Why did Arab tribes side with Britain during the Arab revolts

>"why did turn of the century arabs not think like modern day me"

1. the nationalism meme had come to the middle east, arabs either wanted to reform the ottoman empire into something roughly like austria-hungary with arabs and turks on equal footing, but the CUP was turkish nationalists and not having it

2. they didn't trust britain at all, and aggressively trying to pin down the british with an actual agreement to let the Hashemites rule over a good chunk of arabia presaged the whole arab revolt (which they got, and britain promptly betrayed)

3. britain only got into the idea of an arab revolt because they wanted an authoritative muslim (the lord of Mecca) on their side to counterbalance the caliph being on the enemy side. everyone (kaiser wilhelm especially) was obsessed with the idea of global jihad being a powerful weapon (it wasn't at all)

>the zionism meme
4. this didn't come into play until much later. the british wanted palestine, and 'administering' it for the zionists was a convenient way to give them some vague legitimacy. at the time, no one expected the british to hand the region over to the jews in the foreseeable future.

5. many arabs didn't join the revolt, because they knew it didn't matter who technically ruled over the actual deserts cuz no one was ever going to hike out to make them pay their taxes. most of the arab revolters were bedouin tribes paid to fight/taking advantage of the war to pillage and loot. the ottomans bribed their share of sheiks into doing the same - plenty of arabs swapped sides depending how the outlook of a given battle seemed.

tl;dr arabs chose nationalism over islam, turks chose nationalism and islam (and foolishly thought they could have them both) the world is more complicated than memes would lead you to believe

File: 5EEE1A9E-F160-4986-B83D-07CD79C8FBF7-195-000000707A73AABB.jpg (19KB, 559x263px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 559x263px

So the Arabs were as pathetic and self destructive back then as they are right now.

>>2608993
Stupid tools got fooled into destroying the great muslim empire and the anglo repayed them by giving their lands to Jews.

>>2609262
I find it funny that the Marxist Arabs I know at uni keeps claiming muh ebil Zionist-British empire destroyed the Islamic world when it was the Arab tribes who betrayed the Ottoman Turks for British gold and empty promises of Arab independence and who put the dagger into the heart of the last Islamic empire capable of protecting the Middle East from European colonialism. Arabs seem
incapable of admitting their disloyal ancestors were the reason the Middle East will always be controlled by foreign entities. If the Ottoman empire empire survived, even as a commonwealth system, the Arab world would probably be in a much better state. But the problem is, the Arab ego is too fragile, and they'd prefer to live like dogs than let a more civilised people, like the Turks, to rule over them.

>>2608993
Because the British paid the tribal insurgents shitloads of money. Do note though that most city-Arabs sided with the Turks.

Also the British genuinely did heavily favor the Arabs over the Jews. Post-WW2 they got three times the land of the Jews to form the state of Jordan, and then got British support including training and officers to take even the tiny sliver that the Jews were left with. Not Britain's fault that the Arabs suck shit at war.

>>2609358
>than let a more civilised people, like the Turks, to rule over them.
t. Mehmet

>>2608993
>Forgetting the French involvement

>>2609768
t. Abu Ridwan

>>2609768
>t.Mohammed ibn goatlover

>>2609768
Let's be honest here. If the Middle East was still dominated by the Ottomans and Turkish secularism spreaded throughout the Middle East instead of this Wahabhi shit from Saudi Arabia , the Middle East would be in a much better state. One of the reason many Arab leaders of the 19th and early 20th century disliked the Ottomans Turks was because they were seen as too modern , and salafi Arabs Were content with their backward ways. The ottomans were one of the First Nations to allow women to be educated. Homosexuality was decriminalised in 1858. The Ottoman culture promoted music and higher culture. Alcohol was a common presence in the streets of the Istanbul. Women had lots of rights, although not to the extent that today's feminist demand which are more like previleges. Compare that to the average Salafi in Saudi Arabia, Yemen or the UAE. They were pretty much living like the Talibans. Women were seen as less than dogs.

>>2611062
Turks are the original savages of the Middle East, don't kid yourself.

>>2609038
One day when you're older and your rectum shrivels a bit easing the pain from the stick shoved way up there, you may come to realize that everything is memes. The point is to discern where on the spectrum ours find themselves.

>>2609038
>turks chose nationalism and islam
?

>>2608993
>Britain would have never respected Arab sovereignty

Do you know how divide and conquer works?

Have you even seen the film in your pic-related?

>>2609175

They were tribal, along lines of family, religion, settling old scores, old arguments. The world moves on, technology moves on, trade moves on, but these things that shape the people are ancient in that region.

You should read this excellent book:
https://www.amazon.com/Saudi-Arabia-People-Religion-Lines/dp/0307473287

and get hold of a PDF of "When FDR met Ibn Saud".

>>2611077
Just because Europeans were butthurt about them doesn't make them worse than Arabs.

File: 1486754298296.jpg (9KB, 208x242px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 208x242px

>Abdullah bin Saud was captured along with two of his Wahhabi supporters. They were then sent to prison in Constantinople. Abdullah and his two followers were publicly beheaded for their crimes against holy cities and mosques.[1] Prior to his execution, bin Saud, a Wahhabi who forbade to listen music, was forced to listen to the lute.