Why is Palestine called the ‘thrice-promised’ land, and why was this central to the emergence of the ongoing conflict?
By Tatyana Aliye Hanım Sultan Attending: University of Exeter, BA History Age: 20 years old
I am delighted to be able to contribute an article to the Young Ottoman Scholars Society, established by my mother. I think this is a wonderful initiative. I have read all the articles published so far and have learnt so much, and I look forward to reading many more. This is an essay that I recently submitted at University which I hope you find interesting and topical…
Palestine is referred to as the ‘thrice-promised’ land as it has been promised to three conflicting entities. The first of these promises was made to the Arabs in 1915-16, when the British in the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence promised Palestine to the Sharif of Mecca through the foundation of an independent Arab State. The second promise came with the signing of the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, which agreed that Palestine would come under international control. The Balfour Declaration in 1917 led to Palestine becoming the ‘thrice-promised’ land, as this declaration supported the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. These conflicting promises are central to the emergence of the ongoing conflict, as these promises directly contradict each other. Britain made these promises during the First World War to support their own ambitions in the Middle East, and I will discuss these different ambitions in my essay. The contradictory promises made by Britain have meant that both the Arabs and Jews believe that they have the right to the land in Palestine, thereby meaning that a resolution to the conflict is near impossible as their goals and beliefs do not align with each other. Therefore, Britain can ultimately be viewed as responsible for the conflict, along with the other Allied powers.
This essay will initially focus on the three promises and agreements made throughout the First World War: to the Arabs, the international community, and the Jews, and will explain what these promises entailed; furthermore, the essay will discuss how the promises have fuelled conflict. The first period I will look at is Palestine under the British mandate (1920-1948), the Jewish immigration within this period, and the Arab resistance that occurred, such as the 1936-1939 rebellion. The second period is from 1948 until 1990 and is marked by the foundation of the State of Israel and the wars that subsequently occurred, including the 1957 Suez Crisis, the 1967 Six-day War, and the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The final period started in 1990 and was marked by failed attempts at peace through the Madrid Conference and Oslo Accords, along with further unrest and expansion of Israel’s territory.
The first of Britain’s promises was to the Sharif of Mecca, Hussein ibn Ali, in the form of the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence. The correspondence ‘consists of ten letters between Sir Henry McMahon, His Majesty’s High Commissioner at Cairo, and the Sherif Hussein of Mecca, from July, 1915 to March, 1916’.[1] Due to his control of Mecca, which is the holiest city in Islam, Hussein had significant levels of influence over the Muslim Arab population in the Middle East, therefore making him a strategic ally for the British. ‘As early as 1915, Britain had promised the Sharif and Emir of Mecca, Husayn ibn ‘Ali al-Hāshimi, that Palestine would be a part of an independent Arab state that would arise after World War I’.[2] Hussein ‘obtained British guarantee that he could retain his title of Grand Sharif, and receive aid in defense of external aggression – in effect, British recognition of an independent Arab kingdom with Husayn as its ruler’.[3] Britain promised this to the Arabs ‘in exchange for an Arab revolt against Ottoman rule’, this resulted in the 1916-18 Arab Revolt, as well as a weakening of the Ottoman efforts in the war.[4] The Ottoman Empire controlled most of the Middle East and had done so since the early 16th Century due to the conquests under Sultan Selim I. However, since the rise of Turkish nationalism and the 1908 Young Turk revolution, there had been a growth in nationalist movements across the Empire, as the CUPs reforms were perceived as threatening Arab identity and autonomy. The promise to the Arabs in the correspondence was sent in a letter on October 24, 1915, that ‘Great Britain is prepared to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs in all the regions within the limits demanded by the Sherif of Mecca’.[5] Britain’s promise to the Arabs did not explicitly promise Palestine – this intentional vagueness of wording allowed the Arabs to interpret this as being promised Palestine. However, it enabled Britain to rescind this promise. Britain’s vague wording is a common theme throughout the three agreements. In particular, the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence and the Balfour Declaration said enough to get support from the different groups without explicitly promising anything.
The second of the promises made was in 1916 in the form of the Sykes-Picot Agreement. This agreement was between the British and French diplomats Sir Mark Sykes and François George-Picot, who agreed upon how to divide the Ottoman Empire’s Arab territories, should the Ottomans be defeated in the First World War. ‘The expanse was to be divided into British and French areas of direct control and influence, with Palestine becoming an international entity’.[6] The division of the region was ‘shaped by British strategic interests and France’s historic claim to a special position in the Levant. The agreement envisioned that Britain would have Mesopotamia and a land bridge to the Mediterranean, and France would have Lebanon and a large part of Syria’.[7] The agreement would give Britain control of Iraq, which was desired due to its position in reference to India as it was a key trade route. Most significantly, though, Britain was driven by economic interests in Iraq due to the large amounts of oil discovered there, especially in the northern region. In Fitzgerald’s work, he notes that the ‘presentation of Sir Maurice Hankey’s diaries, have shown how the “oil factor” influenced Britain’s Middle Eastern policy, particularly during the final months of the war’.[8] Furthermore, Mesopotamia was significant as it protected the British-controlled Suez Canal. Despite the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the ‘system that emerged from the final phase of the war and the peace-time diplomacy was in fact quite different from the reality envisaged by Sykes and Picot’, as Palestine became a British Mandate.[9] This view of Palestine as an international administration directly contradicts what was implied in the McMahon-Hussein correspondence, and what was later promised to the Jewish community in the Balfour Declaration.
The Balfour Declaration solidified Palestine as the ‘thrice-promised’ land. ‘On November 2, 1917, the British foreign secretary, Arthur Balfour, wrote to Lord Rothschild, a prominent figure in British Zionist circles’, and this letter has continued to cause problems in Palestine today.[10] In the letter, Balfour wrote, ‘His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people’.[11] The vagueness of what Balfour meant by a ‘national home’ has promoted conflict in Palestine over the last century. The Declaration did not say what this would look like – whether there would be an independent Jewish state or if the Jews would fit into the pre-existing Arab society. The vagueness of the Declaration has allowed different factions of Zionists to come up with conflicting views as to what the national home for Jewish people should look like and what exactly was promised to them by the British. The Balfour Declaration raised ‘all sorts of issues about territorial definitions, the rights of the local population and those of Jewish immigrants seeking to rebuild Zion,’ making the letter Balfour sent to Lord Rothschild extremely detrimental to stability in the Middle East.[12] Morantinos, in his work notes that the ‘letter was the beginning of what would be known as the Nakba or catastrophe for Arabs and Palestinians, and the origin of the State of Israel’, however, these repercussions will be further analysed later in the essay.[13] The British decision to support Zionism during World War One was driven by their own ‘imperial interests in the Middle East, such as the desire to exclude France from Palestine’, Britain wanted to make sure they had strong control of trade routes between India and Europe, which meant Palestine was an essential location, due to its proximity to the Suez Canal.[14] Britain also wanted to gain the US backing as ‘the British cabinet was worried that Germany might make a declaration in support of Zionist aims and thus attract a sympathetic response from the US Jewry’; as well as support from Russia, as it was believed that this gesture ‘might persuade influential Jewish members within the revolutionary movement to attempt to keep Russia in the war’.[15] The British were worried that the Russians would leave the war, as the Bolsheviks had come to power after the October 1917 Revolution, and one of their central promises was to end the war. Overall, the Balfour Declaration had immense consequences and has fuelled the ongoing conflict in Palestine.
The British Mandate of Palestine lasted from 1920 until 1948, when the State of Israel was founded, and Britain was given control of the Palestine Mandate through the League of Nations. The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine refers to ‘the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine’; therefore, a key feature of the Mandate period was the mass immigration of Jews, which fits in line with the promise made in the Balfour Declaration to the Jews.[16] ‘The Jewish population of Palestine grew from 83,790 (less than 8 percent) in 1922 to 608,225 (roughly one-third) in 1946’, making them a very large minority.[17] Jews were migrating from mainly Eastern Europe, primarily Poland. With the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party in 1933 and the subsequent antisemitic policies that followed, thousands of Jews from Germany were also coming to Palestine. However, ‘many of these refugees were not Zionists, the restrictive immigration quotas imposed by such countries as the United States and Canada compelled them to seek refuge in Palestine’.[18] The Jewish immigration led to land acquisition from Arab land owners and the displacement of Arab communities, which contradicts another part of the Palestinian Mandate that refers to the protection of the Palestinian Arabs that the British should safeguard the ‘rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced’.[19]
The 1936-39 rebellion was a reaction against British policy, unregulated immigration and land buyouts, as the ‘Palestinians were frustrated by the lack of response from the British to their demands’.[20] The British authorities then directly went against the demands of the rebellion as they ‘approved the entry of thousands of new immigrants and opened a port in Tel Aviv operated by Zionist workers to replace the striking Jaffa port’.[21] The Arab Revolt did not have a clear leader and ‘straddled the fence between a peasant war a people’s revolutionary war. Its median position resulted from the inadequacy of its political arm and the failure to establish a complete political direction of the guerilla campaign’.[22] At the peak of the rebellion it is estimated that there were ‘5,000-8,000 Palestinian participants’.[23] The British, on the other hand, were able to stop the rebellion using military force, which was far superior to that the Palestinians possessed. The response to this was the 1939 White Papers, which limited Jewish immigration to 75,000 for 5 years. However, this was viewed by the Zionists as a betrayal of the Balfour Declaration, as it was seen as stopping their goal of a homeland in Palestine. The British wanted peace in Palestine and to promote their interests, as the Second World War was beginning to be seen as inevitable, and the British needed to move their troops from Palestine to the Suez Canal to defend it. As well as this, ‘in the event of Italy blocking the Red Sea exit of the Canal during war, reinforcements from India would have to be brought to Egypt overland from the Persian Gulf, via Palestine’.[24] Therefore, Britain wanted to bring an end to the period of rebellion. Overall, this belief from both the Zionists and the Arabs that they were both being betrayed and not getting what was promised to them, respectively, is central to the ongoing conflict, as both groups believe they have the right to the land of Palestine. Furthermore, the massive amounts of immigration that occurred throughout the British mandate have created huge divides and, therefore, inevitable conflicts.
The creation of Israel as a Jewish State further exacerbated this conflict between the Arab world and Jews. The division of the area into two states would mean each state would have a majority of its population. However, a major problem of this proposal is that hundreds of thousands of Arabs would be part of the Jewish state. ‘Most of the Arab states, led by Mufti, objected to these proposals and regarded them as a declaration of war against the Arab world’ furthermore, the Jews viewed the initial territory as a starting point for further expansion.[25] The foundation of Israel on May 14, 1948, led to ‘units from the armies of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan, and Iraq’ to invade Israel the following day, ‘launching a regional war, interspersed with several truces, that lasted until December 1948’.[26] This regional war had a detrimental impact on the Palestinians as it ‘expanded the territory of Israel beyond what had been allotted to the Jewish state under resolution 181 and displaced 726,000 Palestinian Arab refugees’.[27] This mass displacement of Palestinians from their homes and the subsequent refugee crisis is referred to as the “nakba,” which means catastrophe in Arabic, and ‘in 1950, 960,000 Palestinians were registered for relief by the United Nations’.[28] After Israel was founded, between 1948 and 1951, ‘the Jewish population of Israel increased from approximately 650,000 to slightly more than 1.3 million. This was the result of an influx of some 684,000 immigrants’.[29] Therefore, the continued Jewish immigration caused greater issues for the native Palestinian Arabs, as they were being driven from their homes due to the massive immigration of Jews from Eastern Europe.
The Six-day War in June 1967 further increased the number of Palestinian refugees. The Six-day War was an Arab attempt to liberate Palestine. Its result was an even greater loss of Palestinian territory to Israel, and subsequently, the number of refugees rose to ‘1.3 million in 1968’. The 1967 war was ‘the second all-out attempt in a generation to abort the Jewish national revival, and it ended in an even greater ignominy than its 1948 precursor. Then, only half of Palestine had been lost. Now the land was lost in its entirety, together with Egyptian and Syrian territories’.[30] The creation of Israel did not just lead to major regional wars but also a popular uprising, named the First Intifada, which started in 1987 and ‘lasted six years until it was called off by the Palestinian leadership in the wake of the Oslo agreements’.[31] One of the main outcomes of the First Intifada was that it ‘saw the birth of Hamas, the Islamic opposition movement formed by Sheik Yassin in February 1988. The organisation, which emerged out of the Muslim Brotherhood, stressed a return to conservative Islamic values and provided a network of health and social services for Palestinians in the occupied territories’.[32] However, the First Intifada ended with the Oslo Accords, and the Second Intifada started in 2000. The promise to the Jews to create a “national home” and the resulting creation of Israel is central to the ongoing conflict, as it has resulted in the mass displacement of Palestinians. The ongoing conflict is driven by the disagreement over land. As seen in the 1948 War, the 1967 Six-day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the Israeli forces will continue to press for more land, and the Palestinians will continue to reclaim their territory.
The promises made during the First World War regarding Palestine, to both the Arabs and Jews, are still central to the ongoing conflict and are fuelling the debate, despite over a hundred years passing since they were made. Despite international actions for peace, there is still a war in the region. The decades pre-dating the Madrid Conference was a period of wars, ‘the Suez crisis in 1956, the Six-Day War in 1967, and the Yom Kippur in 1973’.[33] The Madrid Conference of 1991 ‘launched the beginning of the so-called “peace process” and its terms of reference were very clear: “land for peace,” which entailed Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied territories and that the Arab countries should sign peace agreements with Israel’.[34] The Oslo Agreements followed the Madrid Conference, and the process had several aspects. On September 9-10, 1993, Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) exchanged letters of mutual recognition, ‘these are the most important of all the documents since they represented a historical breakthrough’, as previously the PLO did not recognise Israel.[35]
Despite some international efforts for peace, they are inherently flawed as the USA, which is a major global player, continues to give support for Israel and, in some instances, has caused an escalation of the conflict. Significantly, ‘in 1962, President John F. Kennedy emphasized the establishment of special relations between the US and Israel, including the supply of military equipment’, which proved particularly useful in the 1967 Six-day War.[36] Furthermore, starting in 1985, Israel was given $3 billion annually from the US, making ‘Israel one of the most powerful military states in the region’.[37] It is because of the ‘full scale US military and economic support, Israel is passionately pursuing the concept of ‘greater Israel’ which rejects the right of Palestinians for nationhood’.[38] In 2018, the US, under the Trump administration, moved the USA’s embassy from Israel’s capital, Tel Aviv, where all other countries have their Israeli embassies, to Jerusalem. This act goes against the fact Jerusalem is meant to be an international city having strong religious importance for the three monotheistic religions, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Consequently, this action by President Trump clearly shows the USA’s bias towards Israel, and it also fuels disputes and disagreements over territorial boundaries. Therefore, it is the combination of the promises made, and in particular the Balfour Declaration, along with the West’s support for Israel, that has caused the conflict today. Israel will continue to try and expand their territory, whilst the Palestinians ‘dream of return – of the 1948 refugees and their descendants, across generations – to their lost villages and cities in Israel’.[39]
There is a mixed response from the international community regarding Israel’s recognition. The European Union is an example of a regional organisation that recognises Israel, which was formalised by the EU-Israel Association Agreement in 2000. However, most Arab League countries do not recognise Israel, including Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Syria, as well as several countries not in the Arab League, such as Iran and Pakistan. With the current conflict between Israel and Palestine, there have been several different suggestions for peace.
‘Some voices in Israel advocate resolving the conflict by accepting the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which has been reaffirmed several times by the Arab League. According to this proposal, Israel would withdraw from all the territories it captures in 1967 and accept “a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194” from December 1948. In return, the Arab world would recognize Israel and make peace with it’.[40]
However, the fundamental problem is that both sides have completely different aims regarding territory.
To conclude, Britain’s actions during the First World War, promising Palestine three contradictory times, created a foundation of competing claims. The McMahon-Hussein Correspondence in 1915, Sykes-Picot in 1916 and the Balfour Declaration in 1917 all go against the other, therefore leading to inevitable problems, with the main issue being that both the Palestinian Arabs and Jews believe that the land of Palestine is rightfully theirs. One key feature of the ‘thrice-promises’ is they were all intentionally vague, meaning that it was never clear to the Arabs exactly what an Arab state would include, and the Balfour Declaration never expanded on what was meant by a “national home” for Jews. Furthermore, because their end goals are completely different, it means conflict is inevitable. The Jews will continue to press for expansion, whereas the Palestinians will always believe the entirety of the land in this region belongs to them. Regarding the ongoing conflict, the primary external power that is increasing hostility is the US, as their actions and support for the Zionist movement have emboldened the Israelis to increase their territory, by the US giving their support, both politically and militarily.
NOTES
[1] “The McMahon Correspondence of 1915-16,” Bulletin of International News 16, no.5 (March 1939): 6-7.
[2] Shaul Bartal, “The Peel Commission Report of 1937 and the Origins of the Partition Concept,” in Jewish Political Studies Review28, no.1/2 (Spring 2017): 53.
[3] Pauline Park, “The WWI Middle East: Western Intervention and Modern-Day Political Conflict,” in Global Tides 11, no. 1 (2017): 1.
[4] Park, “The WWI Middle East: Western Intervention and Modern-Day Political Conflict,” 1.
[5] “The McMahon Correspondence of 1915-16,” Bulletin of International News 16, no.5 (March 1939): 9.
[6] Itamar Rabinovich, Robbie Sabel and Oded Eran, “A Century since the Sykes-Picot Agreement: Current Challenges,” in Institute for National Security Studies (2016): 1.
[7] Rabinovich, Sabel and Eran, “A Century since the Sykes-Picot Agreement,” 1.
[8] Edward Peter Fitzgerald, “France’s Middle Eastern Ambitions, the Sykes-Picot Negotiations, and the Oil Fields of Mosul, 1915-16,” in The Journal of Modern History 66, no.4 (December 1994), 699-700.
[9] Rabinovich, Sabel and Eran, “A Century since the Sykes-Picot Agreement,” 2.
[10] William L. Cleaveland and Martin Bunton, “The Palestine Mandate and The Birth of The State of Israel,” in A History of the Modern Middle East, 5th ed. (Westview Press, 2012), 226.
[11] Arthur James Balfour, “Balfour Declaration,” November 2, 1917.
[12] Alan Sharp, “National Self-Determination: Wilson’s Troublesome Principle,” in Versailles 1919: A Centennial Perspective, 77–100 (Haus Publishing, 2018), 103.
[13] Miguel Angel Morantinos, “A European Call for Palestinian Independence,” in The Cairo Review of Global Affairs 27 (2017): 58.
[14] Park, “The WWI Middle East: Western Intervention and Modern-Day Political Conflict,” 3.
[15] Cleaveland and Bunton, “The Palestine Mandate and The Birth of The State of Israel,” 225.
[16] League of Nations, Mandate for Palestine, (Geneva: League of Nations, 1922), accessed March 24, 2025.
[17] Debra Shushan, “Palestine and Israel at the United Nations: Partition, Recognition, and Membership,” in Charter of the United Nations (Yale University Press, 2014), 159.
[18] William L. Cleaveland and Martin Bunton, “The Palestine Mandate and The Birth of The State of Israel,” in A History of the Modern Middle East, 5th ed. (Westview Press, 2012), 235.
[24] Michael J. Cohen, “Appeasement in the Middle East: The British White Paper on Palestine, May 1939,” in The Historical Journal16, no.3 (1973), 572.
[25] Bartal, “The Peel Commission Report of 1937 and the Origins of the Partition Concept,” 66.
[26] Cleaveland and Bunton, “The Palestine Mandate and The Birth of The State of Israel,” 247.
[27] Debra Shushan, “Palestine and Israel at the United Nations: Partition, Recognition, and Membership,” in Charter of the United Nations (Yale University Press, 2014), 163.
[28] William L. Cleaveland and Martin Bunton, “Israel and the Palestinians From 1948 to the 1970s,” in A History of the Modern Middle East, 5th ed. (Westview Press, 2012), 332.
[29] Cleaveland and Bunton, “Israel and The Palestinians From 1948 to The 1970s,” 325.
[30] Efraim Karsh, “The Six-Day War: The Inevitable Conflict,” in Rethinking the Six-Day War (Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, 2017), 18.
[31] Mike Berry and Greg Philo, “1987: The First Intifada,” in Israel and Palestine: Competing Histories (Pluto Press, 2006), 82.
[32] Berry and Philo, “1987: The First Intifada,” 87.
[33] Morantinos, “A European Call for Palestinian Independence,” 61.
[34] Morantinos, “A European Call for Palestinian Independence,” 61.
[35] Shamir Hassan, “Oslo Accords: Genesis and Consequences for Palestine,” in Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 71 (2010), 944.
[36] Nina Rzhevska, “The real state and scenarios of the Arab-Israeli conflict settlement in the context of the US foreign policy interests,” in Acta de Historia & Politica: Saeculum XXI 09 (2025): 145.
[37] Rzhevska, “The real state and scenarios of the Arab-Israeli conflict settlement in the context of the US foreign policy interests,” 145.
[38] P.J. Vincent, “Israel and the Policy of Rejectionism: Problems of Peace Process in the Holy Land,” in Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 64 (2003): 1308.
[39] Azar Gat, “What Is the Problem With the Palestinian Problem?” in Institute for National Security Studies (2025): 2.
[40] Gat, “What Is the Problem With the Palestinian Problem?” 5.
Bibliography
Balfour, Arthur James. “Balfour Declaration.” November 2, 1917.
Bartal, Shaul. “The Peel Commission Report of 1937 and the Origins of the Partition Concept.” In Jewish Political Studies Review 28, no.1/2 (Spring 2017): 55-70. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44510475.
Bowden, Tom. “The Politics of the Arab Rebellion in Palestine 1936-39.” In Middle Eastern Studies 11, no.2 (May, 1975): 147-174. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4282565
Cleaveland, William L, and Martin Bunton. A History of the Modern Middle East, 5th ed. Westview Press, 2012.
Cohen, Michael J. “Appeasement in the Middle East: The British White Paper on Palestine, May 1939.” In The Historical Journal 16, no.3 (1973): 571-96. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2638205.
Fitzgerald, Edward Peter. “France’s Middle Eastern Ambitions, the Sykes-Picot Negotiations, and the Oil Fields of Mosul, 1915-16.” In The Journal of Modern History 66, no.4 (December 1994): 697-725. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2125155.
Hassan, Shamir. “Oslo Accords: Genesis and Consequences for Palestine.” In Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 71 (2010): 941-49. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44147562.
Karsh, Efraim, Gabriel Glickman, and Efraim Inbar. “The Six-Day War: The Inevitability of Conflict.” In Rethinking the Six-Day War. Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies, 2017. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep04753.3.
Park, Pauline. “The WWI Middle East: Western Intervention and Modern-Day Political Conflict.” In Global Tides 11, no.1 (2017).
Qumsiyeh, Mazin B. “The Great Revolt of 1936-39.” In Popular Resistance in Palestine: A History of Hope and Empowerment. Pluto Press, 2011.
Rabinovich, Itamar, Robbie Sabel, and Oded Eran. “A Century since the Sykes-Picot Agreement: Current Challenged.” In Institute for National Security Studies (2016). http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep08741.
Rzhevska, Nina. “The real state and scenarios of the Arab-Israeli conflict settlement in the context of the US foreign policy interests.” In Acta de Historia & Politica: Saeculum XXI 09 (2025): 141-150.
Sharp, Alan. “National Self-Determination: Wilson’s Troublesome Principle.” In Versailles 1919: A Centennial Perspective, 77-100. Haus Publishing, 2018. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv7vct0f.7.
Shushan, Debra. “Palestine and Israel at the United Nations: Partition, Recognition, and Membership.” In Charter of the United Nations: Together with Scholarly Commentaries and Essential Historical Documents, edited by Ian Shapiro and Joseph Lampert. Yale University Press, 2014.
Vincent, P.J. “Israel and the Policy of Rejectionism: Problems of Peace Process in the Holy Land.” In Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 64 (2003): 1308-14. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44145559.
Some images used on this blog are sourced from the internet and are assumed to be in the public domain. We make every effort to ensure proper attribution, but if you are the owner of an image and believe it has been used without proper permission, please contact us so we can give proper credit or remove the image as requested.
By Emirhan Özkır From: İstanbul Attending: İstanbul Medipol University, Faculty of Communication, Public Relations & Advertising Age: 20 years old
Hadice Hayriye Ayşe Dürrüşehvar Sultan 26 Ocak 1914’de babası Abdülmecid Efendi’nin Çamlıca’daki köşkünde dünyaya geldi. Annesi Atiye Mehisti Kadınefendi (1892-1964) Çerkeslerin Ubıh soyundandı. Abdülmecid Efendi Sultan Abdülaziz’in dördüncü şehzadesiydi, bu cihetten Dürrüşehvar Sultan hanedanın Aziz kolundan gelir. Dürrüşehvar “şahlara mahsus inci” demektir ve esasında bir cariye ismidir, hanedan mensubu hanımlara yani sultanlara Ayşe, Fatma, Hadice gibi klasikleşmiş Müslüman isimleri koymak adettir ancak şahlı isimleri pek seven ve zamane şehzadelere göre daha farklı bir mizaca sahip olan Abdülmecid Efendi kızına Dürrüşehvar ismini verdi. Sultanlara umumiyetle bir veya iki isim konurdu Zekiye, Fatma Naime, Rukiye Sabiha gibi, Mecid Efendi alafrangalığın verdiği tesirle aynı Avrupa prensesleri gibi kızına dört isim verdi (İngiltere Kraliçesi II. Elizabeth’in de resmiyette üç ismi vardı Elizabeth Alexandra Mary). Abdülmecid Efendi kültürlü, entelektüel, sanatçı bir ruhlu şahsiyetti, iyi bir ressam ve hattattı. Arapça ve Farsça’dan başka iyi Fransızca, biraz Almanca ve İngilizce bilirdi. Paris aksanıyla Fransızca konuşurdu, İstanbul’da kendisini tanıyan ecnebiler “başına fes takmadığı vakitler iyi yetişmiş bir Fransız’a benzediğini söylerlerdi”. Devrin entelektüel şahsiyetleriyle ahbaptı. Ancak cemiyete rahatça girip çıkan serbest tavırlı bir şehzade olması bazen tenkit edilirdi. Ailesine çok düşkündü, çocuklarının tahsil ve terbiyesine çok ihtimam gösterirdi.
Baba bir anne ayrı ağabeyi Ömer Faruk Efendi Dürrüşehvar Sultan’dan yaşça epey büyüktü. Dürrüşehvar Sultan’da ağabeyi gibi küçük yaştan itibaren oldukça iyi bir tahsil gördü. Sekiz lisân bilirdi, kırk yaşından sonra İtalyan arkadaşlarıyla konuşabilmek için İtalyanca öğrendi. Sultanın ilk çocukluk yılları İcadiye Tepesi’nde yemyeşil geniş bir arazide bulunan köşkte geçti, köşk şu an Koç Holding’in genel merkezi olarak kullanılmaktadır. 1918’de Sultan Reşad’ın vefatı üzerine Sultan Vahideddin’in tahta çıktı ve Abdülmecid Efendi’de veliaht şehzade oldu. 1922’de saltanatın kaldırılması ve Sultan Vahideddin’in İstanbul’dan ayrılması üzerine Ankara’daki Büyük Millet Meclisi Abdülmecid Efendi’yi halife ilan etti. Bunun üzerine Dürrüşehvar Sultan ve ailesi Çamlıca’daki köşkten Dolmabahçe Sarayı’na taşındılar. Dürrüşehvar Sultan’ın yeğeni Neslişah Sultan halasıyla olan anılarını şu sözlerle anlatıyor:
Dolmabahçe’de bir de tavuskuşu maceramız oldu…
Haremin avlusunda rengârenk tavuskuşları vardı. Beyaz, mavi, rengârenk… O sıralarda halam Dürrüşehvar on yaşlarındaydı. Bir gün bahçede beraberce oynarken birdenbire aklımıza esti, masmavi bir tavuskuşunu yakalayıp hareme daldık. Annemle babamın dairesine dar bir merdivenden çıkılıyordu.Kucağımızda tavuskuşuyla güç-belâ merdivenleri tırmandık. Oturma odasının bitişiğinde lavabomsu biryer vardi. Babam o sırada orada traş oluyormuş… Yüzü gözü sabun içerisindeydi. Halamla beni kucağımızda tavuskuşuyla görünce şaşkınlıktan avaz avaz bağırıp bizi paylamaya başladı. Babam bağırınca biz korktuk, geri geri giderken de merdivenlerden aşağı yuvarlandık. Manzarayı düşünün; suratı sabun içerisinde bir adam, merdivenlerden yuvarlanan iki çocuk, yukarıdan bizi düşerken görünce heyecandan haykırıp duran annem, kart sesiyle avaz avaz bağıran mavi bir tavuskuşu ve her tarafta uçuşan tüyler…
Aşağıya yuvarlana yuvarlana indik ama neyse ki bir tarafımıza birşey olmadı…”
3 Mart 1924’de meclis hilafeti kaldırdı ve hanedanı sınır dışı etti. Dürrüşehvar Sultan on yaşındayken vatanından ayrılmak mecburiyetinde kaldı, bu hadiseyi 1947 senesinde Hindistan’da yayınlayan Doğan isimli hatıratında pek içli anlatır:
“Artık dayanamadım. ‘Ey büyük Fatih’ dedim. ‘Bak şaheserin kimlerin elinde kaldı! Onun yegâne muhafızı senin asil aileni istemiyorlar!
Senin hafîdliğine bihakkın [torunun olmaya hakkıyla] lâyık olan halifeyi memleketinden atıyorlar. Hizmetini reddederek, vatan aşkıyla dolu olan kalbini çiğnediler. Milletinin şimdiye kadar lekesiz kalan ismini kirlettiler. Türk neslinin asaletini ortaya çıkaran Âl-i Osman, eski yurdunun sevgili kucağından atıldı…
Necib ecdadımızın bu sevgili yurdunu seyretmeye doyamıyordum. Bizi hiç olmazsa sen unutma!’ dedim… Bütün ümitlerim yıkılmış ve saadetin parlak ışıkları sönmüştü. Karanlık bir köşeye çekilerek o felâketli günlerin hatıralarını gözyaşlarımla silmeye çalıştım. Arkamızda yedi asırdan beri hüküm süren Osmanlı ailesinin sönmüş ocağını ve Türk tarihini şanla dolduran dâhilerin tahtını sahipsiz bırakarak ecdâdımızın sevgili yurdunu terk ettik… Memleketten son bir hâtıra olmak üzere yerden bir çakıl taşı aldım. Vatanımın bu mini mini parçasını kalbimin üzerine bastırarak düşündüm.”
Halife ve ailesi apar topar hazırlanıp 24 saat içinde sürgüne gönderildi. Evvela İsviçre’ye ordan da ekonomik sebeplerle Güney Fransa’nın Nice şehrine gittiler. Dürrüşehvar Sultan eğitime Nice’deyken de devam etti, İngiliz hocası Miss Richards’tan İngilizce dersleri aldı.
Bazen baba kız beraber tenis oynarlar, Nice’in sahilinde yürüyüş yaparlardı. Sürgünde halifenin parası bitince Mısırlı Prens Ömer Tosun, ardından Haydarabad Nizamı yardım gönderdi. 20 Aralık 1931’de Dürrüşehvar Sultan Haydarabad Nizamı Osman Âsaf Cah’ın oğlu Berar Prensi Azam Cah’la, 5.Murad’ın torunu olan kuzini Nilüfer Hanımsultan da Nizâm’ın küçük oğluyla evlendi.
Prenseslerin nikahını Dürrüşehvar Sultan’ın halası Emine Sultan’ın zevci Damad Şerif Paşa kıydı. Böylece Berar Prensesi oldu. Kendisinin ve ailesinin istikbali için, denk olmayan biriyle evlenerek, kendisini feda etmek asaletini gösterdi. O zamanlar dünyanın en zengin insanlarında biri olan Nizâm 1925’de halifeye 300 sterlin maaş bağlatmıştı, halifeyle dünür olduktan sonra tahsisatı 500 sterline çıkardı. Bu evlilik sürgündeki hanedana nisbeten nefes aldırdı. Dürrüşehvar Sultan annesi ve Türkiye’den getirttiği eski saray bendegânından 22 kız ile babasının kâtibi Hüseyin Nakib Bey refakatinde Haydarabad’a gitti. Haydarabad Hindistan’ın en büyük Müslüman vilayetidir, Haydarabad’ın hükümdarlarına “Nizâm” denilirdi. Halifenin kızının Haydarabad’a gelin olarak gelişinden Haydarabadlılar ziyadesiyle mutlu ve memnundular. Sultan kısa süre içinde oranın lisânı olan Urduca’yı öğrendi ve hayır işleriyle meşgul oldu, Haydarabad’da güzelliğiyle tanınan çok sevilen biriydi. Lakin önce İstanbul’da saray hayatında sonra ise Fransa’da yaşamış bir Osmanlı prensesi olarak Haydarabad’ın iklimine ve adetlerine intibak edemedi ve mutlu olamadı. Zaten bu evlilik bir aşk evliliği değil siyasi cihetten yapılmış bir evlilikti. Bu evlilik sayesinde Nizâm Osmanlı Hanedanı’yla ve halifeyle akraba olmuş oluyor, sürgünde maddi sıkıntı çeken hanedanda biraz rahat etmiş oluyordu. Dolayısıyla Dürrüşehvar Sultan’da evliliğini vazife şuuruyla devam ettirdi.
1933’de büyük oğlu Bereket Cah, 1939’da da küçük oğlu Keramet Cah dünyaya geldi. 1935’de İngiltere Kralı V. George’un tahta çıkışının 25.senesi olması münasebetiyle düzenlenen jübileye Berar Prensi ve Prensesi unvanıyla Dürrüşehvar Sultan ve eşi de davetliydi. Saray, jübiledeki davetlileri bağımsız ülkelerden gelenler ve İngiliz müstemlekesi ülkelerden gelen davetliler olarak ikiye ayırmıştı. Hindistan İngiliz hakimiyetinde olduğu için Dürrüşehvar Sultan ve eşinin ikinci gruba dahil olması gerekiyordu. Ancak listeleri inceleyen Kraliçe Mary (II.Elizabeth’in babaannesi) Dürrüşehvar Sultan’ın ismini görünce “imparatorluk terbiyesi almış bir prensesin ikinci grupta olması uygun olmaz” diyip sultanı ilk sıraya aldırtmıştı. Bu vesileyle jübile için verilen davette Dürrüşehvar Sultan’a eşi değil Mısır’ı temsilen gelen Prens Muhammed Abdülmunim eşlik etti. Prens Abdülmunim ileriki yıllarda Dürrüşehvar Sultan’ın yeğeni Neslişah Sultan’la evlenerek Osmanlı Hanedanına damad oldu. Dürrüşehvar Sultan davetliler arasında devrin Türkiye başbakanı İsmet İnönü ile karşılaştı, kendisine uzatılan eli sıkmak yerine elini boynundaki hânedan nişanına götürerek İnönü’ye sert bir bakış attı ve arkasını dönüp uzaklaştı.
1939’da Nice’den Paris’e taşınan halife 1944’ün Ramazan ayında Paris’teki evinde hayata veda etti. Sultan Hamid’in kızı Ayşe Sultan halifenin vefatını şu sözlerle anlatıyor:
“24 Ağustos 1944 çarşamba günü, saat bire doğru kapının zili çalındı. Halife’nin daire uşaklarından biri gelmiş, bana mahsus bir kağıt bırakarak derhal gitmiş. Kâğıdı alıp açtım. Bu, Halife’nin kâtibi, dairesinin müdürü olan Kumandan Korsikalı Çekaldi’nin bir mektubu idi. Mektupta “Halife hazretleri bugün saat 11’de ani olarak vefat etmiştir.” yazılı idi.
Okuyunca derhal gözyaşlarım boşandı. Hemen oğlum Osman’a seslendim, “Oğlum! Halife vefat etmiş. Hemen gitmeliyiz.” dedim. Oğlum da teessüre kapılmıştı. Benden tafsilât istiyordu. Tafsilât olmadığını, acele gidip anlamamız icap ettiğini söyledim. Bu, doğru idi. Fakat gitmemiz de mutlaka lâzımdı. Çünkü Halife, ailemizin son reisi idi. Ayrıca şahsına da hususi hürmetim vardı. Allah Kerim’dir diyerek oğlumun koluna girdim, sokağa çıktım… Nihayet Halife’nin evine vardık, ev dışardan sükûnet içinde görülüyordu. Kapıya geldik. Bahçe kapısı aralık duruyordu, içeriye girdik. Geniş bir nefes aldık. Dairenin kapı zilini çektik. Kapıyı açan Ermeni hizmetçiye bilâ-ihtiyar, “Ne oldu?” diye sordum. “Ah efendim, olanlar oldu.” diye cevap verdi. Büyük taş merdivenin yarısına çıkmıştık ki halifenin sadık hizmetkarı Bihrûze Hanım’ın feryadı ile karşılaştık, “Ah, sultanım! Geliniz, geliniz. Amcanızı görünüz. Gitti, kuş gibi elimizden uçtu.” diyerek başını merdivenin parmaklığına vuruyor, ağlıyordu. Mehisti İkinci Kadın’ın odasına gittik. Kadınefendi bayılmış, biraz önce ayılmış, gözyaşları içinde yatıyordu. Yanında Hüseyin Nakib Bey’in haremi bulunuyor, kolonya koklatıyordu. Biz de ağlayarak elini öptük.Artık bu acı, cümlemizin kalbine işlemişti.
Gözyaşlarımız arasında teselli verici sözler söylüyorduk. Oradan Şehsuvar Başkadın’a gittik. Bizi görünce, “Efendimiz nasıldır?” diye sordu. Pek sinirli, fakat bihaber bir hâlde idi. Esasen kadınefendi bir müddetten beri hasta olduğundan bugünkü felaketi anlayamıyor, efendisinin hasta olduğunu zannederek büyük bir telaş içinde bulunuyordu. Ona da söyleyecek söz pek bulamayarak avutucu birkaç sözle çıktık. Bu haller bizi pek harap etmişti.Artık Halife hazretlerini son bir kere ziyaret etmek vakti gelmişti.Halife’nin odasına geldik. Kapıyı açıp içeri girdik. Büyük lake, japonvâri karyolanın üzerine boylu boyunca yatırılmış, yüzüne kadar bir beyaz keten çarşafla tamamen örtülmüştü. Bihrûze Hanım ayakucunda yere oturmus, karyolanın ayakucuna başını dayamış,hıçkırıklarla ağıyordu. Biz de ağlayarak yaklaştık. Hayatta iken kendisine karşı gösterdigimiz resm-i tazimi ifa ettik. Gözyaşlarıyla orada oturdum. Yâsin-i Şerif okudum. Üç İhlâs, bir Fâtiha ile odadan çıktım.”
Halife vefatından önce Türkiye’ye defnedilmek istediğini vasiyet etmişti lakin 1924’deki sürgün kanunu halen geçerliydi. 2.Dünya Savaşı’nın devam etmesi sebebiyle halifenin naaşı Fransa’dan çıkarılamadığı ve nereye defnedileceği de belli olmadığı için tahnit edilerek Paris Camii’ne konuldu. Savaşın bitmesinin ardından Dürrüşehvar Sultan babasının naaşının Türkiye’ye defnedilebilmesi için hükümetle temasa geçti ve bu vesileyle 1945’de İngiliz diplomatik pasaportuyla ve “Berar Prensesi” unvanıyla Türkiye’ye gelmesine müsaade edildi. Artık cumhurbaşkanı olan İsmet İnönü’yle görüştü, ikisi de 10 sene evvel Londra’da olan hadiseyi unutmuş gibi davrandılar. Sultanı Çankaya Köşkü’nde Mevhibe İnönü ve İsmet İnönü’nün annesi Cevriye Hanım ağırladı, ardından İnönü’nün misafiri olarak İstanbul’da cumhurbaşkanlığı yatında yemeğe davet edildi ve boğaz turu yapıldı. Ancak görüşmelere rağmen babasının naaşının Türkiye’ye defnedilmesine muvaffak olamadı. Sultan 1950’de DP’nin iktidara gelmesi ve Adnan Menderes’in başbakan olmasıyla bir umut tekrar müracaat ettiysede müspet bir cevap alamadı.
10 sene bekleyişin ardından halifenin naaşı Medine’de Cennetü’l Bakî’ye defnolundu.
Dürrüşehvar Sultan’ın iki oğlu da Türk hanımlarla evlendiler. Bereket Cah, Fethi Ahmed Paşa’nın torunu Esra Birgen’le, Keramet Cah ise 60’ların İstanbul’un da sosyetenin güzel kızlarından Esin İncealemdaroğlu’yla evlendi. Eltisi ve kuzini Nilüfer Hanımsultan 1952’de çocuğu olmaması sebebiyle kocasından ayrılarak Paris’e taşındı.
Dürrüşehvar Sultan hanedanın hanımlarına Türkiye’ye dönüş izni verilen 1952’den itibaren sık sık Türkiye’ye gelmeye başladı, umumiyetle yaz aylarını Türkiye’de geçirirdi. 60’lardan itibaren ekseri kuzini Hümeyra Hanımsultan’a ait Kuşadası’ndaki Kısmet Otel’de kalır yeğenleri ve diğer sevdikleriyle keyifli vakit geçirirdi. 1954’de kağıt üstünde boşanmasada eşinden ayrıldı ve çocuklarının da tahsili için Londra’ya yerleşti. Londra’da nizâmlığın temsilcisi ve Kensington Sarayı’nın komşusu olan Hyderabad Palace’de yaşardı. Dürrüşehvar Sultan tüm hal ve hareketleriyle hazâ bir imparatorluk prensesi hazâ bir sultandı. Pek vakarlı, yüksek hasletli, meziyet sahibi bir hanımdı. Soğuk ve çok konuşmayan mizacının ardında çekingenliği ve hususi hayatını ifşa etmeme arzusu yatardı. Herkesi kolay kolay yanına yaklaştırmazdı. Yani modern görüntüsünün ardında bir Osmanlı kadını vardı. Ağabeyi gibi uzun boyluydu, zamanının en güzel kadınlarından biri olarak kabul edilirdi. 7 Şubat 2006 tarihinde 92 yaşında Londra’daki evinde fani dünyaya veda etti. Yakın aile üyelerinin katıldığı sade bir törenle Brookwood Müslüman Mezarlığı’nda 1964’de vefat eden annesi Mehisti Kadınefendi’nin yanına defnedildi.
Kaynakça:
Murat Bardakçı, Neslişah, s. 63
Dürrüşehvar Sultan, Doğan, s. 53–55
Ayşe Osmanoğlu, Babam Sultan Abdülhamid, s. 247–248
Some images used on this blog are sourced from the internet and are assumed to be in the public domain. We make every effort to ensure proper attribution, but if you are the owner of an image and believe it has been used without proper permission, please contact us so we can give proper credit or remove the image as requested.
By Feyza Bolat From: Bergkamen, Germany Attending: University of Münster Age: 19 years old
A First Impression
For the first time, an Ottoman sultan set foot on British soil. After a magnificent parade through buzzing streets and ecstatic crowds, Sultan Abdülaziz, along with Prince Edward, Prince George and Fuad Pasha in his carriage, made his way to Windsor Castle to be received by Queen Victoria. The Sultan’s two nephews, Prince Murad and Prince Hamid, accompanied by Abdülaziz’s 10-year-old son Yusuf Izzeddin were also seated in one of the carriages within the convoy.
In a whirlwind of cheering and excitement, eloquently dressed Victorian ladies and gentlemen were trying to catch a glimpse of the Caliph of the Muslim world, who in turn frequently touched his fez to respectfully acknowledge the flattering attention. Having had arrived at Windsor Castle, two young royals were about to make a first impression of each other…
Abdülaziz ‘s State Visit to Britain
Following an invitation from Napoleon III. for the Paris Exhibition in June 1867, the 32nd Sultan of the Ottoman Empire decided to realize a State Visit across Europe. After attending the exhibition, he resumed his visit to Great Britain, then to Belgium, Prussia and Austria. Since the Crimean War, the British Empire had developed into being an important ally for the Ottomans. To maintain profitable diplomatic relations and to gain the sympathy of the West during critical times (revolts occurring in Serbia and Crete), the Sultan agreed upon the advice of his ministers and met up with European monarchs of his time.
The Star of the Show
The 26-year-old crown prince Murad (later Murad V.), nephew and future successor of Abdülaziz, seemed to enjoy his stay immensely. Prince Murad managed to attract the attention of many diplomats and royals due to his cosmopolitanism, his proper way of presenting himself, the liberal ideas he proudly claimed and his interest in the western world. Anglophile and highly educated, the young Muslim prince spoke accent less French, exchanged views on political and cultural matters and made himself new acquaintances at the British court.
Diplomacy or Soap Opera?
After a short deep dive into the major events of the State Visit, you can come across the most peculiar stories, the kind that makes your jaw drop and made me personally question my passion for history. That the Sultan allegedly wanted to have his nephew Murad poisoned in Buckingham Palace out of boiling envy or the newly ignited love of Empress Eugenie for Sultan Abdülaziz, which is why she is said to have started an affair with the Sultan just two years later during her visit in Istanbul, are only a few of many absurd narrations.
One Among Many…
Despite all the rumors, one of them is a little more concealed, however much closer to the truth: A marriage that was being considered between Prince Murad and Princess Louise, Queen Victoria’s sixth child, known for her emancipated nature, 19 years old.
“…that evening when I first met Queen Victoria’s beautiful but headstrong and rather rebellious daughter Princess Louise. Did you know that it was even suggested that I might consider making her my wife? I was offered a castle in Scotland and the hand of an English princess in marriage…”
These lines were written by Ayşe Gülnev Osmanoğlu in her book “The Gilded Cage on the Bosphorus”, who is the daughter of Osman Selahaddin Osmanoğlu, a direct descendant of Prince Murad (later Sultan Murad V.). The author unfolds a meticulously crafted story, breathing life into her ancestor Murad V. in the form of a historical fiction novel.
But she is not the only one to describe this incident. Turkish writers from that time such as Ebuzziya Tevfik as well as historians like Ziya Şakir and Cemal Kutay address similar occurrences in their work: Queen Victoria was overly impressed by the charm of the Ottoman prince that she came up with the idea of welcoming Murad into her family. A close friendship developed between Prince Murad and Prince Edward (later Edward VII.) as well but more importantly, at balls, banquets and other formal events during the visit, Louise and Murad surprisingly seemed to get along well with each other. Ultimately, the idea of a marriage alliance was dropped primarily due to Murad’s position as Crown Prince. (Such marriage could have triggered succession disputes between Murad and Abdülaziz)
Prince and Princess, East and West – But Carved from the Same Wood
Among all the stories circulating around the Ottoman Imperial family in Europe, why is this one the most convincing?
As the German saying in the subheading indicates, the idea of Prince Murad and Princess Louise having good chemistry seems astonishingly plausible because of their striking similarities.
Both were shaped by progressive fathers (Sultan Abdülmecid & Prince Albert) who were very fond of their children and took special care of their education. Eventually, both men tragically died in the same year at a relatively young age, leaving Murad and Louise under the control of rather boring, conservative guardians: A depressed, stern mother Queen Victoria and a firm, traditional uncle Sultan Abdülaziz. Being heavily overwhelmed with their new course of life, the Prince and Princess developed a similar way of navigating their emotions and forming their identity: With time, Louise and Murad rebelled against everything the Sultan and The Queen expected them to be.
Louise enraged her mother by defying norms through scandalous behavior and feminist tendencies, while Murad irritated his uncle by embracing ideas of the opposition and an unconventional lifestyle.
Described as free-spirited, charming and attractive individuals, their mutual longing for freedom could have easily created a strong connection between them – despite religious and cultural differences.
A Dead End
But here we must put an abrupt end to our journey because nothing else can be found regarding Murad and Louise.
Especially if you enter the realm of English sources, you might as well enter a graveyard.
Among Dutch, Prussian or Danish princes, there are no hints of Prince Murad as a suitor for Louise. Neither in letters nor in Queen Victoria’s journals can be evidence found that might suggest Victoria may have considered Prince Murad as her son-in-law. How come, Queen Victoria, who wrote every obscene detail about her personal life, didn’t utter a word about the Ottoman prince she was “exceptionally delighted by “?
Or was it all just a brief, insignificant consideration that would have been quashed by the British government anyway?
Interestingly, Princess Louise’s tumultuous life is a whole mystery to begin with. Lucinda Hawksley, Princess Louise’s biographer says that she “came across whole fortresses of brick walls” while trying to tell the secretive woman’s story. Hawksley points out that Louise’s life in the second half of the 1860s appears to be carefully edited and hand – picked by archivists. The reason why Louise’s personal files are nowadays suffering from heavy censorship by The Royal Archives is linked to an illegitimate child – a whole another story for itself. Also keep in mind that Queen Victoria’s writings were reduced and then presented to the public by her youngest daughter, Princess Beatrice.
Too Many Questions
Now I can’t help but try to connect (maybe) some far-fetched dots. Let’s say in June 1867 a serious marriage was considered; Edward and Victoria gave the green light, and things were settled until the proposal was rejected. But what exactly were the motives of the Royal Household? More importantly, what role did Louise play in the whole matter? What did Louise think of the Ottoman prince before declaring “she dislikes foreign men” and broke a rule after 356 years by marrying a commoner in 1871? Could it be that traces of Murad V. within a short span of 11 days in Louise’s life, also happen to suffer from censorship? Is it “Louise’s Secret” instead of “Victoria’s Secret” after all?
Satı, Ibrahim „Sultan V. Murad’ın Hayatı ve kısa Saltanatı (1840-1904) “ 2020 Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi https://dosya.kmu.edu.tr/sbe/userfiles/file/tezler/Tarih/ibrahimsati.pdf
By Shintya Ramadhani From: Pekanbaru City, Riau Province, Indonesia Attending: Sultan Syarif Kasim State Islamic University Riau, Faculty of Ushuluddin, Department of Quranic Studies and Tafsir Age: 20 years old
The Tomb of Teungku Chik in Bitay is located in Turkish Housing, Bitai Village, Jaya Baru District, Banda Aceh City, Aceh Province, Indonesia. Teungku Chik in Bitay, whose full name was Muthalib Ghazi bin Mustafa Ghazi. This tomb is not only the final resting place of a respected scholar but also a silent witness to the deep historical connection between the Aceh Sultanate and the Ottoman Empire during the 16th century.
Background of Ottoman Aid to Aceh
Teungku Chik and the Ottoman forces were first called to Aceh following a letter sent by Sultan Alauddin Riayat Syah al-Kahhar to Suleiman the Magnificent in 1564 (possibly earlier). In the letter, Sultan Alauddin requested military assistance from the Ottoman Caliph to counter the growing Portuguese threat in Southeast Asia. Sultan Alauddin referred to the Ottoman ruler as the “Khalifah of Islam”, reflecting the deep political and spiritual ties between the two empires.
In response, Suleiman the Magnificent sent military aid, including soldiers, weapon-makers, engineers, and scholars to strengthen Aceh’s defense. After Suleiman’s death in 1566, his son Selim II continued his father’s policy and dispatched a fleet to Aceh in 1567, carrying soldiers, engineers, and essential military supplies to help Aceh in its battle against Portuguese colonialism.
It is told that Bitai was home to 300 Ottoman military experts who came to Aceh during the reign of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent. Bitai was located near the capital of the Aceh Sultanate and is remembered as the place where the Ottomans settled in Aceh. Upon arrival in Aceh, Bitay became the primary settlement for the Ottoman forces, who did not return to Turkey. The village’s name was later derived from Baitul Maqdis (Jerusalem), which gradually transformed into Bitay. Bitay also became known as the center of Zawiyah (Islamic academies) in Aceh and a place for military training, known as Bayt al-Askari Muqaddas. In addition to being a military training center, Bitay was also used for manufacturing military equipment, including the traditional Acehnese weapon, “rencong”.
Around 100 Turkish military instructors were specifically sent to train Acehnese forces in both the army and navy. Teungku Chik and other scholars played crucial roles in spreading Islam and introducing Ottoman culture to the people of Aceh. Teungku Chik became an integral part of this mission, staying in Aceh to teach religious knowledge and spreading the intellectual principles of Islam from the Ottoman world.
Military and Cultural Ties Between Aceh and the Ottomans
Historically, the Aceh Sultanate and the Ottoman Empire were two significant Islamic powers that cooperated in resisting Portuguese imperialism in the Southeast Asian region. Ottoman forces not only provided military assistance but also contributed to transforming military knowledge, particularly in weaponry and military education. One key achievement was the establishment of Bayt al-Askari Muqaddas, a military academy that produced Acehnese military leaders.
In addition to military assistance, the Ottoman expedition to Aceh facilitated intellectual and cultural exchanges between the two empires. The Ottomans brought advanced military technology, including weapons and fortifications, which strengthened Aceh’s defenses. This relationship also helped facilitate trade, with Aceh becoming one of the main trade routes linking the Islamic world from the Middle East and South Asia to Southeast Asia.
In terms of religion, the arrival of Ottoman scholars like Teungku Chik strengthened the spread of Islam in Aceh. They not only contributed to religious education but also brought the cultural influence of the Ottomans in various aspects of Acehnese life, including Islamic law, art, and architecture.
The Tomb of Teungku Chik as a Symbol of Brotherhood
This tomb, along with other Ottoman sites in Aceh, is a reminder of the longstanding friendship between the two great empires, who supported each other in the fight against Portuguese imperialism. It has become a highly respected site for the people of Aceh, and it is also of great interest to historians who wish to study international relations during this period.
Conclusion: The Tomb of Teungku Chik in Bitay as an Everlasting Historical Trace
The Tomb of Teungku Chik in Bitay is not only a historical site but also a symbol of the deep brotherhood between the Aceh Sultanate and the Ottoman Empire. Its location in Bitay, a village that became the center for Ottoman forces and scholars, reflects the close relationship between the two major Islamic powers of the 16th century. Through military assistance and the spreading of Islam, Ottoman scholars and military personnel, including Teungku Chik, played a vital role in strengthening Aceh’s defense and enriching its Islamic culture and traditions.
The Tomb of Teungku Chik in Bitay also serves as a silent witness to the joint resistance of Aceh and the Ottomans against Portuguese colonialism, as well as their combined efforts to strengthen Islam in the archipelago. As part of the Turkish Housing complex, this tomb reminds us of the significant contributions of Ottoman military experts, scholars, and leaders who settled in Aceh, leaving behind a profound cultural, intellectual, and spiritual legacy.
As a symbol of a long-standing friendship, the tomb is now a revered site for both the people of Aceh and researchers. It serves as an important reminder of the meaningful historical relationship between Aceh and the Ottoman Empire and how these two great Islamic powers united to fight for independence and faith.
References
Reid, Anthony. “Turkey as Aceh’s Alternative Imperium.” Archipel, Vol. 87, 2014, p. 91.
“Makam Teungku Chik di Bitay, Bukti Sejarah Kedekatan Kesultanan Turki dan Aceh pada Masa Lalu.” Serambi News, Selasa, 15 Februari 2022, 19:15 WIB. https://www.serambinews.com
“Berziarah ke Makam Pejuang dan Ulama Turki Utsmani di Banda Aceh.” 29 April 2024, 21:54 WIB. https://www.acehportal.com
Norman, Iskandar. “Teungku Chik Di Bitay dan Jejak Turki di Aceh.” 14 September 2021. https://www.portalsatu.com
Images used in this article are credited to their respective copyright owners. All rights to the images belong to their original creators
Some images used on this blog are sourced from the internet and are assumed to be in the public domain. We make every effort to ensure proper attribution, but if you are the owner of an image and believe it has been used without proper permission, please contact us so we can give proper credit or remove the image as requested.
By Rameen Kamran From: Islamabad, Pakistan Age: 17 years old
Harem served as the residence of the wives, concubines and slaves of the Ottoman sultan. But it was much more than just a dwelling place for the Sultan’s women. While often depicted as oppression on the women, the harem was, in fact, a place of learning and enlightenment. Through the confined spaces the residents of the harem managed to influence the politics and the social dynamics of the empire. Women held a multifaceted and often an underestimated role. The dynamics of the harem were complicated; there was a constant struggle to get authority and the favor of the Sultan.
The Harem Hierarchy
A harem was the place of political intrigue and constant struggles. It included the women of the sultans. There were odalisques or virgins, concubines, ikbals (the sultan’s favorites) and Kadins, the official and legal wives of the sultan. In addition to this there were eunuchs who were the guards of the harem. On the top of the pyramid was the sultan’s mother or the Valide Sultan. The Valide enjoyed immense power over the Sultan. Furthermore, the concubines who gave birth to sons were given more importance to the ones who gave birth to daughters.
The Importance Of The Harem
The Ottoman harem served as a representation of the Sultan’s power and affluence. The concubine system ensured the continuity of the imperial lineage and through the male heirs.
The Power Of The Harem
At the acme of the ottoman empire in the 16th and the 17th centuries, there was period known as the sultanate of women starting with Suleiman I’s Haseki, Hurrem Sultan and constituted of other influential women. These were wives, mothers or the concubines of the Ottoman Sultans. During this time, these women held enormous political power and influence and they often made important decisions for the empire.
Kosem Sultan was the wife and the most dependable advisor of Ahmed I. She is also said to be responsible for ending the centuries old tradition of fratricide. Later, she became the regent for her son, Murad IV and grandson, Mehmed IV. Kosem held political power and continued to fashion several domestic and foreign policies of the empire. One of the other authorities of this period was Turhan Sultan. She served as a regent to her son Mehmed IV and made the fortifications of the Ottoman military stronger. All these women held powers in the appointments and dismissal of the important posts.
By using their connections, women of the imperial Ottoman harem exhibited their sway on the politics.
The Valide Sultan, being on the top of the harem hierarchy had the access to the outside world and would attend ceremonies. Both the Haseki and Valide Sultan had the way to the Sultan’s ear, rendering them extremely important in the court politics. The women contributed massive amounts to charity and architecture. Hurrem Sultan commissioned the mosque complex known as the Haseki Sultan Complex. This included a hospital and kitchen for the poor.
Education Of The Women
In the early years of the empire, women were not given any formal education. The Palace harem served as a center of learning for the women. Though the they were not permitted to leave the confined space, the slaves and concubines were given complete education. They were taught embroidery, reading, writing and many other arts.
Conclusion
The harem not only served as the lodgings for the Ottoman women, it was also the place for political sway and influence. The Sultan often turned to his women for advice and they were more trusted than the viziers in the court. Despite having enormous power, the women remained behind the scenes and were not credited with their contributions. It reflects how the role of the women was influential and constrained at the same time. By studying the harem through a political and social lens, we get deeper insights to the nuances of the Ottoman civilization and its legacies that continue to resonate today.
References
Ali, Fatima “The Ottoman’s Harem as an Institution of Female Elevation in the Power Politics.” Journal of Historical Studies (Volume II), 2020, (Jul-Dec 2020)
Peirce, Leslie P. The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire. Oxford UP, USA, 1993.
Yenen, Serif. “The Harem of the Ottoman Sultan.” https://privateguidesofeurope.com, 1 Mar. 2021,
Please note that the images taken in this article are from a public domain. The original owners of the pictures are respected.
Some images used on this blog are sourced from the internet and are assumed to be in the public domain. We make every effort to ensure proper attribution, but if you are the owner of an image and believe it has been used without proper permission, please contact us so we can give proper credit or remove the image as requested.
By Yavuz Tandoğan From: Trabzon Attending: Boğaziçi University, İstanbul Age: 20 years old
In May of 1867, Emperor Napoleon III of France resolved to extend an invitation to Ottoman Empire, His Imperial Majesty Sultan Abdulaziz to attend an international industrial exposition to be held in Paris. This gesture was intended not only to restore the waning political ties with the Ottoman Empire following the Crimean War but also to grace Paris and the French Empire with the presence of an Ottoman Sultan and Caliph, thereby bestowing upon the fair an unparalleled honour.
The Opening Ceremony of the International Exhibition in Paris
Nevertheless, according to the longstanding tradition of the Ottoman state, it was unheard of for sultans to venture abroad for the purpose of travel. As a result, both the Sultan and the members of the royal family were initially reluctant to endorse such an expedition.
Diplomatic Expediencies of State
Sultan Abdülaziz – Buckingham Palace
Ottoman statesmen believed that this journey would yield significant diplomatic advantages. They contended that through this official visit, the peaceful and liberal inclinations of the Ottomans could be effectively communicated to foreign dignitaries, thereby showcasing the progressive reforms undertaken by the Empire to the European powers. Furthermore, the trip was seen as an opportunity to diminish European support for Russia, which had aligned against the Ottoman Empire in the ongoing Cretan crisis and the Montenegrin Rebellion, while also swaying public opinion in France—a nation aligned with Russia in foreign policy—in favour of Turkey. Additionally, the journey was anticipated to facilitate the procurement of European loans to support government expenditures. Therefore, the Grand Vizier of the time, Ali Pasha, along with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Fuad Pasha, endeavoured to persuade the Sultan regarding a potential journey to Europe. It was equally imperative for the Sultan to witness firsthand the material advancements of the Western world, to gain insight into the European monarchical systems, and to cultivate personal acquaintance with the rulers of Europe.
Meanwhile, Queen Victoria of Britain, upon learning of the French Emperor’s invitation to the Sultan, swiftly extended her own invitation for a visit to London. Sultan Abdulaziz, perceiving these consecutive invitations as aligned with the interests of the state, graciously consented to accept both of them.
The Grand Europe Tour
Sultan Abdulaziz arrived at Dolmabahçe Palace with his state officials following a ceremonial event held after the afternoon prayer in Ortaköy on June 21, 1867. Thereafter, he commenced his grand European journey by boarding the imperial yacht, Sultaniye. Accompanying the Sultan on his journey were Crown Prince Murad Efendi (the future Sultan Murad V), Prince Abdulhamid Efendi (the future Sultan Abdulhamid II), the Sultan’s eldest son, Prince Yusuf İzzeddin Efendi, and Mehmed Fuad Pasha.
The Sultan, having been received with great ceremony in Dardanelles the following day, arrived at the Sicilian port of Messina on June 25, escorted by both the Turkish and French naval fleets. On June 28, he reached Naples and, on the subsequent day, arrived at the port of Toulon in France, where he disembarked. Greeted with an official ceremony, the Sultan then proceeded to Paris by train, travelling via Marseille.
The Turkish delegation, having arrived in Paris on June 30, was met with great and distinguished enthusiasm. Following his reception by Emperor Napoleon III at the Gare-de-Lyon, the Sultan proceeded to the Tuileries Palace, where he was presented to Empress Eugénie. Subsequently, he took residence at the Élysée Palace, which had been specially assigned for him. The following day, the Sultan, accompanied by the Emperor and Empress, observed the military parade held in his honour at Concorde Square. Thereafter, he had an audience with Tsar Alexander II of Russia, who was already present in Paris.
During his ten-day stay in France, the Sultan made many gifts to the servants and various people in need. He visited Paris and the Palace of Versailles, attended theatres, exhibitions and balls. As recorded in the travel diaries, Crown Prince Murad Efendi, a handsome young man who spoke fluent French, attracted great attention from French society during the trip.
A farewell dinner was hosted in the Sultan’s honour at the Tuileries Palace. One of the main topics of discussion was the Cretan issue, which was already highly contentious. Napoleon III made the following remarks regarding the conflict: “Your Excellency, the most effective resolution to the Cretan issue would be to cede the island to Greece.” In response, Sultan Abdulaziz expressed his displeasure, stating: “The Ottoman Empire has fought for Crete for twenty-seven years. Every inch of Crete’s soil has been soaked with the blood of martyrs. I shall continue to fight until no soldier remains in my armies and no vessel is left in my navy. If necessary, I will abandon Crete only under such dire circumstances.” Consequently, the Emperor felt compelled to apologise.
Sultan Arrives in Britain
Crown Prince Murad – Buckingham Palace
Prince Abdülhamid – Buckingham Palace
The following day, on July 10, Emperor Napoleon III bid farewell to the Sultan and the other guests, who then departed from Paris and embarked at Boulogne. After crossing the English Channel and reaching Dover, escorted by the French and British navies, the Sultan was graciously received by the British heir, Prince Edward and the Khedive of Egypt.
Sultan Abdulaziz arrived in London on July 11 and took up residence at Buckingham Palace. The following day, he was received by Her Majesty Queen Victoria of Great Britain, who accorded him a splendid welcome ceremony. That evening, the Sultan attended a grand banquet given in his honour by the Prince of Wales. The next day, the Sultan and the Queen went for a ride together along the River Thames in the royal barge.
The Order of the Garter, the most esteemed state order of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, was conferred upon Sultan Abdulaziz by Queen Victoria. Besides that, the Queen proposed the notion of forging a kinship bond between the two dynasties by marrying a lady from the British Royal Family to Crown Prince Murad Efendi. However, the Sultan did not look favourably upon this matrimonial alliance.
Sultan Abdülaziz receiving the Order of the Garter from Queen Victoria
During his eleven-day visit to London, the Sultan participated in numerous official engagements, including invitations to balls, theatres, exhibitions, and concerts. He met with a variety of foreign diplomats and representatives from various communities. The Sultan, alongside the Queen, observed the manoeuvres of the British navy and subsequently visited the shipyards in Portsmouth. He also attended sessions of the House of Commons and listened to debates among MPs. He visited London City Hall as well, where he was honoured with the title of Honorary Citizen of London. During his stay in England, the Sultan generously donated 2,500 Ottoman gold coins to those who served him and to the needy.
Before leaving, the Sultan paid a visit to the residence of the late former Prime Minister Lord Palmerston who passed away two years prior, and extended his condolences to the family. He was known for his pro-Turkish and anti-Russian stance in European diplomacy during his time in office. The policy he followed had solidified the high regard held for him by Turkish authorities.
Final Days of Tour
On July 23, the Sultan and the Turkish delegation departed London and travelled from the port of Dover to Calais, France, escorted by the British navy. The next day, they proceeded to Brussels, where the Sultan dined with King Leopold II of Belgium before continuing on to Koblenz, Prussia, later that day. Upon his arrival in the city on July 25, the Sultan was greeted by King Wilhelm I of Prussia and Queen Augusta. During his stay, the Sultan participated in various festivities, conducted an inspection of the Prussian army, and, after a leisurely excursion on the Rhine River with Wilhelm I, departed the city for Vienna.
Arriving there on July 28, the Sultan was received with a grand ceremony attended by Austro-Hungarian Emperor Franz Joseph I, archdukes, and members of parliament. He remained in Vienna for three days, during which he explored the city, undertook a brief tour of the walls of Vienna Castle, and observed the artillery manoeuvres of the Austrian Army.
On July 31, the Sultan arrived in Budapest, an old Ottoman city, via ferry across the Danube River and took part in the official ceremonies. Hungarian noblemen, attired in Turkish-inspired dress and armed with swords, welcomed the royal fleet. Hungarian people expressed their gratitude to the Turkish Sultan for the protection of the Hungarians who had sought refuge in Ottoman lands in 1849.
On August 3, the Sultan crossed the Danube to Vidin by ferry once again and finally stepped into Ottoman territory. The next day he disembarked in Ruse, where he was welcomed by the Grand Vizier, the Ministers and the Romanian Prince Carol.
Back To Istanbul
The Sultan’s Imperial Carriage
Continuing on its way via Varna, the royal fleet ultimately entered the Bosphorus on the morning of 7 August. The Sultan’s return to the capital was announced with cannon fire from the castles along the Bosphorus. The people greeted their Sovereign with peerless fervour at the Dolmabahçe Palace pier, where they assembled in a throng of monumental grandeur. The words that Sultan Abdulaziz said while getting off the ship would go down in history as an expression of a bitter truth: “Our ancestors once embarked on horseback with the aim of conquest. Now we can only go by train or ferry for politics!…”.
In tribute to the Sovereign’s return, celebrations were held in the city over the course of three days.
Some images used on this blog are sourced from the internet and are assumed to be in the public domain. We make every effort to ensure proper attribution, but if you are the owner of an image and believe it has been used without proper permission, please contact us so we can give proper credit or remove the image as requested.
I use cookies to give you the best experience on my website. If you continue to use this site, I assume you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. Read More
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
