Viswanathan K's Thoughts

With World War II over, Charles de Gaulle was determined to prove that France was still a “great power”, writes James Barr in A Line in the Sand . One step in that effort was to deny Syria independence or greater autonomy – France wasn’t so weak that it would have to give up its colonies. As a betrayed Syrian populace revolted, France tried to put down them down brutally.   Britain was in a bind – they weren’t keen to stay on in most of the Middle East, but they’d look weak if they gave independence while the French held on to their colonies. But military action against France in Syria wasn’t practical – the US and USSR were openly anti-imperialism; and Britain, like all of Europe, needed American money to rebuild after the war’s destruction. So they covertly supported Syrian rebels, who eventually managed to evict France from Syria.   A furious and humiliated France wanted revenge – they decided to go pro-Zionist. Hurting the British in Palestine was now official Fren...

With World War I over, and the end of the Ottoman empire, all promises began to get broken. All the actors (Britain, France, Arabs, and Jews) felt betrayed and angry with everyone else, writes James Barr in A Line in the Sand .   And yet, each group had to work with whichever set happened to align with their interests at that moment . Britain needed Palestine under its control for two reasons: (1) It was strategically located wrt the Suez, Britain’s must-have route to its Asian colonies; and (2) It needed a port for the export of Iraqi oil to Britain. In this regard, they were OK with either British or Jewish control of Palestine. But of course, that was unacceptable to the Arabs. Whose fury was stoked by the French.   France, on the other hand, wanted Syria and (modern day) Lebanon under its control for historical reasons as well as a safe route for the Iraqi oil flow to France. The Arabs obviously were not OK with such a setup. A sentiment (and consequent rebellions)...

James Barr‘s book, A Line in the Sand , explains how the Middle East became the intractable place we now see it to be. In the decades leading up to World War I, the Middle East was part of the Ottoman empire. Even then, it was clear that the Ottomans were fading. In the middle of World War I, Britain and France started drawing up plans on how to split the Ottoman empire, if and when they won the war ! That plan came to be known as the Sykes-Picot plan, based on a literal line on a map drawn by the two – everything south, which lay closer to the Suez, would go to the British; while everything north would go to France. Palestine was left out – it was too problematic, given its religious importance to both Muslims and Christians. Britain then had made Promise #1 to the French on the division of the Ottoman Empire – the Middle East – assuming they’d win World War I.   The Ottoman Sultan, as the ruler of the Middle East (and thus Mecca), used his authority as the Caliph to exhort t...

The Middle East. Tim Marshall explains why it is the way it is, in his wonderful book, Prisoners of Geography : “The middle of what? East of where? The region’s very name is based on a European view of the world, and it is a European view of the region that shaped it.” The Arabian desert and scrubland is the dominant feature of the entire region. Ergo, people have lived on the periphery of that region for centuries. Until, that is, the Europeans came along and created nation states and legally fixed borders. But why did Europe get involved at all? It wasn’t like oil was either known of or needed back then. Aha, it started as the collapse of the Ottoman Empire looked imminent. In 1916, while World War I was ongoing, the British and French drew up a map on how they’d divide the region (and thus the Ottoman Empire) if they won the war. The line is called the Sykes-Picot line: north of it would be French control, south of it would be British control. Since then, “Sykes-Picot” ...