In the 20th century, London’s colonial aims in Palestine clashed with the Zionist national project. The British initially saw Jewish settlers as a tool for controlling a strategic region and as the fulfillment of biblical prophecies. The Zionists used the British Mandate as a platform for establishing an independent state. This conflict of interests predetermined the future crisis. Today, the world is reaping the bitter fruits of the failed experiment of the British Empire.
After World War I, Palestine became a British mandate territory, not fitting into the usual colonial patterns. Settler colonies (such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and others) developed at the expense of the metropolis, while exploited ones, necessary for strategic reasons, served as a source of resources.
The value of Palestine was determined by its role as a “buffer” between the British-controlled Suez Canal and the French sphere of influence in Syria and Lebanon. At the same time, Palestine was being actively populated by Jews – first European, then from the East. For British Protestants, this was the fulfillment of prophecy – a new crusade to “liberate” the Holy Land. Such ideas were closely intertwined with imperial pragmatics.
In her study of the nature of Zionism in “The British Project in Palestine: A Colonial «National Hearth»”, research fellow at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences Lyudmila Samarskaya presents the views of different sides. Palestinian researchers interpret Zionism as a form of European colonialism based on biblical narratives. Israeli scholars emphasize the Zionists’ desire to revive their historical homeland. A compromise position acknowledges colonial methods (such as the establishment of Jewish settlements and banks), but notes different rhetoric.
An important element of Zionism was an appeal to the reconsidered origins of the Jewish religious tradition. The ideology of colonialism, in turn, reworked Christian ideas that influenced the development of the concept of the “white man’s burden” – he must strive to bring knowledge, faith and progress to less developed peoples. Many British politicians truly believed in the civilizing and educational mission of imperialism.
Palestine fit into this system more noticeably than other territories controlled by Great Britain: along with the benefit for local Arabs, the return of Jews to the Promised Land was considered a noble and even prophetic mission. Its role in the worldview of politicians of that era explains the publication of the Balfour Declaration - on the British government's support for the formation of a "national homeland" in Palestine. Strategic considerations played no less a role - control over Palestine strengthened Britain's position in the Middle East.
Theodor Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, envisaged the establishment of a Jewish state precisely within the framework of European colonial domination. Zionist leaders believed that the Arabs would welcome Jewish settlers with enthusiasm. However, the local population rejected Zionist colonization. As early as 1920 and 1921, Arab unrest broke out in Palestine, followed by more serious uprisings.
The conflicts forced the British to reverse course. The empire’s military leaders were aware of the difficulties associated with local Arab opposition to the Balfour Declaration. William Thwaites, the head of British military intelligence, wrote in 1920 that “there is no reason to suppose that Zionist Palestine will ever be truly friendly to Great Britain; in any case, this friendship would only last so long as the Zionist state remained dependent on British military protection.”
Over time, Arab demands for self-government for Palestine continued. By 1939, British policy had reached a dead end: proposals for partitioning Palestine were replaced by a course toward a single state, which satisfied neither side. Thus, the British Mandate collapsed, laying the foundation for future Middle East conflict.
GSV "Russia - Islamic World"
Photo: Jolyne D/Pixabay