Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

I think this is my first ever thread in the Politics forum.

Well I’m not much into conspiracy theories and the like but I had this emailed to me and thought it was a bit interesting and wanted to share.

The plans for this region are to remap the Middle East like this, breaking apart all larger threats and strongholds within the region. This is the plan so that Israel can live in peace one of the thoughts of having a peaceful middle east. Is it probable? what are your thoughts?


Current Map

New Map

fayz

I read this article and saw the redrawn maps. Both the article and maps are ridiculous, imo. Consider linking to the article, it has some interesing (for lack of a better word) things to say, and it mentions Dubai and redrawing the UAE too.

I don't get it. Who has suggested all these changes? I haven't even heard about any changes in Saudi Arabia, Yemen etc. Can you please explain more.

I think there are a few other countries other than Israel that would object to such a new design. And why is the UAE in red? Who are we losing land to?

here's the link to the full article:

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899

Sounds like pure fantasy to me.

Interesting.

I've just read through the article freza provided the link to.

Looking at the title of the web site and side ads and articles, and not to mention Rumsfeld on the cover of the magazine, I thought I'd be disagreeing with the content.

However, I actually find very little to disagree with the body of the article. I think it doesn't go far enough in some of the conclusions - for example I do not think the historic drawing up of the map was 'arbitrary' - but in many cases was calculated to have the effect of dividing up ethnic groups - especially in the case of the Kurds. From the Ottomans onwards, the Kurds have been divided into different territories to keep them from getting political power.

As I said, makes interesting reading.

Sorry my original post would have made more sense if I included the link that Freza posted, thank you Freza.

It was a good read and I found it interesting, The independence of Mecca and Medina from Saudi I think would be amazing for the Muslim world and there are many other points in the article I think would be great.

Plus Ian look how many more 'stans' you can add to your list.

Kanelli,

It is American/Israeli proposal As far as i know.

I didn't read the article, as it is too early in the morning for me to do so

Thanks for the link freza, bookmarked and i'll read it.


Honestly such a map provokes me and make me feel sad.
While all the world is fighting racism, this New middle east is enhancing it but dividing people in countries according to their race. Which in my opinion is rediculious.

There are huge minorities in Europe and the states.

Go to Belgium for example, Antwerb is full of Jews.... Why don't you move Israel there???
Brussels, go to the north train station and you will think you are in Morroco... Why don't you give them part???

Hispanicsin south of USA, give them part, Italians, Lebanese, Brits in Australia... Why don't give them part......!!!!!!

I know some poeple will make arguments based on Histoical data, but then..... Where are the red indians in the states...

Anyway, it is just a way to break up big countries and have more countries in the Region so that the oil would be among more, and more countries means, more unrest, more allies and more enemies, so voia la (mind my bad french) you will have good weapons market, more US involvment, and more puppet governments.... And most important, Secured future oil reserve.

This is my humble opinoin which is as always might be right or wrong.
cheers


Edited,
And BTW ... historically, and politically.... Check maps, ANY MAP before 1948..... me, nothing named Israel ever existed.

So how can it "lose" land in this New middle east. It still see it as occupation forces until 1948 map is back...

yshimy, if you haven't read the article yet then how do you know whose proposal it is and how can you comment on the issue?

kan,

I know you hate me because my "mis understood" posts

but the new middle east has been proposed LOoooong ago, even before Iraq war, and now with the escallation by Israel, they are trying to move ahead with the plan.


That is why i indicated that i didn't read the article, as the article might be talking about "Different new middle east"

but i commenting on the map Fayz posted.


BTW, The first step in the new middle east is :

No resistance "terrorist as called by USA/Israel" Groups.

So no Hizbollah, no hammas, no Iraq resistance, no Islamic brother hood in egypt nor Gulf area, and or sure, different government in Syria and Iran

yshimy wrote:And BTW ... historically, and politically.... Check maps, ANY MAP before 1948..... me, nothing named Israel ever existed.

There was no UAE either.

mmmmmmm

Didn't look it out to be honest,

But i guess there was small emirates on the desert and belongs to Sheikh zayed family. They were and still in my opinion beduines. so .... it is their land and they just said lets call it UAE.

they didn't take a flight to somewhere and said... lets live here because all people hate us

yshimy, Israel exists and will never give up a homeland. I hope you aren't one of those people who believes that Israel should be wiped off the map in order to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Well, i wish so.
If someone took my grandfather house and lived here for 10 years and still beating my cousines and sisters, i wouldn't give it up, but find a resolution. but it dosn't mean it is his house, it means that he still occupies it.



but i dont think with the current situation it is possible for Israel (as a nation not people) to be wipped out, so for the arab israel conflict, i believe that they should stick to the borders they agreed on long ago... i can't remember the year nor the number of the agreement.

I remember Mr. Peters (the author of the map article) from past guest appearances in propaganda shows like Fox News, where he's analyzed the war in Iraq. He's said very delusional things: Power of insurgency is exaggerated, situation in Iraq is not that dangerous, US weaponry will always win, Iraq is under control, etc. etc.

This map and article are a one man's invention; it represent some aspects, but certainly not everything that the current US administration stands for. He might be changing his tune a bit due to his past blunders. I agree with him in that Israel needs to give up land that it's occupying in order to achieve peace (though I don't agree with his pre-modern-border date). But the reality of Israel's intention is obviously quite different.

It's interesting that he mentions the need for the US to be present in the Middle East to fight for democracy (ha!) and access to oil... At least he's being honest about one thing.

So some of you are interpreting the map and article as a real US plan for dividing and moulding into shape a new Middle East? I must have missed something...

yshimy wrote:It is American/Israeli proposal As far as i know.

I didn't read the article, as it is too early in the morning for me to do so

That would be a first - the US/Israel proposes that Israel gives up land .

I read the article and it sounds like the suggested boundaries are along ethnic/religious/cultural lines, intended to correct the artificial boundaries drawn up over the years by foreign powers like the Ottomans, the British, French ...

One significant change that stood out was to create a country for 20+ million Kurds who don't have one at present.

So I don't get why yshimy is criticising it. Especially as s/he hasn't even read it yet.

If you want a conspiracy theory, a much better one is the current map. Look at the territory in the Middle East the US has a presence in. And note which country they've surrounded.

Just note that i was talking about the "New middle east" as proposed by the US. And i mentioned that i didn't read the article, as may be the article suggests different middle east than the "new middle east by US/Israel", but after seeing the map, it got the same concept of dividing the countries based on ethnic demography, which i find very racist as you divide people based on their race.....

Like for example i can expect there are more Brits or Indians in UAE than nationals, does this means that we divide the UAE to parts and give the brits part and the indians another part?????

What you call by "artificial boundaries drawn up over the years by foreign powers like the Ottomans, the British, French ... "

well,, you said it, but as years move by each country got its identity and its minorities, but all have aligence ... or loyality to their flag and nation, so it is irrelevant to devide by race or religion or it will be another small Israels that is a country based on Race, or religion.

And the basis for the USA or Australia, which are countries built by immigrants would be considered as "BAD" and they have to be divided.

I don't know which country you are from, but i wouldn't like see it happening in my country, it was proposed several times, but thank god and the people opposed it that it failed.

yshimy wrote:Just note that i was talking about the "New middle east" as proposed by the US.

Well, that's not what the OP was talking about. What you're doing then is hijacking the topic.

it got the same concept of dividing the countries based on ethnic demography, which i find very racist as you divide people based on their race.....

How would you divide people then? As the Europeans did in Africa resulting in ethnic conflicts like in Rwanda, Burundi, Congo, Sudan, etc?

Like for example i can expect there are more Brits or Indians in UAE than nationals, does this means that we divide the UAE to parts and give the brits part and the indians another part?????

Expat residents are not the same as citizens so your analogy is irrelevant.

well,, you said it, but as years move by each country got its identity and its minorities, but all have aligence ... or loyality to their flag and nation, so it is irrelevant to devide by race or religion or it will be another small Israels that is a country based on Race, or religion.

It's very relevant since so many current conflicts seem to be based on race and/or religion.

And the basis for the USA or Australia, which are countries built by immigrants would be considered as "BAD" and they have to be divided.

You appear to be ignoring Aborigines and American Indians.

I don't know which country you are from

Why is that important?

but i wouldn't like see it happening in my country, it was proposed several times, but thank god and the people opposed it that it failed.

Then I guess you have no sympathy for Kurdish, or Aborigine, or an Albanian in Kosovo, or Darfurian, or Chechen, or Tibetan, or Palestinian, or Basque, or one of a number of people without a country they want to call their own.

sharewadi wrote:

yshimy wrote:Just note that i was talking about the "New middle east" as proposed by the US.

Well, that's not what the OP was talking about. What you're doing then is hijacking the topic.

Well, hijacker then i am!!!! so i was right in mentioning that i didn't read the article, so no harm

sharewadi wrote:

it got the same concept of dividing the countries based on ethnic demography, which i find very racist as you divide people based on their race.....

How would you divide people then? As the Europeans did in Africa resulting in ethnic conflicts like in Rwanda, Burundi, Congo, Sudan, etc?.

Why dividing, not uniting??? and these confilcts are not due to different races, it is due to personal greed of powerful people. have some rational, why would anyone kill another because of race, it is only a cover.
And i lived in country with different minorities and noone wanted to isolate except very few who got special interest to serve them as individuals, but always the good peple of each minority stop the madness.

I'm from Egypt, and we have Muslims, Christians (yeah yeah, some heat recently but it always ups and downs and it end up peacfully with no problems) we have nubians, arabs (sinai and borders with libya), beduins, southern egyptians (sa'aida), Europeans and americans, Armenians and greeks.

We all live in peace.

sharewadi wrote:[

Like for example i can expect there are more Brits or Indians in UAE than nationals, does this means that we divide the UAE to parts and give the brits part and the indians another part?????

Expat residents are not the same as citizens so your analogy is irrelevant. .

Well in dubai there as be the so called "expat residents" here for longer than you have been in your own country, so they have rights too. and if the papers (passports and nationality) is what counts to you... then yes it is irrelevant

sharewadi wrote:[

well,, you said it, but as years move by each country got its identity and its minorities, but all have aligence ... or loyality to their flag and nation, so it is irrelevant to devide by race or religion or it will be another small Israels that is a country based on Race, or religion.

It's very relevant since so many current conflicts seem to be based on race and/or religion.

And the basis for the USA or Australia, which are countries built by immigrants would be considered as "BAD" and they have to be divided.

You appear to be ignoring Aborigines and American Indians..

no you did, chekc my previous post when i said then Red Indians should rule the states as they are the original citizens.

sharewadi wrote:

I don't know which country you are from

Why is that important?.

why are you ashamed of your country??
important to know your background and understand the retional behind your conversation.

sharewadi wrote:[

but i wouldn't like see it happening in my country, it was proposed several times, but thank god and the people opposed it that it failed.

Then I guess you have no sympathy for Kurdish, or Aborigine, or an Albanian in Kosovo, or Darfurian, or Chechen, or Tibetan, or Palestinian, or Basque, or one of a number of people without a country they want to call their own.

My country don't have all this variation.
Then after dividing by race, divide by religion, then divide by political belife..... what is this... why countries are for???? Do you want humanity to go back as tribes, and every person stick to his clan???

i do disagree, and i have this right

BTW i'm out of here.
You are not even want to say where are you from... how can i discuss countires with someone who is not even proud of his country.

yshimy wrote:Why dividing, not uniting???

Because although uniting would be the ideal to strive for, it seems to be quite a struggle for many people...

Shias and Sunnis in Iraq
Serbians and Albanians in Kosovo
Blacks and whites in Zimbabwe
Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda

You are partly correct with your comment about corrupt and power hungry leaders. But it is the general populations' prejudices that these leaders can use to such devastating effect. Look how Yugoslavia blew up when Tito died. Look at the angry rhetoric coming from some people in this forum. Give them weapons and power and what kind of havoc would they wreak in this world (actually, not much worse than what's already going on I guess )?

You are not even want to say where are you from... how can i discuss countires with someone who is not even proud of his country.

You are very quick to judge. You judge me as not being proud of my country simply because I asked why my nationality was important to this conversation.

If I said I was a Maronite, what sort of opinion would you have of me? What if I was Israeli? Israeli Arab? Innuit? White American? Greek Cypriot? By wanting to know that so you can judge me makes you sound racist to me.

BTW i'm out of here.

Ok, bye and good luck.

Guess, what i'm back

Thanks for reply and sorry if i jumped into conclusoin, you have the right to be unidentified.

but we at least agreed that it is corrupted powers are the ones moving the masses of people against each other.

Like sunni and shiaa in iraq, yes there was histoic violance, but what is happening now i think it is because of "Corupted power"

although Saddam was corrupted, we didn't see much unrest. some will say he used to carb them, but... i think the states are more powerful, so if they couldn't do it to Saddam, i wonder how they are able to do it to USA.

anyway, Agreed on points, that is better.

Cheers man, Always friends