To what extent did the decline of the ottoman empire lead to british support for the creation of the zionist homeland?

The Ottoman Empire, which had ruled for around six centuries, came to an end in 1918 when it was divided in accordance with the Sykes-Picot agreement. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire permitted other powers like Britain and France to expand their imperial influence over the once-Ottoman territory, which included Mesopotamia, the Hejaz Peninsula, and Anatolia. By 1917, Britain had published the Balfour statement, thereby endorsing the emigration of European Jews to Palestine under British rule and the establishment of their promised country.

This essay aims to provide an answer to what extent did the decline of the Ottoman empire lead to British support for the creation of the Zionist homeland. of the Ottoman empire. This article will review and discuss the major problems the Ottoman empire had in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries that contributed to its demise, as well as how this partitioning permitted the British to rule over the Middle East and assist the establishment of a Zionist homeland.

The British government's motivations for supporting Zionism and creating the homeland described in the Balfour proclamation are still up for debate today. While others contend that the support was mostly fueled by the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe and Britain and that creating a Zionist homeland was a way to finally get rid of them and end "The Jewish Question, As a result, the author of this inquiry will contend that the primary reason for British support was due to the Ottoman Empire's decline, which allowed for the expansion of imperial control in the Middle East. This inquiry must be looked into since it explains how the fall of a strong empire led to The Arab-Israeli conflict having its roots in British support for a Zionist state, one of the most contentious and well-known issues in the world today.

As European Jews increasingly gained freedom in the wake of the French Revolution and the Enlightenment, the beginning of the nineteenth century in Europe signaled the start of a new era for them. Despite their emancipation, Jews continued to suffer relentless persecution, murder, forced conversions, expulsions, and cultural, spiritual, and bodily extinction. Jews' partial integration and cultures' failure to fully accept and absorb them as first-class citizens were cited as the root causes of these cruel crimes committed against them. The rise of anti-Semitism led Jews and Theodor Herzl, the father of political Zionism, to believe that the genuine answer to the "Jewish Question" lay not in assimilation or conversion but in the unity of Jews under a single Jewish sovereign state. In his book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State), Theodor Herzl goes on to explain this strategy for resolving the "Jewish Question" in more detail: Let us be given sovereignty over a region of the world big enough to meet a nation's legitimate needs. The establishment of a new State is neither absurd nor impossible.

In contrast to Jewish authorities, European Jews embraced Herzl's views with fervor. In August 1897, Herzl formed the First Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland, in response to this appeal to the Jewish community. This incident served as the catalyst for the Zionist movement, an effort to secure Jewish people's political and social rights. The subject of where the Zionist state would be formed was raised following the creation of the Congress and the World Zionist Organization. In his book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State), Herzl makes the following claim to introduce his position on the matter: "Palestine is our ever-memorable ancient home. With a force of extraordinary potency, the word Palestine would draw our people. This meant that for the Jews to realize their goal of creating a state, Palestine, which was under Ottoman administration at the time, was crucial. With this, Herzl tried to persuade Abdül Hamid II, the Ottoman sultan in power at the time, to permit Jewish immigration and the establishment of a country, but the negotiation was unsuccessful.

To the Zionists, however, the establishment of a state in Palestine was not neglected despite the Ottomans' denial, and it was now established that the colonization of Palestine was required in order to realize their ideal. But the Zionists understood they required the backing and sponsorship of a major power to do this. They would find it incongruous to make any commitments to the Zionist Jews in the same region given that France was the guardian of the Syrian and Maronite Catholics. In light of this, the British empire's strength was growing due to its expanding realm, particularly its involvement in the Middle East through the acquisition of the Suez Canal and the conquest of Egypt, and by 1902, it had become clear to Zionists that the British were the ideal choice to support their plan to colonize Palestine.

The Ottoman Empire, on the other hand, was in decline as its territory gradually fragmented along with its internal authority well. This was due to European nations' efforts to increase their dominance through colonial activities, such as splitting the African continent among themselves. The Young Turks' constitutional revolution, which began in 1908 and was led by the Committee of Progress (CUP), was an uprising against Sultan Abdülhamid II that sought to reinstate the constitution the sultan had suspended in 1877 and that ultimately to his abdication in 1909. This Changes in leadership and the distribution of power caused internal strife inside the empire because they increased discontent among the many different ethnic groups that made up the empire. Due to the perception that the "Ottoman Islamic Empire had been supplanted by a pro-Turkish government, nationalism among the most dominant ethnic groups, such as the Arabs and Armenians, began to grow. Because of the division, the empire appeared weaker, and the CUP members began to feel as though their remaining territory was being used as bait by the European powers.

The British had begun to notice that the situation in the empire was getting worse during this time. In a letter to the ambassador in Vienna, British diplomat Lord Hardinge writes, "We [British] are not content with the situation in Constantinople." He continues by stating that despite the CUP's admirable goals, they continue to "gain very little ground." Although Henry Asquith's administration, where any plans to conquer the empire and divide its territory were rejected, saw the British retain a neutral stance toward the Ottomans, ties with More than ever, the Young Turks were losing their appeal. Though many politicians and diplomats campaigned for the radical policy that intended to partition the empire and divide it up among the Entente countries, Asquith faced strong opposition to retaining a reformist approach toward the Ottomans. They believed that taking part in the Ottoman empire's demise would benefit Britain by strengthening its imperial control in the Middle East, as opposed to attempting to maintain the Ottoman empire's territorial integrity.

Thus, it appeared that the Young Turk revolution not only sowed internal tensions among its people that eventually led them to rebel against the Ottomans but also sowed external disputes that furthered the empire's reputation as feeble and what was referred to as "the Sick man of Europe."

On the eve of World War One, the Ottoman empire suffered devastating territorial losses, depletion of its arsenal, and a downturn in its economy as a result of the Balkan and Italo-Turkish wars. All of the empire's remaining influence in Europe up to this time had been stolen by the wars. When the conflict started, the British issued a warning that if the Ottomans sided with the Central powers, the empire would need to change its strategy and consider partition, but its stance remained neutral. Despite the warning, and despite the CUP members' poor military abilities and the declining state of the empire, the Young Turks allied with Germany and entered World War I. One may argue that the Ottoman empire's entry into the conflict was inevitable given its perception of the growing colonialism of the European powers and its belief that keeping a neutral stance would only give the Europeans control of its remaining resources and territory. But despite the Ottomans' actions, the British continued to back the upkeep of Ottoman integrity, and official British policy continued to reject the fall of the empire. However, the Ottoman entry into the war and its collaboration with the Germans were seen by the British and other European powers as a threat, making the empire a significant target. This is evident in the British-led campaigns that were launched in the last remaining Ottoman areas, such as the Mesopotamian and later Gallipoli battles. Despite their reforming objective, these campaigns implied that the British were advancing to conquer Middle Eastern lands.

Through a series of naval missions, the Allies made the decision in 1915 to seize the city of Gallipoli, control the Strait of Dardanelle, and march on the Ottoman capital, Constantinople. If the Allies were to prevail, this attack on the Ottoman Empire would have various advantages for them, but its main objective was to create a new front that the Ottomans could not handle, forcing them to withdraw from the war entirely. When the Allies attacked the Gallipoli peninsula, they did not anticipate the Ottomans to fight as fiercely as they did. As a result, the Allies quickly capitulated with heavy losses and injuries because they underestimated the Ottomans' reaction. The British cabinet decided to remove Asquith from office after the Gallipoli campaign's failure, which provided the radical faction with the opportunity to carry out its long-held goal of making its policy pro-Zionist and anti-Ottoman. The British were also made aware of the prospect of losing the war and their capacity to defend the Suez Canal and other crucial economic interests in the Middle East as a result of the Gallipoli defeat. Furthermore, Charlwood highlights the Gallipoli campaign's significant influence on British policy toward Arabs and how this change resulted in an alliance with the Arabs against the Ottomans which would prove to be effective with the Arab
revolt.

After devastating defeats in its Mesopotamian campaign, as it withdrew from Gallipoli and submitted at Kut, the British changed their approach towards Arabs. They were ready and determined to topple the Ottoman Empire. In his biography, British lieutenant T.E. Lawrence, who was instrumental in organizing the Arab uprising and was crucial to its success, writes on the close ties between the Arabs and the Ottomans: "They [Turks] encouraged them by subtle dissensions to distrust one another. These acts "were not accepted peacefully" by the Arabs, which resulted in several rebellions in Syria, Mesopotamia, and Arabia against the grosser forms of Turkish penetration. Even the Arabic language was expelled from courts and offices, government service, and better schools.

In light of this, Sharif Hussein tried to negotiate with the British on behalf of all Arabs to demand their independence from the Ottoman Empire. The British had never considered joining forces with the Arabs to oppose the Ottomans. Still, they accepted the Arabs' proposals for discussions and demanded that the Arabs overthrow the Ottomans in exchange for their independence because they were so anxious to win the war. The Hussein-McMahon correspondence, a series of letters written by Sharif Hussein and Henry McMahon, High Commissioner of Egypt, served as the basis for these negotiations.

The Arab Revolt was started by correspondence. Still, a month earlier, the British had joined a covert agreement with the French called the Sykes-Picot agreement that called for the division of the Middle East after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and established the control of the French and British over the region after the war. It was pretty evident that the British had no real intention of keeping their promises to the Arabs and only sought them as a medium through which they could advance their interests in the Middle East and finally put an end to the most significant threat posed to them, the Ottoman empire because the Arabs were completely unaware of the double-dealing that was taking place behind their backs. The correspondence between Sharif Hussein and Sir McMahon, fully compliant with the Sykes-Picot agreement, served as evidence of this. Additionally, Sharif Hussein was not directly informed of the precise situation by the letters' substance, which was imprecise and vague enough to leave room for interpretation.

Despite the lack of visibility, the Arab uprising began, and raids on Ottoman garrisons within the Hejaz were launched. The Ottomans' surrender and granting of the Armistice of Mudros in October 1918 ended the Arab uprising after two years of nonstop fighting and numerous campaigns.

Given the significant changes in Ottoman governance and the subpar CUP members' leadership, it may be determined that the Arabs had every justification and right to revolt against the Ottomans. Kedourie countered that despite the Hussein-McMahon correspondence's ambiguous language, the Arabs acted hastily and were naive to assume that their pledges would be kept.

The Arab uprising signalled the official division of the Ottoman Empire, and because the British controlled Palestine and Jordan under the Sykes-Picot Agreement, it opened the door for the Balfour Declaration, which laid out the terms of the agreement allowing European Jews to immigrate to Palestine and reclaim it as their ancestral homeland.

Zionist leaders were searching for the most significant force ready to back their cause and ensure a permanent Jewish homeland in Palestine after Theodor Herzl founded the World Zionist Organization in the late 19th century. The Zionists' attempts to persuade the British government to support their goals were met with failure after failure. Keeping the Zionists'The strongest indication that aspirations were never the British government's top priority is that it only offered support for both the Arab Revolt and the Iranian Revolution one year prior. Then World War I was over. With Asquith's ouster, the radical faction finally declared its pro-Zionist policy and published the Balfour Declaration, endorsing the establishment of the Zionist homeland in Palestine after years of struggles and conflicts between the British ruling class over its policy toward the partitioning of the Ottoman empire.

The Balfour statement was contained in a letter that Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour sent to Lord Walter Rothschild, one of Britain's most prominent citizens and a close friend of Chaim Weizmann, on November 7, 1917. History continues to debate the motivations behind the Balfour Declaration, with Tuchman and Stein arguing that they were purely religious. They contend that the Declaration was published to make up for the debt that "Christian Civilization" owed to the Jewish population, against whom it had long practised discrimination throughout Europe. While others, like Fromkin, Kedourie, and Verite, argued that because Palestine was so close to the Suez Canal, Britain helped the Zionists in their effort to establish a homeland there. By doing so, Britain solidified its imperial rule and avoided any risks to its control of the Canal. Verite further emphasizes that the British were not drawn to Palestine by Zionists and that the British government had long since made decisions regarding Palestine and "her future" during the war. In a similar vein, Gutwein argues that the guarantee of British imperial rule over the Middle East and the expansion of their colonialism to Palestine were the sole reasons the radical faction within the British government supported the Zionists' ambition.

Britain established a mandate in Palestine and its other assigned regions when the Sykes-Picot agreement was enacted, and the League of Nations ratified it in 1921. The Balfour Declaration ultimately permitted Jewish immigration after the Ottoman empire had been divided and destroyed and the British had been assured of maintaining control of Palestine.

Prior to the war and even during it, the British did not place a high priority on assisting the Zionists; they only started to do so a year before the war ended. Prior to Zionist pleas and advances, the British already had their eyes on Middle Eastern land and were aware that with the Ottoman empire's decline, the region would inevitably fall into the hands of them and other European countries. The British were prepared to rule the region in light of the domestic issues brought on by the Young Turk revolution and the empire's continued decline as a result of its involvement in the war. Attacking at Gallipoli and expecting to defeat the Ottomans was a step closer to British hegemony, but after their defeat, the British decided to join forces with the Arabs to achieve their military objectives. The British understood through letters that the partition of the Ottoman empire would fulfil Zionist goals, giving them the upper hand in the region. It is obvious that the Ottoman empire's fall gave the British the opportunity to rule the Middle East and further their political and economic objectives. In addition, the Zionists' methods and backing gave the British the chance to cement and ensure the hegemony they had always sought.

Herzl, Theodor. “The Jewish Question.” The Jewish State, Dover, 1989

Lawrence, Thomas Edward. Seven Pillars of Wisdom, Penguin Modern Classics,2000

Erickson, Edward J. Ordered to Die a History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War. Greenwood Press, 2001

Dennis, Peter, and David Murphy. The Arab Revolt 1916-18 Lawrence Sets Arabia Ablaze. Osprey, 2008

Cohen, Michael J. “Centenary of the Balfour Declaration.” Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 53, no. 6, Routledge, Nov. 2017

Gutwein, Danny. “The Politics of the Balfour Declaration: Nationalism, Imperialism and the Limits of Zionist-British Cooperation.” Journal of Israeli History, vol. 35, no. 2, 2016

Charlwood, David J. “The Impact of the Dardanelles Campaign on British Policy Towards the Arabs: How Gallipoli Shaped the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence.” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 42, no. 2, 2014

Stork, Joe. “Understanding the Balfour Declaration.” MERIP Reports, no. 13,1972

Kedourie, Elie. The Anglo-Arab Labyrinth: the McMahon-Husayn Correspondence and its interpretations 1914-1939. Routledge, 2014

Fromkin, David. A Peace to End All Peace: the Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Middle East. Avon Books, 1990

Heller, Joseph. “From Criticism to Opposition.” British Policy towards the Ottoman Empire 1908-1918. Routledge, 2016

Verete, Mayir. “The Balfour Declaration and Its Makers.” Palestine and Israel in the 19th and 20th Centuries, by Elie Kedourie and Sylvia G. Haim, Cass, 1982

Israel Studies An Anthology: The History of Zionism https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israel-studies-an-anthology-the-history-of-zionism. Accessed 31 Oct. 2020.

Theodor (Binyamin Ze’ev) Herzl. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/theodor-binyamin-ze-rsquo-ev-herzl. Accessed 1 Nov. 2020

Balfour Declaration Letter Written. 16 Nov. 2009, www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-balfour declaration. Accessed 2 Jan. 2021

El Bakri, Alia. “ Revolutions and Rebellions: Arab Revolt (Ottoman Empire/Middle East).” 1914-1918-Online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War, 25 May 2018, encyclopedia.1914- 1918- online.net/article/revolutions_and_rebellions_arab_revolt_ottoman_empiremiddle_east. Accessed 30 Dec. 2020.

The Ottoman Empire. history. govt. NZ/war/ottoman-empire/background. Accessed 7 Jan. 2021.

Suez Canal Opens. 9 Feb. 2010, www.history.com/this-day-in-history/suez-canal-opens. Accessed 10 Jan. 2021