OCR Specification focus:
‘Policy approaches to the British Mandates of Palestine and Transjordan balanced security and settlement.’
The British Mandates in Palestine and Transjordan (1919–1948) shaped Middle Eastern politics, balancing imperial strategy, security needs, settler ambitions, and nationalist movements amid rising regional tensions.
The British Mandates: Origins and Context
The Mandate System After the First World War
Following the First World War and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the League of Nations established a mandate system to administer former Ottoman territories. Britain received mandates for Palestine and Transjordan, while France took Syria and Lebanon.
Map showing the British Mandate for Palestine and the Emirate of Transjordan under British oversight in the interwar years. Labels highlight principal towns and the division by the Jordan River, clarifying why Zionist provisions applied west of the river but not in Transjordan. This directly supports discussion of Britain balancing security and settlement across the two mandates. Source
Mandate: A legal status granted by the League of Nations, allowing a power to administer a former Ottoman or German territory until self-government was deemed possible.
Britain’s acceptance of the Palestine Mandate in 1920 reflected its strategic and political aims:
Securing imperial routes, particularly the Suez Canal and the road to India.
Controlling access to emerging oil resources in Iraq and the Gulf.
Managing commitments made during the war, including promises to Arabs and Jews.
British Policy in Palestine: Balancing Conflicting Promises
Wartime Promises and Post-war Realities
Britain faced the challenge of reconciling contradictory wartime commitments:
The Balfour Declaration (1917) promised support for a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine.
The McMahon–Hussein Correspondence (1915–16) suggested British support for Arab independence.
The Sykes–Picot Agreement (1916) divided Ottoman lands into British and French spheres of influence.
These conflicting pledges complicated Britain’s mandate policies, forcing it to balance Jewish immigration and settlement with Arab political aspirations.
Governance and Administration in Palestine
British Control and Local Resistance
Britain formally received the Palestine Mandate in 1922. The League’s text incorporated the Balfour Declaration, committing Britain to:
Facilitate Jewish immigration and settlement.
Protect the rights of existing non-Jewish communities.
Establish self-governing institutions when possible.
However, British administration often prioritised imperial stability over democratic governance. Britain appointed a High Commissioner, backed by British military and police forces, to maintain order. Local councils were limited, and Arab demands for representative government were largely ignored.
Growing Jewish Immigration and Land Tensions
The Jewish Agency, created under the mandate, organised immigration (aliyah) and land purchases. Jewish immigration increased particularly in the 1920s and 1930s due to rising European antisemitism.
By 1936, Jews made up around 30% of Palestine’s population.
Jewish land purchases displaced some Arab tenant farmers, increasing resentment.
Arab opposition manifested in protests and violent uprisings, most notably the Arab Revolt (1936–1939). Britain responded with harsh repression, executing rebels and destroying property.
British Policy Adjustments: White Papers and Commissions
The Peel Commission and Partition Proposals
In response to the Arab Revolt, the Peel Commission (1937) recommended partitioning Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states.
The 1937 Peel Commission recommended partition, shown here with colour blocks for the proposed Jewish and Arab states and a British-administered international zone around Jerusalem. The design clearly communicates the first formal British endorsement of partition. This directly supports analysis of Britain’s attempt to reconcile security with conflicting nationalist claims. Source
This proposal was rejected by Arab leaders and only partially supported by Zionists.
The 1939 White Paper
As war loomed in Europe, Britain shifted its priorities. The 1939 White Paper limited Jewish immigration to 75,000 over five years and restricted land sales. It promised eventual independence under a joint Arab–Jewish state, angering Zionist leaders and straining British–Jewish relations.
Transjordan: A Separate Path Under British Oversight
Creation and Administration
The Transjordan Mandate emerged from the eastern part of the Palestine Mandate. In 1921, Britain installed Abdullah ibn Hussein, son of the Sharif of Mecca, as Emir.
At a Government House reception in Jerusalem, Winston Churchill stands alongside Emir Abdullah and High Commissioner Sir Herbert Samuel. The photograph captures Britain’s orchestration of Transjordan’s governance in 1921, a key step in shaping a compliant Hashemite regime under British protection. Source
In 1923, Transjordan was recognised as a separate political entity under British supervision.
Britain’s policy in Transjordan differed significantly:
Jewish settlement was explicitly prohibited east of the Jordan River.
Britain focused on establishing a client state that aligned with British interests and secured imperial routes.
Limited Independence and Continued British Influence
Transjordan gradually gained autonomy, especially after the 1934 Anglo-Transjordanian Treaty, but remained under British control, particularly in defence and foreign affairs. Britain maintained military bases and influenced domestic policy, ensuring that Abdullah’s regime remained compliant with imperial objectives.
Security, Strategy, and Imperial Interests
Strategic Imperatives
The mandates were vital for Britain’s broader imperial strategy:
Control of Palestine provided a buffer for the Suez Canal and access to the Mediterranean.
Transjordan offered a strategic corridor linking Palestine to Iraq, where Britain held significant oil interests.
British bases and transport infrastructure reinforced imperial communications and military deployment in the region.
Managing Nationalism and Maintaining Order
Britain’s dual commitment to security and settlement shaped its mandate policies:
Harsh repression of uprisings (e.g., 1936–39) aimed to maintain stability.
Immigration quotas and land restrictions sought to placate Arab opinion without abandoning Zionist commitments.
Diplomatic manoeuvres attempted to balance relationships with both Arab rulers and the Zionist movement, particularly as the Second World War approached.
End of the Mandates and Legacy
Post-war Pressures and Withdrawal
The end of the Second World War intensified tensions in Palestine. Jewish survivors of the Holocaust sought refuge, straining British immigration limits. Armed Zionist groups such as Irgun and Lehi attacked British forces, while Arab opposition remained firm.
Unable to reconcile competing demands, Britain referred the Palestine question to the United Nations in 1947. The UN Partition Plan proposed separate Arab and Jewish states, rejected by Arabs but accepted by most Zionists. British forces withdrew in May 1948, coinciding with the declaration of the State of Israel and the outbreak of the first Arab–Israeli war.
Transjordan’s Independence
In 1946, Transjordan gained full independence as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, though British influence persisted through military and economic ties. Abdullah became king and sought to expand his rule into parts of Palestine during the 1948 war.
Key Themes and Historical Significance
The mandates highlight Britain’s attempt to balance imperial strategy, security concerns, and settlement policies amid rising nationalist movements.
Conflicting commitments to Arabs and Zionists created enduring tensions that shaped the Arab–Israeli conflict.
Britain’s policies in Transjordan fostered a client monarchy, while in Palestine they laid the groundwork for one of the most intractable conflicts of the modern Middle East.
FAQ
British rule entrenched divisions by creating separate political channels for Arabs and Jews. The Jewish Agency gained semi-official status, influencing policy and representing Jewish interests, while Arabs were denied an equivalent body.
British policing methods during unrest, such as collective punishment and village demolitions, deepened resentment. Land registration and sales policies also favoured organised Zionist land purchases, fuelling perceptions of British bias and widening communal mistrust.
Religion influenced British decisions both symbolically and practically. Britain saw itself as a protector of Christian holy sites, shaping its emphasis on Jerusalem’s international status in partition plans.
In Transjordan, Abdullah’s Hashemite lineage, tracing back to the Prophet Muhammad, gave his rule religious legitimacy, helping Britain stabilise the territory with minimal direct control. Religious sensitivities also constrained policy, as Britain feared widespread Islamic opposition if Arab aspirations were ignored.
In 1922, Britain issued the Churchill White Paper, clarifying that the Balfour Declaration’s support for a Jewish national home applied only to Palestine west of the Jordan River.
This decision was influenced by Abdullah’s presence and Britain’s desire to reward the Hashemites for their wartime support. It also reflected strategic considerations: excluding Transjordan reduced Arab hostility and ensured the territory could serve as a buffer state without the complications of Zionist settlement.
Britain prioritised regional stability and wartime security over Zionist or Arab demands. Immigration limits from the 1939 White Paper remained in place, despite Jewish pleas to admit Holocaust refugees, straining British–Zionist relations.
At the same time, Britain sought Arab support against Axis powers, promising eventual independence and increased Arab representation. Palestine’s ports, railways and airfields became crucial to the Allied war effort, reinforcing Britain’s reluctance to risk instability by radically altering mandate policy during the conflict.
British oversight laid the foundations of a monarchical state under Hashemite rule. Abdullah relied heavily on British advisers and military support, embedding British influence in governance and defence.
The Arab Legion, trained and led by British officers, became the backbone of the new state’s security. These patterns persisted after independence in 1946, shaping Transjordan (later Jordan) into a stable, pro-British monarchy that played a key role in the post-1948 Middle East.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks):
What was the primary aim of British policy in Transjordan during the mandate period?
Mark scheme:
1 mark for identifying Britain’s aim to secure imperial interests or strategic routes in the Middle East.
1 mark for recognising Britain’s use of a client state under Emir Abdullah to maintain control while limiting direct governance.
Question 2 (6 marks):
Explain how Britain attempted to balance security and settlement in Palestine under the mandate.
Mark scheme:
Award up to 6 marks for a well-developed explanation showing understanding of both security and settlement policies.
1 mark: Reference to Britain’s dual commitments from wartime promises (e.g. Balfour Declaration and McMahon–Hussein Correspondence).
1 mark: Explanation of support for Jewish immigration and settlement, such as through the Jewish Agency.
1 mark: Mention of policies to limit unrest, e.g. use of military and police forces or suppression of the Arab Revolt (1936–39).
1 mark: Reference to White Papers, such as the 1939 White Paper restricting immigration and land sales.
1 mark: Explanation of Britain’s efforts to maintain stability while avoiding alienation of Arab populations.
1 mark: Reference to partition proposals (e.g. Peel Commission 1937) as an attempt to reconcile security needs with conflicting nationalist demands.
