@msolga,
msolga wrote:
I genuinely didn't understand what you were asking me to comment on. So I asked you to clarify. And now I do understand , because you just told me.
Quote:Because the situation in Egypt (and throughout the Muslim world) today is a direct consequence of the historical events I cited.
This will not satisfy you, I know, but I am no expert of Egyptian history.
(I don't think I've suggested I am?) I know something of the events you've mentioned, but I'm not in anywhere near an informed enough position to connect those events of the past to the anti-government events we are witnessing today.
That's my truthful response to your question, whether you accept it or not.
But I'd be interested to hear what you have to say about this subject. (I don't believe we've touched on it in this, in discussion till now, so I'd be interested.)
Could I ask you how you see the connections between the past history of Egypt & the anti-government protests happening now?
Well if your ignorance of history is that great then I suggest you remedy it by some reading and, in the interim, limit your expressions of opinion accordingly.
Let me put the situation this way. Until 1950 nearly all of the Muslims in the world were ruled by Europeans. From Morrocco to Central Asia and Indonesia they were ruiled by either Russians, French, British or Dutch masters. This was the result of European Empire building that started in Asia in the early 18th century and continued through the Caucasus and North Africa in the early 19th century, and was completed with the British & French overthrow of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century. Prior to that the Moslem world was ruled roughly by three empires, each with a succession of rulers, mostly intolerant autocrats, but some very liberal and enlightened rulers. The empires were the Persian/Iranian/Sassanid empire; the Mogul Empire in what is now Afghanistan, Pakistan and India; and the Arab (later Ottoman) empire centered first in bagdad and later in Constantinople,
The borders of today's Muslim countries, from Uzbekistan to Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Egypt, Lybia. Tunis, Algeria, Morocco, and most of the rest were drawn, not by the peoples of those countries, but by colonial powers,; Russia, Britain, and France. Indeed Iraq, Bahrain, Kuwait and Jordan were literally the creation of the British empire after their extensive campaign to take down the Ottoman Empire, and expand their own, during WWI. Borders were drawn arbitrarily and mostly to create advantage for the colonial masters. Thus Bahrain and Kuwait were created by the British precisely to put the then known oil fields in the hands of small, weak rulers whom they could dominate for their own interests. They tried this with Iraq as well but got kicked out in the 1920s in a popular Arab uprising there.
During the lead in to WWI the British & French concluded a secret treaty (Sykes-Picot Agreement) in which they divided up the spoils of the Ottoman Empire they had not yet destroyed. The French were to get what is now Lebanon and Syria and nothern Iraq (Mosul) while the British got everything else. Then known oil deposits were a major factor in the plan. (They didn't bother to inform the U.S. of this agreement as they lured us in to bailing them out in France.) In addition the British made two solemn but contradictory promises to different groups concerning what was then called Palestine. They promised it both to European Zionists as a homeland for Jews, and also to the Hashemite family (then the rulers of Mecca and Medina) as an Arab kingdom. This duplicity came to a head after WWII when the British simply abandoned the region and the contending parties, both of whom they deceived and betrayed, and turned it over to the nascent United Nations.
Meanwhile, long before WWI, the British secured a rather unqualified oil concession (the D'Arcy agreement) from the then very weak Persian King. Later (1920s) when ther Persians tried to improve the terms the British staged a coup and installed Reza Shah as ruler (the father of the Shah deposed in 1980) who was more compliant. Much later in 1954 a democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadeq of Persia (now called Iran) tried again to negotiate a better deal for their oil with the British (he wanted the same 50-50 deal the U.S. had recently concluded with the Saudis - the British were giving the Iranians only 10% of the profits and, since they kep the books, even they were much understated). U.S. President Truman tried to persuade the British government to negotiate, but without success. The Labor governmment there said, in effect, they needed to screw Iranians to pay social welfare benefits to the British people (things were tough there after WWII). After our election they persuaded the incoming President Eisenhower to help them execute a planned coup that would oust Mossadeq and reinstall Reza Shah's son who promised to be more compliant. Eisenhower agreed (we had already pressured the British to give up most of their empire and perhaps thought they had gone through enough). It can't be proven, but there is evidence that Eisenhower later regretted his action and that was the reason he turned so bitterly on the British when, just a little over twoi years later they, along with the Israelis and the French invaded Egypt to take the Suerz canal.
With respect to Egypt specifically, it was in the 19th century nominally a part of the Ottoman Empire. However for most of the century it exercised nearly complete autonomy under its own rulers. Indeed the Suez canal was constructed by a French firm under a contract let by the Viceroy of Egypt, said Pasha. The canal was completed and much later following a stock scam British investors gained control of the Canal company and the British empire used this as a pretext to, in effect, seize the canal and Egypt to boot.
After WWII and the Nazi attempt to exterminate the European Jewish population , together with the subsequent unwillingness of European countries to repatriate or compensate the surviving displaced Jews, there was a mass exodus of European Jews to Palestine - to fulfill the British promise to the Zionists. As the only western country with a substantial surviving Jewish population, the United States found itself as the princiupal supporter of the then new Jewish state.
This is merely a sketch of some of the highlights of the relevant history. However, I hope it is enough to stimulate you to ask yourself just who it is that the Arabs are so pissed off at, and what are the underlying issues here.
[/quote]
