1917 was a terrible year for the Allied cause. Russia had ceased to be belligerent after the Bolshevik revolution, reducing the allied numbers by one. Italy clung on to its existence, whilst trying to recover from the hammer blow that was the battle of Caporetto. Britain and France had nearly lost a generation of young men on the battle fields of Paschendale and Verdun respectively for little military gain. The German submarine menace was starting to bring huge shortages to the leading allied industrial producer, Britain. At least a new Ally in the shape of the US had entered the fray. Even still it had seemed a disastrous year. Only one theatre of operations seemed to demonstrate success. That theatre was the Middle East where the British and their Arab allies were steadily rolling up the Ottoman Empire.
To Lloyd George and his coalition cabinet one objective appeared as a sure fire morale booster for a war weary British Empire. The capture of Jerusalem. Lloyd George ordered the able British general , Allenby, to take the city by no later than Christmas. Allenby did better than that, he entered Jerusalem on 11th of December. Many contemporaries quickly picked up on the historical resonances and pronounced it the logical end of the crusades and much lionising of Allenby was evident in the press.
___________________________________________
Are we right then on occasion to suggest that history can be made by events rather than by the logical conclusions of a large scale process?
___________________________________________
The effect on the British cabinet was less than predictable. The very thought of the capture of Jerusalem and the resultant Palestinian lands brought unprecedented debates to the mixed Liberal/Tory cabinet. What arose was a surprise. It appeared that the British cabinet were by and large Christian Zionists and on November the 2nd 1917 they instructed, as a group, Balfour to issue this famous communiqué to the then Head of the Jewish community in the UK Lord Rothschild. The communiqué was for circulation and publication:
The event of Allenby’s entry to Jerusalem was carefully staged managed for the press. Allenby entered Jerusalem on foot via the Jaffa Gate. The Jaffa Gate was traditionally seen as the gate by which conquerors entered Jerusalem. Allenby was instructed to enter on foot as a sign of humility as Jesus had entered on a donkey.
Also at the back of the cabinets mind was the rather overblown entrance by the Kaiser in triumphal style on his good will tour of the Ottoman Empire in 1898:
There are two basic historical questions one may present on first encounter with this historical event:
1 How significant was this event for the creation Israel?
2 How far did the event complete the historical cycle of crusades as was popularly expressed at the time in Britain?
The most interesting question though for me is a different one. This capture of Jerusalem was not a stated key aim of the First World War, it was a by product made possible and desirable by military and political events elsewhere. As such it was an afterthought in the grand scheme of things, and yet its historical impact on the region appears at first glance so profound.
Are we right then on occasion to suggest that history can be made by events rather than by the logical conclusions of a large scale process?
By Mark on History
Comments
It is random that I exist, yet the fact that I exist comes down to the result of billions of years of cause and effect and millions of years of choices, all of which could be accounted for.
What does the Balfour Declaration prove? That class or capitalism are not driving forces of history. If Israel was not the European client state in the Middle East then would another country have filled that role?