How Zionism helped create the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Nu'man Abd al-Wahid on January 7, 2016
Abdel Aziz Ibn Saud with Sir Percy Cox
The covert alliance between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Zionist entity of Israel should be no
surprise to any student of British imperialism. The problem is the study of British imperialism has very few
students. Indeed, one can peruse any undergraduate or post-graduate British university prospectus and
rarely find a module in a Politics degree on the British Empire let alone a dedicated degree or Masters
degree. Of course if the European led imperialist carnage in the four years between 1914 – 1918 tickles
your cerebral cells then it‟s not too difficult to find an appropriate institution to teach this subject, but if you
would like to delve into how and why the British Empire waged war on mankind for almost four hundred
years you‟re practically on your own in this endeavour. One must admit, that from the British
establishment‟s perspective, this is a formidable and remarkable achievement.
In late 2014, according to the American journal, Foreign Affairs, the Saudi petroleum Minister, Ali al-
Naimi is reported to have said “His Majesty King Abdullah has always been a model for good relations
between Saudi Arabia and other states and the Jewish state is no exception.” Recently, Abdullah‟s
successor, King Salman expressed similar concerns to those of Israel‟s to the growing agreement between
the United States and Iran over the latter‟s nuclear programme. This led some to report that Israel and KSA
presented a “united front” in their opposition to the nuclear deal. This was not the first time the Zionists and
Saudis have found themselves in the same corner in dealing with a perceived common foe. In North Yemen
in the 1960‟s, the Saudis were financing a British imperialist led mercenary army campaign against
revolutionary republicans who had assumed authority after overthrowing the authoritarian, Imam. Gamal
Abdul-Nasser‟s Egypt militarily backed the republicans, while the British induced the Saudis to finance and
arm the remaining remnants of the Imam‟s supporters. Furthermore, the British organised the Israelis to
drop arms for the British proxies in North Yemen, 14 times. The British, in effect, militarily but covertly,
brought the Zionists and Saudis together in 1960‟s North Yemen against their common foe.
However, as this author has previously written, one must return to the 1920‟s to fully appreciate the
origins of this informal and indirect alliance between Saudi Arabia and the Zionist entity. An illuminating
study by Dr. Askar H. al-Enazy, titled, The Creation of Saudi Arabia: Ibn Saud and British Imperial
Policy, 1914-1927, has further and uniquely provided any student of British Imperialism primary sourced
evidence on the origins of this alliance. This study by Dr. Enazy influences the following piece. The defeat
of the Ottoman Empire by British imperialism in World War One, left three distinct authorities in the
Arabian peninsula: Sharif of Hijaz: Hussain bin Ali of Hijaz (in the west), Ibn Rashid of Ha‟il (in the north)
and Emir Ibn Saud of Najd (in the east) and his religiously fanatical followers, the Wahhabis.
Ibn Saud had entered the war early in January 1915 on the side of the British, but was quickly defeated and
his British handler, William Shakespear was killed by the Ottoman Empire‟s ally Ibn Rashid. This defeat
greatly hampered Ibn Saud‟s utility to the Empire and left him militarily hamstrung for a year.[1] The
Sharif contributed the most to the Ottoman Empire‟s defeat by switching allegiances and leading the so-
called „Arab Revolt‟ in June 1916 which removed the Turkish presence from Arabia. He was convinced to
totally alter his position because the British had strongly led him to believe, via correspondence with Henry
McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Egypt, that a unified Arab country from Gaza to the Persian
Gulf will be established with the defeat of the Turks. The letters exchanged between Sharif Hussain and
Henry McMahon are known as the McMahon-Hussain Correspondence.
Understandably, the Sharif as soon as the war ended wanted to hold the British to their war time promises,
or what he perceived to be their war time promises, as expressed in the aforementioned correspondence.
The British, on the other hand, wanted the Sharif to accept the Empire‟s new reality which was a division
of the Arab world between them and the French (Sykes-Picot agreement) and the implementation of
the Balfour Declaration, which guaranteed „a national for the Jewish people‟ in Palestine by colonisation
with European Jews. This new reality was contained in the British written, Anglo-Hijaz Treaty, which the
Sharif was profoundly averse to signing.[2] After all, the revolt of 1916 against the Turks was dubbed the
„Arab Revolt‟ not the „Hijazi Revolt‟.
Actually, the Sharif let it be known that he will never sell out Palestine to the Empire‟s Balfour
Declaration; he will never acquiescence to the establishment of Zionism in Palestine or accept the new
random borders drawn across Arabia by British and French imperialists. For their part the British began
referring to him as an „obstructionist‟, a „nuisance‟ and of having a „recalcitrant‟ attitude.
The British let it be known to the Sharif that they were prepared to take drastic measures to bring about his
approval of the new reality regardless of the service that he had rendered them during the War. After the
Cairo Conference in March 1921, where the new Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill met with all the
British operatives in the Middle East, T.E. Lawrence (i.e. of Arabia) was dispatched to meet the Sharif to
bribe and bully him to accept Britain‟s Zionist colonial project in Palestine. Initially, Lawrence and the
Empire offered 80,000 rupees.[3] The Sharif rejected it outright. Lawrence then offered him an annual
payment of £100,000.[4] The Sharif refused to compromise and sell Palestine to British Zionism.
When financial bribery failed to persuade the Sharif, Lawrence threatened him with an Ibn Saud takeover.
Lawrence claimed that “politically and militarily, the survival of Hijaz as a viable independent Hashemite
kingdom was wholly dependent on the political will of Britain, who had the means to protect and maintain
his rule in the region.” [5] In between negotiating with the Sharif, Lawrence made the time to visit other
leaders in the Arabian peninsula and informed them that they if they don‟t tow the British line and avoid
entering into an alliance with the Sharif, the Empire will unleash Ibn Saud and his Wahhabis who after all
is at Britain‟s „beck and call‟.[6]
Simultaneously, after the Conference, Churchill travelled to Jerusalem and met with the Sharif‟s son,
Abdullah, who had been made the ruler, “Emir”, of a new territory called “Transjordan.” Churchill
informed Abdullah that he should persuade “his father to accept the Palestine mandate and sign a treaty to
such effect,” if not “the British would unleash Ibn Saud against Hijaz.”[7] In the meantime the British were
planning to unleash Ibn Saud on the ruler of Ha‟il, Ibn Rashid.
Ibn Rashid had rejected all overtures from the British Empire made to him via Ibn Saud, to be another of its
puppets.[8] More so, Ibn Rashid expanded his territory north to the new mandated Palestinian border as
well as to the borders of Iraq in the summer of 1920. The British became concerned that an alliance maybe
brewing between Ibn Rashid who controlled the northern part of the peninsula and the Sharif who
controlled the western part. More so, the Empire wanted the land routes between the Palestinian ports on
the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf under the rule of a friendly party. At the Cairo Conference,
Churchill agreed with an imperial officer, Sir Percy Cox that “Ibn Saud should be „given the opportunity to
occupy Hail.‟”[9] By the end of 1920, the British were showering Ibn Saud with “a monthly „grant‟ of
£10,000 in gold, on top of his monthly subsidy. He also received abundant arms supplies, totalling more
than 10,000 rifles, in addition to the critical siege and four field guns” with British-Indian instructors.[10]
Finally, in September 1921, the British unleashed Ibn Saud on Ha‟il which officially surrendered in
November 1921. It was after this victory the British bestowed a new title on Ibn Saud. He was no longer to
be “Emir of Najd and Chief of its Tribes” but “Sultan of Najd and its Dependencies”. Ha‟il had dissolved
into a dependency of the Empire‟s Sultan of Najd.
If the Empire thought that the Sharif, with Ibn Saud now on his border and armed to the teeth by the
British, would finally become more amenable to the division of Arabia and the British Zionist colonial
project in Palestine they were short lived. A new round of talks between Abdulla‟s son, acting on behalf of
his father in Transjordan and the Empire resulted in a draft treaty accepting Zionism. When it was delivered
to the Sharif with an accompanying letter from his son requesting that he “accept reality”, he didn‟t even
bother to read the treaty and instead composed a draft treaty himself rejecting the new divisions of Arabia
as well as the Balfour Declaration and sent it to London to be ratified![11]
Ever since 1919 the British had gradually decreased Hussain‟s subsidy to the extent that by the early 1920‟s
they had suspended it, while at the same time continued subsidising Ibn Saud right through the early
1920‟s.[12] After a further three rounds of negotiations in Amman and London, it dawned on the Empire
that Hussain will never relinquish Palestine to Great Britain‟s Zionist project or accept the new divisions in
Arab lands.[13]In March 1923, the British informed Ibn Saud that it will cease his subsidy but not without
awarding him an advance „grant‟ of £50,000 upfront, which amounted to a year‟s subsidy.[14]
In March 1924, a year after the British awarded the „grant‟ to Ibn Saud, the Empire announced that it had
terminated all discussions with Sharif Hussain to reach an agreement.[15] Within weeks the forces of Ibn
Saud and his Wahhabi followers began to administer what the British foreign secretary, Lord Curzon called
the “final kick” to Sharif Hussain and attacked Hijazi territory.[16] By September 1924, Ibn Saud had
overrun the summer capital of Sharif Hussain, Ta‟if. The Empire then wrote to Sharif‟s sons, who had been
awarded kingdoms in Iraq and Transjordan not to provide any assistance to their besieged father or in
diplomatic terms they were informed “to give no countenance to interference in the Hedjaz”.[17] In Ta‟if,
Ibn Saud‟s Wahhabis committed their customary massacres, slaughtering women and children as well as
going into mosques and killing traditional Islamic scholars.[18] They captured the holiest place in Islam,
Mecca, in mid-October 1924. Sharif Hussain was forced to abdicate and went to exile to the Hijazi port of
Akaba. He was replaced as monarch by his son Ali who made Jeddah his governmental base. As Ibn Saud
moved to lay siege to the rest of Hijaz, the British found the time to begin incorporating the northern Hijazi
port of Akaba into Transjordan. Fearing that Sharif Hussain may use Akaba as a base to rally Arabs against
the Empire‟s Ibn Saud, the Empire let it be known that in no uncertain terms that he must leave Akaba or
Ibn Saud will attack the port. For his part, Sharif Hussain responded that he had,
“never acknowledged the mandates on Arab countries and still protest against the British Government
which has made Palestine a national home for the Jews.”[19]
Sharif Hussain was forced out of Akaba, a port he had liberated from the Ottoman Empire during the „Arab
Revolt‟, on the 18th June 1925 on HMS Cornflower.
Ibn Saud had begun his siege of Jeddah in January 1925 and the city finally surrendered in December 1925
bringing to an end over 1000 years of rule by the Prophet Muhammad‟s descendants. The British officially
recognised Ibn Saud as the new King of Hijaz in February 1926 with other European powers following suit
within weeks. The new unified Wahhabi state was rebranded by the Empire in 1932 as the “Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia” (KSA). A certain George Rendel, an officer working at the Middle East desk at the Foreign
Office in London, claimed credit for the new name.
On the propaganda level, the British served the Wahhabi takeover of Hijaz on three fronts. Firstly, they
portrayed and argued that Ibn Saud‟s invasion of Hijaz was motivated by religious fanaticism rather than
by British imperialism‟s geo-political considerations.[20] This deception is propounded to this day, most
recently in Adam Curtis‟s acclaimed BBC “Bitter Lake” documentary, whereby he states that the “fierce
intolerant vision of wahhabism” drove the “beduins” to create Saudi Arabia.[21] Secondly, the British
portrayed Ibn Saud‟s Wahhabi fanatics as a benign and misunderstood force who only wanted to bring
Islam back to its purest form.[22] To this day, these Islamist jihadis are portrayed in the most benign
manner when their armed insurrections is supported by Britain and the West such as 1980‟s Afghanistan or
in today‟s Syria, where they are referred to in the western media as “moderate rebels.” Thirdly, British
historians portray Ibn Saud as an independent force and not as a British instrument used to horn away
anyone perceived to be surplus to imperial requirements. For example, Professor Eugene Rogan‟s recent
study on the history on Arabs claims that “Ibn Saud had no interest in fighting” the Ottoman Empire. This
is far from accurate as Ibn Saud joined the war in 1915. He further disingenuously claims that Ibn Saud was
only interested in advancing “his own objectives” which fortuitously always dovetailed with those of the
British Empire.[23]
In conclusion, one of the most overlooked aspects of the Balfour Declaration is the British Empire‟s
commitment to “use their best endeavours to facilitate” the creation of “a national home for the Jewish
people”. Obviously, many nations in the world today were created by the Empire but what makes Saudi
Arabia‟s borders distinctive is that its northern and north-eastern borders are the product of the Empire
facilitating the creation of Israel. At the very least the dissolution of the two Arab sheikhdoms of Ha‟il and
Hijaz by Ibn Saud‟s Wahhabis is based in their leaders‟ rejection to facilitate the British Empire‟s Zionist
project in Palestine.
Therefore, it is very clear that the British Empire‟s drive to impose Zionism in Palestine is embedded in the
geographical DNA of contemporary Saudi Arabia. There is further irony in the fact that the two holiest
sites in Islam are today governed by the Saudi clan and Wahhabi teachings because the Empire was laying
the foundations for Zionism in Palestine in the 1920s. Contemporaneously, it is no surprise that
both Israel and Saudi Arabia are keen in militarily intervening on the side of “moderate rebels” i.e. jihadis,
in the current war on Syria, a country which covertly and overtly rejects the Zionist colonisation of
Palestine.
As the United States, the „successor‟ to the British Empire in defending western interests in the Middle
East, is perceived to be growing more hesitant in engaging militarily in the Middle East, there is an
inevitability that the two nations rooted in the Empire‟s Balfour Declaration, Israel and Saudi Arabia,
would develop a more overt alliance to defend their common interests.
Notes
[1] Gary Troeller, “The Birth of Saudi Arabia” (London: Frank Cass, 1976) pg.91.
[2] Askar H. al-Enazy, “ The Creation of Saudi Arabia: Ibn Saud and British Imperial Policy, 1914-1927”
(London: Routledge, 2010), pg. 105-106.
[3] ibid., pg. 109.
[4] ibid., pg.111.
[5] ibid.
[6] ibid.
[7] ibid., pg 107.
[8] ibid., pg. 45-46 and pg.101-102.
[9] ibid., pg.104.
[10] ibid.
[11] ibid., pg. 113.
[12] ibid., pg.110 and Troeller, op. cit., pg.166.
[13] al-Enazy op cit., pg.112-125.
[14] al-Enazy, op. cit., pg.120.
[15] ibid., pg.129.
[16] ibid., pg. 106 and Troeller op. cit., 152.
[17] al-Enazy, op. cit., pg. 136 and Troeller op. cit., pg.219.
[18] David Howarth, “The Desert King: The Life of Ibn Saud” (London: Quartet Books, 1980), pg. 133 and
Randall Baker, “King Husain and the Kingdom of Hejaz” (Cambridge: The Oleander Press, 1979), pg.201-
202.
[19] Quoted in al-Enazy op. cit., pg. 144.
[20] ibid., pg. 138 and Troeller op. cit., pg. 216.
[21]In the original full length BBC iPlayer version this segment begins towards the end at 2 hrs 12 minutes
24 seconds.
[22] al-Enazy op. cit., pg. 153.
[23] Eugene Rogan, “The Arabs: A History”, (London: Penguin Books, 2009), pg.220.
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/zionism-kingdom-arabia/
