A Line in the Sand

This is an excellent history of the French (and British) presence in the Levant throughout the first half of the 20th century. Both France and Great Britain made costly mistakes in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq that the author doesn’t shy away from presenting in detail. If the reader is interested in learning why that part of today’s world is as beset with trouble as it is, this book is an excellent primer.One is left wondering, however, whether Germany’s military in WWII would have enjoyed the success it did if only France had fought as earnestly in 1940 to protect their homeland as they fought to hold on to their place in the Levant in the war’s aftermath?

A look at the an unfortunate period in the history of the Middle East with all the warts of self-interest and short sightedness -- the destructiveness of looking in the mirror and not out the window. There are few heroes, though I'm sure that each of the adversaries have a different and self-justifying story to tell. Alas, the spinning does nothing to alleviate the results attained. Despite the "where you sit determines where you stand" truism, bad policies come home to roost, as in "what comes around goes around." This book is an excellent integration of complex, multi-faceted events and a sad read.

Although written froma more British point of view and a more antifrench view point, no book has been able to explain the creation of the modern middle east as much as this one. This is a MUST READ and all other books can help supplement this one for anyone interested in the modern Middle east creation.

James Barr's enthralling tale is well told and even better researched as it takes us through the tortuous roads of colonial intrigue that finally releases the forces and tensions of the modern Middle East. The book depicts both Britain and France as the midwives of the state of Israel whose rivalries also gives birth to the grotesque and grissly monsters that has become today's Syria, Iraq and of course Palestine. Highly recommended to anyone who would like to understand the political and social dilemmas facing middle eastern politicians and populace would try to work for a lasting peace in the Region. If ever there is an expose of the thoroughly discredited policies of colonial conquest and rule, this book demonstrates it in an understated and thoroughly human way. Highly recommended

I was looking for a book that could put the problems in the middle east in some kind of context, "A Line In The Sand" has done that for me. It is clear from the book that there are many factors that lead to this disfunction not the least of all is the rampant imperialism that existed in in the early 20th century.

Barr reveals just how caustic the jealousies of the colonial rivals, France and Britain, were in the first part of the 20th century. It is fascinating to observe how the petty conceits of a national leader can affect the history of nations. I was surprised at how far the British went to appease de Gaulle, while they were actually supposed to be allies. The book was entertaining in the way it recorded surreptious methods in which the actual characters on the ground in Syria and Palestine circumvented the constraints of Whitehall to do what was best in Britain's interest. Intriguing!

No complaints.

Good job

My father had the nasty duty of 'policing the Mandate'; a friend of his was killed by Irgun. He held the USA responsible for the support of Zionism. Consequently, he wasn't keen on either.It turns out, from this amazing account, that he may have been overestimating American involvement.This must be the definitive version of how we got from Sykes-Picot to British withdrawal from Palestine. It's a very dark and dirty story with very few heroes but a great many villains.France and Britain vied for dominance in the Middle East with no holds barred. Each subverted the other via clandestine support for uprisings. The British 'succeeded' in causing France to be pushed out of the region only for the French, especially the Free French, to exact a murderous revenge by supporting the Zionists in every way they could.This book should be compulsory reading for anyone interested and/or involved in the bloody mess of the Middle East today.

This book is about more than the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, which sought to divide Britsh and French spheres of influence following the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. It is no less than a concise yet adequately comprehensive history of the making of the modern MIddle East, focusing on the 'mandates' awarded to Britain and France (covering present day Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq) by the League of Nations following the conclusion of the First World War. The book provides the ordinary reader with an understanding of the origins of Arab-Israel conflict as well as much of the context for subsequent political developments that have reverberated to the present day. If you ever wondered what inspired the issuance of the Balfour Declaration by the British government in the first place, or why so many Jews in Palestine took up arms against the British in the aftermath of the Second World War, this book provides plausible answers. It also provides many illustrations of unintended consequences that flowed from decisions made on the basis of near-term exigencies and influenced by an escalating rivalry between Britain and France. Well worth reading.

Generally a well researched book, well written, and well received. However, I do feel that the author relied heavily on Avi Shlaim for his source material on the Zionists and this places them in a very bad light. Undue emphasis on the tragedy of Deir Yassin, as well as the complete omission of any mention of the Mufti’s stirring up of anti-Jewish sentiment and fomenting the Farhud in Iraq in June 1941 with its concomitant exodus of Jews to Palestine, paints a decidedly skewed picture of the nature of the Jewish state as it went through its birth pangs. The author has clearly bought the idea that the State of Israel was created through violent struggle by Zionist terrorists and by nations consumed by post-Holocaust guilt, pressured into allowing fleeing European Ashkenazi Jews into Palestine, but that is not really a true picture of what transpired because it completely ignores the centuries-old presence of Mizrahi Jews in Palestine and the wider Middle East, who were directly impacted by both the British and French, as well as the Arabs, in Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, to name but a few. It would have been better had the author consulted with an authority less tainted by his anti-Zionist credentials than Avi Shlaim, who has been at pains to portray the Zionist movement in a bad light and is largely how the Zionists appear in this book. The likes of Benny Morris would have made a better choice with a more balanced view. After all, if one is to ascertain what transpired, one doesn’t enquire of a disgruntled ex-patriate with an axe to grind, but of a recognised authority who is the recipient of plaudits from a wide variety of sources, not just the left-wing anti-Zionist voices that shout loudly for recognition.

Whilst I found this book quite heavy to get through I still heartily recommend it as an excellent backdrop to the 20th century disaster that is the Middle East. This book is very well researched and therefor complex as it makes a good job of exploring the labyrinth of plot, alliance, promise, political ambition and personalities of the major players. The subject could well be a 3 year degree course in its own right. I think that it's a good book to have on a history shelf in order to read one or two chapters while reading other books on the same topic. eg Lawrence of Arabia or the Independence of Israel. I think that the huge egos of Britain and France have now been replaced by Russia and the USA and the people who live there continue to be the least relevant consideration in "The Great Game."

A book, filled with solid research about the conflict between Britain and France over control of the Arab World.I was astonished by the revelations of the fighting between the British and the French , when , supposedly , at war with a common enemy in Germany and Turkey. General De Gaulle seems to have spent more time , and energy, fighting Churchill , and the Vichy French in Syria , than the Germans.The revelation that the leader of the "Stern gang" seriously attempted an alliance with Germany to persuade (terrorise) the British out of Palestine, with the help of the French secret service , displays the prejudice and cynicism at the heart of the Anglo-French conflict in the Arab world.An excellent book revealing the black visceral contempt between the British and the French in the middle east .