Most scholars of the Middle East agree that many conflicts present in the Middle East today can be attributed to the borders drawn by Western powers during the crucial Mandate period beginning in 1919 and continuing through the outbreak of World War I. The cases of Palestine/Israel and Lebanon provide especially salient examples of how unresolved policy issues dating back to the mandate period can continue to create devastating scenes of strife and national division in modern times. Throughout the course of this paper Britain and France's policies with regard to the mandates, assessing policy choices in the context of post-World War I Europe and using the results of those policies to critique choices on the part of the imperial powers will be discussed. It will be argued that policy decisions were taken with the goal of maintaining a lasting imperial presence in the region, and the ramifications of these decisions led to lasting conflicts within the mandates of Palestine and Lebanon. In the case of Lebanon, the French employed a divide-and-rule strategy in order to perpetuate sectarian divisions and create a situation where imperial presence would be deemed necessary to maintain stability. In the case of Palestine, Britain chose to support Jewish self-determination as a means to advance British interest in greater presence in the region, and the problem of adequately addressing Arab discontent only became part of that program when it threatened the Zionistpolitical position and the incompatibility of promises given to both groups began to manifest itself.
[...] Britain and France in Mandatory Palestine and Lebanon: Power, Division, and the Nation Most scholars of the Middle East agree that many conflicts present in the Middle East today can be attributed to the borders drawn by Western powers during the crucial Mandate period beginning in 1919 and continuing through the outbreak of World War I. The cases of Palestine/Israel and Lebanon provide especially salient examples of how unresolved policy issues dating back to the mandate period can continue to create devastating scenes of strife and national division in modern times. [...]
[...] The cycle of unrest continued as British influence in the mandatory government grew and Arab access was still inadequate. Alongside the setbacks with regard to setting up a council of Arabs to advise the high commissioner, it was very clear that Arab power within the mandatory government structure was purposefully kept at a minimum through the 1920s and 30s. According to Smith, though Arabs formed a majority of the population, this was not reflected in the number of Palestinians that eventually held government positions. [...]
[...] United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.Churchill White Paper.London, 1922. Print. In: Smith, Charles. Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. 7th. Boston/New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2010. 63-165. Print. Cleveland, William, and Martin Bunton.A History of the Modern Middle East. 4th. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2009. 218-250. Print. "King–Crane Commission."Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition.Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 14 Apr. 2012. < http: crane-commission>. Reinharz, Jehuda. "The Balfour Declaration and Its Maker: A Reassessment." Journal of Modern History. 64.2 (1992): 455-499. Web. 19 Apr. 2012. [...]
[...] Smith, Charles. Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. 7th. Boston/New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2010. 63-165. Print. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.Palestine Royal (Peel) Commission Report.London, 1937. Print. In: Smith, Charles. Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. 7th. Boston/New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2010. 63-165. Print. Wasserstein, Bernard. The British in Palestine: . 2. B. Blackwell, 1991. 230-240. Web. [...]
[...] It is quite clear that both Britain and France engaged in official policies that preserved their respective spheres of influence in the Middle East. France adopted a strategy that pointed toward exacerbating existing sectarian tensions in region of Greater Syria by establishing Greater Lebanon as a Maronite Christian homeland and forging a political system that institutionalized sectarianism. This provided a very tangible foundation for the value of ethnic and regional allegiances over nationalism that eventually led to the devastating Lebanese Civil War. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
