In his recent essay writer Murtaza Hussain reminds his readers of an important point: the sectarian strife in the Middle East between Sunnis and Shiites is not based on an ancient quarrel. As Hussain states, "While there are distinct theological differences between Sunnis and Shias, the claim that these two groups have been in a perpetual state of war and animosity throughout their existence is an absurd falsehood."
While working on the first edition of The Palestine-Israel Conflict, this was one of the primary misconceptions that I felt needed to be addressed: that "those people" have not been fighting for "thousands of years." Hussain's article deals with the subcategory of sectarianism, which is used repeatedly to make the more general assertion that the Middle East is and has been in a state of turmoil because of the people, their culture, and their religion. (Recently, author Joyce Carol Oates posted on her Twitter account, "Where 99.3% of women report having been sexually harassed & rape is epidemic - Egypt - natural to inquire: what's the predominant religion?" This kind of orientalist thinking runs deep in the intellectual culture. And observing proper academic form, Oates merely "inquires." But of course her inquiry is anything but; it is an editorial with a question mark at the end.)
While there is no doubt about increasing sectarian tensions across the region - in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, not to mention interstate rivalries - one problem is that of emphasis. In other words, the sectarian divisions get foregrounded in the news coverage and thus deepen American assumptions about the Middle East and US involvement there. On numerous occasions I have had the following experience: While talking with a person whom I know has little or no knowledge of, say, Iraq, the person's first (and sometimes only) observation is that "the Sunnis and Shiites will just keep fighting like they always have." What is interesting about this comment is not that it's wrong - which it is - but that it is sometimes the only thing the individual has to say on the subject: Iraq is screwed up because Iraqis are screwed up. At the specific level - Iraq, Sunnis, etc. - the source of "knowledge" can be traced to the stress placed on sectarianism by the major news outlets. At the general level, the culture in America is in a sense pre-programmed to fit the various specifics into the standard reductive equation: foreign culture + instability = defective culture.
This thinking, that the Middle East is a hopeless basket-case filled with people locked in ancestral blood feuds, plays perfectly with the goals of US policy in the region. The mindset is related to the argument that "the American Indians were fighting among themselves anyway" and the reminder that "the black slaves sent to America were sold by black Africans in the first place." These kinds of claims merely attempt to vindicate what "we" are doing or have done by changing the subject. (How might we respond if a rapist were to cast judgment on his victim's easy virtue as a means of placing his act in context?) Simply put, if the population is looking elsewhere, policies can be tended to without the threat of interference.
As mentioned, sectarian tensions in the Middle East do exist and are worsening over time. However, detailed historical/political analysis is hardly required to see how and why groups of people that once peacefully coexisted suddenly have difficulty doing so. When a country or region is stressed to the breaking point, cracks tend to appear along the subsidiary lines of race, religion, and ethnicity, giving the appearance that these differences are the root problem. But rarely if ever do groups just not get along; a stressor or catalyst is usually at work. In the case of the Middle East, foreign manipulation has played a major role in this phenomenon. In places like Iraq, the sectarian animosity is a byproduct of direct devastation of the country by an occupying army; in places like Syria and elsewhere, the infighting is to a large extent the result of the country's creation and subsequent management.
In reporting no more than the news of the day, journalists and their employers can gloss over the uncomfortable historical realities. In which case, every time we pick up the paper or turn on the television, we encounter the troubles internal to the Middle East. And ready at hand is the dismissal that things there have always been that way. Even when the US military is physically present and conducting operations, it doesn't matter so much, because the region is a lost cause. From this perspective, the United States bears no responsibility; one cannot be culpable for a preexisting problem after all. And for evidence, we need only look at the news, a mere reflection of what has been happening for thousands of years.
Hussain article
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/07/2013719220768151.html
The BBC's site has a very helpful section on religion, so I have included the link to the subsection on Islam and the theological differences between the Sunni and Shiite sects:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/subdivisions/sunnishia_1.shtml
