Responsibility for the ME Conflict Lies with GB – response

There was no option to respond to the recent blog by Christian Rudolf Hamann, so here is a separate blog.

With regards to his blog dated 11th September entitled Responsibility for the Middle East Conflict Lies with Great Britain, I agree whole-heartedly with the title. Responsibility (most if not all) does lie with Great Britain. However, there are several key facts he omitted, which must be taken into account when trying to understand why this is the case.

Firstly, the demographic of the country when Britain entered in 1917, was 90% Muslim and Christian and 10% Jewish. (This can be referenced at Jewish Virtual Library among others.)

Second, I would be curious to know where CRH got his definition of Britain’s Mandatory obligations.  Article 22 governed this relationship.

Under Article 22, available on the web and below, Mandatory powers (I paraphrase) were required to prepare native populations for self-governance, rendering them such advice as was necessary.

As 90% of the native population (slightly less by the time the mandate was granted) was non-Jewish, CRH’s given reasons for the mandates failure are erroneous.

Fuller text below:

ARTICLE 22.

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.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the 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.

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.

(Continues)

Photo is public domain