The never-ending conflicts in the Middle East can be traced back to before World War II. Although there have been many peace plans to end the conflict, unfortunately there has been little peace. America and many other countries have tried to solve the Middle East problem by making it democratic. They have rejected all efforts and continued to cause unrest and militant groups appear to be invading the country. Which begs the question: Will the Middle East ever become democratic? Why or why not? It seems to be the question that many political theorists try to answer, along with organizations that spend many hours and millions of dollars on relief efforts. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay Even with many failed attempts, I will try to solve this problem too and find a solution. However, like any issue, there are many actors who played a role and made the conflict what it is today. To put the length of the conflict into perspective, it can be traced back to 1917, when Britain adopted the Balfour Declaration. This supported “the creation in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” without prejudice to non-Jewish communities within Palestine. As we will discover, it was not until 1923 that Britain abandoned the Golan Heights from Palestine to French-run Syria. Britain's official mandate over Palestine, granted by the League of Nations, comes into force. It was then in 1936 that a three-year Arab revolt began, amidst frustration over growing Jewish immigration and continued British colonial rule. what caused the Arab revolt. This revolt brought with it a further complication. There was an agreement between Britain and France to shape the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire and divide the region. The spoils of the recent war were to be divided equally among the victors. As in the case of the Berlin Conference of 1885 in which Africa was divided between the various European empires, parts of the Middle East were also to be shared. This would require artificial borders, the support of the monarchies, dictators and other leaders who would soon become the new leaders of these new lands. However, it appears that America has been involved in conflict almost since the end of World War II. In 1945, at the end of World War II, America urged Britain to lift restrictions on Jewish refugees settling in Palestine, but Britain resisted the pressure. Instead, in 1947, Britain asked the newly formed United Nations to handle the Palestine problem. After the UN proposed a partition to the Arabs, but the Arab states rejected the partition of Palestine and the existence of Israel. The armies of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Egypt attacked but were defeated by the Israeli army. It is these actors and many others that will be used to examine the current conflict as we use these past conflicts to try to find an answer to the question of whether the Middle East will ever become democratic. Also, discuss whether they became Democrats and why they did so. Or if they don't, why they won't. The current events happening in the Middle East are what seem to be the most interesting to many political theorists. This is because many people and even large countries like the United States believe that democracy “is the solution to a failed state.” However, when the United States invaded Iraq in 2003 to try to end this conflict, it proved tougher than most.expected. A US-led coalition had achieved what appeared to be a quick victory that would have lasting results. The U.S. focus on a conventional effort to defeat the regime, however, accomplished no mission and achieved no lasting strategic result of any kind. The infighting within the Bush administration made it clear that the US invasion of Iraq occurred without any real plan for a stability operation. The United States then decided to disband the Iraqi army. US support for Shia exiles and acceptance to exile many Sunni and other Iraqis resulted in many key elements of Iraq's Sunni and Shia populations soon spiraling into a major counterinsurgency conflict that lasted until 2009. In this process, Iraq was separated between Sunnis and Shiites. It also created strong Sunni violent extremist forces that survived to become ISIS. The current state of the Middle East appears to be one of violent civil war, while the United States appears to be on hiatus. The Middle East has repeatedly rejected our military presence. In the Western experience, democracy and liberalism usually went together, to the point that democracy has become the shortest version of liberal democracy. Liberalism preceded democracy, allowing it to become more popular. As political scientists Richard Rose and Doh Chull Shin have pointed out; First wave [democracy] countries, such as Britain and Sweden, initially became modern states, establishing the rule of law, civil society institutions, and horizontal accountability to aristocrats. parliaments. Democratization followed in Britain, when the government became accountable to members of parliament elected by a suffrage that gradually expanded until universal suffrage was achieved. This is exactly what the United States is trying to do for the Middle East. The United States believes that the solution to the problem of Islam is that it lacks real structure and that the solution to that problem is democracy. Iraq needs a government that it can look up to, trust and not have to worry about an unequal distribution of power. As we know, people are used to seeing power taken by force, even if in a democracy power is granted equally. Rose and Chull also wrote: “third wave democracies began democratizing backwards.” The return to democracy is what led to the rise of “illiberal democracies,” which is a more recent term that Fareed Zakaria documented in his book “The Future of Freedom.” Zakaria tried to analyze liberalism and democracy together. They argued that democratization is “directly related” to illiberalism. Michael Signer made an argument in his book titled “Demagogues” describing the rise of “demagogues,” who grew in popularity through the ballot box. Elbridge Gerry, a representative from Massachusetts, said that "allowing ordinary Americans to vote for the president was madness." Signer said that "at its simplest level, democracy is a political system that grants power based on who want large groups of people.” And what larger groups want is what may not be good for constitutional liberalism, which in turn weakens democracy by making it useless , says we need to review the relationship between liberalism and democracy. Illiberal democracy under the Islamist regime is different from Venezuelan or Russian democracy for many reasons.For Islam, illiberal democracy is not something that is seen as an unfortunate reality of life, but rather something to be believed in. Although they may have difficulty defining what exactly this means, Islamic parties have a very distinct intellectual and ideological “project.” This is why they are Islamists. America has good intentions toward the Middle East, although it is obvious that the plan for its future needs to be seriously rethought. The biggest problem America seems to have is trying to integrate with Islam which needs a better structured government. Some “liberal” Islams have said that religion should no longer be an issue in their country. During his campaign for the presidency, former Brotherhood leader Abdel Moneim Abul Futouh explained to his people as a Salafist television channel: “Today those who call themselves liberal or left-wing, this is just a political name, but most of them understands and respects Islamic values. They support sharia and are no longer against it." In his own words, he sought to redefine the concept that all Muslims are, by definition, Salafists in the sense that they are all loyal to the Salaf, the first generations of Muslims. He seemed to say: we are all Islamists, so why deny it? Futouh, in all his supposed liberalism, truly believes that the Egyptian people and all Muslims have a natural inclination towards Islam. As Salem Falahat, former general supervisor of the Muslim Brotherhood of Jordan, once said: “If they have the opportunity to think and choose, they [the Arab and Muslim people] will choose Islam. Whenever freedom expands among them, they choose Islam.” What the United States doesn't see is that no matter how hard we fight and try to impose democracy in the Middle East, we are actually fighting a losing battle. If you take a look at the graph above you can see that Congressional approval ratings continue to plummet. What we did not expect is that Islam did not need to be imposed on its people. The Islamic people will use whatever means they deem appropriate to impose it, including through their own "democratic process". As the evidence and history of this ongoing conflict shows, the Middle East shows no signs of ever becoming democratic. From these numerous examples and quotes from the Brotherhood leaders, it is clear that no matter what offer is made to them, they will choose Islam. There is no possibility of any form of government being established. So let's take a closer look at why the Middle East will not become democratic. What the United States once again fails to understand is that democracy is simply not the solution to complex problems. societies such as the Middle East. The United States setting up camp and never seeming to leave anytime soon only seems to make things worse. The reason for the failure to implement our form of government is that democracy, as we know it, cannot thrive in Middle Eastern countries where family, tribe and personal friendships are prioritized over state structure and reform. The Middle East is not a country governed by the rule of law. They seek values ​​that increase their quality of life instead of trying to create a government support system. However, the United States' failure to understand the Middle East has had effects that will take many years to resolve. Iraq of course is the biggest example. Many Americans were against invading the country, not out of feelings toward Saddam but because many of them believed the alternative would be worse. Come to find out, they were right. Politicians and political theorists worried that the US invasion would potentially destroy stabilityof the Gulf which, since the fall of the Shah in 1979, had depended on a trio composed of Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Their fears would soon come true and that's exactly what happened. Now we can imagine that the Iranians were able to dominate the Gulf region only because of the US invasion. It is unclear what the extent of our control is in the Middle East. However, this requires a realistic approach to the situation on the ground and we need to find what we can do to change it. Of course, conflict in the Middle East is now more complicated than ever as militant groups try to persuade individuals to believe that they are there for their interests. Militant groups appear to be holding the state together even in the face of all the opposition. The leader keeps all the different elements of his society intact by paying attention to each part. Although he can rule with an iron fist, he should only be used when necessary, as the public well understands. They seem to support these groups as long as they act more like a protective force instead of a ruler simply seeking power. After our invasion, the Iraqi army was disbanded, although it is obvious that it most likely retreated due to our superiority of forces. There was simply no need. The United States then forcibly shut down the Ba'ath Party, the only political organization in the entire country. Even though it was an organization of Saddam's government, it wasn't that bad. Anyone who occupied a responsible position in the party, just as we see in the Soviet Union, where everyone was forced to be a member of the communist party, Iraqis were forced to be a member of the Ba'ath party. Therefore, senior Iraqi Ba'ath Party officials simply followed suit. The ultimate goal of the United States was to get rid of the party and ruin the social and political structure of the country to better prepare it for democracy. Then the United States would have a clean slate once it was ready to begin establishing democracy. When the United States finally realized that the Middle East would not accept any form of new government, it quickly realized that we had to stop the development of the Islamic State. This would require a solid government in Baghdad. A country that should take measures to regain the loyalty of the Sunni tribes of the North and that, if they did, could also face Islamic extremists. The reason why the United States is so keen on stopping “Islamic States” is because they pose a grave threat to the stability of the entire Middle East. Furthermore, it creates an area under the control of Islamic extremists who in turn pose a threat to the United States due to their anger at our invasion. This then forces the United States to be effective in the region and create its own security force. For once, we must learn from the past and ensure that the policies we put in place take into account indigenous peoples in countries and the entire region. We cannot afford for anyone to make any more mistakes. The growing chaos in the Middle East is a real and present danger both to our economy and to the peace of our society. What we are really seeing in the Middle East is the reaction to over six decades of authoritarian rule. Yet, any historian could tell you that revolution is easy, but creating governance is difficult. This proves more difficult when dealing with former military elites, political elites and Islamic parties that have been kept hidden since the beginning of Arab nationalist movements. The intriguing part about ISIS is that it has proven to be a better alternative to the previous government in corrupt and failing Arab states. They had a company.