Based on your readings for the week, what were the defining political moments in the Middle East from World War I until the 1960s? Select at least 2 events that are most interesting to you and discuss why you believe they have had long-term political implications.
9 thoughts on “Week 3”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Two of the more significant events affecting the Middle East and North Africa between World War I and the 1960s were, in my mind, the Treaty of Sevres and World War II. Now, both of those answers seem a bit like a cop-out, seeing as they are so all-encompassing, but I’m going to go with it anyway.
The Treaty of Sevres was the official document allotting France and Britain their mandates in the region. France was given the area that is now Syria and Lebanon and Britain received control of Palestine, Iraq, and Jordan. The notion of the mandate and the “temporary colony” is a unique commentary on the evolving nature of imperialism, but one of the more important aspects of mandate authority was that it gave the French and the British complete administrative control. That meant that even as the French and the British supposedly prepared to end European rule, they could still divide up their territory and assign leaders however they saw fit. Mandate authority directly produced the state of Israel, the state of Jordan, the state of Lebanon, and the monarchy in Iraq. The French and the British carved up the region, creating some states as bargaining chips with angry Middle Eastern rulers (Jordan), carving up some land to artificially create and preserve a Christian plurality (Lebanon), and legislating an unsustainable partition to appease conflicting sects, thereby insuring conflict and violence (Israel and Palestine). Additionally, they handpicked rulers with little thought to their legitimate leadership ability; Britain installed Amir Faisal in Iraq, ignoring the fact that the Sunni king would probably not be the preference of a nation with a Shi’a majority. Producing three brand new sovereign nations in the Middle East and setting the stage for conflict in Lebanon, Iraq, and Israel, the Treaty of Sevres changed the face of the Levant and directly altered the region’s historical trajectory.
World War II also played an obviously significant role. War obviously has an incredibly destructive and significant impact on the people waging it, but World War II had the added effect of accelerating the process of independence for a number of Middle East and North African countries. France and Britain were weakened by the war, and local populations were increasingly displeased with their treatment at the hands of the European powers, having been made to fight away from home, protecting the country that was occupying it. Also, the rhetoric of the war, one of sovereignty, modernity, and the triumph of liberal democracy that drove the Allied forces proved slightly hypocritical when they tried to return to their imperial territories and continue administering them. Shortly after the war, local independence movements had largely expelled their European rulers and the nations in the Middle East and North Africa were officially independent, left to engage in serious, violent civil conflict over the states that France and Britain had created in the first place.
Perhaps unknowingly, Britain encouraged the political tension and turmoil between Israel and Palestine. Under the McMahon agreement, Britain essentially promised Arab territories to Sharif Husayn if he revolted against the Ottoman Empire. However, the situation became sloppy once Britain decided to make a secret deal with France under the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement. In this agreement, Britain was going to keep Iraq, give Syria to France, and then leave Palestine to the international community. The Arabs were not going to the recognized independence they wanted. Then in 1917, declared its support of the Israeli state with the Balfour Declaration. At this point, Britain had allowed the fate of the Palestinian territory to the international community while it watched over the formation of Israeli state. The British underestimated the fragility of the tension between the Palestinian Arabs and Israelis. Did Britain forget (or maybe overlook) the historical, cultural, religious, and political differences between these two peoples? The Arabs and Israeli continue to argue and fight for their sovergnty today.
Also the redistribution of Ottoman territories in 1948 as separate nations caused many Middle Easterners to wonder about their national identity. Should they consider themselves Muslim? Arab? or should they identify with their state? But at the same time, you don’t want a thousand little tiny states inhabiting a continent.
*My apologies- I meant to write 1914 instead of 1948.
1948 War: At the end of this war, Israel was a viable state, and moreover, one that had gained ground on seemingly superior Arab armies. Although this is not the beginning of current Arab-Israeli conflict, it is the first time that it became a true reality. Since that time, countless foreign policies have been shaped by this conflict, whether it be in America or Iran. Although it is easy to overstate the theory that solving this conflict will go a long way towards solving the region’s other problems, it is hard to overstate the impact that this conflict has already had on the region. Politics aside, it has created a pervasive psyche or hate, paranoia, and often violence in the region. For example, to Arabs the defeat in the 1948 war is known as the Nakba, or the catastrophe; a word with strong emotional connotations.
Gammal Abd al-Nasser’s Presidency: Nasser is the father of pan-Arabism, the idea of uniting the Arab world that has been more or less prominent for the second half of the 20th century. As importantly, Nasser was also a promoter of Egyptian nationalism, a socialist, a dictator, and a military hero (Suez Crisis). He served as a model of sorts for some of the most prominent Arab leaders over the last 50 years, including Hafez al-Assad and Saddam Hussein.
Aside from the affects on the Arab world, his accession to power forever changed the relationship between the Arab states and the West. He threw off the yolks of British imperialism, and added insult to injury during the Suez crisis. Other Arab countries took notice. The wholly exploitative relationship that the West enjoyed was certainly altered when the impassioned and rhetorical Nasser took office.
I think two significant events that occurred post WWI in the middle east are a) the 1917 Balfour declaration in which the British said they looked favourably upon the idea of a Jewish state. Yes, the Aliyah did start in the 19th century, but i think the declaration only went to legitimize what Zionists believed was their right; to move into Palestine. This mass immigration obviously lay the groundwork for the war of 1948 and the current Israeli/ Palestine conflict.
b)A second and even more relevant event was the Sykes Picot agreement which was a secret agreement between France and great Britain. It conflicted with the promise made to Husayn in giving him a United Arab kingdom. This obviously also led to Abdullah and Faisal taking up the fight on behalf of their father. They were justly rewarded with Kingdoms of their own, but further complicated the situation because you had a Saudi ruling the Syrian region/Jordan. This really throws off the notion of nationality which in itself is so packed and complicated in the Middle Eastern context.e.g if you were someone from Trans Jordan at that time, were you as Jordanian even after your King was a soldier form Mecca?
With the end of WWI we also see the end of the Ottoman Empire. The Treaty of Sevres divided the Middle East into mandates and spheres of control. Borders were drawn almost arbitrarily, with disregard to belief, ethnicity or life style. The Treaty of Sevres is probably one of the most important events post WWI as it marks events that have resulted in a series of issues that still persist today; the effects of these mandates were obvious in Syria and Lebanon where there continues to be Maronite-Muslim conflict (under French control) and also in Iraq (under British control).
The second important event that happened after WWI was WWII. During the Second World War we see a huge number of colonial controlled states enter into the war under pressure from their colonizer (such as the native Algerians). Post WWII, I think the sentiment for nationalism and independence was greater than it had been before. This realization lead to extensive revolts, and fights for independence and also a surge of nationalism that persists today in many countries. In countries such as Algeria we see civil wars resulting from post WWII resentment (I think the dislike was there before but after paying in lives for the colonizer, enough was enough.) In countries such as Egypt, even though it had been technically independent from the British since 1922, we see the nationalizing of the Suez Canal, which helped push the British out of Egyptian foreign affairs.
The ‘creation’ of Iraq and Jordan stand as a testament to the haphazard manner in which several Middle Eastern countries came into being and can be used to explain many of the contemporary issues that they face. The nonchalance with which the British created states as a matter of convenience to achieve short term political goals, highlights the artificial composition of these countries and (in the case of Iraq) resulted in widespread ethnic violence. I find these two cases of state founding to be of particular interest as they are emblematic of the fragmented region that the Ottoman empire’s dissolution caused as well as the European response to it.
The events that took place following the Free Officer’s Coup of 1952, signified a landmark occurrence in the Middle East as a new type of post-colonial authoritarian regime concerned with addressing the social inequalities came to power with Gamal Abdr al-Nasser at the head. The coup in and of itself was a remarkable feat in the face of a lingering British presence, yet the change that it effected and example that it set, created a model for change that was noticed in both Syria and Iraq. After the Suez crisis of 1956, Egypt’s leader achieved what very few other Arab heads had, by prevailing against the British, French and Israelis. These momentous achievements within Egypt set a precedent for change and governance that inspired many others in the Arab world, unfortunately sparking the revolutionary drive of non other than Muammar Qaddafi in the process.
As the Israeli-Palestinian (and now even more so Israeli- Arab conflict) is still in the main stream of current events, the raid of Israeli forces into Gaza in 1955 is a very significant event. By kicking out Egyptians from Gaza, Israelis made themselves life long enemies. Even though the peace treaty of Camp David kept Egypt from outright war and outward aggression, there has always been hostility between the two and that first raid, followed by the Suez War are more important influences for Egyptians than a peace facilitated by America. I think that the events of the mid 20th century have had such long-term affects because the issue breaks down to religion and nationalism that cannot be swept under the rug and forgotten, especially when they are such defining aspects of the respective nations. Tensions and issues between Egypt and Israel have not been aired or addressed and have festered to the point where Egypt is becoming vocal in its opinion against Israel.
Another event of the mid century that was really significant was the election of Mossagdegh as Prime Minister of Iran in 1951. He was the first anti-western politician who reveled in his western title and style of government that ironically had an isolationist attitude towards the west. As we see with Ahmadinejad today, Iran has a president and in theory a fundamentally western government, even though it, like Mossadegh’s, wants to separate itself from the west and bring back fundamental Islam. The implications are pretty long lasting as Mossadegh has many connections to conflicts today, as he was a martyr that represented freedom to Iranians, and he fought a leader (for him the Shah) that was backed by the west, Mubarak for example.