Israeli-Palestinian conflict was made in Britain. During the First World War, contradictory promises were made to Jewish and Arab leaders that have led to a hundred years of hostility and an intractable political stalemate today. “Palestine was a twice-promised land, and due to “dishonest dealings” has a moral responsibility to be an active participant in finding a future in which both Israelis and Palestinians can be enabled to flourish,” says a former Bishop of Oxford, John Pritchard , who adds “If both Israelis and Palestinians are to come through their antipathy and thrive together, then some international player needs to step up. No nation has more moral responsibility than the UK.”

Britain’s handling of the status of Palestine has “long been a matter of shameful obfuscation,”. according to John Pritchard in his review of Dr. Peter Shambrook’s book “Policy of Deceit, Britain and Palestine 1914-1939” a “forensic analysis of primary sources in this country’s dealings with Arab leaders.”

“The main problem was that in the 1917 Balfour Declaration, Britain made a promise to the Zionist Organisation that was incompatible with the promise to the Arabs.” Says John Pritchard, “The letter, written by Arthur, later Lord, Balfour, promised to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine as long as “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. Britain’s failure in regard to this latter proviso is patent to this day.” he added.

The correspondence of 1915-17, particularly “should finally nail the issue of Britain’s double-dealing and lead to an honest acknowledgment of Britain’s failures.”

Dr. Peter Shambrook is an independent scholar and historical consultant to the Balfour Project, which works to advance equal rights for all in Palestine/Israel. He holds a PhD in modern Middle Eastern history from the Faculty of Oriental Studies, Cambridge, and over the course of his career he has held a number of research positions, including at Durham University and at the Centre for Lebanese Studies in Oxford.  writes:

Balfour, 1917, Britain breaks its promises

John McHugo  a trustee of the Balfour Project and a board member of CAABU. He is the author of three books about the history of the Middle East also reviewed “Policy of Deceit” by Dr Shambook, he says,

“Before Peter Shambrook produced Policy of Deceit, many historians in the West had shied away from the controversy over the Hussein-MacMahon correspondence of 1915-16. Whatever British commitments the letters contained were deemed ambiguous or obscured by partisan scholarship. Although this view was not universally shared, there was a widespread perception that there was no realistic chance of getting to the bottom of what the commitments meant, or establishing whether they were legally binding.”

Yet Arabs have always maintained that the correspondence included an implicit but legally binding British commitment to Palestinian independence at the end of the First World War. What it contained is therefore important. If the Arab interpretation is right, Britain was acting in bad faith when it issued the Balfour Declaration in 1917. The question of which interpretation is correct has divided opinion ever since, very often on partisan lines, and has smouldered on to this day.”

Untenable and Deceitful

Praising Dr. Shambrook for his research into British archives,, which he says “is truly prodigious.” McHugo adds that his “forensic approach has given him what will almost certainly be the final word on this topic.” […] “Dr Shambrook “shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the British interpretation was not only untenable but deceitful and that the Arab interpretation was correct, although HMG could never bring itself to admit this.” Yet, he also draws attention to many other instances of British dishonesty in its treatment of Palestine, as well as to the parallel dishonesty on the part of Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist leader. Policy of Deceit is an apt title for the book.” according to McHugo, an excerpt of his review is below:

John McHugo’s review.

The Letter – 14th July 1915

It all began on 14 July 1915. The Sharif of Mecca, Hussein bin Ali, who was the guardian of the Muslim Holy Places in Mecca and Medina and a 37th-generation descendant of the Prophet Muhammad, wrote a letter to Sir Henry MacMahon, the British High Commissioner in Egypt.

This initiated a correspondence which led to the Sharif raising the standard of Arab nationalist revolt against the Turks. The Sharif remained adamant for the rest of his life that in the correspondence Britain recognised Palestine as an Arab country entitled to independence at the end of the First World War, and this commitment was part of the understanding that persuaded him to join Britain and the other Allied Powers against Turkey and Germany.

Britain Denied Correspondence

Yet this did not stop Britain issuing the Balfour Declaration well over a year after the Sharif began his revolt. It committed Britain to facilitate the establishment of “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. Ever afterwards, Britain would be forced to deny that the correspondence made a prior commitment that recognised Palestine as an Arab country and promised it independence.  

The Sharif Hussein’s letters to MacMahon were in Arabic, written in long-hand and couched in the style used by hereditary rulers in the Arabian peninsula at that time. The letters contained elaborate greetings and expressions of sentiment, tended to evade issues that might cause offence, expressed important points with subtlety, and hopped from one topic to another. This would help British policymakers and officials to argue subsequently that the correspondence was “ambiguous and inconclusive”. Yet when clarity was needed it was there.

The very first letter set out clearly the demand for “England to acknowledge the independence of the Arab countries” and contained a precise geographical description of the areas Hussein considered those countries to cover. The thinking behind the crucial paragraphs that set this out had originated among Arab nationalists in Greater Syria (which included Palestine) and Iraq. But the Sharif’s demand put the High Commissioner and his superiors in London on the spot.

What attitude should imperial Britain take to a new, potentially powerful, Arab state made up of the Arab areas of the Ottoman Empire?

MacMahon could not read Arabic, so he dealt with the letters from the Sharif in English translations and drafted his replies in English for translation into Arabic (the Sharif could not read or speak English). He initially side-stepped the issue of Arab independence, hoping it would go away, but received a polite rebuke which referred to the High Commissioner’s ambiguity and his “tone of coldness and hesitation with regard to our essential point”.

The following letters included a polite haggle over which areas Britain would recognise as intended for the future Arab state. On 24 October 1915, MacMahon set out certain limitations on British recognition of the Arab claims. The limitation that is relevant to Palestine was his statement that “…portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the limits demanded [for the Arab state].” 

For his part, the Sharif was adamant that these “portions of Syria” were Arab. He reserved his position, stating that once the war was won he would renew his claims to these areas. The parties agreed to disagree, and he rose up against the Turks.  

In 1917-8, Britain drove the Turks out of Palestine. British aircraft dropped leaflets in Arabic saying that Britain had promised the Arabs independence. Some or all of the leaflets included a picture of the Sharif Hussein. Recruitment of soldiers for the Sharifian army proceeded in areas of Palestine once they were under British occupation.

Palestine’s Right of Self-Determination

When Britain decided to implement the 1917 Balfour Declaration in Palestine, Palestinians and other Arabs argued that Palestine had a right of self-determination based on Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations as well as natural law. They also referred to the Hussein-MacMahon correspondence and to Britain’s pledge in that correspondence.

They drew attention to the fact that Palestine did not lie “to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo”, and asserted that Britain had thus recognised Palestine as an Arab country. Jews would be welcome in Palestine, they stressed, but they would not be allowed to take over the country, which was the goal of the Zionist movement.

If you find the review interesting I recommend reading the full in-depth review by JohnMcHugo Source

Both McHugo and Dr Shambrook are members of the Balfour Project, their mission statement is below.

Balfour Project,

Time For Britain to Set the Record Straight

Britain might have agreed to facilitate such a take-over in the Balfour Declaration, but it had had no right to do so. Dr Shambrook appealed for” an acknowledgment by Britain of the truth,” and pointed out such an acknowledgment might help heal the wounds of history. The British Government remains shamefully silent on the prior commitments MacMahon had made on Britain’s behalf, with the approval of Whitehall.

It is now surely time for Britain to set the record straight.