(cap 2) De territrios a Estados independentes

Apesar das mudanas territoriais no serem novidade no Oriente Mdio, a

metamorfose que atingiu a regio aps a Primeira Guerra Mundial , se deu em um
nvel mais rpido e mais fundamental do que aquelas ocorridas no passado

The period between the end of the Great War in 1918 and the beginning of
the Second World War in 1939 was an era of tremendous importance for the Middle East, one whose
consequences still reverberate today, more than half a century later. What occurred in these fateful
decades transformed the destiny of entire nations, created new countries, brought overt
European rule to the region, resulted in the drawing and redrawing of national boundaries, and gave rise
to new dynasties.

Puxar a histria da palestina/Israel daqui

The legacy of European rule still affects domestic and foreign policies; the
state building that started in the 1920s was only intensified in the 1950s
and 1960s and in some ways continues today; and even borders remain
contested and are the cause of conflicts large and small. The ghosts of the
past still roam the Middle East.

In the early twentieth century, three primary sets of players emerged in
the politics and diplomacy of the Middle East: the two main European
powers at the time, namely Britain and France, and local political actors and
individuals who went on to assume historic importance. The slow death of
the Ottoman Empire left a power vacuum, with the result that all these
players sought to enhance and augment their own interests in the region.
In doing so, they engaged in competition and rivalry, but at times they also
cooperated and colluded with each other, covertly as well as overtly.

French objectives in the Middle East were similar, if less clear. Not having
a crown jewel like India to protect, French policy toward the Middle
East was less coherent. France appears to have had two primary motivations:
competition with other European powers, namely Britain and Germany,
for acquiring more influence in the Ottoman territories; and the
protection of the regions Christians, many of whom were historically concentrated
in the Levant. As far as competition with its European neighbors
was concerned, France was alarmedas was Britainby the German construction
of the Baghdad Railway beginning in 1903. The attempt to
finance and build a competing railway from Syria to Baghdad was representative
of this competition.

This is where the third set of actors, the local nation builders, came in.
Some of these men, most notably Kemal Atatrk in Turkey, Reza Pahlavi
in Iran, Muhammad V in Morocco, and Habib Bourguiba in Tunisia, were
determined to end the backwardness of their peoples and the domination of
European powers.

But the latter was not to be. By October 1916, Britain and France had
finalized the Sykes-Picot Agreement, in the form of eleven letters exchanged
between the two sides, through which they divided the Ottoman provinces
into different spheres of influence (map 2). Under the agreement, upon partitioning
the Ottoman Empire, Britain and France were to recognize and
protect an Arab State or a Confederation of Arab States . . . under the
suzerainty of an Arab Chief.

Palestine was subject to an
international regime.To ensure their support for the Allied cause, Italy was
promised southern Anatolia, and Russia was to obtain control over Istanbul,
the strategically important Bosphorus Straits, and parts of eastern
Anatolia.

Mention must be made of what history has come to label the Balfour
Declaration, issued on November 2, 1917, in the form of a letter from the
British foreign secretary, Arthur James Balfour, to a leading Zionist, Lord
Rothschild. The Balfour Declaration was neither a product of wartime
humanitarianism nor a hasty improvisation in the face of mounting crises
in Palestine.
The released text, which has
since become of immense historical importance in the Middle East, read,
His Majestys Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine
of a National Home for the Jewish People, and will use their best
endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly
understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and
religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the
rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

Complementing these political considerations underlying the Balfour
Declaration were several personal concerns by the various actors involved,
especially close connections between leading advocates of the Zionist cause
and members of the British cabinet. The famous Zionist Chaim Weizmann,
later to become the president of Israel, was a close friend of Prime Minister
Lloyd George and an influential figure in British political circles. Sir Mark
Sykes, of Sykes-Picot fame, was also a strong believer in Zionism, though
he himself was not a Jew.19 Balfour and Rothschild had had a long personal
and professional acquaintance as well. These and other British policy makers
saw the declaration as a great historical opportunity, not only to leave
yet another of their own marks on global politics but, more importantly, to
right some of the wrongs that history had committed against the Jews.

The mandatory powers were designated as trustees of their
mandates, and one of their tasks was to administer within such boundaries
as may be fixed by them.21 With slight modifications, the allocation of
mandates occurred along the lines of the Sykes-Picot Agreement: Britain
acquired the mandates of Iraq and Palestine (including Transjordan), and
France the mandate of Greater Syria (including Lebanon) (map 3).

Only the Zionists appear to have greeted with genuine
excitement the idea of a Palestinian mandate going to Britain, which, in
light of the Balfour Declaration, had already endorsed the idea of a Jewish
homeland in Palestine. In fact, the British officials who drafted the Palestinian
mandate, mostly junior in rank, did so on the basis of a Zionist draft and
incorporated the Zionist program. The upper echelons of the Foreign Office,
though not quite happy with the original draft, amended it only slightly
A word should also be said about the shape of the international boundaries
that emerged from the San Remo Conference.With rulers in hand, French
and British negotiators drew national boundaries and gave shape to the Middle
East of today. What constrained or concerned them were not the wishes
and aspirations of the peoples whose lives they were influencing but rather
their own diplomatic maneuvers and agendas.24