It’s the old story: the West creates political concepts (states, nationalism, human rights), assumes they are of universal application and proceeds to impose them on others who share neither the West’s history, political evolution, customs or practices. And then the West is consistently surprised that these ideas are rejected.
As for the Lawrence of Arabia story, the idea of an Arab uprising as promised by Emir Hussein of the Hejaz (from which he was expelled in the early ‘20s by the Al Saud clan who named their new fiefdom after themselves) was vastly overrated mostly for political purposes and the ongoing romance with Arabs who - having long lost their military prowess and ability to threaten Europe - were seen through the popular 1,001 Nights prism. Some argue that the Aronsohn spy network was more important to General Allenby’s success.
But Emir Hussein’s vision was for him to become the new Caliph over a unified Arab dominion. The British misunderstood this goal as being only spiritual, showing their lack of awareness that Islam had no Western-style Church-State division. The Emir’s vision also ran up against the tribal and clan reality of the Arab world. Those petty leaders did not ever see the Emir as their leader.
The irony missed by today’s pro-Hamas protesters who demand decolonization is that the various Arab countries birthed under the League of Nations Mandate system are prime candidates for such devolution into their “natural” constituent parts.
In sharp contrast, Israel has one foot in the West and the other in the East. It is a bridge, of sorts, spanning and harmonizing two very different cultures (with all their complex subsets). This heterogeneous background might explain why Israel became the region’s only stable civil democratic country.
The future of Syria, Lebanon and Iraq might well prove to be a breakup along clan, tribal or confessional lines, creating a mosaic of smaller but more homogeneous states. This result would recall the experience of the Austro-Hungarian Empire’s disintegration after WWI. If not managed carefully, it might prove just as bloody.
Thanks for the overview of the history of the region. We also have to remember that Syria was a colony of the Ottoman Empire for, over 300 years before the West took over after WWI. The region has no history of autonomy and shows no inclination for anything other than the autocracy they have always known. Currently, it is a lawless narcostate auditioning for a new Mafia Godfather to replace Assad. Narcotics are a chemical weapon even more deadly than the mustard gas stockpiles we obsess over while ignoring the real threat emerging from a Syrian failed state.
Yes, this is an Arab problem seeking an Arab solution. The problem is there have been few viable “Arab solutions” available. To be Muslim means “one who obeys.” Until there can be an Islamic “Renaissance” and a separation of religion and state, the Arabs will remain a “silly people” as Lawrence calls them in that scene of tribal chaos in Damascus.
From Robert Graves' "Lawrence and the Arabs" I learned that when "riding into battle" (looting a train of weapons etc) he had to separate "warring" tribes because they were likely to quarrel first, ignore the disabled train and liberty from the Osmans while they going for it.
Graves doesn't sneer - as I remember it was a US journalist keen on creating a hero whose "stalking" made Lawrence ask Graves to write the book.
While I don't argue with your point, I do wonder how Israel will deal with an empire-desiring Turkey on its border. Erdogan is no friend of Israel or the Jewish people in general.
I look forward to the work by Michael Oren, Statesmen, Soldier, Scholar. Thanks.
------------------------
The disintegration of Yugoslavia that began in 1991 eleven years after the death of Josip Broz Tito in 1980 ignited ten years of death, destruction and displacement. There is no reason to believe Syria will not be consumed by intense internecine warfare.
Please explain to us how Israel having a neighbor "consumed by intense internecine warfare" resembling Yugoslavia's decade of "death, destruction, and displacement" makes it more secure...
I so hope you are right. It's past time for the power hungry to be forced to take a back seat. Let people form their own collectives, including here. Shoe-horning for the sake of someone else's "order" is ultimately counter productive. Alliances are one thing, conquering, another.
I think it was you who quipped during a talk pre 2007? on iTunes that you abstained from predicting the future bc as a historian you found it difficult enough to predict the past.
Nobody knows if things had turned out any better if Sykes & Picot had been as smart as "we" would be today😉. If you travel along the Rhine valley and some of its tributaries there is no border that has not been soaked in blood again and again. Therefore I sometimes wonder if Sykes Picot can even compete.😉
And may I put in a word for Gertrude Bell😉
IAs to the present I think Israel deciding on a day by day basis how best to protect her people does her job as well as humanly possible. She will be brillant and she will mess up.
That she succeeds is all I care for.
Sykes Picot are dead
Napoleon who gave Germany viable administration may have has undesirable longterm consequences
Hundreds of years ago the countries and peoples of the East lead the world in science and medicine. The Islamic dominance changed that.
When the Middle East was controlled by the Ottoman Empire and the Persian Empire, there wasn’t much peace. These two empires fought quite a bit. While it is true that Sykes-Picot Agreement cut through ethnic and religious communities, years preceding it and following it show that in the absence of foreign invaders or influence, Arabs fight each other. It's past time to stop blaming the colonial past, and as long as Syria is no longer a launchpad for Iran and Russia, Israel gains advantage. Hopefully…
Uh, the Ottoman and Persian Empires did not exist at the same time so how did they "fight quite a bit"?
"The Persians, who had only one generation before conquered Egypt and Asia Minor, lost decisive battles when nimble, lightly armed Arabs accustomed to skirmishes and desert warfare attacked them. The Arab squadrons defeated the Persian army in several more battles culminating in the Battle of Nahāvand, the last major battle of the Sassanids. The Sassanid dynasty ended with the death of Yazdegerd III in 651." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Persia#:~:text=The%20Arab%20squadrons%20defeated%20the,of%20Yazdegerd%20III%20in%20651.
"Osman I, a leader of the Turkish tribes in Anatolia, founded the Ottoman Empire around 1299. The term “Ottoman” derives from Osman’s name, “Uthman” in Arabic... By 1517, Bayezid’s son, Selim I, brought Syria, Arabia, Palestine, and Egypt under Ottoman control.
"The Ottoman–Persian Wars or Ottoman–Iranian Wars were a series of wars between the Ottoman Empire and the Safavid, Afsharid, Zand, and Qajar dynasties of Iran (historically known as Persia) through the 16th–19th centuries... The two states were arch rivals, and were also divided by religious grounds, the Ottomans being staunchly Sunni and the Safavids being Shia." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman–Persian_Wars
Yes, Turkey was an empire by the time it came into conflict with Iran which had lost its empire and become 'Arabized' and converted from Zoroastrianism to Islam. The Ottoman Empire controlled Mecca and Medina, the heart of Islam. It was they who declared the Shia sect of Islam as heretics to avoid the forbidding of war with other Muslims. There also is an ethnic rivalry between the Turkmen, Arabs, and the 'Aryan' Iranians. Of course, this toxic brew was stirred by the English and French after WWI and still rages today.
Several years ago one of my son's was headed to the ME for an internship--part of Naval Architecture degree. He was meeting a salvage vessel in Oman about 20 clicks east of the Yemeni border. They were in the process of pulling a grounded bulker off a reef. Sat him down to watch LOA with me before he left. One of his first texts back to me after reaching Salalah (where he spent about four days) to meet his ship was "the only difference is now they have cars and cell phones"
It was the same with Iraq. It instantly became a Hashemite kingdom. The royal family was overthrown and murdered, along came Saddam, Gulf Wars and another failed state.
It’s the old story: the West creates political concepts (states, nationalism, human rights), assumes they are of universal application and proceeds to impose them on others who share neither the West’s history, political evolution, customs or practices. And then the West is consistently surprised that these ideas are rejected.
As for the Lawrence of Arabia story, the idea of an Arab uprising as promised by Emir Hussein of the Hejaz (from which he was expelled in the early ‘20s by the Al Saud clan who named their new fiefdom after themselves) was vastly overrated mostly for political purposes and the ongoing romance with Arabs who - having long lost their military prowess and ability to threaten Europe - were seen through the popular 1,001 Nights prism. Some argue that the Aronsohn spy network was more important to General Allenby’s success.
But Emir Hussein’s vision was for him to become the new Caliph over a unified Arab dominion. The British misunderstood this goal as being only spiritual, showing their lack of awareness that Islam had no Western-style Church-State division. The Emir’s vision also ran up against the tribal and clan reality of the Arab world. Those petty leaders did not ever see the Emir as their leader.
The irony missed by today’s pro-Hamas protesters who demand decolonization is that the various Arab countries birthed under the League of Nations Mandate system are prime candidates for such devolution into their “natural” constituent parts.
In sharp contrast, Israel has one foot in the West and the other in the East. It is a bridge, of sorts, spanning and harmonizing two very different cultures (with all their complex subsets). This heterogeneous background might explain why Israel became the region’s only stable civil democratic country.
The future of Syria, Lebanon and Iraq might well prove to be a breakup along clan, tribal or confessional lines, creating a mosaic of smaller but more homogeneous states. This result would recall the experience of the Austro-Hungarian Empire’s disintegration after WWI. If not managed carefully, it might prove just as bloody.
Thanks for the overview of the history of the region. We also have to remember that Syria was a colony of the Ottoman Empire for, over 300 years before the West took over after WWI. The region has no history of autonomy and shows no inclination for anything other than the autocracy they have always known. Currently, it is a lawless narcostate auditioning for a new Mafia Godfather to replace Assad. Narcotics are a chemical weapon even more deadly than the mustard gas stockpiles we obsess over while ignoring the real threat emerging from a Syrian failed state.
Yes, this is an Arab problem seeking an Arab solution. The problem is there have been few viable “Arab solutions” available. To be Muslim means “one who obeys.” Until there can be an Islamic “Renaissance” and a separation of religion and state, the Arabs will remain a “silly people” as Lawrence calls them in that scene of tribal chaos in Damascus.
From Robert Graves' "Lawrence and the Arabs" I learned that when "riding into battle" (looting a train of weapons etc) he had to separate "warring" tribes because they were likely to quarrel first, ignore the disabled train and liberty from the Osmans while they going for it.
Graves doesn't sneer - as I remember it was a US journalist keen on creating a hero whose "stalking" made Lawrence ask Graves to write the book.
We're watching a rerun.
While I don't argue with your point, I do wonder how Israel will deal with an empire-desiring Turkey on its border. Erdogan is no friend of Israel or the Jewish people in general.
I certainly hope this prophecy of a fragmented Syria will be borne out.
I look forward to the work by Michael Oren, Statesmen, Soldier, Scholar. Thanks.
------------------------
The disintegration of Yugoslavia that began in 1991 eleven years after the death of Josip Broz Tito in 1980 ignited ten years of death, destruction and displacement. There is no reason to believe Syria will not be consumed by intense internecine warfare.
Please explain to us how Israel having a neighbor "consumed by intense internecine warfare" resembling Yugoslavia's decade of "death, destruction, and displacement" makes it more secure...
It does not make Israel more secure. Taking the Syrian Golan makes Israel more secure.
Or, creates another Gaza. It is too soon to tell.
Great article. Now I want to see the movie !
For a similar and more recent example of the WWI tale told here, see the movie “Green Zone”.
I so hope you are right. It's past time for the power hungry to be forced to take a back seat. Let people form their own collectives, including here. Shoe-horning for the sake of someone else's "order" is ultimately counter productive. Alliances are one thing, conquering, another.
There is no room for the nation state in most of the Arab world. There are alternative political possibilities.
And, what pray tell are those "alternative political possibilities" you mention?
Dear Mr. Oren
I think it was you who quipped during a talk pre 2007? on iTunes that you abstained from predicting the future bc as a historian you found it difficult enough to predict the past.
Nobody knows if things had turned out any better if Sykes & Picot had been as smart as "we" would be today😉. If you travel along the Rhine valley and some of its tributaries there is no border that has not been soaked in blood again and again. Therefore I sometimes wonder if Sykes Picot can even compete.😉
And may I put in a word for Gertrude Bell😉
IAs to the present I think Israel deciding on a day by day basis how best to protect her people does her job as well as humanly possible. She will be brillant and she will mess up.
That she succeeds is all I care for.
Sykes Picot are dead
Napoleon who gave Germany viable administration may have has undesirable longterm consequences
🙏🇮🇱🙏🇮🇱🙏🇮🇱🙏
Brilliant, thanks
I thought this was a really engaging and informative book about this period: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17262206
Hundreds of years ago the countries and peoples of the East lead the world in science and medicine. The Islamic dominance changed that.
When the Middle East was controlled by the Ottoman Empire and the Persian Empire, there wasn’t much peace. These two empires fought quite a bit. While it is true that Sykes-Picot Agreement cut through ethnic and religious communities, years preceding it and following it show that in the absence of foreign invaders or influence, Arabs fight each other. It's past time to stop blaming the colonial past, and as long as Syria is no longer a launchpad for Iran and Russia, Israel gains advantage. Hopefully…
Uh, the Ottoman and Persian Empires did not exist at the same time so how did they "fight quite a bit"?
"The Persians, who had only one generation before conquered Egypt and Asia Minor, lost decisive battles when nimble, lightly armed Arabs accustomed to skirmishes and desert warfare attacked them. The Arab squadrons defeated the Persian army in several more battles culminating in the Battle of Nahāvand, the last major battle of the Sassanids. The Sassanid dynasty ended with the death of Yazdegerd III in 651." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Persia#:~:text=The%20Arab%20squadrons%20defeated%20the,of%20Yazdegerd%20III%20in%20651.
"Osman I, a leader of the Turkish tribes in Anatolia, founded the Ottoman Empire around 1299. The term “Ottoman” derives from Osman’s name, “Uthman” in Arabic... By 1517, Bayezid’s son, Selim I, brought Syria, Arabia, Palestine, and Egypt under Ottoman control.
The Ottoman Empire peaked between 1520 and 1566, during the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent. This period was marked by great power, stability, and wealth."https://www.history.com/topics/middle-east/ottoman-empire
"The Ottoman–Persian Wars or Ottoman–Iranian Wars were a series of wars between the Ottoman Empire and the Safavid, Afsharid, Zand, and Qajar dynasties of Iran (historically known as Persia) through the 16th–19th centuries... The two states were arch rivals, and were also divided by religious grounds, the Ottomans being staunchly Sunni and the Safavids being Shia." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman–Persian_Wars
Yes, Turkey was an empire by the time it came into conflict with Iran which had lost its empire and become 'Arabized' and converted from Zoroastrianism to Islam. The Ottoman Empire controlled Mecca and Medina, the heart of Islam. It was they who declared the Shia sect of Islam as heretics to avoid the forbidding of war with other Muslims. There also is an ethnic rivalry between the Turkmen, Arabs, and the 'Aryan' Iranians. Of course, this toxic brew was stirred by the English and French after WWI and still rages today.
I didn’t imply they fought each other. Thanks!
Several years ago one of my son's was headed to the ME for an internship--part of Naval Architecture degree. He was meeting a salvage vessel in Oman about 20 clicks east of the Yemeni border. They were in the process of pulling a grounded bulker off a reef. Sat him down to watch LOA with me before he left. One of his first texts back to me after reaching Salalah (where he spent about four days) to meet his ship was "the only difference is now they have cars and cell phones"
It was the same with Iraq. It instantly became a Hashemite kingdom. The royal family was overthrown and murdered, along came Saddam, Gulf Wars and another failed state.