Thoughts on the Middle East

I am continuing to read Lawrence of Arabia: The Authorized Biography, by Jeremy Wilson, and it has been very eye-opening to me to read exactly what happened after WWI, when the old Turkish Ottoman Empire was broken up by the Allies during the peace process. Although many promises of future self-governing and so on were made to the Arabs, who had risen up in revolt against the Turks and greatly helped the British win in the Middle East (this is where Lawrence got all his fame), in the end these promises were not fulfilled, and much of the Middle East was parceled out to be new colonies, Palestine to Britain, and Syria to France, even though the Syrians hated the French. The Arabs didn't want to replace one master (the Turks) with another (France), and so there was another revolt and more violence. In the meantime, in Arabia, the Sherif Hussein, who had basically stirred up the rebellion, expected to rule over what is now Saudi Arabia. The Anglo-Indian government, however, didn't want to encourage any nationalistic governments, because they were afraid the Indian people would see that and revolt themselves. As a result, they gave secret aid to ibn Saud, the Wahabi chief, who practiced a more radical form of Islam, implementing a very strict form of shari'a law. So now today we are certainly reaping the consequences of all the political wranglings and mechinations of the 1920s.

In my mind, I have been contrasting the approach of Britain and France after the war with President Bush's Inaugural speech. "Across the generations, we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. . . So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. This is not primarily the task of arms . . .Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different than our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way. . . Today America speaks anew to the peoples of the world: All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know -- the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for liberty we will stand with you."

Wow. How might history have been changed if the U.S. had made a pledge like that in 1918. Instead, we were Isolationists, silently disapproving of Colonialism, but not standing firmly for freedom. I know that God is sovereign in human history, and that He has allowed and orchestrated all that has happened in the Middle East, but I still wonder how things would be different . . . and I wonder how President Bush's policies will affect that area. I know true peace will not come to this earth until Christ returns again, but we are commanded to "pray for the peace of Jerusalem" (Ps. 122:6) , and I also know the light of God's truth is more freely shown in a democracy.