March 1, 2012

Lecture Thirteen: First World War and Arab Nationalist’s Alliance With Britain

-The young Turks revived the old Ottoman constitution but they did not put back the old ways, they became more of a directorship. The parliament was not really there, the laws and decisions were being made by the Party of National Unity. The Young Turks acted like elites, and unfairly, they worked towards political arabism. Parts of Arab society of those who came to high positions in government. There was a shift from the old regime and now they were changing into a more modern regime in 1908. -For the first time political arabism was spread across Arab Muslims. -By 1914 they were small but many political groups dealing with this politics.-Along side organizations that followed arabism, was lead by Hussain from the family of Hasse-meite. He was appointed the Sharif of Mecca. He was a good candidate for the position. He had uneasy feelings of the young Turks. He wanted to connect the train line to Damascus but not down to Medina. He made ties with Britain, he feared the centralization of Ottoman authority.-By opening contacts with Britain before the war was a way to lock his rule and to be defended. This amountained to nothing, they did not want to create any problems for themselves because this area was weak area. Problems came when the Ottoman empire sided with Germany in the War and they thought it would be a short war and they would win and gain land. Now Britain went to get allies in the small arab provinces. Hussain went to Britain to Arab Nationalism, and he started the arab revolt in 1916. -Moreover his connections helped him to get more allies in the arab revolt, against the Ottoman empire.-He was driven by personal qualities to get what he wanted. -All Ottoman Christians and Jews were conscripted to the Ottoman army.-Originally the Ottoman nationalist who supported Hussain thought that they would win. The army was led by Jemell Pasha and they were able to stop the Australians. He did not put people in their home areas because they could escape and go back home because they were conscripts and did not want to be there. The arab revolt made a huge effort for the British in the Middle East. Lots and lots of people killed and died, Armenians were targeted because of ethnicity. -Famine in Syria and Lebanon because of poor harvest and food being taken to use in the army and the blockage by France and Britain. They were also taxed by Britain and France, and this leads to the collapse of the Ottoman empire.-Hussian’s son Fysal was going to be King of Iraq. -In 1916 the Skyes- Picot agreement was created with Britain and its allies, they split up the area of the middle east ie. fertile crescent and gave areas to France and Britain and international areas.-Beaflour agreement in 1917 was created by the British for an all Jewish nation state.-The Skyes-Picot was nullified in 1917 because Russia collapses and drops out of the war.-Public declarations were made by 1918 France and Britain pledged to create national govern-ments in the Ottoman empire. As part of a post- war world.-These arab nationalist and broken with the Caliphate and now they had sided with Britain. -Britain and France just wanted to cut up the Ottoman empire for themselves. -France got a mandate from the league of nations that they can have Syria and Lebanon.-Britain got a mandate for Egypt and Iraq-As a movement the Arab Nationalist did not have roots to do much.

Post World War One Period

Egypt: In 1882 Britain had taken over Egypt and until 1914 it was part of the Ottoman empire. Britain worked behind the scenes in Egypt. -In 1913 they had a rep. in Egyptian government-During the war Cairo river was cut because they were to close to the Ottoman empire. There government would be reviewed after the war. They did not do this, so their was a revolt against Britain. Egypt nationalist were not allowed to go to the Paris Peace Conference, to say there case. -The British did not really want to deal with another war against Egypt. They wanted to find oth-er ways to define colonial rule. -1914 - 1923 the Muhammad Ali dynasty would be called the government of the Sultan. The role Egyptian royal government had pressure for nationalist, and they could not agree with the British terms-The Wafd was a truly national party, it was middle class elites and higher class elites. It had sup-ports in the city and the country side.-In 922 Britain declared Egypt to be independent. It gained internal autonomy, but there was no agreement Britain still have itself some control of the land. They had an constitution in 1923, and a constitutional monarchy. Parliament was suspended most of the time. There were some politi-cal parties.-Zuguhul was the leader of the Wafd party and he was Prime Minister for a little bit, he was forced to resign because had assassinated the British leader of the Egyptian army. The constitu-tional monarchy was afraid the Wafd would take over them.-There was poverty and disease during this time, not a lot of doctors.-Very few people owned land, or could send their children to school. 2% of the population owned the land in this period.-There was an Egyptian feminist movement, that agued women’s rights and they turned there backs on the Wafd movement when they were not enfranchised. -There was an financial elite, and industrialist ie. Bank Misr, textiles, food production.-The case of Britain we see a difference between industrialist and the landowners. In Egypt they would mix together to better help themselves. -So the 1930s saw radical movements of Islamic, Nationalist and Communist reforms emerging. -In 1928, The Muslim Brotherhood was the larges political party around.-The Wafd movement had decreased and gone into other groups.-Egypt is now struggling for full independence. -Even though liberalism fell politically, it did not fall in education and cultural areas.-Egypt was a community of people who lived their and defined themselves there. Then the idea of Egypt is the cultural on itself with a wider western and medetarrian world. This kind of na-tionalism is called Ironic nationalism looking back at the time of the Pharaohs. -Monuments and statues, were created to mark the past values of Egypt heritage.-Modern Egypt is connecting to its ancient past.-The growing middle class (modest backgrounds) they understood Egypt not only in territorial terms but with other speaking lands.

The Arab Revolt: Hashemite Ambitions, British Strategy

Sharif Husayn of Mecca (left) led the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Turks beginning in 1916. He wished to preserve andextend the authority of his family in the name of “true” Islam and of Arab nationalism. The na-tionalists’ bête-noir was Jamal Pasha (above right), a key member of the Ottoman leadership who used extraordinary war powers to govern Syria and Palestine with German support. Operational control of the Arab Revolt was delegated to Sharif Husayn’s sons ‘Abdallah (below left) and Faysal. Shown here with British General Allenby, Faysal (below right) symbolized Hashemite achievements and disappointments in the postwar disposition of Arab lands after the Ottomans’ defeat.

Egypt from special Ottoman province, to British Protectorate, to Kingdom1882 — British occupy Egypt and rule behind façade of Khedive’s administration

1906 — widespread anti-British protests and agitation 1908 — huge funeral for nationalist hero Mustafa Kamil

1913 — British permit partially elected representative assembly 1914 — Britain severs Egyp-tian-Ottoman link and declares Protectorate over Egypt; Khedive deposed; his successor is called Sultan of Egypt

1919 — massive countrywide anti-British demonstrations; formation of Wafd movement under Sa‘d Zaghlul 1922 — Britain unilaterally declares Egypt independent but reserves four key is-sues of sovereignty to itself

1923 — Egyptian constitution defines country as constitutional monarchy; Sultan becomes King; franchise restricted to males

1924 — Sa‘d Zaghlul’s Wafd win first parliamentary elections

1928 — Muslim Brotherhood established 1930–35 — King suspends parliament and rules by martial law

1936 — Wafd wins new elections and signs Treaty with Britain that permits Egypt to join the League of Nations

1936–39 — Growing public consciousness of and expressions of solidarity with Arab Muslims outside of Egypt, particularly those in Palestine; radical nationalist and religious movements gain larger followings

1939–45 — British impose renewed military control in Egypt

1942 — Britain forces King to appoint a pro-British Wafd government

1945 — League of Arab States formed with Egypt playing acentral role

Ideological Currents in Interwar EgyptThe Egyptian national movement from 1919 onward was embodied in the Wafd party, founded by Sa‘d Zaghlul (d. 1927), shown top left with sculptor Mahmud Mukhtar. During the 1920s Egyptian politicians, authors, and artists promoted territorial nationalism using Pharaonic im-agery, as in Mukhtar’s statue “The Awakening of Egypt” (top right). In a similar vein, the blind writer Taha Husayn (d. 1973, below left) emphasized Egypt’s Mediterranean roots. More pop-ulist middle class currents (including the Muslim Brotherhood, whose symbol is below right) stressed Egyptians’Arab and/or Islamic identities. Radical religious and nationalist movements expressed middle class alienationfrom a parliamentary system seen as corrupt and unresponsive.

“Joe Egyptian” confronts a corrupt political system, 1930sIn Egyptian political cartoons of the 1930s, the character of Misri Effendi — “Joe Egyptian” — represented middle-class discomfiture with the elitist and corrupt political system associated with the King, parliament, and wealthy politicians. This cartoon from 1933 — in the midst of the global economic depression — shows Misri Effendi berating the political and economic estab-lishment for their oppression of the peasantry, deriding their proposal to allocate an inadequate sum to assist the rural poor.(The bag at Misri Effendi’s feet denotes 1 million Egyptian pounds. In the translated caption, ‘fellah’ means peasant.) All the political actors, including Misri Effendi, are depicted as male. Elites are lampooned for their haughty demeanor and expensive suits. The peasant is not depicted as a political actor, but rather he is acted upon. Politics was generally understood as a matter for literate urban males of the middle and upper classes.

March, 6, 2012Lecture Fourteen: Inter War Period in North Africa

-The French controlled areas: Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria shared number of common features: all three had come under European control pre-WW1. France was the dominate colonial power. Protected Tunisia and shared Morocco with Spain and had the protected treaties. They were sort of similar to the situation in Egypt. -During the interwar period all three countries were subjected to European colonial government, investments in mining and agriculture. The indigenous relayed on wage labour. The rural sectors experience land shortages and commercial agriculture and the effect of it was driving peasants off the land. Urban artisans were generally effected by the big commercial businesses from the inner city. People would move from the rural country side to the urban city. Cities that were once European are now beginning filled with the natives. ie. Casablanca. Traditional arab city emger-ing with the modern European cities. The Arabs would live in the old parts of the cities and the

Europeans would live in the newer parts of the city. All three countries had national movements who came together as collations to either get independence or to come together with Europe-Islamic, Nationalist or Socialist or sometimes they combined elements of all three groups. The conditions for national movements. The leadership of these movements were draw from the mid-dle class educated graduates from French or British schools. They emerged after the WW1 and conscripts who had come back from France (they fought with the French army). 25% of Tunisia males from 20 -40 spent there time in France. War is over large number of people have these new experiences and now they want more political freedom because they did these new jobs and be-cause the economy was not doing well because then in 1929s there was the great depression. Symbolic French actions that stirred up national movements even more. French colonial rule set into motion the forces that would make it unattainable to continue their rule in these countries.

Algeria: The interwar period saw three political trends with Algeria Muslims: 1. The a simulation with the young Algerians. (because of the French colonial enterprise

and the annexation of algeria to France, Algeria was part of France territory. They did not have the same legal rights as Christians. A few thousand people who were educated and simulated to France was not immediately related. They were able to have a voice in France, themselves. They had connections with France, and were educated in the French systems but they did not want to give up their Muslim status to have the legal status the Christians have. The opposition of the colonist to these laws took the simulation out of them. They needed this to pursue other Muslims that this is the path that they wanted to take to show others this is the right thing to do. By WW2 they have come to have a different political agenda. The first nationalist trend but with socialism emgering among Algerian workers in France in 1926 and they come up with the North Africa Star, it took its name from the French war medal that was given to them to recognize their war efforts during the WW1. It was linked to the French Communist party. Some of the modeling came to the NAS from the communist party because they all were forming during this time. The communist wanted to extend the franchise to Algeria and Algeria is its own country and they should have their independence and no longer be under colonial rule. Urbanized peasants were part if the party as well.

2. The teachings of Muhammad Abud that led to the Muslim Brotherhood that was happen-ing in Egypt. The influence of them reached Algeria and other countries because of schools in Cairo and would be influenced by theses people and would come back with these ideas to their home countries and try to spread them. The organization that was forming it was a tenseless and the Algerian Ulama had a problem with the Marabout not like the same way it was in Egypt. They instated on controlling the Ulama waqf. The Ulama said they needed a modern Muslim schools to continue the value of Islam. They did not want people to forget about the true values on Islam. They wanted a new understanding of Muslim and so they can learn how to modern and Muslim at the same time. Habous in French means Waqf. The Algerian Ulama would accuse the Marabouts of siding with the French. The willingness of assimilation of the slogan of the Ulama was the “Islam is my religion, Arabic is my language and Algeria is my homeland.”

3. The government of Algeria spent a lot of money on celebrations. Taxes were higher to be able to afford this. This did not go down very well with other Muslims, in 1931 the French heirachry Eucharist Committee wanted to Christianize Algeria because the French are coming back here after being away from centuries. For them to think they have made something perfect and establishing themselves. Most of the colonist in Algeria were European Catholics and they would take on French backgrounds.

Assimilationism & Nationalism in Interwar AlgeriaThe Young Algerians (1908) took French Republican slogans of liberté, égalité and frater-nité seriously, and they advocated “assimilation” of Muslim Algerians into French politics through full citizenship and civic equality. Their most prominent spokesman was Ferhat Abbas (Farhât ‘Abbâs. d. 1985 [top left]), the pharmacist son of pro-French administrators and landowners in Constantine. Later, the persistence of French and colon supremacist attitudes caused Abbas and his associates to despair of assimilation and they adopted separatist national-ism.Algerian veterans of the French army [lower left] founded the first explicitly nationalist organi-zation in 1926, the Etoile Nord- Africaine, led by Massali al-Hajj (Masâlî al-Hâjj, d. 1974 [lower right]). On his return to Algeria from France in 1936, Massali became head of the nationalist People’s Party.

The Centenary of “Algérie Française” and the Association of Algerian ‘Ulamâ’Posters commemorating the centenary of the French invasion of Algeria (1930) offered a picture of Franco- Muslim amity and harmony that glossed over a history of conquest and colonial dis-crimination. Ceremonies commemorating the French conquest, and the French Right’s efforts to emphasize the historically Christian character of North Africa, spurred the creation of the Associ-ation of Algerian Ulama (1931). The leading figure in the Association was ‘Abd al-Hamîd ibn Badîs (Ben Badis, d. 1940, pictured below). Like the assimilationist Ferhat Abbas, Ibn Badis was born to a wealthy pro- French administrative family in Constantine. Educated at the Zaytuna in Tunis, he was intrigued by the ideas of the Salafiyya that he encountered both in Tunis and dur-ing his travels to Egypt and the Hijaz. Ibn Badis chose to emphasize the Arabic and Islamic ele-ments of Algerian identity. He and his associates supported modern Islamic education, and they challenged both assimilationists like Abbas and traditionalists like the marabouts, whom the Salafi ‘ulama’ denounced as ignorant and corrupt.

March 8, 2012Lecture Fifteen: Tunisia and Morocco in The InterWar Period

-In Tunisia there were 3 trends: 1. Conservative colonialism of the former elite. The elites were still there because they

were protectors of France, not like in Algeria. There was a political party of reformist ideas, and they claimed that France was blocking Tunisia’s modern reform in the world, they were pushing them back and they were not going forward. The destour tried to push for a modern reform for Tunisia. They saw the conflict with France in legal and diplomatic turns, not in violence. There methods of action reflect their elite backgrounds, and they lacked the support of a mass base and because of that France was able to get rid of them. They did not get the help of the intelligencia. They were arguing for old political reform.

2. The populist nationalism and the Neo-Destour party was the ones who take a look from the Destour, by they were from the Arab Franco School system and they were from the middle class. They were from a different background than the other Destour. The leader of this party was a lawyer. They drawed people from the lower status, from the village and costal towns. By the 1930s people were competing with the old elite families and the aspiring middle classes in the

Tunisia beauracy. They demanded for independence no going back to the ways in the past. They wanted to create a new society. They became a mass party with 100, 000 people in the communi-ty by 1934. They had the new middle class, the dock workers of Tunisia and the rural tribal peo-ple.

3. The independent trade union movement. Modern trade unions emerged in Tunisia for the first time in France North Africa. The workers in the industries were Tunisians, and the French were there employers. In 1924 it started because of the work dockers strike. Even after the move-ment was suppressed, the people sided with the Neo-Destour party. They had their own indepen-dence but they emerged along the same war with the Neo-Destour. They were pushed under ground in 1926 but then emerged to the surface in 1940s when it was okay for them.

Interwar Tunisia: From Destour to Neo-DestourThe French Protectorate (est. 1881) kept the court of the Husaynid Beys intact. However, the re-splendent denizens of the Bardo palace (left) lacked real authority. The Destour [Dustûr = Con-stitution] party (est. 1920) used political and legal meansto argue for a reduction of French influence and the development of Tunisia as a modern Islamic state. The Destour’s founder, ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Tha‘alabi (d. 1944, pictured on a postage stamp at right), was in some respects an heir of the 19th-century reformer Khayr al-Din al-Tunisi, who had been one of the first to write in Arabic about the meaning of a modern Islamic state from a ruling-class perspective. But the Destour’s elitist orientation and its inability to mobilize a large cross-section of Tunisia’s population caused the party to languish. Provincial middle- class ac-tivists with both French and Arabic educations broke with the old party and founded the Neo-Destour in 1934. Theirs was a nationalist agenda with grass-roots organization. The Neo- Des-tour’s leading figure was provincial lawyer Habib Bourguiba (Habîb Bû-Raqîba, d. 2000, stand-ing at the far left with other Neo-Destour leaders). For the Neo-Destour, the Husaynid Beys and the Bardo palace represented failure and collaboration, not a framework for Tunisian self-gov-ernment.

Morocco: Islamic and nationalist movement. Extend modern Muslim education. They thought along the same lines to Algeria. They always did not like the Marabout. They also did not like it when in 1930 France to replace the shira customary law, and they did not want this to happen. Morocco national movement was in 1930 mobilzation against the burber decrit. Morocco needed France are they would fall a part.-A Moroccan nation that was linked together with Islam and an old Spanish Islam. The Sultan sat in the middle of a modern Morocco and the old traditional ways of power. Where do you find the legal training in Ulama. To give t a formal burecratic structure. France was creating a system that linked the country to the city. The French are building the roads and railroads to bring the coun-try and city closer. There is an increasing movement of rural people to the cities. The French are attempting to institutions Morocco. There was disenfranchised in the masses and this help get a national party together. El Fazzy was the leader of the political party. As the issues moved out into the country side between French who lived on the best lands and the farmers. Non arabs and non muslims in the new modern Morocco state. The WW2 Sultan sided with the national move-ment. The Moroccan elite survived the post war and the national elite. Political development in France left changes in the political front. The political popular front which was a left winged coalition party looked to colonial settlers in the North Africa because they did own them any-thing. North Africa colonist had their hopes raised and dropped because the party in France did

nothing for them and then they were pushed out of power and a more formal conservative party was elected in. They were organizing now to become a modern state.

Nationalism, Reform and Tradition in Interwar MoroccoIn Morocco the movement of Salafi-inflected nationalism was reflected in the Istiqlal Party (1936) led by ‘Allal al-Fasi (d. 1974, left). Like the Neo- Destour in Tunisia, the Istiqlal was an amalgam of left-wing trade-union activists, small farmers and merchants, and middle-class pro-fessionals. When Sultan Muhammad V (d. 1961, lower left) declared his support for the national movement after the Second World War, the nationalist coalition acquired socially conservative Establishment and traditionalist backing. (Later, once the French and Spanish prudently decided to retire from their joint protectorate [1956], the Moroccan monarchy was able to hold the bal-ance of power between contending social forces in a way that prevented nationalists like al-Fasi from emerging as Morocco’s counterpart to Tunisia’s Bourguiba or Egypt’s postwar leader ‘Abd al-Nasir.)

Libya: It was historical three different regions. These regions had distinct different experiences in the pre-colonial. Tripolatian had a society of merchants and peasants, and had mountain peas-ants. They had ties with Tripoli, they go their income from a combination of taxes on exports and shipping. The revenues and trade in Hizian. The decline of sea trade, splits the Caramedleys fam-ily and in 1835 they are no longer in power. They are the North African out post for the Tonsi-mate. In 19th century there was British and Italian interests in this area. The Maltese worked and traded in Libya under British rule. The Italian banks made alliances with the merchants and banks. There were Italian schools build in during this time. Jews would learn Italian to get Italian citizenship so they can get support. Britain was okay after 1882 and on the same page because Britain did not want the French to get involved. They did not want the French to expand their rule from Tripoli into this area. The Italians were a player in Libya during this time. Italians set-tled here because of cultural interests (education, trading etc)-In Fazian, rulers ignored Tripoli. They had a big export of dates. In 1812 the last Cardemley ruler took over this area. The Fazin got its independence after the fall of the Cardemley family. -In 1842 a new style of Ottoman army came and established a garrison in a local town. Fazians moved northward for work in the labour force. -Core of Ottoman North Africa in the 19th century-The real wealth came from the trade routes most articles of goods were gold and slaves and os-trich feathers-The elites that were able to profit from these trades were quite wealthy-Expanding government control south ward once the Cardemely family ends and a beauracy gov-ernment comes into play.-The slave trade is abolished in the 19th century by the Ottoman empire so that is lost income for the elites and the other trade routes are given to France. They will become a labour clam and ex-porting workers

Map of Libya plus its historical regionsIn Ottoman times, Libya’s three regions were:Tripolitania in the northwest, where Tripoli was the capital of the Ottoman province. The town of Tripoli had a direct tributary or administrative relationship with other Tripolitanian towns and with Tripolitania’s agricultural hinterland.

Fezzan due south of Tripolitania. The oasis region of Fezzan was frequently self-governing and it had an intermittent tributary relationship with Tripolitania. Permanent Ottoman garrisons were established there only in the second half of the 19th century.Cyrenaica (or al-Barqa), where Benghazi and other small administrative and garrison towns had weak links to the agricultural and pastoral hinterland.

Italy Invades and Conquers LibyaItaly invaded Tripolitania in 1911 (top photo), and the Ottomans withdrew in 1912. Italy con-quered Fezzan in 1914 but could not hold it. By the end of World War I, Italy controlled much of the Tripolitanian coast while the country’s interior was under indigenous Libyan rulers and au-thorities of different kinds (aRepublic in Tripolitania; Sanusi leadership in Cyrenaica; tribal leadership in Fezzan). Beginning in 1922 Italy moved to conquer all of Libya. Concentration camps (center photo) were among the weapons and tactics used to quash Libyan resistance. The Italian authorities captured and hanged the Sanusi-affiliated resistance leader ‘Umar al-Mukhtar in 1931 (bottom photo).

Italy Governs LibyaUnder Fascist rule Libya was annexed to Italy. The country’s Roman heritage was emphasized in public monuments (top photo: “Victory Avenue” in Benghazi), entertainments such as the Italian Grand Prix were organized (bottom left), and more than 100,000 Italians took up residence in the country (at bottom right, a group of settlers greet the Italian governor Balbo in 1938).

Tuesday March 13, 2012

Lecture Sixteen: Continuation (Barqa and Libya)

Cyenarica (Barqa): It is separated from Tripoli and is near the medetarrian coast and the bar-er of the dessert. It was dependent on Tripoli.-There tribal people were able to govern on themselves-They had garrisons in the coast towns. -The most significant region was the Green Mountain and a very fertile region and it was home to self governing tribal people-This region is linked to the medetarrian because of trade routes that link down into Chad and Egypt.-The tribal structure was defined by hierarchy and the arab elites. -Rural Barqa was tied to the commercial trade to Chad and Egypt-Livestock was a major export for them.-There share and trade lasted longer than Fazain because of politics. Chad and Egypt was under British and Fazain was under French. The intersection between French and British colonial role created a grey area which benefit Barqa-Like in Algeria we see a sufi order named Sanusiyya. They were a new movement who were re-ligious movement lead by a sufi leader who came from Algeria and his name was Muh. b. Ali al - Sanusi (d. 1859) and in 1842 he decided to ally himself with tribal figures here and left Algeria because they were now under French rule. In the years that followed the movement created lodges (zawiya) that extended from Barqa to Egypt to Chad and they were educational places.

-The political relations between the Ottomans and the Sanusiyya was not a good one. The Sanusiyya was self governing and the odd time they would say they had a verbal connection to the Ottomans when they needed something. They saw and accepted helped from the Italian gov-ernment because they wanted to stop the French colonial expansion of Chad and they knew that Italy would help them stop French expansion but in the end they could not do anything and stop the French.-The Italian invasion of Libya in 1911 changed the balance of power and if you are with the Ital-ians or against the Italians. -This was a blow to Istanbul and they were finding ways to go against them-This made Istanbul get colonial land in Tripoli.-There was a brief battle between the ottomans and the Italians-The Ottomans with Italy signed a peace treaty in 1912 because there was battles going on in the Balkan lands. Istanbul needed to focus there attention their. The Ottoman government will recog-nize the independence of Barqa and Libya. Italy can still have their influence there as well. The Italian army was unable to get the land of Fazarian. They tried to play off local interests off dif-ferent tribal leaders. On the eve of WW1 Italy had claimed it but they could not get it because of guerilla tactics and they could not capture and hold it.-Opened war fare resumed in Libya and Italy joined the Allies and the Ottomans and Germans are against the Allies and they are encouraging anti-Italian forces in Libya. Ahmad al - Sharif (he was the Sultan in Barqa) goes against both the British and the Italians. The British in Egypt killed a lot of people and Sharif fled Barqa because of his bad war tactics. -Idris al -Mahdi (d. 1983) He takes over from Sharif and is pro British and signs a peace treaty with them and the Italians. He recognized Italy’s control of Tripoli and the Italy’s recognized that the sufis and the inter were independent. -The Tripolitan Republic in 1918 was a group of four leaders and they were politics in Ottoman during the first world war. The interior was given to the Tripolitan Republic and Italy can have the costal regions. After 1922 when the Fascist of Mussolini took over he was hostile towards the Tripolitan Republic.

-The Fascist Era: Libya was to become Italy’s fourth shore. Mussolini ruled directly through the government. This is similar to France in Algeria. Mussolini wanted to have Italian colonist settle the Libyan land and for them to come under direct Italian rule. To change the indigenous popula-tion with Europeans and change the way of life. The indigenous population is deprived of their land, food, etc, This is called settler colonist. This happened in 15 years and it was aggressive and quick and Mussolini did what he could to do this, they took over the Fazian and Tripolitia. It would be wiser to bend with the wind than be destroyed. It was their duty to resistance Italian rule because this was their homeland and Islam was their religion. The Italians found themselves at war with the population. They build consternation camps to starve out the guerillas of Omar al Matar who was the one who started this war because they did not want Italian rule and he was captured and hung in public. -The way had been cleared for a full way colonial construction happen in Libya. By the end of 1930s the towns of Tripoli and Baqa were 30% Italian. Moreover were the 100 000 Italians leav-ing in the coastal regions. Italian peasant populations were but into these regions in Libya. The Italians looked to what the French did in Algeria. Modern Italians were justified in making Libya its fourth shore because back in ancient roman times it was part of the Roman Empire and since

Mussolini’s Italy is the reincarnation of the Roman Empire, Italy was theres. There were ruins of the Roman Empire in Libya.-Italy lost in WW2 and Libya was put up to the US and French. Many of thousands of Libyans died during the rule under of Italy. After the war the exiled Idris and sufis elite that was given the rule of Libya by the British saying they are independent. Betrayal conquest was compressed dur-ing the 1920s for about 20 years unlike in Algeria when it happened over decades of time. It was similar to Algeria but at the same time different. It was usual for Italy to do all this colonism and compression after WW1. The end of rule of Italy in Libya is because of war defeated.

Hashemite Iraq 1921–1958: Pillars of the RegimePillars of the Hashemite regime were the monarchy, army and bureaucracy. King Faysal I (r. 1921–33) was put in place by Britain, and he worked to establish legitimacy amongst Iraq’s pow-er brokers. Whether greeting Shi‘i cleric Muhammad al-Sadr (above left; note the royal biplane) or inspecting an honor guard at the opening of a new oil refinery (above right), Faysal built a fragile sense of statehood around the idea of an Arab monarchy. His immediate successor King Ghazi (r. 1933–39) shared power with assertive nationalist army officers, and after 1939 his grandson, the unfortunate boy-king Faysal II (r. 1939–1958, pictured at left), perched uneasily on the royal throne. Real power in most of this period was wielded by ex-Ottoman officer and veter-an politician Nuri al-Sa‘id, in collaboration with the unpopular Hashemite regent ‘Abd al- Ilah (below right). Along with Faysal II, both Nuri and ‘Abd al-Ilah were overthrown and killed in 1958.

Sati‘ al-Husri and the Ideology of (pan-) Arab nationalismThe son of an Ottoman judge with family roots in Aleppo (Syria), Sati‘ al-Husri (1879–1967) lived and worked throughout the Ottoman Empire until 1918. He was a civil servant in the Ot-toman Ministry of Education, and he spent some of his early career in the Ottoman Balkans where he observed the appeal of ethnic nationalism at firsthand. Like many other Ottoman Arabs, al-Husri had to choose between a Turkish and Arab affiliation after 1918. He moved to Syria to work in the education ministry of Prince (briefly, King) Faysal’s short-lived Damascus Arab gov-ernment. When Faysal became King of Iraq in 1921, al-Husri followed and was instrumental in developing the Iraqi educational system until the Second World War. Al-Husri’s Iraqi curriculum taught and elaborated the idea of Arab Nationalism as a legitimizing ideology for the new regime. Inspired by German- style nationalism, whereby the nation precedes the state, and whereby the true national state is one that unites the nation, al- Husri’s version of Arab National-ism laid the foundations for much of Arab nationalist political discourse up through the 1960s. (The last pale vestiges of this type of Arab nationalist ideology were/are represented by the Ba‘th regimes of Iraq [till 2003] and Syria [till today] — though al-Husri was not a Ba‘thist.)

March 15, 2012

Lecture Seventeen:

March 20, 2012Lecture 18: The French Mandates of Syria and Lebanon

French Mandates of Syria & Lebanon

Trauma of War

-1915-18: Famine: failed harvest - Religious tensions: Christian Mount Lebanon hit hardest 50-80,000 died -1916: Fear of famine in Beirut: Population drops 180,000 to 75,000 -1916-17: Large scale deaths in Damascus and inner Syria-1917: Famine reaches Jerusalem-By 1918: 600,000 dead in Greater Syria, or 18% of the population (little less than 1/5)-Locals blamed Ottomans, Ottomans blamed the Allied (Entente) blockade-Famine as weapon? -Agricultural recovery slow, even by 1930s did not reach pre-war levels-Post-war: disproportionate urban boom -A degree of class consciousness: future union movements -Rise of orphanages. - 3/4 of adult male population (17-55) conscripted for war effort, 1/6 Arab soldier died.-Disruption of traditional gender roles as men forced to fight, women worked-Collapse of silk industry with increasing imports, poor not able to replace w/ Citrus-Light tools confiscation during war-In general the poor hit harder, the elites enjoyed relative stability

French policy: Patronize geographically compact religious communities:1) Maronites 2) Alawis 3) Druze

Greater Syria divided into: 1) Greater Lebanon with a slimMaronite majority due to additions of Sidon, Tripoli Beirut, Tyre and Biqa Valley (1920)

2) Druze state 3) Alawi state 4) Truncated leftover Syria:i) Damascus ii) Aleppo

1922: Syrian Mandate proper created combining: Damascus, Allepo, Homs, Hama-French hoped for Alawis and Druze to become politically charged and counter Arab nationalism like Maronites in Lebanon. Isolate Damascus and Aleppo (centers of Arab nationalism). Support large landowners and tribal chiefs

-French political behaviour in Syria and Lebanon was different than British behaviour in Iraq. The British had a short lived mandate and then left them under King Faysal and then under an Iraqi government.-In Syria and Lebanon the French did not give the same expend, the differences are Frances in-ability to give in to advances because they were weaker than Britain, and they were not the main trade partners of the two countries.-France made choses to alienate a portion of Maronite Catholics.-The Governor General administrator in Bayroot. The mandate held special administration in smaller states.-Many of the Governor Generals had experience from Morocco and thinking Morocco and used there experiences in these states-There was a rubric of common interest in unifying the tariff zone of all the states. -The special forces (colonial and elite) became the main forces of French rule. At the end of the mandate the special forces got split up between Syria and Lebanon.-The nationalist were saying we are a unified nation and a historical one we should have our in-dependence. This is happening at the same time in Morocco. That is why the French spilt them and institutionalize them into states. The idea was to form certain identities and a link to the modern state and identities that would be related to France. The ethically mixed of North East Syria was put under special administration under a Governor General.-The language of minority and majority was starting to be used in political language.

Lebanon: In 1920 the boundaries of Greater Lebanon was created and the territories that were added to it. This was a French response to Lebanon and the trade routes along the coast. -1926 They were given their own constitution and they were separate from Syria. -The wide speared Iraqi rebellion of 1920 led the British to leave from that area. During 1925 - 26 there was a Syrian revolt, the men in these revolts were from the old days of the Ottoman army. Appeals of religion (Islam), Syria the home land (territorial appeal), Ethic Identity, they would speak on these when they were speaking about there identity. -The idea of Syria as a political discourse. Significant parts of Damascus had been destroyed by the French. The French army was stronger and they did win and after the suppression of the re-bellion after 1927. Discouraged locals from gaining any real administrative experience or power with higher posts reserved for French staff. Local Syrian governors and district commissioners were micromanaged. Religious minority groups • Sunni urban notables refrainThe French were successful in mobilizing support from the Maronite Christian community as they occupied key offices. French rule was heavy handed with considerable alienation of Chris-tians even from mains positions of power. Economic policies of France caused a crisis in 1930s in Lebanon. Lebanese Muslims were no longer re- integrationists. They sought alliances with Christian Maronites and other minorities to reduce French role. They knew they would play sec-ond fiddle to Sunni Muslim politicians of Damascus and Aleppo if re-integrated.-They had already produced a nationalist Lebanese pre 1914-The French also expanded South East ward, it was more of a sense of French government to have a line separating between Lebanon and British Palestine.-For the first decade of the mandate the Sunni Muslims did not get involved with the state.-French destroyed the economy in Lebanon by linking there currency with that of France. -Politicians in Lebanon also wanted a Treaty like Syria.

-The principle in political life was established early on was taken over by modern institutions, and mediation through citizenship. Communal and collective rights were connected to religion even though they effected personal rights.

Syria: The French authorities concluded that they had to find some way to talk to the urban na-tionalist. The urban nationalist those close to the revolt had been exiled and the ones that re-mained wanted to reduce the French influence.Failure of French Policies: • Druze: French high-handedness alienated the Druze. Site of armed revolt in 1925-27. French

policy inadvertently led to closer ties between urban Arab nationalists and the Druze• Alawi: Although rural tribal chiefs cooperated with the French, younger, educated, urban

Alawais did not share the sentiment. As beneficiaries of modern higher education, young Alawi men from prominent families were drawn to radical nationalism instead of ethnic separatism.

• Urban: The French failed to co- opt powerful urban interests who contested the Mandate and created numerous problems for the French. Merchants and landowners mobilized in their de-mand for self-government leading to the 1925-27 revolt:• July 1925: Jabal Druze • Fall 1925: Homs, Damascus, & southern tribes • Oct 1925: air and artillery bombarding ofDamascus, killing 1,400 •1927: Revolt ends• Syrian Losses: 6,000- In 1930 France created a Syria Constitution. The nationalist concluded themselves in a group called the National Block. For the most part related to those who had been part of Ottoman poli-tics because now they are the ones who are going to be part of constitutional government. They looked towards the Iraqi Treaty of 1931 that was signed by the British that gave them indepen-dence, membership in the League of Nations, sovereignty. Syria was hoping that France would give them a similar treaty. -The land owners and merchants were also part of the nationalist block groups because they were the ones who emerged in the later Ottoman period as a powerful group. -We do in the 1930s the small emergence of radical movements those who are from the elite high schools. -In 1936 the Syria modeled the Anglo- Iraqi treaty and it was done with the Nationalist Block group. France never signed the Franco-Syria treaty of 1936 because there was a shift in govern-ment and now a left winged party was in power and the treaty fell. -National Bloc: same local potentates as during Ottoman period (land-owning urban notables and officials.-“Honorable Cooperation” (Anti-French to local base)-Cooperative to French -Conservative: Wished to maintain privilege.-1939: France tightens grip on Syria, suspending constitution (1929)-The National Block was in power in Damascus. They were still hoping that the treaty would be ratified by France. With the lose of the territory of Iskanderun to Turkey (the French had given it to them to be neutral) and with no treaty ratified the National Block fell (1939). They fell be-cause the French government frozen the Syrian government. -The mandate was coming to an end.

-After the defeat of France to Germany in 1941, Syria and Lebanon fell into the hands of the Vichy government. Now Britain step into Syria and Lebanon and invaded them in 1941 and to get them there independence. -The collapse of the French in World War II (1940) meant the end of French Mandates in Lebanon and Syria was coming to an end. They came under Vichy control.-British blockade of Vichy controlled eastern Mediterranean lead to famines in 1941, which led to widespread revolts in Syria and Lebanon.- Britain and Charles de Gaulle forces invade Syria and Lebanon, agreeing on the two states at-taining independence in summer 1941- Charles de Gaulle backs out of his promise-Local protests and British pressure results in elections of 1943 where the anti- French pro-inde-pendence forces win.- National Bloc come to power in Syria-In Lebanon Maronite president and Sunni Prime Minister agree on the “National Pact” - agree-ment on nature of Lebanon and representation-Charles du Gaulle applied military pressure, revolts break out, 400 local killed. -Britain intervenes and French finally leave in 1946, 5 years post-independence

March 22, 2012Lecture 19: French Mandates of Syria and Lebanon

-The masses are asking for a Treaty that is similar to the Anglo-Iraqi treaty, these was negotiated with the National Block in Damascus. Lebanon wanted on to and to have the same international status. The French - Lebanese Treaty was parallel to the Franco- Syria Treaty that gave them in-dependence, a sit at the league of nations, and France had military rights in these countries. The main stream of Syrian National Movement said that the boarders are what they are. -In 1936 many of the Sunni Lebanese dropped their boycott, affiliated with the institutions of the Lebanese state. The Lebanese Muslims saw positive to leaving themselves separated from Syria. Marinate Christians had Muslim partners now in politics who wanted to reduce the position of France in Lebanon. -France’s defeat in 1940 by Germany, and after 1941 with the occupation of Britain gained there independence after all of this. -The Presidency of the Lebanese would always be a Sunni Muslim and the speaker would be a Shira Muslim. -The National pack reflected the political forces of Lebanon in 1943, and this co-work of the principle professional groups made the road to independence smoother. This kind of state is called Consociational for the state to act does not only have to have majority power in parliament but only to a degree that the politicians agreed on things. -The mandate failed and there were no military basing rights and that ended any ties between Syria and also in Lebanon.

Transjordan: Transjordan is a good case study national conciseness, historical experience and symbols attached to history and who belongs to the homeland and who are the insiders and who are the outsiders. The sense of a territorial homeland was absent, in Ottoman times the Northern part of the territory that was an economic part of Damascus and the Middle part was of Niza and the Southern part was part of Hijaz.

-Transjordan was administrated by Britain, there was a mandate that had been put into place. They would be administrated separately than Palestine. Abul al was dependent on Britain and needed there help when the Wahhabis came to invaded into Transjordan and needed a boarder line of Transjordan and that of Southern Arabia. -By 1925 Abul al as an arab nationalist figure head had declined. Britain closed the frontiers so Assyrian rebels can not come through the boarders. The new army of Transjordan was under Britain command. It was hard for Abul al to play on the nationalism card so he decided he would be the best friend to Britain and have close ties so they can further let him expand what he want-ed. -Along side the monarchs was an administrated parliament, which was partly elected and partly appointed -A sense of common nationhood in this country that was under European control and not there own, they are a colonial state. -There was a citizenship just through the male line. If the Transjordan women had children with another man the children would not be Transjordanians. Also your tribal status was part of the citizenship. -Abul al was not Transjordan and the people were like what is this Hijaz doing here, He tried to mix into with the people so he can be apart of his adopted country. He had to gain loyalty of Bedowens. -Modern state hood you define after good frontiers. -As in British Iraq there were tribal leaders who had tribal laws and criminal laws.-There were jobs on the Iraqi Oil pipeline. -In 1930 the British created legions of Bedowens. -The construction of legitimate regime and the history of the past to lead historical substance to present day. This was hard for Transjordan because they were created by accident because of colonialism. -Abul al established a Muslim Brotherhood in Transjordan and has people came from Egypt to help create this and he wanted to show himself as the highest power of Muslim coming from the prophet. -In 1946 the mandate came to an end but the symbolic values and the ancient roots hold close to the new national narrative of Jordan. The history of Jordan was an Hassaminte history. -This state from a colonial state was able to be created into a modern state, the way a modern state can create basically “something out of nothing.” -Jordan always has to be funded by an outside source ie. Britain and US, and oil Arab nations if they did not get these funds there would be a crisis, also they had no resources-Through the 1930s and 1940s he tried to spread his power and had ties with more no Arab na-tions. He was assassinated by some Arab nationalist.

Abdullah, Britain and the Making of the Trans-Jordan EmirateEmir (Prince) Abdullah established himself in Amman (top left), which became Trans-Jordan’s capital. In March 1921 Abdullah met in Jerusalem with Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill and political advisor T. E. Lawrence (“of Arabia”), where the principle of a Trans-Jordan Emirate was agreed (center left). A key institution in the new Emirate was the Arab Legion, commanded from 1930 to 1956 by British general John Bagot Glubb, or Glubb Pasha (right). Glubb recruited

and trained special Bedouin units that became the core formations of the Legion. With its mecha-nized forces (below left), the Arab Legion assisted Britain in Iraq and in Syria during the Second World War. In 1946 the Mandate ended, the country was renamed Jordan, and Abdullah became King. Glubb’s command and Abdullah’s British subsidy continued.

March 27, 2012Lecture 20: Middle East Mandates After WW2

Decolonization in North Africa

Palestine Mandate: In the French mandate in Syria there was a group of socialist nationalist group that was called the National Block Party and they wanted to make a treaty with France. In Palestine there was a social, conservative, nationalist group that did not want to make a Jewish National State in Palestine and to work with the British to achieve this anti- Zionist movement. There was a majority of Arabs in Palestine but Britain want along with peace, order and good government they wanted help the Zionist movement and create a home for them but also at the same time they were funding the Arab nationalist. In the 1930s the Arab Nationalist were losing there creditability. The Conservative Nobles are the ones who feel the change in Palestine and losing there Arab followers and needed to do something. The problem is Britain because they are the ones who are supporting the all Jewish state in Palestine. With the violent reaction of Britain to re-look at the mandate and to partition Palestine into a small Jewish state and a larger Arab one. On the eve of WW2 the Palestine Arabs do not have a constitutional framework, to access government institutions. It sets the stage for the problems that will follow.

-In the years after WW2, Britain declared in 1943 that Palestine would be an Arab majority but with a place for the Jews. However during the war the Arabs in Palestine found work in British camps, etc they had money now and moved from the villages into the towns. Now there was a sort of sense of a bourgeois. Urban / middle class now competed with the elites for land. Differ-ent classes and sector of society in the army. -What happened to the Palestine Arabs after the colonial state: The colonial state did not have full sovereignty. The groups among the Arab population those from Palestine could not partici-pate in politics because they had the Jews living there. Britain never had instated a head of gov-ernment, there was never a Palestine government like the other mandates.-The Jews had formed a government under the umbrella of the mandate. -Toward the end of WW2 Britain said they can re-constituted the High end of Arabs. -The middle class failed to develop a political say for themselves. They faced the obtascles of Britain. -There were Arab state revilers after the war. -In 1946 - 47, The British mandate was collapsing in Palestine. The British government was still looking for ways to extend the mandate. At the saw time the US was pressuring Britain to create an all Jewish State in Palestine, and Britain gave the mandate of Palestine to the UN because they wanted the two issues separate.-In November 1947, all the Arab leaders rejected the partition of having Palestine as an Jewish State with and Arab minority. Britain did not want to deal with this partition so they left and nwo the Arabs and Jews were fighting over created a government but they do not have the institutions of framework to create this proper authority.

-During the Summer and Fall of 1948 the New State of Israel was created. There were only a few Arabs left in this area. 90% of arabs that lived in this area were in exile. The mandate left the arabs that once lived in this area to find homes in other sovereignties. ie . Lebanon, Jordan etc. This led to the Arab Israeli wars in the late 1940s. This left a lot of problems in the Arab league.

Decolonization in North Africa: The WW2 shocked Frances colonial rule in NA after the defeat of France by Germany. The British gave encouraged pro-independence to Syria and Lebanon so they can still have some influence in the Fertile Crescent. -The national movements in these places gave way because of Marshall Law. Most of the nation-al forces of Morocco, Tunisia, etc they wanted to stay away from the allied forces. After 1945 Frances was backing away in Syria and Tunisia -French rule in Algeria ended because of bloody battles-France said it would make a new constitution that gave more rights to the Muslims of Algeria. When they did make the constitution they did not extend the rights to the Muslims, they extend-ed more rights to Europe minorities. People part of national parties were not aloud to vote in elections. -The Secret Organization (THE OS)was a group of young men in there 20s and had humble backgrounds. Ahmed Ben Bella (d. 1918) was on of the founders of this organization, served in the war and became radicalized because of the oppression by the French. French enlisted a mil-lion men in the army to fight the new organized group the FLN. The French were winning the war, even though they were collapsing. Much of the FLN were guarding the boarder region to Morocco in the west and Tunisia in the east. They became sovereign in 1956. -The battle of Algers was an all force Euro war against the Algerians, taking out the terrorists with terror of there own. The FLN lost the battle of Algers, and had give home to problems in French in Algeria, basically “What are we doing here.” Even though France was winning the battles there were not winning the war. French no longer had control over the Muslims and Arabs in these areas, they were backing up the FLN now. There were a few Arab Muslims who listened to French government. In 1958 there was the French Algerians who were coming up against the French government. De Gulle came back from retirement, wanted to take France out Algeria be-cause they were wasting away money and resources. He said for radical reforms that would pull the rug from underneath the FLN. -Direct negations were opened between the FLN and the French, the settlers wanted to keep Al-geria French. He had to accept the independence of Algeria from the FLN. The Secret Organiza-tion Army (OAS) attacked the FLN to see there reaction, they did not respond. De Gulle wanted a little part because oil was now found in Algeria. 90% of the European settlers had left. The OAS destroyed everything in there reach as soon as they were leaving out of Algeria. Some Mus-lims left because they did not know what would happen to them.-FLN declared a theme of socialism and took over whatever the settlers left behind.

Arab Political Leadership in Mandate PalestinePalestinian Arab political leadership was concentrated in the hands of community notables whose style of politics had been honed in their decades of provincial service to the Ottomanstate. They saw themselves as intermediaries between the Arab population and the British colo-nial authorities. This balancing act proved impossible to maintain after 1936, when radical grass-roots organizations exercised an increasingly powerful sway over public opinion. Although Palestinian leaders formed a coordinating body in 1936 called the Arab Higher Committee

(above), the Committee barely masked internal divisions between rival factions and nascent ide-ological parties. The British broke the Arab Higher Committee, exiling al-Hajj Amin al-Husayni (second from left, front row) and working with faction leader and Jerusalem mayor Raghib al-Nashashibi (front left) to suppress an armed peasant rebellion that had drawn inspiration from the death (“martyrdom”) of Shaykh ‘Izz al-Din al-Qassam (d. 1935), who is pictured at right.

Arab Society and the Colonial State in Mandate Palestine Palestinian Arabs’ access to the modern state and its institutions was mediated by the British colonial authorities. The “new middle class” of Arab civil servants and professionals worked for the British or for institutions linked to the colonial state constructed by theBritish. This dependence also was reflected in education. Although elite private schools had long existed, and a basic system of provincial public schools had appeared in the last Ottoman decades, most Palestinians’ access to modern education in the Mandate period was linked to the school system developed by the colonial government. Village boys (above) and middle class girls (below) represent different groups of Palestinian society whose entrée into the modern state passed through the gates of British colonial authority. When the colonial state started to collapse at the end of 1947, Arab community institutions were weak compared to the proto- state institu-tions that Palestine’s Jews had been building since the 1920s under the auspices of the British Mandate.

Palestinian Arab Refugees, 1948–49As the British Mandate in Palestine wound down from November 1947 to May 1948, Jewish and Arab militias fought to secure regions evacuated by the British. In April 1948 Jewish forces launched a war of movement (“Plan D”) to secure territorial contiguity for the projected Jewish State by capturing and eliminating Arab villages astride Jews’ lines of communication. These policies were continued once the Mandate ended and the State of Israel was proclaimed (May 15, 1948). Poor organization, absence of effective leadership, direct expulsions, and fears of rape and massacre all contributed to Palestinian Arabs’ flight. In the end, 90% of Palestinians originally living within what became Israel (1949 frontiers) were made refugees. Israeli authorities ordered the destruction of Palestinians’ emptied villages (over 400 in all) to prevent the refugees’ return. State institutions seized Arab properties and used them to support Jews, including those who came to Israel from Iraq, Yemen, and other Arabic- speaking lands.

Decolonization in the Arab world after 1945The years after World War II saw rapid decolonization of the Arab world, as mandates and pro-tectorates ended and unequal treaties were overturned or rescinded. In 1954 Britain agreed to evacuate the Suez Canal Zone, but in fact did so in 1956 only after a brief but politically disas-trous war with Egypt. The French Mandates in Syria and Lebanon were terminated. The pro-British monarchy in Iraq lost power in 1958. The French protectorates of Morocco and Tunisia gained independence in 1956, amidst rejoicing like that seen here when Tunisia’s Habib Bourgui-ba returned home from negotiations in Paris. French President Charles de Gaulle, who visited Al-giers (lower left) after returning to power in 1958, hoped to keep Algeria within France. But the bitter Algerian conflict (below) finally caused him to agree to Algerian independence (1962). Most Arab states were now formally sovereign within the post-World War II international state system.

March 29, 2012Lecture 21: The Progress of French Pacification in Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia

-The nature of the Algerian war and how it ended, much of the FLN members were arrested, captured. A brief period when the leader of the FLN, had been pushed out be a coupe .- 1966 Algeria is now a military regime. The importance of the military as a key political aspect. -The Algerian conflict for a time was internationally held up, in third world colonial identities, for decolonization. -1965 when the military commander Houari Boumediene became the Prime Minister of Algeria until his death in 1975. The army is still the central power in this country.

-WW2 changed the political controls in Morocco just like it did in Algeria. The French were weak because of the war. The Vichy admin. treated the Sultan not so good, because they control in Morocco were weakening as well. Vichy was implementing anti-semantic laws against the Jews but the Sultan had said these laws do not apply to Morocco Jews. -The American army in 1952 invaded Algeria and Morocco implemented to a French admin headed by Charles De Gaulle not the Vichy. They had direct contexts with Mohammad the Fifth, the US were dealing with him in his own right as a sovereign. The US brought in an independent French regime, this gave the idea to the Sultan to push for less control of a French regime.-After WW2 the French authorities were fighting. After 1941 the French admin in Syria, Lebanon, Algeria, Morocco did not put the forces on there own they were backed be the British or US. Tensions between Moroccans and the Spanish area in the north had problems. France was in Morocco because of protected treaties to protect the Alway destiny. That was the explanation for the French being there. The Sultan lead support to the independence movement. -France’s mobilized client verbal chieftains against the Sultan who was supporting independence. The Sultan went to the barbians regions, and speak about god, unity and throne. -In 1953 the French had enough of the Sultan and sent him into exile. They did the same to a member of the Alway family as well.-Muhammad the 5 was aloud to come back after when they were given independence in 1956. -The peaceful transition to independence in Morocco and Tunisia was better than what happened in Algeria. -Tunisia had an easier time finding there independent identity. The older elites were replaced by the middle class. They were products of modern education. -Morocco had a different history and had different cultures. It was old but it never had a modern state presence. Nationalist response of a barber degree in the 1930s. The idea of Morocco unified by the crown. The modern aspects were because of colonialism. It was split up in French, Span-ish, Arab zones. The nationalist response of the barber degree was to be surrounded by Islam and make them around arabic. The nationalist put a more focus on the arab league. Rather than Jew-ish, Catholic because they wanted Morocco tied to the fate of the Arab world who is seeking in-dependence from the colonial world. -Moroccos Jews in there new nation, they have always been tied to the history of Morocco, there were Arab speaking ones and Spanish. They lived in rural and urban places. They usually lived near the government powers and had ties. -When Israel was created, the merchants of Morocco boycott Jewish goods and businesses. The home state for Zionist Jews was created in Palestine, this had en effect on Arabs living in Pales-tine.

-In the year since 2000 the Moroccan law has realized the Arabs leaving there. Each of Tunisia and Morocco both show Arab identity in the modern world.

Decolonization: is what is the nation and what is not the nation. -What national identity will mean to people in time,

Exam: 2 essays part 1: material since the midterm-compare and contrast the colonial period or inter war period of the countries of NA and FC.

or -Look at the mandates, all the countries were created at the same time, they were given to France and Britain to minister and prepare them for self government. What ways were they similiar and different to each other. How do they all fit into these mix. NA were under semi-colonial rule in similar and different ways and the trends we see in them.

part 2: culmative-Identity, the question of Arab identity and what does the course title mean. Start of course: peo-ple in the 1700 would not have called these lands the Arab land, this is a concept of identity that has developed in modern times.-Can we generalize and say anything meaningful of these Arab lands in the 2.5 centuries. Did we just put history on them, when we talk about arab history we are not talking about a state, that are on two different continents. When we speak about arab history or we speaking about a group of people one can generalize (can we yes or no), arab identity comes together with political identity. In the 19th century arab identity becomes a cultural response. Is there enough for all these people in these contients to speak about them as modern arab history. -how useful you think it is