A Line in the Sand: Britain, France and the struggle that shaped the Middle East

With the celebration of the Balfour declaration this turned out to be a topical purchase. Its an entertaining narrative that is so much more than the current limited reporting of the Middle East. It embraces the history from the collapse of the Ottoman empire, puts the exciting Lawrence of Arabia story into context, illuminates the period between the world wars with a very informative explanation of Anglo French "differences", explains WWII at this end of the conflict, shattered my views on what the French did for Britain and helped me understand the politics of the foundations of modern Palestine and the Jewish state. I have now learnt what we have to thank the French for. An excellent introduction to the period, easy to read and a compelling story for anyone wishing to lean more about the period and the area..

The first three parts of this book mostly deal with the apparently never-ceasing, world-renowned, rooted-in-history, irreconcilable differences between the British and the French in all areas during the last decades of their presence in the Middle East, starting with the Sykes-Picot agreement and ending with French withdrawal from that area of the world. As such, the book was a delight to read, reminiscent of Asterix in Britain, with the Brits and the French jabbing at each other from dawn till dusk and on through the night. “Political correctness” was not a thing back then and this makes for many hilarious moments while reading through these 303 pages (on Kindle). For me, British Humor clearly wins the day, but although the French appear to have made one wrong decision after another in their political as well as military approaches, there is some undisputable truth in their assessment of their British neighbors. It becomes clear from reading that the British Empire viewed the Arab tribes as benign collaborators in its quest to extend its presence for as long as possible and to gain economic advantages, as well as to boot the French out of the region – with great success, one must add. The book is full of accounts of diplomatic intrigues, political expediency, and military prowess (on the side of the English) or overkill (on the side of the French). I was not prepared for part 4, which deals with events after WW II ended and preceding the partition of the Hebrews’ historic homeland while still occupied by the British Empire. In this section, the author lays bare a mindset that can only be described as anti-Jewish. Terms are used pejoratively (Zionists, Stern Gang, etc) and it compounds in him listing what must have been every single terror attack (as terror it was indeed!) committed by Irgun and Lehi at great length, not even stopping short at ideas which may have been conceived but never proceeded past an embryonic state. Editorializing becomes the order of the day, one example being his claim that the full scale of the Holocaust became apparent only at some point in 1947, which sets this point more than one year later than it actually happened. Manmade disasters like the drowning of 236 and 769 Jewish refugees respectively on board of ships which were not allowed to alight in the British Mandate or sent straight back directly into the war zones of WW II are mentioned only in passing, and the full responsibility lying with British authorities is only insinuated albeit clear from the context to any attentive reader. I bought this book a while ago but didn’t get round to reading it until now, in a quest to find answers to questions which arose following more recent events. In this book, I have found some of them.

This book covers the modern history of the Middle East and the creation of the Arab states from the remnants of the Ottoman Empire during the period 1915 to 1949. The particular thrust of this book that makes it quite different from the numerous volumes on this subject is that it specifically deals with the rivalry between Britain and France for supremacy in the area, and contains a great deal of new information on the extraordinary breadth of clandestine and thoroughly devious behaviour adopted by both Great Powers with respect to each other. The scene is set with the well known Sykes-Picot Agreement of 3 January 1916 that established the arbitrary `line in the sand' of the title and which divided the soon to be created new states of Syria and Iraq (and later Trans-Jordan, Palestine and Lebanon.) The author, James Barr, then charts the history of the defeat of Turkey and occupation of the Middle East, the Druze Revolt of 1925 and the struggle that France and Britain had in maintaining peace in their respective territories whilst denying the indigenous population self determination in defiance of the American President Woodrow Wilson. The author advances through the endless machinations between France and Britain to the Second World War, the Mandates, the growth of the nascent Jewish state and eventual evacuation of the Colonial Powers. However, this well worn path is highly dramatised by the revelation of the activities of British and French agents and the totally underhand activities of the respective governments, which I would suggest, has not before been handled in such revealing detail. The author introduces to us many interesting buccaneering characters that seem to be attracted to the area as well as many of the local leaders. I found the role of General Charles de Gaulle quite breathtaking in the depth of his arrogance, ingratitude and rudeness towards anything English. For the most part this book is entirely objective and very well researched, however, I would take issue with the somewhat sanitised description of how the Zionists obtained land from the local Arabs. This book is not just a re-hash of a familiar story, it does contain much new material and a new perspective and should be a good choice for all those with an interest in this area of history. It is astounding that we continue to endlessly meddle in the Middle East to no advantage.

Great book, lots of interesting facts that I wasn’t aware of before. Lovely history book it.

-The book is physically good and page color is yellow and comfort to read. -The content is really detailed in describing that period of time, and is providing a different angle to the events. -I recommend it to history lovers.

Un livre intelligent et incroyablement riche qui nous guide à travers la première moitié du 20e siècle dans cette zone. Jeu d’influence entre puissances de la vieille Europe en temps de guerre comme en temps de paix. Le livre donne une approche réfléchie et profonde de la naissance de cette zone.

A very interesting read .

James Barr’s A Line in the Sand is a work of formidable insight, unflinchingly peeling back the layers of cynicism, incompetence, and arrogance that shaped today’s Middle East. I picked up the book seeking answers to fundamental questions: why these nations exist as they do, how Jews came to settle in Palestine, and why modern Israel stands where it does, flanked by borders drawn with the presumption that their occupants were pawns in a European game. What I discovered was a deeply human tale, one drenched in tragedy and folly, punctuated by moments of bitter irony. Barr’s account stands out not merely for its scope but for the rigor of its research. His story isn’t one of abstract historical forces or inevitable outcomes; rather, he examines history as a tangled web of human motivations—fear, jealousy, hubris, greed—that drove decisions on the fly, often with little regard for the consequences. His meticulous archival work brings to life the figures behind these decisions, revealing just how contingent and petty the march of history can be. One of Barr’s triumphs is his portrayal of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, that notorious line drawn across a map with the casual confidence that the Ottoman Empire would soon dissolve and that Britain and France, with all their imperial wisdom, could effortlessly carve up the remains. Britain and France, intoxicated by their own delusions of control, underestimated the very real resistance of local Arab leaders, who were prepared to claim land and power for themselves. Barr illustrates how, from this fateful line onward, Middle Eastern borders and politics were determined not by the lived realities of those who inhabited the land but by Western presumption—a presumption soon met with fierce defiance. The Balfour Declaration, which Barr rightly positions as a pivot in this tale, begins a sequence of missteps and backroom deals that transformed Palestine into a British Mandate, and eventually, an arena for conflict and displacement. What strikes one most profoundly in Barr’s narrative is the sheer amateurism with which Britain and France, ensnared by their own imperial rivalries, attempted to manage Palestine and the wider region. It is a parade of bungled decisions and knee-jerk policies, all leading to the inevitable unraveling of their influence and, finally, their ouster. In the end, A Line in the Sand is a reminder that the Western planners of the early 20th century, high on postwar victory, were hopelessly blind to the agency of the people they sought to rule. They imagined a chessboard of empires, but it was a land with a will of its own, and in time, it struck back. Barr’s tale, though historical, reads as a cautionary one, warning us about the dangers of underestimating those whose lives are directly shaped by the borders and policies we impose. This is a book for anyone willing to see the painful birth of a modern tragedy, told with intelligence, empathy, and brutal honesty.

Fascinating. Makes you see the current problems and players in a totally different light.