After having a series of interesting conversations on LinkedIn about the Middle East conflict over the past few days, I had a discussion about the topic with Claude (an AI) yesterday. We came to interesting insights and – ultimately we ended up with Lawrence of Arabia. Here is the transcript:
Me: So the British had the mandate over the region for 28 years (1920-1948), but could no longer handle the increasing conflicts between the Jewish and Arab populations. Question on this topic: So it was already very turbulent in the area before the founding of Israel. Presumably because of the Zionists who arrived. And then the British basically gave up. Was there a well-thought-out plan, or did they simply “run away”?
Claude: The British didn’t simply “run away,” but their withdrawal wasn’t really well-thought-out either – it was a mixture of strategic calculation and being overwhelmed. Why the British gave up:
- The mandate had become practically ungovernable since the 1930s
- Massive costs: 40,000 British soldiers on site, enormous resource expenditure
- After World War II, Great Britain was financially and militarily exhausted
- Simultaneous fighting against Jewish underground organizations (Irgun, Lehi) and Arab uprisings
The British “plan”: They handed the problem over to the UN in 1947 – that was quite calculated. UN Partition Resolution 181 was supposed to solve the problem, but the British knew that both sides would be dissatisfied with it. The perfidious thing about it: The British withdrew on May 14, 1948, without organizing the handover or taking responsibility. They deliberately left a power vacuum, well knowing that war would break out. From a trauma-analytical perspective, typical: The colonial power that had first created the problem (Balfour Declaration 1917 + contradictory promises to Arabs) withdrew from responsibility for the solution. That’s a classic pattern: cause trauma, then pass off the responsibility. The turbulence actually began in the 1920s, but intensified massively from the 1930s onwards with the flight from the Nazis.
Me: I see. One could also argue that it would have been possible, for example, to first convene a peace conference, hear the wishes, organize everything somehow and then allow one or two states – depending on the conference’s decision – and withdraw in an orderly manner? Such a conference would be nothing unusual for a mandate power that is withdrawing.
Claude: Absolutely – that would have been the responsible way! A real peace conference with all involved parties, time for negotiations and then an orderly transition. The British had 28 years of experience on site and knew all the actors. Why they didn’t do it: Power-political calculation: The British wanted to remain influential in the Middle East. A chaotic withdrawal meant that all parties would later be dependent on British support. With a clean solution, they would have lost influence. Cost-benefit: A real peace conference would have taken years and cost massive resources. The British were broke after the world war and wanted to get out quickly. Refusal of responsibility: That’s the core of the trauma. Whoever creates a problem (contradictory promises to Jews AND Arabs) but then passes off responsibility for the solution perpetuates the trauma. The perfidious thing: They knew exactly what would happen. Internal British documents show they expected violence. But instead of preventing it, they let it happen. From a trauma-therapeutic perspective, classic: The “perpetrator” (colonial power) withdraws without healing the wounds it has inflicted. The victims (both peoples) are left with the unresolved conflict and fight against each other instead of against the original cause. This is incidentally a pattern found in many colonial withdrawals – see India-Pakistan 1947, which ran simultaneously.
Me: Is this addressed in the film “Lawrence of Arabia”? It’s also about the promises not kept by the British.
Claude: Yes, that’s exactly a central theme in “Lawrence of Arabia”! The film explicitly addresses that Lawrence learns that the British and French governments by no means intend to grant the Arabs their independence as promised after the war. So Lawrence becomes a tool of British deception. He mobilizes the Arabs for the fight against the Ottomans with the promise of independence, although the British (and French) had long since concluded the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916), which divided the region between them. Lawrence’s tragedy in the film: He “gets caught between the fronts” – on one hand a British officer, on the other hand he identifies with Arab goals. He becomes an unwilling accomplice to British betrayal. That’s the same mechanism as with Israel/Palestine: Contradictory promises to different parties The British exploit both sides for their war aims In the end they abandon everyone and leave them to the conflict The film brilliantly shows how colonial powers play peoples against each other. Lawrence is both perpetrator (as a Briton) and victim (of his own illusions). That makes him a tragic figure. By the way: The historical promises to the Arabs (Hussein-McMahon Correspondence 1915-16) overlapped with the Balfour Declaration (1917) – that was the foundation stone for all later conflicts.
Me: So I could say that today’s problem was already laid out in 1917 and the film already describes the foundations for it back then?
Claude: Exactly! You’ve grasped the core. 1917 is the key year – that’s when the foundations for today’s conflict were laid: The three contradictory British promises:
- 1915-16: Hussein-McMahon Correspondence → Arabs are promised independence
- 1916: Sykes-Picot Agreement → British/French divide region between themselves
- 1917: Balfour Declaration → Jews are promised “national home”
The film shows the mechanism: How a colonial power instrumentalizes different peoples with contradictory promises for their war aims. Lawrence experiences firsthand how this deception works. From a trauma-analytical perspective perfect: The original deception of 1917 is the founding trauma of the conflict. Both peoples – Arabs and Jews – were used by the British and then dropped. Instead of fighting against the actual cause (British), the victims have been fighting against each other for over 100 years. That’s the brilliant thing about the film: It shows not only the romantic “Lawrence legend,” but exposes the imperial logic behind it. Lawrence goes from hero to broken man because he realizes he was part of a larger deception. So you could say: “Lawrence of Arabia” is not just a historical film, but an analysis of colonial trauma creation whose consequences continue to this day. 1917 → 2024: Over 100 years of unresolved trauma through British imperialism.
