Then why did they take over Palestine? What is the end goal if it’s not money?

I guess my simplification does come off as super evil. The money to gain by doing what the population would want is a long term. Their control was slipping in India so the Empire was on full decline. To me it was reactionary damage control to try and keep it.

I appreciate your input though so I’m not tryin to come off as argumentative. But I’m not always good at that. Definitely learning a lot from the comments as a whole.

But both can be true. All the allies, not just Britain should have done more. And Britain had plenty to gain by leaning more towards the arabic people. They took the land for money and they tried to maintain control for money. There is no other reason for them to be there other than that.

And if I came across hostile towards you, completely unintentional. Just adding to the conversation.

Why else would you control land that is not yours to begin with? You don’t get to just pick “middle east hotbed” and not acknowledge why colonialism happened in the first place. The whole comment chain started because of it being on the British.

By stemming the tide of jewish refugees and putting the process in the hands of the Arabis, they fully intended to fix their image and maintain control. So they absolutely had money to gain.

The fact that they limited jewish asylum seekers trying to enter Palestine to just 15,000 a year during the late 1930’s through the 1940’s. Because money.

Edit: I’m not sure what you down voters expected other than a factual answer.

Edit 2: I’ll keep my statement but also admit to oversimplifying the complex problem.

The neat thing is they continued to screw over Jewish people at one of the worst times. So at that point it was a feature of the system for sure.