The Arabs: A History

This book encompasses a 100+ year history of the Arabic people within the Middle East, touching briefly in Muslims within Central Asia. It is the longest book I've ever gotten through. And it may be a controversial opinion, but I'm gonna say it: the Middle East region is complicated. Yeah. I said it.

Regarding the book itself: I found it highly informative, straightforward, and balanced. I wish it drew more through-lines of ‘how this event happening now connects to that event from 50 years ago'. The author did that a bit, but not enough IMO. Also not nearly enough about the US-Saudi Arabia relationship. I'mma need to read another book about that.

But my overall thoughts on the historical events are this:
US and European meddling has done more harm than good in the Greater Middle East region and to the Arabic people. The best thing to be done is for the West to remain as neutral and un-involved as possible. Everything we touch turns to shit. Leave these people alone.

The majority of this book was about Israel and its shenanigans over the last 100 years. Skip to the final section to see my thoughts on that kerfuffle.

Good place to start
“Western policymakers and intellectuals need to pay far more attention to history if they hope to remedy the ills that afflict the Arab world today. All too often in the West, we discount the current value of history. [...] This could spare them not from repeating history so much as from repeating historic mistakes.”

—
Culture Clash
• In the late 1700's, The French brought post-Revolution classical liberalism to Egypt, and argued that their ideals were “universal”. There is truly no better tool for a zealot or conqueror than to claim that their firmly held beliefs are the pinnacle and all others are “barbaric”.
• I do hold many of the liberal, materialist beliefs espoused by the European invaders of the time, including “the exercise of human reason over revealed religion”, it's clear their intentions were not to improve the material conditions of the people they sought out, but to conquer their lands and stick it to their centuries-long enemy, Britain.

Ironically, before WW1, Europe helped the Ottoman Empire stay afloat to keep Russia from annexing Ottoman land and to keep the peace in the Mediterranean.
“In a secret appendix to the London Convention of 1840, the governments of Britain, Austria, Prussia, and Russia gave a formal commitment to ‘seek no augmentation of territory, no exclusive influence, [and] no commercial advantage for their subjects, which those of every other nation may not equally obtain.' This self-denying protocol provided the Ottoman Empire with nearly four decades of protection against European designs on its territory” But...well...time ticks on.

—
Pre-WW1 Imperialism, Colonialism, and Neo-Colonialism

• Tunisia, a small African country just south of Italy would be a victim of Europe's newest plot of conquest: Not gunboat diplomacy, but something more insidious.
• After Tunisia's 1861 constitution, a guy named Khayr al-Din was appointed president of the Grand Council, but didn't like how things were run, “and so in 1863 he tendered his resignation. The issue that provoked his resignation was the government's decision to contract its first foreign loan, which Khayr al-Din predicted would drag his adoptive country ‘to its ruin.' [...] “The result was the surrender of Tunisia's sovereignty to an international financial commission.” And there it is. That's how they get you.
• I always thought that the Neo-Colonial “dollar diplomacy” of Europe and the US started after regular old colonialism fell out of fashion in the mid-1900's. Turns out they were both happening in lock-step for over 150 years.
• Long-story short: Europe offers usurious loans to developing countries, the country can't pay the loan back, thus the European empire takes over whatever is making the country money, and drains the wealth as quickly as possible, while diverting any funding that benefits the people of that country. It's a story as old as time. It's still going on today, and it's never stopped happening in over 150 years. Though now it's mostly done by “The World Bank” and the “International Monetary Fund”, which are puppets to the interest of US & EU corporate interests. That's how the world works. This is neo-colonialism, AKA neo-liberalism.
• “The single greatest threat to the independence of the Middle East was not the armies of Europe but its banks. Ottoman reformers were terrified by the risks involved in accepting loans from Europe. In 1852, when Sultan Abdulmecid sought funds from France, one of his advisors took him aside and counseled strongly against the loan: ‘Your father [Mahmud II] had two wars with the Russians and lived through many campaigns. He had many pressures on him, yet he did not borrow money from abroad. [...] If this state borrows five piasters it will sink. For if once a loan is taken, there will be no end to it. [The state] will sink overwhelmed in debt.'”
• Thus these countries and the Ottoman Empire itself sank deeper and deeper into the claws to the European empire without even firing a shot.
• “[Europe] gained tremendous power over the finances of the Ottoman Empire as a whole, which the European powers used not just to control the actions of the sultan's government but to open the Ottoman economy to European companies for railways, mining, and public works.”
• “Open up the economy” is one of those euphemism capitalists have been using for centuries to describe “let the oligarchs suck the country dry”. That's what that phrase has always meant. Remember that the next time CNN or the NYT suggests it for some poor under-developed nation.
• “Between 1862 and 1873, Egypt contracted eight foreign loans, totaling £68.5 million ($376.75 million), which, after discounts, left only £47 million ($258.5 million), of which some £36 million ($198 million) were spent in payments on the principal and interest on the foreign loans. Thus, out of a debt of £68.5 million ($376.75 million), the government of Egypt gained only about £11 million ($60.5 million) to invest in its economy.”
So 23% of the loan was actually usable by the country and the rest was stolen back by Europe. If that's not the textbook definition of usury I don't know what is.
• Then these countries exploited by Europe began selling their assets. And who was there to buy for pennies on the dollar? Why the exploiters, of course!
• “As this desperate measure failed to staunch the hemorrhage, the viceroy sold the government's shares in the Suez Canal Company to the British government in 1875 for £4 million ($22 million)—recouping only one-quarter of the £16 million ($88 million) the canal is estimated to have cost the government of Egypt.” Truly truly evil.
• The vultures of Europe picked clean the carcass they themselves killed. But their “financial advisers” had no interest in returning these countries to fiscal solvency. “With each plan, the foreign economic advisors managed to insinuate themselves deeper into the financial administration of Egypt.” That was their goal, of course.
• The insatiable European powered couldn't stop there. “Over time, informal imperial control hardened into direct colonial rule, as the whole of North Africa was partitioned and distributed among the growing empires of Europe.”
• Ultimately, England stole Egypt, France stole Algeria & Tunisia, Italy stole Libya, France & Spain stole Morocco. And again this is BEFORE WW1.
• The imperial nations stole these countries' autonomy and wealth. The countries' people fought back, and ultimately the imperial nations had to occupy the under-developed nations to put down any further notion of independence fro European domination. This is a very common pattern we see in history.

—
Nationalism
• “By the end of 1912 the entire coast of North Africa, from the Strait of Gibraltar to the Suez Canal, was under European colonial domination. Two of the states—Algeria and Libya—were under direct colonial rule. Tunisia, Egypt, and Morocco were protectorates ruled by France and Britain through their own local dynasties.”
• Before the Europeans came the Arabs didn't really care much about nationalism. “Before the age of nationalism, identity was linked to either one's tribe or town of origin. If Arabs thought in terms of a broader identity, it was more likely to be based on religion than ethnicity.”
• I genuinely believe that the European notion of the “Nation-State” is what doomed not only the Middle East but the planet as a whole. Forcing this concept onto the people of the world that did not want it has resulted in endless suffering and strife. For this reason, I have become vehemently anti-nation: Anti-nationalist. No more nations. City-states I can get behind. nation-states, nah.

—
Arab Nationalism and the Tripartite Aggression against Egypt
• Despite my aforementioned support of “anti-nationalism”, what I hate more than nations is imperialism. The rise of Arab Nationalism, and the merging of Arab nations into a united singular nation seemed like viable opponent to European imperialism.
• Resistance to European & US imperialism after WW2 resulted as anyone might expect with some Arab countries asking for help from the big bad USSR.
• Egypt even had the audacity of extending diplomatic relations to the People's Republic of China in 1956. How dare these countries do what's in their own best interest instead of falling in line with US, British, & French hegemony‽
• So Egypt wanted to build a dam, and the Brits and US saw that as a perfect opportunity to do more Neo-Colonialism.
• “[T]he United States and Britain never intended to give the full amount Egypt needed, pledging only one-third the sum requested—not enough to guarantee the dam but rather just enough to exercise influence over Egypt during the years it would take to build it.”
• Remember this whenever you hear people talk about “why are we giving money to these other countries”? It's so we can control them. That's always the goal. Never altruism, or the betterment of humanity, but to advance the interests of the USA, usually meaning the interests of the multinational corporations that control the USA.
• But so Egypt had a plan: pay for the dam by nationalizing the Suez Canal, which was at the time owned by a corporation listed in France with the British government as the largest shareholder.
• Britain didn't want that because that would weaken their control over their former colony. I mean...the idea of a country believing that the wealth generated by that country belongs to its people and not international corporations and foreign empires? how could anyone believe such a thing‽ (Fun fact: Any time a weaker nation under the thumb of Europe or the US ever “nationalizes” anything or does “land reform,” you best believe that country is about to get invaded)
• This became known as “The Suez Crisis,” AKA “The Tripartite Aggression” because after Egypt nationalized it, Britain, France, and Israel went to war with Egypt. This obvious act of imperial aggression destroyed the credibility of both France and Britain among the Arab countries, helping to ferment Arab nationalism and ended their influence in the region (except for in Israel, of course)
• The US was appalled by this needless aggression, simultaneously ���the Central Intelligence Agency had itself been plotting a coup against the Syrian government, to be executed on the very day the Israelis began their attack.” Why don't these countries like us again? Silver lining: the crisis derailed the US's regime change efforts in Syria. We're not the good guys, folks.
• Credit where credit is due: “Eisenhower administration resorted to outright threats against Britain and France to secure compliance with their demands for an immediate cease-fire. Both countries were threatened with expulsion from NATO, and the U.S. Treasury warned it would sell part of its Sterling bond holdings to force a devaluation of the British currency.” Sometimes wielding a big stick can actually be anti-imperialist.

• Arab nationalism when so far as to merge Egypt and Syria into a singular country for a few years. That was pretty crazy.
• Since before the fall of the Ottoman Empire, The West has been terrified of Arab unity. That's one of the reasons why they were so obsessed with meddling in Arab affairs. A united Arab people challenged European & US hegemony. So who can truly blame them for turning to the USSR? What's that? ‘The reactionaries in charge at the time?' Oh....

—
Mesopotamia [Iraq]
• Conquered by Britain in 1918, the region's 3 ethnic groups (Kurds, Sunni Arabs, and Shiites) had different ideas on how the new country's relationship with the British Empire would work. The capitalist class wanted the power of the state to maintain stability, and thus economic growth. The people wanted independence from foreign occupation.
• Guess who won out. And wouldn't you know it? Occupying Iraq was really difficult for Britain. Britain kept saying they would strive to let Iraq be self-governing, but actually strove to achieve direct colonial rule, just like in India. The Iraqis rose up in 1920, resulting in an authoritarian crackdown, hardening the resolve of the freedom fighters. Why does this story sound familiar?
• Britain sent Indian soldiers (colonized peoples to subjugate colonized peoples) to retake the country. “The British were relentless in pursuing the insurgents and refused all negotiations.” Hmmmm.... “The Uprising of 1920, referred to in Iraq as the “Revolution of 1920,” has a special place in the nationalist mythology of the modern Iraqi state comparable to the American Revolution of 1776 in the United States.”
• Britain, having not learned its lesson after 100+ years, kept on fighting. They tried to legitimize their rule by propping up a banana republic with unpopular elections and a treaty for the electors to ratify.

___
Arabia, Ibn Saud, Wahhabism, bin Laden, US Terrorism
• A book covering this massive swath of information is bound to have a few things missing, but I was very disappointed in seeing no mention of FDR's meeting with Ibn Saud after WW2. I found a new book that I might read that is just about the US-Saudi Arabia relationship. Hopefully it's not as long as this one.
• Ibn Saud conquered Arabia with the radical Muslim sect, known as “Wahhabism”. He took over the country and slapped his name on it. And now we call it “Saudi Arabia.” What an absolute flex.
• “The fact that Bin Ladin and fifteen of the suicide hijackers in the September 11 attacks were citizens of Saudi Arabia, and that private Saudi funds had bankrolled al-Qaida, only worsened relations between the Saudis and the Americans.” Hmmmmmm.........
• The Arab states found themselves under irreconcilable pressures after 9/11. If they opposed America's war on terror, they risked sanctions that might range from economic isolation to outright calls for regime change by the world's sole superpower.” (Makes sense. The US does that all the time).
—
Post-WW1 and King-Crane
• Read my review of “A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East” by David Fromkin (1989), which is about the Middle East during and after WW1. It's because that book was so limited in scope that I decided to read this one.
• But basically: Britain lied, cheated, and stole to secure pretty much everything they wanted after WW1, blindly carving up the region with no sense of understanding its history, peoples, or sectarian concerns. This has resulted in the issues the region has faced ever since.

—
Occupied Palestine - ‘One cannot fill a cup that is already full.'

• The colonization of Palestine by Imperial-backed zionists is one of the most contentious issues of the modern era.
• This is the 3rd or 4th book I've read that covers this topic. Something like half of this book ended up being about the creation of Israel, its internal strife, and the decades of external conflicts with its neighbors.
• After reading these books, watching documentaries, and following the news about what's going on most recently, I can emphatically say that I cannot in good conscious support this country's “right to exist” as it keeps demanding from anyone and everyone. Fun fact: If a country needs a propaganda arm to force people from other countries to pledge their support for the country's “right to exist” then it might be...trying to compensate for something... at the very least.

—
Occupied Palestine - Yes, the Nazis are incomparably bad

• Britain's 1939 White Paper set strict standards on how many colonizers could enter the region, and set up the plan for creating an independent PALESTINIAN state by 1949.
• Then this big asshole with a stupid mustache started committing horrible atrocities in Europe.
• The more radical zionists temporarily put aside their dissatisfaction with the Brits' insufficient support for colonization to deal with the bigger issue: Fascism, Nazism, etc.
• Once that was all wrapped up, the Brits realized that the Palestinian question had gone full FUBAR, and turned to the newly created Inited Nations: “The United Nations assembled an eleven-nation Special Committee on Palestine, known by the acronym UNSCOP. Aside from Iran, none of the UNSCOP members had any particular interest in Middle Eastern affairs: Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, Mexico, the Netherlands, Peru, and Yugoslavia.” What a bizarre assortment of countries.
• While the UN was trying to figure out what to do, waves of illegal Jewish immigrants, including many holocaust survivors, flooded into Palestine. This is understandable given the circumstances.
• The Brits tried to stop this immigration because they were trying to adhere to their 1939 White Paper.
• Britain's unpopular handling of Jewish refugees resulted in violence between the Jewish community and Britain, eventually resulting in the hanging of 2 British sergeants.
• The hangings so angered the British people that “Only two years after the liberation of the Nazi death camps, swastikas and slogans such as ‘Hang All Jews' and ‘Hitler Was Right' stained British cities.” This is unconscionable.
• The book “Antifa: The Antifascist Handbook” by Mark Bray (2017) talked about this and other post-WW2 fascist rumblings throughout Europe and the US. Good book.

This book report is getting too long. Goodreads needs to increase its review character limit. I had to cut out 1/3rd of this review and I didn't even cover everything in the book. I can't reasonably fit all I want to say about the stuff this book talks about into one concise essay.

Here is my final favorite quote:
“The inconvenient truth about democracy in the Arab world is that, in any free and fair election, those parties most hostile to the United States are most likely to win. This is not because of any animosity toward Americans per se, but because Arab voters are increasingly convinced that the U.S. government is hostile to their interests. The war on terror has only confirmed Arab voters in this view. American hostilities against Muslim and Arab states, combined with unconditional American support for Israel, led many Arab citizens to conclude that the U.S. was exploiting the war on terror to extend its domination over their region.”

The smartest move in this game is not to play. Leave these people alone. Close the bases. End the sanctions. Normalize relations. Stop trying to control them because it always makes things worse.

For continued reading on the subject, see these other books I recommend:
• “Losing the Long Game: The False Promise of Regime Change in the Middle East” (2020) by Philip Gordon
• “Imperial Ambitions: Conversations with Noam Chomsky on the Post-9/11 World” (2005) by Noam Chomsky

Good narrative, but a couple factual errors nearly knocked it down to a three.