| The Conflict Previous chapters laid the groundwork for setting out the conflict between the Middle East and Europe, also known as the conflict between the civilizations of Islam and the West. The chapters described a process, which started with a climatic change, causing the end of the last Ice Age, the desiccation of the Middle East and the transition of Europe from an ice-bound wasteland into a fertile zone with a temperate climate. The desiccation of the South in turn caused the introduction of agriculture, the start of an upward demographic spiral and the eventual establishment of urban civilizations. Because the development was caused by a climatic upheaval, and there was a long period, between 3 - 5,000 years, from the first effects of the change in the south until they spread to the north of Europe, there was a considerable time lag between the corresponding stages in the south and the north. The time lag was so great, that there were stages of development that evaded Europe altogether. This time lag meant, that when the South had already begun elementary agriculture to supplement the hunter-gatherer existence, which suffered from desiccation, in the North there was no need for it. At the time when agriculture started in the North, demographic pressure in the South compelled its inhabitants to initiate hydraulic civilizations, meaning large-scale irrigation projects, which were based upon exploitation, oppression and tyranny. The effects of that period remained permanently imprinted on the behavior of the peoples of the Middle East by way of cultural transfer. Europe escaped that stage altogether for a number of reasons: Agriculture started later in Europe than in the Middle East, therefore the inhabitants reached the level of literate societies much later than the peoples of the Middle East. When the first, truly literate societies developed in Europe in the first half of the First Millenium BC, in the Middle East there were literate societies for three millennia already. Those Europeans, who lived near the main centers of literate societies in the Middle East, were in contact with them, as suppliers of goods and services, or as raiders and pirates. Judging from archeological sources showing Europeans as an egalitarian society, they probably disliked the type of social organization they saw in the Middle East. It is sufficient to remember that the early histories of Greece and Rome are full of efforts to prevent absolute rule and kingship. The European concept of an Oriental Despotism has a very early origin. In Europe there was no demographic pressure, so there was no need to intensify agriculture. Even if there was a need for more food, the European climate had year-round rainfall, therefore, no need for 'hydraulic' societies, hence no oppression and tyranny. There is no doubt that the conflict existed, and that it has been present for a very long time. At present, one can follow its existence on TV and the front pages of the daily papers. It is a very rare day when there is nothing appearing about the conflict on the front pages of newspapers or the TV news. It is generally thought that the conflict existed at least since the emergence of Islam and its eruption from the Arabian Peninsula some 1,400 years ago. But previous chapters have shown that the seeds of the conflict were sown long before Islam and Christianity appeared on the scene. Indeed, it was shown that religions had no effect on the conflict; they were expressions of the spirit of the geographical area of the civilizations. Those Christians, who remained faithful to the spirit of the principles of the Middle East, remained there and they are part and parcel of the conflict of the Middle East against the West. It cannot be known when this conflict started. It is possible that it started before the stage of literate societies, but it is unlikely. The first signs of civilizational conflicts are from the first half of the First Millenium BC with the clashes in the process of colonization of the Western Mediterranean. The survey of this subject has an advantage over other surveys of civilizational conflicts. It has no racial dimension. The separation of the peoples on both sides of the Mediterranean was a random and arbitrary fact. When the early homo sapiens sapiens arrived in the area from somewhere in Asia about 40,000 years ago, they dispersed through Europe and the Middle East. As Europe was partially covered by ice, the majority of such people probably reached the Middle East. Accordingly, there was no racial separation on both sides of the Mediterranean. So the conflict is not racial but civilizational. "History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among people's environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves."1 Identical racial descent does not preclude the possibility of conflict. The story of the extermination of the Moriori of Chatham Islands by the Maori of New Zealand in 1835 is a good example. The Moriori were Maoris themselves, who strayed from the main body of the Maoris during their immigration to New Zealand and arrived by mistake in the Chatham Islands where they settled. They were identical to the Maoris in every ways, customs, language, and all else It did not help them.2The Maoris from New Zealand exterminated them. There are a number of basic causes for the deep enmity between the two camps of the conflict under review. The sense of deprivation felt by those in the Middle East against those in the North was probably the most important. It was the feeling that their birthright had been taken away, without reason and without justification. They might not remember the details, but Middle Eastern mythology is full of stories of deprivations and of allusions to inexplicable loss. The expulsion from Paradise, the story of Hagar and Ishmael, of Jacob and Esau, that of Job, they are all allegories of what happened to those who were victims of the climatic change.3 The emergence of monotheistic religions was connected with this sense of loss. It was explained in detail in the chapter on Religions, that people in prosperous agricultural areas had fertility goddesses. But in the bleak deserts, people turned to faceless and nameless gods, who did not give anything, as there was nothing to give, but were jealous and vengeful gods. The strict and sober monotheistic religions substituted spiritual values for the colorful, voluptuous fertility rites. Since then the Middle Easterners felt themselves as the champions of the spiritual East against the materialistic and immoral West.4 There are similarities in the characteristics of each side of the conflict, originating in their partially common source. Both of them inherited elements from classical philosophy. The similarities do not diminish the intensity of the conflict, if anything, they increase it.5 The deep antagonism of the East against the West, based upon actual or imagined deprivation and on their spiritual opposition caused hatred in the East against the West, hatred and fear in the West against the East.5 It was so from earliest times and it has not changed. There was a real sense of fear in the West from earliest times. Westerners saw in the East a monolithic complex, teeming with countless multitudes, ready to swamp and destroy them.7 At times it did look as if it would happen. The West had real reasons for its fear. From earliest times until the present, there was always a greater preponderance in the population of the East. Moreover, the East was always monolithic. The Persians, the Arabs and finally the Turks could always draw upon the accumulated resources of the whole area, from the Atlantic coast of Morocco to India. In the West individual states stood alone, with the notable exception of the Roman Empire and even that was far from united. The Persians did not attack Europe but did attack Greece, and the Turks did not attack Christendom, but did attack Vienna. In each of these encounters, there was always eastern preponderance in numbers. There were only a few instances in which the West acted in concert, mainly during the Crusades and the Reconquista of Spain. The Greeks, the Romans and later the Europeans could counter the numerical superiority they faced by tactical innovations only. So the Greeks developed the fighting line of hoplites, later the phalanx, the Romans developed the maniples of the legions, and the Hapsburgs the tercio against the Turkish Janissaries . Such innovations lent a tactical advantage to smaller armies to stand up to and defeat much larger, but unorganized armies. They were extremely important in the times of man to man, and sword to sword battle. Superior tactics allowed western armies to gain victory at each point of encounter.8 The technical advances of the West, developments in new and better weapons systems, removed the old fear of being swamped by the teeming multitudes of the East. The East now felt an impotent rage.9 Lack of comparable weaponry and the technical ability to match them, caused the East to feel vulnerable, much like the atavistic fear of the West before the development of modern weaponry. The conflict is presented in two parts: The first shows the behavioral pattern of both sides, as shown in Appendix II. It attempts to relate each item in the behavioral pattern, either to environmental causes or to the residual effects of early urban civilizational days. The second part presents a short description of the actual armed conflict, from the earliest times, early First Millenium BC until the middle of the current century only This, to free the study from the possible influence of contemporary events and accusations of contemporary prejudices Notes: |
