RE: Modern Islamic countries born under European rule

I have read that it was Winston Churchill that determined the national boundaries that were imposed by the British Empire on the Middle East at that time. It is the imperial interests of the City of London that has divided the Kurds into four separate countries, and in similar vein tribal cultural entities were broken and divided against themselves across the region, ensuring the reinstitution of internecine conflict on tribal, as well as national divisions, and the continued disparity in power between the British Empire and developing nations.

It is notable that the British Empire was preparing to divest itself of it's colonies, and did not colonize the ME after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, as their military superiority at the time would have made possible (Palestine being the exception). Decolonization proceeded in the following decades, as the City had become able to profit more from newly independent countries than over colonies, due to the necessity of maintaining functional governments and the extraordinary expense of doing so where very different cultures and societies often made European framing of nations a very foreign concept.

It is demonstrable that the subsequent development in former colonies was far reduced from what could have been used to improve the quality of life of those free peoples, due to Western control of the international system and financial dominance through their superior military power exacerbated by the deliberate use of national borders to fracture potentially powerful ethnic groups.

"Lawrence exclaimed, like Jesus, that the Arabs must unite and wage a war of independence against Turkey."

I'm not aware that Jesus led a successful armed revolt. Am I completely clueless, or have I misunderstood? Perhaps you meant to compare the revolutionary influence Jesus had on Palestine that later resulted in the Bar Kochba Rebellion. However, that certainly was not Jesus' intent, as he could have easily took up the sword and did not.

Lawrence was all about the sword, and imperial power, which strongly contrasts with Jesus, who instead was concerned with social felicity stemming from philosophical, not military, revolution.