The Martin Pollins Blog

History, economics, business, politics…and Sussex


The 1920 San Remo conference established three League of Nations mandates: a French mandate for Syria and British mandates for Mesopotamia and Palestine with effect to the terms of the Balfour Declaration (see below).

The San Remo Conference was a diplomatic meeting held in San Remo, Italy, in April 1920. The purpose of the conference was to assign the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and the territories of the former Ottoman Empire in the Middle East to the victorious Allied powers following World War I.

The conference was attended by representatives from Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan and by Zionist representatives. The League of Nations mandate for Palestine was assigned to Britain, which became responsible for facilitating the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This decision had far-reaching consequences for the Middle East and is still a highly contentious issue today.

Delegates to the San Remo conference in Italy, 25 April 1920
Attribution: Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Page URL:

The San Remo Conference (summarised later) also established the boundary between Syria and Lebanon, awarded Iraq to Great Britain, and confirmed French control over Syria and Lebanon. The decisions made at the conference were significant in shaping the modern Middle East. Those decisions significantly impacted the future of some Arab states (such as Saudi Arabia and Yemen). But they were not formally part of the conference.

What Sparked Word War 1
Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary was assassinated on 28th June 1914, in Sarajevo, Bosnia, by a Bosnian Serb nationalist named Gavrilo Princip. The assassination was carried out by a group of six assassins who were part of a secret organisation called the Black Hand[2].

The first page of the edition of the Domenica del Corriere, an Italian paper, with a drawing by Achille Beltrame depicting Gavrilo Princip killing Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo. Attribution: Achille Beltrame, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Page URL:

The assassination was motivated by the desire of some Bosnian Serbs to separate from Austria-Hungary and join Serbia. They saw Archduke Franz Ferdinand as a symbol of Austrian oppression and hoped that his death would spark a rebellion that would lead to their independence.

Gavrilo Princip, the Serbian student who fired the shots that killed the Archduke and his wife, was captured and imprisoned. He died in prison four years later, in 1918. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand is considered one of the key events that led to the outbreak of World War I.

The post-World War I treaties focused on the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire[3] because it was one of the major powers that had fought alongside Germany and Austria-Hungary during World War I. While the Ottoman Empire was not the direct cause of the war, it was seen as a major enemy and a threat to the Allied Powers. The Ottoman Empire was also seen as a declining power, and the European powers saw an opportunity to carve up their territories and gain control of their strategic resources, including oil, minerals, and access to trade routes. Additionally, the rise of nationalism among the various ethnic groups within the Ottoman Empire, such as the Kurds, Arabs, and Armenians, led to demands for greater autonomy and independence. Mehmed VI (who ruled 1918-1922) was the last Ottoman Sultan and presided over the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and its transition to a republic.

Arguably, other factors contributed to the partitioning of Ottoman territory. One such factor was the desire of some Western powers, particularly Britain and France, to expand their own spheres of influence in the region and secure their strategic interests. For example:

  • The British were interested in maintaining their control over the Suez Canal, which was a crucial trade route linking Europe to Asia and the Middle East. They also wanted to protect their oil interests in Persia (modern-day Iran) and Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq).
  • The French, on the other hand, sought to maintain their colonial influence in the Levant (modern-day Syria, Lebanon, and Israel/Palestine) and secure their economic interests in the region.
  • Furthermore, the partitioning of Ottoman territory was also influenced by the geopolitical and strategic considerations of the time, including the competition between different imperial powers, the desire to contain the spread of communism, and the need to create stable and viable states in the aftermath of the war.

Finding a homeland for the Jews was a factor in the partitioning of Ottoman territories, although not the main purpose. The Balfour Declaration (see later) was one of the many competing interests and factors that influenced the partitioning of Ottoman territories. It played a role in shaping the post-World War I treaties, which partitioned the Ottoman Empire and established new states in the Middle East.

The partitioning of Ottoman territories was driven by a complex mix of economic, political, and strategic interests, including the desire of Western powers to gain control of valuable resources such as oil and trade routes, as well as the rise of nationalism and the desire of various ethnic groups for greater autonomy and self-determination.

The Treaty of Versailles, signed in 1919, established a League of Nations and imposed harsh penalties on Germany for its role in the war.

Turkish delegation after having signed the Treaty of Lausanne. The delegation was led by İsmet İnönü (in the middle).
Attribution: See page for author. Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Page URL:

The Treaty of Sèvres, signed in 1920, partitioned the Ottoman Empire and imposed similar penalties on the Ottoman Empire, including the loss of territory and the imposition of military restrictions. It was ultimately shelved because of Turkish non-ratification and was replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne, which officially settled the conflict that had originally existed between the Ottoman Empire and the Allied French Republic, the British Empire, the Kingdom of Italy, the Empire of Japan, the Kingdom of Greece, the Kingdom of Serbia, and the Kingdom of Romania since the onset of World War I.[4]

The original text of the treaty is in French. It resulted from a second attempt at peace after the failed and unratified Treaty of Sèvres, which aimed to divide Ottoman territories. The earlier treaty had been signed in 1920 but later rejected by the Turkish National Movement, which fought against its terms. As a result of the Greco-Turkish War, Izmir was retrieved, and the Armistice of Mudanya was signed in October 1922.[5] It provided for the Greek-Turkish population exchange and allowed unrestricted civilian, and non-military, passage through the Turkish Straits.

The treaty was ratified by Turkey on 23rd August 1923[6] and all of the other signatories by 16th July 1924.[7] It came into force on 6 August 1924, when the instruments of ratification were officially deposited in Paris.[8]

The Balfour Declaration[9]

The Balfour Declaration
Attribution: United Kingdom Government signed by Arthur Balfour, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Page URL:

The Balfour Declaration was named after Arthur Balfour[10], the British Foreign Secretary, when the declaration was made. Balfour was a member of the Conservative Party and had been appointed as Foreign Secretary in December 1916. He supported the Zionist movement and played a key role in the drafting and issuing of the declaration.

The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government in 1917 during the First World War announcing its support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a small minority Jewish population.

The declaration was contained in a letter dated 2nd November 1917 (see picture) from the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. The text of the declaration was published in the press on 9th November 1917.

The declaration was controversial from the outset. Palestinian Arabs opposed it, seeing it as an infringement of their rights and interests. Some British officials were also critical of the declaration, seeing it as a potential source of conflict with Arab populations in the region.

The Balfour Declaration was incorporated into the British Mandate for Palestine, which was established by the League of Nations in 1922. The mandate gave Britain administrative control over Palestine and a mandate to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish national home there.

The Balfour Declaration was and remains an important document in the history of the Middle East, and its legacy continues to be debated and contested. It is seen by many as a critical moment in the history of the Zionist movement and the eventual establishment of the state of Israel. Others view it as a source of ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

Support from the United States
The Lodge–Fish Resolution[11] was a joint resolution of both houses of the US Congress that endorsed the British Mandate for Palestine.[12] It was introduced in June 1922 by Hamilton Fish III, a Republican New York Representative, and Henry Cabot Lodge, a Republican Senator from Massachusetts.[13] It came about following a significant lobbying effort by the American Zionist community, particularly through the efforts of Zionist Rabbi Simon Glazer.[14]

It was opposed by the State Department; a prominent anti-Zionist rabbi at the congressional hearings; and the New York Times, which was owned by the anti-Zionist Adolph Ochs.[15]

On 21st September 1922, US President Warren G. Harding signed the joint resolution of approval to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine, per Alfred Balfour’s 1917 Balfour Declaration.[16]

Alfred Balfour (seated centre) in Mandatory Palestine with Vera and Chaim WeizmannNahum Sokolow and others in 1925
Attribution: Avital Efrat, CC BY-SA 4.0 <;, via Wikimedia Commons

Page URL:,_Nachum_Sokolov_and_others,_1925.jpg

This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

The ‘Fourteen Points’ Speech by Woodrow Wilson[17]
The Fourteen Points was a statement of principles for peace that was to be used for peace negotiations to end World War I. US President Woodrow Wilson outlined the principles in a speech on war aims and peace terms to the United States Congress on 8th January 1918. However, his main Allied colleagues (Georges Clemenceau of France, David Lloyd George of the United Kingdom, and Vittorio Emanuele Orlando of Italy) weren’t convinced and were sceptical of the applicability of Wilsonian idealism.[18]

The United States had joined the Triple Entente in fighting the Central Powers on 6th April 1917. Its entry into the war was partly due to Germany’s resumption of submarine warfare against merchant ships trading with France and Britain and also the interception of the Zimmermann Telegram. However, Wilson wanted to avoid the United States’ involvement in the long-standing European tensions between the great powers; if America was going to fight, he wanted to try to separate that participation in the war from nationalistic disputes or ambitions. The need for moral aims was made more important when, after the fall of the Russian government, the Bolsheviks disclosed secret treaties made between the Allies. Wilson’s speech also responded to Vladimir Lenin’s Decree on Peace of November 1917, immediately after the October Revolution of 1917.[19]

The speech made by Wilson took many domestic progressive ideas and translated them into foreign policy (free trade, open agreements, democracy and self-determination). Three days earlier, United Kingdom Prime Minister Lloyd George had made a speech setting out the UK’s war aims which bore some similarity to Wilson’s speech but which proposed the Central Powers pay reparations and which was more vague in its promises to the non-Turkish subjects of the Ottoman Empire. The Fourteen Points in the speech were based on the research of the Inquiry, a team of about 150 advisers led by foreign-policy adviser Edward M. House, into the topics likely to arise in the anticipated peace conference.

The fourteen points, verbatim, were:

  1. Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind, but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.
  2. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants.
  3. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.
  4. Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety.
  5. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty, the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable government whose title is to be determined.
  6. The evacuation of all Russian territory and such a settlement of all questions affecting Russia as will secure the best and freest cooperation of the other nations of the world in obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent determination of her own political development and national policy and assure her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own choosing; and, more than a welcome, assistance also of every kind that she may need and may herself desire. The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their goodwill, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy.
  7. Belgium, the whole world will agree, must be evacuated and restored, without any attempt to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in common with all other free nations. No other single act will serve as this will serve to restore confidence among the nations in the laws which they have themselves set and determined for the government of their relations with one another. Without this healing act, the whole structure and validity of international law is forever impaired.
  8. All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored, and the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace of the world for nearly fifty years, should be righted, in order that peace may once more be made secure in the interest of all.
  9. A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognisable lines of nationality.
  10. The people of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development.
  11. Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated; occupied territories restored; Serbia accorded free and secure access to the sea; and the relations of the several Balkan states to one another determined by friendly counsel along historically established lines of allegiance and nationality; and international guarantees of the political and economic independence and territorial integrity of the several Balkan states should be entered into.
  12. The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Ottoman rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.
  13. An independent Polish state should be erected, including the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant.
  14. A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.

The League of Nations[20]
The League of Nations was established on 10th January 1920 by the Paris Peace Conference that ended the First World War and was the first worldwide intergovernmental organisation whose principal mission was maintaining world peace.[21] US President Woodrow Wilson proposed the idea of creating an international organisation to promote peace and prevent future wars in his Fourteen Points speech in 1918. In 1919, he won the Nobel Peace Prize for his role as the leading architect of the League.

On formation, the League of Nations comprised 42 founding member countries, including the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Japan. The organisation was headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland and had a council of four permanent members who ran the League: France, the United Kingdom, Italy, and Japan, along with non-permanent members elected by the General Assembly. The General Assembly comprised representatives from all member countries and had the power to make recommendations and pass resolutions.

The League’s primary goals were stated in its Covenant. They included:

The Covenant of the League of Nations
The Covenant of the League of Nations was signed on 28th June 1919 as Part I of the Treaty of Versailles, and it became effective with the rest of the Treaty on 10th January 1920. The first meeting of the Council of the League took place on 16th January 1920, and the first meeting of the Assembly of the League took place on 15th November 1920.

The diplomatic philosophy behind the League represented a fundamental shift from the preceding hundred years. The League lacked its own armed force and depended on the victorious Allies of World War I to enforce its resolutions, keep to its economic sanctions, or provide an army when needed[24]. The Great Powers were often reluctant to do so. At its greatest extent, from 28th September 1934 to 23rd February 1935, it had 58 members. After some notable successes and early failures in the 1920s, the League ultimately proved incapable of preventing aggression by the Axis powers in the 1930s. The organisation’s credibility was weakened because the United States never joined, and Japan, Italy, Germany and Spain quit voluntarily. The Soviet Union joined late but was expelled after invading Finland.[25]

Woodrow Wilson returning from the Versailles Peace Conference on USS George Washington as she steamed up New York Harbor on 8 July 1919; the Weimar National Assembly in Germany formally ratified the Treaty the next day by a margin of 209 to 116
Attribution: Naval History & Heritage Command, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Page URL:

While the United States played a significant role in establishing the League of Nations and was a key participant in the negotiations that led to its creation, the United States Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, which included the covenant establishing the League of Nations, and therefore the United States never formally joined the organisation.

The onset of the Second World War in 1939 showed that the League had failed its primary purpose; it was inactive until its abolition. The League lasted for 26 years; the United Nations (UN) replaced it in 1946 and inherited several agencies and organisations founded by the League. Despite its noble goals, the League of Nations was unable to prevent the outbreak of World War II, and it was dissolved in 1946. However, it did lay the groundwork for the creation of the United Nations, the successor to the League and continues to work towards the goal of international peace and security. The League ceased operations on 20th April 1946, but many of its components were subsumed into the new United Nations.

The San Remo Conference
And now, we come to the San Remo conference, an international meeting of the post-World War I Allied Supreme Council (as a follow on from the Paris Peace Conference), which was held at Castle Devachan in San Remo, Italy, from 19th to 26th April 1920. The San Remo Resolution passed on 25th April 1920 determined the allocation of Class “A” League of Nations mandates for the administration of three then-undefined Ottoman territories in the Middle East, namely “Palestine“, “Syria“, and “Mesopotamia“. The boundaries of the three territories were “to be determined [at a later date] by the Principal Allied Powers”, leaving the status of outlying areas such as Zor and Transjordan unclear and in limbo.

The conference was attended by the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I, who were represented by the prime ministers of Britain (David Lloyd George), France (Alexandre Millerand), Italy (Francesco Nitti) and Japan‘s Ambassador Keishirō Matsui.


  • On 30th September 1918, supporters of the Arab Revolt in Damascus declared a government loyal to Sharif Hussein, who had been declared “King of the Arabs” by religious leaders and other notables in Mecca.[26]
  • During the meetings of the Council of Four in 1919, British Prime Minister Lloyd George stated that the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence was the basis for the Sykes–Picot Agreement, which proposed an independent Arab state or confederation of states.[27]  In July 1919, the parliament of Greater Syria had refused to acknowledge any right claimed by the French Government to any part of Syrian territory.[28]
  • On 6th January 1920, Hussein’s son Prince Faisal initialled an agreement with French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau, which acknowledged “the right of the Syrians to unite to govern themselves as an independent nation“.[29]
  • The San Remo conference was convened following a February 1920 Conference of London, where the allies had met to discuss the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire and the negotiation of agreements that would become the Treaty of Sèvres.
  • Pan-Syrian Congress meeting in Damascus had proclaimed an independent Arab Kingdom of Syria on 8th March 1920.[30] The new state included modern Syria and Jordan, portions of northern Mesopotamia which had been set aside under the Sykes–Picot Agreement for an independent Arab state or confederation of states, and nominally the areas of modern Israel-Palestine and Lebanon, although the latter areas were never under Faisal’s control. Faisal was declared the head of state. At the same time, Prince Zeid, Faisal’s brother, was declared Regent of Mesopotamia.[31]

Agreements reached at the Conference
Asserting that not all parts of the Middle East were ready for full independence, mandates were established for the government of three territories: Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine. In each case, one of the Allied Powers was assigned to implement the mandate until the territories in question could “stand alone.” Great Britain and France agreed to recognise the provisional independence of Syria and Mesopotamia while claiming mandates for their administration. Palestine was included within the Ottoman administrative districts of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem and the Sanjaks[32] of Nablus and Akka (Acre).[33]

The decisions of the San Remo conference confirmed the mandate allocations of the Conference of London. The San Remo Resolution adopted on 25th April 1920 incorporated the Balfour Declaration of 1917. It and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations were the basic documents upon which the British Mandate for Palestine was constructed.

Under the Balfour Declaration, the British government had undertaken to favour the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[34] Article 22, para.4 of the Covenant, classified certain populations as “communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire” as having “reached a stage of development where their existence as [an] independent nation can be provisionally recognised” (the League_of_Nations_mandate#Types_of_mandates Class A mandates), and tasked the mandatory with rendering to those territories “administrative advice and assistance until such time as they are able to stand alone”[35].

Britain received the mandate for Palestine and Iraq; France gained control of Syria, including present-day Lebanon. Following the 1918 Clemenceau–Lloyd George Agreement, Britain and France signed the San Remo Oil Agreement, whereby Britain granted France a 25 per cent share of the oil production from Mosul, with the remainder going to Britain[36], and France undertook to deliver oil to the Mediterranean. The draft peace agreement with Turkey signed at the conference became the basis for the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres. Germany was called upon to carry out its military and reparation obligations under the Versailles Treaty, and a resolution was adopted to restore trade with Russia.[37]

Whilst Syria and Mesopotamia were provisionally recognised as states which would be given Mandatory assistance, Palestine would instead be administered by the Mandatory under an obligation to implement the Balfour Declaration and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

While Transjordan was not mentioned during the discussions,[38] three months later, in July 1920, the French defeat of the Arab Kingdom of Syria precipitated the British need to know ‘what is the “Syria” for which the French received a mandate at San Remo?’ and “does it include Transjordania?”[39] – it subsequently decided to pursue a policy of associating Transjordan with the mandated area of Palestine but not to apply the special provisions which were intended to provide a national home for the Jewish people West of the Jordan – and the French proclaimed Greater Lebanon and other component states of its Syrian mandate on 31st August 1920.

For France, the San Remo decision meant that most of its claims in Syria were internationally recognised, and relations with Faisal were now subject to French military and economic considerations. The ability of Great Britain to limit French action was also significantly diminished.[40]  France issued an ultimatum and intervened militarily at the Battle of Maysalun in July 1920, deposing the Arab government and removing King Faisal from Damascus in August 1920. In 1920, Great Britain appointed Herbert Samuel, 1st Viscount Samuel as high commissioner and established a mandatory government in Palestine that remained in power until 1948.[41]

Riots in Jerusalem
The riots in Jerusalem in 1920 were a series of violent clashes between Jewish and Arab residents of the city, which occurred in April of that year. The underlying causes of the riots were complex and multifaceted, but they were largely driven by tensions between Jewish and Arab communities over issues such as land ownership, economic opportunity, and political representation.

The riots began on 4th April, when Arab residents staged a general strike to protest the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. The strike quickly turned violent, with Arab mobs attacking Jewish homes, businesses, and synagogues throughout the city. Jewish residents responded by forming self-defence groups, and the violence continued for several days, resulting in the deaths of dozens of people and the destruction of many buildings.

The British authorities, who had recently assumed control of Palestine following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, eventually intervened to quell the violence. However, the riots left a lasting legacy of mistrust and hostility between Jewish and Arab communities in Palestine, setting the stage for further conflicts in the years to come.

The riots in Jerusalem in 1920 were a tragic reminder of the deep-seated animosity between Jewish and Arab communities in Palestine, further exacerbated by establishing the British Mandate and the influx of Jewish immigrants into the territory.

Caption: No Known Restrictions: British Soldiers During Riots Between Arabs and Jews (LOC)” by is marked with Public Domain Mark 1.0.

The San Remo Conference was a major international meeting that helped to shape the future of the Middle East in the aftermath of World War I. The conference’s main focus was the division of the former Ottoman Empire’s territories in the Middle East.

A key outcome of the San Remo Conference was the establishment of the British Mandate for Palestine, which gave Britain temporary control over the territory and a mandate to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. This decision was based on the terms of the Balfour Declaration, which had been issued by the British government in 1917 and had promised to support the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

The San Remo Conference also laid the groundwork for the eventual partition of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, a proposal ultimately adopted by the United Nations in 1947. However, the partition plan proved highly controversial and remains a source of ongoing conflict in the region today.

An interesting point is the so-called American Balfour Decision, which was the first official endorsement by the United States supporting the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.[42]

Sources and Further Reading


CAUTION: This paper is compiled from the sources stated but has not been externally reviewed. Parts of this paper include information provided via artificial intelligence which, although checked by the author, is not always accurate or reliable. Neither we nor any third parties provide any warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy, timeliness, performance, completeness or suitability of the information and materials covered in this paper for any particular purpose. Such information and materials may contain inaccuracies or errors and we expressly exclude liability for any such inaccuracies or errors to the fullest extent permitted by law. Your use of any information or materials on this website is entirely at your own risk, for which we shall not be liable. It shall be your own responsibility to ensure that any products, services or information available through this paper meet your specific requirements and you should neither take action nor exercise inaction without taking appropriate professional advice. The hyperlinks were current at the date of publication.

End Notes and Explanations
  1. Source: Compiled from research using information at the sources stated throughout the text, together with information provided by machine-generated artificial intelligence at: [chat] and
  2. Explanation: The Black Hand (also known as “Unification or Death”) was a secret Serbian nationalist organization active in the early 20th century. It was founded in 1911 in Belgrade, with the goal of uniting all territories containing South Slavic populations into a single state, or Yugoslavia. The group was responsible for the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary in Sarajevo in 1914, which sparked the beginning of World War I.
  3. For details about the Ottoman Empire, see Martin Pollins’ blog (the Rise and Fall of the Ottoman Empire) at:
  4. Source: Treaty of Peace with Turkey signed at LausanneSwitzerland, 24 July 1923. Cited at:
  5. Sources: Treaty of Peace with Turkey signed at LausanneSwitzerland, 24 July 1923, and “Armistice of Mudanya”. Cited at:
  6. Sources: Martin Lawrence (1924). Treaties of Peace, 1919–1923. Vol. I. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. p. lxxvii., and “League of Nations, Official Journal”. 4. October 1924: 1292. Cited at:
  7. Source: Hansard, House of Commons Archived 18 October 2017 at the Wayback Machine, 16 July 1924. Cited at:
  8. Source: Treaty of Peace with Turkey signed at LausanneSwitzerland, 24 July 1923. Cited at:
  9. Sources: (i) “The Balfour Declaration.” Jewish Virtual Library,, (ii) “Balfour Declaration.” Encyclopædia Britannica,, (iii) “Balfour Declaration.”,, (iv)
  10. Full name: Arthur James Balfour, 1st Earl of Balfour, KGOMPCFRSFBADL (also known as Lord Balfour). He became British Prime Minister in July 1902, succeeding his uncle, Lord Salisbury. Source:
  11. Source: Lodge-Fish Resolution, Pub. L. 67–73, Sep 21, 1922, 42 Stat. 1012. Cited at:
  12. Sources: (i) Lebow, Richard Ned (1968). “Woodrow Wilson and the Balfour Declaration”. The Journal of Modern History, p. 501, (ii) 67th Congress, H.J.Res. 322; pdf, (iii) Brecher, Frank W. (1987). “Woodrow Wilson and the Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict”. American Jewish Archives. 39 (1): 23–47.

    Cited at:

  13. Source: Medoff, Rafael (2002). Jewish Americans and Political Participation: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-57607-314-8. Cited at:
  14. Source: Ibid.
  15. Source: ibid.
  16. Sources: (i) Medoff, Rafael (2002). Jewish Americans and Political Participation: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-57607-314-8. and (ii) Howard Grief, The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law, (Mazo Publishers, Jerusalem, 2008), p. 198. Cited at: See also Foot Note
  17. Source:
  18. Source: Irwin Unger, These United States (2007) 561. Cited at:
  19. Source: Hannigan, Robert E. (2016). The Great War and American Foreign Policy, 1914–24. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 125–129. ISBN 9780812248593. Cited at:
  20. Sources: Various, including The official website of the United Nations, Encyclopedia Britannica, and the book “The League of Nations: Its Life and Times, 1920-1946” by F. S. Northedge, and
  21. Source: Christian, Tomuschat (1995). The United Nations at Age Fifty: A Legal Perspective. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 77. ISBN 978-90-411-0145-7.Cited at:
  22. Source: “Covenant of the League of Nations”. The Avalon Project. Cited at:
  23. Source: See Article 23, “Covenant of the League of Nations”. Cited at:
  24. Comment: This paper mentions that the League of Nations “lacked its own armed force.” It should be noted that this was intentional, as the League’s creators wanted to avoid the militarism that had led to World War I.
  25. Sources: (i) Osakwe, C O (1972). The participation of the Soviet Union in universal international organizations.: A political and legal analysis of Soviet strategies and aspirations inside ILO, UNESCO and WHO. Springer. p. 5. ISBN 978-90-286-0002-7. (ii) Pericles, Lewis (2000). Modernism, Nationalism, and the Novel. Cambridge University Press. p. 52. ISBN 978-1-139-42658-9. (iii) Ginneken, Anique H. M. van (2006). Historical Dictionary of the League of Nations. Scarecrow Press. p. 174. ISBN 978-0-8108-6513-6. (iv) Ellis, Charles Howard (2003). The Origin, Structure & Working of the League of Nations. Lawbook Exchange Ltd. p. 169. ISBN 978-1-58477-320-7. Cited at:
  26. Source: George, Alan (2005). p.6. Jordan: Living in the Crossfire. Zed Books. ISBN 978-1842774717. Cited at:
  27. Source: “FRUS: Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919: The Council of Four: minutes of meetings March 20 to May 24, 1919. Cited at:
  28. Source: Baker, Randall (1979). p.161. King Husain and the Kingdom of Hejaz. Oleander. ISBN 978-0900891489. Cited at:
  29. Source: Paris, Timothy J (2003). p 69. Britain, the Hashemites and Arab Rule, 1920–1925. Routledge. ISBN 978-0714654515. Cited at:
  30. Source: King, William C. (24 April 1922). King’s Complete History of the World War …: 1914–1918. Europe’s War with Bolshevism 1919–1920. War of the Turkish Partition 1920–1921. Warfare in Ireland, India, Egypt, Far East 1916–1921. Epochal Events Thruout the Civilized World from Ferdinand’s Assassination to Disarmament Conference. History Associates. ISBN 9780598443120 – via Google Books. Cited at:
  31. Explanation: The Pan-Syrian Congress was a gathering of Arab nationalist leaders that took place in Damascus in March 1920. The Congress declared the establishment of an independent Arab Kingdom of Syria, encompassing the territory of present-day Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Jordan. However, the declaration of the Arab Kingdom of Syria was not recognised by the international community, including the major Allied Powers. At the San Remo Conference, the Allied Powers, including France and Britain, made decisions about the future of the former Ottoman territories in the Middle East. The British and French agreed to divide control over the former Ottoman territories between themselves. France was given control of Syria, which included present-day Lebanon, and Britain was given control of Palestine and Mesopotamia (present-day Iraq). The San Remo Conference effectively overruled the declaration of the Pan-Syrian Congress and divided the former Ottoman territories between the Allied Powers, who established mandates to govern these territories until they were deemed capable of self-governance.
  32. Explanation: Sanjaks, also known as Sancaks, were administrative divisions within the Ottoman Empire. They were intermediate-level divisions between the larger vilayets (provinces) and the smaller kazas (districts). Each sanjak was ruled by a governor appointed by the Ottoman Sultan, who had broad powers over the region. The governor was responsible for collecting taxes, maintaining law and order, and defending the region against external threats.

    Sanjaks were established in the 14th century and remained an important administrative unit throughout the Ottoman Empire’s history, until its dissolution in the early 20th century. The number and borders of sanjaks varied over time, depending on political, economic, and military circumstances.

  33. Sources: (i) Büssow, Johann (11 August 2011). Hamidian Palestine: Politics and Society in the District of Jerusalem 1872–1908. BRILL. p. 5. ISBN 978-90-04-20569-7. (ii) The 1915 Filastin Risalesi (“Palestine Document”) is a country survey of the VIII Corps of the Ottoman Army, which identified Palestine as a region including the sanjaqs of Akka (the Galilee), the Sanjaq of Nablus, and the Sanjaq of Jerusalem (Kudus Sherif), see Ottoman Conceptions of Palestine-Part 2: Ethnography and Cartography, Salim Tamari. (iii) “Annex III – Ottoman Administrative Districts – Map”. UN. 1915. Cited at:
  34. Explanation: The two-fold aims of the Mandate granted to Britain were reflected in the final text of Palestine Mandate granted to Britain by the League of Nations in 1922: It preamble stated that the purpose of the Mandate was both “giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations” and “putting into effect the declaration issued by the British govenemnt on 2 November 1917” (i.e. the Balfour Declaration“. Article 2 stated that “The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home” but also “the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion”.
  35. Sources: (i) Arnulf Becker Lorca (2014). Mestizo International Law. Cambridge University Press. pp. 296–. ISBN 978-0-521-76338-7. (ii) Malcolm Evans (24 June 2010). International Law. OUP Oxford. pp. 214–. ISBN 978-0-19-956566-5. Cited at:
  36. Source: Blakeslee, George Hubbard; Hall, Granville Stanley; Barnes, Harry Elmer (24 April 1921). “The Journal of International Relations”. Clark University – via Google Books. Cited at:
  37. Source: Olson, James Stuart (24 April 1991). Historical Dictionary of European Imperialism. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 9780313262579 – via Google Books. Cited at:
  38. Source: Biger, Gideon (2004). P. 173 The Boundaries of Modern Palestine, 1840–1947. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-76652-8. Cited at:
  39. Source: Hubert Young to Ambassador Hardinge (Paris), 27 July 1920, FO 371/5254, cited in Wilson (1988, p. 44) Cited at:
  40. Source: “France in Syria: the abolition of the Sharifian government, April–July 1920. Middle Eastern Studies | HighBeam Research”. Cited at:
  41. Source: Wasserstein, Bernard (1 October 1976). “Herbert Samuel and the Palestine problem”. The English Historical Review. XCI (CCCLXI): 753–775. doi:10.1093/ehr/XCI.CCCLXI.753 – via Cited at:
  42. Explanation: The so-called American Balfour Decision refers to the first official endorsement by the United States supporting the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This historical event is the focus of a book called “The American Balfour Declaration.” The book sheds light on an interesting aspect of the story, highlighting two unlikely heroes who played significant roles in this endorsement: Rabbi Simon Glazer, an immigrant from Kansas, and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, a prominent political figure. Traditionally, American Zionists like Louis Brandeis and Jewish allies in Washington, DC, were seen as the key figures in American support for a Jewish homeland. However, this book challenges that narrative by presenting Rabbi Glazer and Senator Lodge as the heroes behind the scenes. The book redefines the origins of American support for Israel by examining the adoption of the Lodge-Fish Resolution in 1922. Through skilful storytelling and fresh insights, the author, Paul Azous, explores the major events, influential figures, and social, religious, and political developments that surrounded the adoption of this resolution. By focusing on the Lodge-Fish Resolution, Azous brings attention to a crucial moment in the history of Zionism in the United States. The book provides a fascinating and informative study for anyone interested in understanding the history of Zionism in America. It offers new perspectives and breathes new life into this significant chapter, shedding light on the American endorsement of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Leave a Reply

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: