Logical Middle East Borders

[Michael B]

I like the map; there is a lot more justice in it than on OTL. However it is going to leave a lot of dissatisfied customers:

Britain.It doesn't get a big enough buffer on the east bank of the Suez
France. It doesn't get their piece of the Levantine which it had been working for for decades.
Militant Zionist Jews. They wanted a Jewish only state and weren't too fussy about who they killed in the process.
The House of Saud. They want all of Arabia, not half of it.

Also
Imperial Russia. It still wants Constantinople and control of the Bosporus. In 1935 it started the Eleventh Russo-Turkish War to achieve just that.
Militant Armenians. They wanted an Armenian only state and weren't too fussy about who they killed in the process.

 

[Arachnid]

Imho ou are going to end up with trouble whatever you do.
If you have a large Arab superstate then not only will the UK and France not allow it formation but in later years it veto power over oil could make things very interesting and bloody.
If you split the area up, you are acknowledging and encouraging the idea of seperate nations for differerent ethnic-religous groups, and as there are thousands of ethnic religous groups in the Middle East some are bound not to get a country and are going to be pissed off about it.
Finally there is Isreal if you don't give them a homeland you are breaking a various promises made to them and possibly making the holocaust worse (less Jewish migration to Palastine between 1919-39), also of course it woulod be very hard to say no after the holocaust, that is if there are enough jews left to make up an Isreal. If you do give the Jews Isreal then the Arabs are going to hate it and try to destory it leading to much bloodshed and radicalisation.

The only real way to have an Isreal without a fortress Isreal is as part of an federal superstate however even that would cause major political problems.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

And actually, it would have been more logical to place Mosul under Turkey, as it was linked economically with Anatolia, not Mesopotamia.

You mean the nationalist Turkey that would have declared the local Arabs "desert Turks" or whatever?

An Arab-Kurdish federation from Van to north of Baghdad would make more sense to me.

 

[Leo Caesius]

You mean the nationalist Turkey that would have declared the local Arabs "desert Turks" or whatever?

They've got plenty of Arabs right now in Hatay, Cilicia, and the northern bits of Syria that they took (Diyarbakir, Tur Abdin, etc.).

I would suggest "treacherous lizard-eating Turks."

 

[ninebucks]

I like the map; there is a lot more justice in it than on OTL. However it is going to leave a lot of dissatisfied customers:

Britain.It doesn't get a big enough buffer on the east bank of the Suez
France. It doesn't get their piece of the Levantine which it had been working for for decades.
Militant Zionist Jews. They wanted a Jewish only state and weren't too fussy about who they killed in the process.
The House of Saud. They want all of Arabia, not half of it.

Also
Imperial Russia. It still wants Constantinople and control of the Bosporus. In 1935 it started the Eleventh Russo-Turkish War to achieve just that.
Militant Armenians. They wanted an Armenian only state and weren't too fussy about who they killed in the process.

I'm happy enough to leave those customers dissatisfied .

However, the Levantine Federation is a very Westward looking state, and it will be more than happy to accomodate France or Britain in their interests in the region.
The militant Zionists were a problem in the immediate post-independence days, but their popular support dwindled when the constitution was passed, and eventually they fell into obscurity.
Likewise, the Armenians have similar protection within the Leventine Federation.

And Russia's desire for Constantinople has always been a pipe dream. Especially post-WWI.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Also
Imperial Russia. It still wants Constantinople and control of the Bosporus. In 1935 it started the Eleventh Russo-Turkish War to achieve just that.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

You mean the nationalist Turkey that would have declared the local Arabs "desert Turks" or whatever?

An Arab-Kurdish federation from Van to north of Baghdad would make more sense to me.

Why does that make more sense? Van and Mosul had always been economically, politically, and culturally linked to Anatolia, not Mesopotamia. You'll note the British prevented a plebicite for Mosul because they know it would vote to join Turkey instead of Iraq. All your idea would create would be a permanent festering sore with Turkey as you've handed over areas with large Turkish minorities or even majorities - not to mention lands absolutely essential to the defensibility of Anatolia.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

They've got plenty of Arabs right now in Hatay, Cilicia, and the northern bits of Syria that they took (Diyarbakir, Tur Abdin, etc.).

I would suggest "treacherous lizard-eating Turks."

Maybe "unbathed camel-f@#$ing Turks".

And before anyone runs to Ian, we're parodying Turkey's labelling of the Kurds as "mountain Turks", not insulting any ethnic group.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I think it would be very easy to say "no" to Israel after the Holocaust if there had not been a specifically delineated Palestine into which their large-scale immigration was allowed. One wrong, no matter how big, does not justify another. The Muslims of Palestine did not participate in the Holocaust, and had long lived in harmony with the Jews there, and even protected them for millenia from Christian persecution. Their reward was to be stripped of their land and ejected from their ancestral homeland.

If there was to be a Jewish state somewhere, it should have been somewhere largely uninhabited, like the Kenyan highlands, or created at the expense of Germany. Maybe East Prussia, for example...

Imho ou are going to end up with trouble whatever you do.
If you have a large Arab superstate then not only will the UK and France not allow it formation but in later years it veto power over oil could make things very interesting and bloody.
If you split the area up, you are acknowledging and encouraging the idea of seperate nations for differerent ethnic-religous groups, and as there are thousands of ethnic religous groups in the Middle East some are bound not to get a country and are going to be pissed off about it.
Finally there is Isreal if you don't give them a homeland you are breaking a various promises made to them and possibly making the holocaust worse (less Jewish migration to Palastine between 1919-39), also of course it woulod be very hard to say no after the holocaust, that is if there are enough jews left to make up an Isreal. If you do give the Jews Isreal then the Arabs are going to hate it and try to destory it leading to much bloodshed and radicalisation.

The only real way to have an Isreal without a fortress Isreal is as part of an federal superstate however even that would cause major political problems.

 

[Calgacus]

Why does that make more sense? Van and Mosul had always been economically, politically, and culturally linked to Anatolia, not Mesopotamia. You'll note the British prevented a plebicite for Mosul because they know it would vote to join Turkey instead of Iraq. All your idea would create would be a permanent festering sore with Turkey as you've handed over areas with large Turkish minorities or even majorities - not to mention lands absolutely essential to the defensibility of Anatolia.

Isn't most of the area mountainous - I would imagine that the Turks would have been able to defend the area pretty well north-west of Van as much as south of there...

 

[Calgacus]

I think it would be very easy to say "no" to Israel after the Holocaust if there had not been a specifically delineated Palestine into which their large-scale immigration was allowed. One wrong, no matter how big, does not justify another. The Muslims of Palestine did not participate in the Holocaust, and had long lived in harmony with the Jews there, and even protected them for millenia from Christian persecution. Their reward was to be stripped of their land and ejected from their ancestral homeland.

Not to mention the Christian Palestinians...

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Isn't most of the area mountainous - I would imagine that the Turks would have been able to defend the area pretty well north-west of Van as much as south of there...

It's not immediately evident if you look at a relief map, but once you're on the Anatolian plateau, the terrain is pretty flat and easy. For anyone established at, say Diyarbekir (Kurdish majority city), there are no natural obstacles to striking into Western Turkey, Syria, or Iraq, all of which are defenseless against a power established here. That's why Turkey is so paranoid about Kurdish separatism. If the Kurds had managed to break loose during the Cold War, Turkey would have lost its independence, and that's the same reason why Armenian separatism provoked such a violent reaction - and in the case of Armenia, as they formes such a small minority in the area in question, the destruction of the Muslim population would have been required in order to establish Armenian political control.

 

[Kidblast]

They comprised 5% of the population at the close of WWI and had equal rights. I don't see why they merited more than that.

Meh....

That describes the Jewish position in Germany.

And we all know how that worked out....

 

[Leo Caesius]

When trying to determine "logical" borders for a country, you first have to examine the logic you're using to determine these borders.

Is dividing the region up into nation-states along ethnic lines, similar to Europe, the most logical solution? What about protecting minorities? We've seen what great success nation states in the Middle East and Europe have had at protecting their ethno-religious and linguistic minorities. Do all of these ethnicities necessarily want to be grouped into one nation-state? The cultural, religious, and linguistic differences between the different Kurdish and Arab groups can be chasmic.

Is dividing the region up along economic lines more feasible? Arable land is scarce, much of the region is empty space, and some of the proposed states would simply not be economically feasible, certainly in Lawrence's time. With the growing importance of oil and the advent of air travel, landlocked countries are no longer as isolated or unimportant as they formerly were, but the population and level of development in much of the region is such today that any of these new proposed countries will be in a more or less firmly established state of crippling poverty.

What about strategic lines? There are natural boundaries throughout the region - rivers, mountain ranges, other bodies of water - and yet nobody seems to consider them when establishing "logical borders."

There are other considerations, of course.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Anti-semitism is alien to the Arabs. Being semitic and all. And while the treatment of Jews in the Middle East had been consistenly good since the dawn of Islam, the same can't be said about Europe. History matters.

Meh....

That describes the Jewish position in Germany.

And we all know how that worked out....

 

[Calgacus]

Ha. Weirdly enough, I just posted on another thread about Kosovo the same concern - that it is dangerous to set a precedent of 'nation-states' which are ethnically homogeneous. What is wrong with the idea of a polyglot society? It worked fairly well in a number of instances, notably the Roman Empire and modern day America. Abdul will no doubt also mention the Ottoman Empire.

In other words, assuming that one group are going to rise up and massacre the others as soon as the borders are drawn is not always the case. Groups of different languages, cultures and histories can live together in one nation, as long as the balance is right.

When trying to determine "logical" borders for a country, you first have to examine the logic you're using to determine these borders.

Is dividing the region up into nation-states along ethnic lines, similar to Europe, the most logical solution? What about protecting minorities? We've seen what great success nation states in the Middle East and Europe have had at protecting their ethno-religious and linguistic minorities. Do all of these ethnicities necessarily want to be grouped into one nation-state? The cultural, religious, and linguistic differences between the different Kurdish and Arab groups can be chasmic.

Is dividing the region up along economic lines more feasible? Arable land is scarce, much of the region is empty space, and some of the proposed states would simply not be economically feasible, certainly in Lawrence's time. With the growing importance of oil and the advent of air travel, landlocked countries are no longer as isolated or unimportant as they formerly were, but the population and level of development in much of the region is such today that any of these new proposed countries will be in a more or less firmly established state of crippling poverty.

What about strategic lines? There are natural boundaries throughout the region - rivers, mountain ranges, other bodies of water - and yet nobody seems to consider them when establishing "logical borders."

There are other considerations, of course.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Ha. Weirdly enough, I just posted on another thread about Kosovo the same concern - that it is dangerous to set a precedent of 'nation-states' which are ethnically homogeneous. What is wrong with the idea of a polyglot society? It worked fairly well in a number of instances, notably the Roman Empire and modern day America. Abdul will no doubt also mention the Ottoman Empire.

In other words, assuming that one group are going to rise up and massacre the others as soon as the borders are drawn is not always the case. Groups of different languages, cultures and histories can live together in one nation, as long as the balance is right.

I think history is the most important consideration in determining borders. And I don't mean imaginary history, like the ridiculous harkening to the Medieval past in the case of the Balkans, or pre-Roman Israel for the Zionists. Example:

"Syria" is a meaningful unit. It should have included all of today's Syria, Palestine, Jordan, and Lebanon. It was unitary economically, fairly unitary politically and culturally (in a cosmopolitan way), and would have made a viable and stable unit. Without the resources and military power of the Ottoman Empire behind it, it would have had greater internal problems, but nothing out of the ordinary.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

"Syria" is a meaningful unit. It should have included all of today's Syria, Palestine, Jordan, and Lebanon. It was unitary economically, fairly unitary politically and culturally (in a cosmopolitan way), and would have made a viable and stable unit.

And Hatay, but not Gezira, which should have belonged to Iraq to even the Sunni-Shia balance.

As for Mosul being linked economically to Anatolia, most parts of the world are linked economically with each other. I could give you many examples post-WWI when economic considerations were not given priority. I'm under the impression that we were basing these frontiers on ethnicity. This leaves us with 4 possible fates for the Kurds:

1) Give all the Kurdish areas to one nation, in which they would be a minority.

2) Divide the Kurdish areas between 2 or more nations. This it what was done in OTL and what your proposal would amount to (though most Kurds would end up in Turkey).

3) Join all the Kurdish areas in one state. Given the lack of clear ethnic borders you'll end up with significant Kurdish minorities outside of it and/or non-Kurdish minorities in it.

4) Create a something-Kurdish federation, as I proposed, so that you can ignore the lack of at least one clear ethnic border. In this case it was the Arab-Kurdish one. If you're willing to detach part of Anatolia to create a Turco-Kurdish federation, I'm not opposed.

 

[luakel]

I think it would be very easy to say "no" to Israel after the Holocaust if there had not been a specifically delineated Palestine into which their large-scale immigration was allowed. One wrong, no matter how big, does not justify another. The Muslims of Palestine did not participate in the Holocaust, and had long lived in harmony with the Jews there, and even protected them for millenia from Christian persecution. Their reward was to be stripped of their land and ejected from their ancestral homeland.

If there was to be a Jewish state somewhere, it should have been somewhere largely uninhabited, like the Kenyan highlands, or created at the expense of Germany. Maybe East Prussia, for example...

So why didn't the allies just transport the Jews to Palestine but not try to force an independent state like the Zionists wanted?

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Hatay held a plebicite, and decided to join Turkey - I'm not going to argue that.

But by "Mosul being economically linked to Anatolia", I meant "totally linked to Anatolia" as opposed to "totally UNlinked to Mesopotamia", which is what the situation was.

If you had united all the Kurdish-majority lands in a single state in 1920, the result would have been the instantaneous robbery and murder of the entire sedentary population of the "state" before the various tribes commenced ripping each other's throats out. That's not a slur on Kurds, just the reality of what would happen in a state inhabited and run by nomads.

As Mosul had nothing whatosever to do with Mesopotamia that merited uniting them, other than the British desire to control it's petroleum, it made no sense to link them together.

If the region had been joined to Turkey, both sides of the border would have avoided some impoverishment due to having ancient trade links severed, the petroleum wealth would have ended up benefitting all the Kurds of Turkey, and Turkey itself would have had a harder time devolving into an ethnic state.

I don't know why you assumed we were basing all these states on ethnicity; I think that's a monstrous idea and the surest path to genocide and tragedy.

And Hatay, but not Gezira, which should have belonged to Iraq to even the Sunni-Shia balance.

As for Mosul being linked economically to Anatolia, most parts of the world are linked economically with each other. I could give you many examples post-WWI when economic considerations were not given priority. I'm under the impression that we were basing these frontiers on ethnicity. This leaves us with 4 possible fates for the Kurds:

1) Give all the Kurdish areas to one nation, in which they would be a minority.

2) Divide the Kurdish areas between 2 or more nations. This it what was done in OTL and what your proposal would amount to (though most Kurds would end up in Turkey).

3) Join all the Kurdish areas in one state. Given the lack of clear ethnic borders you'll end up with significant Kurdish minorities outside of it and/or non-Kurdish minorities in it.

4) Create a something-Kurdish federation, as I proposed, so that you can ignore the lack of at least one clear ethnic border. In this case it was the Arab-Kurdish one. If you're willing to detach part of Anatolia to create a Turco-Kurdish federation, I'm not opposed.