In response to Charlie

In response to this post.  

The story of the Russians recounted by Charlie in his post sheds important light on the future of European affair in the Middle East after WWI.  First off, it shows Russia’s early ambitions in the area, which were still present at the time of the Sykes-Picot agreement.  Russians have always been ones to see adjacent territory as their own, and the quest for a simple route between central Asia and Russia was very much alive well after the Khivans took advantage of them.  On another note, this story also shows the consistent misunderstanding with which Europe has approached the Middle East.  After WWI, when the Britain and France divided up the Middle East, the borders that were drawn showed a clear misunderstanding of the Middle East.  The country of Iraq essentially included three different groups of people, Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds (northern Iraq).  This has turned in to a huge problem, because the borders that have been drawn are hard to change and have basically created concrete boundaries for people who don’t necessarily want to live next to each other.  Along with that, there’s the British total miscalculation of Israel.  No one knows how or why Britain thought Israel was going to work without resistance, given the fact that the British made two contradictory agreements.  This is a common trend when it comes to Europeans and the Middle East, misunderstanding.