Essay: British Palestine: A Region Wreaked by Imperialism

In the late 18th century, the Ottoman Empire became threatened by two land-based empires with imperial aspirations, Russia and Austria. Along with their goals of imperialism, two sea-trading empires, Britain and France, rivaled in the aspirations of imperializing the Middle East. There was a competition between European countries with one goal in mind, controlling the territory of the Ottoman Empire. In 1830, France invaded Algeria and colonized, making it the first country to occupy Ottoman land in the Middle East. By the late 19th, early 20th centuries, France occupied both Morocco and Tunisia. Following that, Italy invaded and colonized Libya. At the start of World War I, the Ottoman Empire had lost its territory in North Africa and Eastern Europe, leaving it to only occupy the Middle East. By the end of World War I, the Ottoman Empire would cease to exist because of an agreement between Russia, France, and Britain. When World War I began, the three countries signed an agreement stating that if Ottoman Empire was acquired, Russia would receive Constantinople and the Dardanelles, and in return, France and Britain would be able to establish territories in the Middle Eastern parts of the Ottoman Empire. In 1916, the Sykes-Picot Agreement stated that when the Ottoman Empire fell, Britain would get Palestine and southern Mesopotamia and France would get Syria and Lebanon. The goal of imperialism for European countries, particularly for Britain, was a strong idea that was driven by global trends, including nationalism and industrialization. Yet by pushing broader trends to the Middle East, Britain wedged itself into an ever present conflict of interest between the Arabs of Palestine and the Zionists. The response of both parties reflected global trends that came of British imperialism. When examining the response of the people of British Palestine to European imperialism between 1900 to 1948, broader trends such as Social Darwinism, nationalism, and Zionist expansion were made evident as a result of Britain’s economic and territorial expansion to the Middle East.
Between 1900 to 1923, Britain used its power and influence, justified by the trend of Social Darwinism, to acquire and imperialize Palestine by deceiving the two populus groups inhabiting the Ottoman ruled territory. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, in 1915, letters were exchanged between Hussein ibn Ali al-Hashimi, Sharif of Mecca, and Sir Henry McMahon, the British high commissioner in Egypt. This correspondence established British support of an independent Arab state in exchange for Arab assistance in opposing the Ottoman Empire. The Arabs of Palestine took this offer to mean that they would gain their independence if they joined Britain’s war effort against the Ottoman Empire. In June 1916, Sharif Hussein made himself ruler of the Hashemite Kingdom and declared war against the Ottomans. The guaranteed path to an independent Arab state caused volunteers from all over Palestine to join the war campaign. The Hussein-McMahon Correspondence showed that nothing in history occurs for no reason. Britain’s goal was acquiring Ottoman land, it was not helping the two groups that were inhabiting that land. The British knew that if they could turn the two most populous groups in the Middle East against the Ottoman Empire, it would fall. The early 20th century was a time where every European country believed its culture was superior and as a result deception such as this correspondence was justified. The Arabs of Palestine were one of the first victims to Britain’s empty promises, justified by the theory of Social Darwinism. In 1917, the fate of Palestine was being formally negotiated by Zionist leadership and Lord Arthur Balfour of the British government. It was decided that the British government would support the Zionist colonization project, and in return, the Zionists support in defeating the Ottomans. The Zionist leadership wanted written assurance of support, but the correspondence between Britain and the Arabs was an obstacle. Balfour had to weigh the extent in which they could declare support for the Zionist population, while retaining Arab support for the war effort. Britain was able to coax and persuade Zionist leadership into accepting a watered-down policy pledging British support. The Balfour Declaration was the last step for the British in acquiring Ottoman land. According the Jeremy Hammond, the British did not have to keep their word, as long as they had got both the Zionists and the Arabs would throw their weight behind the war effort. Britain did not need to use violence because they could use deception, just as they did with the Hussein- McMahon Correspondence, justified by the theory of Social Darwinism. The future responses of both groups in Palestine to both agreements reflected the broader trend of racism, especially the belief that one’s own culture is superior to others. The Balfour Declaration, just as the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence served as a vizard for true British intentions. In 1923, the British Mandate for Palestine came into effect. Drafted in 1920, the mandate, issued by the League of Nations, formalized British rule over regions in the Middle East with the intention that British administration would lead to the establishment of states that could stand alone. The mandate also required Britain to create a Jewish national homeland. Through this mandate, Britain acquired Mesopotamia and Palestine. In 1923, when the League of Nations formalized British rule in the Middle East, Britain achieved its goal. The nation in Europe controlled the economic market, natural resources, and people in Mesopotamia and Palestine. For the British, deceiving the Arabs and Zionists was simply survival of the fittest, justified by Social Darwinism. Since Britain believed that it was the most superior of nations, it was felt justified in its actions of deception and underhandedness. In roughly twenty years, there was complete change of power, yet the response of the Palestinian people reflected the broader trend of Social Darwinism enacted by Britain.
Between 1923 to 1939, Britain’s pro-Zionist policies and officials in Palestine led to a furious Arab response reflecting broader trends of Jewish nationalism and Zionist expansion. The British Mandate for Palestine called on Britain for an “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” echoing what the Balfour Declaration stated. Both documents saw the “historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine,” therefore would support Zionist objectives and put priority on Jewish land settlement. Yet in the mandate, specifically aimed at non-Zionists, it prohibited “discrimination of any kind between the inhabitants of Palestine.” Even with British openness to aiding both the Arabs and the Zionists, an obstacle was ever present. The opposition of the Arabs of Palestine to the British establishment of a Jewish homeland was a complication to complete British corporation with Zionist leadership that was pushing Jewish majority objectives and the establishment of a Jewish state. The pro-Zionist policy enacted by Britain allowed the Zionist leadership to adjust their mindset to become nationalistic. The agreement with Britain was to establish a nation home for the Jewish people therefore Zionist leadership constantly pushed Britain to implement more policy in the direction the establishment of a nation state. To the Zionists, Britain was an opportunity for a full political and social change in Palestine aligned to pro-Jewish values, yet for Britain, the obstacle was the Arabs as stated in the mandate. The Zionist leadership was playing the nationalistic, pro-expansion card. There response to British imperialization showed that they believed they were superior to the Arabs reflecting the broader trend of nationalism. The pro-Zionist policies and support from Britain led to large waves of Jewish migration to Palestine. After 20 years of British imperialism, there were worker, capital holder, and professional job positions available and needed. As well as a significant amount of financial resources available. The first wave of Jewish migration brought independent farmers that established villages. The second wave brought “collective settlements.” The third and fourth waves brought industrialization and urbanization professionals. Before Britain was mandated Palestine, the Jewish population was 25,000. By 1945, towards the end of British rule in Palestine, the Jewish population had grown 800%, to 200,000. Zionist expansion through Jewish immigration to Palestine was a major contributor in the conflicts with the Arabs. Britain created a society with two major groups that believed their own group should have an independent nation. According to the Arabs, Britain clearly favored the Jews as a result of creating policies that made a society oriented to Jewish interests as proven by the immigration statistics. Yet in fact, Britain was just doing its job as requested by the mandate. The furious response of the Arabs reflected the trends Jewish nationalism and Zionist expansion in Palestine as a result of British bias. In 1936, Arab leaders in Palestine joined forces to protest Zionist expansion and advancement in Palestine. It began with Arab leadership calling for a strike of Arab workers, followed by the boycott of Jewish products. The strike began drawing support where workers from all of Palestine and nearby lands went on strike. It escalated quickly to direct attacks on the Zionist and Jewish population. When the second phase of the revolt began in 1937, attacks on British forces and Jewish settlements became much more severe. Arab leadership demanded three requests, “cessation of Jewish immigration, an end to all further land sales to the Jews, and the establishment of an Arab national government.” In the revolt between 1936 to 1939, a total of 415 Jew deaths and a rough estimate of 5,000 Arab deaths were reported. The Palestine Arab Revolt was eye-opening to the effectiveness of British rule in Palestine. It simply showed an unhappy group that was promised an independent nation and did not receive it. This particular event shows that nothing in history is by accident. Roughly twenty years before the revolt of 1936, Britain deceived Arab leadership for their own gain and the effects of this decision was coming back to hurt both the British and the Zionists in Palestine. It reflects negative impacts of the common trend of nationalism.
Between 1939 to 1949, the response of the Palestinian people to British misgovernance reflected Social Darwinism and Zionist expansion. After the serve riots led by Arab leadership in Palestine, Britain sent the Peel Commission to investigate and propose a solution to the ongoing conflict. The original proposal was to partition the land to separate the Arabs and the Jews, yet both leaderships rejected therefore that proposal was never implemented. Therefore in 1939, Britain introduced a White Paper, which restricted both Jewish land purchase and immigration in Palestine. Even though Britain implemented a White Paper plan, Jewish immigration steadily increased despite it being illegal. The White Paper of 1939 was a British surrender to the Arabs. The response of the Arabs reflecting Britain’s racism and bias was effective enough to stop Britain’s fond of establishing a Jewish national home. This document expressed the mismanagement of Palestine by the British. The effects of British imperialism stirred a negative uproar from both groups that inhabited Palestine. When a White Paper was enacted by the British in 1939, the goal was to appease the Arabs who had felt oppressed by the countless pro-Zionist policies passed in Palestine. Yet when the British restricted Jewish immigration, Zionist leadership became outraged because they thought it violated the mandate helping establish a Jewish homeland. As a result of the World War II, specifically the Holocaust, fled Europe to seek refuge in Palestine, yet had to sneak in illegally because of immigration restriction. To protest the British, radical Zionist groups terrorized British forces in Palestine and gained worldwide attention. In 1945, at the end of World War II, the United States recognized the Zionist cause. The effects of the White Paper enacted by the British effectively presented the effectiveness of British imperialism on Palestine. Both major groups that inhabited in British Palestine participated in terrorist acts against the British protesting, simply, the bad governance of a nation. In forty years, a once peaceful empire because a hotbed of terror and oppression because of imperialism. In 1947, the United Nations voted to partition Palestine after many years of Arab-Jewish conflict. After the United States recognized the Zionist cause in 1945, Britain was unable to find a solution that pleased both groups, therefore they referred the issue to the United Nations. Even though Jews made up less than half of Palestine’s population, they controlled more than half of Palestine. In May of 1948, Britain withdrew with from its mandate for Palestine and the State of Israel was declared. Quickly, forces from surrounding areas that supported the Arab Palestinians invaded Israel. Even though the Israelis were less equipped, they were able to fight of the Arabs and their aids and seize important territories. The United Nations Partition of Palestine was the best governance decision Britain made. The chance was drastic in Palestine within fifty years. Britain knew that a practical solution to the conflict was impossible, therefore surrendered to the theory that imperialism was no effective in the Middle East, partially Palestine, and ruined a region in the process. The ineffectiveness of Palestine reflected bias, migration, and expansion.
In fifty years, a region and people from the Ottoman Empire became imperialized by the British, only then to become a battleground of violent conflict, followed by the establishment of an official nation state. The economic and territorial expansion of Europe, particularly Britain, severely led to the mismanagement the social and political structures in the Middle East. Palestine became a battleground where people responded outraged to the effects of imperialism reflecting broader trends such as Social Darwinism, Zionist expansion, racism, and nationalism. The was not only change, but significant negative response from both groups inhabiting Palestine. British imperial not only conflicted groups then, but it still does in that same region in 21st century.