I will courteously disagree and will explain why.
I found this article that illustrates my point very well:
Source: International Journal of Science and Society (IJSOC)
https://share.google/kAhYkfoLUYnu7CXEg
From article conclusion:
"
Various events that have occurred in the Middle East such as in Syria, Libya,
Iraq, Egypt and even Afghanistan are very far from the struggle for democracy for
the welfare of its people. The ideological understanding has triggered the Middle
East's dissent in politics. Thus encouraging in conflict and civil war. Differences in
religion, political regimes and also ethnicity are the main causes of Middle Eastern
societies being in conflict. Western ideology such as democracy is an ideology that is
very contrary to the values and culture of the regime in the Middle East. Where the
people of the Middle East tend to be more comfortable with autocratic regimes or
even dictators in western expressions. Ideologies such as democracy, liberalism and
human rights are not the way out for conflict resolution in the Middle East, which
are incompatible and contrary to cultural values and political culture.
However, democracy is a political regime which is often applied in various
countries. However, democratic regimes are difficult to implement in countries in
the Middle East. The Middle East is a very dynamic region with a heterogeneous
population composition of various ethnicities, religions and cultures. The author
concludes that democracy in the Middle East is only an ideology used by some pro-
western groups for public legitimacy in gaining power. This has been proven by
what has happened in Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iraq and even Afghanistan. So that the
democratic regime is not a solution to the conflicts that have emerged in the Middle
East until now. In this case, the authors recommend that it is better if the foreign
party system does not intervene in the existing political regimes in the Middle East.
Because the people of the Middle East have their own political culture that is far
from discussing democracy, the ultimate goal is the welfare of the people. Therefore,
letting the Middle East grow independently without foreign intervention, both
ideologically and militarily, is the best solution. This has been proven by the success
of the existing political regimes in Gulf countries such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia and
the Arab Emirates which are far from being democratic. Even the Middle East has
been the center of former magnificent civilizations such as ancient Babylon to the
Persian empire and lasted through the centuries."
I can tell you for a fact - that Western democracies are in fact a different society and culture than middle eastern Arab countries that are ruled by kingdoms or familial tribes ("Chamula").
The point I was making is this - the two regions are speaking different languages, have different histories and different culture. Thats factual. What this means also is that as long as American dont speak Arabic, Hebrew and watch local middle eastern media and live in the region for few years - they will never really understand it.
I speak fluent english, watch American movies and sports, have access to US media on daily basis - and I know for a fact I dont comprhened the american society and culture. For me as example America is very capitalist, obama care which is a novelty for americans is far from standard care in Israel..(In Israel there is an extremely high level public health services for practically free - operations, hospitalizations for days - are all subsidied by the country and paid via a collective symbolic fee (around 30$ payment a month).
The way people grasp money concept, freedom of speech, labour, social security etc etc..
How much do Western societies are familiar with the intricacies of Middle eastern countries?
The fact is - this is mostly just projection of western values and western goggles being placed upon very very different cultures. That was my point and I hope this makes it bit clearer..
