#Jordan WWI Allies Britain and France | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

cyberneticpeoplespolis · 5 years ago

Text

A Primer on Northern Syria

Originally posted on the Organise Aotearoa Blog on 14/10/19

Northern Syria, also known as the NES (Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria) or by its Kurdish name, Rojava (the west), is often in the news for all the wrong reasons. This week, Turkish troops and their local Islamist allies crossed the border in the name of protecting Turkey from Kurdish-led militants it denounces as terrorists. The US, ostensibly an ally of the Kurds, has granted Turkey a free hand to bomb the region at its leisure, and has assisted Turkey by closing off the border crossings with Iraq, and along the Euphrates. To understand the conflict holistically means we need to go far back into history, before capitalism, and before the ethno-nationalism it fostered could tear the region apart.

Pre-Capitalist History

Prior to the spread of Islam in the 600s, the region known as The Levant, or Lebanon, Palestine and Syria, was home to a number of competing religions. Greek Orthodox Christianity, Syriac Christianity, and Zoroastrianism (an ancient precursor to modern monotheistic religions) were all practiced across the region, along with smaller religions that can be traced back to the earliest human cities in Mesopotamia, such as the Yazidi religion. Most of these religions are still practiced by minorities in the region today, with the exception of Zoroastrianism which has been reduced to tiny enclaves much farther east.

In pre-capitalist times, humans have understood cultural differences quite differently to how we do today. It’s hard for many to understand now, but race and ethnicity were concepts that would only come into play later. Religious and cultural practice was a much more important and tangible aspect of identity. When Islam spread across the region, many Levantine peoples welcomed it because of its similarities to local forms of Christian iconoclasm (meaning religious opposition to figurative representation of the divine).

Map showing the spread of Islam under successive Caliphs.

Islam brought with it a renaissance period where Levantine peoples led the world in the arts and sciences. The conservative institutions of the Byzantine orthodox church, and Sassanid Zoroastrian fundamentalists were swept aside by a new wave of Islamic scholars and thinkers, whose rationalist approach now seems extremely modern compared to other cultures of the time. Islam was led by Caliphs, ideally philosopher-king descendents of the prophet, far removed from the more sinister modern use of the term.

By the late Middle Ages, the Caliphs were no longer direct descendents of the prophet, but rather powerful sultans who took on the title themselves. By the 1400s the Caliphs were a Turkish dynasty from central Anatolia, the Osmanolgu family, better known as the Ottomans. The Ottomans ushered in a second Islamic renaissance, and despite their brutal methods of warfare, were relatively fair administrators who allowed a great deal of autonomy for minorities. Christians, Jews and Muslims cohabited peacefully, to the point that whole cities were granted to minorities, such as the Jewish-led city of Salonica (Thessaloniki) in Greece.

Map showing the spread of the Ottoman caliphate.

However, this second period of peace wouldn’t always last. As the centuries passed, the Ottomans found themselves in direct competition with European powers, whose absolute monarchies and mercantilism proved to be a much stronger economic and political base. By the time of the Industrial revolution, the Ottomans were referred to as “The Sick Man of Europe.” A vast, but ultimately weak power, that could be easily divided up between the emerging European colonial powers.

The Ottomans adapted to this by adopting European-style cultural, political and economic practices. They experimented with colonial practices, beginning Turkish colonies across their provinces, and attempted to impose aspects of modern state power, like standing armies and police forces. These reforms were not enough, and the Ottomans found themselves being eaten alive by European powers. Napoleonic France took Egypt, Russia took Crimea, and Britain took Cyprus.

Capitalism reaches the Levant

This crisis led to growing anxiety amongst the emerging Turkish bourgeoisie. They feared that the Empire wouldn’t modernise fast enough to avoid disintegration, and that the Sultan needed to abolish the system of regional autonomy (the millet system), and replace it with a modern capitalist state under an absolute monarchy. Ottoman nationalism emerged as a means to consolidate the many regional identities, and a policy of “Turkification” was pursued throughout the empire. Capitalism requires a relatively homogenous populace in order to effectively create a working class to fuel industrial modernisation, and so the myriad ethnic identities of the empire presented a problem.

Several events in the first decades of the 20th century created the conditions for the form of Turkish ethnonationalism we see today. In 1908, Turkish army officers and the Ottoman bourgeoisie rose up in the Young Turk Revolution, demanding a liberal parliamentary system with representation for ethnic minorities. A counter-revolution in 1909 by reactionaries and proto-Islamists reversed some of the changes, and brought violence against ethnic minorities who were seen to be in support of the earlier revolution. The empire was now divided between liberal-bourgeois Ottomanism and reactionary Turkish ethnonationalism. A narrative of betrayal stemming from the loss of the Balkans in 1912 and an inability to mobilise the Anatolian Armenian population against Russia in 1914 added fuel to the flames. From 1915 to 1923, up to 1.5 million Armenians and other Christian minorities were systematically killed, the first modern genocide on an industrial scale, and a crime denied by Turkey to this day. Lesser known are the Greek and Assyrian massacres, which themselves account for up to a million additional deaths. Muslim populations historically allied to the Ottomans, such as Kurds and Circassians, participated in the killings.

Map showing sites of documented Armenian and Assyrian genocide.

Ultimately neither clamping down on dissenting minorities, mobilising Turkish enthnonationalist sentiment, nor an alliance with the Central Powers of Germany and Austria-Hungary could save the empire. During the First World War, the “Sick Man of Europe” was finally carved up between the European colonial powers, after they successfully took advantage of a large scale Arab revolt by making false promises of statehood. The League of Nations, established in the aftermath of the war and the precursor to the modern UN, tasked various ‘responsible’ European powers with administering the conquered territories in the Levant and Mesopotamia.

The agreements signed during this period, in which the Arab revolt was thoroughly betrayed, would have profound implications, and are the source of many modern borders. Israel can trace its legacy back to this period; in the Balfour Declaration of 1917, Zionist immigration to Mandate Palestine was encouraged as a form of demographic engineering. The Sykes-Picot agreement led to the creation of Palestine, Transjordan (Jordan), Kuwait, and Iraq under British influence, and Lebanon and Syria under the French. Saudi Arabia, then known as the Emirate of Nejd, also participated in the partitioning by annexing the Ottoman Persian Gulf territories, and the lands captured in the Arab revolt by the rival Hashemites. In all of these territories, the Europeans encouraged regional nationalism and solidified the new borders, cutting several communities and tribes off from one another and effectively fracturing the entire region.

Map showing European zones of influence following WWI. Europeans also effectively controlled Egypt, Cyprus, and zones within Turkey, which is not shown.

The Mandate territories revolted against the Europeans several times. Turkey, occupied by the Europeans since 1918, successfully overthrew them in 1923, led by Mustafa Kemal Pasha (Atatürk), who attempted to combine the liberal-secular parliamentarism and Turkish ethnonationalism of the 1908 and 1909 revolutions into an ideology known as Kemalism. Palestine also attempted to overthrow the British in 1936 but was brutally crushed. Iraq attempted to do the same in 1941, even allying itself with Nazi Germany to do so, but was similarly put down.

After the end of the Second World War, the European powers were no longer able to exert direct control over the entire Levant, instead holding on to key areas like the Suez canal. The British also granted large parts of Mandate Palestine to the emerging Zionist movement as they believed an Israeli state would be more amenable to the West than the unruly Arabs. Pan-Arabism emerged in this period as a rejection of the atomisation, arbitrary borders, and demographic engineering that marked the European mandate territories. Wars against Israel and horror at its genocide of Palestinians would be a rallying cry for this movement, which resulted in a degree of consolidation in Levantine identity.

The Postcolonial Levant

Pan-Arabism would take on a social-democratic character as the various postcolonial states founded welfare systems, and allied themselves with the Soviet Union. However, the ideology was still strongly anti-communist on the domestic front. Indeed, anticommunism was the chief motive behind the zenith of Pan-Arabism: the attempt at a united Arab state in 1958. The United Arab Republic (UAR) was a union between Egypt and Syria, both led by social-democratic nationalist governments who feared that the alternative would be a Syrian communist revolution. Iraqi military officers soon overthrew their pro-Western monarchy and very nearly joined the UAR themselves.

Ultimately however, this sentiment would be short lived. As the threat of communism died down and the realities of post-colonial statehood set in, Pan-Arabism was replaced with a number of competing ideas. Marxists remained a strong faction, but would never again find themselves in a position to take power. Ba’athism, a legacy of the Pan-Arabist period, would later become the dominant ideology in Syria and Iraq, where its contradictory character would lead to both social-democratic reforms and the uneven repression of minorities and communists. Islamism, encouraged as a state ideology in Saudi Arabia, also became a powerful force, buoyed by its successes and US-funding in Afghanistan. Ethnonationalist separatism also emerged out of the decline of Pan-Arabism, which sharpened the contradictions facing minorities like the Kurds, Assyrians, and Armenians.

Modern Northern Syria

Northern Syria bears the marks of all of these competing ideologies from the postcolonial/Cold-War period, as well as the ethnic and religious divides from the preceding centuries. There are Marxist factions, generally split along ethnic lines between Kurds and Arab/Alawites; as well as Ba’athists; Islamists, most infamously ISIS; and ethno-nationalists of all stripes. Amongst them are the somewhat apolitical ethnic and religious minorities, like the Yazidis, who are motivated primarily by survival in the face of repeated threats of genocide. Newer factions include Kurdish Apoists, and the mercenary factions funded by various global powers.

Northern Syria is also the site of three major global battlegrounds. There is an expansionist and ethnonationalist Turkey seeking to quash Kurdish aspirations to nationhood; a regional battle between Saudi wahhabism (extreme Sunni fundamentalism) and Iranian principlism (revolutionary Shia Islam); and the US and EU making the most of the situation to access oil and guarantee long-term superiority over Russia. There are also smaller conflicts exploited by all parties, as well as the opportunism and warlordism that a collapse of civilian government and constant arms shipments engenders.

Map of the Syrian war as of October 13, 2019. Government (Ba’athist) areas are shown in red. Green areas are a mix of Western-backed militias (in Al-Tanf), Free Syrian Army remnants (in Idlib) and Turkish-backed militias (in the far north). Yellow is areas controlled by the SDF and Kurds. Black shows hardline Islamist remnants. Blue shows Israeli occupation.

Discussion of Northern Syria inevitably centers around the PYD (the Kurdish Democratic Union Party), arguably the most mythologised and interesting of all the Syrian factions. Depending on who you talk to on the internet, the PYD can be anything from anarchist insurrectionists, to Marxist revolutionaries, to eco-feminist warriors, to Kurdish terrorists, to Western imperialist Contras paid to undermine peace in the region. It’s our goal to demystify the group somewhat.

The PYD is the Syrian sister party of the PKK, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, led by the imprisoned Abdullah Öcalan. Initially a Marxist group formed out of Kurdish students in Turkey, the PKK was forced underground by Turkish repression, becoming a guerilla army armed and supported by the Ba’athist governments of Iraq and Syria, who tolerated the PKK’s Marxist rhetoric so long as it was aimed at Turkey. The PKK of today is quite different, having dropped Marxism-Leninism and alliances with Ba’athism from its doctrine. The PKK and PYD, along with the other member parties of the KCK (Kurdistan Communities Union) umbrella organisation, have shifted towards enacting a democratic confederalist or “Apoist” (after a diminutive form of Öcalan’s name) programme in the predominantly Kurdish areas of northern Iraq and Syria, southeastern Turkey, and northwestern Iran. This gained a lot of attention in the west due to its communalist, feminist, and anti-capitalist aspirations. However, the system of autonomous cantons remains an admirable small-scale experiment, and tends to be overstated by the western left. The territory has also had difficulty living up to its ecological aspirations due to reliance on diesel generators, unregulated oil refineries, and wartime economic constraints.

The PYD and its armed wing, the YPG/YPJ, also gained infamy for its conditional alliance with the US and EU, whereby the Kurds and their allies gained air support, weapons and other assistance in return for allowing 10 US military bases on their territory. The US also assisted with arming the SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces), a broad military coalition that included the YPG/YPJ along with those whom it had previously opposed, such as Kurdish nationalists, religious Sunni Kurds, mercenaries, and conscripted soldiers of dubious willingness. As the result of US negotiations this new armed force came to control all lands north of the Euphrates, well beyond the initial territorial aspirations of the PYD, which had initially only included the majority-Kurdish regions in a strip along the northern border. This put the Kurdish-led military force in control of most of Syria’s oil fields, and a large population of Arabs and minorities critical of the SDF, the only Syrian faction to use forced conscription. Allegations of ethnic chauvinism, and the discovery of “blacksites” (interrogation and torture facilities) within SDF areas added to the criticism.

Map showing initial Kurdish territorial aspirations. De-facto Kurdish territories are now much larger.

Turkey is the main adversary of the Kurdish-led force. Since 2014 Turkey has been ruled by the fascist-adjacent and increasingly autocratic Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, whose Justice and Development Party is a direct descendent of the reactionary strain of Islamo-Turkish nationalism introduced in the counter-revolution of 1909. Turkish chauvinism towards Kurds stretches back decades, officially denying their existence and calling them “Mountain Turks” despite their historical loyalty in the Ottoman period.

Turkey is also in NATO, the US imperialist military alliance, however it often violates agreements with the US and makes overtures towards Russia, attempting to play both sides off against one another for military aid. Turkey has used this shaky alliance to lobby the US for more territorial control in Syria. The Afrin region was taken from Kurdish forces in 2016, and this week, vast swathes of northern Syria were declared up for grabs by Turkish expansionism.

Northern Syria invaded

Whatever our overall analysis of Syrian factions may be (and it is so easy to make mistakes in such a heavily propagandised environment) the question of the hour is Turkish expansionism, as this is the specific form that ethnonationalism has taken in the region. Turkey plans to demographically engineer a huge swathe of northern Syria by resettling 2 million refugees in NES, a move tantamount to a threat of genocide against displaced minorities. The US, for its part, has done far more harm than good as an ally, and is now patrolling the Euphrates, effectively enforcing the isolation of NES.

It would be a great mistake for people in the west to conclude that the people of Northern Syria somehow deserve a Turkish invasion as just desserts for their alliance with the US, especially since many Kurds and other minorities joined the fight in a struggle for survival against ISIS and Turkish-funded militias, only later finding their movement subverted by US geopolitical goals. Moreover, Turkey is the only faction in the Syrian conflict with a history of genocidal policies towards all of the minorities of Northern Syria at one point or another, and thus a defense of NES is a defense of all ethnic minorities in the region regardless of their political orientation.

All Syrian peoples deserve self-determination without the intervention of foreign powers. It may be easy to dismiss such a conflict as too complicated, the product of ‘tribal’ conflicts among a backwards people, but this ignores the entire history of imperialism in the Middle East. Thousands of ethnicities lived in relative peace prior to the imposition of nationalist ideology, demographic engineering and arbitrary borders, all products of capitalism. The Syrian people deserve an end to the constant war imposed upon them.

#syria #syria civil war #northern syria #rojava

8 notes · View notes

englishchinesetranslations · 5 years ago

Link

While the Pacific theater was a major and well-known battleground of World War II, it may come as a surprise that Asian nations played a role in World War I. Both Japan and China actually declared war on Germany in hopes of gaining regional dominance. While China never sent troops into battle, its involvement in World War I was influential—and had impacts that stretched far beyond the war, going on to shape the country's future indelibly.Under the rule of the Qing Dynasty, China was the most powerful nation in the East for nearly three centuries. But losing the First Sino-Japanese War to Japan in 1895 put an end to that. And the downhill slide didn’t end with losing the war; a subsequent series of treaties divvied up chunks of China between Russia and Japan, a continuation of the creation of European concessions like Hong Kong or the French settlement in Shanghai.Germany also used military force to insert itself into east Asian affairs. Capitalizing on the murder of two German missionaries, the country attacked and invaded the city of Qingdao in 1897, establishing what amounted to a German colony in Shandong province. The prospect of expelling Germany from the region and taking control themselves was enough to entice Japan to join the fight against Germany, making the Great War a global one in 1914.Meanwhile in China, a wobbly republican state led by military general Yuan Shikai replaced the imperial system of governance in 1912. But local warlords and clashes with the nationalist party, Kuomintang (led by Sun Yat-sen), continued to threaten his position. “The Chinese people suffered political chaos, economic weakness, and social misery,” writes historian Xu Guoqi in Strangers On the Western Front. “But this was also a period of excitement, hope, high expectations, optimism and new dreams”—because China believed it could use the war as a way to reshape the geopolitical balance of power and attain equality with European nations.There was only one problem: At first, none of the Allies wanted China to join the fight. Although China declared itself neutral at the start of the war in August 1914, President Shikai had secretly offered British minister John Jordan 50,000 troops to retake Qingdao. Jordan refused the offer, but Japan would soon use its own armed forces to oust the Germans from the city, and remained there throughout the war. By February 1916, with men dying in huge numbers in Europe, Jordan came around to the idea of Chinese aid and told British officials that China could “join with the Entente provided that Japan and the other Allies accepted her as a partner.”Japan, however, refused to allow Chinese soldiers to fight, hoping to remain the powerhouse in the East.If China couldn’t fight directly, Shikai’s advisors decided, the next-best option was a secret show of support toward the Allies: they would send voluntary non-combatant workers, largely from Shandong, to embattled Allied countries.Starting in late 1916, China began shipping out thousands of men to Britain, France and Russia. Those laborers would repair tanks, assemble shells, transport supplies and munitions, and help to literally reshape the war’s battle sites. Since China was officially neutral, commercial businesses were formed to provide the labor, writes Keith Jeffery in 1916: “A lot of those trenches weren’t dug by the [Allied] soldiers, they were dug by Chinese laborers,” says Bruce Elleman, professor of maritime history at the U.S. Naval War College and author of Wilson and China: A Revised History of the Shandong Question. Sending workers—mostly illiterate peasants—was one way for China to prove it deserved a seat at the table whenever the war ended and terms were agreed upon. But even after a year of supplying labor, their contribution remained largely unrecognized diplomatically.It was more than just prestige that spurred China to enter the conflict: The volatile nation dreamed of regaining complete control of the Shandong province. Located on the eastern shore of China along the Yellow Sea, the region has a rich history as the birthplace of Confucius; diplomat Wellington Koo to call it the “cradle of Chinese civilization.”In 1915, the year after Japan took Qingdao from Germany, Japan imposed a new treaty on China: The Twenty-One Demands. The highly unpopular treaty required China to cede control of even more territory, including in Shandong and Manchuria. If China participated in World War I, its leaders reasoned, maybe the country could win back this mainland territory.The United States’ entrance to WWI shifted the political dynamic of the Allies, with U.S. officials supporting China’s cause with an eye toward the war’s end. As Elleman says, “[The U.S. was] hoping at the post-war conference to be able to resolve these diplomatic issues [between China and Japan and Germany],” since President Wilson wanted to take a leadership role in the negotiations and form the League of Nations.China’s position became more fraught when Germany announced its strategy of unrestricted submarine warfare. More than 500 Chinese laborers aboard the French ship Athos were killed in February 1917 when a U-boat struck the ship. Finally, encouraged by the U.S. and believing it was the only sure way to be considered in the eventual peace agreements, China declared war on Germany on August 14, 1917—though little changed in the support they provided, since they had already been sending laborers.By the end of the war, Chinese workers would rank as the largest and longest-serving non-European contingent in World War I. France recruited 37,000 Chinese workers, while the United Kingdom took in 94,500. The men sent abroad would earn an estimated total of $2.2 billion, reports the South China Morning Post. Along the way, so many of these workers died or sustained injuries that China established a Bureau of Overseas Chinese Workers and convinced the U.K. to provide compensation for the wounded men.

“China had prepared to attend the post-war peace conference as early as 1915,” says Xu. When the war at last ended in November 1918, China planned its delegation for the Paris Peace Conference, hoping to finally achieve full control of its mainland territory.But China was given only two seats at the Paris Peace Conference to Japan’s five, since the latter had contributed combat troops. Matters only devolved from there. Some of the European delegates were unfamiliar with the Twenty-One Demands, writes Julian Theseira in Global Histories, and the Western powers ultimately awarded Shandong to Japan; the Western diplomats believed they should honor the treaty Japan pressured China to sign after taking Shandong. China saw the move as a rejection of its demand to be recognized as an equal player in global politics, and as an affront to its sovereignty.“China was deeply angry at the Versailles Treaty and was the only country at the postwar peace conference to refuse to put a signature on it,” Xu said. A student-led protest in Beijing called the May Fourth Movement was organized in response to outrage over the peace talks. It called for political and social changes and, as Xu writes, was a sign of China’s turn towards socialism in 1921 with the foundation of the Chinese Communist Party.Elleman goes even further in stating the importance of the Shandong issue. “They talk about these forks in the road, and this is one. If this whole Shandong controversy had not happened, China might never have become Communist,” Elleman says. He argues that leaving the Shandong question unresolved, at least in China’s eyes, meant they mistrusted European governments going forward and felt more attracted to socialism. “It’s one of the most important pieces in modern Chinese history.” Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/surprisingly-important-role-china-played-world-war-i-180964532/

#asian history #china #germany #japan #military

0 notes

hoshvilim · 6 years ago

Text

Clash of Worlds : Britain and Palestine Part 1

Clash of Worlds – This is a BBC Documentary focusing on the relationship between Britain and Palestine, the resulting foundation of the state of Israel, and the effects felt to this day. Although this video begins with the so-called betrayal of the Arabs by the British, the BBC is fair enough to list the historical battles between Christians and Muslims. Beginning in the Crusades the battles continued up to the Mahdi War in Sudan and the Muslim revolutionaries in India. Could Britain trust the Muslims? According to this series, many British statesmen certainly did not trust the Muslims.

youtube

In this post, and all the posts for the “Clash of Worlds” series, we have added background information to help you understand the terms in each Part of the series. Enjoy!

David Lloyd George

David Lloyd George, seen as an opponent of war, was as surprised as almost everyone else by the outbreak of the First World War. A month after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria he made a speech saying that Britain’s relations with Germany were better than for many years. Lloyd became Prime Minister 1916–1922. Lloyd George wanted to make the destruction of Ottoman Empire a major British war aim, and two days after taking office told General Robertson that he wanted a major victory, preferably the capture of Jerusalem, to impress British public opinion. His objective was “Jerusalem before Christmas”.

David Lloyd George circa 1918

At the end of the Great War, he called for the liberation of the subject peoples of Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire.

Hussein ibn Ali al-Hashimi

Hussein ibn Ali al-Hashimi – الحسين بن علي الهاشمي‎, (1853/1854 – 4 June 1931) was the Hashemite Arab leader who was the Sharif and Emir of Mecca from 1908–1916. Hussein declared himself ‘King of the Arab Countries’. Hussein’s pan-Arab aspirations were not accepted by the Allies. After proclaiming the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire, he became the King of the Hejaz from 1916 to 1924. In 1925, the forces of Abdulaziz ibn Abdul Rahman Al Saud (Ibn Saud) captured the holy city of Mecca from Sharif Hussein, ending 700 years of Hashemite rule.

After World War I Hussein refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, in protest at the Balfour Declaration and the establishment of British and French mandates in Syria, Iraq, and Palestine.

Sayyid Hussein bin Ali, Sharif and Emir of Mecca, King of Hejaz

Hussein’s sons Faisal and Abdullah were made rulers of Iraq and Transjordan respectively in 1921.

Thomas Edward Lawrence – Clash of Worlds

T.E. Lawrence was a British archaeologist, army officer, diplomat, and writer.

Lawrence in 1919

Soon after the outbreak of war he volunteered for the British Army and was stationed in Egypt. In 1916, he was sent to Arabia on an intelligence mission and quickly became involved with the Arab Revolt, providing, along with other British officers, liaison to the Arab forces. Working closely with Emir Faisal, a leader of the revolt, he participated in and sometimes led military activities against the Ottoman armed forces, culminating in the capture of Damascus in October 1918.

Map presented by Lawrence to the Eastern Committee of the War Cabinet in November 1918

During the closing years of WWI Lawrence sought to convince his superiors in the British government that Arab independence was in their interests – with mixed success. The secret Sykes-Picot Agreement between France and Britain contradicted the promises of independence that he had made to the Arabs and frustrated his work.

Edmund Allenby

Field Marshal Edmund Henry Hynman Allenby, in the First World War, led the British Empire’s Egyptian Expeditionary Force (EEF) during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign against the Ottoman Empire in the conquest of Palestine.

The victorious General Allenby dismounted, enters Jerusalem on foot out of respect for the Holy City, 11 December 1917

Allenby dismounted and entered the city on foot through the Jaffa Gate, together with his officers, in deliberate contrast to the perceived arrogance of the Kaiser’s entry into Jerusalem on horseback in 1898 which was not well received by the local citizens. Allenby sent his Indian Muslim soldiers to guard Islamic religious sites, feeling that this was the best way of reaching out to the Muslim population of Jerusalem.

Drawing of Allenby from journal “The War” c. 1917

Allenby’s Proclamation of Martial Law

Allenby’s official proclamation of martial law following the fall of Jerusalem on 9 December 1917 read as follows:

To the Inhabitants of Jerusalem the Blessed and the People Dwelling in Its Vicinity: The defeat inflicted upon the Turks by the troops under my command has resulted in the occupation of your city by my forces. I, therefore, here now proclaim it to be under martial law, under which form of administration it will remain so long as military considerations make necessary. However, lest any of you be alarmed by reason of your experience at the hands of the enemy who has retired, I hereby inform you that it is my desire that every person pursue his lawful business without fear of interruption. Furthermore, since your city is regarded with affection by the adherents of three of the great religions of mankind and its soil has been consecrated by the prayers and pilgrimages of multitudes of devout people of these three religions for many centuries, therefore, do I make it known to you that every sacred building, monument, holy spot, shrine, traditional site, endowment, pious bequest, or customary place of prayer of whatsoever form of the three religions will be maintained and protected according to the existing customs and beliefs of those to whose faith they are sacred. Guardians have been established at Bethlehem and on Rachel’s Tomb. The tomb at Hebron has been placed under exclusive Moslem control. The hereditary custodians at the gates of the Holy Sepulchre have been requested to take up their accustomed duties in remembrance of the magnanimous act of the Caliph Omar, who protected that church.

Al-Karak – الكرك‎

Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid II established a resident governor (mutasarif) of Ma’an Province in Al-Karak. One of the first governors, 1895, Hussein Helmy Bey Effendi, ruled with a garrison of 1,200 troops, in 3 regiments, mostly conscripts from West of the River Jordan and 200 Circassian cavalry. He disarmed the local population and also established a Military Hospital with a Jewish doctor.

Castle of Karak Photo: Berthold Werner

Following the San Remo conference, 1920, Great Britain was given a mandate to govern Karak. The newly appointed High Commissioner in Jerusalem, Herbert Samuel, sent several officials east of the River Jordan to create a local administration. In January 1921 Emir Abdullah Hussein arrived in Karak. At the Cairo conference, March 1921, Abdullah was recognised by the British as ruler of Emirate of Transjordan.

Israel – Palestine For Critical Thinkers: #6

Arab and Jewish Nationalism were shaped by World War I. In order to achieve their goals of statehood, both Arab and Jewish people looked to the British for support. However, controversy was not far away, as these alliances would come to overlap when the British pledged land to both groups, creating a conflict for years to come.

WW I and Israel-Palestine

youtube

Approved and recommended by the Israeli Ministry of Education.

English

עברית

Français

Español

6,000 Years of Jewish history & legacy at a glance on a one-page infographic. The poster-chart combines different fields on a single timeline such as demography, literature, Jewish and World events, traditions, historical figures and more. Every entry on the timeline is a hot-spot that pops a balloon with an image, further reading and useful links (Wikipedia & more). In addition, you may freely download and print a high resolution version of the Odyeda Jewish Timeline in PDF format in white or parchment backgrounds.

Read more here:

Clash of Worlds : Britain and Palestine Part 1 * Clash of Worlds : Britain and Palestine Part 1 Clash of Worlds - This is a BBC Documentary focusing on the relationship between Britain and Palestine, the resulting foundation of the state of Israel, and the effects felt to this day.

#Al-Karak #Edmund Allenby #Edward Lawrence #Hussein ibn Ali al-Hashimi #Israel - Palestine For Critical Thinkers: 6 #Israel-Palestine #Lloyd George #WW1

0 notes

hoshvilim · 7 years ago

Text

Israel – Palestine For Critical Thinkers

This post describes the ways in which the Allied Powers remapped the Middle East creating the British Mandate and French Mandate. The British designated Palestine as the Jewish national home.

Dividing up the Ottoman Empire after WWI

The Mandate system was instituted by the League of Nations in the early 20th century to temporarily administer non-self-governing territories. Great Britain, France and Czarist Russia planned to divide the plunder among themselves before the end of the war (Sykes–Picot Agreement, 1916). Czarist Russia dropped out when they made a separate peace with the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey).

The Balfour Declaration

In November 1917 the British government made a pledge with the Jewish people through the Balfour Declaration to help establish a Jewish National Home in the territory known as Palestine. Note that this does not mention a “Jewish State”.

Balfour_Portrait_and_Declaration

The British Mandate

At the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, Emir Faisal asked for Arab independence, or at minimum the right to choose the United Kingdom as the mandatory. The World Zionist Organization also asked for a British mandate because of the Balfour declaration. The WZO submitted a map of the areas they asked to be included in the British Mandate of Palestine. Unfortunately, this map was not accepted. Lord Curzon replaced Arthur Balfour as British Foreign Secretary and tried unsuccessfully to omit any recognition of the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine.

Map showing boundaries (in red) of the proposed protectorate of Palestine, as suggested by the Zionist representatives at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, superimposed on modern boundaries. Photo: Briangotts

San Remo Conference

On April 25, 1920 the San Remo Conference assigned the Palestine Mandate to Britain. The League of Nations entrusted Great Britain with the Mandate for Palestine (فلسطين – א״י) and Mesopotamia on July 24, 1922. Syria and Lebanon likewise became French mandates. France demanded the continuation of its religious protectorate in Palestine but Italy and Great Britain opposed it. The British Mandate came into effect on September 29, 1923 after the Conference of Lausanne finalized the Peace Treaty with the new Ataturk Turkish regime. The British territory included the Ottoman Empire sanjaks of Nablus, Acre, the Southern part of the Vilayet of Syria, the Southern portion of the Beirut Vilayet, and the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem.

Occupied Enemy Territory Administrations, 1918 Syria Photo: Busterof666

The British Mandate in Palestine had no end date and merely stated as “until such time as they are able to stand alone.”

The League of Nations and Great Britain decided In September 1922 that the area east of the Jordan River. This constituted 3/4th of the territory included in the Palestine Mandate which would become the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The United Kingdom had made conflicting and shifting commitments regarding Trans-Jordan. They had previously promised in the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence that it would honour Arab independence if they revolted against the Ottomans. Unfortunately both sides had different interpretations.

British civilian administration operated in Palestine from 1920 until 1948.

Great Britain’s Betrayal of the Jews

During the period of the British Mandate the Palestine experienced the ascent of two major nationalist movements. One was among the Jews and the other among the Arabs. Arab pressure forced the British to withdraw from its original commitment to the Jewish people with respect to immigration and land acquisition. The White Papers of 1930 and 1939 restricted immigration and acquisition of land by Jews. Jewish land acquisition was severely restricted by the 1940 Land Transfer Regulations.

Jerusalem 1918

British Mandate 1920-1939: The Arab Side

British High Commissioner Herbert Samuel granted the most important posts to two competing Arab families, the Husseinis and the Nashashibis. The Husseinis were given the most powerful posts. In 1921 Samuel appointed Hajj Amin al Husayni, an ardent anti-Zionist and a major figure behind the April 1920 riots, as mufti (chief Muslim religious jurist) of Jerusalem. Increased Jewish land purchases caused property prices to spiral. Both the Arab landowning class and absentee landlords, many of whom resided outside Palestine, were quick to sell for unprecedented profits. During this period the British authorities had to deal with riots of 1920, 1929 riots, the Arab Revolt of 1936–1939.

British Mandate 1920-1939: The Zionist Side

Zionists settlers in Palestine brought unique organizational shrewdness. The World Zionist Organization (WZO) immediately founded the formalized Jewish Agency in August 1929. The two organizations became a quasi-governmental leadership. Next came an elected Vaad Leumi (National Council), Chief Rabbinate, Hebrew school system, Technion, Hebrew University, Histadrut and political parties.

Early Jewish Defense – Jewish insurgency in Palestine

The earliest Jewish involvement was an intelligence service, Nili, operating behind Turkish lines for the British. The Zion Mule Corps was established in 1915 but disbanded just a year later. In 1918 the Jewish Legion was formed and fought for Palestine. In 1907, the first self-defense organization, Bar-Giora, was established by Yitzhak Ben Zvi. The Haganah was founded on June 12, 1920 to protect Jewish settlers. The Irgun Zvai Leumi was activated in 1931.

Hostile attacks by Arabs began during the 1936-39 riots. The Arab violence in Palestine in 1938 took a heavy toll. The Jewish Agency, tried to obtain a political settlement, while the Irgun retaliated.

Commissions & Reports

British beaurocracy produced many good-intentioned conferences and reports dealing with Palestine.

San Remo Conference (1920): Post-World War I Allied Supreme Council following the Paris Peace Conference. The conference was held in Sanremo, Italy, from 19 to 26 April 1920.

Shaw Commission (1930): An investigation of the violent Arab rioting in Palestine in late August 1929. It’s conclution was that the cause of the rioting was Arab fear of continual Jewish immigration and land purchases.

Hope-Simpson Report (October 1, 1930): The report recommended limiting Jewish immigration. The Passfield White Paper was also dated October 1, 1930, recommended similar limitation of Jewish immigration.

Peel Commission (1937): Investigation of the causes of the Arab unrest in Mandatory Palestine following the six-month-long Arab general strike.

Peel Commission Report (July 7, 1937): The report stated that the League of Nations Mandate had become unworkable and recommended partition. All the Arab representatives rejected the partition plan. Chaim Weizmann and Ben-Gurion and the Zionist Congress approve the Peel recommendations ambiguously as a basis for more negotiation.

St. James Conference (1939): A conference on the Partition for Palestine (February 7, 1939 – March 17, 1939). The Arab delegates refused to sit at the same table with the Jewish representatives. The meeting adjourned without result.

Jerusalem (1920-1939)

The British Mandate in Palestine 1939-1948

In 1940, the Irgun split up. More militant members of the organization, led by Avraham Stern, decided to form a new group, Lohamey Heruth Israel – Lehi – the Stern Gang.

In 1941, the Haganah created the Palmach to defend the Yishuv in the event of an emergency. The Palestine administration devoted a large part of its energy and ability to preventing Palestinian Jews from fighting Hitler. The British finally did allow the Jews to form a fighting unit to participate in the War effort. On September 20, 1944, a Jewish brigade was created.

Between November 29, 1947 and May 14, 1948 there was a Civil War between Arab and Jews in Palestine. This was actually the first half of the Israeli War of Independence (May 15, 1948 –March 10, 1949).

Jewish_immigration_to_Mandatory_Palestine_(1920-1945) Photo: Paasikivi

An interview with Gerald Green who served in the Palestine Police from 1946 till 1948. Filmed in September 2009.

The Flag of Palestine and the Anthem of Palestine

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

The Arab revolt that ensued made life impossible for the British sovereign. The British government proposed proposed to resolve the situation by “partition” of Palestine. But with growing Nazi power, and the war afoot, circumstances only intensified in the region.

The Resolution 181 to partition Palestine was adopted on November 29, 1947 by the UN General Assembly. This resolution envisaged the creation of separate Jewish and Arab states. Each state would operate under economic union with Jerusalem being transferred to UN trusteeship. The Mandate terminated on 14 May 1948. On the last day of the Mandate, the creation of the State of Israel was proclaimed.

UN_Palestine_Partition_Versions_1947

British Mandate in Palestine * Israel - Palestine For Critical Thinkers This post describes the ways in which the Allied Powers remapped the Middle East creating the British Mandate and French Mandate.

#British Mandate #Israel #Palestine #فلسطين

1 note · View note