Originally posted by: cumhail
Every event in human history has an effect on its future, with more significant events typically causing more significant effects. Would the world be the same? Perhaps not... Would it be any better? Who knows... Would there still be a conflict between Islamic fascists who resort to acts of terrorism? If nothing else changed, probably yes.
You have to bear in mind that a lot happened at around the same time that contributed to the friction between the United States and various other countries. Its support of the way in which Israeli state was founded and evolved is not the root cause, in minds of opponents, so much as it's one of many examples of perceived imperialistic colonialism and nation-building. For much of my generation, for example, the word "terrorism" immediately brought to mind the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979. And for most Americans, it was nothing more than an act of unprovoked aggression perpetrated by Islamic Fundamentalists. But for the Iranians, it was a direct reaction to the United States' continued encroachment on their rights to self-determination. And the reason most don't understand this stems from their ignorance of the history involved.
When a foreign country that ostensibly stands for democracy begins overturning democratically-elected governments and forcing governmental systems upon peoples who don't want it, that tends to make them unpopular in at least some people's eyes. And so for them, the United States' involvement in the overthrow of the democratically-elected administration of Mohammad Mosadeq in 1953, their willingness to destabilize the country just to score a preemptive strike against the USSR (whom they feared would step in if the US didn't first), their unflinching support of the brutal and sadistic Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, and their refusal to allow Iranian courts to try the deposed Shah for his crimes against the state all worked together to justify, in their eyes, the taking of US hostages.
More importantly, this entire episode is seen as being symptomic of a seeming willingness on the part of the US, Britain, and their allies to deliberately cause unrest and instability in an effort to better situate itself as a world power. The lines that the allied powers drew on maps in the 1940's caused unrest not only in the Arab world, but beyond. Their division of such countries as Korea and Vietnam were other such examples, with the US support not only of the French colonization of the latter, but also of the dictatorial rule of Ngo Dinh Diem and the overtuning/abortment of general elections when it seemed clear that Ho Chi Minh was going to sweep the popular vote serving to further emplify this. Examples like Vietnam/Indochina, Korea, Iran were all as contributory to the growth of anti-Ango/American sentiment in certain parts of the world as its seemingly unwavering support of Israel has been.
The problem is multi-fold and was most likely impossible to avert by the time the 1940's rolled around. It stemmed, unfortunately, from a feeling of xenophobia that had grown in the west and that made it apparent that the support of the creation of the Israeli state was not wholly altruistic. For some, it was akin to the support of the creation of the Liberian state in that it was an example of wanting to make a group of people "somebody's else's problem." For others, it was an exercise in hypocrisy as the forced displacement and relocation of one persecuted people was remedied by the displacement and relocation of another. And for yet others, it was an example of a willingness to force one nation's world order upon others without regard for how it will affect the region. And as the US railed against some countries for violations of resolutions, but refused to condemn (or let others condemn) their allies for the same kinds of violations and actions, not only was their objectivity and fair-mindnedness called to question... those questions seemed, for some, so clearly to be answered.
Just my two cents,
cumhail
Facebook
Twitter