For the most part, I’d agree with this mostly excellent review of Daniel Clarke-Serret’s book but I do have a few disagreements here and there, Benjamin. But I’ll get into that later. I think you sum up Daniel’s arguments and points pretty well. Indeed, the Arab Empire is one of the few true empires left on Earth besides Russia. Now let me be clear, did Arabs face paternalistic racism, injustices, atrocities, exploitation, plundering, and corruption under European colonialism? Yes, of course. But by in large, it’s been they who’ve done most of the oppression throughout Middle Eastern history.
Furthermore, whatever it’s flaws, European colonialism was nowhere near as bad as Arab colonialism. When colonial officials committed atrocities European officials condemned them and held them accountable. Brutality and mass murder was not only never condemned in the Arab Empire, it was encouraged and celebrated. European colonialism also brought innumerable benefits to the peoples of the developing world. Just to name a few: parliamentary democracy, free-market capitalism, human rights, the rule of law, free trade, the Christian Church, expanded education, improved public health, women’s rights, the enfranchisement of untouchable or historically excluded groups, the abolition of slavery, fair taxation to capital, access to capital, improved administration, creation of basic infrastructure, widened employment opportunities, the generation of historical and cultural knowledge, national identity formation, and the end of tribal warfare among other things.
Arab colonialism came with no benefits at all for the minorities of the Middle East. The Arabs did nothing at all to improve the lives of the Jews, Kurds, Persians, Africans, Berbers, Druze, Assyrians, Bedouins, Arameans, Copts, Samaritans, Mandeans, Maronites, and Yazidis they ruled over. Indeed, Pax Arabica has bamboozled the world by casting themselves as not an empire and purely as the victims of Middle Eastern history. They also blatantly gloss over how they oppressed the Jewish people and treated them as dhimmis for centuries. The PLO was indeed all about destroying Israel. It was ever about actually creating a Palestinian state. Now, to address the things you said I disagree with.
I don’t think Levantia is a fantasy. It may be at the moment but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen in the future. Much more impossible things have happened in human history such as the creation of Israel itself. I don’t think widespread de-colonization of the Middle East would necessarily mean widespread bloodshed or that one would have to settle for slow liberalization. It could be done peacefully as Morocco for example has left Pax Arabica peacefully and the Kurds were granted a degree of autonomy in Iraq. It could be done peacefully and gradually by a reformed United Nations and if the United States and the Western allies provided oversight and gave security assurances to these new states. I could see something like the Treaty of Westphalia or Good Friday Agreement being worked out between Arabs and Middle Eastern minorities. Sworn enemies have made peace before and coexisted it’s not at all impossible. Lastly, the Abraham Accords are a step in the right direction but they hardly signal an end to Arab imperialism but rather a recalibration of it. Not a single Indigenous Middle Eastern people has been liberated because of the Abraham Accords.
Thank-you Noa for your review and your defence of my ideas. I tend to agree that the Abraham Accords, though welcome, hardly constitutes decolonisation or a change of imperial mentality among the Arab street. Rather it is an instance of "The Psychology of Strength" (Chapter 17) whereby Israel forced this change at elite level through her military superiority. That is cold peace, which is far better than hot war, yet it isn't warm peace ie decolonisation and good relations between genuine nation states. That requires a "paradgm shift" (chapter 18). Furthermore, Morocco seceded from Pax Arabica and decolonised without a drop of blood being spilt - it just applied its own national interest (W Sahara) over the aims of Pax Arabica (Palestine).
Benjamin Kerstein’s review of Pax Arabica hits on something essential: Daniel Clarke-Serret is saying what too many scholars, journalists, and diplomats refuse to say: Morality is reciprocity. If the West is expected to confront its sins honestly, then the Arab world must be held to the same standard. That is the core of Kerstein’s argument, and it is exactly where Clarke-Serret hits home.
In many ways, Clarke-Serret is applying moral language to what Bernard Lewis demonstrated with historical scholarship. Lewis showed that the Arab-Islamic conquests created one of the most sweeping and enduring empires in human history - an imperial project so thorough it erased entire nations, languages, and cultures. Clarke-Serret pushes the implication further: an empire so vast and lasting does not become morally invisible simply because it is politically convenient to pretend it never existed. You cannot claim eternal victimhood while standing atop an imperial legacy of your own.
That is why Clarke-Serret’s argument feels so bracing. He confronts the grievance narrative head-on and forces us back to the actual historical ledger: Kurds denied a homeland, Copts and Maronites living under permanent siege, Yazidis nearly exterminated, Jews expelled from every Arab country. None of this is “Western mythmaking”; it is the reality of peoples who suffered under Arab domination. Lewis mapped the history; Clarke-Serret delivers the indictment; and Kerstein deserves credit for pointing out how overdue this moral correction is.
Where Clarke-Serret is most controversial is his critique of “Palestinianism,” which he presents not as genuine self-determination but as the vanguard ideology of pan-Arab imperial identity. One may debate the rhetoric, but the PLO’s early documents speak for themselves. Clarke-Serret’s broader point is simply that self-determination only matters if it applies to actual marginalized peoples - such as the Kurds, Maronites, Yazidis, African Western Sudanese - not solely to those whose cause happens to align with Arab political convenience.
His prescription is straightforward in principle if difficult in execution: de-colonize the Middle East the same way the West de-colonized itself. Replace pan-Arabism - which Clarke-Serret sees as a euphemism for enforced Arab supremacy - with a regional order of sovereign, mutually respecting nations.
And here again Kerstein’s review makes an especially important observation: the Middle East is already moving in that direction through the Abraham Accords. These agreements between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan shattered the old dogma that the Arab world had to remain in permanent, monolithic opposition to Israel. They opened embassies, established direct flights, expanded trade, and created real cooperation in technology, energy, and intelligence. Kerstein is right: the Accords show that the region can evolve past imperial ideology through pragmatism and national interest, not just through upheaval.
If anything, the Abraham Accords vindicate Clarke-Serret’s larger point. Once Arab states step out from under the shadow of pan-Arab grievance, the old narratives collapse. Peace becomes possible not because Israel changes, but because Arab nations finally act like nations rather than like foot soldiers of a mythic “Arab world.” Clarke-Serret doesn’t explore this enough, and Kerstein fairly calls him out on that omission.
Clarke-Serret is undeniably polemical, and his rhetoric occasionally overshoots. But after decades of romantic mythology from the Said/Khalidi camp - where Arab political failure is always someone else’s fault and Arab imperial history remains taboo - a forceful corrective isn’t a flaw. It’s a necessity.
If the West is expected to face its history with honesty, then the Arab world must be held to the same standard. Reciprocity isn’t prejudice. Until the champions of Arab grievance confront their own imperial past with the same moral seriousness they demand of others, their lectures carry no weight.
A lovely review of the review David! I may copy and paste and reference your review in future articles. Thanks again. Also I am starting to get used to being called "Clarke-Serret". :))
On the Abraham Accords:
The Abraham Accords, though welcome, hardly constitutes decolonisation or a change of imperial mentality among the Arab Street. Rather it is an instance of "The Psychology of Strength" (Chapter 17) whereby Israel forced this change at elite level through her military superiority as well as through geopolitical and energy realities. It is a cold peace, which is far better than hot war, yet it isn't warm peace ie decolonisation and good relations between genuine nation states. That requires a "paradgm shift" (chapter 18). Furthermore, Morocco seceded from Pax Arabica and decolonised without a drop of blood being spilt - it just applied its own national interest (W Sahara) over the aims of Pax Arabica (Palestine).
For the most part, I’d agree with this mostly excellent review of Daniel Clarke-Serret’s book but I do have a few disagreements here and there, Benjamin. But I’ll get into that later. I think you sum up Daniel’s arguments and points pretty well. Indeed, the Arab Empire is one of the few true empires left on Earth besides Russia. Now let me be clear, did Arabs face paternalistic racism, injustices, atrocities, exploitation, plundering, and corruption under European colonialism? Yes, of course. But by in large, it’s been they who’ve done most of the oppression throughout Middle Eastern history.
Furthermore, whatever it’s flaws, European colonialism was nowhere near as bad as Arab colonialism. When colonial officials committed atrocities European officials condemned them and held them accountable. Brutality and mass murder was not only never condemned in the Arab Empire, it was encouraged and celebrated. European colonialism also brought innumerable benefits to the peoples of the developing world. Just to name a few: parliamentary democracy, free-market capitalism, human rights, the rule of law, free trade, the Christian Church, expanded education, improved public health, women’s rights, the enfranchisement of untouchable or historically excluded groups, the abolition of slavery, fair taxation to capital, access to capital, improved administration, creation of basic infrastructure, widened employment opportunities, the generation of historical and cultural knowledge, national identity formation, and the end of tribal warfare among other things.
Arab colonialism came with no benefits at all for the minorities of the Middle East. The Arabs did nothing at all to improve the lives of the Jews, Kurds, Persians, Africans, Berbers, Druze, Assyrians, Bedouins, Arameans, Copts, Samaritans, Mandeans, Maronites, and Yazidis they ruled over. Indeed, Pax Arabica has bamboozled the world by casting themselves as not an empire and purely as the victims of Middle Eastern history. They also blatantly gloss over how they oppressed the Jewish people and treated them as dhimmis for centuries. The PLO was indeed all about destroying Israel. It was ever about actually creating a Palestinian state. Now, to address the things you said I disagree with.
I don’t think Levantia is a fantasy. It may be at the moment but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen in the future. Much more impossible things have happened in human history such as the creation of Israel itself. I don’t think widespread de-colonization of the Middle East would necessarily mean widespread bloodshed or that one would have to settle for slow liberalization. It could be done peacefully as Morocco for example has left Pax Arabica peacefully and the Kurds were granted a degree of autonomy in Iraq. It could be done peacefully and gradually by a reformed United Nations and if the United States and the Western allies provided oversight and gave security assurances to these new states. I could see something like the Treaty of Westphalia or Good Friday Agreement being worked out between Arabs and Middle Eastern minorities. Sworn enemies have made peace before and coexisted it’s not at all impossible. Lastly, the Abraham Accords are a step in the right direction but they hardly signal an end to Arab imperialism but rather a recalibration of it. Not a single Indigenous Middle Eastern people has been liberated because of the Abraham Accords.
Thank-you Noa for your review and your defence of my ideas. I tend to agree that the Abraham Accords, though welcome, hardly constitutes decolonisation or a change of imperial mentality among the Arab street. Rather it is an instance of "The Psychology of Strength" (Chapter 17) whereby Israel forced this change at elite level through her military superiority. That is cold peace, which is far better than hot war, yet it isn't warm peace ie decolonisation and good relations between genuine nation states. That requires a "paradgm shift" (chapter 18). Furthermore, Morocco seceded from Pax Arabica and decolonised without a drop of blood being spilt - it just applied its own national interest (W Sahara) over the aims of Pax Arabica (Palestine).
Benjamin Kerstein’s review of Pax Arabica hits on something essential: Daniel Clarke-Serret is saying what too many scholars, journalists, and diplomats refuse to say: Morality is reciprocity. If the West is expected to confront its sins honestly, then the Arab world must be held to the same standard. That is the core of Kerstein’s argument, and it is exactly where Clarke-Serret hits home.
In many ways, Clarke-Serret is applying moral language to what Bernard Lewis demonstrated with historical scholarship. Lewis showed that the Arab-Islamic conquests created one of the most sweeping and enduring empires in human history - an imperial project so thorough it erased entire nations, languages, and cultures. Clarke-Serret pushes the implication further: an empire so vast and lasting does not become morally invisible simply because it is politically convenient to pretend it never existed. You cannot claim eternal victimhood while standing atop an imperial legacy of your own.
That is why Clarke-Serret’s argument feels so bracing. He confronts the grievance narrative head-on and forces us back to the actual historical ledger: Kurds denied a homeland, Copts and Maronites living under permanent siege, Yazidis nearly exterminated, Jews expelled from every Arab country. None of this is “Western mythmaking”; it is the reality of peoples who suffered under Arab domination. Lewis mapped the history; Clarke-Serret delivers the indictment; and Kerstein deserves credit for pointing out how overdue this moral correction is.
Where Clarke-Serret is most controversial is his critique of “Palestinianism,” which he presents not as genuine self-determination but as the vanguard ideology of pan-Arab imperial identity. One may debate the rhetoric, but the PLO’s early documents speak for themselves. Clarke-Serret’s broader point is simply that self-determination only matters if it applies to actual marginalized peoples - such as the Kurds, Maronites, Yazidis, African Western Sudanese - not solely to those whose cause happens to align with Arab political convenience.
His prescription is straightforward in principle if difficult in execution: de-colonize the Middle East the same way the West de-colonized itself. Replace pan-Arabism - which Clarke-Serret sees as a euphemism for enforced Arab supremacy - with a regional order of sovereign, mutually respecting nations.
And here again Kerstein’s review makes an especially important observation: the Middle East is already moving in that direction through the Abraham Accords. These agreements between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan shattered the old dogma that the Arab world had to remain in permanent, monolithic opposition to Israel. They opened embassies, established direct flights, expanded trade, and created real cooperation in technology, energy, and intelligence. Kerstein is right: the Accords show that the region can evolve past imperial ideology through pragmatism and national interest, not just through upheaval.
If anything, the Abraham Accords vindicate Clarke-Serret’s larger point. Once Arab states step out from under the shadow of pan-Arab grievance, the old narratives collapse. Peace becomes possible not because Israel changes, but because Arab nations finally act like nations rather than like foot soldiers of a mythic “Arab world.” Clarke-Serret doesn’t explore this enough, and Kerstein fairly calls him out on that omission.
Clarke-Serret is undeniably polemical, and his rhetoric occasionally overshoots. But after decades of romantic mythology from the Said/Khalidi camp - where Arab political failure is always someone else’s fault and Arab imperial history remains taboo - a forceful corrective isn’t a flaw. It’s a necessity.
If the West is expected to face its history with honesty, then the Arab world must be held to the same standard. Reciprocity isn’t prejudice. Until the champions of Arab grievance confront their own imperial past with the same moral seriousness they demand of others, their lectures carry no weight.
A lovely review of the review David! I may copy and paste and reference your review in future articles. Thanks again. Also I am starting to get used to being called "Clarke-Serret". :))
On the Abraham Accords:
The Abraham Accords, though welcome, hardly constitutes decolonisation or a change of imperial mentality among the Arab Street. Rather it is an instance of "The Psychology of Strength" (Chapter 17) whereby Israel forced this change at elite level through her military superiority as well as through geopolitical and energy realities. It is a cold peace, which is far better than hot war, yet it isn't warm peace ie decolonisation and good relations between genuine nation states. That requires a "paradgm shift" (chapter 18). Furthermore, Morocco seceded from Pax Arabica and decolonised without a drop of blood being spilt - it just applied its own national interest (W Sahara) over the aims of Pax Arabica (Palestine).