What am I reading? This topic is about peace in the Middle East between Israel, Iran, and Palestine, yet you're somehow suggesting Europeans are responsible for this conflict? You're arguing about who drew borders and why the names are what they are, despite Europe being the only region in the world to actually try to (naively) help entire populations by accepting millions of refugees. Borders aren't the cause of war—conflicts stem from civilizational differences, religious tensions, and/or the pursuit of power. Redraw the lines however you like and you'd still end up with the same conflicts, as they're existed throughout history. Do you think a world without Europe would've brought peace and harmony in that region of the world? Let's be serious.
“Without knowledge of its backstory, no policymaker will get the region right." I shall not give a dreadfully long speech on neither Sykes-Picot agreement, nor Balfour Declaration or villainous term of mandates. There is vast array of books on them written by distinguished historians. The truth is that either good or bad, is not so absolute. Believing in that some civillisation is either absolute good or absolute bad leads us to a political illusion instead of a fair conclusion on matters. We simply can't deny historical evidences by adressing to current conditions or vice versa. We should come into focus in 1914—22 period justly. It was an era in which Middl e Eastern countries and frontiers were
fabricated in Europe . Iraq and what we now call Jordan, for example ,
were British inventions, lines drawn on an empty map by British
politicians after the First World War; while the boundaries of Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq were established by a British civil servant
in 1922, and the frontiers between Moslems and Christians were
drawn by France in Syria-Lebanon and by Russia on the borders of
Armenia and Soviet Azerbaijan. The European powers at that time believed they could change
Moslem Asia in the very fundamentals of its political existence, and
in their attempt to do so introduced an artificial state system into the
Middle East that has made it into a region of countries that have not
become nations even today. The basis of political life in the Middl e
East—religion—was called into question by the Russians, who proposed communism, and by the British, who proposed nationalism or
dynastic loyalty, in its place. Khomeini's Iran in the Shi'ite world
and the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt, Syria, and elsewhere in the
Sunni world keep that issue alive. Th e French government, which in
the Middle East did allow religion to be the basis of politics—even of
its own—championed one sect against the others; and that, too, is an
issue kept alive, notably in the communal strife that has ravaged
Lebanon in the 1970s and 1980s.
It was a time when Europeans, not
implausibly, believed Arab and Jewish nationalism to be natural
allies; when the French, not the Arabs, were the dangerous enemies
of the Zionist movement; and when oil was not an important factor
in the politics of the Middle East.
By 1922, however, the choices had narrowed and the courses had been set; the Middle East had started along a road that was to lead to
the endless wars (between Israel and her neighbors, among others,
and between rival militias in Lebanon) and to the always-escalating
acts of terrorism (hijacking, assassination, and random massacre )
that have been a characteristic feature of international life in the
1970s and 1980s. Thes e are a part of the legacy of the history
recounted in the page s that follow. Rethinking of this exact choronology as independent of each other is the true naiveness.
It may well be that the crisis of political civilization that the
Middle East endures today stems not merely from Britain's destruction of the old order in the region in 1918, and her decisions in 1922
about how it should be replaced, but also from the lack of conviction
she brought in subsequent years to the program of imposing the
settlement of 1922 to which she was pledged.
Let's have a real life example. Following excerpts comes from THE REPORT OF THE PALESTINE ROYAL COMMISSION dated in July 1937:
"In order to obtain Arab support in the War, the British Government promised the Sharif of Mecca in 1915 that, in the event of an Allied victory, the greater part of the Arab provinces of the Turkish Empire would become independent. The Arabs understood that Palestine would be included in the sphere of independence.
In order to obtain the support of World Jewry, the British Government in 1917 issued the Balfour Declaration. The Jews understood that, if the experiment of establishing a Jewish National Home succeeded and a sufficient number of Jews went to Palestine, the National Home might develop in course of time into a Jewish State."
"An irrepressible conflict has arisen between two national communities within the narrow bounds of one small country. There is no common ground between them. Their national aspirations are incompatible. The Arabs desire to revive the traditions of the Arab golden age. The Jews desire to show what they can achieve when restored to the land in which the Jewish nation was born. Neither of the two national ideals permits of combination in the service of a single State."
What should we understand from this text? Arabs and Jews misunderstood the concept or they were simply given conflicting "save-the-day" promises?
All in all, pointing the Europe out fully responsible for the current situation is nothing but ignorance. On the other hand pointing the Europe out as beside the point totally, is nothing but betrayal of history. If we want to be fair, we should stand somewhere between. If you set borders for people having no "common ground", then conflicts are inevitable. Reminding "Yugoslavia" example would be fair I think. It doesn't occur as a "Velvet Divorce" in most cases, no matter which region.
