Who Loves/Hates Who?

[imatfaal]

I am really not sure of the validity of the conclusions - really posting because of the beauty of the construction and breadth of the project's ambition

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/30/middle-east-explained_n_6056786.html?utm_hp_ref=world

[CharonY]

There are notable gaps. However, what I like is that it makes it pretty clear that blanket statements with regards to country, religion, sect does not even begin to capture the complexity of the issue (although most discussions, unfortunately) are based around these concepts.

 

Edit: just wondering, shouldn't it be "whom"?

Edited October 31, 2014 by CharonY

[imatfaal]

There are notable gaps. However, what I like is that it makes it pretty clear that blanket statements with regards to country, religion, sect does not even begin to capture the complexity of the issue (although most discussions, unfortunately) are based around these concepts.

 

Edit: just wondering, shouldn't it be "whom"?

 

whom loves/hate who? No - that doesn't sound right You're right of course it should be who loves whom - whom being the object form. I am a real gramma-natzy when it comes to loss of meaning and elision of definition - I am horrified at the idea that we have lost "disinterest" as a separate word - but rules for the sake of rules have never been my thing

[iNow]

It would be challenging to add, but I'd love to see a filter for age group overlaid on to this. I am not sure this is the case, but with social media growth I suspect there exist significant differences across generations, even within the same country and even among those nations at the most extreme end of the spectrum.

[Ten oz]

I think too much is made of individual belief and behavior in the middle east. I believe that the exploitation of resources in the region and lack of power of the people to instigate sovereignty leads to the animosity, disorder, and etc we see today. At their beheading worst more are still killed from bombs dropped by western societies and industrial accidents (oil, mining, construction) caused by human rights violations in the labor laws countries like Kuwait, Bahrian, UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, etc. The drama of who hate or aligns with whom makes good press but ultimately it is just systematic of they way the region is treated by outside trillion dollar influences.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Ten oz

[MigL]

My first instinct would have been to write that you are always blaming the West ( and its big trillion $ influence ) for the world's woes.

But that would have started an argument, not continued the discussion. I certainly don't want that, so how about this...

 

Sunys, Shiites, Christians and Jews have been at each other's throats in that part of the world for a thousand years. Long before there was an America, cheap labor or trillion dollar outside influences.

I suggest that old habits ( individual beliefs and behavior ) die hard, and unless those habits change, neither will the situation.

This is evident in other areas of the world that don't have the influences you mentioned, yet have been and are still powder kegs waiting to go off, such as the Balkans.

 

I think iNow's suggestion would show wether change of individual beliefs and behavior is starting to change in younger generations, and provide a metric for bettering/worsening situations, and/or, which groups of people are becoming more reasonable and which groups are becoming worse.

[Ten oz]

My first instinct would have been to write that you are always blaming the West ( and its big trillion $ influence ) for the world's woes.

But that would have started an argument, not continued the discussion. I certainly don't want that, so how about this...

 

Sunys, Shiites, Christians and Jews have been at each other's throats in that part of the world for a thousand years. Long before there was an America, cheap labor or trillion dollar outside influences.

I suggest that old habits ( individual beliefs and behavior ) die hard, and unless those habits change, neither will the situation.

This is evident in other areas of the world that don't have the influences you mentioned, yet have been and are still powder kegs waiting to go off, such as the Balkans.

 

I think iNow's suggestion would show wether change of individual beliefs and behavior is starting to change in younger generations, and provide a metric for bettering/worsening situations, and/or, which groups of people are becoming more reasonable and which groups are becoming worse.

Actually I listed several Middle Eastern countries and their role in human rights violations as well. I did not blame the woes on the world on the West. I mentioned the West alongside those other countries because the fact that the West has killed more people in the region than vice versa is something that shouldn't be ignore. Foriegners policing region, especially one of a competing religion never works. I don't think there is a region in the world where that would not create extremism.

The trillion dollar comment was directed at Saudia Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, and Oman. The wealth and resources of the region are consolidated into small powerful enclaves rather than used to provide infastructure or education to the people region. That has a destabilizing effect.

Problems in the Middle East will never be resolved if the attitude is that fighting is merely in their nature. Making blanket generalizations about what was happening 2,000 years ago isn't helpful. What is happening today is the issue. If you were a 20's something living in Syria, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, or etc what issues would be important. You don't think western military force and the opulence of the Oil Barron countries on their minds? I do. I think those issue are more pressing to them than 2,000yr old habits.

[MigL]

My apologies at having misunderstood you.

Can we split the difference and agree that both, your causes, as well as the ones I mention contribute to the problem.

 

I would still like to see what iNow suggested and whether attitudes are changing for younger people in the area.

( before they get cynical and cranky, like me )

[CharonY]

The situations are obviously immensely complex and varies significantly from region to region. What I would caution is to use broad historical simplifications as an indicator for trajectories. Looking at the history of Europe, or even just the 19th and 20th century, most would agree that the region is a powder keg. In fact, the world wars started there. Looking at entrenched rivalries (e.g. Germany and France) it is hard to believe that there is any chance for peace in that region. Or looking back at the cold war similar things could be predicted.

Rather, I would think that economic stability would have a stabilizing effect on society. A large, well educated and well-off middle class as a whole is probably less likely to participate in actions that would endanger their wealth. Of course this would have to come with political system that would allow that to happen, which could be one of the biggest problems.

[Ten oz]

My apologies at having misunderstood you.

Can we split the difference and agree that both, your causes, as well as the ones I mention contribute to the problem.

 

I would still like to see what iNow suggested and whether attitudes are changing for younger people in the area.

( before they get cynical and cranky, like me )

Seems fair. We'll spilt the difference. : ) Edited November 2, 2014 by Ten oz

[Willie71]

My first instinct would have been to write that you are always blaming the West ( and its big trillion $ influence ) for the world's woes.

But that would have started an argument, not continued the discussion. I certainly don't want that, so how about this...

 

Sunys, Shiites, Christians and Jews have been at each other's throats in that part of the world for a thousand years. Long before there was an America, cheap labor or trillion dollar outside influences.

I suggest that old habits ( individual beliefs and behavior ) die hard, and unless those habits change, neither will the situation.

This is evident in other areas of the world that don't have the influences you mentioned, yet have been and are still powder kegs waiting to go off, such as the Balkans.

 

I think iNow's suggestion would show wether change of individual beliefs and behavior is starting to change in younger generations, and provide a metric for bettering/worsening situations, and/or, which groups of people are becoming more reasonable and which groups are becoming worse.

I am new to this forum, but have noted a couple comments regarding blaming the West. This was a common argument on a forum I just left. I think most people looking to discuss issues such as this aren't trying to blame one side or another, but look at the contributing factors and assign some sort of correlation or causation. I personally don't think in terms of 'us vs. them" and my comments are typically emotionally neutral. I think this is difficult for many people to conceptualize. I worked in mental health in Forensics for a couple decades, and learned that people do what makes sense. Good guys vs. bad guys is something politicians use to remove moral ambiguity. Any time we take an issue and polarize it, we are oversimplifying it, a political strategy, not a genuine debate strategy.

 

The situation in the Middle East has historical, religious, cultural, social, political, economic, military, and class factors. If one grew up in an area where military occupation, poverty, and war were your norms, then one's views of the world and the west would be very different than ours are. What there is no debate on, is that people in the Middle East kill each other much more frequently than they kill westerners, and westerners kill people in the Middle East at rates that are multitudes higher yet. The majority of people killed by western forces are civilians. By objective measures, we generate more terror, but we don't see that daily, due to our media bias, and distance from the situation.

 

its not about believing one side is better or worse, but looking at each side's contributions to the problems, and evaluating if 40 years of bombing has made the region more peaceful, or improved relations to the west. Why continue with what doesn't work, or evaluate if the motive is stabilizing the region, if we have been there for almost a century, and the area maintains instability. Maybe that is the real goal, as it's been the constant, in spite of significant financial and technological advantages in the West.

[Airbrush]

Upon reviewing the diagram I am struck by the complexity of the Mid-Eastern relationships. All this chart really tells you is that the situation is complicated, but I dare you to trace any more than a very few lines to make sense of it. This is not a user-friendly diagram, even if it is accurate.

 

So here is how to understand the situation. Make a list of the countries in alpha order. To the right of each country have columns listing (in alpha order): 1 countries and entities that country loves, 2 who they hate, etc., etc. Such a matrix would be easier to visualize and understand. That is what I would like to see. I cannot make sense of the diagram, but I would love a list of the countries as I requested. Can anyone write out that list here?

Edited November 3, 2014 by Airbrush

[imatfaal]

Upon reviewing the diagram I am struck by the complexity of the Mid-Eastern relationships. All this chart really tells you is that the situation is complicated, but I dare you to trace any more than a very few lines to make sense of it. This is not a user-friendly diagram, even if it is accurate.

 

So here is how to understand the situation. Make a list of the countries in alpha order. To the right of each country have columns listing (in alpha order): 1 countries and entities that country loves, 2 who they hate, etc., etc. Such a matrix would be easier to visualize and understand. That is what I would like to see. I cannot make sense of the diagram, but I would love a list of the countries as I requested. Can anyone write out that list here?

 

Did you trying clicking on an entity to re-work the chart and see the direct relationships for that entity?

 

Your table would be one half (split diagonaly) of grid 33*33 which would be about 3 screens wide and 2 deep or have writing too small to read. Frankly try reading the instructions again and I am sure you will understand the diagram

[CharonY]

It would be more complicated, but I feel adding a timeline somehow would be very useful to see the shift in politics. Oftentimes these discussion are based on the current state of affairs and projected into the past (it was always that way) and into the future. Yet in many cases major political shifts have happened, that massively changed the relationship between groups and nations. As Willie71 said, the historic background is hugely complex and on top of it it was also a region that saw huge amounts of outside influence (especially, but not limited to the cold war).

Without this context many aspects are very hard to understand.

[imatfaal]

I love the idea of a time variable - they could structure it like Hans Roslings times variable are often depicted. With a slider along the bottom from old to new - and an option to play video through in time

[Airbrush]

 

Did you trying clicking on an entity to re-work the chart and see the direct relationships for that entity?

 

Good idea, I just tried that. Diagram is working just fine now.

[Ten oz]

I am new to this forum, but have noted a couple comments regarding blaming the West. This was a common argument on a forum I just left. I think most people looking to discuss issues such as this aren't trying to blame one side or another, but look at the contributing factors and assign some sort of correlation or causation. I personally don't think in terms of 'us vs. them" and my comments are typically emotionally neutral. I think this is difficult for many people to conceptualize. I worked in mental health in Forensics for a couple decades, and learned that people do what makes sense. Good guys vs. bad guys is something politicians use to remove moral ambiguity. Any time we take an issue and polarize it, we are oversimplifying it, a political strategy, not a genuine debate strategy.

The situation in the Middle East has historical, religious, cultural, social, political, economic, military, and class factors. If one grew up in an area where military occupation, poverty, and war were your norms, then one's views of the world and the west would be very different than ours are. What there is no debate on, is that people in the Middle East kill each other much more frequently than they kill westerners, and westerners kill people in the Middle East at rates that are multitudes higher yet. The majority of people killed by western forces are civilians. By objective measures, we generate more terror, but we don't see that daily, due to our media bias, and distance from the situation.

its not about believing one side is better or worse, but looking at each side's contributions to the problems, and evaluating if 40 years of bombing has made the region more peaceful, or improved relations to the west. Why continue with what doesn't work, or evaluate if the motive is stabilizing the region, if we have been there for almost a century, and the area maintains instability. Maybe that is the real goal, as it's been the constant, in spite of significant financial and technological advantages in the West.

Good post. I agree with all it.

I think another big problem is that in the protection of capitalist interests in the region. Small enclaves of wealth have been allowed to form. Countries like Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain exist are small in both population and land yet heavily influence the region. Despite their wealth they practice indentured servitude and are guilty of nurmerous human rights violations. Young people growing up in Iraq, Pakistan, and etc don't have a whole lot of options. Many end up in near slave conditions working for the wealthy in Oman and Saudi Arabia and the above mentioned wealthy enclaves. It has a radicalizing effect. The west destorying what little infastructure and government these poor regions have in the name of combating terror while trillions of dollars flow through the region in the hands of a very small minority who in turn use it to further abuse people.

It is a " the chicken or the egg" debate though. While the west buys much of the oil and runs protection for the small wealthy oil producing states if we (the west) stopped tomorrow China and Russia would move in and do the same. If the Russian attempt to take Afghanistan is any evidence the violence would only be worse. Ultimately the influence of Oman, Saidi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, and Bahrain needs to be boken and that must come internally from the people in the region. It would help if the media and the U.N. did a better job pointing out the human rights violations in those countries and treated it with the same urgency they do rural ethnic violence in the rest of the region.