What were the other options? You cannot prescribe a government after all. Were there other candidates or public support for another form of governance? I earnestly do not know.
There were a number of other candidates, but most of them were demanding some measure of concessions from the British and French which the Brits and French were not willing to give.
The Hashemite royal family gained the crowns of Iraq and Jordan, but only as British vassals; Hussein ibn Ali, the patriarch of the family, was overthrown by the British-supported Saudis when he refused to recognize the British and French claims over the Middle East.
To varying degrees, but Ibn Saud was one of the more conservative and less pluralist candidates. Hussein ibn Ali, whom the Brits screwed, was a pan-Arabist who advocated for a homeland for all faiths, including Arab Jews, was engaged in ecumenical efforts with the Sunni-Shia split in Islam itself, and gave shelter to persecuted ethnic minorities.
But he insisted that the Brits keep the agreement they made with him during WW1, so they turned on him and supported Ibn Saud instead after the war.
This is why the middle east is a fucking perpetual disaster zone.
Do you guys know who funds all the crazy fundamentalist bullshit? Saudi Arabia.
Do you know who funded 9/11? Saudi Arabia.
Thanks Britain and France!
Pretty sure not creating Saudi Arabia wouldn’t have made things better.
More repression usually doesn’t bode well.
establishing a theocratic monarchy is probably the problem; not the existence of a country.
What were the other options? You cannot prescribe a government after all. Were there other candidates or public support for another form of governance? I earnestly do not know.
There were a number of other candidates, but most of them were demanding some measure of concessions from the British and French which the Brits and French were not willing to give.
The Hashemite royal family gained the crowns of Iraq and Jordan, but only as British vassals; Hussein ibn Ali, the patriarch of the family, was overthrown by the British-supported Saudis when he refused to recognize the British and French claims over the Middle East.
But we’re the other candidates authocrats, too?
To varying degrees, but Ibn Saud was one of the more conservative and less pluralist candidates. Hussein ibn Ali, whom the Brits screwed, was a pan-Arabist who advocated for a homeland for all faiths, including Arab Jews, was engaged in ecumenical efforts with the Sunni-Shia split in Islam itself, and gave shelter to persecuted ethnic minorities.
But he insisted that the Brits keep the agreement they made with him during WW1, so they turned on him and supported Ibn Saud instead after the war.
Also, playing ‘divide and rule’ during your colonial tenure and then leaving everyone else with the consequences when you pack your bags and leave.