Reddit mentions: The best middle east history books

We found 2,177 Reddit comments discussing the best middle east history books. We ran sentiment analysis on each of these comments to determine how redditors feel about different products. We found 769 products and ranked them based on the amount of positive reactions they received. Here are the top 20.

1. A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East

    Features:
  • Holt Paperbacks
A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East
Specs:
Height7.95 Inches
Length5.3499893 Inches
Number of items1
Release dateJuly 2009
Weight1.14 Pounds
Width1.55 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

2. The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East

    Features:
  • Vintage Books USA
The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East
Specs:
ColorBlack
Height9.19 inches
Length6.08 inches
Number of items1
Release dateFebruary 2007
Weight2.29 Pounds
Width1.88 inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

3. An Introduction to Shi`i Islam: The History and Doctrines of Twelver Shi'ism

    Features:
  • Used Book in Good Condition
An Introduction to Shi`i Islam: The History and Doctrines of Twelver Shi'ism
Specs:
Height1.2 Inches
Length9.27 Inches
Number of items1
Weight1.43741394824 Pounds
Width6.04 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

4. Law of Desire: Temporary Marriage in Shi'i Iran (Contemporary Issues in the Middle East)

    Features:
  • Used Book in Good Condition
Law of Desire: Temporary Marriage in Shi'i Iran (Contemporary Issues in the Middle East)
Specs:
Height8.98 Inches
Length6.12 Inches
Number of items1
Weight0.81350574678 Pounds
Width0.74 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

5. ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror

    Features:
  • Used Book in Good Condition
ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror
Specs:
Height8.25 Inches
Length5.5 Inches
Number of items1
Release dateFebruary 2015
Weight0.70327461578 Pounds
Width0.9 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

7. Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid

    Features:
  • Paperback
  • First Edition first printing numbers 1-10 are present
  • Nobel Peace Prize in 2002
Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid
Specs:
Height8.36 inches
Length5.54 inches
Number of items1
Release dateSeptember 2007
Weight0.59 Pounds
Width0.78 inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

8. Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age, 1798-1939

    Features:
  • Used Book in Good Condition
Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age, 1798-1939
Specs:
Height8.51 Inches
Length5.51 Inches
Number of items1
Release dateAugust 1983
Weight1.1464037624 Pounds
Width0.95 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

9. How to Read the Qur'an: A New Guide, With Select Translations

    Features:
  • Indiana University Press
How to Read the Qur'an: A New Guide, With Select Translations
Specs:
Height9.5 Inches
Length6.5 Inches
Number of items1
Weight1.25 Pounds
Width1 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

10. A History of Islamic Societies

    Features:
  • Used Book in Good Condition
A History of Islamic Societies
Specs:
Height9.01573 Inches
Length5.98424 Inches
Number of items1
Weight2.866009406 Pounds
Width2.2393656 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

11. The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East

    Features:
  • history middle east 20th and 21st centuries
  • military in the middle east
The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East
Specs:
Height9.5 Inches
Length6.69 Inches
Number of items1
Release dateNovember 2005
Weight3.39 Pounds
Width2.34 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

13. A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Indiana Series in Arab and Islamic Studies)

Indiana University Press
A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Indiana Series in Arab and Islamic Studies)
Specs:
Height9.21 Inches
Length6.14 Inches
Number of items1
Release dateMarch 2009
Weight3.13938261088 Pounds
Width2.04 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

14. Reset: Iran, Turkey, and America's Future

Used Book in Good Condition
Reset: Iran, Turkey, and America's Future
Specs:
Height9.56 Inches
Length6.37 Inches
Number of items1
Release dateJune 2010
Weight1.15 Pounds
Width1.025 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

15. Invisible Armies: An Epic History of Guerrilla Warfare from Ancient Times to the Present

    Features:
  • Used Book in Good Condition
Invisible Armies: An Epic History of Guerrilla Warfare from Ancient Times to the Present
Specs:
Height9 Inches
Length6 Inches
Number of items1
Release dateOctober 2013
Weight1.6644900781 Pounds
Width1.6 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

16. The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War

    Features:
  • Used Book in Good Condition
The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War
Specs:
Height9 Inches
Length6 Inches
Number of items1
Width1 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

17. The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East

a one-state plan for peace in the Middle East from the Israeli viewpoint
The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East
Specs:
ColorWhite
Height9.53 inches
Length6.44 inches
Number of items1
Release dateMarch 2014
Weight1.25 Pounds
Width1.18 inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

18. The Modern Middle East: A History

The Modern Middle East: A History
Specs:
Height0.9 Inches
Length9.1 Inches
Number of items1
Weight1.21474706362 Pounds
Width6 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

19. Mastering Arabic 1 with 2 Audio CDs, Third Edition

Mastering Arabic 1 with 2 Audio CDs, Third Edition
Specs:
Height9.1 Inches
Length6.1 Inches
Number of items1
Weight1.3999353637 Pounds
Width0.8 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

🎓 Reddit experts on middle east history books

The comments and opinions expressed on this page are written exclusively by redditors. To provide you with the most relevant data, we sourced opinions from the most knowledgeable Reddit users based the total number of upvotes and downvotes received across comments on subreddits where middle east history books are discussed. For your reference and for the sake of transparency, here are the specialists whose opinions mattered the most in our ranking.
Total score: 1,460
Number of comments: 91
Relevant subreddits: 10
Total score: 338
Number of comments: 66
Relevant subreddits: 11
Total score: 290
Number of comments: 50
Relevant subreddits: 4
Total score: 275
Number of comments: 65
Relevant subreddits: 3
Total score: 121
Number of comments: 13
Relevant subreddits: 4
Total score: 110
Number of comments: 21
Relevant subreddits: 2
Total score: 32
Number of comments: 13
Relevant subreddits: 10
Total score: 26
Number of comments: 13
Relevant subreddits: 9
Total score: 16
Number of comments: 16
Relevant subreddits: 2
Total score: 9
Number of comments: 14
Relevant subreddits: 11

idea-bulb Interested in what Redditors like? Check out our Shuffle feature

Shuffle: random products popular on Reddit

Top Reddit comments about Middle East History:

u/gzcl · 28 pointsr/gzcl

Thank you everyone for the laughs and the subtle concern. As mentioned here, I've been incredibly busy. This is all good stuff and I'm truly blessed. A few of the goings on:

  • I am currently on the east coast for my brother's graduation from US Marine Corps Warrant Officer Basic Course. He enlisted with me in 2005 and has been killing it ever since. Last year he completed his masters degree in electrical engineering from North Carolina State and now he's moving on to be an electronics maintenance officer. I'm incredibly proud and spending as much time as I can with the guy since we've hardly been able to see each other since we both stepped on those yellow foot prints at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego. Picture related.

  • If you're thinking, "Damn, Cody looks skinny." You're right. This is intentional and unfortunately a bit unintentional. I've got some injuries (military) that have been seriously aggravated since the move and early spring they got fired up again. So I've been nursing those and thus training hasn't been exciting at all. In addition to that I had a big wake up call that came in the form of sleep apnea, which of course was weight related. I'm not one to live my life on machines and value my health and independence (thus the cabin) and so I've made a concerted effort to regain my respiratory and cardiovascular health, which brought about the needed weight loss. I'm lighter now than I have been in a long time but I'm happy with it because I'm no longer snoring like a hellbeast and I'm also breathing while sleeping again, whereas I wasn't before, multiple times per hour each night. So while I may not be hyuge right now, at least I'm not suffocating myself to death at night. (My wife is also very thankful.)

  • I had some technical hurdles recently that put a damper on my YouTube production abilities. From this I've purchased a new video camera, whereas before I was using my wife's DSLR video feature. Not nearly as good. Still high quality, but I hope this new camera turns out even better videos than you've seen on my channel previously. As some of you may have noticed already the editing on my channel has improved a little and so has the creativity of the content itself. Whether it's the Bench Press Form Check video or the new Gainsline or Summon the Gainer 3 you'll notice my abilities have gone up. I credit this to doing much more film study and attempting to apply some of those same concepts into a micro adaptation within my YouTube. I get pretty much zero dollars from YouTube because I get so few views, but that's not what it's about for me. I genuinely enjoy making videos and I see this as the next step in advancing my own enjoyment. My only hope is that all of you enjoy them just the same. And please, if you have a request or recommendation please let me know, because I'd like to help the best I can and I'm always eager to learn something new.

  • In addition to the above I'm also taking my own education seriously. Having wrapped up a semester of full time college earlier this month I'm now on summer break and so brings - FREEDOM! If you're wondering, which you're probably not but I'm going to tell you anyways, I got an A,A,B,A this semester across my four classes. None of them being underwater basket weaving or nontraditional interpretative dance therapy. That last A is an elective however, for drawing.

  • To wrap up this update I'm also working on a personal writing project that requires some heavy research. As previously mentioned and well known in these parts, I'm a US Marine. What may not be known so well is that I served as an infantryman (0311) for five years and did another 4.5 as an MCCS Marine (4133). During my near decade on active duty I had four deployments, one to Iraq, two to Afghan, and one aboard ship at sea. Two of those I volunteered for. My last one I fought to go on. My time in the Corp gave me the love of lifting but also the love of studying warfare, in particular insurgencies. I've had my nose deep in the books doing lots of research for a book I plan on writing. Here's bigg'un I just got as a gift from ma and pa and I can't wait to start it. I've already broken a promise to myself on timeline, so who knows when it'll be finished. But I'm happy that I've had the discipline to begin putting paper to pad. When it is finished I hope some of you enjoy it, even though it will be far from the topic of weight lifting. It's fiction and about war, and that's all I will divulge at this time.

    Once more, thank you all for the laughs and subtle concern. Thank you /u/linuxuser86 for making this post. If any of you have questions please email me any time: clgz@ymail.com
u/costofanarchy · 6 pointsr/shia

Here's a list of the key books in the field that I'm familiar with (by name and general contents, I've only actually read a few of them). I'm mainly focusing on what is relevant to the study of Twelver Shi'ism; there aren't many English language books on Zaidism, as far as I'm aware, and for Isma'ilism you can start with the works of Farhad Daftary.

I'll start with important works providing an overview of the area, and then give a rough breakdown by "era" (I may be a bit off regarding the era, and many of these books straddle two or more eras, so be warned). This list does not emphasize geographic studies of Shi'ism in various areas and countries, and rather traces the "core narrative" of the development of Shi'i intellectual history, which is typically thought of as happening in what is now modern day Iran, Iraq, and (especially in the post-Mongol/pre-Safavid era) Lebanon, and to a lesser extent in Bahrain. Once you've read the initial works, you should have a good idea about what's going on in each era, and you can pick and choose what to read based on your interests.

If you have no background in general Islamic history, you should first pick up a book on that subject. Tamim Ansary's Destiny Disrupted is an accessible non-academic book on general Islamic history (with an entertaining audiobook read by the author). If you want something heavier and more academic, Marshall G.S. Hodgson's The Venture of Islam is the classic three-volume reference in the field of Islamic studies, although it's a bit dated, especially in the third volume (covering the so-called "Gunpowder Empires"). Note that the standard introductory text on Shi'ism has long been Moojan Momen's book An Introduction to Shi'i Islam: The History and Doctrines of Twelver Shi'ism, but this book is now a bit dated. Heinz Halm also has some surveys, but I'm less familiar with these; likewise for the surveys of Farhad Daftary (who is better known for his work on Isma'ilism than general Shi'ism).

Surveys, Background, and Introduction

u/[deleted] · 1 pointr/islam

>First, I've just been going through the default English translation on quran.com[1] . Is that the best version and translation to use?

It is better to rely on a translation that has at least a brief introduction and some footnotes that describe the author's word choices and interpretive framework. For example, AJ Arberry's translation flows beautifully and makes significant allusion to Judeo-Christian symbols. Muhammad Asads is probably the most sophisticated in that he always cross-references with the dominant commentaries of the Islamic tradition. I always recommend his work first because it translates the idiomatic expressions culturally and not literally. For example, how do you translate "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush"? He translates idioms and then explains the meaning in a footnote. You can also try Abdel Haleem, although I don't rely on it much. I really recommend Muhammad Asad, because he is not only a scholar, but a Western jewish convert who lived among the Arab bedouins for a long time. He can translate cultures very well. Also, you can order a free hard copy from CAIR with beautiful calligraphy inlays, parallel transliteration and original Arabic.

>Second, what context should I keep in mind while reading it?



I recommend How to Read the Quran by Dr Carl Ernst.

> Do many people today think it should be taken word-for-word literally?

Please don't. This is how Christian fundamentalists read the Quran, not how Muslims have traditionally read the Quran. In the past, some scholars talked about reading the Quran literally, but what they meant by "literally" was not what some unlearned literalists think of today. This probably makes little to no sense, but the point is, don't read it literally.

>Is there anything else I should be reading alongside the Quran to help me better understand it?

A good biography of Muhammad perhaps. Karen Armstrong, Tariq Ramadan, Martin Lings, and many more have published great books. Dr. John Brown's Muhammad: A Very Short Introduction may be a good one to start with.


>Is it typical for Muslims to read the Quran?

Unfortunately no. Most muslims in the world do not understand Arabic. So when "millions read it in the month of Ramadan" as a comment said elsewhere, they recite it without understanding. However, compared to Christians, Jews or any other scripture-based religion, Muslims as a whole spend way more time with their scripture.

I'm around Jesuit priests all day, and I don't think even they come close to daily devotions of the average muslim layperson. I don't even consider them very devotional, but that's my opinion.

u/AndrijKuz · 3 pointsr/history

A PEACE TO END ALL PEACE by David Fromkin. In my opinion, you should start with this before anything else. Well researched, respected in the academic community, well written. It's absolutely one of the best books on the subject, and the first place I would go.

Bonus FYI: the "redrawing" period went on from 1918-1922.

Also, this book is primarily focused on the Middle East, so you won't get as much on post-war Germany, or the African continent. But it will give you tons of context for what happened during the peace conference.

A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East https://www.amazon.com/dp/0805088091/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_zs7iDb51WDZHF

Edit spelling.

u/mjsolaro · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Its chapter on the history is short, but if you're interested in people's current views on it and how it impacts current life (at least as of 1989), I would strongly recommend Thomas Friedman's "From Beirut to Jerusalem".

Yeah, it's the same guy who wrote "The World is Flat". He was stationed as a reporter in Beirut during the period around the Lebanese Civil War and covered all kinds of Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. His reporting at the time won two Pulitzers, and the book won the National Book Award. It's an immensely fascinating read.

And yes, Friedman is Jewish, but his writing is pretty fair, and acknowledges bias where it exists. He's pretty heavy-handed in condemning many of Israel's tactics, probably to the point of holding them to a higher moral standard than the PLO.

Give it a shot.

u/audiophilistine · 0 pointsr/trashy

Of course I support the freedom and rights of women. What kind of question is that? Isn't that a standard facet of Western culture in general? There's a great book called What Went Wrong about how Islam used to be the world leaders in science and culture, and how today they are backward and almost primitive by our standards. One of the main conclusions of the book is the middle East and Islamic areas have ignored women and essentially kept them from learning and contributing to society. The fact that Western culture has embraced women's contributions, from at least Marie Curie going forward, is part of the reason why we are where we are today.

​

As a red blooded, passionate male I am very much in favor of birth control. Not sure what you mean by "access for women and young girls who otherwise couldn't get it." Are you asking do I think all women should get the pill for free? Are you asking do I think minors should get the pill without parental consent? Those are tough questions. Here's one back, do you want to pay for it? I pay a hell of a lot in taxes already.

​

I used the free health clinic when I was in high school to get STD tested and got a few free condoms too. I'm good with those public social establishments the same as I'm good with public libraries, public schools and public interstates and roadways. I'm also highly in favor of free hospitals for US military veterans. These are current social programs I, as a conservative, am in favor of. Your question makes me wonder what you must think of conservatives. Do you really believe we are all ignorant, racist, women hating but Christ loving Nazis that the media tells you to believe?

​

How do YOU show your support to your fellow women? I just treat them as people and friends and enjoy their company.

u/mybahaiusername · 5 pointsr/shia

There are two books by Moojan Momen

Shi'i Islam: A Beginner's Guide

and

Introduction to Shi'i Islam

The first one is a relatively short book, but thorough. The second on is a VERY detailed and long book, and honestly still the best there is as far as I am concerned.

Of course neither of these are nearly as readable as Lesley Hazelton, who writes more like a novelist and less like an academic, so her writing is easier, albeit less packed with information. But where Hazelton gets you a great overview, Momen will give you amazing detail.

u/WhiteRastaJ · 2 pointsr/AskHistorians

That's not wholly fair--several of us have provided good information, not faux scholarship or atheist reactionary rants!

I do want to throw in a few extra points to go with yours. I agree that pre-Islamic Arabia was not as barbarous as is sometimes assumed, however the reforms that Muhammad ushered in were often welcome and needed--giving women rights for example, and forbidding female infanticide.

It is true that we have no proof of Muhammad's illiteracy. Indeed, the first word of the first Qur'anic verse (in terms of chronology), 'iqra (أقرا) can be translated either 'read' or 'recite' so it sheds little light on that (source--Dr. Jamal Badawi's writings and classes).

The Qur'an was written down and compiled under the aegis of Uthman ibn Affan, as we've discussed elsewhere in this thread.

I also agree that many joined the early ummah out of a desire to improve their lot. This wasn't limited to Arabia; when Islam began to spread out from there it was originally meant to be an Arab religion and conversion was discouraged, however many converted in order to enjoy the same benefits as the Muslims did.

A lot of this is made very clear in the best seerah (bio of Muhammad) available in English, which is Martin Lings' Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources. A caveat on this book: Lings was a faithful Muslim and wrote from a faith-based position, so it does lose some scholarly objectivity. However its a great read and its easy to maintain your own objectivity as you read it.

Also, Ira Lapidus' A History of Islamic Societies has a good section on pre-Islamic Arabia, as does Albert Hourani's History of the Arab Peoples IIRC.

I recommend all three books to anyone wanting to pursue this subject further.

u/Theinternationalist · 1 pointr/worldnews

The present regime is heavily based off of a few core values:

  1. Anti-Israel: Lots of Muslims/Arabs hate it, and acting as the prime lightning rod for anti-Zionism would theoretically get a lot of support from Arabs who would otherwise ignore their Persian ally. Many, if not most, Persians don't actually care about Israel and view it as an Arab issue; in fact, the Shah regime recognized the Israeli state and it isn't inconceivable that a post-Islamic Republic state would either. This may be outmoded however; Turkey had decent relations with Israel under Erdogan pre-Marmara and was never seen as an Israeli patsy. Still isn't, now that they're getting renormalized. Tangent aside, it's really just to play well with the Sunni crowd. Speaking of which...

  2. Shiite supremacy: I'm a little sketchy on the religious aspects, but Iran has acted in a similar capacity to Shiite groups in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and others that other "missionary" (I made that up) states like the USSR and ex-colonial states do: they intervene in the affairs of other states by saying "your government doesn't represent your pro-Labor values/your ethnicity, we do!" Even if the US dropped its alliance with Saudi Arabia and Israel tomorrow for one with Iran, it would have to contend with its other Sunni allies that resent/fear Persian manipulation/support for the downtrodden.

  3. Anti-Big Satan: Let's be perfectly blunt. Even if Iran could forswear any desire to help Hamas and other such groups win back their land militarily and stop annoying Saudi Arabia with its attempts to improve the lives of the Persians' co-religionists, there's the simple matter that the US supported the Shah and hasn't exactly been nice since the Shah. There's a bit of he-said, she-said/You sanction and let the Saudis/Lebanese/whoever suppress the Palestinians/Shiites, we attack (or other way around, I'm not sure and both sides will say the other started it by this point). There have been some attempts, including an Iranian offer to talk soon after the fall of Baghdad, but it all seems to be stuck at the moment. I just hope that things improve.

    Too Short, Need Meat: Check out Stephen Kinzer's book. It actually speaks to your question about America's relationship with Turkey and Iran vis a vis its relationship with Saudi Arabia and Israel. It's good.
u/WearingAVegetable · 18 pointsr/AskHistorians

Short answer: no.

Slightly longer answer: The radicalization of Islam in the Middle East ties into the division of the region by the western powers after WWI, and further during the Cold War, when the U.S. (not only, but in particular) supported the rise to power of radical religious figures in opposition to communist/leftist parties & figures who might be sympathetic to the Soviet Union, and therefore potentially threaten U.S./U.K. access to oil in the region. This included aiding in the over-throwing of democratically elected governments in favor of autocratic but U.S./U.K.-favored leaders - most notably the U.S.-led 1953 coup d'etat in Iran, when Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown. The 1978 Iranian Revolution began as a popular uprising against the Shah who replaced him.

For more extensive reading on the subject:

Inventing Iraq by Toby Dodge (I have some major issues with Dodge's conclusions post 9/11, but the historical analysis that makes up the majority of the book is solid)

Spies in Arabia by Priya Satia, and Lawrence in Arabia are good histories of imperial ambition during the WWI period and its after-effects

Paris 1919 by Margaret MacMillan for the political maneuvering of the Western powers

A Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin

I also recommend Edward Said, if you're looking for cultural analysis as well as history

u/bokertovelijah · 6 pointsr/islam

> He says the Bible is the true word of God because every book in the Bible has the same topic

That's not a good litmus test. Having the same topic or message is not a miracle. You would have to include books like Frankenstein into the canon since it was also a continuation of the story of Adam and his fall.

>He also says that everything prophesised by the Bible eventually came true, like the destruction of Babylon

Every empire crumbles. This is not hard to predict.

> I still consider myself an atheist but I want to know God.

Ask God to guide you. If He guides you to the Quran (and it sounds like He has) then pour over it like any researcher looking for answers. When you feel you've exhausted it, move on. You don't need to learn Arabic, but you should know how to read the genre of literature that is the Quran. I highly recommend to everyone Carl Ernst's How to Read the Quran. I assigned this to my university students along with Michael Sells Approaching the Quran.

But to answer you question in brief, the first revelation of the Quran begins "Read! In the Name of your Lord who creates, He creates humanity as an embryo"

You are still an embryo in the womb of the Quran where all your human faculties are being nurtured. If you become aware of your fleeting and transitory existence, then God's message to you has succeeded in transforming you.

u/IllusiveObserver · 6 pointsr/politics

>So what are good sources of information for current news and good books/articles for past history?

That's something that I'm currently working on. I've only begun to dive into the history of the world within the past year. There are innumerable books and documentaries that serve this purpose for innumerable regions and events in the world. But I believe the starting point for anyone should be a book on US foreign policy. Once you begin to learn about how the US has acted internationally, you will obtain a view of the world that is essential for understanding current events.

One recent pair of works that I recommend is "The Untold History of the US". It is a 800 page book alongside a 10 part documentary series that tells a story of the US not known to most people. Here is the first part of that series available for free. Here is the companion book.

>How did you learn about these sources?

I keep a journal and I've meant to do a write up of this for a while now, so I'll be as detailed as possible. The following is both for your sake, and for mine. This is also a story of how I came to hold the political views that I have, so bear with me if you disagree with my views. Reading about history will inevitably force you to form opinions, and as I've learned more, I was pushed further and further to the left. But anyways, here it is.

I took a class on Latin American history, and I learned about the history of the island in the Caribbean my parents come from, the Hispaniola (the island of the Dominican Republic and Haiti). I learned how the US occupied it repeatedly during the 20th century and installed dictators in each country, and how it became a trade slave of the US with its sugar production.

I was being more and more interested in politics and current events, after learning about Obama and drones. I didn't have internet access and I hated television, but I had to do something, so I vowed to only watch channels without commercials. So I was watching PBS, CSPAN, and Al Jazeera. One night I saw an interview on PBS done by Tavis Smiley. During this time, Martin Luther King was being celebrated. The interview centered around the "real" Martin Luther King, and how he is unjustly known for only a few words that he spoke during a march. So I read his last major speech, and his speech about the Vietnam War. In the latter speech, he says "The greatest purveyor of violence in the world is the US government", and I couldn't believe what I was reading. After some searching, I realized that he was actually a socialist. I learned that he had planned a march for economic justice that would join all races, to trump any march in the history of the country, and he did this with the two socialists who organized the march that made him famous. They were Bayard Rustin and A. Philip Randolph.

Martin Luther King died while helping a union of black sanitation workers, a month before the march. I doubted the mainstream narrative of the killing due to what I learned the US was capable of when I read about the Dominican Republic and Haiti, and I came across COINTELPRO, the operation run by the FBI to stop leftist movements in the US. I was watching yet another channel with no commercials, and it's called LinkTV, which is a leftist channel that shows mainly documentaries. I saw one called "American Coup", which was about how the US toppled the government of Iran with clandestine CIA operations. Oddly enough, today is the day, 50 years after it happened, that the CIA admits to doing it. Anyways, at this point I was intensely both anti-government and anti-capitalist.

As I pondered all of the problems with the US, like its media, healthcare, the military industrial complex, the corruption of congress, etc, I came across this speech by an economist at the University of Massachusetts. He spoke of a new type of democratic economic enterprise called a cooperative, and how it solves many problems that traditional capitalist enterprises cause. the political atmosphere of Germany, that has a party called Die Linke, or the "Left Party". Their slogan is, "Germany can do better than Capitalism". Being from the US where questioning capitalism is out of the question, I couldn't believe that Germany had the political atmosphere for that, so I started learning about the politics of Germany.

That's really when my interest of international affairs and politics took off, and when I finally began to read about other countries. Inevitably, to understand the current events of a country you have to understand its history, so I started reading about the history of Germany. Once I saw its relationship to the USSR, I started reading about that. All the while, everything I learned about the US was brimming in my mind.

I learned about the media in the US because of a documentary I saw called "Shadows of Liberty". It will be available here for free here during the first two weeks of September. Because I refused to watch TV with commercials, I began watching Al Jazeera English. It covered the civil war in Syria extensively, and it frequently airs documentaries. One of them was "The Reckoning", which details the history of Syria during the latter portion of the 20th century to give a context to current developments in Syria. I then borrowed this book on the history of the modern middle east from a local library.

By this time it was around March, and Hugo Chavez died. He was a very controversial figure, and I wanted to learn why. Here in the US they paint him as a dictator, but my faith in US media was destroyed, so I questioned that as well. This video quite nicely sums up a few of the experiences I've had about learning about Venezuela and Chavez. While he did a few things I don't agree with, and I don't like his stances on a few issues, I learned that Chavez was a hero to Venezuela. This documentary goes into a overthrow of the government that happened in 2002 to oust Chavez, but was saved by the masses of Venezuelan people who wanted their leader back. By this time I was well aware of US involvement in Latin America, and could contextualize the events well, due to a book called The Open Veins of Latin America.

After this, I was ready to tackle history around the world with much more ease. I learned of the miners strikes in the UK, and the market socialism of Yugoslavia that was a socialism vastly different than others. I learned of some of the great feats of China and the USSR after only knowing what mistakes they made. I learned about Anarchism and Anarchist Spain during the 1930's, and the war between Iraq and Iran. I learned of Zimbabwe's agrarian reform, and Mexico's revolution in the early 1900's. I learned of South Africa's fight with apartheid, which put the US on supporting it and Cuba fighting it alongside Mandela. It was just historical event after event, and after some time, you really can't pinpoint specific avenues of thought that you've been taking through by reading and watching documentaries. History becomes just one large living organism that you begin to understand more and more fully as you go on.

I cut it a bit short because its late, but feel free to ask me anything now that you know me a bit more personally, haha.

u/Jasmindesi16 · 1 pointr/learn_arabic

A lot of people would tell you Al-Kitaab and I don't want to discourage you from buying it but honestly the book is so AWFUL. The dialogues in it are not written out, you have to guess what they are saying, you have to pay extra for the online content and it expires making you re-buy it, the grammar explanations are really really bad. It made easy things like Idafa seem extremely confusing. Please look at all the horrible reviews for alkitaab on Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Al-Kitaab-fii-taallum-al-Arabiyya-Arabic/product-reviews/1589017366/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewpnt_rgt?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=critical&showViewpoints=0&pageNumber=1
If you are jumping right into Al-Kitaab it won't teach you the alphabet.

It is so bad, in my classes we are on the second book now and I honestly want to burn it. The best book I have used so far is Mastering Arabic by Jane Wightwick. You can find it here:
https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Arabic-Audio-CDs-Third/dp/0781813387/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1466799605&sr=8-1&keywords=Mastering+Arabic

You can buy a workbook for it as well, in general it has more exercises and explains things better, and it has tons of audio. I'd also recommend Living Language Arabic. But Al-Kitaab is just so frustrating and so bad. I hate that this book is the standard for colleges. I think it is the reason why so few people finish Arabic in college.

u/jdryan08 · 11 pointsr/AskHistorians

The specific impact of Western or European Enlightenment on the Ottoman Empire (or at least Ottoman intellectual history, broadly defined) was immense. However, the widespread impact of many of these philosophers -- perhaps most prominently Kant, Rousseau and Montesquieue -- was not truly felt until the middle part of the 19th century. This is mostly because this is the period in which these works began to be translated into Arabic, Turkish and Persian and it is the era in which European schools began opening their doors to Ottoman citizens en masse (as well as the flowering of missionary education within the Empire itself). In the most general terms, the effect of the Enlightenment on Ottoman/Arabic intellectual thought could be said to be that it spurred a serious and revolutionary rethinking of the concept of Islamic governance. The decrepit and corrupt state of affairs in the Ottoman Empire leading up to and following Napoleon's invasion of Egypt at the end of the 18th century first spurred Arab thinkers like Rifa' al-Tahtawi and later Turkish thinkers like Namık Kemal to consider the challenges posed by republican or secular forms of government to the otherwise traditional Ottoman-Islamic mode. This would ultimately lead to intellectual and political movements towards constitutionalism, a "modernized" Islamic theological tradition (particularly stemming from the interventions of Jamal al-Din Afghani), and a widespread discussion of secularism and humanism in the public square.

This is not to say, however, that Ottoman thinkers were in any way "behind" or "late" to the Enlightenment. When these thinkers encountered Enlightenment era writers in the 19th century, they more or less absorbed the most current European trends in philosophy into their ouvre. They took in Spencer and Durkheim and Tocqueville right alongside their 18th and 17th century predecessors. In many instances the Ottoman thinkers, having this dialectical relationship between this European tradition and their own indigenous intellectual heritage, were in direct dialogue with the most current European philosophers. The most famous of these exchanges was between the above mentioned al-Afghani and Ernst Renan over the capabilities of a modern Islamic rule. In all, the 19th century saw a great opening of an intellectual conduit between the Ottoman Empire and Europe in a way that hadn't previously been observed.

Politically speaking, and here I'm directly addressing the comment by /u/Smackaroo below, the consequences were enormous. The reforms of the Tanzimat (equal citizenship before the law, reform of personal status law, conscription, among others) were absolutely outcomes of this intellectual convergence. The ratification of the 1876 constitution was a critical part to the ascension of Abdülhamid II. Of course, AHII suspended the constitution and the parliament shortly thereafter, but his own "absolutist" rule was also very different from his "absolutist" predecessors, and just as equally influenced by European philosophy. The Hamidian period saw a swift and forceful movement towards technological and cultural modernization, closer relations with European nations (he was best buds with Kaiser Wilhelm II), and a dramatic expansion of western schools, including reform of the elementary, secondary and collegiate university systems. So to say that the Hamidian experiment, while absolutist and (pan)-Islamist, was a "regression" is false because it suggests AHII returned to an older governing philosophy (he didn't) and it suggests he provided no innovation into Ottoman society (he did).

Essential reading on this subjet includes, but is not limited to:

Albert Hourani, Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age

Şerif Mardin, The Genesis of Young Ottoman Thought

Nikki Keddie, An Islamic Response to Imperialism

Şükrü Hanioğlu, Preparation for a Revolution

u/RR4YNN · 5 pointsr/worldnews

I doubt I will convince anyone on this board, but I feel compelled to share a viewpoint that will hopefully get people thinking more critically.

> Relgion is just one part of the complex motivations that cause these groups.

This is true, but has little explanatory power. There are many groups of people with complex motivations that do not look anything like ISIL or the MENA.

The key difference is how much of one's identity is explained by their religion. All people are inherently rational beings, some moreso than others, but all operate under a constant risk/reward method that guides their behavior. Those that are submersed in secular humanism and enlightenment values (most people in the developed world), allow bargaining and rational discourse to guide their views and community forward. They empirically argue for what is better, and can therefore be empirically proven wrong if their view falls short. Their risk/reward is tied to verifiable events; which makes them practical and predictable (and according to history, progressive).

The risk/reward differential for those guided almost entirely by religion is skewered away from empirical confirmation and towards subjective and spiritual inputs. Rewards like eternal life in a golden paradise with all of one's dead relatives are heavily coveted when all a believer has to do is follow a few tenants in life to achieve the ultimate payoff. As such, there is little incentive to improve the empirical world when the payoffs are far smaller (no need for the worldly desires), hence the ease at which people are willing to throw their lives away for the "afterlife payoff."

So, this is an ideology unlike any other, one that rejects our world, our reality, for the unverifiable afterlife. In a way, they aren't even living in our world, they are living for the next. Imagine being raised in that worldview from birth, an omnipresent influence from all your loved ones, local scholars, friends and strangers. Every aspect of entertainment, school, and work, subtly push this view into you. The actions of ISIS (and other radical conservative groups) suddenly becomes very understandable.

> The idea is that these groups are misusing the important social/cultural and personal position religious institutions and ideas have in order to indoctrinate people to their own ends. Religion does somehow give these people influence and power though really its the murdering, the weapons, the support from criminals and foreign governments, the fear and the pain that do most of it.

I don't have enough time to answer this, because the full answer (and there are answers to all of that) is something to write books out of. Specifically, the best version, for anyone that wants to put in the time to really understand what happened.

u/travishenrichs · 2 pointsr/books

It depends on what you're interested in.

Great War for Civilisation is full of fascinating stories from a war correspondent covering the middle east; he interviewed Bin Laden several times before 9/11 among other things. The book is long, but it brings the conflicts to your doorstep and takes you behind the scenes where the media is often restricted from going. Be warned of the size and content though. It is gruesome in most places, and provides a very realistic account of what goes on daily over there.

1776 tells the story of the American revolution, concentrating on the battles and the men who fought them. It is written extremely well. If you have any interest whatsoever in the founding fathers, the characters behind the revolution, or even just a good story, read it and you shouldn't be disappointed.

Short History of Nearly Everything basically takes everything you're interested in that is science related, condenses it all into discrete explanations, and combines the whole to present a great reading experience. It's a bit like doing for science what "A People's History of the United States" did for history. It all feels genuine.

Those are a few I have particularly enjoyed.

u/shakuwaku · 12 pointsr/syriancivilwar

You're looking at it too much through a lens of contemporary politics as a gradient, rather than political theory and Islamic philosophy.

If you'd like to read a good introduction to this stuff, I would recommend Albert Hourani's "Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age, 1798-1939".

A very very basic summary: For the longest time, Sunni jurisprudence developed in tandem with Arab autocracy. In that philosophy, a ruler was legit to the degree that he enforced peace and war, and ceded the traditional spheres of social justice to the religious authorities. In this context, multiple schools of exegesis developed who interpret Islamic thought: So-called Madhabs. Wahhabism, while superficially similar, is not a form of Salafism but a school of Hanbali interpretation that favors textualism over more flexible modes of exegesis. Saudi Arabia does not like Salafists because they are by nature hard to control. In the early 19th century then, as the West set out to conquer the Islamic world, Arab thinkers came to reinterpret their faith and politics in the light of modernity. These early luminaries, the socalled Islamic Modernists, argued that believers should return to the text and interpret it individually according to their reason and needs. Instead of adhering to old traditions that had brought Arab society to its knees, they were supposed to follow the example of the early Muslisms (thus "Salafists"). This is the birth of Salafism as a modern political ideology. Some of these thinkers included theorists of theocracy such as Rashid Rida, others secular republicans and womens-rights activists like Ali Abdel Raziq. They were nonetheless all Salafists.

(All of these are broad strokes obviously)

The primary foundation of democracy is independent reasoning. Salafism returned the individual and his faith to the center of Islamic politics much like Luther and the Potestants had wrought control of Christianity from the Church.

u/SoItGoes487 · 33 pointsr/history

As a matter of fact, yes! David Fromkin wrote a wonderful book on the subject, "A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East." It is engaging and very informative!

http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091

u/StudyingTerrorism · 7 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

In addition to many of the other books that others have listed (namely Kissinger and Mearsheimer) I have listed a few other books that I would highly recommend reading.

And because you are interested in learning more about the Middle East, be prepared to read. A lot. The Middle East is a far more complex place than most people imagine and understanding the region requires a great deal of knowledge. I have been studying the Middle East for nearly a decade and I still feel like there is so much that I do not know. I would start by reading reputable news sources every day. Places like The Economist, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, BBC, Financial Times, are the Los Angeles Times are good English language news sources that you should look at. Additionally, I have written up a suggested reading list for learning about the Middle East, though it is a bit more security-related since that's my area of expertise. I hope it helps. And feel free to ask any questions if you have them.

Books - International Relations, Theory and Beyond

u/Sonmi-452 · 1 pointr/worldnews

> Going to a private Christian school probably had a lot to do with the pro-israel lens

Yikes. Fundies want the Israelis to raze Al-Aqsa and rebuild the Old Temple so Jesus can return through the Eastern gate and bring about Armageddon. The prophecy of madmen.

Hope you're not in with that crowd. Regardless, yes, it's increasingly difficult to find good sources on the Middle East, its nations and conflicts.

A good primer would be Robert Fisk's The Great War for Civilisation.

https://www.amazon.com/Great-War-Civilisation-Conquest-Middle/dp/1400075173

Very dense but it covers much of the nuance of these conflicts and gives a good background on the power players. It will open your eyes to some interesting things, IMO.

Good luck out there

u/zizzybot · 2 pointsr/history

"A History of Islamic Societies" by Ira M. Lapidus is an excellent survey of this field. It does a good job of addressing the more prevalent themes without getting bogged down in esotericism. Here is a link to amazon where you can get it for around $35 (Canadian). Hope that helps! Cheers.

u/sunbolts · 1 pointr/syriancivilwar

I'm sure this is the book I was thinking about: https://www.amazon.com/ISIS-Inside-Terror-Michael-Weiss/dp/1941393578/ref=cm_cr_othr_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

I haven't read it but I heard it's good. While it goes into a lot of detail regarding Zarqawi and Al Qaeda, it unfortunately peddles the same old "all the tons of Iraqi Baathists who made ISIS" conspiracy theory.

Anyways, it is safe to say it is the greatest exaggeration of the 21st century. Several former officers with no known affiliation with the former Iraqi govt or Baath party being exaggerated to legions of high ranking Baath party members is nothing short of pure sensationalism.

I wouldn't even put those officers close to the most important factor for ISIS's growth either. Nouri Al Maliki's time and authoritarianism, Zarqawi, the US's complete mishandling of Iraq from 2003 to the present, Bashar Al Assad's mishandlings (also speaking of Al Qaeda links, Assad supported Al Qaeda during the Iraq War), and the Syrian civil war are what ISIS grew and thrived from. Not a guy who was removed in 2003 and had spent his 35 years as de facto and de jure leader of Iraq smashing terrorists and jihadists.

When you think about it, the same people who were trumping the Al Qaeda claims still haven't let up to this day. Yellow journalists and some bruised pro-war conservatives are the reason why this current theory even came about in 2014 and into 2015.

Kyle Orton is probably the best example of neo-conservatives who never quite let the Iraq War go and and still trying to justify it. Orton claims that the government's Islamic concessions and reforms (something most other Muslim countries were doing in light of the Islamic revival and which even European countries are doing nowadays too; and do note Iraq today is almost entirely run by Islamist parties) was a deliberate conspiracy to create ISIS. Of course it is nonsense, but people will try to link anything. Orton literally states Saddam gave us ISIS. He's also claimed in another post that ISIS would have came up without the Iraq War or anything else because Saddam created it. Suffice it to say, there is good reason why when anything of Orton's gets posted on this sub, it gets slammed by people of all sorts of factional and political leanings, including American conservatives.

Similar people/journalists/bloggers in other camps and places are also the reason for the cropping of the "Assad made ISIS", "USA made ISIS", "Russia made ISIS", "Gulf countries made ISIS", and for a long time, the most popular conspiracy theory in Iraq was the USA, Israel (sigh), and Gulf countries created ISIS. The Iraqi parody of ISIS "Al Dawlah Al Khrafa" makes fun of this theory.

u/coffmanst · 2 pointsr/history

If you want something that is a bit more modern, James L. Gelvin's The Modern Middle East: A History is a good history during the Ottoman Empire to now. I had to read it for class and I thought it gave a good basis to expand further upon.

EDIT: It does go into some background in Egypt because of the Ottoman rule in the region, but it still is good information nonetheless. Also, the "Our Read, Listen & Watch List" has a lot of things that you might enjoy, though I cannot vouch for any specific piece because I haven't had time to dive into it.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019021886X/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1

u/Cool_Bastard · 6 pointsr/samharris

It sounds like you have two subjects, Sam Harris on Israel and is there anything stopping them. I am no friend to Islam, in fact I am in agreement with Sam that "it's the mother load of bad ideas." However, my feelings towards Islam does not blind me to the plight of the Palestinians. It's painful to watch and the sorrow that Israel heaps upon them only fuels and legitimizes the Arab/Muslim world against the West, specifically the US for funding Israel. What is going on there is nothing short of globally accepted genocide.

I too am a huge fan of Sam Harris. For the most part, I agree with everything he so eloquently states...except for Israel. I listen to his podcast every day and find myself marveling at his use of the English language in expressing such well thought out concepts and ideas. However, I try to avoid his talks on Israel, but it's really not that hard since it doesn't come up much. I just accept him for being soft on the subject.

Regarding "nothing stopping them" I hate to submit to the idea that they are on the path to steamroll all Palestinians and nothing will stop them. As long as the US is their money-guy, they will do whatever they want and nobody can say anything. Why? Because there is a huge Israeli lobby by the name of AIPAC that will destroy any American politician that questions Israel. They are organized towards one goal and fund both right and left leaning politicians and to see that goal come true, which is to ensure Israel takes ownership of the entire country of Israel and push out the Palestinians. Zionism is alive and well and its victim is the Palestinian people. Unfortunately, to say anything about the subject turns the speaker into a bigot and antisemite; there is no room to criticize Israel.

I suggest reading two books on the subject The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy and Jimmy Carter's Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.

u/justlikebuddyholly · 2 pointsr/religion

Good on you. Ignorance is one of the most dangerous things in our society and I applaud you for taking an independent approach to learning the faith of Islam in a non-baised way.

The thing with your question is, there are many interpretations of Islam and it's not easy to find specifics. A great author by name of Moojan Momen has an excellent book (which I read when I asked your exact question) which can be found on Amazon. Really informative, detailed and also compares Shi'a Islam with Sunni Islam. There isn't any bias evident since Moojan doesn't follow Islam personally, but has a strong history of researching and exploring all major world faiths.

u/deixj · 1 pointr/changemyview

>Highly unlikely. Neither solution is acceptable to the ultra-religious settlers. I mean, I would agree that both solutions would be ok from the neutral's point of view, but if we are trying to find a solution that Israel will politically accept, neither one of those will do.

Sacrifices are going to have to be made on settlements no matter what. There's simply no way to absorb all of them without annexing the entire West Bank. This is why Israeli policymakers are increasingly calling for separation between the two populations. Evacuating settlements beyond the separation wall is considered a centrist position within Israel: it's certainly not impossible for it to happen. At least giving settlers the option to remain in Palestine would allow religious hardliners who care more about the land than the authority ruling over them.

>Would it? This states that there is now a parity, which is expected to grow in the future. Would the Jews of Israel want to take such a gamble?

This is including Gaza, which has a very high birthrate and which Israel would never take, and it's a temporary setback. The Jewish birthrate only recently surpassed the Arab one. The death rate is still higher since Israel's population is older, but this won't last. There's also the potential for more aliyah, especially from Europe, though this is of course difficult to predict.

>Again, I can see this working (look at Belgium), but that would require a lot of goodwill between the Jews and Muslims before the democracy could work. A country with two communities that hate deeply one another won't work even if one side has a slight majority.

I agree: it would be tense and likely violent for a long time. It's nevertheless a way for Israel to maintain a Jewish majority and a democratic form of government. Likely it would happen slowly, and West Bank Palestinians would have the option to apply for Israeli citizenship without it being automatically bestowed upon them (like in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights).

>If such a solution is sought, it should be done on the same basis as other countries with such deep divides have been made to work (Northern Ireland, Belgium, etc.) with guarantees for both parties to be treated equally. Northern Ireland assembly could never work if it were run by a tiny protestant majority. It only works as both the catholics and the protestants are guaranteed a place in the government. Belgium was in governmental crisis some time ago as the French and Flemish speaking parties were unable to form a coalition government. The country would collapse if the Flemish-speakers would form a government on their own with their majority (about 60/40). That's how it would be in Israel as well. At least in the beginning, all governments of such a state would have to have both Jews and Muslims in it. Possibly if in some later state the importance of the religion disappears, normal (non religious-identity) politics could resume. In the case of Israel I would expect this to take decades.

This is assuming some kind of federal model is attempted, which isn't necessarily the case. There could very well be a tyranny of the majority. It's an impractical solution and the two-state solution makes more sense on pretty much every level, but there are proposals, mostly from the Israeli right, to either annex the West Bank and maintain a unitary Jewish state or to create a federation that preserves the Jewish identity of the state.

u/cg_roseen · 3 pointsr/syriancivilwar

It all depends on what kind of angle you're looking for.

Here is by no means an exhaustive list. I must say I haven't read all of these but have come across them in research and from previous recommendations on here, but here goes:

Background/Social & Historical contexts/Other relevant stuff

Patrick Seale - Assad (rather old, good for history)

Tarek Osman - Islamism (2016, broad coverage of Islamism in theory and practice, good context)

John Robertson - Iraq (2016)

John McHugo - Syria (2015)

Sami Moubayed - Syria & The USA (2013)

Sami Moubayed - Damascus Between Democracy and Dictatorship (2000, very good for Syrian history and experience with democracy)


Perceived pro-original opposition bias

Diana Darke - My House in Damascus (new version came out 2015)

Michael Weiss & Hassan Hassan - ISIS (2015)

Charles Lister - The Syrian Jihad (2016)

Perceived pro-government bias

Patrick Cockburn - Rise of the Islamic State (2015, this might not be as detailed as you'd want it to be)

Kurds

Michael Knapp, Ercan Ayboga & Anja Flach - Revolution Rojava (2016, the detail in this is beyond insane)

u/tinkthank · 1 pointr/CombatFootage

I was speaking in the context of the current Iraq War. The destablization of Iraq and much of the Middle East is the direct consequence of American/British invasion and nation-building in that country. The effects of that war have influenced and spread to Syria and the eventual rise of ISIS. European involvement in Libya (though supposedly well-intended) also created a power vaccum in the region that has contributed to further war. It's also no secret that Western influence played a major role in establishing the ruling class in much of the Middle East and these rulings oligarchies were propped up by Western backing (i.e., Saudi Arabia, Gulf States, Pre-Revolution Iran, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Oman, Yemen, etc.)

>I don't see democracy, free markets or religious freedom in Syria so whatever fleeting role the West played it evidently didn't leave its most enduring values.

Those are not the only exports of Western civilization, and it includes nationalism, the modern nation-state, colonialism, communism, fascism, socialism, are also products of the West. Besides, this wasn't what I was alluding towards.

> As such, plenty of borders in Europe itself were redrawn within that time so I suppose political boundaries can't be blamed for everything as they are always changing.

The difference here is that the borders of Europe were not imposed to them by non-Europeans. Those borders were largely natively created, and this is not the case in many places in Africa and Asia. The borders were not drawn or established by the people living in those countries, but were themselves a product of colonialism and Imperialism and draw by men who had very limited to no knowledge of the peoples they were ruling over. The border between India and Pakistan was not drawn by the people of India, but by their British rulers. The borders of Syria, Jordan, and Iraq were drawn through negotiations between the French and British with subjugation of Arab independence movements (see Source below). The borders of Israel/Palestine were drawn by the British, the borders of West Africa were drawn by the French, etc.

>I suppose the region could have been left as it was in the Ottoman Empire. Then everything could be blamed on the Turks... which might just be happening again anyway. Just goes to prove that if you wait long enough, everyone gets a chance to be the villain.

Again, you're thinking this from the colonial mindset, as if it's for anyone to decide the fate of borders aside from the people themselves and many of them would have decided for themselves if they wanted to continue living under Turkish suzerainty or create nation-states themselves. The fact of the matter is that they were never given that chance.

>Personally, I see the obstinate adherence to tribal affiliations and Islamic fundamentalism that demolishes any attempt at fair democratic representation to the true 'situation' in Syria. And those problems came long before anything to do with the West.

You're not wrong. I never said that the entire blame falls on the West, and quite a bit falls under the many factors that already existed in the region that also played a major role.

However, metaphorically speaking, when creating a meal, you need different recipes for everything to come together. The same way it would be foolish to absolve Western involvement in the current confict and state of the Middle East. In fact, even downplaying that role is foolish since they are a
major* ingredient in what is happening in the world today. You can't say that the most powerful nations in the entire planet (i.e., US, Russia, UK, and France) during the past 300-400 years had only a minimal role to play in the way our world has been shaped.

Source (and recommended reading): A Peace to End all Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East

u/danksterlove · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

Contrary to popular myth, it is usually not men but women, particularly divorcees and widows, who seek temporary marriges, and many such arrangements lead to permanent loving relationships. Haeri’s extensive survey showed that many older women approached “young men, particularly handsome ones, directly and frequently”. http://www.amazon.com/Law-Desire-Temporary-Marriage-Contemporary/dp/0815624832/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203007477&sr=8-1

u/LaszloK · 5 pointsr/books

I have the book that you mention by Harms & Ferry, and I can confirm that it is a very good intro to the topic, and well worth buying.

Another good introduction is The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War by James Gelvin, which was a required textbook for me at Uni. It doesn't appear to be available from Amazon.com though, so you might want to look around for it. It is available on Google Books so you can have a look at it there.

Another good book for further reading (specifically about Palestinian identity) is The Iron Cage by Rashid Khalidi.

Hope that helps.

u/anasaziwochi · 7 pointsr/NeutralPolitics

I would recommend The Great War for Civilization: The Conquest of the Middle East. It's not a political treatise, but I think it does a pretty good job of helping once get handle on the issues in the Middle East.

u/emp_omelettedufromag · 2 pointsr/worldnews

> to really understand what's going on today in the middle east, you pretty much have to go back to the fall of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WW1, and then work your way forward from there

Absolutely. Actually one of my 2016 objectives was to gain a better understanding in Middle Eastern history which was something I really lacked. I am in no way an expert now but have a better idea on how everything unfolded post Ottoman Empire fall and I am genuinely disturbed at seeing how absolutely no one ever mentions any bit of relevant history in the media. The lack of any attempt at explanation is really bothering me :/

If you're interested, this book taught me a lot: A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. Lots of very interesting stories about how the Middle East was built post-Ottoman empire!

u/Blarfk · 2 pointsr/worldnews

I am being 100% sincere and as non-insulting as I can when I say this - do yourself a favor, and check out some books about the history of the Middle East, because you have some wild misconceptions.

Lawrence in Arabia is a really good one to get started -

https://www.amazon.com/Lawrence-Arabia-Deceit-Imperial-Making/dp/0307476413/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1469724389&sr=1-1&keywords=lawrence+in+arabia

And I also enjoyed The Great War for Civilisation, though it's a bit dense -

https://www.amazon.com/Great-War-Civilisation-Conquest-Middle/dp/1400075173/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1469724425&sr=1-1&keywords=the+great+war+for+civilization

u/s-ro_mojosa · 1 pointr/Esperanto

> Just because Islamic terrorism exists doesn't mean that Israel gets a blank cheque.

Sure, no nation state under heaven is perfect. For a deep dive into imperfections and strange quirks of the Israeli political scene, you might want to read Catch The Jew!. Be advised the work is very satirical in it's approach to the subject, but none the less quite accurate. Enjoy the chuckles as you read, it is as funny as it is enlightening.

> Errors are: the wildly inaccurate map…

Yep, you're right. I read the words and didn't pay attention to the pictures. That map is more than a bit silly. Especially because the creator of the map makes the all too common error [among Westerners] of conflating "Arab" with "Muslim" to the point of using the terms interchangeably. Also, big chunks of the map that are marked in red for "Arab/Muslim" are relatively unpopulated such as the interior of the Sinai Peninsula which also makes no sense.

> In short it is contrary international law to settle your people in occupied territory in order to demographically alter the region, which is exactly was Israel is doing.

*Sigh.* Jerusalem is not a settlement anymore than Moscow is settlement. The regions of Judea and Sumeria aren't settlements either. They have been occupied by Jews since very ancient times.

The fact is, as I suspect you well know, the "Palestinian state," already exists: Jordan. A second concurrent "Palestinian state" is not needed.

> …calling people who have lived in Palestine for centuries "squatters" and "brutal terrorists".

I'll concede this point too, but I do not think you'll like the result. Non-Jewish residents of these regions should be brought into the fold and offered full Israeli citizenship. If they cannot stomach Israeli citizenship they may voluntarily relocate if that is truly their wish. The most efficient path to peace therefore would be The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East. Wouldn't you agree?

Before dissenting from the One State solution, please consider this: virtually every time Israel has extended an olive branch along "two state" lines both the Israelis and residents of the Palestinian Territories have been made to suffer. Just look at Gaza. Israel seeded control and militants promptly moved in and began shelling Sderot. (Irony of ironies: the first Qassam rockets were made using "recycled" materials from greenhouses the State of Israel left in Gaza to the Gazens get on their feet, economically.) Israel, having a moral obligation to protect its people, was forced to act with an embargo and, at times, limited military strikes.

The very sad truth is: Palestinians are made to suffer because their own leadership reckons them as useful political pawns than as settled and naturalized Israeli citizens. The optics of the situation are then exploited to create the appearance of a moral crisis that would not otherwise be present if Israel held unchallenged autonomy over its borders. This is also why residents of Palestinian territories don't relocate, they're generally prevented from doing so by neighboring powers perpetuating the "crisis."

What are your thoughts /u/TeoKajLibroj?

u/czulu · 1 pointr/history

If you're quite interested, I'd recommend Invisible Armies by Max Boot. It'll take some time to get through but it covers every major insurgency in recorded history and he's a pretty good writer so the read goes faster than expected.

u/agfa12 · 1 pointr/iran

"Temporary marriage" means childen are considered legitimate and must be taken care of.

>As Shahla Haeri revealed in her 1989 book, Law of Desire (published in the UK by I B Tauris), many muta contracts in Iran are transformed into permanent, loving relationships. Contrary to popular myth, it is usually not men but women, particularly divorcees and widows, who seek muta marriage. Haeri’s extensive survey showed that many older women approached “young men, particularly handsome ones, directly and frequently”. http://www.amazon.com/Law-Desire-Temporary-Marriage-Contemporary/dp/0815624832

u/Pearlbuck · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Ah, yes, classic tactics--call anyone who points out the truth about Zionist control of U.S. foreign policy insane, a neo-Nazi and a conspiracy theorist. Problem is, hasbarah (that's what you are, whether you are paid or volunteer) fewer and fewer people are falling for that fallacious b.s. anymore. That's why you're throwing such a tantrum--this is the death throws of the censorship you defend. Mearsheimer and Walt couldn't even get their paper published in a major U.S. outlet. Things have changed a LOT since then. You're losing.

Anyway who knows anything about U.S. politics knows that a candidate stands virtually zero chance of getting elected unless he kisses the Zionist Lobby's ring. There are occasional miracles of zero consequence, like Ron Paul, but exceptions prove the rule. AIPAC brags about destroying U.S. candidates who don't toe the line! And you can't deny it!

I'm not delusional--if you didn't think there was a chance other people might be reading this, you wouldn't be going to such embarrassing lengths to distract front he truths I'm laying down, DAWG.

Here's that great article by former CIA officer Phil Giraldi. And make sure to google "hasbara." It's stunning.

http://www.crescent-online.net/2014/06/how-the-israel-lobby-works-philip-giraldi-4504-articles.html

And here is the wonderful book by the wonderful Jimmy Carter. It's a shame Zionists sued him over this book, but what are you gonna do?

http://www.amazon.com/Palestine-Peace-Apartheid-Jimmy-Carter/dp/0743285034/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1421022795&sr=8-2&keywords=israel+apartheid+state

And yes, I am absolutely sure that Gen. Petratraeus' woes are partially the result of his comments that enraged Zionists. This is by no means an insane POV. It's a totally rational interpretation. Your ranting and raving and "Neo-Nazi" accusations won't change that fact.

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/when-former-cia-chief-david-petraeus-enraged-israel-lobby

And here is a great video from that famous neo-Nazi, Ralph Nader:

https://zionismkills.wordpress.com/tag/ralph-nader/

u/blackstar9000 · 1 pointr/BooksAMA

As far as I know, the book is still representative of the current state of scholarship concerning the period. It deals exclusively with the period between 1914 and 1922, which is, by this time, relatively declassified in terms of documentation, so I wouldn't expect another book to eclipse it any time soon, unless someone happens to write a better synthesis of the available material.

It looks like the publisher recently released a 20th anniversary edition with an afterword from the author. That wasn't the edition I read, but I would imagine Fromkin's afterword serves as an index of more recent developments in the study of that period.

As for follow-up reading, my plan is to go regional, with a string of books about the development of the nationalisms that got their start in that period. So, on the one hand, I want to start digging backwards into the Ottoman Empire prior to the Young Turk movement (which more or less starts APTEAP), and on the other, I'd like to examine the modern histories of Transjordan, early Jewish nationalism, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. Before I get to all of that, though, I've got A History of the Arab Peoples by Albert Hourani, which ought to keep me occupied for a while, once I start it.

u/LovableMisfit · 2 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

In this vein, I really enjoy this book which gives an in-depth & comprehensive look of the history of the Middle-East over the last 50 years or so. Around 70% through it, and it's a pretty good read. Offers a mixture of individual stories/interviews, and overall political analysis of the situation.

u/PapaFish · 25 pointsr/news

Well, you could read his book on it. It's a pretty good read.

But to your point, here is an excerpt from a recent interview with him:

SL: Clearly bombing and having a war with ISIS militarily will not result in the destruction of ISIS, nor will it end ISIS’s deeply rooted ideologies. What are some factors that could prevent ISIS from flourishing or expanding – how could we defeat ISIS?

MW: Syria is where the war should begin. It’s a much more amenable set of conditions for trying to push ISIS back. If they lose Raqqa and if they lose terrain in Deir ez-Zor they’re not finished but that is a hammer blow to them.

Syria is a Sunni majority country, most of the Sunnis don’t want to work with ISIS they don’t want to be lauded over by ISIS; they’ve cut pragmatic deals with ISIS because of the lack of any alternative. They certainly don’t want to be ruled by Assad and the FSA has proven to be corrupt and illegitimate in the eyes of many of them.

The first thing you have to do is provide an incentive to the population. You have to prove to Sunnis that America cares about their plight. And by prove to them I don’t mean Samantha Power tweeting out gravely concerned warnings about the use of barrel bombs and chlorine gas. The US has if not air supremacy then certainly air superiority in northern Syria. Why not put that to even better use by stopping the Syrian Air Force from dropping barrel bombs and chlorine gas on the heads of mostly Sunnis? If they did that, then suddenly the local population in Syria says ‘oh you know what, America does care after all, so maybe we do have a partner here with the CIA or with the Pentagon.’



u/daxofdeath · 4 pointsr/books

don't buy it from amazon, but the great war for civilization by robert fisk. hands down.

it's pretty impossible to explain israel/palestine outside of the context of the middle east, and it's pretty impossible to understand the context of the middle east outside of the last ~150 years of global history as relates to that part of the world. I'm not saying this book made me an expert, by any means, but it did open my eyes to just how fucking complex the situation is.

u/whydanwhy · 5 pointsr/IWantToLearn

For MSA I used Mastering Arabic and it was great; very fun to read and kept me motivated throughout.

Mastering Arabic 1 with 2 Audio CDs: Third Edition (Arabic Edition) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0781813387/

For Levantine Arabic I have these two recommendations, but both are more advanced and expect an existing understanding of Arabic.

Living Arabic: A Comprehensive Introductory Course (Arabic and English Edition) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0974484342/

Colloquial Palestinian Arabic: An Introduction to the Spoken Dialect (Arabic Edition) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0982159536/

u/ralpher · 0 pointsr/todayilearned

Nonsense. You don't have to have a cleric involved at all, and furthermore the point is that any children born of such a union are deemed "legitimate" and must be taken care of, and furthermore,

>As Shahla Haeri revealed in her 1989 book, Law of Desire (published in the UK by I B Tauris), many muta contracts in Iran are transformed into permanent, loving relationships. Contrary to popular myth, it is usually not men but women, particularly divorcees and widows, who seek muta marriage. Haeri’s extensive survey showed that many older women approached “young men, particularly handsome ones, directly and frequently”.

http://www.amazon.com/Law-Desire-Temporary-Marriage-Contemporary/dp/0815624832/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203007477&sr=8-1act this arrangement is used mostly by

u/axelorator · 4 pointsr/AskHistorians

Not about my country, but I'd recommend reading [The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Israel-Palestine-Conflict-Hundred-Years/dp/0521888352) by James L. Gelvin. I used to think I knew what I needed to know about this conflict from watching news through the years, but after having read this I realize I didn't have a clue. Unbiased, interesting and at times witty. My favourite quote, about the Americans accepting Soviet participation in the Madrid Conference: "American policymakers believed, in the words of an old arabian proverb, that it was better to have a camel inside your tent pissing out than a camel outside your tent pissing in."

u/BigBurfa · 2 pointsr/islam

I know a couple books at an academic level that are easy reads but they might not fit nicely into what you're looking for.

For example the book that I have in mind describes politically driven events and the motivations behind them but because it's a book about Islam before anything else, you may have to connect some of the dots yourself. If you'd like a quick summary, what happened is that after the Prophet (PBUH) passed away there was a discord as to who his "successor" should be. This splintering would result in a new sect of Islam, civil wars, corrupt leaders, and the expansion of Islam which in turn would introduce a huge amount of culture and scientific advancements. This book covers all that.

Another easy read would be Islam: Faith and History. It covers the tribal structure of society before Islam, the major wars that would occur (their motivation/impact) and how Islam would eventually change this idol worshiping society. Again, it's a book about Islam rather than the politics but the two are so intertwined that I feel like it makes for a good introduction.

I'll take a look through and see what else I've read that might be useful if those don't fit the bill. If you're unsure about the recommendations, I can certainly scan a few pages and send them your way for review.

Edit: Both the books can be read by (I'd say) someone in late highschool or above. The first book is a bit dry and long while the second one is some small, non-intimidating primer.

u/rodandanga · 1 pointr/CFBOffTopic

A Peace to end all Peace

It has been really good, I am glad I had a decent knowledge of the subject before starting it.

u/rogersII · 1 pointr/todayilearned

In reality...
>As Shahla Haeri revealed in her 1989 book, Law of Desire (published in the UK by I B Tauris), many muta contracts in Iran are transformed into permanent, loving relationships. Contrary to popular myth, it is usually not men but women, particularly divorcees and widows, who seek muta marriage. Haeri’s extensive survey showed that many older women approached “young men, particularly handsome ones, directly and frequently”.http://www.amazon.com/Law-Desire-Temporary-Marriage-Contemporary/dp/0815624832/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203007477&sr=8-1

u/Dawens · 3 pointsr/medicine

Citing the redditor "gonzolegend" doesn't count as a source. I could easily post counters to his post by other redditors. You'll have to do better than that.

Here's a list of sources proving Assad's active support of jihadism:

u/ibnalalkami · 1 pointr/syriancivilwar

I disagree with your assessment of the Brotherhood. During my time in Egypt, Jordan and Palestine I spent a lot of time with Ikhwanists - including some of their clerics at Azhar who now rot in jail or worse. The Brotherhood is a huge and diverse organization with many parts genuinely advocating civic democracy. You will disagree, but I think the Sisi coup was a horrific mistake that will come haunt people. So far there is simply nothing to substantiate the notion that Erdogan is anti-democratic. The exiles and old urban CHP elite likes to cry foul at every little thing, but truth is that there is hardly any part of Turkish society that isn't more free and prosperous today than it was before Erdogan came to power. There's a reason a good part of the HDP swing moved to AKP. I have been to South East Turkey (including Cizre, Silopi, Diarbakyr) both in the 90s and very recently. Erdogan will fall when the old Kemalists come up with a genuinely modern party that has a broader base than 70s etatism (and import substition industrialisation) and national chauvinism of the CHP.

I'm not going to spend much time with the conspiratorial nonsense in the link you posted. The Brotherhood suffers a lot of diseases, but it's not this sinister cabal of hateful people. The Ikhwan is - like most movements founded at the time - an attempt at Islamic modernism that has spawned a wide variety of institutions, ideas and practices. They are neither hidden or malicious. The whole "Islamofascism" idea (I also respect Hitchens and consort) betrays a dangerous ignorance of the origins of both fascism and Islamism.
Just to be clear, I despise Hamas (and support the Israeli military in its position) and its associates, but let's be serious here.

If any party in the modern Middle East is explicitly modeled on German fascism it is the Baath and their now allies in the SSNP. Arab nationalism derives almost all its ideas from German right Hegelians (the first time I studied Schelling and Herder was indeed at an Arab university), and all its institutions from national socialism and later the Soviet Union. Early Islamic modernists are similar in this effect in so far as they emulate the nationalists. This is a process many third-world countries went through in their struggle against imperialism, adopting the fascistic notions of self-determination through strength as a form of national emancipatory ideology. Similar trends can be found in India for example, where much of the early independent elite was objectively pro-Hitler.

Back to Syria, Faylaq ash-Sham and many of the former "Shield" formations that merged into various FSA and IF groups are much closer to the Brotherhood than Ahrar which has significant Salafist streams within it.

In the end this all boils down to whether or not certain people may be included in an eventual political process and, in turn, who needs to be suppressed. My position is that in order to stabilize the situation you need to include all parties who do not immediately pose a threat to the international order and who have significance on the ground. That includes at least part of Ahrar. The process is already working with AAS shifting positions on negotiations leading more hard-line elements to split off.

A great book on the Bortherhood in Syria today is Raphael Lefevre's "Ashes of Hama". And the standard work on the origins of modern political ideology in the Middle East is Albert Hourani's "Arab Thought in the Liberal Age, 1789-1939" to be followed by Fouad Ajami's "Arab Predicament".

u/eric_ts · 1 pointr/history

I recommend "Peace to end all Peace" By David Fromkin http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091

u/DontMentionWombats · 2 pointsr/forwardsfromgrandma

Eh, it's among the more ok-ish pieces on the topic that's out there. Sure he's biased, and some of his points are awkward at best, but the amount of either anti-semitic or anti-Arab nonsense is just mind blowing. It's hard enough to find anything that provides original sources.

And regardless of the quality (or lack thereof) of scholarship on the subject, al-Husseini had some pretty reprehensible ideas.

This is one of the best books on the history of Middle East conflict - if you search a bit, you can find PDFs of older versions.

u/Mithras_Stoneborn · 1 pointr/AskHistorians

"A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East" by David Fromkin is the book you are looking for.

https://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091

u/duggatron · 5 pointsr/politics

Well there's even more to the situation than this article mentions. The US was actually helping to arm both Iraq and Iran with the goal of helping to inflict casualties on both sides. A weak Iran and Iraq tipped the power scales in the middle east toward Israel and Saudi Arabia, which was and is the US's desired balance in the middle east powers.

To learn more about it, read Reset by Stephen Kinzer. It's a great book, as are Kinzer's other books.

u/fdeckert · 1 pointr/AskMENA

Sigeh (in Farsi) is a form of temporary marriage and to the extent that it is actually practiced, usually by older women but often leads to lasting relationships. https://www.amazon.com/Law-Desire-Temporary-Contemporary-Paperback/dp/0815624832

This is a legal "boyfriend-girlfriend" relationship which specifies that any children born are legitimate and therefore entitled to care and inheritance etc. https://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/04/world/love-finds-a-way-in-iran-temporary-marriage.html

u/estacado · 6 pointsr/movies

From page 498 of A Peace to End All Peace:
>The public believed Thomas's account; so that when Lawrence became an adviser to Winston Churchill, his appointment over-shadowed all others. His reputation grew. He passed off his fantasies as history, and in the years to come, Lawrence was to claim far more credit for his share in Churchill's achievements as Colonial Secretary than was his due.
.....A few years later Thomas wrote a book called With Lawrence in Arabia, based on the show,repeating the story he had told to his mass audiences of millions around the world. It was an immensely readable, high-spirited write-up of Lawrence's service career—much of it untrue—that made its points through hyper-bole.

Here's a screenshot of the page for more context.

u/Spartan706 · -4 pointsr/AskHistorians

I agree with many of the comments shown here. I took a class on answering exactly this question. The Middle East technological advance plateaued due to Islamic law/text restricting various ways of life. This ultimately hindering progressive technical advancements the West had enjoyed. There is a great book by Bernard Lewis that highlights much of what is discussed here:

http://www.amazon.com/What-Went-Wrong-Between-Modernity/dp/0060516054

u/elizadaring · 2 pointsr/suggestmeabook

A Peace to End All Peace covers 1914 to 1922 in the Middle East.

u/michaelmalak · 0 pointsr/conspiracy

WWI smashed both Christendom (rule by Christian monarchs) across Europe, and the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East. In its place were installed democracy (rule by puppets whose political campaigns were paid by the shadow elite) and dictatorship (rule by puppets installed by the military controlled by the shadow elite). Prior to WWI, the Christian and Muslim empires fought for territory but did not fight amongst themselves within their own territory. After WWI, the Middle East was divided and conquered, and European society was no longer Christian. The shadow elite was now able to enjoy power, wealth, and sex.

See http://www.amazon.com/1917-Red-Banners-White-Mantle/dp/0931888050 and http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091

u/Convexreflection · 2 pointsr/socialism

It has to do with oil and the imperialism, all the contemporary wars in the area was because of oil and colonization. Centuries ago everywhere was war. :) Because of the oil peace has never reached the middle East. Just like Africa and it's minerals.
Iran and the Ottomanian empire made several peace treaties and border definition in 15th and 16th century. They never attacked each other after that.
Edit: I really suggest you to read the book "a peace to end all peace: the fall of the Ottomanian empire and the creation of the modern Middle East", before making such comment. It is from a Westerner's point of view not complete but very informative.
https://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091

u/Adiuva · 1 pointr/languagelearning

Yeah I was really disappointed that Duolingo had Klingon and High Valyrian but no Arabic. I was debating between Drops and Memrise. Drops is only like 5 minutes daily and was primarily words whereas Memrise started with the actual symbols themselves. Aside from those I really wasn't sure.

I live about 2 hours from Dearborn, Michigan and our little down has a high population density with most of them being from Yemen which has its own dialect being Yemeni Arabic which is used primarily in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Somalia. This was the other resource that I found that I was hoping to buy in a couple weeks as a self Christmas present if I can get the money saved up for it https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Arabic-Audio-CDs-Third/dp/0781813387/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1541741749&sr=8-7&keywords=arabic

u/isorfir · 3 pointsr/todayilearned

I was also going to make a note but when I looked it up on amazon, it's apparently only $2.91 with free shipping (prime), so I just ordered it.

u/Ghost_Church · 1 pointr/Christianity

This is probably the best source out there. It is incredibly balanced and incredibly comprehensive.

u/RayWest · 3 pointsr/books

Robert Fisk: The Great War for Civilization.

Nikki Keddie: Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution

Ira Lapidus: A History of Islamic Societies

And other good ones I know of that were mentioned in here:

A History of the Arab People" by Hourani

"All the Shah's Men" by Stephen Kinzer

The Palestinian People: A History

The Israelis: Ordinary People in an Extraordinary Land

This is all a good place to start, I think.

u/jdpirtl · 2 pointsr/books

Robert Fisk's wonderfully encyclopedic summary of the Middle East since the breaking up of the Ottoman Empire entitled The Great War for Civilization its an incredible read and will teach you a vast amount of information.

u/law-talkin-guy · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

Former President Jimmy Carter wrote a book he called Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. So the comparison is clearly made, and quite publicly so, even in the US.

u/_flapjacks · 5 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

In short, because we keep bombing them. Everyone we kill is someone's brother, son, sister or daughter.

The long answer very complex but boils down to centuries of imperialism, and the dismantling of the once prosperous Ottoman empire.

This is a good read on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0060516054?pc_redir=1410585737&robot_redir=1

u/ThePain · 1 pointr/AskHistorians

There was also the problem that the Muslim world for the longest time felt that because they were the technological superiors of Europe / the middle east (Which they were at the time) That they would both stay the technological superiors, and that they had nothing to learn from what they saw as backwards Europeans.

Between the 1660s and the 1690s the Ottoman Empire started losing a lot of battles against the Europeans and Russians due to the European's use of organized rifle regiments and battle tactics. While the Ottomans certainly had guns themselves, they hadn't bother to learn how Europe was using them and the improvements their neighbors to the north had created in modern combat and tactics. The Ottomans also didn't really know how to negotiate when they lost as they simply hadn't really majorly lost in the recent past, so Europeans took some pretty heavy prizes from the negotiations. This is considered by some the start of the fall of the middle-east's fall from power to now play second fiddle to European super-powers.

The book "What Went Wrong?" by Bernard Lewis covers this exact topic rather succinctly, covering how Islamic world went from the military and technological masters of the world to... well where they are today.

u/000066 · 82 pointsr/worldnews

You serious? Because the British literally selected the tribal leader Ibn Saud and gave him control of what we now call Saudi Arabia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud#Rise_to_power

The Brits mistakenly believed that the King of Mecca was like a Muslim pope and everyone would fall in line behind him. So they created the boundary lines for Iraq and Jordan and placed his sons on the thrones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein_bin_Ali,_Sharif_of_Mecca#Following_World_War_I

The founding of Israel was guaranteed by ex prime minister Balfour and later the Sykes-Picot agreement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement


Suggested reading:

http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1453911664&sr=1-1&keywords=a+peace+to+end+all+peace

http://www.amazon.com/Kingmakers-Invention-Modern-Middle-East/dp/0393337707

u/YugoReventlov · 1 pointr/worldnews

> Of course, reading solid history books on the topic is good.

The book by former journalist Robert Fisk "The Great War for Civilization" is in my opinion an excellent book to understand the background of not just Israel/Palestine, but the entire middle east. It does not fail to mention where everything got started, which is the time when Europe had colonized much of the middle east, and how that set the stage for everything to come.

However, it is over 1000 pages long...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_War_for_Civilisation

ISBN 1-4000-7517-3

https://www.amazon.com/Great-War-Civilisation-Conquest-Middle/dp/1400075173

u/Iwillchooselater · 2 pointsr/JihadInFocus

I would like to recommend: "ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror" by Michael Weiss and Hassan Hassan (2015)


http://www.amazon.co.uk/ISIS-Inside-Terror-Michael-Weiss/dp/1941393578


My synopsis:

Weiss and Hassan detail how Iraq was politically destabilised all-the-while explaining how the jihad movement arrived, spread, and took root in Iraq. Great detail is given on Zarqawi, it's organisations, their role in destabilising Iraq, and how they laid the foundations for Daesh. They also detail how Syria was politically destabilised, how the jihadi movement arrived in Syria, and how Jabhat al-Nusra and Daesh have different ideologies which explains the current situation in Syria.

u/BasedKeyboardWarrior · 2 pointsr/BlackPeopleTwitter

Well, I stand corrected.

This and this are what im reading at the moment. Just finished this. Also recommend this.

u/maybetoday · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

A standard history of the region is important, as well as info about the colonizers who defined Palestine's borders, and then Israel's. Here are just some initial thoughts, but definitely keep searching.

A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (read this years ago; assuming it's been updated?)

The Lemon Tree (good book that really humanizes the conflict)


u/lulzzzzz · 2 pointsr/internationalpolitics

I'd recommend his book on the Middle East as well. True, he as a slight left bias but he has been a foreign correspondent in the ME for twenty something years. I'd say he has a view worth considering.

u/ham_rain · 1 pointr/books

Do you mean The Modern Middle East: A History by Oxford University Press? I agree with you that I am looking for more of a textbook than a particular POV. In fact, I have been reading up on Wikipedia over the past few days.

"The Israel Lobby" sounds interesting. Will take a look once I understand the basics.


u/FuelModel3 · 1 pointr/booksuggestions

If you're looking for a broad history covering the last half century or so take a look at The Great War for Civilisation. It's a pretty dense book and takes some time to get through but it covers a lot of ground and certainly sets the stage for the modern Middle East as we know it now.

u/ironsolomon · 1 pointr/videos

It's hard to answer this question without explaining significant background history of the conflict. It looks like you want Cliff's Notes on the conflict, and I'm afraid it isn't possible. In short, it's quite like any other land possession conflict, but the inclusion of religion (i.e., Biblical significance of the land), the holocaust, and the role of the U.S. make this particular conflict more relevant to Americans than a similar dispute elsewhere.

If you really want an answer to your question, you'll have to do some reading:

If you want a progressive viewpoint: Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (Jimmy Carter)

If you want a pro-Israeli viewpoint (this doesn't mean the progressive viewpoint is anti-Israeli): The Case for Peace: How the Arab-Israeli Conflict Can be Resolved (Alan Dershowitz).

For the record, I have read neither but I am familiar with where each of the author stands on Israel.

u/bigboysonly1 · 3 pointsr/AskSocialScience

Probably one of the best books out right now on ISIS and its development: https://www.amazon.com/ISIS-Inside-Terror-Michael-Weiss/dp/1941393578

u/ihendley · 2 pointsr/videos

The Modern Middle East is by far the best and most concise book I have read on the subject.

u/EstacionEsperanza · 2 pointsr/islam

The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War by James Gelvin is a good overview that tries to touch on both sides. I read it in 2008 though, so it's not 100% up to date, but it's a good account of how we got where we are.

u/puppeteer107 · 1 pointr/travel

Thomas Freidman wrote From Beirut to Jerusalem about two decades ago and it is still such a great read.

u/SteveJEO · 2 pointsr/AskHistorians

Fisk: The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East

A lot of people would argue with Fisk and some would accuse him of being a war junky so don't discount the politics, but he was there and his notes from the invasion are really interesting.

(borrow the book if you can, only a small section is devoted to the invasion)

u/OmaeWaMoShindeiru · 2 pointsr/syriancivilwar

Read this article to understand why Patrick Cockburn's book isn't reliable:

http://pulsemedia.org/2016/03/02/reporting-and-mis-reporting-isis/

The article recommends this book for something that is better researched:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/ISIS-Inside-Terror-Michael-Weiss/dp/1941393578/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

u/shimmyyay · 4 pointsr/videos

If you are interested in further reading about their impact as well as the making of the modern Middle East following WWI, I highly suggest this book. http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091

u/IamTheFreshmaker · 1 pointr/pics

From Beruit to Jerusalem is fantastic. You can find it used anywhere,

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385413726/

u/scourgeofloire · 0 pointsr/history

I've only read one book (What Went Wrong? Bernard Lewis) that touched on the lack of innovation and Lewis proposed it was the Islamic faith itself that was the reason for it. Any thoughts on that?

edit: Thanks for the answers!

u/lolmonger · 2 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

In no particular order:

http://www.amazon.com/Beirut-Jerusalem-Thomas-L-Friedman/dp/1250015499

http://www.amazon.com/Lawrence-Arabia-Deceit-Imperial-Making-ebook/dp/B00BH0VSPI/ref=zg_bs_4995_5

http://www.amazon.com/My-Promised-Land-Triumph-Tragedy-ebook/dp/B009QJMXI8/ref=zg_bs_4995_4


http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Cleansing-Palestine-Ilan-Pappe/dp/1851685553/ref=zg_bs_4995_10

http://www.amazon.com/Arabic-Thought-Liberal-Age-1798-1939/dp/0521274230/ref=cm_lmf_tit_3

http://www.amazon.com/History-Arab-Peoples-Albert-Hourani/dp/0446393924/ref=cm_lmf_tit_4

http://www.amazon.com/Women-Gender-Islam-Historical-Modern/dp/0300055838/ref=cm_lmf_tit_9

http://www.amazon.com/Emergence-Modern-Studies-Eastern-History/dp/0195134605/ref=cm_lmf_tit_10

http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805068848/ref=cm_lmf_tit_17


As a non-Muslim, non-Jew, non-Arab, non-Semite, American, and having read these (yay strict immigrant parents!) and some other histories, as well as having had the attacks of 9/11 give me a neurosis about following the news in the Middle East/Central/South Asia as regards potential US involvement and issues:


A lot feels familiar to me, some of it even seems like stuff I know a good deal about, and a few things about "The Middle East" which is a massively rich and complex sociopolitical place and slice of humanity are things I'd consider myself very well read on.


And I don't know shit.


I can tell you as a native born American and US voter what I think my country's policies (in a limited, broad strokes sense) should be - - - but beyond that, there's very little I've ever seen as conclusive and firm coming from anyone who by dint of identity didn't have 'skin in the game' .

u/tupac_chopra · 1 pointr/worldnews

I highly recommend this book for anyone trying to make sense of the region:
https://www.amazon.com/Great-War-Civilisation-Conquest-Middle/dp/1400075173

It's a long read, but worth it!

u/HeavyMetalStallion · 0 pointsr/skeptic

Ah, that is difficult. Middle Eastern conservative conspiracy theorist parents are the most convinced that everyone outside the Middle East is the "enemy". It becomes very hard. They sometimes even believe in many Jewish conspiracies, and may even pretend it has nothing to do with their religious beliefs but it does.

He believes this because he thinks Muslims are incapable of committing evils if they "truly believe in his Islam" (his being his own beliefs). This is very common, even among secular Muslims.

The only way to combat this thoroughly, is if they can read in English, buy them books by Sam Harris (to undo his religious indoctrination from childhood upbringing; and he specializes in understanding Islam better than most), Bernard Lewis (to undo his historical indoctrination, as Arabs are very historically-aware people and they love to cite history. Bernard Lewis can also explain the positive sides of Westernization and how due to religion, Muslims try to explain every fault in the Muslim world, by blaming external enemies).

These guys know the Middle East and Islam better than any westerner. I tell you this as an ex-Muslim. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise as there are people who think that criticizing Islam is wrong but criticizing an idea is NEVER wrong. Criticizing people who believe strongly in an idea stubbornly, is also never wrong.

As a side note, I believe your father can indeed be convinced. However, it will take a monumental effort on your part to flood him with information to undo his Islamic-Arab indoctrination. He could even be an atheist Arab currently, but that Islamic indoctrination is hard to undo. It makes them biased to be sympathetic to Middle Eastern governments/peoples.

Because books are difficult for someone to read and finish...

I might suggest some other options:

u/InfiniteRelease · 9 pointsr/worldnews

"Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," authored by Jimmy Carter, published in 2007.

u/bejammin075 · 19 pointsr/politics

Former President Jimmy Carter actually wrote a book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid

u/Sacket · 1 pointr/infj

I'm reading The Great War for Civilization which is a history of the middle east/biography of a foreign correspondent who interviewed Osama a couple of times. The way he was describing Osama almost made me post on /r/INFJ to ask if Osama Bin Laden was an INFJ. Glad you answered my question for me!

u/Nymeria2015 · 1 pointr/asoiaf

Cannot agree more.

Here is a book I thought was brilliant book.

https://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Armies-History-Guerrilla-Warfare/dp/0871406888

u/munshiqq · 8 pointsr/islam

Quran is a weird "book". I know when I started reading it, I expected it to read like the Bible, which seemed like a reasonable expectation. If you have time for it, there are two short books about some contexts to the Quran that don't go into too much historical detail:

How to Read the Quran by Prof Carl Ernst, which talks about the Quran as a literary genre that Arabians could be familiar with, including their legends, stories, and the order and structure of the text.

and

Approaching the Quran by Prof Michael Sells, which deals more with the auditory experience of the Quran as a ritual performance. Comes with a selection of recited verses.


CS Monitor had a brief article on Ernst's book.

u/wildething · 1 pointr/history

I've been slowly reading The Great War for Civilisation by Robert Fisk, who was a reporter on the ground in many of the major conflicts in the Middle East in the late 20th century (Iranian revolution, Afghan resistance to the Soviet invasion, many others). It's been really good so far, both w.r.t. close-up "this is what day-to-day was actually like" and big picture "this was important because ...".

u/Vampire_Seraphin · 4 pointsr/AskHistorians

Ira Lapidus wrote a formidable but excellent tome called A History of Islamic Societies that deals with this. I have not finished it myself, but I know it would answer your question. Among other factors, Islam was originally a religion of the elites that was deliberately kept from the lower classes for a time.

u/ummmbacon · 37 pointsr/NeutralPolitics

Mark Tessler's A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is often cited as a very balanced work on the subject.

/r/AskHistorians also has some good information such as:

  1. To what extent is it true that the Palestinians have turned down several 'reasonable' offers from Israel for full statehood?

  2. I've always understood that the Israeli attack in the Six-Day War was very much a justified pre-emptive attack. It appears that this may not be supported by evidence and that there was no actual threat to Israel in 1967. What do we know about the reasons for war?
  3. Was there ethnic cleansing in Israel/Palestine in 1948? What caused it? Is there a historical consensus on what happened?
  4. What plans did the Arabs have for Israel had they won the arab Israeli wars?
  5. What were the United Arab Armies plans with Israel and the millions of jews there Should they have won any of the founding,6 day or yom kippur war and "defeated" Israel?

    There are many others on the sub as well, but I think that covers the most frequent topics I have heard about Israel.

    For a few more books My Promised Land by Ari Shavit is about the history of Israel, Shavit is a writer for Haaretz which is a very 'left' publication in Israel. Also, Israel by Daniel Gordis Gordis has written for a variety of publications including the New York Times and the New Republic

    We have also had some posts here on /r/NeutralPolitics about this subject, which are a bit more modern than AH:

  6. Is Israel an apartheid state?
  7. Looking for sources that give both sides of the Israel/Palestine debate for a class I'm teaching.
  8. Why has Israel established settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights in spite of opposition from major nations and the UN Security Council?
u/gonzolegend · 4 pointsr/syriancivilwar

Yeah I remember reading that in his book The Great War for Civilisation. He also had a narrow escape in Afghanistan in 2001, when a group of Afghan refugees who fled the US bombing campaign tried to stone him to death.

u/Iconoclast123 · 2 pointsr/Israel

Take a look at this - she's pretty right wing, and this book is her set of solutions (btw, if you go on youtube and look up the book title, I'm sure she's done interviews that you can watch):

https://www.amazon.com/Israeli-Solution-One-State-Peace-Middle/dp/0385348061

u/super_fast_guy · 6 pointsr/bestof

There are two books that I want to recommend:

The Great War for Civilisation by Fisk

https://www.amazon.com/Great-War-Civilisation-Conquest-Middle/dp/1400075173

The Bottom Billion by Collier

https://www.amazon.com/Bottom-Billion-Poorest-Countries-Failing/dp/0195373383

These two books changed the way I view the Middle East and we have never learned our lessons from the past.

u/CoralineCastell · 5 pointsr/agedlikemilk

Hey I was also interested and looked it up. I think it's this one:

The Great War for Civilisation

u/showmethestudy · 1 pointr/geopolitics

> If OP has time, there are two books that I would recommend:
> The Great War for Civilization (Niall Ferguson)
> Truman (Stephen McCullough)

Did you mean The Great War for Civilization or Civilization: The West and the Rest? I didn't see a book by that name by Ferguson.

u/jewiscool · 1 pointr/islam

You can read about Robert Fisk's encounter with OBL for that Dec 6th 1993 The Independent article and other encounters with OBL in Afghanistan in Robert Fisk's book:The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East.

The book is huge and has errors in it. But you can read it for entertainment.

u/SnowdenX · 1 pointr/worldnews

That's what I'm here for bud. I'll call him out for you!

But really, the Middle East, and especially Iran is soo damn fascinating. I too wish more people who choose to discuss it actually put in the work to understand it.

BTW, have you read The Great War for Civilization yet? Kinda old now but a must-read in my opinion if you study the region.

u/this_guy_says · 1 pointr/worldnews

> Until the US overthrew Saddam and the Arab Spring, the region was generally stable. A hell of a lot more stable than ti is now

So in turn the US created a power vacuum... Instability in the Middle East has been the goal for over a century. Read something, like http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091


And what about the CIA's major role in overthrowing democratically elected politicians?

u/RunShootDrink · 2 pointsr/battlefield_one

A Peace to End All Peace isn't directly about WWI, but it does a great job of explaining how the war and its aftermath led to the modern Middle East.

u/Hyalinemembrane · 1 pointr/worldnews

Most of my knowledge comes from a college class on Middle Eastern history. I'd recommend this: http://www.amazon.com/The-Modern-Middle-East-History/dp/0199766053. It's refreshingly unbiased.

u/shimewaza_specialist · 2 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

yeah, one of the things that pisses me off so much about the "israel = evil" brigade is the absolute lack of responsibility laid on the palestinian "leaders" who have fucked over their own people over and over with zero criticism.

israel has done terrible things as a state, there's no denying that, but it's hardly a one sided issue. i strongly suggest that anyone really interested in the subject read an academically published, unbiased history that doesn't cut too many corners (it's gonna be around 1000 pages at least.) i found this one to be very very good http://www.amazon.com/History-Israeli-Palestinian-Conflict-Indiana-Islamic/dp/025322070X

u/CalvinMcManus · 1 pointr/history

There are a lot of leftist groups in South America which have had some real longevity, if not success, such as The Shining Path and FARC. There's the Taliban, who really started out as a protection racket for the Pakistani ISI and bloomed into a Islamist revolutionary army, and then a state, and then an insurgency. The Bush War between the Rhodesians, especially the Selous Scouts, and groups like the ZANU is pretty fascinating. Probably the most successful was Giuseppe Garibaldi who started as an insurgent fighter in both South America and Europe before eventually unifying the Italian state.

I'd highly recommend Invisible Armies by Max Boot. I think it would be right up your alley.

EDIT: After rereading your post I think you may be looking more toward "unconventional warfare" teams than "Guerrilla groups". I'd check out the CIA and Special Forces operations with the Montagnards in Southeast Asia, who ran five or ten man teams with local fighters against communist forces in Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos. The Brandenburgers of the German Abwehr were also really fascinating. They ran teams of commandos who were often bi-national or born overseas to run operations in their respective ethnic areas behind enemy lines in World War Two. One of their more famous ops had Russian speaking commandos dressing up as NKVD troops in Crimea and then directing Soviet troop formations on the way to the front in the wrong direction. After the war quite a few of them disappeared, with some ending up in the French Foreign Legion, if legends are to be believed.

u/Afflo · 2 pointsr/NoStupidQuestions

/u/HambNotLamb is right in that a completely unbiased source is hard to find. Hitchens and Carter both have something of an axe to grind.

The best bet is probably scholarly writing where the author has tried to approach the subject with neutrality.

I would highly recommend "The Modern Middle East, A History" by Dr. James L Gelvin. It is often used as a textbook in undergraduate courses on the Middle East. He touches on Israel and Palestine in the book, but also gives you a more comprehensive view of the roots of Arab Nationalism, Pan-Arabism, Jewish Nationalism, and the many pieces of the conflict. He has also written a book exclusively on the conflict, but I can't comment as I haven't personally read it.

If someone gives you a simple answer, chances are it is incorrect.

u/CasualtiesofConflict · 1 pointr/IsraelPalestine

Read James Gelvin's The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War

Also, this MERIP page is a good starter.

u/brazillion · 1 pointr/worldnews

That is not what I recall from my professor's book, nor his course on the subject.

https://www.amazon.com/History-Israeli-Palestinian-Conflict-Indiana-Islamic/dp/025322070X/

Alas, I don't have the book in front of me.

With that said, refer to the chart on Page 5 of the below PDF. Note that it is a source which is "Pro-Zionist," but the numbers mentioned align with my former professor's research. Of the land under Jewish control in 1947, 57% of it came from Arab landowners.

http://www.wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf

On a personal note - I don't have a horse in the race. The course I took at the University of Michigan was quite the eye opener for me with impassioned arguments from both the Jewish and Muslim communities. For many of these kids, it was the first time they actually got to debate the matter outside of the safe space of their family dinner table.

Edit: Removed a sentence I used twice.

u/jrohila · 11 pointsr/Suomi

Muistaakseni luin tästä Robert Fiskin kirjasta The Great War for civilization: The Conquest of the Middle East. Taisin myös lukea asiasta Israelin historiaa käsittelevästä kirjasta, mutta Robert Fiskin kirja on erinomaista ja hyvin viihdyttävää luettavaa - vaikkakin Fisk on hyvin vasemmalla ja The Independentiä voisi paremmin kuvata nimellä Al Independent.

EDIT: Fisk on toiminut Independentin lähi-idän kirjeenvaihtajana iät ja ajat. Nähnyt Neuvostoliiton Afghanistanin miehityksen jne... Haastatellut myös Osama Bin Ladenia. Oli miehen mielipiteistä mitä tahansa mieltä, tämä kirja on järjettömän hyvä yhden ihmisen näkökulma lähi-itään.

u/machine7elves · 1 pointr/news

You're just ignoring the history. Why did any of this happen in the first place...western involvement dating back over 100 years. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Go read a book. Here's a good one](https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Middle-East-History/dp/0199766053)

u/Noumenology · 1 pointr/movies

Check out Robert Fisk's "The Great War For Civilization."

u/hymrr · 5 pointsr/worldnews

Order yourself a copy of The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East and let's talk again about the facts you aren't supposed to know or take into account when assessing US foreign policy.

u/Drumlin · 3 pointsr/politics

Jimmy Carter supports Palestine.

Is it any wonder that the media completely ignores him?

u/blindtranche · 2 pointsr/news

What Went Wrong by Bernard Lewis

u/0w1Farm · 1 pointr/history

This book is really thorough.

u/studdbeefpile · 2 pointsr/changemyview

You literally just described how the borders of the middle east were drawn after ww1. And I mean literally literally. How'd that work out?

u/JeffB1517 · 1 pointr/Israel_Palestine

> Caroline Glick, long-time, highly visable opinion writer, who repeatedly advocated for the complete ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians from the OPT, is part of the election list for Likud this time, don't you?

  1. She's running with HaYamin HaHadash not Likud. https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Caroline-Glick-joining-Bennett-Shakeds-new-party-576092

  2. She advocates full citizenship for all West Bank residents not ethnic cleansing. https://www.amazon.com/Israeli-Solution-One-State-Peace-Middle/dp/0385348061
u/shillforyou · 1 pointr/suggestmeabook

Suggestion: History through Prof. Mark Tessler. Unbiased. Informative.

u/L0rd_Baron · 3 pointsr/worldnews

You don't get to take land from an population entirely innocent of the persecution of the European Jews without doing horrible things.

I urge you to take your own advice and read say The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War

You will get a far more balanced view of the conflict and get maybe a little insight to the Palestinian POV.

u/Lard_Baron · 3 pointsr/TrueReddit

I cannot recommend this book highly enough. The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East

They have a hard cover for 80c atm.

u/WNYC1139 · 2 pointsr/AskHistorians

There is an entire book by scholar Bernard Lewis that deals with this very question in depth. It's called What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East. It is about 10 years old by now and Lewis is not uncontroversial but I found it fascinating.

Lewis does accept your premise - that the Islamic world was once ahead of the West economically and militarily and now is not. Obviously there are nuances around what is meant by the Islamic world but I am trying to be brief.

He notes also that its NOT simply a West vs the Rest issue - he notes that at this point Islamic countries are being surpassed by Eastern countries (e.g. South Korea) as well.

As for the answer, it's been a while so it's difficult for me to summarize, but my recollection is slavery, individual rights, close relationship between religion and state, and higher status of western women (even in the 18th century) were identified as factors. The church/state separation is big - in the west, even with the Crusades and witch burnings, religion remained a distinct entity from the state. Not so in Islam, if I recall correctly

u/roses_are_blue · 3 pointsr/Ask_Politics

> Just google "Israel-Palestine Mark Tessler 2014", I forget the exact name.

It is very aptly called 'A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict'. It's on its second edition now (2009).
amazon link

u/deleted_OP · 2 pointsr/WarCollege

Lots of great answers everyone. I see that I have a lot of reading to do and that is a good thing. Just for anyone also interested I compiled all of the named books into a list and sourced them, for your reading pleasure.



The Accidental Guerrilla by David Kilcullen

Counterinsurgency by David Kilcullen

Out of the Mountains by David Kilcullen

Learning to Eat Soup With a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons From Malaya and Vietnam by John Nagl

Tactics of the Crescent Moon: Militant Muslim Combat Methods by John Poole

Modern War: Counter-Insurgency as Malpractice by Edward Luttwak

A Savage War of Peace by Alistar Horne

The Bear Went Over the Mountain by Lester Grau

Invisible Armies by Max Boot

Vid Putivla do Karpat by Sydir Artemovych Kovpac

Fire in the Lake by Frances FitzGerald

Inside Rebellion by Jeremy M. Weinstein

u/back-in-black · -1 pointsr/worldnews

All long standing terrorist/resistance organizations have used this tactic. Che Guevara even wrote about it. Use the civilian population as a shield, and when the authorities harm civilians to get to you - you look like heroes, as you're the only gun in town.

Hamas launch attacks every time there's a peace deal on the table - a deal would strip them of political power; and they can't allow that to happen. So they take the losses associated with the Israeli reprisals, and look like heroes to all the angry young men who've lost family.

See: http://www.amazon.com/Great-War-Civilisation-Conquest-Middle/dp/1400041511

u/samfaina · 1 pointr/worldnews

Apartheid is a discriminatory legal separation. In the US an example of apartheid was the famous blacks-only, whites-only water fountains in some parts of the US South. The term is famous from the racist system used by Israel's old ally, the country Israel worked with to develop nuclear weapons, the apartheid regime of South Africa.

The US president that negotiated the Israeli-Egyptian peace deal, Jimmy Carter, wrote a book on the topic: Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.

In one interview Carter described one aspect of Israeli apartheid this way: "When Israel does occupy this territory deep within the West Bank, and connects the 200-or-so settlements with each other, with a road, and then prohibits the Palestinians from using that road, or in many cases even crossing the road, this perpetrates even worse instances of apartness, or apartheid, than we witnessed even in South Africa."

u/itsfineitsgreat · 3 pointsr/worldnews

Dude, I've read...lots and lots of books on the subjects. Saying its "the fault" of the West is highly, highly simplifying a rather complex situation. lol "read wiki".

Dude, read this. Don't ever think that you got informed on something from a wiki article. The West had a role, but it's not like, oh, I dunno, the people of the Arabian Peninsula were just on the sidelines, passively observing.

The same goes for Afghanistan.

u/working_class_shill · 3 pointsr/Documentaries

That's part of the idea. Make the waters so muddled that it's too difficult to cut through the good-faith replies from the bad-faith replies. Make it so that you eventually just lose interest since it's not you being directly affected!

Here are some good debates to get your started:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ux4JU_sbB0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6To-o-aiRg

I'd also recommend reading President Jimmy Carter's Peace Not Apartheid (amazon link not necessary, use your public library!). It's a decent, short primer to the conflict.

u/degustibus · -1 pointsr/reddit.com

The Middle East is f'd up because of Islam. Islam started with bloody conquest and pillage and when it could no longer flourish through murder it began to decay. Islam's brief period of supposed glory took place when the people in charge weren't fanatics but people who realized that Jews and Christians and other minorities were contributing more than most Muslims.

What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East

u/mhk2192 · 2 pointsr/history

There's a book called: A Peace to end all Peace
http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091

It was a great book and helped me have a decent understanding of how the West screwed over rebelling Muslims during WWI which eventually led to the conflict we see today. It doesn't directly reference Hamas but it talks about why the Middle East is screwed up and tensions between the Jews and Arabs following WWI.

u/haskay · 0 pointsr/worldnews

No I know you are an idiot. Afghanistan during Russian War, Iraq, So many Latin american countries, Israel, Syria (assad regime), Egypt, Saudi, etc.

Don't even pretend that those are not forms of colonialism, not to mention all the indirect forms of control through World Bank and IMF loans.

American interventionism is an indirect form of colonialism. When you prop-up pro-American dictators.

http://www.amazon.ca/Rogue-State-Guide-Worlds-Superpower/dp/1567513743

http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-War-Civilisation-Conquest/dp/1400075173

u/Logical1ty · 4 pointsr/islam

> Yes, a theocratic government in today's world is a brilliant idea....especially when it's attempting to be founded by extremists.

Well you see, the Muslim world was all ready to hop on the secularism bandwagon. The Ottoman Empire dissolved the Caliphate, the Islamic equivalent of the Papacy, in a process of self-secularization to become modern Turkey. Europe never did that. You can see pictures of Iran, Pakistan, and Arab countries from the early 20th century. They're routinely posted on reddit and upvoted to the front page. They were very "modernized". Communism/Socialism was very popular too.

The key sticking point was Israel.

From old posts of mine on the subject:

> After World War 1, the elected Arab representatives of the former Ottoman Empire got together and told a fact-finding commission sent by the US president that they wanted a representative democracy with complete independence, or barring that, under an American mandate (because America was seen as a non-imperial power with democratic ideals), with Palestine included (and there were Jewish representatives agreeing with this). That what they did not want was being handed over to the French and British (which is what happened). This report was suppressed in the US until after Congress voted to support the creation of Israel, and then the New York Times published it and accused the government of misleading Americans about the Arabs and Turks. This is just one example of a huge blunder born out of immoral action and there are too many to count.
>
> The Muslim world was ready to drink the secularism kool-aid and follow in Turkey's lead. Western countries displayed a flagrant disregard for their concerns. Apparently hell hath no fury like a Muslim world scorned in this case.

Also,

> After WW1, the Syrians wanted an independent democracy or to be under an American mandate because they loved America. Instead they were given to France (because the report was suppressed in the US until a pro-Israel declaration could be passed by the US Congress because the Syrians also expressed opposition to the idea of creating a Jewish state in Palestine). By the 1960s/1970s the Muslim world began thinking secularism/democracy was a bald-faced lie never put into practice since whenever it came to Muslim nations, the West supported dictators, religious fanatics, and overt or covert imperialism, and worst of all, a pre-emptive war by a Jewish state (created by lying to the Arabs) with non-secular laws ("preserving the Jewish character" for instance) to annex Jerusalem... all of which violated what they were saying publicly. That's when anti-secularism and anti-Western sentiment took hold in the world's Muslim population and more and more people began to think this was just the same old Crusades in new disguise. Islamist terrorism really took off after that (in the '70s).
>
> No one can argue the Muslim world didn't give secularism a serious try. What Turkey did is equivalent to Italy destroying the Vatican and the Papacy because it's a "foreign institution" which threatens Italy's secular values. Then there was the rising tide of Western-approved nationalism (on the back of Western-approved left-wing socialism) throughout the Muslim world. None of these worked either.

And,

> Initially, America was received very well by the rest of the world. They were seen as anti-European rebels. I think the first (or second) country to recognize the US was a Muslim one (one of the North African ones I think). After World War 1, Syria wanted to either be granted independence as a democracy or be governed by an American mandate (since they saw that as the same thing, perhaps even better that they could learn from a real democracy... everyone was ready to drink the American kool-aid or already drunk on it). They might've accepted British but they expressed their dislike of them. They hated the French. They were absolutely against the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. Predictably, the Allies gave Syria to the French and the Americans suppressed the release of this report until after Congress passed a bill to support the creation of Israel. Basically post-WW1 amid all the broken promises, this "pro-America" sentiment quickly was displaced by "just more Europeans under a different name" sentiment. Then after WW2 and the creation of Israel a lot more animosity was created between the cultures and modern communication technology was like an accelerant put on a flame. And now everyone sees America as having been passed the torch from the European colonial empires who were passed the torch from the Crusaders. So now anytime America does anything, it's a punctuation on more than one thousand years of conflict rather than seen as an isolated incident.

So, TL;DR - The West breaking its promises to the Arabs and repeatedly unconditionally supporting a Jewish state of Israel made most of the Muslim world realize secularism was a red herring. A ruse. A lie made up by the West for whatever reason. When it came down to it, the West acted as a monolithic bloc (like it did during the Crusades) when dealing with the rest of the world and suspended all that nice stuff about secularism when it came time to create a Jewish country on Arab land.

When the West supported Israel's pre-emptive war to annex Jerusalem in the late '60s. That was the final straw. That broke any connection the Muslim world (its masses) had to Western ideals and philosophy.

That's when Islamism (previously thrust to the fringes since the time of Sayid Qutb, the 19th/20th century grand-daddy of modern Islamism) started to pick up support (and Afghanistan against the USSR in the '80s was ground zero for these movements to pick up some real training... the first wave of terrorists in the '70s and '80s that were hijacking planes and all that stuff died out and after the USSR was defeated in Afghanistan, those groups then took over the terrorism racket).

Read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091

You can find the original New York Times article from the early 20th century on the Syria report on their website! It's pretty cool. Google for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%E2%80%93Crane_Commission

Also, the West kind of evolved into secularism over time (one step along the way was the Protestant reformation and other developments within "Christendom", and the events surrounding the creation of the United States). The rest of the world got secularism/democracy, not on their own over time, but from the West. If they don't trust the West, they won't trust its ideas. Particularly when they fail to work.

EDIT: Also the strong Marxist/Leftist/Socialist/Communist presence in the Muslim world made it easier for them to sour very easily on Western political philosophy. They got ammunition from them too.

u/sugifo · 6 pointsr/languagelearning

Let me gather up the links for the materials I've found, this will be for Darija and MSA.
I'll edit when I've gathered them all, it might take a little bit though.

EDIT:

A-okay! I probably missed a few links (and probably double linked stuff) and this post is probably going to look like a mess, but that's okay, because I can always go back and fix stuff. : )
I’ll be linking stuff either to websites, to books (as you requested) that you can buy through Amazon, or to other stuff that I've found.

Just to get it out of the way, if you’re into pirating, then there’s this massive learning pack you can download.

Master posts:

u/Show-Me-Your-Moves · 6 pointsr/politics

> what about their shitty culture, high homophobia, low women rights etc? Why would anyone want such a culture in their country?

You're right, I don't want the Republican Party in my country any more!

Nah, that was a dumb joke but I couldn't resist.

The larger problem is that people are unwilling to grapple with the intersection of politics and religion in all these Middle Eastern countries. They just want to blame Islam and pretend you can fix it by targeting Muslims, when the problems in that region are as much a result of decades of intervention by the CIA and western governments, by funding of extremism by US "allies" like Saudi Arabia (where the 9/11 hijackers came from), by horrific crimes like the War in Iraq, by unquestioning support for Israel and all the war crimes they've committed, and so forth. Seriously, It's not hard to understand why so many radicals hate us in the Middle East ... I'd probably join Al Qaeda if a drone blew up my family.

Do people think the Iranian Revolution just came out of nowhere? Go read about how the West installed the Shah to grab Iran's oil, and how the Iranian Revolution was a pushback against that. Go read about how the West supported Saddam as he was using chemical weapons against Iran.

If Islam is such a horrific and hateful religion, why isn't the biggest Muslim country - Indonesia - cranking out tons of extremists to attack the West? Clearly it's not just about being Muslim.

If anyone wants to understand what's actually going on in the Middle East, this is a fantastic and eye-opening book.

https://www.amazon.com/Great-War-Civilisation-Conquest-Middle/dp/1400075173/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1485607381&sr=8-1&keywords=the+great+war+for+civilization

u/iloveyoujesuschriist · 9 pointsr/todayilearned

>We didn't kill the Armenians because they were Armenians or because we wanted to exterminate their whole race like Hitler, but because it was war and they were our enemies.

People such as Max Erwin von Scheubner-Richter, who was an early member of the Nazi Party, and Hans von Seeckt spent time in Ottoman Turkey and drew inspiration from what was happening. Even Rudolf Höss, who would later be the commandant of Auschwitz, was there. He joined the German forces in Turkey.

Yes, there was an armed Armenian insurgency, but the Turks responded to that but going to every single Armenian village and slaughtering every single Armenian they could get their hands on, without respect to age or gender. The vast majority of which had absolutely nothing to do with that insurrection. Turkish soldiers took babies and bashed their brains out on rocks. They enticed the help of the Kurds in carrying away the women to be raped. Railways and cattle cars were used to transport Armenian people from one end of the empire to the other, which shares parallels with the trains used to transport Jews to death and labour camps.

Enver Pasha told Henry Morgenthau that the Armenians were being sent to "new quarters", just as the Jews were latter to be "resettled".

Morgenthau himself stated: "Persecutions of Armenians assuming unprecedented proportions. Reports from widely scattered districts indicate systematic attempt to uproot peaceful Armenian populations and through arbitrary arrests, terrible tortures, whole-sale expulsions and deportations from one end of the Empire to the other accompanied by frequent instances of rape, pillage, and murder, turning into massacre, to bring destruction on them. These measures are not in response to popular or fanatical demand but are purely arbitrary and directed from Constantinople in the name of military necessity, often in districts where no military operations are likely to take place."

Furthermore, Taalat Pasha said this in an official document to his prefect: "You have already been advised that the Government, by order of the Djemiet, has decided to destroy completely all the indicated persons [Armenians] living in Turkey.

Their existence must come to an end, however tragic the means may be; and no regard must be paid to either age or sex, or to conscientious scruples."

How on earth can you describe this as anything other than genocide?

EDIT: In case you think that Morgenthau's account is not credible since he was representing a country at war with the Ottoman Empire, I point you towards von Wagenheim, a German ambassador who lead a diplomatic mission to the Ottoman Empire, who recounted that Talat had admitted that the deportations were not "being carried out because of 'military considerations alone'". One month later, he came to the conclusion that there "no longer was doubt that the Porte was trying to exterminate the Armenian race in the Turkish Empire"

A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East

Thanks to DrPoop_PhD

u/i_was_never_cool · 13 pointsr/worldnews

I remember Robert Fisk mentioning the effects of DU in the 1991 Gulf War. The A-10s used DU rounds, and the burning DU rounds in Iraqi tanks caused it to be turned into a fine particulate which could more easily be spread and breathed in by the local populace. Link



  • From the IAEA...source

    >"Armour piercing ammunitions are generally referred to as "kinetic energy penetrators". DU is preferred to other metals, because of its high density, its pyrophoric nature (DU self-ignites when exposed to temperatures of 600° to 700° and high pressures), and its property of becoming sharper, through adiabatic shearing, as it penetrates armour plating . On impact with targets, DU penetrators ignite, breaking up in fragments, and forming an aerosol of particles ("DU dust") whose size depends on the angle of the impact, the velocity of the penetrator, and the temperature. These fine dust particles, can catch fire spontaneously in air. Small pieces may ignite in a fire and burn, but tests have shown that large pieces, like the penetrators used in anti-tank weapons, or in aircraft balance weights, will not normally ignite in a fire."



  • The following article on nih.gov shows the inhalation limits for DU are much lower than ingesting, and that kidney damage becomes apparent at lower levels...Source

    >Natural uranium (NU) ore dust was instilled into rat lungs for comparison. The fraction dissolving in lung showed a pattern of exponential decline with increasing initial burden similar to DU. However, the decline was less steep, with about 14% appearing in urine for lung burdens up to about 200 microg NU dust/lung and 5% at lung burdens >1,100 microg NU dust/lung. NU also showed both a fast and a more slowly dissolving component. At the higher lung burdens of both DU and NU that showed lowered urine excretion rates, histological evidence of kidney damage was seen. Kidney damage was not seen with the muscle burdens tested. DU dust produced kidney damage at lower lung burdens and lower urine uranium levels than NU dust, suggesting that other toxic metals in DU dust may contribute to the damage.


  • Finally, another article's conclusion in PubMed...source

    >In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU.


    So yeah... DU dust = not good.

    Edit: tried to fix my terrible formatting