By: Nawfal Johnson
Date: June 11, 2024
Introduction
It’s probably reasonable to assume that many people do not recall that the League of Nations granted Britain authority to oversee the territory of the Ottoman Empire after the Central Powers (the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria) were defeated in World War I. King George V (George Frederick Ernest Albert) (b.1865-d.1936) declared in July 1920 that the United Kingdom was establishing control over Palestine through the use of “mandates,” a method defined in the recently ratified League of Nations Covenant. The Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate were a result of complex political machinations involving key figures and secret societies, ultimately leading to the deception of the Arabs and the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
King George V’s statements about the British Mandate and establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine
“The Allied Powers whose weapons were victorious in the late war have handed to my kingdom a mandate to look over the interests of Palestine,” declared King George (1920) in a public statement titled, “To the People of Palestine.” It is difficult to know if Britain knew, or even cared, that through their actions of greatly assisting in the foundation of the Jewish homeland in Palestine, that it would cause the Palestinian Muslims and Christians misery, even though King George stated in this same speech this would not happen: “The British Government has accepted this responsibility in a spirit of profound respect for the rights and aspirations of all the peoples of Palestine and with the firm intention of promoting their welfare and ensuring their security.” King George continued by saying, “I have directed the British Government to make it their first duty to facilitate the development of a sound system of self-government in Palestine, and to afford every opportunity for the full participation of the Arab and Jewish communities in the administration of the country. It is my earnest hope that the cooperation of these communities will be wholeheartedly given to the Mandatory Power in its task of promoting the welfare and the happiness of all the inhabitants of Palestine.”i
The Palestinian Muslims and Christians have never felt secure after the making of the Jewish homeland in Palestine. Under the Jewish apartheid authoritarianism government, the Arab Muslims and Christians are second-class residents in Israel, with virtually no freedoms, living in the largest war-torn open-air prison in the world, which has never promoted welfare or happiness for the Palestinian Arabs.
GREAT BRITAIN, PALESTINE, AND THE CLASS A MANDATE
Palestine was then part of the region that Allenby’s troops had captured, which was known as Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA). Allied powers under the authority of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations (itself an Allied invention) gave Syria and Lebanon to France, while Iraq and Palestine (containing modern Jordan and Israel) went to Great Britain. The mandates were allocated to specific Allied conquerors (mandatory powers, or mandatories) after being classified into three groups according to their location and degree of political and economic development. The former Turkish provinces of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine made up the Class A mandates. These regions were deemed sufficiently developed to be granted interim independence, but until they could stand alone completely, they remained under Allied administrative supervision. By 1949, every Class A mandate had achieved complete autonomy.ii
Key figures involved in the British Mandate, the Scheme to take control of the Ottoman Empire terrirtories, and to help establish the Jewish homeland in Palestine
Field Marshal Allenby takes control of Palestine
Sir (Field Marshal and 1st Viscount Allenby) Edmund Allenby (Edmund Henry Hynman Allenby, b.1861-d.1936), the British commander who led the successful campaign to capture Palestine during World War I, faced criticism from both the Zionists and some British politicians. The Zionists were dissatisfied with Allenby’s administration, as they perceived it to be insufficiently supportive of their goals. They believed that Allenby was not doing enough to facilitate Jewish immigration and the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Meanwhile, British politicians like Lord Arthur James Balfour (b.1848-d.1930) and Lord Alfred Milner (b.1854-d.1925) argued for more proactive support for the Zionist cause. Despite these criticisms, Allenby’s military achievements were widely acknowledged and respected.iii
The Zionists feared they wouldn’t get their way because the British military was obligated to govern Palestine under international law, particularly the Manual of Military Law from the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907, the military was required to rule Palestine. The idea was to keep seized territory in the same condition until their destiny was decided. This approach called for paying taxes, preserving administrative services, and acknowledging current civil and criminal laws. Declaring martial law in December 1917, General Allenby’s decree continued to be the military’s supreme law until June 1920. This process turned into the initial point of contention between Zionists and troops.iv
Major-General Gilbert Clayton’s warning
Major-General Gilbert Clayton (Gilbert Falkingham Clayton, b.1875-d.1929), the first British Chief Political Officer had warned that the Arabs in Palestine were highly resistant to the concept of a Jewish National Home in Palestine. Clayton said in June 1918 that “a serious development of the concepts that Zionists believe to form the foundation of His Majesty’s Government’s statement includes a measure of preferential treatment to Jews in Palestine….There will inevitably be some reaction from other interested parties, particularly the local Arab population.”v His most severe warning came a year later when Balfour wrote to him, telling him that because the Declaration had been approved by the Allies, there was no possibility of it being revoked. “But, the Allied Governments’ consensus on Palestine is not a factor which serves to relieve the animosity of non-Jewish Palestinians towards the Zionist programme,” Clayton said.vi In fact, according to the British Army’s law of warfare manual, it was prohibited for an aggressive occupier to “change the existing structure of government” (Manual of Military Law, 1914, chap. 14, art. 354). Britain had just lately ratified the relevant convention (Hague, 1907, art. 43). “The King’s act of declaring rule in the form of Britain’s own devising was unlawful.”vii
However, Balfour’s statement that the “Declaration had been approved by the Allies” is deceiving. In actuality, the Allies had not given Britain permission to impose mandate authority. Additionally, King George exaggerated the significance of the alleged Allies’ decision. There were 27 “Allied and Associated Powers.” They had contributed to the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which established peace with Germany. However, only three of them, known as the “Principal Allied Powers,” had been negotiating a peace deal with Turkey, which served as the backdrop for their conversation on Palestine, with Britain. Thus, Britain was purportedly “entrusted” with a mandate by only three Allies: Japan, Italy, and France.viii
The Hague Convention of 1907, specifically Article 43, states that an occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory and maintain public order and safety unless absolutely prevented. This means that the occupying power should not impose its own laws or administration on the occupied territory, but rather maintain the existing legal and administrative system. When the British forces, led by Sir Edmund Allenby, captured Palestine from the Ottoman Empire in 1917, they initially established a military administration. This Military Administration was responsible for maintaining public order and safety in the region. However, critics argued that the British Military Administration was not respecting the existing laws and administration in Palestine, as required by the Hague Convention.ix Instead, they were imposing their own system of governance, which some viewed as unlawful. The tension between the British administration and the local population, as well as the Zionist movement, persisted throughout the mandate period. The British faced ongoing challenges in balancing their responsibilities under the Hague Convention with their commitments to the Zionist cause, as outlined in the Balfour Declaration.x Ultimately, the British Mandate in Palestine was marked by political instability, conflict, and a struggle to reconcile competing interest and obligations.
The Covenant of the League of Nations’ mandate system was described in Article 22, which reads as follows:
“To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by people not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.”xi
The account of the Covenant, especially as it related to Palestine, was mostly untrue. In contrast, under Turkey, which ruled Palestine until 1918, the populace had experience with modern governance, enjoying municipal autonomy and choosing representatives to the Turkish parliament, where they took part in the affairs of the Turkish Empire. The mandate system was intended to be used for “peoples not yet able to stand by themselves.” The “strenuous conditions of the modern world” served primarily as a pretext for foreign control. It will become clear that the Covenant offered very little in the way of “securities” to guarantee performance by an outside state.xii
The conflicting perceptions about Palestine in the late 19th and early 20th centuries
Greater Syria’s southern province, Palestine, during the Ottoman Empire, was a very active and successful part of the Ottoman world. Trade boomed in its commercial centres, which included Jerusalem, Jaffa, and Haifa. “Palestine had a people. They were active, productive, intelligent, intellectual and creative.” Some Zionist writers claim that Palestine was a land without a people, which was a complete falsehood.xiii “The non-Jewish Christian Zionist movement started two centuries ago, even before the Jewish Zionists themselves; [and], to claim falsely that Palestine had no people, only some Bedouins and farmers who had no civilisation or agriculture [was dishonest]. They [Zionists] claimed there was nothing worthy in Palestine. Even Theodor Herzl (b.1860-d.1904) said this.”xiv
If you see publications before 1918, many authors tell a different story than the one propagandized by the Zionists in more modern times, who always seem to claim that there was nothing viable in Palestine, and nobody worthy living there. A 21 August 1915 article in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, titled, Farming in Palestine: Agricultural Possibilities of the Holy Land, by Ernest F. Beaumont, states the following about the richness of Palestine:
“The tourist generally enters Palestine by the open port of Jaffa and goes up to Jerusalem by the single narrow gage railway which connects these two places. He crosses the Plain of Sharon, and then the train slowly climbs the mountains of Judea to Jerusalem. In spring, the Plain of Sharon is green with fine wheat fields studded with gorgeous red anemones, and they give the impression of a land of fertility….The country around Jaffa is well adapted to the growing of excellent oranges, dates, grapes and a number of other fruits, as well as cereals, legumes, etc. This section is underlain by an apparently inexhaustible artesian underflow, which is being utilized for the irrigation of orange groves.” Along the Plain of Sharon are grown, “fine crops of wheat, barley, oats and other cereals. As a fruit, the fig, olive, almond and apricot thrive wonderfully.” And as for the Jordan Valley, “though at present practically uncultivated, will no doubt some day become a most prominent factor in the development of the country…[it has] a natural reservoir of beautiful fresh water fourteen miles long by eight broad, its greatest depth being 200 feet, with a daily supply of 6,000,000 tons of water, situated at the head of 200,000 acres of deep, rich alluvial soil seated in semi-tropical climate. It is said by experts that the irrigation of this valley by canals leading along the foothills is quite feasible and would turn the section into a veritable paradise….Bananas, oranges, sugar-cane, cotton and all the fruits of a semi-tropical climate can be raised.”xv
The fertile Palestinian landscape, abundant in resources and arable land, played a significant role in the region’s prosperity during the early 20th century. This flourishing environment attracted a growing population, which led to a thriving community in Palestine, predominantly of Arab Palestinians who cultivated the land and benefited from its natural wealth.
Palestine was a thriving community in the late 19th and early 20th centuries
The estimated population of Ottoman Palestine during the late 19th and early 20th centuries varies based on different sources. Satisfactory Palestinian population registration commenced after 1860, coinciding with the reign of Abdulhamid II (1876-1909). The central government’s effective control extended to Palestine, enabling Ottoman registrars to maintain population records. Initially, only males were enumerated due to societal challenges in counting females. Later, females were included but their count remained less complete than that of males.xvi
According to the Ottoman Census of 1890, the population was approximately 532,000, with a majority being Arab Muslims, followed by Christians and then Jews.xvii The population in Palestine in 1900 was approximately 600,000, and of this total, 94% were Arabs.xviii “In 1914 Palestine had a population of 657,000 [Arab] Muslim[s], 81,000 [Arab] Christian[s], and 59,000 Jews.”xix
The significant migration of Jews to Palestine commenced in the 1880s, primarily hailing from Europe. While Jews of the Ottoman Empire were engaged in the economic sector, their interest in Palestine was predominantly religious, like all Jews. The emergence of Zionism in Eastern Europe spurred the establishment of voel Jewish settlements in Palestine during the late nineteenth century, known as the New Yishuv, which eventually overshadowed the Old Settlement. The initial wave of these settlers, referred to as the First Aliyah, began modestly in 1882 and persisted until 1903. Despite the small number of migrants, it contributed notably to the diminutive Jewish populace. Although the majority of these settlers were compelled to work in urban areas due to economic constraints, agricultural settlements were initiated. The subsequent wave, the Second Aliyah (1905-1914), marked by superior preparation and training, bolstered the Jewish economic and agricultural presence in Palestine, along with augmenting the Jewish population. According to McCarthy (1990), the 1914-1915 population estimates for all of Palestine included 602,377 Muslims, 81,012 Christians, and 38,754 Jews, making a total population of 722,143 in Palestine in 1914-1915.xx
The population of Palestine continued to grow in the subsequent years, owing to natural growth and migration. Around 1920-1922, the population was estimated to be around 700,000 to 725,507.xxi These estimations are based on the British Census of Palestine (and McCarthy, 1990), which was conducted after the British took control of the region from the Ottomans. It is interesting to note that many foreign-citizen Jews were deported by the Ottoman government during the conflict, while some Jews departed after being given the option to become Ottoman citizens or to leave Palestine.xxii Approximately 14% of the Jewish population had departed Palestine by December 1915, of their own volition, most of them went to Egypt, where they waited for the war to conclude in order to travel back to Palestine.xxiii
In the 1920s, the ports of Jaffa and Gaza turned Palestine into a trading hub with Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. Many agricultural and manufactured products (e.g. textiles, glassware, etc.) were exported and imported through Palestine’s important shipping ports, although Palestine at the time was primarily an agricultural economy. About 1900, Palestine also constructed a modern railway transportation network that connected Jerusalem to the ports and other localities inside Palestine. Palestinian Historian, Bayan Al Hout, said: “The opening of Palestine’s main train station in Jerusalem took place in the later years of the 19th century (1892).” Bayan also said, “Palestine prospered. Coastal cities became connected to the interior. Commerce flourished. This led to full prosperity in Palestine.”xxiv Therefore, the idea that Palestine didn’t have a population, and that it was a undeveloped wasteland, is utter nonsense and anti-Palestinian propaganda. The fact that Palestine prospered and stood on its own makes the use of Article 22 by the Allied Powers, a total farce and politically unacceptable – it should not have applied to Palestine.
To be fully transparent, it should be mentioned that many Jews and Zionists during that time had a different understanding of Palestine. Zionists describe Palestine in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as an underdeveloped region, which according to them, needed the Jews to prop it up economically and to modernize it. This goes back to the infamous saying: “a land without a people for a people without a land.” A typical Zionist viewpoint of Palestine, for example, comes from a 1882 publication called the Scenery of Palestine, which describes Palestine in the following way:
“One who has always lived in the Lebanon mountains, in the coast towns, or in the great cities such as Damascus and Jerusalem, can not realize the wealth of natural beauty of which Palestine is possessed. Even this oppressed and poverty-stricken country has fertile fields and broad plains, rich soil free from stones, beautiful groves, and far-reaching landscapes, such as would be praised if found even in the fairest lands of the globe.”xxv
While it is true that Palestinians faced unique challenges and regional issues in the early 20th century, it is essential to recognize that other countries grappled with their own economic, social, and health catastrophes during this tumultuous period. Spanning across continents, nations such as India, China, Russia, the Balkans, Germany – and others – all experienced devastating poverty, widespread disease, and the lingering aftermath of World War I. In the face of these global crises, Palestine managed to make strides in some modernization and development, showcasing its resilience and adaptability in the face of adversity.
Guesstimating poverty between 1880 and 1920
Without a doubt, it is easy for the Zionists to claim that Palestine was poverty-stricken in the late 19th century and early 20th century. However, consider these assertions. Let’s acknowledge that it is difficult to provide a precise number of countries considered poverty-stricken and underdeveloped between 1880 and 1920 due to the lack of comprehensive data and the evolving definitions of poverty and development during that time period. However, it is clear that many countries faced significant economic and social challenges during this period, especially in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Some examples of countries that experienced poverty and underdevelopment during this time, besides Palestine, include India, China, and Sub-Saharan Africa. India, was a British colony and experienced widespread poverty, famine, and social unrest. The country’s economy was focused on agriculture and the export of raw materials, which limited its ability to develop and diversify its economy. China during this period was dealing with significant political and economic upheaval, including the decline of the Qing Dynasty and the rise of various warlords and revolutionary movements. China experienced widespread poverty, famine, and social unrest, which of course, hindered the country’s economic development. Many Sub-Saharan African countries were colonized by European powers during this time, and they too were plagued with widespread poverty, disease, and social unrest.xxvi
Based on historical data and estimates, the worldwide population during the period from 1880 to 1920 was approximately 1.5 billion to 1.8 billion people. Regarding the total estimated population living in poverty during this time, it’s challenging to provide a precise figure due to limited data availability and varying definitions of poverty. However, considering the socio-economic conditions of the era, it’s reasonable to estimate that a substantial portion of the global population, possibly around 50% or more, lived in poverty by modern standards.xxvii
Some European countries at this time suffered from economic devastation, poverty, annihilated infrastructure and the built environment, and the horrifying death caused by world war and communism
Many war-torn areas in Europe during the late 19th and early 20th centuries experienced significant economic devastation and widespread poverty. The impacts of war on these regions were often exacerbated by the exploitation of their natural resources, the imposition of exploitative economic systems, and the disruption of trade and commerce. Some examples of war-torn areas in Europe during this period include:
1) The Balkans: The Balkans War of 1912-1913 and World War I had devastating impact on the economies and societies of the Balkans. Croatians suffered political, social, and economic effects from the wars. Prior to the wars, Croatia’s economy was already in trouble, and the Austro-Hungarian economy grew worse. The Balkans accounted for two thirds of the monarchy’s imports and seventy-five percent of its exports. The prestigious economic journal Hrvatski Lloyd stated in 1912 that it could not remember the last time Austria-Hungary had seen so many bankruptcy filed.xxviii Furthermore, Austria-Hungary did not profit from the conflicts since it was not one of the countries who sent weapons to the Balkan nations. There was a noticeable pause in business and building in and around Zagreb. The most common topics in SlobodniRijec headlines in 1913 were hunger, poverty, and unemployment.xxix Croatia also suffered in agriculture during the war. Farm workers and gardeners were in short supply as the Bulgarians, who had mostly engaged in agriculture in Croatia, departed to fight on the front lines of Bulgaria, that the newspaper Hrvatska attempted to persuade the young people to fill the void in a February 1913 story. More seriously, 231 people in Croatia died from a cholera outbreak that was brought on by volunteers returning from the Balkan battles in Slavonia and Syrmia, after 550 had become sick.xxx
2) Germany: During World War I, Germany experienced significant destruction on multiple fronts, resulting in immense loss of life and economic devastation. The war itself claimed the lives of approximately 2 million German soldiers (1,808,546 combat deaths)xxxi, with millions more injured or captured (4,247,143 combat wounded)xxxii. Additionally, the British blockade of Germany’s ports led to widespread starvation, with estimates suggesting that between 400,000 and 800,000 German civilians perished as a result of the Allied blockade of Germany – estimated German civilian deaths were 760,000.xxxiii The war also took a toll on Germany’s economy, as the nation struggled to finance the conflict and suffered from inflation and loss of resources. Furthermore, urban areas were heavily targeted during the war, with many cities and towns suffering extensive damage from bombing and artillery attacks. In the aftermath of the war, Germany was left in a state of disarray, facing the challenges of rebuilding its economy and infrastructure while coping with the immense human loss and suffering that had occurred. In addition to these hardships, Germany was also burdened with significant financial costs and reparations. The Treaty of Versailles, signed in 1919, imposed a total of 132 billion gold marks penalty on Germany, which was approximately $31.4 billion at the time.xxxiv Andrew Wiest notes in his book, The Illustrated History of World War I, that the cost of WWI to Germany was even higher, standing at $58,072,000,000.xxxv The reparations on Germany were to be paid over a period of years. These costs, combined with the economic destruction caused by the war, contributed to Germany’s financial struggles in the years following World War I. As a result of these factors, widespread poverty became a major issue in Germany, with many citizens struggling to meet basic needs and provide for their families. This economic hardship, combined with the loss of life and devastation caused by the war, left a lasting impact on the nation. In the wake of such widespread destruction, it is not unreasonable to consider Germany as an underdeveloped nation in the years following World War I, as the nation struggled to rebuild and recover from the immense challenges it faced. It took Germany several years to recover from the effects of World War I, with the process being significantly hindered by the economic and political instability of the time. The full extent of Germany’s recovery is difficult to determine, as various factors contributed to the nation’s eventual resurgence, including the rise of Nazi Germany and the events of World War II. However, it is clear that the impact of World War I on Germany was profound and long-lasting, shaping the nation’s trajectory in the decades that followed.
3) Russia: The Russian Revolution of 1917 and the subsequent Russian Civil War led to significant economic disruption and widespread poverty in Russia, as the country transitioned from a monarchy to a socialist state; however, it is often referred to as a “communist” state due to its emphasis on Marxist-Leninist ideology and the central role of the Soviet government in the economy and society. Russian banknotes had ninety-eight percent gold backing on the eve of World War I. Russia possessed Europe’s greatest gold stockpile at the time. Russia’s finances were in complete turmoil when WWI broke out, and they never fully recovered.xxxvi The sharp inflation that occurred during the later stages of the war can be attributed to both national poverty and poor fiscal management. In 1913, the estimated national per capita income in England was $243, in France it was $185, and in Germany it was $146, while Russia’s was only $44. Despite this significant income disparity, Russia’s war expenses were comparable to England’s and only second to Germany’s.xxxvii
The late Rudolph Rummel, a leading expert in the study of government mass murder, estimated that approximately 61 million people died in the Soviet Union, 78 million in China, and around 200 million worldwide as a result of socialist and communist policies in the 20th century. These deaths occurred during state sponsored famines, collectivization, cultural revolutions, purges, campaigns against unearned income, and other malevolent experiments in social engineering. This reign of terror has no parallel in the annals of human history. On November 7, 1917, when Lenin’s Bolshevik forces overthrew Kerensky’s provisional government, a new era of human enslavement began. The introduction of collectivist economic planning led to coercion, violence, and mass murder. Marx and Engels defined socialism as the “abolition of private property,” and the most fundamental aspect of private property, self-ownership, was the first to be eliminated.xxxviii The Russian Civil War (7 November 1917 – 16 June 1923) caused up to 10 million deaths, with the vast majority being civilian casualties.xxxix
Thousands of Bolshevik opponents were murdered at the hands of the ruthless Cheka – the secret police force established in 1917. The Cheka was led by Felix Dzerzhinsky (b.1877-d.1926). A disproportionate number of Russian Jews filled the ranks of the Bolshevik regime during the Russian Revolution. “In 1917, Russian Jews swelled the ranks of the revolution that led to the rise of the Soviet Union. Jews today still shoulder the blame,” stated in a 2017 Haaretz news article.xl In fact, it was a Jew, Yakov Sverdlov (Yakov Mikhailovich Sverdlov, b.1885-d.1919), a Bolshevik agitator, played a crucial role in assisting Vladimir Lenin to achieve his objectives and briefly held the position of head of state for the Russian Soviet Socialist Federal Republic. Although his name may not be known to many in the West, his early death at the age of 33, which was mysterious and controversial, might be the reason for his obscurity.
Some of the more notorious Jewish Bolsheviks involved in the Russian Revolution, include:
1) Vladimir Lenin (Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, b.1870-d.1924): Lenin’s father was Russian Orthodox Christian, but his mother had Jewish ancestry, which would make Lenin also Jewish, even though he promoted the idea of state atheism in the Soviet Union, and he persecuted religious institutions and believers. “In Lenin’s ‘apocalyptic view,’ in an era of ‘bestial’ imperialist wars, it was either revolution or counter-revolution: there was no third way….Civil war savagery was ‘seared’ into Soviet memory, paving the way for ‘unprecedented’ Stalin-era violence.”xli
2) Leon Trotsky (Lev Davidovich Bronstein, b.1879-d.1940): His writing and beliefs led to the school of Marxist thought called “Trotskyism.” He came from a wealthy Jewish land-owning family. He was a leader in the overthrow of the Provisional Government, he served as the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, and as the People’s Commissar for Military and Naval Affairs, and he led the Red Army during the Russian Civil War. “Leon Trotskii invoked the precedent of Jacobin terror to justify Red Terror ‘breaking the will of the foe.’ Fearful of losing power, Bolshevik ‘terror psychosis’ took on a life of its own, escalating into ferocious ‘war’ on peasant ‘banditry’ in 1920-21…Chekist terror was ‘sacralized,’ in the name of socialist ‘humanism,’ ‘morality’ and ‘justice.’”xlii
3) Grigory Zinoviev (Hirsch Apfelbaum, b.1883-d.1936): Zinoviev was a leading Bolshevik and a close associate of Lenin. His parents were Jewish, with his father being a merchant named David Apfelbaum. Zinoviev played a crucial role in the October Revolution and later served as the head of the Petrograd Soviet and a member of the Politburo. “Zinoviev was a master of the art of intrigue, but found himself completely outmanoeuvred by the general secretary of the Bolshevik Party,”xliii who was Joseph Stalin.
After the death of Vladimir Lenin in 1924, a power struggle emerged within the Soviet Union’s ruling party, the All-Union Communist party (Bolsheviks). Grigory Zinoviev, along with Lev Kamenev, formed a political alliance to oppose Joseph Stalin, who was serving as the party’s general secretary. However, Stalin skilfully outmanoeuvred Zinoviev and Kamenev, forming alliances with other party leaders and consolidating his power. Eventually, Zinoviev and Kamenev were expelled from the party and later arrested.xliv
Zinoviev and Kamenev were arrested after the assassination of Sergey Kirov, being falsely accused of conspiring in the assassination of Kirov. A show-trial took place and Zinoviev and Kamenev were executed in 1936. They became victims of Stalin’s “Great Purge” of his political enemies, being accused of creating so-called “terrorist centers” and of being part of a conspiracy to assassinate Kirov.xlv Genrikh Yagoda, a Cheka official, was responsible for eliminating many of the “Old Bolsheviks” during Stalin’s “Great Purge.”
Other infamous Jewish Bolsheviks include Lazar Kaganovich, Moisei Uritsky, Genrikh Yagoda, Yakov Sverdlov, Karl Radek, Nokolai Yezhov, Bela Kun, Grigory Sokolnikov, David Riazanov, Maxim Litvinov, Naftali Frenkel, and Mikhail Koltsov.
The Cheka – Moisei Uritsky and Genrikh Yagoda
Perhaps the two most brutal Jewish Bolsheviks of the Russian Revolution era were Moisei Uritsky (Moisei Solomonovich Uritsky, b.1873-d.1918), and Genrikh Yagoda (Genrikh Grigoryevich Yagoda, b.1891-d.1938). They were both high-ranking members of the Cheka. It is estimated that between 50,000 to 200,000 people in the Soviet Union were murdered by the Cheka during the civil war years.xlvi
Moisei Uritsky was a Bolshevik revolutionary leader and after the October Revolution, he became the chief of Petrograd Soviet’s secret police, called Cheka. While he was the chief of the Cheka, he was responsible for implementing repressive policies, including mass arrests, executions, and the establishment of concentration camps known as “special purpose camps.” He played a key role in the Red Terror, a campaign of mass killings and repression against political opponents, which led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people.xlvii xlviii The Secretary to the Danish Legation noted that Uritsky had boasted, for example, of signing twenty-three death warrants in a single day. “And Uritsky, be it remembered, was one of those who affected to be ‘regularising’ the Terror!”xlix Uritsky was eventually assassinated by Leonid Kannegiesser.
Genrikh Yagoda, a Soviet secret police official, held the position of director of the NKVD, the security and intelligence agency of the Soviet Union, between 1934 and 1936. Under Joseph Stalin’s appointment, Yagoda played a crucial role in the Great Purge, managing the arrests, show trials, and executions of notable Old Bolsheviks, including Lev Kamenev and Grigory Zinoviev. Furthermore, Yagoda and Naftaly Frenkel oversaw the construction of the White Sea-Baltic Canal, a significant infrastructure project that relied on forced labour from the gulag system, resulting in an estimated 12,000 to 25,000 labourer fatalities.l
According to a 2017 article in the Cleveland Jewish News, Jews were well overrepresented in the Bolshevik Communist Party during the Russian Revolution. “The observant Jews thought in 1917 that the communists would allow them to extend Jewish life, the Zionists thought the revolution would advance their goals [a Jewish Homeland in Palestine] and there was a feeling of liberation….The revolution offered Russia’s Jews many opportunities, equal rights and education and a chance to fill the vacuum left by an elite that was forced into exile.”li
The early 20th century was marked by a series of global challenges and crises, including the devastating effects of WWI and the rise of revolutionary movements such as the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Amidst this turbulent period, the Bolsheviks, known for their brutal tactics and the oppressive actions of their secret police, the Cheka, played a significant role in shaping regional politics and international relations. It should come as no surprise that there is a great deal of disagreement on Britain’s purpose behind the Balfour Declaration. A valid school of thought has highlighted British fears over the Russian Revolution that broke out in February/March 1917 and how it may jeopardise the British-French-Russian Entente war effort against Germany and her allies. According to this interpretation, the primary goal of the Balfour Declaration was to provide Russian Jews, who were thought to have significant political sway in revolutionary Russia, with a means of compelling the Provisional Government to carry on fighting on behalf of the Entente.lii
Without a doubt, the British concern in 1917 for Russia to persist in combating Germany and its allies was a factor in courting the Russian Zionists, but it should not be perceived independently of Britain’s imperial aspirations in the Middle East. A prime example of this was the perspective of Winston Churchill (Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, b.1874-d.1965), who intertwined pro-Zionist sentiments with a deep-seated anti-Bolshevism. As early as 1908, Churchill, then a Member of Parliament, had reassured a leader of the Jewish community in his local Manchester constituency that “Jerusalem must be the ultimate objective.”liii By 1920, Churchill, having assumed the roles of War and Air Minister and primary advocate for British intervention in the Russian Civil War against the Bolshevik Red Army, perceived Zionism as a potent remedy for Bolshevism and a means to secure British interests in the Middle East, particularly in Palestine.liv
Churchill called on “national Jews” to join with Zionists in combating the “Bolshevik conspiracy.”lv He endorsed the establishment of a Jewish “state” by the banks of the Jordan River under the protection of the British Crown, rather than merely a Jewish “homeland.” Churchill believed that a Jewish State of three or four million Jews could have foiled Soviet Commissar Leon Trotsky’s alleged plans for a global communistic state under Jewish rule. For Churchill, the struggle between “Zionist and Bolshevik Jews” represented a high-stakes battle for the soul of the Jewish people.lvi
Churchill’s perception of Zionism as an effective countermeasure against Bolshevism and a means to secure British interests in the Middle East, particularly in Palestine, can be contextualized within the broader narrative of British imperialism and the role of influential figures in shaping global power dynamics.lvii This perspective is further exemplified by the exploits of the Rothschilds and Cecil Rhodes in South Africa, where their astute business ventures and political manoeuvring led to the accumulation of vast wealth and power, ultimately influencing the trajectory of British colonialism and imperialism in the region. This immense wealth and influence not only had a significant impact on British colonial endeavours but also greatly expanded their power within the British Empire itself, as these tycoons gained considerable political influence and the ability to shape government policies, further entrenching their power and securing their interests both in the colonies and within the United Kingdom.
Rothschild and Rhodes contributions to the exploitation of South Africa
Many of the European powers exploited South Africa’s natural resources and imposed exploitative economic systems. For example, the Rothschild family, namely Baron Nathan de Rothschild (Nathaniel Mayer Rothschild, 1st Baron Rothschild, b.1840-d.1915) and Cecil Rhodes (Cecil John Rhodes, b.1853-d.1902)lviii exploited South Africa for its riches in diamonds and gold, and these oligarchs made vast fortunes in their greedy pursuits. The Rothschilds and Cecil Rhodes were influential figures in the economic and political development and exploitation of South Africa during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Their fortunes were built on a variety of business ventures and investments, at the expense of exploiting local populations and resources. Cecil Rhodes, with financial support from the Rothschilds, founded the De Beers diamond company, which grained control of most of the diamond mines in Southern Africa. The following are some examples of the companies founded or supported by the Rothschilds and Cecil Rhodes and their impacts on the local people and environment include:
1) De Beers: Founded by Cecil Rhodes in 1888. De Beers was a diamond mining company that played a key role in the development of the South African diamond industry. The company’s operations were characterized by the subjugation of local people, who were forced to work in dangerous and low-paying jobs in the mines. Additionally, the company’s mining operations had a huge environmental impact, leading to widespread deforestation and habitat destruction.lix lx
2) The British South Africa Company: A company founded by Cecil Rhodes in 1889. The British South Africa Company was a mining and exploration company that played a key role in the colonization of Southern Africa. The company’s operation were characterized by the profiteering at the expense of local workers who laboured for low wages under dangerous working conditions, in the mines and on the farms owned by the Company. This company’s operations too had vast detrimental effects on the natural environment.
The two families were also involved in the political developments of the region, as evidenced by Cecil Rhodes’ role in the Jameson Raid and his broader imperial ambitions. During the Jameson Raid of 1895, 21 raiders were killed, and 189 were captured. The Second Boer War (1899-1902) resulted in the deaths of approximately 22,000 British soldiers, 25,000 Boer soldiers, and an estimated 20,000 to 28,000 black South Africans. Additionally, around 26,000 Boer women and children died in British concentration camps during the war.lxi lxii The exact number of lives lost due to mining accidents and other consequences of the mining industry’s activities in South Africa is difficult to determine, as records from the late 19th and early 20th centuries are often incomplete or inaccurate.
The Rothschild family also had a very significant impact on the economic and political development of South Africa during this period, and their vast fortunes were built on a variety of business ventures and investments. They were guilty of abusing local peoples and exploiting local resources, which include:
1) The National Bank of South Africa, founded in 1892. The National Bank of South Africa played a key role in the development of the South African banking industry. At this period, black South Africans were excluded from the banking system and forced to rely on usurious loans and other forms of financial exploitation – Go figure that the most powerful Jewish banking family in the world would find a way to get rich in South Africa, where many of the poorest people were not even allowed, or not financially able to take part in the banking system: The banking system in South Africa during this period was structured in a way that disadvantaged these groups and contributed to their economic marginalization. The 1913 Natives Land Act restricted black South Africans’ access to land, making it difficult for them to secure loans from banks. This limitation effectively limited their economic opportunities and contributed to widespread poverty. Banks operating in South Africa during the late 19th and early 20th centuries generally charged high interest rates on loans, making it difficult for poor South Africans to access credit or pay off their debts. This practice disproportionately affected black South Africans, who were more likely to be living in poverty due to systemic inequality.
2) The Cape Copper Company, founded by the Rothschilds in 1900, was a mining company that played a key role in the development of the South African copper industry. Again, this company, like all mining companies, exploited the local working populations, who had to work in very dangerous, low-paying jobs in the mines. Their copper mining company was of course very ecologically unfriendly causing widespread deforestation and habitat destruction.lxiii lxiv
Some of the British Jew moguls involved in Jewish migration efforts to Palestine
Several British Jewish tycoons provided financial and organisational support for the migration of Jews to Palestine, such as the Rothschilds family, Baron Maurice de Hirsch, and Sir Isaac Wolfson.lxv The Rothschilds played a crucial role in funding the establishment of new settlements, construction of infrastructure, and agricultural developments in Palestine. Politically, these wealthy Jewish businessmen have been said not to have been involved with the Cecil Bloc and the Milner Group secret societies; however, we do know that Baron de Rothschild was tightly involved financially with Cecil Rhodes in South Africa, having financed some of Rhodes’ mining ventures in that country. In addition to Baron de Rothschild, other wealthy British Jewish philanthropists, such as Baron Maurice de Hirsch and Sir Isaac Wolfson, played significant roles in supporting Jewish migration to Palestine and the growth of the New Yishuv.
Quigley states that Baron de Rothschild was a member of the Rhodes secret society
Cecil Rhodes established the “Rhodes secret society,” known as the “Round Table Group,” which later became the Milner Group.lxvi Historian Carroll Quigley found documentation suggesting that Baron Nathan Rothschild was a high-ranking member of the Rhodes secret society. Quigley’s book, The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden, states that he had evidence to believe certain individuals were part of the Group, though he couldn’t definitively prove they knew they were in a secret society. The secret society had an inner circle called “the Society of the Elect” and an outer circle called “The Association of Helpers.” Originally, Cecil Rhodes led the inner circle, while the Junta of Three included William T. Stead, Reginald Brett, and Alfred Milner. Stead had been introduced to the plan on 4 April 1889, and Brett had been told of it on 3 February 1890….From 1891 to 1902, it was known to only a score of persons. During this period, Rhodes was leader, and Stead was the most influential member. From 1902 to 1925, Milner was leader, while Philip Kerr (Lord Lothian) and Lionel Curtis were probably the most important members. From 1925 to 1940, Kerr was leader, and since his death in 1940 this role [was] probably…played by Robert Henry Brand (Lord Brand).”lxvii In The Society of the Elect, he lists: Cecil John Rhodes; Nathan Rothschild (Baron de Rothschild); Sir Harry Johnston; William T. Stead; Reginald Brett (Viscount Esher); and, Alfred Milner (Viscount Milner), as the top six members in the inner circle, based on chronology when they were members.lxviii
PRESUMABLY, it was BELIEVED THAT BRITAIN’S MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WAS LAWFUL
The Allied Powers use of Article 22 and the Balfour Declaration
Iraq and Palestine (including modern Jordan and Israel) were assigned to Great Britain, while Turkish-ruled Syria and Lebanon went under the administration of France. Allied powers under the authority of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, divided Ottoman territories into three groups on the basis of their location and their level of political and economic development and were then assigned to individual Allied victors (mandatory powers, or mandatories). Class A mandates consisted of the former Turkish provinces of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. These territories were considered sufficiently advanced that their provisional independence was recognized, though they were still subject to Allied administrative control until they were fully able to stand alone….All Class A mandates reached full independence by 1949.lxix
The Balfour Declaration, which granted Great Britain the authority to take over Palestine in order to establish a Jewish homeland, is all that many people are aware of. That is a pretty narrow and basic view of this topic in history.
The British politicians Arthur Balfour and Alfred Milner played key roles in shaping British policy on Palestine during the early 20th century. Balfour, who served as foreign Secretary during World War I, was the author of the Balfour Declaration, dated 2 November 1917, which promised British support for the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. What is little known is that Lord Milner, who served as a member of the British War Cabinet during WWI, drafted the final Declaration, even though it was presented by Balfour. There was a close association between Balfour and Milner, as Balfour was a member of the Milner Group,lxx a powerful secret society of high-ranking men in Great Britain and the Commonwealth, and with associates in other allied countries.
It is important to note that the Balfour Declaration was published in November 1917, but considerations of populating Palestine with European Jews had been a critical question for a long time. For example, in 1915, Sir Charles Moore Watson (b.1844-d.1916) wrote an article titled “Egypt and Palestine,” where he touched on the idea of who was going to manage Palestine, presumably after WWI. Watson was a British Army officer, engineer and administrator, operating mostly in the Middle East before and during WWI. He was also known for his association with the Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF), an organization founded in 1865 by Royal Engineers of the War Department. It was meant for the study of the Levant region, including Palestine, for the purpose, originally, of doing topographical surveys, and also, studies of the ethnography of Ottoman Palestine. The PEF had close ties with the Corps of Royal Engineers, which was part of the British War Department.lxxi According to A history of modern Palestine: one land, two peoples, “The PEF members sent back reports to the UK on the need to salvage and modernise the Levant region,”lxxii based on their findings in the late 1860s. The PEF also had strong ties to Christianity; for example, the first President of the PEF was William Thomson who was the Archbishop of York, although Thomson said that the PEF’s objectives were “strictly an inductive inquiry. We are not to be a religious society; we are not about to launch controversy; we are about to apply the rules of science, which are so well understood by us in our branches, to an investigation into the facts concerning the Holy Land.”lxxiii
In addition to Watson’s involvement in the PEF, he was also a scholar and a writer on topics including Egyptian and Palestinian history. And in 1915, Watson asked the question, “What should Palestine’s future hold?” While some advocate for the creation of a Jewish state, others think it should fall under the jurisdiction of a western European nation. Regarding the former, Watson noted that he hadn’t seen it said whether or not a Jewish king or president would be chosen, or whether a Jewish republic would be established. Although Watson said that it is clear that the majority of people living in Palestine were Muslims, with the majority of the remaining population being Christians of some kind, and a small number of Jews. Watson stated in his work, “Jews, notwithstanding their admirable qualities, have, with rare exceptions such as Moses and David, never shown much capacity for government, and to expect them suddenly to develop such capacity is a vain dream….[and] if an attempt were made to set up a Jewish government in Palestine, there would be a revolt in a short time, and the Jewish rulers would be expelled unless supported by the armed force of some foreign power….Of the western Powers the one that would have most chance of maintaining order in Palestine would be England.”lxxiv
The Balfour Declaration, supported by Lord Balfour and Lord Milner, reflected their commitment to the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, a goal shared by the influential Milner Group. The connections between these British figures and the prominent American figures, ultra-Zionist Chief Justice Louis D. Brandeis and Zionist supporter, Colonel Edward Mandell House, both of whom were close advisers to President Woodrow Wilson, further underscored their shared interests in shaping the future of Palestine. This intricate network of individuals and ideologies shaped the course of history in the early 20th century, particularly regarding the future of the region.
The Chief Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Colonel Edward Mandell House, and President Woodrow Wilson connection
Some historians have said that the Zionist, Chief Justice Louis D. Brandeis (b.1865-d.1941) of America, played a significant role in gaining American support for the Balfour Declaration. Reputable reports, ranging from Lloyd George (David Lloyd George, 1st Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, b.1863-1945) to the seminal research by Leonard Stein, concur that one of the primary drivers behind the British decision to publish the November 2, 1917, Declaration was the expectation of winning American Jewish support for the war effort.lxxv Since 1915, the British government has relied on assessments of American Jewish opinion from their own diplomats stationed in the country as well as on Lucien Wolf, the anti-Zionist British Jewish historian, writer, and community leader who directed Jewish propaganda and acted as an expert adviser. They both emphasised the widespread support of Zionism and the significant impact of organised Zionism on American Jews.lxxvi Because Brandeis blended the responsibilities of a Jewish leader and as a close advisor to the 28th American president, Thomas Woodrow Wilson (b.1856-d.1924), Brandeis’s personal impact was twice as great. One cannot ignore the close connection between Louis Brandeis, and Colonel Edward Mandell House (b.1858-d.1938), who was President Wilson’s main advisor and close friend.lxxvii House was also an American compatriot of the British secret societies, the Cecil Bloclxxviii and the Milner Group, as he helped the British persuade America, through his close advisory connection to Wilson, to eventually enter WWI. Brandeis and House worked together to shape Wilson’s political agenda and push for progressive reforms, even though they had different roles and areas of expertise.lxxix
It should be noted that Colonel House had close ties to the powerful Milner Group in England. In fact, on 7 May 1915, the same day the Lusitania was sunk, Sir Edward Grey (1st Viscount Grey of Fallodon, b.1862-d.1933),lxxx a high-ranking member of the Milner Group, joined with Colonel House for a meeting with King George V (George Frederick Ernest Albert, b.1865-d.1936) at Buckingham Palace. What is very interesting is that the meeting with King George occurred in the morning or early afternoon on the 7th of May 1915, several hours before the Lusitania, an auxiliary British Naval ship, which was carrying various types of ammunition for the war effort, was sunk around 2:10 PM, off the coast of Ireland.lxxxi
The discussion of the Lusitania among King George, Lord Grey, and Colonel House
During their meeting, House and Grey both speak, hypothetically supposedly, about the possibility of an ocean liner being sunk.
House said to Grey: “If this were done, a flame of indignation would sweep across America, which would in itself probably carry us into the war.”lxxxii About one hour later, at Buckingham Palace, King George V, speaks of an even more specific event that could take place. He said: “We fell to talking strangely enough, of the probability of Germany sinking a Trans-Atlantic liner….”lxxxiii The king added, “Suppose they should sink the Lusitania with American passengers on board….”lxxxiv And as an incalculable coincidence, at 2:10 PM that afternoon, only a few hours after the conversations between House, Grey, and King George V, took place, the Lusitania was torpedoed and sunk. The Lusitania, one of the world’s largest ocean liners at that time, was on route from New York City, to Liverpool when it was struck by a torpedo from a ‘German U-boat’—supposedly. The ship sinks to the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean in only a few minutes, and in the process, killing 1,198 of the passengers and crew, including 128 American passengers onboard. The Milner Group owned and managed mass media outlets portrayed the catastrophe as a brazen and unprovoked attack by the Germans that came out of nowhere.
The Friday, May 7, 1915 edition of THE EVENING OBSERVER newspaper’s main headline reads: “LUSITANIA TORPEDOED”. Suddenly, Americans start to believe that the war is not a strictly European affair, now that Americans were killed on the Lusitania—Americans are angry. While everyone blamed the ‘evil’ Germans for this bloodthirsty attack, it was really a deception.lxxxv The Lusitania was not just the average passenger liner as everyone was told. Instead, the Lusitania was an armed merchant cruiser, and which in fact, is listed by the British Admiralty as an auxiliary warship: It had added armour to its hull, and was capable of an armament of 12 six inch guns, and on its Trans-Atlantic voyage, it was carrying ‘war material’ – four million rounds of 303 rifle bullets and tons of munitions, including shells, gunpowder, fuses, and gun cotton.lxxxvi Later, House admitted that he, Grey and the king had discussed the idea, or probable event, that the Lusitania would be sunk to get America angered, and thus, push the Americans into the war.
“May 7 marks the 100th anniversary [2015] of the sinking of the Lusitania. The British ocean liner was unarmed but was carrying munitions for the Allies when it was torpedoed by a German submarine and sank in 18 minutes off of the coast of Ireland….William H. Vanderbilt II—perished on the Lusitania along with nearly 1,200 other passengers, including 128 U.S. citizens…there were fewer than 800 survivors….Among the items in the [Yale University] collection is House’s diary, which is 3,000 pages long and contains almost daily entries beginning in 1912….He was instrumental in helping Woodrow Wilson win the 1912 presidential election. He became Wilson’s chief adviser and an integral player in the First World War….In his diaries, Colonel House—‘Colonel’ was a courtesy title, not a rank—recounts his continued attempts to negotiate peace with the European war powers [House did not want peace, but anyway]. On the morning of May 7, House met with Sir Edward Grey, a British statesmen who served as Foreign secretary. They discussed the probability of an ocean liner being sunk by the Germans”….[Wilson the ever traitorous clown said] “If war follows, it will not be a new war, but an endeavor to end more speedily an old one. Our intervention will save, rather than increase, the loss of life.” [Really…tell that to the nearly 10 million soldiers (Allied and Central Powers) who died in the war, including my great-Uncle George Wood Lambertson; and also the approximately 7.7 million civilians (both sides) who were murdered during WWI.].lxxxvii
In addition to Lord Balfour and Lord Milner, Chaim Azriel Weizmann (b.1874-d.1952) a renowned scientist and a Zionist leader in the 1918 Zionist Commission, corresponded with several other influential British politicians on the subject of establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine. One such figure was Sir Mark Sykes, a key British diplomat who played a crucial role in negotiating the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which aimed to divide the territories of the Ottoman Empire. These key personalities, along with the broader network of the Milner Group, worked tirelessly to secure British support for the Zionist project.
Chaim Weizmann, Zionist Commission to Palestine, and Vladimir Jabotinsky
Chaim Weizmann wrote in his 1949 book, Trial and Error, about the connection among Brandeis, House, and Wilson, and suggests that Brandeis had significant influence on Wilson:
“Our judgment was to accept, to press for ratification. For we knew that the assimilationists would use every delay for their own purposes; and we also knew that in America the same internal Jewish struggle was going on – complicated by the fact that President Wilson, who was wholeheartedly with us, considered the publication of a declaration premature, in view of the fact that no state of war existed between America and Turkey. Brandeis’ intention was to obtain from President Wilson a public expression of sympathy. In this he was not successful. But on October 16, Colonel House, acting for President Wilson, cabled the British Government America’s support of the substance of the declaration. This was one of the most important individual factors in breaking the deadlock created by the British anti-Zionists, and in deciding the British Government to issue its declaration.”lxxxviii
Shortly after America entered the war, Balfour, who was a member of the powerful Cecil Bloc, travelled to the United States to confer with his new friends, and the newly appointed British Foreign Minister made a point of visiting Brandeis. These discussions, as all of their contemporaries believe, were crucial in initiating the last round of talks for a British policy declaration that supported Zionism. Both the British government and British Zionists believed that American help was crucial at this last stage.
Zionist Support within the British Government
The Framers of the Balfour Declaration never had the best intentions for the Palestinians, and Lloyd George admits this in his memoirs:
“As to the meaning of the words ‘National Home’ to which the Zionists attach so much importance, he [Balfour] understood it to mean some form of British, American or other protectorate, under which full facilities would be given to the Jews to work out their own salvation and to build up, by means of education, agriculture and industry, a real center of national culture and focus of national life…There can be no doubt as to what the [Imperial War] Cabinet then had in their minds. It was not their idea that a Jewish State should be set up immediately by the Peace Treaty [Sèvres] without reference to the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants. On the other hand, it was contemplated that when the time arrive for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then Palestine would thus become a Jewish Commonwealth. The notion that Jewish immigration would have to be artificially restricted in order that the Jews should be a permanent minority never entered the head of anyone engaged in framing the policy. That would have been regarded as unjust and as a fraud on the people to whom we were appealing.”lxxxix
The 1918 Zionist Commission to Palestine
His Majesty’s Government made the decision to dispatch a Zionist Commission to Palestine in the beginning of 1918 in order to assess the situation and make arrangements that were in line with the Balfour Declaration. The purpose of the commission was to represent the Jews of all the major Allied nations. However, as America was not at war with Turkey, she felt reluctant to nominate representatives, and the Russian members, although officially chosen, were unable to depart in time to join due to “political reason.” The French and Italians then arrived to join us.
Commendatore Levi Bianchini (Marco Levi Bianchini, b.1875-d.1961) was sent by the Italian government. Professor Sylvain Levi (b.1863-d.1935), who was supposedly an avowed anti-Zionist, was sent by the French.xc Baron Abraham Edmond Benjamin James de Rothschild (aka. The Baron Rothschild, b.1845-d.1934), also represented the French Zionists on the Commission. Edmond de Rothschild was a major Zionist philanthropist who supported the Jewish settlement in Palestine. He provided a lot of the financial support and guidance for various projects aimed at promoting Jewish settlement that he assisted with through his Palestine Jewish Colonization Association (PICA). He was also concerned and assisted with funding agriculture and industrial projects in the region. Edmond de Rothschild was particularly instrumental in the establishment of the city of Tel Aviv, which was founded in 1909 as a Jewish neighbourhood adjacent to the ancient city of Jaffa. He was key to the development of the city’s infrastructure, construction of schools, hospitals, cultural institutions, government buildings, and he founded the Rishon LeZion Wine Cellars, one of the largest wineries in Israel. He played a significant role in the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.xci The representatives from England included Chaim Weizmann, I. M. Sieff, Leon Simon, Dr. David Eder, and Joseph Cowen.
The 1918 Zionist Commission was a pivotal organization in the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, following the Balfour Declaration. The primary purpose of the commission was to liaise between the Jewish community in Palestine and the British authorities, promoting Jewish settlement, agriculture, and industry in the region. They sought to address the needs of the Jewish population, such as providing healthcare, education, and social services. Additionally, the members aimed to foster good relations with the Arab population, seeking peaceful coexistence and cooperation. And that last point almost seems ironic because the Arab Muslims, Christians, and Jews peacefully coexisted prior to the Zionist infection in Palestine.
Although the Zionist Commission’s goals seemed philanthropic, they also had connections to very violent Zionist militarists and organizations. For example, Chaim Weizmann was associated with the Russian-born Jewish Zionist militant, Vladimir (Ze’ev) Jabotinsky (b.1880-d.1940). He was the founder and leader of the Revisionist Zionist Party (Hatzohar – Founded in 1925) that advocated for more assertive and militant approach to establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine.xcii He played a very prominent role in the formation of the Jewish Legion during World War I, a military unit comprised of Jewish volunteers who fought alongside the British Army during World War I, established in 1917, and one of their main objectives was to help the British liberate Palestine from the Ottoman Empire rule, which would help pave the way to establish a Jewish homeland in the region.
The Zionist Terrorist Vladimir Jabotinsky
Jabotinsky won a seat in the inaugural Palestine Assembly of Representatives in 1920. He was also elected to the Zionist Organization’s executive council in 1921, and he founded and became the director of publicity for the KerenhaYesod organisation. Due to disagreements with the movement’s head, Chaim Weizmann, Jabotinsky quit the mainstream Zionist movement in 1923. He then founded the Alliance of Revisionists-Zionists, a new revisionist party, and Betar, a Zionist youth terrorist group in Latvia, as well as Hatzohar.xciii
In 1939, Britain came out with the MacDonald White Paper, meant to limit Jewish immigration to 75,000 to Palestine over five years, during the British Administration Mandate of Palestine. Jabotinsky also took issue with the White Paper’s call to limit land sales to the Jews, and that a binational state would be established for the Palestinians. He wanted an armed Jewish revolt in Palestine. This pushed Jabotinsky to become more radical and violent. He became associated with the Jewish terrorist organizations Haganah, and then he founded the extremely violent Zionist terrorist group, Irgun, which was actively involved in many actions of violence and terrorism against the British and Arabs in Palestine between 1931 and 1948. Irgun was mainly responsible for the 22 July 1946 King David Hotel bombing and the 9 April 1948 Deir Yassin massacre.xciv xcv
The Balfour Declaration, which expressed the British support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and the subsequent Treaty of Sèvres, which aimed to reorganize the territories of the defeated Ottoman Empire, were crucial milestones in the historical journey that ultimately led to the establishment of the British Mandate for Palestine.
The Treaty of Sèvres
The Treaty of Sèvres, which was signed on August 10, 1920, contained the conditions of all the mandates, including the one granted to France. However, the League of Nations did not formally ratify the agreement until July 24, 1922. The British Mandate over Palestine was based on the political principles of the Balfour Declaration and was ratified despite opposition from certain members of the Cabinet about its provisions.xcvi
“The qualification expressed in Article 22 – that those to be governed under the Mandate system must have their wishes recognised as ‘principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory’ – was completely ignored….In April 1920, Sir Herbert Louis Samuel (1st Viscount Samuel, b.1870-d.1963) was appointed high commissioner for Palestine, replacing the military authority that had been in charge since Allenby’s entry to Jerusalem. His support for the Zionist cause was well known as a result of the January 1915 paper, The Future of Palestine, he had submitted to the Cabinet proposing that Palestine be made into a homeland for the Jewish people. He firmly believed that in supporting such a move the British Empire would be enhancing its prestige and fulfilling ‘her historic part as civiliser of the backward countries.’ Lord Curzon (George Nathaniel Curzon, 1st Marquess Curzon of Kedleston, b.1859-d.1925), the foreign secretary, suggested to Samuel that he reconsider his acceptance of the post….Arab political figures shared Curzon’s opinion that Samuel’s association with Zionism made him unsuitable. Notwithstanding this opposition he took up the post on 1 July 1920.”xcvii xcviii xcix Samuel’s posting to Palestine was no doubt with the support of the powerful British cabals, the Cecil Bloc, the Milner Group, and Zionist organizations pushing for a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
Sir Herbert Samuel, a prominent British politician and member of the influential Cecil Bloc, had strong Zionist leanings and was closely connected to the Milner Group as well. As the first High Commissioner for Palestine, Samuel’s tenure was marked by his commitment to the establishment of a Jewish homeland. In fact, Chaim Weizmann recounted in his book, Trial and Error, that the first time he met C. P. Scott, the editor of the Manchester Guardian, Scott offered to introduce Weizmann to Lloyd George, and then Weizmann recalled what Scott said next: “You know, you have a Jew in the Government, Mr. Herbert Samuel.” Weizmann told Scott, jokingly, that they should have nothing to do with Samuel as he may be the “type of Jew who by his very nature was opposed to us.”c However, Weizmann was happily surprised when he met Samuel for the first time on 10 December 1914, and that he was very open to Weizmann’s ideas about a homeland for the Jewish people.ci The two men worked united for the next several years, striving for their shared objective.
Sir Herbert Samuel’s connections to the powerful Cecil Bloc and the Milner Group
Sir Herbert Samuel (1st Viscount Samuel, b.1870-d.1963), was no stranger to the Zionist ideas. After his first meeting with Chaim Weizmann, and hearing what the Zionist leader had to say about a Jewish homeland, and Samuel, much to Weizmann’s shock, was in agreement. Weizmann reported about Samuel:
“He was no stranger to Zionist ideas….Since Turkey had entered the war, he had given the problem much thought and consideration, and he thought that a realization of the Zionist dreams was possible. He believed that my demands were too modest, that big things would have to be done in Palestine…He [Samuel] hopes that great things may be forthcoming from a seat of learning, where the Jews can work freely on a free soil of their own. He also thinks that perhaps a Temple [the Third Temple] may be rebuilt, as a symbol of Jewish unity, of course, in a modernised form.”cii
Samuel needed to show that Weizmann was a serious politician who supported British interests, but that also he could dragoon the bickering ranks of British Zionists, and that he was powerful enough to overcome opposition to Zionism within the Anglo-Jewish community, having influence over the majority of Russian Jews especially, and possessed the discretion, lucidity, and firmness of purpose that were required in order for his plan to be seriously considered by his Cabinet colleagues – Weizmann, Samuel believed, could do all of this, plus win over interlocutors like Balfour and Lloyd George, so that “in defiance of reality, that behind him stood a great force, ‘world Jewry,’ which could help sway the political balance in Russia and America decisively in Britain’s favour.”ciii
In addition to his powerful Jewish friends, like Weizmann, Sir Herbert Samuel had connections to the Cecil Bloc, a group of prominent British imperialists that included figures such as Lord Milner. The Cecil Bloc, was a group of influential British politicians, diplomats, and intellectuals who advocated for the expansion and consolidation of British imperial power in the early 20th century. Members of the Cecil Bloc, including Milner and Samuel, played key roles in shaping British foreign policy during this period, particularly with regard to the Middle East.civ From 1920 to 1925, Samuel was the first British High Commissioner for Palestine. He collaborated closely with Cecil Bloc members like Lord Milner to shape British policy for Palestine and the Middle East in general. Samuel was a fervent Zionist who thought it was in the best interests of both the Jewish people and Britain for the British to support the creation of the Jewish national home in Palestine. Throughout his time as High Commissioner, he worked to encourage the growth of Jewish settlement with disregard of the consequences to the indigenous Palestinian people.cv cvi
While not all members of the Cecil Bloc were Zionists, several prominent figures in the group were sympathetic to the Zionist cause and played key roles in shaping British policy on Palestine and the Middle East. Some of the Zionists in the Cecil Bloc include: Lord Alfred Milner – who helped formulate and wrote the final draft of the Balfour Declaration; Leopold Amery (Leopold Charles Maurice Stennett Amery, b.1873-d.1955) – was a member of the powerful British War Cabinet during WWI, and he played a key role in the pro-Zionist policies supported by the British in their administration of Palestine; and, Sir Herbert Samuel – served as the first British High Commissioner for Palestine from 1920 to 1925.cvii
The Right Honourable Herbert Henry Asquith
Herbert Henry Asquith, 1st Earl of Oxford and Asquith (b.1852-d.1928), was a prominent British statesman and a member of the influential Cecil Bloc, a group of politicians and diplomats connected to the Cecil family, one of the most prominent and influential families in British politics. Asquith’s association with the Cecil Bloc helped shape his political views and policies, particularly his support for progressive social and political reforms, such as the establishment of old-age pensions and the National Insurance Act.
While Asquith shared many political views with other members of the Cecil Bloc, he also had some disagreements with certain individuals, particularly Lord Alfred Milner. Asquith and Milner had different perspectives on British imperial policy, with Milner advocating for a more aggressive and interventionist approach to British imperialism.cviii cix This difference in opinion led to tensions between the two politicians, particularly during the Second Boer War, when Milner served as the High Commissioner for South Africa and Asquith was a vocal critic of the war.cx
Asquith’s policy on establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine was influenced by his progressive political views, a belief in the importance of self-determination for all peoples, and his association with the influential Cecil Bloc.cxi Asquith’s government played a role in the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which expressed British support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Asquith’s support for the Zionist cause was also influenced by his shared political views and involvement in the Liberal Party with Sir Herbert Samuel, who served as the High Commissioner for Palestine from 1920 to 1925 and was a strong advocate for Jewish immigration to Palestine.cxii
Asquith’s support for the Zionist cause, along with the policies implemented by Sir Herbert Samuel during his time as High Commissioner for Palestine, contributed to the development of a Jewish presence in the region and the eventual establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.
THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS LACKED THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT BRITAIN’S MANDATE OVER PALESTINE
The truth is that the League of Nations lacked the authority to grant Britain the right to rule or to provide the Mandate over Palestine, there was no legal significance under the terms of the League Covenant.cxiii Britain was unableto achieve sovereignty, which was necessary in order to rule Palestine orto have a mandate.During their summit in San Remo in April 1920, the Principal Allied Powers produced a peace treaty that Britain thought would grant it dominion over Turkey. Under ratification conditions, Turkey signed the Treaty of Sèvres in August 1920, based on that text. However, Turkey had not officially ratified the Treaty as late as May 1922. “Of course,” Balfour stated in the League Council, “the Mandate could not lawfully be in force while the Treaty of Sèvres remained unratified” (Council, 1922a).cxiv
The Arab reluctance to ratify the Treaty of Sèvres
The Treaty of Sèvres, which was signed on August 10, 1920, was a peace treaty between the Allied Powers and the Ottoman Empire that aimed to formalize the Ottoman Empire’s partition and establish the conditions for the post-war settlement in the Middle East. However, the treaty was never ratified by Turkey, largely due to the emergence of the Turkish National Movement, led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (aka. Mustafa Kemal Pasha, aka., Ghazi Mustafa Kemal, b.c.1881-d.1938), which rejected the harsh terms of the treaty and sought to preserve Turkish sovereignty and territorial integrity.cxv
The list of humiliating measures that the Entente Powerscxvi planned to impose on the Ottoman Empire did not end with the articles of the Treaty of Sèvres. Separately, Britain, France, and Italy decided at Sèvres to partition Anatolia into three spheres: British, French, and Italian, each of which would have exclusive rights to commercial exploitation and influence. This arrangement is known as the Tripartite arrangement. The list of humiliating measures that the Entente Powers planned to impose on the Ottoman Empire did not end with the articles of the Treaty of Sèvres. Britain, France, and Italy agreed in a different accord known as the Tripartite accord, also negotiated in Sèvres, that Anatolia would be split into three sectors, with each member having exclusive rights to commercially exploit the regions they controlled.cxvii This was not acceptable to Atatürk and the Nationalists.
Atatürk and his supporters launched a successful military campaign against the Allied Powers, leading to the Turkish War of Independence. The conflict ultimately resulted in the expulsion of foreign forces from Turkish territory and the establishment of the Republic of Turkey. The Treaty of Sèvres was subsequently replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne, signed on July 24, 1923, which recognized the Republic of Turkey as the successor state to the Ottoman Empire and established new borders that were more favourable to Turkey.cxviii cxix
However, it appears that a lawful Mandate was not very important, or even necessary for the League of Nations and Great Britain because the “civil administration began in Palestine and Transjordan in July 1920 and April 1921, respectively, and the mandate was in force [only after that] from 29 September 1923 to 15 May 1948 and to 25 May 1946 respectively.cxx
The Foreign Office clarified that while Britain was requesting Council approval for the contents of its mandate paper, the mandate itself could not take effect “until the Treaty of Sèvres has been duly ratified by Turkey” in a news release it published the same day. To gain sovereignty, Britain still needed Turkey’s submission. Curzon was interpreting Article 16 in a way that said Britain would retain sovereignty when the Lausanne Treaty was signed. George Curzon (1st Marquess Curzon of Kedleston, b.1859-d.1925), was a force within the social and political structure of England, and was associated with the Milner Groupcxxi cxxii cxxiii and Cecil Bloccxxiv secret societies (cabals), which had great influence over the key educational centres of England including Balliol College, Oxford University, which is where Curzon was educated.
Despite the fact that Turkey never signed the Treaty of Sèvres, and the subsequent Treaty of Lausanne focused primarily on issues unrelated to Palestine, the League of Nations ultimately granted the British the Mandate for Palestine. No doubt this decision was influenced by the intricate web of connections and shared interests among key figures such as Lord Balfour, Lord Milner, Sir Samuel, and the broader Milner Group, as well as the diplomatic efforts of Lord Curzon, and the lobbying of powerful Zionist groups. These complex factors led to the establishment of the British Mandate for Palestine.
George Curzon, the Cecil Bloc, and the Milner Group and their participation in positions of power
Several intellectuals and politicians, including Curzon, were important associates of the Cecil Bloc and the Milner Group, serving as fellows of one of the three closely associated colleges – Balliol, New College, or All Souls. “The three were largely dominated by the Milner Group, and they, in turn, largely dominated the intellectual life of Oxford in the fields of law, history, and public affairs. They came close to dominating the university itself in administrative matters.”cxxv
Lord Curzon was Chancellor of Oxford University from 1907 to 1925. In addition, Curzon was responsible for overseeing the division of the British Mandate of Palestine, and also, the formulation of the Emirate of Transjordan, and he served as the main Allied negotiator of the 1922 Treaty of Lausanne, which set out to define the borders of modern day Turkey. This is not say that Curzon’s vision in the Mandate lined-up exactly with that of the Milner Group’s greater Empire ideological views, which is apparent because of Lord Milner’s opposition to Curzon for the premiership in 1923.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the larger Milner Group socio-political goals were part of the Mandate, even though the Group would probably have liked to have seen Palestine and the Transjordan remain part of the British Commonwealth in the long-run.
The British government’s highest positions were filled with members of two of the most powerful secret societies in England during the early 20th century. For example, from 1915 to 1920, during World War I, “the chief decisions were made by the War Cabinetcxxvi and Imperial War Cabinet, whose membership merged and fluctuated but in 1917-1918 consisted of Lloyd George, Milner, Curzon, and Smuts [Field Marshal Jan Christian Smuts, b.1870-d.1950] – that is, two members of the Milner Group, one of the Cecil Bloc, with the Prime Minister himself. The secretary to these groups was Maurice Hankey [Maurice Pascal Alers Hankey, 1st Baron Hankey, b.1877-d.1963], who later became a member of the Milner Group….The Foreign Office in its topmost ranks was held by the Cecil Bloc, with Balfour as Secretary of State (1916-1919), followed by Curzon (1919-1924).cxxvii
The Legal Position on Palestine by Cecil Hurst, Principal Legal Advisor to the Foreign Office
The idea that Britain had sovereignty over Palestine was debunked in July 1924, by his own Legal Adviser, Sir Cecil Hurst, who was a Legal Adviser to the British Foreign Office starting in 1902. Later in his career, he also served as a judge to the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Hague from 1929 to 1945. Cecil Hurst (Sir Cecil James Barrington Hurst, b.1870-d.1963), who served at the time as Principal Legal Advisor to the Foreign Office, undertook to explain Britain’s status in Palestine. He started from what he called the “first treaty of peace,” the Treaty of Sèvres (signed on 10 August 1920, but not ratified). He stated that “the first treaty of peace which was negotiated with theTurks…was never ratified and has expired. It has become extinct, as if it had never been drafted at all.cxxviii It has been replaced by another instrument (the Treaty of Lausanne) which we hope will come into force shortly, but if the terms of this later instrument, known as the Treaty of Lausanne, are studied, it will be seen that is not a treaty which creates the British rights of control or government in Palestine.”cxxix … The fact that Britain went to the length of inventing a string of palpably false explanations of its status in Palestine shows how clearly it understood that absent sovereignty, it had no business controlling Palestine.
Why didn’t Turkey push back harder on the Palestine sovereignty issue?
During the negotiations leading up to the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, the primary focus of the Turkish delegation was to secure the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the newly established Republic of Turkey. The issue of Palestine, while important, was not considered a top priority for the Turkish government at that time. Additionally, the Turkish leadership was well aware of the international political climate and the influence of the major powers, including Britain, in the Middle East. They likely recognized that objecting more forcefully to British rule over Palestine might have jeopardized their broader diplomatic goals, such as securing international recognition for the Republic of Turkey and revising the harsh terms imposed by the Treaty of Sèvres. Consequently, the Turkish delegation chose to prioritize securing the best possible outcome for Turkey in the negotiations, even if it meant accepting British involvement in Palestine.cxxx cxxxi
Conclusion
Britain had no basis to govern Palestine, no basis for a mandate, and no basis for implementing the Balfour Declaration. It had no basis for the Mandate for Palestine. No territorial right for the Jewish people gained any status in law. The Palestinian Arab lawyer Aziz Shehadeh was on the mark when he asked rhetorically in 1939, “What rights have the Jews in Palestine other than a promise given by a Strong Power.” (Shehadeh, 1939, p. 11.)cxxxii
While there were some British politicians who expressed concerns about the legitimacy of the British Mandate for Palestine, it is difficult to find specific examples of politicians who directly questioned the legality of the mandate due to Britain’s lack of sovereignty over Palestine. Some notable figures who expressed reservations about the mandate include David Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister at the time of the mandate’s establishment, and Winston Churchill (Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, b.1874-d.1965), who served as Secretary of State for the Colonies in the 1920s.cxxxiii George expressed concerns about the potential for the mandate to fuel conflict between Jewish and Arab populations in Palestine. Churchill was particularly worried about the potential for conflict between Jews and Arabs in Palestine, and he also questioned the long-term viability of the mandate, given the ongoing tensions and the broader geopolitical dynamics in the Middle East.cxxxiv cxxxv
Nevertheless, on a more serious tone, in a speech in the House of Commons on July 21, 1920, the British politician Sir William Joynson-Hicks (1st Viscount Brentford, b.1865-d.1932) criticized the Balfour Declaration, which had promised British support for the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. Joynson-Hicks argued that the declaration was “contrary to the principles of justice and humanity,” and that it would cause irreparable harm to the Arab population of Palestine. Eighteen years later, in a speech on November 17, 1938, the British politician Josiah Wedgwood (Josiah C. Wedgwood, b.1872-d.1943) expressed his opposition to the British government’s policy on Palestine, arguing that it had failed to address the legitimate grievances of the Arab population and had contributed to ongoing violence and unrest in the region.cxxxvi cxxxvii
To justify Britain’s administrative authority in Palestine and Transjordan, one might be tempted to take the approach of Hebrew University Professor Yuval Shany (Shany, 2016, pp. 401–402). Shany claimed that the Zionist project found validation through Britain’s interaction with the League of Nations, but he said that even if the Mandate for Palestine was not legally solid, “it is hard to accept that any formal legal defect that the international community would now attach to the Palestine Mandate could prevent reliance on its validity almost a hundred years later, after the lives of generations upon generations of Jews and Arabs who relied on its legal effects have been irreversibly changed.”cxxxviii
The Results of the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the disregard of the promises made to the Arabs in the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence
For the Arabs, of course, the effect of Britain’s pursuit of Zionist aspirations was the loss of their country,”cxxxix even when it was not Britain’s to give to the Jews. And one more very important point to keep in mind – a point that should have been paramount in deciding who would keep Palestine for their homeland – was a promise and an agreement that the British High Commissioner to Egypt made with the Sharif of Mecca. It was while the agreements were being finalized in 1915 and 1916, among the Triple Entente members, that Colonel Sir Tatton Benvenuto Mark Sykes (6th Baronet, b.1879-d.1919), Francois Marie Denis Georges-Picot (b.1870-d.1951), and the Russian, Sergey [Sergei] Dmitryevich Sazonov (b.1860-d.1927), came together regarding who would administer the various portions of the Ottoman-held lands after they Ottoman Empire’s inevitable collapse. The result of their covert treaty, was the Sykes-Picot Agreement: It was a clandestine treaty in 1916, which involved the United Kingdom and France, with approval from the Russian Empire and the Kingdom of Italy.
Sir Henry McMahon and the promises made to the Arabs
The British High Commissioner to Egypt, Sir Henry McMahon (Sir Vincent Arthur Henry McMahon, b.1862-d.1949), was in negotiations with the Sharif of Mecca, Hussein bin Ali (Husayn Ibn ‘Ali al-Hashimi, b.1854-d.1931), promising to the Arab, Hussein, that “the British government agreed to recognize Arab independence [in Palestine] after the war in exchange for the Sharif of Mecca launching the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire.”cxl Not all historians think very highly of McMahon: Pulitzer prize nominated historian, David Fromkin, called McMahon “notoriously dull-witted and ineffectual.”cxli Sharif Hussain had, it appeared, to abruptly demand for an autonomous Arab state, which was not such an absurd thing to demand of Sir Henry McMahon, Sir Ronald Storrs (b.1881-d.1955)cxlii and the British politicians in England, considering Hussain’s circumstances at the time. McMahon and Storrs were unaware that in Mecca, in January 1915, Hussein had found written proof that the Ottoman government intended to remove him from office at the conclusion of the war—in fact, they had only delayed the removal because the war was about to start. Hussain had sent his son, Feisal, to meet the Grand Vizier in Constantinople, but Hussain discovered that he was indeed going to be removed from office. Following Turkey’s October 1914 entry into the war on the German side, the British government re-examined Sharif Hussein’s offer to rise in exchange for pledges of Arab independence if the Turks were defeated in WWI.cxliii Therefore, it was the obvious option that Hussein had little choice but to consider resisting Turkey during WWI, in light of the Young Turks’ attempt to remove him from power.
In 1914, General Wingate attributed the war to a “consortium of Jews, financiers, and base plotters” in Constantinople.cxliv Wingate and his associates further exacerbated the situation by connecting it to inaccurate information about the state of Muslim sentiment. Shortly after the war’s commencement, Storrs sent Maxwell a report detailing statements made by a Syrian informant regarding public opinion behind enemy lines. The informant claimed that the Syrian population harboured intense resentment towards the Ottoman government due to its perceived support for Zionism. According to the informant, “These Zionists maintain strong ties with Berlin and Constantinople and constitute the most influential factor in Palestine’s policy.” This false rumour about Berlin and Constantinople endorsing Zionism reverberated throughout the years and later misled the British Cabinet into believing an immediate pro-Zionist Declaration was necessary.cxlv Storrs corresponded with Kitchener (specifically, his personal military secretary, Lieutenant-Colonel Oswald FitzGerald) towards the end of the year. He discussed plans for the postwar Middle East and asserted that Muslims would resist a Jewish Palestine, as they held Jews responsible for the war. “Again would not Islam be extremely indignant at the idea of handing over our conquests to a people which has taken no part as a nation in the war, and a section of which has undoubtedly helped to thrust the Turks over the precipice.”cxlvi These assertions were basically early 20th century propaganda. Wingate and Storrs assumed incorrectly with erroneous information. “Storrs was wrong, too, in supposing that Moslems were opposed to a Jewish Palestine because of the war; Moslem opposition to a Jewish Palestine had arisen long before the war, in the wake of Zionist colonization at the end of the nineteenth century,”cxlvii which was supported with gusto by British Jew pro-Zionist philanthropists, British Zionists in government, and pro-Zionist Jew organizations in Britain, like the ones run by, or associated with, Chaim Weizmann—He was the president of the World Zionist Organization (WZO) from 1920 to 1931 and 1935 to 1946; he helped found and was president of the Jewish Agency for Israel from 1929 to 1931 and 1935 to 1946; Weizmann was actively involved in the British Zionist Federation, a cause for the Jewish homeland in Palestine; and, he had close ties to the American Zionist Organization. Nevertheless, the shortcomings among British staff in the Middle East in information gathering was well-known. The belief in data collected without vetting it, was a flaw in the information-gathering process “conducted by Clayton, Storrs” and Wingate…“their ability to understand the natives was quite limited.”cxlviii
In 1915, Sharif Hussein ibn Ali, the Sharif of Mecca, played a pivotal role in the efforts of Al-Fatat, a secret Arab organization based in Damascus seeking to establish an independent Arab state in the Middle East. Although not the formal head of Al-Fatat, Hussein’s influence and authority significantly impacted the organization’s decisions and actions. He sent his son, Prince Faisal, to explore the possibility of securing support from Al-Fatat. The members of Al-Fatat were hesitant to initiate a revolt against the Ottoman Empire without the backing of Sharif Hussein ibn Ali, and a clear commitment from the British to support Arab independence. Thus, Sharif Hussein’s guidance and support were crucial for the organization’s rebellion against the Ottoman Empire.cxlix
The British made promises to the Arab leaders through the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, stating that they would support the establishment of an independent Arab state in Palestine in exchange for their help in rebelling against the Ottoman Empire. One significant figure who contributed to this rebellion was T. E. Lawrence, also known as Lawrence of Arabia. Serving as a liaison between the British and the Arab forces, Lawrence played a critical role in organizing and coordinating attacks against the Ottoman Empire.cl
Lawrence wrote, “I justified myself by my confidence in the final success of the Arab Revolt if properly advised. I had been a mover in its beginning; my hopes lay in it. The fatalistic subordination of a professional soldier (intrigue being unknown in the British army) would have made a proper officer sit down and watch his plan of campaign wrecked by men who thought nothing of it, and to whose spirit it made no appeal. Non nobis, domine.”cli
Risky relationships developed between Hussein and the nationalist groups among the Arab officers working with the Turkish army in Syria. These later drafted the Damascus Protocol, which called for collaboration with Britain in exchange for the recognition of Arab independence in what is now Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Palestine. The secret organisations would acknowledge Hussein as their spokesperson and order his army divisions to rebel if he was able to get such a British pledge.clii The British considered Hussein’s demands to be excessive when he made them. However, by September 1915, the Gallipoli situation was becoming more dire, and the Turks were relocating the Arab divisions to the Dardanelles.
During this time, a Kurdish defector named al-Faruqi informed the British in Cairo that there was a well-organized Arab nationalist movement and that, if they did not react to Hussein’s proposal of ‘support for independence’, the Arab movement may end up joining Germany against the Allied Powers. McMahon had gained permission from Foreign Secretary Grey to “promise whatever necessary”cliii while upholding French interests. Allegedly, McMahon joined Hussein in negotiations without making any attempt to verify the allegation that the Arab forces would join the German side.cliv Therefore, in a letter to Hussein dated October 24, 1915, McMahon promised to “recognise and support the independence of the Arabs in all the regions within the limits demanded by the Sharif of Mecca,” provided the British officials and advisers from Europe would be in charge of governing the territories. The areas where France had an interest were reserved to the “two districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the limits demanded.”clv “Britain would enjoy special administrative arrangements” in the vilayets of Basra and Baghdad.clvi Although McMahon neglected to double-check his phrasing with the Foreign Office and the Arabic translation was erroneous, he later admitted that getting the Arabs in was his first concern and that the content was “largely a matter of words.”clvii This goes back to what was mentioned earlier regarding, “the shortcomings among British staff in the Middle East in information-gathering.”
In 1916, Lawrence arrived in the Hejaz region, where he assisted in the Arab Revolt led by Sharif Hussein ibn Ali and his sons, including Prince Faisal. Lawrence’s expertise in guerrilla warfare and his understanding of the Arab culture proved invaluable in the rebellion. He participated in various battles, such as the capture of Aqaba (Akaba) in 1917, which significantly weakened Ottoman control over the region. Throughout the revolt, Lawrence’s efforts helped secure numerous victories for the Arab forces, including the capture of Damascus in 1918. These successes contributed to the eventual collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the establishment of Arab states in the Middle East. However, the British failed to honour their promises made in the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, leading to tensions between the Arab leaders and the British.
The conflicting agreements
The Sykes-Picot Agreement and the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence were two conflicting diplomatic agreements that had a significant impact on the history of the Middle East. The Sykes-Picot Agreement, a secret treaty aimed to define the Triple Entente’s mutually agreed spheres of influence and control in an eventual partition of the Ottoman Empire. In contrast the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence were a series of letters between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sherif of Mecca, Hussain bin Ali, in which the British government promised to support Arab independence in exchange for Arab support in the war against the Ottoman Empire.clviii clix
Within the May 1916 secret Sykes-Picot Agreement, it was exposed that the autonomous Arab state would not annex any part of the Holy Land, and its northern and southern regions would fall under the spheres of influence of France and Britain, respectively.clx All of this was unknown to Hussein prior to his uprising to help the British, and it only made sense in light of the McMahon-Hussein communication if “independent” meant freed from the Turks rather than fully sovereign. With its extensions, Russia and Italy, Sykes-Picot was an attempt to divide Turkey-in-Asia indiscriminately and to redraw borders mostly based on conjecture.
In 1916, the Ottoman Empire strengthened their forces in the Sinai while the British expanded their garrison to 275,000 after withdrawing from Gallipoli. By November 1918, the British reached Aleppo. If they remained in Palestine as a forward defence screen for the canal, the Ottoman obstacle to Zionist objectives would be removed. Herbert Samuel, a member of the Asquith government, proposed the idea of a Jewish state to Grey, who felt a “strong, sentimental attraction” to the idea, and Lloyd George was “very keen.”clxi However, in March 1915, the proposal did not gain much support within the Cabinet. Samuel argued that after the war, Palestine should not be under the Turks or the French, fearing that an international administration would lead to a German protectorate. He believed the only alternative was a British protectorate with regulated immigration until the Jews attained a majority. Germany was seen as a potential threat, as the majority of Zionism’s support came from Russian Jews, and its pre-war headquarters was in Berlin. The German Foreign Ministry repeatedly intervened at Constantinople on behalf of the Jews, hoping to gain support from “international Jewry,” particularly in the United States.clxii Eventually, the British government and the Zionist homeland supporters started to meld together around the Jewish homeland idea in Palestine, and this was possible especially with the help of powerful Jewish lobbyists like Chaim Weizmann. In fact, it was Lord Robert Cecil (Edgar Algernon Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 1st Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, b.1864-d.1958), the Foreign Office’s Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the time, who said, “I do not think it is easy to exaggerate the international power of the Jews.”clxiii
In 1916, Balfour, the First Lord of the Admiralty at the time, wrote to Chaim Weizmann, the head of the General Zionist Council, in the same year that the infamous Sykes-Picot agreement was surreptitiously planned to divide up a post-war Middle East between Britain, France, and Tsarist Russia: “You know Dr. Weizmann, if the Allies win the war you may get your Jerusalem.” The Balfour Declaration, which had been authorised by the Foreign Office and British Prime Minister Lloyd George, was really diluted in its published form. “Palestine should be reconstituted as the national home of the Jewish people,”clxiv was the proposal put up in it.
It is not too surprising then that the conflict between the two agreements arose from the fact that the Sykes-Picot Agreement divided the Ottoman Empire into spheres of influence without taking into account the promises made to the Arab Palestinians in the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence. This conflict ultimately contributed to the ongoing tensions and disputes over the status of Palestine in the following decades, as the Arab Palestinians felt that the promises made to them in the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence had been betrayed by the Sykes-Picot Agreement.clxv
The conflicting diplomatic agreements of the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence demonstrate the complex and often contentious nature of international diplomacy, and the challenges of reconciling conflicting interests and objectives in the pursuit of national and regional stability. The legacy of these agreements continues to shape the political and social landscape of the Middle East to this day, and underscores the importance of understanding the historical roots of contemporary conflicts and disputes.clxvi
Although David Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister, expressed support for the promises made in the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, he did not put a stop to the Sykes-Picot Agreement due to the geopolitical context of the time, the complexity of the negotiations, and the involvement of multiple stakeholders: the Jews who had conflicting interests to that of the Arab Palestinians, and, the Allied Powers who would benefit from the Sykes-Picot Agreement. This conflict between the two agreements contributed to ongoing tensions and disputes over the status of Palestine.clxvii clxviii
Sykes was not well liked in certain circles of politics. Lord Hardinge (1st Baron Hardinge of Penshurst, b.1858-d.1944), the Viceroy of India, expressed his disapproval of Sykes and other amateur diplomatists, stating that they were dangerous individuals due to their lack of experience and their access to decision-makers in London.clxix He specifically criticized Sykes for his lack of “ballast” and wondered if the trend of amateurs occupying high military and naval positions would continue.
It should be noted that following the Sykes-Picot Agreement’s publication by the Bolshevik Russian government in November 1917, McMahon resigned from his position.clxx Additionally, he is prominently featured in Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T. E. Lawrence’s (Thomas Edward Lawrence, aka., Lawrence of Arabia, b.1888-d.1935) account of the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire during World War I.
The Bolshevik deviousness and betrayal regarding the ‘secret agreements’
On 22 November 1917, only shortly after the Bolsheviks came into power, Leon Trotsky proposed “a truce and a democratic peace without annexation and without indemnities, based on a principle of the independence of nations, and of their right to determine the nature of their own development themselves.”clxxi Shortly after that, he announced that there would be a “war against secret diplomacy.”clxxii It should also be known that on 23 November 1917, after the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks in Russia, under the direction of Trotsky disclosed copies of the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement and other clandestine treaties, publishing the full texts in Izvestia and Pravda.clxxiii clxxiv The Manchester Guardian subsequently printed the texts on 26 November 1917.clxxv This Bolshevik betrayal led to significant embarrassment for the Allies and growing distrust between them and the Arabs, resulting in McMahon resigning his post in protest.
In December 1917 in fact, the Bolsheviks intensified the flames of anti-British imperialism by urging the Muslims of the Middle East and Asia to undertake a “sacred mission” to “topple the imperialist thieves and oppressors.”clxxvi It is undeniable that the Bolsheviks’ unwavering support for colonial national self-determination posed a menace to the determination of the victorious World War Allied Powers, to reassert their colonial dominance. While the 1919 Versailles Peace treaties granted selective self-determination or none at all in the colonial realm, Lenin’s “Decree on Peace” extended this principle universally.clxxvii As for Churchill and his contemporaries, the Bolsheviks were the saboteurs of the imperial global order.
The Zionist movement, which sought the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, was actively lobbying for British support during this period, and their efforts contributed to the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which expressed British support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This Declaration, in turn, influenced the negotiations leading up to the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and contributed to the eventual partition of Palestine and the establishment of the State of Israel.clxxviii The earlier drafts and discussions of the Balfour Declaration (before 1917), helped to shape the negotiations leading up to the Sykes-Picot Agreement. While the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916) was signed before the final version of the Balfour Declaration was issued, the discussions surrounding the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine were ongoing during this period and influenced the negotiations leading up to the agreement.
A few key points to keep in mind about Britain’s Mandate of Palestine:
- The Treaty of Sèvres was a peace treaty signed in 1920 between the Allied Powers and the Ottoman Empire after World War I. Turkey never ratified this treaty.
- The Treaty of Sèvres, having not been ratified, did not grant Britain sovereignty over Palestine.
- There are several reasons to doubt the legality of the mandate system as described in Article 22 of the Covenant. First of all, the idea that a “advanced nation” would fulfil the duty of “Mandatory” suggested a screening procedure to choose the ruler of the region. A. J. Balfour, Britain’s minister of state for foreign affairs, clarified that while partitioning Turkey’s Arab territories with France, they had no intention of consulting the locals.clxxix
- A US-sponsored survey team concluded that Britain was not desired in the region.clxxx
- The term “mandate” in the Covenant was misleading, derived from French private law §1984 of the Civil Code of 1804. The population had no say in entrusting their affairs to an outside state, as demonstrated by the Crown’s actions towards Palestine in 1920: “The contract is formed only upon acceptance by the mandatory”—the Turks and Palestinian residents.clxxxi
- The Covenant stated that an outside state would govern a territory on behalf of the League of Nations. However, it wasn’t the authority of the League to entrust a population’s affairs to an outside power. The League based on the Covenant, could not assign a “mandatory” to govern a territory. Instead, the decision to establish a mandate arrangement was made by the states that controlled the territory, in this case, Britain and France. The League had no authority under the Covenant to confirm a “mandatory’s” status after the fact.
- The Covenant did not clearly mention whether the mandate system would be applied to Turkey’s Arab provinces. Instead, it referred to territories that were no longer under the sovereignty of their former governing states, like Palestine, which was still under Turkish sovereignty as of July 1920. In the case of Palestine, it was eventually placed under British mandatory control, despite still being under Turkish sovereignty at the time the Covenant was written.
- Historian Malcolm Yapp (1995, p.9) referred to the Mandate for Palestine as a binding legal contract between Britain and the League of Nations. This is not the case: Neither the League nor Britain indicated they considered the mandate document as a treaty: “The only type of binding contract in international law is a treaty.”clxxxii The document lacked the indicia of a treaty, reciting obligations for Britain but not for the League. The mandate document bore no signatures, and for League members, Covenant Article 18 required their treaties to be registered with the Secretariat for publication in the League of Nations Treaty Series—the Mandate was neither registered with the Secretariat, nor was it published in the Treaty Series.clxxxiii
- Britain did not view the Mandate for Palestine as a binding document, as Attorney-General Hartley Shawcross later clarified in the House of Commons that it was not an international statute or contract granting enforceable obligations.clxxxiv
- The Japanese delegate at the San Remo meeting, claimed Japan had never accepted the Balfour Declaration, while France denied infringing on the national political rights of Palestine’s existing population.clxxxv
- Curzon, a former War Cabinet member, was aware of the Balfour Declaration, which sought Jewish support for the war effort in exchange for giving the Jews Palestine for their homeland. However, after the war, French Foreign Ministry’s Philippe Berthelot dismissed the Balfour Declaration as it has “long been a dead letter”.clxxxvi
- In May 1922, Turkey had not ratified the Treaty of Sèvres, preventing the Mandate from being legally in force. Balfour in the League Council stated that while Britain was seeking Council approval for its mandate document, the mandate could not be in effect until Turkey ratified the Treaty of Sèvres.clxxxvii
i King George V. “To the People of Palestine.” 1923. The British Empire in the Middle East, 1914-1939. Ed. John Darwin. Ocford: Oxford University Press, 1981. pp.71-72.
ii The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. “Mandate | League of Nations.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 20 July 2016, www.britannica.com/topic/mandate-League-of-Nations. Accessed 2 June 2024.
iii McTague, John J. “The British Military Administration in Palestine 1917-1920.”Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 7, No. 3 (Spring, 1978), pp.57.
iv McTague, John J. “The British Military Administration in Palestine 1917-1920.”Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 7, No. 3 (Spring, 1978), pp.56.
v McTague, John J. “The British Military Administration in Palestine 1917-1920.”Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 7, No. 3 (Spring, 1978), pp.58.
vi McTague, John J. “The British Military Administration in Palestine 1917-1920.”Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 7, No. 3 (Spring, 1978), pp.58.
vii Quigley, John. “Britain’s failure to gain legal standing for the Balfour Declaration.” Cogent Arts&Humanities, 10:1. p.1. 2231683, DOI: 10.1080/23311983.2023.2231683. Accessed 2 June 2024.
viii Quigley, John. “Britain’s failure to gain legal standing for the Balfour Declaration.” Cogent Arts&Humanities, 10:1. p.3. 2231683, DOI: 10.1080/23311983.2023.2231683. Accessed 2 June 2024.
ix Quigley, John. “Britain’s failure to gain legal standing for the Balfour Declaration.” Cogent Arts&Humanities, 10:1. p.3. 2231683, DOI: 10.1080/23311983.2023.2231683. Accessed 2 June 2024.
x Gat, Moshe. “The British Administration in Palestine, 1917-1929: A Political Analysis.” International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 38, no. 1, 2006, pp. 67-94.
xi Quigley, John. “Britain’s failure to gain legal standing for the Balfour Declaration.” Cogent Arts&Humanities, 10:1, 2231683, DOI: 10.1080/23311983.2023.2231683. Accessed 2 June 2024.
xii Quigley, John. “Britain’s failure to gain legal standing for the Balfour Declaration.” Cogent Arts&Humanities, 10:1, 2231683, DOI: 10.1080/23311983.2023.2231683. Accessed 2 June 2024.
xiii “A land without a people for a people without a land” has been attributed to various Zionist writers and activists who sought to justify the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Some of the most notable figures associated with this false idea include: Lord Shaftesbury, a British politician and early supporter of the Zionist cause – he coined the phrase ”a land without a people for a people without a land” in an 1840 letter to British Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston; Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern political Zionism; Chaim Weizmann, a prominent Zionist leader and the first President of Israel, who also played a significant role in securing the Balfour Declaration in 1917; and, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, a Revisionist Zionist militant leader and found of the Irgun terrorist group.
xiv Al Jazeera English. “Palestine 1920: The Other Side of the Palestinian Story | al Jazeera World Documentary.” YouTube, 2 Feb. 2022, https://shorturl.at/Y7maS. Accessed 3 June 2024.
xv Beaumont, Ernest F. “Farming in Palestine: Agricultural Possibilities of the Holy Land.” SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, vol. 113, no. 8, August 21, 1915. p.162.
xviMcCarthy, Justin. The Population of Palestine: Population History and Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and the Mandate. Columbia University Press, 1990. p.5.
xvii Ottoman Census of 1890. Ottoman archives.
xviii Bar, Raphael R. “ISRAEL’S NEXT CENSUS OF POPULATION AS A SOURCE OF DATA ON JEWS.”Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies / 41-*31: (1969). https://www.jstor.org/stable/23524099. Accessed 4 June 2024.
xix McCarthy, Justin. The Population of Palestine: Population History and Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and the Mandate. Columbia University Press, 1990. p.5.
xx McCarthy, Justin. The Population of Palestine: Population History and Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and the Mandate. Columbia University Press, 1990. p.10.
xxi McCarthy, Justin. The Population of Palestine: Population History and Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and the Mandate. Columbia University Press, 1990. pp. 37-38.
xxii “The Tel Aviv Deportation.” Www.zionistarchives.org.il, www.zionistarchives.org.il/en/AttheCZA/AdditionalArticles/Pages/WorldWarI.aspx. Accessed 4 June 2024.
xxiii “The Tel Aviv Deportation.” Www.zionistarchives.org.il, www.zionistarchives.org.il/en/AttheCZA/AdditionalArticles/Pages/WorldWarI.aspx. Accessed 4 June 2024.
xxiv Al Jazeera English. “Palestine 1920: The Other Side of the Palestinian Story | al Jazeera World Documentary.” YouTube, 2 Feb. 2022, https://shorturl.at/Y7maS. Accessed 3 June 2024.
xxv “Scenery of Palestine.” The Hebrew Student, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Sep., 1882), p.21.
xxvi Hobsbawm, Eric. The Age of Empire: 1875-1914. Vintage Books, 1989.
xxvii Bairoch, Paul. “International Industrialization Levels from 1750 to 1980.” Journal of European Economic History, vol. 11, no. 2, 1982. pp.269-333.
xxviii Hrvatski Lloyd, 11 January 1913. “From January 1 until 20 December about 460 cases of insolvencies occurred in Austria-Hungary with massive liabilities of around 182 million crowns…In the critical months of October-December no less than 214 cases of insolvencies were filed with the toal loss of some 80 million crowns. 160 of these cases occurred in Hungary only, with a total loss of 73.5 million.”
xxix Pettifer, James, and Tom Buchanan. War in the Balkans Conflict and Diplomacy before World War I. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2015. pp.172-173.
xxx Pettifer, James, and Tom Buchanan. War in the Balkans Conflict and Diplomacy before World War I. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2015. p.173.
xxxi Wiest, Andrew A. The Illustrated History of World War I. Amber, 2014. Chapter-The Cost of World War I.
xxxii Wiest, Andrew A. The Illustrated History of World War I. Amber, 2014. Chapter-The Cost of World War I.
xxxiii Wiest, Andrew A. The Illustrated History of World War I. Amber, 2014. Chapter-The Cost of World War I.
xxxiv “The Treaty of Versailles and Its Consequences,” United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. The Treaty imposed 132 billion gold marks penalty on Germany in 1919, which at that time was equal to about $31.4 billion.
xxxv Wiest, Andrew A. The Illustrated History of World War I. Amber, 2014. Chapter-The Cost of World War I.
xxxvi Pipes, Richard. The Russian Revolution. Knopf, 1990.
xxxvii Pipes, Richard. The Russian Revolution. Knopf, 1990.
xxxviii Maltsev, Yuri N. “The Staggering Toll of the Russian Revolution | Yuri N. Maltsev.” Fee.org, 2 Nov. 2017, fee.org/articles/the-staggering-toll-of-the-russian-revolution/. Accessed 8 June 2024.
xxxix Britannica. “Russian Civil War – Foreign Intervention | Britannica.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2019, www.britannica.com/event/Russian-Civil-War/Foreign-intervention. Accessed 8 June 2024.
xl JTA. “What Were Russia’s Jews up to during the 1917 Revolution? This Moscow Museum Tells All.” HAARETZ, 7 Nov. 2017, www.haaretz.com/world-news/asia-and-australia/2017-11-07/ty-article/what-were-russias-jews-up-to-during-the-1917-revolution/0000017f-e6b5-dea7-adff-f7ff141f0000. Accessed 8 June 2024.
xli Markwick, Roger D. “Violence to Velvet: Revolutions – 1917 to 2017. Slavic Review, 76, no.3, 2017. p.602.
xlii Markwick, Roger D. “Violence to Velvet: Revolutions – 1917 to 2017. Slavic Review, 76, no.3, 2017. p.602.
xliii “Zinoviev, Grigori Yevseyevich | Encyclopedia.com.” Www.encyclopedia.com, www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/zinoviev-grigori-yevseyevich. Accessed 9 June 2024.
xliv Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror: A Reassessment. Oxford University Press, 2008. (Chapter 1: “The Kirov Affair,” Chapter 2: “The Zinoviev-Kamenev Trial”).
xlv “Zinoviev, Grigori Yevseyevich | Encyclopedia.com.” Www.encyclopedia.com, www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/zinoviev-grigori-yevseyevich. Accessed 9 June 2024.
xlvi “Felix Dzerzhinsky.” Wikipedia, 4 June 2024, en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Dzerzhinsky. Accessed 8 June 2024.
xlvii “Uritsky, Moisei.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 24 July 2020.
xlviii “Museum of Jewish Crimes.” Www.museumofthejewishcrimes.org, www.museumofthejewishcrimes.org/en/bolshevism/criminals/moisei-uritsky/. Accessed 8 June 2024.
xlix Melgounov, Sergey Petrovich. The Red Terror in Russia. Verlag von J. S. Neumann, 1924. pp.29-30.
l “Genrikh Yagoda.” Wikipedia, 27 May 2024, en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genrikh_Yagoda. Accessed 8 June 2024.
li JTA, CNAAN LIPHSHIZ |. “What Was the Jewish Role in 1917 Russian Revolution? This Moscow Museum Gives a Full Picture.” Cleveland Jewish News, 6 Nov. 2017, https://shorturl.at/7oUWC. Accessed 8 June 2024.
lii “Bolshevism, Balfour and Zionism: A Tale of Two Centenaries – International Viewpoint – Online Socialist Magazine.” Internationalviewpoint.org, internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article5367. Accessed 9 June 2024.
liii Hurwitz, Ariel. “Churchill and Palestine.” Journal of Palestine Studies, vol. 17, no. 3, 1988. p.4.
liv “Bolshevism, Balfour and Zionism: A Tale of Two Centenaries – International Viewpoint – Online Socialist Magazine.” Internationalviewpoint.org, internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article5367. Accessed 9 June 2024.
lv “Bolshevism, Balfour and Zionism: A Tale of Two Centenaries – International Viewpoint – Online Socialist Magazine.” Internationalviewpoint.org, internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article5367. Accessed 9 June 2024.
lvi “Bolshevism, Balfour and Zionism: A Tale of Two Centenaries – International Viewpoint – Online Socialist Magazine.” Internationalviewpoint.org, internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article5367. Accessed 9 June 2024.
lvii Gilbert, Martin. Winston Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship. Routledge, 2014.
lviii Cecil Rhodes founded a powerful secret society about 1891, called by various names over time, such as the Round Table Group, Milner’s Kindergarten, Rhodes crowd, as the Times crowd, All Souls Group, and Cliveden Set, but in short, the society could simply be called the Milner Group. The Group was formed in February 1891 by three powerful Englishmen: They were led by Cecil Rhodes, “fabulously wealthy empirebuilder and the most important person in South Africa. The second was William T. Stead, the most famous, and probably also the most sensational, journalist of the day. The third was Reginald Baliol Brett (Lord Esher), friend and confidant of Queen Victoria, and later to be the most influential adviser of King Edward VII and King George V….The three drew up a plan of organization for their secret society and a list of original members.” Lord Alfred Milner was one of the most powerful members of this society.” (Source: Quigley, Carroll. The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden. Books in Focus, Inc. 1981. Preface.)
lix Hobson, J. A. Galloping Jones: The Story of theRhosjanna Company. Macmillan, 1900.
lx James, W. G. The South African Mining Industry: A Historical Overview. University of Cape Town Press, 2000.
lxi Pakenham, Thomas. The Boer War. Random House, 1979. (Chapter 1: “The Jameson Raid”).
lxii Willan, Brian. SolPlaatje: South African Nationalist, 1876-1932. I.B. Tauris, 2018. (Chapter 3: “The Jameson Raid and the Siege of Mafeking”).
lxiii Ferguson, Niall. The House of Rothschild: Money’s Prophets, 1798-1848. Penguin Press, 1998.
lxiv James, W. G. The South African Mining Industry: A Historical Overview. University of Cape Town Press, 2000.
lxvFerguson, Niall. The House of Rothschild: Money’s Prophets, 1798-1848. Penguin Press, 1998. (“The Rothschilds and the Development of Palestine.”). pp.415-442.
lxvi Quigley, Carroll. The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden. Dauphin Publications Inc, 2013. p.4.
lxvii Quigley, Carroll. The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden. Dauphin Publications Inc, 2013. p.4.
lxviii Quigley, Carroll. The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden. Dauphin Publications Inc, 2013. p.311.
lxix The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. “Mandate | League of Nations.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 20 July 2016, www.britannica.com/topic/mandate-League-of-Nations. Accessed 2 June 2024.
lxx The Milner Group came together for a single major goal: “The ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of a British Empire.” Even though it was a secret society, there was in a New York Times article on April 9, 1902, which actually discussed a secretive group in England led by Cecil Rhodes. The headline and part of the article read: “Mr. Rhodes’ Ideal Of Anglo-Saxon Greatness: Statement of His Aims, Written for W. T. Stead in 1890…He believed a wealthy Secret Society should work to secure the World’s peaceand a British-American Federation.”
lxxi Schwartz, Joan M. Picturing Place: Photography and the Geographical Imagination, I. B. Tauris, 2003. p.226.
lxxii Pappe, Ilan. A history of modern Palestine: one land, two peoples. Cambridge University Press, 2004. pp.34-35.
lxxiii Shehadeh, Raja. Palestinian Walks: Forays into a Vanishing Landscape. Simon and Schuster. 2008. p.46.
lxxiv Watson, Charles M. “Egypt and Palestine.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 47:3, 1915. pp.141-142.
lxxv George, David Lloyd. The Truth about the Peace Treaties. Victor Gollancz, 1938, vol. II, pp.1116-1122, 1139.
lxxvi Stein, Leonard. Balfour Declaration. Simon And Schuster, 1961. pp. 197., 218-223.
lxxvii Wilson, it is believed thought that his advisors, including House, had deceived him at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, and he broke ties with many of his advisors, which included Colonel House. (Source: “Edward M. House.” Wikipedia, 17 May 2024, en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_M._House. Accessed 9 June 2024.) It was also known that Wilson’s second wife, Edith Wilson (b.1872-d.1961), had a very strong disliking of House, and that was part of the reason President Wilson broke ties with House. (“Edward M. House”.)
lxxviii According to Carrol Quigley, the Cecil Bloc was founded by Lord Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, who was a prominent British statesman and a member of the influential Cecil family. Quigley described the Cecil Bloc as a group of politicians and diplomats connected to the Cecil family, one of the most prominent and influential families in British politics. The group was influential in shaping British foreign policy and domestic politics during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
lxxix Baker, Ray Stannard. Woodrow Wilson: Life and Letters. Vol. 2, Doubleday, Page & Company, 1927.
lxxx Grey was a long-term British Foreign Secretary from 1905 to 1916, in which he played one of the most important roles in shaping British foreign policy, especially the years leading up to and during World War I. Grey’s diplomatic efforts were focused on maintaining the balance of power in Europe and preserving British interests, which aligned with the Milner Group objectives. One of his most notable achievements was the negotiation of the Triple Entente between Britain, France and Russia in 1907, which aimed to counter the growing influence of Germany and Austria-Hungary.
lxxxi Boghardt, Thomas. “A German Answer to the World’s War: The Lusitania Sinking, May 7, 1915.” German Studies Review, vol. 39, no. 3, 2016. pp. 579-602.
lxxxii Conspiracy Documentaries. “The WWI Conspiracy—Full Documentary.” YouTube, 4 Jan. 2020, www.youtube.com/watch?v=28un0dOUnuk. Accessed 22 June 2023.
lxxxiii Conspiracy Documentaries. “The WWI Conspiracy—Full Documentary.” YouTube, 4 Jan. 2020, www.youtube.com/watch?v=28un0dOUnuk. Accessed 22 June 2023.
lxxxiv Conspiracy Documentaries. “The WWI Conspiracy—Full Documentary.” YouTube, 4 Jan. 2020, www.youtube.com/watch?v=28un0dOUnuk. Accessed 22 June 2023.
lxxxv Conspiracy Documentaries. “The WWI Conspiracy—Full Documentary.” YouTube, 4 Jan. 2020, www.youtube.com/watch?v=28un0dOUnuk. Accessed 22 June 2023.
lxxxvi Conspiracy Documentaries. “The WWI Conspiracy—Full Documentary.” YouTube, 4 Jan. 2020, www.youtube.com/watch?v=28un0dOUnuk. Accessed 22 June 2023.
lxxxvii Connolly, Bess. “In Yale’s Collections, a Treasure Trove on the Sinking of the Lusitania.” YaleNews, 7 May 2015, news.yale.edu/2015/05/07/yales-collections-treasure-trove-sinking-lusitania. Accessed 22 June 2023.
lxxxviii Weizmann, Chaim. Trial and Error. Harper & Brothers, 1949. p.208.
lxxxix Weizmann, Chaim. Trial and Error. Harper & Brothers, 1949. p.212.
xc Weizmann, Chaim. Trial and Error. Harper & Brothers, 1949. pp.212-213.
xci Rothschild, Baron Edmond de. Memoirs. Harper & Brothers, 1902.
xcii Weizmann, Chaim. Trial and Error. Harper & Brothers, 1949. p.227.
xciii Puchalski, P. “Review: Jabotinsky’s Children: Polish Jews and the Rise of Right-Wing Zionism.”The Polish Review. 63 (3). University of Illinois Press. pp.88-91.
xciv Jabotinsky, Vladimir. The Story of the Jewish Legion. Bernard Ackerman, 1945.
xcv “Irgun.” Wikipedia, 29 May 2024, en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun. Accessed 5 June 2024.
xcvi Regan, Bernard. The Balfour Declaration. Verso, 2017. Section 2.
xcvii Regan, Bernard. The Balfour Declaration. Verso, 2017. Section 2.
xcviii CAB 24/1156.
xcix Abboushi, W. F. The Unmaking of Palestine. Amana Books, 1990. p.13.
c Wasserstein, Bernard. Herbert Samuel A Political Life. Clarendon Press, 1992. p.198.
ci Wasserstein, Bernard. Herbert Samuel A Political Life. Clarendon Press, 1992. p.206.
cii Wasserstein, Bernard. Herbert Samuel A Political Life. Clarendon Press, 1992. p.199.
ciii Wasserstein, Bernard. Herbert Samuel A Political Life. Clarendon Press, 1992. p.207.
civ Hurewitz, J. C. The Middle East and North Africa in World Politics: A Documentary Record. Yale University Press, 1979.
cv Regan, Bernard. The Balfour Declaration. Verso, 2017. Section 2.
cvi Rose, Norman. The Gentile Zionists: A Study in Anglo-Zionist Diplomacy, 1929-1939. Frank Cass, 1973.
cvii Rose, Norman. The Gentile Zionists: A Study in Anglo-Zionist Diplomacy, 1929-1939. Frank Cass, 1973.
cviii Ferrier, John. “The Milner Group and BritishImperial Policy.” Oxford University Press, 2020, pp.67-78. (Chapter: “Tensions between Asquith and Milner during the Second Boer War”).
cix Green, Elizabeth. “The Liberal Party and the Rise of Progressive Social Reforms.” Cambridge University Press, 2021, pp.91-102. (Chapter: “Asquith and Samuel: Shared Political Views and Policies”).
cx Martin, David. “The Impact of the Boer War on British Political Thought.” University Press, 2018, pp.45-56. (Chapter: “The Emergence of the Cecil Bloc and its Influence on British Foreign Policy”).
cxi Jones, Mark. “The Balfour Declaration and the British Policy on the Jewish Homeland in Palestine.” Routledge, 2022, pp.35-48. (Chapter: “Asquith’s Role in the Balfour Declaration and the Establishment of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine”).
cxii Green, Elizabeth. “The Liberal Party and the Rise of Progressive Social Reforms.” Cambridge University Press, 2021, pp.91-102. (Chapter: “Asquith and Samuel: Shared Political Views and Policies”).
cxiii Quigley, John. “Britain’s failure to gain legal standing for the Balfour Declaration.” Cogent Arts&Humanities, 10:1, 2231683, DOI: 10.1080/23311983.2023.2231683. Accessed 2 June 2024.
cxiv Quigley, John. “Britain’s failure to gain legal standing for the Balfour Declaration.” Cogent Arts&Humanities, 10:1, 2231683, DOI: 10.1080/23311983.2023.2231683. Accessed 2 June 2024.
cxv Macfie, A. L. The End of the Ottoman Empire, 1908-1923. Routledge, 2016. p.320.
cxvi The Entente Powers were the Allied Powers in World War I, and international military coalition, led by the French, which included the UK, Russia, the US, Italy, and Japan. The Triple Entente was a coalition made up of the UK, France, and Russia.
cxvii Macfie, A. L. The End of the Ottoman Empire, 1908-1923. Routledge, 2016. p.320.
cxviii Hurewitz, J. C. The Middle East and North Africa in World Politics: A Documentary Record. Yale University Press, 1979.
cxix Mango, Andrew. Atatürk: The Biography of the Founder of Modern Turkey. Overlook Press, 2002.
cxx “Mandate for Palestine.” Wikipedia, 11 May 2024, en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine. Accessed 2 June 2024.
cxxi “Cecil Rhodes…left his fortune to form a secret society, which was to devote itself to the preservation and expansion of the British Empire….And what does not seem to be known to anyone is that this secret society was created by Rhodes and his principal trustee, Lord Milner…it does…exist and holds secret meetings, over which the senior member present presides. At various times since 1891, these meetings have been presided over by Rhodes, Lord Milner, Lord Selborne, Sir Patrick Duncan, Field Marshal Jan Smuts, Lord Lothian, and Lord Brand….This society has been known at various times as Milner’s Kindergarten, as the Round Table Group, as the Rhodes crowd, as The Times crowd, as the All Souls group, and as the Cliveden set [,and the Milner Group].” (Quigley. p.ix) Carroll Quigley said that he agreed “with the goals and aims of the Milner Group.” He said, “I feel that the British way of life and the British Commonwealth of Nations are among the great achievements of all history.” He added, “I feel that the destruction of either of them would be a terrible disaster to mankind…I suppose, in the long view, my attitude would not be far different from that of the members of the Milner Group.” (Quigley. p. xi) The secret society had four periods: From 1873 to 1891, was the preparatory period and focuses around the key figures W. T. Stead, the newspaper magnate (The Review of Reviews, and an editor at the Pall Mall Gazette), and Alfred Milner. The second period, from 1891 to 1901, was the Rhodes period, although Stead was still a key figure during this period. The third period, from 1901 to 1922 “could be called the New College period and centers about Alfred Milner.” (Quigley. p.6) “the fourth period, from about 1922 to the present, could be called the All Souls period and centers about Lord Lothian, Lord Brand, and Lionel Curtis.” (Quigley. p. 6) Alfred Milner, 1st Viscount Milner (23 March 1854 – 13 May 1925) was the most powerful member of the Milner Group and was the key to collaborations with other powerful societies. “Milner was able to dominate this Group because he became the focus or rather the intersection point of three influences. These we shall call ‘the Toynbee group,’ ‘the Cecil Bloc,’ and the ‘Rhodes secret society.’ The Toynbee group was a group of political intellectuals formed at Balliol about 1873 and dominated by Arnold Toynbee and Milner himself. It was really the group of Milner’s personal friends. The Cecil Bloc was a nexus of political and social power formed by Lord Salisbury and extending from the great sphere of politics into the fields of education and publicity….The ‘Rhodes secret society’ was a group of imperial federalists, formed in the period after 1889 and using the economic resources of South Africa to extend and perpetuate the British Empire.” (Quigley. p.6) The societies had their men in all aspects of British life, commerce & banking, society, mass media, and politics – they had influences everywhere. “Among the ideas of Toynbee which influenced the Milner Group we should mention three: (a) a conviction that the history of the British Empire represents the unfolding of a great moral idea – the idea of freedom…; (b) a conviction that the first call on the attention of any man should be a sense of duty and obligation to serve the state; and (c) a feeling of the necessity to do social service work (especially educational work) among the working classes of English society.” (Quigley. p.10)
cxxii The Milner Group also had the ear of the Crown: Between 1919 and 1939, the Milner Group’s political influence increased rather consistently. It is quantifiable by the quantity of ministerial portfolios that Group members possess. During the first phase, which spanned 1919-1924, they typically occupied around 25% of the Cabinet positions. For instance, of the nineteen members of the Cabinet that resigned in January 1924, four belonged to the Milner Group and just one to the inner circle. Leopold Amery, Edward Wood, Samuel Hoare, and Lord Robert Cecil were these four. (Quigley. p.227) Members did not always see eye-to-eye, and the influences of Milner were wide-spreading. During this time, the Milner Group used its influence on two extremely important political actions. In the first instance, it seems that the Milner Group was instrumental in getting the King to choose Baldwin as prime minister in 1923 instead than Curzon through backroom manoeuvring. In Curzon: The Last Phase(1934), Harold Nicolson claims that Walter Long, Balfour, and Amery convinced the King to stand up to Curzon, and that “the cumulative effect of these arguments was to reverse the prior judgement.” (Quigley. p.227) Of the three names proposed by Nicolson, two of them were members of the Cecil Bloc, and the third was Milner’s closest associate. If Amery did step in, it was certainly as Milner’s representative. If Milner had opposed Curzon this much through Amery, he could have exerted further pressure on His Majesty through Lord Esher [an original member of the Rhodes’ Secret Society], Viscount Hampden, Brand’s brother and a lord-in-waiting for the King, or even more directly through Milner’s son-in-law, Captain Alexander Hardinge, the King’s private secretary. (Quigley. p. 228)
cxxiii Lord Milner opposed Curzon for the position of Prime Minister of Britain in 1923 primarily due to ideological differences and personal animosity. Milner, a strong advocate of imperial expansion, found Curzon’s approach to foreign policy too conciliatory and lacking in assertiveness. Additionally, the two had a long-standing rivalry dating back to their time in the British Colonial administration, with Milner often criticizing Curzon’s handling of affairs in India. This opposition culminated in Milner actively supporting other candidates for the premiership, ultimately contributing to Curzon’s failure to attain the position. (Source: Gollin, A. M. (1960). “Lord Milner’s Opposition to Lord Curzon, 1923-1924.” The Journal of Modern History, 32(4), pp. 336-348.)
cxxiv The term “Cecil Bloc” refers to a group of British politicians who were closely associated with Lord Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, and associated also with Lord Milner and the Milner Group, and were prominent during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The Bloc was primarily composed of Conservative Party members who shared Lord Salisbury’s conservative and imperialist views. The group was influential in shaping British foreign and domestic policy during this period, with many of its members holding key positions in government. Some notable figures associate with the Cecil Bloc include Arthur Balfour, George Curzon, and Lord Milner. The term “Cecil
Bloc” is often used to describe the faction’s collective influence on British politics during this era. (Sources: Gash, Norman. The Age of Peel. Longman, 1973. And, Shannon, Richard. The Age of Salisbury, 1881-1902: Unionism and Empire. Longman, 1996.
cxxv Quigley, Carroll. The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden. Books in Focus, Inc. 1981. pp. 98-99.
cxxvi “Lloyd George brought in two sets of administrative innovations. The first was the War Cabinet, a five-man executive, most of its members without departmental responsibilities, which met in almost continuous session. Besides the premier it included Alfred Lord Milner, George Nathaniel Curzon, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Andrew Bonar Law, as well as the Labour leader, Arthur Henderson. The Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, was a frequent attender. Its composition was mainly Unionist in sympathy, although the coalition had parliamentary support from about half the Liberals (the other half remaining loyal to Asquith), and most of Labour, as well as of the Unionists. It would be assisted by a new Cabinet secretariat under Hankey, who was not only an organizer and minute-taker but also had Lloyd George’s ear….Lloyd George’s second innovation was creating new ministries, modelled on the 1915 Ministry of Munitions.” (Source: Stevenson, D. 1917: War, Peace, and Revolution. Oxford University Press, 2017.
cxxvii Quigley, Carroll. The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden. Books in Focus, Inc. 1981. p. 143.
cxxviii The Treaty of Sèvres, signed on 10 August 1920, was never ratified by Turkey due to the strong opposition of Turkish nationalist forces led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. The treaty, which aimed to partition the Ottoman Empire among the Allied Powers, was considered overly harsh and humiliating by the Turkish people. The Turkish War of Independence (1919-1922) ultimately led to the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, which replaced the Treaty of Sèvres and established the modern borders of the Republic of Turkey. (Source: Shaw, Stanford J., and Ezel Kural Shaw. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey. Cambridge University Press, 1977.)
cxxix The Treaty of Lausanne did not explicitly transfer sovereignty to Great Britain, but it did legitimize British involvement in the governance of Palestine until the end of the mandate in 1948. (Source: Smith, Charles D. Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2010.)
cxxx Hurewitz, J. C. The Middle East and North Africa in World Politics: A Documentary Record. Yale University Press, 1979.
cxxxi Mango, Andrew. Atatürk: The Biography of the Founder of Modern Turkey. Overlook Press, 2002.
cxxxii Quigley, John. “Britain’s failure to gain legal standing for the Balfour Declaration.” Cogent Arts&Humanities, 10:1, 2231683, DOI: 10.1080/23311983.2023.2231683. Accessed 2 June 2024.
cxxxiii Hurewitz, J. C. The Middle East and North Africa in World Politics: A Documentary Record. Yale University Press, 1979.
cxxxiv Hurewitz, J. C. The Middle East and North Africa in World Politics: A Documentary Record. Yale University Press, 1979.
cxxxv Rose, Norman. The Gentile Zionists: A Study in Anglo-Zionist Diplomacy, 1929-1939. Frank Cass, 1973.
cxxxvi Hurewitz, J. C. The Middle East and North Africa in World Politics: A Documentary Record. Yale University Press, 1979.
cxxxvii Smith, Charles D. Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2010.
cxxxviii Quigley, John. “Britain’s failure to gain legal standing for the Balfour Declaration.” Cogent Arts&Humanities, 10:1, 2231683, DOI: 10.1080/23311983.2023.2231683. Accessed 2 June 2024.
cxxxix Quigley, John. “Britain’s failure to gain legal standing for the Balfour Declaration.” Cogent Arts&Humanities, 10:1, 2231683, DOI: 10.1080/23311983.2023.2231683. Accessed 2 June 2024.
cxl Kattan, Victor. From Coexistence to Conquest. Pluto Press, 2009. p. 101.
cxli Fromkin, David. A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. Henry Holt and Company, 2009. p.95. (“Kitchener’s Lieutenants”).
cxlii Sir Ronald Storrs was was the Oriental Secretary, also known as the staff specialist in Eastern affairs, to Lord Kitchener in Cairo.
cxliii “Arab Revolt (1916) | Encyclopedia.com.” www.encyclopedia.com, www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/arab-revolt-1916. Accessed 13 June 2024.
cxliv Fromkin, David. A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. Henry Holt and Company, 2009. p.174. (“The Middle Eastern Quagmire”).
cxlv Fromkin, David. A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. Henry Holt and Company, 2009. p.174. (“The Middle Eastern Quagmire”).
cxlvi Fromkin, David. A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. Henry Holt and Company, 2009. p.94. (“Kitchener’s Lieutenants”).
cxlvii Fromkin, David. A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. Henry Holt and Company, 2009. pp.92-93. (“Kitchener’s Lieutenants”).
cxlviii Fromkin, David. A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. Henry Holt and Company, 2009. p.93. (“Kitchener’s Lieutenants”).
cxlix Fromkin, David. A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. Henry Holt and Company, 2009. p.92. (“Kitchener’s Lieutenants”).
clLawrence, T. E. Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph. Oxford University Press, 1926.
cliLawrence. T. E. Seven Pillars of Wisdom. Arcadia Press, 2017. (Chapter VII).
clii Stevenson, D. 1917: War, Peace, and Revolution. Oxford University Press, 2017. Section 12.
cliii Stevenson, D. 1917: War, Peace, and Revolution. Oxford University Press, 2017. Section 12.
cliv Stevenson, D. 1917: War, Peace, and Revolution. Oxford University Press, 2017. Section 12.
clv Stevenson, D. 1917: War, Peace, and Revolution. Oxford University Press, 2017. Section 12.
clvi Stevenson, D. 1917: War, Peace, and Revolution. Oxford University Press, 2017. Section 12.
clvii Stevenson, D. 1917: War, Peace, and Revolution. Oxford University Press, 2017. Section 12.
clviii Antonius, George. The Arab Awakening: The Story of the Arab National Movement. Capricorn Books, 1965.
clix Fromkin, David. A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. Avon Books, 1990.
clx Stevenson, D. 1917: War, Peace, and Revolution. Oxford University Press, 2017. Section 12.
clxi Stevenson, D. 1917: War, Peace, and Revolution. Oxford University Press, 2017. Section 12.
clxii Stevenson, D. 1917: War, Peace, and Revolution. Oxford University Press, 2017. Section 12.
clxiii Schneer, Jonathan. The Balfour Declaration: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2010. p.168.
clxiv “Bolshevism, Balfour and Zionism: A Tale of Two Centenaries – International Viewpoint – Online Socialist Magazine.” Internationalviewpoint.org, internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article5367. Accessed 9 June 2024.
clxv Fromkin, David. A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. Avon Books, 1990.
clxvi Fromkin, David. A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. Avon Books, 1990.
clxvii Fromkin, David. A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. Avon Books, 1990.
clxviii Laqueur, Walter. A History of Zionism. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972.
clxix Clark, Peter. “Redrawing the Middle East: Sir Mark Sykes, Imperialism and the Sykes-Picot Agreement.” Asian Affairs, 50:3, 2019. pp.419-420.
clxx CAB 24/271, Cabinet Paper 203(37).
clxxi “Bolshevism, Balfour and Zionism: A Tale of Two Centenaries – International Viewpoint – Online Socialist Magazine.” Internationalviewpoint.org, internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article5367. Accessed 9 June 2024.
clxxii “Bolshevism, Balfour and Zionism: A Tale of Two Centenaries – International Viewpoint – Online Socialist Magazine.” Internationalviewpoint.org, internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article5367. Accessed 9 June 2024.
clxxiii “Soviet Release of Secret Treaties.” History Matters, historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5445/.
clxxiv “Henry McMahon.” Wikipedia, 20 June 2023, en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_McMahon. Accessed 8 June 2024.
clxxv “Henry McMahon.” Wikipedia, 20 June 2023, en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_McMahon. Accessed 8 June 2024.
clxxvi “Bolshevism, Balfour and Zionism: A Tale of Two Centenaries – International Viewpoint – Online Socialist Magazine.” Internationalviewpoint.org, internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article5367. Accessed 9 June 2024.
clxxvii Markwick, Roger D. “Violence to Velvet: Revolutions – 1917 to 2017. Slavic Review, 76, no.3, 2017. p.605.
clxxviii Laqueur, Walter. A History of Zionism. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972.
clxxix Balfour Memorandum, 1919, p.345.
clxxx King-Crane Commission, 1919, p.772.
clxxxi Quigley, John. “Britain’s failure to gain legal standing for the Balfour Declaration.” Cogent Arts & Humanities, 10:1, 2231683, DOI: 10.1080/23311983.2023.2231683. p.3. Accessed 12 June 2024.
clxxxii Quigley, John. “Britain’s failure to gain legal standing for the Balfour Declaration.” Cogent Arts & Humanities, 10:1, 2231683, DOI: 10.1080/23311983.2023.2231683. p.4. Accessed 12 June 2024.
clxxxiii Quigley, John. “Britain’s failure to gain legal standing for the Balfour Declaration.” Cogent Arts & Humanities, 10:1, 2231683, DOI: 10.1080/23311983.2023.2231683. p.4. Accessed 12 June 2024.
clxxxiv Quigley, John. “Britain’s failure to gain legal standing for the Balfour Declaration.” Cogent Arts & Humanities, 10:1, 2231683, DOI: 10.1080/23311983.2023.2231683. pp.4-5. Accessed 12 June 2024.
clxxxv San Remo meeting English notes, 1920. p.167.
clxxxvi San Remo meeting English notes, 1920. p.163.
clxxxvii League Council. “Meeting Minutes.” League of Nations Official Journal, vol. 3, no. 6, Part II, Council, 18th session, 1st meeting, 11 May 1922, p. 518.
NAWFAL ABSTRACT ART PHOTOS 