Absolutely the west helped put a number of rulers into power and assisted them. And some states have suffered more than others. However at a certain point people need to stop blaming others and take responsibility for themselves.
I think its been one of the biggest issue with Arab political development: its that so many people blame the West and Israel for everything instead of actually looking for the current causes of their situation. It represents the failure of education in the Arab world. Certainly the publics have high technical education; engineering, math, computers ect. However education in the west also teaches you about the basic rights of being a citizen, civic responsibility, respecting the views of others. Unfortunately in these autocratic states this education does not exist. Instead they emphasized themes of xenophobia, and frankly anti-semetic themes. In order to hide the failings of the autocratic regimes they basically told people: Its the westerners' fault, Its the Jews, israel, ect. anybody but the very people who were actually at fault.
It very encouraging to see people take up the cause to fight for their rights. Its an essential part of a democratic system.However the fall back towards "blaming everybody but ourselves" is discouraging. Egypt faces immense problems with debt and an unsustainable economic system. It will collapse these states far faster than the West ever could.
However what brings people to have mass demonstrations this week? Its not the terrible mismanagement of their societies... rather its some Youtube video made by a idiot in California about Mohammed. While I find these sorts of videos abhorrent, the fact that its the main focus of their anger just shows how immature political thought is. If I was in Egypt and really concerned about my well being, I would be protesting a bloated civil service, corruption and terrible investments, not what some idiot in California made on a shaky video.
Colonialism was a much more important influence into the 1950s... but it has waned since, particularly due to Pan Arabism under Nasser and the decline of Britain and France as great powers. The decisive turning point for me was the 1973 Oil Embargo, which saw the region basically use Oil as a weapon. The west has made terrible choices in supporting autocratic rulers in the region. I don't agree with how palestine has been dealt with at all, then again, blaming all of the problems of the Middle East on that conflict is just another example of passing blame to someone else for your own problems.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia because it has arguably played an more instrumental role in shaping the region than any other State, western or otherwise... with the possible exception of Egypt. The Sa'uds were in power far before the discovery of oil in 1932, or colonialization of the region. They have been extremely effective at keeping themselves in power and ensuring stability of other monarchies. During the Iran-Iraq war, the KSA was giving one billion dollars a month to help the Iraqi government. It spent almost $600 million a year in Afghanistan. Just last year you saw the Kingdom crush demonstrations in Bahrain. The Sa'ud dynasty has never been a helpless victim: it has been actively shaping its own destiny and that of the region for the past 100 years.
There is a parallel here between China and the Middle East. You see demonstrations in China about Japanese imperialism from the Second World War and how its ruined their lives. How many demonstrations are there about high level corruption. When does it end?
I read quite a bit Hezam; I suspect I've read hundreds of books from all manner of sources on middle eastern history, colonialsm and political theory. Part of my work concerns middle eastern politics, and I've spoken to too many middle eastern scholars and "normal" people to actually count in my travels there. I've written a book and journal article about this topic. I know your viewpoint very well.... I could probably argue it better than you because I've read alot about it. Even so I don't believe that it is a completely valid argument based on the evidence that I have read. So for once consider that maybe, I'm not completely mistaken and that I might have something valuable to say.