their own (Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine/Israel, just for the start), the USA then took over the role of 'protector' of most of these (plus Saudi Arabia and GCC states etc.), while other states were intentionally destabilized (see Yemen).
Of course, all of this supposedly 'in interest of peace and stability', i.e. 'maintenance of status quo' - which is the biggest piece of nonsense in the entire drama. Namely, one can't 'maintain peace and stability' if the fundaments of the situation are oppressive dictatorships. These are only a guarantee for anything else but 'peace and stability'.
Sorry Azor, but this is really nonsense.Yet if elements of liberal democracy existed in the Arab world, it was because they were imposed by monarchs and dictators at gunpoint.
Demands for liberal democracies came into being parallel with revival of the Arab nationalism in the 19th Century. This is obvious in Syrian Arabs forcing Ottoman Sultan to establish a parliament, Egyptians forcing their king to establish a parliamentary monarchy...hell, even the British-imposed king of Kingdom of Syria (existent but never officially acknowledged by the West in period 1919-1920) introduced a parliamentary monarchy etc.
Problem is that most of related developments were never reported in the West at all - or if, that related reporting remains entirely unknown in the West. Just for example: theoretically, I can't know but I'm still 100% sure and perfectly comfortable to say, you have never read Michael Provence's 'The Great Syrian Revolt'.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong, all the way.When Arab nationalism was clearly victorious over Sunni Arab fundamentalism, its energies were wasted on attacking Israel...
When this happened (see Egypt of 1952-1955) this Arab nationalism was moronically declared for 'dangerous' and 'destabilizing' and attacked and invaded or involved in nonsensical wars at every possible opportunity.
Nasser was anything but perfect, and certainly a dictator, but few things about him are not 100% but 1000% certain. He smashed the Moslem Brotherhod (i.e. Sunni fundamentalism), and certainly did not want a war with Israel (like none of Arab governments of the 1950s wanted any): he entered peace negotiations with Sharet's government, requested economic aid from the USA, and the British to treat him as equal. What happened in return? USA tried to force him to join a NATO-like METO; British PM cited him to the British embassy on his arrival in Cairo, and Ben Gurion and his 'Hawks' (foremost Dayan) instigated one massacre of Arab civilians after the other, plus a campaign of terror attacks in Egypt (see Lavon Affair) - and publicly preparing a war.
What should Nasser have done in that situation?
Put up a white flag and capitulate?
He requested arms from the USA and the UK in order to protect Egypt. He offered an alternative to the METO in form of a defence pact between Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria. And even then, he did so within the frame of negotiations related to economic development of his country - i.e. the construction of the High Dam in Aswan.
What did he get in return? British continued BS-itting and did their best to spoil that Egypt-SA-Syria pact - simply because it was not their idea; Americans conditioned their aid with basing rights for their military - while France meanwhile entered direct military cooperation with Israel, including deliveries of jet fighters and development of nuclear weapons, and Israel reinforced its attacks on Egypt (and Jordan). In a situation where he just concluded negotiations for a British withdrawal from Egypt, there was simply no way Nasser could accept such conditions. That's what even Dulles said to Eisenhower.
Means: he was left without solution but to order arms from Soviets. And when he did that, he was simply declared for 'Soviet client', although everybody - but especially the USA and the British - knew very well that he was a staunch anti-Communist too (and has completely destroyed the Egyptian Communist Party).
So, instead of continuing negotiations with him, the USA and the UK cancelled their aid for the High Dam, leaving Nasser without solution but to nationalise the Suez Canal in order to finance that project.
BTW, by that time Ben Gurion was already neck-deep in preparations to launch another war, i.e. a land-grab. And in that situation he was contacted with the British and French that were keen to remove Nasser, i.e. invade Egypt and 're-occuppy' the Suez Canal...
This is actual flow of developments there, this is what actually happened, i.e. this is all and undisputedly supported by official documentation - in the USA, in Israel, in Egypt, in the ex-USSR and in the ex-Czechoslovakia.
This is, however, anything but the usual legend we've been taught by the media ever since.
That was the last - golden opportunity - to sort out the things in the Middle East and really create an atmosphere of 'peace and stability'. Instead, Arabs were attacked and attacked, again and again. They were taught that their nationalist governments wouldn't be tollerated, that their anti-Communist governments would be attacked, that their pro-Soviet governments would be attacked, that their monarchies would be de-stabilized etc., etc., etc.
Nothing was 'good enough' for the West. What a surprise then, they returned to fundamentalism...
And BTW: just because you (don't worry, you're not alone: 99% of other observers of this war are doing the same) prefer to ignore over 400 local councils in Syria - all of them now governed by freely elected representatives and, of course, functioning in areas NOT ruled by Assad (but all the time terrorised by his thugs) - it doesn't mean they do not exist, or are not functional or not important.
EDIT: I've posted a collection of links describing their organization, elections, functions and every-day work at ‘Good Guys’ in Syria: Collection of Links about Civic Authorities. Please, kindly inform yourself.
Bookmarks