Trending Topics:

How Zionism helped create the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

on 45 Comments

The covert alliance between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Zionist entity of Israel should be no surprise to any student of British imperialism. The problem is the study of British imperialism has very few students. Indeed, one can peruse any undergraduate or post-graduate British university prospectus and rarely find a module in a Politics degree on the British Empire let alone a dedicated degree or Masters degree. Of course if the European led imperialist carnage in the four years between 1914 – 1918 tickles your cerebral cells then it’s not too difficult to find an appropriate institution to teach this subject, but if you would like to delve into how and why the British Empire waged war on mankind for almost four hundred years you’re practically on your own in this endeavour. One must admit, that from the British establishment’s perspective, this is a formidable and remarkable achievement.

In late 2014, according to the American journal, Foreign Affairs, the Saudi petroleum Minister, Ali al-Naimi is reported to have said “His Majesty King Abdullah has always been a model for good relations between Saudi Arabia and other states and the Jewish state is no exception.” Recently, Abdullah’s successor, King Salman expressed similar concerns to those of Israel’s to the growing agreement between the United States and Iran over the latter’s nuclear programme. This led some to report that Israel and KSA presented a “united front” in their opposition to the nuclear deal. This was not the first time the Zionists and Saudis have found themselves in the same corner in dealing with a perceived common foe. In North Yemen in the 1960’s, the Saudis were financing a British imperialist led mercenary army campaign against revolutionary republicans who had assumed authority after overthrowing the authoritarian, Imam. Gamal Abdul-Nasser’s Egypt militarily backed the republicans, while the British induced the Saudis to finance and arm the remaining remnants of the Imam’s supporters. Furthermore, the British organised the Israelis to drop arms for the British proxies in North Yemen, 14 times. The British, in effect, militarily but covertly, brought the Zionists and Saudis together in 1960’s North Yemen against their common foe.

However, as this author has previously written, one must return to the 1920’s to fully appreciate the origins of this informal and indirect alliance between Saudi Arabia and the Zionist entity. An illuminating study by Dr. Askar H. al-Enazy, titled, The Creation of Saudi Arabia: Ibn Saud and British Imperial Policy, 1914-1927, has further and uniquely provided any student of British Imperialism primary sourced evidence on the origins of this alliance. This study by Dr. Enazy influences the following piece.  The defeat of the Ottoman Empire by British imperialism in World War One, left three distinct authorities in the Arabian peninsula: Sharif of Hijaz: Hussain bin Ali of Hijaz (in the west), Ibn Rashid of Ha’il (in the north) and Emir Ibn Saud of Najd (in the east) and his religiously fanatical followers, the Wahhabis.

Ibn Saud had entered the war early in January 1915 on the side of the British, but was quickly defeated and his British handler, William Shakespear was killed by the Ottoman Empire’s ally Ibn Rashid. This defeat greatly hampered Ibn Saud’s utility to the Empire and left him militarily hamstrung for a year.[1] The Sharif contributed the most to the Ottoman Empire’s defeat by switching allegiances and leading the so-called ‘Arab Revolt’ in June 1916 which removed the Turkish presence from Arabia. He was convinced to totally alter his position because the British had strongly led him to believe, via correspondence with Henry McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Egypt, that a unified Arab country from Gaza to the Persian Gulf will be established with the defeat of the Turks. The letters exchanged between Sharif Hussain and Henry McMahon are known as the McMahon-Hussain Correspondence.

Understandably, the Sharif as soon as the war ended wanted to hold the British to their war time promises, or what he perceived to be their war time promises, as expressed in the aforementioned correspondence. The British, on the other hand, wanted the Sharif to accept the Empire’s new reality which was a division of the Arab world between them and the French (Sykes-Picot agreement) and the implementation of the Balfour Declaration, which guaranteed ‘a national for the Jewish people’ in Palestine by colonisation with European Jews. This new reality was contained in the British written, Anglo-Hijaz Treaty, which the Sharif was profoundly averse to signing.[2] After all, the revolt of 1916 against the Turks was dubbed the ‘Arab Revolt’ not the ‘Hijazi Revolt’.

Actually, the Sharif let it be known that he will never sell out Palestine to the Empire’s Balfour Declaration; he will never acquiescence to the establishment of Zionism in Palestine or accept the new random borders drawn across Arabia by British and French imperialists. For their part the British began referring to him as an ‘obstructionist’, a ‘nuisance’ and of having a ‘recalcitrant’ attitude.

The British let it be known to the Sharif that they were prepared to take drastic measures to bring about his approval of the new reality regardless of the service that he had rendered them during the War. After the Cairo Conference in March 1921, where the new Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill met with all the British operatives in the Middle East, T.E. Lawrence (i.e. of Arabia) was dispatched to meet the Sharif to bribe and bully him to accept Britain’s Zionist colonial project in Palestine. Initially, Lawrence and the Empire offered 80,000 rupees.[3] The Sharif rejected it outright. Lawrence then offered him an annual payment of £100,000.[4] The Sharif refused to compromise and sell Palestine to British Zionism.

When financial bribery failed to persuade the Sharif, Lawrence threatened him with an Ibn Saud takeover. Lawrence claimed that “politically and militarily, the survival of Hijaz as a viable independent Hashemite kingdom was wholly dependent on the political will of Britain, who had the means to protect and maintain his rule in the region.” [5] In between negotiating with the Sharif, Lawrence made the time to visit other leaders in the Arabian peninsula and informed them that they if they don’t tow the British line and avoid entering into an alliance with the Sharif, the Empire will unleash Ibn Saud and his Wahhabis who after all is at Britain’s ‘beck and call’.[6]

Simultaneously, after the Conference, Churchill travelled to Jerusalem and met with the Sharif’s son, Abdullah, who had been made the ruler, “Emir”, of a new territory called “Transjordan.” Churchill informed Abdullah that he should persuade “his father to accept the Palestine mandate and sign a treaty to such effect,” if not “the British would unleash Ibn Saud against Hijaz.”[7] In the meantime the British were planning to unleash Ibn Saud on the ruler of Ha’il, Ibn Rashid.

Ibn Rashid had rejected all overtures from the British Empire made to him via Ibn Saud, to be another of its puppets.[8] More so, Ibn Rashid expanded his territory north to the new mandated Palestinian border as well as to the borders of Iraq in the summer of 1920. The British became concerned that an alliance maybe brewing between Ibn Rashid who controlled the northern part of the peninsula and the Sharif who controlled the western part. More so, the Empire wanted the land routes between the Palestinian ports on the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf under the rule of a friendly party. At the Cairo Conference, Churchill agreed with an imperial officer, Sir Percy Cox that “Ibn Saud should be ‘given the opportunity to occupy Hail.’”[9] By the end of 1920, the British were showering Ibn Saud with “a monthly ‘grant’ of £10,000 in gold, on top of his monthly subsidy. He also received abundant arms supplies, totalling more than 10,000 rifles, in addition to the critical siege and four field guns” with British-Indian instructors.[10] Finally, in September 1921, the British unleashed Ibn Saud on Ha’il which officially surrendered in November 1921. It was after this victory the British bestowed a new title on Ibn Saud. He was no longer to be “Emir of Najd and Chief of its Tribes” but “Sultan of Najd and its Dependencies”. Ha’il had dissolved into a dependency of the Empire’s Sultan of Najd.

If the Empire thought that the Sharif, with Ibn Saud now on his border and armed to the teeth by the British, would finally become more amenable to the division of Arabia and the British Zionist colonial project in Palestine they were short lived. A new round of talks between Abdulla’s son, acting on behalf of his father in Transjordan and the Empire resulted in a draft treaty accepting Zionism. When it was delivered to the Sharif with an accompanying letter from his son requesting that he “accept reality”, he didn’t even bother to read the treaty and instead composed a draft treaty himself rejecting the new divisions of Arabia as well as the Balfour Declaration and sent it to London to be ratified![11]

Ever since 1919 the British had gradually decreased Hussain’s subsidy to the extent that by the early 1920’s they had suspended it, while at the same time continued subsidising Ibn Saud right through the early 1920’s.[12] After a further three rounds of negotiations in Amman and London, it dawned on the Empire that Hussain will never relinquish Palestine to Great Britain’s Zionist project or accept the new divisions in Arab lands.[13]In March 1923, the British informed Ibn Saud that it will cease his subsidy but not without awarding him an advance ‘grant’ of £50,000 upfront, which amounted to a year’s subsidy.[14]

In March 1924, a year after the British awarded the ‘grant’ to Ibn Saud, the Empire announced that it had terminated all discussions with Sharif Hussain to reach an agreement.[15] Within weeks the forces of Ibn Saud and his Wahhabi followers began to administer what the British foreign secretary, Lord Curzon called the “final kick” to Sharif Hussain and attacked Hijazi territory.[16] By September 1924, Ibn Saud had overrun the summer capital of Sharif Hussain, Ta’if. The Empire then wrote to Sharif’s sons, who had been awarded kingdoms in Iraq and Transjordan not to provide any assistance to their besieged father or in diplomatic terms they were informed “to give no countenance to interference in the Hedjaz”.[17] In Ta’if, Ibn Saud’s Wahhabis committed their customary massacres, slaughtering women and children as well as going into mosques and killing traditional Islamic scholars.[18] They captured the holiest place in Islam, Mecca, in mid-October 1924. Sharif Hussain was forced to abdicate and went to exile to the Hijazi port of Akaba. He was replaced as monarch by his son Ali who made Jeddah his governmental base. As Ibn Saud moved to lay siege to the rest of Hijaz, the British found the time to begin incorporating the northern Hijazi port of Akaba into Transjordan. Fearing that Sharif Hussain may use Akaba as a base to rally Arabs against the Empire’s Ibn Saud, the Empire let it be known that in no uncertain terms that he must leave Akaba or Ibn Saud will attack the port. For his part, Sharif Hussain responded that he had,

“never acknowledged the mandates on Arab countries and still protest against the British Government which has made Palestine a national home for the Jews.”[19]

Sharif Hussain was forced out of Akaba, a port he had liberated from the Ottoman Empire during the ‘Arab Revolt’, on the 18th June 1925 on HMS Cornflower.

Ibn Saud had begun his siege of Jeddah in January 1925 and the city finally surrendered in December 1925 bringing to an end over 1000 years of rule by the Prophet Muhammad’s descendants. The British officially recognised Ibn Saud as the new King of Hijaz in February 1926 with other European powers following suit within weeks. The new unified Wahhabi state was rebranded by the Empire in 1932 as the “Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” (KSA). A certain George Rendel, an officer working at the Middle East desk at the Foreign Office in London, claimed credit for the new name.

On the propaganda level, the British served the Wahhabi takeover of Hijaz on three fronts. Firstly, they portrayed and argued that Ibn Saud’s invasion of Hijaz was motivated by religious fanaticism rather than by British imperialism’s geo-political considerations.[20] This deception is propounded to this day, most recently in Adam Curtis’s acclaimed BBC “Bitter Lake” documentary, whereby he states that the “fierce intolerant vision of wahhabism” drove the “beduins” to create Saudi Arabia.[21] Secondly, the British portrayed Ibn Saud’s Wahhabi fanatics as a benign and misunderstood force who only wanted to bring Islam back to its purest form.[22] To this day, these Islamist jihadis are portrayed in the most benign manner when their armed insurrections is supported by Britain and the West such as 1980’s Afghanistan or in today’s Syria, where they are referred to in the western media as “moderate rebels.” Thirdly, British historians portray Ibn Saud as an independent force and not as a British instrument used to horn away anyone perceived to be surplus to imperial requirements. For example, Professor Eugene Rogan’s recent study on the history on Arabs claims that “Ibn Saud had no interest in fighting” the Ottoman Empire. This is far from accurate as Ibn Saud joined the war in 1915. He further disingenuously claims that Ibn Saud was only interested in advancing “his own objectives” which fortuitously always dovetailed with those of the British Empire.[23]

In conclusion, one of the most overlooked aspects of the Balfour Declaration is the British Empire’s commitment to “use their best endeavours to facilitate” the creation of “a national home for the Jewish people”. Obviously, many nations in the world today were created by the Empire but what makes Saudi Arabia’s borders distinctive is that its northern and north-eastern borders are the product of the Empire facilitating the creation of Israel. At the very least the dissolution of the two Arab sheikhdoms of Ha’il and Hijaz by Ibn Saud’s Wahhabis is based in their leaders’ rejection to facilitate the British Empire’s Zionist project in Palestine.

Therefore, it is very clear that the British Empire’s drive to impose Zionism in Palestine is embedded in the geographical DNA of contemporary Saudi Arabia. There is further irony in the fact that the two holiest sites in Islam are today governed by the Saudi clan and Wahhabi teachings because the Empire was laying the foundations for Zionism in Palestine in the 1920s. Contemporaneously, it is no surprise that both Israel and Saudi Arabia are keen in militarily intervening on the side of “moderate rebels” i.e. jihadis, in the current war on Syria, a country which covertly and overtly rejects the Zionist colonisation of Palestine.

As the United States, the ‘successor’ to the British Empire in defending western interests in the Middle East, is perceived to be growing more hesitant in engaging militarily in the Middle East, there is an inevitability that the two nations rooted in the Empire’s Balfour Declaration, Israel and Saudi Arabia, would develop a more overt alliance to defend their common interests.


[1] Gary Troeller, “The Birth of Saudi Arabia” (London: Frank Cass, 1976) pg.91.

[2] Askar H. al-Enazy, “ The Creation of Saudi Arabia: Ibn Saud and British Imperial Policy, 1914-1927” (London: Routledge, 2010), pg. 105-106.

[3] ibid., pg. 109.

[4] ibid., pg.111.

[5] ibid.

[6] ibid.

[7] ibid., pg 107.

[8] ibid., pg. 45-46 and pg.101-102.

[9] ibid., pg.104.

[10] ibid.

[11] ibid., pg. 113.

[12] ibid., pg.110 and Troeller, op. cit., pg.166.

[13] al-Enazy op cit., pg.112-125.

[14] al-Enazy, op. cit., pg.120.

[15] ibid., pg.129.

[16] ibid., pg. 106 and Troeller op. cit., 152.

[17] al-Enazy, op. cit., pg. 136 and Troeller op. cit., pg.219.

[18] David Howarth, “The Desert King: The Life of Ibn Saud” (London: Quartet Books, 1980), pg. 133 and Randall Baker, “King Husain and the Kingdom of Hejaz” (Cambridge: The Oleander Press, 1979), pg.201-202.

[19] Quoted in al-Enazy op. cit., pg. 144.

[20] ibid., pg. 138 and Troeller op. cit., pg. 216.

[21]In the original full length BBC iPlayer version this segment begins towards the end at 2 hrs 12 minutes 24 seconds.

[22] al-Enazy op. cit., pg. 153.

[23] Eugene Rogan, “The Arabs: A History”, (London: Penguin Books, 2009), pg.220.

Nu'man Abd al-Wahid

Nu’man Abd al-Wahid is a Yemeni-English independent researcher specialising in the political relationship between the British state and the Arab World. His main focus is on how the United Kingdom has historically maintained its political interests in the Arab World. A full collection of essays can be accessed at Twitter handle: @churchillskarma.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

45 Responses

  1. on January 7, 2016, 11:12 am

    Hmmm, Saudi Arabia only turned to de facto Israeli allies after the 60’s due due to US pressure. This article is quite unique in its assertion that Saudi is a Zionist creation, and I honestly think its nonsense.

    The Saudi regime was the brainchild of British Imperialism to defeat and dissolve the Ottoman Caliphate.Zionism is a form of imperialism as well, but it is far more comparable to the settler-colonialist regimes of the USA, South Africa and Australia.

    • NumanalWahid on January 7, 2016, 3:13 pm

      Thanks for taking the time to read the piece.

      To address your point. Before World War 2, Zionism practically translated to and specifically meant the implementation of the British Empire’s Balfour Declaration. The British Empire were facilitating the implementation of the Balfour Declaration by allowing Ibn Saud to expand across the Arabian peninsula.

      After WW2 and especially with the creation of Israel in 1948, Zionism largely means supporting the state of Israel.

      Nu’man Abd al-Wahid

      • HoChiMinh9 on September 16, 2016, 4:15 am

        Good answer. I was wondering, as Trans Jordan was ca. 80% of the Palestinian Mandate, is there anything written on the Zionist and Palestinian reaction to it being whisked off any future negotiating table with its creation? Also, anything on how the Palestinian’s felt being put under a foreign Kings control? From what I read Abdullah despised the Palestian’s as much as the Jews did.

      • tony greenstein on October 25, 2018, 11:12 pm

        It’s not true that Transjordan was 80% of the Palestine mandate. It was removed in May 1923. It had been included technically in 1921 in the Mandate for Palestine but was administered separately. When Churchill officially removed it from the Mandate the Zionist Executive, including Jabotinsky, agreed. Approximately 3 Jews resided there.

        Transjordan was never therefore on the negotiating table. Its ruler Abdullah was imposed by the British.

    • James Canning on January 8, 2016, 1:46 pm

      The British gave support to Ibn Saud in hopes he would attack Turkish forces in the Middle East. Ibn Saud’s later conquest of the Hejaz was his own doing and something Britain was not in a position to block.

      • NumanalWahid on January 9, 2016, 4:30 pm

        Initial British support for Ibn Saud i.e. pre WW1 upto 1915 was about destabilising Ottoman Empire presence for British imperialism but after 1919, as this argues, British imperialist support for Ibn Saud was all about ‘facilitating’ the Empire’s zionist project in Palestine.

        Nu’man Abd al-Wahid

  2. Steve Grover on January 7, 2016, 12:15 pm

    If us Zionists can create Saudi regime then we can sure as heck take down that fascist regime in Iran.

    • eljay on January 7, 2016, 12:31 pm

      || Steve Grover: If us Zionists can create Saudi regime then we can sure as heck take down that fascist regime in Iran. ||

      You should start with dismantling your supremacist “Jewish State” regime and letting Israelis live as Israelis in a secular and democratic Israel of and for all of its citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees.

    • Mooser on January 8, 2016, 2:24 am

      “If us Zionists can create Saudi regime…”

      Ah, you are all ready to take credit for that? Okay!

    • tony greenstein on January 8, 2016, 8:38 am

      Iran is many things, not least a corrupt and oppressive theocracy. But if Iran were fascist then Israel would have no interest in taking it down.

    • Citizen on December 26, 2017, 8:22 am

      Note how old the Persian nation is, and that today it is the sole Persian state. Also note its mass and population number. Also note the US 1953 coup there, and that the US supported Saddam’s Iraqi eight year war against Persian Iran. Also note that Israel’s character as a fascist state has been growing and the world is aware of this. Are you still so sure “us Zionists” can “sure as heck take down” the Iranian regime? Also note that Britain, France, and Germany recently voted against Trump’s unilateral recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of the self-described Jewish state, and that the US abstained from the latest UN SC resolution against Israeli settlements and that the American people are becoming aware of the BDS stance supporting equal rights for Palestinians and their right to self determination.

  3. diasp0ra on January 7, 2016, 3:06 pm

    I have to admit, I find this pretty far fetched.

    Not the history part. But the parts on Zionism and Saudi Arabia. The British empire was reacting to anyone in the way of their plans for the region, which was not exclusive to the creation of a Jewish home.

    Hell, nobody even knew what the Jewish homeland would even look like when it came to borders. The early Zionists presented a map in 1919 for their proposed state and it encompassed a large part of western Trans-Jordan, as well as the Golan heights and all of Palestine.

    I am afraid I cannot follow the leap in logic of what is written in the text and what is in the title.

    I would argue that the creation of Jordan had much more to do with Zionism than the creation of Saudi Arabia.

    • JWalters on January 7, 2016, 6:03 pm

      “Actually, the Sharif let it be known that he will never sell out Palestine to the Empire’s Balfour Declaration”

      The Sharif’s defiance led the British to make the Saudi family their muscle in the region.

      The Balfour Declaration was letter to James de Rothschild, worked out in backroom deals and never voted on by Parliament. For more on these backroom deals, and the influences Rothschild represented, check out the 1961 speech by Benjamin Freedman, a high level insider who watched it happen. Text and audio are online.

      As you note, the article could be clearer on the connection.

      • YoniFalic on January 7, 2016, 6:51 pm

        Balfour sent the Declaration to Lionel Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild, Baron de Rothschild.

      • diasp0ra on January 7, 2016, 10:45 pm


        No I understand what the author is trying to say, but it doesn’t click for me completely.

        I don’t see Zionism as Zionism having anything to do with helping create Saudi Arabia, rather British ambitions in the region, only part of which was support for Zionist plans. British colonialism also worked its wonders in the Arab world where there was no Zionist plans, Iraq, Egypt, etc.

        Zionism or not, I believe the British would have backed the Saudis anyway.

      • tony greenstein on January 8, 2016, 8:45 am

        ‘ don’t see Zionism as Zionism having anything to do with helping create Saudi Arabia, rather British ambitions in the region, only part of which was support for Zionist plans. British colonialism also worked its wonders in the Arab world where there was no Zionist plans, Iraq, Egypt, etc.

        Zionism or not, I believe the British would have backed the Saudis anyway.’

        This is the wrong way to look at it. Zionism was an instrument of the British. An instrument primarilyh to protect the route to India i.e. the Suez Canal. The creation of Saudi Arabia was clearly part and parcel of that project as was the colonisation of Iraq. Of course there were other interests not least the possibility of oil being discovered and exploitation of the resources of Egypt, cotton, etc. But Empire also has its own momentum.

        Transjordan was severed off from the Palestine Mandate in 1922 because it was thought useful to have a separate state between Arabia and Palestine, since there had been no Zionist colonisation there anywhere, despite the latter day protests of the Revisionists.

        But the main thesis of Numanal Wahid is quite compatible with this.

      • James Canning on January 8, 2016, 1:43 pm

        Balfour’s letter was to Walter, Lord Rothschild.

      • MHughes976 on January 8, 2016, 3:28 pm

        I see no reason to think that the Saudis supported Zionism.

      • JWalters on January 8, 2016, 6:45 pm

        “Zionism or not, I believe the British would have backed the Saudis anyway.”

        A good point, and they may have. But might Sharif Hussain and Ibn Rashid have worked out a compromise partition between themselves and agreeable to the British and French, if the Zionist factor were not there? If so, the Zionist factor could have tipped the course of events.

        I agree the British Empire’s goals were the biggest factor. And oil was a big factor because the British Navy wanted to shift from coal to oil as their primary fuel.

        Also, thanks for the corrections on Baron de Rothschild.

  4. gingershot on January 7, 2016, 3:14 pm

    Off-topic don’t know where to put this please delete immediately if necessary:
    The Netanyahu government may be coming down ALERT

    A-G clears Deri to become interior minister as Likud MK threatens to bring down coalition

    Sent from my iPhone

    • gingershot on January 7, 2016, 3:29 pm

      ‘The Zionist Union began an anti-Netanyahu advertising campaign Thursday under the slogan “There is terror, there is no prime minister. Israel deserves security.”‘

      What Herzog means by Israel deserve security is Israel deserves the CIS Commanders for Israel Security…… Cowabunga!

      Hillary can’t get off her AIPAC horse and she can’t stay on. Checkmate

      Diskin and 106 signatories of CIS Plus UN Chapter 7 to clear the Settler IDF/Hilltop IDF, that’s all folks! Success
      Tsunami goes from there and hits Hillary, Salmon, Allison, and all the REST
      There is no Israel Lobby of 1P1V1S

      This sucker is coming down

  5. gingershot on January 7, 2016, 5:26 pm

    Israel*, ISIS, and Saudi Arabia – the new Axis of Evil in the Middle East

    Saudi Israelia – it’s one animal with ISIS teeth.

    Saudi Arabia is going down with the Netanyahu government

    *plus Israeli Lobby/Jewish Lobby friends in the US

  6. JWalters on January 7, 2016, 5:49 pm

    Thanks for this informative history. It’s striking how the financial powers use religious extremism in both Saudi Arabia and Israel to foment conflict. And guess who benefits? The world needs to wake up to this game. Articles like this help.

  7. Bandolero on January 7, 2016, 10:05 pm

    Nu’man Abd al-Wahid & Mondo Weiss team

    Thanks a lot for this article. It’s a very interesting piece of historical research and, I think, very relevant to understand the background of what’s going on nowadays.

  8. Herchel on January 7, 2016, 11:04 pm

    Fascinating article… I’m looking forward to next week’s installment: How Jews… I mean the “Zionist Entity” caused Hurricane Katrina.

  9. Mooser on January 8, 2016, 2:15 am

    “If the Empire thought that the Sharif, with Ibn Saud now on his border…”

    11the text-block; “Thought” maybe should be ‘had hopes’ or possibly ‘entertained hopes’ to go with ” they were short lived” at the end of that sentence?

    • NumanalWahid on January 9, 2016, 4:33 pm

      Good point Mooser. Thank you. I’ll keep this in mind if ever (in my dreams!) a publisher comes forward wanting to my work on the Palestine mandate period into book format! :)

      • Mooser on January 9, 2016, 4:40 pm

        My pleasure. Enjoyed the article a lot, just happened to notice the possible errata in that sentence.

  10. lysias on January 8, 2016, 10:32 am

    The British were hoist by their own petard when British adviser of Ibn Saud St John Philby (Kim Philby’s father), who had earlier advised Ibn Saud during his conquest of the rest of Arabia, turned on Britain and opened Saudi Arabia to the U.S.

  11. James Canning on January 8, 2016, 1:39 pm

    I recommend Philip Stephens’ comments in the Financial Times today. The sad fact of the matter is that Saudi concerns about Iran have caused Saudi Arabia to weaken its effort to end the Israeli occupation of the West Bank.

  12. traintosiberia on January 9, 2016, 9:28 am

    Religion has been a major tool in the dangerous arsenals of Brotish. They used the smoke of this gun power against Tipu Sultan to rally both Hindus and Muslim against him .Later they promoted religionization of Indian politics through Ghandhi and Jinnah.
    British ,American, and the typical emblematic of the fountain of the information like FOX and NYT have helped promoted,armed or given unhindered unchallenged gated expression to radical Islamic fanaticism while denouncing same fanaticism sometimes in same breath .
    A typical consistent default position of these entities are like this – support Saudi or Quawaiti or Bahraini excesses ,tortures religiosity and then mount war or threaten war against Iran or Syria or Lebanon or Hamas because of the presence of the radicalism and of terrorism . A recent FOX news opinion clips would show this dexterity in clear bold relief . – FOX was asking who was going to stand up against IS followed expression of concerns for all the chaos ,rage,danger,and terrorism that have engulfed Gaza. Hizbullah and Iran.

    Britan has perfected this art in India and Nigeria and a few other countries for an entirely different purpose. Brtish sources are used by Indian elite to demonize Muslim overtly nd covertly . Those ideas are then used by politicians ,voters government officials and academicians to create,maintain,and promote anti Muslim discrimination,violence,and hatred .
    Using the same template , the Indian,Nigerian,Phillipnes,and Burmese media reports the American negative narratives against Muslim either through selective reporting,opinions,or premature conclusion but always omitting the informations ( British or American,or German or French) that could expose the links between the Islaim radicalism and the West or that would would provide the facts on Western brutalism on Muslim countries .
    West benefits from this type of blinkered gated suppressed unchallenged views . Indians not only experience the hatred against Muslim ,they translate it against Pkistan,Bangladesh,or Palestnian or even Iranian or Saudis as the context changes or the relation between India or those countries come under strain .

  13. traintosiberia on January 9, 2016, 9:37 am

    In 2012 Israel was worried that Saudis might unravel and collapse . They conveyed the urgency,fear and the solution how to prevent this to America .
    Something must have happened in between 911 and 2011.
    Wosley,Perle,Morravosky,( or what ever is the name of this French Israeli Expert ) and Kristol/ Krauthammer duo have been asking for the Saudi scalp . Now they don’t . Neither anybody anywhere in administration reminds them: ” It is not a bazaar. Days of haggling is over”

    • lysias on January 12, 2016, 2:39 pm

      Director-General of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs Dore Gold published in 2003 Hatred’s Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism.

  14. traintosiberia on January 9, 2016, 2:16 pm

    It can be understood why Alquida attacked in Kenya New York or off Yemen coast or why Al Shab attacked Kenya and Ethiopia , it could be understood from their ideological doctrines or from the laws governing the wars .
    But one can’t understand the attacks on Turkey France,England,and America by IS when the paymasters of IS ( Saudi to Qatar ) are controlled by the West to the last cell in their bodies . It is also worth looking into why IS should be drawing wrath from these countries by beheading ,by raping,by killings ” infidel” when the IS should know better that these images increase animosity and hatred in the western mind .
    Sure it serves the purpose of IS to recruit on racial religious grounds . But it also serves the west . It serves west by keeping the nation battle ready ,war prone, and the western mind reflexively and permanently anti Muslim . This anti Muslim perception and attitude could come handy any time the west decides to attack a Muslim country from Indonesia to Uzbekistan to Mali . That’s what went behind the Iraq war and call for wars against Iran to Sudan. West did not and would not question . This explains how and why the spokesperson of Trump campaign could say and get away with the comment: ” So what,they are all Muslims”

    British has been doing same in Arab since 1913 convincing everybody at home why the arrangements made by them were worth doing.

    It would not a far fetched to think that the threat of IS is used by the west the way the threat of Ibn Saud’s gangs was against Sharif .

  15. Kay24 on January 9, 2016, 8:52 pm

    This alliance between Saudi and Israel is devious and dangerous. What role the US plays in this is still fully unknown, but the US has sold weapons Saudi worth over a billion, and most probably trained its military in some form or the other. ISIS has become very convenient for all parties concerned, and unfortunately, giving islamaphobes the tools to make Islam look evil.
    The more I learn about Saudi Arabia’s devious policies, interferences, and proxy wars, the more I distrust the nation that is supposed to be the keeper of the two biggest Mosques in Islam. Their
    human rights record is disgusting, their laws primitive, yet for oily reasons we keep holding their hands, ignoring the fact that while we are pretending we want democracy in all nations, we are ignoring the fact that women cannot vote or drive in this cursed nation. Saudi Arabia does nothing for the Palestinians, and have a sick alliance with their occupier.

    Israel and SA are two peas in a pod, and deserve each other.

  16. Blake on January 10, 2016, 3:31 pm

    “The mandate did not really exist & the British presence in Palestine was based on an elaborate system of deception & political fraud, for which the unfortunate British public had to pay the bills for. The United States was importuned to accept the mandate for Armenia. It refused to do so as the American people would not take the risk of constant complications & heavy expenditure in Asia. The British Empire had waxed great by “governing men as they wish to be governed”, & was not doing that in Palestine or Mesopotamia. In Palestine it was trying to foist on the Arabs the Zionist regime. In Mesopotamia and Kurdistan it was forcing the alien regime of King Faisal.”
    Excerpt from: “The Palestine Deception 1915-1923: The McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, the Balfour Declaration, and the Jewish National Home” by J.M.N. Jeffries. Edited with an introduction by William M. Mathew

  17. on January 11, 2016, 4:08 am

    I submit that the article’s tile is incorrect. It should be “British Imperialism help creates “Jewish State” and divides the Arabs to achieve its domination of the Middle East.” Based upon my understanding and reading of Middle East history Zionism originally was primarily a tool of British interests and part of the British attempt to socially engineer the Middle East along sectarian lines so that it could be easily dominated and exploited for oil etc., etc. It is this destructive game that continues today in Iraq, Libya, Palestine, Syria and Yemen. The British and in particular Lord Balfour, the so-called author of the Balfour Declaration did not want more Jews in Britain. This racism is the reason why Lord Montagu, who was Jewish and a Member of the British Cabinet at the time, described Zionism as a form of anti-Semitism. Here is the link to the Memorandum.

  18. traintosiberia on January 11, 2016, 8:42 pm

    Saudi spend inordinate amount of money in west to lobby and to promote their interest . Now they arev spending money to get benign public image . They’ve recruited the neocons . News paper call them ally and moderate .
    But these lazy bone loafer and corrupt and ferocious people won’t spend any money to protect the Muslim from the wrath of the right wing neocons and from rabid rightwing media or from the anti Muslim platform
    Yet , Muslim countries kowtow to them .

    • Kay24 on January 11, 2016, 11:39 pm

      They don’t care about the Muslims. They attack the Shiites, and wage proxy wars with them, using Sunnis who give their lives to do so. They are good buddies with Israel, despite the fact that many Muslims suffer in the Palestinian territories. They are wealthy and arrogant, and trying to influence Muslims around the world to get around to their way of following the religion, backward thinking, stoning people to death, and women not allowed to drive or vote.

      Muslim countries kowtow to them, because they are keepers of the Holiest Mosques in Islam, and it is there that Muslims are expected to go to perform their Holy Pilgrimage.
      It is unfortunate Islam is based mostly in Mecca and Medina, because the Saudis are taking
      advantage of that.

  19. artmanc on May 19, 2016, 9:11 pm

    Great work!!! I’m a school history teacher in Chile, not a historian, and just wanted to tell you that a couple of weeks ago I was looking -very briefly, in general encyclopedias- into Yemen’s history and what I understood matches exactly with this history you researched and wrote… But mostly, you know, looking at the history of the Middle East from so far away and through so much propaganda, specially US fabricated and disseminated propaganda, what most astounded me and saddened me is that it’s exactly like Latin American history as it’s told by Eduardo Galeano in his book The Open Veins of Latin America, you know: we are poor and have been devastated by Empires because we have been and are very rich… You know, Romans called Yemen Arabia Felix!!

  20. Tyler Vincent on May 10, 2017, 8:47 pm

    One of the greatest articles EVER written on WW1 and the creation of the Jewish regime in Palestine… thank you SO MUCH! Articles like this will change the course of history.

  21. RoHa on May 11, 2017, 1:12 am

    Pssst, Nu’man Abd al-Wahid, it’s “toe the line”, not “tow the line”. The idiom refers to RN sailors standing rigidly with their toes on a line on the deck while an officer decides how many lashes to give to defaulters.

    Nothing to do with towing.

Leave a Reply