THE FALL OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE, THE
MISMANAGEMENT OF PALESTINE AND
SUBSEQUENT LAND GRAB
AMRAN ABDIRAHMAN

The fall of the Ottoman Empire was heavily anticipated and watched by numerous
European nations eager to gain authority. The 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement
between Britain and France pre-maturely divvied up the Ottoman Empire in the
event of a collapse. Mandatory Palestine, as promised, would fall to the British.
The nation quickly became a mangle of commitments to the Arab and Jewish
community. The acquisition of Palestine was imperative to the introduction of a
Jewish state, proximity to the burgeoning supply of Oil and the defence of India.
Ultimately, the misconduct by the British led to many deadly riots and the land grab
of Palestine.

The decline of the Ottoman Empire was eagerly observed by many European
nations, earning it the title “The Sick Man of Europe.” 1 Like vultures surrounding
the carcass of a dead animal, Europe and France carved and divvied up the empire
among them. Prior to the 1923 dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, the 1916 SykesPicot Agreement has established. The Sykes-Picot Agreement promised Britain and
France spheres of influence if the empire was to fall. The French would gain
mandates in Syria and Lebanon, on the other hand, Britain would gain mandates in
Iraq, Palestine and Transjordan. Britain, at this time, had many colonial acquisitions
and taking control over the falling Ottoman Empire would prove to be essential in
protecting them. The end of the First World War saw the Middle East become “a
tangle of promises which Britain had made to the Arabs, to the Jews, to France and
to herself.” 2 The mismanagement of Mandatory Palestine by the British by
frequently suspending and re-introducing policies would ultimately lead to a deadly
land grab that claimed the lives of many. The British extended their reach into the
Üyesi Fahriye Begüm Yildizeli, “The Expansion of the British Empire in the Middle East After
the Ottoman Heritage (1882-1923).” History Studies 10, no. 6 (2018): 215-221.
2
Ibid.
1

HiPo Vol. 4

55

March 2021

Middle East for imperialist gains, which provoked religious disputes in Palestine
and led to the on-going Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Firstly, the fall of the Ottoman Empire resulted from intervention by the Entente
Powers during the Great War and, ultimately, led to the British Empire becoming
the “Heir of the Middle East” 3. During the Great War, the Allies presented the
Ottoman Empire with “a defence pact,” 4 which ensured the Empire would survive
if they stayed neutral. Instead of joining the Allied powers, the Ottoman Empire
sided with the Central powers. The country’s rejection of the defence pact by the
Allies meant they became “a target in the Entente powers strategies.” 5 In order to
destabilize and disrupt the Ottoman Empire, the Entente powers “us[ed] the
nationalistic and independence rebellions.” 6 For example, the first Arab Revolt of
1916 against the Turks was “led by the British-backed Sherif Hussein of Mecca.” 7
Furthermore, propaganda was published within the Middle East and the West about
the “fight for national liberation with Britain” 8 to reinforce the ideology introduced
by the British. Britain portrayed its “eastern campaign” 9 into the Ottoman Empire
as a fight for the repressed minority within the ‘Middle East’, a term used mainly
by the British during the Great War to separate its geographical proximity to the
East. Britain depicted itself as the “natural protector of small, oppressed nations
and the guarantor of national self-determination.” 10 In this reimagined version of
the Middle East spearheaded by Britain, “Jews played a central role.” 11 An example
of British propaganda in the Middle East is the introduction of the “Arab national
flag” 12 by Mark Sykes, a British diplomat, and was used to showcase the “Arab
awakening under British protection.” 13 Additionally, British interest in the Middle
East came as a result of the regions significant supply of oil and “to maintain British
Supremacy in an area considered vital to the defence of India.” 14 There was a
general knowledge that a perceived destabilization of the Ottoman Empire by the
Central Powers could “see the [Suez] Canal fall into the hands of a hostile power,
bringing Russia into the Persian Gulf in force.” 15 The possibility of Russian

Yildizeli, 224.
Ibid, 221.
5
Ibid.
6
Ibid.
7
James Renton, "Changing Languages of Empire and the Orient: Britain and the Invention of the
Middle East, 1917-1918." The Historical Journal 50, no. 3 (2007): 654.
8
Ibid, 655.
9
Ibid, 647.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid, 655.
13
Ibid.
14
Yildizeli, 220.
15
Geoffrey Hamm, “British Intelligence in the Middle East, 1898–1906.” Intelligence and
National Security 29, no. 6 (2014): 893.
3
4

HiPo Vol. 4

56

March 2021

enlargement threatened the “corridor linking Britain to India.” 16 Britain’s interest
in the Ottoman Empire was further reinforced with the emersion of oil, which could
be used for military purposes. In order to acquire more oil, it became apparent that
Britain would need to secure “control of the Middle East’s burgeoning oil
industry.” 17
Secondly, Britain introduced the Balfour Declaration for imperialist gains in
Palestine. Following World War 1, the League of Nations provided Britain with a
mandate over Iraq and Palestine. Britain was to report to the Permanent Mandates
Commission, which was created by the League of Nations. Britain would then go
on to present the Balfour Declaration in 1917, which promised the introduction of
a “Jewish national home” 18 in Palestine. The League of Nations accepted the
proposal and was to oversee the mandate to “protect the population as a whole.” 19
Sir Mark Sykes, who helped negotiate the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, believed
that the annexation of Palestine was deemed necessary “in the defence of the Suez
Canal against attack from the North and as a station on the future air-routes to the
east.” 20 In response to this potential threat to Britain’s colonial possessions, the idea
of a Jewish buffer state in Palestine was introduced. Although the proposed Jewish
buffer state would be weak, it would be beneficial to Britain as long as it did not
disturb “Mohammedan sentiment.” 21 The proposed Jewish buffer state in Palestine
would “become home to a new, self-sustaining European settler community,” 22
which would add to Britain’s imperialist gains. Moreover, in the annual reports
filed to the Permanent Mandates Commission, Britain advised they were achieving
their goals to protect the Arab population while promoting a Jewish national home
in Palestine, which was not accurate. Before the introduction of the Balfour
Declaration, the Jewish population in Palestine was 10%. The 90% Arab majority
was firmly against the introduction of an “outside population… that would threaten
the[ir] status” 23 and took up arms to stop the mandate. In a 1921 visit to London,
the Palestine Arab Congress delegation requested the introduction of a national
government in Palestine and the renouncement of the Balfour Declaration. The
British Cabinet in 1923 decided to re-assess the project and concluded that they
could not confidently establish a Jewish national home and protect the “Arab

Ibid.
Anand Toprani, “An Anglo-American ‘Petroleum Entente’?: The First Attempt to Reach an
Anglo-American Oil Agreement, 1921.” Historian 79 no. 1 (2017): 56–79.
18
John Quigley, “Britain’s Secret Re-Assessment of the Balfour Declaration - The Perfidy of
Albion.” Journal of the History of International Law 13, no. 2 (2011): 249–84.
19
Ibid, 250.
20
William Mathew, “The Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate, 1917–1923: British
Imperialist Imperatives.” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 40, no. 3 (2013).
21
Ibid, 243.
22
Ibid, 247.
23
Quigley, 251.
16
17

HiPo Vol. 4

57

March 2021

population” 24 as Palestine moved towards independence. In an attempt to appease
the Arab population in Palestine, the cabinet “proposed the creation of an Arab
Agency.” 25 For example, the Arab Agency consulted in immigration. The Arab
agency was only promised if the Anti-Balfour Declaration sentiment was to end in
Palestine. The Cabinet did not notify the League of Nations of their findings “for
reasons relating to its own interests” 26 and continued its “promot[ion] [of]a Jewish
national home.” 27 Additionally, in 1924, the Colonial Office prepared a
“confidential government memorandum” 28 that stated that the Balfour Declaration
was introduced as an attempt to gain “the sympathy of influential Jews and Jewish
organizations all over the world… at a time of acute national danger.” 29
Thirdly, intervention in Palestine from western powers provoked religious disputes
between co-existing religions. Before the promise of a Jewish national home in
Palestine, the major religions co-existed. ‘Alami, A Muslim Arab, recalls a time in
the “beginning of the Mandate Era” 30 where “Jews were peaceful… and
cooperation with them was common.” 31 ‘Alami then goes on to discuss the stark
difference in Muslim-Arab relations during the 1929 riots “when the Jewish
community which had lived there peacefully since the earliest of times, was literally
decimated within two hours.” 32 The 1929 riots, also referred to as the Western Wall
riots, took place from August 23rd to the 29th, wounded many, and claimed
hundreds of lives. Although the deadly riots were indirectly affected by the policies
introduced by the British, the cause for the riots was the fight for “custody over the
Western Wall/al-Buraq of the Temple Mount/ Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem.” 33 The
struggle for control over the Western Wall and other religious sites in Jerusalem
erupted due to challenges brought on by Zionists to gain dominance from the
Muslims since the induction of the Mandate. The riot started in Jerusalem but
extended into Hebron and Safad, which has been home to “Palestine’s oldest Jewish
communities.” 34 The Jewish inhabitants of the old communities were long-time
members of the “Palestinian Arab Society… [and] were largely disconnected from
the growing Zionist presence in Palestine.” 35 The unparalleled violence that
spawned the last week of August forced the “British Mandate authorities to reQuigley, 250.
Ibid, 278.
26
Ibid, 250.
27
Ibid.
28
Ibid, 257.
29
Ibid.
30
Alex Winder, "The “Western Wall” Riots of 1929: Religious Boundaries and Communal
Violence." Journal of Palestine Studies 42, no. 1 (2012): 6-23.
31
Ibid.
32
Ibid.
33
Ibid, 6.
34
Ibid, 7.
35
Winder.
24
25

HiPo Vol. 4

58

March 2021

evaluate and temporarily suspend their policies.” 36 Moreover, as a result of the
Western Wall Riots, the British authorities concluded that it was necessary to
uphold their influence in the region by constructing and enforcing new boundaries
that ultimately benefited the Zionist community. The geographical separation of
Arabs and Jews was backed by “British state violence." 37 Violence from both sides
was used in an attempt “to reinforce, redefine or re-establish boundaries” 38 of the
Balfour Declaration. As a result, this fueled Zionist movements among the Jewish
population and increased nationalism among the Arab community in Palestine.
Ultimately the rise of Zionism and the growing feeling of nationalism in Palestine
is directly related to the British government’s inability to control the region and its
inhabitants.
Lastly, tensions brought on by the introduction of British policies in the Middle
East led to the on-going land dispute between the Jewish and Palestinian people
even after the policy was suspended. The 1929 riots in Palestine came as a result of
increased frustration from the Arab community in response to the “Mandate’s
Jewish National Home policy.” 39 Furthermore, increased immigration from Jewish
people across Europe and “Zionist land purchases” 40 applied economic pressure on
and exasperated the Arab community. The purchase of land by newly immigrated
Jews meant the creation of “a landless and discontented class” 41 of Palestinians. A
year later, in 1930, in response to the unforeseen violence of the 1929 riots, the
British government released the “Passfield White Paper” 42, which restricted Jewish
immigration into Palestine. The purpose of the white paper was to temporarily halt
the creation of a Jewish national home to prevent further violence from erupting.
The white paper shortly after its induction was reversed. Some believe the reversal
was due to Zionist lobbying in the British Government. Furthermore, the lack of
meaningful interjection or policy changes by the British government led to further
violent revolts. The Arab Revolt of 1936 was a nationalist uprising by the
Palestinians that lasted until 1939. The revolt saw a “British counter-insurgency
campaign” 43 that ultimately crushed the rebellion with “violence, torture, collective
punishment, mass detention and diplomacy.” 44 Also, the British army and Jews in
Palestine supported local “peace bands”—militia— which was operated by the

Ibid, 6.
Ibid, 20.
38
Ibid, 8.
39
Ibid, 6.
40
Ibid.
41
Carly Beckerman-Boys, "The Reversal of the Passfield White Paper, 1930–1: A
Reassessment." Journal of Contemporary History 51, no. 2 (2016): 213-33.
42
Ibid, 214.
43
Matthew Hughes, "Palestinian Collaboration with the British: The Peace Bands and the Arab
Revolt in Palestine, 1936–9." Journal of Contemporary History 51, no. 2 (2016): 291-315.
44
Ibid, 292.
36
37

HiPo Vol. 4

59

March 2021

“pro-Government Nashashibi family.” 45 Additionally, in 1937, the Peel
Commission introduced the idea of a two-state solution, which would split Palestine
between the Arabs and the Jews. The report was submitted and approved by the
League of Nations. Although Jewish leaders wanted to enlarge the area, they
ultimately agreed to the solution. On the other hand, Arab leaders disagreed with
the arrangement and believed that “the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine
will be a strong attack on the Arabs and a threat to peace.” 46 Ultimately, the twostate solution was not accepted by either parties, which resulted in another war
breaking out in the region. The Jewish victory in the war meant the proposed
“Jewish State [was] much bigger than any proposed partition plan.” 47
British mismanagement of Mandatory Palestine led to the on-going land dispute
between the Arab and Jewish community, which has taken many lives and left
countless people displaced. Intervention by the Entente Powers through
destabilization methods like the support of rebellions within the crumbling Ottoman
Empire ultimately played a crucial part in its fall. British interest in the Middle East
came as a result of the regions supply of oil and its proximity to their colonial
asset—India. Furthermore, British imperialists introduced the Balfour Declaration
for reasons relating to their interests. The declaration promised a “Jewish national
home” 48 and Arab independence. Although the achievements of both objectives
were not within reach, Britain continued. Also, intervention from Western powers,
specifically Britain, provoked violent religious disputes between once co-existing
religions. Increased immigration from European Jews and the fight for control over
land ultimately led to many violent riots, which claimed the lives of many.
Increased violence within Palestine fueled the rise of Zionism and Arab
Nationalism. The results of the Arab Revolt of 1936 saw the introduction of a twostate solution, which was not mutually agreed upon and incited another war. In the
end, Britain withdrew from the region, but its negligence is still felt in Palestine
today.

Ibid, 292.
Shaul Bartal, "The Peel Commission Report of 1937 and the Origins of the Partition
Concept." Jewish Political Studies Review 28, no. 1/2 (2017): 64.
47
Ibid.
48
Quigley, 249.
45
46

HiPo Vol. 4

60

March 2021

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BARTAL, SHAUL. "The Peel Commission Report of 1937 and the Origins of the
Partition Concept." Jewish Political Studies Review 28, no. 1/2 (2017): 5170. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44510475.
BECKERMAN-BOYS, CARLY. "The Reversal of the Passfield White Paper, 1930–1:
A Reassessment." Journal of Contemporary History 51, no. 2 (2016): 21333. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24671838.
GREHAN, JAMES. “Imperial Crisis and Muslim-Christian Relations in Ottoman
Syria and Palestine, c. 1770-1830.” Journal of the Economic and Social
History of the Orient 58, no. 4 (2015): 490-531.
GUTWEIN, DANNY. “The Politics of the Balfour Declaration: Nationalism,
Imperialism and the Limits of Zionist-British Cooperation.” Journal of
Israeli History 35, no. 2 (September 2016): 117-52.
doi:10.1080/13531042.2016.1244100.
HAMM, GEOFFREY. “British Intelligence in the Middle East, 1898–
1906.” Intelligence and National Security 29, no. 6 (2014): 880-900.
doi:10.1080/02684527.2013.846728
HUGHES, MATTHEW. "Palestinian Collaboration with the British: The Peace Bands
and the Arab Revolt in Palestine, 1936–9." Journal of Contemporary
History 51, no. 2 (2016): 291-315. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24671841.
MATHEW, WILLIAM. “The Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate, 1917–
1923: British Imperialist Imperatives.” British Journal of Middle Eastern
Studies 40, no. 3 (2013): 231 – 250. doi:10.1080/13530194.2013.791133.
QUIGLEY, JOHN. “Britain’s Secret Re-Assessment of the Balfour Declaration-The
Perfidy of Albion.” Journal of the History of International Law 13, no. 2
(2011): 249-84.
RENTON, JAMES. "Changing Languages of Empire and the Orient: Britain and the
Invention of the Middle East, 1917-1918." The Historical Journal 50, no. 3
(2007): 645-67. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20175115.
SAPOSNIK, ARIEH BRUCE. “Wailing Walls and Iron Walls: The Western Wall as
Sacred Symbol in Zionist National Iconography.” American Historical
Review 120, no. 5 (December 2015): 1653-1681.
doi:10.1093/ahr/120.5.1653.
TOPRANI, ANAND. “An Anglo-American ‘Petroleum Entente’?: The First Attempt
to Reach an Anglo-American Oil Agreement, 1921.” Historian 79, no. 1:
56-79. doi:10.1111/hisn.12421.
WINDER, ALEX. "The “Western Wall” Riots of 1929: Religious Boundaries and
Communal Violence." Journal of Palestine Studies 42, no. 1 (2012): 6-23.
doi:10.1525/jps.2012.xlii.1.6.

HiPo Vol. 4

61

March 2021

YILDIZELI, ÜYESI FAHRIYE BEGÜM. “The Expansion of the British Empire in the
Middle East After the Ottoman Heritage (1882-1923).” History Studies 10,
no. 6 (2018): 215-224.

HiPo Vol. 4

62

March 2021