What do you think?
Rate this book
كيف سرق الغرب الديمقراطية من العرب: المؤتمر السوري في عام 1920 وتدمير التحالف التاريخي الليبرالي - الإسلامي فيه
صدر عن المركز العربي للأبحاث ودراسة السياسات ضمن سلسلة ترجمان كتاب "كيف سرق الغرب الديمقراطية من العرب: المؤتمر السوري في عام 1920 وتدمير التحالف التاريخي الليبرالي - الإسلامي فيه"، للمؤلفة إليزابيث ف. تومبسون، وترجمه إلى العربية محمد م. الأرناؤوط. يقع في 600 صفحة، ويشتمل على ببليوغرافية وفهرس عام.
يعالج الكتاب لحظة محورية في تاريخ العالم الحديث، عندما أسس العرب ديمقراطية تمثيلية، وكيف سحقها الغرب عندما اجتاحت الحرب العظمى في أوروبا الإمبراطورية العثمانية. ففي 8 آذار/ مارس 1920، أعلن المؤتمر السوري استقلال سورية وتوَّج فيصل بن الحسين ملكًا لـ "ملكية تمثيلية مدنية"، وأشرف محمد رشيد رضا على صياغة دستور أرسى أول ديمقراطية عربية، تضمّن حقوقًا متساوية لجميع المواطنين، بمن فيهم غير المسلمين. لكن في تموز/ يوليو 1920، غزا الفرنسيون سوريا، وسحقوا الدولة السورية.
تشرح المؤلفة كيف سرق الغرب الديمقراطية من العرب في تأريخ لحظة رائدة من الوحدة والأمل، مستندة إلى مصادر أولية غير مستخدمة سابقًا، بما في ذلك تقارير الصحف المعاصرة، وتقارير المؤتمر السوري، ورسائل المشاركين فيه ومذكراتهم.
إعلان استقلال سوريا
في شباط/ فبراير دافع الرئيس وودرو ولسون عن مبادئه بأقوى الكلمات في مذكراته إلى مؤتمر لندن حول تركيا. ولكن بعد أن رفض مجلس الشيوخ في 19 آذار/ مارس معاهدة فرساي والعضوية في عصبة الأمم، لم يعد في وسع ولسون أن يدّعي أن للولايات المتحدة دورًا في صياغة معاهدة سلام مع تركيا.
ومع انسحاب الولايات المتحدة من المفاوضات ظهرت الأيدي الإمبريالية على حقيقتها. وحتى حين كانت بريطانيا وفرنسا تتملقان المجلس الأعلى باعتباره العرّاب النزيه لعصبة الأمم، فإنهما كانتا تستغلانه لمصلحة دولتيهما. وكان اللورد كرزون قد وصف عصبة الأمم على نحو واضح باعتبارها فدرالية للدول المستقلة، وليست هيئة عليا لها سلطة على الدول، وذلك في خطابه بمناسبة افتتاح جلسات المجلس الأعلى في كانون الثاني/ يناير. كانت لملاحظاته علاقة خطيرة بسوريا.
وهكذا، في نيسان/ أبريل 1920، أصبح لدى بريطانيا وفرنسا الحرية في استغلال الالتباس في نظام الانتداب لفائدتهما. ومع تحررهما من كبح الرئيس ولسون اندفعتا في تصميم الشرق الأوسط بالاستناد إلى اجتماعهما السري في 1 كانون الأول/ ديسمبر 1918 .
كانت العواقب وخيمة ليس على سوريا فحسب، بل على مستقبل عصبة الأمم والقانون الدولي، أيضًا، في جميع أنحاء الشرق الأوسط. فقد حوّلت بريطانيا وفرنسا الأدوات التي أرادها ولسون لتكون لحماية حقوق الشعوب الصغيرة، إلى وسائل شرعية للسيطرة الإمبريالية؛ إذ إنهما استخدمتا الانتداب كي تفرّغا حقوق المحكومين لمصلحة القوى الإمبريالية، وكل ذلك باسم عصبة الأمم.
تواطأ دو كيه على خطف الأداة الولسونية؛ فقد أقنع رجال الدولة الفرنسيين بالتخلّص من تفسيرات كليمنصو الضيّقة للانتداب لأجل فرض سيادة فرنسا الكاملة والحصرية. وحين حصل على ذلك قال دو كيه إن الانتداب سينهي التدخل البريطاني في سوريا وسيمكّن من تدمير دولة فيصل. كان دو كيه يعتمد على تأييد بول كامبون Paul Cambon سفير فرنسا العجوز في لندن والحاكم السابق في تونس. تمكّن الاثنان في النهاية من خداع كرزون، نائب الملك السابق في الهند.
كان كرزون يتمتع بخبرة في الإدارة أكثر من السياسة، ولذلك سار مباشرة نحو الشرَك الذي أعدّه دو كيه. جاءت لحظة الحقيقة لكرزون في اليوم الذي علم فيه بإعلان استقلال سوريا. كان أمام خيارين [كلاهما مرّ]: إما أن يترك سوريا للفرنسيين وإما أن يعترف بالاستقلال السوري. ولكن كل خيار أمام كرزون المتعطش للإمبراطورية كان يعني استبعاد بريطانيا. في شباط/ فبراير، كانت النقاشات في مؤتمر لندن قد منحت فرنسا فعليًا الانتداب على سوريا. اضطر كرزون إلى أن يختار بينهما ردًا على الإعلان السوري في 8 آذار/ مارس: فقد أذاع هذا في العالم أن غالبية السوريين يفضّلون الاستقلال الوطني، وهي الحقيقة التي حاول البريطانيون إخفاءها بواسطة تغييب تقرير كينغ-كراين.
اتفق كرزون وكامبون بعد ذلك على إرسال رسالة مشتركة إلى فيصل يرفضان فيها الاعتراف بوضعيته بوصفه ملكًا وبشرعية المؤتمر السوري. كانت مذكرة 15 آذار/ مارس، التي أوصلها غورو تدعو فيصل إلى السفر إلى أوروبا لحلّ الوضعية المستقبلية لسوريا، وهو الأمر الذي سيرغمه على الاعتراف بسيادة المجلس الأعلى على سوريا. وفي الواقع كان الرجلان قد توافقا على الحفاظ على صرح إمبراطورية القرن التاسع عشر مع تجاهل التأييد الولسوني للمؤتمر باعتباره هيئة تمثيلية منتخبة للشعب السوري.
كانت مسألة سوريا مؤجلة تقريبًا، في المؤتمر. تركز النقاش على التهديد التركي وعلى محنة أرمينيا. كان النفط هو الموضوع الثاني الساخن في سان ريمو. ثم تناول المجلس مسألة الانتدابات، بداية من فلسطين. فاجأ برتلو البريطانيين في اللحظة الأخيرة باعتراض على تضمين تصريح بلفور في ميثاق الانتداب. لم يكن هدفه من ذلك حماية العرب في فلسطين بقدر ما كان إجبار بريطانيا على احترام طلب فرنسا بالسيطرة الكاملة على سوريا. دافع كرزون بقوة عن وعد بلفور بوطن لليهود، واعدًا برتلو باحترام الحقوق السياسية للشعوب غير اليهودية. ضغط الفرنسيون والإيطاليون أيضًا على البريطانيين لحماية مؤسساتهم الدينية في الأرض المقدسة، ما كان يرضي اللوبي الكاثوليكي. أما مواثيق الانتدابات التي ستتضمن شروط الحكم الانتدابي فستوضع لاحقًا وتقدَّم إلى عصبة الأمم.
في اليوم التالي، 26 نيسان/ أبريل، أعلن ميلران في محطة القطار انتصار فرنسا، وسارع في الذهاب إلى باريس ليقدّم تقريرًا لمجلس النواب.
ثم احتفل الصهيونيون بقرار سان ريمو باعتباره إنجازًا نهائيًا لحلمهم بوطن قومي في فلسطين. وعلى النقيض من ذلك كانت ردّة فعل العرب تتمثل في استياء ممزوج بالمرارة من الوعد بنظام عالمي جديد. فقد كان الوعد بالشفافية مجرد واجهة تخفي الدبلوماسية الإمبريالية على الطراز القديم. كان ما فعله المجلس الأعلى ببساطة هو إخراج اتفاق 1 كانون الأول/ د...
يعالج الكتاب لحظة محورية في تاريخ العالم الحديث، عندما أسس العرب ديمقراطية تمثيلية، وكيف سحقها الغرب عندما اجتاحت الحرب العظمى في أوروبا الإمبراطورية العثمانية. ففي 8 آذار/ مارس 1920، أعلن المؤتمر السوري استقلال سورية وتوَّج فيصل بن الحسين ملكًا لـ "ملكية تمثيلية مدنية"، وأشرف محمد رشيد رضا على صياغة دستور أرسى أول ديمقراطية عربية، تضمّن حقوقًا متساوية لجميع المواطنين، بمن فيهم غير المسلمين. لكن في تموز/ يوليو 1920، غزا الفرنسيون سوريا، وسحقوا الدولة السورية.
تشرح المؤلفة كيف سرق الغرب الديمقراطية من العرب في تأريخ لحظة رائدة من الوحدة والأمل، مستندة إلى مصادر أولية غير مستخدمة سابقًا، بما في ذلك تقارير الصحف المعاصرة، وتقارير المؤتمر السوري، ورسائل المشاركين فيه ومذكراتهم.
إعلان استقلال سوريا
في شباط/ فبراير دافع الرئيس وودرو ولسون عن مبادئه بأقوى الكلمات في مذكراته إلى مؤتمر لندن حول تركيا. ولكن بعد أن رفض مجلس الشيوخ في 19 آذار/ مارس معاهدة فرساي والعضوية في عصبة الأمم، لم يعد في وسع ولسون أن يدّعي أن للولايات المتحدة دورًا في صياغة معاهدة سلام مع تركيا.
ومع انسحاب الولايات المتحدة من المفاوضات ظهرت الأيدي الإمبريالية على حقيقتها. وحتى حين كانت بريطانيا وفرنسا تتملقان المجلس الأعلى باعتباره العرّاب النزيه لعصبة الأمم، فإنهما كانتا تستغلانه لمصلحة دولتيهما. وكان اللورد كرزون قد وصف عصبة الأمم على نحو واضح باعتبارها فدرالية للدول المستقلة، وليست هيئة عليا لها سلطة على الدول، وذلك في خطابه بمناسبة افتتاح جلسات المجلس الأعلى في كانون الثاني/ يناير. كانت لملاحظاته علاقة خطيرة بسوريا.
وهكذا، في نيسان/ أبريل 1920، أصبح لدى بريطانيا وفرنسا الحرية في استغلال الالتباس في نظام الانتداب لفائدتهما. ومع تحررهما من كبح الرئيس ولسون اندفعتا في تصميم الشرق الأوسط بالاستناد إلى اجتماعهما السري في 1 كانون الأول/ ديسمبر 1918 .
كانت العواقب وخيمة ليس على سوريا فحسب، بل على مستقبل عصبة الأمم والقانون الدولي، أيضًا، في جميع أنحاء الشرق الأوسط. فقد حوّلت بريطانيا وفرنسا الأدوات التي أرادها ولسون لتكون لحماية حقوق الشعوب الصغيرة، إلى وسائل شرعية للسيطرة الإمبريالية؛ إذ إنهما استخدمتا الانتداب كي تفرّغا حقوق المحكومين لمصلحة القوى الإمبريالية، وكل ذلك باسم عصبة الأمم.
تواطأ دو كيه على خطف الأداة الولسونية؛ فقد أقنع رجال الدولة الفرنسيين بالتخلّص من تفسيرات كليمنصو الضيّقة للانتداب لأجل فرض سيادة فرنسا الكاملة والحصرية. وحين حصل على ذلك قال دو كيه إن الانتداب سينهي التدخل البريطاني في سوريا وسيمكّن من تدمير دولة فيصل. كان دو كيه يعتمد على تأييد بول كامبون Paul Cambon سفير فرنسا العجوز في لندن والحاكم السابق في تونس. تمكّن الاثنان في النهاية من خداع كرزون، نائب الملك السابق في الهند.
كان كرزون يتمتع بخبرة في الإدارة أكثر من السياسة، ولذلك سار مباشرة نحو الشرَك الذي أعدّه دو كيه. جاءت لحظة الحقيقة لكرزون في اليوم الذي علم فيه بإعلان استقلال سوريا. كان أمام خيارين [كلاهما مرّ]: إما أن يترك سوريا للفرنسيين وإما أن يعترف بالاستقلال السوري. ولكن كل خيار أمام كرزون المتعطش للإمبراطورية كان يعني استبعاد بريطانيا. في شباط/ فبراير، كانت النقاشات في مؤتمر لندن قد منحت فرنسا فعليًا الانتداب على سوريا. اضطر كرزون إلى أن يختار بينهما ردًا على الإعلان السوري في 8 آذار/ مارس: فقد أذاع هذا في العالم أن غالبية السوريين يفضّلون الاستقلال الوطني، وهي الحقيقة التي حاول البريطانيون إخفاءها بواسطة تغييب تقرير كينغ-كراين.
اتفق كرزون وكامبون بعد ذلك على إرسال رسالة مشتركة إلى فيصل يرفضان فيها الاعتراف بوضعيته بوصفه ملكًا وبشرعية المؤتمر السوري. كانت مذكرة 15 آذار/ مارس، التي أوصلها غورو تدعو فيصل إلى السفر إلى أوروبا لحلّ الوضعية المستقبلية لسوريا، وهو الأمر الذي سيرغمه على الاعتراف بسيادة المجلس الأعلى على سوريا. وفي الواقع كان الرجلان قد توافقا على الحفاظ على صرح إمبراطورية القرن التاسع عشر مع تجاهل التأييد الولسوني للمؤتمر باعتباره هيئة تمثيلية منتخبة للشعب السوري.
كانت مسألة سوريا مؤجلة تقريبًا، في المؤتمر. تركز النقاش على التهديد التركي وعلى محنة أرمينيا. كان النفط هو الموضوع الثاني الساخن في سان ريمو. ثم تناول المجلس مسألة الانتدابات، بداية من فلسطين. فاجأ برتلو البريطانيين في اللحظة الأخيرة باعتراض على تضمين تصريح بلفور في ميثاق الانتداب. لم يكن هدفه من ذلك حماية العرب في فلسطين بقدر ما كان إجبار بريطانيا على احترام طلب فرنسا بالسيطرة الكاملة على سوريا. دافع كرزون بقوة عن وعد بلفور بوطن لليهود، واعدًا برتلو باحترام الحقوق السياسية للشعوب غير اليهودية. ضغط الفرنسيون والإيطاليون أيضًا على البريطانيين لحماية مؤسساتهم الدينية في الأرض المقدسة، ما كان يرضي اللوبي الكاثوليكي. أما مواثيق الانتدابات التي ستتضمن شروط الحكم الانتدابي فستوضع لاحقًا وتقدَّم إلى عصبة الأمم.
في اليوم التالي، 26 نيسان/ أبريل، أعلن ميلران في محطة القطار انتصار فرنسا، وسارع في الذهاب إلى باريس ليقدّم تقريرًا لمجلس النواب.
ثم احتفل الصهيونيون بقرار سان ريمو باعتباره إنجازًا نهائيًا لحلمهم بوطن قومي في فلسطين. وعلى النقيض من ذلك كانت ردّة فعل العرب تتمثل في استياء ممزوج بالمرارة من الوعد بنظام عالمي جديد. فقد كان الوعد بالشفافية مجرد واجهة تخفي الدبلوماسية الإمبريالية على الطراز القديم. كان ما فعله المجلس الأعلى ببساطة هو إخراج اتفاق 1 كانون الأول/ د...
600 pages, Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 2020
74 people are currently reading
3116 people want to read
About the author
Elizabeth F. Thompson
6 books58 followersElizabeth F. Thompson is a professor of history at the University of Virginia. She is the author of Justice Interrupted: The Struggle for Constitutional Government in the Middle East (Harvard, 2013), which profiles a dozen political movements against tyranny and inequality in the Middle East since 1839, culminating in the Arab uprisings of 2011. Her first book, Colonial Citizens: Republican Rights, Paternal Privilege and Gender in French Syria and Lebanon (Columbia, 2000), won book prizes from the American Historical Association and the Berkshire Conference of Women Historians. Prof. Thompson has also won research awards from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Social Science Research Council, the U.S. Institute of Peace, and the Library of Congress. With Mustafa Aksakal, she is Middle East co-editor of the new 1914-1918 Online encyclopedia of the First World War and co-director of the National Endowment for Humanities Summer Seminar for Faculty, "World War I in the Middle East."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews
April 23, 2024
How the West Stole Democracy from the Arabs by Elizabeth Thompson can best be described as detailed, heavy, thorough and dense. The author takes a deep-dive into the skulduggery, personalities, history and treacherous politics of the Middle East post WWI and the decline of the Ottoman Empire essentially resulted in a ‘land/power-grab’ by Colonial Powers at the time – mainly France and Britain.
Most who follow the news and world history are aware of the dramas surrounding current day Middle East and the view Arabic/Muslim nations hold towards the West. Well, this book goes some way towards explaining why. Perhaps, ‘all the way’ into explaining why. As a Brit (ex-pat living in Australia) myself, I’ve always been ashamed of our colonial past, this book does nothing to remedy this.
This book introduced me to interesting characters such as Prince Faisal, Sheik Rashid, T.E. Lawrence (yes, Lawrence of Arabia) and other significant actors such as the 28th US President Woodrow Wilson who in my mind did seem to start the process of negotiations fair minded and with the best of intentions. There were many, many others – which invariably took me down wormholes of learning and discovery.
The overwhelming sense I have from this story is, there were (still are) numerous moderate Arabs and people of Islam who were genuinely devoted to the cause of setting up their own self-governing democracies, but were prohibited to do so by so called advocates of democracy (such as France and Britain). I would also suggest the strategy of interference (putting it nicely) plays well into the hands of fundamentalist Muslimists at the time, and to this day. This account indicates the West needs to ‘own’ much of the dramas in the Middle East we see today. End of soapbox.
As a book this is very heavy going. It is very much like a text book and the density of the book (also lack of photographs, graphics – or breaks of any kind) wouldn’t really appeal to the casual observer – such as myself. The author seems to be a respected authority on the subject. Thompson is a historian of some note and has expertise on political movements, constitutionalism, gender and foreign intervention in the Middle East. The number of notes and references stated in this book is astounding.
For many, this would be a 5-star read. For the casual observer, wanting to learn something new this might be a bit heavy for an introduction on the topic.
4 stars
Many thanks to NetGalley and the Publishers for allowing me to review an advance copy of this book.
Most who follow the news and world history are aware of the dramas surrounding current day Middle East and the view Arabic/Muslim nations hold towards the West. Well, this book goes some way towards explaining why. Perhaps, ‘all the way’ into explaining why. As a Brit (ex-pat living in Australia) myself, I’ve always been ashamed of our colonial past, this book does nothing to remedy this.
This book introduced me to interesting characters such as Prince Faisal, Sheik Rashid, T.E. Lawrence (yes, Lawrence of Arabia) and other significant actors such as the 28th US President Woodrow Wilson who in my mind did seem to start the process of negotiations fair minded and with the best of intentions. There were many, many others – which invariably took me down wormholes of learning and discovery.
The overwhelming sense I have from this story is, there were (still are) numerous moderate Arabs and people of Islam who were genuinely devoted to the cause of setting up their own self-governing democracies, but were prohibited to do so by so called advocates of democracy (such as France and Britain). I would also suggest the strategy of interference (putting it nicely) plays well into the hands of fundamentalist Muslimists at the time, and to this day. This account indicates the West needs to ‘own’ much of the dramas in the Middle East we see today. End of soapbox.
As a book this is very heavy going. It is very much like a text book and the density of the book (also lack of photographs, graphics – or breaks of any kind) wouldn’t really appeal to the casual observer – such as myself. The author seems to be a respected authority on the subject. Thompson is a historian of some note and has expertise on political movements, constitutionalism, gender and foreign intervention in the Middle East. The number of notes and references stated in this book is astounding.
For many, this would be a 5-star read. For the casual observer, wanting to learn something new this might be a bit heavy for an introduction on the topic.
4 stars
Many thanks to NetGalley and the Publishers for allowing me to review an advance copy of this book.
March 5, 2020
There aren't that many moments in history that are SO pivotal and SO frustrating that they tempt me to dedicate the rest of my life to inventing time travel, but this is one of them.
The title of this book is a summary in and of itself. It covers the time from the end of WWI and the Paris Peace Conference into the 1930s, and chronicles in great detail the solid decade of Sisyphean attempts by Arabs to wrest any scrap of self-determination away from the European powers.
Some popular histories cover topics that are so abundantly researched, known, and talked about that you could essentially learn what's in the book by searching the web yourself. This book is not like that. Professor Thompson clearly spent years digging up half-forgotten sources. Some of the early history was familiar to me (Balfour declaration/Hussein-McMahon Correspondence/Sykes-Picot/the King-Crane Commission) but as soon as we left behind the European negotiations, the book delved into things I had barely any awareness of.
For example, a quick google of Rashid Rida turns up a ton of writing on his religious ideas, but barely anything about how he was once the president of Syria. The chronicle of constitutional debates in the Syrian Congress is interesting enough itself to justify the book. Every stage of Faisal and the Arab Nationalists' campaign and every political gambit is recorded, down to who he met with on what day in Paris. I'm glad I know Robert de Caix's name, now, so that I can curse it. The book drags a little at some points, but my primary emotion was impotent rage rather than boredom.
Now, we look back on WWI with nearly pure cynicism. Sure, the Germans started it, but everyone was gunning for that war. Any attempt to cast a morally "good" versus "bad" side sort of falls flat under the shadow of WWII, compared to which all WWI participants are just states acting according to their interests in a pretty understandable way. We know that the between-war years were not great. We know that they were racist as heck, and still racing upward toward peak racism. We know that economies around the world were about to take a near-fatal hit. We know that colonialism was still alive and flourishing, and that no one had the necessary power and will to make the League of Nations anything but a failed experiment.
In contrast, the rhetoric of the WWI victors was firmly cast in the triumph of modern freedom and self-determination over archaic, old-world despotism. Woodrow Wilson really thought he could make the League of Nations work. For most of the players, though, the freedom and justice and rule of law was just wallpaper over the age-old rule of might makes right that had (has?) always governed international politics.
We know all that. But at the time, they didn't.
Even if the Syrian Arabs had known from the start that freedom is taken, not given, they would have had a rough time. A big problem for them throughout the entire independence effort was that they literally could not, physically, get out to trade or communicate with the rest of the world, given their geographical position. It takes a confluence of factors to make a successful revolution, and I'm not sure they would have succeeded even if they went full-throttle for that option from the beginning.
But it is heartbreaking to watch Faisal and all the other nationalist leaders work so hard to build an inclusive, democratic state. They genuinely believed that if they were just politically smart enough, if they just built a good enough state, if their people were united and their country well-administered, that the Europeans would grant them their independence and welcome them into the international community. Why would they believe something like that?? Because that's what the Europeans said. There was just enough real belief in the new liberal international order, just enough genuine, supportive Westerners like Lawrence of Arabia and Charles Crane, to snooker the future of the Middle East.
The French and the British come off horribly, here. This is one historical period where America wasn't the one ruining everything in the Middle East. But the behavior of the European colonial powers is unfortunately not just a shameful past. You could write the same story about Iran, with America cast as the British. The hypocritical tendency of the French and British to deliberately suppress any burgeoning democracy and instead install corrupt or incapable kings, is something that we still love to do today.
After all, what's easier to control, a whole nation's popular opinion, or one single guy who loves money and power? And yet, this short-term solution begun almost a hundred years ago, has created or exacerbated problems that led to how many millions of deaths in the Middle East, from then until now? How much would it be worth, now, to have a stable, powerful, democratic ally in the Middle East, with a hundred-year history of liberal institutions and civil society? Still, it's hard to see any modern power being able or courageous enough to act differently.
Overall, a very interesting and horrible book. To the victor go the spoils.
The title of this book is a summary in and of itself. It covers the time from the end of WWI and the Paris Peace Conference into the 1930s, and chronicles in great detail the solid decade of Sisyphean attempts by Arabs to wrest any scrap of self-determination away from the European powers.
Some popular histories cover topics that are so abundantly researched, known, and talked about that you could essentially learn what's in the book by searching the web yourself. This book is not like that. Professor Thompson clearly spent years digging up half-forgotten sources. Some of the early history was familiar to me (Balfour declaration/Hussein-McMahon Correspondence/Sykes-Picot/the King-Crane Commission) but as soon as we left behind the European negotiations, the book delved into things I had barely any awareness of.
For example, a quick google of Rashid Rida turns up a ton of writing on his religious ideas, but barely anything about how he was once the president of Syria. The chronicle of constitutional debates in the Syrian Congress is interesting enough itself to justify the book. Every stage of Faisal and the Arab Nationalists' campaign and every political gambit is recorded, down to who he met with on what day in Paris. I'm glad I know Robert de Caix's name, now, so that I can curse it. The book drags a little at some points, but my primary emotion was impotent rage rather than boredom.
Now, we look back on WWI with nearly pure cynicism. Sure, the Germans started it, but everyone was gunning for that war. Any attempt to cast a morally "good" versus "bad" side sort of falls flat under the shadow of WWII, compared to which all WWI participants are just states acting according to their interests in a pretty understandable way. We know that the between-war years were not great. We know that they were racist as heck, and still racing upward toward peak racism. We know that economies around the world were about to take a near-fatal hit. We know that colonialism was still alive and flourishing, and that no one had the necessary power and will to make the League of Nations anything but a failed experiment.
In contrast, the rhetoric of the WWI victors was firmly cast in the triumph of modern freedom and self-determination over archaic, old-world despotism. Woodrow Wilson really thought he could make the League of Nations work. For most of the players, though, the freedom and justice and rule of law was just wallpaper over the age-old rule of might makes right that had (has?) always governed international politics.
We know all that. But at the time, they didn't.
Even if the Syrian Arabs had known from the start that freedom is taken, not given, they would have had a rough time. A big problem for them throughout the entire independence effort was that they literally could not, physically, get out to trade or communicate with the rest of the world, given their geographical position. It takes a confluence of factors to make a successful revolution, and I'm not sure they would have succeeded even if they went full-throttle for that option from the beginning.
But it is heartbreaking to watch Faisal and all the other nationalist leaders work so hard to build an inclusive, democratic state. They genuinely believed that if they were just politically smart enough, if they just built a good enough state, if their people were united and their country well-administered, that the Europeans would grant them their independence and welcome them into the international community. Why would they believe something like that?? Because that's what the Europeans said. There was just enough real belief in the new liberal international order, just enough genuine, supportive Westerners like Lawrence of Arabia and Charles Crane, to snooker the future of the Middle East.
The French and the British come off horribly, here. This is one historical period where America wasn't the one ruining everything in the Middle East. But the behavior of the European colonial powers is unfortunately not just a shameful past. You could write the same story about Iran, with America cast as the British. The hypocritical tendency of the French and British to deliberately suppress any burgeoning democracy and instead install corrupt or incapable kings, is something that we still love to do today.
After all, what's easier to control, a whole nation's popular opinion, or one single guy who loves money and power? And yet, this short-term solution begun almost a hundred years ago, has created or exacerbated problems that led to how many millions of deaths in the Middle East, from then until now? How much would it be worth, now, to have a stable, powerful, democratic ally in the Middle East, with a hundred-year history of liberal institutions and civil society? Still, it's hard to see any modern power being able or courageous enough to act differently.
Overall, a very interesting and horrible book. To the victor go the spoils.
August 27, 2021
A durat ceva, dar am gasit si a doua carte preferata in 2021.
Elizabeth F Thompson – How the west stole democracy from the Arabs: The Destruction of the Syrian Arab Kingdom in 1920 and the rise of the antiliberal Islamism
Thompson este profesor de istorie specializata in Studiile Islamice si Orientul Mijlociu, la American University in Washington DC, cu doctorate in istorie la Harvard si Columbia University. Iar cartea aceasta este extraordinara. O carte de istorie atat de interesanta , incat bate orice film.
Consecutiv interestului meu extracuricural, in ceea ce priveste Asia si Orientul Mijlociu, cartea aceasta a aparut ca o intamplare. Cunostintele mele despre Siria se rezumau la localizarea geografica a tarii si stirile pe care le vedeam in rarele momente cand deschideam televizorul ,despre Bashar al Assad, fundamentalistii islamici , ruinele unor orase fumegande, ruine de sub care zareau ramasite umane sau barci cu refugiati plutind in deriva pe valurile Mediteranei.
Habar nu aveam cum si de ce este acesta tara in razboi permanent cu ea insasi si cu vecinii.
Entry Professor Thompson.
Povestea acestui conflict incepe cu aproximativ 100 de ani in urma, in timpul primului razboi mondial.
Siriei, pe atunci parte a Imperiului Otoman aproape 400 de ani, I se promite, de catre Anglia independenta in schimbul participarii alaturi de Aliati, in lupta contra Imperiului Otoman. Zis si facut din partea arabilor. Englezii , in schimb, invingatori, alaturi de francezi si sub ochii dezinteresati, pe atunci ai Statelor Unite, aseaza Siria la masa invinsilor.
O coalitie de lideri religiosi si laici, in frunte cu Printul Faisal ( cel de-al treilea fiu al Regelui Arabilor, Hussain Sharif) nu au uitat promisiunea si bazandu-se si pe Declaratia celor 14 puncte a presedintelui american Wilson ( punctul 5 -referitor la chestiuni colonial oferea sansa natiunilor colonizate sa se ridice impotriva colonizatorilor si punctul 12 : natiunilor aflate anterior WWI sub dominatie otomana li se va asigura siguranta vietii si posibilitatea dezvoltarii si guvernarii autonome ) au incercat sa creeze o monarhie democratic si indendenta a Siriei Mari.
La inceputul anilor 1900 , Franta avea colonii in Maroc, Algeria si Tunisia, iar Anglia in Egipt, Sudan, Oman, Yemen si Golful Persic. Pensinsula Araba si Orientul Mijlociu erau tributare Imperiului Otoman.
Siria Mare cupridea : Siria, Liban, Iordania, Palestina si Israel.
Planurile de independenta ale sirienilor s-au situat in pozitii diametral opuse cu cele ale albilor .
Rasa suprema a impartit
faima – trebuie dat si ceva inapoi infirmilor sau rudelor infometate si saracite ale decedatilor albi din razboi –gloria Frantei si gloria Angliei au inlocuit membrele fizice si membrii familiali pierduti in razboi
saracie prin continua exploatare a resurselor tarilor din Orientul Mijlociu. Fiecare dintre aceste tari aveau necear mare de petrol.
Intoleranta religioasa – prin dezbinarea natiunilor de pe acele teritorii, in principal a crestinilor din Liban si musulmanilor din Siria. Franta ( in mod deosebit prin Robert de Caix si impotriva dorintei lui Clemenceau ) s-a simtit nevoita sa protejeze, in calitate de tara crestina fratii crestini din Liban,impotriva pe atunci a conationalilor lor sirieni.
Fabricarea unei imagini a Europei ca centru al culturii si civilizatiei , in contrast alb negru cu arabii- violenti, retrograzi primitivi, incapabili sa se guverneze singuri . In pofida acestei imagini civilizatia, organizarea in orase, imperiile, religiile ( budismul, zoroastrismul, iudaismul, crestinismul, islamismul ) , cifrele, medicina ( Avicenna ) , hartia de scris au aparut pentru prima data in acea parte a lumii.
Granite- divide et impera. Declaratia Balfour din 1917 , in care Regatul Unit “priveste favorabil stabilirea unui Camin national pentru poporul evreu in Palestina”.
Drumurile independentei seintersecteaza in Paris. Participarea sirienilor la conferintele de pace din 1919 a fost ingradita si descurajata, totusi un pas inainte al Siriei fata de natiunile care au luptat alaturi de Anglia si Franta , carora nu li s-a permis deloc accesul .Mi s-a parut interesanta intrebarea Printului de ce unor natiuni europene, caTarile Romane li se acorda dreptul de unire si autoguvernare, si Siriei nu.
Pe langa faptul ca Franta isi dorea Siria pentru a nu ramane in urma Angliei cu teritoriile colonizatate, totodata s-a incercat, prin refuzarea dorintei de independenta a Siriei Mari si descurajarea celorlalte teritorii ocupate de cele doua foste imperii sa vina cu “pretentii “ similare.
1920 ar fi fost anul in care Siria ar fi fost o natiune independenta . 10 ani de jocuri politice in care cei mici in putere si bogati in resurse au fost striviti de cei avizi. 10 ani in care intoleranta fata de vest nationalismul arab si fundamentalismul Islamic , asa cum le cunoastem azi, au luat nastere. In 1930.
In 1920 Siria Mare, cu cetateni crestini, musulmani si evrei deopotriva si-a declarat independenta sip e printul Faisal conducatorul lor. Perioda scurta de libertate a fost urmata de anularea independentei de catre Franta si Anglia deopotriva si expulzarea lui Faisal in Irak.
Churchill l-a recomensat pe Faisal cu Irakul, avand in minte protejarea intereselor Regatului Unit in ceea ce priveste aceasta regiune si petrolul necesar. Totodata I s-a pus in vedere ca va fi expulzat in Kurdistan, daca dorintele Angliei nu vor fi respectate.
Nu pot sa rezum mai mult aceasta carte, dar sper sa ii trezeasca macar cuiva curiozitatea sa o citeasca .O carte excelenta despre politica secolelor XX-XXI.
Toate aceste manevre politice au determinat criza din Orientul Mijlociu, criza careia, mai departe sau mai aproape pe harta, observatori atenti sau intamplatori ii simtim toti consecintele, si astazi.
O carte ce indeamna sa privim un arab, un musulman, un refugiat, ca pe un om caruia , chiar daca destinul i-a fost potrivnic si nu s-a nascut in locul potrivit , la timpul potrivit ii putem acorda nu doar compasiune ci acelasi respect si drept ca oricarei alte fiinte umane .
Elizabeth F Thompson – How the west stole democracy from the Arabs: The Destruction of the Syrian Arab Kingdom in 1920 and the rise of the antiliberal Islamism
Thompson este profesor de istorie specializata in Studiile Islamice si Orientul Mijlociu, la American University in Washington DC, cu doctorate in istorie la Harvard si Columbia University. Iar cartea aceasta este extraordinara. O carte de istorie atat de interesanta , incat bate orice film.
Consecutiv interestului meu extracuricural, in ceea ce priveste Asia si Orientul Mijlociu, cartea aceasta a aparut ca o intamplare. Cunostintele mele despre Siria se rezumau la localizarea geografica a tarii si stirile pe care le vedeam in rarele momente cand deschideam televizorul ,despre Bashar al Assad, fundamentalistii islamici , ruinele unor orase fumegande, ruine de sub care zareau ramasite umane sau barci cu refugiati plutind in deriva pe valurile Mediteranei.
Habar nu aveam cum si de ce este acesta tara in razboi permanent cu ea insasi si cu vecinii.
Entry Professor Thompson.
Povestea acestui conflict incepe cu aproximativ 100 de ani in urma, in timpul primului razboi mondial.
Siriei, pe atunci parte a Imperiului Otoman aproape 400 de ani, I se promite, de catre Anglia independenta in schimbul participarii alaturi de Aliati, in lupta contra Imperiului Otoman. Zis si facut din partea arabilor. Englezii , in schimb, invingatori, alaturi de francezi si sub ochii dezinteresati, pe atunci ai Statelor Unite, aseaza Siria la masa invinsilor.
O coalitie de lideri religiosi si laici, in frunte cu Printul Faisal ( cel de-al treilea fiu al Regelui Arabilor, Hussain Sharif) nu au uitat promisiunea si bazandu-se si pe Declaratia celor 14 puncte a presedintelui american Wilson ( punctul 5 -referitor la chestiuni colonial oferea sansa natiunilor colonizate sa se ridice impotriva colonizatorilor si punctul 12 : natiunilor aflate anterior WWI sub dominatie otomana li se va asigura siguranta vietii si posibilitatea dezvoltarii si guvernarii autonome ) au incercat sa creeze o monarhie democratic si indendenta a Siriei Mari.
La inceputul anilor 1900 , Franta avea colonii in Maroc, Algeria si Tunisia, iar Anglia in Egipt, Sudan, Oman, Yemen si Golful Persic. Pensinsula Araba si Orientul Mijlociu erau tributare Imperiului Otoman.
Siria Mare cupridea : Siria, Liban, Iordania, Palestina si Israel.
Planurile de independenta ale sirienilor s-au situat in pozitii diametral opuse cu cele ale albilor .
Rasa suprema a impartit
faima – trebuie dat si ceva inapoi infirmilor sau rudelor infometate si saracite ale decedatilor albi din razboi –gloria Frantei si gloria Angliei au inlocuit membrele fizice si membrii familiali pierduti in razboi
saracie prin continua exploatare a resurselor tarilor din Orientul Mijlociu. Fiecare dintre aceste tari aveau necear mare de petrol.
Intoleranta religioasa – prin dezbinarea natiunilor de pe acele teritorii, in principal a crestinilor din Liban si musulmanilor din Siria. Franta ( in mod deosebit prin Robert de Caix si impotriva dorintei lui Clemenceau ) s-a simtit nevoita sa protejeze, in calitate de tara crestina fratii crestini din Liban,impotriva pe atunci a conationalilor lor sirieni.
Fabricarea unei imagini a Europei ca centru al culturii si civilizatiei , in contrast alb negru cu arabii- violenti, retrograzi primitivi, incapabili sa se guverneze singuri . In pofida acestei imagini civilizatia, organizarea in orase, imperiile, religiile ( budismul, zoroastrismul, iudaismul, crestinismul, islamismul ) , cifrele, medicina ( Avicenna ) , hartia de scris au aparut pentru prima data in acea parte a lumii.
Granite- divide et impera. Declaratia Balfour din 1917 , in care Regatul Unit “priveste favorabil stabilirea unui Camin national pentru poporul evreu in Palestina”.
Drumurile independentei seintersecteaza in Paris. Participarea sirienilor la conferintele de pace din 1919 a fost ingradita si descurajata, totusi un pas inainte al Siriei fata de natiunile care au luptat alaturi de Anglia si Franta , carora nu li s-a permis deloc accesul .Mi s-a parut interesanta intrebarea Printului de ce unor natiuni europene, caTarile Romane li se acorda dreptul de unire si autoguvernare, si Siriei nu.
Pe langa faptul ca Franta isi dorea Siria pentru a nu ramane in urma Angliei cu teritoriile colonizatate, totodata s-a incercat, prin refuzarea dorintei de independenta a Siriei Mari si descurajarea celorlalte teritorii ocupate de cele doua foste imperii sa vina cu “pretentii “ similare.
1920 ar fi fost anul in care Siria ar fi fost o natiune independenta . 10 ani de jocuri politice in care cei mici in putere si bogati in resurse au fost striviti de cei avizi. 10 ani in care intoleranta fata de vest nationalismul arab si fundamentalismul Islamic , asa cum le cunoastem azi, au luat nastere. In 1930.
In 1920 Siria Mare, cu cetateni crestini, musulmani si evrei deopotriva si-a declarat independenta sip e printul Faisal conducatorul lor. Perioda scurta de libertate a fost urmata de anularea independentei de catre Franta si Anglia deopotriva si expulzarea lui Faisal in Irak.
Churchill l-a recomensat pe Faisal cu Irakul, avand in minte protejarea intereselor Regatului Unit in ceea ce priveste aceasta regiune si petrolul necesar. Totodata I s-a pus in vedere ca va fi expulzat in Kurdistan, daca dorintele Angliei nu vor fi respectate.
Nu pot sa rezum mai mult aceasta carte, dar sper sa ii trezeasca macar cuiva curiozitatea sa o citeasca .O carte excelenta despre politica secolelor XX-XXI.
Toate aceste manevre politice au determinat criza din Orientul Mijlociu, criza careia, mai departe sau mai aproape pe harta, observatori atenti sau intamplatori ii simtim toti consecintele, si astazi.
O carte ce indeamna sa privim un arab, un musulman, un refugiat, ca pe un om caruia , chiar daca destinul i-a fost potrivnic si nu s-a nascut in locul potrivit , la timpul potrivit ii putem acorda nu doar compasiune ci acelasi respect si drept ca oricarei alte fiinte umane .
January 16, 2022
How different might the Middle East look today had the dreams of self-governance and independence that fuelled the Arab Revolt during WWI been allowed to come true instead of being crushed beneath broken promises and Western greed and arrogance? Alas, we will never know. Thompson's deep dive into the shortlived post-WWI Syrian Kingdom and its Congress that declared the country's independence in 1920 only to be invaded and suppressed by the French in short order makes for fascinating reading, offering a wealth of detailed information.
July 31, 2023
ليس تاريخ تقليدي ما قدمته المؤرخة الأميركية إليزابيث تومبسون عن الأحداث التي حصلت في سوريا بعد سحق الغرب للأمبروطورية العثمانية عام ١٩١٨. بل الكتاب عبارة عن رواية تدور أحداثها في لحظة محورية في تاريخ العالم الحديث، عندما حاول العرب تأسيس مملكة دستورية وديمقراطية حديثة في سوريا بعد أن تم طرد الأتراك الجدد عنها.
أبطال الرواية الرئيسون هم الملك فيصل ابن الشريف حسين، الذي قاد الثورة العربية ضد الحكم التركي العثماني بين عامي ١٩١٦ و ١٩١٨، وقد انضم إلى جمعية العربية الفتاة القومية السرّية، ودافع عن استقلال سوريا. والشيخ رشيد رضا الإسلامي، المؤيد للثورة الدستورية في عام ١٩٠٨ باعتبارها ضربة ضد الاستبدادية العثمانية، وقد رافق الملك فيصل في مواجهته للمخطط الفرنسي لاحتلال سوريا، وأشرف على صياغة دستور للمملكة العربية قبل اطاحتها من قِبل الفرنسيين، وهو دستور أرسى أول ديمقراطية عربية تضمن حقوقاً متساوية لجميع المواطنين، بمن فيهم غير المسلمين. وكان الشيخ رضا، ابن القلمون اللبنانية، قد لعب دور محوري في هذه الفترة لتعزيز الإسلام الليبرالي ومُقرّباً لوجهات النظر بين الإسلاميين والعلمانيين. والرئيس الأميركي ولسون الذي طرح نقاطه ال ١٤ أهداف الحرب لأجل التخلص من نظام الديبلوماسية السرية والإمبريالية، ووعد بنظام عالمي ديمقراطي جديد يقوم على القانون.
تأخذنا المؤرخة إليزابيث في رحلة بين الشام وأوروبا، حيث حاول الملك فيصل، متسلحاً ببنود الرئيس ولسون ال١٤، أن يفرض احترام الفرنسيين والبريطانيين ليكسب استقلالاً ل"مملكة عربية" كجائزة لمشاركة العرب مع الحلفاء في الحرب العالمية الأولى، شأنهم شأن الشعوب الأوروبية التي حازلت على الإستقلال. لكن الأطماع الفرنسية والبريطانية وقفت في وجه طموحات الملك فيصل والرئيس ولسون، واستطاعوا أن يفرضوا مخططهم الإستعماري والإطاحة بالحكم في دمشق.
حاول الملك فيصل بعد أن وضعت الحرب العالمية الاولى أوزارها أن يتسلح ب"دستور ديمقراطي" يحاكي الشعارات التقدمية التي رفعها الحلفاء، باعتبار أنه الخلاص للعرب وطوق النجاة أمام طموحات فرنسا وبريطانيا الإستعمارية. ورغم محاولات الرئيس ولسون صد تلك الطموحات، إلا أن إصابته بالجلطة الدماغية والانتخابات النصفية للكونغرس التي خسرها حزبة، جعلت الولايات المتحدة تنكفئ وتنفض يدها عن دورها في سوريا. وأمام الإنقسامات الداخلية في كل من فرنسا وبريطانيا، إلا أن الأجنحة واللوبيات الداعية للإمبريالية التوسعية استطاعت فرض أجندتها، لتشن قوات فرنسا غزواً لسوريا وتطيح بمملكة فيصل بعد سنة ونصف من نشأتها.
الكتاب يتحدث بالتفصيل عن الرحلة الشاقة للملك فيصل، ووقوعه بين مطرقتين: مطرقة القوميين العرب في سوريا الرافضين للغة الحوار مع فرنسا، ومطرقة فرنسا واتفاقه مع كليمنصو بالموافقة على مُلكه شرط أن يأخذ اعتراف المؤتمر السوري بحق انتداب فرنسا وسيادتها على سوريا. إلا أن فرنسا، عبر المندوب السامي الجنرال غورو، كانت تفرض شروطاً تعجيزية إضافية لإبقاء فيصل على ملكه في دمشق. ورغم موافقة الأخير، إلا أن الآلة العسكرية الفرنسية الفتاكة، توجهت إلى ميسلون ثم دمشق لإسقاطه ومحو كل ما يُذكّر العرب بالدستور الذي صاغه المؤتمر السوري.
ما توصلت إليه المؤرخة إليزابيث أن وسط هذا التشوش والإنكسار وتبعات سقوط فيصل والمؤتمر السوري والدستور الديمقراطي الذي جمع القومية واللليبرالية والتيار المحافظ، على يد القوى الإستعمارية والتي من المفترض أنها حاربت لأجل الدفاع عن الشعوب وحق تقرير مصيرهم، نبتت بذور الدكتاتورية والإسلاموية المعادية لليبرالية في تلك المنطقة. ففي عام ١٩٢٩، كان فيصل يستلهم أنظمة مصطفى كمال أتاتورك في تركيا ورضا شاه بهلوي في إيران وحتى بنيتو موسوليني في إيطاليا، ليصنع ملكه في العراق. أما الشيخ رشيد رضا، المشرف على كتابة دستور ١٩٢٠، لم يعد يؤمن بالإنسجام بين الإسلام والمدنيات الأوروبية، كما كان قبل إسقاط فيصل.
أبطال الرواية الرئيسون هم الملك فيصل ابن الشريف حسين، الذي قاد الثورة العربية ضد الحكم التركي العثماني بين عامي ١٩١٦ و ١٩١٨، وقد انضم إلى جمعية العربية الفتاة القومية السرّية، ودافع عن استقلال سوريا. والشيخ رشيد رضا الإسلامي، المؤيد للثورة الدستورية في عام ١٩٠٨ باعتبارها ضربة ضد الاستبدادية العثمانية، وقد رافق الملك فيصل في مواجهته للمخطط الفرنسي لاحتلال سوريا، وأشرف على صياغة دستور للمملكة العربية قبل اطاحتها من قِبل الفرنسيين، وهو دستور أرسى أول ديمقراطية عربية تضمن حقوقاً متساوية لجميع المواطنين، بمن فيهم غير المسلمين. وكان الشيخ رضا، ابن القلمون اللبنانية، قد لعب دور محوري في هذه الفترة لتعزيز الإسلام الليبرالي ومُقرّباً لوجهات النظر بين الإسلاميين والعلمانيين. والرئيس الأميركي ولسون الذي طرح نقاطه ال ١٤ أهداف الحرب لأجل التخلص من نظام الديبلوماسية السرية والإمبريالية، ووعد بنظام عالمي ديمقراطي جديد يقوم على القانون.
تأخذنا المؤرخة إليزابيث في رحلة بين الشام وأوروبا، حيث حاول الملك فيصل، متسلحاً ببنود الرئيس ولسون ال١٤، أن يفرض احترام الفرنسيين والبريطانيين ليكسب استقلالاً ل"مملكة عربية" كجائزة لمشاركة العرب مع الحلفاء في الحرب العالمية الأولى، شأنهم شأن الشعوب الأوروبية التي حازلت على الإستقلال. لكن الأطماع الفرنسية والبريطانية وقفت في وجه طموحات الملك فيصل والرئيس ولسون، واستطاعوا أن يفرضوا مخططهم الإستعماري والإطاحة بالحكم في دمشق.
حاول الملك فيصل بعد أن وضعت الحرب العالمية الاولى أوزارها أن يتسلح ب"دستور ديمقراطي" يحاكي الشعارات التقدمية التي رفعها الحلفاء، باعتبار أنه الخلاص للعرب وطوق النجاة أمام طموحات فرنسا وبريطانيا الإستعمارية. ورغم محاولات الرئيس ولسون صد تلك الطموحات، إلا أن إصابته بالجلطة الدماغية والانتخابات النصفية للكونغرس التي خسرها حزبة، جعلت الولايات المتحدة تنكفئ وتنفض يدها عن دورها في سوريا. وأمام الإنقسامات الداخلية في كل من فرنسا وبريطانيا، إلا أن الأجنحة واللوبيات الداعية للإمبريالية التوسعية استطاعت فرض أجندتها، لتشن قوات فرنسا غزواً لسوريا وتطيح بمملكة فيصل بعد سنة ونصف من نشأتها.
الكتاب يتحدث بالتفصيل عن الرحلة الشاقة للملك فيصل، ووقوعه بين مطرقتين: مطرقة القوميين العرب في سوريا الرافضين للغة الحوار مع فرنسا، ومطرقة فرنسا واتفاقه مع كليمنصو بالموافقة على مُلكه شرط أن يأخذ اعتراف المؤتمر السوري بحق انتداب فرنسا وسيادتها على سوريا. إلا أن فرنسا، عبر المندوب السامي الجنرال غورو، كانت تفرض شروطاً تعجيزية إضافية لإبقاء فيصل على ملكه في دمشق. ورغم موافقة الأخير، إلا أن الآلة العسكرية الفرنسية الفتاكة، توجهت إلى ميسلون ثم دمشق لإسقاطه ومحو كل ما يُذكّر العرب بالدستور الذي صاغه المؤتمر السوري.
ما توصلت إليه المؤرخة إليزابيث أن وسط هذا التشوش والإنكسار وتبعات سقوط فيصل والمؤتمر السوري والدستور الديمقراطي الذي جمع القومية واللليبرالية والتيار المحافظ، على يد القوى الإستعمارية والتي من المفترض أنها حاربت لأجل الدفاع عن الشعوب وحق تقرير مصيرهم، نبتت بذور الدكتاتورية والإسلاموية المعادية لليبرالية في تلك المنطقة. ففي عام ١٩٢٩، كان فيصل يستلهم أنظمة مصطفى كمال أتاتورك في تركيا ورضا شاه بهلوي في إيران وحتى بنيتو موسوليني في إيطاليا، ليصنع ملكه في العراق. أما الشيخ رشيد رضا، المشرف على كتابة دستور ١٩٢٠، لم يعد يؤمن بالإنسجام بين الإسلام والمدنيات الأوروبية، كما كان قبل إسقاط فيصل.
January 8, 2025
In the end, the great powers at the Paris Peace Conference treated their Arab allies worse than their German enemies, imposing terms suffered only by peoples who had been colonized before the war. Syrians experienced first-hand what one legal scholar has called ‘the sordid origin of international law’ as a derivative of a colonial order that continues to reinforce rather than uproot the inequality of rights among nations.
Equal rights for small nations were implicitly sacrificed to the persistent logic of a racial hierarchy. White peoples of Europe were deemed a priori capable of self-government. No effort was ever made to evaluate their ability to rule themselves, despite the administrative, legal, and political chaos that prevailed across Polish, Czech, Ukrainian(!), Hungarian, and Balkan lands. By contrast, Africans, Asians, and Pacific peoples were a priori deemed incapable of self-government.
Essential reading for a long-view understanding of the colonial maneuvering that precluded the development of a liberal constitutional monarchy in Syria. It really puts the contemporary European attitude to HTS and post-Assad governance in tragic perspective. Importantly, it's a knockout blow toward colonial caricatures of Islam and its relationship to democracy, then and now. There's a heavy biographical emphasis on personalities of key players, yet readers are still left with a sense of the superstructural forces pushing for and against an independent Syrian state in the wake of Ottoman defeat.
A coalition of religious communities and secular liberals banked on the respectable, diplomatic path to pursuing fulfillment of the sovereignty promised to them for their sacrifices in the "Great War"---and lost. Even the laudible aspirations of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson would not be able to dislodge embedded structures and ideologies of Eurocentric colonialism. Prince Faisal pursued legal means for sovereignty to the point that militant nationalists of the Higher National Committee, tired of deferring international relations to a monarchy, took up an ill-fated campaign against a much larger, much more equipped French army. The bitterness in consequence of the West shutting the way had immense long-term repercussions, from the current state of Syria to the establishment in Egypt of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928.
This book does an immense service to global anticolonial struggles by exposing a French mistranslation and suppression of the Syrian Arab Kingdom's constitution, which shows that document's radical progressiveness in respect for pluralism and gives the lie to disingenuous claims that a "mandatory" regime was there to prevent theocracy and protect Christians.
All I'll say for now is: If the defeat of the Great Syrian Revolt of 1925 against French colonial rule is tragedy, then hopefully the consequences of successful revolt, in 2025, won't be farce.
September 29, 2024
كعادة كل الكتب القيمة، يتركك الكتاب بأسئلة أكثر من تلك التي سعيت من خلاله للإجابة عنها. أولا، يجب التأكيد على أن أسلوب الكاتبة جميل جدا، وهو يجعلك تشعر بأن قصة الأمير فيصل تراجيديا حديثة. وللتأكيد، فإن الكتاب ليس بأي شكل من الأشكال مجرد سرد لحياة الأمير المخلوع، بل هو معالجة مطلقة الثراء لواحدة من أدق الحقب التاريخية التي عاشتها بلاد الشام، لكن أسلوب الكاتبة الرائع هو ما منح الكتاب بعد روائي اضافة لبعده التاريخي السياسي المميز.
الكتاب يبدأ بنهاية الحرب العالمية الأولى، أو الحرب الكبرى كما عرفت في حينه، ويعالج ارهاصات تشكيل عصبة الأمم ونظامي الانتداب والوصاية اللذين صاحبا تشكيلها، ويبين بشكل واضح كيف لم يكن لدى مثقفي الأمة العربية في حينها الإدراك الكافي لما نراه الآن مسلما به حتى من قبل أعتى جهالها، ألا وهو سوء النية التي يبيتها الغرب للشرق، والنظرة الاستعمارية الدونية التي ينظر يها ساسة اوروبا إلى العرب بشكل خاص.
لكن هذا ليس انتقادا لمتنوري الأمة -إن صحت التسمية- في حينه، لقد كانوا في الحقيقة على مستوى من الوعي والمعرفة والثقافة لا نرى نظيره الآن، بل لقد قادوا عملا سياسيا بحق، يختلف جوهره ومضمونه عن الرعونة التي تبديها الطبقة السياسية العريية في أوقاتنا هذه. إن النقاشات التي يكشف الكتاب أنها دارت بين التيارات المختلفة في المؤتمر العربي السوري، والأسلوب الذي اختلف قادة الأمة فيما بينهم في ذلك الزمان، تصيب القلب بيأس حقيقي تجاه ما يراه اليوم من وضاعة سياسية وانعدام لأي أفق حقيقي لنهضة عربية إسلامية. إن امكانية خلق العرب بحضارتهم الإسلامية حداثة خاصة بهم، رافقتني خلال قراءتي لجميع فصول الكتاب من بدايته وحتى نهايته.
إن معالجة الكاتبة للتآمر الفرنسي الاستعماري على محاولة العرب الانضمام للمجتمع الدولي في حينه، الذي يبدو أنهم آمنوا حقيقة وبشكل صادق بأنه قد يشكل قطيعة مع عصور الظلم والعسكرة والحرب، هي معالجة تاريخية ثاقبة بامتياز، لست مهتما شخصيا في ما يمكن أن يسمى بسذاجة المثقفين العرب في حينه، سواء الإسلاميين المعتدلين أو الليبراليين، إن الاكتفاء بهذا الوسم لتلك المرحلة التاريخية فيه الكثير من التجني والظلم والتبسيط، لقد أعجبت بشكل حقيقي بما رأيته في هذا الكتاب من أدلة على محاولة حقيقية للنهوض بالأمة العربية في حينه، لا يمكنني أن أنصح بهذا الكتاب بما فيه الكفاية، رائع دون نقاش.
الكتاب يبدأ بنهاية الحرب العالمية الأولى، أو الحرب الكبرى كما عرفت في حينه، ويعالج ارهاصات تشكيل عصبة الأمم ونظامي الانتداب والوصاية اللذين صاحبا تشكيلها، ويبين بشكل واضح كيف لم يكن لدى مثقفي الأمة العربية في حينها الإدراك الكافي لما نراه الآن مسلما به حتى من قبل أعتى جهالها، ألا وهو سوء النية التي يبيتها الغرب للشرق، والنظرة الاستعمارية الدونية التي ينظر يها ساسة اوروبا إلى العرب بشكل خاص.
لكن هذا ليس انتقادا لمتنوري الأمة -إن صحت التسمية- في حينه، لقد كانوا في الحقيقة على مستوى من الوعي والمعرفة والثقافة لا نرى نظيره الآن، بل لقد قادوا عملا سياسيا بحق، يختلف جوهره ومضمونه عن الرعونة التي تبديها الطبقة السياسية العريية في أوقاتنا هذه. إن النقاشات التي يكشف الكتاب أنها دارت بين التيارات المختلفة في المؤتمر العربي السوري، والأسلوب الذي اختلف قادة الأمة فيما بينهم في ذلك الزمان، تصيب القلب بيأس حقيقي تجاه ما يراه اليوم من وضاعة سياسية وانعدام لأي أفق حقيقي لنهضة عربية إسلامية. إن امكانية خلق العرب بحضارتهم الإسلامية حداثة خاصة بهم، رافقتني خلال قراءتي لجميع فصول الكتاب من بدايته وحتى نهايته.
إن معالجة الكاتبة للتآمر الفرنسي الاستعماري على محاولة العرب الانضمام للمجتمع الدولي في حينه، الذي يبدو أنهم آمنوا حقيقة وبشكل صادق بأنه قد يشكل قطيعة مع عصور الظلم والعسكرة والحرب، هي معالجة تاريخية ثاقبة بامتياز، لست مهتما شخصيا في ما يمكن أن يسمى بسذاجة المثقفين العرب في حينه، سواء الإسلاميين المعتدلين أو الليبراليين، إن الاكتفاء بهذا الوسم لتلك المرحلة التاريخية فيه الكثير من التجني والظلم والتبسيط، لقد أعجبت بشكل حقيقي بما رأيته في هذا الكتاب من أدلة على محاولة حقيقية للنهوض بالأمة العربية في حينه، لا يمكنني أن أنصح بهذا الكتاب بما فيه الكفاية، رائع دون نقاش.
December 29, 2021
Loved this book!
Amazing insight into a window of opportunity that was slammed shut by self-centered American government representatives, a few members of waning colonial powers and as usual racism and ignorance.
I do wish less time was spent on Faisal and a bit more on the some of the members of congress but was so happy to see this information but into an easy-enough-to-read, well-researched, space.
This book greatly informed my understanding of politics in the Arab world.
Amazing insight into a window of opportunity that was slammed shut by self-centered American government representatives, a few members of waning colonial powers and as usual racism and ignorance.
I do wish less time was spent on Faisal and a bit more on the some of the members of congress but was so happy to see this information but into an easy-enough-to-read, well-researched, space.
This book greatly informed my understanding of politics in the Arab world.
May 19, 2021
বহুল প্রচলিত একটি অভিযোগ আছে, আরবরা নাকি গণতন্ত্রের জন্য উপযোগী না। বিশেষ করে আরব বসন্তের ধারাবাহিকতায় তিউনিসিয়া, মিসর, লিবিয়া এবং পরবর্তীতে ইয়েমেন, আলজেরিয়া ও সুদানের স্বৈরশাসকদের পতনের পরেও দেশগুলোর পরিস্থিতির কোনো উন্নতি না হয়ে বরং আরও অবনতি হওয়ায় অনেকের কাছেই এ তত্ত্ব নতুন করে গ্রহণযোগ্যতা পেয়েছে।
কিন্তু বাস্তবতা হচ্ছে, ���জ থেকে শত বছর আগে, ইউরোপেরও অনেক দেশে যখন গণতন্ত্র প্রতিষ্ঠিত হয়নি, তখনই সিরিয়ান আরবরা উদ্যোগ নিয়েছিল সময়ের তুলনায় অনেক আধুনিক একটি গণতান্ত্রিক রাষ্ট্র প্রতিষ্ঠা করার। সেসময় সিরিয়ার নির্বাচিত জনপ্রতিধিরা এমন একটি সংবিধান রচনা করেছিলেন, শত বছর পরেও বিশ্বের অনেক দেশের জন্য যা ঈর্ষণীয় হয়ে আছে।
সেই সংবিধানে বিলাদ আল-শাম তথা বৃহত্তর সিরিয়াকে ঘোষণা করা হয়েছিল একটি গণপ্রতিনিধিত্বমূলক রাজতন্ত্র হিসেবে, যেখানে রাজার ক্ষমতা ছিল খুবই সীমিত এবং অধিকাংশ ক্ষমতা ছিল নির্বাচিত সংসদের হাতে ন্যস্ত। কামাল আতাতুর্কের তুর্কি প্রজাতন্ত্র প্রতিষ্ঠারও তিন বছর আগে রচিত সিরিয়ার এই সংবিধান ছিল একটি ধর্মনিরপেক্ষ সংবিধান। এই সংবিধানে কোনো রাষ্ট্রধর্ম ছিল না। বরং সকল ধর্মের নাগরিকদের জন্য সেখানে ছিল সমানাধিকার।
ধর্ম বিষয়ে সেখানে কেবল বলা ছিল, রাজার ধর্ম হতে হবে ইসলাম। অথচ যে সংসদ সদস্যরা এই সংবিধান পাশ করেছিলেন, তাদের অধিকাংশ সদস্যই ছিলেন অটোমান আমলের রক্ষণশীল নেতা। এবং সেসময় সংসদের প্রেসিডেন্ট, যার উদ্যোগেই মূলত এই সংবিধান আলোর মুখ দেখেছিল, তিনি ছিলেন সে সময়ের আরব বিশ্বের অন্যতম প্রভাবশালী ইসলামিক স্কলার রাশিদ রিদা।
এমনকি খোদ আমেরিকায়ও যখন নারীরা ভোটাধিকার পায়নি, তখন এই সংবিধানের খসড়া প্রস্তুত করার সময় সিরিয়ান আরব কংগ্রেসের সদস্যরা সিরিয়ান নারীদেরকে ভোটাধিকার দেওয়ার সম্ভাবনা যাচাই করেছিলেন। শেষপর্যন্ত সমাজের প্রতিক্রিয়ার আশঙ্কায় ঐ মূহুর্তে নারীদেরকে ভোটাধিকার না দিলেও তারা সংবিধানের ঐ ধারার জন্য এমনভাবে লিঙ্গ-নিরপেক্ষ শব্দ নির্বাচিত করেছিলেন, যেন যেকোনো মুহূর্তে নারীদেরকে ভোটাধিকার দিতে কোনো সমস্যা না হয়।
সিরিয়ার এই সংবিধান যদি কার্যকর হতে পারত, তাহলে তার ধারাবাহিকতায় আজ হয়তো আমরা সম্পূর্ণ ভিন্ন একটি আরব বিশ্ব দেখতে পেতাম, যে বিশ্বের অধিকাংশ রাষ্ট্রই হতো গণতান্ত্রিক। কিন্তু সেটি যে হয়নি, তার কারণ আর কিছুই না, ব্রিটেন এবং ফ্রান্সের ঔপনিবেশিক স্বার্থ। আজ থেকে শত বছর আগে ব্রিটেন এবং ফ্রান্স কীভাবে সিরিয়ানদের গণতন্ত্রের পথে যাত্রাকে ধুলোর সাথে মিশিয়ে দিয়েছিল, সেই কাহিনীই "How the West Stole Democracy from the Arabs" বইয়ের মাধ্যমে পাঠকদের সামনে তুলে এনেছেন মধ্যপ্রাচ্য বিষয়ক ইতিহাসবিদ এলিজাবেথ এফ. থম্পসন।
বইটির উপর আরও বিস্তারিত একটি রিভিউ লিখেছি রোর বাংলা ওয়েবসাইটে। পড়তে পারবেন এখান থেকে: https://roar.media/bangla/main/book-m...
কিন্তু বাস্তবতা হচ্ছে, ���জ থেকে শত বছর আগে, ইউরোপেরও অনেক দেশে যখন গণতন্ত্র প্রতিষ্ঠিত হয়নি, তখনই সিরিয়ান আরবরা উদ্যোগ নিয়েছিল সময়ের তুলনায় অনেক আধুনিক একটি গণতান্ত্রিক রাষ্ট্র প্রতিষ্ঠা করার। সেসময় সিরিয়ার নির্বাচিত জনপ্রতিধিরা এমন একটি সংবিধান রচনা করেছিলেন, শত বছর পরেও বিশ্বের অনেক দেশের জন্য যা ঈর্ষণীয় হয়ে আছে।
সেই সংবিধানে বিলাদ আল-শাম তথা বৃহত্তর সিরিয়াকে ঘোষণা করা হয়েছিল একটি গণপ্রতিনিধিত্বমূলক রাজতন্ত্র হিসেবে, যেখানে রাজার ক্ষমতা ছিল খুবই সীমিত এবং অধিকাংশ ক্ষমতা ছিল নির্বাচিত সংসদের হাতে ন্যস্ত। কামাল আতাতুর্কের তুর্কি প্রজাতন্ত্র প্রতিষ্ঠারও তিন বছর আগে রচিত সিরিয়ার এই সংবিধান ছিল একটি ধর্মনিরপেক্ষ সংবিধান। এই সংবিধানে কোনো রাষ্ট্রধর্ম ছিল না। বরং সকল ধর্মের নাগরিকদের জন্য সেখানে ছিল সমানাধিকার।
ধর্ম বিষয়ে সেখানে কেবল বলা ছিল, রাজার ধর্ম হতে হবে ইসলাম। অথচ যে সংসদ সদস্যরা এই সংবিধান পাশ করেছিলেন, তাদের অধিকাংশ সদস্যই ছিলেন অটোমান আমলের রক্ষণশীল নেতা। এবং সেসময় সংসদের প্রেসিডেন্ট, যার উদ্যোগেই মূলত এই সংবিধান আলোর মুখ দেখেছিল, তিনি ছিলেন সে সময়ের আরব বিশ্বের অন্যতম প্রভাবশালী ইসলামিক স্কলার রাশিদ রিদা।
এমনকি খোদ আমেরিকায়ও যখন নারীরা ভোটাধিকার পায়নি, তখন এই সংবিধানের খসড়া প্রস্তুত করার সময় সিরিয়ান আরব কংগ্রেসের সদস্যরা সিরিয়ান নারীদেরকে ভোটাধিকার দেওয়ার সম্ভাবনা যাচাই করেছিলেন। শেষপর্যন্ত সমাজের প্রতিক্রিয়ার আশঙ্কায় ঐ মূহুর্তে নারীদেরকে ভোটাধিকার না দিলেও তারা সংবিধানের ঐ ধারার জন্য এমনভাবে লিঙ্গ-নিরপেক্ষ শব্দ নির্বাচিত করেছিলেন, যেন যেকোনো মুহূর্তে নারীদেরকে ভোটাধিকার দিতে কোনো সমস্যা না হয়।
সিরিয়ার এই সংবিধান যদি কার্যকর হতে পারত, তাহলে তার ধারাবাহিকতায় আজ হয়তো আমরা সম্পূর্ণ ভিন্ন একটি আরব বিশ্ব দেখতে পেতাম, যে বিশ্বের অধিকাংশ রাষ্ট্রই হতো গণতান্ত্রিক। কিন্তু সেটি যে হয়নি, তার কারণ আর কিছুই না, ব্রিটেন এবং ফ্রান্সের ঔপনিবেশিক স্বার্থ। আজ থেকে শত বছর আগে ব্রিটেন এবং ফ্রান্স কীভাবে সিরিয়ানদের গণতন্ত্রের পথে যাত্রাকে ধুলোর সাথে মিশিয়ে দিয়েছিল, সেই কাহিনীই "How the West Stole Democracy from the Arabs" বইয়ের মাধ্যমে পাঠকদের সামনে তুলে এনেছেন মধ্যপ্রাচ্য বিষয়ক ইতিহাসবিদ এলিজাবেথ এফ. থম্পসন।
বইটির উপর আরও বিস্তারিত একটি রিভিউ লিখেছি রোর বাংলা ওয়েবসাইটে। পড়তে পারবেন এখান থেকে: https://roar.media/bangla/main/book-m...
July 19, 2021
Three:
1- How the west stole democracy from the Arabs (Elizabeth Thompson)
2- Assad or we burn the country (Sam Dagher)
3- How to be an antiracist (Ibram Kendi)
The past couple of weeks, I have read and really enjoyed these three books. From the first glance, the topics covered in these books seem to be totally unrelated and by authors from very different backgrounds, which isn't entirely false. However, a pattern of a certain human tendency rears its head as one dives deeper into the areas of current, modern, and recent history that were focused on by each of these good books.
As one recounts, in the wake of the time of reaping the rewards of WW1, the colonial powers drooled over the smaller countries that had just been their allies in winning the war. Not to drool in celebrating that alliance, no no, rather drooling to invade them, colonize them, enslave them, and steal the wealth of their lands. The reasoning, which the colonial powers (namely Britain and France at the time) would openly and shamelessly tout was that the peoples of these smaller countries were "not ready to rule themselves" because they "were not civilized enough". That renders the only way for Britain and France to grapse control over these territories to be through dismantling any democratic effort at building a government for the people by the people. Rather, they worked tirelessly to install puppet regimes and dictatorships that gave Britain and France any and all that they had asked for.
Moving on from that, for the case of Syria specifically which had been invaded and colonized by France, they had paved the way for military regimes to take over, particularly military regimes in the hands of a super small minority that would love nothing more than dominating everyone else regardless at what price. Hence the family rule of the Assad family which spanned more than half a century! This beyond barbaric and blood-thirsty rule has taken the lives of about 5% of the population of Syria (estimated at over a million killed) let alone caused the forced displacement of more than 50% of them. This is still a developing suffering of a kind and caring people that are yet to see the light at the end of this dark bloody tunnel!!!
Crossing the Atlantic ocean to discuss the third book, which is brilliant, we come to the resistant phenomenon of racism, one that is global yet particularly more violent and exaggerated in the US. This was the first book by Kendi that I read, and it made me want to read his others. I personally learned a lot from this book.
——> I have a reason for writing this note: there is a pattern that shows up from these seemingly unrelated issues, and it may be at the root of all of them, among others. What I think the root cause is the mysterious but viciously dangerous tendency of humans to claim SUPERIORITY! This was exactly why the colonial powers did what they did to all the colonized world, which is still deep in the suffering that resulted from the colonial era. That was also the reason for WW1 (and later 2), of course. And this feeling of superiority was also the root cause of why the Assad family sees the people as an unimportant burden and nuisance that must be crushed and wiped off the face of earth for their rule to be happy and uneventful. And finally, this was also why racism has always existed!! There are also theories in sociology and history that attempt to explain a number of wars due to the foolish and false ideas of eugenics and racial superiority. This human tendency to feel and claim superiority is, or should I say has been, the curse at the root of almost all man-made sufferings in recorded history?
1- How the west stole democracy from the Arabs (Elizabeth Thompson)
2- Assad or we burn the country (Sam Dagher)
3- How to be an antiracist (Ibram Kendi)
The past couple of weeks, I have read and really enjoyed these three books. From the first glance, the topics covered in these books seem to be totally unrelated and by authors from very different backgrounds, which isn't entirely false. However, a pattern of a certain human tendency rears its head as one dives deeper into the areas of current, modern, and recent history that were focused on by each of these good books.
As one recounts, in the wake of the time of reaping the rewards of WW1, the colonial powers drooled over the smaller countries that had just been their allies in winning the war. Not to drool in celebrating that alliance, no no, rather drooling to invade them, colonize them, enslave them, and steal the wealth of their lands. The reasoning, which the colonial powers (namely Britain and France at the time) would openly and shamelessly tout was that the peoples of these smaller countries were "not ready to rule themselves" because they "were not civilized enough". That renders the only way for Britain and France to grapse control over these territories to be through dismantling any democratic effort at building a government for the people by the people. Rather, they worked tirelessly to install puppet regimes and dictatorships that gave Britain and France any and all that they had asked for.
Moving on from that, for the case of Syria specifically which had been invaded and colonized by France, they had paved the way for military regimes to take over, particularly military regimes in the hands of a super small minority that would love nothing more than dominating everyone else regardless at what price. Hence the family rule of the Assad family which spanned more than half a century! This beyond barbaric and blood-thirsty rule has taken the lives of about 5% of the population of Syria (estimated at over a million killed) let alone caused the forced displacement of more than 50% of them. This is still a developing suffering of a kind and caring people that are yet to see the light at the end of this dark bloody tunnel!!!
Crossing the Atlantic ocean to discuss the third book, which is brilliant, we come to the resistant phenomenon of racism, one that is global yet particularly more violent and exaggerated in the US. This was the first book by Kendi that I read, and it made me want to read his others. I personally learned a lot from this book.
——> I have a reason for writing this note: there is a pattern that shows up from these seemingly unrelated issues, and it may be at the root of all of them, among others. What I think the root cause is the mysterious but viciously dangerous tendency of humans to claim SUPERIORITY! This was exactly why the colonial powers did what they did to all the colonized world, which is still deep in the suffering that resulted from the colonial era. That was also the reason for WW1 (and later 2), of course. And this feeling of superiority was also the root cause of why the Assad family sees the people as an unimportant burden and nuisance that must be crushed and wiped off the face of earth for their rule to be happy and uneventful. And finally, this was also why racism has always existed!! There are also theories in sociology and history that attempt to explain a number of wars due to the foolish and false ideas of eugenics and racial superiority. This human tendency to feel and claim superiority is, or should I say has been, the curse at the root of almost all man-made sufferings in recorded history?
November 30, 2023
The western authors and academicians are the best in writing about the Western guilt. Day by day, I am building a kind of belief that it is part of their culture to carry several guilts and show remorse and regret after decades of denial. I am just highlighting shadows of a behavior that is worthy of studying in the future. However, it is no longer accepted to come late and consider it better than never; the better is not to do it at all in the first place. The irony here is that I am finishing now this book while the West is supporting war crimes in Gaza blatantly, on which media and public figures are involved in doing publicity for, refusing to call ceasefire, but rather calling for ethnical cleansing of the Palestinian people. It is silly how history repeat itself, echoed the waves of white man serenade of taking other people's lands and considering such an action a form of civilization. It was in Syria 100 years ago. it is now in Palestine. It starts with a burden, and then, after seas of our bloods, turns into a guilt.
In this book, I have read the history of a critical moment in the creation of my country, Syria. Although I was aware about many things mentioned in the history, but the author has managed to bring up great deal of context, by showing long recounts of meeting minutes, memories, media coverage, and contents of loads of documents from several archives. This books has built a comprehensive narrative about the kingdom of Syria and Lebanon, diving deep in details from both the West and newly formed Arab political parties. The image this book has framed about Syria is fairly clear, focusing on the democracy that was established back then, and how it was demolished by French, British, and American, stressing a relationship between Muslims and Christians, and between liberals and conservatives. One could feel bored because of these details had he or she not drawn to the history of the Middle East.
Overall, it is still the responsibility of the Syrian people to continue their struggle to gain freedom, as the influence of the West on the course of events, whether in the past or now, is not an excuse. A national movement, that unifies the Syrian people, is duly required these days. The current demonstrations in As Suwayda could be the seed of this movement. As well as, a better understanding of history should also be channeled to Syrians of all ages, as the next wave of change is undoubtedly coming.
Finally, I am grateful to the people who recommended this book to me, especially my friend Dr. Anas Saad. I know it took me long time to finish it, but because of the details, I had to take several pauses.
Six-stars book!
In this book, I have read the history of a critical moment in the creation of my country, Syria. Although I was aware about many things mentioned in the history, but the author has managed to bring up great deal of context, by showing long recounts of meeting minutes, memories, media coverage, and contents of loads of documents from several archives. This books has built a comprehensive narrative about the kingdom of Syria and Lebanon, diving deep in details from both the West and newly formed Arab political parties. The image this book has framed about Syria is fairly clear, focusing on the democracy that was established back then, and how it was demolished by French, British, and American, stressing a relationship between Muslims and Christians, and between liberals and conservatives. One could feel bored because of these details had he or she not drawn to the history of the Middle East.
Overall, it is still the responsibility of the Syrian people to continue their struggle to gain freedom, as the influence of the West on the course of events, whether in the past or now, is not an excuse. A national movement, that unifies the Syrian people, is duly required these days. The current demonstrations in As Suwayda could be the seed of this movement. As well as, a better understanding of history should also be channeled to Syrians of all ages, as the next wave of change is undoubtedly coming.
Finally, I am grateful to the people who recommended this book to me, especially my friend Dr. Anas Saad. I know it took me long time to finish it, but because of the details, I had to take several pauses.
Six-stars book!
July 12, 2020
As a person who devours on history and books on historical fiction, this book gave me new perspective in understanding geopolitics of the middle east with respect to the ret of the world. The fall of ottoman empire and its domino effect on rest of the region and beyond were given in great detail in the book. One of the world history books which I kept on recommending my friends and keep on referring to my studies.
April 21, 2020
A minor governmental leech having its simple thoughts. This way democracy is an object in a finite form and Arab and West are some Greek deities weaving intrigues around this object.
September 18, 2023
كتاب مهم جدا ويجب على كل سوري قراءته
December 6, 2020
A great account of what might have been. I was familiar with the Sykes-Picot treaty in which Britain and France decided how they would carve up the Middle East territory of the Ottoman Empire assuming they won the First World War; the Balfour Declaration declaring support for an independent Jewish state in Palestine; and what actually transpired in terms of colonial control after the war. I also knew that a number of ethnic groups, especially in the former Austro-Hungarian Empire and the southeastern European portions of the Ottoman Empire, had petitioned, with varying degrees of success, for creation and recognition of independent states.
However, I was unaware of the lengths to which individuals and groups in Syria went to establish an independent Greater Syria (which would have incorporated modern-day Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian Territories). Syrian intellectuals put great faith and hope in President Wilson of the United States and his Fourteen Points, especially the statement that in questions of sovereignty, the will of the people should be given great weight. Syrian leaders were well aware that the Great Powers doubted that "Arabs" were capable of proper self-governance and that influential figures in Britain and France would use that prejudice to support maintaining control. Therefore, influential Syrians set about creating a democratic State (a constitutional monarchy), electing Prince Faisal as King and electing a Congress. They also created a Syrian Constitution that was a mix of Western ideas, Islamic principles, and local customs. The Syrian Constitution contained protections for minorities and religious freedom (especially the Maronite Christians in Lebanon and the Jewish population in Palestine). While there was support in France and Britain for an independent Greater Syria, the colonial lobby in these countries, especially France, was more powerful and the Syrians were unable to counter the machinations of those who wanted to keep the territory under French control, with Palestine under British control.
It would have been interesting to see Greater Syria given the opportunity to exist as an independent nation. It might not have lasted, especially given the apparent disagreements among King Faisal and the Congress over the balance of power/allocation of authority, and later world events such as World War II. However, if the government of Greater Syria had actually implemented the principles in its Constitution, it would have been more "liberal" and "democratic" in some respects than the Western nations it was seeking to emulate and impress. In particular, its protection of minority rights, if actually implemented, would have been much greater than what was afforded by the United States, especially under President Wilson, who was seen as a great force for liberty and equality by the Syrian people and other groups that had been under the control of the Austro-Hungarian or Ottoman Empires, but yet, as President, Wilson actually increased segregation against the black population in America, especially in the federal government.
If a Greater Syrian nation had been allowed to exist, there might have developed a greater understanding of Islam and Islamic principles and their compatibility with democratic forms of governments. There might have been less need for or appeal for the radical forms of Islam that developed to combat French and British oppression, and therefore much of the instability that has plagued the Middle East for the past century might have been avoided. Of course, ethnic and religious tension, efforts by various countries and companies to control oil supplies, the rise and spread of communism, and other world events might have ultimately doomed the Middle East to conflict and instability. This book was interesting and well researched. It would make a great resource for anyone with a scholarly interest in post-WWI Middle East or Syrian history, providing sources for further exploration of the various topics and individuals addressed in the book. It is also a good book for anyone with a more general interest in early 20th century Middle East history.
I received a copy of the e-book via NetGalley in exchange for a review.
However, I was unaware of the lengths to which individuals and groups in Syria went to establish an independent Greater Syria (which would have incorporated modern-day Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian Territories). Syrian intellectuals put great faith and hope in President Wilson of the United States and his Fourteen Points, especially the statement that in questions of sovereignty, the will of the people should be given great weight. Syrian leaders were well aware that the Great Powers doubted that "Arabs" were capable of proper self-governance and that influential figures in Britain and France would use that prejudice to support maintaining control. Therefore, influential Syrians set about creating a democratic State (a constitutional monarchy), electing Prince Faisal as King and electing a Congress. They also created a Syrian Constitution that was a mix of Western ideas, Islamic principles, and local customs. The Syrian Constitution contained protections for minorities and religious freedom (especially the Maronite Christians in Lebanon and the Jewish population in Palestine). While there was support in France and Britain for an independent Greater Syria, the colonial lobby in these countries, especially France, was more powerful and the Syrians were unable to counter the machinations of those who wanted to keep the territory under French control, with Palestine under British control.
It would have been interesting to see Greater Syria given the opportunity to exist as an independent nation. It might not have lasted, especially given the apparent disagreements among King Faisal and the Congress over the balance of power/allocation of authority, and later world events such as World War II. However, if the government of Greater Syria had actually implemented the principles in its Constitution, it would have been more "liberal" and "democratic" in some respects than the Western nations it was seeking to emulate and impress. In particular, its protection of minority rights, if actually implemented, would have been much greater than what was afforded by the United States, especially under President Wilson, who was seen as a great force for liberty and equality by the Syrian people and other groups that had been under the control of the Austro-Hungarian or Ottoman Empires, but yet, as President, Wilson actually increased segregation against the black population in America, especially in the federal government.
If a Greater Syrian nation had been allowed to exist, there might have developed a greater understanding of Islam and Islamic principles and their compatibility with democratic forms of governments. There might have been less need for or appeal for the radical forms of Islam that developed to combat French and British oppression, and therefore much of the instability that has plagued the Middle East for the past century might have been avoided. Of course, ethnic and religious tension, efforts by various countries and companies to control oil supplies, the rise and spread of communism, and other world events might have ultimately doomed the Middle East to conflict and instability. This book was interesting and well researched. It would make a great resource for anyone with a scholarly interest in post-WWI Middle East or Syrian history, providing sources for further exploration of the various topics and individuals addressed in the book. It is also a good book for anyone with a more general interest in early 20th century Middle East history.
I received a copy of the e-book via NetGalley in exchange for a review.
December 16, 2022
One of the best books I have read this year!
There were a lot of "woah" moments while reading this book. It shows that there were people who were religious Muslims and yet had a liberal approach towards establishing a country from scratch. Still, the problems during the Ottoman Empire left unfixable cracks in addition to Britain's and France's colonialist objectives have destroyed all attempts of creating the most democratic country in the Middle East in 1920. Additionally, it paved the way for the brotherhood movement to emerge and destroy the liberal ideas the previous generation had.
It is a must-read for sure!
There were a lot of "woah" moments while reading this book. It shows that there were people who were religious Muslims and yet had a liberal approach towards establishing a country from scratch. Still, the problems during the Ottoman Empire left unfixable cracks in addition to Britain's and France's colonialist objectives have destroyed all attempts of creating the most democratic country in the Middle East in 1920. Additionally, it paved the way for the brotherhood movement to emerge and destroy the liberal ideas the previous generation had.
It is a must-read for sure!
April 26, 2020
I would say that this is a 3.5 star upgraded to a 4 star. On principle this story is quite fascinating. I feel like generally speaking we in the Western world tend to believe that the Middle East has always been an area deeply conflicted and a region where aggression toward Western countries was expected. So to learn of a time when this wasn’t the case is quite interesting. This covers a long forgotten time in the history of Syria where after years of conflict, the appointed King Faisal, undertakes the process of building a democratic system inside Syria. A system that in context looked a lot like our own democracy here in the US. Repeated snubs and sabotage largely at the hands of the French and the British, the ruling system ultimately collapsed in 1920 or so, but not before the democratic Syrian Congress produced a remarkable document in the form of the Syrian Government Constitution of 1920. 100 years later it is hard to fathom what Syria once could have been. It is only through studious preservation that this rare document exists to be translated for our understanding. While many events have subsequently occurred across the Middle East that has resulted in much instability and friction, this book certainly begs the question, what would the world look like now if the Western Allied Countries had supported the Syrian Government and then left them to rule as a sovereign nation without interference? Given the debauchery of the French Government, I certainly came to have an understanding of the context of the frustrations of many of the Arab people. This is certainly eye opening, but may not appeal across the board to all people. It may be for more of a targeted audience. Story appears to be rigorously researched. Information can be a little dry at times, and the rather complex native Syrian names do not help with tracking the story. If you are interested in middle eastern policy or history this is certainly worth a read. Thank you to Netgalley for the early copy in exchange for an honest review.
April 21, 2022
The author provides a good if sometimes overly slanted account of the failure of the Syrian National Congress to end colonialism after the end of WW1. I am not a historian but I did encounter a few or what I believe are errors. Dr. Thompson suggests that Wilson was a serious candidate for reelection in 1920 when everything I read suggests that he was bedridden with a stroke. But putting that aside this book presents the Arab perspective of what happened at the end of the first world war. The author suggests that liberal forces were badly used by the victorious European powers and were largely discredited as a force in the middle east.
As a lay reader I have to wonder if these forces were really as liberal as they seem on the outside or were they merely aping European forms in the hope of gaining influence. Shen suggests that there were many Arab liberals who saw Jews as Arabs despite the machinations of Zionists that she depcits as a foreign colonial element. There is much to consider here and much to think about. This is a good book for critical readers but not without its weak points.
As a lay reader I have to wonder if these forces were really as liberal as they seem on the outside or were they merely aping European forms in the hope of gaining influence. Shen suggests that there were many Arab liberals who saw Jews as Arabs despite the machinations of Zionists that she depcits as a foreign colonial element. There is much to consider here and much to think about. This is a good book for critical readers but not without its weak points.
May 19, 2021
This book is an excellant unbiased true history of how England and France destroyed the opportunity of the Arab people to have a real democratic society in the Middle East.
If you don't know the history of this area please read this book. It will clearly show how the present day wars and disastrous fighting that we see today could have been avoided. Nevertheless, knowing this history will give the reader an opportunity to see the wider scope of todays troubles. I listened to the audio streaming copy from my public library.
If you don't know the history of this area please read this book. It will clearly show how the present day wars and disastrous fighting that we see today could have been avoided. Nevertheless, knowing this history will give the reader an opportunity to see the wider scope of todays troubles. I listened to the audio streaming copy from my public library.
Read
March 18, 2021This is, I think, an important book, but rather more in-depth than I was prepared for. I read enough, however, to see how “the Allies” betrayed the Syrians’ hopes of independence after World War One, hopes which the Allies were only too happy to meet on behalf of European “nations” such as the Romanians.
June 25, 2021
One of the best books i read on the Arab history….. it describes in details how was the struggle of the Arabs to get their independence and have a democratic government. It explains the unsaid of the imperialism of Britain and France, how they rolled out all the ethics and promises made to its Arabic Allies in the first world war…..
May 20, 2022
Very interesting, especially for anyone looking to better understand today's international political climate. The book makes a great case for how european colonialist ambitions in Syria came to affect its political climate even today.
February 11, 2021
This is a heavy read... so worth it though. It’s refreshing to read an in bias factual version of events in the Middle East. Propagandaless must read.
August 4, 2022
Humans are amazing turds, England and France should be paying reparations to all the middle eastern countries they screwed.
May 16, 2020
Moving Enlightening Account of Syrian Democracy
I hadn't been aware of what happened to Syria after WWI and when it was re-colonized by France instead of the Ottoman Empire. King Faisal who had helped the allies right against the Germans and Turks. They expected independence, but instead, the powers of Britain and France were intent on taking over the areas as part of their Empires. At one time, a King named Fisal, helped draft a constitution with fellow countryman that protected the rights of people with different religions, suffrage for women and a Constitutional Monarchy. But France and Britain planned to break up the area and use resources such as oil. The American President Woodrow Wilson supported their plan for independence but was foiled by a Republican Congress which opposed his idea of a League of Nations and later a massive stroke which killed him. President Warren G. Harding, supported Britain and France's colonial plans. Poor Syria and the Arabian peninsula were broken into religious factions and eventually weak nations. The exploitation of resources and lands continue to this day and have caused numerous conflicts and wars. A tragic story that I was unaware of. I greatly appreciate reading 📚this work. Outstanding!
I hadn't been aware of what happened to Syria after WWI and when it was re-colonized by France instead of the Ottoman Empire. King Faisal who had helped the allies right against the Germans and Turks. They expected independence, but instead, the powers of Britain and France were intent on taking over the areas as part of their Empires. At one time, a King named Fisal, helped draft a constitution with fellow countryman that protected the rights of people with different religions, suffrage for women and a Constitutional Monarchy. But France and Britain planned to break up the area and use resources such as oil. The American President Woodrow Wilson supported their plan for independence but was foiled by a Republican Congress which opposed his idea of a League of Nations and later a massive stroke which killed him. President Warren G. Harding, supported Britain and France's colonial plans. Poor Syria and the Arabian peninsula were broken into religious factions and eventually weak nations. The exploitation of resources and lands continue to this day and have caused numerous conflicts and wars. A tragic story that I was unaware of. I greatly appreciate reading 📚this work. Outstanding!
November 5, 2024
This book will always be relevant, and should be read by all who have any opinions on the middle east or even just watch the 'news' (or at least read about the book and the key events). Specially today whilst the West funds a genocide at the hands of the state they created on stolen land whilst blasting propaganda that Arabs are barbaric uncivilized pelple. This book is so important and it details how history actually went down and how the people of Syria fought for their independence before it was stripped from them anyway. Specially interesting is that the book has a translated version of their 1920 constitution which in itself shows the future Syria could have had without the interference of Britain and France.
Due to the nature and context of the book it's not the easiest to read although the beginning is very interesting, even exciting, upon the initial introductions of people and events, when they are still full of hope :(
Also, I found it quiet depressing that even though this happened over a century ago, nothing has changed. Colonisers still colonising.
Due to the nature and context of the book it's not the easiest to read although the beginning is very interesting, even exciting, upon the initial introductions of people and events, when they are still full of hope :(
Also, I found it quiet depressing that even though this happened over a century ago, nothing has changed. Colonisers still colonising.
July 9, 2020
How the West Stole Democracy from the Arabs by Elizabeth F. Thompson is a heavy, dense, and in-depth researched read. The author will introduce the readers to some groups of people of the past and how they struggle to steer the course of the Middle East history to meet their goals.
This book is really an eye opening and may answer some questions about what happens in the Middle East today. This book also sequenced the process of how democracy was built in the Middle East as well as the result of it when not supported by 'the powerful' Europe at that time.
If you're someone who likes reading about political history, especially the Middle East political history, this book is for you.
I voluntary read and review this book in accordance with the terms of Netgalley.
This book is really an eye opening and may answer some questions about what happens in the Middle East today. This book also sequenced the process of how democracy was built in the Middle East as well as the result of it when not supported by 'the powerful' Europe at that time.
If you're someone who likes reading about political history, especially the Middle East political history, this book is for you.
I voluntary read and review this book in accordance with the terms of Netgalley.
February 21, 2021
Thompson's book is an excellent exploration of a moment I didn't know anything about - the development of the Syrian Arab Congress and its subsequent destruction at the hands of the French and British in the wake of World War I. Thompson's use of previously under-researched sources, and recovery of a copy of the Syrian Constitution, contribute greatly to her analysis. Most interesting to me was Thompson's contention that the theft of democracy foreclosed the possibility of a modern liberal state in the Arab Middle East. She mentions this in her preface but doesn't develop it as much as I would've liked. Perhaps it would require another book, but it was the only disappointment in a particularly interesting book.
November 6, 2023
This book details the diplomatic failings and evils of the West in order to allow French colonization of Syria. The book focuses on key figures like Prince Faisal, General Rida, Lloyd George and others. One critique is I do find some of the language around Woodrow Wilson odd. While his proposals for international affairs in the wake of WWI were extrodinary, I question the legitimacy of any juxapositioning of Wilson as someone that would have actively fought colonization attempts by the French or British had the Americans joined the league of nations. The book does however discuss Wilson’s domestic racial posture and provides more than enough evidence to counter my claim despite my lingering doubts.
April 23, 2024
Due to the importance of that crucial moment in history when nations were being born and others were dying, ideas were taking shape and forming; this books stems it’s importance, the current day devastation in the Greater Syria and how the events that is described in this book contributed to it makes this book even more important. It’s unfortunate that the Syrian people lost that one chance to be a sovereign strong nation and had to face major international powers that stood in the way of accomplishing their goal. Knowing history is always good for understanding the current day and shape the future. This is a must read for every person who’s interested in modern history and a must read for every Syrian, Lebanese, Jordanian, Palestinian.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews