(Originally written June 13th 2002 for History 114)
To decree the significance of World War 1 as marginal, or even a non-issue when studying any sub-set of world history would ultimately be naive and completely out of the question. Especially when studying the Middle East, the bearing that WW1 had on the region cannot be discounted to any degree. The bearing that WW1 had on the Middle East region as a whole was arguably far greater than any other world event that preceded or followed it- far more than WW2, in juxtaposition to the West. For reasons that will be expounded here, the significance of WW1 in the Middle East is far reaching across many realms of life in the region, keeping a constant effect across the time and space of the area. When looking at the events in the region, as a consequence of WW1, it affected a lasting legacy that would be felt for years to come regarding the political sphere and later the economic sphere, and the social sphere as well. The political events following WW1 were threefold: the introduction of the state system to the Middle East, the spread of nationalism as an ideology, and the beginning of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. There is a degree of some linear progressions as the political events had come into effect at the end of WW1 would later change the social and economic trends of the anti-bellum Middle East. That is to say the first change in the region was political.
Most noticeable are the political effects of WW1 on the Middle East, which had an audible resonance with economic conditions and the existing social fabric. The first substantial effect was that of the Sykes Picot Treaty. WW1, as well as marking the end of the Concert of Europe in the West, had also come to mark the end of the Ottoman Empire as well. Well before it’s conclusion, British and the French had met in secret in hopes of dividing up pieces of the empire in order to guarantee their economic stakes already in place throughout the Empire. What culminated from this is the Sykes-Picot Treaty of 1916 that drew the borders of the future nation-states of Transjordan (later Jordan and Palestine), Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria. With this agreement in place holding out till the end of the war, the newly formed League of Nations had instituted the mandates system, in which a European ‘Great Power’ would be the custodian of new emerging nations as they were supposedly not fit for independence. With this system in place, the French received the mandate for Syria and Lebanon and Britain garnered the ones for Iraq and Transjordan. The political effect of Sykes Picot in combination with the mandates system had set the stage for political polarization for some time to come. Because of the new arbitrary borders, new polities would emerge and new nationalisms would develop alongside these. As the great powers entered the region, they began to set up regimes that were largely dependant on local landed notables, themselves earlier serving as Ottoman ‘tax-farmers’ of sorts. This landed elite would later form the first independent governments of the emerging nation-states, and the first political parties and social movements will form from their organization. Parties like the Wafd in Egypt (which was along it’s own course through developmentalism) and the Ba’ath Party in Syria would be born at this time in the form of social movements in reaction to those regimes, and would later become political parties and groups who would carry the nationalist banner as an assertion of their own unique national-‘ness.’ The national movements brought upon by this border division had begun to take a political dimension, at first starting as a social movement, then later becoming ‘revolutionary’ ones, which fueled the spread of nationalist identities. Economic and social change would later follow.
The segregation of the former Ottoman Empire had led to the division of what were beforehand a people who had begun to receive nationalist thought earlier. What had been sparked earlier in the West was the idea of nationalism, which found a receptive audience across the Middle East. Prior to the end of WW1, the Ottoman administration had begun an attempt to enforce a nationalist ideology of ‘Ottoman-ness’ in an effort to convert their aging empire to a formidable nation-state. The attempt would prove itself too little too late, as the Ottoman Empire would later be carved up amongst the great powers to serve their purposes. At this division, however, one could notice different nationalisms amongst the people begin to emerge. Alongside Western-style nationalisms (an identity of the nation), sub-nationalisms with respect to religion and trans-national ideas (like that of Pan-Arabism) began to proliferate through the population. It is at this time that nationalism had begun to spread in relation to the new borders that had arisen. Local merchants already connected into the world economy were no longer Ottoman subjects, but now had identities called “Syrian” and “Iraqi” which were commonplace and used accordingly in all dealings from the end of WW1 on. While there had been populations integrated by the former Ottoman Empire socially and economically, the political landscape was changing. Economically, the effects of nationalism would become great, as leaders of what were once social movements and new intellectual groups would preach against the perils of imperialism as a nationalist doctrine, and stress developmentalism of the nation as a weapon against it. In this regard, economic development became a part of the national narrative; one more thing to contribute to the something-‘ness’ of a given nation.
The third event that made WW1 a lasting event is that it brought to the world the first time the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Going back to the Sykes-Picot Treaty, Britain had received the mandate for the territory of Transjordan. The mandate given to Britain had also implied a heavy hand would be placed in the administration of the newly created territories. It was at this time as well when leading Zionist thinkers such as Leo Pinsker and Edmond De Rothschild had begun to lobby Britain for their desire of a Jewish homeland in the territory of historic Palestine. The British agreed, and in 1917 issued the Balfour Declaration in a London newspaper declaring their support of a ‘Jewish homeland in Palestine.’ As Zionist migration to Palestine intensified in numbers, the local Arab population had seen itself displaced in the face of the Zionist wave. In reaction to this invasion, a unique Palestinian national identity began to emerge. Slowly, it crept from the woodwork of the dead Ottoman nationalism and what was perceived as part of a ‘greater Syrian’ nationalism, but came into it’s own through events that have constituted the Palestinian narrative, like the Great Revolt of 1936, which at it’s heart was a social movement. However, the dominant nationalism culminated on May 15ht 1948 with the foundation of Israel, and the impending war with her neighbors and exodus of the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants. The existence of Israel has had a profound impact on the Arab world as a whole and is not just limited to the Palestinians. Arab regimes from the time of Israel’s founding have used it as an anchor for their own state rhetoric, with the rhetoric itself taking on super-state dimensions. Some believe that Israel had also predestined the Arab Middle East (or at least those countries who did not choose to deal with Israel) to economic disadvantage, as crucial Western capital was diverted away from the new Arab states in favor of bolstering Israel. Socially, the problems associated with the eviction of Palestinians from their land serves as a catalyst for many problems for the region, as a huge refugee population currently lives in stagnation within temporary camps that have lasted for half a century. Despite peaces drawn between Israel with Jordan and Egypt, the land dispute at the heart of the conflict has still yet to quell, as this vestige of WW1 persists. The anti-bellum Middle East had no such anomaly, but it’s integration into the world-system would give it one.
The impact that WW1 had on the Middle East region has indeed been a watershed. When looking at the events in the region, as a consequence of WW1, it affected a lasting legacy that would be felt for years to come regarding the political sphere and would affect the economic sphere and social sphere as well. The effects themselves of WW1 being threefold: the introduction of the state system to the Middle East, the spread of nationalism as an ideology, and the beginning of the Arab-Israeli Conflict have altered the composition of the Middle East to conform to the new world nation-state system. Because of WW1, political change had preceded social and economic change, leading one to believe that the Middle East of WW1 bore a resemblance of sorts to it’s pre-war self.
The effects of World War 1 are still being felt in the region today. Everything from Lebanon’s uber-westernization vis-a-vis her neighbors to the troubled foisting of a new Iraq within her political borders can all be argued as a result of WW1. Whereas WW2 held massive significance for the western world, WW1 bore the same for the Middle East. The events are the same, but the distribution of the gravity is quite different.
For the fortnight, that’s what’s Under the Tarboush.
