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..

"A Line in the Sand: Britain, France and the Struggle That Shaped the Middle East" by James Barr tells the story of French-British rivalry in the Middle East to replace the Ottoman Empire as the new local powers. It starts in 1916 with the Sykes-Picot agreement and ends in 1948 with the withdrawal of British (military) rule from Palestine. It is a Europe centric account of the making of the modern Middle East in the first half of the twentieth century with diplomats, secret services, intelligence officers, terrorists and politicians taking centre stage. It is a sad story, with no good guys or happy endings. Instead it is a prime example of how years of political manipulation, arrogance, hypocrisy, opportunism, cynicism, back-stabbing and underhand dealings added further complications to an already volatile and complex region. Its outcomes still reverberate today and are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Barr's writing style is engaging and the topic well researched. However, this is a very detailed account of 30 years rivalry between the main protagonists (France, Britain, USA, Zionists & Arabs) and its representatives. The fluid loyalties of many parties involved, the domestic politics and individual rivalries on all sides against the backdrop of a shifting international power balance require concentrated reading. Despite the likes of Churchill, de Gaulle, T.E. Lawrence, Lloyd George, Woodrow Wilson and Menachim Begin playing important parts, there are numerous less famous characters making short appearances further adding to the complexity of the story. Overall "A Line in the Sand" is a good introduction to the making of the modern Middle East, but not an easy read.

A little more than 200 years ago, Saint-Just, a French revolutionary leader was guillotined after having terrorised France and massacred too many people "for the greater good". All he wrote and said has then been duly forgotten, litterally throwing the baby with the bath water. But besides being responsible for instating a regime of terror he was a statesman and political thinker of the first water. Some of the things he wrote then are still valid today as geopolitical laws. For example : "Spealing plainly, there is no friendship between nations/states. They have but respective interests and force establishes the international law." That's what James Barr illustrates accurately. Granted, there's a strong anti-French bias in the whole book. Sykes was a visionary whereas Picot had a grudge (interesting difference since that line was Sykes' idea). The French were working against Britain at the time British soldiers were dying to save France: sorry? James, the WW 2 was NOT, repeat NOT, about saving France, but about defeating the Axis powers. De Gaulle did not veto Macmillans's application to join the common market just to get retribution and revenge about the end of the French mandate in syria. It's a bit more complicated than that. Anyway, following Saint-Just's principle, in 1956 France, Britain and Israel found themselves in league, through the devilish "Sevres Protocol" against Egypt in order to regain control of the recently nationalised Suez Canal. The "Sevres Protocol" is a most interesting amoral (not immoral) plot and perhaps a blueprint for many post-colonial attempts to redraw maps and international borders. Do your own research.

-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.

Zeer sterk naar kritische analyse. iedereen zou de achtergronden van de confliceten in het Midden-Oosten moeten kennen. Geen 5 sterren omdat er heel veel figuren aanbod komen die dan ook nog eens vaak van mening veranderen, waardoor het soms moeilijk is de grote lijnen te onderscheiden.

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.