Colonialism and the Middle East Over the course of history, societies have repeatedly exploited the surrounding

land, its wildlife and even one another. As natural resources were used up, the only way to sustain a growing population was to either develop new technologies or to expand into other territories. Perhaps because it encompasses more of a spectrum of maneuvers rather than a discrete undertaking, there seems to be no clear consensus on a singular definition of colonialism. Still, many different varieties can be demonstrated. According to Danver, traditional colonialism can be used interchangeably with the term imperialism and usually involves the expansion of one society or countrys borders into a weaker one (2010). Colonialism also relies on varying degrees of an imposed political jurisdiction along with foreign laws, assorted occupancy rates of the controlling settlers, and regulated levels of financial exploitation of both the land and its peoples (Danver, 2010). Indigenous populations are often displaced from their historical properties, unrecognized as equals in an alien society and oppressed through forced subjugation, toil and poverty. Said prefers a more generalized description and encapsulates any organized effort of dominance and subjection of areas outside an empire (1995). Modern and ancient history is rife with centuries long periods of imperialistic occupancy from the Ottoman and Syrian Empires to the emergence of the modern Western powers of England, France, and the United States, now acting as the main players. What is now known as the present day Middle East was initially shaped from the fallout of the winners and losers of World War I (Goldschmidt, 2009). The political terrain of the lands where Arabic was mostly spoken was very different than it is today. There was no Turkey, Saudi Arabia or Syriaand, more distinctly, there was no Israel. For hundreds of years, the vast region

was subjugated by one sprawling empire, the Ottoman Turks. While the Ottomans might have spoken a different language, they were not considered alien since they practiced the same religion (Egger, 2009). Through long periods of stagnation and reform, then decline and innovation, the Ottoman Empire could not recover from extraordinary losses they suffered in the first World War (Goldschmidt, 2009). When England and France decided to extinguish the Ottoman's realm (instead of allowing them to rebuild), they took on the role of occupiers of the Middle East. In what can be considered now as completely naive, Western states attempted to inject their own political structure and culture into the region (Goldschmidt, 2009). The chemistry of Christians ruling over Muslims proved to be unstable at best and more volatile and explosive than not. After the end of World War II, the once great European colonizing empires began to disintegrate around the globe (Danver, 2010). What was to be known later as a new world order, with America at its helm, began to develop. Former colonies were partially abandoned and indigenous groups who were left behind developed their own nationalistic attitudes. The seemingly random looking dictatorial boundaries, originally drawn to lay claim to lands in a feeble attempt to join together previously rivaled groups (in hopes of quelling ethnic, cultural or tribal differences), now defined the limits of fierce battle grounds (Goldschmidt, 2009). Colonized countries of Africa, the Middle East, and India and Pakistan fractured from the inside. The unintended consequences, of two or more groups who happen to adopt the same nationalism and then each lay claim to it, reverberate to this day. They waved a flag of the same nation, but identified with sectarian distinctiveness and fought fiercely for the countrys limited resources (Goldschmidt, 2009).

Although there was much infighting, the Middle East region was mostly seen as being uninterrupted and was unified at a certain level by the teachings of the Muslim faith (Said, 1995). Like a dysfunctional family, all feel an instinct to rally to defend a member who is attacked from the outside. The formation of the modern state of Israel by Western powers ended the notion of an amalgamated Middle East by putting a perceived interloper within its midst. Although the West is accustomed to having new generations who either forgive or have never even learned of the previous insults of other countries, the Middle Easts memory of past incursions is more persistent (Goldschmidt, 2009). Many young Middle Easterners remain vindictive toward the West. This could be due to the level of wealth and political stability than most in first world countries enjoy when they are brought into the worldstagnate poverty and factional violence is a sad component of a Middle Eastern childhood. From the beginning, conflict between Israelis and Palestinians and border disputes with Syria and Egypt reflected the (quixotic) up-hill struggle of Israels acceptance in the region. Israel simply could never have been realized without strong financial support from Western states (including Germanys reparations for the Holocaust) (Goldschmidt, 2009). This support is generally seen by Middle Easterners as an attempt by Western states in maintaing their status quo strategy of colonialism. In more recent times, the United States rose to become the worlds last superpower and subsequently inherited the responsibility of providing for Israel (Goldschmidt, 2009). This role of being Israels largest supporter has reoriented some of the blame away from Europe and toward North America and its interests around the world. Not surprisingly, from the point of view of an Arab/Muslim, this substantial level of contribution should give the US quite a bit of leverage in influencing Israels political path. Polls conducted by the University of Maryland in

Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Lebanon, and Egypt indicate that a majority see the Palestinian dilemma as being the most important issue to them on a personal level (Younes, 2003). The same majority see the US as being biased towards the Israelis and against Palestinians. One example of this is the perception of Western powers recent focus on combatting terrorism that encompasses Arab/Muslim resistance movements. The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was justified based on Americas new policy guidelines of counterterrorism (Goldschmidt, 2009). The term terrorist is regarded as being redefined to include Palestinian freedom fighters. There remains general mistrust amongst Middle Easterners and Muslims worldwide that the US is willing to pressure the Israeli government to resolve its conflicts through concessions or to allow the Palestinians to achieve statehood (Younes, 2003). While Israel continues to seek Jewish expansion into disputed areas of the West Bank and Gaza, the US is known to supply military assistance for attacks on Palestinian settlements. While the US has successfully brokered many negotiations and peace settlements between the Israelis and Palestinians, none have endured. Until a lasting peace agreement is reached, America will be seen as an adversary to the Middle East. This will prove to be very difficult, since the only solution to many is completely extinguish Israel.

References Danver, S. L. (2010). Popular controversies in world history : investigating history's intriguing questions. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. Retrieved from Columbia College MOBIUS database. Egger, V. (2004). A history of the Muslim world to 1405 : the making of a civilization. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Goldschmidt, A., & Davidson, L. (2009). A concise history of the Middle East (9th ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Said, E. W. (1995). East isn't east. [Article]. TLS(4792), 3. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database. Younes, R. (2003). Arab Public Opinion of U.S. Takes a Nosedive. Washington Report On Middle East Affairs, 22(4), 73.