A lot of people mention the Middle East, particularly in political debates, but not many people actually stop and consider the culture and the specific nature of the problems.

It is one thing to simply say 'Yes, they hate America' and an entirely seperate thing to say WHY they hate America.

Insamuch as I have time for I hope to begin redressing that situation to some extent.  As background for my 'expertise' I offer the fact that I have spent two of the last five years in the Middle East and Central Asia, I have had classes on the region, and due to my extensive visits have undertaken a personal study of the region. Not exactly sterling cred, but then this is an RPG forum, not a doctoral thesis review...

There are two competing cultural forces at play here. The first is Islam itself, the second is the tribal social structure that has endured with little change since before the time of Muhammed.  In fact, many of the more controversial aspects of Islam itself were compromises made to appease the tribal sensibilities, and were controversial in their own right back then for being too liberal.

As Islam has spread it has carried with it, unwittingly, the tribal beliefs of the Arabs who brought it with them. In places where it took root strongest there was often a pre-existing compatable structure, such as the Pashtuns of Afghanistan, where Islam faltered there could be said to have been a culture which viewed the Arabic tribal structure as Anathema, such as ancient China and even Europe. Where the message could not naturally take root it had to be forced.  It is, however, hubris to dismiss the existance of a strong organized competing religion in the equation. That is to say: Did the Pashtuns accept Islam because their tribal culture had many similarities to Arabic Tribal Culture or because their local faiths were no stronger than the disorganized, even superstitious, pagan beliefs of the pre-Muhammed Mecca? It is not without some note that the primary reason all of India is not, in fact, Islamic at this time was the strong religious and military structure of the Sikhs who eventually defeated the Muslim Armies in Northern India.

None of which happens to directly explain why the Middle East hates the US.

The answer is, ironically, distressingly obvious.

Need.

Not the need to hate, but a more simple, animalistic need. Simple survival needs.

The Middle East is not a remarkably fertile land. The famed cradle of civilization, the Mesopotamia valley would be of little note if the rest of the region was not notoriously resources poor. This can be extended to central Asia as well, were vast deserts and rocky, mountainous lands are the norm.

By itself, living in a resources poor region does not, however, create a pressing survival need upon the occupants.  

However, when you consider the twin factors of the Tribal structure and the Islamic culture together, you get another picture.

To begin with, Muslims, as a general rule, breed. I once met a man with three wives and 26 children. Twenty Six. Think on that. And as with any polygamist system, you have an issue with what to do with excess male children, which unlike the Mormon polygamist sects, are actually desired.

True, unlike the Mormon sects, polygamy is actually reasonably uncommon. Only the rich and powerful can afford to support multiple wives, while the american polygamists seem to view it as a given right for every man to have several... though this is bought at the expense of exiling male children for even trivial causes.

Where women are in short supply, and where tribal, familial, pride is at stake, women become resources in their own right.  One cannot look outside the tribe for a spouse, and can not simply woo a woman of one's choosing. No, for the arab male in the middle east, a wife must be earned, typically through a life time of hard work for the good of the tribal elders who will bless such a union. Men are expected to remain celibate until they are thirty or older, homosexuality is forbidden by Islamic law. There are few jobs to be had, few ways to earn what little wealth is available, yet jobs and wealth are a necessity for a man who wishes a wife, wishes for children, wishes, in fact, to be viewed as a man at all.

In this paucity of resources it is natural then for the dispossessed to look upon outsiders with jealousy. It is a classic case of haves and have nots. However, why focus upon the west in particular?

History for one. The Europeans, at one point, were on the verge of collapsing before Islamic invaders, becoming a part of the Umma, and presumably sharing the wealth of their lands with the rest of Islam. This manifestly failed to happen, and to make matters worse, those damn Europeans had the audacity to turn around and invade Islamic lands and steal their resources for themselves. The British, in particular, in Egypt, India and Afghanistan managed to breed a resentment and rebellious pride that still holds true a century and a half later.  A simple network of Islamic scholars can be traced, from India into Afghanistan and from there into, yes, Egypt, and their decendents and students can be found there today.

Furthermore you have the forced creation of Isreal at the hands of the west. From the Arab perspective, they have obvious proof of a Zionist conspiracy running the world, for did not the Americans and the British displace Muslims to make room for Jews?  Mahmounijad wasn't a lone nut when he claimed the Holocaust was a fabrication, he was simply repeating a very popular belief in his country, in his region.  

Considering Palestine, recall what I said about scarcity of resources earlier? What do you think millions of refugees mean for a local economy? More competition for jobs, wealth and resources, worse, outsiders are not part of the existing tribe, are a new competing tribe at that. The Koran forbids the murder of fellow Muslims, and specifically enjoins the faithful to charity. Their faith impels them to be generous to the Palestinans, co-religionists, yet their tribal culture and their survival needs prevent them from doing so without resentment. They therefore channel that resentment back to the easiest target: The Israelis.

To add insult to injury: The coastal regions are something of a garden spot in the region, lush and bountiful in comparison. It wasn't like the Isrealis were moving into unwanted lands, they were taking the Porche, man!

Now: what of the Wahabists, you ask.

What of them? You have to understand that this sort of reactionary force has existed in Islam from the earliest days. Their sort is not unheard of in nearly every faith.  The Saud family, coupled with western oil money, is responsible for their current prominance, but their existance is a given.

I think its because all the sand makes them crazy. And the heat. If the Middle East were cooler, none of this would be happening.

Which, more or less, is a restatement of your "need" argument.