Gain Your Copy A History Of The Modern Middle East Put Together By William L. Cleveland Ready In Readable Copy

is an excellent survey, It is well researched, balanced and fair, It is also highly readable! I was just talking this morning with a friend about the French and the English making the modern Middle East.
Who had a more disastorous run of colonialism through these invented countries Read the history and decide for yourself.
This easy to read volume was the main reason I excelled at my required college course History of the Modern Middle East.
It covers a timeline roughly from the start of the Ottoman Empire to today, and discusses the great political and cultural upheavals of this huge swath of lands that forged the volatile region we know today.


I am glad I read this book and took the course, It helped me understand the origins of the religious and cultural conflicts that engulf the region today, It also shed light on why there is animosity for the West, and part of it dates back to the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire after World War I.


The Middle East is insufficiently covered in U, S. schools. It is such a shame, for many Americans do not understand the culture yet we try and act as a broker of peace.
Perhaps, if our leaders understood the root cause of the conflicts by studying the history of the area, perhaps we could be a viable honest broker.
You get what one would expect from the title,

It's completely straightforward narrative history though the chapters are
divided thematically, Off the top of my head I can only remember that Iran and Turkey kept getting
put together.
You don't have to read the chapters in any specific order

and you can even just look up
a specific period or country that you're interested in and have it build up from there, going backwards or forwards as you see fit.


The publishers try to update the book to keep up with the latest developments, The brand new edition I got covered The Arab Spring, the Syrian War, ISIS, and the Gezi Park protests.
I half expected to read about the failed Turkish Coup, but the edition wasn't quite that new,

My main criticisms were completely anticipated in the introduction, It does sometimes feel that events are passed over too quickly, but when the book is large enough as it is, it's understandable.
An extensive bibliography with the latest titles offers adequate compensation for the issue, Cleveland'ın kitabı, zengin detay ve analizlerle bezenmiş, iyi bir referans kitabı ancak kavramsal açıklamalarda eksik kalabiliyor.
Bu eksiği tamamlamak için, hepsi de Türkçeye çevrilmiş
James Gelvin'in Modern Ortadoğu Tarihi,
Roger OwenŞevket Pamuk'un.
Yüzyılda Ortadoğu Ekonomileri Tarihi,
Youssef M, Choueiri'nin Ortadoğu Tarihi
Hamit Bozarslan'ın Ortadoğu'nun Siyasal Sosyolojisi kitaplarını tavsiye ederim, This history does as the title promises, focusing more on the modern period of the Middle East, especially from the Ottoman Empire through.
The book covers the rise of ISIS but was written before the complete downfall of ISIS, It includes the Arab Spring of, which Cleveland prefers to call the "Arab Uprisings, " It includes balanced discussions of areas from Turkey to Iran to the Arabian Peninsula to Egypt, It does not include neighboring countries such as the Sudan, North Africa or Afghanistan in the discussion, except where events there affect the Middle East proper, such as the Egyptian war in Sudan, the harboring of Osama bin Laden by the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the Arab uprisings that began in Tunisia and led to the downfall of Libya's dictator, too.

The book gives much attention to the ArabIsraeli conflict, which is appropriate, as well as thorough coverage of the Kurdish problem of being a people without a homeland.

Perhaps due to his focus on the modern period, Cleveland passes over the Crusades with barely a mention, which I found peculiar, since modern Arabs like Osama bin Laden referred to Christians as the "Crusaders.
"
While Cleveland strives to present a balanced report of both the positive and negative traits of each people and each personality, he appears to have certain biases.
He clearly is sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians verses the Jews, and is favorable to the Muslim worldview for example, he blames Islam's low view of women on the influences of the cultures neighboring the Arabs, and refers to the Muslim Brotherhood as "moderate".
Nevertheless, he does a good job of explaining the various sectarian and ethnic groups, such as the Sunni and Shi'a, and minority groups like Arab Christians, Assyrians, Yazidis, Druze, Alawites, etc.
Last book of

A History of the Modern Middle East examines the profound and often dramatic transformations of the region in the past two centuries, from the Ottoman and Egyptian reforms, through the challenge of Western imperialism, to the impact of US foreign policies.


الكتاب الأخير لعام

يتناول كتاب تاريخ الشرق الأوسط الحديث التحولات العميقة والدرامية في المنطقة في القرنين الماضيين من الإصلاحات العثمانية والمصرية إلى تحدي الإمبريالية الغربية وصولا لتأثير السياسة الخارجية الأمريكية على المنطقة Σίγουρα μια πολύ καλή αρχή για κάποιον που δεν έχει ασχοληθεί ξανά με το αντικείμενο του βιβλίου. Το μόνο πρόβλημα του βιβλίου είναι το αντικειμενικό πρόβλημα που θα αντιμετώπιζε οποιοδήποτε βιβλίο επιχειρεί να καλύψει μια περίοδο που περιλαμβάνει και πρόσφατα γεγονότων καθώς είτε δεν έχουν μελετηθεί ακόμα αρκετά είτε αρκετές πτυχές του μπορεί να μην είναι ακόμα γνώστες.
Κατά τα άλλα θα διαβάζοντας κάποια κομμάτια της Ιστορίας της Μοντέρνας Μέσης Ανατολής συνειδητοποίει κανείς ότι ολόκληρες παράγραφοι θα μπορούσαν να έχουν οι ίδιες ακριβώς και για την Ελλάδα στις αντίστοιχες χρονικές περιόδους,είναι μάλλον πολύ πρόσφατη ιστορία
listen if i want to count a textbook for my goodreads goal then that is my RIGHT I found the prose of this book unbiased, detailed and coherent.
The modern history of a middle eastern country can only be understood in the context of the larger narrative of its relation to the other movements in the region and this book does a good job of putting the story into perspective.

Perhaps the author could have improved on its documentation of the references and citations, but otherwise, the book did justice to the topic.
Ready for that exam boyy It's a textbook and so it reads like one, Great for those who are interested in that geographical region and how they came to be as they are.
This was the textbook for my modern Middle East history class, . . I'm not a huge fan of textbooks generally but this one is pretty wellwritten, and presents a good overview of political history without sacrificing intellectual commentary and analysis.
There's something about reading recent history written in an impassive voice that puts everything into perspective, not to mention its extreme relevance to present day issues.
I do think a few members of our current administration would benefit from much of the information here.
I picked up this book a couple months ago at the behest of a friend, The latest Middle Eastern tragedy was still unfolding hundreds of Palestinians being shot by Israeli snipers at the Gaza border, and while I had certain predispositions about how to feel based on the two decades or so of news I've followed since I was in high school, I finally wanted to buttress my modern understanding with a broad look at history.


This book turned out to be the perfect tool for the task,

I'm pleased to say that it expanded my view of the entire region, reinforcing certain predispositions I had while helping me to reframe others.
For instance, I long ago internalized the argument often made that much of the turmoil in the Middle East today comes as a consequence of capricious foreign policy on the part of the Brits after the peak of their global empire.
Borders drawn haphazardly on a map with no consideration for the ethnic and sectarian communities that were being divided.
Or, in certain cases, borders drawn in a deliberately obfuscating way to prevent countries from gaining regional primacy, as with the division between Iraq and Kuwait.


That's still true! But, because Cleveland starts his history all the way back with the Ottoman Empire and the Safavid Empire, you actually get the context for the decisionmaking.
So while the British did comport themselves with their special brand of Anglo arrogance, they were trying to fill a power vacuum left in the wake of the implosion of the Ottoman Empire.
They weren't disturbing the region from a state of peace and plenty, they were figuring out how to parse competing power centers while also achieving their own material ends.


Another really important bit of context was Cleveland's focus on the means of political expression with a history of success in the region.
From a contemporary American perspective, the idea of a political Islam is basically anathema, We treat it like an aberration designed for the express purpose of holding the region back from the natural course of secular liberalism.
This is, needless to say, a huge joke,

Islam is one of roughly three tactics for political organization in the region in the last several centuries.
It's a particularly potent one, since Islam is woven so deeply into the cultures of all the region's major players.
Whatever the newest trends are that sweep the region's cities, the ulama in the countryside preserve the practice of Islam, so when all else goes wrong, it remains an important method for political expression and dissent.


More familiar from a Western perspective is nationalism of the kind expressed by Iraq or Nasser's Egypt.
Nationalism tends to work really well as an organizing principle in the west, because it aligns with our pluralistic traditions.
But it's really only a recent addition in the Middle East, and it doesn't have terribly deep roots because of the aforementioned capriciouslywrought borders.
A Shia Muslim in eastern Iraq has more in common with a fellow Shia in neighboring Iran than he does a Sunni in Baghdad.
So unless the state is generating enough revenue to buy people off with a generous welfare state, appeals to nationalism seem only so effective.


And since American global hegemony has relied for so long on the rule of nationalistic autocrats who often operate corrupt regimes that horde resources and hold down the will of the people, it seems only natural that people turn to other methods of political expression.


The third form of political organization never really stuck, but I found it pretty interesting: panArabism.
What WOULD happen if the Arab states were able to throw off their poorlydrawn borders and operate as a regional or global power It's a vision only sporadically pursued, but to me it seems the model with the most longterm potential.


Back to the book, I really liked the way it was structured, It's chronological, but the chapters are also divided by theme and geography so you do kind of dip back into topics you've already covered, but they're explored through a new lens each time.
It's the most effective form of historic storytelling and is particularly effective for a big historic synthesis like this one.
Cleveland is a terrific writer and this work perfectly fulfilled the mission I set out for it, The fact that it ends atis honestly kind of perfect, because with all that's happened in the lastyears, he'd need to double the page length.


That basically concludes my actual review, but I do want to stick some notes and illformed impressions of each country that he covers on here, because I know I will need something to jog my memory in the future when I think back on this book in light of future events.


Iran: I think I'm a little less critical of the Shah than I once was Shia Islam and the legacy of the Safavids seems to lend Persian culture a natural affinity for monarchy that you sort of lose when you just read about the excesses of the last shah.
I still find the Persian people sympathetic and I think American foreign policy that treats Iran like a pariah state is selfdefeating and likely remains as it is because of concerns about Israel.


Israel: What can you say without being drawing the ire of Zionists on the web It's hard not to be sympathetic to the plight of the Jewish diaspora in the wake of the Holocaust, but nothing about the way that the country has conducted itself since its creation lends it much sympathy to the student of history.
The illconceived attacks by its neighbors justify the country's ruthless militancy in a way, but it's a straightup apartheid state.


Iraq: I actually felt sympathetic for Saddam Hussein! How weird is that Not in that he is an autocrat responsible for gassing large populations, but in the strategic sense.
Attacking Kuwait makes a certain kind of sense when you take it in context, and he had every reason to believe the U.
S. would support him. It's a shame what has happened to a country with such an incredibly rich history richer than almost any civilization on the planet.


Turkey: What a confounding mix of militancy, secularism and ambition, One wonders how different the region would be if a politician of the caliber of Ataturk was still around.


Egypt: It's easy to forget that Egypt was once one of the biggest power centers in the entire world.
But with the wane of Nasser and its absorption into the American sphere of influence, they really abdicated their leadership role in the region to Iran, Turkey and Iraq.
Learning about the Muslim Brotherhood was also particularly interesting in light of recent events,

Syria, Jordan, Lebanon: I still don't really understand them, Jordan is basically a fiction, And Syria should really be much larger, If only Palestine hadn't been lopped off for the sake of British expediency,