"Perfidious Albion" and the Mandate for Palestine

 In replying to a comment by a friend on Facebook who wrote: 

"I honestly don't understand how they drew the border between Jordan and Iraq up north, Jordan's shape makes no sense to me."

Why England demanded the Mandate over Palestine 

As a (highly paid Oh, how I wish!!!) Hasbarnik and "historian", I wanted to draw everyones attention to historically recorded facts and the nefarious act of "Perfidious Albion", used by the British.

I especially want to point out British Imperial interests in the 

events surrounding the "Balfour  Declaration" and the creation of the League of Nations and the eventual division of the Ottoman Turkish Empire as outlined in the De Bunsen Committee report on 30 June 1915 that called for the creation of a decentralised, federal Ottoman state in Asia.

Background:

What initially drove the British to control the area of "Palestine" was the guarding of the "Gateway to India".

Since the opening of the Suez Canal on 17 November 1869, the Middle East had become the gateway to India, so who controlled the lands adjacent to the canal, and what happened there, was of vital importance. It had long been obvious that the Ottoman Empire – the famous “Sick man of Europe” – would eventually collapse. The burning question was what would succeed it. 

To the alarm of Britain and France, Russia was keen to extend her influence into the Levant, and the general thrust of British foreign policy was aimed at preventing that happening. Initially, Britain supported attempts to prop up and reform the Ottoman regime, but when it became clear that these were not going to work, the problem became how she could shape the post-Ottoman world to suit her own ends. Balfour and others took the view that if the Zionists were allowed to build up a Jewish “state”, with British support and encouragement, they would be reliable allies in the region.

Allow me to insert here that the highly Machevallian manuvers behind Lord Arthur James Balfour's Declaration, "MAY" have been based or in part influenced by his fundamentalist Christian belief, the culmination of four hundred years of British Christian Zionism prevelant in the British aristocracy and upper class British political establishment. 

At the same time one should note as well as the existence of a vile trope of European antisemitism articulated in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", first published in Russia in 1903, which claimed there was a secret Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world present among many of the British aristocracy and upper class British political establishment.  . 

The extent to which elements of  the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" were a malicious parody of Herzl’s Judenstaat, and the Zionist Congresses were the “reality” behind the alleged meetings of the Elders of Zion.

By issuing the Balfour Declaration, a great power had gone public with its support for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine as was mentioned in Der Judenstaat (1896), which would form for (Christian) Europe “an integral part of its defensive wall in Asia . . . an outpost of civilization against barbarism”.

Gertrude Bell & TE Lawrence

It should be noted that Britain saw to it that the Declaration: "...in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" was included the terms of the Mandated region that the League of Nations gave it to administer to elicit symapthy supposedly from the "Jewish Cabal".

Once the Mandate was given to Britain suddenly the British Administration began to "back peddle" on their promises. 

Specifically as TE Lawernce, Gertrude Bell-( who openly hated Jews) who was managing

control of Mesopotamia as its Oriental Secretary alongside the Military Governor and Lord Curzon claimed there was; "...uncertainty and unrest among certain sections of the population". 

Because of this, and to sooth Arab emotions, the British Issued the "White Paper of June 1922" where the wording of the Balfour Declaration is reviewed in vague terms; 

"...“a national home” was capable of both statist and non-statist interpretations". 

"the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to, do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.'

"Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian,(meaning Jew and Arab alike)"

When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. 

But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. 

That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection."

Pictured to the right; Emir Abdullah receiving the British Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill, and his wife Clementine, upon their arrival in Cairo for the conference .  

It needs to be noted that the nefarious "White Paper" also reconfirmed the promise made to the Arabs in a letter, dated the 24th October, 1915, from Sir Henry McMahon, 

"His Majesty's High Commissioner in Egypt, to the Sharif of Mecca, now King Hussein of the Kingdom of the Hejaz agreed to an "independent national government" to be established in the Mandated Palestine Territory EAST of the Jordan(river). As to the remainder of the Mandated Palestine Territory "west of the Jordan" it is intended by the League of Nations and the Balfour Declaration to be converted into a Jewish National Home and was thus excluded from Sir. Henry McMahon's pledge.

As to WHAT drove British Machiavellianism?

From my extensive research of historical records British aims in the Middle East were driven by both the strategic importance of the Suez Canal and to assertain the continual supply of oil from the vast oil fields of Kirkuk and Persia for the Royal Fleet and the British military.

It was these two reasons that drove British demands during negotiations in San Remo for the Treaty of Serves, for the assignment of Mandated regions as outlined in the De Bunsen committee report "Committee of Imperial Defence: Asiatic Turkey, Report of a Committee" which was issued on 30 June 1915. The 

"Concerning Palestine it reported that it would be “...idle for His Majesty’s Government to claim the retention of Palestine in their sphere. Palestine must be recognized as a country whose destiny must be the subject of special negotiations, in which both belligerents and neutrals are alike interested”. 

In case of the partition or zones of influence options then the Committee defined a British sphere of influence that included Palestine while accepting that there were relevant French and Russian, as well as Islamic interests in Jerusalem and the Holy Places."

"Britania rules the waves": 

Regarding the urgent need for secure sources of fuel oil:

When the industrial revolution ended the “Age of Sail,” coal that fired the boilers of steam-powered ships became a major strategic resource. 

Worldwide “coaling stations” were essential for major naval powers like England at a time when oil was little more than a lubricant or a resource for making lamp kerosene.

Oil production began in the United States in 1859, but as Pennsylvania oilfield discoveries continued, Congress in 1866 appropriated $5,000 to evaluate petroleum as a potential replacement for coal to fire the Navy’s boilers. 

The conclusion arrived at by US Admiral George Henry Preble; 

“Was that convenience, health, comfort and safety were against the use of petroleum in steam-vessels,” and that “The only advantage shown was a not very important reduction in the bulk and weight of fuel carried,”

As the leaders in naval, trade and industrial power Great Britain had control of massive local coaling resources which served to strengthen its grasp of power. With supplies of coal on hand the Admiralty in Great Britain also resisted making the coal to oil switch.

What changed the minds of the "world sea powers" about using coal for fuel was the Spanish-American War of 1898.

For the first time, coal-fired war vessels had to fight far from the continental shores. Despite American victories in Manila Bay in the Philippines and Santiago de Cuba, hard strategic lessons were learned by the U.S. Navy about fueling coal-powered battleships. 

Because of this need to change to fuel oil naval ships in a message to Congress by President Taft on December 6, 1910 stated: 

"As not only the largest owner of oil lands, but as a prospective large consumer of oil by reason of the increasing use of fuel oil by the Navy, the federal government is directly concerned both in encouraging rational development and at the same time insuring the longest possible life to the oil supply."

This message to the US Congress of the need to achieve secure sources of oil was heard and understood by British Admirals and the Admiralty in England. The Admiralty had also closely observed the actions of the US Navy during the Spanish-American War of 1898 and the awarness of the American administration to the change realized that: 

“Despite the many advantages that oil held over coal for naval ships (cleaner, easier to refuel, more powerful, etc.), the fact that Britain did not own a supply of oil made the decision to switch painful necessity.”

Thereupon, the British government sought a majority share of the Anglo-Iranian oil company, and the age of ‘petro-politics’ began.”

"THE" major "wake-up call" to instigate the need for a rapid change over from coal to oil in England was the Agadir Crisis of April 1911 which had a profound effect ob Britain's Home Secretary Winston Churchill who "awoke" to the realization that the Royal Navy must convert its power source from coal to oil, to preserve its supremacy. 

In June 1914, Winston Churchill convinced the House of Commons to authorise the government purchase of a 51 percent share in the profits of oil produced by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, to secure continued oil access for the Royal Navy.

Until then, the locally abundant coal readily available Welsh Coal fields was favoured over imported oil from the area of Kirkuk in Persia.)

Subsequently, when asked by Prime Minister H. H. Asquith to become First Lord of the Admiralty, Churchill accepted despite his previous views about the need for naval expansion

Winston Churchill as the initiator of the change in the Royal Navy as First Lord of the Admiralty, was convinced that speed and efficiency offered by oil convinced him that "Mastery itself was the prize of the venture." 

As First Lord of the Admiralty, Churchill knew that England "MUST" achieve control over the oil fields of Kirkuk in Persia. 

It was this knowledge as British Colonial Secretary at the 1921 Cairo Conference that influenced the manuevers by the British in it's dealing with the Arabs in the designation and control over the specific Mandated Areas assigned by the League of Nations to ascertain the flow of oil through the Trans Arabian Pipeline (TAP line). 

Also known as the Kirkuk/Iraq–Haifa oil pipeline or Mediterranean pipeline it allowed the flow of crude oil from the oil fields in Kirkuk, located in the former Ottoman vilayet of Mosul in northern Iraq, through Transjordan to Haifa in the then Britsh Mandated Area of  Palestine (now in the territory of Israel). 

Instead of the time consuming expensive transfer to ships for a long voyage or by  tanker trucks by land. The oil was piped directly to Haifa where it was distilled in the Haifa refineries, stored in tanks, and then put in tankers for shipment to Europe.

The pipeline was built by the Iraq Petroleum Company between 1932 and 1934, and was operational between 1935 and 1948 during which period most of the area through which the pipeline passed was under a British mandate approved by the League of Nations.

The pipeline and the Haifa refineries were considered so strategically important by the British Government, that what was once a beautiful "natural harbor" with pristine beaches was horribly defaced by the Mandate power (England)  forever solely to provide much of the fuel needs of the British and American forces in the Mediterranean before and during World War II. 

It is highly important to note that in the late nineteenth century the major naval powers began a naval race to construct new types of warships like the HMS Dreadnought of the British Navy launched in 1906, and the USS Texas launched in 1912, also known as Battleship Texas. The Royal Navy had 22 dreadnoughts (another 13 were completed during World War I), Germany built a total of 19 (five completed after 1914) and the United States completed 22 (14 of them after 1914). Japan and Italy built six, while Russia and France each built seven.

Many civilian ships also slowly converted from coal to oil. Since oil has a higher energy density than coal and more energy can be obtained from the same capacity, it was possible to reduce the size of the fuel tank on board and expand cargo space. It also meant a significant reduction in the number of crew members required as it negated the need to load coal and throw coal into the boiler.

The development of internal combustion engines led to the introduction of marine diesel engines, and ships began to convert their main engines to them, which had significantly higher fuel efficiency compared to the external combustion engines such as reciprocating steam engines or steam turbines.