858

The Partition of the Ottoman Empire and the Mandate System

During and after the First World War, representatives of the Entente governments made various agreements to carve up Ottoman territories into spheres of interest and “mandates,” managed much like colonies by the European powers. Such agreements were subject to competing claims and criticism, including wartime strategic needs, Zionist desires for an independent state in Palestine, and Arab aspirations for national independence. The outcome satisfied no one. What were the mandate system’s strengths and weaknesses?

We the undersigned members of the General Syrian Congress . . . provided with credentials and authorizations by the inhabitants of our various districts, Moslems, Christians, and Jews, have agreed upon the following statement of the desires of the people of the country who have elected us to present them to the American Section of the International Commission. . . .

1. We ask absolutely complete political independence for Syria within these boundaries. [Request includes the present-day states of Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan; the congress rejected any French rule or interference in the area and requested “complete independence” for present-day Iraq.]

2. We ask that the Government of this Syrian country should be a democratic civil constitutional Monarchy on broad decentralization principles, safeguarding the rights of minorities, and that the King be the Emir Faisal, who carried on a glorious struggle in the cause of our liberation and merited our full confidence and entire reliance.

3. Considering the fact that the Arabs inhabiting the Syrian area are not naturally less gifted than other more advanced races and that they are by no means less developed than the Bulgarians, Serbians, Greeks, and Romanians at the beginning of their independence, we protest against Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, placing us among the nations in their middle stage of development which stand in need of a mandatory power. . . .

7. We oppose the pretensions of the Zionists to create a Jewish commonwealth in the southern part of Syria, known as Palestine, and oppose Zionist migration to any part of our country; for we do not acknowledge their title but consider them a grave peril to our people from the national, economical, and political points of view. Our Jewish compatriots shall enjoy our common rights and assume the common responsibilities. . . .

The noble principles enunciated by President Wilson strengthen our confidence that our desires emanating from the depths of our hearts, shall be the decisive factor in determining our future; and that President Wilson and the free American people will be our supporters for the realization of our hopes, thereby proving their sincerity and noble sympathy with the aspiration of the weaker nations in general and our Arab people in particular.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant. . . . [T]he tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

859

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances. Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the Mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions. . . .

Article 1. The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration [in Palestine].

Article 2. The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative, and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home . . . and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. . . .

Article 4. An appropriate Jewish Agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish National Home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine. . . . The Zionist organization . . . shall be recognized as such agency. . . .

Article 6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish Agency . . . close settlement by Jews on the land.

ANALYZING THE EVIDENCE

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

Notions of national self-determination, Western superiority, and strategic diplomacy inspired the European powers who dissolved the Ottoman Empire. Few could predict the intractable conflicts that followed. Using the sources above, along with what you have learned in class and in Chapters 24 and 25, write a short essay that evaluates the motivations of these actors. Was the mandate system a fair way to resolve their conflicting needs and interests?

Sources: (1) “Resolution of the General Syrian Congress at Damascus, 2 July 1919,” from the King-Crane Commission Report, in Foreign Relations of the United States: Paris Peace Conference, 1919, 12:780–781; (2) The Covenant of the League of Nations, Yale Law School, The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp; (5) Charles D. Smith, Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 8th ed. (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2013), pp. 100–102.