To: Hawkmoon who wrote (273845 ) 2/2/2010 6:34:10 PM From: Cogito Ergo Sum 1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500 The west defeated their imperial Ottoman masters and gave them the opportunity to unite. Hawk the way the Middle East was divided was not in the interests of the locals... That's pretty evident if you look at the history.. It was more Imperialism.. different Imperialists.. Not sure but wasn't it Wilson that had to forgo his fair division of the Middle East for the success of the League of Nations.. Lloyd George said give Syria to France.. It's worthless ;o) Even Arabia one tidbit:The United Kingdom agreed in the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence that it would support Arab independence if they revolted against the Ottomans. The two sides had different interpretations of this agreement. In the event, the United Kingdom and France reneged on the original deal and divided up the area in ways unfavourable to the Arabs under the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement. Further confusing the issue was the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which promised support for a Jewish "national home" in Palestine. The Hedjaz region of western Arabia became an independent state under Hussein's control, until 1927, when, abandoned and isolated by the British policy - which had shifted support to the al Saud family - it was conquered by Saudi Arabia, ending an era of over 600 years of Hashemite stewardship of the holy land of Islam. [edit] See also Realpolitick of 1918 caused much the current political turmoil in the Middle East. Meddling west.,.. On the other hand to steal a line from one of my all time fav flics..So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are.