Mad Minerva notes a dissent from the idea that conflict in the Middle East can heap a good chunk of blame on colonial map drawers:
The idea that better borders, drawn with careful attention to the region’s ethnic and religious diversity, would have spared the Middle East a century’s worth of violence is especially provocative at a moment when Western powers weigh the merits of intervention in the region. Unfortunately, this critique overstates how arbitrary today’s Middle East borders really are, overlooks how arbitrary every other border in the world is, implies that better borders were possible, and ignores the cynical imperial practices that actually did sow conflict in the region.
Indeed. I've also complained about this tendency to scapegoat the Europeans for the violence that we see.
It is a good point that colonial practice of putting minorities in charge in colonies so people formerly exploited will look to the colonial power as a natural ally to redress past wrongs has had repercussions today as majorities revolt (or just seethe) against minority elites. But that's not the only source of conflict. And you have to admit that the past willingness of majorities to persecutre the minorities elevated by outside powers played a role even in that blemish on colonial rule.
Sadly, it is more comforting for too many to seek vengeance for historical wrongs than to look to the future. Count me out of the MIhad to free the Toledo strip.
