The 27 Key Points for US Success in Iraq

Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

There are basic mistakes in the American (I mean the governmental) approach to Iraq.

The present administration failed to realize the following basic parameters:

1. Iraq does not exist, it never did! After 1258 (destruction of Baghdad) the area belonged to various successive administrations with faraway capitals (Istanbul). Earlier, Baghdad did not rule the area of that land but a much larger one. As concept, Iraq is a colonial technical entity, nothing more.

2. America is a non-colonial country; either its policies will reflect this (as abnegation of the entire colonial approach to the Middle East) or simply America will fail. By its nature, America cannot be France or England - in their stead. The ideological content (non-colonial in the case of the States) predestines the political form (and targets).

3. Consequently, the only way for America to be successful in Iraq is that America shapes a genuinely new – non-colonial as it fits America (and as is the wish of so many colonized peoples allover the world, and more specifically of the Iraqis) – policy for the area of that technical entity that does not and cannot exist as such outside colonial environment.

4. A genuinely non-colonial approach would use as a tool, and rather focus on UNESCO, not the UN itself.

5. A genuinely non-colonial approach would first take into consideration that nothing can keep so many different peoples together. Kurds have nothing to do with Arabic - speaking populations, Aramaeans aspire to their free country, Turkmens want to be closer with Turkey, and of course Shia and Sunni can be united only for terrorist purposes, not for the average citizen’s prosperous perspective.

6. Since there has been a total lack of democratic culture, any majority in Iraq (and this is only Shia) will behave dictatorially, if free elections offer the opportunity – which is not permissible for any democratic intention and approach to that area. Democracy is NOT a totalitarian rule of the majority.

7. America must understand that its non-colonial nature must lead its administration to non-colonial type of impact / interference.

8. The only way to destroy the colonial structures in that land is to bring forth a genuine, local rejection of these structures, be they known to the local peoples or not (if they are not, and truly speaking they are not at all, this is the result of colonial disinformation and educational-academic-intellectual machinated guidance, which means more work for America!).

9. Local rejection of the colonialism means definitely return to 1917, before the arrival of the British forces at Basra, and then at Baghdad, and commitment to ameliorate the then prevailing situation.

10. There was no local identification with any sort of Arab nation and/or nationalism (that are both a colonial - disreputable and criminal - fabrication) before 1917 in that land, so Arabic nationalism of any form and expression must be totally uprooted from Mesopotamia, a land that was never 'Arabic'.

11. The only chance for America to obtain a success in Mesopotamia is to diffuse unbiased, non-colonial History, Culture, and Education throughout that land, and make it be reflected at the social and political levels.

12. The only chance to get it done is to separate various populations through mass transfers, and to delineate territories for the Kurds, the Turkmens, the Aramaeans, the Shia Arabic speaking, and the Sunni Arabic speaking.

13. These constituencies must start functioning as different cantons according to the Swiss model.

14. Americans should concentrate their efforts on the Arabic speaking constituencies-to-be (Shia and Sunni).

15. Education must prevail over barbarism (and this concerns mostly the Arabic speaking populations that have been victimized as engulfed in tenebrous ignorance and fanaticism), and in this regard History must be taught properly. The Arabic speaking populations are Aramaeans and not Arabs. It must become clear to the entire world and to all the modern Mesopotamians that linguistic Arabization - as a consequence of the islamization - means nothing in terms of genuine ethnic and cultural identity, tradition, and expression.

In the same way African origin Americans, who are born in the States as English native speakers, are NOT Anglo-Saxons or Indo-Europeans, the Arabic speaking populations of Mesopotamia are NOT Arabs. They are Aramaeans, who got linguistically arabized.

16. Sunni or Shia Arabic speaking populations must understand that liberation from Saddam Hussein is only a tiny success story, if compared to the ultimate liberation from the colonial chains. America can help in this regrad. Self-knowledge is what is mostly needed in this regard.

17. Syriac Aramaic must be imposed as national language along with Arabic, and must become an obligatory course throughout Primary and Secondary Education addressed to Arabic speaking people of Mesopotamia. Aramaic speaking Aramaeans of Mesopotamia will teach Aramaic the Arabic speaking Aramaeans of that land. This is the only way for exit.

18. The name of the country must be its authentic one – as in Syriac Aramaic: Aram – Nahrain (Mesopotamia).

19. Americans must understand that deportation is conditio sine qua non for an ultimate success in Iraq, and actually it was always part of Mesopotamian politics and practices. Deportation was decided and imposed upon Greeks and Turks (and it did concern millions of people in 1923 - 1925) following the terms of the Lausanne Treaty; so, what is the point of avoiding and even ignoring this solution now for Iraq?

20. Deportation must take place not only in delineating Kurds from Turkmens, and Aramaeans from Arabic speaking, but also within the constituencies where any form of terrorist act and/or group rebellion is to be attested.

21. Necessarily, the entire country is to be reshaped, so progressive elements have to be separated from radical and terrorist extremists. Zones must be made everywhere, kept isolated, and then controlled and crosschecked house by house. The choice must be personal and nominal.

22. Any person or family that denies to accept and contribute to the aforementioned process of educational de-arabization and re-aramaization has to be transferred to special camps for compulsory works of public infrastructure and reparation.

23. De-arabization must go in parallel with a re-spiritualized, re-'intellectualized' and re-civilized Islam. All Mesopotamian Muslim intellectuals, who have the intention to participate in such a great work, must meet in an extraordinary Conference, set up ideological pillars, and develop a great variety of modern approaches to and interpretations of Islam that will be the only permitted to be diffused through any sort of meeting within a mosque and a medresa (religious school).

24. Neoterisms must certainly be introduced in this regard, and the main Sermon (Khutbah) of the Friday Prayer must be retransmitted by radio and/or TV set throughout all the mosques of the country. Like this, only one top religious leader will be allowed to give a speech, and none else. This leader’s Sermon will be heard (and watched) by all the Muslims in all the mosques of Mesopotamia.

25. The US Administration must understand that the Lerna Hydra Americans face in Iraq has three heads: French Colonialism – Arabic Nationalism – Islamic Extremism. The first head fabricated the second, and contributed – through machinations – to partly shaping and to successfully canalizing the third. The tripartite communicating vessels (rather call it a monster) must be totally broken down, if success is still a target in Mesopotamia.

26. Americans must understand as early as possible (and this already means yesterday) that the ideological creature of France was not opposed by the British. So, it is omnipresent on the territories the French wished it diffused. It is meant to keep the local peoples in permanent underdevelopment and confusion, ignorance and fratricide strife, colonial dependence and cultural alteration. But it is also meant to make any foreign intruder, who would jeopardize the global interests of colonial France, fail. It is not military might that will guarantee for the American administration the ultimate success; it is high intellect, unbiased historiography (in the way of Martin Bernal, who demolished the Colonial Greco-Romano-centrism of France in his celebrated ‘Black Athena’), and rich conceptual thought. It is not just a coincidence that all sorts of bad intentions have been directed by the French against the Aramaeans of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Turkey, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, Kuwait, Jordan, Qatar and the Emirates.

27. Ultimately, the average American – misinformed through the pitifully silent mass media, namely the likes of New York Times and the Washington Post – must come to learn what the French colonial diplomats and academicians do not want him to know with respect to the deep back thoughts of the Arab nationalist and Islamic extremist groups that currently practice Anti-American terrorism in Mesopotamia (and elsewhere):

These groups – all – believe that we are living at the end of times (Al Yom Al Ahar) and that the long awaited Saviour, the Islamic Messiah, named Al Mahdi (the Guided One), will appear very soon to coordinate efforts with Jesus (in Arabic: Isa), conceived as Islamic Prophet and not as Messiah or God, against America and Europe, i.e. the entire system of the Western World that they consider as the Realm of the Antichrist (key notion for the Islamic concept of the End of Times, Masih al Dajjal in Arabic).

They view their fight as sacrifice that earns them a ticket for the Paradise, and they believe that the expected events are imminent and encompassing great natural disasters. More they keep the Americans busy, greater their contribution to the ‘forthcoming’ arrival of Al Mahdi is.

Theirs is a completely erroneous interpretation of the Coran and the Hadith, but this is all they believe and they care about.

If you enjoy using the Politics Forum, please consider supporting PoFo by subscribing (to donate directly), or by using an affiliate link when you shop on-line (costs you nothing extra). PoFo costs a lot of money to run, so your support really is appreciated.

well, i like the idea, but i find i thoroughly idealistic; it becomes even more unreasonable given how great a role you give to someone who is essentially viewed as The Enemy. If any non-Iraqi group tried to impose these reforms on Iraq, the people there wouldn't stand for it.

I'm also at a loss as to where French colonialism comes into this. I am well aware that they had financial interests under the old iraq, and every other western nation did; but this is certainly not colonialism on the scale we see today, where Halliburton's income from Iraq is sponsored to the tune of 50% by oil sales, and on top of this it continues to receive reparations for Saddam's actions, also paid for in oil. Could you expand on why you see France to have such a nefarious hand in this situation, please? Or why Britain is somehow complicit?
I'm not sure what 'ideological creature' you're referring to, especially when it comes to britain not opposing 'it' and not america.

On a side note out of personal curiosity, what was it about your french upbringing/residence that made you so wary of it?

I have read the above points made out in regardes to the possible US sucess in Iraq, but I'd say that it doesn't reflect the realities in the whole region well.

I'd put more weight to the upcoming election in Iraq on Jan 30. That's the immediate goal US and Iraqis can accomplish. We'll see where Iraq goes from there once elections are held. The most important thing for Iraq now is ending the hostile war actions. These are all emotion-based actions that really exercise in emotional drenching. Further bloodshed and nothing will really make things any better.

Arabs just have to accept the realities of the West and its power to their lands. Believe me, Arabs aren't the only people that are and have "suffered" under the Western power. All peoples went and are going through the same thing all over the world.

Doesn't matter how you see it and how you emotionally respond to it. You've got to put your emotion suppressed and think hard and long how and why this new world has come upon you and the rest of the non-Western world. I'd say that even in the so-called Western world, there are people there who suffer the same way you do. The Western world is not a perfect world and all-mighty. You've got to see it that emotional will not make things any better.

It's just that these Western people have worked far harder and put more of their energy to make this world what it is today. I'd say that one contribution the West has made is industrialism. They introduced industrialism-based economy, it has far advanced how humankind produce food supplies and thus our way of living.

Sooner or later, you'll understand that emotional response to the West is not the answer. If you can come up with an answer that will rival industrialism and make it better, then, you will overcome the West, I'm sure.

Thank you, Bradley, for the comments and questions!

A certain wrong evaluation of the situation emanates from your words.

First, you assume Americans are viewed there as ‘Enemy’?

Well, not by the Christian Aramaeans, not by the Kurds, not by the Turkmens.

And not by the open-minded, pro-Western Shia or Sunni Arabic speaking, a minority among these populations.

Not for the time being, at least!

So, just before saying
‘If any non-Iraqi group tried to impose these reforms on Iraq, the people there wouldn't stand for it’,
one should consider what is feasible, and what is not.

What you and the American administration seem to forget is that in such a situation,
the ‘non-Iraqi group’ (that you say)
cannot afford to be (or – even worse – to show that it is) impartial.

By trying to be gentle – not at the military but at the ideological level – to its enemies in Iraq (who are very real indeed), America is about to lose its potential friends. And this is all the trickery of technical colonial entities. Chirac was expecting this, and is now very happy with this!

So, the Americans must have a very clear idea – which I claim they have not at all – of what are the ideological targets of their enemies, what runs top in their enemies’ agenda, what is the interconnection of their enemies (not necessarily states: Communism was also a threat, not only the USSR), and – this is the most important – what would be their act, their choice, their target that would destroy (undo, etc) – in the worst possible way – their enemies’ agenda.

If the Americans catch and kill Moqtada Sadr or any criminal like this, if they outmaneuver an entire terrorist network, if they impose a government, all this is not a disaster for the US enemies’ agenda. All this is political, superficial, provisory, and ephemeral – for the US enemies.

If Americans break down the vertebral column of Arabic nationalism and Islamic extremism, then they start truly damaging what is among the top ‘acquisitions’ of their enemies.

I feel I must write an article under the title ‘What would mean to Arabic nationalists and to Islamic extremists the imposition of Aramaic as official language in Aram / Nahrain – Mesopotamia (former Iraq)’, so that you realize what terrible hit it would be against all these gangs.

France created the Arabic nationalism (so, it is a creature of the French) to have it working for its goals through diplomatic – academic machinations.

Machination means you diffuse something that creates its own dynamics that you later direct as it pleases you by trickery. It is a vast subject, but it may take another article.

People usually view competition, opposition, clash, and war among states at the political and military levels only; some do so at the economic level. But there is another level, even higher: the Cultural – Ideological level.

The British French competition at the colonial level took place at the economic, military and political levels; but it did not at the cultural – ideological level. Britain did not work at that level at all. This is a non conventional approach to the two colonial empires. And it is a very vast subject. To give you a hint, the British prevailed over the (defeated by the Prussians in 1870) French in Egypt in 1882, but the French cultural – educational – ideological impact on the Egyptian society was overwhelming if compared to the British. You cannot compare the number of French and English high schools in Egypt 1890 or 1925, and you cannot compare the knowledge of Pascal and Racine an Egyptian schoolboy attending French college in 1910 Egypt had to the acquaintance of an Egyptian schoolboy attending English college in 1910 Egypt with Coleridge and Bede.

It seems you studied my CV; no, I did not discover the essence of French colonialism when studying at Sorbonne, by when living in various countries of the Middle East, and attempting to find the parallel (social – cultural – academic – ideological – behavioural – political) developments occurred between 1798 and 1918 on the three following ‘screens’: France – Ottoman Empire – Arabic speaking masses of the Middle East.

what makes you think Chirac still stands by french foreign policy after over a century? Alot has gone on in between, and evidence of French interference in the muslim world outside of Egypt & the Maghreb (North Africa) is very scarce, to say the least. Blaming arab nationalism in iraq on the french, when it was under british control for a significant part of its life, makes little sense to me. To carry a machination such as this and keep it as an important part of foreign policy for over 130 years, with three European wars in between (all of which france received a serious ass-kicking in) and several other colonial wars (algeria, for example).

I agree with you that we need to "break down the vertebral column of Arabic nationalism and Islamic extremism". Because nationalism is inherently evil, it is my belief. However, do you think such an incredibly nationalistic country as the USA is able to declare and carry out a crusade on nationalism? If Bush did this he would be viewed as grossly hypocritical.

I would be indebted to you if you could explain just how it is you think that Arab nationalism somehow works in France's favour. I can understand why it would be in other colonial nations' (GB + USA) disfavour, as is obvious to all.

Also, to what extent has french culture/ideology (apart from nationalism) permeated Iraqi society, and by what vectors?

You'll soon notice that Megalommatis manages to find an opportunity to bash French colonialism in every one of his essays - no matter how irrelevant it is He writes about different topics, but ultimately it always boils down to two main gripes: 1. French colonialism, and to a lesser extent British colonialism, is the root of all evil and 2. there are no such people as "arabs."

No offence Mega, but I found it difficult that a professor would write such rubbish. I have never agreed with your arguments, but you have excelled yourself here.


sure it does, it says so in my atlas.


ditto for every country in Africa, and many other countries around the world. There are many countries that have different cultural dimensions - we are even encouraging cultural diversity here in Australia. It doesn't mean that it makes them impossible to exist, it just provides a challenge for people to co-exist.


A common western misconception. Shia and Sunni get along fine in Iraq. There are foreign elements in Iraq that are desperately trying to stir up violence between sunnis and shiites, but for every attack on a shiite mosque, sunnis organise a joint sunni/shiite rally in a show of solidarity, and vice versa. Shiites do not hate sunnis because of Saddam - Saddam's regime was not a sunni dictatorship as the western media portray it. Sunnis suffered under Saddam just like the shiites. Robert Fisk, a well known reporter on Iraq, admitted that he was wrong about his original prediction of a sunni/shiite civil war in post Saddam Iraq. After living in Iraq for a while, he realised that sunnis and shiites are not the enemies they are portrayed as.


Yes, ethnic cleansing is definitely a legitimate and humane solution, and no doubt one that the international community will support wholeheartedly. After all, no one minded when Hitler and Milosevic tried it did they?


may I suggest setting up some sort of secret police to monitor the citizenry and "root out" the "radical" and "terrorist" elements? Obviously there's no risk of this system being open to abuse - we all agree exactly which people are "radical" and "terrorist" right?


Yep, concentration camps are a great way to impose freedom and democracy.

[sigh]

Hi Bradley, and Greetings again!

Empires follow policies and strategies that are more definitely fixed than the rails of the trains! Tactics matter little in this regard. The real strategy line shifts, a degree or two, more slowly than … Pluto, if you have an idea about astrology!

To answer directly:
What makes you think Chirac still stands by French foreign policy after over a century?
The immensely celebrated ‘centennaire de l’ Entente Cordiale’…
If one does not weight properly every event, and keeps attributing the same value to different things (French – English relationship, and let’s say French – German relations), either misunderstanding is caused or hypocrisy is involved.

A lot has gone on in between, you say, but this – you should know – changed nothing in the strategies of empires, or in the importance itself of the strategies for the empires themselves.

You say:
Evidence of French interference in the Muslim world outside of Egypt & the Maghreb (North Africa) is very scarce, to say the least.

Wrong, wrong, wrong! To say the least.

French involvement in Lebanon and Syria is overwhelming, in Muslim non Arabic-speaking Africa is extensive, in Asia is even more elaborate. Do you know Michel Aflaq, the basis of Baathist inspiration? He was Syrian, but influenced Iraq much more than Gertrud Bell.

Shall we talk ‘Iran’? Where did Khomeini go, after he was – so strangely and so timely – kicked out of Iraq? Where did Farah Diba, the fallen empress, study, before getting married with the Shah? What about Bani Sadr, and Sadeq Gotbzadeh, if you happen to know these names?

French influence is not unimportant in Afghanistan and Central Asia either. As far as India (in its entirety) and Indonesia, yes, I agree with you, but the entire area, although vast and heavily populated, did not truly generate events or ideas of global Islamic call. To say it differently: Indonesians travel to Egypt and Saudi Arabia to study the false version of Islam that is offered there, and not Egyptians or Saudis to Indonesia. Indian Muslims travel to Iran and/or Saudi Arabia.

I do not know your origin, but you sound more American than British. Your approach is quantitative, as is America’s (since that country is a huge non-colonial and non-imperial country), whereas the empires’ approach is absolutely qualitative. You don’t need to have 400 Egyptologists to get it done; you have got to have available 18 Egyptologists with proper education, with the strategy needs, scope and targets assimilated, with the imperial ‘machination’ methodology absolutely absorbed in their mind, mentality and behaviour. This is an empire; not the number of university chairs or departments available per thematic unit.

You keep saying that
‘Blaming Arab nationalism in Iraq on the French, when it was under British control for a significant part of its life, makes little sense to me’
because you fail to understand that what matters is who generates the ideology, not who governs the country.

British did not generate ideologies; they had their own, and even they did not wish to impose it to other peoples. They have rather shown to the various colonized peoples how ‘it’ works more easily and more effectively. Theirs was a far more ethical approach, in the sense ‘like this we became strong/developed, do it, and you will become strong/developed too’.

So, intellectual, educational, cultural, ideological and political developments in Middle Eastern (colonized by the British) areas occurred according to the French colonial machinations, not following a supposed British plan. The British impact was economic, military and political. When the British interfered into the ideological field, they used ‘stuff’ already created by the French, they did not actually ‘invent’ something.

You find astonishing to attest a situation like that
‘To carry a machination such as this and keep it as an important part of foreign policy for over 130 years, with three European wars in between (all of which france received a serious ass-kicking in) and several other colonial wars (algeria, for example)’,
but there has been an unbelievable continuity in French ideology, academic and intellectual life (first) and colonial strategy (second) that proves you wrong!

The impressive (for you) wars were just business as usual for the far–reaching strategy of France. Either they won or they lost.

On another subject now.
I do not think that the US is ‘an incredibly nationalistic country’. Not at the classical sense and use of the term. If you mean a form of ego-centrism, then yes, this is there, and very strong indeed; but it is not what has usually been a ‘nationalism’. Certainly there are nationalist groups in the US, some of them have a religious nationalistic dimension, but the entire country cannot be characterized as nationalistic. An increased sense of patriotism, and a belief in a special role/vocation of the country are not strong tools of nationalism.

At the end you ask me how or why
‘Arab nationalism somehow works in France's favour’.
and you find difficult to understand
why it would be in other colonial nations' (GB + USA) disfavour,
as is obvious to all.

I will start from the last;
well, what you may see you do not necessarily master!
I see a satellite but I do not know how it works, because I did not invent it.

Then, England was/is a colonial power but of very different nature than France. I already gave you a hint.

America is not a colonial power; the US is a big country. A very big country that distances the rest in an unprecedented way throughout the World History. Even at the times of Assurbanipal, Dareius and Alexander, there were very strong states in distant China and Mexico. If we limit everything between Indus river and the Ionian Sea, the three emperors occupied almost all the territory, which is not the case for America. But America is not an empire or a colonial power.

Quite similarly, Germany was stronger than other countries in the late 30s, but was not colonial power either. And of course, Germany was the 3rd industrial power in 1939, after the USA and the USSR. So, the parallel with America is established only at the level of ‘powerful but not colonial’.

Russia was certainly a colonial country, and it still is. But it was an ideologically weak empire, if compared to France and England, and it still is, since it has no easiness in assimilating most of its Asiatic elements.

Japan was like Germany, militarily and economically strong, but not a colonial power. A colonizer is something far more sophisticated and therefore powerful than a mad, aggressive attacker.

Spain was the real model of France, but Spain abandoned colonialism long ago, and no threat can come from Madrid in this regard, since the Iberian capital did not even ‘follow the developments’.

Truly speaking, there is no country left today to be of the same colonial type as France; that is why the US and the UK cannot use the French ‘creature’.

Of course, all this is the first in a long series of points…

Both countries are shaped very differently than France. Professors and academicians are deeply involved in the French colonial policy making. The functioning of the upper class matters a lot. People like Kissinger in the States were always an exception. The equivalent in the States would be that people like Martin Bernal (author of the venerated Black Athena) and Edouard Said (the author of Orientalism) – both being at the antipodes of, and contributing to a severe criticism of, the French colonial fabrication – would be instrumental at the side of US Presidents and Secretaries of State. This is another point.

In addition, with the exception of several excellent (like the aforementioned) but politically ineffective or isolated scholars (who appeared only recently in the States – the last 20 – 30 years), never did the US and the UK understand the system, the pillars, the interconnections and interactions, the targets and the functionality of the Arabic nationalism. So, how to use something they ignore?

Yes, if you want, the British did use it in Arabia, but this use was of occurrence, not of teleology. This makes a great difference. You do not ‘learn’ like this.

Finally, there is a difference in the impact of French culture from Algeria to Iraq. Sure! But let’s ask realistic questions. France knew that it would be impossible to colonize all the world! That large part would go to England, Italy, Germany, Russia, Holland, and Belgium - plus what was left with the Spaniards and the Portuguese.

What was the interest of France in this regard was (not to ultimately diffuse French culture but) to trigger developments that would engulf the non-controlled area into the same ‘project’, that would keep it aligned with the basic targets of the French colonial strategy.

Never forget, the Arabic nationalism is NOT a French ideology; it is a made in France ideology, a bon-pour-l’-Orient trickery. Nothing to be used on French soil!

Thanks for the questions!

you dedicate the second half of that post to answering my question of how what you allege (which I have still not digested, I'll get back to you on that one) is beneficial to France and yet... never once actually make any attempt to answer it, focusing instead on why the US+UK have not acted in a similar way. Could you please actually answer that?

as for my background...born in england to an english father and french mother. educated in london at a french 'state school' (not exactly, as it was partly fee paying, but overcrowded, low-middle class and urban as you would expect any state school to be; and the fees we payed were onl;y because the french government had almost completely disowned the school since it was based abroad), switching to the british section of that school (same establishment, but english curriculum, lessons in english, english exams, and so on) at my last two years. then switching, for my last two years of school, to one of the very top schools in the UK, this time private. Now I am at oxford university studying a scientific subject, whilst my family has progressed to upper middle class.

make of it what you will; but there's nothing American about me! I like to think I've had as thorough, wide, mixed and balanced an education as a child could possibly ask for.

Thank you, Bradley, for your answer, and the details about your background.

However, I do not understand why you ‘complain’; in your previous mail (that posted on the 10th of January) you asked many things, namely the continuity of an empire’s strategies, scarcity of French interference outside the Maghreb, the character of the American nationalism, how the Arab nationalism works in favour of France, and why it does not in favour of others.

I answered all this, but you ask now how the Arab nationalism is beneficial to France. Already, I should wait perhaps your feedback, after you ‘digest’ the last post. However, I think there might be a problem of methodology, if not different methodological approach. This might also have to do with the differences between scientific disciplines; History functions very differently than the Political Sciences.

By asking ‘how something works in favour of a state’ you imply – in History – either that the state in question encountered a profitable situation and took profit of it, or searched for this situation, or conceived and materialized it.

The Islamic Caliphates found a large commercial network linking the world of central and eastern Mediterranean with the Eastern African coast, with India, Indochina and Indonesia, and with China, and by shaping a vast state that could not be circumvented they took profit of it. This is the first case.

The second case is Spain and Portugal; they searched for a profitable situation, land, call it however you like, in order to take profit of it (the New World). They were followed by England, Holland and France for some time, only to be later joined in similar search by Russia, Germany, Italy, and Belgium. In different part of the world, yes, but the concept was the same.

Both cases were nothing new; we met these cases in Oriental Antiquity, since the establishment of the Akkadian empire in Mesopotamia around 2500 BCE.

The third case, namely to conceive and materialize an exploitable situation, which is typical to French colonialism, presupposes a lot of theoretical work, great academic and diplomatic preparation.

Any of these cases – and more particularly the last – matters in History as a dimension of action and consequence; ‘how does it work in favour of them?’ has a simple answer: ‘according to the preparation of the project / as they prepared and implemented their plan’ (or similar other expressions). What matters is what one conceived, prepared, implemented.

I realize that you care for the result of an action, which is for me meaningless or insignificant. “How something is beneficial” is not “how something works in favour”. In the latter one refers to the elaboration and the implementation of a project. In the former one refers to a simple description of a current situation. Certainly the former is far less important than the latter.

Even more so, what is important for an Historian is to detect and unveil the conception and the materialization of a plan, plus to describe the stages of its materialization. The consequent results matter not.
But the discussion may turn to the relative insignificance of the Political Sciences if compared to the discipline of History, which could even lead to comparisons between a political occurrence and the long millennia of the Human History.

All this does not mean that there is no answer to your question; I will proceed right away, but all that I am going to say (and prove) is not the essential in my own researches.

The situation of which France takes profit (as well as old times rival and concurrent Britain, plus the colonially ulterior America) is not the present occurrence but a long sequence of occurrences that were all beneficial to France as phases of deployment (implementation) of the colonial French project (never forget Arabic nationalism is just part of it – and never forget it has to do with ideologies’, and academic and intellectual approaches’ diffusion / implementation).

France took great economic profit of detaching Egypt from the Ottoman Empire.

France took great academic, educational, cultural and ideological profit of the creation of the Orientalism that is a biased way of representation and interpretation of the Oriental History.

France took great economic and political profit by gradually dismembering the Ottoman empire, from 1828 – 1830 (Greece – Algeria) to 1920 (Syria – Lebanon).

France took uniquely great profit of the gradual diffusion of ideological and behavioural subsystems that antedated and heralded Arabic nationalism, as well as of the propagation of Arabic nationalism, in terms of the following points:

1. Without the creation of a false, fake, bogus-nation of ‘Arabs’, the Ottoman Empire or any successive form would control all the area from the Balkans to Yemen, and from Oman to Palestine, to say the least.

2. One state of the size of the Ottoman Empire in 1914, with the Oil resources exploited ever since, and with the modernization – industrialization as applied in the 1930s in Turkey, would be a major superpower far more important than France, Germany, and the USSR. Only England could match that state in the 30s and the US in the 50s.

3. Through Orientalism, ‘Arab’ Nationalism and Colonialism France imposed even the western chronological system (division to these months, dating system of Christian era), which never prevailed outside Europe and America until the 19th century.

4. By plunging all the colonized area to division, weakness, misery, underdevelopment, poverty, and consequently lack of education, cultural shocks and complete ignorance, and by creating a psychological shock among the local populations, France pushes them to extreme reactions that fit the interests of tyrannical puppets and/or a perverted Muslim priesthood, engulfing the entire area in an unprecedented hatred, and vulgar barbarism.

5. When the besotted military puppets become tyrants who imposed ‘Arab’ nationalism, France did not need to interfere at all. From the 1952 military coup until now, Egypt remained a social and political corpse plunged in the ominous situation France wishes that country (along with the rest, the entire area of Africa and the Middle East) to be.
You ask how all this is beneficial to France!

The simplest answer is that when one is totally deprived from his identity and from knowledge, one becomes immediately the tool of the other.

I could even ask you how you ask this!

Where do students of Greece, Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Iran and India go to study the history of their respective lands, cultures, and civilizations?

France, England, Europe, and later America.

This is the way Arab nationalism becomes beneficial to France:

by eternalizing the chains of dependence of the permanently underdeveloped – at all levels – countries.

There will never be a South Korea among the colonized areas of the Ottoman empire, and do not even mention the ‘entrepot’ of Dubai! And even South Korea did not impose Korean lifestyle allover the world. France did; through Arab nationalism and other colonial schemes.

What I finally imply - to return to my political approach now - is that what was to the profit of France is now detrimental for the entire world.

All the World cannot accept the existence of the French plan anymore, because the French plan has one single end:

Ossama Bin Laden and the Islamic Terrorism.

To let you understand in the way you seem to prefer, I stress the following:

If the Ottoman Empire had been left intact within its 1914 dimensions, either under Ottoman - Imperial or under Republican authority, the Mankind would never have faced the phenomenon of Islamic extremism and terrorism.

What brought all this crap to surface was France.

For GandalphtheGrey:

Yes, 'Iraq' is in your Atlas!

And in your Dictionary, you will find the word IDIOCY.

It may be for you the perfect mirror!

Tolkien died 1973, Yuri Andropov died 1983, and

Grey beings must currently be gravely ill!

now now, there's no need for that. I apologise if I seemed a little short with you in my first post, but lets not resort to name calling.

Perhaps you missed my point: your assertion that Iraq does not exist is neither here nor there. Under what criteria do you think a country does or does not exist? It seems to me you are really saying "I don't think Iraq should exist", but the fact is, it DOES exist, simply because it is universally recognised as existing.

All countries are essentially artificial and the fact is the world is full of countries that have been created by colonialism and backstage scheming.

Perhaps you could address some of my other points - especially your advocation of ethnic cleansing and the establishment of concentration camps

For GandalfTheGrey:

Ok, we will not use these words, but remember, I did not start like that!

A first answer is in the next article:

A Map for Aram Nahrain / Mesopotamia: the Key to Peace in Iraq (on the same forum today).

More precisely on the points 'deportation' (not ethnic cleansing) and reality of a state's existence will come tomorrow in an additional answer.

Time to address straight your last post’s points, GandalphtheGrey:

You ask under what criteria I think a country exists or does not.
Look, let’s suppose that America invades Sicily or Corsica and makes of them separate independent countries. This may be reflect realities that exist before the hypothetical American interference. Sicilians speak their own language, as well as Corsicans do, and the respective local languages are highly incomprehensible for Italians at Rome and French at Paris respectively. There is a different culture in both cases, and more ostensibly in the case of Corsica there is a local willingness for independence, secession, or anything you want to call in similar way. More importantly, there are no local minorities or other ethnic, linguistic, and religious groups. To say it more precisely, in Corsica you have Corsicans, and perhaps an insignificant number of foreigner workers originating from Maghreb, but they are not a locally based traditional – significant in numbers – group / people. You do not have a hypothetical Corsica inhabited by various groups, namely Catalonians (let’s say 10%), Italians (let’s say 15%), Germans (let’s say 5%), French (let’s say 15%), and Corsicans (let’s say 55%). So, since this hypothetical multiethnic Corsica does not exist, a foreign intervention – that is also a matter of hypothesis in this text – has the chance to create an ‘existing’ state. This did not happen, and actually could not happen in Iraq.

As a consequence, Iraq never truly existed in the same way Turkey, Iran, Greece and Bulgaria. It was an artificial unit under colonial control, and it was to be expected that, when the control was to end, the area should either be attached to Turkey (from which it was mistakenly dissociated) either split to five regions – cantons – states.

As a brief conclusion: colonialism was of wrong conception and of even poorer execution, and it became the generator of the Islamic terrorism that we currently attest.

In the very way Might is not always Right, Might may at times be Stupid. Colonial France and Britain may have won a nationalistic war over Austria-Hungary, Germany, the Ottoman Empire, and Japan (what was called WW I) but for the entire Mankind this was a terrible disaster and cause of many antihuman and barbaric developments.

It would be far better for the entire world that Turkey controls all the areas, illegally stolen by murderous and criminal France, because the arrival of Mustafa Kemal Pasa Ataturk in Turkey and the rapid westernization and industrialization process would have expanded down to Yemen, Hedjaz, Oman and Palestine. A secular state in those areas would be the ultimate guarantee against the Islamic obscurantist radicalism that perverse France intended to create and did actually create at the prejudice of not only the US but the entire world.

And to continue, of course royalist and/or Baathist Iraq did never exist. A king lynched in the middle of the streets of Baghdad, is that a way of existence? Paranoid, hysterical and cannibalistic thugs usurping the power and establishing a Mafia regime without any real law, is that a way of existence? When you have so miserable human trash as rulers, when they use their criminality to feed their vast and profound complexes of uniquely extreme inferiority (and I have known the Saddam Hussein regime 'diplomats' and 'administrators' only too well so that I can speak on that for days) towards the civilized world, is that a way of existence?

The support of France and Russia helped mostly that non-existent country exist; but when you ‘exist’ because others want you to ‘exist’, then truly speaking you do not exist….

Of course, you are right, History is always Past; in addition to ‘Iraq never existed’, you understood me well, I state that Iraq should not exist, or must not exist, and furthermore I demand that Iraq ceases to exist, so that the vicious plans of the French fail, and the world gets free from the forthcoming Islamic Terrorist nightmare.

Jailing, torturing and killing criminals is not enough.

Jailing criminals is unpractical for Americans in their efforts to bring about a number of civilized societies in Mesopotamia – do not call it ‘Iraq’.

Torturing is unethical and immaterial.

Killing makes the methodically besotted Islamic terrorists happy (since they want this) and is unpractical (you eliminate one and create two in his/her stead)

America and the civilized world must destroy the basic points of the Lerna Hydra: the tri-cephalic Monster of French colonialism, Arabic Nationalism, and Islamic Terrorism.

By imposing Five Cantons,
By transporting all the Sunni populations to areas indicated in the article A Map for Aram Nahrain / Mesopotamia,
By liberating and re-assuring Christian Aramaeans, Turkmens and Kurds, while keeping them out of the problem’s epicenter,
By imposing Aramaic as basic language for all,
By ridding Aramaeans, Kurds, and Turkmens of any education in Arabic,
By creating basics of Historical Education focused on the Aramaean, the Mesopotamian, the Iranian and the Ottoman past – following the Turkish model of Education,

America can show to the terrorists that they already lost much in Aram Nahrain – Mesopotamia, and that only the pro-Civilization elements (do not call them pro-Western, they need not to be pro-Western) will be left to survive.

Yes, I understand your point about colonial entities, but I do not think that by over-generalizing you are going to be led to significant conclusions! Chile was a colony, Angola was a colony, Malta was a colony, Estonia was a colony, Cameroon was a colony, Senegal was a colony, Surinam was a colony and Eritrea was a colony but every colony has its particularities and what is good for one may be bad for the other. But no colonialism was worse than what was applied in the area of the Ottoman Empire after 1798, because nothing was more abnormal than colonizing parts of the Ottoman Empire.

By attempting to prevail over their main rival, France and Britain acted in the most disastrous way for people involved or not in the area concerned. And they unleashed the Spectrum of the most Bestial feeling and mindset.

At the end you make a confusion between my advocacy for deportation and ethnic mass separation and ethnic cleansing! I hope you realize how far these terms are one from another.

Ultimately, everything for an administration is a matter of clear perception and clear decision.

Fighting against Islamic terrorism, the Civilized world – in a critical effort to stop the radicalization of the entire Islam and to prevent the majority of Muslims from slipping to the false version of Islam propagated by the pseudo-Muslim sheikhs – may be in need of killing a great number of extremists.

How many Germans had to be killed in WW II?

Millions.

This is the only correct approach.

By avoiding to see this reality now, the Civilized World plays the game of the Islamic Terrorism, and America plays the game of France that stands behind the Islamic Terrorism phenomenon.

In a few years, the entire Islamic world will have been slipped to the bogus-Islamic version of the criminal puppet sheikhs.

Then, they will present their False Mahdi / Messiah accompanied by their False (for either Islamic or Christian concepts) Jesus in a fight against the Society of Evil that will be – for them – the Civilized World, be it Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian or else.

This is what they are planning now, and journalists, academics, diplomats and politicians in Europe, America, and other parts of the Civilized World have no idea...

If we reach that level, Hitler will prove to be innocent compared to the forthcoming abnormal and monstrous…

Don't you see the hypocricy in your argument? You condemn France for interfering and imposing their will on the Iraqis, yet you argue that the US should essentially do exactly the same thing! The solution is not to replace one colonial monster with another, the solution is to allow and help the native people sort things out for themselves. You advocate a whole new scheme of intervention, seemingly ignorant of the fact that that is the root cause of all the trouble.

I think our differences stem from a fundamental disagreement over human nature. You seem to believe that ethnic tensions and cultural differences are immutable, and the only solution is separation rather than coexistence. This is a very sad and pessimistic outlook and one that I do not share. History has shown that coexistance is extremely effective at breaking down cultural boundaries. It is in fact quite possible to mix cultures and unite them into a blended culture when those people become more familiar with each other. Tension is caused by unfamiliarity, and history has shown time and time again that increased coexistence and familiarity with each other breaks down this tension. Yes, the creation of Iraq was probably less than ideal, but what you are suggesting is to turn the clock back almost 100 years. You simply cannot do that, its much too late. I would rather that the artificial state of Israel did not exist, but it does exist and there's nothing that can be done about it now. The only solution is to help the opposing forces coexist. I have seen much evidence to make me satisfied that Iraqis can and do get along together. Sunni and Shia families inter-marry and they pray together. The people who are desperately trying to stir up a sunni-shia rift are foreign terrorists who are mostly unwelcome in Iraq. If you go back far enough in history, you will see how silly your criteria for countries to exist is. Name virtually any country, and you will see that there was never a perfect cultural unity upon which that nation could be built. England: saxons, angles, jutes, celts, normans, all opposing forces, yet eventually united into what we now call "English". Italy - was there a united "Italian" culture before the Romans conquered it? There are different cultures that are united in the same country everywhere, but it doesn't mean its a recipe for disaster. There has been an "Iraqi" entity for almost 100 years. It has existed, and can continue to exist, and forced seperation is definitely not the solution.


Interesting that you omit the fact that it was your beloved USA that was most responsible for that "mafia regime" from usurping power in the first place! The CIA describes the Baathist takeover as "our greatest coup". Also, the US was most responsible for allowing that regime to survive. There is little doubt that Iran would have overrun Iraq in the 1980s and overthrown the Baathist regime. Yet it was the US under Reagan who supported those "cannibalistic thugs" and enabled them to stave off what would have been a certain Iranian victory. Also, it might interest you to know that the US trained a special unit of Baathists in the tactics of guerrilla warfare - in the event of Iran occupying Iraq. Clearly the US had a contingency plan in the even of an Iranian occupation, which would facilitate the re-establishment of the Baathist regime! Ironic isn't it that since the US overthrew Saddam, they are up against a resistance trained by the US themselves! Then we jump to 1991 - Saddam's forces are routed from Kuwait, and the President - Bush snr urges the shiites to rise up against Saddam. Obviously the feeling was that Bush would support them. Bush not only abandoned them, he allowed Saddam to deploy his helicopters to slaughter thousands upon thousands of mostly civilians and crush the resistance.

Terrorism:

No amount of intervention by the US can solve the problem of islamic terrorism. Why? Because US intervention is the root cause of islamic terrorism in the first place. I am flabbergasted that after all this time of occupation - where terrorism had decidedly become worse, and it is obvious to anyone who is prepared to think objectively that it is the resentment of occupation that is causing the terrorism - you still think that still more intervention is the solution! Yet funnily enough, you seem to acknowledge this, even though you directly contradict yourself later on:



Exactly right - torturing, gaoling and killing merely "eliminates one and creates two in his/her stead" I couldn't have put it better myself. And yet you appear to be conflicted when you say further on:



So is killing and torturing and gaoling the correct approach or not? One minutes you say it isn't the next you say it is.



you're right, I don't see the difference. You want to force people against their will to evacuate their homes - where they have been living all their lives, and move somewhere else. This really is too rediculous to discuss, there is no difference between this and what the Nazis did to the Poles and what Milosevic did to the Croats and Kosovars. There is a fundamental human right enshrined in the UN charter - its called the right to self determination.

You used the word "UN". That alone will make some people not take your arguments seriously- which is unfortunate, as they are very good arguments which I happen to agree with.

Before you answer my previous mail, GandalftheGray, I complete my last reply with a reference to the point that you cannot understand, namely the vast difference between a) my advocacy for deportation and ethnic mass separation and b) ethnic cleansing!

Plunged in confusion, you embarked on ‘clarifications’ writing “there is no difference between this and what the Nazis did to the Poles and what Milosevic did to the Croats and Kosovars”.

You seem reluctant to take a correct look onto History.

How would you call the deportation of millions of Greeks living in Anatolia to Greece, and the deportation of hundreds of more than a million of Turks living in Southern Balkans, in the Aegean Sea, and in Crete in 1925, following the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne? Was it an ethnic cleansing? Certainly not. It was ‘deportation and ethnic mass transportation’ that was effectuated following specific terms of an agreed treaty. It may displease your highly ideologized concepts and approaches, but I am afraid the only thing left to you is just to reconsider!

I will get to another point now. How do you call, the movement (you see I do not use any term, yours or mine) of millions of Germans from territories that were German in 1936, after ‘it was decided’ that they would belong to Poland after the defeat of Nazi Germany? You call it ethnic cleansing? Then, wrong!

Another question: how do you call the movement of thousands of Austrians from Trieste or Zagreb to the limited territory republic that was left as home to them after the end of WW I?

Even more so, how do you call (fourth example) the movement of thousands of Palestinians in 1948, who willingly abandoned their homes to move to other countries answering to an idiotic and ludicrous call from internationally impotent but locally cruel tyrants and bogus-kings? Ethnic cleansing? Wrong!

As you see, I offered you various examples, all different one from another, the 1925 Greeks and the Turks, the 1945 Germans, the 1920 Austrians, the 1948 Palestinians. None of these all is an ethnic cleansing.

Ethnic cleansing is precisely the dictatorial decision and its implementation with respect to depriving a land from its historicity, namely the local people, ethnic, linguistic, religious, cultural group that through social interaction developed civilization in that precise land.

If the Ayatullahs of Iran decide tomorrow to deport approximately 1.5 million Loris far from Loristan – an area in Middle Zagros mountains that was home to the Loris for some thousands of years – to let’s say Eastern Iran, then, yes, this is not just a mass transportation / deportation, it is an ethnic cleansing. Even more so, if the decision and the implementation have a lot to do with ideological – political options (attempting a re-interpretation of the academically accepted History). Of course, it can be even a lower motifs’ action, the result of hatred between two ethnic groups, as we attested it repeatedly in Africa.

Saddam Hussein actually practiced ethnic cleansing against Kurds, Turkmens and Aramaeans. This is very well known.

I would even say that ethnic cleansing is the creation of an atmosphere of the utmost tyrannical oppression in which local groups cannot react but by emigrating to another country; it is an indirect ethnic cleansing, and it was extensively attested especially against the Aramaic populations in the times of ‘Iraqi’ ‘kingdom’, ‘republic’, and Saddam tyranny. That is why I demand they be reimbursed their properties, and invited back to their country, Aram Nahrain – Mesopotamia.

If we refer to the aforementioned various examples, and compare them with what I suggest now, we realize that what I suggest stands almost in-between the Greek/Turkish and the German examples. It is an effort to pacify those who cannot live in peace.

You cannot impose on Christian Aramaeans, on Mandaean Aramaeans, on Yezidi Kurds, on pro-Western Sunni and Shia Kurds, on westernized Turkmens, to say a minimum number of minorities, a flag with colours reminding those of Arabic speaking countries, and you cannot impose on them a flag with the words ‘Allahu Akbar’, because they reject it.

Why do you not repeat your eloquent sentence, using it this time for the Eastern Germans in 1945? Tell the victorious USA, UK and USSR, and tell the then nascent UN “You want to force people against their will to evacuate their homes - where they have been living all their lives, and move somewhere else”.

You see how ridiculous it would sound?

So, it does when being presented as an answer to my suggestion for a viable solution of the ‘Iraq’ nightmare before it generates worse developments for all the world.

You seem to forget that the only people, who would reject this project of pacifying Mesopotamia, are those who create the problem: the Sunni Arabic speaking people. The Aramaeans would accept it, the Turkmens would do so, and the Shia would be happy with it. The Kurds would object the Kirkuk separation from their dreams, but at the end they would agree.

So, you understand that what I suggest with regard to the Sunni Arabic speaking gang (that supported criminal Saddam Hussein, and is currently hiding behind the Islamic terrorists) is that it is deprived from any means to achieve their plans of deterioration of the life conditions of all the rest, plus of the Americans.

They must be depossessed of their properties, flats, houses, belongings, etc., transported to the indicated area, start living in tents for a year or two (until building proper houses), and then (after a lot of education, training, and restructuring) be given the possibility to have land lots, infrastructure, and local markets. They must be isolated from all the rest, and all their bank accounts must be frozen.

Among their sheikhs those, who reject this solution, must be killed immediately as terrorists, whereas in their deportation area the khutbah (Friday prayer sermon) will be that given one week earlier by the sheikh of the Blue Mosque at Istanbul and sent in tapes.

That khutbah (sermon) should be also published in a Western language on a special website, so that it be compared to the numerous, extremist, bogus-Islamic, trivial Khutba speeches given in various countries, and finally admitted for its real, peaceful and civilized nature. At the same time major concern of the West should become the way to avoid the fabrication of millions of Ossama bin Ladens that are being currently produced in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Algeria and elsewhere by means of Satanic, extremist and bogus-Islamic khutbah speeches. But this is of course another issue.

By doing so, America would guarantee that the rotten part is cut off, and the rest not exposed to any contamination.

Either you are daydreaming or you are playing the game of Ossama bin Laden, when saying – with regard to my Sunni deportation suggestion – that ‘there is a fundamental human right enshrined in the UN charter - its called the right to self determination’.

I do not think the Germans had any in 1945.

And I do not think the Sunni Arabic speaking gangs of ‘Iraq’ have any.

And again, if they have any, so do all the rest, who are threatened by the Sunni criminal and antihuman cannibalism.

To end up, what I am saying is that the Americans should say to these criminals what the Allies said to the Germans in 1945.

- You lost, and you will pay; you will pay so much as it takes for you to understand that you will not do it again.

And the loss must be irreversible, extremely painful, and absolutely didactic.

Made sense until the "Iraqis aren't Arabs" part...

Genetically, Egyptians are not related to the original tribes of Arabia. But regardless, Egyptians are probably more "Arab" then any other Arabs.

Though you could argue that Shia Islam (historically oppressed by Turks and fellow Arabs) will give Iraq a strong identity in opposition to Sunni Arabia.

It is clear that you have no background and no idea about the History of the Middle East.

Only the inhabitants of Hedjaz and the bedouins of Nafd are Arabs. In Hedjaz one certainly has to do with a great part of mixture since many Persians, Turks, Indians and Africans decided in various historical moments to move from their land of origin, and settle there.

Certainly the Egyptians are not Arabs, as you seem already to imply it!

What is the epicenter of your erroneous understanding is ...
1. the naivety - to take at face value whatever one (person and/or people: it makes no difference) says about oneself or
2. the complicity - in a diplomatic / political agenda of (French?) colonial nature.

In other words, either you are
a. naive or
b. an accomplice (so you will never accept the truth against which your plans and schemes have worked).

Assuming you are rather the former, I can assure you that, through an Error Analysis approach, believing that the modern Egyptians are ... Arabs (because they say so) is precisely the same mistake as accepting anything any person may tell you about him/herself.

To give you an example, you find a person in the street, he says to you that he is a cousin to Warren Buffet, and that if you transfer to his account US $ 100000, he will help you get tenfold return within a week! You effectuate the transfer, and .... you lose your money.

So 'real' was the (hypothetical) cousin of Warren Buffet!

And so real are the 'Arabs' in the bodies of present day Egyptians!

Of course, I do not suggest in this regard that they tell you lies.

They truly believe that they are Arabs, because this has long been taught to them dictatorially, tyrannically.

They never heard a proper refutation of the criminal (and deforming their nature and identity) falsehood that they are Arabs.

However, it is essential to remind to you that most of the Egyptians, who believe as you say, if they meet an historian who clearly explains to them the falsehood of that belief in terms that are proper and familiar (not those used in an academic lecture) to them, they accept the veracity of the statement that ...

the Egyptians are not Arabs. Except those who are very fanaticized.

You seem totally unaware of the fact that France created this falsehood to make it fit its colonial and imperial schemes, and then properly diffused it throughout the Middle East during the 19th and the 20th centuries down to our days.

But this falsehood means nothing that we should take for serious or granted!

If the Tunisians are cheated, misled and misguided up to the point of believing that they are ..... Romans, only a naive or an accomplice would believe so!

The ensuing disaster of a war started by Tunisians ready to revendicate ... Rome as theirs is easily imaginable. Similarly disastrous results should be expected in any case of a false historical identity attributed or attached to any people.

A false historical identity is progenitor of wars and tyrannies.

The entire discussion has to do with the famous and irrelevant idiocy of Rousseau, an unrealistic and pathetic 'thinker' and a bogus-philosopher of the noble salons of his times for whom 'philosophy' was the way of impressing rich noble women and nothing more. That idiocy of Rousseau's (totally rejected by Voltaire and any respectful philosophers and intellectuals) was not limited at the level of nations and peoples, but extended at the level of persons.

For the disastrous character of its impact on the former level, ignorance and lack of proper academic knowledge (of the 18th century - so even that would have been completely reassessed today) are the reasons. Rousseau had a wrong and poor idea about Ancient Greece and Rome, and knew nothing of the Oriental Antiquity.

Rousseau's idea had a very negative impact at the social level as well, contributing to enhancement of hypocrisy, a typical characteristic of the French society, but this is not the issue here.

You understand of course that there will be NO PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST WITHOUT THE EXTERMINATION OF THE PAN-ARABIC FALSEHOOD.

Those thinking that Palestine / Israel is a problem are also irrelevant; it is not!

And what you suggest about a stronger Shia character of Aram Nahrain - Mesopotamia means nothing and helps nothing. Shia have been also the victims of the colonial scheme, so they are totally unable to set up a correct historical approach.

Plus, the Turkmens, the Kurds and the Christian Aramaeans of Iraq have no particular need to exchange one dictatorial rule with another, particularly if that rule is based on total and extreme deformation of the Historical Truth.