Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Middle Eastern and African History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Middle Eastern and African History Middle Eastern and African History Forum - Egypt, Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and all nations of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 16th, 2011, 12:08 AM   #11
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,120

what's the book called out of interest?
Baldtastic is offline  
Remove Ads
Old June 16th, 2011, 12:27 AM   #12

Mohammed the Persian's Avatar
Persicus Maximus
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Bahrain
Posts: 9,972
Blog Entries: 15

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baldtastic View Post
what's the book called out of interest?

Amazon.com: A History of the Modern Middle East (9780813343747): William L Cleveland, Martin Bunton: Books
Amazon.com: A History of the Modern Middle East (9780813343747): William L Cleveland, Martin Bunton: Books

Mohammed the Persian is offline  
Old December 25th, 2011, 12:31 AM   #13

shivfan's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Hertfordshire
Posts: 837

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsville View Post
Mostly the British promises were to Individual Arab leaders, who they tried to support. I doubt any of these thought the British were acting other than in self interest. Yes they had imperial and political interests other than the Arabs. But they were hardly out of step with usual diplomatic practices of the time. They did not have the general Arab population best interests at any stage as a major factor in their decision making.

Yes they lied and did stuff in their own perceived best interests, much like everyone else.
In short, yes, the British did make promises to the Arabs during WWI about them having a state of their own if they fought on the side of the British during the War. And yes, the British dumped those promises when they drew up the Sykes-Picot agreement, which they tried to keep secret from the Arabs.

When the news was made public, TE Lawrence was understandably furious with Sykes and the rest of the British administration for what he felt was an act of betrayal. But the truth is that the British and the French wanted to carve up the Middle East into colonies of their own, and Lloyd George had his eyes on oil in Mosul. The British were never interested in helping the Arabs to set up their own state, and just used them....
shivfan is offline  
Old December 25th, 2011, 01:08 AM   #14

srb7677's Avatar
Liberal Crusader
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Plymouth,UK
Posts: 2,354

Yes, I am sorry to say, Britain DID betray the Arabs. We promised them that if they joined us and revolted against the Ottoman Empire, we would support the establishment of a united and independent Arab nation. Yet we never had the slightest intention of honouring this promise, secretly planning instead to carve up the area between ourselves and the French.

Not only that, by promising to support the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine in the Balfour Delaration, whilst at the same time promising to uphold the rights of the Arabs, we laid the foundations of the Arab-Israeli conflicts that have plagued the Middle East and the rest of the world ever since.

When you also consider Britain's 1941 invasion of Iraq to overthrow a government that tried to establish true independence, Britain's organising of a coup in Iran in 1953 to overthrow a democratically elected popular government and replace it with a tyranny, and Britain's 1956 collusion with France and Israel to launch an aggression against Egypt, Britain's baleful influence in the region becomes clear.
srb7677 is offline  
Old December 25th, 2011, 02:14 AM   #15

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
Posts: 4,885

Quote:
Originally Posted by srb7677 View Post
Yes, I am sorry to say, Britain DID betray the Arabs. We promised them that if they joined us and revolted against the Ottoman Empire, we would support the establishment of a united and independent Arab nation. Yet we never had the slightest intention of honouring this promise, secretly planning instead to carve up the area between ourselves and the French.

Not only that, by promising to support the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine in the Balfour Delaration, whilst at the same time promising to uphold the rights of the Arabs, we laid the foundations of the Arab-Israeli conflicts that have plagued the Middle East and the rest of the world ever since.

When you also consider Britain's 1941 invasion of Iraq to overthrow a government that tried to establish true independence, Britain's organising of a coup in Iran in 1953 to overthrow a democratically elected popular government and replace it with a tyranny, and Britain's 1956 collusion with France and Israel to launch an aggression against Egypt, Britain's baleful influence in the region becomes clear.
It's called Realpolitik.
Ancientgeezer is offline  
Old December 25th, 2011, 03:06 AM   #16

gaius valerius's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2009
From: Belgium
Posts: 5,673

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancientgeezer View Post
It's called Realpolitik.
Everyone was kind of 'betrayed'. It's all fun and games making promises during wartimes but when the dust settles reality comes crashing down. The Arabs certainly aren't the only ones who were duped.
gaius valerius is offline  
Old December 25th, 2011, 09:24 AM   #17

srb7677's Avatar
Liberal Crusader
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Plymouth,UK
Posts: 2,354

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancientgeezer View Post
It's called Realpolitik.
It is called lying, dishonesty, double dealing, and selfishness at the national level, and with a bit less of it we would have far less strife in the world.
srb7677 is offline  
Old December 25th, 2011, 03:50 PM   #18

DreamWeaver's Avatar
Misanthropologist
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wales
Posts: 10,171
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by srb7677 View Post
It is called lying, dishonesty, double dealing, and selfishness at the national level, and with a bit less of it we would have far less strife in the world.

Welcome to international politics.


To the OP. The failure of the UAR comes to mind. Was a pan arab nation feasible?
DreamWeaver is offline  
Old December 26th, 2011, 06:44 AM   #19

shivfan's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Hertfordshire
Posts: 837

I recommend James Barr's 'A Line in the Sand', which covers the British mandate, and the destructive struggles with France in the Middle East.

He's a British writer, but he's very critical of the way both Britain and France handled their mandates, and leaves them with a lot of the blame for how the situation materialised when 1948 came around....
shivfan is offline  
Old December 26th, 2011, 07:12 AM   #20

Mangas Coloradas's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 795

Does anyone here think the west has had the intent of keeping the ME unstable since WWI? Does the west want peace and stability in the ME or just the right balance of warfare and strife so that Arabs are essentially unable to form a cohesive Arab state? A caliphate?

I think so. It's just one of the ways empires try to control the situation around them. Of you keep your potential enemies fighting amongst themselves, they can't stand against you.
Mangas Coloradas is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Middle Eastern and African History

Tags
arabs, betrayed, british


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Byzantines defeat the arabs and turks( arabs and later turks) Feeeen Speculative History 14 June 13th, 2013 02:12 AM
Arabs in the First Century Germania_Echoes Middle Eastern and African History 31 November 14th, 2010 10:26 AM
Origins of Arabs okamido Ancient History 251 June 29th, 2010 07:09 PM
Cowboys vs Arabs Nick Speculative History 26 October 13th, 2009 03:32 PM
Elizabeth I- betrayed "her people"? JohnnyH General History 3 March 6th, 2007 03:21 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.