Maps of Blood and Tears: Is the Middle East Being Redrawn in the Footsteps of Bernard Lewis?

Author: بسام زكارنة 

In the Middle East, the old maps drawn by Bernard Lewis seem to come back to life. The discussion of dividing the region is no longer just a whisper in political salons; it has become a tangible reality: countries are fragmenting, armies are being exhausted, and our squares are turning into arenas where we are forced to fight against one another while external powers watch with cold eyes, betting on the victor without caring who stays alive or gets killed.

Syria presents the clearest picture of this reality. A decade of war has torn the country apart and divided it between the regime, the opposition, and the Kurds, under the auspices of the U.S. and its Arab and European allies, while the protests in Sweida remind us that sectarianism is still a ready tool for division: Alawites on the coast, Kurds in the northeast, Sunnis in Damascus and Aleppo, and Druze in Mount Sheikh and Mount al-Suwaida and the surrounding areas. Here, a new map is being drawn with blood and tears, where sectarian and ethnic divisions become part of a grand game imposed by external powers seeking to fragment the state and impose their control over land and resources.

Lebanon, burdened by its economic collapse and internal conflicts, seems to be driven once again toward a tri-sectarian strife. The ongoing pressures to disarm Hezbollah are not just a technical step but an attempt to weaken the resistance and dismantle the foundations of the state. If weapons are withdrawn before the Israeli threat is removed, it would facilitate Israel in occupying parts of Lebanese territory and perhaps reaching the Litani River, or even fully occupying or controlling the country and igniting bloody internal fighting that would completely destroy Lebanon. Therefore, it is said that the national weapon should remain in the hands of the state only after ensuring its complete sovereignty and the removal of the Israeli threat, and not as a tool to achieve external goals.

In Egypt, the army remains the safety valve of the state but has not escaped attempts to target it, particularly in Sinai. The strength of the army has always been a source of concern for Israel and its Western allies, making any attack on it part of a scheme aimed at dismantling the foundations of the state and preventing it from playing its historical regional role.

Palestine is the most glaring example of the partition plan. Israel is racing against time in the E1 area east of Jerusalem to build settlements that isolate the north of the West Bank from the south and turn Jerusalem into a closed enclave, thus realizing the vision of "isolated cantons," making the dream of a geographically connected Palestinian state closer to an illusion or even impossible. With the right to resistance enshrined in international law, the current reality shows American and Israeli dominance, along with Netanyahu's desire to ignite wars to achieve his expansionist interests toward the "Greater Israel project from the Nile to the Euphrates." Therefore, any direct armed confrontation at the moment is to enter into Netanyahu's square and his racist ideas and carries grave risks, requiring studied resistance strategies that protect the people and the land and prevent the exploitation of the conflict for external goals. Any military option must be a collective Arab-Islamic decision.

All these events are not random conflicts but an extension of colonial policies that began after World War I when the major powers divided the region according to the "divide and conquer" equation to ensure control over oil, water, and ports. Bernard Lewis's plan did not arise from a void; it came as an intellectual translation of a historical project seeking a weak and fragmented East.

Despite all this, the voice of resistance remains present, from national movements in Palestine and Syria to regional alliances. There is a will trying to break the major plans. The peoples of the region, despite the crises, have not lost the ability to cling to their unity and resist becoming pawns in the game of others.

However, the reality remains harsh: the peoples of the region sometimes become tools in artificial conflicts, fighting each other while external powers bet on the victor without regard for life or dignity. Sectarian and ethnic divisions—Shia and Sunni, Christians and Muslims, Druze and Bedouins—are not accidental but calculated tools for our fragmentation. The conflict has become part of our daily lives, and we find ourselves living these divisions consciously or unconsciously, indulging in internal conflicts that distract us from confronting the powers seeking to impose their control.

The region is walking a tense line between dismantling projects on one side and the will of its people to steadfastness and unity on the other. Palestine remains a living example of this resistance and reminds us that popular will is capable of confronting imposed maps and old colonial plans. The question looming on the horizon is: Will the final chapters of the disintegration plan be written before our eyes, or will the peoples of the Middle East succeed in rewriting their history with their own hands, so that maps reflect their will and freedom?

Recommendations for boosting the confrontation and responding to challenges:
   •   Enhancing national and regional unity and focusing on what brings peoples together rather than sectarian and ethnic divisions, with ongoing internal dialogue to strengthen social and political cohesion, and making the decision for war or peace a collective one.
   •   Raising awareness about the goals of foreign interventions and historical disintegration plans to avoid falling into traps of imposed discord.
   . Keeping weapons in the hands of the state must be conditional on ensuring the removal of Israeli threats while preventing their use as a means to weaken the resistance or as tools to achieve external goals that serve Israeli control over the land and people from the Euphrates to the Nile.
   •   Respecting the legal right of resistance while considering the current military reality and American and Israeli superiority, and setting up intelligent resistance strategies that prevent the exploitation of the conflict for external goals.
   •   Protecting the national army and civil security agencies as essential pillars for state stability, away from attempts at dismantling and external control.
   •   Developing economic and political alliances that enhance the ability to confront external pressures and protect national resources from depletion.
   •   Supporting peaceful national initiatives and legitimate resistance that preserve rights and sovereignty and linking local efforts to demands for development and social justice.