spb/wp30_uqo

1{2  "document_id": "lb_hotpotqa_e8ba4badc3c5d30cc0942ede8df86a72257c492c07025dab",3  "family": "public_hotpotqa",4  "split": "test",5  "text": "Passage 1:\nArab Kingdom of Syria\nThe Arab Kingdom of Syria (Arabic: المملكة العربية السورية, al-Mamlakah al-‘Arabīyah as-Sūrīyah) was a self-proclaimed, unrecognized constitutional monarchy existing briefly in the territory of historical Syria. It was announced on 5 October 1918 as a fully and independent Arab constitutional government with the permission of the British military. It gained de facto independence as an Emirate after the withdrawal of the British forces from OETA East on 26 November 1919, and was proclaimed as a Kingdom on 8 March 1920.\nAs a Kingdom it existed only a little over four months, from 8 March to 25 July 1920. During its brief existence, the kingdom was led by Sharif Hussein bin Ali's son Faisal bin Hussein. Despite its claims to the territory of Greater Syria, Faisal's government controlled a limited area and was dependent on Britain which, along with France, generally opposed the idea of a Greater Syria and refused to recognize the kingdom. The kingdom surrendered to French forces on 25 July 1920.\n\nHistory\nFoundations\nThe Arab Revolt and the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence were crucial factors in the foundation of the Arab Kingdom of Syria. In the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence promises of an Arab Kingdom were made by the British in return for an Arab uprising against the Ottomans.: 209–215  As the British were promising independence, The French made the Sykes–Picot Agreement. Ultimately, the implementation of the Sykes–Picot Agreement would lead to the undermining and end of the Arab Kingdom of Syria. Despite the significance of the Arab Revolt to modern Arab countries formed in its wake, at the time there was significant distrust and even opposition to the idea of an Arab Kingdom or series of Arab Kingdoms.\nThis opposition was due in part to the heavy influence of the French and the British in facilitating the revolt and the establishment of what would be considered, by modern standards, puppet states.: 185–191  The involvement of foreign powers in distributing large sums of money and military support to establish an empire that would be led by imperial aspirants, rather than legitimate Arab nationalists, was instrumental in the disintegration of the majority of the early Hashemite Kingdoms (Kingdom of Hejaz and Kingdom of Iraq). Additionally, at the time, many Arabs expressed grave concerns that the family of the Sharif of Mecca, the Hashemites, could wrest control from the Ottoman Sultan, with whom their loyalty had rested for centuries.: 187\n\nArab constitutional government\nNear the end of World War I, the British Egyptian Expeditionary Force, under command of Edmund Allenby, captured Damascus on 30 September 1918. Shortly thereafter, on 3 October, Faisal entered the city.: 30  The jubilation would be short lived, as Faisal would soon be made aware of the Sykes–Picot agreement. Faisal had come to expect an independent Arab kingdom in the name of his father but was soon told of the division of territory and how Syria fell under French protective power. Faisal saw this admission as a betrayal by the British, but believed the actual settlement would be worked out at a later date when the war had ended. There was some likelihood that by then the British would have changed their support for French pretensions in Syria.\nOn 5 October, with the permission of General Allenby, Faisal announced the establishment of a fully and absolutely independent Arab constitutional government.: 34  Faisal announced it would be an Arab government based on justice and equality for all Arabs regardless of religion. The French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau found disconcerting the establishment of a semi-independent Arab state without international recognition and under the auspices of the British. Even reassurances by Allenby that all actions taken were provisional did not ease the looming tensions between the British, the French, and the Arabs. For Arab nationalists, and many of the Arabs who fought in the Arab Revolt, this independent state would be the realization of a long hard-fought goal.\n\nDetermining the status\nAfter the war, at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, Faisal pushed for Arab independence. At the Conference, the victorious Allies decided what was to become of the defeated nations of the Central Powers, especially who was to control their territories, such as the Ottoman Empire's Middle East possessions. The status of the Arab lands in the Middle East was the subject of intense negotiations between the French and British. In May 1919, the French and British prime ministers met in Quai d’Orsay to decide between them their respective claims to territories or spheres of influence in the Middle East. The meeting determined that in return for a British guarantee of French control in Syria, the British would be given a mandate over Mosul and Palestine.\nAt about the same time, an American compromise resulted in an agreement to set up a commission to determine the wishes of the inhabitants. Though they initially supported the idea, Britain and France eventually backed out, leaving the King–Crane Commission of 1919 solely American.: 268  The findings of the commission, not published until 1922 after the vote on the mandates in the League of Nations, indicated strong Arab support for an independent Arab state and opposition to a French presence.\n\nCreation\nThese events in Europe led Syrian nationalist societies like al-Fatat (the Young Arab Society) to make preparations for a national congress. These Syrian nationalist societies advocated complete independence for an Arab Kingdom that united Arabs under Faisal. The King–Crane Commission encouraged efforts to unify, and hasty elections were called including representatives from all over the Arab lands, including Palestine and Lebanon, although French officials prevented many of their representatives from arriving. The first official session of the Syrian Congress was held on 3 June 1919 and al-Fatat member Hashim al-Atassi was elected its president.: 17 When the King–Crane Commission arrived in Damascus on 25 June 1919, it was met with a flurry of leaflets saying \"Independence or Death\".\nOn 2 July the Syrian National Congress in Damascus passed the Damascus Program, a series of resolutions calling for a completely independent constitutional monarchy with Faisal as king, asking for assistance from the United States, and rejecting any rights claimed by the French.: 19  The resolutions defined the borders as \n\non the north, the Taurus Range; on the south, a line running from Rafah to Al-Jauf and following the Syria-Hejaz border below 'Aqaba; on the east, the boundary formed by the Euphrates and Khabur rivers and a line stretching from some distance east of Abu-Kamal to some distance east of al-Jauf; on the west, the Mediterranean Sea.\nAny hope that Faisal may have had that either the British or Americans would come to his aid and counter French moves quickly faded, especially after the Anglo-French Agreement for the withdrawal of British troops from Syria and the end of the British military government in Syria. The British withdrew from the region on 26 November 1919.In January 1920, Faisal was forced into an agreement with France which stipulated that France would uphold the existence of the Syrian state and would not station troops in Syria as long as the French government remained the only government supplying advisers, counselors and technical experts.: 167  News of this compromise did not bode well with Faisal's vehemently anti-French and independence-minded supporters who immediately pressured Faisal to reverse his commitment, which he did. In the aftermath of this reversal, violent attacks against French forces took place and the Syrian Congress assembled in March 1920 to declare Faisal the king of Syria as well as to officially set up the Arab Kingdom of Syria with Hashim al-Atassi as Prime Minister and Yusuf al-'Azma as Minister of War and Chief of Staff.\nThis unilateral action was immediately repudiated by the British and French and the San Remo Conference was called by the Allied Powers in April 1920 to finalise the allocation of League of Nations mandates in the Middle East. This was in turn repudiated by Faisal and his supporters. After months of instability and failure to make good on the promises to the French, the commander of French forces General Henri Gouraud gave an ultimatum to King Faisal on 14 July 1920 declaring he surrender or fight.: 215\n\nDissolution\nWorried about the results of a long bloody fight with the French, King Faisal surrendered. However, Yusuf al-'Azma, the defense minister, ignored the King's order, and led a small army to confront the French advance into Syria. This army depended mainly on individual weapons and were no match to the French artillery. At the Battle of Maysalun, the Syrian army was easily defeated by the French, with General al-'Azma being killed during the battle. The loss led to the siege and capture of Damascus on 24 July 1920 and the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon was put into effect thereafter.\n\nLegacy\nAfter surrendering to French forces, Faisal was expelled from Syria and went to live in the United Kingdom in August 1920. In August 1921 he was offered the crown of Iraq under the British Mandate of Iraq.\nA pro-French government under the leadership of 'Alaa al-Din al-Darubi was installed one day after the fall of Damascus, on 25 July 1920.: 37  On 1 September 1920, General Gouraud divided the French mandate territory of Syria into several smaller states as part of a French scheme to make Syria easier to control.\nThe Kingdom, through its short and tumultuous existence, would become a subject of great inspiration to later Arab liberation movements. It would be the often-repeated story of an Arab people breaking out from their colonial bonds only to be castigated for their revolutionary fervor and for their resistance to the imperial powers. The symbolism of the fall of the Kingdom of Syria also imparted deep mistrust of European powers, who were seen as liars and oppressors.\n\nPolitics of Syria (1918–1920)\nHeads of Government\nKing\nPrime Ministers\nGallery\nPassage 2:\nGouding\nGouding (Chinese: 句町) was a monarchical state that lasted approximately 400 years, from 111 BC to 316 AD, and was centered on Guangnan County in modern-day Wenshan Zhuang and Miao Autonomous Prefecture, Yunnan province, China.\n\nIn December 2015, artifacts unearthed from Gouding were on display at the Guangnan Minorities Museum.\n\nSee also\nĐông Sơn drums\nNeighbouring kingdoms of Dian and Yelang.\nSouthward expansion of the Han dynasty\nZomia (geography)\nPassage 3:\nModern history of Syria\nThe modern history of Syria begins with the termination of Ottoman control of Syria by French forces and the establishment of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration during World War I. The short-lived Arab Kingdom of Syria emerged in 1920, which was however soon committed under the French Mandate, which produced the short-lived autonomous State of Aleppo, State of Damascus (later State of Syria), Alawite State and Jabal al-Druze (state); the autonomies were transformed into the Mandatory Syrian Republic in 1930. Syrian Republic gained independence in April 1946. The Republic took part in the Arab-Israeli War and remained in a state of political instability during the 1950s and 1960s.\nThe 8 March 1963 coup resulted in the installation of the National Council for the Revolutionary Command (NCRC), a group of military and civilian officials who assumed control of all executive and legislative authority. The takeover was engineered by members of the Ba'ath Party led by Michel Aflaq and Salah al-Din al-Bitar. He was overthrown in early 1966 by Marxist-Leninist military dissidents of the party led by General Salah Jadid. Since the Arab Spring of 2011, Bashar al-Assad's government has been involved in the ongoing Syrian civil war.\n\nSyria under the Mandate\nOETA\nThe Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) was a joint British and French military administration over Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces of the former Ottoman Empire between 1918 and 1920, set up following the Sinai and Palestine Campaign of World War I. The administration ended following the assignment of the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon and British Mandate for Palestine at the 19–26 April 1920 San Remo conference.\n\nInitial civil administration\nFollowing the San Remo conference in April 1920 and the defeat of King Faisal's short-lived monarchy in Syria at the Battle of Maysalun on 24 July 1920, the French general Henri Gouraud established civil administration in the territory. The mandate region was subdivided into six states. They were the states of Damascus (1920), Aleppo (1920), Alawites (1920), Jabal Druze (1921), the autonomous Sanjak of Alexandretta (1921) (modern-day Hatay), and the State of Greater Lebanon (1920), which later became the modern country of Lebanon.\nThe drawing of those states was based in part on the sectarian make-up on the ground in Syria. However, nearly all the Syrian sects were hostile to the French mandate and to the division it created. This was best demonstrated by the numerous revolts that the French encountered in all of the Syrian states. Maronite Christians of Mount Lebanon, on the other hand, were a community with a dream of independence that was being realized under the French; therefore, Greater Lebanon was the exception to the newly formed states.\n\nSyrian Federation (1922-24)\nIn July 1922, France established a loose federation between three of the states: Damascus, Aleppo, and the Alawite state under the name of the Syrian Federation (Fédération syrienne). Jabal Druze, Sanjak of Alexandretta, and Greater Lebanon were not parts of this federation, which adopted a new federal flag (green-white-green with French canton). On 1 December 1924, the Alawite state seceded from the federation when the states of Aleppo and Damascus were united into the State of Syria.\n\nThe Great Syrian Revolt\nIn 1925, a revolt in Jabal Druze led by Sultan Pasha el Atrash spread to other Syrian states and became a general rebellion in Syria. France tried to retaliate by having the parliament of Aleppo declare secession from the union with Damascus, but the voting was foiled by Syrian patriots.\n\nFirst Syrian Republic\nThe red stars that represented the three districts of the republic (Damascus, Aleppo, and Deir ez Zor).\n\n1936 Independence treaty\nIn 1936, the Franco-Syrian Treaty of Independence was signed, a treaty that would not be ratified by the French legislature. However, the treaty allowed Jabal Druze, the Alawite (now called Latakia), and Alexandretta to be incorporated into the Syrian republic within the following two years. Greater Lebanon (now the Lebanese Republic) was the only state that did not join the Syrian Republic. Hashim al-Atassi, who was Prime Minister under King Faisal's brief reign (1918–1920), was the first president to be elected under a new constitution adopted after the independence treaty.\n\nSeparation of Hatay\nIn September 1938, France again separated the Syrian district of Alexandretta and transformed it into the Republic of Hatay. The Republic of Hatay joined Turkey in the following year, in June 1939. Syria did not recognize the incorporation of Hatay into Turkey and the issue is still disputed until the present time.\n\nWorld War II and the founding of the UN\nWith the fall of France in 1940 during World War II, Syria came under the control of the Vichy Government until the British and Free French invaded and occupied the country in July 1941. Syria proclaimed its independence again in 1941 but it was not until 1 January 1944 that it was recognized as an independent republic.\nOn 27 September 1941, France proclaimed, by virtue of, and within the framework of the Mandate, the independence and sovereignty of the Syrian State. The proclamation said \"the independence and sovereignty of Syria and Lebanon will not affect the juridical situation as it results from the Mandate Act. Indeed, this situation could be changed only with the agreement of the Council of the League of Nations, with the consent of the Government of the United States, a signatory of the Franco-American Convention of 4 April 1924, and only after the conclusion between the French Government and the Syrian and Lebanese Governments of treaties duly ratified in accordance with the laws of the French Republic.Benqt Broms said that it was important to note that there were several founding members of the United Nations whose statehood was doubtful at the time of the San Francisco Conference and that the Government of France still considered Syria and Lebanon to be mandates.Duncan Hall said \"Thus, the Syrian mandate may be said to have been terminated without any formal action on the part of the League or its successor. The mandate was terminated by the declaration of the mandatory power, and of the new states themselves, of their independence, followed by a process of piecemeal unconditional recognition by other powers, culminating in formal admission to the United Nations. Article 78 of the Charter ended the status of tutelage for any member state: 'The trusteeship system shall not apply to territories which have become Members of the United Nations, relationship among which shall be based on respect for the principle of sovereign equality.'\"On 29 May 1945, France bombed Damascus and tried to arrest its democratically elected leaders. While French planes were bombing Damascus, Prime Minister Faris al-Khoury was at the founding conference of the United Nations in San Francisco, presenting Syria's claim for independence from the French Mandate.\nContinuing pressure from Syrian nationalist groups and British pressure forced the French to evacuate their last troops on 17 April 1946.\n\nRepublic of Syria 1946-1963\nSyrian independence was acquired in 1946. Although rapid economic development followed the declaration of independence, Syrian politics from independence through the late 1960s was marked by upheaval. The early years of independence were marked by political instability.\nIn 1948, Syria was involved in the Arab-Israeli War with the newly created State of Israel. The Syrian army was pressed out of the Israeli areas, but fortified their strongholds on the Golan and managed to keep their old borders and occupy some additional territory. In July 1949, Syria was the last Arab country to sign an armistice agreement with Israel.\nIn March 1949, Syria's national government was overthrown by a military coup d'état led by Husni al-Zaim in a coup. Some authors claim involvement by the United States CIA.Later that year Zaim was overthrown by his colleague Sami al-Hinnawi and Adib al-Shishakli. The latter undermined civilian rule and led to Shishakli's complete seizure of power in 1951. Shishakli continued to rule the country until 1955, when growing public opposition forced him to resign and leave the country. The national government was restored, but again to face instability, this time from abroad. After the overthrow of President Shishakli in a 1954 coup, continued political maneuvering supported by competing factions in the military eventually brought Arab nationalist and socialist elements to power. Between 1946 and 1956, Syria had 20 different cabinets and drafted four separate constitutions.\nDuring the Suez Crisis of 1956, after the invasion of the Sinai Peninsula by Israeli troops, and the intervention of British and French troops, martial law was declared in Syria. Later Syrian and Iraqi troops were brought into Jordan to prevent a possible Israeli invasion. The November 1956 attacks on Iraqi pipelines were in retaliation for Iraq's acceptance into the Baghdad Pact. In early 1957 Iraq advised Egypt and Syria against a conceivable takeover of Jordan.\nIn November 1956 Syria signed a pact with the Soviet Union, providing a foothold for communist influence within the government in exchange for planes, tanks, and other military equipment being sent to Syria. This increase in the strength of Syrian military technology worried Turkey, as it seemed feasible that Syria might attempt to retake Iskenderon, a formerly Syrian city now in Turkey. On the other hand, Syria and the USSR accused Turkey of amassing its troops at the Syrian border. During this standoff, communists gained more control over the Syrian government and military. Only heated debates in the United Nations (of which Syria was an original member) lessened the threat of war.\nSyria's political instability during the years after the 1954 coup, the parallelism of Syrian and Egyptian policies, and the appeal of Egyptian President Gamal Abdal Nasser's leadership in the wake of the Suez crisis created support in Syria for union with Egypt. On 1 February 1958, Syrian president Shukri al-Kuwatli and Nasser announced the merging of the two countries, creating the United Arab Republic, and all Syrian political parties, as well as the Communists therein, ceased overt activities.\nThe union was not a success, however. Following a military coup on 28 September 1961, Syria seceded, reestablishing itself as the Syrian Arab Republic. Instability characterised the next 18 months, with various coups culminating on 8 March 1963, in the installation by leftist Syrian Army officers of the National Council of the Revolutionary Command (NCRC), a group of military and civilian officials who assumed control of all executive and legislative authority. The takeover was engineered by members of the Arab Socialist Resurrection Party (Ba'ath Party), which had been active in Syria and other Arab countries since the late 1940s. The new cabinet was dominated by Ba'ath members.\n\nBa'athist Arab Republic of Syria 1963-today\nFirst Ba'ath government\nThe Ba'ath takeover in Syria followed a Ba'ath coup in Iraq, the previous month. The new Syrian Government explored the possibility of federation with Egypt and with Ba'ath-controlled Iraq. An agreement was concluded in Cairo on 17 April 1963, for a referendum on unity to be held in September 1963. However, serious disagreements among the parties soon developed, and the tripartite federation failed to materialize. Thereafter, the Ba'ath governments in Syria and Iraq began to work for bilateral unity. These plans foundered in November 1963, when the Ba'ath government in Iraq was overthrown.\nIn May 1964, President Amin al-Hafiz of the NCRC promulgated a provisional constitution providing for a National Council of the Revolution (NCR), an appointed legislature composed of representatives of mass organisations—labour, peasant, and professional unions—a presidential council, in which executive power was vested, and a cabinet.\n\nSecond Ba'ath government\nOn 23 February 1966, a group of army officers carried out a successful, intra-party coup, imprisoned President Hafiz, dissolved the cabinet and the NCR, abrogated the provisional constitution, and designated a regionalist, civilian Ba'ath government on 1 March. The coup leaders described it as a \"rectification\" of Ba'ath Party principles. In June 1967 Israel captured and occupied the Golan Heights. The Six Day War had significantly weakened the radical socialist government established by the 1966 coup.\nOn 18 September 1970, during the events of Black September in Jordan, Syria tried to intervene on behalf of the Palestinian guerrillas. Hafez al-Assad sent in armored forces equivalent to a brigade, with tanks, some of them allegedly hastily rebranded from the regular Syrian army for the purpose. Other Syrian units were the 5th Infantry Division and Commandos. On 21 September, the Syrian 5th Division broke through the defenses of the Jordanian 40th Armoured Brigade, and pushed it back off the ar-Ramtha crossroads. On 22 September, the Royal Jordanian Air Force began attacking Syrian forces, which were badly battered as a result. The constant airstrikes broke the Syrian force, and on the late afternoon of 22 September the 5th Division began to retreat. The swift Syrian withdrawal was a severe blow to Palestinian guerillas. Jordanian armored forces steadily pounded their headquarters in Amman, and threatened to break them in other regions of the Kingdom as well. Eventually, the Palestinian factions agreed to a cease-fire. King Hussein and Yasser Arafat attended the meeting of the Arab League in Cairo, where the hostilities briefly ended. The Jordanian-Palestinian Civil War shortly resumed, but without Syrian intervention.\nBy 1970 a conflict had developed between an extremist military wing and a more moderate civilian wing of the Ba'ath Party. The 1970 retreat of Syrian forces sent to aid the PLO during the \"Black September\" hostilities with Jordan reflected this political disagreement within the ruling Ba'ath leadership.\n\nBa'ath Party under Hafez al-Assad, 1970–2000\nPower takeover\nOn 13 November 1970, Minister of Defense Hafez al-Assad effected a bloodless military coup, ousting the civilian party leadership and assuming the role of President.\nUpon assuming power, Hafez al-Assad moved quickly to create an organizational infrastructure for his government and to consolidate control. The Provisional Regional Command of Assad's Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party nominated a 173-member legislature, the People's Council, in which the Ba'ath Party took 87 seats. The remaining seats were divided among \"popular organizations\" and other minor parties.\nIn March 1971, the party held its regional congress and elected a new 21-member Regional Command headed by Assad. In the same month, a national referendum was held to confirm Assad as president for a 7-year term. In March 1972, to broaden the base of his government, Assad formed the National Progressive Front, a coalition of parties led by the Ba'ath Party, and elections were held to establish local councils in each of Syria's 14 governorates. In March 1973, a new Syrian constitution went into effect followed shortly thereafter by parliamentary elections for the People's Council, the first such elections since 1962.\n\nOctober War\nOn 6 October 1973, Syria and Egypt began the Yom Kippur War (also called the \"Ramadan War\" or \"October War\" because Syria and Egypt attacked during Muslim Ramadan holiday) by staging a surprise attack against Israel. Despite the element of surprise, Egypt and Syria lost their initial gains in a three-week-long warfare, and Israel continued to occupy the Golan Heights and the Sinai peninsula.\n\nIntervention in Lebanon\nIn early 1976, the Lebanese Civil War was going poorly for the Maronite Christians, so the Lebanese President Elias Sarkis officially requested Syria intervene militarily. After receiving their first mandate from the Lebanese President, Syria was given a second mandate by the Arab League to intervene militarily in Lebanon. Syria sent 40,000 troops into the country to prevent the Christians from being overrun, but soon became embroiled in this war, beginning the 30 year Syrian presence in Lebanon. Over the following 15 years of civil war, Syria fought both for control over Lebanon, and as an attempt to undermine Israel in southern Lebanon, through extensive use of Lebanese allies as proxy fighters. Many saw the Syrian Army's presence in Lebanon as an occupation, especially following the end of the civil war in 1990, after the Syrian-sponsored Taif Agreement. Syria then remained in Lebanon until 2005, exerting a heavy-handed influence over Lebanese politics, that was deeply resented by many.\nAbout one million Syrian workers came into Lebanon after the war ended to find jobs in the reconstruction of the country. Syrian workers were preferred over Palestinian Arabs and Lebanese workers because they could be paid lower wages, but some have argued that the Syrian government's encouragement of citizens entering its small and militarily dominated neighbor in search of work, was in fact an attempt at Syrian colonization of Lebanon. In 1994, under pressure from Damascus, the Lebanese government controversially granted citizenship to over 200,000 Syrians resident in the country.\n\nMuslim Brotherhood uprising and Hama Massacre\nOn 31 January 1973, Assad implemented the new Constitution which led to a national crisis. Unlike previous constitutions, this one did not require that the  president of Syria must be a Muslim, leading to fierce demonstrations in Hama, Homs and Aleppo organized by the Muslim Brotherhood and the ulama. They labeled Assad as the \"enemy of Allah\" and called for a jihad against his rule. Robert D. Kaplan has compared Assad's coming to power to \"an untouchable becoming maharajah in India or a Jew becoming tsar in Russia—an unprecedented development shocking to the Sunni majority population which had monopolized power for so many centuries.\" The authoritarian government was not without its critics, a serious challenge arose in the late 1970s from fundamentalist Sunni Muslims, who reject the basic values of the secular Ba'ath program and object to rule by the Alawis whom they consider heretical. From 1976 until its suppression in 1982, the arch-conservative Muslim Brotherhood led an armed insurgency against the government. In response to an attempted uprising by the brotherhood in February 1982, the government crushed the fundamentalist opposition centered in the city of Hama, leveling parts of the city with artillery fire and causing many thousands of dead and wounded. During the rest of Hafez al-Assad's reign, public manifestations of anti-government activity were very limited.\n\nDuring Gulf War\nSyria's 1990 participation in the U.S.-led multinational coalition aligned against Saddam Hussein marked a dramatic watershed in Syria's relations both with other Arab states and with the Western world. Syria participated in the multilateral Middle East Peace Conference in Madrid in October 1991, and during the 1990s engaged in direct, face-to-face negotiations with Israel. These negotiations failed, and there have been no further Syrian-Israeli talks since President Hafiz al-Assad's meeting with President Bill Clinton in Geneva in March 2000.\n\nInternal power struggle\nIn what has become known as the 1999 Latakia incident, violent protests and armed clashes erupted following the 1998 People's Assembly's Elections. The violent events were an explosion of a long-running feud between Hafez al-Assad and his younger brother Rifaat, who previously attempted to initiate a coup against Hafez in 1984, but was eventually expelled from Syria. Two people were killed in fire exchanges of Syrian police and Rifaat's supporters during police crack-down on Rifaat's port compound in Latakia. According to opposition sources, denied by the government, the clashes in Latakia resulted in hundreds of dead and injured.\n\nDrought in Syria\nFrom 2006 to 2010, Syria experienced its worst drought in modern history. The drought resulted in a mass migration from the Syrian countryside into urban centers, which notably strained existing infrastructure already burdened by the influx of some 1.5 million refugees from Iraq. The drought itself has been linked to human caused global climate change. It has also been directly linked as a contributing factor to the socieoeconomic conditions that led to initial protests and uprising. Adequate water supply continues to be an issue in the ongoing civil war and the supply is frequently the target of military action.\n\nUnder Bashar al-Assad, 2000–present\nThe Damascus Autumn\nHafiz al-Assad died on 10 June 2000, after 30 years in power. Immediately following al-Assad's death, the Parliament amended the constitution, reducing the mandatory minimum age of the President from 40 to 34, which allowed his son, Bashar al-Assad, to become legally eligible for nomination by the ruling Ba'ath party. On 10 July 2000, Bashar al-Assad was elected president by referendum in which he ran unopposed, garnering 97.29% of the vote, according to Syrian government statistics.Bashar, who speaks French and English and has a British-born wife, was said to have \"inspired hopes\" for reform, and a \"Damascus Spring\" of intense political and social debate took place from July 2000 to August 2001. The period was characterized by the emergence of numerous political forums or salons where groups of like minded people met in private houses to debate political and social issues. The phenomenon of salons spread rapidly in Damascus and to a lesser extent in other cities. Political activists, such as, Riad Seif, Haitham al-Maleh, Kamal al-Labwani, Riyad al-Turk, and Aref Dalila were important in mobilizing the movement. The most famous of the forums were the Riad Seif Forum and the Jamal al-Atassi Forum. The Damascus Spring ended in August 2001 with the arrest and imprisonment of ten leading activists who had called for democratic elections and a campaign of civil disobedience.\n\nInternational and internal tensions\nOn 5 October 2003, Israel bombed a site near Damascus, claiming it was a terrorist training facility for members of Islamic Jihad. Islamic Jihad said the camp was not in use; Syria said the attack was on a civilian area. The Israeli action was condemned by European governments. The German Chancellor said it \"cannot be accepted\" and the French Foreign Ministry said \"The Israeli operation… constituted an unacceptable violation of international law and sovereignty rules.\" The Spanish UN Ambassador Inocencio Arias called it an attack of \"extreme gravity\" and \"a clear violation of international law.\"The United States Congress passed the Syria Accountability Act in December 2003, with the goal of ending what the U.S. sees as Syrian involvement in Lebanon, Iraq, terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction through international sanctions.\nEthnic tensions increased in Syria, following an incident in a football stadium in Al Qamishli, 30 people were killed and more than 160 were injured in days of clashes starting from 12 March. Kurdish sources indicated that Syrian security forces used live ammunition against civilians after clashes broke out at a football match between Kurdish fans of the local team and Arab supporters of a visiting team from the city of Deir al-Zor. The international press reported that nine people were killed on 12 March. According to Amnesty International hundreds of people, mostly Kurds, were arrested after the riots. Kurdish detainees were reportedly tortured and ill-treated. Some Kurdish students were expelled from their universities, reportedly for participating in peaceful protests.In June 2005, thousands of Kurds demonstrated in Qamishli to protest the assassination of Sheikh Khaznawi, a Kurdish cleric in Syria, resulting in the death of one policeman and injury to four Kurds.Renewed opposition activity occurred in October 2005 when activist Michel Kilo launched with leading opposition figures the Damascus Declaration, which criticized the Syrian government as \"authoritarian, totalitarian and cliquish\" and called for democratic reform.On 6 September 2007 a Syrian facility was bombed in the Deir ez-Zor region. While no one claimed responsibility for this act, Syria accused Israel, which in turn declared that the indicated site was a nuclear facility with a military purpose. Syria denied the claim.\nOn 26 October 2008 helicopter-borne CIA paramilitary officers and United States Special Operations Forces carried out a raid to the Syrian territory from Iraq The Syrian government called the event a \"criminal and terrorist\" attack on its sovereignty, alleging all of the reported eight fatalities were civilians. An unnamed U.S. military source, however, alleged that the target was a network of foreign fighters who travel through Syria to join the Iraqi insurgency against the United States-led Coalition in Iraq and the Iraqi government.\n\nSyrian civil war\nThe Syrian civil war is an ongoing internal violent conflict in Syria. It is a part of the wider Arab Spring, a wave of upheaval throughout the Arab World. Public demonstrations across Syria began on 26 January 2011 and developed into a nationwide uprising. Protesters demanded the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, the overthrow of his government, and an end to nearly five decades of Ba’ath Party rule.\nSince spring 2011, the Syrian government deployed the Syrian Army to quell the uprising, and several cities were besieged, though the unrest continued. According to some witnesses, soldiers, who refused to open fire on civilians, were summarily executed by the Syrian Army. The Syrian government denied reports of defections, and blamed armed gangs for causing trouble. Since early autumn 2011, civilians and army defectors began forming fighting units, which began an insurgency campaign against the Syrian Army. The insurgents unified under the banner of the Free Syrian Army and fought in an increasingly organized fashion; however, the civilian component of the armed opposition lacked an organized leadership.\nThe uprising has sectarian undertones, though neither faction in the conflict has described sectarianism as playing a major role. The opposition is dominated by Sunni Muslims, whereas the leading government figures are Alawites, affiliated with the Shia Islam. As a result, the opposition is winning support from the Sunni Muslim states, whereas the government is publicly supported by the Shia dominated Iran and the Lebanese Hizbullah.\nAccording to various sources, including the United Nations, up to 13,470–19,220 people have been killed, of which about half were civilians, but also including 6,035–6,570 armed combatants from both sides and up to 1,400 opposition protesters. Many more have been injured, and tens of thousands of protesters have been imprisoned. According to the Syrian government, 9,815–10,146 people, including 3,430 members of the security forces, 2,805–3,140 insurgents and up to 3,600 civilians, have been killed in fighting with what they characterize as \"armed terrorist groups.\" To escape the violence, tens of thousands of Syrian refugees have fled the country to neighboring Jordan, Iraq and  Lebanon, as well to Turkey. The total official UN numbers of Syrian refugees reached 42,000 at the time, while unofficial number stood at as many as 130,000.\nUNICEF reported that over 500 children have been killed, Another 400 children have been reportedly arrested and tortured in Syrian prisons. Both claims have been contested by the Syrian government. Additionally, over 600 detainees and political prisoners have died under torture. Human Rights Watch accused the government and Shabiha of using civilians as human shields when they advanced on opposition held-areas. Anti-government rebels have been accused of human rights abuses as well, including torture, kidnapping, unlawful detention and execution of civilians, Shabiha and soldiers. HRW also expressed concern at the kidnapping of Iranian nationals. The UN Commission of Inquiry has also documented abuses of this nature in its February 2012 report, which also includes documentation that indicates rebel forces have been responsible for displacement of civilians.The Arab League, US, EU states, GCC states, and other countries have condemned the use of violence against the protesters. China and Russia have avoided condemning the government or applying sanctions, saying that such methods could escalate into foreign intervention. However, military intervention has been ruled out by most countries. The Arab League suspended Syria's membership over the government's response to the crisis, but sent an observer mission in December 2011, as part of its proposal for peaceful resolution of the crisis. The latest attempts to resolve the crisis has been made through the appointment of Kofi Annan, as a special envoy to resolve the Syrian crisis in the Middle East. Some analysts however have posited the partitioning the region into a Sunnite east, Kurdish north and Shiite/Alawite west.\n\nSee also\nPolitics of Syria\nForeign relations of Syria\nPassage 4:\nGanzhou Uyghur Kingdom\nThe Ganzhou Uyghur Kingdom (traditional Chinese: 甘州回鶻; simplified Chinese: 甘州回鹘; pinyin: Gānzhōu Huíhú), also referred to as the Hexi Uyghurs, was established in 894 around Ganzhou in modern Zhangye. The kingdom lasted from 894 to 1036; during that time, many of Ganzhou's residents converted to Buddhism.The Hexi Corridor, located within modern Gansu, was traditionally a Chinese inroad into Central Asia. From the 9th to 11th centuries this area was shared between the Ganzhou Uyghurs and the Guiyi Circuit. By the early 11th century both the Uyghurs and Guiyi Circuit were conquered by the Tangut people of the Western Xia dynasty.The Ganzhou Uyghur rulers were descended from the House of Yaglakar.\n\nHistory\nThere was a pre-existing community of Uyghurs at Ganzhou by 840 at the very latest.In 874, remnant forces of the Tibetan Empire known as the Wenmo, Han Chinese slave soldiers under the Tibetan Empire, in Ganzhou drove out the Uyghurs.Around the years 881 and 882, Ganzhou slipped from the control of the Guiyi Circuit.\nIn 894 the Uyghurs led by Pangteqin (Huaijian Khagan) established the Ganzhou Uyghur Kingdom in Ganzhou.In 902 the Ganzhou Uyghurs sent military aid to Emperor Zhaozong of Tang.In 910 the Ganzhou Uyghurs attacked the Kingdom of Jinshan (Guiyi).\nIn 911 the Ganzhou Uyghurs attacked the Kingdom of Jinshan and forced them into an alliance as a lesser partner.In 916 a Ganzhou Uyghur princess was married to Cao Yijin, governor of the Guiyi Circuit.\nIn 920 Huaijian Khagan became sickly.\nIn 924 Huaijian Khagan died and his sons Diyin and Renmei fought over the throne with Diyin coming out on top. They received a royal appointment from the Later Tang dynasty. The Khitans of the Liao dynasty offered to let the Ganzhou Uyghurs return to their former homeland on the Orkhon but they refused the offer.In 925 Cao Yijin led an attack on the Ganzhou Uyghurs and defeated them.\nIn 926 Diyin died and Aduoyu succeeded him as Shunhua Khagan. Shunhua Khagan married Cao Yijin's daughter.\nIn 930 Cao Yijin visited the Ganzhou Uyghur court in Ganzhou.\nIn 933 Shunhua Khagan died and Jingqiong succeeded him.\nIn 961 the Ganzhou Uyghurs accepted the Song dynasty as suzerains.In 975 Jingqiong died and Yeluohe Mili'e succeeded him.\nIn 983 Jingqiong died and Lusheng succeeded him.\nIn 1003 Lusheng died and Zhongshun Baode Khagan succeeded him. The Tanguts attacked the Ganzhou Uyghurs but were defeated.In 1008 the Ganzhou Uyghurs and Tanguts engaged in combat and the Uyghurs emerged victorious. The Liao dynasty attacked the Ganzhou Uyghurs and defeated them.In 1009 the Ganzhou Uyghurs captured Liangzhou.\nIn 1010 the Liao dynasty attacked the Ganzhou Uyghurs and defeated them.In 1016 Zhongshun Baode Khagan died and Huaining Shunhua Khagan succeeded him.\nIn 1023 Huaining Shunhua Khagan died and Guizhong Baoshun Khagan succeeded him.\nIn 1026 the Ganzhou Uyghurs were defeated in battle by the Liao dynasty.In 1028 the Ganhzhou Uyghurs were defeated by the Tanguts. Guizhong Baoshun Khagan died and Baoguo Khagan succeeded him.\nIn 1036 the Ganzhou Uyghur Kingdom was annexed by the Tanguts. After the destruction of their realm, the Ganzhou Uyghurs migrated and settled in Dunhuang (Shazhou) and Guazhou. The Guazhou Uyghurs surrendered to the Tanguts in 1030 and Shazhou surrendered in 1036. A record of a Huolasan Khan ruling in Shazhou in 1127 shows that the Uyghurs there retained some amount of autonomy in Western Xia. Another group that settled between Dunhuang and the Qaidam Basin came to be known as the Yellow Head Uyghurs. They practiced Buddhism and lived as pastoral nomads. In the 13th century they were called the Sali Uyghurs. Their descendants are today known as the Yugurs.\n\nReligion\nThe Uyghurs of Ganzhou originally practiced Manichaeanism as their state religion but abandoned it for Buddhism at the end of the 10th century due to pressure from the Tanguts. Like the Tanguts, they sent Buddhist pilgrimages to Mount Wutai, but the real reason for the expeditions may have been to spy on the Liao dynasty. According to Hong Hao, a Song dynasty diplomat on his way to the Jurchen Jin dynasty, the Uyghurs of the Hexi Corridor still practiced Buddhism:\n\nThe Uighur believe mostly in Buddhism. They place the (Buddhist) sculptures in the hall. At each sacrifice, they must slaughter a lamb. Some drink alcohol merrily. Then they dip their finger into the blood of the lamb and dye the mouth of the Buddha with blood. Some hold the foot of the Buddha screaming, which was meant to show intimacy and respect for the Buddha. When chanting the Scripture, they wore Kasaya (the monk’s robe) and used the Indian language.\n\nModern era\nThe modern day descendants of the Ganzhou Uyghurs are known as the Yugur.\n\nSee also\nYugur\nTurkic peoples\nTimeline of the Turkic peoples (500–1300) \nUyghur Khaganate\nQocho\nPassage 5:\nOmukama of Toro\nThe Omukama of Tooro is the name given to the king of Tooro, one of the East African kingdom of Tooro. The kingdom was founded in 1830 by Omukama Kaboyo Olimi l who was the son of Kyebambe lll Nyamutukura, the king of Bunyoro. Since that time, Tooro existed as an independent kingdom until 1967 when President Apollo Milton Obote banned all kingdoms in Uganda. The kingdoms were reinstated as cultural institutions in 1993.\nThe Omukama of Tooro and the other kings play a vital role in Ugandan politics as cultural leaders and agents of peace and stability in their respective kingdoms. Tooro and Bunyoro kingdoms enjoy a close relationship.\n\nList of Abakama (Kings) of Tooro\nThe following is a list of the Abakama of Tooro, starting around 1800 AD:\nKaboyo Olimi I, (Kasunsu Nkwanzi) c. 1830 - 1861\nKazaana Ruhaga l, c.1861- 1862\nNyaika Kasunga Kyebambe I, c. 1862-1863 and c. 1864 - 1874\nKato Rukidi I, 1863-64\nMukabirere Olimi II, c. 1874 -1876\nMukarusa Kyebambe II, c. 1876 - 1877\nIsingoma Rukidi ll, c. 1877\nRubuubi Kyebambe lll c. 1878 and 1879\nKakende Nyamuyonjo c. 1878 and 1881 - 1882\nKatera Rujwenge, c 1878–1879 a period of Interregnum, 1880–1891; reverted to Bunyoro\nDaudi Kasagama Kyebambe IV, 1891–1928\nGeorge David Kamurasi Rukidi III, 1929–1965\nPatrick David Matthew Kaboyo Olimi III, 1966–1995 interrupted by the discontinuation by the Ugandan government, 1967–1993\nOyo Nyimba Kabamba Iguru Rukidi IV, 1995–present\n\nSee also\nOmukama of Bunyoro\nKabaka of Buganda\nToro Kingdom\nPassage 6:\nOmukama of Bunyoro\nOmukama wa Bunyoro  Translates to The King of Bunyoro is the title given to rulers of the East African kingdom of Bunyoro-Kitara.  The kingdom lasted as an independent state from the 16th to the 19th century. The Omukama of Bunyoro remains an important figure in Ugandan politics, especially among the Banyoro people of whom he is the titular head. He is closely related to the Omukama of Toro Kingdom.\nThe Royal Palace, called Ekikaali Karuziika, (Karuziika Palace) is located in Hoima. The current Omukama is Rukirabasaija Solomon Iguru I Gafabusa Amooti and his wife is Omugo (the Queen) Margaret Karunga Adyeri. As a cultural head, the King is assisted by his Principal Private Secretary, a Cabinet of 21 Ministers and  Orukurato (a Parliament).\n\nConstitutional recognition\nIn 1962, the United Kingdom granted independence to Uganda. In February 1966, Prime Minister Milton Obote suspended the constitution and seized power, abolishing all of the traditional kingdoms—including Bunyoro—in 1967. The Omukama (King) of Bunyoro-Kitara Kingdom was reinstated by Statute No. 8 of 1993, enacted by the Parliament of Uganda after the monarchy had been abolished for many years. Unlike the pre-1967 Omukama, who was both titular head and a political figure of the government of Bunyoro, the Omukama today is a cultural leader above partisan politics, although the king remains the titular head of the Bunyoro regional government.Article 246 of the 1995 Ugandan constitution provides:\n\nEtymology of Omukama\nOmukama means ‘the milker’, as the leader of the kingdom provides his citizens with food and wealth. The word comes from Runyoro-Rutooro omu- (singular human-being class prefix) and -kama ‘to milk’, which ultimately comes from Proto-Bantu kám ‘squeeze, wring’.\nIn modern Runyoro-Rutooro, however, dropping the initial vowel of this word (mukama ‘boss, sir’) changes its meaning considerably.\n\nHistory of the Omukama of Bunyoro-Kitara dynasties\nBabiito dynasty\nThe Bachwezi dynasty was followed by the Babiito dynasty of the current Omukama of Bunyoro-Kitara. Any attempt to pinpoint the dates of this, or any other dynasty before it, is pure conjecture; as there were no written records at the time. Modern day historians place the beginning of the Babiito dynasty at around the time of the invasion of Bunyoro by the Luo from the North. The first mubiito (singular) king was Isingoma Mpuga Rukidi I, whose reign is placed around the 14th century. To date, there have been a total of 27 Babiito kings of Bunyoro-Kitara.\nSource: The official Bunyoro-Kitara Kingdom website\n\nList of Omukamas of the Babiito dynasty\nRukidi of Bunyoro, late fifteenth century\nOcaki of Bunyoro, late fifteenth/early sixteenth century\nOyo Nyiba of Bunyoro, early sixteenth century\nWinyi I of Bunyoro, early sixteenth century\nOlimi I of Bunyoro, mid sixteenth century\nNyabongo of Bunyoro, mid sixteenth century\nWinyi II of Bunyoro, late sixteenth century/early seventeenth century\nOlimi II of Bunyoro, mid seventeenth century\nNyarwa of Bunyoro, mid seventeenth century\nCwamali of Bunyoro, mid seventeenth century\nMasamba of Bunyoro, late seventeenth century\nAnabwani I of Bunyoro, late seventeenth century\nKyebambe I of Bunyoro, late seventeenth century\nWinyi III of Bunyoro, early eighteenth century\nNyaika of Bunyoro, early eighteenth century\nKyebambe II of Bunyoro, early eighteenth century\nOlimi III of Bunyoro, c. 1710–1731\nDuhaga of Bunyoro, 1731–c. 1782\nOlimi IV of Bunyoro, c. 1782–1786\nNyamutukura Kyebambe III of Bunyoro, 1786–1835\nNyabongo II of Bunyoro, 1835–1848\nOlimi V of Bunyoro, 1848–1852\nKyebambe IV of Bunyoro, 1852–1869\nKabalega of Bunyoro, 1869–1898\nKitahimbwa of Bunyoro, 1898–1902\nDuhaga II of Bunyoro, 1902–1924\nWinyi IV of Bunyoro, 1925–1967\nMonarchy discontinued by the Ugandan government, 1967–1994\nSolomon Iguru I, 1994–present\nPassage 7:\nSyrian National Congress\nThe Syrian National Congress, also called the Pan-Syrian Congress and General Syrian Congress (GSC), was convened in May 1919 in Damascus, Syria, after the expulsion of the Ottomans from Syria. The mission of the Congress was to consider the future of \"Syria\", by which was meant Greater Syria: present-day Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, and Jordan. The Congress also intended to present Arab views to the American King-Crane Commission of inquiry. The Congress was considered the first national parliament in the modern history of Syria.\nThe Congress was attended by representatives from all parts of Greater Syria, including Lebanon and Palestine, and was headed by Hashim al-Atassi. Some participants showed support for King Faisal's demands, while others were beginning to question his willingness to make concessions to pro-Zionist groups. In its final report it pleaded that \"there be no separation of the southern part of Syria, known as Palestine, nor of the littoral western zone, which includes Lebanon, from the Syrian country.\" The King-Crane Commission recommended \"the unity of Syria be preserved\" in response.The  Congress declared an independent Arab Kingdom of Syria on March 8, 1920, proclaiming:\nThe full and absolute independence of our country Syria, including Palestine, within her natural boundaries, based on a civil, representative form of government, protection of the rights of minorities, and rejection of the claims of the Zionists to Palestine as a national homeland or place of immigration for the Jews.\nThe new state intended to included Syria, Palestine, Lebanon and portions of northern Mesopotamia. King Faisal was declared the head of state. At the same time Prince Zeid, Faisal's brother, was declared regent of Mesopotamia. Hashim al-Atassi was named Prime Minister and Yusuf al-'Azma became Minister of War and Chief of Staff.\nThe Congress continued during the short-lived life of the Kingdom until July 17, 1920, when the French gave Faisal an ultimatum to surrender or fight, and Faisal surrendered, bringing to an end the Kingdom and dissolving its institutions.\n\nGallery\nSee also\nElizabeth F. Thompson (2020). How the west stole democracy from the Arabs: The Syrian Arab Congress of 1920 and the Destruction of its Historic Liberal-Islamic Alliance. Grove Atlantic. ISBN 978-0-8021-4820-9. OL 29824859M. Wikidata Q108862853.\nPassage 8:\nHerodian dynasty\nThe Herodian dynasty was a royal dynasty of Idumaean (Edomite) descent, ruling the Herodian Kingdom of Judea and later the Herodian Tetrarchy as a vassal state of the Roman Empire. The Herodian dynasty began with Herod the Great, who assumed the throne of Judea, with Roman support, bringing down the century-old Hasmonean Kingdom. His kingdom lasted until his death in 4 BCE, when it was divided among his sons as a tetrarchy, which lasted for about 10 years. Most of those tetrarchies, including Judea proper, were incorporated into Judaea Province from 6 CE, though limited Herodian de facto kingship continued until Agrippa I's death in 44 CE and nominal title of kingship continued until 92 CE, when the last Herodian monarch, Agrippa II, died and Rome assumed full power over his de jure domain.\n\nHistory\nOrigin\nDuring the time of the Hasmonean ruler John Hyrcanus (134–104 BCE), Judea conquered Edom (Idumea) and forced the Edomites to convert to Judaism.The Edomites were gradually integrated into the Judean nation, and some of them reached high-ranking positions. In the days of Alexander Jannaeus, the Edomite Antipas was appointed governor of Edom. His son Antipater, father of Herod the Great, was the chief adviser to Hasmonean Hyrcanus II and managed to establish a good relationship with the Roman Republic, who at that time (63 BCE) extended their influence over the region, following conquest of Syria and intervention in a civil war in Judea.\nThere are differing genealogies for the dynasty, depending on the source. According to Sextus Julius Africanus, Antipater's father was named Herod, and Epiphanius of Salamis writes that this Herod's father was named Antipas. It is Josephus who states that Antipas fathered Antipater, without further delineating his ancestry. This model is usually accepted by scholars.\nJulius Caesar appointed Antipater to be procurator of Judea in 47 BCE and he appointed his sons Phasael and Herod to be governors of Jerusalem and Galilee respectively. Antipater was murdered in 43 BCE; however, his sons managed to hold the reins of power and were elevated to the rank of tetrarchs in 41 BCE by Mark Antony.\n\nRise to power\nIn 40 BCE, the Parthians invaded the eastern Roman provinces and managed to drive the Romans out of many areas. In Judea, the Hasmonean dynasty was restored under king Antigonus II Mattathias as a pro-Parthian monarch. Herod the Great, the son of Antipater the Idumaean and Cypros (possibly of Nabataean descent), managed to escape to Rome. After convincing the Roman Senate of his sincere intentions in favor of Romans he eventually was announced as king of the Jews by the Roman Senate.Despite his announcement as king of the whole of Judea, Herod did not fully conquer it until 37 BCE. He subsequently ruled the Herodian kingdom as a vassal king for 34 years, crushing the opposition while also initiating huge building projects, including the harbor at Caesarea Maritima, the plaza surrounded by retaining walls at the Temple Mount, the Masada and the Herodium, among other fortresses and public works. Herod ruled Judea until 4 BCE; at his death, his kingdom was divided among his three sons as a tetrarchy.\n\nTetrarchies\nHerod Archelaus, son of Herod and Malthace the Samaritan, was given the title of ethnarch and ruled over the main part of the kingdom: Judea proper, Idumea, and Samaria. He ruled for ten years until 6 CE, when he was \"banished to Vienna in Gaul, where according to Cassius Dio, \"Hist. Roma,\" lv. 27—he lived for the remainder of his days.\" See also Census of Quirinius.\nPhilip, sometimes erroneously called Herod Philip II, was the son of Herod and his fifth wife Cleopatra of Jerusalem. He was given the title of tetrarch with jurisdiction over the northeast part of his father's kingdom: Iturea, Trachonitis, Batanaea, Gaulanitis, Auranitis, and Paneas. He ruled until his death in 34 CE.\nHerod Antipas, another son of Herod and Malthace, was made a tetrarch of Galilee and Perea; he ruled there until he was exiled to Spain by emperor Caligula in 39 CE, according to Josephus. Herod Antipas is the person referenced in the Christian New Testament Gospels, playing a role in the death of John the Baptist and the trial of Jesus. The Gospel of Luke states that Jesus was first brought before Pontius Pilate for trial, since Pilate was the governor of Roman Judea, which encompassed Jerusalem where Jesus was arrested. Pilate initially handed him over to Antipas, in whose territory Jesus had been most active, but Antipas sent him back to Pilate's court.\n\nLast rulers\nHerod Agrippa was the grandson of Herod. Thanks to his friendship with Caligula, the emperor appointed him ruler with the title of king over the territories of Philip in 37 CE, which were after Philip's death in 34 CE shortly part of the Roman province of Syria, and in 40 CE he was given the territories of Herod Antipas. In 41 CE, Emperor Claudius added to his territory the parts of Judea province that previously belonged to Herod Archelaus. Thus Agrippa I practically re-united his grandfather's kingdom under his rule. Agrippa died in 44 CE.\nAgrippa's son Herod Agrippa II was appointed a tetrarch of Chalcis and later king of the territories previously ruled by Philip. He actively participated in the quelling of the Great Revolt of Judea on the Roman side. Agrippa II was the last of the Herodians; with his death in c. 92 or 100 CE the dynasty was extinct, and the kingdom became fully incorporated into the Roman province of Judaea.\nIn addition, Herod of Chalcis ruled as king of Chalcis, and his son, Aristobulus of Chalcis, was tetrarch of Chalcis and king of Armenia Minor.\n\nList of Herodian rulers (47 BCE – 100 CE)\nAntipater the Idumaean (Procurator of Judaea) 47–44 BCE\nHerod the Great\nGovernor of Galilee 47–44 BCE\nTetrarch of Galilee 44–40 BCE\nElected king of all Judaea by the Roman Senate 40 BCE, reigned 37–4 BCE\nPhasael (Governor of Jerusalem) 47–40 BCE\nPheroras (Governor of Perea) 20–5 BCE\nHerod Archelaus (Ethnarch of Judaea) 4 BCE – 6 CE\nHerod Antipas (Tetrarch of Galilee) 4 BCE – 39 CE\nPhilip the Tetrarch (Tetrarch of Batanaea) 4 BCE – 34 CE\nSalome I (Tetrach of Jabneh) 4 BCE – 10 CE\nTigranes V of Armenia (King of Armenia) 6–12 CE\nHerod Agrippa\nKing of Batanaea 37–41 CE\nKing of Galilee 40–41 CE\nKing of all Judaea 41–44 CE, previously Judaea (Roman province), given to him by Claudius, and reinstated as a province after his death.\nHerod of Chalcis (King of Chalcis) 41–48 CE\nHerod Agrippa II\nTetrarch of Chalcis 48–53 CE\nKing of Batanaea 53–100 CE\nAristobulus of Chalcis\nKing of Armenia Minor 55–72 CE\nTetrarch of Chalcis 57–92 CE\nTigranes VI of Armenia (King of Armenia) 58–61 CE\nGaius Julius Alexander (King of Cetis) 58–72 CE\n\nHerodian dynasty in later culture\nLiterature\nNovels\nHordos u-Miryam (1935), a Hebrew novel by Aaron Orinowsky\nMariamne (1967), a Swedish novel by Pär Lagerkvist\nClaudius the God (1934), an English novel by Robert Graves, features Herod Agrippa I as an important character\n\nPlays\nHerod appears in some cycles of the Mystery Plays, played as an over the top villain.  Such portrayals were still in folk memory in William Shakespeare's time, for Hamlet instructs the players not to \"out-Herod Herod\" (Act 3, Scene 2).\nMarianna (1565), an Italian drama by Lodovico Dolce\nMariam, the Faire Queene of Jewry (1613) an English drama by Elizabeth Tanfield Cary\nHerod and Antipater, with the Death of Faire Mariam (1622), an English drama by Gervase Markham and William Sampson\nMariamne (1636), a French drama by François Tristan l'Hermite\nLa mort des enfants d’Hérode; ou, Suite de Mariamne (1639), a French drama by Gathier de Costes de la Calprenède\nHerod and Mariamne (1673), an English drama by Samuel Pordage\nLa Mariamne (1696), an Italian opera by Giovanni Maria Ruggeri (mus.) and Lorenzo Burlini (libr.)\nMariamne (1723), a French drama by Elijah Fenton\nHerod features in two 18th century French plays on Mariamne, by Nadal and Voltaire.\nHerodes und Mariamne (1850), a German drama by Christian Friedrich Hebbel\nMyriam ha-Hashmonayith (1891), a Yiddish drama by Moses Seiffert\nTsar Irod I tsaritsa Mariamna (1893), a Russian drama by Dmitri Alexandrov\nHerod and Mariamne (1938), an English drama by Clemence Dane\n\nPoetry\nHerod and Mariamne (1888), an English poem by Amelie Rives\nMariamne (1911), an English poem by Thomas Sturge Moore\n\nMovies\nThe King of Kings (1927) by Cecil B. DeMille\nSalome (1953) by William Dieterie\nKing of Kings (1961) by Nicholas Ray\nThe Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) by George Stevens, David Lean, Jean Nugelesco\nHerod the Great (1959) (Italy) by Victor Tourjansky\n\nFigurative arts\nPainting\nMariamne Leaving the Judgment Seat of Herod (1887), a painting by John William Waterhouse\n\nPerforming arts\nMusic\nHerod’s Lament for Mariamne (1815), an English song by Isaac Nathan (mus.) and George Byron (libr.)\nHerodes und Mariamne (1922), incidental music by Karol Rathaus\nLied der Mariamne (ohne Worte) (1927), incidental music by Mikhail Gnesin\n\nBallet\nLa Marianna (1785), an Italian ballet by Giuseppe Banti (chor.)\n\nOpera\nMarianne (1796), opera in French with music by Nicolas Dalayrac and a libretto of Benoît-Joseph Marsollier\nHérodiade (1881), opera in French by Jules Massenet after Gustave Flaubert's play Hérodias (1877)\nSalome (1905), opera in German by Richard Strauss after Oscar Wilde's play's Salome\n\nFamily tree of the Herodian dynasty\nSee also\nHasmonean dynasty\nHistory of ancient Israel and Judah#Roman occupation\nHerod's Temple\nHerodian coinage\nHerodian kingdom\nKings of Israel and Judah\nKings of Judah\nList of High Priests of Israel\nPromagistrate\nSiege of Jerusalem (37 BC)",6  "char_len": 62323,7  "document_hash": "b6d816d41872b0bb474a0f595b0ddf1e5a26eb87a19440dde0fa701db144ea7f",8  "questions": [9    {10      "question_id": "q00",11      "qtype": "hotpotqa",12      "question": "In modern history of Syria this kingdom lasted for only four months, this kingdom surrendered to who?"13    }14  ]15}