Is it true America is Playing " Divide and rule " In Muslim countries to protect tiny Israel ?

Answer 1

NO, Muslims are doing that to themselves.

Arab nations are often held together only by miltiary rulers, as Iraq used to be.

Afghanistan, Iraq, these nations not used to any form of democracy are finding that the peoples that were held down by the military would prefer self-rule to continued domination. And of course, each remaining sect hates the Israelis as well. About theonly thing they agree on.

Answer 2

Bill S raises an interesting point. Democracy. What the hell is democracy anyways? Are we talking about the type of democracy(?) imposed by the U.S. and her lap dog client state allies? This is not democracy. This is a system that has been built to keep the world safe for predatory capitalism. These countries, as pointed out, have NO tradition of democracy.
Where do we in the west get off imposing our will on these nations. Hasn't the U.S. learn ed a goddamned thing since Teddy Roosevelt set them on that path?

Answer 3

Doesnt seem a very plausible or sensible theory to me.

The main division in Muslim countries comes between Sunni and Shi'ite.

Answer 4

No.

The Muslim world has never been united.

And why shouldn't the people of Israel be protected from genocide?

Answer 5

i dont think that israelies are that scared of any arabs as they have more courage and are far superior soldiers,remember the 6 day war, so no i dont think that america is protecting tiny israel ,israel can protect itself.

Answer 6

Well if israel has got a huge and courage army(!) then why cant they finish the tiniest minority Palestin??? hm why?

Answer 7

The ONLY thing that destroys one society is the society themselves within.

Answer 8

"America" is not doing anything (by and large) with regards to Muslim countries, whom they know little and could care even less about.

That is, if you define "America" as a group of 290 million people lumped into together, most simply want to go about the day-to-day business of their job, their family, and their own time in their own way. Most do not want to play their hand at world empire and prefer to keep matters simple and practical, and are blissfully ignorant about the goings on in the crazy middle east.

America's goverment, though, would seem to be a different story... It would do you benefit to differentiate between the US govt. and people when thinking about these issues.

What is "America's government" up to, then? The policy of its government with regards to the Arab world is shaped by many powerful convergent interests and parties who want to benefit.

There are the neocons who are ideological Israeliphiles, and wish to see democracy stamped into every corner of the world; they are hard-core idealists with a view of reality that works out great in grad student dissertations but very poorly in practice. Neoons' view of the world is a revolutionary one. They see it as clay that must be molded toward perfection by those who are "wise" like themselves. They have been a minority faction in the Republican party, but rose to power and prominence in George W. Bush's administration following the 9-11 attacks. To remake the world in their image, some neocons have used goofy terms like "creative destruction" and wouldn't mind turning the Middle East into a "caldron of fire" so it can be rebuilt into an order they find suitable. They do not realize that human beings are far more complicated than any single idea of humanity. They played with little green plastic army men too long as a children--they saw too many stupid war movies--and do not see that they are hurting people. Thus, their great sin is hubris. Key figures: Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, William Kristol, Mike Ledeen, David Frum, Andrew Sullivan, Jeanne Kirtpatrick, etc.

Then there is also the old school Republican realpolitikers who believe that America's foreign policy ought to be to make the world safe for its large corporations. It is not in their interest to rock the boat too much as per the neocons. They like the status quo--oil cheap but not too cheap--friendly dictators propped up in power in Arabia and Pakistan--a dominant currency (the petrodollar) financing the oil trading and prosperity for everyone who wants to play their game by their rules. Their sin is greed. Key figures: George Schultz, James Baker, Brent Scowcrowft, George HW Bush.

Then there are a few basic Western cowboy republicans. They believe that we live in a tough mean world. America is the country at the top. This means that the rest of the world is going to want to knock it down. To prevent this, America must prove that it's just as ruthless and that all enemies will pay dearly. Their great sin is callousness. Key figures: Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, and perhaps George W. Bush.

Then there are the fundamentalist Christians. They have less money but they are the bedrock of the republican party. Their interpretation of the Bible came into vogue in the early 20th century, and it is based on a view that Jesus Christ will soon return now that Israel has been restored as a Jewish State. They think that the apocalyptic battle of Armageddon is at hand, and that those nations which are kind to Israel will be blessed--and those that are cruel to Israel will be cursed in the the Final Judgement. Thus, they don't want to go to hell, and so they enlist people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell to tug on the President's shirt sleeves to go to any war that might be on behalf on Israel's interests. Their sin is fanaticism. Key figures: Pat Robertson, Hal Lindsey, Jerry Fallwell, and perhaps George W. Bush.

Finally, there are the Wilsonian (mostly-) Democrats. They are of an Ivy League mentality that the world is broken and needs to be fixed. The medicine that will fix the world, they believe, is democracy, the United Nations, world government, and vast amounts of humanitarian aid. They are not as belligerent as the Neocons, but see wars already in place as opportunities to advance their own agenda of globalism and an oversight of powerful international law. Thus, as they see it, they don't like to start wars but they certainly love to finish them! If there is a nasty and brutish war going on, it is their role to see it through but to push its final outcome into a solution that they craft. Their great sin is arrogance. Key figures: Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Madeline Albright, Wesley Clark, etc.

So you see, all of these interests of powerful people came together in making the Iraq war (and our current mideast policy) happen.

It can be argued fairly reasonably that their interests do not represent those of the American people, its military, or for that matter the people in foreign lands who get bombed and oppressed.