Do ‘Syria,’ ‘Iraq’ and ‘Lebanon’ Still Exist?

[That Guy]

Because you can only do blind comparisons in the land of one-eyed

Me, or you?

 

[FaujHistorian]

Me, or you?

Freddie!

 

[al-Hasani]

@Shah9

Nobody takes that nonsense seriously. What I wrote are mere facts. Backed up with historical facts. The Ottomans did not control any Middle East region for 500 years but approximately 350 years and they did not even control the majority of the Arab world and when you talk about control you talk about LOCAL vassal states allied to them. That photo is not even from KSA and if it was that would show Najd. Not the affluent areas of what is now KSA which is basically all of the Eastern Province, Hijaz and all the Southern provinces.

KSA was never ruled by any Western powers/country and it was the Saudi Arabians themselves who united what is now KSA with the sword. LONG after the Ottomans perished.

The only borders that the British/French made were those of the Sykes-Picot.

No need to tell who defeated the Ottomans or at least chased them away from the Arabian Peninsula (parts of Hijaz and parts of Northern Yemen) and elsewhere of the ME.
Besides the Ottomans in what is now KSA (only Hijaz) did not come as rulers or oppressors but as guardians of the two holy sites (Makkah and Madinah) whom they entrusted the Hashemites to govern. The same Hashemites who had ruled the area 600 years before they came to the area. They also continued to rule after the Ottomans chased to exist. Although only for a few years before Hijaz got conquered by the Al-Saud.

The Ottomans protected the area against attacks from the outside (Portuguese etc.) But their later rule was a fiasco so people started to rebel. Although far from all and many dynasties/kingdoms/sheikdoms were allied with the Ottomans and fought their own brethren such as the Al-Rashid.

 

[That Guy]

Freddie!

I...I just got trolled, didn't I?

 

[FaujHistorian]

....approximately 350 years and they did not even control the majority of the Arab world and when you talk about control you talk about LOCAL vassal states allied to them. .

Turks were the masters of the region and yes that was pretty common back then to have local governors/kings/princes who would owe allegiance to Turks.

Tell you an interesting fact.

Back in the time of Mogal King Jehangir, British wanted to establish trade links with Mogal-India

British naval officer tasked with that mission stopped in the port of Adan.

Do you know why?

 

[T-123456]

Turks were the masters of the region and yes that was pretty common back then to have local governors/kings/princes who would owe allegiance to Turks.

Tell you an interesting fact.

Back in the time of Mogal King Jehangir, British wanted to establish trade links with Mogal-India

British naval officer tasked with that mission stopped in the port of Adan.

Do you know why?

You are right,we ruled them by vassal states or not.
All of the Arabian penninsula belonged to the Ottoman Empire,how can Yemen be under Ottoman control and the road going to Yemen be independent?
Allways the same Denial.
And only with British help they got a kingdom.
You had another good point there,without oil they would be like Yemen is now.

 

[American Eagle]

February 2014

Do ‘Syria,’ ‘Iraq’ and ‘Lebanon’ Still Exist?

Jonathan Spyer
Senior Fellow at the Inter-Disciplinary Center at Herzliya.
click for full bio >>

Until recently the Middle East looked like the rest of the world: divided into countries with clear national borders, and power divided accordingly. But then something changed.

For almost a century, the Middle East has been defined by the nation-states that emerged following the Allied victory in World War I and the end of the colonial era. Since then, strategic analyses of the region have concentrated on the relations between these states, and diplomatic efforts have generally attempted to maintain their stability and the integrity of their borders. As a result, the current map of the Middle East has remained largely unchanged over more than nine decades.

But this is no longer the case. The old maps no longer reflect the reality on the ground, and the region is now defined not by rivalry between nation-states, but by sectarian divisions that are spilling across the old borders and rendering them irrelevant. Today, there is a single sectarian war underway across the Middle East, one that threatens to engulf the entire region.

This war has a number of fronts, some more intense and active than others, but it is everywhere defined by sectarian conflict, especially the divide between Sunni and Shia Muslims. It is most intense in the area encompassing the current states of Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon; but has also spread further afield—to Bahrain, northern Yemen, and to some degree Kuwait and eastern Saudi Arabia.

The core power on the Shia side is the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terror and founding patron of Hezbollah, which until 9/11 held had killed more Americans than any terror group in the world. The Assad regime in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Maliki government and assorted Shia militias in Iraq, the Houthi rebels in northern Yemen, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are all allies or proxies of the Islamic Republic, which is capable of rendering substantial assistance to its friends through the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), a powerful military and economic force that possesses substantial expertise and experience in building proxy organizations and engaging in political and paramilitary warfare.

On the Sunni side, the dominant power is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which after 9/11 has been wary of Tehran, but also has struggled against the Islamists of Al Qaeda. Its allies include various groups among the Syrian rebels, the March 14 movement in Lebanon, the military regime in Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan, and sometimes Turkey. The Saudis, however, are at something of a disadvantage. They possess no parallel to the IRGC, and have problematic relations with the extreme Sunni jihadists of al-Qaeda, who have played a prominent role in the fighting on all three major fronts.

How did this situation come about? Is there evidence of a clear linkage between the various forces on the respective sides? Why is this conflict so extreme in certain countries—like Syria and Iraq—where it appears to be leading to the breakup of these states? How dangerous are these changes for the West?

Focusing on the areas of most intense conflict—Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon—can help us answer these questions.

This war is a result of the confluence of a number of circumstances. First, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon are all home to a host of different sectarian and ethnic communities. The stark divisions that exist in these societies have never been resolved. In Syria and Iraq, they were suppressed for decades by brutal dictatorial regimes. The Assad regime in Syria and Saddam Hussein’s in Iraq were family dictatorships based on minority sectarian communities—the Alawis in Syria and the Arab Sunnis in Iraq—while claiming to rule in the name of pan-Arab nationalism. In service of this ideology, the Syrian and Iraqi regimes ruthlessly put down ethnic and sectarian separatism in all its forms; in particular, Shia Islamism in Iraq, Sunni Islamism in Syria, and the Kurdish national movement in both countries. All were treated without mercy.

Has nationhood given way to sectarian war? Photo: alexis84 / 123rf

Lebanon, by contrast, is a far weaker state, which was ruled by a power-sharing arrangement between ethnic and religious groups that collapsed into civil war in 1975. The issues underlying that war were never resolved; instead, between 1990 and 2005 the Syrian army presence in Lebanon ended all discussion of basic issues of national identity.

Over the last decade, the once ironclad structures of dictatorship and suppression that kept ethnic and sectarian tensions from erupting have weakened or disappeared. The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq destroyed the Saddam Hussein regime. A sectarian Shia government, based on the Shia Arab majority and conditionally accepted by the Kurds, took its place. In Syria, a brutal civil war has severely curtailed the power of the Assad regime, which now rules only about 40 percent of the country’s territory. The Sunni Arab majority and the Kurdish minority have carved out autonomous sectarian enclaves in the 60 percent that remains.

Western hopes that a non-sectarian identity would take hold in the areas formerly ruled by Saddam and the Assads have proved persistent but illusory. Remarks about Iraq made by then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in 2004 sum up these hopes and the tendency to self-delusion that often accompanies them. “What has been impressive to me so far,” Rice said,

is that Iraqis—whether Kurds or Shia or Sunni or the many other ethnic groups in Iraq—have demonstrated that they really want to live as one in a unified Iraq…. I think particularly the Kurds have shown a propensity to want to bridge differences that were historic differences in many ways that were fueled by Saddam Hussein and his regime… What I have found interesting and I think important is the degree to which the leaders of the Shia and Kurdish and Sunni communities have continually expressed their desires to live in a unified Iraq.
​

This faith is shared by the Obama Administration, and as a result, it has continued to support the Shia-dominated government in Iraq, led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. It sees Maliki’s opposition to Sunni insurgents in western Anbar province as an elected government’s opposition to extremist rebels. This fails to take into account the sectarian nature of the Maliki government itself and the discriminatory policies he has pursued against the Sunnis of western Iraq.

The reemergence of sectarian conflict so evident in Iraq has also emerged in Syria and is, in turn, spilling over into neighboring Lebanon. Lebanon was first drawn into the conflict as a result of the significant and highly effective intervention in Syria in support of the Assad regime by Iran’s Lebanon-based terrorist army, Hezbollah. This quickly led to retaliation against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon by elements among Syria’s Sunni rebels. Supporters of the Sunni rebels have succeeded in attacking Hezbollah’s Dahiyeh compound in south Beirut five times. The bombing on January 2 was carried out by a young Lebanese member of an organization called ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) named Qutaiba Muhammad al-Satem; ISIS are Islamic extremists who have been operating as a branch of al-Qaeda in Iraq and Syria.

While Hezbollah’s decision to intervene on behalf of the Assad regime in Syria and the subsequent Sunni reaction is partially the result of the divided nature of Lebanon and Syria and their unresolved questions of national identity, larger regional conflicts, also of a sectarian nature, are a driving force behind the violence.

Hezbollah’s participation in the Syrian civil war came not as a result of automatic sentiments of solidarity, but because Hezbollah forms part of a regional alliance headed by Iran, to which the Assad regime also belongs. When Assad found himself in trouble, Hezbollah was mobilized to assist him. On the opposing side, the Syrian rebels have benefited from the support and patronage of Iran’s rival, Saudi Arabia, and other states along the Arabian peninsula, including the United Arab Emirates.

This rivalry is long standing and not primarily rooted in theological differences. It is about power. Iran is controlled by a revolutionary regime whose goal is to become the hegemonic force in the Middle East. Although the Iranians certainly regard the Saudis as an enemy and as unfit custodians of Islam’s most holy sites, the Tehran’s main goal is to assert control over Arabian Gulf energy supplies, replacing the U.S. as guarantor of resources upon which world is dependent. Tehran understands that the real source of power in the region is the Gulf itself, with its enormous reserves of oil and natural gas that are essential to the global economy. To achieve its goals, Iran must tempt or coerce the Gulf monarchies away from U.S. protection and toward an alliance with Tehran, and ironically, American weakness in the face of Tehran’s nuclear pursuit makes that all the more possible.

Riyadh has emerged as the principle opponent to Iran’s regional ambitions, mainly because the former guarantor of the current regional order, the United States, has chosen to leave the field. Until 2011, the Middle East appeared to be locked into a kind of cold war, in which the Iranians, along with their allies and proxies, sought to overturn the U.S.-dominated regional order, which was based on U.S. alliances with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel. Events over the last five years, however, have created the impression that the U.S. no longer wishes to play this role: America failed to back its longtime Egyptian ally, Hosni Mubarak, when he faced domestic unrest in early 2011. It failed to support the rebel forces fighting the Iran-backed Assad regime. And it failed to back Bahrain against an Iran-supported uprising in the same year. Now, the U.S. appears to be seeking a general rapprochement with Iran.

Is anything left of Syria? Photo: shinjaehoon / 123RF

As a result of all this, Saudi Arabia has begun to take a far more active role in the region. Riyadh and its Gulf allies have certainly helped to finance and stabilize Egypt after the military removed Muhammad Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood government from power. It began to take a leading role in supporting the Syrian rebels. It has well-documented relations with the anti-Syrian March 14 movement in Lebanon. In December 2013, the Saudis pledged $3 billion to the official Lebanese army. They also support anti-Maliki elements in Iraq. In addition, they are seeking to create an alliance among the other Gulf states in order to oppose Iranian ambitions, with some success.

This increasingly violent rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran, intensified by American withdrawal from the region, has helped turn a conflict that was once cold into an increasingly hot cross-border sectarian war.

There is considerable evidence of links between Iran and Saudi Arabia, on the one hand, and their respective allies in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, on the other.

On the Iranian side, Tehran no longer makes any serious attempt to deny the enormous assistance they have given the Assad regime in Syria. Indeed, the Iranians have effectively mobilized all their available regional assets in order to preserve it. The commander of the Revolutionary Guards’ elite Qods Force, Qassem Suleimani, went to Syria himself in order to coordinate these efforts. Perhaps most notably, in mid-2012 the Iranians began training a new light infantry force for Assad. Called the National Defense Force, it was necessary because Assad was unable to use much of his own army, which consisted of Sunni conscripts whose loyalty was unreliable. Iran has even sent its own IRGC fighters to fight in Syria; a fact revealed by footage taken by an Iranian cameraman who was later killed by the rebels, the testimony of Syrian defectors, and the capture of a number of IRGC men in August 2012.

In April 2013, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah was summoned to Iran and instructed to deploy his own fighters in Syria. Up to 10,000 of them are now on the ground in Syria at any given time, and they played a crucial role in retaking the strategic town of Qusayr in August 2013. Hezbollah fighters are also taking a prominent role in the battle for the Qalamun area near the Lebanese border, as well as the fighting around Damascus.

Iranian financial donations have also been vital in keeping the regime alive. In January 2013, Iran announced a “credit facility” agreement with Syria that extended a $1 billion line of credit to Assad. Later the same year, an additional credit line of $3.6 billion was announced.

Iraq has also played a vital role in supporting Assad, mainly by allowing Iran to use Iraqi territory and airspace to transfer weapons to Syrian forces. At first glance, this appears to be a strange policy. Relations between Iraq and Syria prior to the civil war were not good, with Maliki openly accusing Assad of supporting Sunni insurgents. But this has now changed. Indeed, Maliki has openly supported Assad since the beginning of the Syrian civil war. This reflects his increasing closeness to Iran, which helped ensure Maliki’s emergence as prime minister after the 2010 elections and pressured Assad to support him as well. Relations between Iraq, Iran, and Syria have only improved since.

In addition to government support, Iraqi Shia militias are now fighting in Syria on behalf of Assad. The Abu Fadl al-Abbas Brigades, Ktaeb Hezbollah, and the Ahl al-Haq group all have forces in Syria. They are playing an important role, given that one of Assad’s major weaknesses is his lack of reliably loyal soldiers. The eruption of violence in Iraq’s western Anbar province has further cemented this alliance, since the insurgency is a direct result of advances made by Sunni jihadis in Syria.

As a result of all this, the Iranian-led side of the regional conflict has emerged as a tightly organized alliance, capable of acting in a coordinated way, pooling its resources for a common goal, and fighting effectively from western Iraq all the way to the Mediterranean.

The Sunni side of the conflict is more chaotic and disjointed. Saudi Arabia is its main financier, but it lacks an equivalent to the Qods force and the IRGC, who are world leaders in subversion and irregular warfare.

Only the most extreme jihadi elements appear capable of clear coordination across borders. For example, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, as its name suggests, is active in both countries and controls a contiguous area stretching from the western Anbar province in Iraq to the eastern Raqqa province in Syria. ISIS regards itself as a franchise of al-Qaeda, although it does not take orders directly from the al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan. Another al-Qaeda group, Jabhat al-Nusra, is active in Syria. In Lebanon, a third branch of al-Qaeda, the Abdullah Azzam Brigades, has played a role in the attacks on Hezbollah. In addition, both the ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra are active in Lebanon.

Sub-states like Iraqi Kurdistan seem more real than the recognized countries. Photo: homeros/123RF

But there are also less extreme groups opposing the Syrian-Iranian axis. Saudi Arabia has backed the March 14 movement, which is the main Sunni opposition party in Lebanon, as well as providing financial support to the Lebanese army. In Syria, the Saudis have fostered the Islamic Front, an alliance of eight Islamist groups unconnected to al-Qaeda. It includes some of the strongest rebel brigades, such as Ahrar al-Sham, Liwa al-Islam, and Liwa al-Tawhid. It is now emerging as the key bloc among the rebels. The Saudis also dominate the Syrian opposition in exile, with Ahmed Jarba, who has close links to Riyadh, recently reelected chairman of the Syrian National Coalition.

There are no indications that the Saudis are backing Sunni insurgents in Iraq, but the larger Sunni community is certainly looking to Riyadh for help. Relations between Saudi Arabia and the current Iraqi government are very bad. The border between the two countries is closed except during the Hajj pilgrimage, there is no Saudi embassy in Baghdad, and commercial relations are kept at a minimum. Some of the Sunni tribes in western Anbar have close links to the Saudis. While they are hostile to al-Qaeda, they are also opposed to the Maliki government, which they regard as a sectarian Shia regime.

There is a third element to this regional conflict that is something of a wild card: The Kurds. A non-Arab people who have long sought an independent state, the Kurds have succeeded in creating a flourishing autonomous zone in northern Iraq that enjoys most of the elements of de facto sovereignty. Since July 2012, another Kurdish autonomous zone has been established in northeast Syria. These two areas occupy a contiguous land mass, but are not politically united. The Kurdish Regional Government in Iraq is controlled by the Kurdish Democratic Party, led by Massoud Barzani, while the autonomous zone in northeast Syria is controlled by the PYD (Democratic Union Party), which is the Syrian branch of the Turkish-based leftist PKK movement.

These movements are rivals, and each sees itself as the appropriate leader of the Kurds. But while there is tension between them, each appears to be securely in control of its respective areas. The Kurds do not enjoy the support of any state in the region, and both the Iranians and the Saudis regard Kurdish national aspirations with suspicion. Nonetheless, the Kurds have managed to accumulate sufficient organizational and military strength to ensure the survival of their self-governing enclaves.

All these factors indicate that two rival alliances are clashing for hegemony over the region. There are myriad practical links between the various combatants, and their activities have long since spilled across the borders of the various states involved in the fighting; as indicated by the presence of Iranian fighters, ISIS, and Hezbollah in Syria; Syrian rebels in Lebanon; and many other examples. Iran is the leader of one side, Saudi Arabia is the main backer of the other, while the Kurds are concerned with maintaining their areas of control and are trying to stay out of the conflict.

The most significant result of this is that the continued existence of Syria and Iraq as unified states is now in question. Practically speaking, Syria has already split into three areas, each controlled by one of the three elements listed above. Iraq has also effectively split into Kurdish and Arab zones, with Sunni and Shia groups fighting over the latter.

In many ways, Lebanon ceased to function as a unified state some time ago; since Hezbollah essentially functions as a de facto mini-state of its own. The Lebanese Sunnis lack a military tradition and have proved helpless in the face of Iran’s support for Hezbollah. But now, the emergence of the Syrian rebels and the growing popularity of Islamism among the Sunni underclass may be altering this balance. This appears to be borne out by the recent surge in Sunni violence against Hezbollah, which is the result of an attempt by Syrian jihadis and other rebels—in concert with their local allies—to bring the war to Lebanon.

Photo: zabelin/123RF

Taken together, this indicates that a massive paradigm shift is underway in much of the Middle East. The eclipse of Arab nationalist dictatorships in Iraq and Syria, the historical failure to develop a unified national identity in these states, their mixed ethnic and sectarian makeup, and the U.S.’s withdrawal from its dominant position in the region—with the resulting emergence of a Saudi-Iranian rivalry—have all combined to produce an extraordinary result: A region-wide sectarian war is now taking place in the areas still officially referred to as Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

For the West, as in the region itself, this has very serious implications. Dealing with it effectively will required an equally massive paradigm shift in strategic thinking on the Middle East, one that is capable of dispensing with previous illusions and admitting that sovereign borders once regarded as sacrosanct are swiftly becoming meaningless.

There are new borders taking shape, defined by sectarian divisions that the West ignores at its peril. Despite fantasies of withdrawing from the region, the security of global energy supplies and the maintenance of regional stability are still essential to Western interests. The West has as large a stake in the outcome of this sectarian conflict as the regional players involved. If it cannot adapt to the new Middle East that is swiftly taking shape, it will find itself on the losing side.

Comment: This is extraordinarily well written, well thought out. Well done.

A "kibitz" if I may. Both Lebanon and Syria have many years longer association under and inside the former French Colonial Empire than they have years as so-named and borders defined nations today.

Iran's history was years longer under the Pavlavi regime of father then son Shahs.

Your references to "post or after WW I" unless I misread your commentary don't seem to mention or address the Balfour Declaration for a homeland for the Jews dating from post WW I creation of the later failed League of nations.

There are Christian minority population in all the nations you comment on with the exception of Saudi Arabia, perhaps one of two other nations such as Sudan, etc. The possibility of "secret Christians" exists everywhere, of course.

It is my singular view that all people, men and women, would prefer freedom via some form of a non-religious system of government as formerly was and may yet again be the case in Turkey, and as many wish to be the case in Egypt.

The King of Jordan has funded a full time seminary graduate trained Muslim Mullah for and on the faculty at Georgetown University in Washington, DC. Georgetown U. for those who may not know in reading here is a Jesuit (Roman Catholicisms vaunted most intellectual and most highly education "Order" under their leader the Pope in Rome.

I admire the Kurds in Iraq who my late first cousin, Dave Robinson, for his public relation and communications corporate employers, did a great deal of business development with inside Iraq. Per Cousin Dave (who sadly died in 2012 at only age 41 of a massive heart attack) GM autos, particularly Cadillac, were and/or sold well in oil rich Kurdish areas of Iraq.

No man or woman, no mortal, on the face of the earth can stop religious strife, inflicted within or on or both our various religions, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim. We do worse to try to eradicate the few Buddhists left in Pakistan and if any are still there in Afghanistan. Publicly practicing Jews are virtually gone (wiped out by extremists and terrorists in recent years, killed off due to general religious pogroms in past years but for a handful in Afghanistan.

I think the US and the West in general is fully aware of the strife, divisions, and such you have enumerated...and again, your enumeration and detailed comments are respected and are in the main "to the point."

Since I don't have "all the answers" any more than does anyone else on this tired old earth, I will close my comments with my own, just me, opinion that from the WW II Old Raj era, when radical Muslims formed Hitlers Muslim Brotherhood Division of Nazi supporting troops, when the head of the Muslim Brotherhood until just before the end of WW II sat in Berlin, Germany with Hitler's nasty, murdering minions,...to me the Muslim Brotherhood even before there was a 1947 UN founded nation of Israel, the Muslim Brotherhood was determined, and I believe remains so today, to never support what we in the West know to be democracy, education for girls and women, and such. The Muslim Brotherhood has failed to hoodwink the Egyptian people for long; in my view should never have been legitimized; and are well done in to now be re-described by the Egyptian government today as terrorists of the worst sort.

 

[al-Hasani]

You are right,we ruled them by vassal states or not.
All of the Arabian penninsula belonged to the Ottoman Empire,how can Yemen be under Ottoman control and the road going to Yemen be independent?
Allways the same Denial.
And only with British help they got a kingdom.
You had another good point there,without oil they would be like Yemen is now.

Nonsense. Oman was never part of the Ottomans but ruled territory on 2 continent and 3 regions (East Africa, Middle East and what is now parts of Pakistan). Neither Bahrain, neither UAE neither 80% of Saudi Arabia. Neither half of Yemen.

Arabs ruled what is now Eastern and Southern Turkey and Caucasus for 600 years. The Caliphate for 1000 years. Iberia for 900 years. European territory longer than any other non-European people. Had 3 of the 11 largest empires of history.

The whole Ottoman Empire was Arabized. Ottoman Turkic had more Arabic words than any other language. Alphabet. The whole Caliphate was taken from the Arabs. The title of Sultan, many of the customs etc.

What help? When the Arabs for once got united it meant trouble for everybody around. We saw what happened. The unification of KSA had nothing to do with Britain or any foreigners. It was internal infighting. Al-Saud attacking other regions and conquering them.

Hashemites were respected and revered by the Sultans themselves that is why they continued to rule Hijaz although as allies to the Ottomans. I did not see local Greek rulers ruling Greece for instance when it was part of the Ottomans.

 

[T-123456]

I knew there would be some historic facts

Nonsense. Oman was never part of the Ottomans. Neither Qatar, neither Bahrain, neither UAE neither 80% of Saudi Arabia. Neither half of Yemen.

Arabs ruled what is now Turkey and Caucasus for 600 years. Caliphates for 1000 years. Iberia for 900 years. European territory longer than any other non-European people. Had 3 of the 11 largest empires of history.

The whole Ottoman Empire was Arabized. Ottoman Turkic had more Arabic words than any other language. Alphabet. The whole Caliphate was taken from the Arabs. The title of Sultan, many of the customs etc.

I knew there would be some historic ''facts'' coming at me from you,dont you get tired?
Allways the same answers,who is talking about before the Ottomans?
You were ruled by the Ottomans,thats a fact accept it,why this denial.
I dont deny the fact that Turkey and the Caucasus was ruled by Arabs.
Is it your pride or what?
The whole world is a lie according to you then.
Look at the bounderies of the Ottoman area in those times.

 

[al-Hasani]

I knew there would be some historic facts

I knew there would be some historic ''facts'' coming at me from you,dont you get tired?
Allways the same answers,who is talking about before the Ottomans?
You were ruled by the Ottomans,thats a fact accept it,why this denial.
I dont deny the fact that Turkey and the Caucasus was ruled by Arabs.
Is it your pride or what?
The whole world is a lie according to you then.
Look at the bounderies of the Ottoman era in those times.

There are a few things that you don't understand. You said that the Ottomans "ruled" all of the Arabian Peninsula when in fact they ruled about 15%. Big, big exaggeration. You did not even rule directly but through LOCAL rulers in the case of the Peninsula. You ruled a tiny corner of Yemen (around Sana'a) through local rulers. Imam. About 20% of the country. In KSA you ruled through local rulers in Hijaz (Sharif) only. Not as rulers but more as protectors of Makkah and Madinah. Then what? Small part of he Eastern Province of what is now KSA and that was it when it came to the Arabian Peninsula. All the time while Oman was a colonial/regional power ruling land on 2 continents and 3 regions.

So it was different compared to other regions that were controlled/under the influence of the Ottomans. That's all.
Show me a post of mine that says that Hijaz was not a vassal to the Ottomans for about 350 years?

Still not answered my last question. What had the unification of KSA (KSA was never a Western colony) to do with the British when it was infighting and the favorites/allies of the British lost?

 

[FaujHistorian]

.....
KSA was never ruled by any Western powers/country.

I am sure you are smart and well read person.

One of my great uncle fought in WW-2 as part of the British-Indian army. He was fresh out of college young Lt.

He was shipped from Bombay to Umm-Qasar. From their onwards his brigade moved to Basra. then they fought in habania against the Italian supported Iraqi army.

Then they moved to Baghdad. After a stay of few days they went through Jordan, West bank, and finally ended up in Cairo.

From Cairo they moved against Germans who at that time had occupied areas now known as Libya tunisia and parts of modern day Egypt. There were some major tank battle in the desert.

check out the battle of Al-Almin.

100s of 1000s of troops fought on both sides, Germans almost defeated British army but the Britishers hung on barely in July.

Then in October they regrouped and with the American help they defeated the Germans.

During these bloody wars,

No power was interested to capture modern day KSA

Because it offered no strategic value compared to say Egypt (the canal etc).

And suppose they were interested in modern day KSA due to gold mines or dates or camels,

and if Germans had shown up with say 500,000 troops, 2,000 tanks and captured the areas now KSA

What would the great armies of of KSA have done?

The answer?

ZERO.

Because Libyans, Tunisians, Moroccans, Iraqis Jordanians etc. could not do a single thing either. If Germans had intended to use power in KSA areas, they rolled over the whole area

Then British wanted to do the same, they rolled over the whole area.


So please read up even the recent history before you claim something big.

Thank you

 

[al-Hasani]

@FaujHistorian

Why are you talking about WW2 that KSA did not take part in? We were never a Western colony. That's all there is to it. The Western world could conquer everybody back then. The whole world if they wanted. Nothing new. You are not telling us any secret.

But you can't simply change history.

If there was no fitna in the Arab Caliphates we might have ruled for more than nearly 1000 years and if the savage Mongols did not sack our capital - most advanced city for centuries - Baghdad in 1258 we might not have been so far behind the West that benefited greatly from this event.

If and if. If I was a billionaire I would not be on this forum. But I am not.

You clearly did not get the facts I mentioned earlier. But never mind.

 

[FaujHistorian]

....Not as rulers but more as protectors of Makkah and Madinah. ...

Please avoid the word play.

Even today's monarchs are called "Khuddam" of "Hurmain sharifain".

and those words do not make them any lesser ruler.

I urge you not to lie about history.

Anyone who lies about history, loses his/her future.

History is very very cruel,

so you must ALWAYS be brutal with it, and not manipulate it for narrow purposes.

@FaujHistorian

Why are you talking about WW2 that KSA did not take part in? .

Because they could not have, even if they wanted to,.

There was no force that could have faced off either Germans or British or both.

Ask Libyans and Tunisians what happened to their lands during that time.

What you say is very similar to what an ugly girl will say. That I am 40 years old and still virgin.

poor girl doesn't realize that nobody wanted to "marry her" and that's the only reason she is virgin.

Countries that claim to be "virgins" as you are doing here, must show that they were pretty enough (to be attractive to a big power) and powerful enough to defend themselves.

Hope you understand now


p.s. Please do not go back to mongol times. That will then take us back to Baba Adam and Ammah Hawwa, and before that dinosaurs, and even 14 billion years ago when God said "Kun"

Stay in recent times if you want to talk about colonization.

 

[al-Hasani]

Please avoid the word play.

Even today's monarchs are called "Khuddam" of "Hurmain sharifain".

and those words do not make them any lesser ruler.

I urge you not to lie about history.

Anyone who lies about history, loses his/her future.

History is very very cruel,

so you must ALWAYS be brutal with it, and not manipulate it for narrow purposes.

The Ottomans were a Islamic empire. Not a nationalist Turkish empire. Only later on it became increasingly nationalistic (young Turks movement etc.) and people stated to rebel against it.
If they were nationalistic Turks as some would like us to believe they would not adopt Arabic titles (Caliph, Sultan), their alphabet would not be Arabic, most of their spoken language would not be Arabic, Islam would not be used for their legitimacy, the system etc. They would not care about protecting Makkah, Madinah, Al-Quds etc. You name it.

The point is that the Ottomans, if they were like the Mongols for instance who managed to destroy Baghdad in 1258 and some parts of Syria (only parts of the Arab world they reached before they were expelled) then they would have acted differently.

How do you explain that the local Hashemites who ruled for nearly 700 years before the Ottomans stepped on Hijazi territory stayed in power, were respected, permitted to rule everything as before only with the premise of being loyal to the Ottomans, were invited to Istanbul to the palaces of the Sultan (some were even born there)? No attempts of Turkification either. ZERO.

There are different ways of ruling. You can rule directly with the aim to change the culture, religion, language, customs or simply to destroy or as the Ottomans did in Hijaz use revered and respected (throughout the entire Islamic world) local rulers such as the Hashemites to continue with their rule but as vassal states and as a pretext for being loyal/showing allegiance to the Ottomans. In return for protection and being de facto and de jure in control of Makkah and Madinah.

Now can you tell me about the situation in Istanbul (formerly known as Constantinople - heartland of Greek and Byzantine culture) or even what is now Greece in comparison? I am curious. Can you give similar examples anywhere in what were territories controlled by the Ottomans either directly or through vassal states because I cannot think of anything similar to Hijaz hence it being different.

 

[FaujHistorian]

The Ottomans were a Islamic empire. .

hahahah


Now you are just having bad arguments,

You might as well say that it was OK for KSA to be colonized by Islamic empire

and still be called "never colonized"

hahahaha


It is like a woman has sex with a Muslim Mullah or a Christian pope, she can still claim to be virgin. hahahah

What has religion to do with colonization



man you need to study a bit more