Britain’s multiple contradictory pledges to the French, Zionists, and Arabs.

This discussion addresses the following outcomes:

• Discuss and evaluate the multiple and contradictory pledges made by the British to its various allies and supporters in the Middle East (CO3, CO5, CO6)

When the Ottoman Empire sided with Germany against their common enemy Russia, the Ottomans also became an enemy of Britain and France. Both imperial powers had long held designs on the failing Ottoman Empire and were happy to see it break up, as smaller, divided states would be easier to manage. Within the Ottoman Empire, multiple ethnic groups organized secret societies in an attempt to break free from Turkish rule. Britain tapped into this discontent, fueling the flames of revolt with promises of aid, training, weapons, and their assistance in creating a post-war Arab state: the Kingdom of Syria. Without these assurances, it is unlikely that Arab rebels would have committed to a war for independence at that time. 

However, France also had designs on the region, and the British swore that after the war the Arab states would be divided between them as colonies, directly contradicting the pledges they made to the Arabs.

Lastly, the British made a third pledge to the leaders of the international Zionist movement. Zionism was a political movement that emerged in the 1880s seeking to recreate a Jewish state in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel. The British pledged to Zionist leaders that they would support the creation of a Jewish sovereign nation in Palestine. However, Palestine was also part of the territory pledged to the incipient Kingdom of Syria. Although the constitution of the new kingdom promised broad legal protections for religious and ethnic minorities living within its borders, the Arabs were not keen to have a large population of European Jews immigrating into their territory for fear of creating civil strife and a potential civil war over Palestine.

These complex promises meant that when the war ended, all three groups—the French, Zionists, and Arabs—looked to Britain to keep their word. As we will see, one group was very disappointed and rightly accused the British of betrayal after the postwar settlement.

In preparation for this discussion, make sure you read the following: the Module Notes, Chapter 4 (Links to an external site.), pages 140-149 in Chapter 5 (Links to an external site.), and pages 294-305 in Chapter 11 (Links to an external site.) in the Neiberg textbook, the primary documents Letter from Sir Henry McMahon to Sharif Hussein (Links to an external site.), The Sykes-Picot Agreement (Links to an external site.), and The Balfour Declaration (Links to an external site.), and listen to The Middle East and the West: World War I and Beyond (Links to an external site.).

Then, in an initial post of at least 250 words discuss the following:

• Evaluate the ethical and practical problems that arose from Britain’s multiple contradictory pledges to the French, Zionists, and Arabs.  Was there a way to get everyone what they wanted? 
• In this situation, which of the agreements would you have honored and why? What are the potential problems for your choice?
• Discuss the ethics of making pledges you do not intend to honor.  Are they worth it in order to win, or can the way in which you win affect the postwar world too?