These observations of his on the Middle East have easily withstood the test of time:

The whole of the Middle East is intimately related. Beneath the smooth surface of British rule and the slender garrisons which normally sustain it are smouldering the antagonisms of centuries. There are always feuds and animosities. There are always scores to be settled and fanatical thirsts to be slaked. Any appearance of lack of will-power on the part of the British Government or of lack of confidence in its mission in these countries blows like a draught of air on the dull, fierce embers” (1929).

“The Middle East is one of the hardest-hearted areas in the world. It has always been fought over, and peace has only reigned when a major power has established firm influence and shown that it will maintain its will. Your friends must be supported with every vigour and if necessary they must be avenged. Force, or perhaps force and bribery, are the only things that will be respected. It is very sad, but we had all better recognize it. At present our friendship is not valued, and our enmity is not feared” (1958).

So are you claiming that democracy is less than an ideal?

Good.we’re in agreement

Netanyahu and Sharansky( ..who wrote a best seller on this) in the early part of past decade kept loudly trumpeting that the reason for the problems with the arab world was…due to it’s [then] lack of democracy

(and most of you were mimicing it back then)

(Similar to the federalist vs. republican of the 1790s)