A non-sense narrative that explains much of today’s atrocities. Britian didn’t “owe” Syria to ‘the Arabs’ after conquering the area from the Ottomans anymore than the Ottomans owed returning the area to the Persians, Babylonians, Romans, Mamluks, Mongolians or Jews. Britian likewise didn’t owe Mecca to the Saud’s whose only claim was they conquered it for a 200 year period in the 16th century. The entire narrative of WW1, that for the first time in the history of that region, let alone man, the conquering armies were supposed to relinquish the lands they conquered to the people from whom it was conquered is nonsense. Should the British have conquered the Ottoman Capital of Constantinople and return that land to the Christians whose Holy city it was before being put to the sword by the Ottomans (who laid pretty much unremitting siege to that Christian Holy City for 500 years)? Should Britian have returned Anatolia (er home of Troy) to the Jews and Greeks? Spain back to the Berber Muslims because they took Iberia by sword for 300 years? Or should Britain, as the latest in the long line of conquerors returned all the lands in the regions from Anatolia to Yemen to the ‘Arabian’ Peninsula have determined to whom each of those lands belonged? Certainly the Jews would have had a claim on all of Jerusalem. Or would that be the Christians? Why not “return” Syria to the Greeks, certainly Alexander the Great would consider that claim relevant since it was “their” land in 300 BC. Why not Italy who claimed it in 84 BC or Iran/Persia who controlled it in the 7th Century? Sure the “Arabs” controlled it soon thereafter under Saladin but it was soon captured by the Mongols. Don’t the Asians in fact then have a claim to Syria? How about the Eygptian Mamluks? They went back and forth with the Mongols for close to 1/2 a millennia until the city was finally taken by the Ottomans. Syria/Allepo was endlessly conquered and controlled by an endless stream of nations and peoples and civilizations who all had one thing in common; they conquered it and took it in their name. And the current atrocities are the fault of the last conqeuror who in fact withdrew and, by and large, left it to the conquerors before them? Perhaps the violence in Syria can be laid at the feet of the people who commit it whilst blaming the rest of the world whose histories in fact are exactly the same; they were conquered endlessly, exist as they are currently and responsible for themselves and their own peoples. Bashar’s father killed 20,000 Syrian Muslims in a single day in Hamas when he leveled the city with Tanks in order to destroy the Muslim Brotherhood. Thomas Friedman who was a young reporter at the time recounts how he drove to Hama after hearing rumors of the atrocity and found an old man stumbling over smoking rubble. He asked the man “Where is Hama?” to which the old man replied “You are walking on it”. Friedman, astonished then asked “But where are all the people?” to which the old man answered “You are walking on them”. That was Bashar’s father. To blame the current situation on anyone but Father and Son is shameful.