La Perfide Albion
I grew-up in an Arab Syria where passionate patriotic discourse was the norm and Arab Nationalism often bordered on jingoism. Every national narrative has to have its heroes as well as its villains. The latter could be native quislings or alien conspirators whose strings are pulled by some hostile power. Of heroes -real or imaginary- there certainly is no shortage and same goes for villains: the stronger those villains (rather super-villains), the better as there is no glory struggling against unworthy foes. This is self evident: you need the darkness to better define the light and every thesis needs an antithesis.
The Super-Villain that I grew up with was those United States of America. They were the sworn enemy of all “Progressives” worldwide and their unconditional support for a militaristic Israel needs no elaboration for anyone interested in the politics of the Near East. The USA, with their notorious Pentagon and CIA, were plotting against the Arab World in general, and Syria in particular, day and night. Their nefarious designs aimed at nothing less than global hegemony, usurping Arabs’ national resources (oil first and foremost), and propping-up “reactionary” Arab regimes and client states.
But the Super-Villain that my grandparents and great grandparents were acquainted with was a different one. That evil power was -in those days- at least as threatening as the USA of my youth, perhaps even more demonic. That Super Power was, as my grandmother used to admiringly repeat, the “empire on which the sun never sets”. It was mighty Great Britain, whose king or queen claimed the Indian Empire and ruled the Seven Seas. By contrast we all know that England is now a has been. To be sure it still is prosperous and proud but it no longer dominates Europe, let alone the World.
So at the beginning of the Twentieth Century we have a rising “Arab Nation” struggling to be born and courageously facing the great power that was the United Kingdom. To an Arab Nationalist of the first half of the Twentieth Century, the British committed two unforgivable sins: the first was to betray their promises to the Arab revolutionists and the second was to issue the ominous Balfour Declaration committing Great Britain to facilitate the immigration of (mainly European at the time) Jews to Palestine. Nothing the British would do could erase those twin crimes from Arab memory. Not even the White Paper of 1939 or the rapid decline of British influence after a ruinous WWII that they supposedly “won”.
It certainly is not my intention to exonerate England or to apologize for the Zionists. The British acted according to what they thought was their national interest and -as I will try to demonstrate later- were as generous with the “Arabs” as could realistically be expected; as for the Zionists, they used every “legal” or illegal mean to make their dreams into realities, something that they must have known would come at the expense of the natives. No, my purpose in writing this post is to indict the Arabs (rather their self-appointed representatives) , their political immaturity, and their infantile ideology.
The once imposing Ottoman Empire was agonizing by the beginning of the Twentieth Century. From without, hungry European powers were disputing the left over of its vast territory when WWI erupted in 1914; from within, Sharif Hussein of Mecca raised the banner of the Great Arab Revolution that was to revive the glory of early Islam while Egypt declared its independence from Constantinople under British auspices. As everyone knows, the Sublime Porte cast its lot with the Central Powers and lost, whereas the Hashemites of Hejaz bet on the Allies and won, or so they fancied.
The Sharif of Mecca negotiated what many Arab historians described as an agreement with Great Britain to grant the Arabs their independence in a territory that extended from the Taurus Mountains in the North to the Indian Ocean in the South, and from the Mediterranean in the West to Iraq in the East; that was in exchange of the Arabs supporting the British campaign against Turkey with their guerillas -themselves armed with British weapons and financed by British money-. The details of this understanding were elaborated in the infamous Hussein-McMahon Correspondence that spanned the interval between July 1915 and January 1916.
The fine print exchanged in those letters is public knowledge and I will not dwell on it Suffice it to say that the British did not promise a whole lot no matter what Hussein understood, and understandably so. England, that sacrificed hundreds of thousands of its young men and a tremendous treasure to defeat Germany and its allies, understood the proposed “independent” Arab kingdom as a client state to be stirred in the right direction by British “advisers”. Moreover, their vague promises were made to the Hashemites of Mecca, not to the “Arabs” whatever that term means. I would also argue that, after all was said and done, the British were fabulously generous with the Hashemites: they created a kingdom for Feisal -recently expelled from Syria by the French- in Iraq and concocted a realm for his brother Abdullah in a Transjordan forbidden to would be Jewish immigrants. Hussein would likely have kept his Hejaz fief, and his son Ali after him, had he had any touch with reality. Instead he kept grumbling and whining until the frustrated British decided to abandon him to his fate at the hands of ibn Saud and his Ikhwan. In another word the British were prepared to grant three kingdom to the Hashemites and were perhaps justified in thinking that the territory claimed by Hussein was vast enough to satisfy the appetite of many vassals and bribe quite few would be foes.
For in reality Sharif Hussein was asking the British to grant him a vast empire AND to conquer this empire on his behalf. Let there be no mistake about it: the Ottoman’s defeat was achieved by the British and only the British. Not only were Hussein’ irregulars little more than British mercenaries but also, the entire “great Arab Revolution” as T. E. Lawrence would put it: was a “side show of a side show”. WWI was fought and decided in Europe and the Ottoman Empire would have been terminated with or without Hussein’ s contribution. Had Hussein and his apologists possessed a healthy dose of common sense they would have realized that empires are conquered, not given.
Contrast Arabs’ attitude with that of the Zionists. Chaim Weizmann worked tirelessly towards preparing the conditions that would eventually lead to the creation of a Jewish state. He accepted a relatively modest territory and did not insist on a state right from the start. To him, a vague promise of a “Jewish National Home in Palestine” was adequate to begin with, it being implied that more could be demanded in due time. Indeed, there was no reason back in 1917 to conclude that a Jewish state was inevitable.
In summary, England deliberately issued vague promises to Arab AND Jew and its politicians went out of the way in wording their letters as to leave ample room of maneuver for their successors. While it is true that the Balfour Declaration gave a “legal” basis for the Zionist enterprise, it remains undeniable that Israel became a reality in 1948 mainly thanks to the commitment of wealthy European and American Jews financing the -mainly Eastern European- Jewish settlement in Palestine and providing the settlers with arms and ammunition to conquer the land to the disadvantage of its original inhabitants. For conquer they did: contrary to the Hashemites, the Zionists relied first and foremost on themselves.
“Heroes” and Villains” is the stuff out of which movies are made and tales are told. In real life we have “winners” and “losers”. If you win, all is forgiven or at least would be forgiven in time. If you lose, you accept the crumbs the victor might leave you out of the goodness of his heart or hold your peace. Many losers did not even survive to relate their ordeal
I grew-up in an Arab Syria where passionate patriotic discourse was the norm and Arab Nationalism often bordered on jingoism. Every national narrative has to have its heroes as well as its villains. The latter could be native quislings or alien conspirators whose strings are pulled by some hostile power. Of heroes -real or imaginary- there certainly is no shortage and same goes for villains: the stronger those villains (rather super-villains), the better as there is no glory struggling against unworthy foes. This is self evident: you need the darkness to better define the light and every thesis needs an antithesis.
The Super-Villain that I grew up with was those United States of America. They were the sworn enemy of all “Progressives” worldwide and their unconditional support for a militaristic Israel needs no elaboration for anyone interested in the politics of the Near East. The USA, with their notorious Pentagon and CIA, were plotting against the Arab World in general, and Syria in particular, day and night. Their nefarious designs aimed at nothing less than global hegemony, usurping Arabs’ national resources (oil first and foremost), and propping-up “reactionary” Arab regimes and client states.
But the Super-Villain that my grandparents and great grandparents were acquainted with was a different one. That evil power was -in those days- at least as threatening as the USA of my youth, perhaps even more demonic. That Super Power was, as my grandmother used to admiringly repeat, the “empire on which the sun never sets”. It was mighty Great Britain, whose king or queen claimed the Indian Empire and ruled the Seven Seas. By contrast we all know that England is now a has been. To be sure it still is prosperous and proud but it no longer dominates Europe, let alone the World.
So at the beginning of the Twentieth Century we have a rising “Arab Nation” struggling to be born and courageously facing the great power that was the United Kingdom. To an Arab Nationalist of the first half of the Twentieth Century, the British committed two unforgivable sins: the first was to betray their promises to the Arab revolutionists and the second was to issue the ominous Balfour Declaration committing Great Britain to facilitate the immigration of (mainly European at the time) Jews to Palestine. Nothing the British would do could erase those twin crimes from Arab memory. Not even the White Paper of 1939 or the rapid decline of British influence after a ruinous WWII that they supposedly “won”.
It certainly is not my intention to exonerate England or to apologize for the Zionists. The British acted according to what they thought was their national interest and -as I will try to demonstrate later- were as generous with the “Arabs” as could realistically be expected; as for the Zionists, they used every “legal” or illegal mean to make their dreams into realities, something that they must have known would come at the expense of the natives. No, my purpose in writing this post is to indict the Arabs (rather their self-appointed representatives) , their political immaturity, and their infantile ideology.
The once imposing Ottoman Empire was agonizing by the beginning of the Twentieth Century. From without, hungry European powers were disputing the left over of its vast territory when WWI erupted in 1914; from within, Sharif Hussein of Mecca raised the banner of the Great Arab Revolution that was to revive the glory of early Islam while Egypt declared its independence from Constantinople under British auspices. As everyone knows, the Sublime Porte cast its lot with the Central Powers and lost, whereas the Hashemites of Hejaz bet on the Allies and won, or so they fancied.
The Sharif of Mecca negotiated what many Arab historians described as an agreement with Great Britain to grant the Arabs their independence in a territory that extended from the Taurus Mountains in the North to the Indian Ocean in the South, and from the Mediterranean in the West to Iraq in the East; that was in exchange of the Arabs supporting the British campaign against Turkey with their guerillas -themselves armed with British weapons and financed by British money-. The details of this understanding were elaborated in the infamous Hussein-McMahon Correspondence that spanned the interval between July 1915 and January 1916.
The fine print exchanged in those letters is public knowledge and I will not dwell on it Suffice it to say that the British did not promise a whole lot no matter what Hussein understood, and understandably so. England, that sacrificed hundreds of thousands of its young men and a tremendous treasure to defeat Germany and its allies, understood the proposed “independent” Arab kingdom as a client state to be stirred in the right direction by British “advisers”. Moreover, their vague promises were made to the Hashemites of Mecca, not to the “Arabs” whatever that term means. I would also argue that, after all was said and done, the British were fabulously generous with the Hashemites: they created a kingdom for Feisal -recently expelled from Syria by the French- in Iraq and concocted a realm for his brother Abdullah in a Transjordan forbidden to would be Jewish immigrants. Hussein would likely have kept his Hejaz fief, and his son Ali after him, had he had any touch with reality. Instead he kept grumbling and whining until the frustrated British decided to abandon him to his fate at the hands of ibn Saud and his Ikhwan. In another word the British were prepared to grant three kingdom to the Hashemites and were perhaps justified in thinking that the territory claimed by Hussein was vast enough to satisfy the appetite of many vassals and bribe quite few would be foes.
For in reality Sharif Hussein was asking the British to grant him a vast empire AND to conquer this empire on his behalf. Let there be no mistake about it: the Ottoman’s defeat was achieved by the British and only the British. Not only were Hussein’ irregulars little more than British mercenaries but also, the entire “great Arab Revolution” as T. E. Lawrence would put it: was a “side show of a side show”. WWI was fought and decided in Europe and the Ottoman Empire would have been terminated with or without Hussein’ s contribution. Had Hussein and his apologists possessed a healthy dose of common sense they would have realized that empires are conquered, not given.
Contrast Arabs’ attitude with that of the Zionists. Chaim Weizmann worked tirelessly towards preparing the conditions that would eventually lead to the creation of a Jewish state. He accepted a relatively modest territory and did not insist on a state right from the start. To him, a vague promise of a “Jewish National Home in Palestine” was adequate to begin with, it being implied that more could be demanded in due time. Indeed, there was no reason back in 1917 to conclude that a Jewish state was inevitable.
In summary, England deliberately issued vague promises to Arab AND Jew and its politicians went out of the way in wording their letters as to leave ample room of maneuver for their successors. While it is true that the Balfour Declaration gave a “legal” basis for the Zionist enterprise, it remains undeniable that Israel became a reality in 1948 mainly thanks to the commitment of wealthy European and American Jews financing the -mainly Eastern European- Jewish settlement in Palestine and providing the settlers with arms and ammunition to conquer the land to the disadvantage of its original inhabitants. For conquer they did: contrary to the Hashemites, the Zionists relied first and foremost on themselves.
“Heroes” and Villains” is the stuff out of which movies are made and tales are told. In real life we have “winners” and “losers”. If you win, all is forgiven or at least would be forgiven in time. If you lose, you accept the crumbs the victor might leave you out of the goodness of his heart or hold your peace. Many losers did not even survive to relate their ordeal
great post
ReplyDeleteThank you kindly.
Delete