From Mandate to Conflict: The British Legacy of Missteps in the Middle East

Written by Jerry Elman, March 7, 2024

The history of the Israel/Palestinian conflict is often oversimplified, with many thinking it all started with the UN’s 1947 Partition Plan. However, this view skips over many important events and policies from before that time, especially those during British rule in Palestine. The British had a big impact through their actions and leaving out many important facts in history books, leading to a common misunderstanding of the conflict’s true roots.

Digging deep to uncover all these facts shows the conflict is much more complicated than most realize, touching on Israel and Palestine and the entire Middle East. Without this full picture, understanding the ongoing tensions and the history behind them is impossible.

Conflict in the Middle East has been a norm ever since the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I and the British takeover of much of the territory of that empire.

The fall of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent partitioning of its territories under British and French control were pivotal moments in reshaping the Middle East.

The British Mandate for Palestine and the broader British legacy in the Middle East were deeply marked by policy failures and strategic miscalculations, leaving profound and enduring scars on the region, including another war today.

This period, characterized by British colonial ambition, was rife with conflicting promises, political indecision, and a lack of foresight, highlighting the complexities and challenges of foreign governance focused on land and power.

The Ottoman Empire
Under Ottoman rule, which lasted from 1517 to 1917, Palestine was an integrated region within the vast Ottoman Empire. It was never a country or a people. Palestine’s administration and social structure during this period reflected the broader Ottoman system of governance, characterized by a degree of local autonomy under the empire’s overarching control.

For most of the Ottoman period, Jews and Arabs coexisted relatively peacefully within the Empire’s multiethnic and multireligious landscape. Economic interactions, shared cultural practices, and mutual dependence in various spheres of life were common.

Post Ottoman Empire
The British and French took control of territories previously under Ottoman rule, including Palestine, through a combination of military campaigns and diplomatic agreements during and after World War I. Britain gained control and influence of areas that included the future Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Yemen, as well as control over Palestine, while France gained control of Syria and Lebanon.

In 1917, Britain released the Balfour Declaration. Written by British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour, this declaration expressed Britain’s support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, provided that it did not prejudice the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine.

In 1920, The League of Nations, formed after World War I, gave Britain mandates over Palestine and Iraq, while France received mandates over Syria and Lebanon. The mandates were intended to guide these territories to self-rule under the auspices of the League of Nations. The British Mandate for Palestine issued by the League of Nations called for the implementation of the Balfour Declaration. All other British and French Mandate territory was to be split up into newly formed independent nations as determined by Britain and France. Only the Mandate for Palestine specified the purpose and boundaries of the territory.

Through these military and diplomatic efforts, Britain and France reshaped the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, carving out new territories and states from the remains of the Ottoman Empire. The decisions made during this period, especially regarding Palestine, have had lasting impacts on the region, contributing to today’s ongoing conflicts and tensions.

The Genesis of Discord: Conflicting Promises
Central to Britain’s policy failures was the issuance of conflicting promises, which sowed seeds of discord between Arabs and Jews. The Balfour Declaration of 1917, promising the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, directly contradicted assurances made to Arab leaders, notably through the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, suggesting independence and sovereignty over their lands after World War I. This duplicity eroded trust in British intentions and entrenched divisions, fueling decades of conflict.

The Original Territory of the Mandate and Subsequent Change
The delineation of the original Mandate for Palestine territory, as defined by the League of Nations following World War I, set the stage for today’s complex and contentious period in the Middle East. This territory encompassed what is today known as Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and Jordan. The initial intent behind the mandate was to establish a framework that could satisfy the national aspirations of both Jews and Arabs within the region.

In theory, the mandate sought to partition the territory into two distinct entities: “Arab Palestine” and “Jewish Palestine.” This partition was designed to reflect the demographic distribution of Arab and Jewish populations, aiming to provide a solution to the competing nationalistic claims by allocating the area east of the Jordan River, then called Transjordan, for the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state. The remaining territory, west of the Jordan River, which included present-day Israel, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank, was designated for the creation of a Jewish homeland.

In 1921, the British unilaterally decided to separate Transjordan from Mandate Palestine (the area east of the Jordan River) and establish it as an autonomous territory under the rule of Abdullah I of the Hashemite family.

This decision was driven by several factors, including British strategic interests, the need to appease Arab leaders, and the geopolitical landscape post-World War I. Britain sought to establish a reliable ally in the region and accommodate Sharif Hussein bin Ali’s Hashemite dynasty, which had lost its influence in Arabia to the rising power of the Saudi family. Arabia should have been split between the Hashemites and the Saudis. But the Saudis would not agree to that. So, Britain gave the Hashemite’s Trans-Jordan, which they had no historical connection with.

By granting autonomy to Trans-Jordan under the leadership of Abdullah I, a member of the Hashemite family, Britain aimed to secure its strategic interests and create a buffer zone against French influence from Syria. This move to significantly reduce the territory available for Mandate Palestine by 77 percent, marked a pivotal shift in British policy that haunts the Middle East today. The result was that the remaining 33 percent of Mandate Palestine now had to be split which became an impossible task. This single British decision set the stage for the prolonged conflict between Arab and Jewish communities that continues today with Israel and Hamas at war.

A Strategic Miscalculation: The Rise of Haj Amin al-Husseini

Haj Amin al Husseini was a fervent antisemite, the most important Nazi collaborator in the Arab world, and a political activist who worked tirelessly for the ethnic cleansing and physical destruction of the Jews in British Mandate Palestine and in the Middle East as a whole.

The rise of Haj Amin al-Husseini and his actions under British oversight significantly impacted the history and conflicts in the Middle East. Appointed as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem by the British in 1921, al-Husseini became a central figure in Arab nationalism and was known for his extreme hostility towards Jews, which he integrated into his political and ideological stance. His tenure was marked by opposition to any Jewish presence not only in British Mandate Palestine but in any Arab land.

His tenure was characterized by a relentless campaign of hatred and violence against Jewish communities, not only in Mandate Palestine but also extending to the broader Arab world. Al-Husseini’s ideologies and actions underscore a period in history where extremist beliefs directly influenced and exacerbated regional tensions.

Al-Husseini’s alignment with Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime was not merely symbolic; it was an active partnership that sought to import the genocidal objectives of the Holocaust into the Middle East. Reports and historical accounts suggest that al-Husseini was instrumental in planning and facilitating the establishment of death camps specifically designed for the Jewish population in Palestine and other Arab nations. His efforts aimed at orchestrating a Holocaust in the Middle East are a testament to his deep-seated hatred and his dangerous convergence of extremist ideologies.

Moreover, al-Husseini’s influence extended beyond his collaboration with the Nazis. He played a crucial role in fueling anti-Jewish sentiment among all Arab nations, utilizing his political and religious stature to advocate for violence against Jews. His actions and rhetoric significantly contributed to the ideological foundation that would continue to shape the contours of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The British handling of al-Husseini, especially during and after the Arab revolt of 1936, demonstrated a significant policy failure. Their attempts to placate him and his followers by restricting Jewish immigration to Palestine during a period when Jews were seeking refuge from Nazi persecution directly contributed to the tragic outcomes of many who were unable to find sanctuary.

Many ships made it to Palestine, only to have the British send the ships back to Europe and certain death for the Jews on them. The British not only exacerbated Arab-Jewish tensions but also laid the groundwork for the persistence of extremist ideologies in the region.

Al-Husseini’s ideological legacy has had a lasting influence on Palestinian nationalism and politics, notably affecting figures like Yasser Arafat, founder and longtime leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and other terrorist movements such as Hamas. His advocacy for violence and resistance against Jews has echoed through generations, shaping the strategies and rhetoric of groups that continue to oppose Israel. His ideology of absolute rejectionism and genocide against Jews remains strong today among the Palestinian leadership and people. Hamas is just one of many examples of that fact today.

The embedding of al-Husseini’s radical ideologies within major factions of the Palestinian Arab movement and their impact on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict underscores the complex legacy of British policy in the Middle East and its contribution to enduring sectarian and ideological divisions.

The Mufti originated the single most important obstacle to peace in the Middle East: The Palestinian refusal to accept Jewish sovereignty and even physical presence in any part of the Land of Israel. In many ways, to understand the Mufti is to understand why the Palestinians, despite numerous opportunities to do so, still refuse to make peace.

Policy Oscillations and Governance Failures
Britain’s governance of Palestine was characterized by policy oscillations that failed to address underlying issues or provide a sustainable framework for coexistence. The Peel Commission’s partition proposal and the White Paper of 1939 underscored Britain’s reactive approach. These policy shifts deepened the conflict and alienated both communities.

The Creation of Other Nations and British Influence
Beyond the Mandate for Palestine, Britain’s influence in the Middle East facilitated the creation and delineation of other nations, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, often disregarding local customs, cultures, tribes, divisions and dynamics, affecting regional stability.

The British Throw the Towel In
As British control over Mandate Palestine became increasingly untenable amidst growing Jewish-Arab tensions and the aftermath of World War II, Britain turned to the newly formed United Nations (UN) for a resolution to the conflict.

In 1947, the British government, recognizing its inability to reconcile conflicting Jewish and Arab aspirations within what was left of Mandate Palestine, announced its intention to end the mandate. Britain referred the issue to the UN, essentially seeking an international solution to the complex problem that the British Mandate for Palestine had become. This referral was a significant acknowledgment by Britain of its failure to manage the initial League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and the establishment of a Jewish homeland at its core.

The Partition Plan

The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) was formed in response. The committee was tasked with investigating the situation in Palestine and recommending a plan of action. In November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181, also known as the Partition Plan.

This plan recommended partitioning what was Mandate Palestine into independent Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem placed under international administration due to its significance to both Jews and Muslims. The partition plan aimed to address the nationalistic aspirations of both Jews and Arabs, providing a basis for international legitimacy for the establishment of the Jewish state.

The Jewish community in Palestine accepted the UN partition plan, seeing it as a legal path to establishing a Jewish state. In contrast, the Arab states and the Arab inhabitants of Palestine rejected the plan, opposing any form of partition and the establishment of a Jewish state.

Their plan was to seize all the land when the British withdrew forcefully. The term “from the river to the sea” was born during this time. The Arabs made it clear they would push all the Jews into the sea and take over all of Mandate Palestine.

The British withdrawal from Palestine was completed on May 14, 1948. That same day, the State of Israel declared its independence. The first Arab-Israeli war immediately followed this declaration, as neighboring Arab states (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq attacked the new state, marking the beginning of the longstanding Arab-Israeli conflict. Since the 1970’s, it has been called the Israel/Palestinian conflict.

Conclusion
The British legacy in the Middle East, exemplified by the Mandate for Palestine and its influence over other nations, stands as a testament to the collateral damage of British colonial governance in the Middle East. Rooted in conflicting promises, strategic miscalculations, policy oscillations, controversial actions, and partitioning plans, these missteps have had enduring repercussions, shaping the complex fabric of decades of wars and conflict.

The specific decision to exclude Trans-Jordan from the Mandate agreement and the lasting influence of figures like Haj Amin al-Husseini, including his impact on Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian national movement, underscores the profound and long-term impact of radical ideologies allowed to flourish under British oversight.

Acknowledging this history is crucial for understanding the deep-seated roots of the Israel/Palestinian Conflict and today’s Israel-Hamas War.

Only by understanding and accepting this history will the reality of finding a path toward peace be realized.