To quote the eminent scholar of Islam and the Middle East, Daniel Pipes:
"In a tour de force that offers a pro-foundly new understanding of a key issue in modern Middle Eastern history, Efraim and Inari Karsh review the relations between Europe and the Ottoman empire in the final century-and-a-half of the latter's existence, and in the process nearly reverse the standard historical interpretation. According to that interpretation, from about the time of the French Revolution until World War I, a dynamic, arrogant, imperial Europe imposed its will on a static, humiliated, supine East. This framework is common to nearly every lead-ing historian, almost regardless of era or political disposition."
Step by evidential step, this book shows how Arabs were actively involved in shaping the course of the region; how the Ottoman's weren't lured into WWI by Germany, but that the Ottoman ruler recklessly risked the future of his empire in the hope of war-time glory; how the Pan-Arab ideal wasn't destroyed by the British, but by the entrenched fractiousness of Arab-Muslim culture (as if anyone needed proof of that); and perhaps the most infamous of Arab grievances against the West, the Sykes-Picot agreement, redrawing the boundaries of the Middle East. Sykes is shown to have prevented (rather than caused) great(er) Arab splintering.
To quote Pipes again:
"On a wide range of other issues, too, this wall-to-wall revisionist account upends the conventional narrative. It establishes that Ottoman (and not Russian) aggressiveness caused the Turks to lose control of the Balkans; that Great Britain found itself ruling Egypt more on account of Ottoman mistakes than out of its own imperial desires; that the Arab Revolt of World War I was inspired less by nationalist sentiments or other "lofty ideals" than by "the glitter of British gold." More broadly, the Karshes also turn around the usual argument for British duplicity in World War I, pinning this charge instead on the Arabs. Arab leaders, they demonstrate, made fraudulent claims about the extent of their own political authority, gave empty promises of military action, and bargained continuously with the Central Powers with an eye to double-crossing the British."
"Arab Middle Easterners have long sought comfort in the notion of their victimization at the hands of the perfidious, conspiratorial West. By coming instead to accept that they themselves largely created their own destiny and made their own history in the 20th century, they might persuade themselves they can do the same in the 21st - only this time by throwing off their habitual sense of grievance, reigning in their autocratic rulers, reforming their moribund economies, and overcoming their radical ideologies."