Both, the plan and the game, designed to break up the Arab world, have been going on without interruption for decades now. With the presence of western institutions, strategic schemes and concepts have been developed to divide the region into ethnic, religious, sectarian and tribal cantons. Within this context, we find it necessary to lay out the reasons behind the recent success of these institutions in promoting ‘effective’ plans to divide the Middle East in particular. However, it is important to affirm that these institutions do not always intervene directly. They move by setting up ‘pressure groups’ to guide decision-makers to achieve their goals after building favourable public opinion, especially in parliaments. They often initiate the idea, without always adopting it publicly, but doing that from under the table and amid curtains of media smoke. Again, what are the factors behind the success of the above institutions?
First is what thinkers believe is ‘openness to colonialism’, where a colonial power succeeds in creating a model of life and thought that makes a sizeable number of people accept the boundaries it lays down and even have these people work to protect them. It is a situation created by the colonial power managing to convince the colonised of its superiority, their inability to run their own affairs by themselves, being backward with the conviction that any act of rejection or resistance is doomed to fail.
Secondly, the ‘ability to a break-up’ and opposition to diversity: They relate to the common knowledge that cultural pluralism, ethnic, sectarian and denominational diversity are characteristics of the demographic structures of majority of countries, including most Arab countries. Unfortunately, they presented an ‘ideal’ factor to sow sedition among society members with growing ethnic, tribal and religious sentiments within the same religion. Thus, extremist religious groups (not without encouragement from local, regional and international “help”) grew in large numbers and with violence as their only means to execute their thoughts and beliefs as well as to ensure their survival.
Thirdly, the miserable state of affairs created by certain Arab countries and their impacts on their homelands and citizens. Freedoms were suppressed with oppression, persecution and total backwardness. Citizenship was compromised under a growing number of groups that are marginalised, who either serve the existing political system’s interests or end up siding with extremism — often unconsciously.
Fourth, dysfunctional nationalist ideologies that have failed to bring about a clear vision to unify the minds of its supporters. Thus, nationalists (mainly in opposition parties) were split under different names such as socialist, liberal or secular in the shadow of partisan political conflicts.
Fifth, the Middle East is of extreme importance to the capitalist colonialist West in all respects. It is a reservoir of raw material and holds the world’s largest oil reserves, along with a population density that qualifies it to be a market generating considerable profits. Furthermore, the region is strategically important within a framework of an integrated colonialist system, particularly as regards connection with the spheres of influence in East Asia.
Sixth, the United States moved, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, to lead the world and needed regional focal points, particularly in the Middle East, given its strategic geographic location. It could be impossible, for instance, to run battles in Afghanistan or Iraq from Washington or New York without ‘employing’ the region and working to draw up a political map that serves such military purposes.
Finally, Israel’s security was and still is an American strategic priority in the region. The Zionist state is the American spearhead forming an extension to its policies in the region, particularly after the demise of the old colonial order, yet, with its new military presence in the region designed to provide an alternative as a military power near the centre of developments, ready to intervene if western interests are threatened.
All colonial schemes stem from the arrogance of power. It can be perceived when a country believes it can do what it wants, as long as the balance of power is in its favour and its military preparedness exceeds that of its opponents, especially with regard to the Zionist state with its lobbying groups in the western world. There are groups that promote ideas and proposals serving Israel and the Zionist movement’s supreme interests, on top of which are those seeking split-up of Arab countries.
The break-up plans being floated were not based on previously drawn maps, but were prepared on the basis of demographic realities (religion, nationality and sectarianism). Re-drawing the international borders requires conciliation of the will of the people, known to be impossible to achieve now. Hence the senseless bloodshed to achieve that end continues.
Professor As’ad Abdul Rahman is the chairman of the Palestinian Encyclopaedia.
