Assess the impact of British Intervention 1914- 31 on the growth of Arab Nationalism in the ensuing

decade.
British intervention between 1914 and 1931 proved instrumental with regards to the enflaming of Arab
Nationalism. Perceptions of a pro Zionist bias weakened Britains claim as navigating a neutral path between
the competing demands of both Zionist and Arab groups. The sources I have selected for this enquiry assess
the issues of British duplicity, pro-Zionist bias in British policy, alongside the Arab reaction to perceived
British duplicity. Here, the sources I have selected disagree - some see British intervention as a failure to
address the needs of the majority, instead favouring the minority population, whilst others see it as a weak
and ineffective intervention from a distant foreign power. However, they collectively agree that British
intervention has a profound impact on the growth of Arab nationalism, eventually changing the shape of the
Middle East.
A key source which exemplifies evidence of British double dealing during the period 1914- 25 is the
McMahon- Hussein correspondence. This protracted exchange of letters sent in 1915, between the Sharif
Hussein of Mecca and Sir Henry McMahon (British High Commissioner in Egypt) proves highly contradictory
when compared with later agreements made by the British, first to the Arabs, and then to the Zionists through
the Balfour Declaration. In the correspondence, McMahon pledges to recognise and uphold the
independence of the Arabs clearly implying that Britain fully supported Arab goals of self determination. This,
according to the secondary interpretation found in Aspects of Britain, was to act as a precursor of the Arab
revolt against the Turks in 19161. However, this pledge was conditional, promising Hussein that
independence would be granted only if the Arabs were to revolt against the Turks. Additionally, the
correspondence conspicuously fails to mention Palestine, with the British arguing this omission had been
intentional thus justifying their refusal to grant the Arabs independence in Palestine after the war. The source
however, is limited by the discrepancies evident between Arab and British interpretations. The
correspondence is written in an evasive manner, with evident effusive floweriness as a result of the frequent
usage of official titles and honorifics, alongside the notable issues regarding the lack of a common language.
Moreover, McMahon was simply the British Consul-General in Egypt, and although speaking on behalf of the
British Government, his proposals carry little weight when compared to Sir Arthur Balfour, the British Foreign
Secretary of the time who played an active role in the issuing of the Balfour declaration.
Also useful in highlighting that British intervention between 1914-31 was both duplicitous and showed a bias
towards Zionism is the Balfour Declaration (1917). This letter from the British Foreign Secretary, Arthur
Balfour, to Lord Walter Rothschild, the leader of the British Jewish community, enflamed the Arab populous.
This source is invaluable due to the authorship of the source; Balfour was an elder statesman and had
previously served as First Lord of the Admiralty and so his writings carry more weight in contrast with the
rather obscure and lesser known McMahon. In sympathy with the Zionist cause, the declaration states that
the government viewed the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish population with
favour. However, whilst Balfour aimed to facilitate this objective, he also maintained that nothing should be
done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities or the rights
and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The language used within the Declaration is
precise in its implications, notably with regards to the chosen words of national home rather than state.
However, contradictions arise due to the fact that the words national home were interpreted by Zionists as a
national home for the Jews within Palestine, whereas for Anti-Zionists this meant a Jewish protectorate
located in Palestine. As a result by a stroke of the imperial pen, the Promised Land became twice-promised 2
according to the secondary works of Avi Shlaim, confirming the realisation that a contradiction had been
made evidential.

1 Reference Services Aspects of Britain: Britain and the Arab-Israeli conflict 1993 page 4

Assess the impact of British Intervention 1914- 31 on the growth of Arab Nationalism in the ensuing
decade.

The White Paper of June 1922 was issued as a means of clarifying Britains position as the Mandate Power,
and exemplifies British duplicity during the period. Written by Winston Churchill (at the time Colonial
Secretary) the paper sought to reassure the Arabs that Britain did not intend Palestine to become as Jewish
as England is English. The document reaffirmed British policy, clarifying that it was not committed to creating
a Jewish state, thus highlighting Churchills awareness of perceived contradictions between the Mc-Mahon
Hussein Correspondence and the Balfour Declaration. In addition, the wording of the Balfour Declaration
was addressed, which promised a Jewish National Home within Palestine as opposed to a nation state,
something which Churchill profoundly reiterated. Moreover, the paper emphasized the considerable progress
that Zionists had made regarding the establishment of a community with national characteristics, but made
clear that the British did not support a separate nation as a Jewish National Home, only a continuation of the
community within the Palestine region. Additionally as part of the White Paper, Britain acknowledged that it
should allow substantially increased Jewish immigration into Palestine in order to establish a firm Jewish
national home, thus explicitly exemplifying a pro Zionist bias in British policy. Moreover, the Jewish population
in Palestine during this period was still a minority, yet pro-Zionist bias further enflamed the Arab populous
due to prominent unjust policy. As a result Anglo-Arab cooperation was severely shaken 3 according to Ross.
The weight carried by this source cannot be overestimated, with the subsequent effects profoundly far
reaching. Additionally, Churchill was an already established figure, and had been first Lord of the Admiralty
during World War One, highlighting the weight of his decisions and convictions both domestically and
internationally.
Furthermore, by cross referencing a letter from the Muslim-Christian delegation to the Colonial Secretary,
Alfred Milner, in 1921 and the Balfour Declaration a clear relationship between the two sources illustrates
British duplicity from a Palestinian Arab perspective. Within the letter, the Palestinians state that they cannot
accept the Balfour Declaration as deciding our destinies and as a result dismiss the decisions and
comments made, regardless of the weight and official nature of the document. The letter depicts Britain as
duplicitous in its policy making, and is highly critical of British intervention due its varying commitments and
agreements. In the letter the delegation conveys Britain as pro-Zionist in its outlook, stating that the
declaration should be superseded. This clearly implies that the Palestinian Arabs believed they had been
subject to duplicitous action by the British, and the only solution to the problems suffered is to denounce the
Balfour Declaration. Fundamentally, as Ilan Pappe states the Arabs hoped that pan-Arabism would help
them to resist any compromise with the Zionist leadership 4 ultimately suggesting that reaction to pro-Zionist
policy regarding the Balfour Declaration required a pro-active and unified approach, as exemplified by the
letter. The source however, is limited in its weight due to the fact that the Muslim-Christian delegation, in
contrast with Balfour, had little known influence abroad. Although the delegation signified straining tensions,

2 Avi Shlaim http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%20Balfour%20Declaration%20and%20its

%20consequences.html

3 Ross, Stewart Teach Yourself the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict 2007 page 34

4 Pappe, Ilan A history of Modern Palestine 2006 page 86

Assess the impact of British Intervention 1914- 31 on the growth of Arab Nationalism in the ensuing
decade.
and a widespread feeling of betrayal and anger throughout much of the Arab population, a lack of
governance amongst much of the Arab population within Palestine meant that anger regarding Britain's
duplicitous action went relatively unnoticed internationally. However, regardless of the possible lack of weight
behind the source, it is still useful in reflecting popular opinion and conveying the strength of Arab feelings
towards Britain's duplicitous policies.
Another key source which exemplifies enflamed Arab nationalism as a result of a pro-Zionist Mandate power
is the MacDonald Black letter of 1931. The letter highlights British reaffirmation of a pro-Zionist stance
despite calls to limit Jewish immigration as tension was becoming evermore evidential between the Jewish
and Arab population. The letter carries significant weight due to the fact that it was issued by the British
Government, with Prime Minister MacDonald writing to Chaim Weizmann, the then President of the Jewish
Agency. After the recommendation of a limit on Jewish immigration in the Passfield White paper left many
Zionists up in arms, the Black Letter aimed to rectify the situation, primarily issuing Jews with additional
political and social rights thus appearing to be of notable value to the Zionist cause. Additionally, the letter
was arguably issued and written in an attempt to assuage the Jews5 according to the secondary works of
Schulze, which in comparison angered the Arab populous, giving rise to growth in Arab Nationalism. The
letter was written in the context of previous documents and was focused upon the clarification of British
position, both of which are key indications that British policy had become duplicitous in its formulation, with a
pro-Zionist bias. This is exemplified when Macdonald states that Britain is responsible for promoting the
establishment of a national home for the Jewish population, asserting Britains continued support for
statements made within the Balfour Declaration which supported the Jewish plight. As a result Zionists
regarded the issuing of the letter as means of restoration of the status quo, whereas the Arabs felt this letter
embodied a black frame for the White Paper fundamentally enflaming Arab nationalism to British
commitment to the Zionist cause irrespective of the social harm done with regards to the Mandate.
However, one needs to go beyond simple cross referencing and weigh up the relative value of the evidence.
The McMahon-Hussein correspondence, Balfour Declaration, Churchill Memorandum, Muslim Christian
Delegation and MacDonald Black Letter are all contemporary accounts/documents reflecting perceived
British intervention. The Muslim Christian delegation illustrates the views of the Palestinian Arabs, and herein
lies its value, for the delegation spoke regarding both the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence and the
Balfour Declaration - key documents concerning British duplicity. Churchills memorandum is a reliable
reflection of the British governments awareness of its duplicitous action and further confirms pro-zionist
policy. However, one must remember that although Churchill was to stick to previous statements made in the
Balfour Declaration and McMahon Hussein Correspondence, he aimed to appease the Arabs through the
issuing of the memorandum, asserting his belief that the Arabs should remain in Palestine, with a Jewish
national home, which was not to encompass the entirety of Palestine.
Overall, it appears that British invention between 1914 and 1931 was founded upon pro-Zionist concerns,
such as the establishment of a national home for the Jewish population, as seen in the issuing of the Balfour
Declaration. British Intervention during this period strengthened British control over Palestine, leading to a
slight rise in the prominence of Arab nationalism, as seen though broadly accepted and asserted documents
and events, such as the Muslim Christian Delegation, and the Wailing Wall massacre. British intervention had
highlighted the true nature of British rule, with evidence to suggest that this incession duplicitous as
exemplified by the Mc-Mahon Hussein Correspondence and The Balfour Declaration, which when compared
appear to promise different things to both the Jews and Arabs, sparking some resentment. Arguably, British

5 Schulze, Kirsten. E The Arab Israeli Conflict 2008 page 8

Assess the impact of British Intervention 1914- 31 on the growth of Arab Nationalism in the ensuing
decade.
involvement that tended towards the Palestinian plight was simply met by a contraction regarding Zionist
support, ultimately leading to the common belief that Britain was pro-Zionist in its intentions.