You must log in or # to comment.
Explanation: In WW1, the British Empire promised assistance in setting up an Arab polity after the war over a vast area excluding only Syria, if only major Arab political leaders would help out a little in destroying the Ottoman Empire (which occupied a good deal of Arab-majority land). The notion of a finally sovereign and recognized Arab polity was enough to get the peoples’ spirits up, and the subsequent Arab Revolt did exactly what Britain wanted it to - severely damaged the capacity of the Ottoman Empire to carry on the war.
… after WW1, Britain and France carved up the Middle East between each other, as they had planned all along. The only actually independent Arab polity which received significant British aid was the Saudi kingdom, which was comfortably distant from the main ‘mandates’ that the British and French were interested in exploiting.
This is why the middle east is a fucking perpetual disaster zone.
Do you guys know who funds all the crazy fundamentalist bullshit? Saudi Arabia.
Do you know who funded 9/11? Saudi Arabia.
Thanks Britain and France!
Pretty sure not creating Saudi Arabia wouldn’t have made things better.
More repression usually doesn’t bode well.
establishing a theocratic monarchy is probably the problem; not the existence of a country.
What were the other options? You cannot prescribe a government after all. Were there other candidates or public support for another form of governance? I earnestly do not know.
There were a number of other candidates, but most of them were demanding some measure of concessions from the British and French which the Brits and French were not willing to give.
The Hashemite royal family gained the crowns of Iraq and Jordan, but only as British vassals; Hussein ibn Ali, the patriarch of the family, was overthrown by the British-supported Saudis when he refused to recognize the British and French claims over the Middle East.
But we’re the other candidates authocrats, too?
To varying degrees, but Ibn Saud was one of the more conservative and less pluralist candidates. Hussein ibn Ali, whom the Brits screwed, was a pan-Arabist who advocated for a homeland for all faiths, including Arab Jews, was engaged in ecumenical efforts with the Sunni-Shia split in Islam itself, and gave shelter to persecuted ethnic minorities.
But he insisted that the Brits keep the agreement they made with him during WW1, so they turned on him and supported Ibn Saud instead after the war.
Also, playing ‘divide and rule’ during your colonial tenure and then leaving everyone else with the consequences when you pack your bags and leave.
