After the World War I and the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the territory of Palestine came under the administration of the British Mandate. Understanding the intricate historical, legal, and political dynamics of this mandate is crucial before embarking on a comprehensive legal review of the situation.
Throughout history, it is evident that when a dominant force takes control of a territory or country, it asserts its authority, resulting in the elimination of the losing party’s government, authority, and ownership. As a result, some may argue that according to the known history of the world, through conquest and consequent occupation, sovereignty and property are transferred to the victor, while the defeated party is deprived of it. This leads to questions about why the same principle shouldn’t apply to Palestine. When Jerusalem (al-Quds) was conquered by the Muslims, it came under the control of the Muslim authorities. Similarly, when the Palestinians and Arabs were defeated, the area came under British control. If the area became Muslim after the victory of Saladin Ayyubi, how can the British claim over the area after the victory of General Allenby be denied?
This question carries significant weight, as understanding the situation in Palestine hinges on addressing it. It is important to consider both the strategic and the legal aspects.
Strategically, the Palestinian Arabs were aligned with the victors rather than being on the losing side of the war.
From a legal perspective, the principle that no country or region could be annexed through war had been agreed upon by the victorious Western nations when the Turks were defeated in Palestine. International law had already been established to prevent such actions.
First, let’s focus on the strategic aspect. When Ottoman forces surrendered Jerusalem in December 1917, handing the city over to Britain and its allies, it was a blow to the Ottoman Empire, not the Arabs, who had supported Britain during the war. The lingering antagonism amongst Muslims is an unfortunate part of our history, and its impact continues to resonate in the Muslim world. Nevertheless, it is a fact that in the context being discussed, the Palestinian Arabs were not on the losing side of this war.
An agreement was forged between the Sharif of Mecca, Hussein bin Ali, and Lieutenant Colonel Henry McMahon of Britain, which prompted the Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire, known as al-Thawrah al-Arabiya al-Kubra. Following the settlement of the revolt’s terms, the next crucial step was the adoption of the flag for the Arab revolt and resistance, a task undertaken by British diplomat Colonel Mark Sykes. Notably, Mark Sykes had strong affiliations with the Zionists and played a significant role in the creation of the Balfour Declaration, which ultimately contributed to the establishment of Israel.
The flag designed by Mark Sykes for the Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire featured four colors. It showcased three horizontal stripes – black, white, and green – along with a red triangle. The symbolism behind the colors is significant. The black denoted the Abbasid Empire, the white represented the Umayyad Empire, and the green paid homage to the Fatimid Caliphate. The red, chosen to honor the Hashemite dynasty’s leadership in Mecca, signified their role in establishing the prospective Sultanate of Mecca under Husayn ibn Ali after the Ottoman Empire’s collapse, as per the Treaty of Sharif of Mecca and Henry McMahon. Notably, with some modifications, this flag remains the national flag of Egypt, Jordan, Sudan, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Syria, Libya, and Yemen. The flag of Palestine also draws inspiration from this historical design.
The flag was raised, and the rebellion commenced, leading to the besiegement of Jerusalem. Ottoman forces engaged in a war, resulting in the loss of approximately 25,000 soldiers. However, these forces found themselves unable to effectively resist. While there were various contributing factors, two stood out prominently. The first factor was the Arab Revolt, which introduced significant disruption to the Turkish supply lines, at a time when Jerusalem was under attack by the British and their allies. The instability caused by internal dissent left the Ottoman Empire vulnerable. Rather than turning the sacred city of Jerusalem into a battlefield, the Ottoman Empire made the decision to surrender.
Britain made a commitment to the Arabs that soon after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Arab region would be governed by the Arabs. However, when the United Nations initiated discussions about the partition of Palestine and the establishment of a Jewish state, the Arabs expressed a sense of betrayal. They argued that their support during the war was contingent on the promise of freedom, and that a prior agreement had been reached. They even proposed that the agreement between Sharif-e- Makkah and McMahon be referred to the International Court of Justice to assess its implications for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. This issue remains a poignant and distressing episode for Muslims, as it resulted in the transfer of al-Quds to Britain, and continues to impact the Muslim community to this day. Notwithstanding this, it is crucial to recognize that the Arab world wasn’t defeated in this conflict; it stood alongside the victorious powers.
