3

Primarily, did the mandate provide some sort of de facto protection against invasion from the Arabs?

But considering that the British had a mandate over Palestine, why did they not intervene in the civil war that followed the UN Partition?

  • 5
    Yes - threat of war against Britain. The British did much to stifle the efforts of the Israelis to prepare for independence in the last few months of the Mandate - any premature intervention by the Arabs would have turned the British into an implacable foe instead of a minor ally. – Pieter Geerkens Sep 6 '16 at 2:11
  • Quite apart from the UK being the mandated power under the pre-war League of Nations/post-war UN, the UK still had a military garrison there, albeit one that was the subject of incremental withdrawal. Moreover, the Sykes-Picot accord of 1916, between the UK and France, was intended to establish spheres of British and French influence in what was expected to be the vacuum left in the Middle East by the defeat of Turkey and the certain end of the Ottoman Empire's control of the region. The invading Arab states would not want to risk this geopolitical reality with a pre-'48 invasion. – Peter Point Sep 6 '16 at 8:46
  • @Pieter Geerkens. Yes, the UK stood back to wait and see what would happen on 14 May 1948, the memory of the Balfour Declaration of 1917 long since faded, but the likes of Orde Wingate, a British serving officer in 1930's mandated Palestine, did help shape what would become today's IDF. The Army of Hashemite Kingdom of Trans-Jordan (Jordan) was mainly led in the field by British officers under Glubb Pasha who in 1948 led the Arab Legion across the River Jordan to occupy the West Bank. – Peter Point Sep 6 '16 at 9:10
  • Who are they in "why did they not intervene in the civil war"? The British had announced their intention to withdraw from the Palestine Mandate in February 1947 and referred the matter to the United Nations, leading to the UN Partition Plan; formally the Mandate ended on 14/15 May 1948 with the British handing over to local police forces and leaving. Arab countries did intervene. – Henry Sep 6 '16 at 10:18
  • 2
    The British position was complex, they did give a nod to the Jordanian annexation the west bank , and certainly laid done conditions on the Jordanian forces, they were also the main arms supplier to most of the Arab regimes. Britain was the super power the Arab regimes had experienced. – pugsville Sep 6 '16 at 13:43
5
  1. I would rephrase your first question as "Primarily, ... invasion from the Arab countries?"
    And the answer for this one is yes. It would be declaring war against the UK, and the UK was still superpower back than.

  2. For the second question, I will reply with a Question:

    What reason did you find for the UK to interfere in this war? Because I didn't find any.

    The tension, and the violence increased dramatically after UN-proposed partition. Even though war was officially declared by the Arab countries only after the Israeli independence declaration, the situation was pretty rough before.

    The UK was in her last days as an Empire. They had made the decision to get out of Palestine, in other words, to runaway from this sick bed. Therefore, interfering in the war will act against this decision.

  • The problem was standing in between Turkey and Egypt...while at the same time "holding down the Fort on Malta." Once Israel was recognized as an independent State this shouldn't have been a problem anymore....although oddly France and Britain were more than happy to give up their entire Empires to defend Israel. The USA was not so clumsy. – Doctor Zhivago Sep 6 '16 at 21:20
  • 3
    @user14394 "...although oddly France and Britain were more than happy to give up their entire Empires to defend Israel." [sic]. This seems to me to be an expression of hyperbole quite possibly generated by propaganda rather than historical accounts from either side in the Palestine-Israel conflict and their respective supporters. – Peter Point Sep 7 '16 at 5:20
  • What part of "I'm not 5 Star General President Eisenhower " don't you seem to understand? – Doctor Zhivago Sep 7 '16 at 6:17

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.