I’ve heard of Afghanistan referred to as the graveyard of empires, not the entire middle east.
The Ottoman Empire lasted for centuries,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_empire
though the area is normally fairly contentious, but we can’t see the reality of outside the influence of financial elites because that influence is very sparsely reported if at all. We see a revolution in the news media and it’s simply presented as a homegrown domestic revolution, with no mention of any outsiders.
On the other hand, one only has to study American and European history to also see arguably similar contentiousness. We simply tend to forget the outrageous behavior of our own supposedly “civilized” part of the world. Corruption, immorality, political assassinations, wars, etc. - we have our rose-colored history that is taught in our government schools, but if you go through the whole thing, it’s loaded with turbulence, even though various European empires also lasted for centuries.
Government-school-taught history completely omits the behind-the-scenes actions of financial elites - even when those actions are a) reported in contemporaneous news accounts and b) key factors in the unfolding of events.
FWIW, a few links of interest, just skimming the surface, and missing much key information - but already there are lines in these articles that should set off warning bells in the mind of the logical reader:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Amin_al-Husayni
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_al-Banna
You can search the web for a lot of information on MB interaction with Western operatives. It’s fairly widely known that the UK is a haven for Muslim Brotherhood and various Islamic terrorism operations, and, of course, the US has, as usual, its freewheeling open-door policy towards Islamic terrorists as they do with all sorts of criminals and revolutionaries. Of course, the governments of both the US and UK are officially “against” terrorism, but that’s only in a public relations messaging sense.
MB is supposedly a radical anti-imperialist group. And the rulers of most middle east nations are doing business with outside “imperialist” interests.
We have an apparent contradiction then, if elite financial interests that are outsiders to the middle east would a) be chummy with middle eastern national governments and do business with them yet at the same time b) facilitate fanatical opposition groups within those same nations.
Of course, it’s only a contradiction until you realize that controlling the fanatical opposition is perhaps the best control over the rulers of these nations.
I stumbled over the idea that new world order was controlling “everything”. It’s not every detail of daily life that’s controlled. It’s control of a few key people at the top, so, from time to time new world order can make some key moves to implement large-scale operations at the national level, things like creating central banks, getting certain laws passed, etc. They seek to control the framework and let the “little people” operate within that framework and get a “cut” off of everything they do, because they are getting their national and local governments to pay them interest out of taxes collected. The frameworks they create also allow them pretty much free rein in the financial realm to reap profits as they please, and through their business control and political influence to shape society how they want to.
Regarding Zionism, some links.
Two Rabbis,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_Alkalai
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zvi_Hirsch_Kalischer
were introducing Zionism in the first half of the 19th century.
The Kalischer article omits that around 1836, Rabbi Kalischer wrote a letter to Anselm Mayer Rothschild, head of the Frankfurt branch of the family / business, explaining what he believed to be significant regarding the year 1840 in terms of messianic prophecy, and asking for Rothschild’s financial help in purchasing land in order to bring about the establishment of Israel as a modern nation.
I found this information in the book “American Aliya: Portrait of an Innovative Migration Movement”, by Chaim Isaac Waxman, pg. 40-41.
This is one bit of a very large amount of discussion regarding the topic during the 19th century. So Zionism is not new, it’s not even dating back to the Balfour Declaration and the WWI era, it’s at least almost a century before that.
Though
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Herzl
is considered the “father” of modern Zionism, this article notes the now generally accepted influence of the much earlier Rabbi Alkalai on his thinking, as he was the rabbi of Herzl’s grandfather.
What logically stands out then, is that financial elites all throughout the 19th century were well aware of Zionism, and the movement did garner support and various organizations were founded. However it was not until the WWI era that we see the Balfour Declaration and the financial elites beginning to use their wealth and influence to really make things happen in the middle east.
If we bear in mind the influence of the financial elites in engineering WWI, and their desire to break up the Ottoman Empire as part of the spoils of war, what stands out is that that the elites knew that map-redrawing in Palestine would be possible at the close of the war. Thus, before war’s end was the time to get the Balfour Declaration made public to set the direction of the Palestine area in the war’s aftermath. Once Palestine was made a British mandate after the war, it was effectively held in reserve for future use by the elites, since they had effective control over British foreign policy.
Of course for decades prior to 1917 the importance of oil had been obvious (Rockefeller’s Standard Oil wealth had, in relative terms, by then easily surpassed that of, say, Bill Gates of today). Between the wars oil discoveries were popping up in the middle east, as European, UK and US companies (new world order controlled firms) were strategically working to be able to get at these natural resources cheaply, in nations without well-developed governments, politics or legal systems; a monopolist’s “wild west”.
Thus between the wars we see the MB being set up for use down the road, as a fanatical, anti-British, anti-Western, anti-Zionist Islamic fundamentalist group, one side of a middle east conundrum. We see Zionism moving forward as well, which provides the other side of the conundrum. The conundrum is pretty much a guarantee of strife. Al-Husayni, freewheeling provocateur that he was, went ahead and bonded with the Axis powers during WWII, cementing his “street cred” as truly opposed to all things Jewish.
From the time the United States failed to enter the League of Nations after WWI, the financial elites resolved to create yet another world war, as world war was the only way they could envision the United States joining an international governmental body of their making.
Thus the aftermath of WWII wold be the time to set up the actual modern nation of Israel, since during WWII winning the support of what muslim nations they could would be a top priority of the Allies, and introducing the nation of Israel before WWII would have interfered with that.
Of course, in American politics there seems to be no end to flogging this issue, even though historic anti-Semitism in the US has largely faded away. Somehow WASPs are typically characterized by the left as being “evil” for both supporting the nation of Israel and yet at the same time being anti-Semitic. And American financial and political elites of course support both sides lavishly with taxpayer dollars, and use the chaos to embark on trillions of dollars worth of military expenditures, NGO funding, Americans killed and wounded in wars, etc., to make sure global elites are happy with the business they do in each middle eastern country.