Reddit reviews A Line in the Sand

Allot of slightly incorrect information in here already.

Britain DID betray the Arabs and Lawrence did know about it - but not when he began the campaign. There is allot more to it (and trying to simplify this is really difficult); but simply(and skipping over a lot of details):

• At the start of the campaign it was vaugh British policy to give the Arabs their own state, it then became a solid policy and then the Brits went back on it.
  
  
• The French did not believe that Britain would do such a thing (they believed an ulterior motive was in place) and actively pushed to ensure that France would retain sections of the Middle East
  
  
• This led to Britain turning to a 'so called middle eastern expert' Sykes. He negotiated with France a deal that gave France Syria and split the promised Arab kingdom in Half (literally drew a line across the desert). N.B. He ignored allot of negotiations made by the Cairo office
  
  
• when this was questioned by others in Britain - the worry was that France would become so pissed off they would leave the war against Germany - something Britain could NOT afford/allow to happen.
  
  
• Then add in the Zionist views. These were strong in the UK at the time and the land division proposed by Pico-Sykes would allow Britain to give the Jews a homeland (which we did - just not quick enough in many peoples opinion and hence a whole other mess the US got involved in)
  
  
• Several resignations happened in protest of how the Arabs were being treated and betrayed
  
  In summary Britain Pandered to the French - allowed people in London rather than on the field make decisions and messed the whole thing up because Germany was their focus
  
  Further Reading
  Fantastic book that explains it all: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Line-Sand-Britain-France-Struggle/dp/1847394574/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1425926695&sr=8-1&keywords=A+line+in+the+sand
  
  Quote Summarises quite well: Source Wikipedia
  > In May 1917, W. Ormsby-Gore wrote "French intentions in Syria are surely incompatible with the war aims of the Allies as defined to the Russian Government. If the self-determination of nationalities is to be the principle, the interference of France in the selection of advisers by the Arab Government and the suggestion by France of the Emirs to be selected by the Arabs in Mosul, Aleppo, and Damascus would seem utterly incompatible with our ideas of liberating the Arab nation and of establishing a free and independent Arab State. The British Government, in authorising the letters despatched to King Hussein [Sharif of Mecca] before the outbreak of the revolt by Sir Henry McMahon, would seem to raise a doubt as to whether our pledges to King Hussein as head of the Arab nation are consistent with French intentions to make not only Syria but Upper Mesopotamia another Tunis. If our support of King Hussein and the other Arabian leaders of less distinguished origin and prestige means anything it means that we are prepared to recognise the full sovereign independence of the Arabs of Arabia and Syria. It would seem time to acquaint the French Government with our detailed pledges to King Hussein, and to make it clear to the latter whether he or someone else is to be the ruler of Damascus, which is the one possible capital for an Arab State, which could command the obedience of the other Arabian Emirs."
  
  *N.B. Islamic State are now fighting to restore the Borders that Britain once promised

Ok, so your best bet is to read a comprehensive set of books on the matter. For the sake of a quick introduction into the matter, your best bet is from the ''a very short introduction'' series. It gets your feet wet at the very least. Now the best and most comprehensive single book on the matter is by a man called Ian Black see here for the book. It is widely acknowledged as being one of the deepest guides on the conflict that goes beyond the current conflict and back to the British Mandate. He was a guardian lead on the conflict for a number of years and now currently works at the LSE. The book itself has a slight pro-Palestinian bias but then it is up to you to judge if that is warranted or not. Other good books on the matter are as follows; On Palestine by Chomsky (obviously very left leaning), A line in the sand By Barr (A historical understanding of how the conflict as it is today can be grounded in past imperialism), and, Belonging the story of Jews by Schama (A history of Jews, one that I can't give too much info on atm because I am reading it myself).

​

Other recommendations that I can give are to subscribe to notifications from the Israelis newspapers etc to get there perspectives on matters. As well as following or subscribing to certain joint peace based groups within the area- my favourites are ''Roots'', ''Combatants for Peace'', and the ''Bereaved families forum''. I've met with all three organisations in the past and I'd say that the second is for sure the most interesting- combining ex-IDF and ex-Hamas forces together to seek a peaceful solution.

​

Also just another thing to add when looking at the region specific to Palestine- make sure to differentiate between the west bank and Gaza- they have very different politics and Palestine- like Israelis are not a monolithic group- as seen by the rise of certain countermovements in both Palestine and Israel that are seeking to challenge the hegemony of Abbas and Bibi respectively.

​

Any other questions please feel free to ask.

Absolutely, it was just a case of opening my mouth before engaging my brain.

If anyone wants some more information on it though I've recently finished a book called A Line in The Sand by James Barr that's based on the most recent documents that have surfaced. If that's a little dry for you there's a Podcast called Martyr Made that does a really good job of explaining the Israeli Palestinian conflict and why it's still going on.

Yes; Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, & Israel (don't get me started on that one) were created or given independence post WW2 by Britain & France (who previously controlled many of them)

There's a good book about this and the years preceding .

Depends on how much in-depth you want them to be, and if you're more into 'general politics', or into 'military-related affairs'.

For really good understanding of how Syria came into being, and what events and processes shaped it early on, you might want to read:

• A Line in the Sand: Britain, France and the Struggle that Shaped the Middle East, and
  
  
• The Great Syrian Revolt: And the Rise of Arab Nationalism
  
  
• Syria: A Recent History
  
  Given your German flag, you might add
  
  
• Damaskus: Oase zwischen Haß und Hoffnung for a 'general overview'. This small volume is covering general Syrian history since ancient times until early 1990s. Similarly good (i.e. 'for general orientation'), is
  
  
• Die Araber
  
  Now, since much of recent Syrian history is dominated by the Syrian military, you might need some read in this regards. Ideally, there would be an English translation for the best - most detailled, most in-depth - book on history of Syrian armed forces, Pesach Malovany's big volume tittled something like 'Out of the North an Evil shall break Forth' (sorry, all the links I used to have to its publisher are down) - published (like, sigh, so many really good Israeli books on Arab-Israeli wars) in Hebrew only. But there is none. Word is that this might get translated to English by the University of Kentucky, sometimes next or the year after.
  
  Some might suggest you Arabs at War. Regardless how comprehensive, when it comes to Syria I find it hopelessly obsolete, onesided and largely based on 'battlefield heritage' (see: hear-say). Indeed, although anything than 'Syria-related', I found Egyptian Strategy for the Yom Kippour War much more useful for studying the Syrian military during the October 1973 War (and even after!).
  
  Namely, that one is largely based on Egyptian documentation captured during the October 1973 War, and cross-examination of related Egyptian and Syrian military literature.
  
  A 'short-cut' of sort (i.e. avoiding collecting all of these books) would be to go for the Arab MiGs books... though this is in turn an own series of six volumes, covering the history of Arab air forces at war with Israel in period 1955-1973.
  
  Good thing about these books is that they're based on hundreds of interviews, authentic publications (including several by top Syrian military commanders), and whatever documentation the authors managed to get. They're providing really unique insights: far from merely counting aircraft, describing their markings, or discussing claims, they're descibing political backgrounds, arms deals, training (including outright fist-fights between top Syrian pilots and Soviets supposed to instruct them), organization, tactics, weaponry, foreign influences (in the case of Syrians, this was foremost Czechoslovak and not 'Soviet' by nature, and in this regards these books are well-supported by - between others - loads of original documentation from Czech National Archives) etc.
  
  Finally, re. causes of the SCW: there is meanwhile a small myrad of related titles - with best example probably being a quite massive volume titled The Syrian Jihad: al-Qaeda, the Islamic State and the Evolution of an Insurgency. Where that title 'excells' is in showing 'local influence and flair' of the entire affair: in turn, that is often making it hard to follow. Right now, I wouldn't know a 'simplier', 'easier to follow' volume describing this affair, though (any recommendations are most welcome).

It's a very complicated topic. I can't tell you what it's really about. I recently read this book, which was quite interessting and gives a lot of insight towards many of the fundamental roots of the tensions in the region.

But I don't think there is one conclusive answer to why there is currently war there.

> I expect the average American idiot to buy into this nonsense, but Europeans? On average, you're far more informed than the typical American and I was hoping you guys could take the global leadership role since America is being governed by an incompetent orange ape. You can have these dog and pony shows and pat yourselves on the back like you're making a difference but they won't do anything.

maybe. But large scale social change is a slow process and this is a step in the right direction. What do you expect? We magically summon a german army that can slap it's dick on the table and end this shitshow. The US could. But this is at least a small alternative to the military option, even if it's effects are currently minor.

I read A Line in the Sand not too long ago, which covers everything from World War One onwards, and my impression was not that the Israeli's were the good guys, but that the region would probably be more stable had the British not caved in to Zionism.

Of course, we cannot now evict the Israeli's from the region, or at least there is not the will to do so, plus we have a strategic interest in holding them there, some would argue. But they basically lucked out, because many in the West felt it would be a good idea to have a Jewish state. They certainly have less legitimacy over the area than the French have over France.

I always have a few on the go I switch between as the mood takes me. Right now, on kindle, they are:

The Politics of Illusion: A Political History of Sinn Féin and the IRA

A Line in the Sand: Britain, France and the Struggle That Shaped the Middle East

The Government Machine: A Revolutionary History of the Computer

Inventing Ireland: The Literature of a Modern Nation

in physical formats:

Peadar O'Donnell, Irish Social Rebel

Sinn Féin and the Politics of Left Republicanism

I just finished this, you may want to read it:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Line-Sand-Britain-France-struggle/dp/1847394574

Certainly more complicated than I thought (and I thought I had a good idea).

Sykes-Picot is almost a footnote in what actually happened.

If you want to learn more about this, I recommend this book:

A Line in the Sand: Britain, France and the struggle that shaped the Middle East

The book was published in 2012. You mean the agreement's text? Nah. Everyone knew where the Palestine region was but there was no definite border so they had to agree to one. Nothing about immigration so far.

The formation of the Israeli state and the reaction of the natives and the Arab states has to be seen within the context of the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Essentially, after WW1, the British and the French divided up the Ottoman Empire according to which the French got everything to the north and the British everything to the south of a line in the shape of a tick/correction mark.

See here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/MPK1-426_Sykes_Picot_Agreement_Map_signed_8_May_1916.jpg

Part of that process was the Mandate system in which the two powers would oversee the transition into democratically governed states in the region who would eventually become self-governing. They encouraged Arab nationalism. The problem was that the British and French were both vying for power and resources in the region (oil was only beginning to become a major economic and strategic interest) and used their various Mandates against each other. The issue of Palestine was somewhat left off the table due to its religious importance and was eventually to be placed under international supervision, at least that was the plan. The British felt they had been forced into the agreement and in order to counter the French, they began to support the Zionists, some of whom were already in Palestine, and other Zionists in Europe. From that springs the Balfour Declaration. Their thinking was that if the Zionists were aligned with the British, then the British would have a more legitimate claim to Palestine than the French.

Of course, this went against the idea of Arab nationalism which had been promoted by the powers. So, there was a building tension as a result of this, and the result of increasing levels of Jewish immigration to the region. We must remember with regard to the latter that the Jewish/Zionist settlers were publicly backed by the British, and given the actions of the British in the region vis-a-vis blocking Arab nationalism, the natives were not happy. You also then had the rise of Revisionist Zionism, i.e., only a militarily superior Zionist enterprise would be able to take the land that they needed, the land being Palestine.

Here's a quote from a report by The Executive Committee of the Palestine Arab Congress that was sent to the British in 1924:

“The Palestine Administration, in pursuances of this rule, put into force (1921) a Turkish law that has never been enforced before, whereby a proprietor who fails to cultivate his land or a part thereof during three consecutive years will lose his title to it. The war-weakened farmer found it impossible for himself in the present crisis of financial stringency, costly labour and cheap product prices, to cultivate all his lands within three years. He, therefore, foresaw a part of his dear land cut off by virtue of that law, and thus frightened, he came down to the market to sell it to Jews at a low price....

The economic policy of the Palestine Administration pursues two lines of action, the one pertaining to Arabs and the other to Jews. The latter is progressive but the former is retrogressive. The overwhelming majority of the population in Palestine is composed of Arab farmers, of towns and villages, who are the sole producing element. Meanwhile, they are the poorest in the country. It is obviously essential that a good willing Government should, from the outset, give the first hand of assistance to them who give most and suffer most....

The Arab demand many be summed up in the following words: The establishment in Palestine of a National Constitutional Government in which the two Communities, Arab and Jewish, will be represented in proportion to their numbers as they existed before the application of the Zionist Policy” .

So you can see there was a lot of tension as a result of the British and their behaviour in the region. Later the Zionists got tired with the British due to the latter placing immigration restrictions on Palestine (see the two White Papers) so they turned to the French for support instead. During WW2 there was essentially a full scale rebellion in Palestine by the natives against the British but also against the Jewish paramilitary groups that had sprang up. The latter were funded and armed by the French government. It's an interesting irony of history that while the British were fighting to liberate France, the French government was arming and financing Jewish terrorists who were targeting British soldiers and civil servants in Palestine.

As for 1948, the Arab armies attacking was a result, in my view, of the broken promises by the British, Jewish terrorism that had been taking place for years, and of course the ethnic cleansing that began in late 1947.

This is just a general overview and not as detailed as I'd like. I could copy and past from my thesis but as it's a work in progress I'd rather not.

If you want more information on the background then I'd recommend James Barr's book, A Line in the Sand. It's fantastically written and there's a lot of information in it that's not widely known, such as the Stern Gang, a Jewish paramilitary group, offering assistance to the Nazi government in 1940 in return for the establishment of Jewish State in Palestine.