When Colonial Armies Shaped Modern Borders: The Enduring Legacy of WWI’s Middle Eastern Campaign
A century-old archival video of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force entering Jerusalem reveals how imperial military campaigns continue to haunt today’s geopolitical tensions.
The Forgotten Coalition That Redrew the Middle East
The Egyptian Expeditionary Force (EEF) represented one of World War I’s most diverse military coalitions, comprising British, Australian, New Zealand, Indian, and Egyptian troops who fought together against the Ottoman Empire from 1916 to 1918. Under General Edmund Allenby’s command, this force achieved what centuries of Crusaders had failed to do: capturing Jerusalem from Muslim rule in December 1917. The campaign, stretching from the Sinai Peninsula through Palestine and into Syria, fundamentally altered the political landscape of the Middle East.
The archival footage serves as a stark reminder of how European imperial powers orchestrated the dismantling of the 400-year-old Ottoman Empire, not through diplomatic negotiations but through military conquest. The EEF’s advance through Palestine was part of a broader British strategy to secure control over vital trade routes to India and access to Middle Eastern oil reserves, which were becoming increasingly crucial to modern warfare and industrial economies.
From Military Victory to Political Chaos
The British entry into Jerusalem marked more than a military achievement; it signaled the beginning of the modern Middle East’s most intractable conflicts. Even as Allenby’s forces marched through the Jaffa Gate on foot—a calculated gesture of humility contrasting with Kaiser Wilhelm II’s mounted entry two decades earlier—British officials were already making contradictory promises about the region’s future. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 had promised a Jewish homeland in Palestine, while the Hussein-McMahon correspondence suggested Arab independence, and the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement carved up the region between Britain and France.
These competing commitments, made during the heat of war to secure allies and resources, created a legacy of mistrust and conflict that persists today. The mandate system that followed, ostensibly designed to prepare former Ottoman territories for independence, instead entrenched European control and drew borders that often ignored ethnic, religious, and tribal realities on the ground. The straight lines drawn on maps in London and Paris created states like Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon that grouped together disparate populations with little shared national identity.
The Imperial Echo in Contemporary Conflicts
Today’s headlines from Gaza, Jerusalem, Syria, and Iraq cannot be fully understood without reference to the EEF’s campaign and its aftermath. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Syria’s civil war, Lebanon’s sectarian tensions, and Iraq’s struggles with Kurdish autonomy all have roots in the post-WWI settlement. The rise of groups like ISIS, which explicitly rejected the Sykes-Picot borders, demonstrates how powerfully these century-old decisions still resonate.
Moreover, the pattern of external military intervention followed by poorly planned political settlements continues to repeat itself. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, the 2011 intervention in Libya, and ongoing proxy conflicts in Syria and Yemen all echo the EEF’s campaign: military forces from distant powers reshaping local politics with insufficient understanding of or regard for local complexities. Each intervention promises liberation and progress but often delivers instability and resentment.
Lessons Unlearned
What makes this archival footage particularly poignant is how it captures a moment of apparent triumph that would spawn a century of tragedy. The soldiers marching into Jerusalem likely believed they were bringing civilization and order to a backwards region. British officials spoke of their “sacred trust” to develop these territories. Yet the fundamental contradiction—using military force to impose external visions of progress—doomed these efforts from the start.
Contemporary policymakers would do well to study this history more carefully. The Middle East’s current borders and conflicts are not ancient or inevitable; they are the direct result of decisions made in European capitals during and after World War I. Understanding this history is essential for anyone seeking to address today’s regional challenges, from the Syrian refugee crisis to Iranian-Saudi rivalry to the Abraham Accords.
As we watch this grainy footage of soldiers marching through Jerusalem’s streets, we might ask ourselves: How many of today’s military interventions and political settlements will haunt the world a century from now?
