Usually as soon as there's a victor that feels secure enough he works to weaken the others. Old habit in the area, and a valuable export for a while. We diss the Israelis for it, but the Ottomans did it in spades. Chechens and Circassians, Georgians and Greeks, kurds and Arabs, Albanians and Slavs. Bosnian War? Thanks, Ottomans!
Then again, the Babylonians and Assyrians did it. And, after the Horde picked up Islam, the Mongols. Ivan IV liked the practice (he borrowed it from the Horde) and dispersed the Novgorodian and Pskovian populations.
Saddam Hussein did the same. A lot of the problems in Iraq came from tribe and sect mixing, as Saddam moved Arabs into Kurdish areas and Sunnis into Shi'ite areas. Tribes lost importance in the '70s and '80s, until Saddam needed solidarity for the Iran war. Then tribal affiliation became important again and differences exacerbated through shifting of mosques from Shi'a to Sunni, through differential funding and hiring programs, through emphasizing education and specific kinds of education.
That kind of tribalism led to the first intifada and really made life rough for the British, and led to the separation of populations (instigated by all three sides) in '47-'48 in Palestine. It also led to a lot of resentment in the Balkans. It still fuels a bit of Greco-Turkish resentment, since the Greeks that were left in Turkish areas when Turkey was losing part of its empire (the Greek part) were the subject of genocide or forced emigration while the Turks left in Greek parts were a bit oppressed but left to reside there. Ultimately forcing Greece to yield some historically Gk territory.
The Kurds are in a tough neighborhood. Then again, it's not like they're indigenous. They're immigrants, as well, during a period when the Babylonians and Urartians and Hittites were in a bit of disarray and didn't mind (or couldn't mind) having their hinterlands invaded and settled by interlopers.
= new reply since forum marked as read
