Islamic Imperialism: a history by Efraim Karsh

The conventional predominant understanding from progressive circles about the Modern Middle East is that Western countries encroached, and then invaded the area unjustly.  "Muslim Rage" is a term that expresses the outrage of the West's meddling in the Middle East.  Much of today's foreign policies of dissociation stem from this kind of thinking.  Efraim Karsh sets out to explain, however that this predominant understanding is seriously flawed and does not reflect the truth of events in the region.  He claims the fall of the Ottoman empire was not due to Western tampering but rather the intrinsic fault lines and weakness of that empire; the Ottomans required support from the West.  He shows very forcefully that the West was invited to the region; that one need not bleed for what has happened in the Modern Middle East due to the West because Islam always regroups by nature of its imperial force. Islam has always behaved in traditional imperial fashion from its inception with Muhammad and the initial Arab conquests.

Mr. Karsh shows, for example, that the famed Egyptian leader, Muhammad Ali had his own imperial ideas and was only nominally attached to the Ottomans because of the politics of the day.  He was strong enough and the Ottomans weak enough to assert some independence.  Although some claim that he was a vassal for the Ottomans, Mr. Karsh maintains that Ali was more than just a vassal and as a result of his own imperial demands his rule lasts a long time and does not come to end until 1952 with the rise of Nasser, another imperialist.

Nasser asserts a "pan Arab" policy to unify the Arab world.  Mr. Karsh explains that such a policy is a stratagem of imperialism.  The Arab / Israeli conflict becomes a rallying point to unify the Islamic world against the State of Israel and win back the territory lost during the 1948 war of Independence and more! "We are going to drive the Jews into the Sea!" said Nasser in hope of conquering all of Israel; a classic call of imperialism.  His complete failure during the 6 day War came as such a shock that he dies three years later of a broken heart.

Mr. Karsh sees Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terror network in traditional imperialistic terms. The way the prophet is always invoked gives reason to this understanding since Muhammad himself continued conquering lands until he was neutralized, and his successors continued to conquer.  The terror attacks are all thematically linked with a deafening screed against the West giving more reason to believe that Al Qaeda is not just ejecting the West from the Middle East, but rather attacking the West in imperialistic fashion.

The Islamic Republic of Iran manifests an imperial outlook since the leadership is constantly asserting hegemonic superiority.  Moreover, The quest for nuclear power in an oil rich country can only fuel the notion that Iran is looking in imperialistic directions.

Mr. Karsh concludes that one need not feel guilty that the West entered the Middle East and somehow encroached on the lands of Islam.  Mr. Karsh is of the opinion that the politics of a weakened Islamic imperialism encouraged the West's entrance. One should not make, however the mistake that somehow the different factions of Islam will emerge without hegemonic intentions that go beyond the Middle East.

The End of the Holocaust by Alvin Rosenfeld

There are some writers that clearly stand out beyond the pale because their clarity of thought is so vivid.  The organized flow of ideas make reading such writers easy.  Alvin Rosenfeld, Professor of English at Indiana University is such a writer.  His style, organization and clarity make this contribution to Holocaust studies a very worthwhile read.

Although Mr. Rosenfeld's style and clarity make the reading easy, its subject is very disturbing.  Mr. Rosenfeld shows that as time elapses, the Holocaust is reduced, dismissed and ultimately denied as a meaningful lesson from the past.  He shows through the analysis of each aspect of the Holocaust: perpetrator, victim, redeemer, and survivor that the most horrific crime against humanity has lost its truth, reduced to a mere metaphor.

Germany had always difficulty coming to terms with its crime against the Jewish people and the Reagan administration helped bury the past by visiting an S.S. cemetery seeking forgiveness and absolution for past sins.  To put the past behind and move on, Mr Reagan pleaded.  The president, however, did not seem to understand that he or anyone else does not have the authority to grant such absolution.  He enabled the blurring of the crime, a complete reduction of the horror.

Mr Rosenfeld shows how the famous victim Ann Frank is reduced by comparing her diary to a teenager's experience in the war of Kosovo.  He points out that the teen, although talented in writing, did not experience hiding nor even experience the immediate shelling but nevertheless, was heralded as the "next Ann Frank" as she was interviewed on CNN!  One loses perspective because the comparison is not fair: Ann was a victim that succumbed in Auschwitz, the other became famous on TV. Somehow a sectarian war is compared to the Holocaust.  One loses perspective: Ann Frank died needlessly, only because she was Jewish.  She never made it to CNN.

Mr. Rosenfeld notes that the crime is so heinous that there is a desire to search for those that saved Jews during the Holocaust.  People like Schindler, Sugihara and Wallenberg are sought out as heros, however, one never seems to understand that their contribution, however praiseworthy, is puny in comparison to what was perpetrated and as a result, one tends to lose sight of the actual losses created by the Nazis criminals.  Steven Spielberg's Schindler's list is a great example of the unintended distortion of really what happened during the Holocaust.  Even though all of the aspects of the Shoah may be included in this epic film, it is essentially a rescue film and as such distorts and hence reduces the fact of the Holocaust which had no rescue and no redeemer for millions of people.

Even being a survivor is not immune to criticism today, but rather the survivor is assaulted for exploiting the memory of the Holocaust.  Elie Wiesel, probably the most famous and most prolific survivor is constantly accused of exploiting the memory of the Holocaust.  The troubling fact is that there are those who hate Jews and those who are self-hating Jews that attempt to drown out the cry to remember; they can not come to terms with the truth of the Holocaust - it is too shameful to admit. Or alternatively, people are tired of hearing about the slaughter!

As the last survivors succumb to old age, the reality of the Holocaust will be retired to the dust accumulated to the history books and will never regain its rightful true meaning but rather will be reduced to any other heinous crime to be used as a literary metaphor.  For example, it is now acceptable for one going through a divorce to compare one's inconvenient discord with one's spouse to a "personal holocaust"!

The Shaping of the Modern Middle East by Bernard Lewis

The Shaping of the Modern Middle East by Bernard Lewis is probably the best brief history of the most volatile region in the world today.  Mr. Lewis incorporates most if not all of the political fault lines that have erupted in the last 100 years.  His thesis is that Western imperialism crashed and imposed itself on an Islamic world forcing a position of subservience to Muslims that proved an anathema.   Creating a Muslim rage through the end of the Cold War, that Islamic civilization took back its dignity by freeing itself from Imperial domination.  Written in 1964 and reworked in 1994 this book is an accurate accounting of what has happened and what is currently happening today despite being written 20 year ago.

Mr. Lewis explains that some concepts were not only alien but also incompatible to traditional Islam. For example, democracy and nationalism are plants in the Muslim world by the West.  Autocracy or monarchy fit well into traditional Islam, but democracy is completely alien.  The only place where democracy flourishes is in a secular Muslim country like Turkey.  The Islamic Republic of Iran, for example is clearly not a democracy that would have an independent voting body.  The Supreme Leader has absolute control like a monarch.  Similarly, Nationalism is unknown because Islam binds all Muslims together, not the nation state.  When the British destroy the Ottoman Empire and instigate the ‘Arab revolt’ there is no real overwhelming feeling against the Turks because they are fellow Muslims and it’s the British that do the lion share of upheaval.  The British seem to place pliable tribal leaders at the head of new state governments.

After the fall of the British Empire, the Cold War becomes the animating force the pushes events in the Middle East.  The Soviets successfully persuade some Arab countries to join in an alliance because the Soviet Union never struck the Muslims of the Middle East as being similar to the Western countries. Socialism and Marxism make its way into some of the Arab countries. Soviet aggression is perceived by the USA as a threat.  The USA decides that the Soviet influence needs to be countered.  The USA sides with the sole democracy in the region, Israel to counteract the perceived Soviet posturing.  Allowing the two Super Powers to dominate the region testifies to the lack of independence and impotence to the many Muslim countries. 

With the Cold War’s end, Mr. Lewis observes festering Muslim rage translates into new opportunities to take back their region and re-establish a Muslim superiority and dominance.  He calls it Islam's response or the Revolt of Islam.  He observes that the Islamic Revolution in Iran of 1979 is just the beginning of re-establishing traditional Islam (albeit Shi’ite formulation).  The Shah, for example, is seen not traditional but rather, as a Western influenced secularist that needed to be removed. 

One can observe now that there seems to be a war between the original countries manufactured by the West's influence and Islamist organizations that view themselves more legitimately; a war within Islam. For example, Egypt is fighting the Muslim Brotherhood; Iraq, Syria and Jordan are fighting ISIL.  The most unfortunate country in the region that seems destined to unavoidable war is the State of Israel.  Israel has always been viewed in the Muslim world in a hostile fashion because as a non Muslim state, it has always been associated with the Imperial Western powers dating back to the Balfour Declaration that committed the British Crown to enable a Jewish homeland in the ancient land of Canaan.  The luxury of the an escape (i.e. like France and England returning to their respective lands) is absent.  Israel was not set up as a colony from some other Nation-state to be able to return. She must fight and convince her opponents that there is no dislodging of her from the region. Arab rejectionism and irredentism seems to guarantee more violence against the Jewish State.

This volume is highly recommended for one looking for a brief, clear insightful observation of the Middle East.

Islam in the Modern World and other studies by Elie Keduourie

Islam, according to Mr. Kedourie took a great hit during the Modern period of the 20th century because it woefully lagged behind European countries' technological advances.  The proud civilization, with a self image of religious superiority over the other original faiths believing Muhammad is the zenith and seal of prophecy, suffered humiliation when England and France completely dominated the former Ottoman empire setting up new individual Arabic states.

Mr. Kedourie outlines the historiography of the famous Lawrence of Arabia, T. E. Lawrence and shows definitively that his life's legacy is exaggerated.  He also claims that Arnold Toynbee deliberately changed British Policy away from the Balfour Declaration that committed aid to setting up a national Jewish Home in Palestine.  He also shows that the British double crossed the Sharifian Leadership in their commitments in promising Palestine.

The 1936 Arab riots are discussed in detail.  The diplomat, George Rendel is seen as completely unsympathetic to Zionism and borders on the Anti-Semitic.   Rendel always takes the side of Arab sensibilities and mischaracterizes the Mufti of Jerusalem as a reasonable man and not as the extremist that he actually was.  Mr. Kedourie points out that an unrealistic romantic attitude set in with the British diplomatic corp, one that ignored the brutal realities of life in the Arab world. The author speculates that had the British been more circumspect and more conservative and not romantic about the Arab world, had the British been much more forceful in following through with their original policies then one might have expected a much different outcome.

The book outlines the 1956 campaign of the Suez Canal crisis and shows how the British and French practically rope in the State of Israel to fight.  British interests in the Canal ignore the US.'s warnings and threats.

Mr. Kedourie also touches upon his experience in writing his original thesis severely criticising British policies that was supposed to grant him the doctorate degree (but was rejected out of prejudice by H. A. R. Gibb) by uncovering new material that seems to confirm and support his original thesis.

The End of the Modern Middle East by Bernard Lewis

I just finished The End of the Modern Middle East by Bernard Lewis, a very sobering rumination of how the Middle East is being taken back by Islam with a rejection of most modern European innovations (Democracy etc) except for current military capabilities and weapons of mass destruction.  This short volume seems to define the period that is ending.  Mr. Lewis discusses the difficult situation of Iran's ideological positions.

In 1798, when Napoleon entered Egypt, the indigenous people were shocked at the ease with which the French were able to conquer the land and ever since have had to contend with imperial powers meddling in Islamic affairs.  

One must always be aware that a Muslim mindset expects success in all aspects of political and religious affairs because Muhammad, in their view, was not only a successful prophet but also a successful king/conqueror, creating a large nation.  The modern Middle East reflects the influences of England, France Russia and the USA, however, now it is clear that the European nations and the USA desire to withdraw from the region and as result of this withdrawal, the different factions of Islam are jockeying and rallying for position and supremacy in the region. Who will be the next Islamic power? ISIS, Iran, Turkey?

Mr. Lewis ruminates about Anti-semitism that has morphed into a virulent strain of Israel bashing. Iran and Turkey seem to lead in the ferocious rhetoric.  As ever the optimist, Mr. Lewis does not give up on the region but is willing to wait for the emergence of a just power similar to the Ottoman empire, one in which the Jewish people were able to generally prosper.  As Iran continues toward the Nuclear threshold, there is always the hope that it's leadership will develop into another Cyrus and not a Haman. 

The Chatham House Version and other Middle Eastern studies by Elie Kedourie

Professor Elie Kedourie takes on the official British narrative of the making of the Modern Middle East and makes some razor sharp analysis showing that the British experts like Arnold Toynbee and H. A. R. Gibb and others of Chatham House err egregiously in their understanding of Arabic culture and civilization.  Professor Kedourie shows that the British narrative and understanding is more a matter of romanticising and expressing guilt of being a colonial powerhouse than actually effecting a natural Arabic nationalism.  He also shows that Zionist pressure helped push an unwilling Iraqi Jewish community out of Iraq.

The politics of WWI creates a dilemma for Britannia: to destroy or not to destroy the Ottoman empire.  What once was recognized as the long standing stable policing of the Middle East becomes an object of conquest and aggression in the war against Germany.  According to Kedourie, the notion that the Arabs would just rise up and destroy the Ottomans is fantasy and that it is the British that really conquer and prop up various ambitious individuals as an official ruling class and sell the idea that they represent the majority of the people.  Mr. Kedourie is convinced  that all the representative governments set up in the various modern countries of the Middle East are a sham.

In his analysis of Toynbee, Mr. Kedourie shows that the famed historian is really a radical who doesn't stomach politics but rather appreciates culture and art, theorizing that the rise and fall of civilizations are based on violence and aggression.  Any civilization that rises violently and aggressively is bound to fail.  Toynbee manifests guilt in his writings about the West's imperialism. That the West is guilty of violence and aggression, Toynbee agonizes but never seems to be able to see the wanton violence and aggression in the Arab world.  Toynbee's guilt is so deep seated that he blames Judaism for creating an aggressive world through the "chosen people" concept.  The West's arrogance is rooted in a concept of being 'chosen'.  Judaism is a fossil because its 'maccabean' aggression made Jewish civilization doomed to death.  Toynbee is never willing to acknowledge the living traditions of Judaism of which he was truly ignorant even when he discovered legitimate scholars of Rabbinic Judaism like G. F. Moore or R. T. Herferd.  His guilt blinds him of the aggressive nature of those in the Arab world who become the ruling class.

Mr. Kedourie shows that those at Chatham House believed Zionism was a terrible mistake, hoisted and forced upon England due to Zionist propaganda and American Jewry. Mr. Kedourie shows clearly the falsehood in such an opinion since before WWI the Zionists and American Jewry lacked all such encompassing influence.  He shows that the British Government selfishly pursued a Zionist program. Underestimating the aggressive nature and superiority complex of the Arabs force swift changes in Britannia's attitude toward Zionism.  In favoring Arab nationalism, Chatham House downplays the persecution of the other minorities in the region like the Armenians, Assyrians and Maronites.

Interesting analysis is uncovered by Mr. Kedourie when he points his sights at the Iraqi Jewish community.  He claims that the community was interested in making compromises to stay since it was well ensconced culturally and professionally in the business community.  Mr. Kedourie shows that not only Iraqi intransigence contributed to the Jewish exit but Zionist pressure also help displace the Iraqi Jewish community.

This contribution is an excellent work of scholarship and insight about the Modern Middle East.

A Peace To End All Peace by David Fromkin

This major contribution to the history of the Modern Middle East places the roots of most, if not all, the challenges coming out of the Middle East today to the imperial lusts of England and France dating back to the first World War and the defeat and break up of the Ottoman Empire.  Almost in diary form, Mr. Fromkin tells the story of Britain's victory and policies that were put in place when the British defeated Germany and Turkey. Hence the entire book is a discussion of WWI through 1922.

One learns about the necessary interests of safeguarding the colony of India and the so called "Great Game" on how to keep Russia and the subsequent Soviet Union out of the Middle East.  It is a story of secret deals and betrayals of the French and the Arab families that ultimately are given the trust to create new states in old places that were owned by the Ottomans.  Famous personages like T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia fame) are deflated and the so called 'Arab Revolt' is really an exaggeration.

The Balfour Declaration places Zionism on the British Agenda but slowly and then swiftly becomes a sore spot when the British underestimate Arab irredentism. Winston Churchill attempts to keep Zionism on the agenda although scaled back to only that which was west of the Jordan river to the chagrin of Weizmann and other Zionist leaders.  Churchill's determination was a matter of the integrity of the government's pledge and not necessarily out of love of Zionism.  Although there is plenty of evidence that personally Churchill sympathized with the aspirations of the Jewish people.

Churchill comes off in this history as an extraordinary astute of observer.  His plan to a swift victory through the Dardanelles is nothing less than brilliant even though the military professionals hesitated and ultimately lost their nerve when casualties mount.  At one point, Churchill is critical of the break up of the Ottoman empire because he sees the Ottomans as a stable buffer to keep the Russians out of the Middle East, hence a safeguard for keeping India.  One witnesses the mounting dept of the British Empire and how Churchill successfully reduces the expenses dramatically and efficiently.

The making of the Modern Middle East seems to be an outgrowth of the victors' arrogance.  The UK thought it could dictate terms on different levels - secretly or publicly- and expect its will carried out.  One gets the impression that it might have worked if there was enough money to spread around.  Feisel's initial warmth toward Zionism is more about cupidity expecting something big - Syria and Lebanon - from the British than an honest assessment of Jewish aspirations.  The French however also expected Syria and Lebanon which complicates the deals and the entire situation.

Mr. Fromkin's historical record is an outstanding volume that deepens one's understanding of the one of the most unstable areas in the world.