what is not a reason the middle east is so far behind in the world today course hero

Why is the United States so involved in the Middle East?

There are deadly power struggles within and between nations. And behind it all is the Middle East’s massive oil production, on which the global economy depends. The United States first ventured into the Middle East early in the Cold War and has remained heavily involved, particularly since the 1970s.

Is the Middle East conflict too complicated to understand?

Explanations have become so complicated that it is difficult to understand the truth. As the Middle East conflict persists, you must be aware of the bigger picture. In this upcoming year, our nation has a choice to make—to move forward and honor a national leader who stands with Israel in unapologetic alignment, or not.

Does Israel need other Middle East nations to survive?

You would think the other Middle East nations were small in comparison and needed the land to survive. If you were to watch the news, you would hear messages that Israel goes after her neighbors, looking for a fight. This simply isn’t true.

Is US involvement in the Middle East becoming obsolete?

The reasons for U.S. involvement in the Middle East are becoming obsolete, but policy and strategy aren’t keeping pace. Find out more with your subscription to World Politics Review (WPR).

What is Kuran's demand side theory?

Let’s start with Kuran’s demand-side hypothesis. Kuran argues that numerous economic aspects of Islamic law served the pre-modern economy well. Among the most important he cites are a relatively egalitarian inheritance law (at least women got something!), simple partnership law (that reflected the simplicity of 7 th -century partnerships), and waqf law which facilitated the provision of public goods in perpetuity. These laws were “cutting edge” when first formulated in the 7 th -9 th centuries and flexibly accommodated the most advanced business practices of the time. Certainly, they were better than anything that was known in the pre-Islamic Middle East or early medieval Western Europe, which was suffering from a long political and economic decline following the fall of the Roman Empire. However, these once cutting edge Islamic laws remained intact long after the conditions under which they were a best response had past. The best example Kuran points to is the lack of the corporation in the Middle East – or any other type of organizational form which incentivizes people to pool their money/capital together for a large enterprise. Kuran argues convincingly that Middle Eastern partnerships remained small and simple well into the early modern (and perhaps even modern) period, well after large enterprises in Europe such as joint-stock companies, and eventually the corporation, permitted the agglomeration of capital beyond what would have been possible without a legal and organizational structure incentivizing the pooling of funds (such as limited liability). Given its head start, why did Middle Eastern partnerships remain simple (i.e., between 2-3 persons for a limited time horizon)? Kuran argues convincingly that the interaction between various types of Islamic laws diminished the demand for more advanced organizational forms, and hence all of the other advancements that come with it, like double-entry bookkeeping. A simple example suffices to explain Kuran’s logic. Imagine a merchant that knows of a big opportunity to trade in a faraway land. He could certainly make much more by pooling capital with many other merchants. But this would be risky because of the interaction of Islamic partnership law, which dictated that partnerships were dissolved at the death of one member, and inheritance law, which split the proceeds of inheritance among many heirs according to a pre-determined formula. Hence, if some of a partner’s heirs decided they needed their inheritance immediately upon that partner's death, the partnership might have to be disbanded, especially if most of the capital was tied up in the goods being traded (as one would expect). One way to avoid this was to avoid taking on many partners (thereby decreasing the probability one partner would die) and keeping the duration of partnerships to one or two voyages.

What is the weak colonization hypothesis?

This is, namely, that European colonization of the Middle East is responsible for the relative economic stagnation of the region. The most common trope among those putting forth this argument is that the carving up of the Middle East under the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 – without regard to tribal, ethnic, or religious identities – set the stage for internal conflicts from which the region has yet to escape. I think this hypothesis is ridiculous. This is not to say that Europeans colonized with the best of intentions or that colonization was even a mixed blessing. Nor is it to deny the fact that the political fallout in the post-colonial Middle East – namely, dictators and princes buoyed with oil money ruling with little regard for the bulk of the population – is a result, either directly or indirectly, of colonization (although Noah Feldman’s The Rise and the Fall of the Islamic State provides an interesting counterpoint, pushing the blame back to the decline of religious authority in the late Ottoman period, as the religious elite were best positioned to check rulers’ powers). The simple point is that the timing does not work. The West was already well ahead of the Middle East by almost any conceivable metric well before it colonized the Middle East. Unlike colonization of the Americas or parts of south and southeast Asia, European colonization of the Middle East commenced well after industrialization and well after a large divergence emerged in wages, capital accumulation, fiscal capacity, military might, technology, science, and so on. So it may certainly correct to say that European colonization of the Middle East exacerbated the divergence (and I buy that this is the case, particularly for the latter half of the 20 th century), but it is inconceivable that it was the root cause.

What is the majority of Arab nations' desire for a Jewish state?

Every poll among Arab nations shows that the majority wants the Jewish state to be no more. This has been the mindset since Israel’s inception in 1948.

What was the victory for Israel in the Middle East?

A Victory for Israel in the Middle East Conflict. To everyone’s surprise, Israel survived, and the land was able to rest—but for only a short amount of time.

How many times did Israel gain territory during the Six Day War?

Israel gained territory three times its previous size during the Six-Day War! In short, Israel’s opposition was frustrated and embarrassed. A nation the size of New Jersey had been victorious against bigger and stronger nations. So, they convened and declared the “Three No’s.”.

What would you think if you were never told the size of these nations?

If you were never told the size of these nations, you would think Israel was a “Goliath” nation that uses scare tactics and bullies her neighbors. You would think the other Middle East nations were small in comparison and needed the land to survive.

What was the name of the meeting that produced the three no's?

The Sinai Peninsula. After the Six-Day War was over, 8 Arab nations met in Sudan. This meeting produced what was called the Khartoum Resolution, which became known for declaring the “Three No’s.”. No peace with Israel. No recognition of Israel.

When did Israel give Egypt the Sinai Peninsula?

Middle East Conflict and an Attempt to Make Peace. In 1979, Israel made an agreement to give the entire Sinai Peninsula—an oil-rich area bigger than Israel’s current occupied territory—back to Egypt.

Which countries do not recognize Israel?

Other countries that also do not recognize Israel include Bhutan, Cuba, and North Korea. Every poll among Arab nations shows that the majority wants the Jewish state to be no more.

What is the Middle East's security environment?

The security environment in the Middle East may be the most complex on earth, with an intricate, volatile and sometimes shifting mixture of destabilizing forces and hostilities. There are deadly power struggles within and between nations. And behind it all is the Middle East’s massive oil production, on which the global economy depends.

What was the glue between Washington and Riyadh?

The only glue was the idea that the “enemy of my enemy is my friend.”.

Is America's Middle East strategy on its last legs?

Today, America’s Middle East strategy is on its last legs, less a reflection of a central purpose than a search for one. The reasons for U.S. involvement in the Middle East are no longer as valid as they once were, and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is failing to keep up.

Is there a chance that a hostile power will control the region and wield petroleum as a weapon?

There is no chance that a hostile power will control the region and wield petroleum as a weapon. Yet the U.S. still clings to its longstanding, military-centric Middle East strategy even while its underlying assumptions become invalid and its central rationale fades.

Will the U.S. Be Replaced In The Middle East?

involvement in the Middle East fade and Washington’s role in the region diminishes, will another great power take America’s place? Both Russia and China insist they do not want to replace the U.S. in the Middle East, but they are still intent on expanding their regional influence. The Russians are undeniably on the move, building on their Syrian strategy to deepen cooperation with Iran and move in that direction with Turkey, too. In the Arab world, Egypt’s fiercely anti-Islamist leadership may open the country’s doors to Moscow again, while across the region, Russia is getting more attention and respect as an outside player and broker than it has had for decades. China, the other contender for a bigger role in the Middle East, is aiming not to confront or compete with the U.S., but to fill vacuums when needed and to promote Chinese economic and political interests. For decades, one of the pillars of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has been to prevent any hostile outside power from dominating the region. Can Washington accommodate these more assertive policies by Moscow and Beijing and still retain its dominant role?

The Middle East Conflict Simplified

Attack #1—The Arab-Israeli War of 1948

Attack #2—The Six-Day War

Middle East Conflict and An Attempt to Make Peace

Something Everyone “Forgets” in The Middle East Conflict

Answer: Why Is The Middle East in Conflict?

• In 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Partition Resolution, dividing Great Britain’s Palestine Mandate into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Arab states were more than angered and wanted the entire land to themselves—and thus war broke out. Israel, with a place to finally call home, simply wanted to be recognized as having a...

See more on myolivetree.com

Summary…