As with the timing of Friedman’s paper and Kadourie’s book coming on the heels of world beginning to turn on Israel after the 1967 June war, it is no surprise that Antonious’s Arab Awakening was first published in 1937 and a second edition was republished in 1946. These dates both coincide with historic attempts by the British to fulfill the Balfour Declaration and thereby extricate themselves out of Palestine and the morass that by the middle 1930s was looking like the “quicksand” that Kadourie metaphorically labeled British presence in the region. The Peel Commission which led to a suggested partition of Palestine in 1938, the Arab side scrambled to make their case stronger to repel any emerging Zionist state. Antonious was part of that scramble. Setting himself as the spokesman for the Arab side of the argument in the English speaking world the Arab Awakening was not only a case for Arab nationalism but he was the first to publish the Hussein McMahon correspondence in full in history.


What conclusions can we draw from the fact that major works with historically important arguments seem to coincide with major major middle East events?


One of the distinctions coming from historians writing about the Arab point of view is that their positions on support for the Arab side does not change overtime Whether the author is writing during war or peacetime, successful economy, or recession, or any other global crisis or change which might affect other historiographical areas plays no part in changing what one would argue from the Arab side. Charles D. Smith argues the same points that Arnold Toynbee argued in 1970 or George Antonious in the 1940s.




Historians are divided on the issue. Some, like Charles D. Smith, Arnold Toynbee and George Antonious, argue that Palestine like the rest of the Middle East was promised to the Arabs. Others like Isaiah Friedman, Elie Kadurie and Howard Sachar argue that Palestine was purposely left out of any proposed Arab state not only because of promises to the Jews but because of British strategic interests. The controversy comes down to one particular letter. Henry McMahon wrote to Sharif Hussein on October 24, 1915, and stated the following when describing western boundaries to the Arab State. The British promised a huge portion of the Middle East to Sharif Hussein but purposely left out the area west of the Jordan River including Jerusalem and its environs. The British did not intend originally plan to save Palestine for a Jewish homeland but only after some activist lobbying by Zionists like Chaim Weizmann did the British decide that a Jewish self governing presence in Palestine would be helpful to British policy in a number of ways.



One of the hottest debates of the Twentieth century is the legitimacy of Israel. Primarily, a country governed by Jews sits on land claimed by Arab Muslims. The Jews insist they have an historic claim to the land and the Arabs claim that it is theirs because they have lived and worked that land for centuries. Since the inception of Israel in 1948 resentment to its existence has fostered five major wars, countless terror attacks, and insurmountable suffering on both sides.


The literature spawned from this conflict has been wide and prolific. Historians have written about all phases, from its wars to its hatreds, from racism to Anti-semitism. Some have sought to reveal the truth of how the Arab-Israeli conflict began. Most historians report that World War I, changed everything in the middle East including how the region should be carved up, thanks to the three infamous agreements, The Hussein-McMahon correspondence of 1915, The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, and The Balfour Declaration, 1917. The problem is that the three agreements are not consistent as to who promised what to whom. Of course, the Sykes Picot agreement was almost dead when it was signed. Falling by the wayside after the war, the dividing up of the Middle East fell along similar lines but not exactly how the British and French had planned it in the agreement.


That left the Balfour declaration and the Hussein McMahon correspondence, for historians to argue what was meant by allied policy following their victory in World War I.

This paper is about the Hussein MacMohon.


with on exactly what the British meant through the course of these letters, promising Sharif Hussein a kingdom in exchange for his help in defeating the Ottomans are one of the most contentious, hotly debated issues of twentieth century world history.


The Three Strikes Law prevented serious felons, murderers, rapists, child molesters and other violent offenders from being able to repeat their crimes over and over again as they had done in the past. With the passage of the Three Strikes Law, these offenders were sentenced to mandatory life sentences on their third felony offence, thereby removing the threat to society permanently.






Jewish community examiner

Leave A Response

* Denotes Required Field