1. Antecedents to the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine: 1897-1922

The twenty-three documents contained in this chapter cover the period directly preceding the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. They derive from a variety of sources, including: the World Zionist Organization; the British government; and leading political figures of the period, such as Sharif Hussein of Mecca, Emir Feisal, Lord Rothschild, and Chaim Weizmann.

From 1517 to 1917, the lands of the eastern Mediterranean and Egypt formed part of the Ottoman Empire, with Arab territories, such as the Sanjak of Jerusalem and the Vilayet of Beirut, being ruled as separate administrative districts from the Ottoman seat of power in Constantinople. When Turkey entered World War I in November 1914 on the side of the Central Powers against the Entente Powers, Britain began to maneuver for Arab support in the region through the Sharif of Mecca. Britain also declared Egypt—then a formal Ottoman territory—a British Protectorate.

In 1916, Britain and France allotted to themselves parts of the Turkish Ottoman Empire under a secret plan known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Partially in fulfillment of this plan, British forces captured Jerusalem and Baghdad in 1917, and France took Damascus by force in 1920. In 1921, Britain separated the land-mass east of theJordan River from Palestine to create the Emirate of Transjordan and installed a Hashemite monarch, Emir Abdullah, the elder son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca. That same year, Britain created the Hashemite Kingdom of Iraq out of Mesopotamia and installed Emir Feisal, the third son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca, as its king. Thus, the defeat and dismemberment of the Turkish Ottoman Empire resulted in the creation of five new states in the region—Iraq, Lebanon, Transjordan, and Syria, with Palestine in a status of a quasi-state—which were immediately placed under the tutelage of either Britain or France.

During this time, Arab nationalism and Zionism were on the rise, and Arab andJewish groups in Palestine sought Britain’s favor in advancing their respective nationalist goals. The defining document to bolster Zionist claims was the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which expresses Britain’s support for the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine. Much of the text of the Balfour Declaration was later incorporated into the League of Nation Mandate for Palestine, emphasizing Britain’s commitment to establishing a Jewish homeland in the area.

Many of the documents collected in this chapter can be characterized as attempts to resolve pressing questions of how to establish an independent Jewish state in the region and how to regulate Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe to Palestine given the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe.

Many of the pre-mandate documents contained in Section 6, Jeru­salem and the Holy Sites, should be consulted in connection with these documents.

Document 1: Der Judenstaat (February 14, 1896). This document establishes the concepts Theodor Herzl envisioned for DerJudenstaat (“The Jewish State”). Herzl played a large role in both creating and pushing the political ideology of this worldwide movement. His pamphlet’s importance lies in the influence it had over European statesmen on the Zionist Cause.

In the pamphlet, Herzl developed the old idea of the restoration of the Jewish state. He notes that although he believes in the practicality of this idea, he does not know how it will be carried out. Until the problem of creating a Jewish is solved, Jews will continue to be persecuted in all countries they occupy. He defines the Jewish question as a national, rather than social or religious, issue. Herzl proposes that sovereignty be granted to his people over a portion of the globe, preferably Palestine, as it is their memorable and historic home and will attract Jews who would be strong enough to form a model state once this land is attained.

Document 2: Basle Program of the First World Zionist Congress (August 29, 1897) [Israel Cohen, The Zionist Movement 77 (1946), reprinted in 3 The Arab Israeli Conflict 4 (John Norton Moore ed., 1974)]. The First World Zionist Congress, convened by famedJewish leader Theodor Herzl, in Basle, Switzerland, was the first international meeting of its kind. It produced the Basle Program, which publicly declares the Zionist ambition to create a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine. It set the institutional framework for all subsequent Zionist policy, including measures such as following public law and procuring the assent of all necessary governments.

Document 3: Letter from Dr. Theodor Herzl to M. YousefZia Al-Khalidi (March 19, 1899) [Report of the Special Committee on Palestine, U.N. GAOR, Supp. No 11, at 39­40, U.N. Doc. A/364 (1947)]. Theodor Herzl, the founder of the World Zionist Organization, wrote this letter to M. Yousef Zia Al-Khalidi, the mayor ofJerusalem, after learning that Al-Khalidi did not support Jewish immigration to Palestine due to the opposition of Turkish rulers and the local population. In his letter, Herzl addresses these concerns and enumerates the benefits of Jewish migration to the area. In particular, he contends that development produced by Jewish settlers would increase the value of land in Palestine.

Document 4: Correspondence between Sir Henry McMahon and Sharif Hussein of Mecca (July 14, 1915-October 24, 1915) [His Majesty’s High Commissioner at Cairo, and Sherif Hussein of Mecca, 1939, Cmd. 5957, at 3-18]. The correspondence between Sir A. Henry McMahon, British high commissioner in Cairo, and Hussein ibn Ali, Sharif of Mecca, provides assurance to the Arab leadership of Britain’s support for Arab independence in the region. Given the backdrop of World War I, which placed Great Britain as an Allied power in opposition to the Ottoman Empire, Sir Henry McMahon’s assurance can be read as a strategic move on the part of Great Britain to gain the support of oil-rich Arab countries against Constantinople.

Document 5: Sykes-Picot Agreement (May 16, 1916) [IV Documents on British Foreign Policy, First Series, 1919-1939 245-47 (1952)]. In this agreement signed by and named for Sir Mark Sykes of Britain and Charles Georges-Picot of France, Britain and France plan to take control over Arab provinces of the former Ottoman Empire in the Middle East. The agreement divides the provinces into zones of influence, with the intention of eventually granting independence to some future states. According to the plan, Palestine would be subject to an international administration to be settled after consultation with Russia, the other Allies, and SharifHussein ofMecca. Later, British policymakers decide that internationalization was not in line with British interests, and the agreement is never implemented. Notably, this agreement conflicts with pledges of Arab Independence made by the British government to Sharif Hussein of Mecca. In 1917, the Soviet government published this agreement along with other secret treaties made by imperial Russia to scandalize Western governments.

Document 6: Excerpts from the Memorandum of Edwin Montagu on the Anti-Semitism of the Present (British) Government (August 23, 1917) [Great Britain Public Record Office, Parl. Deb., Cab. 24/24 (Aug. 23, 1917)]. Lord Edwin Samuel Montagu, a Jewish minister of government, submitted this memorandum to the British cabinet, arguing that Zionism and the formation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine are not in the interest of Britain or its Jewish population as they will prevent Jewish citizens from being properly absorbed and nationalized into Britain.

Document 7: Letter from M.P.A. Hankey Containing a Draft of the Balfour Declaration (October 6, 1917) [British Library Manuscript No. Add.41178f]. In this letter, Sir Maurice Hankey, secretary to the war cabinet, requests the opinion of prominent Jewish leaders on the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Copies of the letter were sent to: Sir Stuart Samuel, chairman of the Jewish Board of Deputies; Mr. Leonard L. Cohen, chairman of the Jewish Board of Guardians; Mr. Claud Monteflore; Sir Phillip Magnus, MP; Dr. Herz, the chief rabbi of England; Mr. N. Sokolov, chief representative in England of the International Zionist Executive; Dr. Weizmann, president of the English Zionist Federation. The letter contains a draft of the Balfour Declaration.

Document 8: Balfour Declaration (November 2, 1917) [The Balfour Declaration, 1940, Cmd. 5957, at 1-16]. The famous Balfour Declaration was written as a letter from British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Baron Lionel Walter Rothschild. It marks a watershed in the history of World Zionism as it unequivocally declares British support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine provided it does not interfere with the rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine. The declaration was later made part of the Treaty of Sevres, and its language was incorporated into the preamble to the Mandate for Palestine confirmed by the League of Nations.

Document 9: Hogarth Message to SharifHussein of Mecca (January 1918) [The Hogarth Message, 1939, Cmd. 5974, at 48-49]. This message to Sharif Hussein of Mecca from Commander D.G. Hogarth, C.M.G., R.N.V.R. of the Arab Bureau in Cairo reiterates Britain’s support for Arab independence and calls for the establishment of a special regime to protect the Holy Places in Palestine. While the message expresses support for Jewish immigration to Palestine, it promises that such immigration would only be allowed if it does not threaten the political or economic freedom of the indigenous Arab population.

Document 10: British Declaration to the Seven Arab Spokesmen (June 1918) [Israel Cohen, The Zionist Movement 77 (1946), reprinted in 3 The Arab Israeli Conflict 36 (John Norton Moore ed., 1974)]. Written by the British high commissioner in Egypt, the Declaration to the Seven Arab Spokesmen affirms Britain’s support for the complete and sovereign independence of Arabs in the region and pledges to assist the Arab population in achieving independence. Reportedly, based on these statements, the Arab spokesmen mistakenly assumed that the Balfour Declaration and other agreements between Britain and the Zionists that advocated the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine were null.

Document 11: Anglo-French Declaration (November 7, 1918) [145 Parl. Deb., H.C. (5th ser.) (1921) 36]. Fearing an Arab rebellion in Palestine, the British military occupation authority published this Anglo-French Joint Declaration, which calls for self-determination for Arabs in the region.

Document 12: Agreement between Emir Feisal and Dr. Chaim Weizmann (January 3, 1919) [3 David Hunter Miller, My Diary of the Peace Conference with Documents 188-89 (1928)]. Made between Emir Feisal, the Prince of the Hedjaz and the son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca, and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, head of the Zionist Commission to Palestine, this agreement was the first diplomatic effort by Arabs and Jews to find a joint solution to the growing conflict in Palestine. It proposes that Arabs and Jews work together to achieve their mutual national aspirations. Though there is no clear agreement on the makeup of a future government, the document refers to the creation of a separate Arab state in Palestine. Surprisingly, this agreement secured Arab assent though it explicitly advocates Jewish immigration, which was a major source of concern for indigenous Arab populations. The document concludes with a reservation by Emir Feisal that would allow him to terminate the agreement if an Arab state was not established.

Document 13: Correspondence between EmirFeisaland Felix Frankfurter (March 3—5, 1919) [available at http://course1.winona.msus.edu/aelafandi/polsci2870/documents. htm#frankfurter]. In these letters exchanged by Emir Feisal, the Hedjaz representative, and Felix Frankfurter, president of the Zionist Organization of America, Feisal connects the Arab and Jewish struggles for independence from European powers, noting their similar oppression under foreign occupation. Frankfurter, in turn, expresses support for the Arab resistance movement and closes his letter by stating, “The Arabs and Jews are neighbors in territory; we cannot but live side by side as friends.”

Document 14: Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations (June 28, 1919) [League of Nations Covenant, June 28, 1919, art 22, 2 Bevans 48, 55-57]. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations defines the national status of all former colonial territories in Asia and Africa. it classifies territories according to three categories: (1) those closest to achieving national independence (i.e, “certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire”); (2) those requiring near-complete administration from a mandatory power (i.e., territories in Central Africa); and (3) those to be permanently administered by a mandatory power (i.e., “South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific islands”). it does not provide criteria for judging the progress of territories toward nationhood. This document paved the way for Britain to assume legitimate control over Palestine in 1922 as a mandatory power. OWith its hierarchical system of European tutelage, the mandate system was a veiled form of colonial administration.

Document 15: Resolutions of the General Syrian Congress (Damascus Congress) (July 2, 1919) [reprinted in George Antonius, The Arab Awakening 440-42 (2000)]. The General Syrian Congress was an assembly of leaders from the Arab world who met in Damascus to decide the fate of formerly ottoman territories after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. In its resolutions, it calls for the complete independence of Greater Syria, which included Palestine and the area that would soon become Transjordan, argues for Lebanon’s absorption into Syria, and rejects the Sykes- Picot Agreement, the Balfour Declaration, and the League of Nations’ mandatory system. The Congress elected Emir Feisal the king of a united Syria. Britain did not recognize the congress as representative and rejected its resolutions.

Document 16: Excerpts from the Report of the American Section of the Inter-Allied Commission of Mandates in Turkey (King-Crane Commission Report) (August 28, 1919) [available at http://domino.un.org/Unispal.nsf/ 0∕16e17fc18fab11d785256ced0075086e? Opendocument]. The King-Crane Commission of Inquiry was dispatched to Syria by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson in May 1919 to assess Arab national aspirations in light of the newly developed League of Nations mandatory system. Although Wilson had originally solicited the participation of France and Britain, the French refused to appoint representatives and the British representative withdrew. Consequently, two Americans, Henry C. King, president of Oberlin College, and Charles R. Crane, a Chicago businessman and trustee of Robert College in Constantinople, proceeded to Syria with their staff. In its report, the commission notes the increasing concern of Arabs in Palestine and Syria that Zionists will seize all of Palestine in establishing a Jewish homeland. The commission recommends “serious modification of the extreme Zionist program for Palestine.”

Document 17: Excerpts from the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Turkey Signed at Sevres (Treaty of Sevres), (August 10, 1920) [available at http://www.lib. byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/versa/sevres1.html]. This treaty was concluded between the Turkish Ottoman Empire and the Allies (excluding Russia and the United States) at Sevres, France, at the conclusion of World War I. It redraws the boundaries of the former Ottoman Empire and virtually abolishes Turkish sovereignty. The treaty was never adopted and was superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.

Document 18: Memorandum Submitted by Emir Feisal to the Conference of Allied Powers at the House ofCommons (March 10, 1921) [available at http://domino.un.org/unispal. nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/14f06fe1edd50616852570c00058e77 e!OpenDocument]. In this memorandum, Emir Feisal explains that Arabs joined the war on the side of the Allies because the British government had promised independence in return for their support. He writes, “My Father [Sharif Hussein of Mecca] considered that in view of the pledges given to him, the essential unity and independence of the Arab-speaking provinces of the Turkish Empire were secure in the event of the success of the Allies.” He expresses his deep concern over decisions by the European powers to carve up the region into separate states irrespective of their cultural homogeneity and economic interdependence and requests that the Allied powers reconsider the Treaty of Sevres as it would adversely affect the Arab region.

Document 19: British Interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine during the PeriodJuly1,1920-June30,1921 byBritishHighCommissionerHerbertSamuelJuly30,1921) [available at http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006

d88d7/349b02280a930813052565e90048ed1c!OpenDocument].Herbert Samuel, the high commissioner and commander-in-chief for the British Administration of Palestine, submitted this report to the League of Nations in fulfillment of British responsibilities as protector under the mandate system. It describes the political and financial situation in Palestine under British management and details the growing tensions between Arabs and Jews.

Document 20: Excerpts from the Haycraft Commission of Enquiry into the 1920—1921 Arab Riots (October 1921) [available at http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/history/ haycraft.html]. The Haycraft Commission of Enquiry—named for its chairman, Sir Thomas Haycraft, chief justice of Palestine—was established by Samuel Herbert, the British high commissioner for Palestine, to investigate the causes of the 1920-21 Arab Riots. In its report, the commission concludes that the Jaffa riots and subsequent acts of violence were caused by Arab frustration with Jewish immigration and skepticism about Zionist policies in Palestine.

Document 21: Statement of British Policy in Palestine (Churchill White Paper) (June 3, 1922) [1922, Cmd. 17800, at 17-21, available at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/ Avalon/mideast/brwh1922.htm]. The Churchill White Paper, presented by Sir Winston Churchill to the British government in 1922, declares British support for the establishment of Arab sovereign independence in Palestine. It asserts that Britain’s plan is not for Palestine as a whole to be converted into aJewish national home and identifies territories on the east bank of the Jordan River as a distinct territory. It states that territories west of the Jordan River are excluded from Sir Henry McMahon’s pledge of Arab independence. The Palestinian Arab community rejected this White Paper.

Document 22: Excerpts from the League of Nations Official Journal: Date on which the Question of the Draft Mandate for Palestine Should Be Placed on the Agenda of the Council (June 30, 1922) [available at http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/ 9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/b08168048e277b5a052565f70058cef3!O penDocument]. This League of Nations document details the many difficulties faced by the Allied and associated powers in the execution of the Mandate for Palestine. It blames difficulties on the impact of the Treaty of Sevres, Britain’s inability to fully invest in the territory due to its war debt, and religious interests in the area.¹⁰⁶

Document 23: Correspondence between the Colonial Office and the Palestine Arab Delegation and the Zionist Organisation (February 21—June 29, 1922) [ available at http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/ 48a7e5584ee1403485256cd8006c3fbe!OpenDocument]. This correspondence conducted by the Colonial Office and the two main representative bodies in Palestine—the Palestine Arab Delegation and the Zionist Organisation—discusses the planned implementation of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. In these letters, Arab and Jewish leaders react to the planned Mandate for Palestine. Letters from the Palestine Arab Delegation are a meticulous, line-by-line criticism of Britain’s Palestine Order in Council, emphasizing the need for a representative

government in Palestine. They also complain that promises to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine and the influx of “alien Jews” to the territory are threatening the prosperity of Palestinian national life. In contrast, the Zionist Organisation, represented by Chaim Weizmann, expresses its satisfaction with Britain’s policies in Palestine, in particular the reiteration of the commitment to establishing a Jewish homeland.

2.