The Birth of Israel and the First Arab-Israeli War: A History of Palestine

To understand the roots of the tragic events unfolding in Palestine today, events that have reached the scale of a genocide, we need to turn the pages of history back almost one hundred years. This is a vast and heavy subject. To make sense of the modern face of the Middle East and its deepest breaking points, we will examine it in three main sections:

Part 1: The Establishment of Israel and the 1948–1949 Arab-Israeli War

Part 2: The Britain-Iran Oil Dispute and the Suez Crisis

Part 3: The Eisenhower Doctrine and the Lebanon Crisis

I pray for all those who have lost their lives in this ongoing tragedy. My only wish is for the wars to stop. Peace at home, peace in the world.

Herzl (seated in the middle) with members of the Zionist Organization in Vienna, 1896

The movement for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, known ideologically as Zionism, took shape in the 1880s, largely as a response to the violent persecution of Jewish communities in Russia, known as pogroms. Facing extreme pressure and violence, large numbers of Russian Jews were forced to migrate to Palestine, marking the first practical steps of this movement. Zionism gained significant political momentum in 1896, when a Budapest-born Jewish journalist, Dr. Theodor Herzl, published Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State), a work that effectively became the manifesto of the Zionist movement.

Before turning to the international stage, Herzl made a direct approach to Sultan Abdülhamid II of the Ottoman Empire. He visited Istanbul and requested land in Palestine for the establishment of a Jewish state, offering to help manage Ottoman debts in return. The Sultan firmly rejected this proposal. However, the Ottoman side indicated that if Herzl could successfully negotiate with European powers to, reduce the interest on Ottoman debts, they might permit Jewish settlement, but only in what is today northern Iraq, and exclusively for Jewish communities. Herzl was unable to fulfil this condition and left Istanbul without an agreement.

Turning his efforts elsewhere, Herzl founded the World Zionist Organization in 1897, shifting the movement’s strategy toward seeking direct diplomatic recognition for a Jewish state in Palestine. A key turning point came when US President Woodrow Wilson was brought on side with the Zionist cause, a development that pushed Britain to adopt an increasingly sympathetic and supportive stance toward the movement as well.

 

The Balfour Declaration

The most important diplomatic step on the road to the establishment of Israel was taken on 2 November 1917, with the Balfour Declaration. British Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur Balfour sent an official letter to Lord Rothschild, one of the leaders of the international Zionist movement, formally committing the British Government to supporting the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

But why did Britain agree to this? In the darkest days of the First World War, Britain had two clear goals. First, it wanted to bring the support of the global Jewish diaspora, particularly powerful figures in the United States and Russia, into the war effort. Second, it aimed to create a loyal and strategically placed buffer zone in the heart of the Middle East, one that would help secure the Suez Canal.

Conflicts Under the British Mandate and the UN Process

After the Second World War, British forces in Palestine struggled to stop the large waves of illegal Jewish immigration organised by the underground network known as Haganah. This situation led to violent clashes between British forces and Irgun, a radical Zionist armed group. Having completely lost control of the region, Britain handed the matter over to the United Nations on 2 April 1947.

The UN General Assembly established the UN Palestine Commission to find a solution. After examining the situation on the ground, the commission unanimously agreed on the principle of independence, but was divided on what form it should take:

UN Majority Plan (supported by Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands, and others): Palestine should be partitioned into two separate independent states for Arabs and Jews, with Jerusalem placed under full international status.

UN Minority Plan (supported by India, Yugoslavia, and Iran): Palestine should become a single federal state, made up of both Jewish and Arab entities.

On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted the Majority Plan, the Partition Plan. However, since the plan proposed giving a disproportionate share of the land to the Jewish minority, it was met with widespread outrage across the Arab world. At a meeting in Cairo on 17 December 1947, Arab states made the decision to go to war to prevent the partition from taking place.

Egyptian forces crossing the Suez Canal on 7 October 1973

The Declaration of the State and the First Arab-Israeli War (1948-1949)

Exactly one day before the British withdrawal was finalized, the establishment of the State of Israel was declared on May 14, 1948. The very next day, Arab states (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq), rejecting the partition plan and Israel's creation, declared war on Israel.

The war rapidly evolved into a multi-front struggle for survival: Egypt in the south, Jordan and Iraq in the east, and Syria and Lebanon in the north. Although Arab armies (particularly Jordan's Arab Legion) made initial advances around Jerusalem in the early weeks, deep mistrust, command crises, and a lack of coordination among the Arab states crippled their progress. Conversely, Israel utilized the UN-brokered ceasefires much more strategically; during these pauses, Israel rapidly modernized and expanded its military with massive Western arms shipments (notably smuggled via Czechoslovakia). Launching fierce, synchronized counter-offensives after the truces, Israel routed the Arab armies, concluding the war with a decisive military victory and expanding its borders through UN armistice agreements (Rhodes, Rasen Nakura, Manahayim).

The Nakba (The Catastrophe)

During and after the war, driven by the violence, systematic terror, and massacres (such as the Deir Yassin massacre) perpetrated by Israeli paramilitary groups, over 700,000 Palestinians were forced to flee their homes, villages, and homeland, becoming refugees. This massive ethnic cleansing, during which hundreds of Palestinian villages were wiped off the map and people were uprooted at gunpoint, is seared into Palestinian memory as the “Nakba” (The Catastrophe). While Israel expanded its territory to 75%, this very Nakba remains the crucible of the endless refugee crisis and the genocidal massacres witnessed in Gaza and the West Bank today.

The Consequences of the 1948–1949 Arab-Israeli War

The war left deep and lasting marks on the entire Middle East. Its consequences shaped the political landscape of the region for decades to come. Egypt, widely believed to have the strongest army among the Arab states, suffered one of the heaviest defeats in the war. This humiliation weakened the monarchy of King Farouk and created the conditions for its eventual collapse.

The defeat of five Arab armies at the hands of a small Israeli force had a powerful effect across the Arab world. It strengthened feelings of nationalism and gave significant momentum to a growing Arab Nationalist movement. The absence of a formal peace treaty at the end of the war left the conflict unresolved and laid the groundwork for future Arab-Israeli wars.

The weakening of King Farouk's regime following the war eventually led to the fall of the Egyptian monarchy and the rise of Gamal Abdel Nasser to power. Once in office, Nasser sought to position himself as the leader of Arab nationalism across the region.

Finally, on 25 May 1950, the United States, Britain, and France issued a joint declaration stating that they would sell weapons to Arab states and Israel only in quantities necessary for internal security, and only on the condition that those weapons would not be used against another state.

Without slowing down, we move straight into Part 2, and into the subject that lies at the heart of so much of what we see in the Middle East today: oil.

Part 2: The Britain-Iran Oil Dispute

Ogier Ghislain de Busbecq: A Diplomat in the Ottoman Court

Ogier Ghislain de Busbecq: A Diplomat in the Ottoman Court

Ogier Ghislain de Busbecq was born in 1522 in Lille, a city now situated on the French-Belgian border, which was then under the rule of Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire. He belonged to a noble lineage and was raised in an intellectual environment profoundly shaped by the Renaissance and the Reformation.

His humanist worldview was likely solidified during his academic pursuits at the universities of Leuven, Padua, and Venice. A true polymath of his time, Busbecq possessed extensive knowledge in various disciplines, including botany, zoology, and linguistics, and is reputed to have been proficient in eight languages, among them Turkish.

The Diplomatic Mission to İstanbul

Around 1554, he entered the service of Emperor Ferdinand I of Austria. His initial diplomatic assignment was to represent his sovereign at the wedding of Queen Mary Tudor and King Philip II of Spain in England. That same year, he was dispatched to İstanbul on a mission that would later form the basis of his renowned writings. His primary objective was to negotiate the resolution of a protracted border dispute between the Ottoman Empire and Austria.

However, the diplomatic process proved lengthy. Busbecq endured approximately eighteen months in semi-confinement at the Ottoman court before returning to his homeland. In 1556, he was once again sent to the Ottoman Empire to finalize the unresolved negotiations.

Jean Baptiste Vanmour - Sultan Ahmet III Receiving a European Ambassador

The Fate of an Ottoman Prince

Prince Mustafa was at the height of his youth and had gained great fame as a soldier. However, being the son of a Turkish sultan was a great misfortune because when one of them ascended the throne, it meant inevitable death for the others. The Turks did not tolerate rivals to the throne.

Rüstem Pasha’s Plot

When the sultan went to war against Shah Tahmasp of Iran, Rüstem was sent as the chief commander. As he approached the Iranian border, he suddenly stopped and sent a message to the sultan, claiming that he was facing a serious situation.

He reported that he had been betrayed, that the army had been bribed, and that they refused to accept anyone but Mustafa. He added that he could not handle the situation alone and urged the sultan to come immediately if he wanted to save his throne.

The Summons and Mustafa’s Dilemma

Süleyman immediately set out and sent a letter to Mustafa, summoning him. He told him to clear himself of the accusations and assured him that if he did so, he would not face any danger.

Mustafa was in a difficult situation. If he faced his father, he would undoubtedly put himself in danger; if he refused, he would be admitting to treason. Choosing the boldest and most dangerous option, he left Amasya and travelled to his father’s nearby camp. Unknown to him, Süleyman had already decided to kill his son before leaving the capital.

The Execution in the Sultan’s Tent

When Mustafa arrived at the camp, the soldiers were filled with excitement. They took him to his father’s tent. Everything seemed calm; there were no soldiers, no servants, and no sign of treachery.

However, in the inner chamber, a few strong, dumb executioners were waiting to kill Mustafa. As soon as he stepped inside, they attacked, trying to strangle him with a bowstring.

Mustafa fought bravely. Behind a curtain, Süleyman was watching. When he saw that the execution was taking too long, he leaned forward and gave the executioners a furious, threatening look. The mute men, frightened, tried harder and finally managed to pin Mustafa down, strangling him with the bowstring.

Hüner-nāme, II, Library of the Topkapi Palace Museum, Hazine 1524, f. 168b

Drinking Wine is Forbidden, But Eating Grapes is Not

The Greek Protest Against the Wine Ban

Magnificent Suleiman had strictly banned wine. In response, some Greeks came up with a clever plan to challenge his decision. Hoping to make a political statement, they decided to stage a dramatic protest.

When they learned that the Sultan would pass through an area with vineyards, they gathered together and uprooted the vines. Some were thrown onto the road, while others were piled onto carts, creating a scene of destruction along his path.

A Clever Plan Backfires

When the Sultan arrived, he stopped, curious about what had happened. He called the nearest men and asked what they were doing.

They replied with a prepared excuse: since he had banned wine, the vineyards were now useless, so they were removing the vines to use as firewood. They hoped this would force the Sultan to reconsider his ban to save agriculture.

Suleiman’s Wisdom: Grapes vs. Wine

However, the Sultan’s response was not what they expected. Instead of anger or retraction, Suleiman offered a logical rebuttal:

"You are mistaken; you have misunderstood my intention. I banned the drinking of wine, not the eating of grapes. Grapes are among the noblest fruits bestowed upon man by God.

There is nothing stopping you from enjoying fresh grape juice unless you store it in barrels and, with your harmful inventions, turn it into something improper. Just because apples are not made into wine, should we cut down apple trees? Fools, stop this nonsense and leave these fruitful vineyards alone."

Thus, the Greeks’ clever plan failed completely against the Sultan's sharp wit.

Sultan Suleiman’s historic retort to farmers uprooting their vineyards in protest.

(Generated AI)

The Intrigues of the Ottoman Palace

Suleiman’s Lineage: The Struggle for Succession

To understand the tragic events that followed, one must look at Suleiman’s family structure. He had five sons. The eldest was Mustafa, born to his concubine, Mahidevran.

From his legitimate marriage to Roxolana (Hürrem Sultan), he had four more sons: Mehmed, Selim, Bayezid, and Cihangir. Since Mehmed had died at a young age, the rivalry was left to the remaining brothers.

The Tragic Death of Cihangir

When the news of Mustafa’s execution reached Istanbul, Cihangir, who was physically and mentally frail (he suffered from a hunchback), became terrified. He believed he would meet the same fate.

His only hope was that no harm would come to him as long as his father lived. However, he knew the Ottoman law of fratricide: if Suleiman were to die, whoever took the throne would inevitably see him as a rival and eliminate him. These thoughts filled him with such dread, as if a decree for his execution had already been issued, that he fell ill and died of grief and fear.

The "False Mustafa" Rebellion

With Mustafa and Cihangir gone, two sons remained: Selim and Bayezid. The elder one, Selim, had been chosen by his father as the heir, while Bayezid had the strong support of his mother, Roxolana.

Bayezid, in his ambitious quest for the throne, took dangerous measures. He even supported a rebellion led by an impostor claiming to be the dead Prince Mustafa. When Suleiman learned of this, he reprimanded the provincial governors and ordered them to suppress the revolt.

Forces led by Pertev Pasha besieged the rebels, capturing the impostor Mustafa and other leaders. They were sent to İstanbul, where, under torture, they confessed to Bayezid’s involvement. Suleiman had the rebels executed by drowning at sea.

Hürrem Sultan’s Intervention and the Poison Test

When Bayezid’s punishment became a matter of discussion, Hürrem Sultan cleverly intervened. She argued that her son had merely made a "youthful mistake" and should be forgiven. Influenced by his beloved wife, Suleiman softened and pardoned Bayezid.

Bayezid appeared before his father to swear his loyalty, but the atmosphere was tense. Fearing poison, Bayezid hesitated to drink the sherbet offered to him. To ease his son’s worries and prove his forgiveness, Suleiman drank from the same cup, ensuring Bayezid’s temporary safety.

The execution of the rebels 

who rallied behind the impostor 

"Düzmece Mustafa."

Conclusion

Ogier Ghislain de Busbecq was a master storyteller. Throughout his work, we can find countless sharp observations regarding the daily social life, military discipline, and customs of the 16th-century Ottoman Empire.

However, I have specifically selected these particular narratives: the tragic execution of Prince Mustafa, the witty dialogue regarding the vineyards, and the deadly palace intrigues for a reason. These stories vividly illustrate the delicate balance of power in Suleiman the Magnificent’s court.