the problem with the idea of unifying the Arabs is that every single last Arab thinks that *HE* should be in charge of Arabia. which kills this idea outright.
This was the same problem with Yugoslavia. Every Slavic leader wanted to be the dominant leader of the state and didn't like it if one (e.g. Serbians) became the dominant one.
The Serbians saw Yugoslavia more as a Greater Serbian state that should rule over the southern slavs, luckily they were put down through the yugo wars@@onemoreminute0543
Same with just about any major unification of an ethnic group - but this is usually only in cases where there are also differences in culture/language/religion that are impossible to avoid, and especially so when all parties involved are relatively similar in terms of economic size & strength. When there's an overwhelmingly more powerful nation already in existence both militarily and economically (i.e. Prussia in the German Confederation) unification under their terms is inevitable. Perhaps if such a power rises within the Arab world, something similar could occur...
As an Arab, gotta say your being too nice to us the problem is with our mentality the only thing that had actually unified us is Islam (look at history, countless times we were only united under the banner of religion) hence why the caliphate is the only solution for the Arab world at least now about Christians well historically there were alright in the caliphate, operating as merchants and even scholars since they were of the civilized portions of the middle east back in 7th century and them being a minority mostly in cities meant they would be great catalysts for the economy and jews as well however the only must is tax, the jiziyah tax imposed on those who can pay (excluding women, children and elderly) and those who cant pay as in men who are poor or sick wouldnt. This to some parallels the zakat tax imposed on muslims also the caliph can at will impose more taxes on Muslims and christians alike (I am talking about taxes that arent Jiziyah or Zakat related). My Jordanian Arab friend is christian and his family had been for (statistically) a millenia living side by side with Muslims and the way he acts, dresses, even talks its all Arab but more specifically Jordanian I couldnt differentiate him from the other 99% Jordanian Muslims Ironically I would relate to him as a Arab Muslim more than a circassian Jordanian Muslim or a Syrian Kurd in terms of ethnicity since to me religion is most important thing and ethnicity comes number two not sayng it isnt important, it is but religion is more important. Hope my point is clear.
@@hishamalaker491 I understand what you're saying, but I feel that criticizing "mindset" is not fair to any group or peoples whatsoever. This same logic is often used by pro-colonialism wackos to try and justify enslaving Africa, but a widespread "entrepreneurial mindset" is literally impossible in countries that are constantly exploited, controlled, subverted, and colonized, either economically or directly. When said country's education, industrial, developmental programs etc. cannot take off due to constant conflict propagated by foreign powers, there can be no advancement whatsoever. Most organized religions are complicit/contribute to violence, but they're more of a symptom in my opinion.
As a Circassian in diaspora in the US from a lineage from Jordan and Syria back to our homeland, I sincerely appreciate being included in such a complex and tumultuous period in history.
I'm from Iraq and I always thought my father's side of the family were Kurds until I asked my late grandmother and she said we were Circassian, I had no idea what that was and there was no internet back in the war and my connection with my father's family was cut after my father got killed so I never asked her again My mother's side was Marshland Arabs who moved out of the marshes to the Levant some 300 years ago only to come back to Iraq shortly after.
To be fair, I would like to be a Circassian in the US rather than Turkey. I love my country but the politics is so messed up it often becomes frustrating It's told that my grandparents' grandparents have settled in Kahramanmaraş after the deportation
Jabzy, over the last 5 months you have made sooo many videos back-to-back about Muslim history in the Middle East and surrounding areas like West/East/North Africa, India, and Central Asia. And I gotta say..... keep doing that. I love it!
@@MrJoeSomebody I'm not just talking about one specific region. I'm talking about the several regions Islam spread to. Like if someone says Christian history. What a whiner. (also the majority of people in the "culturally Arab" parts of the world aren't ethnically Arab, that's mainly just in Arabia itself)
I went to Turkey last year and man, Ataturk is so idolized it’s crazy. His picture is everywhere and while I was there they commemorated the 85th anniversary of his death where they shut down the country for a few minutes and the airlines announce it on the loudspeaker. One Turkish woman I asked about it was almost in tears.
@@mogh2603 Not when he is the one that created your entire nation, future, life, rights, culture and so on. Ataturk's importance to Turkey is only rivaled with the prophet and the God, there is no one else like him for other nations in modern era (i think)
Ataturk is THE hero of Turkey. He won the independence of his country against Europeans powers who wanted to balkanize it, against Greece with the thoughts of a Greater Greece, modernized the country, secularized, education reforms and much more. Without him, Turkey wouldn't be what is today.
16:00 Rival of the Turkish government accuses Turks to commit atrocities as standart policy THEN French and Armenians commiting atrocities... The problem here is commiting awful crimes was a norm back then. The crucial part here is we hear these news from one side. When everyone began to throw shit at the other, its obvious, everyone got their hands in shit.
No, killing and displacing millions within a few years in a pre-planned attempt to rid an Empire of a fourth of its population isn't and has never been the norm. Read a history book and stop yapping.
The reason for this is that writers and historians of every country emotionally regard their own country and soldiers as honest. But there is a simple solution to this dilemma. Official documents don't lie. For example, the orders of commanders, the orders given by the king or rulers... These are real documents and the most reliable source. That's why, even though it's been 100 years, no country can publish these documents. For example, when Tsarist Russia collapsed, the communists published these documents and it turned out that the tsars financed many uprisings and massacres. Especially in the Balkans and the Caucasus. As Türkiye, we always keep these archives open. Academicians who wish can come and examine. They can see what orders the Sultans and Pashas gave. I know many people who came as enemies of the Ottomans and returned to their country as Ottoman lovers after reading these documents. Most recently, a Japanese professor returned to his country as an Ottoman admirer and later became a Muslim.
@@Sultan_Alparslan_HAN The Turkish military archives are closed and there have been multiple international historians' commisions on the topic and ALL of them without exception concluded that it was a genocide. There is a leaked cable on wikileaks exposing the fact that former president of Armenia Kocharyan actually responded to Erdogan's request and was ready to create such a commission between both states, which was then ignored by Erdogan.
@@alenvaneci like the original comment said, atrocities of such mass were common back then, even IF the armenian genocide happened, what about the turks killed by armenian militias, greek soldiers, the french? the french literally had a rule "if 1 frenchmen died in turkey, even if wasnt their fault, 2 turkish civilians would be killed" why does no one talk about the turkish genocide, what about the lives lost there?
When Palestinians say they supported being a part of “Syria,” they weren’t referring to the modern state of Syria. After the Romans renamed the Hasmonean Kingdom of Israel, along with its immediate borders (which encompassed areas of modern Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, & Iraq)…. The Romans divided the territory into two regions, Syria-Phoenicia and Syria-Palestina. When the Arabian Empire conquered the region from the Romans (Byzantines), the Arabs renamed the area “Ballad Al Shem.” “Ballad Al Shem” literally means “Land of the Semites” in Arabic, which is also synonymous with the term “Syria” since before the Roman times. Ballad Al Shem united the two territories together into one territory. It was like that until the Turks conquered the region. Keep in mind that the people who lived there are the descendants of the people who lived there before. The Palestinians are genetically Canaanite and Israelite, the Lebanese are Phoenician and Canaanite, etc. Not all of the “Jews” left the region after the Jewish revolts in the first two centuries. Most of them converted to Christianity and then to Islam during their respective eras. You find evidence of this from archeology, history, and multiple genetic studies… which show a continuous presence on the land dating thousands of years.
The Ottoman Empire also used this term and viewed the region as a whole. It was called "Vilayeti Şam" in Ottoman Turkish. This distinction emerged after 1900.
i am an assyrian and i thank you mentioning our struggle. its in the dark and its a huge issue we are millions scattered around the world and we still live in assyria they took it over in 1933 in the simele genocide
@@Coolinteresting876 no they did not, they did however quell the kurdish rebllion on behalf of the british as the assyrian levy. i do give you that but it was in no way shape or form genocide it was quelling a rebllion. nothing like simelle, kurds also helped the ottomans and even enticed them to start the 1918 sheyfo genocide , 1M assyrians dead
@@Coolinteresting876 he killed assyrians too, so what ? ur mistaking killing tens of people compared to thousands or millions. stop trying read up on ur history and akowledge what your people did to us and the yazidis dont be like the turks your people is neglected just like us
The newly established Turkish Republic was so fed up with the Arab Geography that Ataturk said: "The Turkish Child Will No Longer Shed His Blood for the Arabian Deserts." I wish there was a huge sea between us and the Arabs and we would be separated geographically!
@@pakkacae4830 Arabs have no contribution to the Turks. Without the Turks, there would not even be Islam, but the Arabs massacred the Turks and forced them to become Muslims!
13:45 It's important to emphasize that the term "Palestinians" was used at that point in time, if it was indeed used, to describe a geography: the residents of southern Syria, the half that was allotted to the British by the Sykes-Picot agreement and not a specific ethno-religious identity. "Palestinians", just like "Syrians" today, included people from a diverse range of identities and origins. It wasn't until 1968 that the term was repurposed to describe an aspiring new identity in response to its competing ideologies: Zionism, Islamism and pan-Arabism. BTW the term "Palestinians" was used much before by European race-theorists to describe the racial background of...Jews!
@@redacted7060 I don't understand what you're trying to say. Was it "always" Palestine or only since the Romans changed it? The term was first created by the Greeks, who butchered geographical terms left and right (Assyria then became Syria, like Plashet became Palestina). Only 2nd century Romans found it useful to rename the entire province of Judea. Terms are used and fall out of favor. The question is used as what. "Palestinian" only meant a group of ethno-religion when it was applied to Jews in 19th century race theories. It finally became accepted as a name of a nation in the 1968 version of the PLO charter.
The colonial borders created 3 states - Lebanon, Syria and Iraq that became very unstable. Those states could be held together during the fifties and somewhat later because significant parts of the population were illiterate and politically inactive but with gradual spread of education could only be held by strongmen like Yugoslavia. Their population is divided into too many religious communities (in reality very divergent ethnic groups masquerading as religious communities). The idea of Arab union also couldn't work as the Arabs deep down are not a single ethnicity but a collection of differing ethnic groups with semi-common language. An Arab federation would have disintegrated before 2000 , partially peacefully and partially with blood.
@@FalconfromRF yeah sure honey, have you ever talked to Arabs, and I mean real Arabs born and raised not westerners with ancestry, at the very least a greater Syria would've been a stable country because as mentioned in the video the people there saw themselves as a one thing and fought the colonizers many times to achieve that goal, and to this day that's the general sentiment in the area, the only thing preventing stability in the area is the authoritarian regimes and Israel which are both a direct consequence of colonial meddling.
@@ahmadjabalyFor palestine yeah maybe, but I'm Lebanese and I can tell you the Lebanese do not support being a part of syria, most Lebanese hate syrians as a people and cannot stand them, proof of that is the over 2 million syrian immigrants in Lebanon which are treated really poorly and even banned from going to certain areas and going out at night. Now I am not saying that this is right, I am simply telling you the general opinion of the Lebanese.
He was in his garden, when his monkey and his dog started fighting. When he exerted diplomatic pressure on the situation, the monkey bit him on the leg. Doctors considered amputating his leg but they decided against it, unaware of how serious the bite was. He died of sepsis not long after.
You use the term Raj several times when referring to British administration. I thought it referred specifically to colonial rule (not administration) over the Indian sub-continent? For example, colonies in Africa were not part of the Raj, nor indeed Singapore or Hong Kong.
After watching it, I realized that I was biased... I removed my comment. Instead, I am writing my appreciation for how thoroughly you have researched and mastered the subject.
I LOVE YOUR CHANNEL. sorry for typing so large, but really , you are outstanding. You are not biased , your facts are 10000000000000% true and you make nice animations
Fascinating review. You've done a lot of work to bring this to You Tube. You nailed a number of issues. Personally, in one 24hr period, I worked at a government level with Israeli's, then Palestinians, then Arabs after that. Every ethnic group, individually, were superb people to deal with. Collectively, the chap I worked for at the time could get nowhere on behalf of the world community. It's an experience I have always appreciated.
the region been always controlled by multiethnic empire back to 3000 years ago till 1900 Assyrian, Babylonian Roman/Byzantium, Persian, Arab Empires and Turk Empires so this kind of borders is new to the most Historical region on earth
The problem tho is that those Multiethnic Empires were Authoritarian, so most people were like “hey, we have no choice on who rules us”, but then Europeans Introduced Democracy to these multiethnic regions, which caused a ton of problems because everyone said “if we can choose our leaders then it should be us to rule”
@@safs3098 well first of all instead of intruduce the democracy to the middle east European at that time have problem with second religion in Europe the jew problem the jew had been live in Europe for 2000 years and European could not built a multiethnic society and the kicked the jew from Europe in 1948 so if European democracy killed the jew in Europe, Moors, Chechnyaian Romani PPL and that's just 75 years ago as middle eastern i will say thank you ill pass we still have historical religion dated back to 4000 years ago like Zerositain and Yazidi they mange to not convert or wiped out from the history like what happend to Slavic religion or hilinstic relegion or Viking religion so again fixed your psychopaths society first
@@safs3098 and btw democracy of what of Germany in 1930 or USA before 1960 and the racism or who France killing 1 m Algerian to take there land or UK controlling India and it resources India in 1700 had 25% of the global economy left India with civil war and the poorest region on earth so this your democracy taking our land and resources hahahhahahha but you need to know its not going to be for good cuz we will rise again we are the Cardel of civilization this is temporary situation
@@safs3098 Ottomans did try to become a Liberal Empire starting with the Tanzimat. Ottoman Liberalisation efforts started even prior to the Russian one. The problem was that the European nations were carving spheres of influences and it was the age of Imperialism, so that meant the Ottomans were not able to achieve much.
I love how people think borders are a contributing factor to this problem. The levant area is a jumbled mess of tribes, religions, religious sects and ethnic groups. Not to mention 80% of it is desert so you have like 50 million people just along the west coast all cramped together trying to fight for the small piece of fertile and livable land there is. in the eastern side it's all mostly desert with one river going through and there's a better chance to just divide Iraq into 3, Shia south, Sunni triangle center and Kurdish north but the Shia aren't fully united either are the Sunnis and there is some divisions among the Kurds. I think Europeans just said "fuck it" and just throw a bunch of people together and hope they sort their shit out.
Previously, those people have been held together by the islamic teligion wish stopped that nationalist idea and focus more about religious union and so Kurd and Arabs and Turk were along even though there was some confrontation some time.
@@dragonmaster3207 Shia have colonized Syria in the past 10 years. Damascus is unrecognizable and the 3 million+ Syrian Sunni muslim refugees likely had their homes robbed
I worked in various Middle Eastern for many years. It was easy to see that the main divisions were not between countries, but between tribes. The whole region is very tribal and loyalty is always to the tribe. A tribe will get into power in a country - usually with a strong dictator (or 'king'), but that causes resentment in the other tribes. Not a stable situation.
18:35 There was ONE Mandate for Palestine in the 1920s from Britain and it included what is today Israel, Gaza, The West Bank, AND JORDAN. There were NOT two mandates in 1920. Your video is misleading to make everyone think that the mandate for Palestine was always from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean and IT WAS NOT! It would be decades before this was formalized with the breaking off 75% of the mandate to create the Transjordan portion for the creation of an Arab state, but the British already knew that there was no reconciliation between the Jews and the Arabs in the remaining 25% of the land West of the Jordan.
Although part of the shared British sphere of influence Palestine and Transjordan were never joined as Palestine had been conquered by the British whereas Transjordan (and part's of southern Syria) and been conquered by T E Lawrence's Arab Army
Unfortunately, it seems the region stretching from North Africa to Afghanistan is condemned to suffer the same growing pains as Europe as it developed into nation states. In addition the weapons of war have only increased in their deadliness.
Loved this video but you should've put a conclusion part at the end explaining the whole video and what changes will and may take place after them. all of that aside this video is still good and i enjoyed all the 48m of it, really explains the situation of the current borders and how sykes-picot still affects the region to this day.
Why do "effects" begin with Sikes-Picot? I think it's ironic that Muslims (and Arabs, generally) think that's the beginning....look how the Turks (mis)treated Arab aspiration long before the war. No sense of introspection. At least the Brits allowed Indians to serve in fairly high positions of the civil service, rail network & telegraph office. But I guess Muslims ignore (& justify) Ottoman caliphate's centuries of abuse & corruption & absolutism because....you know, Ummah.
Sykes-Picot agreement is a huge exaggeration. It was never followed through on, but is used by a lot of Islamists radicals as some kind of war cry for their current cause. In reality it was based on Ottoman Provinces, so even if it was followed through as actual policy it would just have been Ottoman provinces under French/British control/influence.
You learnt nothing from industrial democracy then? No wonder it is doomed. It must be clear that their was relative tolerance peace and order until the European colonists got involved? Small tribal disputes were given the militarised power of modern industrial states- and their ludicrous ideologies. ie Yazidis survived Roman, caliphate and Baathism, but not "The West".
Actually Europe is, the "ME" is far more individualistic, while the former is clearly more prone to group think, most likely a s a result of the youthfulness of their race, having not enough time to develop.
More like a vast region full of diverse groups of people who have different religions, cultures and ancestries. That's not a mess. That's just normal human history.
Thank you for another wonderfully educational video! This made me realize just how little I actually know about the details of the immediate post-WW1 and early post-Ottoman Middle East (not to mention the Caucasus region by extension). I hope the nations in turmoil there find peace again soon. God be with you out there, everybody. ✝️ :)
As an arab i would say a kurdish state would have saved millions of lives, and billions in funds for both turkey and iraq as they spent fortunes on meaningless suppressions of kurds
So you want ethno-states, in places where dozens of ethnic/cultural/religious/lingual groups lived simultaneously, based on regional plurality population. I can not think of a more destructive way of creating societal cohesion and ensuring human rights.
The border between Armenia and Georgia was left undetermined (de jure); the Armenians did not lay claim onto Lazeti, although one should note that the area did harbour a partially Armenian population (Christian and Islamised Hamshen Armenians/Hemşinli). Tao is another question: Both Armenia and Georgia have historic ties to the region (the Armenians call it Tayk'). It was a culturally mixed region, although Armenians were dominant in the West.
Yeah well by that logic the whole world should unite. People just dont want to alot of the time. The best example is the completely useless Great War at this time.
Can you make a video on how Africa's borders should have been drawn during to avoid all the ethnic conflicts and instabilities which have happened in Africa.
Chaim Weissman's name is pronounced, k'hayiiim (meaning life in hebrew), with the chet sound that exists in hebrew, turkish, persian, kurdish and some indo european langauges, and some dialects of arabic. Not ch-aim, like choochoo train, when ever you see a jewish name or hebrew word, that starts with Ch in english, this is a germanic Ch, not an english Ch deriving from norman french. Correcting because Chaim was a major player in middle east politics and I know you will likely make more videos where he pops up as a character
I am sorry but at minute 7:00 you are not showing the real map the allies wanted the treaty of Sevres. Show that just show it how much hatred towards the Turkish people is in that and how much they wanted to destroy that nation that opposed them. They had to fight 4 more years to even get to where they are now.
@@JabzyJoe I looked at the map. Turkey would have lost all southern and western shores and also Istanbul. It was a treaty meant to destroy the viability of the Turkish nation just like they wanted to destroy Bulgarians, Hungarians and Germans.
The problem with the world is the massive centralised nations which forcibly incorporate so many different peoples, if we broke up the Middle East along ethnic lines there would be WAYY less issues.
And importantly in the present context, not for an instant any kind of Palestinian national anything. Unlike the Jewish national claims. From this historical perspective, the so called Palestine geographical area was discussed as Arab only as a minor part of other countries (Jordan or Syria), never independently, and repeatedly dropped out of these possible unions with Jordan or Syria. That also makes it clear why after the 1948 Israel establishment war, any land captured by Jordan and Syria was naturally integrated into these countries, and no Arab considered these lands as a potential part of some other "Palestine" state. In short no idea of an independent Palestine state was even floating in the air before 1967.
I think you don’t understand yes you are right about the name Palestine but they just changed their name that’s why in reality they are 100% related to the old Israel the new one just stole the name aka the zionists
@@redacted7060 Jews are the natives. More than 50% of Israeli Jews come from Arab countries and not from Europe. 500,000 Arab people, more than 50% of the Arab "Palestinian" population in 1948 arrived to the land just in the previous 50, in parallel with same amount of 500,000 the Jewish population of new arrivals. You know zero history of this place.
@@ozachar aka they come outside of Palestine, they still aren't natives and stole Palestinian homes. Crazy how the only thing you did is confirming my comment. And "50% of Palestinians" is just a blatant lie with no proof, genetically speaking Palestinians are more related to the areas than the Israelis
Reunite the sham, reunite Kuwait and Iraq, reunite the berber magrabia, reunite Sudan and Egypt, reunite khalege countries. Regions and cultures should be one nation. Splitting it for oil or for spite is tearing us apart. I am Iraqi love Kuwaiti brothers.
King Constantine promised to end the war that's why he was voted. When he was elected he continued deep into Asia Minor. The Greek army was funded by the Greek government and had no help from anyone. We managed to reach Ankara in a couple of days. Kemal got guns and money from Lenin in 1921 and that made him more powerful, otherwise all Turkey would be Greek now, we would have taken the old ancient Greek lands.
@@alpcankarademir1991 You don't like your black face and you make it black and white. That's not brave...Greeks we know everything and we know you want sex. Make sex not war.
Given the border realities circa mid-1920s, the best settlement today would be to unite Jordan, Syria, West Bank & Gaza under Hashemite leadership & call it "Syria." This would be a return to what was expected after WWI.
May be, resettlement of Christian folks is also need. Long-term peace must include garantee of security for Israel, and this is hard to imagine if Arabs are still majority in all this area.
These army's we used for self defense just like moses's nothing more and also the Arab-byzantine war was caused by the killing of a Muslim emissary sent to the Arab Christian vassal of the Byzantines but they where killed which sparked the war. And also one the prophet peace be upon him gave the pagan Arabs favourable terms which prevented the Muslims going to Mecca for pilgrimage for some time and when he entered the city he forgave the pagans for their suppression of the Muslims like Joseph forgave his brothers.
All fun until someone ask how Christianity reached the two Americas, subsaharan Africa, north Europe, Philippines, Roman and Russian empires territories
Absolutely loved this video. Chaim Witzmen (first president of Israel) is pronounced when the phlem sound, closer to Haim more so than Chaim. Thanks for a great video.
The best compromise would be on ethnic lines but there is an area of Majority of Hungarians living in Transylvania and it would be impossible to give Hungary that territory without forcing Romania to give up majority Romanian territory, that happens a lot like poles in Lviv and Bruxelles in Belgium
@gabrieled.r427 like I said the best compromise would be among ethnic lines not the kingdom of hungarys old borders as that had a lot of slavic majority land and Romanian however drawing off ethnic map only requires a little bit of territory off Slovenia Croatia Serbia Romania and Slovakia ultimately not amounting to a whole lot, how the EU pretty much nulls the idea because they can travel freely through borders anyway
@@gabrieled.r427ideally you could make ethnic lines for borders however that would require an American like union of states as all the disconnected portions that would end up would being made like Hungarians living in Transylvania would be unreachable if relations ever soured, basically everlasting peace like that is nearly untenable in the world at least today
Because Turks are from Mongolia and displaced many Arabs whereas the Christians were native to the land. The Muslims and Christians were neighbour's but the Turks were foreign invaders.
24:06 That is an oximoron. Literally impossible. You can't say that "Jews are not equal" while also "they deserve self-determination and equal rights like every other nation". He wasn't a Zion ist. That is a lie.
No they are in Misery because the US and Israel create Terrorist Organizations wich terrorize the local Governments and there are also the USA wich toppled most of the Arab leaders, replacing them with US and Israeli Puppets
This is all so usual it happened litteraly everywhere. Different rulers fighting and using the people as fuel. As a Syrian, I know people right now don't care about this anymore, they just to have rights and to have a better life. But superpowers will never allow this, for the sake of a peculiar state in the region.
Well I never said there are no other problem, actually quite the contrary, if we weren't so divided and weak this would have never happened. I am not blaming the J. I actually believe they are the biggest victim in the Z project. Eventually it will be dropped to have a chance for peace in the region.
@@RK-cj4ocsick of people blaming 'superpowers' for everything. As if the world would be peaceful with china and the US stop sending weapons. People would kill each other in more prutal ways probably
The first problem comes from is!am. Despite muhammad saying in the qur'an, that god had designated the land occupied by the Canaanites as a Jewish land, so long as they, (the Jews), defeated the Canaanites in battle. Fortunately for all concerned, (except muhammad), the Canaanites had already left the land, literally, for pastures new. The second problem is also down to is!am, or rather modern is!am. The hatred of the Jews and the losing of 3 wars against them has apparently only reinforced the mus!im hatred of Jews. Jihad appears to be OK, only if your winning.
I wished more people would at least go through this kind of intro to the Middle East before ‘taking sides’ Middle Eastern history is super complex post WW1
@@lero_ Europe was much better documented and more populated, the middle east has is extremely patriarchal and tribal, that made it violent every where just less on an inter-national scale.
The British- and French-controlled countries were divided by the Sykes-Picot line. The agreement allocated to the UK control of what is middle east country today
As a arab i just want to say no if you give every arab culture there own country that'll make us more devidied rn we're all unified and we enjoy it but sunis and shiats can't live together I'm talking only for my country iraq that doesn't mean one should be kicked out of the country it really doesn't matter if someone is shiat or suni
Ha, I'm maybe more interested in researching these than people are to watch them, but I haven't found a decent place to stop yet. Formation of New Arab States, rise of Ataturk, WW2, Formation of Israel, Suez Crisis? So I've just pushed.
@@JabzyJoe I have to agree with you! As someone interested in the British Empires relationship with Arab leaders like in the Trucial states. Hejaz etc I’m living it up. I wonder have you considered an episode on potential alternate boundaries like. ‘Here are frances ideal boundaries’ the Brits- Turks and Arabs etc. Obviously it verges into the alternate history but would work with ‘could new borders being peace’ examining how different countries might approach it.
The Jordan Valley has long been one civilization. The Brits should not have created a Trans-Jordan or Palestine. In the current circumstances, Jordan should get Palestine, but the Israelis can keep 12,000 sq.km which largely corresponts to the ancient Kingdom of Israel + Jersualem. Thus Jordan would get the southern desert, Gaza, the entire Hebron-Beersheba River catchment, southern West Bank, Ramallah, and Jericho and the floor of the Jordan River Valley uo to its junction with the Yarmuk River. The primary dispute will be - should the Jerusalem border be Route 60 or the Security Barrier - the Old city lies between. Jordan thus gets the whole of the Jordan River where Israel has robbed it of water. Jordan will need to build a number of Desal plants near Gaza to make fresh water for Jordan and to restore flow in the Jordan River. Jordan would get the Job of managing the dead sea. The Hagia Sophia cathedral has been turned into a mosque, setting a precedent for Temple Mount.
@@lylecampbell9036 The issue beyond all of this is whether a Jewish state contain equal right for Jews and Palestian Arabs. The other issue is the forced removal of Arabs from their homes and farms to maintain or increase Isreal's Jewish majority. Without ethnic cleansing Jews would only be in the majority in West Jerusalem and the coastal plain between Tel Aviv and Haifa.
The roots of all these problems are in the Arab conquests of the 600s. Before then there wasn’t so much divisiveness in the Middle East. It was much more peaceful and homogeneous. There was much more religious and ethnic tolerance. The Arab conquest changed all that and we are still living with the ill effects of it today.
Wrong, before 600s there was Greeks, Assyrians Aramaics, March arabs, Iranians, Armenians, Romans, Nabataen arabs and bedeons. Some were pagans others were Christians (Coptic and Orthodox) some were Jewish others Zeroastrainism this applies on multiple different ethnicities at that time you could find an arab who's a Christian and an Arab who is a jew and another who is pagan
Agreed. They really fucked up everything. I can’t help but think how much more tolerant and more compatible with the west the Middle East would be if it wasn’t for Arab conquests and imperialism.
The difficulty in watching this video, is that the maps don’t necessarily portray the countries in question, and if they do, they’re so large, that they’re off the screen, or worse still blocked by images of people, that are probably significant, but far too large. I gave up on watching what might have otherwise been an informative and anti-colonial narrative
This was mostly unbiased expect some parts were so ridiculously wrong especially about Armenia. In 1920 it was Armenia which attacked Turkey not the other way around, Hovhannes Kajaznuni who was PM of Armenia during that wrote it was them who attacked Turks crystal clear. He even adds in his manifesto that Turks wanted to confer instead of the war but they refused believing they were going to win! Even if it is so unquestionably proven that Armenia was the aggressor, somehow it is told otherwise by simply using Turks won the war like it was their plan all along. Once again it was also Russian empire and their Armenian proxies which invaded Anatolia in 1914 and remaining Armenians rebelled against the empire believing it was about to collapse. But ofc if Armenians were aggressors how exactly somebody can claim they were genocided so Armenian rebellion is completely ignored by so called "neutral" western historians. Just pathetic to be honest, Turkey will never ever recognize this rewriting of history even if thousands of years pass. It was Armenians who tried to "liberate their historial lands" they weren't even majority anymore, in that order they became a proxy of Russian empire and committed atrocities. On the other hand Georgians never became a proxy, never claimed an inch of land they weren't majority and at the end they could establish twice larger country than Armenia with half of population. Everybody reaps what they sow, Armenians wanted war and got it..
Not a chance even if the perfect borders are given they would fight over other things such as race, resources or religion. The most amount of "peace" there would be between this groups is them uniting to fight that one certain country that has a star of you know what as there religion. but the moment they finish wiping out anything that breaths there they will start fighting each again.
the problem with the idea of unifying the Arabs is that every single last Arab thinks that *HE* should be in charge of Arabia. which kills this idea outright.
This was the same problem with Yugoslavia. Every Slavic leader wanted to be the dominant leader of the state and didn't like it if one (e.g. Serbians) became the dominant one.
The Serbians saw Yugoslavia more as a Greater Serbian state that should rule over the southern slavs, luckily they were put down through the yugo wars@@onemoreminute0543
Same with just about any major unification of an ethnic group - but this is usually only in cases where there are also differences in culture/language/religion that are impossible to avoid, and especially so when all parties involved are relatively similar in terms of economic size & strength. When there's an overwhelmingly more powerful nation already in existence both militarily and economically (i.e. Prussia in the German Confederation) unification under their terms is inevitable. Perhaps if such a power rises within the Arab world, something similar could occur...
As an Arab, gotta say your being too nice to us the problem is with our mentality the only thing that had actually unified us is Islam (look at history, countless times we were only united under the banner of religion) hence why the caliphate is the only solution for the Arab world at least now about Christians well historically there were alright in the caliphate, operating as merchants and even scholars since they were of the civilized portions of the middle east back in 7th century and them being a minority mostly in cities meant they would be great catalysts for the economy and jews as well however the only must is tax, the jiziyah tax imposed on those who can pay (excluding women, children and elderly) and those who cant pay as in men who are poor or sick wouldnt. This to some parallels the zakat tax imposed on muslims also the caliph can at will impose more taxes on Muslims and christians alike (I am talking about taxes that arent Jiziyah or Zakat related). My Jordanian Arab friend is christian and his family had been for (statistically) a millenia living side by side with Muslims and the way he acts, dresses, even talks its all Arab but more specifically Jordanian I couldnt differentiate him from the other 99% Jordanian Muslims Ironically I would relate to him as a Arab Muslim more than a circassian Jordanian Muslim or a Syrian Kurd in terms of ethnicity since to me religion is most important thing and ethnicity comes number two not sayng it isnt important, it is but religion is more important. Hope my point is clear.
@@hishamalaker491 I understand what you're saying, but I feel that criticizing "mindset" is not fair to any group or peoples whatsoever. This same logic is often used by pro-colonialism wackos to try and justify enslaving Africa, but a widespread "entrepreneurial mindset" is literally impossible in countries that are constantly exploited, controlled, subverted, and colonized, either economically or directly. When said country's education, industrial, developmental programs etc. cannot take off due to constant conflict propagated by foreign powers, there can be no advancement whatsoever. Most organized religions are complicit/contribute to violence, but they're more of a symptom in my opinion.
"well, I think that concludes our treaty, gentlements peace in middle east"
"forgive me ambassador but what about Jerusalem?"
omfg , amazing
Brilliant reference lmao
Internationally controlled with freedom or worship and movement. Easy really
"Oh, she's back"
ottoman palestine :)
15 HOURS TO EXPLAIN THE MIDDLE EAST BORDERS??? I'm impressed you managed to explain it in such a short time.
AS middle east man, i am also in shock
@@skeletonking4119 is it accurately explained tho? That would be the real question. If it's wrong then it doesn't matter anyways I assume
@@gareonconley1956 im also middle eastern i will watch this and explain if its accurately explained or not
@@Samsonig is it accurate?
@@tezcanaslan2877 Yeah most of it was accurate though I did forget the inaccurate things I will rewatch it soon
Even knowing how he died, the utterance "killed by a monkey-bite" is never not wtf-worthy.
Alexander I of Greece or someone else?
Euphemism for poison, , likely.
@@alancoe1002 its literal monkey
@@alancoe1002he actually died by a monkey bite
As a Circassian in diaspora in the US from a lineage from Jordan and Syria back to our homeland, I sincerely appreciate being included in such a complex and tumultuous period in history.
You are in a diaspora within a diaspora
@@מ.מ-ה9ד I suppose so lol
I'm from Iraq and I always thought my father's side of the family were Kurds until I asked my late grandmother and she said we were Circassian, I had no idea what that was and there was no internet back in the war and my connection with my father's family was cut after my father got killed so I never asked her again
My mother's side was Marshland Arabs who moved out of the marshes to the Levant some 300 years ago only to come back to Iraq shortly after.
@RyH-yx4ys Welcome back, brother. You are of us, and I would gladly teach you of our code of Adiga Khabze if you wish. T'blagha! (welcome)
To be fair, I would like to be a Circassian in the US rather than Turkey. I love my country but the politics is so messed up it often becomes frustrating
It's told that my grandparents' grandparents have
settled in Kahramanmaraş after the deportation
Jabzy, over the last 5 months you have made sooo many videos back-to-back about Muslim history in the Middle East and surrounding areas like West/East/North Africa, India, and Central Asia. And I gotta say..... keep doing that. I love it!
Muslim history?? You folks keep forgetting us religious minorities in the region. It’s Arab history
@@MrJoeSomebody I'm not just talking about one specific region. I'm talking about the several regions Islam spread to. Like if someone says Christian history.
What a whiner.
(also the majority of people in the "culturally Arab" parts of the world aren't ethnically Arab, that's mainly just in Arabia itself)
@@MrJoeSomebody you said it your self "minorities"
I went to Turkey last year and man, Ataturk is so idolized it’s crazy. His picture is everywhere and while I was there they commemorated the 85th anniversary of his death where they shut down the country for a few minutes and the airlines announce it on the loudspeaker. One Turkish woman I asked about it was almost in tears.
Yes I saw this , it is very strange,
@@mogh2603 Not when he is the one that created your entire nation, future, life, rights, culture and so on. Ataturk's importance to Turkey is only rivaled with the prophet and the God, there is no one else like him for other nations in modern era (i think)
@@umutcankoc3010Biden? Obama?? Hello!
Without Atatürk and his revolution Turkiye would as Taliban's Afghanistan. Thats because Turks love Atatürk this much
Ataturk is THE hero of Turkey. He won the independence of his country against Europeans powers who wanted to balkanize it, against Greece with the thoughts of a Greater Greece, modernized the country, secularized, education reforms and much more.
Without him, Turkey wouldn't be what is today.
16:00 Rival of the Turkish government accuses Turks to commit atrocities as standart policy THEN French and Armenians commiting atrocities...
The problem here is commiting awful crimes was a norm back then. The crucial part here is we hear these news from one side. When everyone began to throw shit at the other, its obvious, everyone got their hands in shit.
No, killing and displacing millions within a few years in a pre-planned attempt to rid an Empire of a fourth of its population isn't and has never been the norm. Read a history book and stop yapping.
The reason for this is that writers and historians of every country emotionally regard their own country and soldiers as honest. But there is a simple solution to this dilemma. Official documents don't lie. For example, the orders of commanders, the orders given by the king or rulers... These are real documents and the most reliable source. That's why, even though it's been 100 years, no country can publish these documents. For example, when Tsarist Russia collapsed, the communists published these documents and it turned out that the tsars financed many uprisings and massacres. Especially in the Balkans and the Caucasus. As Türkiye, we always keep these archives open. Academicians who wish can come and examine. They can see what orders the Sultans and Pashas gave. I know many people who came as enemies of the Ottomans and returned to their country as Ottoman lovers after reading these documents. Most recently, a Japanese professor returned to his country as an Ottoman admirer and later became a Muslim.
@@Sultan_Alparslan_HAN The Turkish military archives are closed and there have been multiple international historians' commisions on the topic and ALL of them without exception concluded that it was a genocide. There is a leaked cable on wikileaks exposing the fact that former president of Armenia Kocharyan actually responded to Erdogan's request and was ready to create such a commission between both states, which was then ignored by Erdogan.
@@alenvaneci like the original comment said, atrocities of such mass were common back then, even IF the armenian genocide happened, what about the turks killed by armenian militias, greek soldiers, the french? the french literally had a rule "if 1 frenchmen died in turkey, even if wasnt their fault, 2 turkish civilians would be killed" why does no one talk about the turkish genocide, what about the lives lost there?
@@alenvaneci armenian terrorist organisations such as PKK still kill turkish civilians, one example being the bombing in istanbul
When Palestinians say they supported being a part of “Syria,” they weren’t referring to the modern state of Syria.
After the Romans renamed the Hasmonean Kingdom of Israel, along with its immediate borders (which encompassed areas of modern Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, & Iraq)…. The Romans divided the territory into two regions, Syria-Phoenicia and Syria-Palestina.
When the Arabian Empire conquered the region from the Romans (Byzantines), the Arabs renamed the area “Ballad Al Shem.” “Ballad Al Shem” literally means “Land of the Semites” in Arabic, which is also synonymous with the term “Syria” since before the Roman times. Ballad Al Shem united the two territories together into one territory. It was like that until the Turks conquered the region. Keep in mind that the people who lived there are the descendants of the people who lived there before. The Palestinians are genetically Canaanite and Israelite, the Lebanese are Phoenician and Canaanite, etc.
Not all of the “Jews” left the region after the Jewish revolts in the first two centuries. Most of them converted to Christianity and then to Islam during their respective eras.
You find evidence of this from archeology, history, and multiple genetic studies… which show a continuous presence on the land dating thousands of years.
Big W, thank you for speaking the truth.
Thank u for this comment I always wondered where the ballad al sham means love yall from saudi
“Sham” means North in Arabic because the Levant is north of Arabia 🤦♂️
The Ottoman Empire also used this term and viewed the region as a whole. It was called "Vilayeti Şam" in Ottoman Turkish. This distinction emerged after 1900.
@@ChromeMan04shamal means north not sham
Unfortunately impossible. Majorities who benefit from current borders will never accept adjustments, Iraqi Shia being the biggest culprit.
What a stupid take, name a country that would be happy to do this.
@@bipolarkeyboardIsn't that exactly his point?
Iraqi shias are a small group with no power, it's mainly Israel, Turkey and Saudis who benefit from the current status quo.
@@bipolarkeyboardyou seem to have confused take with your own perspective, as in you're stupid period. Get mad at yourself. Learn more history.
@@Diego-de6dq not with a statement like "Iraqi Shia being the biggest culprit" at the end of a sentence
i am an assyrian and i thank you mentioning our struggle. its in the dark and its a huge issue we are millions scattered around the world and we still live in assyria they took it over in 1933 in the simele genocide
You know that Assyrian also took the part of genocide with Turk as while Kurds?
@@Coolinteresting876 no they did not, they did however quell the kurdish rebllion on behalf of the british as the assyrian levy. i do give you that but it was in no way shape or form genocide it was quelling a rebllion. nothing like simelle, kurds also helped the ottomans and even enticed them to start the 1918 sheyfo genocide , 1M assyrians dead
@@karlfreiha4745 yeah, later with Saddam Hussein, top general he was Assyrian that killed Arabs and Kurds.
@@Coolinteresting876 he killed assyrians too, so what ? ur mistaking killing tens of people compared to thousands or millions. stop trying read up on ur history and akowledge what your people did to us and the yazidis dont be like the turks your people is neglected just like us
@@karlfreiha4745 Brother, master of genocides are Assyrian. Go look up the bible or any history books.
Dude your videos are so good and engaging, I can't wait to see what you make next.
The newly established Turkish Republic was so fed up with the Arab Geography that Ataturk said: "The Turkish Child Will No Longer Shed His Blood for the Arabian Deserts."
I wish there was a huge sea between us and the Arabs and we would be separated geographically!
keşke...
Ye
Way to thank the Arabs for their role in creating and shaping turkish history and identity...
@@pakkacae4830 they didnt?
@@pakkacae4830 Arabs have no contribution to the Turks. Without the Turks, there would not even be Islam, but the Arabs massacred the Turks and forced them to become Muslims!
13:45 It's important to emphasize that the term "Palestinians" was used at that point in time, if it was indeed used, to describe a geography: the residents of southern Syria, the half that was allotted to the British by the Sykes-Picot agreement and not a specific ethno-religious identity. "Palestinians", just like "Syrians" today, included people from a diverse range of identities and origins. It wasn't until 1968 that the term was repurposed to describe an aspiring new identity in response to its competing ideologies: Zionism, Islamism and pan-Arabism.
BTW the term "Palestinians" was used much before by European race-theorists to describe the racial background of...Jews!
The region was always called Palestine since the Romans changed it so it's inhabitants were called the same
@@redacted7060 I don't understand what you're trying to say. Was it "always" Palestine or only since the Romans changed it? The term was first created by the Greeks, who butchered geographical terms left and right (Assyria then became Syria, like Plashet became Palestina). Only 2nd century Romans found it useful to rename the entire province of Judea. Terms are used and fall out of favor. The question is used as what. "Palestinian" only meant a group of ethno-religion when it was applied to Jews in 19th century race theories. It finally became accepted as a name of a nation in the 1968 version of the PLO charter.
"Massacres once again took place" - average year in Middle East
Not true, and indirectly racist
Very resemblant of what constantly in the Balkans or amongst Slavic people ....
@@mogh2603I’m racist
@@mogh2603I mean he isn’t wrong
@@mogh2603I'm middle eastern and can confirm that I get massacred every day 😳
coming back to your channel after years and seeing the improvement of your art and the fact you finally bought a mic is crazy
Hint: if you need to travel to the region to find out who lives there and what they think you have absolutely zero business of drawing any boundaries.
The colonial borders created 3 states - Lebanon, Syria and Iraq that became very unstable. Those states could be held together during the fifties and somewhat later because significant parts of the population were illiterate and politically inactive but with gradual spread of education could only be held by strongmen like Yugoslavia. Their population is divided into too many religious communities (in reality very divergent ethnic groups masquerading as religious communities).
The idea of Arab union also couldn't work as the Arabs deep down are not a single ethnicity but a collection of differing ethnic groups with semi-common language. An Arab federation would have disintegrated before 2000 , partially peacefully and partially with blood.
"the Arabs deep down are not a single ethnicity but a collection of differing ethnic groups with semi-common language"
wrong lol
@@someguy4512 Arabic in Middle East is like Spanish in South and Central America
@@FalconfromRF arabs been there at least in the bronze age dummy.
unlike spanish people lmfao.
@@FalconfromRF yeah sure honey, have you ever talked to Arabs, and I mean real Arabs born and raised not westerners with ancestry, at the very least a greater Syria would've been a stable country because as mentioned in the video the people there saw themselves as a one thing and fought the colonizers many times to achieve that goal, and to this day that's the general sentiment in the area, the only thing preventing stability in the area is the authoritarian regimes and Israel which are both a direct consequence of colonial meddling.
@@ahmadjabalyFor palestine yeah maybe, but I'm Lebanese and I can tell you the Lebanese do not support being a part of syria, most Lebanese hate syrians as a people and cannot stand them, proof of that is the over 2 million syrian immigrants in Lebanon which are treated really poorly and even banned from going to certain areas and going out at night. Now I am not saying that this is right, I am simply telling you the general opinion of the Lebanese.
Great video! btw the "J" in jabotinsky is pronounced like the "G" in geneva
i think most anglos pronounce those words the same but it is only /d͡ʒ/ vs /ʒ/ he’s close enouh
King Alexander then died of a monkey bite
I'm sorry what
A Barbary macaque if my memory is not fooling me.
He was in his garden, when his monkey and his dog started fighting. When he exerted diplomatic pressure on the situation, the monkey bit him on the leg. Doctors considered amputating his leg but they decided against it, unaware of how serious the bite was. He died of sepsis not long after.
Yep. Infection from a monkey bite.
Is that how you get monkey pox
@@tonyclough9844
No
You use the term Raj several times when referring to British administration. I thought it referred specifically to colonial rule (not administration) over the Indian sub-continent? For example, colonies in Africa were not part of the Raj, nor indeed Singapore or Hong Kong.
After watching it, I realized that I was biased...
I removed my comment. Instead, I am writing my appreciation for how thoroughly you have researched and mastered the subject.
I LOVE YOUR CHANNEL. sorry for typing so large, but really , you are outstanding. You are not biased , your facts are 10000000000000% true and you make nice animations
Fascinating review. You've done a lot of work to bring this to You Tube. You nailed a number of issues. Personally, in one 24hr period, I worked at a government level with Israeli's, then Palestinians, then Arabs after that. Every ethnic group, individually, were superb people to deal with. Collectively, the chap I worked for at the time could get nowhere on behalf of the world community. It's an experience I have always appreciated.
This is a really great history of post WWI Middle East history. Now I need to watch the other 20 parts.
Outstanding presentation! I happily subscribed to your channel while watching this video.
the region been always controlled by multiethnic empire back to 3000 years ago till 1900 Assyrian, Babylonian Roman/Byzantium, Persian, Arab Empires and Turk Empires so this kind of borders is new to the most Historical region on earth
The problem tho is that those Multiethnic Empires were Authoritarian, so most people were like “hey, we have no choice on who rules us”, but then Europeans Introduced Democracy to these multiethnic regions, which caused a ton of problems because everyone said “if we can choose our leaders then it should be us to rule”
@@safs3098 well first of all instead of intruduce the democracy to the middle east
European at that time have problem with second religion in Europe the jew problem the jew had been live in Europe for 2000 years and European could not built a multiethnic society and the kicked the jew from Europe in 1948 so if European democracy killed the jew in Europe, Moors, Chechnyaian Romani PPL and that's just 75 years ago
as middle eastern i will say thank you ill pass we still have historical religion dated back to 4000 years ago like Zerositain and Yazidi they mange to not convert or wiped out from the history like what happend to Slavic religion or hilinstic relegion or Viking religion
so again fixed your psychopaths society first
@@safs3098 and btw democracy of what of Germany in 1930 or USA before 1960 and the racism or who France killing 1 m Algerian to take there land or UK controlling India and it resources India in 1700 had 25% of the global economy left India with civil war and the poorest region on earth so this your democracy
taking our land and resources hahahhahahha but you need to know its not going to be for good cuz we will rise again we are the Cardel of civilization this is temporary situation
@@safs3098 Ottomans did try to become a Liberal Empire starting with the Tanzimat. Ottoman Liberalisation efforts started even prior to the Russian one. The problem was that the European nations were carving spheres of influences and it was the age of Imperialism, so that meant the Ottomans were not able to achieve much.
You forgot something. You know that Russia is the second oldest state in europe ?
The most comprehensive series on the Middle East I've ever seen.
Can you make series about Eastern Europe.
Congrats for your channel, and for this video, very, very good, objective info plus data, and in an format easy to captived and transmit the message
Man this series is such an interesting thing to watch tbh
I love how people think borders are a contributing factor to this problem. The levant area is a jumbled mess of tribes, religions, religious sects and ethnic groups. Not to mention 80% of it is desert so you have like 50 million people just along the west coast all cramped together trying to fight for the small piece of fertile and livable land there is. in the eastern side it's all mostly desert with one river going through and there's a better chance to just divide Iraq into 3, Shia south, Sunni triangle center and Kurdish north but the Shia aren't fully united either are the Sunnis and there is some divisions among the Kurds.
I think Europeans just said "fuck it" and just throw a bunch of people together and hope they sort their shit out.
Previously, those people have been held together by the islamic teligion wish stopped that nationalist idea and focus more about religious union and so Kurd and Arabs and Turk were along even though there was some confrontation some time.
Their is a majority Shia in the middle as well for example Baghdad is 40% Sunni and 60% Shia.
The Shia have no right to self Determination, it'll be a New Iran. A Demonic broadcaster
@@dragonmaster3207 Shia have colonized Syria in the past 10 years. Damascus is unrecognizable and the 3 million+ Syrian Sunni muslim refugees likely had their homes robbed
Great series honestly
25:57: - Thank you for this spotlight.
I worked in various Middle Eastern for many years. It was easy to see that the main divisions were not between countries, but between tribes. The whole region is very tribal and loyalty is always to the tribe. A tribe will get into power in a country - usually with a strong dictator (or 'king'), but that causes resentment in the other tribes. Not a stable situation.
Most middle easterners aren’t part of tribes, only peninsular Arabs and Bedouins are
@@alyaly2355 Gulf, Libya and somewhat Jordan. Other Countries not really
Would love to see a series on British history next
It would be a lot shorter
18:35 There was ONE Mandate for Palestine in the 1920s from Britain and it included what is today Israel, Gaza, The West Bank, AND JORDAN. There were NOT two mandates in 1920. Your video is misleading to make everyone think that the mandate for Palestine was always from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean and IT WAS NOT! It would be decades before this was formalized with the breaking off 75% of the mandate to create the Transjordan portion for the creation of an Arab state, but the British already knew that there was no reconciliation between the Jews and the Arabs in the remaining 25% of the land West of the Jordan.
Although part of the shared British sphere of influence Palestine and Transjordan were never joined as Palestine had been conquered by the British whereas Transjordan (and part's of southern Syria) and been conquered by T E Lawrence's Arab Army
yep. jordan is the "palestinian" arab homeland.
Unfortunately, it seems the region stretching from North Africa to Afghanistan is condemned to suffer the same growing pains as Europe as it developed into nation states. In addition the weapons of war have only increased in their deadliness.
Loved this video but you should've put a conclusion part at the end explaining the whole video and what changes will and may take place after them. all of that aside this video is still good and i enjoyed all the 48m of it, really explains the situation of the current borders and how sykes-picot still affects the region to this day.
Why do "effects" begin with Sikes-Picot?
I think it's ironic that Muslims (and Arabs, generally) think that's the beginning....look how the Turks (mis)treated Arab aspiration long before the war.
No sense of introspection.
At least the Brits allowed Indians to serve in fairly high positions of the civil service, rail network & telegraph office.
But I guess Muslims ignore (& justify) Ottoman caliphate's centuries of abuse & corruption & absolutism because....you know, Ummah.
Sykes-Picot agreement is a huge exaggeration. It was never followed through on, but is used by a lot of Islamists radicals as some kind of war cry for their current cause. In reality it was based on Ottoman Provinces, so even if it was followed through as actual policy it would just have been Ottoman provinces under French/British control/influence.
Your literally biased nothing you say is valid
No. Past behaviors are the best predictors for future behaviors. No, there will always be wars.
Thank you for shedding light on the Assyrians and their narrative.
"THE STRONG, RULES, AS ALWAYS. NO NATION CAN CLAIM ANY LAND !"
3:57 Abkhazia was part of the Mountious Republic, but you didn't include it to the Map, instead you made it as part of Georgia, that's misleading
Some local Abkhazian elites fancied joining, but, they never actually did. Georgian troops moved in very quickly.
Your comment is misleading
The only conclusion I can make after this video : the Middle East has always been a tribalistic mess so no surprise for what is happening now
thats just racist and wrong
Yep, has been this way since the beginning of time.
You learnt nothing from industrial democracy then? No wonder it is doomed. It must be clear that their was relative tolerance peace and order until the European colonists got involved? Small tribal disputes were given the militarised power of modern industrial states- and their ludicrous ideologies. ie Yazidis survived Roman, caliphate and Baathism, but not "The West".
Actually Europe is, the "ME" is far more individualistic, while the former is clearly more prone to group think, most likely a s a result of the youthfulness of their race, having not enough time to develop.
More like a vast region full of diverse groups of people who have different religions, cultures and ancestries. That's not a mess. That's just normal human history.
Thank you for another wonderfully educational video! This made me realize just how little I actually know about the details of the immediate post-WW1 and early post-Ottoman Middle East (not to mention the Caucasus region by extension). I hope the nations in turmoil there find peace again soon.
God be with you out there, everybody. ✝️ :)
As an arab i would say a kurdish state would have saved millions of lives, and billions in funds for both turkey and iraq as they spent fortunes on meaningless suppressions of kurds
Or there would be horrible wars of conquest with an indipendent kurdistan
So you want ethno-states, in places where dozens of ethnic/cultural/religious/lingual groups lived simultaneously, based on regional plurality population. I can not think of a more destructive way of creating societal cohesion and ensuring human rights.
@@onatdeveci5502clearly not the rights of the Kurds for some reason or their lives.
@@horstnietzsche1923 Kurds in Turkey have rights? What are you talking about?
@@onatdeveci5502Explain which rights, you lack?
Why is Armenia getting access to sea through historical Georgian land? We forgot about Lazeti and Tao-Klarjeti?
The border between Armenia and Georgia was left undetermined (de jure); the Armenians did not lay claim onto Lazeti, although one should note that the area did harbour a partially Armenian population (Christian and Islamised Hamshen Armenians/Hemşinli). Tao is another question: Both Armenia and Georgia have historic ties to the region (the Armenians call it Tayk'). It was a culturally mixed region, although Armenians were dominant in the West.
so many of these countries could have more leverage on the international scale if they united. the irony of fractionalizing to seek self-autonomy
Yeah well by that logic the whole world should unite. People just dont want to alot of the time. The best example is the completely useless Great War at this time.
Can you make a video on how Africa's borders should have been drawn during to avoid all the ethnic conflicts and instabilities which have happened in Africa.
Can you make a video about the history of Algeria from Ottoman rule until independence?
Assyrian mini-episode…? Soon?
can anybody tell me the name of the background music? I would be very grateful
Chaim Weissman's name is pronounced, k'hayiiim (meaning life in hebrew), with the chet sound that exists in hebrew, turkish, persian, kurdish and some indo european langauges, and some dialects of arabic. Not ch-aim, like choochoo train, when ever you see a jewish name or hebrew word, that starts with Ch in english, this is a germanic Ch, not an english Ch deriving from norman french. Correcting because Chaim was a major player in middle east politics and I know you will likely make more videos where he pops up as a character
To the Trash of history books never the less
Fantastic content Thank you! I'm curious. Generally, what sources do you use to put together your videos?
I am sorry but at minute 7:00 you are not showing the real map the allies wanted the treaty of Sevres.
Show that just show it how much hatred towards the Turkish people is in that and how much they wanted to destroy that nation that opposed them.
They had to fight 4 more years to even get to where they are now.
Have you ever read the treaty?
@@JabzyJoe I looked at the map. Turkey would have lost all southern and western shores and also Istanbul. It was a treaty meant to destroy the viability of the Turkish nation just like they wanted to destroy Bulgarians, Hungarians and Germans.
@@andraslibal Find in the treaty where it says any of what you claim. Don't just look at incorrect maps.
Unfortunately they were divided up in an artificial way.
The problem with the world is the massive centralised nations which forcibly incorporate so many different peoples, if we broke up the Middle East along ethnic lines there would be WAYY less issues.
And importantly in the present context, not for an instant any kind of Palestinian national anything. Unlike the Jewish national claims. From this historical perspective, the so called Palestine geographical area was discussed as Arab only as a minor part of other countries (Jordan or Syria), never independently, and repeatedly dropped out of these possible unions with Jordan or Syria. That also makes it clear why after the 1948 Israel establishment war, any land captured by Jordan and Syria was naturally integrated into these countries, and no Arab considered these lands as a potential part of some other "Palestine" state. In short no idea of an independent Palestine state was even floating in the air before 1967.
I think you don’t understand yes you are right about the name Palestine but they just changed their name that’s why in reality they are 100% related to the old Israel the new one just stole the name aka the zionists
Arab Palestinians joined Arab Jordanians. European Jews kicked them. No One cares what that Land is called, just dont kick its natives !
To cut this comment short, natives lived in the area, European Jews invaded and took their land and the natives fled
@@redacted7060 Jews are the natives. More than 50% of Israeli Jews come from Arab countries and not from Europe. 500,000 Arab people, more than 50% of the Arab "Palestinian" population in 1948 arrived to the land just in the previous 50, in parallel with same amount of 500,000 the Jewish population of new arrivals. You know zero history of this place.
@@ozachar aka they come outside of Palestine, they still aren't natives and stole Palestinian homes. Crazy how the only thing you did is confirming my comment.
And "50% of Palestinians" is just a blatant lie with no proof, genetically speaking Palestinians are more related to the areas than the Israelis
You put together some impressive videos... much time and research probably go into these. Cheers!
Reunite the sham, reunite Kuwait and Iraq, reunite the berber magrabia, reunite Sudan and Egypt, reunite khalege countries. Regions and cultures should be one nation. Splitting it for oil or for spite is tearing us apart. I am Iraqi love Kuwaiti brothers.
power = unity.
you are powerless when you are fighting one another and disunited
In Sudan Arab Muslims are killing African Muslims, you can't unite Muslims, they will always find a reason to fight each other
Man, they wanted to be apart! You can't just do whatever you want, whatever that means for everybody else.
King Constantine promised to end the war that's why he was voted. When he was elected he continued deep into Asia Minor. The Greek army was funded by the Greek government and had no help from anyone. We managed to reach Ankara in a couple of days. Kemal got guns and money from Lenin in 1921 and that made him more powerful, otherwise all Turkey would be Greek now, we would have taken the old ancient Greek lands.
Keep dreaming
@@alpcankarademir1991 You don't like your black face and you make it black and white. That's not brave...Greeks we know everything and we know you want sex. Make sex not war.
There are a lot of little mistakes in parts about turkey
Given the border realities circa mid-1920s, the best settlement today would be to unite Jordan, Syria, West Bank & Gaza under Hashemite leadership & call it "Syria." This would be a return to what was expected after WWI.
May be, resettlement of Christian folks is also need.
Long-term peace must include garantee of security for Israel, and this is hard to imagine if Arabs are still majority in all this area.
Why are these comments so weird
Bots
European neonazis and colonialists everywhere
Pretty sure the planned number of total parts has doubled since the start of the series. That's the Middle East for you.
"Muhammad's religion was born by sword" . Really?
Common slogan they use. He did lead army’s so there is truth to it
The religion was not born by sword. Just the territories of the empire were expanded by war
These army's we used for self defense just like moses's nothing more and also the Arab-byzantine war was caused by the killing of a Muslim emissary sent to the Arab Christian vassal of the Byzantines but they where killed which sparked the war. And also one the prophet peace be upon him gave the pagan Arabs favourable terms which prevented the Muslims going to Mecca for pilgrimage for some time and when he entered the city he forgave the pagans for their suppression of the Muslims like Joseph forgave his brothers.
All fun until someone ask how Christianity reached the two Americas, subsaharan Africa, north Europe, Philippines, Roman and Russian empires territories
@Magdyy Yeah right 🤣
Absolutely loved this video. Chaim Witzmen (first president of Israel) is pronounced when the phlem sound, closer to Haim more so than Chaim. Thanks for a great video.
Ah yes, assuming that ethnic homogeneity will lead to peace.
This made me understand all more about Land and people. Can someone name the music in the background please?👍🏼🤯
Nevada City
Free Kurdistan 🦁☀️
@atakan8653 in fact, Turkey was invented by France and England in 1923. You are just jealous you have no culture.
@atakan8653 you are just jealous France invented your state in 1923 🤣
Will you guys make a South Asian series too?
That's a question i often wonder about europe. What's the best compromise, for natural borders for all the european nations?
The best compromise would be on ethnic lines but there is an area of Majority of Hungarians living in Transylvania and it would be impossible to give Hungary that territory without forcing Romania to give up majority Romanian territory, that happens a lot like poles in Lviv and Bruxelles in Belgium
@@Finn_the_Cat in case of the hungarians there is no need to give them their old borders. Hungary is as good as it is.
European union effectively made it not important expect in Balkans
@gabrieled.r427 like I said the best compromise would be among ethnic lines not the kingdom of hungarys old borders as that had a lot of slavic majority land and Romanian however drawing off ethnic map only requires a little bit of territory off Slovenia Croatia Serbia Romania and Slovakia ultimately not amounting to a whole lot, how the EU pretty much nulls the idea because they can travel freely through borders anyway
@@gabrieled.r427ideally you could make ethnic lines for borders however that would require an American like union of states as all the disconnected portions that would end up would being made like Hungarians living in Transylvania would be unreachable if relations ever soured, basically everlasting peace like that is nearly untenable in the world at least today
bruh. give us dates and names of historical events. there is so many thing i never heard before
As it can be seen on the video, Turks are fighting against Christians, Araps are licking their boots.
Lol
Turks are licking EU feet. No need for video to see that. Arabs still have their strong traditions while turks are imitating christians. Wake up
Because Turks are from Mongolia and displaced many Arabs whereas the Christians were native to the land. The Muslims and Christians were neighbour's but the Turks were foreign invaders.
@@jonovision1759 Moron says Franks from Normandy is local for Arabia :)
can you make this into a short im sn expert in ME history but even this confused me.
Sweet - first non bot comment. Will report back.
No, Dwyer did not "surround" protestors (44:05). The Amritsar Massacre is quite bad enough without making stuff up.
24:06
That is an oximoron. Literally impossible. You can't say that "Jews are not equal" while also "they deserve self-determination and equal rights like every other nation". He wasn't a Zion ist. That is a lie.
so there were not any gains expected from colonizing the lavent and Iraq but they did it anyway for prestige and crusader illusions
Since they betrayed Ottoman Turks, they are all in misery except a few kings
No they are in Misery because the US and Israel create Terrorist Organizations wich terrorize the local Governments and there are also the USA wich toppled most of the Arab leaders, replacing them with US and Israeli Puppets
good informative video , but I can speak regarding Libya history your information is not that exact
This is all so usual it happened litteraly everywhere. Different rulers fighting and using the people as fuel.
As a Syrian, I know people right now don't care about this anymore, they just to have rights and to have a better life. But superpowers will never allow this, for the sake of a peculiar state in the region.
Rightt. Blame everything on the jews huh. Maybe take some responsibility for a change.
Well I never said there are no other problem, actually quite the contrary, if we weren't so divided and weak this would have never happened.
I am not blaming the J. I actually believe they are the biggest victim in the Z project. Eventually it will be dropped to have a chance for peace in the region.
@@RK-cj4ocsick of people blaming 'superpowers' for everything. As if the world would be peaceful with china and the US stop sending weapons. People would kill each other in more prutal ways probably
@@RK-cj4ocdo not pretend that the Zionists are not the cancer of the Middle East
@@RK-cj4ocwhen we make change the west is concerned about our strength so they sow division.
Sand turns to glass when super heated. That is the only way to bring peace to the region.
Very noble of you
Most peaceful westerner:
The first problem comes from is!am. Despite muhammad saying in the qur'an, that god had designated the land occupied by the Canaanites as a Jewish land, so long as they, (the Jews), defeated the Canaanites in battle. Fortunately for all concerned, (except muhammad), the Canaanites had already left the land, literally, for pastures new.
The second problem is also down to is!am, or rather modern is!am. The hatred of the Jews and the losing of 3 wars against them has apparently only reinforced the mus!im hatred of Jews. Jihad appears to be OK, only if your winning.
What about Suni and Shee'a? Not a chance they would make peace among them self
Baghdad recently is pretty cool on that regard as well as Oman.
I wished more people would at least go through this kind of intro to the Middle East before ‘taking sides’
Middle Eastern history is super complex post WW1
One the most diverse and complex regions there is
It was not peaceful before either.
@@ef2718? No region was.
@@ef2718it wasnt peaceful but it was the most stable and the most peaceful compared to europe
@@lero_ Europe was much better documented and more populated, the middle east has is extremely patriarchal and tribal, that made it violent every where just less on an inter-national scale.
The British- and French-controlled countries were divided by the Sykes-Picot line. The agreement allocated to the UK control of what is middle east country today
As a arab i just want to say no if you give every arab culture there own country that'll make us more devidied rn we're all unified and we enjoy it but sunis and shiats can't live together I'm talking only for my country iraq that doesn't mean one should be kicked out of the country it really doesn't matter if someone is shiat or suni
And Christians, Jews and Muslims were able to live under Ottoman Rule till it's end...
I’m also Iraqi and the younger generation of Sunni and Shia are pretty friendly but I can see why it’s harder for them to be friends.
The map of Caucauses has mistakes as it does not reflect the border changes.
More Christians in Syria could have bring more security.
Same with Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine.
What would the Christian’s do? They’d be in the as boat as Muslims.
From 15/16 to 14/21 Ayo? More episodes
Ha, I'm maybe more interested in researching these than people are to watch them, but I haven't found a decent place to stop yet.
Formation of New Arab States, rise of Ataturk, WW2, Formation of Israel, Suez Crisis? So I've just pushed.
@@JabzyJoe I have to agree with you! As someone interested in the British Empires relationship with Arab leaders like in the Trucial states. Hejaz etc I’m living it up.
I wonder have you considered an episode on potential alternate boundaries like. ‘Here are frances ideal boundaries’ the Brits- Turks and Arabs etc.
Obviously it verges into the alternate history but would work with ‘could new borders being peace’ examining how different countries might approach it.
Did u say ‘real’ borders of the Middle East? The borders have been moving since Adam. There were no Arabs until 1800bc.
i am kurdish and i hope the assyrians get a state in mosul so they stop blaming us for everything
The Jordan Valley has long been one civilization. The Brits should not have created a Trans-Jordan or Palestine. In the current circumstances, Jordan should get Palestine, but the Israelis can keep 12,000 sq.km which largely corresponts to the ancient Kingdom of Israel + Jersualem. Thus Jordan would get the southern desert, Gaza, the entire Hebron-Beersheba River catchment, southern West Bank, Ramallah, and Jericho and the floor of the Jordan River Valley uo to its junction with the Yarmuk River. The primary dispute will be - should the Jerusalem border be Route 60 or the Security Barrier - the Old city lies between. Jordan thus gets the whole of the Jordan River where Israel has robbed it of water. Jordan will need to build a number of Desal plants near Gaza to make fresh water for Jordan and to restore flow in the Jordan River. Jordan would get the Job of managing the dead sea. The Hagia Sophia cathedral has been turned into a mosque, setting a precedent for Temple Mount.
Isreal hasn't robbed anything. It is their land.
@@lylecampbell9036 Settler European Jews never owned Palestine. Their Land my ass
@@lylecampbell9036 The issue beyond all of this is whether a Jewish state contain equal right for Jews and Palestian Arabs. The other issue is the forced removal of Arabs from their homes and farms to maintain or increase Isreal's Jewish majority. Without ethnic cleansing Jews would only be in the majority in West Jerusalem and the coastal plain between Tel Aviv and Haifa.
Interesting video
The roots of all these problems are in the Arab conquests of the 600s. Before then there wasn’t so much divisiveness in the Middle East. It was much more peaceful and homogeneous. There was much more religious and ethnic tolerance. The Arab conquest changed all that and we are still living with the ill effects of it today.
Wrong, before 600s there was Greeks, Assyrians Aramaics, March arabs, Iranians, Armenians, Romans, Nabataen arabs and bedeons. Some were pagans others were Christians (Coptic and Orthodox) some were Jewish others Zeroastrainism this applies on multiple different ethnicities at that time you could find an arab who's a Christian and an Arab who is a jew and another who is pagan
Agreed. They really fucked up everything. I can’t help but think how much more tolerant and more compatible with the west the Middle East would be if it wasn’t for Arab conquests and imperialism.
They are still doing it in africa and South Asia new conflicts arising with rise of communism and ethnonationalism
There were no arabs in the 600s, the idea of arabs were created much recent
The difficulty in watching this video, is that the maps don’t necessarily portray the countries in question, and if they do, they’re so large, that they’re off the screen, or worse still blocked by images of people, that are probably significant, but far too large. I gave up on watching what might have otherwise been an informative and anti-colonial narrative
This was mostly unbiased expect some parts were so ridiculously wrong especially about Armenia. In 1920 it was Armenia which attacked Turkey not the other way around, Hovhannes Kajaznuni who was PM of Armenia during that wrote it was them who attacked Turks crystal clear. He even adds in his manifesto that Turks wanted to confer instead of the war but they refused believing they were going to win! Even if it is so unquestionably proven that Armenia was the aggressor, somehow it is told otherwise by simply using Turks won the war like it was their plan all along. Once again it was also Russian empire and their Armenian proxies which invaded Anatolia in 1914 and remaining Armenians rebelled against the empire believing it was about to collapse. But ofc if Armenians were aggressors how exactly somebody can claim they were genocided so Armenian rebellion is completely ignored by so called "neutral" western historians. Just pathetic to be honest, Turkey will never ever recognize this rewriting of history even if thousands of years pass. It was Armenians who tried to "liberate their historial lands" they weren't even majority anymore, in that order they became a proxy of Russian empire and committed atrocities. On the other hand Georgians never became a proxy, never claimed an inch of land they weren't majority and at the end they could establish twice larger country than Armenia with half of population. Everybody reaps what they sow, Armenians wanted war and got it..
"Could new borders bring peace to the middle east?" Possibly, but there's no chance at all if those borders are decided by imperialists.
Not a chance even if the perfect borders are given they would fight over other things such as race, resources or religion. The most amount of "peace" there would be between this groups is them uniting to fight that one certain country that has a star of you know what as there religion. but the moment they finish wiping out anything that breaths there they will start fighting each again.