"The states of the Middle East are modern creations"

"Whatever their claims to antiquity, all the states of the Middle East are modern creations, a result of the collapse of the Ottoman and Czarist Russian empires at the end of World War I, and of the interaction of these states with a modern global system of political, military, and economic power.

When it comes to particular forms of claim and symbol, a similar modernity applies. Neither the claims of Islamists nor of Zionist politicians to be recreating a lost past are valid. The concept of the Islamic state, propounded in Shi'ism by Ayatollah Khomeini through the Iranian Revolution of 1978-9, and that of a revived Caliphate, endorsed by conservative Sunnis including al-Qa'ida, are modern political projects. The state of Israel, for example, bears no relation except rhetorically to the ancient kingdoms of Solomon and David. Many of the most potent symbols of contemporary politics are also recent creations. Thus the Saudi monarchy's claim to be khadim al-haramain ('Servant of the Two Holy Places') was introduced only in 1986, and then in order to head off rival claims by King Hussein of Jordan to be the patron of the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem; while Osama Bin Laden's comparable term for Arabia, bilad al-haramain, ('Land of the Two Holy Places') is an invention of his. All the monarchies in the Middle East claim ancient, ritualised, legitimacy, but they are, in fact, creations of the twentieth century, of the vogue for kingship that, late in the day, swept the Arab world, and, not least, of attentive, and at times military, support given to them at times of crisis by their more powerful friends in Europe and the US."

--Fred Halliday, 100 myths about the Middle East

PS: See Joel Wing's excellent post "A Look Into Iraq's Creation, Governance, And Disputed Territories: An Interview With Stephen Donnelly, Former U.S. And U.N. Official", which shows that today's borders in the Middle East are mostly a result of Ottoman maps and Ottoman administration. Donnelly says that the notion that today's Middle East is a modern creation of western powers is actually a myth: "This myth, with accompanying imagery of British adviser Gertrude Bell and Winston Churchill dividing up the Middle East during an English Garden party (before jumping down Alice’s rabbit hole for further entertainment), is incorrect and misleading."

Gertrude Bell drew Iraqi borders

I find it ironic that the majority of Iraqis, especially Iraqi Arabs and nationalists, are determined to keep Iraq united, given that Gertrude Bell, with T.E. Lawrence (of "Arabia"), drew Iraq's borders.



The US occupation has been very different from the British occupation of the 20th century. The US could have split up Iraq, but left it up to the Iraqi people to decide. The British, on the other hand, combined Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra and called it Iraq. The British exploited Iraq's oil resources. The Americans have not. Incidentally, two huge oil contracts (to two European companies) were signed today in Baghdad.

WHAT IS HAPPENING IN IRAQ?

On the flight back to Boston today I noticed in my backpack a book that I read last summer: What Is Happening in Iraq? by Munaf Yassiri. I pulled it out and read that last couple of chapters, which discuss Wahhabism and suicide bombing, among other things. The author is brutally honest and puts blame where it belongs, including with the Americans and British. He discusses the history of Iraq, Gertrude Bell and the Shia resistance against British colonialism after World War I. The Shia rebels called themselves the 1920 Revolution Brigades, the same name taken by the Sunni insurgent group that fought US forces until recently. Yassiri says that the Shia rebellion of 1920 is why the British gave the Sunni Arabs control over Iraq.

Many parts of the book, which was published in 2006, are now outdated because a lot has changed in the last year, but much of the book is important nevertheless, and it is well worth a read (only 113 pages) if you can handle blunt criticism of the US and Britain. I transcribed a few paragraphs I read today and will post them because they are relevant to the discussion that's been taking place in the comments section.

This is on the back cover: "Since the American-British invasion on March 20, 2003, Iraq has been in turmoil. The Iraqi people's suffering under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein has now been extended by the remnants of his regime. The Saddam Baathists have currently embraced openly the al-Qaeda Wahhabi terrorists ostensibly to fight the occupation forces, but, for the most part, they have in fact joined forces to intimidate and terrorize the Shiite population who constitute the majority of Iraqis. They are trying by all brutal means to prevent the establishment of a true democracy reflecting the will of the majority of the population."