October 17, 2004
THE "PEACE" WE'RE STILL PAYING FOR:
How France Sank The Original Mideast Peace (Edwin Black, 10/13/04, Jewish Press)
At the Paris Peace Conference in January 1919, in a flag-bedecked, battle-scarred but victorious Paris, the great top-hatted Allied men of vision and illusion gathered to remake the world and invent the post-Ottoman Middle East. At those fateful meetings, the Arabs and Jews formally agreed to mutually endorse both their national aspirations.This was the deal: The Jews could have an unrestricted Zionist state in Palestine. The British could have Iraq and its fabulous albeit still undrilled oil. The Arabs only wanted Syria and the holy cities of Mecca and Medina in the Arabian Peninsula.
During the first days of the League of Nation`s Paris Peace Conference, Faisal, accompanied by T.E. Lawrence (widely dubbed Lawrence of Arabia) met in Paris with Zionist Organization president Chaim Weizmann. Following up on meetings the two leaders had held the previous June in Aqaba, Faisal signed an enlightened and tolerant nine-point agreement endorsing the Balfour Declaration and inviting the Zionists to coexist in Palestine.
“Article II: Immediately following the completion of the deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a Commission to be agreed upon by the parties. Article III: All such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantees for carrying into effect the British Government̓s [Balfour] Declaration of the 2nd of November 1917. Article IV: All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures, the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.”
The entire agreement was typed in English. But at the bottom, Faisal hand-penned in Arabic this stern warning: “Provided the Arabs obtain their independence as demanded in my [forthcoming] Memorandum dated the 4th of January, 1919, to the Foreign Office of the Government of Great Britain, I shall concur in the above articles. But if the slightest modification or departure were to be made [regarding our demands], I shall not be then bound by a single word of the present Agreement which shall be deemed void and of no account or validity, and I shall not be answerable in any way whatsoever.” Directly beneath that inscription the signatures of Weizmann and Faisal were duly affixed. [...]
But at the Paris sessions, the French snubbed Faisal. Regardless of prior representations by the British, the French were uninterested in relinquishing their designs on greater Syria, especially since the Lebanon region was overwhelmingly Maronite Christian. Many French officials simply considered the Arabs a threat.
One of the most depressing books you'd ever want to read is David Fromkin's excellent A Peace to End All Peace which shows how many of the seeds of our current troubles in the Middle East--not to mention of WWII and the Cold War--were sown in the post-WWI soil by the cynical British and French and the profoundly inept Woodrow Wilson. Posted by Orrin Judd at October 17, 2004 10:44 AM
Wilson: A college president who combined the legislative accumen of Jimmy Carter with the diplomatic skills and character judgment of Madelene Albright. Not to mention the creaton of the federal income tax under his stewardship.
However, he did beat the Kaiser, so his standing in the presidential pantheon always has been higher than it deserves, while Republicans were given the blame for sewing the seeeds of WWII because, gosh darn it, they kept us out of the League of Nations (Add to that the fact that academics over the years weren't likely to savage one of their brethren unless they had an "R" next to their name).
But as far as Princetonites go, I guess he did have more sense for his time their currentl level of politically-involved academia, like Paul Krugman, Pete Singer or Cornel West. And he probably was a better governor of New Jersey than Jim McGreevey.
Posted by: John at October 17, 2004 11:15 AMIt's a bit unfair to blame Wilson for the income tax, considering that the 16th Amendment was submitted to the states in 1909 by President Taft.
Posted by: PapayaSF at October 17, 2004 3:19 PMespecially since the Lebanon region was overwhelmingly Maronite Christian
How things have changed. Brothersjudd commenter Lou Gots wrote (I hope I am paraphrasing him correctly) that Israel will be the cause that commits "us" (the U.S. and its allies) to a "fight to the knife" against radical Islam.
Why couldn't that have been Lebanon instead? Okay, so it's too late to cry over spilled milk...
Posted by: Eugene S. at October 17, 2004 3:57 PMOrrin, on the other hand, wants Lebanon ethnically cleansed of Maronites (and Melkites and a few others he probably never heard of).
However bad the French were, that seems even worse.
Meddling by European states to "protect" western Asian Christians did not start in 1919 and was not only French.
The tsars were the big offenders.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 17, 2004 4:56 PMThe US has an obligation to support Christians around the world, something we forgot in Lebanon and the Balkans.
Posted by: Bart at October 17, 2004 6:47 PMI'd like to recommend The Closing Circle by Davice Pryce-Jones.
I think he does a fabulous job analysiing the "Honor & Shame" culture that existed in the ME and continues to play a dominant role in the region. His section on anti-Semitism is excellent.
Posted by: John at October 17, 2004 7:14 PMThey split the same land four ways;
Britain;France; Arab; Israeli. They
ended up choosing poorly with their
local leaders; from Haj Amin Husseini
(who figures prominently in Black's
new book on Iraq) to Rashid Ali Kailani
(the son of the local Baghdad sheik to
support for Ibn Saud over Prince Faisal
