Peace in the Middle East in 2010? Three Lessons from the Ancient Near East For Today's World Leaders
As we head into the second decade of the 21st century the Middle East continues to be the focus of attention for western foreign policy leaders. Whether it’s warfare in Afghanistan, troop pullouts in Iraq, oil supplies in Saudi Arabia or conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians – this region continues to make the news.
I firmly believe that the Ancient Near East has much to teach us about the modern region. Trajan’s debacle in Iraq should have been required reading for George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. Also I think President Obama and Robert Gates would benefit from a few hours of study about attempts to control ancient Afghanistan.
Iraq and Afghanistan both represent crisis situations. But what lessons does the Ancient Near East have to tell us - on a more general level - about dealing with the modern? I came up with three:
Lesson 1: Kinship matters
Kinship, in many ways, is as powerful in the 21st century as it was in ancient times. In the western world we like to pretend that blood lines do not matter, but you only have to look at the Kennedy or Bush families to see that isn't the case.
The modern Middle East doesn’t attempt to hide this. Saudi Arabia has numerous princes, one estimate putting the number in the 3,000-4,000 range. Jordan has a king, Oman has a sultan and the gulf region has numerous emirs.
The Ancient Near East was little different in this regard. Monarchies were common in the ancient world and tended to run father to son. But what struck me was that strong kinship ties also existed below the monarch level.
Professor Richard Zettler, of the University of Pennsylvania, has been studying the Temple of Inanna at Nippur. The temple has a history that stretches from 3200 BC – 100 AD. Nearly 30 years ago his team found tablets at the temple that date to the Ur III period (about 4,000 years ago). They show that for at least four generations, the administration of the temple was passed from father to son. The patriarch of this clan being a man named Urmene.
Now, just because power was being passed on from within the family does not make that there were no politics involved - far from it. The tablets record an ugly spat that occurred between an administrator and one of his sons named Lugal-gizkim-zi.
For some reason Lugal-gizkim-zi was passed over as the father’s successor in favor of another person. He took exception to this and accused his father of stealing from the temple offerings. After a trial the father is found innocent. But Lugal-gizkim-zi is persistent and accuses him a second time, forcing his father to go on trial again (again being acquitted).
So, not only does the administration of the temple run in Urmene’s descendents, but the politics of the temple runs very deep in the family!
This sort of interfamily power struggle can be seen in modern times. A famous case happened with the son in-law of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein - Hussein Kamel. He was a senior military officer and had a falling out with Saddam and defected to Jordan. After being assured that he would be welcomed back in Iraq he returned, only to be gunned down.
The lesson here for westerners is never to underestimate the importance of kinship ties in the Middle East. Bush Jr. felt that with a big enough army, and a few cagey speeches, he could spread western style democracy throughout the Middle East. What he did not realize is that these family power systems (like those seen in Iraq) are very ancient.
Furthermore these family systems are no less full of politics, as the case of Lugal-gizkim-zi (4,000 years ago) and Hussein Kamel (14 years ago) demonstrate.
Lesson 2: There are Reasons Why Warfare is Constant
Now, it’s easy to look at the Middle East and say that warfare is a constant. Yes the history of conflict in the region goes back more than 10,000 years (if you look at the first settlement at Jericho), but there are reasons for this.
Aside from its rich oil resources, the Middle East has another advantage – it’s a historic crossroads between east and west.
If you take a look at Heritage Key’s article on Khirbet ez-Zeiraqoun, you’ll see that, while this site traded goods with Mesopotamia, Egypt and Syria, it was also heavily fortified.
Its position, as a junction for trade between these regions, made it valuable, and therefore vulnerable to attack.
When sea based commerce became more important in the second and first millennium BC, the Levantine coast became very important.
Professor Joanna Smith of Princeton University said, at a recent seminar on Ancient Cyprus, that Mesopotamian rulers tried to push their empires so that they could control part of the Mediterranean coastline (see – Tiglath Pileser III and his conquest of Tayinat). The reason wasn’t because they wanted a seaside resort. It was so that they could control the
Israel may be regarded as an alien presence now but, in 300 years, as Israel and its neighbors change, Israel might become a bit like Palastin/Walastin - a country fully integrated into the Middle East
trade that extended from South Asia to the Aegean.
As you can see from the recently uncovered Assyrian tablets at Tayinat, they were willing to go to war to get this control.
This same dynamic exists in the Middle East today. Many analysts will tell you that Russian President (now Prime Minister) Vladimir Putin went to war in Georgia not just to “protect” a breakaway Georgian territory, but to gain influence over pipeline projects that send oil and gas through Georgia by by-passing Russia.
Indeed, the desire to control trade is the raison d'être of OPEC (an organisation of petroleum-exporting countries). The rise of the cartel is in some ways an interesting adaption of more ancient practices. Instead of Middle Eastern states slugging it out for trade supremacy, they act together to affect prices for their mutual benefit.
In the western world we blast OPEC all the time for not enabling what we consider a free market system. However, in a curious sense the OPEC system is actually beneficial for politics in region. It gives members the opportunity to meet their oil needs without resorting to Tiglath Pileser III style warfare.
As we saw in 1990, when one country accuses another of breaking away from this system, it isn’t long before a power struggle ensues. In that year Iraq invaded Kuwait. One of the reasons for the conflict is that Iraq felt that the Gulf State was pumping out to much oil, jeopardizing the Iraqi economy.
Conflicts Starting With Migration Don’t Last Forever
Finally, I thought that would end this blog on a hopeful note. When we look at the conflict between Israel, the Palestinians, Syria, Hezbollah and Iran – it is tempting to resort to despair.
But, ancient history provides us with some cause for hope.
3,200 years ago there was another major migration that produced warfare in the Middle East. A group of people referred to in ancient texts as the “Sea People” appear in the Eastern Mediterranean during this time. Like the modern day conflict, this migration produced wars and population dislocations.
Tayinat is providing a window into events at this time. As Heritage Key reported a few months back, the earliest levels of the settlement show a culture with a distinctly Aegean look. Indeed Professor Tim Harrison believes that they may have founded a kingdom called Palastin or Walastin.
Yet, if you follow the material culture, as time goes on, you begin to see more Anatolian influences. One of the kings is named Halparuntiyas – a name that sounds more Hittite in nature.
So over a long period of time the Aegean and Anatolian cultures begin to merge. The Sea People landed in 1200 BC, but you don’t see them being called that 300 years later.
The lesson here is that, given enough time, new cultures take on traits of the indigenous ones, through trade and intermarriage. The result being that these entities go from being regarded as an alien intruder (The Sea People is a somewhat derogatory name) to being considered part and parcel of the region.
If we take a look at the Israel-Palestinian conflict we’re in very early days. It’s been just over 60 years since Israel declared independence. Israel may be regarded as an alien presence now but, in 300 years, as Israel and its neighbors change, Israel might become a bit like Palastin/Walastin - a country fully integrated into the Middle East with cultural elements from both the Jewish diaspora and its neighbors.
Might it become, in the eyes of the people in the region, not a hostile anomalous entity – but instead a state that one can trade with and deal with on equal terms?
If ancient history is any guide, it’s not such a far-fetched idea.
Read 2 comments, or leave your own
videos
Comments
Great Article! I felt that you are right on target with your points good sir!
There is but one question I have. The Jewish people have always been a secluded and distinct group(especially in ancient times)and very rarely assimilating to the customs of the area they reside. Do you beleive this will be the case in present day Israel and in the years to come? Or will Israel always be seperated from their neighbors?
Thanks Jordan, I'm glad you like the piece.
Once a peace treaty is signed it stands to reason that (very very gradually) Israel will trade and interact more with their neighbors. While the Jewish diaspora remained Jewish they did take on the languages and some of cultural customs of the places they visited.
With a permanent peace agreement (and enough time) I expect we'll see a similar situation in Israel. In some small ways we're already seeing it (ie - you can get al-Jazeera there).
Over time Israel's neighbors would also see the benefit of interaction. Israel has a burgeoning high-tech industry and a high skilled workforce - it's economy also has a demand for workers. Before the second intifada there were quite a number of Palestinians who worked in Israel.
Post new comment