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.
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.