As the battles of the First World War raged across continents, new lines on old maps were quietly being drawn in the hushed private members’ clubs in old European cities. These border changes are what we are most interested in; however, we really need to understand a bit more of the context. Most of us were taught that the war was set off because an archduke was assassinated, though that simplistic soundbite doesn’t do justice to the complexities on the ground — some of which we must try to understand to see how the world was changing and the powers at play. At the war’s outset, there were two main alliances: the so-called Triple Entente of France, Britain, and Russia vying against the so-called Triple Alliance of Germany, Italy, and Austria-Hungary. The Triple Alliance became the Central Powers — of Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Turkey as Italy, not wanting to be dragged into the conflict, abandoned the alliance and attempted to remain neutral — making a secret alliance with both sides, promising to join the Allies if they were victorious and or the Central Powers if they remained neutral. The alliances were forged less out of close commonality and more out of necessity to build on their disparate ambitions.
“The Balfour Declaration was a milestone for the Zionist movement, as the right of a ‘national home for the Jewish people’ was recognized by a leading global power, Great Britain.”
— David Makovsky
France seemed mostly interested in revenge against Germany after their defeat in the Franco-Prussian War — in which they lost the region of Alsace-Lorraine. France wanted to reestablish their influence on the European stage and protect their territorial integrity. Britain was preoccupied with protecting its colonies and trade routes. They were only drawn into the alliance because Germany’s naval buildup threatened Britain’s dominance at sea. Joining this group was Russia, which sought to extend its influence in the Balkans and had ambitions of taking over the power that the weakening Ottoman Empire was rapidly losing.
Arranged against these three players, Germany took center stage. After the unification of Germany, it was a major European Power. Under Kaiser Wilhelm II, Germany adopted an aggressive foreign policy with aims towards expansion. Their colonial ambitions led to clashes with Britain and France — which were only exacerbated by its growing military arms race. Germany allied with Austria-Hungary based on the desire to suppress nationalist movements and maintain the status quo — against Russia’s plans to exert influence in that region. Italy joined this duo, more or less temporarily. Its ambitions were more complex, leading it to hold various positions leading up to and throughout the conflict — ranging from neutrality to secret alliances in its ambition to gain territory.
All this to say, the situation was extremely volatile. Each participant was to a lesser or greater degree interested in roughly the same things: defense, expansion (whether land at home or abroad in terms of colonies), colonial competition and economics, and internal political stability. Indeed it was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand that sparked the conflagration of war, but that does not capture the fuller picture. Austria-Hungary saw the assassination as an opportunity to crush Serbian nationalism — something they saw as an existential threat — backed by the support of Germany. Serbia, with Russia’s backing, refused to comply with all the terms of Austria-Hungary’s ultimatum. This rejection set off a chain reaction of mobilizations and declarations of war across Europe: Germany declared war on Russia, which brought in France because of its alliance with Russia. When German troops violated Belgium’s neutrality to invade France, Britain entered to uphold its commitment to Belgium’s neutrality.
It is important to note that national borders at the time, like through most of history, were not always mutually agreed upon nor did they come with accurate GPS coordinates. Borders were hotly contested throughout the ages, and the nationalist movements in Central and Eastern Europe added fuel to this fire. Fearing Serbian’s nationalism, the Austro-Hungarian Empire sought to protect itself as it itself was a fragile empire housing numerous ethnic groups — most, if not all, of whom sought larger degrees of autonomy or outright independence.
Against this backdrop of fragility were the makings of catastrophic diplomatic failure — the major players were too distrustful due to longstanding grievances and quick mobilization was key. For example, Germany wanted to avoid a two-front war, and its plan called for a quick, decisive defeat of France before a pivot towards Russia. The need for speedy action, coupled with an atmosphere that made meaningful negotiation an impossibility and the industrialization of the military (trains, machine guns, heavy artillery, chemical weapons) meant that war was nearly inevitable and would dramatically alter the political landscape.
As the First World War raged on, it involved more than the major participants. By the early 20th century, the Ottoman Empire was offered referee to as the “sick man of Europe” — its declining power made it vulnerable to European imperial ambitions. Weakened by internal strife and a humiliating defeat in the Balkan Wars, it was desperate to maintain its remaining territories and preserve its sovereignty. Germany had long cultivated relations with the Ottoman Empire — providing military advisors, aid in industrialization, and more — so the Ottoman Empire viewed Germany as a rising power that could protect them from encroaching British and Russian interests. Which led the Ottoman Empire to make an ill-fated decision: an alliance with Germany. In addition to the desire to hold their territory, they hoped to use the war as an opportunity to regain territories lost to the British and Russians, particularly in the Caucasus region and in parts of Egypt.
Britain didn’t view the region as a backwater. Indeed Britain’s interests in controlling the Suez Canal — which was the quickest route between Britain and her colonial holdings in India, Southeast Asia, and Australia — were key to its ambitions. They viewed control of the canal as essential for maintaining British trade and military power and the region as a key source of oil, which grew ever more important as time passed. The Middle East was not just a battlefield, but indeed it was the prize for the victor. Britain would not allow the Ottoman Empire’s alliance with Germany to hold — it was an existential issue for them.
The Ottoman Empire controlled these vital territories — including the Levant, Mesopotamia, and the Hejaz — so its complete collapse was the desired outcome of its foes. The war was a convenient pretext for these imperial powers to redraw borders and claim new territories. Britain’s occupation of Egypt and Palestine, alongside France’s interests in Syria and Lebanon formed part of this broader colonial ambition. Britain, for its part, didn’t limit its actions to the battlefield. Their intelligence apparatus recognized the potential to destabilize Ottoman rule even further in the region, offering their support to Arab leaders — particularly Sharif Hussein of Mecca — in their quest for Arab independence. Britain pledged their support for the creation of an independent Arab state in exchange for their help against the Ottomans.
The Ottoman Empire’s central government, high taxation, and conscription of Arab men into its army, led to high levels of barely restrained resentment. This long-simmering discontent combined with British support led to the Arab Revolt. Initially, the revolt failed to gain much traction. The Ottoman military was better organized and equipped — the Arab forces were largely composed of Bedouin tribes with limited training and cohesion. The Brits, wanting to ensure the success of their own ambitions, decided to get a little more hands on. You’ve probably heard of one of the key players in this unfolding drama: T. E. Lawrence — popularly referred to as Lawrence of Arabia. He was a British officer, fluent in Arabic, well-versed in Middle Eastern cultures. Lawrence helped unite the fractious Bedouin tribes under a common goal, quickly becoming a trusted advisor to the Arab leaders, and developed a plan of guerrilla warfare. This focus on ambushes, raids, and sabotage — rather than direct confrontations with the militarily superior Ottoman army — allowed the Arabs to be highly effective in disrupting Ottoman supply lines, communications, and operations. Lawrence also orchestrated the capture of strategic locations, including the port city of Aqaba (in modern-day Jordan). The fall of Aqaba allowed the British to more easily supply the Arab forces and opened a new front against the Ottomans in Palestine. After capturing Aqaba, Arab forces with British support, launched a series of offensives aimed at capturing Damascus — a symbolically important city for Arab nationalism. The fall of Damascus, in October 1918, marked the culmination of the Arab Revolt.
Despite its success, the Arab Revolt, wasn’t without its political challenges. Bedouin tribes, which formed the backbone of the Arab forces, were often more loyal to their tribal leader rather than the broader nationalist cause. The Arabs hadn’t had the concept of a modern nation-state before — they knew tribal ways and had an idea of a pan-Arab caliphate. Keeping them unified was a constant struggle for Sharif Hussein and his sons. Further, the promises of independence that the British made were vague. This left Arab leaders uncertain about the extent of the independence they would gain after the war — creating tensions between the Brits and the Arabs.
During the war, the British weren’t willing to put all their faith in the Arabs to deliver the region into their control. The British saw supporting the Zionist movement as a way to appeal to Jewish communities around the world, particularly in the United States and Russia, two key allies in the war. The British leaders believed that issuing a declaration of support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine would garner goodwill from Jewish populations, potentially securing additional political and financial backing for the war efforts. It was also seen as a way to outmaneuver France, with whom it made the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement to divide Ottoman lands.
Balfour Declaration and Jewish Hope
The British Government had come out in support of a Jewish state in its historic homeland in what is referred to as the Balfour Declaration. It was contained within a letter from the Foreign Secretary which outlined government policy and was addressed to Lord Rothschild, a leading figure in the Jewish community of Britain. The letter was published about a week later. The declaration stated:
His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
This marked the first time in modern history that a major world power officially supported the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine, and was a significant diplomatic victory for the Zionist movement. It was, however, rather vague. This ambiguity led to conflicting interpretations and mounting tensions between Jews and Arabs.
The declaration garnered immediate reaction worldwide. Jews saw it as a major victory along the path to realizing the dream of a Jewish homeland. Though some Jews, particularly in the United States, were concerned that the declaration might jeopardize their status in countries where they had achieved civil rights or that it might exacerbate antisemitism. Arabs throughout the Middle East saw the Balfour Declaration as a betrayal of British promises made to Sharif Hussein — viewing it also as an imposition of European colonialism. It led, nearly immediately, to large-scale unauthorized immigration of Arabs to the land from the Sinai, Syria, and further afield in an effort to keep the Jews from gaining autonomy over the land. The international community was divided. Some, such as France and the United States, viewed it as a positive development. Others viewed it with skepticism, as they feared it would be a potential source of conflict in an already volatile region. In any event, conflict was not going to be avoided as the victorious powers took their spoils.
Empire Collapsed and Borders Imposed
The Ottoman Empire officially capitulated with the signing of the Armistice of Mudros near the end of October 1918. This marked the beginning of the very end. The Empire, which ruled over most of the Middle East for centuries, was completely dissolved in the aftermath of the war. Its Arab territories were divided between Britain and France under the mandate system of the League of Nations. We should note here, however, that the Turkish War of Independence (1919-1923) would lead to the establishment of the modern Republic of Türkiye, under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, but the Ottoman Empire itself fully ceased to exist.
Despite their contributions to the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, Arab leaders were deeply disappointed by the post-war settlements. Though promised independence, this promise was essentially nullified by a secret Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916) between Britain and France. Under the terms of the Sykes-Picot agreement, Arab lands were divided into spheres of influence. France took control of Syria and Lebanon, and the British established mandates in Palestine, Iraq, and Transjordan. These divisions completely ignored the religious, ethnic, and tribal complexities of the region — creating artificial borders that lumped disparate groups together. This arbitrary division of the territories would fuel lasting resentments and set the stage for future regional conflicts.
At first, conflicts were handled diplomatically. Sharif Hussein declared himself Caliph, but this declaration of a Caliphate was rejected — the British, French, Zionists, and Wahhabis were not willing to go along with it. His sons Faisal and Abdullah, however, were given leading roles in the geopolitical landscape. The New Arab States were established, with Faisal briefly declared King of Syria. The French quickly ousted him to impose their own mandate. The British compensated Faisal by making him instead the King of Iraq, a British mandate. The British also installed Abdullah as emir of Transjordan, a new British protectorate carved out of the Palestine mandate.
These, and many other, mandates were a legal mechanism by which the international community — first under the League of Nations and then later, to a lesser degree, the United Nations (under so-called trusteeships) — could manage a particular territory by delegating its administration to a member state. After World War I, mandates were established to manage territories previously governed by defeated powers — such as Germany and the Ottoman Empire — that were not considered capable of self-government at the time. The purported goal was to ensure the development and eventual independence of those territories, although, in practice, it resulted in defacto colonial rule.
Before the mandate system was established, European powers often established “protectorates” over non-European territories. In this arrangement, a local leader was nominally in charge, but the colonial power effectively controlled the territory’s foreign policy and defense. The mandate system formalized and internationalized this idea, placing the League of Nations as the overseeing authority of this theoretical effort of providing a bridge from imperial rule to self-determination. With somewhat obvious results, these mandates, frequently led to violence and political unrest when those who lived in the territories under mandate chafed under continued foreign rule — especially those who had been promised independence, specifically the Arabs and the Jews in the Middle East.