At the beginning of the twentieth century, the main means of penetration into the Middle East was railways. All major colonial powers: Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia built railways in their eastern possessions, connecting their territory, their outposts with as yet unoccupied territories.
The most famous was the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway, which connected the eastern end of Russian railways with Vladivostok. A long railway line, 2 thousand kilometers of which passed through Chinese territory, helped Russia capture and bind Manchuria to itself. The Trans-Caspian Railway, which connected Orenburg with the city of Verny (Almaty), helped to bind Central Asia to itself. England connected its African colonies with the Trans-African Railway from Alexandria to Cape Town. The Germans sought to build a road from Istanbul to Basra through the territory of the Ottoman Empire. This project never came to fruition, but was the cause of diplomatic wars for a long time. The importance of railways was very great. Whoever owned the railways, and the builders did everything to not let go of control over them, owned import and export, and at the same time trade, both foreign and domestic. With the help of simple manipulations with tariffs, it was possible to monopolize the market of any country, pushing out both external and internal sellers. With the help of the railway, Russia carried out first the economic and then, in 1900-1901, the military occupation of Manchuria. Railways were of military importance. It was easy to transport troops and supplies along them to any place where the track was stretched. When agreements on the construction of railways were being prepared, the building countries negotiated the right to military communication along them, as well as the right to protect the roadside and stations. If we again turn to the textbook example of the Russian railway in Manchuria, then its construction on the territory of the independent Qing Empire was guarded by Russian troops. Subsequently, cargo and materials were transported along this road for the Russian naval base in Port Arthur. It was the troops stationed along the Chinese Eastern Railway that took part in the suppression of the Boxer War of 1900-1901 and in the occupation of China. At all times, colonization required the protection of property. When colonization was carried out by trading posts, foreign troops guarded warehouses, commodity bases and settlements. When the colonialists carried out colonization through railways, the troops guarded the tracks, stations, depots and adjacent personnel villages. Now, when colonization is carried out through the development of oil production, troops guard wells, oil pipelines and oil refineries. Today, no railways are being built in the Middle East. The only railway project that is being discussed today, the construction of a railway in Afghanistan, has not moved forward. But there is another object that today fulfills the colonialist functions of railways. These are oil fields and oil pipelines. Oil fields are an extremely vulnerable industry. A successful explosion or even a shot is enough to disable it. The ignition of oil or petroleum products and a fire will complete the destruction of the equipment of the oil field or oil refinery. Therefore, the territory where oil is extracted or processed, as well as where it is loaded or transported through oil pipelines, must be reliably protected. Wars and military operations should not be waged or even planned on this territory. This protected area must be large enough in area to eliminate any possibility of attack or sabotage. A striking example of the establishment of such a protected zone can be observed during the construction of the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline. Part of the oil pipeline runs through Turkish territory, part through Georgian, and part through Azerbaijan. There is no need to worry about the Turkish part, because Turkey is a NATO member and has sufficient forces to guard the pipeline. The Turkish government follows the US-allied course and guarantees the safety of the project. To ensure complete safety of the pipeline, it is necessary to bring Georgia and Azerbaijan under control. The history of how the US State Department tried to manage events in these countries deserves separate consideration. For now, we will pay attention to the coincidence that the preparatory work and the start of construction of the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline was accompanied by US offers to Georgia and Azerbaijan: assistance, admission to NATO, assistance in training and arming the army, as well as pressure, as was the case in Georgia. The war in Iraq, if we take into account US oil interests, is also part of a grandiose project to create a security zone. Saddam Hussein could have launched a surprise attack on the oil pipeline. The war in Iraq also pursued the goal of securing the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, but from the south, from the borders with Iraq. It is also necessary to protect the oil fields of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, which are sources of oil, along with the Baku fields. This task is more difficult, because the southern part of this region is a war zone. But the Americans tried to solve this problem by invading Afghanistan and creating military bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. True, the solution to this problem is still far from complete, but the outline of American control has already emerged. In the west it is NATO member Türkiye. The Turkish port of Ceyhan is the westernmost point of the oil pipeline, from which oil should be loaded onto ships. Then, to the east, two controlled countries: Georgia and Azerbaijan. Oil is being reloaded from Caspian tankers to Baku for pumping through an oil pipeline. The US State Department is making every effort to bring these two countries under its control, even to the point of admitting them to NATO and declaring them “part of Europe.” The main supplier of oil is supposed to be Kazakhstan, which, using infrastructure partially left over from Soviet times and partially newly built, produces and transports oil to the Caspian coast, to the port of Mangyshlak. The Kazakh government hesitated for a long time about participating in this project, but not so long ago this agreement was signed. Along with Kazakhstan's participation in this oil project, they started talking about the fact that the Kazakh army would be armed with American weapons. This is understandable. Kazakhstan is needed as an ally and as a possible base for the deployment of American troops. The political problem of the project is that to the south of these countries there are countries with a very unstable situation: Iraq and Afghanistan, or hostile to the United States - Iran. The invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 pursued precisely these goals - to secure a new oil production area. American military bases have appeared in Iraq, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. There is only one Iran left. In principle, a very serious knot of contradictions is emerging, which will be larger than even the knot of contradictions in the Persian Gulf. The oil pipeline route runs almost in the very geographical middle of the Muslim world. Sooner or later, the Americans will feel like complete masters here and will begin to redraw borders and rearrange governments. Zbigniew Brzezinski speaks about this quite clearly in his latest works. But in this region there are interests of such large countries as Russia and China. Restructuring the political map of the region without taking into account the interests of two large and influential neighbors will inevitably cause a new world conflict. So, US policy in the Middle East can be called neo-colonialist only because it is starting again. In essence and in terms of results, they are no different from the colonialism of the same British or Russians. The Middle East is definitely returning to the era of colonial rule. In principle, this is obvious. If a country has placed some fairly valuable property on the territory of another country, in the form of a trading post, railway or oil refinery, then a logical continuation of this is the requirement to ensure the possibility of protecting this property. In an underdeveloped country, the government usually has little control over the territory, so the property is guarded by foreign troops. From a foreign military presence to the establishment of a colonial administration is only a step. Placing military bases is already colonization. If this is obvious, then is it possible to refuse such projects that are fraught with addiction? Theoretically, of course, it is possible to refuse, but practical experience shows that there have been no refusals of projects. And that's why. At the very beginning of his activity, the colonialist offers something beneficial not only to him, but also to the country to whose government the proposal is addressed. The benefits from trade, from the development of communications or production are undoubtedly mutual. Therefore, the colonialist’s proposal is, as a rule, accepted. So it was this time. Kazakhstan quickly accepted the proposal to jointly exploit the Tengiz field, then proposals to develop other fields, but now it has entered into a project that will enslave a good third of the world. Everything is interconnected. Kazakhstan has already turned into an American protectorate, no matter what official agitators from Washington and Astana say there. American activity is also fraught with the fact that it encourages those political forces in the Middle Eastern countries that pin their hopes on the colonial path of development. This circumstance, now independent of the Americans, helps the colonization of the Middle East. Opposition politicians in a number of countries are already fighting for power, hoping to immediately join the “world market”, that is, a large colonization project, and ensure the prosperity that they promise. What follows from this situation? Firstly, that the Americans will not leave this region. Not in a year, not in ten years. They will try to sit in them until the very last opportunity, as Donald Rumsfeld announced in Tashkent. I think all this will last no less than several decades. Secondly, for the sake of the great oil project, the economic development of the countries of this region is postponed indefinitely. Oil will not make them richer, it will only ruin them. The Arabs managed to quietly, at a convenient moment, nationalize the oil fields and put most of the oil profits into their pockets. Nationalization will not happen now. For this purpose, control is introduced and troops are deployed in order to prevent a government with ideas of nationalization from coming to power, and if such a thing appears, then to quickly eliminate it. Thirdly, American efforts and the economic problems of the region are growing and educating a generation of politicians who will take the colonial development of their country for granted. They will voluntarily and ideologically help the American colonialists in tightening the colonial yoke.
Why has an intractable conflict simmered in the Middle East for decades? Where are its origins and are there ways to pacify the parties? Who is “playing” in the Middle East arena and what are the goals of these “players”? According to what scenarios have events developed and, perhaps, will develop?
The Middle East is a crossroads of parts of the world, civilizations, and religions. A point of intersection of interests and, as a result, a constant struggle for power. From Egypt in the west to Iran in the east, from Turkey in the north to Yemen in the south, military clashes have not stopped for 100 years. The tangle of problems is so tangled that there is practically no hope of unraveling it - any attempts to pull one “string” only complicate the situation.
This tangle has been formed since the beginning of the 20th century, when the great powers carved out territories in the Middle East in their own interests, without taking into account the cultural, historical, and national characteristics of the peoples inhabiting them. Today we see the result: constant wars and terrorist attacks in the region.
Who is “playing” in the Middle East arena? What are the goals of these "players"? What scenarios followed? Before us is a brief history of the twentieth century in the Middle East.
Colonial ambitions
For centuries, the Middle East has been a strategic region on the route from Europe to Asia and Africa. By the first quarter of the 20th century, it received a new meaning as an oil-bearing territory. Oil is becoming of great importance as a vital resource for the development of the economy and industry, which has become especially important in the context of impending world wars. The country controlling the Middle East region received enormous advantages. This was understood in Europe, the USA, and Russia (later the USSR).
By the beginning of the First World War, the territory of the Middle East was part of the weakening Ottoman Empire. Having gotten involved in the war on the side of Germany, the empire hoped to regain its former power.
One of the most influential European powers, Great Britain, during the war tried to concentrate its military and political efforts away from the European theater of operations, trying to maintain its position as a colonial empire. Pursuing the goal of gaining control over Palestine, Great Britain maneuvered between the interests of its ally France and the interests of the Arab population of these lands, and also used the influence of Jewish diasporas around the world for its own purposes.
In 1916, a secret agreement was signed between Great Britain and France to divide spheres of influence in the Middle East. In accordance with the agreement, Great Britain received the territory where Jordan and Iraq are now located, as well as Palestine. France received the southeastern part of Turkey, northern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Each of the powers had the right to determine the state boundaries of trust territories in its zone of influence. By supporting the Arab Revolt in the Ottoman Empire (1916-1918), the British gave the Arabs hope that after a joint victory over the Turks, Great Britain would contribute to the creation of independent Arab states, including in Palestine. Along with these promises, one of the most controversial documents in modern history was released in 1917: the Balfour Declaration. In it, in extremely carefully calibrated terms, Great Britain expressed support for the creation in Palestine of a “national home for the Jewish people.” It should be noted that the word “state” was not used in it, and it also stipulated that when creating a “home” the rights of the population living in Palestine should not be violated. All these political demarches were carried out in the conditions of a war, after winning which, one could already act at one’s own discretion.
As a result of the First World War, the Ottoman Empire collapsed. The League of Nations, the prototype of the UN, issued to the victorious countries - France and Great Britain - in 1920 -1923. mandates for territorial management. Great Britain received the right to rule Palestine (including the territory of modern Jordan) and Mesopotamia (modern Iraq), France - modern Syria and Lebanon. The mandate was given on the condition that the European powers should prepare the territories for their becoming independent states. The text of the mandate also included the text of the Balfour Declaration, calling on the mandate to ensure the formation of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.
Hopes and promises
While the British Mandate lasted, large numbers of Jews moved to Palestine. They were driven by the ideas of Zionism, that is, the ideas of re-establishing the state of Israel; They were also forced to leave Europe by increased anti-Semitism, especially noticeable in Hitler’s Germany in the 1930s. The settlers quickly settled into the new place, buying up land, sowing fields, and building houses. However, such pressure from settlers caused rejection on the part of those who lived in Palestine before them - the Arabs. (It should be noted that there is no people called “Palestinians” - this word refers to all the peoples living in Palestine - both Arabs and Jews.) It is difficult to understand why such hostility to the settlers arose, given that each side in the description of history tries to justify himself and blame everything on the other side. But even Jewish scholars themselves pointed out that the attitude of Jews towards Palestinian Arabs was, to put it mildly, unkind. If the League of Nations had in mind only the creation of a “home” for the Jewish people within the framework of the future Palestinian state, then the Jews sought precisely the formation of a full-fledged national state, separate from the Arabs. This was reflected in their actions: on the one hand, they made loud statements about their desire to live side by side with the Arabs; on the other hand, measures were taken to discriminate against the Arab population when hiring for land cultivation or construction. When purchasing land, Jews were obliged to employ only Jews. Thus, everything possible was done to oust the Arabs from Palestine. The reaction of the Arab population was not long in coming: major uprisings began with pogroms of Jewish settlements.
Great Britain had to react to what was happening: the so-called “White Papers” were published, limiting the number of Jewish immigrants. This step was taken to pacify the Arabs, but the policy of limiting the influx of new settlers was inconsistent. Some points of these books were subsequently revised. As a result, in the 1930s the Jewish population and the area of land in their possession increased sharply. The Arabs saw their hopes for the creation of an independent Palestinian state melting away before their eyes - not without the help of the British, and bloody uprisings began against the British Mandate itself.
Realizing the impossibility of compromise between Arabs and Jews, Britain issued a new White Paper in 1939, which denied any intention of creating a Jewish state, rejected Arab demands for Palestine to be declared an independent Arab state, and called for the Mandate to end by 1949. By this time, it was planned to proclaim the independence of Palestine, the government of which would include both Palestinians and Jews.
Conflict of interest
During World War II, illegal immigration of Jewish settlers increased amid the genocide of Jews in Europe. But Britain continued to take measures to restrict their arrival. The hope of escape from the fascist concentration camps was associated with flight to Palestine, and the restrictive policy of Britain caused the Zionists to treat it as an enemy. Disappointment in Great Britain among the settlers led to the rise of terrorism. Most of the terrorist attacks were carried out by the illegal armed organizations Haganah and Irgun. The apogee of their activity was the terrorist attack at the King David Hotel in 1946, which claimed the lives of 91 people. At the same time, the role of the United States in the Palestinian problem increased - it was their support that the Zionists relied on, having lost hope that Great Britain would assist in the creation of a Jewish state.
Finding itself unable to resolve the conflict in Palestine, the British government announced its desire to abandon the Mandate, arguing that it was unable to find an acceptable solution for Arabs and Jews.
In 1947, the question of the fate of Palestine was referred by Great Britain to the United Nations. Within its framework, commissions were created that ultimately developed a plan for the gradual abolition of the British Mandate and the division of Palestine into two separate states: Jewish and Arab, as well as a special international regime for the city of Jerusalem. By Resolution 181 this plan was adopted by the UN General Assembly.
By that time, all other mandated territories had gained independence. During the period of its mandate, Great Britain, together with the French, managed to build an oil pipeline from the territory of modern Iraq to the Mediterranean Sea to supply Europe with hydrocarbons.
The newly formed countries of the Middle East region joined the League of Arab States (LAS), an organization representing the interests of the Arab world in the international arena. All Arab League countries were against the plan for the division of Palestine, but they were in the minority. Almost all European states, as well as the USA and the USSR, supported this UN plan.
However, Resolution 181 did not provide a solution to the problem, and the number of acts of violence in Palestine only increased. The Palestinian Arabs were categorically against the creation of a Jewish state in any form. With the evacuation of British troops, clashes between Arabs and Jews became more frequent: sabotage, attacks on military installations and the seizure of British weapons became the main characteristic feature of the situation in Palestine.
The British government gradually reduced its activities in Palestine, and the United Nations proved unable to replace it as an effective governing body. Thus, the Zionist movement began to establish control over the territory of the nascent Jewish state. At the same time, it became obvious that the Zionist policy was aimed at occupying as much territory as possible, beyond the borders established for the Jewish state by the partition resolution. As a result, for several months before the end of the mandate, Jewish troops occupied key cities and areas in the territory intended to be part of the Arab state. At the same time, bordering Arab states have made it clear that they are intervening in the conflict to support their Palestinian brethren.
With events escalating into a major armed conflict, Britain announced the termination of the Mandate on 15 May 1948, several months ahead of schedule in the United Nations plan. On the same day, the State of Israel was proclaimed, and the Arab League, consisting of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen, sent troops into Palestine. A war began, which went down in the history of Israel as the War of Independence, and in the history of the Arab world as a disaster.
It led to the actual division of Palestine between Israel, Jordan (West Bank) and Egypt (Gaza Strip). The war marked a significant transformation of the Middle East conflict: from local to regional.
The ideological component of the conflict has emerged - the confrontation between nationalisms. Now the Jews have become enemies not only of the Palestinian Arabs. There were pogroms against Jews in Egypt and Libya, something that neither the Arab nor the Muslim world had ever known before. A total exodus of large Jewish populations from Arab countries began. The governments of all Arab countries refused to recognize Israel and declared an international boycott of it.
Participants in the first Arab-Israeli war were not satisfied with its outcome: the Arab states were unable to achieve the liquidation of Israel, and the Israeli ruling circles were unable to achieve the liberation of the Promised Land and the inclusion of all of Palestine within Israel.
As a result of this war, one of the key problems took shape that the world community is trying to resolve to this day: the problem of refugees. Jews fled from Arab countries, Arabs fled from Israel, driven both by massacres on both sides and by the calls of their leaders. Today, the issue of Palestinian refugees, of whom, according to the UN, there are already more than 4 million, is especially acute. Their number is growing every year, since refugee status in relation to immigrants from Palestine is inherited. They moved to territories designated by the UN for the creation of an Arab state: to the West Bank of the Jordan River and to the Gaza Strip. Many fled to neighboring Arab states. The situation of refugees varies from country to country: while in Jordan they have full civil rights, in Lebanon, for example, they have limited access to education, health care and jobs. Israel refuses to grant Arabs the right to return, Arab countries refuse to assimilate refugees into their territory. Each side has its own arguments, but the issue remains unresolved, and entire generations of people often live in very poor conditions, without their own home.
Changing players
The next important event in the Middle East was the Suez crisis. The Suez Canal has been owned by the French and British since the end of the 19th century. The British military presence in Egypt ensured control over it. However, by the 50s of the 20th century, nationalist sentiments increased in Egypt; Gamal Abdel Nasser, an ardent opponent of British influence in Egypt, came to power. Nasser broke the agreement with the British on their military presence, and the British armed forces left the canal zone by the summer of 1956. During that period, there was a rapprochement between Egypt and the USSR, which began supplying weapons to the Egyptian army when the Western powers stopped them, fearing the strengthening of the nationalist regime. To the horror of the British and French, in 1956 Nasser announced Egypt's nationalization of the Suez Canal. Enormous revenues from the operation of the canal, the interest in them of the most influential families of Great Britain and France, the strategic need to control the unhindered passage of their ships, including oil tankers, through the canal, and the possibility of transferring control over it to the Soviet Union forced these European countries to undertake a military invasion of Egypt in the best traditions of colonialism. Overt aggression would not have found support in the international community, so it had to be veiled. For this purpose, the Israeli authorities were involved, who did not fail to take advantage of the conflict of interests of the Western powers and Egypt. Nasser's statement about the goal of destroying Israel, the ban on its ships passing through the Egyptian straits and the Suez Canal, and constant attacks by Palestinians from the Gaza Strip forced Israel to take risky measures. In the French city of Sèvres, secret negotiations took place between representatives of Israel, France and Great Britain. They ended with the adoption of a plan according to which Israel would invade Egypt, and England and France would then invade the Suez Canal zone under the guise of the need to end the conflict and protect the canal.
More than once in the future, Israel will be the first to attack Arab countries preemptively (that is, before military aggression by the enemy), believing that the best defense is an attack.
For the secret allies, the course of military operations was very successful. While the Israeli army occupied the Sinai Peninsula, European powers landed in the Suez Canal zone and took control of it. However, the hopes of Great Britain and France to maintain their positions in Egypt were not justified: the USSR and the USA entered the game. The Soviet Union threatened to take the side of Egypt if the Allies did not stop their aggression. The United States also did not want the Europeans to restore their influence in the Middle East by force - they sought to eradicate colonialism from the system of international relations.
The Suez crisis clearly showed that the roles of Great Britain and France in the Middle East were weakened, and they were replaced by the Soviet Union and the United States. This balance of power will last until the collapse of the USSR, when only the United States will remain the largest player in the Middle East. Today, after the events in Libya, when France took the leading role in the fight against Gaddafi’s forces, and the United States decided to step aside, there is reason to talk about the possible return of European powers to the region, already within the framework of the EU and NATO.
Negotiation
After the Suez crisis, there were no wars involving countries outside the Middle East region. Western powers sought to resolve the conflict peacefully and offered their services as mediators in negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, formed in 1964. But the situation was constantly spinning out of control. In 1967, Israel carried out a military operation called the Six-Day War, capturing almost all of Palestine. The West Bank of the Jordan River (Samaria and Judea), occupied by Jordan in the first war, and the Gaza Strip, occupied by Egypt, came under his control. Only by 2005 will Israeli troops and settlements be withdrawn from the Gaza Strip. In May 2011, US President Barack Obama invited Israel to agree to return to the borders that existed before the Six-Day War, that is, to liberate Samaria and Judea from Israeli troops and the population. In the years following the end of the Six-Day War, many Jewish settlements arose in these territories. Their legality is disputed by the international community, since these territories were captured by Israel as a result of aggression. Israel currently does not agree to give up the territories it occupied, citing the fact that this would undermine the security of the country.
In 1973, Arab countries tried to take revenge and attacked Israel on the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur (Judgment Day). The war went down in history as the Yom Kippur War. Then the Arab countries used the “oil weapon”: they imposed an embargo on oil supplies to countries supporting Israel. This drove up oil prices and made the United States and Western countries acutely aware of their need for peace in the Middle East region.
With the mediation of the Americans, a peace treaty was signed between Egypt and Israel in 1978. It turned out to be more important for the Egyptian leadership to listen to the position of the United States rather than the Arab countries. For the latter, Egypt's recognition of the right to exist of the state of Israel was a betrayal.
The United States also acted as a mediator in 1993 in Oslo, at the time of the signing of agreements between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). It was a great achievement to bring the two sides to the negotiating table. In Israel, the PLO was considered (not unreasonably) a terrorist organization, and, in addition, its charter explicitly stated the goal of the destruction of Israel. Also, the main document of the PLO proclaims that the only way to liberate Palestine is through armed struggle.
As a result of the negotiations, the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) was founded, which was given control of part of the territories captured by Israel. In 1996, the PNA held elections for the chairman and legislative council, which were won by Yasser Arafat and the Fatah party (Palestine National Liberation Movement) he founded.
At the moment, two organizations that have been at odds with each other for a long time enjoy the greatest influence among Palestinian Arabs. Fatah, which Israel and the world community recognize as the representative of the Palestinian people, and Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement), which they also consider a terrorist organization. Fatah has a strong position in the West Bank, while Hamas controls the Gaza Strip, having won elections there in 2006.
Since Hamas has real power in the region, a number of countries, Russia among them, do not recognize it as a terrorist organization. However, no one supports violent methods of fighting for their rights and shelling Israeli territories. Also, unlike Fatah, Hamas does not want to recognize Israel.
Despite the contradictions between Fatah and Hamas, a reconciliation agreement was signed between the parties in May 2011 in Cairo. The unification of parties with different approaches to the problem of recognition of Israel casts doubt on the possibility of negotiations between representatives of the Jewish state and the Palestinian people. For Palestinians, this step is very important ahead of a special UN session in September, which will discuss the creation of an Arab state of Palestine.
Dilemma
Even if, with the help of the entire international community, it would be possible to resolve territorial disputes and refugee issues, there will still be a landmine issue - if it is touched, then an explosion will not be avoided. This is the issue of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. Jews from 70 AD live with aspirations for the restoration of the Temple. After its destruction by the Romans, the Jews lost the only place where they could offer sacrifices to God. Until the Temple on the Temple Mount is rebuilt, the spiritual life of the Jews will be incomplete. But on the mountain there are now Islamic shrines, the destruction of which will entail the wrath of the entire Muslim world. Now the Eastern part of Jerusalem, along with the holy places, is under the control of the Jews, and it is unlikely that they will ever agree to give this land to the Muslims. Therefore, peace in the Middle East is a pipe dream for the world community.
The concept of the Middle East region in political and scientific circles. "Greater Middle East". Countries and states of the Middle East and their territories. Israel as a European state entity. Arab countries of South-West Asia and North Africa, Magrish and Maghreb. Racial, ethnonational and religious-community composition of the population. Arabs and Jews, Kurds and Turks, Copts, Berbers, Sudanese and Moorish blacks. Judaism, Christianity and Islam in the Middle East, the relationship between representatives of the three world religions. Occupation, culture and life of the peoples inhabiting the Middle East. Consequences of the colonial rule of Great Britain, France and Italy in the region.
The Middle East after the end of the Second World War. The process of decolonization and the formation of young independent states /1946 -1971/. Creation of the State of Israel. Achieving political independence and restoring state sovereignty by the Arab countries of South-West Asia and North Africa. The struggle between the forces of reaction and progress, the successes and failures of national liberation, anti-imperialist and anti-feudal movements.
The main forms of state and political structure in the countries of the Arab world. Republican regimes and their characteristics. Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Sudan and Mauritania. Monarchical regimes and their characteristics. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Bahrain and Morocco. Palestinian and Kurdish issues. The problem of Western Sahara.
State of Israel. History of origin, formation and development. Main trends in political and socio-economic development in the second half of the 20th and early 21st centuries.
The Jewish people and their place in the history of world human civilization. Anti-Semitism as a phenomenon in the socio-political life of a number of countries in Europe, Asia, Africa and America, its roots. Reasons for the strengthening of anti-Semitic sentiments at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries.
Zionism as a political, nationalist and social movement. Formation of the World Zionist Organization /WZO, Basel, 1897/, its program, goals and objectives. Theodor Herzl as the founder of the Zionist movement. Eretz - Israel. The activities of the WZO to create a “Jewish home in the historical homeland” in Palestine. Attitude to the process of Jewish immigration of the British government. Balfour Declaration /November 2, 1917/ and discussion of the problem of Palestine at the international conference in San Remo /April 19, 1920/.
Intensification of the process of Jewish immigration to Palestine during the interwar period. Aliyah and the creation of the Yishuv political system in the 20s - 30s. XX century. Laying the foundations of Jewish statehood. The emergence of intercommunal confrontation between Jews and Arabs in Palestine. "White Paper" of the British Government /May 17, 1939/.
The explosion of anti-Semitic hysteria in Nazi Germany and its consequences /1933 - 1945/. Nuremberg Laws on Citizenship and Race /September 15, 1935/. Jews and Michelanges. The spread of Judeophobia in the occupied countries of Europe during the Second World War /1939 -1945/. Meeting of the highest officials of the Nazi Reich in Grossen - Wannsee / January 20, 1942 / and the adoption of the “final solution to the Jewish question”. Genocide and Holocaust. The extermination of six million European Jews.
Extraordinary Congress of the WSO and the adoption of the Biltmore program, its main provisions /New York, May 11, 1942/. A call for the creation of an independent Jewish state on the territory of Palestine and the reaction to it from the leading powers - participants in the anti-Hitler coalition - the USA and the USSR.
The political situation in Palestine at the end of the Second World War. An influx of new aliyah from Europe and other regions of the globe. A sharp aggravation of intercommunal contradictions between Jews and Arabs, their escalation into an open armed conflict. "Hagana" and "Palmach" as irregular military formations of Palestinian Zionists. Terrorist activities of the Irgun Zwei Leumi and Lehi. Tragedy in Deir Yassin /April 9, 1948/.
The crisis of the British Mandate system in Palestine, the actual refusal and self-removal of the British government from solving the problems of this territory. Discussion of the Palestinian issue at the UN /1946-1948/. The main options for solving this issue. A project to create a sovereign Arab-Jewish state with equal rights for Arabs and Jews. The project of dividing Palestine into two independent states - Arab and Jewish. The positions of the great powers in the process of discussing these projects. The second session of the UN General Assembly and the adoption of resolution 181/II/ on the division of Palestine into two independent and sovereign states - Arab and Jewish / November 29, 1947/.
Adoption of the Declaration on the Establishment of the State of Israel /Tel Aviv, May 14, 1948/. The People's Council and the People's Administration of the Jewish State as temporary legislative, executive and administrative bodies. Political portrait and activities of David Ben-Gurion, his role in the history of the Jewish people and the creation of Israel.
The constitutional and legal system of the State of Israel, its characteristic features and characteristics. Legal basis for the emergence and existence of the Jewish state. Lack of a constitution, combination of Jewish religious law with English common law and elements of Ottoman commercial and private law. Determination of Israeli citizenship and personal status. Laws on return /1950/, on citizenship /1954/, on land /1960/ and on population registration /1965/. Jews and goyim. Sabra, Ashkenazi, Sephardim and Mamzerim. Israeli-born Arabs, Palestinian Arabs, Bedouins and Druze.
State institutions of Israel. Features of the implementation of the principle of separation of powers. Government, Knesset, Supreme Court. Presidential status. Local executive, administrative and judicial authorities. The influence of Orthodox Judaism on the activities of government bodies and institutions in Israel. Law on Rabbinical Courts /1953/.
Israeli party system. The absence of large political parties and organizations of a national scale, the diversity of the party spectrum. Zionist parties of social reformist, centrist and right-wing conservative orientation. Religious parties of traditionalist and ultra-Orthodox Judaism. Secular parties of Marxist-socialist and democratic orientation. Blocking Israeli parties and groups at the parliamentary and government levels. “Maarach” /1969/ and “Likud” /1973/ as the main political blocs-rivals in the last quarter of the 20th - beginning of the 21st century.
The role of security forces in the socio-political life of Israel. IDF /Israel Defense Forces/ and MOSSAD, their functions. "Revolving Door System". Rapid turnover of the officer corps and delegation of retired senior army ranks to leadership positions in the state and administrative apparatus.
Public organizations in Israel and the specifics of their activities. Histadrut /General Labor Confederation of Israeli Workers, 1920/ as the main trade union center, its structures and divisions.
Political portraits of the most famous Israeli statesmen of the second half of the 20th - early 21st centuries. Chaim Weizmann, Golda Meir, Moshe Dayan, Menachem Begin, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert.
Israel as a new industrial country. The main stages of socio-economic development since the re-establishment of the Jewish state. Recovery period / late 40s - mid 50s. XX century/. Development of agricultural production and the beginning of the industrialization process. Kibbutzim and moshav. Processes of repatriation and absorption of arriving aliyah.
Industrial growth and the creation of an import-substituting development model / mid-50s - mid-70s. XX century/. Formation of macroeconomic proportions characteristic of an industrialized country. The process of militarization of the economy, the emergence of the military-industrial complex/military-industrial complex/Israel.
Israel's transition to an export-oriented development model / mid-70s - late 80s. XX century/. A period of slow and unstable growth, a search for ways to intensify the economy. Increasing financial problems caused by macroeconomic imbalances. Structural shifts due to the interweaving of industrial and scientific-technical stages of development. The first wave of economic liberalization.
Acceleration of economic growth based on the involvement of new resources of labor and capital in the reproduction process /turn of the 20th - 21st centuries/. Significant strengthening of intensive growth factors, increasing the role of competition and market incentives. Completion of the formation of the foundations of the economic profile by identifying specialized, high-tech types of military and civilian industrial production. Active development of the service sector.
Factors that contributed to the rapid growth of the Israeli economy during the second half of the 20th and early 21st centuries.
The military-political alliance of Israel and the United States during the Cold War and after its end. Provision by the US government of large loans to Israel on preferential terms, provision of extensive free assistance in economic, financial, industrial, military and other fields of activity. Support for Israel by Zionist and pro-Zionist circles in different countries, the Jewish diaspora, and representatives of large financial capital of Jewish origin. Tough confrontation between Israel and the Arab-Islamic world during the Middle East conflict. The “besieged fortress state” syndrome and the “muscle building” policy, the militarization of the economy and labor. A constant influx of aliyah with a fairly high level of intellectual development, qualifications, general and professional culture. The presence of relatively cheap labor in the form of Israelis of Sephardi and Arab origin, Palestinian Arabs and Druze.
The main sectors of the modern Israeli economy. Military-industrial complex and related types of high-tech production. Israel's nuclear program. Metalworking and mechanical engineering industry. Electrical and electronic industry. Extraction of minerals, phosphates and Dead Sea salts. Production of mineral fertilizers. Diamond processing. Construction industry and service sector. Highly profitable agricultural production. Creation of a network of irrigation systems, widespread introduction of new agricultural technology and agricultural products. Growing grain and citrus crops. Development of livestock and poultry farming.
General results of the political and socio-economic development of the State of Israel in the second half of the 20th - early 21st centuries. Prospects for the further existence of the Jewish state.
The Middle East conflict and the dynamics of its development. Causes, nature and main stages of the Middle East conflict.
International aspects of the Middle East conflict. Positions of the great world powers - the USA, Great Britain, France, USSR / Russia / and China in the process of resolving this conflict. Geopolitical contradictions, regional problems and the oil issue.
Arab-Israeli contradictions. Boycott of the State of Israel by its Arab neighbors, long-term refusal to recognize the right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state.
The Palestinian issue is the cornerstone of the Middle East conflict. The first Arab-Israeli /Palestinian/ war /1948 – 1949/ and its results. The inclusion of the West Bank of the Jordan River into Jordan, the establishment of Egyptian administrative control over the Gaza Strip. The emergence of the problem of Palestinian refugees. Palestinian Arabs as a Diaspora People.
The origins of the Palestinian Resistance Movement – PDS /1948 – 1964/. Early political organizations of Palestinian Arabs and their activities. Arab Liberation Army /AAO, 1948 – 1949/ and “Al-Jihad al-Muqaddas” /“Holy War”, 1949/.
Second Arab-Israeli War /Suez Crisis, October 30 – November 6, 1956/. Triple Anglo-French-Israeli aggression against Egypt and its consequences. Palestinian support for the ideas of pan-Arabism, their active participation in the movement of pan-Arab unity. G.A. Nasser and the PDS.
Creation of the Palestine Liberation Organization /PLO, 1964/. “Harikat al-Tahrir al-Filastini” - “Palestinian Liberation Movement” / Fatah - Victory, 1959 / as the backbone of the PLO. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), Communist Party of Palestine - People's Party (PPP - PN) and other Palestinian organizations - members of the PLO. Palestine Liberation Army /PLO, 1965/ as the armed wing of the PLO. Salah Khalaf, Khalil al-Wazir and Yasser Arafat as leaders of the PLO and PYD.
The First Palestinian National Congress /Jerusalem, May 1964/ and its decisions. Palestinian National Pact, characteristics of this document.
Third Arab-Israeli War /Six Day War, June 1967/. Israeli capture of the remaining part of Palestine - the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Syrian Golan Heights and the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula. New refugee outflow. Conference of Arab countries in Khartoum /1967/. UN Security Council Decision No. 242 /November 22, 1967/. Israeli Colonization Policy in the Occupied Arab Territories.
The emergence of extremist Palestinian organizations. Groups "Black September" and "Eagles of the Palestinian Revolution". Terrorist attack and death of Israeli athletes during the Munich Olympics /September 1972/. The conflict between the PLO leadership and the Jordanian authorities, armed clashes between the PLO detachments and the Jordanian army /1968 - 1970/. Relocation of the main PLO forces to Lebanon.
The Fourth Arab-Israeli War / Yom Kippur War, October 1973 / and its results. Resolution of the XXIX session of the UN General Assembly /1974/ on the right of the Arabs of Palestine to create a sovereign state. Egypt's withdrawal from the Arab-Israeli conflict as a result of the conclusion of a separate peace treaty with Israel /Washington, March 26, 1979/.
Lebanon's involvement in the Middle East conflict. The Lebanese government's support for the PYD in Israeli-occupied Arab territories. Exacerbation of interfaith problems in Lebanese society. The struggle of the country's national-patriotic forces with local reaction. Civil war in Lebanon /1975 – 1990/. The entry of Syrian troops into Lebanon in accordance with the decisions of the Summit of Arab States in Riyadh and Cairo /1976/.
The Fifth Arab-Israeli War /Lebanese War, 1982/ and its consequences. Occupation of the southern part of the country by Israeli troops and their access to Beirut. Evacuation of PDS units from Lebanon to Libya. Massacre in the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila. Refusal of the Lebanese government from a separate agreement with Israel. Weakening OOP.
World community support for the national liberation struggle of the Palestinian people. USSR /Russia/ and PLO. The gradual formation of favorable conditions for resolving the Palestinian issue. The growth of the Arab population in Israel and the Israeli-occupied Arab territories. Intifada as an unarmed uprising of the Arabs of Palestine /1986 - 1993/.
Finding ways to resolve the Middle East conflict - Madrid, Moscow, Oslo, Washington /1991 - 1993/. UN mediation. Beginning of direct political dialogue between Israel and the PLO. Joint Palestinian-Israeli Declaration and its main provisions /Oslo, September 13, 1993/. Formation of the Palestinian National Autonomy /Gaza-Jericho region/. The unresolved problem of Jerusalem. The creation of the Palestinian Authority Council, the latter's transformation into the Palestinian National Authority /PNA/. Y. Arafat as chairman of the PNA.
Opposition to the peace settlement in Israel, Arab countries and the PLO. Provocations and terrorist actions.
Islamic fundamentalism and PDS. "Muslim Association" /1973/ and "Islamic Resistance Movement" /HAMAS, 1987/. “Islamic Jihad” /1979/ and “Hezbolah” /“Party of Allah”, 1983/. Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Fathi Shakiqi as leaders of Palestinian fundamentalists. Terrorist attacks in the USA on September 11, 2001 and the reaction to them in the Arab world.
The death of Ya. Arafat /November 11, 2004/ and the problem of succession in the leadership of the PLO, Fatah and PNA. Political portrait and activities of Mahmoud Abbas.
"Road map" of the Palestinian-Israeli settlement as a document /April 30, 2003/. The fate of this plan.
Hamas's victory in the elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council in 2006. An actual split in the leadership of the Palestinian National Autonomy and an intensification of the power struggle between Fatah and Hamas /June 2007/. Dual power in Palestine. “Winter War” in Gaza and its consequences /December 27, 2008 – January 18, 2009/.
Prospects for a peaceful settlement of the Middle East conflict.
Egypt in the second half of the 20th - early 21st centuries. Main trends in domestic and foreign policy after the establishment of the republican system.
The political situation in Egypt at the turn of the 40s - 50s. XX century. The pro-imperialist position of the governments of King Farouk, the inability and unwillingness of the latter to defend the national and state sovereignty of Egypt. An acute internal crisis in the country, the rise of a democratic, anti-imperialist and national liberation movement. Demand to break the unequal Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936 and evacuate British troops from the country. The role of the advanced part of the officer corps of the Egyptian army in the liberation struggle. Creation and activities of the Free Officers organization /1948/ Political portraits of Muhammad Naguib, Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat.
Revolution of July 23, 1952 in Egypt, its causes and nature. Features of the Egyptian revolution. The overthrow of the monarchical regime and the transfer of power into the hands of the Revolutionary Command Council /SRK/. M. Naguib as the head of the provisional revolutionary government. Disengagement in the ranks of the SRC and the victory of the radical wing of national-patriotic forces within it. Proclamation of Egypt as a republic /June 1953/ and adoption of the first republican constitution /June 1956/. G.A. Nasser as head of government and state.
The policy of economic and social reforms in Egypt during the era of G.A. Nasser. Agrarian reforms and the gradual elimination of large feudal, waqf and landlord landownership, the adoption of legislation regulating the sphere of rental relations, the establishment of a fixed taxation procedure in the countryside. Encouragement of private model farms of fellahs and development of the cooperative movement. Introduction of new agricultural technology and agricultural products into agriculture. Reconstruction and construction of irrigation systems. The process of nationalization of foreign property in Egypt, its features. "Egyptianization" of industry, banking and foreign trade. Creation of a public sector in the economy and encouragement of private national capital. Introduction of elements of national planning and development of five-year plans. Industrialization of Egypt, creation of large enterprises in the light and food industries. Energy development and construction of the Aswan hydroelectric complex. Cooperation between Egypt and the USSR and other socialist countries in the economic sphere.
Anti-imperialist position of the new Egypt in international relations. Withdrawal of British occupation forces from the country /1954/. Nationalization of the Suez Canal Company by Egypt /July 1956/. Worsening relations with Western countries. The Suez crisis and the triple Anglo-Franco-Israeli aggression against Egypt /October 30 - November 6, 1956/.
Positions of the USSR and the USA during the Suez crisis. USSR support for the government of G.A. Nasser. Forced retreat of the colonialists and withdrawal of the aggressor troops.
Egypt as the leader of the Arab world. The ideology of pan-Arabism and its main provisions. Creation of the United Arab Republic consisting of Egypt and Syria /UAR, February 1958/. Syria's withdrawal from the UAR, its reasons /September 1961/.
The role of Egypt in the international organizations of the young liberated states of Asia, Africa and Latin America. G.A. Nasser as one of the founders and leaders of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Egypt's participation in the activities of NAM, OSNAA, OIC and LAS.
The situation in the UAR after Syria left its structure. Adoption of the Charter of National Action /1962/. Provisional Constitution of 1964 and its contents. Arab Socialist Union /ASU, 1962 - 1963/. The growth of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie and the strengthening of its influence in Egyptian society.
Egypt's defeat in the Six-Day War /June 1967/ and its causes. Attempts by internal reaction to overthrow the government of G.A. Nasser and their failure. “March 30 Program” /1968/, continuation of the policy of progressive reforms. Difficulties in the process of eliminating the consequences of Israeli aggression. Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between Egypt and the USSR /May 27, 1971/ and its significance. Egypt's restoration of its economic and military potential. “The Yom Kippur War” and its results /October 1973/.
Arab Republic of Egypt /ARE, 1972/ in the post-Nasser era. Strengthening the activity of the “new bourgeoisie”. Social crisis. The coming to power of A. Sadat and his revision of the domestic and foreign policies of his predecessor. The Constitution of 1971 and its main provisions.
“October Document” /April 18, 1974/ and the proclamation of the “infitah” policy. The transition to a market economy through partial denationalization and privatization of state property, strengthening the position of the national bourgeoisie and providing freedom of activity to foreign capital.
The dissolution of the ACC and the creation on its basis of three political parties - the Liberal Socialist Party /LSP, 1976/, the Arab Socialist Party /ASP, 1976/ and the National Progressive Party /NPP, 1976/. “Democratic experiment” of the late 70s. XX century and its essence. The formation and activities of the pro-government National Democratic Party /NDP, 1978/ and the Socialist Labor Party /SPT, 1979-1980/ as a party of “legal opposition”. The emergence of a semi-legal and illegal opposition movement in Egypt. New Wafd /1979-1980/ and National Front /1979-1980/. The Islamic fundamentalist factor in the political and social life of the country. The growth in numbers and sharp intensification of the activities of Islamist parties, organizations and groups. "Al-Jihad", its characteristics. The Islamic revolution in Iran and its impact on the internal situation in Egypt.
The rapprochement of Egypt with the United States and its allies, the deterioration of relations with the USSR. Unilateral denunciation by the Egyptian side of the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with the USSR /March 1976/. Separate negotiations between Egypt and Israel through US mediation. Agreement on the Sinai Peninsula /September 1975/. Camp David Agreement “Framework for Peace in the Middle East” /September 1978/. Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel, its main provisions /Washington, March 26, 1979/. Consequences and results of a separate conspiracy. The exit of the most developed country in the Arab world from the Middle East conflict. The crisis in Egypt's relations with Arab countries. Political and economic sanctions of Arab states against Egypt. Suspension of Egypt's membership in the Arab League.
The crisis of the Sadat regime. The unification of opposition forces within the framework of the Egyptian Patriotic Front /EPF, 1980/. Repressive policy of the authorities towards the opposition. Assassination of A. Sadat by Islamic extremists /October 6, 1981/. Introduction of a state of emergency in the country.
The coming to power of a new leadership in Egypt. Mohammed Hosni Mubarak as a politician and president, his role in the history of independent Egypt. The next stage of modernization of the country.
The situation in Egypt in the early 80s. XX century. Stagnation and stagnation in the political, ideological, economic and social spheres. Bureaucratization of the state and administrative apparatus, unbridled growth of corruption and bribery. Disproportions in the economy, Decline in the pace of development in the industrial and agricultural sectors. The influx of capital into the services, tourism and entertainment industries. Sharp social differentiation in Egyptian society. “Fat cats” and the attitude of ordinary Egyptians towards them. Ethnic and religious problems. Muslim Arabs and Christian Copts, their relationships.
Refusal of the government of M.H. Mubarak from the extremes of the domestic and foreign policies of the previous administration. "Egypt for everyone." The desire for internal stabilization and consolidation of Egyptian society. Maintaining the leading position of the NDP and political dialogue with opposition parties, organizations and groups. Strengthening the national economy of Egypt by transferring investments from the sphere of consumption to the sphere of production. Normalization of relations between Egypt and Arab countries, restoration of Egypt's membership in the Arab League. Resumption of political and economic cooperation with the USSR.
Egypt at the turn and beginning of the 21st century. Continuation of the policy of economic and social reforms by the administration of M.H. Mubarak.
Accelerated development of market relations in Egypt and features of this process. Privatization without absurdity, with the order of a tender and on the basis of an audit to independent firms. Intensive denationalization of industrial, agricultural, infrastructure and other objects that do not have a strategic purpose. Maintaining state control over a number of enterprises in the extractive industries, the energy complex and the military-industrial complex, Improving the system of statewide planning of the national economy. Construction of new cities and the creation of large industrial areas with their own ports. Development of irrigation systems and development of new lands in desert and semi-desert areas. Raising the living standards of Egyptians. Creation of a system of accessible and free public education and healthcare. Prospects for turning Egypt into an NIS.
The surge of Islamic extremism in Egypt in the mid-90s. XX century. “Al-Gamaa al-Islamiyya” / “Islamic Association” / and similar organizations of radical Islamism. Terrorist attack in Luxor against foreign tourists /November 17, 1997/ and its consequences. The policy of the Egyptian authorities towards the Islamic fundamentalist movement, a combination of political dialogue and forceful methods of struggle. Taking the religious and spiritual life of the country under state control. Support for the actions of the government of M.H. Mubarak by the traditional Muslim clergy and the moderate wing of Islamism.
Changes in the political system of Egypt. Adoption of amendments to the Constitution of 1971 /May 2005/ and the transition to direct elections of the President of Egypt on an alternative basis. Confirmation by M.H. Mubarak of the powers of the President for the next term /September 7, 2005/.
Socio-political crisis and revolutionary explosion in Egypt (January - February 2011), its main causes and nature. Overthrow of the government of M.Kh. Mubarak. Prospects for the political modernization of the country.
ARE and the outside world. Relations between Egypt and the USA and Western European countries, Japan and China. Cooperation between Egypt and Russia in the political, economic, military and cultural spheres. Increasing authority of Egypt among Arab states. Egypt's position in the Middle East settlement process.
Iraq as a country and state in the Middle East. Territory, national and ethnic composition of the country's population. The religious and confessional factor in Iraq, the relationship between the Shiite and Sunni communities. The Kurdish issue and its role in the political life of the country. Culture and life of the Iraqi people.
The rise of the national liberation movement in Iraq after the Second World War. Intensifying reaction and repression against democratic forces. "Black regime" and the dictatorship of Nuri Said. Iraq's participation in the Baghdad Pact /1955 - 1959/.
The revolution of July 14, 1958 in Iraq, its main causes, nature and results. Overthrow of the monarchy and establishment of a republican system. The Free Officers Organization, the Arab Socialist Renaissance Party (BASA) and the Iraqi Communist Party (ICP). Rivalry between pan-Arab unionists, Baathists and communists. Political portrait and activities of Abdul Kerim Kasem.
Events of 1963 in Iraq. The coming to power of the first Baathist government /February 8, 1963/ and its consequences. Overthrow of the Baathists and establishment of the military dictatorship of General Aref /November 18, 1963/. War against the Kurdish people.
The coup d'état of July 17, 1968 in Iraq and the return of the Ba'athists to power. Formation and activities of the Revolutionary Command Council /SRK/. Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr and Saddam Hussein as leaders of PASV and SRK, their relationship.
Interaction between PASV and other political parties and public organizations in Iraq. The split of the IKP and its consequences. S. Hussein's call on behalf of the SRK for the creation of the National Patriotic Front /NPF, July 1970/. Signing by the leadership of PASV and PCI of the Charter of National Action /KND, July 1973/. Dialogue with Kurdish political parties and organizations and declaration of autonomy for Iraqi Kurdistan.
The Politics of Socio-Economic Transformation in Iraq. Nationalization of property of transnational oil companies. Carrying out agrarian reform. Development of the public sector in industry, support and encouragement of medium and small national entrepreneurship. Creation of a system of state insurance and economic guarantees for the working population of the country. Laying the foundations of Arab national socialism in Iraqi society.
Development of Soviet-Iraqi relations. Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between Iraq and the USSR of 1972 and its main provisions. Strengthening the economic and military potential of Iraq. Iraqi support for the national liberation struggle of the Arabs of Palestine.
The formation of the personalized regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Concentration of all state power in the hands of the PASV leadership. The gradual weakening of positions in PASV and the removal from power of A.Kh. al-Bakr and his supporters. S. Hussein's occupation of a leading position in the PASV party apparatus and government structures of Iraq /July 17, 1979/. The actual establishment of a one-party dictatorship of PASV. Special apparatus of the PASV / "Jihaz Hanin", 1963/, Mukhabarat and the "People's Army" in the state system of Saddam's Iraq. Repressions against real and imaginary opponents of the regime - pan-Arabists, Baathist oppositionists, communists and Islamists. Resumption of hostilities in Iraqi Kurdistan.
Iraq's slide towards foreign policy adventures. Saddam Hussein's claims to the role of regional leader in the Persian Gulf. The aggravation of relations with Iran after the victory of the Islamic revolution in this country and the establishment of the fundamentalist regime of R.M. Khomeini. The Iran-Iraq War /1980 – 1988/, its main causes, nature, stages and results. Positions of the USSR and the USA in the light of this conflict. UN Security Council Resolution No. 598 /1988/ and the acceptance of its terms by the warring parties. Signing a ceasefire agreement and freezing the conflict. Consequences of the war for the Iraqi economy.
The Iraqi crisis and the dynamics of its development. The spread of the Middle East conflict to the Persian Gulf area /1990 – 2003/.
Kuwait adventure of Saddam Hussein and its consequences. Iraq's occupation of neighboring Kuwait / August 1 - 2, 1990 / and the Iraqi side's motivation for this process. Annexation of Kuwait and its proclamation as the 19th province of Iraq /August 8 and 28, 1990/. Reaction in the international community to this action. Emergency meetings of the UN Security Council and the adoption of resolutions No. 660 - 665 /2 - August 25, 1990/. Demand for the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait and its restoration as an independent and sovereign state. Introduction of a comprehensive trade and economic sanctions regime against Iraq.
Positions of the USA and the USSR during the escalation of the crisis. The George W. Bush administration's use of the crisis situation in order to strengthen and expand the US military-political presence in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. Opinions of M.S. Gorbachev, E.A. Shevardnadze and E.M. Primakov in the light of events taking place in the Middle East. The desire of the Soviet leadership for a political and diplomatic resolution of the conflict situation. Shuttle diplomacy E.M. Primakov, his visits to Baghdad / October 5 and 28, 1990/, Damascus and Cairo / October 25 - 26, 1990/, negotiations with S. Hussein, H. Assad and H. Mubarak.
UN Security Council Resolution No. 670 /September 25, 1990/ and the tightening of a comprehensive regime of trade and economic sanctions. Establishing a naval blockade of the Iraqi coast. Attempts by the UN, OIC, NAM and Arab League to stop the slide towards full-scale war and return the resolution of the conflict to a political channel.
US Secretary of State J. Baker's trip to the capitals of 20 countries in the world in order to gain support for a possible military action against Iraq from the United States /November 1990/. Discussion of the situation in the Middle East during an extraordinary summit meeting of the heads of state and government of the CSCE participants in Paris /November 18 - 19, 1990/.
UN Security Council Resolution No. 678 /November 29, 1990/ and the actual presentation of an ultimatum to the leadership of Iraq demanding the immediate withdrawal of troops from Kuwait by January 15, 1991. Refusal of the Iraqi SRK from the conditions for implementing this resolution.
The first military campaign of the United States and its allied powers in the Persian Gulf. Preparation and implementation of Operation Desert Storm.
Development of operational plans for the war against Iraq by the United Central Command (UCC) of the US Armed Forces. Extraordinary sessions of the NATO Council /Brussels, August 10, 1990/ and the Council of the Western European Union /WEU, Paris, August 21, 1990/, their decisions. The split in the Arab world and its consequences. Support for Iraq by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Jordan, Yemen, Sudan, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia and Mauritania. Tough anti-Iraq position of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Oman, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Morocco, Somalia and Djibouti. The creation by the United States of a broad anti-Iraqi coalition with the participation of states adhering to various political, ideological and religious positions /August - November 1990/. Multinational forces /MNF/ and their composition.
Direct preparation for military action. Operations “Desert Shield” and “Free Wind” /August 1990 – January 1991/. Concentration and build-up of troops and ships of the anti-Iraq coalition allies in the conflict area. Transfer of heavy weapons and military equipment, logistics support for formations and units, organization of planned supply of troops and deployment forces in the Persian Gulf zone. Creation of strike groups from aviation and armored formations. Deployment of fleet forces. Redeployment of strike and support forces from the US 6th and 7th Fleets from the Mediterranean and Western Pacific. Transfer from the United States of aircraft carrier and missile strike groups, landing forces, surface ships and submarines.
The concept of Operation Desert Storm. The concept of “air-ground operation /battle/”. Entrusting the solution of main tasks to strategic, tactical and carrier-based aviation with the widespread use of fire support helicopters.
The state of the Iraqi armed forces on the eve of Operation Desert Storm. Preparation by the top military leadership of Iraq for a defensive operation. Creation of a large group of troops in Southern Iraq and Kuwait.
The balance of forces on the eve of hostilities. The superiority of the MNF over the armed forces of Iraq in qualitative terms, the predominant superiority of the Allied Air Force and Navy with approximately equal quantitative composition of ground forces and armored vehicles.
OGSE.02. STORY
Section 1. Main directions and processes of political and economic development of leading states and key regions of the world at the turn of the 20th - 21st centuries
Theme 1.5. Countries of North Africa and the Middle East
at the turn of the XX - XXI centuries.
LESSON No. 9
“The socio-economic situation of the countries of the Middle East and Egypt at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries”
Summary: Geography of the Middle East. The Middle East is an intertwining of world civilizations and a focal point of socio-economic contradictions. Arab-Israeli conflict. Modernization of the countries of the Middle East at the end of the 20th century. Authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, attempts at democratization: Iran, Iraq, Egypt. Problems of integration in the Middle East. Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Arab League
Geopolitical situation of the Middle East
Near East - name of a region located in Western Asia and North Africa. The name was given by Europeans, for whom it was the closest eastern region to them. Typically, Middle Eastern countries include Bahrain, Jordan, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Qatar, Kuwait, Lebanon, UAE, Oman, Palestine, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Main population: Arabs, Persians, Turks, Kurds, Jews, Armenians, Assyrians, Georgians, Azerbaijanis. The majority of the population is Muslim, but the Middle East is also the cradle of Christianity and Judaism. The Middle East is one of the routes from Europe and Africa to Asia. In the Middle East there is a minimum four centers of geopolitical gravity. Despite their differences, they are more a stabilizing than a destabilizing factor. Their integration scenarios are different, as are their zones of geopolitical influence.
Ø Türkiye builds its expansion on the basis Pan-Turkism- close ethnic kinship of the Turkic peoples, located mainly in the sphere of interests of another civilization - the Orthodox. These are the territories of Azerbaijanis, Gagauzes, and Crimean Tatars.
Ø Egypt due to its favorable position on both sides of the Suez Canal (which characterizes a rapidly growing economy), it claims leadership on the southern and eastern coasts of the Mediterranean Sea. The strengthening of this state and participation in the European expansionary policy make this state in the future convenient for the transfer of armed forces to the shores of the countries of the Middle East. Joining forces with Syria and Lebanon could make Egypt the center of gravity of the Arab world.
Ø Iran exercises its geopolitical influence based on the theory of the Islamic revolution. The fact is that until the middle of the 20th century, the region was the colonial possessions of Great Britain, France and Germany, and after the fall of the empires and the establishment of a bipolar system, three forces acted in the region - those loyal to the West (Saudi Arabia), socialist-oriented (Iraq, Egypt) and traditionalists. basing their ideology on either Arab ethnic or religious Muslim identity. The liberation of the region from socialist and pro-Western forces gave a rapid impetus to the development of Islamocentrism.
Ø Export of Wahhabism (orthodox Islam), the official religion Saudi Arabia, predetermined the expansion of the zone of influence of this state. In addition to this, many Muslim shrines are located on the territory of this particular state, which naturally affects the likes and dislikes of states.
Islamic model of world order
Islamic civilization offered humanity a model of world order based on a transcendental will that subjugates man. The collectivist value of family, clan, tribe or ethnic community, social solidarity and individual self-restraint are placed above the rights and interests of the individual. In the Muslim East, the intuitive (sensual) perception of the world dominates over the rationalistic approach characteristic of the West. The Arab worldview is characterized by a love for a strong leader who can keep the people in a multifaceted ethnic cauldron. If in the West the president is elected on the basis of a democratic procedure, then in the Muslim East they believe that The one who is recognized and called by the will of the people can be elected ruler.
Economy
The economies of the countries of the Middle East and North Africa have always been specific. Today, a feature of the region’s economy is the fact that a significant part of the GDP of many countries in the region is made up of income from the sale of petroleum products and their derivatives, as well as the strong relationship of the economy with the traditions and religious tenets of the countries of the Middle East and North Africa. Oil radically changed the distribution of economic power, and rich oil exporting countries emerged, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and Kuwait.
1. History of the Middle East
Prehistoric
- Period Ancient History
- Period medieval
Crusades
New History, from the 15th to the 18th centuries
The period of New History from the XVIII to the XX centuries.
The Case of the Holy Places
The Republic of Germany becomes involved in Middle Eastern affairs
To Middle East to the 1st World War
The Middle East from 1914 to the end of World War II wars
Allied plans for B. East during the 1st World War wars
2. Conflicts in the Middle East
3. Economy of the Middle East
4. Religion of the Middle East
5. Geography of the Middle East
6. Interior of the Middle East countries
7. Culture in the Middle East
Near East (Arabic: شرق أدنى, Persian: خاور نزدیک, Hebrew: המזרח הקרוב, Turkish: Yakın Doğu) — This name of a region located in Western Asia and North Africa. The name was given by Europeans as the closest eastern region to them. Main population: Arabs, Persians, Turks, Kurds, Jews, Azerbaijanis, Armenians, Assyrians. The majority of the population is Muslim, but Near East is the cradle of Christianity. The Middle East is one of the routes from Europe and Africa to Asia.
Historically, this region is the cradle of the emergence of the most ancient civilizations on the planet (Ancient Egypt, civilization Mesopotamia)..
HistoryIMiddle East
Like nowhere else, in the territories of the Middle East since ancient times, there have been clashes between two completely different worlds: the West and the East, Europe And Asia.
For 500 l. before birth Christ. West or Europe were represented by the Hellenes.
In the 11th century BC. Christ. The Hellenes and their culture were replaced by Rome, which in turn, in the 4th century after the birth. Christ. was replaced by Byzantium.
The Middle East is invaded with the Crusades powers Western Europe: France, Britain, the Papal See and the Holy Roman Empire (i.e. Federal Republic of Germany, Austria and ). The invasion of these powers took place at the call, with the blessing and under the flag of the Roman Patriarchal Throne, which at that time was moving towards Papo-Caesarism. The influence of the Roman See was characterized by the Latinization of the occupied areas and the implantation of a form of confession that would become Roman Catholicism.
In the 15th century, the areas of interest to us will enter the sphere of Turkish Muslim rule, which will last until the 1st World War.
As a consequence of the Lausanne Conference (1922), the countries of the Middle East fall under the trusteeship of France And Britain and begin to fight for their independence. The borders of “trustee” states are often drawn artificially by Western “trustee” states, to which the United States joins. Spheres of influence and borders of states are distributed and determined on the basis of mutual agreements of the Western powers that emerged victorious from the World War. The agreements were concluded after behind-the-scenes mutual struggle.
When determining the borders of the countries of the Middle East and deciding the fate of the population, they took into account exclusively the desire to maintain a balance of power between the countries of the Middle East. The primary role in the distribution of spheres of influence of the Western powers was played by the question of the convenience of exporting black gold. (Role black gold in the modern world is known and clear to everyone.)
The end of the Second World War brought independence to the countries of the Middle East, but within artificial borders and the creation of the new state of Israel, against which the entire Arab world took up arms.
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (), attracted by the Western powers to the world concert, is manifesting its pernicious influence, which the Western powers are unable to neutralize.
Period Prehistoricth
Palestine is the oldest inhabited country in the world. It is not for nothing that Holy Scripture and Tradition determine the origin of human life in this part of the world.
In fact, in the Paleolithic era, in Shelsky (500,000-200,000 BC) people in Bl. The East is represented by human skulls, which are seen as a pre-Neanderthal type.
All subsequent periods left traces of human life. In the Levallois-Muster era (l00,000-50,000 BC) the first traces of the burial of the dead are found. The Mesolithic period (10,000 - 7,000 BC) includes traces of the domestication of dogs and the beginning of agriculture.
The Neolithic era (7,000-4,000) dates back to the first settlements, the domestication of livestock, sacred places marked by fences, and the making of pots.
In the middle of the Bronze Age (2,000-1,550 BC), when writing was already known, Abraham, professing monotheism, moved from Ur to Palestine. The further period is known from the Old Testament. (Thanks to numerous and extensive excavations, even a non-believer today cannot deny the historical significance of the Old Testament.
Ancient History Period
The period of Medical warfare (490-469 BC) marks the first clash between the West and the East. — The Hellenes repulse the offensive of the East at Marathon and Salamis.
In the next century, Alexander the Great (336-323) conquered the entire Middle East, Persia and reached India. The Empire created by Alexander did not last long, but in the middle of the 11th century Rome took over the representation of the West and led a series of systematic campaigns to the East. According to Divine plan, pagan Rome has the mission to unite all the populated countries of the ancient world and include them in a single Empire before the coming of Christ the Savior. This unification of enterprises erased interstate borders and established a single imperial one. Thus, restrictions on the freedom of movement of individuals from place to place were abolished, and in the middle of the 1st century AD, preachers of the Gospel were free to spread the good news throughout the world.
In 129, Rome founded the “Asian province”. In the 30th year (BC) the legions of Rome conquer Egypt. In 27, it was declared an imperial province. King Herod retained his royal title with the addition of “allied.” This title will not pass to Herod’s son, Archelaus, under whom Judea was declared a “procurator’s province.”
Medieval period
The Roman primacy would last until the 4th century, when its inheritance would pass to Byzantium. The Byzantine Empire is imbued with the consciousness that it is a Christian Empire. In this regard, the “Eastern Question”, which arose as a result of the clash of two cultures or on ethnic grounds, is transferred to the religious area. The Christian West begins to collide with Persia, which since the year 224 (the restoration of the Sassanid dynasty) has professed Mozdeism (the teachings of Zoroaster).
In 614, the Persians occupied the Holy City of Jerusalem and carried away the Life-Giving Cross of the Lord. After a long struggle, Heraclius achieves the repatriation of the Cross and solemnly brings It into the Church of Hagia Sophia.
The 7th century is characterized by the attack of Islam on the Christian world. The struggle between the Muslim world and the Christian world will determine the course of historical events until the end of the 19th century inclusive. Therefore, we consider it necessary to determine the provisions that gave rise to this struggle.
Byzantine consciousness is expressed in the Christmas hymn “... under a single worldly kingdom, all cities are stasha and in one dominance you believe.” (I cried to the Lord - stichera for Glory even now.)
According to the teachings of Islam, all Muslims must form one people under the leadership of a spiritual and temporal leader - the sovereign and a high priest - the caliph. “But at the same time, Islam entered the world with the idea of having an alliance with Christianity. The statements of the Mohammedans in the Koran regarding Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, the apostles, saints, Satan and his works, the 2nd coming, are extremely positive... and many modern religious branches, called Christian, relate to Christ in approximately the same way, and to the Mother of God and saints are much less reverent.
Thus, one can quite reasonably assume that if Mohammed had known Christianity more closely, the entire gigantic power of the Arab world would have gone in a different direction. Byzantine emperors end of the 6th and beginning of the 7th centuries. did not care about converting Arab tribes to Christianity and... both religions clashed with each other in an irreconcilable struggle.”
At the end of the 6th century, Mohammed (570-632) unites the Arabs, gives them the Koran and inspires them to embark on a campaign of conquest to create an Arab-Muslim empire.
Syria and Palestine is given to them by victories at Ajenadein (634) and Yarmouk (636). Jerusalem is occupied in 638. Alexandria in 643 and soon after Egypt all of North Africa is conquered. occupied in 680.
Only in the 10th century did Byzantium recapture some of the lost territories. Islands of Crete and Cyprus recaptured by Nikephoros Phocas in 961 and 965. He also makes a cavalry raid in Syria(968) and occupies Kholm, Tripoli and the Lattakie region. His associate Michael Burtzes recaptures Aleppo (969) John Timishaeus takes Damascus and Antioch, but Jerusalem remains in authorities Fatimid emir. Securing northern Syria, emperor Basil II does not feel strong enough to stand up for Christians, against whom Caliph Al-Hakim begins persecution (1009-1010). The Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem was almost completely destroyed. In 1030-31, Ephesus was recaptured from the Arabs.
In the second half of the 11th century. (between 1078 and 1081) the Turks appeared in Asia Minor, creating a number of small kingdoms of the Seljuk Turks. (Damascus, Aleppo, etc.)
The Arab conquests in the Western - Latin world (in the 3rd century, southern Italy in the 9th century, piracy of the Arab countries of North Africa) raise the idea of a joint international, pan-European counter-invasion. The reconquest of Spain (the capture of Toledo in 1085) showed that such cooperation could produce real results. Hence the idea of the Crusade.
Crusades
The Crusades imposed on the countries of the Middle East. The East has a strong imprint and a number of provisions of today are a consequence of them.
The initiative of the 1st Crusade belonged to Pope Urban II. His motives were purely ideological: against the triumphant Islam, the triumph of which was based on the “holy war” (jihad), a pan-Christian campaign was put forward, participation in which was a matter pleasing and pleasing to God. The crusade became a sacred campaign, as if it were a counter-jihad.
1st Campaign: November 27, 1095 in the city of Clermont Feran () Pope Urban II solemnly and fervently called on Christians to defend the Holy Sepulcher.
The masses, knights, and barons widely responded to the Pope's call. None of the reigning princes responded. A campaign launched for purely religious reasons will soon lose its ideological character. Barons and knights acted to atone for their sins (especially robbery), but after the first victories they returned to robbery. Possessions of Near. East will be acquired. through violence, murder and treachery. On the first trip it varies
a) the march of the masses - the disorderly crowd will be cut off by the Turks in October 1096;
b) the campaign of the barons. 4 groups performed (From Flanders, Normans South Italy, French of the North and French of the South). During 1097-98. The barons recapture part of Syria, and on July 15, 1099 they take Jerusalem by storm. The capture of the Holy City is accompanied by a massacre of Muslims. This massacre will further discourage Muslims from surrendering to the crusaders. The crusaders divide the occupied lands among themselves, found a number of principalities and begin internecine wars for the possession of these principalities. The Byzantine emperors, for their part, claim their rights, pointing out that the declared purpose of the campaign was to liberate, and not to conquer.
The Turks, for their part, gathered their strength and in 1146 launched a counteroffensive.
2nd Campaign: Saint Bernard calls on Vezley (France) to rush to the rescue and support of the French knights. Royal persons in the person of Conrad III of Germany and Louis VII of France set out on the campaign (26). Both kings were defeated by the Turks (October 1147 and early 1148). The Turks gradually developed their successes and in 1187 Saladin took Jerusalem, and Saladin knightly and generously released the Christians and refused to destroy the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
3rd Campaign: The Fall of the Holy City causes the Western powers to march on revenue French princes. Frederick Barbarossa of Germany, Philip Augustus of France and Richard the Lionheart of England appear on the Near. East in 1190. The death of Friedrich, who drowned while swimming in the river, incapacitates the German militia. Richard takes over the island Cyprus, to the shores of which a storm carries him. After the capture of the city of Acre by the French-English militia, Philip, having quarreled with Richard, leaves for France, but leaves his troops. Although Richard wins a number of victories over Saladin, he does not dare to attack Jerusalem. The agreement with Saladin was that Saladin retained possession of the Holy City, but Christian pilgrims were given free access to the Holy Places.
The title of the Christian “Jerusalem” king is the subject of rivalry between the proteges of the British and the proteges of the French (for example, Guy of Luzinsky, supported by Richard and Conrad of Motheran, supported by Philip.) To acquire or maintain the title, depending on the situation, they resort to murders or... marriages. The fight with the Turks fades into the background and peace treaties are concluded with them.
4th Campaign: The Papal throne continues to live with the dream of the liberation of Jerusalem. Innocent III calls and raises the 4th campaign. Following to the Holy Places, the crusaders in 1204 took Constantinople (Constantinople) by storm and founded the Latin Kingdom. The consequences of this campaign are extremely great and affect the entire history of the world, up to and including our days.
a) In the History of Syria: - the Frankish principalities, having received no support, were doomed to a speedy end and fall under the power of the Muslims.
b) The assault on Constantinople, preceded for the first time in History by a gas attack, was accompanied by massacres, plunder and violence, unsurpassed even by the Turks in 1453. The massacre, robbery and violence committed by Christians who came under the flag of the Roman Patriarchal Throne to liberate the Holy City of Jerusalem, the forced imposition of Latinism (the establishment of the Latin church hierarchy and the introduction of the Latin rite in Divine services), led the Orthodox Byzantine Greeks to a final break with Rome - with the Latins. Despite the fact that Rome, in the person of Innocent III, repeatedly protested against the crusaders’ evasion of their mission. The East became firmly convinced that the Pope was its enemy.
It is not without reason that modern historians are beginning to put forward the opinion that the “division of the Churches” should be considered accomplished in 1204, and not in 1054.
The East was saved from complete Latinization in the 13th century by the consciousness and steadfastness of the mass of believers (as in Southwestern Mother Rus' in the 17th century). Constantinople will be recaptured by the Greeks. in 1261. But the fall of Constantinople from the attacks of the Turks in the 15th century was prepared by the 4th campaign.
5th Campaign: (1261) Convened by Pope Honorius III. Headed by King Andrew II of Hungary. Duke of Austria Leopold VI. After an attempt to land in Syria, the expedition is transferred to Egypt (strategically very correct, because “the key to Jerusalem is in Cairo”). Sultan Malik al Kamil proposes an exchange of mountains. Damiet to Jerusalem, but Cardinal Pelagius, who before participating in the campaign showed narrow views and horizons in Constantinople, strongly insists on rejecting thoughts about treaties. The Crusaders advance on Cairo, but the Nile flood, unexpected by them, surrounds them. The Sultan allows the expedition to return to his place at the cost of repatriation all conquests.
6th Campaign (1229) Pope Gregory IX insists that Frederick II, Holy Roman Empire and King of Sicily, go on campaign. Frederick II counts a large number of Muslims in his Sicilian kingdom. He has established good relations with his subjects and with Islam in general and does not want to break them, which is why he delays the campaign by negotiating with the Egyptian Sultan Malik al Kamil...
Pope Gregory IX anathematizes Frederick, after which the latter sets out on a campaign (1229). Thanks to his friendly connections with Sultan Malik, Frederick achieves imprisonment agreements, Jaffa 11-2-1299, on the basis of which Christians received Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth and a number of other areas without fighting. Jerusalem was given a special status: a “holy city” governed by a council of Christians and Muslims. Christians received the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, and Muslims received the Mosque of Omar and Al Aqsa. On March 17, 1229, Frederick solemnly entered Jerusalem. Soon he had to leave the East, as the barons of the Holy Land and the military monastic orders took up arms against the “excommunicated man.”
7th Campaign In support of the Frankish barons, Pope Gregory IX again inspires his believers to campaign. A number of French counts and dukes travel to the East. The appearance of fresh armed forces delayed the collapse of the Frankish principalities of the East, but was unable to prevent the Turks from occupying Jerusalem in 1244.
8th Campaign: The loss of Jerusalem by Christians prompts the French King Louis IX (the Saint) to set out on a campaign. The expedition sails to Egypt and takes Damiet. The Sultan offers to exchange Damiet for Jerusalem, but just as this was rejected in 1216, it was rejected by Louis IX. The political mistake was followed by a series of strategic and tactical errors that forced the French army to surrender (6.4.1250). Saint Louis pays off with a huge sum and moves to Syria, where he spends 4 years (from 1250 to 1254). Thanks to his authority, he stops internecine war among the Frankish princes and concludes a number of treaties with non-Christians (note agreement with those who appeared in the Middle. East - by the Mongols) and strengthens the cities of Acre, Caesarea, Jaffa and Sidon.
After his departure to France, internecine war resumed at the instigation of the rival republics of Venice and Genoa. Rivalry causes real internecine wars. The Swiss Francs, carried away by their infighting, are losing their political foresight. They don't take into account the possibility of playing rivalry Egyptian Mamelukes and Mongols, who penetrate into Syria in 1260 under the leadership of the grandson of Genghis Khan. The end result Swiss Francs expelled from their last possessions in 1291. The two-hundred-year possession of Syria greatly influenced the economic life of Europe: through Syria it was accustomed to receiving oriental products: sugar cane, silk, brocade, cotton fabrics, carpets. Interest in the East, aroused by religious motives, will be supported by the desire to obtain the above-mentioned local products. Nowadays, silks and carpets will be replaced by oil.
Also greatly influenced by the stay Swiss francs in Syria to Syria itself. Traces of Latin civilization are still visible today. Until now, the French language is known to all cultural residents of the Middle East. East.
Having lost their possessions on the mainland, the Swiss Franks retained the island, on which they would remain until 1571. The local residents, the overwhelming majority of Orthodox Greeks, suffered greatly from the oppression of the papal legates and archbishops, who insisted and sought from the kings (Lusignan dynasty) restrictive measures and the removal of the Orthodox episcopate from the city.
Period of New History, from the 15th to the 18th centuries
The capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453 meant their final entry into the possession of the territorial inheritance of the Byzantine Empire. We have seen that the Turkish Muslim world shared the Byzantine idea “all cities lived under one worldly kingdom and believed in one dominion.” The Turkish Sultan became the Caliph, that is, the high priest of Islam. But in contrast to the imperial understanding of the Byzantine idea, the Caliph considered only Muslims as his subjects. The rest were the population “subdued by force.” Among the Orthodox part of this population (and the non-Muslims were mostly Orthodox), a desire began to develop to be, if not on the territory of the Orthodox Tsar, then at least under his protection. The Orthodox kingdom was only Russia.
In the West at this time, a period of moral decline began in connection with the “Renaissance”: that is, a departure from Christianity, a refusal to recognize Christian moral principles as guiding not only in personal life, but especially in political life. The liberation of the Holy Places from the power and the faithful no longer worries anyone. They enter into agreements with non-believers in order to make allies out of them. So in 1535, the King of France, Francis I, negotiated with Soliman against King Charles V of Spain.
This agreement, known as the “capitulation,” gave France a number of advantages in the economic, political and religious fields. Religious advantages allowed the subjects of the French kingdom to observe all the precepts of their faith and, as a consequence, allowed them free access to Holy Places. Other foreigners were allowed into the Holy Places insofar as they were “friends” of the French king. In 1740, a new one confirms the capitulation. Thus, the few Catholics of the Middle East had a patron in France, and the Orthodox population for 250 years in the Christian world did not have their Orthodox patron and (33) protector. Russia, to which they turned their gaze, first experienced the breakdown of adolescence (second half of the 16th century, beginning of the 17th century), then asserted itself (17th century) and only in the 18th century entered the world stage. In search of ways to the “world stage”, in search of a window to Europe, Russia immediately collided with Turkey.
The period of New History from the XVIII to the XX centuries.
The emergence of the Russian Federation and Great Britain in the Middle East. With the capture of Azov by Peter the Great in 1696, the Russian Federation opened a window into Europe. The window will be broken in the North. But concerns about gaining access to the sea (that is, concerns of an economic and political nature) did not obscure in the minds of the Russian people their moral obligation to help fellow Christians in the Middle East. Until the 18th century, Russian tsars, nobles and ordinary people supplied the Holy Eastern Patriarchs with money, for which they came to Rus'. They were always greeted with great honor and invited to participate in local Russian councils.
Having finally established itself as a great power under Catherine the Great, Russia achieves Kuychuk with the Treaty of Kanarji (1774) Protectionism over all Orthodox Christians under Turkish yoke. The complete liberation of Christians (not only the Middle East, but also Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia) required the preliminary collapse and dismemberment of the Turkish Empire. Therefore, Russian politics at the end of the 18th century. and the entire XIX century will strive for this. But Türkiye will unexpectedly find a Christian ardent defender in Britain.
In 1763, she received Canada and India from France in a peace treaty. Fearing for a free path to the Indian Empire, Britain will strongly advocate for the indivisibility of the Ottoman Empire and strive to eliminate the influence of the Russian Federation and France from the East.
French influence would initially be eliminated by defeating Napoleon. France would regain its position in 1856 and particularly in Syria in 1860. But her defeat in 1870 would again relegate her to the background for some time. Great Britain will win the final victory over France in the Middle East in 1941 (see below).
Russia triumphs in the first half of the 19th century. Greece released in 1821-30; In 1831-33 and 1839-41, Russia helps the rebel Mohammed Ali in Egypt, as a result of which Egypt is separated from Turkey. From the middle of the 19th century, it will begin to feel the reaction of the Western powers.
The Case of the Holy Places
On May 28, 1850, the French Ambassador in Constantinople demanded from the Sultan the right of exclusive possession of the Holy Places for Catholic monks. The basis for the demand was the interpretation of the capitulations of 1740 (confirming the capitulations of 1535), according to which “subjects of enemy states” could freely move, trade and visit the Holy Places, provided that they covered themselves with the flag of the “Emperor of France”. In addition, § 33 gave the Latin monks possession of the Holy Places, but did not specify which ones.
Some places revered by Christians have been occupied by Greeks since 1757. In 1808, they were given the right to begin repairing the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The note of May 28, citing the fact that the places that were in the power of the Latins could not be taken away from them by a unilateral decision, demanded the transfer of 12 places to the Latin monks: the Holy Sepulcher, the tomb of the Mother of God in Jerusalem, the Temple of Gethsemane, the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, the tomb of the Frankish kings at Golgotha, etc. The Sultan delays in answering and in May 1851 the French ambassador repeats the request. A commission is appointed, tasked with judging Orthodox and Catholic monks. As a result, in February 1852, Catholics were given 3 keys to the Bethlehem Temple and the right to serve at the tomb of the Virgin Mary.
Napoleon III was satisfied with the partial success, but Emperor Nicholas I resolutely rebelled against the decision of the Turkish commission. "The key of the Temple of Bethlehem, given to the Catholics, proves their predominant importance in the East." The Russian ambassador in Constantinople is instructed to express surprise at the Porte’s recognition of new rights for France and demand the restoration of the status quo. The Turks, playing a double game, signed a secret firman (decree) in March 1852, revoking the rights given to France.
In Jerusalem, Catholics and Orthodox Christians, each for their part, sincerely believe in their rights. Catholics are established in Holy Places. Orthodox Christians demand fulfillment of the March firman and protest against the robbery of Orthodox Christians “in favor of a few Roman Catholic tourists.”
French public opinion is not interested in the affairs of the Middle East and the Holy Places (“the noise raised by our Catholic newspapers is very ridiculous,” says the Director of the Political Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.) Emperor Nicholas I demands recognition of his rights Protectionism over 12-15 million Orthodox Christians living within the borders of the Turkish Empire. The requirement is based on the Kuychuk Kanarji Treaty.
In February 1853, Admiral Prince Menshikov, appointed ambassador to Constantinople, was enthusiastically greeted by the Greeks upon his landing in Turkey. Mentikov demands that the issue of Holy Places be resolved and that the Russian Federation recognize the right of guardianship of the Orthodox. The Sultan, supported by France (which agreed to recognize the equality of Catholics and Orthodox Christians) and especially England, responds that he undertakes to patronize the Orthodox and preserve their rights. Russia presents an ultimatum and, since it does not accept it, Russian troops trade into the Romanian principalities.
The summer and autumn of 1853 are spent in negotiations and Turkey's secret preparations for war, to which Britain is especially pushing it. The British ambassador, through underground actions, arranges for the removal of the Grand Vizier Mohamed Ali from power, since he was a supporter of collusion and concessions. In place of Mohamed Ali, Rashid Ali is appointed, who on June 6 proclaims freedom of religion in Turkey.
In the Russian Federation, public opinion is extremely agitated: religious processions and prayers for oppressed Christian brothers are observed everywhere.
In Rome, the Vatican is leaning on the side of Muslims against the “schismatics.”
In Turkey, the mullahs proclaim a holy war.
Taking into account all these sentiments, the Sultan demands from the Russian Federation the evacuation of the Romanian principalities and on October 23rd he declares war on the Russian Federation. A month later (November 30th) the Turkish Fleet was destroyed from Sinope.
It seemed that the end of the “sick man” was approaching. But the Western powers, seeing this end approaching, are united by three treaties (Constantinople, London and Vienna), which affirmed the principle of the indivisibility of the Turkish Empire and determined that peace could be concluded subject to the recognition of the Sultan’s complete independence in his policy towards Christians and in the matter of granting them freedom of religion.
It began, the main actions of which took place in Sevastopol.
The Treaty of Paris (1856), which ended this war, established the principle that the indivisibility of the Turkish Empire was a pan-European matter. Paragraph 9 of the agreement recognized the Sultan’s right to independently decide the degree of freedom of conscience that he grants to his subjects, Orthodox Christians. This treaty will not prevent the Western European powers from insisting to the Sultan on the character that the firman on religious freedom should have.
The Union Treaties of 1854 and the Peace Treaty of 1856 actually provided the Orthodox Christians of the Middle East to the Sultan and are reminiscent of the Yalta Treaty of the last world war.
The Treaty of Paris was a victory for Great Britain. The “duel of the whale and the elephant” (as Bismarck defined it) would play out again in 1875, when Bosnia, Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro rebelled against Turkish rule. United Rus' immediately proposes for discussion by the European powers a draft memorandum (Berlin Memorandum dated 5/13/76) to be presented to Turkey. The memorandum demanded reforms towards Christians. Federal Republic (FRG), Austria, France and Italy joined the Russian project. But Great Britain resolutely refused to participate in efforts to defend the oppressed Christians.
At this time, in Turkey, Abdul Hamid ascended to the throne with an explosion of popular Muslim fanaticism, and the whole world resounded with a cry for help from the Bulgarians: within a few days, 15,000 Christian Bulgarians were slaughtered, 79 villages were burned and 80,000 people were left homeless. United Rus' mobilizes and in January 1878 crosses the Balkans. In March, Turkey signs the Peace of San Stefano (3-3-78), on the basis of which one of the Orthodox European countries - Bulgaria - gains independence within its ethnic borders. It seemed that the collapse of the Muslim empire was near and, with the end in sight, Christians in the Middle East could expect freedom in the not too distant future. The collapse of the Empire that oppressed them in their eyes came from the blows of Orthodox Mother Rus'.
Although Russian soldiers in this era sang:
“Oh, you rotten Turks, Where should you fight with us? Your English nanny didn’t have time to give help,” the “nanny” who didn’t have time to give help on the battlefield (the English Chamber voted on loans for mobilization upon the news of the Peace of San Stefano) will provide very significant assistance at pan-European conferences. Berlin 1878 will almost nullify the victory of the Russian Federation. And Britain, in return for the services rendered, received the island of Cyprus from Turkey. In addition, Great Britain signed a defensive treaty with the Sultan, according to which it pledged to “defend the territory of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan.”
Ownership of Cyprus, an island that actually belongs to the Middle East, gave Britain reason to consider itself one of the Middle Eastern powers and thereby participate in resolving issues arising in this part of the world. Just as the plaintiff must choose his domicile within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court in which the claim is brought, so England has found a domicile in Cyprus for bringing claims and suits in the countries of the Middle East.
The Republic of Germany becomes involved in Middle Eastern affairs
At the end of the 19th century, the newly formed German Empire began to become involved in Middle Eastern affairs. Military missions and training officers appear in Turkey, the Turkish army receives German-made weapons, industrial companies receive concessions to build railways. Wilhelm II made a trip to Constantinople in 1898. In November, he solemnly rides on horseback, surrounded by a brilliant and numerous retinue, into Jerusalem, where he lays the first stone of a new temple. As a result, already in 1907, German colonies flourished in Syria and Palestine, having their own hospitals, orphanages and schools (Catholic and Protestant).
France in the Middle East to the 1st World War
France's military defeat in 1870 greatly affected its position in the Middle East. But still, its influence remained significant, thanks to “Catholicism, which is a traditional and strong means of influence” (speech of the French Minister Delcasse in the Chamber of Deputies in 1902.) In the Middle East there were 5 French secular schools with 500 students and 300 Catholic with 90,000 students. In Syria there were 500 schools with 52,000 students and in Beirut the Jesuit University, where more than l0,000 students studied.
The Middle East from 1914 to the end of World War 2
Having conquered Byzantium (Constantinople was taken by the Turks in 1453), the Turks at the beginning of the 16th century. occupy the entire Middle East. Millions of Orthodox Christians fall under the power of the caliph. The Middle East issue for foreign policymakers politicians great powers of Europe, comes down to providing assistance and Protectionism Christians or, in other words, to solve the problem: to preserve or dismember the Turkish Empire.
In the 19th century, the Turkish Empire was known as the "sick man," and the great powers disagreed on whether to keep the sick man alive or end him.
The 1st World War, in which Turkey participated as an enemy of the Entente, decides its fate: it will be dismembered. The Treaty of Sèvres in 1920 formalized this dismemberment. Lebanon and fall under French control. Palestine, Transjordan and Egypt are transferred to British administration. In 1948, these countries will become independent and a new Israel will emerge, against which the Arab world will rebel.
Allied plans for B. East during the 1st World War:
In 1915, the British High Commissioner in Egypt, Mac Mahon, developing Lord Kitchener's plan, established a connection with the Sheriff of Mecca, Hussein. As a result of the exchange of 10 letters (from July 1915 to January 1916), an action plan was developed, according to which: Hussein raises an uprising against the Turks, and Britain, at the end of the war, crowns him king of the “great Arab kingdom” .
The boundaries of this “big” kingdom were indicated in very general terms, but Husein, who had no practice work with the Western powers of Europe, trusted in general and vague promises.
The French government, having learned about the agreement reached, makes its demands, considering itself interested in the Middle East. East and has the right to participate in decisions related to the Near. East Without delving into History, France recalls that thanks to the intervention of the French expeditionary force, which landed in Lebanon in 1860 to protect Christians massacred by the Druze, Lebanon received autonomy under the control of a Christian governor.
In February 1916, a French-English commission of experts (Commission: Soques - English and Pico - French) developed a draft section of the Middle. East into 2 spheres of influence.
Given the role of the Russian Federation in the Entente, the commission considered it necessary to present its plan to the Russian government. For this purpose, the commission arrives in Moscow in May to finalize the project with the Russian Imperial Minister Sazonov.
The Moscow Protocol foresaw the division of the Middle East. East into 4 zones (according to colors painted in pencil on the commission map).
1. Blue zone under French administration: Lebanon, Syria and the province of Silicia.
2. Red Zone under British administration: Palestine and Transjordan.
3. The area outlined in blue is under French. influence.
4. The area outlined in red is under English influence.
Both “outlined” zones must form either a single Arab state or federation Arab states.
On November 2, 1917, Lord Balfour, responding to Lord Rothschild, who presented to the British government the plan of the Zionist Executive Bureau for the creation of the Israeli state (In 1897, at the next congress Zionists came up with the idea of creating their own independent Jewish state.), stated: “His Majesty’s Government views favorably the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine in order to. so that, of course, there would be no harm to the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish local communities.”
This statement created the 3rd division plan of the Near. East, 3rd direction of English politicians, and all 3 plans contradict one another. Indeed: the first promise spoke of a large Arab state; the second - gives large parts of the Arab states to France and the third - envisages the withdrawal of territory from the Arab state in favor of the Jewish homeland. It should be noted here that France considers itself bound only by the 2nd plan (Soques-Picot).
At the end of 1916, Huseyn and Ali's sons, Faisal and Abdullah, rebelled against the Turks. The Arab armed forces, supported by the English army of Allenby and a small French expeditionary corps (1 regiment) (The insignificance of the French armed forces will give Britain a reason to deny France the right to participate in the division of the Near Eastern lands according to the Soques-Picot plan.), expel the Turks from the Near East. East, after which France and Great Britain begin to divide.
In October 1918, the French, having conquered the Alaouite tribe, occupied the “blue zone”. The area “outlined in blue” turned out to be occupied by Emir Faisal and his friend Colonel Lawrence. In view of French claims, both arrived in Paris in January 1919 at the Peace Conference demanding Arab independence, citing English promises.
Relations between France and Great Britain are strained and a special secret commission of the 4 great powers in March 1919 discusses how to understand and apply the Soques-Picot plan.
To clarify the situation in the Middle East. A commission of two Americans is sent to the East: King and Kren. But upon arrival at the site, the commission finds itself faced with a fait accompli:
A congress of prominent Arab leaders in Damascus proclaimed the complete independence of Syria with King Faisal at its head and the complete independence of Iraq with King Abdullah. France and Britain do not recognize the decision of the congress in Damascus. It is convened in San Pemo (April 1920), at which it is decided that: Syria and Lebanon are transferred to the control of France, and Palestine, Transjordan and Iraq are transferred to British control.
Emir Faisal does not obey the decision of the San Rem Conference. France presents him with an ultimatum and, since Faisal did not accept it on time, General Gouraud proceeds to hostilities. Damascus gives him the battle on July 20th. Faisal flees to Baghdad, where on 8/21/21 he was proclaimed King of Iraq.
Despite the defeat suffered by the Arabs, Hussein's position seemed strong. Huseyn himself was the king of Hejas under the heir to the throne - his son Ali; The 2nd son Abdullah occupied the throne of Northern Transjordan with his capital at Amman and the 3rd son, as we have seen, took the throne of Baghdad. In addition, in addition to secular power, Hussein received spiritual power in 1924, proclaiming himself the Caliph of Islam.
The creation of a “great Arab kingdom” is planned. But the policies of the European powers and internecine wars will prevent its implementation.
A certain Ab del Azis ibn Seud, from the Bedouin Arabian desert, attacks the Caliph, who is supported only by his son Ali. At the same time, the British, seduced by the dynamism of the Bedouin emir Ibn Seud, take his side and stop helping Ali, who is forced to capitulate. (In the Second World War, the Serbian General Mihailovic will be left to his fate in the same way, to whom the British will prefer Tito). The conquered Gejas would later become the richest state in Saudi Arabia, thanks to the discovery in 1936 black gold to Dammam and a year later to Abqaiq.
At the end of 1921, after France occupied and strengthened itself in Syria and Lebanon, it had to conduct a series of military operations (which in their scope deserved the name of war) against the Druze tribes. The fighting lasted until the summer of 1926, mainly because the Druze constantly received weapons and ammunition from Transjordan (remember, under British control). Peace and tranquility reigned completely in 1926.
In 1936, the French government proposed granting full independence to Syria and Lebanon, but parliament rejected the government's project. Events of 1940-41 will lead to the expulsion of France by force.
On May 2, 1941, an uprising broke out in Iraq against the British. French government of Marshal Pétain; under German pressure, orders his representative to the Near. East to General Denz, to provide the Aleppo airfield for German aircraft flying to the aid of Iraqi troops.
In fact, the Federal Republic of Germany sent a small number of old vehicles that did not take part in the battles between Iraq and the British. The Iraqi uprising was suppressed within a month. Gene. Denz demanded the immediate departure of the German pilots, which they did. On June 6, only 4 German soldiers remained in Aleppo, but on the same day Jerusalem (in the hands of the British) reported the landing of German forces in one of the Syrian ports and that 12 transports were sailing from Romania to Syria. Based on this message, Gen. De Gaulle agrees to intervention “for the liberation of the Near. East from the German occupation.”. On June 8, the English (Australian) units of Gen. Wilson and the Free French invaded Syria. French troops loyal to the Vichy government resisted for a week, suffering heavy losses (100 officers and 1,100 privates). The truce of July 14th gave Beirut and Damascus to the British.
In London, General de Gaulle felt the danger of the current situation for French influence in the Middle East. On August 7, 1941, he concluded an agreement with Littleton, according to which the British government stated: “... the British have no plans for Syria and Lebanon. Naturally, France must maintain a privileged position in these two countries." In response to this treaty, General De Gaulle confirmed in a letter the principle of granting independence to Syria and Lebanon. But at the same time, Churchill declared in the House: “... there is nothing to say about France maintaining in Syria the position that it had before the war... An independent Syria is a point of paramount importance to our policy...”
General De Gaulle's representative in the Middle East, General Catroux proclaims the independence of Syria and Lebanon, but implementation of independence is delayed until after the war.
The defeat of France in 1940, the internecine war of the French (supporters of Marshal Pétain and officials of the English corps), which took place before the eyes of the Syrians and Lebanese, the presence of British occupation units, all these phenomena greatly undermined the prestige of France.
The population wants independence immediately, now. The elections to the Chambers of 1943 brought extreme nationalist deputies to the forefront of political activity. Conflicts arise with the French. In Lebanon, the French representative imprisons the elected president of the Lebanese Republic in a fortress and suspends the constitution. In the end, during 1945-46. The French administration and troops gradually evacuated Lebanon, giving it complete independence. Lebanon refused to conclude an agreement with France until the complete evacuation. Approximately the same course of events developed in Syria, but with the difference that the Syrians, armed by the British, rebelled. Many French were massacred and robbed, and the British occupation forces in every possible way hindered the actions of the French troops.
Britain's withdrawal from the Middle East will begin 5 years after France's withdrawal. In 1951, Great Britain evacuated Abadal and Cyprus, in 1956 Amman and in 1958 Baghdad.
Conflicts in the Middle East
The Middle East has been considered one of the most “neuralgic” regions of our planet for a very long time. The tension of the situation, the aggravated relations between the Arab countries located here and Israel, combined with the difficult internal political situation in individual countries of the region, the incessant acts of interference by the imperialist powers in the internal affairs of the Arab states, the uncontrollable growth of the national liberation movement of the Arab peoples - all this creates an exclusively a motley and constantly changing political mosaic that attracts the closest attention to the Middle East region.
The strategic and political significance of the “Middle Eastern theater” is determined by a number of political, military-strategic and economic reasons.
The Middle East is an arena for an open clash between the forces of the national liberation movement and imperialism and colonialism, the forces of progress and the forces of reaction, the new and the old. This struggle is complicated by many external and internal factors.
Being the successor Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (CCCP), Russia, when developing its foreign policy strategy in the Near and Middle East region, was faced with the problem of maintaining continuity. The complexity of its solution was largely due to the specific role played by the region in modern international relations and the importance it has for the Russian Federation. The Near and Middle East represents the most conflict-prone region in the world. Throughout the entire half of the 20th century, short-term and long-term wars periodically broke out there, into which the great powers, especially the USSR and the USA, were drawn in one form or another. The Arab-Israeli war of 1973 generally had a pronounced trend for international peace and security located near the borders of the Russian Federation.
The region's permanent potential for conflict has turned it into the most weapons-rich region. For the military-industrial complex of the USSR, and then the Russian Federation, it is the most promising, absorbing a significant part of the Russian exporting weapons. The Russian military-industrial complex is vitally interested in its preservation and expansion, which requires active political support.
The protracted economic collapse experienced by the Russian Federation poses the urgent task of increasing foreign exchange earnings from exporting. In this regard, arms exports are of considerable importance, but Russia receives the lion's share of export earnings from energy resources. Since the countries of this region play a dominant role in the global market energy resources(primarily black gold), then coordination of export policy with them is of considerable importance for the Russian Federation.
In the last quarter of the 20th century. Due to the sharp intensification of the political role of Islam, the region has turned into a powerful ideological center of global importance. His ideological influence is increasingly felt not only in Asia and Africa, but even in Europe and USA.
The formation of a new foreign policy course of the Russian Federation in the region took place in the context of a fierce internal political struggle and a constant socio-economic crisis. A serious discussion arose over relations with the USSR's two main strategic allies in the region: Iraq and Syria. It was these two countries that were the largest buyers of Soviet weapons, and since a significant part of them was supplied to, by the time of the collapse of the USSR their debts amounted to almost 20 billion dollars. Experiencing constant financial resources, the ruling circles of the Russian Federation considered it most expedient to establish relations with these two countries, despite the fact that they were in an extremely difficult international situation. Undoubtedly, this was a victory for the supporters of continuity.
Of the two former strategic allies, Iraq is in the worst position. The aggressive, adventurous foreign policy pursued by Saddam Hussein, who first started a war with Iran, and then occupied Kuwait, caused a sharply negative reaction from the world community.
Since the second half of 1989, the Iraqi press has begun a large-scale propaganda campaign against the policies of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries in OPEC, accusing them of being the ones to blame for the OPEC did not agree to increase Iraq's quota and thereby blocked the restoration of the Iraqi economy. Gradually, this policy begins to qualify as “economic war.” May 30, 1990 At a meeting of the Council of the League of Arab States (LAS), Saddam Hussein declares that “the economic war has become unbearable.” On June 17, he directly accused Kuwait of being one of the initiators of the “economic war” and, in addition, illegally using the Rumaila oil fields located on the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border. As compensation for the “theft of Iraqi black gold,” Saddam Hussein demands that Kuwait pay $2.4 billion, and then increases this amount to $10 billion.
Trying in every possible way to avoid the escalation of the conflict, the Kuwaiti government declares its readiness to discuss all controversial issues and allocate Iraq credit in the amount of $9 billion. However, the decision has already been made, and on the night of August 1-2, 1990, the 150,000-strong Iraqi army invades Kuwait.
The small, twenty-thousand-strong Kuwaiti army could not resist the invasion. Her resistance lasted several hours, but during this time the Kuwaiti government and members of the ruling dynasty were able to leave the country. Having captured Kuwait, Iraqi troops subjected it to complete plunder. Subsequently, the amount of claims of Kuwaiti citizens against the Iraqi government alone amounted to $162 billion, and Kuwait’s total losses from the invasion amounted to $240 billion.
Already on August 2, it adopted resolution 660, which condemns the aggressive actions of Iraq and contains demands for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Since Iraq refused to comply with this resolution, on August 6, resolution 661 was adopted, which provided for the introduction of a system of sanctions against Iraq, to ensure compliance with which a special commission (UNSCOM) was created.
The initiators of the adoption of these resolutions were USA, who from the very beginning took an extremely tough position towards Iraq. It was decided to give an immediate military response to the aggression in order to prevent Iraqi troops from invading Saudi Arabia. The Saudi ruling circles also realized the very real danger of such an invasion. Having received the consent of King Fahd, the president George Bush gave the order on August 7 for the transfer to the Eastern Province Saudi Arabia a large contingent of American troops, which was supported in the Gulf region by a powerful squadron of 80 warships. Then the American troops were joined by military units from France, Great Britain, Egypt, Syria and a number of other countries. They formed an interethnic force, the number of which by January 1991 reached 780 thousand people.
On November 29, the Security Council passes resolution 678, authorizing the use of military force to liberate Kuwait. Iraq was given an ultimatum that all Iraqi troops must withdraw from Kuwait by January 15, 1991. Saddam Hussein rejected it.
On January 17, the multinational force begins an operation to liberate Kuwait, codenamed " storm in a desert". It lasted 42 days and ended with the complete defeat of the 547,000-strong group of Iraqi troops opposing the multinational forces.
On February 26, Saddam Hussein announced the recognition of all Security Council resolutions. On February 28, hostilities ceased. Kuwait was liberated, but Saddam Hussein's regime survived. He was put under hard control. The sanctions system was maintained, and, in addition, Iraq was prohibited from possessing weapons of mass destruction.
In November 1994, the Iraqi government reaffirmed its recognition of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Kuwait, and in December it agreed to the demarcation of the Iraq-Kuwait border.
Unlike Iraq, another strategic ally of the USSR in the Middle East, Syria, was able to emerge from the Cold War era with minimal losses, although by the end of the 80s. The international situation was also very unfavorable for her. Based on military-political union from the USSR, the president Syria, H. Assad, as part of his traditional course of confrontation with Israel, moved towards rapprochement with Iraq, which was considered in the West as one of the main centers of “international terrorism”. Since even before this, H. Assad constantly identified himself with the extremist wing of the PYD (Palestinian Resistance Movement), which in turn maintained the closest contacts with various kinds of radical terrorist organizations, Syria was ranked among the states “supporting international terrorism” and there were attacks against it. Economic sanctions were introduced by Western European countries and the United States. This could not but have a negative impact on the economy of the country, which is largely connected with the countries of Western Europe.
In addition, the GCC countries, in response to the rapprochement between Syria and Iraq, stopped providing financial assistance to it since 1985. This assistance covered the bulk of Syrian military costs, which they were unable to provide at the required level. To some extent, the severity of the problem was alleviated thanks to the supply of Soviet weapons on credit.
The situation for H. Assad was complicated by conflicts with neighbors: Turkey, Jordan and Iraq. The conflict with Turkey arose in connection with Syria's unofficial support for the actions of PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party) militants. And although the Syrian-Turkish protocol on mutual security was signed in 1987, indirect support for the PKK continued through the extremist wing of the PYD.
The most acute conflict was with Jordan. It arose as a result of the actions of the Syrian branch companies"Muslim Brotherhood" (being originally a purely Egyptian organization, they were able to spread their political doctrine to other Muslim countries). In the late 70s - early 80s. this company unleashed a class struggle in the country, organizing a series of mass armed uprisings against the Assad regime. Only using tanks and aircraft was the Syrian army able to suppress these protests. Then the Muslim Brotherhood moved on to widespread sabotage and terrorist actions. Militant bases and camps were located on Jordanian territory, which led to a sharp deterioration in relations between the two countries. Although Hamas Assad ultimately managed to suppress the armed resistance of the Muslim Brotherhood, they retained their strongholds in Jordan and their infrastructure in the country.
As for the conflict with Iraq, it did not take armed forms. Both sides, as a rule, limited themselves to conducting propaganda campaigns and mutually accusing each other of “betraying the interests of the Arab nation.”
By the beginning of the 90s. Syria essentially found itself in a completely hostile immediate environment and a very difficult international situation. Its position was virtually the same as it was exactly twenty years ago, when H. Assad came to power and for the sake of correcting which he carried out a military coup, called the “corrective movement.”
EconomicsNearthEastA
An even more complex combination of features of the past and present is characteristic of the economy and politics of the countries of the Middle East.
Like NIS, oil-exporting countries show accelerated dynamics of economic development. The source of sensational growth in this case is the unique oil resources and huge financial resources associated with the growth of world prices for oil.
This group of Middle Eastern countries is also similar to the newly industrialized countries by the presence of a traditional layer of economics and politics in their system. But this feature is more typical for Arab states. Some researchers note this feature as an “archaic social structure.” The changes taking place in their economy are evidenced by the following facts. Until the 50s. these were backward countries. They were exploited by Western, primarily American and British, oil monopolies. These states were able to take advantage of their wealth only in the 70s, having carried out a series of nationalizations in the oil and gas sector and united theirs in the global market black gold within the framework of the oil cartel of the company of countries exporting black gold ( OPEC). Unity of action allowed OPEC countries to increase prices for oil by about 20 times and get fabulous profits.
From that moment on, a phenomenal rise in their economic development began. For the period 1970 - 2000. The value of GDP increased by Saudi Arabia from 5.1 to 210.6 billion dollars (PPP), in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) - from 0.7 to 53.0 billion dollars, in Kuwait - from 2.9 to 29 billion dollars Mental level GDP increased in Saudi Arabia to 11.1 thousand dollars (PPP), in the UAE - to 19.4 thousand.
The creation of a system of modern production forces began. A new production structure of the economy emerged. So, in 2000 in Saudi Arabia it had the following form: in value GDP Agriculture accounted for 7% of industry - 48, services - 45%.
Unfavorable climatic conditions for agriculture led to the dependence of the countries of this region on food imports. At the end of the 70s. a food self-sufficiency program was developed and implemented there. The main role was played by Saudi Arabia, where the growth rate of agricultural production in the 80s - 90s. stood at 12%. As a result, it has become the largest exporter of wheat and a number of other agricultural products.
Particularly large changes occur in industry. The basis of the entire economy of these states is oil. She is a source of huge income. But oil reserves are limited. Therefore, oil monoculture is dangerous for oil-exporting countries, and they are taking various measures to diversify their industrial structure.
In the economies of these countries, which in the past played the role of a “trade crossroads”, an important role now belongs to the service sector, especially trade. In recent years, the tourism business has been developing widely.
The radical changes taking place in the development of the productive forces are not accompanied by equally rapid shifts in the social structure. In the 50s In this structure, the main role was played by sheikhs, feudal leaders of local tribes, seids, the highest layers of the Muslim aristocracy and a large number of nomads and semi-nomads. Currently, the number of the latter has sharply decreased due to the massive outflow of the rural population to the cities.
A kind of “revolution from above” is being carried out in relation to the local population. Its income is growing, modern education systems are being formed (in particular, the university in the capital of Saudi Arabia, Riyadh, the university in Kuwait, etc. have become very famous) and health care, the situation of women is improving, housing construction is underway, cities are being improved, etc.
However, in the public life of oil-exporting countries, the dominant position of sheikhs and seyids remains largely the same. An example is the Saudi clan, which dominates Saudi Arabia. They control giant oil fields benefits. The armed forces are practically subordinate to them. They are the owners of many industrial and other enterprises. According to experts, the Saudi clan (including about 30 sheikhs) is the richest “family” in the modern world. And the rulers of the richest emirates in the UAE are compared in terms of the amount of wealth they control with such US oligarchic groups as the Morgans and Du Ponts.
Changes in the socio-economic structure occur slowly. One of the reasons is the great influence on the economy and politics of these countries of the Muslim religion and the Muslim elite, which often coincides with the feudal nobility. A certain difficulty lies in the fact that the Koran prohibits selling and taking interest. Various formulas for financial activities have been invented to bypass religious dogmas. Sometimes the issue of interest in legislation is simply ignored. Various types of financial institutions are being formed that resort to the use of interest, citing their special status. Thus, there are mixed institutions with the participation of European and other foreign banks. Another form is international, i.e. inter-Arab, banks. The uniform of specialized institutions is also used. The absence of full-fledged commercial law complicates the development of capitalist relations, and its creation encounters a certain resistance from the clergy, who see this as an attempt to undermine the basis of the Koran.
In the system of external economic relations of oil-exporting countries of the Arab East, the export of capital is also of decisive importance.
In Saudi Arabia's merchandise exports, for example (in 2000, its value was $84.1 billion), the overwhelming majority were crude oil and petroleum products, 55.3% went to Asian countries (the main role was played by supplies to Japan), 19.6% - to the countries of the European Union, 15.7% - to the USA. Freight train import(its volume in 2000 was 32.8 billion dollars) was very diverse (machinery and equipment, certain types of raw materials, food, etc.). Main suppliers Saudi Arabia were countries European Union(34.1%), USA (27.3) and Asian countries (28.8).
Income of black gold exporting countries after the increase in prices were so high that the national economy could not use them. A significant part of the funds received, the so-called petrodollars, was invested in the economies of America, Western Europe and other countries. Their amount exceeded hundreds of billions of dollars. Saudi Arabia allocated $100-120 billion to Western enterprises through government funding alone, Kuwait - $70-80 billion, and the UAE - $45-55 billion.
The achievements would have been more significant if these countries had not spent part of their funds on militarizing the economy. The high proportion of military personnel is indicative costs in GDP. The leader is Saudi Arabia, where 13-14% of the value of GDP is spent on military needs. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait rank first in the UN ranking in terms of military levels costs per inhabitant. The share of military personnel in the UAE population is 2.96%, while on average for developing countries this figure ranges from 0.4-0.5%. Saudi Arabia also has the largest armed forces. At the end of 1999, there were 70 thousand people in the kingdom's ground forces, 13.5 thousand in the navy, and 18 thousand in the air force.
The changes that have been taking place in the economies of the countries of the Middle East of the Russian Federation in recent years are expanding the possibilities for their cooperation. Coordination of policies between the Russian Federation and OPEC members is expanding. Representatives of Russian industrial firms emphasize that Russia has common interests with these states in the construction of nuclear power plants, as well as large thermal power plants.
General prospects largely depend on the transition from the simplest forms of foreign trade to more complex ones: technical assistance, joint implementation of projects on new technologies (developments), cooperation, etc. Promising forms of cooperation could be the introduction of the latest technologies for desalination of sea water, which the Arab countries so desperately need. countries Persian Gulf.
There are good opportunities in supplying the latest military equipment and training military specialists. The turnover of the arms market in the Middle East is approaching $60-80 billion. According to Russian experts, if our country manages to restore its once strong position in the region, the defense complex of the Russian Federation will play an important role in economic relations with these countries.
The Middle East and Central Asia (MCA) region maintained strong economic growth in 2008, outpacing global economic growth for the ninth year in a row. The expected 6 percent real GDP growth is underpinned by high commodity prices, strong domestic growth, and robust macroeconomic policies. And even though growth rates in MCD countries have lagged behind those in developing and emerging Asia, the MENA region as a whole has thus far been able to withstand the ongoing international credit crisis and transition American economy and other developed countries in the recession phase.
Tightening global borrowing conditions have so far impacted regional financial markets to varying degrees. Prices on most stock exchanges have fallen from the heights reached in late 2007 and early 2008.
Despite some emerging pressures in a few countries, banking sectors in the region remain generally sound, thanks to continued improvements in prudential indicators and strengthened banking supervision. The main problem in the MCD countries has become, the rate of which is significantly higher than the average rate inflation all developing and emerging market countries. The main causes of inflationary pressure include:
sharp rise in food and fuel prices, which particularly affected countries with low income and emerging markets, pressure from robust domestic demand and limited ability to secure supplies of goods and services in Cooperation Council countries Persian Gulf(GCC), the depreciation of the US dollar (until July 2008), to which the exchange rate of many MCD countries is pegged. In order to alleviate social tensions caused by a decrease in purchasing power, a number of countries have increased the minimum and wage civil servants, which in turn creates further increases inflation.
Benefiting from gains for black gold exporters, external positions continued to strengthen in 2008, despite the negative impact of rising food prices on , and emerging markets saw a sharp rise in foreign direct investment. In this environment, the region's gross official reserves have increased significantly. Government savings are expected to rise significantly in 2008, with the aggregate budget surplus rising to 8. Percent GDP in 2008. Monetary aggregates are expected to grow significantly in 2008, partly reflecting the difficulties in tightening monetary policy, limited by the relative rigidities exchange rate many MCD countries in relation to American dollar, but also further development of the financial sector in some countries.
The short-term development prospects for the MCD region are generally favorable. While economic growth rates in low-benefit countries should rise as commodity prices fall commodities, these rates will slow in emerging markets due to the global slowdown in economic activity. Inflation should gradually slow as a result of tighter macroeconomic policies and as commodity prices fall. commodities.
height="300" src="/pictures/investments/img11886_3-4_Neftyanaya_vyishka_i_dollar.jpg" title="3.4 Oil rig and dollar" width="300"> !}
External and fiscal positions should remain strong, mainly as a result of continued large surpluses in oil-exporting countries. Development prospects in the MCD region are subject to moderate risks. Growth could be lower than expected if growth slows sharper and longer in advanced economies. could be higher if international food and fuel prices rise again sharply or if macroeconomic policies are not tight enough. In particular, second-order effects may arise due to an increase in wages in a number of countries, leading to a certain consolidation of wage and price expectations without proper adjustment of economic policy.
On the contrary, the continuation of the recent adjustment in commodity prices, as well as the further strengthening of the exchange rate United States dollar in the case of countries whose currencies are pegged to the United States dollar, will lead to a weakening of inflationary pressures in the region. Concerning risks For the financial sector, the MCD region's direct exposure to distressed financial institutions and developed country credit markets is relatively limited.
For this reason, financial institutions in MCD countries are unlikely to suffer much if financial conditions in developed markets continue to deteriorate. At the same time, real estate prices in the region have grown rapidly in recent years and may undergo adjustments, affecting bank portfolios and overall GDP growth. The immediate macroeconomic policy challenges facing countries in the MCD region center on managing persistent inflationary pressures and addressing rising risks related to the global credit crisis. Regarding inflation, many central banks have already raised their rates interventions, but so far the reaction economic policy has been subdued and interest rates generally remain negative in real terms, especially in countries where the exchange rate is strictly controlled against the United States dollar. The right set of measures economic policy will depend on the specific circumstances of each country, but usually involves tightening macroeconomic policies and increasing exchange rate flexibility. All countries should be particularly alert to the potential effects of second-order inflation and, for this reason, avoid further general wage increases.
To limit the effects of global credit crisis need to survive work to strengthen the resilience and flexibility of the region's financial sector. In particular, policymakers should seek to further strengthen the banking system and remain vigilant for any manifestations of global credit influences. crisis. They should also closely monitor the evolution of prices for real estate and assess the vulnerability of the financial system in the event of a correction in property prices and pressure on liquidity.
Countries should continue to work on fiscal consolidation by phasing out black gold and food subsidies. Despite the recent decline in commodity prices, oil prices are likely to remain relatively high, and MCD countries should gradually move toward market-based oil and food pricing combined with targeted measures to help the poor. In black gold exporting countries, it is necessary to continue in the field of black gold mining. In parallel, these countries should implement structural reforms that would bring contribution in creating competitive non-oil sectors.
The depreciation of the dollar exchange rate and the acceleration of commodity price increases in the first half of 2008 have called into question the appropriateness of pegging exchange rates, particularly in commodity exporting countries, to the US dollar. While exchange rate revaluation might help these countries manage inflation by reducing imported inflation, such a move would entail a number of inconveniences. In addition, recent correction commodity prices and the strengthening of the United States dollar may have weakened the case for revaluation. Moreover, if trends resume currencies and commodity prices observed in the summer of 2008, or rising inflation rates, will have to reconsider maintaining their exchange rate pegs. Countries with flexible exchange rate regimes should allow their currencies respond more fully to market conditions market, limiting interventions central bank.
Finally, the latest macroeconomic indicators provide an opportunity to address the region's long-standing problems of unemployment and poverty. To this end, governments should take measures to improve the investment climate and reduce the cost of doing business, reduce the size of the public sector in the economy, increase labor market flexibility and reform the education system to reduce gap between required and available worker skills, evident in many, if not most, MCD countries.
ReligionMiddlethEastA
In the modern world, the East plays an increasingly prominent role. Although this role is felt primarily in the sphere of economics and politics, modern research pays a lot of attention to the study of the internal structure of the countries of the East, their national and cultural tradition, and the specifics of their social development. This attention is all the more natural since almost all countries of the traditional East are now experiencing a painful internal transformation associated with the inevitable breakdown or serious modification of customary norms and standards. During this process The national cultural tradition is vigorously brought to the fore, the protective functions of which are based on religion, as a symbol of national resistance. All this links together society and religion, the socio-economic content of serious processes internal transformation of the countries of the traditional East and their national-religious form.
It is not difficult to imagine what a large role religion played in such societies. First of all, it sanctioned and sanctified political power, contributed to the deification of the ruler, turning him into a divine symbol, the connecting unity of a given community. In addition, religion, closely connected with the conservative tradition and closing its mechanism, sanctifying its norms, has always stood guard over the unshakable national structure. In other words, in relation to the state and society, religion was a cementing basis, but the effectiveness of this basis, the strength of its protective power largely depended on itself. It is known that different religious systems did not strengthen the traditional social structure or existing political power to the same extent.
Thus, religion in the East has always relied on stability, conservation of the existing norm, and preservation of the socio-political status quo. In many respects, the internal stability caused precisely by religion, which prevented structural renewal and the activation of private ownership, hindered the development of the East, forcing it to mark time for centuries. European invasion capital and colonial conquests gave impetus to the disintegration of the old metastructure and the slow, extremely painful creation of a new one. Painful because internally Eastern societies turned out to be insufficiently prepared for a radical transformation of this kind.
In those countries and regions of the world, among those peoples who, in their progressive development, crossed the line of the primitive community, the ideas, rituals and cults characteristic of the early religious complex of beliefs have noticeably faded into the background over time. Religious systems came to the forefront in these societies, the center of which was the cult of powerful gods. However, even within these systems, many features and characteristics of early religious ideas and beliefs continued to be preserved either in a transformed form or in the form of remnants.
The religious system, which did not arise out of nowhere, but was based on the foundation of early forms of religious ideas and beliefs, was forced to reckon with reality. The result of this was the appearance in the new system of several levels or layers, which were located within its hierarchical structure in accordance with the degree of their antiquity, complexity, and prevalence. Under these conditions, as a rule, remnants of early religious forms were preserved in the form of superstitions, which were consolidated at the level of the lowest, most primitive class.
Acquaintance with the earliest Mesopotamian and Egyptian and somewhat later and mature Iraqi religious systems of the ancient Near East shows that these systems not only bore a noticeable influence of the past, but also had certain common features and characteristics, in particular, they were all polytheistic. In the form of polytheism, these systems spread throughout the Middle East region. Over time, however, within these systems there was a tendency toward monotheism, most clearly manifested where the degree of centralization of political power was more noticeable and where centralized empires arose from earlier political entities. Along with tendencies towards monotheism, quite complex and carefully developed philosophical concepts of being and the universe began to be created in some later systems.
Monotheism is a new stage in the development of the religious system as such. It should not be considered that it is in all respects “more progressive” than polytheism. Early polytheistic religious systems eventually gave way to more developed monotheistic ones, at least in that sphere of anciently established spiritual values of the Middle Eastern-Mediterranean centers of world civilization, which, despite all the specific differences between its individual constituent parts, was something single, whole and common to all them. On this common basis, all three developed monotheistic religions arose and developed, which had a huge impact on the formation of the culture of the European-Middle Eastern world - Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
All three monotheistic religious systems, known to the history of world culture, are closely related to each other, flow from one another and genetically go back to the same Middle Eastern zone.
Thus, the example of the advanced Arab countries of the Middle East shows how, in the fight against socio-economic and political difficulties of an objective and subjective nature, the leaders of these countries are faced with the need to rebuild the economy and eliminate centuries-old backwardness, radically improve the living conditions of the people, and are convinced of the advantages of non-capitalist development paths, since “only on this path will peoples be able to get rid of exploitation, wretchedness and hunger."
If in the vision from overseas the Middle East changes only in the coordinates of strategic geography, then for the Russian Federation it now seems especially close both in geopolitical and geo-civilizational dimensions.
The end of the global confrontation between two world systems, one of the arenas of which was the Middle East in the second half of the 20th century, shook the previous system of political and military balance. But this does not at all mean assigning monopoly responsibility to the United States alone for resolving any regional conflicts, especially intercivilizational ones. Here, said the participants of the annual conference of Russian Arabists and Orientalists on the problems of the Middle East, a search for a “golden mean” is required. Obviously, it can be found along the path of connecting all the “residual elements of unsettlement,” be it in the post-colonial New Middle East or in the post-Soviet space of the New Russian Federation with its “near” and neighboring countries.
GeographyNearthEastA
Climate mostly arid, there are several large rivers that are used for irrigation. The main oil-producing region.
The Middle East includes Egypt, Sudan, Bahrain, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Yemen, Cyprus, Qatar, Kuwait, Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the Palestinian Territories, and Turkey, one part of whose territory lies in Europe, and the other in Asia. The bulk of Egypt's territory is located in Africa, but the Sinai Peninsula, which belongs to Egypt, is already. Separates Asia from Africa. This is the largest shipping canal in the world. Middle Eastern countries along with Iran and Afghanistan are called the Middle East.
Endless deserts - sometimes rocky, sometimes sandy - occupy most of the Near and Middle East. The sun burns mercilessly, rain is rare and only occurs in winter. There is not enough water. People settle on the banks of rivers: the Nile in Egypt, the Tigris and Euphrates in Iraq. In deserts, where there are wells with fresh water, green islands appear, which are called oases. There, under the date palms, there are small villages. Bedouins, nomadic herders, roam the vast expanses of deserts with their camels. They often visit oases, where they exchange camel hair and meat with local peasants for dates, corn, beans and other products.
In recent years, nomadic pastoralists have increasingly switched to a sedentary lifestyle. Some settlements are located on mountain slopes and in intermountain basins. More rain falls on mountain slopes. In winter they form turbulent mountain rivers. Such rivers are called wadis. In summer the wadis dry out. By watering the land abundantly, farmers in the Near and Middle East grow corn, wheat, barley, sorghum, cotton, dates, lemons and oranges, as well as many other agricultural products. Long-fiber, which is collected in Egypt, is considered the best in the world. The finest and most beautiful cotton fabrics are made from it. Mocha, which is grown in the Yemen Arab Republic, is highly prized. The best varieties of oranges and lemons are cultivated in oases. Roses are also grown in oases, from whose petals oil for perfumery is made. The Taif oasis in Saudi Arabia is famous for the best varieties of roses.
The greatest wealth of the Near and Middle East is oil and gas. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, and Iraq are especially rich in them. The extraction and sale of black gold enriched these countries and gave them the opportunity to build new cities, seaports, modern factories and factories.
There are many large and very large cities in the Near and Middle East. In the capital of Egypt, Cairo, the population is almost the same as in Moscow. Millions of people live in the Iranian capital Tehran, the Iraqi capital Baghdad and Turkey's largest port city Istanbul. In Egypt and Turkey, almost half the population lives in cities. There are many citizens in other countries of the Near and Middle East. But most of their inhabitants are peasants. As a rule, they live poorly.
The main food is various porridges made from corn, millet, beans, oat and wheat cakes, dates, and sour milk. In most villages, people are forced to drink untreated water. Poor nutrition, poor-quality water, and expensive medical care lead to the widespread spread of various diseases and reduce life expectancy. Usually people live there for an average of about fifty years. Many children cannot attend school. In the village, from the age of six or seven, they work together with their parents in the fields. In cities, child labor is used in weaving factories and carpet workshops. Children are hired as servants by wealthy families. Often, children of poor people are forced to work to pay off their parents' debts. Only in those countries of the Near and Middle East that have become rich due to sales black gold and gas, most children attend free schools and can even receive free higher education. In these countries, the population also receives free treatment.
Our country provided great assistance to the countries of the Near and Middle East. Plants and factories were built there to produce various machines, cars, cars, and sea vessels. We helped Egypt build a high dam on the Nile and the largest hydroelectric power station in Africa. For Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Syria and other countries, our country has trained many qualified workers, engineers, teachers and doctors. Cooperation between the countries of the Near and Middle East and with other countries of the world is developing. and gas from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Iraq is bought by Italy, France, the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), England, and the USA. Many countries around the world buy Egyptian cotton, Turkish tobacco, Yemeni coffee, cotton fabrics, linen and clothing, washing powder and other goods from the Near and Middle East. In turn, they sell cars and food products that they lack to these countries.
Lebanon (Arabic Lubnan), officially the Lebanese Republic (al-Jumhuriya al-Lubnaniya) is a small mountainous state in the Middle East, located on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. It borders on Syria in the east and north, and Israel in the south.
Israel, officially the State of Israel, is a country in southwest Asia, off the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea. It borders on Lebanon in the north, Syria in the northeast, Jordan in the east, and Egypt in the southwest.
Jordan (Arabic: Al-Urdun), officially the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (Arabic: المملكة الأردنية الهاشمية), is an Arab country in the Middle East. It borders Syria to the north, Iraq to the northeast, Saudi Arabia to the east and south, and Israel and the Palestinian Authority to the west. Jordan shares the coastlines of the Dead Sea with Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and the Gulf of Aqaba with Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Arabic: al-Mamlaka al-Arabiya al-Saudiyya) is the largest state on the Arabian Peninsula. It borders Jordan to the north, Iraq, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates to the east, and Oman and Yemen to the south. It is washed by the Persian Gulf in the northeast and the Red Sea in the west.
Yemen is a country located in the south of the Arabian Peninsula in South-West Asia. It is part of the Middle East, bordering Oman and Saudi Arabia. It is washed by the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea.
Oman is a state in Southwest Asia, in the southeast of the Arabian Peninsula. It borders Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Yemen. It is washed by the waters of the Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Oman. There is a small exclave separated from the main territory of Oman by the territory of the UAE.
The United Arab Emirates (Arabic: al-Imarat al-Arabiya al-Muttahida), UAE, is a state in southwest Asia in the eastern part of the Arabian Peninsula. It borders with Saudi Arabia in the west and south, with Oman in the southeast and northeast (the Omani enclave of Madha). It is washed by the waters of the Persian and Oman Gulfs. Qatar (Arabic: Katar), officially the state of Qatar (Arabic: Davlat Katar) is a state (emirate) in southwest Asia, located on the Qatar Peninsula in the northeastern part of the Arabian Peninsula. It borders on Saudi Arabia south, on all other sides it is washed by the Persian Gulf. The capital is the city of Doha.
Middle Eastern interior
Europe has long discovered the amazing culture of the Middle East. The first to involuntarily join it were those who existed for several centuries under the domination of the Moors - the inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula. During this time, local architecture and decorative arts absorbed many elements of the Muslim world. With increasing influence Spain and with the simultaneous establishment of diplomatic ties between Europe and Turkey, the culture of the mysterious countries became increasingly attractive to the West. Rooms decorated in Syrian, Persian or Moroccan style existed even in Russian estates of the 19th century.
To be fair, it is worth noting that in those days it was not the Arabic decoration as such that was reproduced, but the Europeans’ ideas about it, which, by the way, not everyone had an academic one. And therefore, for example, Kufic motifs were often combined even with Chinese ones.
Today, like a couple of centuries ago, the culture of the Muslim world is conquering new spaces and new fans. There is even a certain trend: if you just go out into the city, you’ll come across such stylization.
But for some, it’s not enough to smoke a hookah at a table or practice drawing arabesques; at the same time, they want to create an impressive exotic space around themselves. In addition, it is more pleasant to practice, for example, belly dancing in an appropriate environment, when every detail of it will convey a special mood to both the “artist” and the viewer.
Middle Eastern decor is very diverse and is geographically divided into several styles, each of which has its own characteristics. For example, since the beginning of the century before last, Turkish decoration has been distinguished by its extensive borrowing of European elements. The Moroccan direction as such is divided into two - Barbary and Spanish-Moorish. The first is distinguished by laconicism and some heaviness, the second is characterized by bright colors with sharp contrasts and general splendor, intricacy, and complexity of details.
Country house decoration
The color scheme of the interior is quite dark - the most commonly used colors are purple, blue, terracotta, burgundy, and dark purple. For this reason, you should not implement the idea of such decor in a small room without consulting a specialist. The fact is that “dark colors” visually reduce the space, and only the experience of a master will help not to cross the line beyond which the closet will no longer seem compact and cozy, but will be perceived as cramped.
Each color carries a special meaning: yellow symbolizes, blue - priceless water in the desert, red - the fire of a campfire, green - the life-giving shadow of an oasis. In this way, people bring their favorite notes of the surrounding landscape into their interior decoration.
It is difficult to recommend such a solution to city apartment owners. The decor of the Middle East countries includes high ceilings, arches, narrow columns, and a fountain in the courtyard. It is very difficult to realize this fantasy in the “concrete jungle” - of course, if you are not the owner of luxury apartments.
A traditional interior assumes the absence of interior openings. They are replaced with curtains made of light fabric. However, in the conditions of the Middle Zone, this option should be considered successful only if we are talking about a summer residence, where the owners live mainly in the warm season. After all, in winter, weightless organza cannot become a barrier to drafts that arise during ventilation. Wooden doors, especially those made of oak or maple, with carved decorations, will solve the problem of free winds, but will not conflict with the style. You can easily match them with antique ornate brass handles.
The walls of the rooms should not be covered with paper wallpaper and plastered for painting; it is better to cover them with upholstery fabric - velvet, brocade, silk or moire. This is not a cheap pleasure, and in extreme cases, such decoration can be replaced with traditional rolls imitating satin. It is not necessary to cover the entire wall with canvas; it is better to combine two different types, separated by a patterned border at a distance of one third from the floor.
Furniture is required exclusively from wood. Objects made of walnut, cedar or maple with the so-called Syrian mosaic - inlaid with sea and river mother-of-pearl and peach wood - will be a wonderful decoration. It should be taken into account that the component of the pattern, iridescent with all the colors of the rainbow, can be either natural or artificial, while the second option is much cheaper.
According to tradition, the ceiling is sheathed with cedar (ideally) or another species. Therefore, if you live in a log house and do not want to hide the nature of the walls and ceiling behind plasterboard coverings, do not deny yourself the pleasure of furnishing it in the Middle Eastern style.
Soft and warm decor
An important component of Arabic or Moorish decoration is the abundance of fabrics. Carpets, canopies over beds, bedspreads on benches and sofas, embroidered decorative pillows, heavy curtains... One option would be to install an organza tent in the middle of the room, which seems to take you into the world of the Arabian Nights. Unfortunately, such interior elements collect a lot of dust and create significant problems during cleaning.
There is no painting in the usual European sense in Arab art, since Islam prohibits the depiction of people and animals. For this reason, local craftsmen succeeded in making various ornaments based on fantastic plant motifs and Middle Eastern calligraphy - arabesques. Kufic writing, a special alphabet invented in the city of Al-Kufa, became a popular object of the latter. Great importance is attached to inscriptions, especially quotations from holy books: sometimes a shamail is hung on the wall - a passage from the Koran written in Arabic on a piece of paper or silk and inserted into a frame.
Living room
On the one hand, it is a priori intended for receiving guests, who are usually surprised by non-standard design solutions. On the other hand, it was created for family members to relax, relax and have fun. And what better than an unusual fairy-tale decor to set the mood?
The main piece of furniture here is the sofa. A low variety, upholstered in patterned, muted-tone material. If it is made of leather, cover it with a blanket with an ornament. Poufs or low chairs will take their places around. Also, do not refuse pillows embroidered with silk and wool with the addition of beads or sequins (small decorative “buttons” with a diameter of a couple of millimeters) - they can be laid out on the sofa or even scattered on the floor.
Carpet with a colorful ethnic pattern. It has long been believed that a model with black, red and green arabesques is preferable - according to legend, such a pattern protects the inhabitants of the house from evil spirits. Another copy would be useful, hung on the wall above the sofa, and even with a saber in a silver sheath (a Caucasian saber would also look appropriate) or a dagger. By the way, the abundance of richly decorated weapons is typical for the Syrian interior.
We must also not forget about the small table, which in Arabia is made octagonal - the number eight for Muslims symbolizes happiness. If there is no inlay on the tabletop, cover it with an embroidered colorful napkin with macrame, which are very popular in Turkey.
There is a hookah on the carved wood bedside table.
An Arabic and Moroccan house suggests a mysterious twilight. To create it, you need to choose lamps with stained glass, and a desaturated color of the lampshade is preferable. The latter can be made of camel skin stretched over a wire frame. The skin is subjected to special treatment - soaked in mimosa tincture, as a result of which it acquires a pleasant orange tint. Next, henna painting is applied. Any shape of lampshades is allowed - round, star-shaped, elongated, even complex - in the shape of an animal’s head.
The atmosphere of the Muslim world is unthinkable without incense, so set aside a place for an aromatic lamp and light candles in it as needed, adding a little essential oil to a special vessel with water, for example, roses, conifers (pine, cedar) or citrus fruits (lemon, sweet orange).
Materials in dark blue colors with the addition of beige or yellow tones. Warm shades should prevail, otherwise such a color will make the cook and eaters sad.
An alternative to ordinary tiles will be mosaic, characteristic of the Moroccan style. Moreover, the best option would be bright blue, green, dark red and gold smalt. By the way, some people use this option not only in the kitchen, but also in the bathroom. Try combining large squares with small ones - the effect is quite interesting. The most popular motifs for patterns are multi-pointed stars and flower heads.
You also need to be careful when choosing dishes. Of course, if you prefer to drink from porcelain cups made in the Victorian style, you should not, as they say, step on the throat of your song in order to create space around yourself in a completely different ethnic movement. You can continue to use tea sets from good old Britain, but they will have to be hidden away in the cupboard when not needed. To avoid an inharmonious contrast, bowls, metal vases filled with pieces of Turkish delight or nougat, dishes with baklava, sherbet jugs and vessels with chased patterns, and copper cezves have the right to remain visible. By the way, oriental sweets are often stored right on the table - they “live” just fine outside the refrigerator.
Coffee room
It's hard to imagine the Middle East without coffee. Its use in some countries is accompanied by special rituals similar to the Japanese ketai ceremony. Therefore, in the palaces of Turkish sultans and Arab sheikhs, a special room was always allocated in which they drank the aromatic drink.
For this purpose, you should either choose a small room with good lighting, or set aside a corner in the kitchen. Place a small table in the center, next to it a sofa or leather poufs, along the walls place cabinets or shelves with special utensils - cezves and tiny cups, wooden or metal coffee grinders. Place rough canvas bags of grains on the lower shelves. Surely you and your guests will love the idea of sitting in such an unusual setting.
In the middle of the room you can’t do without a wide wooden four-poster bed. Curtains are made from airy organza, silk or tulle (velvet is impractical, it collects too much dust). Their main function is not only to hide the bed from prying eyes, but also to protect against annoying insects. We select a bedspread to match the curtains, trimmed along the edges with braid with tassels at the corners. Similar decorations would be appropriate on window curtains.
Other items needed here are a small bedside table and a couple of poufs. But if you want to maintain style, you will have to give up the desk. Do not forget also about such a necessary accessory as a mirror - not very large, in a frame made of dark carved wood, inlaid with the so-called Arabic mosaic (inserts made of pine or camel bone), or artificially aged metal.
The same small hookah or bronze box will sit comfortably on the nightstand. Not only an electric lamp, but also a ceramic lamp with candles is suitable as a light source. If you prefer a live fire in the evening, think about how to implement the idea of a campfire lit by Bedouins indoors. The method we are used to - a fireplace - is historically uncharacteristic of Arabia, Morocco, Turkey and other countries of the Middle East, so in this case it is unlikely to fit harmoniously into the corresponding interiors. A metal stove like the well-known potbelly stove will come to the rescue. Such a unit quickly heats up and cools down, so if you accidentally overdo it with heating, all you have to do is turn off the fire, and soon the temperature in the room will return to normal. From a fire safety point of view, the most reliable are the varieties with glass doors: when they are closed, fuel and sparks will not fall on the floor, and you can absolutely calmly admire the dancing of the cheerful flames. Place its source away from canopies, window curtains and other flammable items. It is advisable to keep a vessel with water nearby (if you do not want it to be visible, you can hide it under the bedside table).
A potbelly stove requires a chimney with a length of at least 4.5 m. Otherwise, there will be smoke and soot in the room, so this idea is recommended only for country houses. The installation should be carried out by a specialist who will take into account all the necessary factors to ensure that the fire in your home is tamed.
Home has always been a special place for a person, where, first of all, you get away from the bustle.
Culture in the Middle East
The Middle East is home to cultural and architectural monuments of the world's most ancient civilizations, countries with enormous tourism potential, but due to the unstable political situation (Arab-Israeli conflict, war in Iraq and Lebanon, Islamic fundamentalism), only a few countries are attractive for tourism here: Turkey , Egypt, UAE, Jordan and Israel.
The Middle East region is also the epicenter of the struggle of a number of world states for control over Middle Eastern oil, since the Persian Gulf region is the world's largest reservoir of crude oil.
The twentieth century brought with it unprecedented and rapid changes. They affected all spheres of human life. The Middle East, that is, the Arab-Muslim area, experienced these changes along with the rest of the world. The question, which is still essentially unresolved, is how to integrate these changes into society, into everyone’s life. The answer to this question is ambiguous and depends on the point of view. An economist and a sociologist may answer this question very differently. The atheist offers one solution, the Islamic fundamentalist another. It is obvious that there is no longer a general line of development and change from, say, traditional to modern; there is only a sequence ruptures and transformations, sometimes leading to the emergence of new social foundations. The nineteenth-century belief that humanity was steadily moving toward its golden age and that its approach could already be sensed was hopelessly outdated. In Victorian Britain, adherents of this idea believed that their way of life was good and getting better; They equated the traditional with the backward and non-European, the modern with the progressive and European (Western). According to this logic, the Europeanization of backward and traditional (i.e., eastern) peoples is an undoubted benefit.
When changes are introduced into society in leaps and bounds (and this is what most often happens), they sometimes undermine social foundations and shift values. If, at the same time, old values are not replaced by other generally accepted norms, disunity arises, people begin to oppose themselves to each other and to society as a whole. Such discord gives rise to political instability, social and religious tension, psychological anxiety and economic imbalance. Usually all these problems are clearly visible in any society.
Change is caused by many factors; As for social tension, its cause in a traditional society is either a challenge from the outside world, or decisions aimed at modernizing society and made within it. Changes in the Middle East were brought about mainly by European influence and European colonization (in the broadest sense of the word). Old recognized ideas and traditional principles of life were called into question, it was necessary to somehow respond to this. The challenge was posed by the modernist outside world, so Middle Eastern intellectuals asked themselves: what is the essence of modernity? There was no general consensus, but a distinction should be made here between modernization and modernity. - this is the introduction into society of the material attributes of modern life: railways, communication systems, industry(the latter is not so relevant these days), technology, household appliances. Modernity (modernism) is a general term denoting political and cultural processes that arise with the advent of new ideas, a new system of economic structure or education in society. This is a certain way of thinking, a way of existing in the modern world and an attitude towards change.
In Europe modernization began along with industrialization and commercialization (otherwise - conversion to product human relations), mainly economic processes that forced society to adopt new methods of production and distribution of goods and abandon traditional models of economic relations. In economics, the most important principle has become accumulation capital. People, previously tied to the land and seasonal work, now began to make their own economic decisions and act at their own discretion. Such freedom of choice takes a person away from the traditional way of life and expands the range of his expectations. In the West, the process of industrialization took place under specific conditions and was accompanied by innovation, which changed both all people individually and society as a whole. People had to become more mobile and learn to feel and accept change. Modernization this did not end there, and today, in the so-called era of postmodernism, industrialization has ceased to be its indispensable condition. Technology is now imported in bulk and large industries are shrinking.
Modernization is a process that, under normal conditions, creates a modern society. This happens when society becomes seriously concerned with how a person makes choices, be they moral, personal, economic or political. For modern people, the main problem is rational choice. Choice presupposes weighing alternatives, the right to doubt the effectiveness of solutions proposed by tradition or politicians. It is not without reason that they say that modernity has institutionalized doubt into the norm. Freedom of choice and the right to doubt are impossible without rational discussion and debate, and rational people may have different opinions about its results.
One of the main attitudes of modernity is faith in man’s ability to control social and natural phenomena. In the nineteenth century, many in the West believed in the inevitability of progress and in the power of human reason. In the modern world, where the process of modernization is still ongoing, faith in comprehensive solutions has almost died out, and progress, if recognized at all, appears only partial and intermittent.
Opponents of modernity, defending what they perceive as traditional ways of thinking, believe that the current changes in our world are of no use. In change they see only something new and present - nothing more. Modernity in their eyes is a system of rules of behavior that, without being a step forward, simply supplanted other systems. At the same time, they do not see any need for something new for the mind and heart of a person.
In the Arab world, debate erupted over the relative value of modernity and authenticity (asala), understood as being true to oneself. Defenders of the latter consider it extremely important, despite rapid, fundamental changes, to preserve their originality. They argue that change is destroying the original cultural value system, although it can be reversed through a new awareness of the principles of Islam. The present for them is only the interval between the loss of their true roots and their new acquisition. These people are waging war against the modern world. Let the outside world change, but the true, original, immortal soul of the Arab people must be preserved - a soul that finds its expression in its language, culture, history - in a word, in Islam.
A modern Muslim has to clearly define his attitude towards the Islamic past, because modernity is based on the principle of development, which rejects the past. The Muslim today lives in a painful break with his pre-modern history, and the transition to current living conditions is difficult for him by the rapidity of change, often by the feeling of complete disorientation that arose at a time when the Islamic world suffered political and spiritual defeat from the West, which seemed invincible and omnipresent. The break with the past was too unexpected and sharp. Therefore, many modern Muslims cannot help but try to reclaim this past, which contains all their beliefs and convictions, and reincorporate it into the modern world. This raises the question: is it possible to revive the past in completely new conditions and how to do this? Here is what the modern Moroccan thinker Abdou Filali-Ansari writes about this: “How to remain a Muslim today? It is not easy to answer this question. On the one hand, Islam appears as a collection of beliefs that have not changed for centuries, on the other, modernity offers us a system of the latest ideas that correspond to the latest scientific theories and ideas, which are intellectually superior in the eyes of modern man. These two sides often turn out to be incompatible, if Islam is understood not only as a religion, but also as the form in which it is embodied in the minds of millions. Most Muslims live a dual life: they remain loyal to the Muslim community, but do not follow all the principles that such loyalty dictates. Thus, religion and everyday life come into sharp conflict with each other.”
This briefly outlines the problem that Muslims have been trying to solve for a century and a half: how to be modern and still remain Muslim? Many exits were offered. Some, considering this problem insoluble, resigned themselves to a non-religious world or renounced their faith. Those who remained faithful to Islam proposed three different paths: revival (tajdid), reformism (salafiyya) and fundamentalism. Tajdid began to preach in Arabia in the eighteenth century by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and in the nineteenth century in Sudan by Muhammad bin Ahmad, who proclaimed himself Mahdi. Islam seemed to them to be a true, perfect religion, which man had distorted innovations(bidah). Taking on the role of restorers (mujaddid), they called for the overthrow of existing regimes and the establishment of new ones in which the leading role would belong to them, for the purification of Islam and the observance of the law (Sharia), perhaps with the use of force. They cited the Koran to prove the need for renewal.
The reformist movement was primarily a reaction to the pressing questions posed to Muslims by the modern world and its system of concepts. The Middle East was opened to Europe after Napoleon's Egyptian campaign in 1798. The French occupation was short-lived, but played a decisive role, as it transferred power to Pasha Muhammad Ali and his reformist "Westernizing" dynasty. Muhammad Ali established links between the economies of Egypt and Europe. He and his successors cared not only for the immediate needs of Islam; not wanting to become in opposition to al-Azhar, they sent Egyptian students to the West to acquire modern practical knowledge. Many of these students realized that the secret of Europe's achievements lay in freeing the human mind to think critically, choose its own course of action, and turn to the achievements of modern science and technology to solve its problems. The current situation attracted the attention of Islamic thinkers and public figures.
One of the first among them was Jamal ad-din al-Afghani, who, although not an Egyptian, lived in Cairo. Believing that the main threat came from Europe, he began to think about how to deal with it. Al-Afghani did not completely reject all Western ideas and was even influenced by some of them. He believed in man's ability to change things through his actions and achieve social and individual progress. This progress, however, inevitably depends on the moral state of man. Al-Afghani also emphasized the need to act rationally and accept ideas dictated by reason. Islamic society will be back on the path of progress if it recognizes these ideas and unites. Al-Afghani actively preached the doctrine of pan-Islamism. Society will be able to reform itself if it again turns to the truth of Islam, but it will also have to face the eternal question: what is “true” Islam and who should define and reinterpret its provisions?
For al-Afghani, Islam is first and foremost a belief in a transcendent God and in human reason. Ijtihad (independent judgment, interpretation) cannot be dispensed with, and it is the duty of man to reinterpret the tenets of the Quran and apply them to solve the problems of his time. If society refuses this, it will become ossified or imitative. And imitation has a destructive effect. Here is what al-Afghani wrote: “If Muslims begin to imitate Europeans, they will not become Europeans, because the words and actions of Europeans stem from certain principles that are understood and recognized by all Western society.”
Islam must become a religion of vigorous action. To prove his point, al-Afghani quotes the Koran: “God will not change anything in the people until people change what is inside them.” Europeans have embarked on a path of change; Muslims must do this in their own way - by becoming better Muslims. According to al-Afghani, Europeans modernized because they moved away from real Christianity; Muslims, on the contrary, have degraded because they have ceased to be real Muslims.
Al-Afghani was a foreigner in Egypt and at the same time a very active person. His successor, the Egyptian Muhammad Abdo, was not so energetic and was perhaps more influential than his predecessor: in some areas his influence still remains. In general, he approved of the changes initiated by Muhammad Ali and his supporters. But at the same time, having witnessed the occupation of his country by British troops, he understood how dangerous it was for society to abandon religion, strive for earthly goods and follow laws human mind. He also felt how fragile European culture was becoming among those who tried to assimilate it through French manners. “No matter how the peoples of the East imitate Europe,” he said, “there will be no benefit from this until they thoroughly study its origins.”
He asked himself how to bridge the gap between Islam and modernity, and answered that Muslims needed change, but it had to be done in an Islamic way. Islam is in need of change, but only if these changes are correctly understood from the true, pure sources of faith. One of Abdo's predecessors, the philosopher Khayr al-din al-Tunisi, asked as early as 1830 whether a pious Muslim should accept the institutions and ideas of the modern world. Abdo addressed this question: can a person living in the modern world remain a pious Muslim? (Filali-Ansari is asking the same question now.) The answer was: Islam must remain the moral basis of a modern and progressive society, but this does not mean approval of everything that is done in the name of modernization. Islam must remain a restraining force, and Islamic society must build its life according to the commands of God and, guided by its own reason, accept what is modern. Muslims can borrow from Europe its ideas and scientific achievements without abandoning Islam.
And yet Abdo left many questions unanswered: what exactly are the dictates of Islam that society should live by, what specific European ideas are acceptable for Muslims? Later, some Muslim philosophers argued that Abduh had made too many concessions to modernity, which could ultimately lead to the secularization of Islamic society. Today, Abdo still has followers, but many have categorically rejected his ideas and turned to more radical, oppositional forms of fundamentalism. Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun (Muslim Brotherhood - Ed.), created by Hasan al-Banna, is an example of such a reaction. Al-Banna understood Islam as a faith and ideology that embraces and organizes all human affairs and does not shy away from solving pressing problems and carrying out necessary reforms. He had a negative attitude towards the West, seeing in it a force that threatens to invade the lives of Muslims and embodies “everything that is destructive and corrupting that is in money, wealth, fame, ostentatious splendor, material pleasures, power and means of propaganda.” The Ikhwan group was a product of the twentieth century and the situation that developed in Egypt; The problem of liberation from the British occupation concerned the members of the brotherhood more than less pressing political issues, say, how to combine modernization with the renewal of Muslim society. Members of this movement believed that modernism had gone too far and blamed the West. Thus, al-Banna criticized modern Western education systems, which sow doubt and heresy in the minds of Muslims.
Al-Banna and Ikhwan proposed solving this problem through political methods. Stop moral degradation in the country and reintroduce laws Only an Islamic state is capable of Sharia law. Then Muslim culture and tradition, rethought, will be able to resist the aggressive influence of the West and eradicate it.
Members of the Brotherhood showed themselves politically - they created their own political party - and militarily - they fought against the Zionists in Palestine and the British in Egypt. Al-Banna himself was killed in 1949 (it is possible that this was done by government agents), but his line continued, and even today it has followers. Sayyid Qutb gave her a tougher character. He saw the West in a very gloomy light. He believed that Islam and the West were incompatible - like two camps whose coexistence was impossible. Between believers and non-believers, between secularism (capitalism) and Islam, there can be nothing but war. Modernization meant for him the triumph of the West and the defeat of Islam. Qutb had a somewhat strange belief that the West seeks to destroy the human personality - mainly through mass ideology. Chaos reigns in the soul and mind of modern man; he cannot say for sure what the future holds for him. Qutb believed that the West, with its emphasis on science and technology, was devaluing religion. People are forced to give up the spiritual for the sake of the material. The West has failed to preserve the dignity of humanity and lead it to prosperity. He designated all this by the term jahiliyya (ignorance in the face of Islam), including in it a significant part of the formal side of Islam itself.
How did Qutb propose to solve the problems of the modern world? In Islam he saw “a complete social system that satisfies all human needs and is fundamentally different from all other systems. It is necessary to call upon the entire past of Islam to defeat the West and modernization, destroying all the ideas of jahiliyya.” He prophesied the death of capitalism and condemned attempts to reconcile Islam with modern society, demanding that modern society recognize Muslim values. He called for the abandonment of modernism, although he considered some of the achievements of science useful. The road to Muslim revival, he believed, would be opened by educating the younger generation in the spirit of Islam.
Qutb argued that Muslims would have to oppose the state in order to recreate an ideal Islamic society. He denounced democracy political parties and an independent electoral system, seeing in all this a manifestation of shirk (polytheism). He hoped to lead the fight against the state himself so that a new generation could rediscover Islam. Victory, he said, can only be achieved by completely dissociating oneself from the state and rebelling against it. This open anti-state position of Qutb was the reason for his arrest on terrorism charges and execution in 1966.
Under Qutb's influence, a number of small groups formed in Egypt, consisting mainly of young people, who carried out his behest by organizing the assassination of President Sadat and others. The leader of one of the groups, “At-Takfir wa-l-Hijra” (“Accusation of unbelief and hijra.” - Ed.), publicly declared: “I reject the Egyptian political system and Egyptian reality in all its manifestations, because in everything in it contradicts the laws of Sharia and is a heresy. We reject everything that has to do with so-called modern progress. Mechanized society has made people forget the essence of their existence, true reality and religious duty."
This radical rejection of modernism arose from the despair caused by the modern situation, from which the only way out of which seemed to these people to be the revival of Islam: “Islam is the only solution.” Such radicalism is not characteristic of all Muslim public figures and philosophers. Thus, Sudanese Hassan al-Turabi expresses his readiness, at least for the moment, to cooperate with the state in order to completely change society. He characterizes the movement he heads as “not only political. This is a religious movement for the education and spiritual development of the individual; in reforming society, changing people and educating them, we have achieved much more than in politics.” He constantly repeats how important it is to change people: “Changing society, that is, changing Sufis, tribal leaders, students, women and so on, is very important.” To “change” people means for al-Turabi to improve them as Muslims, to make them capable of living a full life in the modern world.
In a sense, al-Turabi prefers to Islamize modernity rather than modernize Islam. Such a program represents a “postmodern” reaction of Islam to the modernism of the developing world, (largely stimulated by the collapse of communism).
Mohammed al-Ghazali, a former Brotherhood member, says he could accept some of the elements of the modern Western world, but only selectively. “There is such an element as science. We are for scientific progress and are ready to cooperate with the West in this. But such philosophical concepts as godlessness and communism are unacceptable to us. The third element is related to the kindling of desires; we consider it socially destructive and seek to suppress it.”
Other, more moderate Muslim philosophers propose to reconsider the very approach to modernism and oppose mergers of enterprises Muslim world. The Muslim, they believe, must learn to coexist with modernity, and now with a set of more controversial ideas united under the guise of “postmodernism.” The problems of the modern world are the problems of every Muslim. To emphasize asala is to ignore the modern situation. Some of these thinkers argue that Arab society has been living under modernism for the last 150 years, and therefore modernism is not something that can be accepted or rejected. They want society to become more open, and even seek political opportunities that would honor democracy, human rights, the rights of women and social minorities. They believe in an education system that will no longer limit minds and encourage doubt and criticism.
But perhaps the most encouraging position is that of the Tunisian modernist Mohammed Talbi. There is no doubt for him. His faith is absolute, his commitment to consistent and meaningful modern views is also unshakable. He is one of those rare intellectuals who openly works to balance a living faith with a truly modern vision of the world. Faith for him is a free choice of the individual, made without violence against the mind. In this God gave man complete freedom. Here is what Talbi writes: “Faith is meaningless when there is no freedom of choice. The renewal of Islam is more closely connected with the problems of the socio-political structure than with the problems of theology, which always remain relevant. Muslims suffered because they used Islam for political purposes.” Talbi and other representatives of the intelligentsia are trying to harmoniously combine their faith with the world around them. They seek to update religious ideas, in which they see a solution to the problems of man in the postmodern era. Talbi paints an optimistic picture of a Muslim society in which people are endowed with freedom of choice, are able to comprehend the modern world and find their place in it.
Sources
http://ru.wikipedia.org Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia
http://www.middleeast.narod.ru/ Information center
http://www.bestreferat.ru Best abstracts
http://ethnomir.ru Ethnomir
http://www.arabinform.com ArabInform
http://www.strana-oz.ru Domestic notes - a magazine for slow reading
http://palomnic.org Orthodox worshiper in the Holy Land
Investor Encyclopedia. 2013 .
Paris: modern architecture
Japanese and Russian New Year haiku and tanka
Is the contract subject to taxes and fees?
Accounting info Instructions for establishing workwear in 1c
Dream Interpretation: Why do you dream about a dead person alive?