No strategy? The British navy had just switched from coal to oil. Before WW1, Germany was weeks away from finishing the Berlin to Baghdad Railway where the Germans would provide engineering to develop the oil fields and split the profits with the owners of the land.
This is all true - the first place British troops landed on foreign soil at the onset of WW1 was Basra.
After the war, though, there were elements within the Anglo-American power structure that felt Zionism was too heavy-handed and anachronistic. They advocated for simply fostering a comprador elite, as was being done in the other newly created Arab states. The pro-Zionists, however, claimed that these other states would need a constant threat of direct violence hanging over their heads to keep them in line.
I don't think they were correct. Israel has been too disruptive, too costly, hampering the Empire's stable control of oil extraction. That's why I opined that the decision to go with Zionism was made for emotional reasons rather than pragmatic long-term strategic ones.
Don’t forget that many of the borders of Arabic lands were rewritten by the British Empire and their French allies after WW1 when the black stuff that fuelled the new motor car was discovered in Arabia. The Saud family were the hardest gangsters in the land so naturally the Uk made them monarchs.
True. The Sykes Picot Agreement. As I relearn history I find secret agreements written up, before the first shot is fired, on how it will be divided later. France, Britain, etc all get their pieces so they don't lose time in-fighting. They could not allow Germany to benefit from this, and especially not the Arabs. The post Ukraine and Gaza/Palestine agreements are interesting too. See Lawrence of Arabia's biography detailing the fact he knew they intended to do this all along.
Too bad learning from history has not been invented yet.
No strategy? The British navy had just switched from coal to oil. Before WW1, Germany was weeks away from finishing the Berlin to Baghdad Railway where the Germans would provide engineering to develop the oil fields and split the profits with the owners of the land.
There is more……….
This is all true - the first place British troops landed on foreign soil at the onset of WW1 was Basra.
After the war, though, there were elements within the Anglo-American power structure that felt Zionism was too heavy-handed and anachronistic. They advocated for simply fostering a comprador elite, as was being done in the other newly created Arab states. The pro-Zionists, however, claimed that these other states would need a constant threat of direct violence hanging over their heads to keep them in line.
I don't think they were correct. Israel has been too disruptive, too costly, hampering the Empire's stable control of oil extraction. That's why I opined that the decision to go with Zionism was made for emotional reasons rather than pragmatic long-term strategic ones.
Don’t forget that many of the borders of Arabic lands were rewritten by the British Empire and their French allies after WW1 when the black stuff that fuelled the new motor car was discovered in Arabia. The Saud family were the hardest gangsters in the land so naturally the Uk made them monarchs.
True. The Sykes Picot Agreement. As I relearn history I find secret agreements written up, before the first shot is fired, on how it will be divided later. France, Britain, etc all get their pieces so they don't lose time in-fighting. They could not allow Germany to benefit from this, and especially not the Arabs. The post Ukraine and Gaza/Palestine agreements are interesting too. See Lawrence of Arabia's biography detailing the fact he knew they intended to do this all along.
Too bad learning from history has not been invented yet.