Why Palestine
Labels:
feature
Well I admit that up til now I may have exaggerated a bit about the diggers’ part in the establishment of the State of Israel and romanticised the spirit and fighting qualities of the Australian Light Horseman, but in trying to answer the question, why the hell Palestine? an examination of the evidence and motivating factors behind the British invasion, leads to the conclusion that romance was pretty much out on the sidelines, at least if you weren’t one of those Jewish Zionist sorts.
First of all let’s be clear about it, the Australians were part of the British Imperial Army and served the orders of the British War Office. And in spite of the crucial role played by the diggers in the conquest of the Holy Land it was a British decision, serving British purposes and interests.
Going back to 1914 and the next few years, there doesn’t seem to be any dispute that in the eyes of the European powers embraced in world conflict, the Western Front was what really mattered and where the war would be won and lost. Not withstanding that, there was the Eastern Front in Russia and the Middle Eastern theatre of war more or less covering the Ottoman Empire or what was left of it, and even an Italian Front, and African and Asian-Pacific fronts too.
As for the Australian Imperial Force, Australia declared war on Germany the day after Britain, and diggers would arrive in Egypt and be shipped out to serve the Empire, whether to here or there, to Gallipoli, to the Western Front or to Palestine.
Backtracking a little,the history of the English presence in Egypt is an interesting enough story in its own right. The French and Egyptians finished building the Suez Canal in 1869. The British and French rivalry over the canal really started with Napoleon. Only then did the English cotton on to the potential and strategic importance of the canal in exploiting and protecting their interests in India, the British Raj- and Napoleon's desire to disrupt them. The Egyptians had incurred a great deal of debt in modernizing and building the canal. This financial crisis paved the way for British domination. In 1875, Pasha, the Egyptian khedive, was forced to sell his shares in the Suez Canal Company to Great Britain in order to raise capital for creditors, giving Britain controlling interest in the company. That was the start of English domination of Egypt which continued well into the 20th century.
Back to WWI. There was a great concentration of British military forces in Egypt, from various parts of the Empire, but the British War Office barely regarded that assembled military force as a separate military entity but primarily a strategic reserve for the Empire, earmarked for training and embarkation of division after division for service overseas on other fronts. General Archibald Murray commander of the Mediterranean Expeditionary Force, was both victim and a great example of the War Office's disregard. He was charged with defending the Suez Canal and given approval in principal to push his defensive lines up into the Sinai, as opposed to sitting like lame ducks on the canal, but he was starved of funding, supplies and the means of pursuing his justified plan and often had his soldiers siphoned off to other fronts at the expense of his own operations. H.S.Gullet suggests that Murray’s problem was not due to any sort of military incompetence but rather his generosity towards his comrades commanding on the Western Front, his lack of egotism and his obedience to the War Office in London.
By 1916 the Western Front was all ready well and truly bogged down in stalemate and the Central Powers,led by the Germans, had a clear and abundant interest in creating a diversion, another front, and in so doing having as many Allied forces as possible occupied elsewhere,rather than have them fighting on the Western Front. e.g. defending an open and functioning Suez Canal. It was the Turks, the Central Powers ally, who started the ball rolling in the Palestinian conflict by attacking the canal in 1916.
In 1916-1917 the Western Front may have been bogged down in stalemate, but there were other developments taking place around the world. The Russians had suffered terrible losses against the Germans and were a spent force from the Allies’ point of view. In fact Russia was disintegrating, in what would be later recognised as the Russian Revolution. The war was all ready terribly expensive both in human and material terms, dragging on for years, sapping resources and reserves. The Allies wanted to stifle the Central Powers ability to replenish by means of a sea blockade. The British navy ruled the seas almost supreme and this was a major objective for them, though the German U boats did upset things somewhat.
Over 1916-1917 it was the Central Powers who were having greater successes than the British, in opening up other fronts. For example by conquering Romania and Serbia the Central Powers opened up a land passage to the Ottoman Empire and therefore into the Middle East and oil rich Mesopotamia, also threatening the Suez. A great advantage for the Central Powers in such a continuous land passage was that it opened up the possibility of laying down railway tracks from Europe into the Middle Eastern theatre of war, affording greater military mobility, especially significant in light of the British sea blockade.
Another major development took place in London in December 1916. Lloyd George took over from Asquith as the British Prime Minister. Showing far greater leadership qualities Lloyd George made significant strategic changes in the running of the overall British war machine and brought a sense of purpose to the British military effort, even though he didn’t succeed in taking charge of the army especially in regards to the senior commanding officers on the Western Front. But that's not the Suez or Palestine.
It was not only the Suez that counted for the British in the Middle East. Besides colonial India, Britain had major league interests in the Mesopotamian oil fields. So naturally the other major British interest in the Middle Eastern theatre of war was there. There’s hardly any need to explain that one. Once again, in light of British interests in Mesopotamia, the significance of the Suez Canal is rather obvious. Eventually the British attained military success in Mesopotamia, which they translated after the war into the installation of a new monarchy, in a new country, to be called Iraq.
As mentioned, the Germans for their part were interested creating another minor front on the Suez to distract Allies forces. But both the Allies and the Central Powers were interested in creating diversions on minor fronts. Britain was interested in creating a minor front through the Arab Rebellion, coming out from what would become Saudi Arabia, to distract Ottoman and German forces from the theatre of war in Mesopotamia. It's a no brainer as to what was really under the hammer.
And so getting back to our ol' Palestine, there were a number of probable reasons for engaging the Turks there and capturing that underpopulated and underdeveloped backwater. One reason lies in pushing the defensive line beyond the Suez and going on the offensive. Another was Lloyd George’s determination to have some sort of achievement to show after three years of military stagnation and disastrous loss of life in Europe. By now General Allenby had replaced Murray, but now he received the sort of backing that Murray had been denied. "Take Jerusalem by Christmas," Lloyd George demanded.
Capturing the Holy Land conjured up crusader like associations for Lloyd George but keep in mind that creating this front would also assist the Arab Revolt, which as mentioned had consequences for the British efforts on the Mesopotamian front.
Yet another reason was what Lloyd George called the propaganda effect. See his Memoirs of the Peace Conference Volume II. Now enter stage left Chaim Weizman, Lord Rothschild and Lord Balfour.
Actually at this point I can rephrase my earlier question. Now instead of asking why Palestine, I can ask why the Balfour Declaration?
Amongst the factors lying in the background to this puzzle lies the English-French entente and the Sykes-Picot agreement. Under that agreement the French Russians and English would share control of the Middle East, cutting it up amongst themselves, but Palestine would come under some sort of shared control. The intended shared control probably indicates the disparaging light in which they saw Palestine. But Lloyd George opposed the idea. Reading his memoirs it seems he was partly motivated by religious sentiment. But that's not his primary consideration.
So we've made it to 1917. Take into account the years of disastrous military standoff in the trenches of France and Belgium, the foreseeable surrender of the Russians and the commitment of the Americans to join the war on the Allies’ side. One major question hanging in the air is whether the Russians will allow the Germans to get their hands on Russian materials food and raw materials to replenish their stores, thereby breaking the Allies sea blockade of the Central Powers? Or will the Russians resist complying with the Germans demands? The other question is whether the United States can be encouraged to speed up their entry to the war. And last but not least, yet another factor in the equation is the precarious state of the Allies’ gold supply and marketable securities needed for American purchases in order to continue pursuing the war til victory.
Surprise surprise, but Jews are now seen to be to be of considerable influence in moulding public opinion in both these arenas, as diametrically different as they are. On the one hand there are no shortage of prominent Jews amongst the Bolsheviks and millions of pro Zionist Jews in Eastern Europe. Ironically, from today’s perspective, at the time the Germans are seen favourably by most Jews for having fought Czarist Russia and the pogroming Cossacks. Lloyd George claims they helped the German army conquer Poland. The same is true with respect to American Jewry who saw the German army as liberators of their persecuted brethren. Lloyd George wrote that some of their most powerful leaders exerted a retarding influence on President Wilson's impulses in the direction of the Allies. The advantage is not lost on the Germans either and they press the Young Turks Ottoman regime to offer the Jews a homeland in Palestine, but they for their part drag their feet either out of incompetence or their desires for a pan Turkish Empire ridden of foreign minorities. The British Cabinet considers and analyses their options with respect to winning Jewish support. A Jewish Battalion is formed. Of the various streams of thought abounding in the Jewish world, pro Zionist and anti,isolationist and religious, the British Cabinet concludes that the majority of Jews lean towards Zionism, at least at a populist level. Their bet pays off and American Jewry’s approval rating for the Germans cools off and American troops march into Europe and much Jewish Russian opinion calls for a pro British stance.
It is argued that Chaim Weizman had the nous to understand that at that time, the force that would shape the future of the Middle East was not demographics but the interests of the superpowers of the day. Oh and then again the Jews of Palestine fought with the British and the Arabs for the Turks(as opposed to their more eastern cousins who participated in the Arab Revolt).
First of all let’s be clear about it, the Australians were part of the British Imperial Army and served the orders of the British War Office. And in spite of the crucial role played by the diggers in the conquest of the Holy Land it was a British decision, serving British purposes and interests.
Going back to 1914 and the next few years, there doesn’t seem to be any dispute that in the eyes of the European powers embraced in world conflict, the Western Front was what really mattered and where the war would be won and lost. Not withstanding that, there was the Eastern Front in Russia and the Middle Eastern theatre of war more or less covering the Ottoman Empire or what was left of it, and even an Italian Front, and African and Asian-Pacific fronts too.
As for the Australian Imperial Force, Australia declared war on Germany the day after Britain, and diggers would arrive in Egypt and be shipped out to serve the Empire, whether to here or there, to Gallipoli, to the Western Front or to Palestine.
Backtracking a little,the history of the English presence in Egypt is an interesting enough story in its own right. The French and Egyptians finished building the Suez Canal in 1869. The British and French rivalry over the canal really started with Napoleon. Only then did the English cotton on to the potential and strategic importance of the canal in exploiting and protecting their interests in India, the British Raj- and Napoleon's desire to disrupt them. The Egyptians had incurred a great deal of debt in modernizing and building the canal. This financial crisis paved the way for British domination. In 1875, Pasha, the Egyptian khedive, was forced to sell his shares in the Suez Canal Company to Great Britain in order to raise capital for creditors, giving Britain controlling interest in the company. That was the start of English domination of Egypt which continued well into the 20th century.
Back to WWI. There was a great concentration of British military forces in Egypt, from various parts of the Empire, but the British War Office barely regarded that assembled military force as a separate military entity but primarily a strategic reserve for the Empire, earmarked for training and embarkation of division after division for service overseas on other fronts. General Archibald Murray commander of the Mediterranean Expeditionary Force, was both victim and a great example of the War Office's disregard. He was charged with defending the Suez Canal and given approval in principal to push his defensive lines up into the Sinai, as opposed to sitting like lame ducks on the canal, but he was starved of funding, supplies and the means of pursuing his justified plan and often had his soldiers siphoned off to other fronts at the expense of his own operations. H.S.Gullet suggests that Murray’s problem was not due to any sort of military incompetence but rather his generosity towards his comrades commanding on the Western Front, his lack of egotism and his obedience to the War Office in London.
By 1916 the Western Front was all ready well and truly bogged down in stalemate and the Central Powers,led by the Germans, had a clear and abundant interest in creating a diversion, another front, and in so doing having as many Allied forces as possible occupied elsewhere,rather than have them fighting on the Western Front. e.g. defending an open and functioning Suez Canal. It was the Turks, the Central Powers ally, who started the ball rolling in the Palestinian conflict by attacking the canal in 1916.
In 1916-1917 the Western Front may have been bogged down in stalemate, but there were other developments taking place around the world. The Russians had suffered terrible losses against the Germans and were a spent force from the Allies’ point of view. In fact Russia was disintegrating, in what would be later recognised as the Russian Revolution. The war was all ready terribly expensive both in human and material terms, dragging on for years, sapping resources and reserves. The Allies wanted to stifle the Central Powers ability to replenish by means of a sea blockade. The British navy ruled the seas almost supreme and this was a major objective for them, though the German U boats did upset things somewhat.
Over 1916-1917 it was the Central Powers who were having greater successes than the British, in opening up other fronts. For example by conquering Romania and Serbia the Central Powers opened up a land passage to the Ottoman Empire and therefore into the Middle East and oil rich Mesopotamia, also threatening the Suez. A great advantage for the Central Powers in such a continuous land passage was that it opened up the possibility of laying down railway tracks from Europe into the Middle Eastern theatre of war, affording greater military mobility, especially significant in light of the British sea blockade.
Another major development took place in London in December 1916. Lloyd George took over from Asquith as the British Prime Minister. Showing far greater leadership qualities Lloyd George made significant strategic changes in the running of the overall British war machine and brought a sense of purpose to the British military effort, even though he didn’t succeed in taking charge of the army especially in regards to the senior commanding officers on the Western Front. But that's not the Suez or Palestine.
It was not only the Suez that counted for the British in the Middle East. Besides colonial India, Britain had major league interests in the Mesopotamian oil fields. So naturally the other major British interest in the Middle Eastern theatre of war was there. There’s hardly any need to explain that one. Once again, in light of British interests in Mesopotamia, the significance of the Suez Canal is rather obvious. Eventually the British attained military success in Mesopotamia, which they translated after the war into the installation of a new monarchy, in a new country, to be called Iraq.
As mentioned, the Germans for their part were interested creating another minor front on the Suez to distract Allies forces. But both the Allies and the Central Powers were interested in creating diversions on minor fronts. Britain was interested in creating a minor front through the Arab Rebellion, coming out from what would become Saudi Arabia, to distract Ottoman and German forces from the theatre of war in Mesopotamia. It's a no brainer as to what was really under the hammer.
And so getting back to our ol' Palestine, there were a number of probable reasons for engaging the Turks there and capturing that underpopulated and underdeveloped backwater. One reason lies in pushing the defensive line beyond the Suez and going on the offensive. Another was Lloyd George’s determination to have some sort of achievement to show after three years of military stagnation and disastrous loss of life in Europe. By now General Allenby had replaced Murray, but now he received the sort of backing that Murray had been denied. "Take Jerusalem by Christmas," Lloyd George demanded.
Capturing the Holy Land conjured up crusader like associations for Lloyd George but keep in mind that creating this front would also assist the Arab Revolt, which as mentioned had consequences for the British efforts on the Mesopotamian front.
Yet another reason was what Lloyd George called the propaganda effect. See his Memoirs of the Peace Conference Volume II. Now enter stage left Chaim Weizman, Lord Rothschild and Lord Balfour.
Actually at this point I can rephrase my earlier question. Now instead of asking why Palestine, I can ask why the Balfour Declaration?
Amongst the factors lying in the background to this puzzle lies the English-French entente and the Sykes-Picot agreement. Under that agreement the French Russians and English would share control of the Middle East, cutting it up amongst themselves, but Palestine would come under some sort of shared control. The intended shared control probably indicates the disparaging light in which they saw Palestine. But Lloyd George opposed the idea. Reading his memoirs it seems he was partly motivated by religious sentiment. But that's not his primary consideration.
So we've made it to 1917. Take into account the years of disastrous military standoff in the trenches of France and Belgium, the foreseeable surrender of the Russians and the commitment of the Americans to join the war on the Allies’ side. One major question hanging in the air is whether the Russians will allow the Germans to get their hands on Russian materials food and raw materials to replenish their stores, thereby breaking the Allies sea blockade of the Central Powers? Or will the Russians resist complying with the Germans demands? The other question is whether the United States can be encouraged to speed up their entry to the war. And last but not least, yet another factor in the equation is the precarious state of the Allies’ gold supply and marketable securities needed for American purchases in order to continue pursuing the war til victory.
Surprise surprise, but Jews are now seen to be to be of considerable influence in moulding public opinion in both these arenas, as diametrically different as they are. On the one hand there are no shortage of prominent Jews amongst the Bolsheviks and millions of pro Zionist Jews in Eastern Europe. Ironically, from today’s perspective, at the time the Germans are seen favourably by most Jews for having fought Czarist Russia and the pogroming Cossacks. Lloyd George claims they helped the German army conquer Poland. The same is true with respect to American Jewry who saw the German army as liberators of their persecuted brethren. Lloyd George wrote that some of their most powerful leaders exerted a retarding influence on President Wilson's impulses in the direction of the Allies. The advantage is not lost on the Germans either and they press the Young Turks Ottoman regime to offer the Jews a homeland in Palestine, but they for their part drag their feet either out of incompetence or their desires for a pan Turkish Empire ridden of foreign minorities. The British Cabinet considers and analyses their options with respect to winning Jewish support. A Jewish Battalion is formed. Of the various streams of thought abounding in the Jewish world, pro Zionist and anti,isolationist and religious, the British Cabinet concludes that the majority of Jews lean towards Zionism, at least at a populist level. Their bet pays off and American Jewry’s approval rating for the Germans cools off and American troops march into Europe and much Jewish Russian opinion calls for a pro British stance.
It is argued that Chaim Weizman had the nous to understand that at that time, the force that would shape the future of the Middle East was not demographics but the interests of the superpowers of the day. Oh and then again the Jews of Palestine fought with the British and the Arabs for the Turks(as opposed to their more eastern cousins who participated in the Arab Revolt).
Be'er Sheva in 1917
But according to Lloyd George’s memoirs the Balfour Declaration is not all about cold calculation and cynicism. He professes a great deal of sympathy for the Zionist idea and the people of the book, after centuries of persecution, if not also in recognition of their industry and resourcefulness and sometimes wealthy and powerful cohorts. The main source of opposition in the cabinet, it would seem, was centred on the apparent infeasibility of populating such a small, poor and rain depleted backwater,ravaged by war and centuries of neglect and misrule, with millions of Jews.
And for Britain, an experienced colonial superpower, the problems posed by a larger Arab population at the time in Palestine than Jews and the delicacy and potential tinderbox of competing Holy Places for three different religions were not lost on them. In fact in the post war negotiations the British offered the Americans the mandate over Palestine. But the Americans, maybe wisely, declined the offer.
So Lloyd George’s government promised the Jews a national homeland, in the Balfour Declaration, hoping that with time the foreseeable problems would pan themselves out, and eventually with enough Zionist colonisation some sort of feasible Jewish commonwealth would be established and be a pro-British ally in the region.
Not only did Lloyd George achieve his propaganda ambitions and win Jewish popularity, but if one takes into account the French and Russian opposition to Britain annexing Palestine to her empire, and the fact that before the mandate the English had no foothold in the Holy Land by means of Catholic and Orthodox churches as did the French and Russians, patronage or a protective relationship with the Zionists would be expedient and lend the British a foothold in the region which they didn’t as yet enjoy.
It’s against that background that the flower of Australia’s pioneering generations rode out of the bush and across the page of history. They fought and won the key battle in Allenby’s campaign and bore the brunt of the fighting in the conquest of Palestine, against the Turkish foe they’d heard next to nothing of before leaving Australia. And as for us Israelis, how many Anzacs, apart from maybe Sir John Monash knew a Zionist from a Zen Buddhist? In liberating Palestine the Australian Light Horsemen unwittingly made possible the implication of the Balfour Declaration, which eventually led to the establishment of the modern State of Israel. And then those of them that survived the war were shipped off back home, back into obscurity.
No comments:
Post a Comment