There were three pivotal battles fought by Australian and New Zealand (ANZAC) soldiers during the First World War in the Middle East region. These were at Gallipoli, Gaza and Beersheba. The outcome of these battles helped establish the Jewish state of Israel. Had we won at Gallipoli then the Ottoman Turkish Empire would have collapsed. Russia would have seized the Dardanelles, Bosphorus Straits and Constantinople and incorporated them into the Russian Empire. France would most likely have taken control over the province of Syria, including what was known as Palestine.
The region of Palestine was of strategic importance as it lay on the east side of the Suez Canal. It has always been of strategic importance, especially during Biblical times when it was known as ‘the land of Israel’ (Matthew 2: 20-21). The term Palestine was officially given to this land by the Romans after they defeated the Jewish people in 135 AD (CE) – in an attempt to erase the Jewish connection to the land. The name is derived from Philistia, a pagan entity which in Biblical times was constantly in conflict with Israel. The classic battle was between David and Goliath, which David construed as being between the God of Israel and the gods of the Philistines. The centre of Philistine activity was at Gaza – the gateway into the land of Israel from Egypt.
Since the seventh century AD (CE) Gaza and the land of Israel were mostly under the physical and spiritual hegemony of one Islamic regime or another. Islam was an imperialist ideology originating in pagan Arabia, and it claimed the land of Israel was part of dar al Islam, the region of Islam.
In the modern period the defence and security of the Suez Canal was of prime importance for Britain, as it controlled the link to India, Australia and New Zealand. With these factors in mind the British Government began formulating plans for how best to keep the land of Israel out of French control. The defeat at Gallipoli allowed Britain time to develop these plans.
In 1916 the Turks attempted to seize the strategic Suez Canal by force through the Sinai. The British then formed the Egyptian Expeditionary Force (EEF) which included the Australian Light Horse and New Zealand Mounted Rifles, tasked with capturing the Sinai. By the end of 1916 they had succeeded. Then Prime Minister David Lloyd George ordered that the entire province of Syria be captured.
Two defeats followed at Gaza, with the loss of many ANZAC lives. A new strategy was then adopted; to capture the inland town of Beersheba, a town associated with the Biblical patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – to whom, according to the Jewish and Christian Holy Scriptures, the land of Israel was bequeathed by a covenant promise which was sealed with an oath. General Edmund Allenby took over command of the EEF.
The British Government then had to decide the future status of the land of Israel following its capture. The Jewish nationalist movement, the Zionist Organisation, then presented a proposal in June 1917 for the establishment of a Jewish national entity in Palestine.
During previous years numerous British strategists had the same idea, including Col George Gawler former governor of South Australia, in order to protect the road to India and the eastern empire. Additionally, ever since the Protestant Reformation, Bible-believing Christians had been advocating for Israel’s restoration. These Puritans and Evangelicals included Lord Shaftesbury, Rev. Robert Murray McCheyne, Rev. Charles Spurgeon, and Bishop J. C. Ryle. They believed a physical restoration of Israel must occur in order to validate the covenant-keeping character of Almighty God; and because the Jewish nation would need to be in the land of Israel prior to the return of Jesus to Jerusalem.
The British Government was set to vote on this proposal on 31 October 1917. On that same day Allenby’s force was to attack at Beersheba. The future of the former Ottoman Turkish Empire hinged upon the outcome of this battle.
In the morning British infantry began their assault and captured their positions. Then the New Zealand Mounted Rifles captured their main position, the ancient Tel Sab, and in the late afternoon the Australian Fourth Light Horse Brigade charged in and completed the victory. This charge is now embedded in ANZAC military history and is part of our national heritage.
At about the same time as the charge was taking place the members of the British War Committee met in London and voted in favour of establishing a Jewish National Home in Palestine.
These two events, the victory at Beersheba and the vote in London for establishing a Jewish National Home in the land of Israel, are two parts of a whole.[i]
Following this victory Jaffa was captured by the New Zealanders on 16 November; Jerusalem was captured on 9 December 1917, mostly by British forces, but assisted by the 10th Light Horse Regiment. On 11 December General Allenby entered into the Old City for the official ‘surrender’ ceremony and part of his guard of honour involved some 65 ANZAC horsemen. Then in February 1918 Jericho was captured by ANZAC horsemen; on 25 September 1918 the Sea of Galilee was captured mostly by the 11th Light Horse Regiment and 3rd Light Horse Brigade, and then on 1 October Damascus was captured by the 10th Light Horse Regiment. The ANZAC Mounted Division was primarily responsible for capturing the region of Transjordan.[ii]
By 31 October 1918 the Ottoman Turkish Empire was defeated. The power and control of Islam over the land of Israel had been nullified. This was an important aspect of this military victory. Although Jewish people had been praying for a restoration to the land of Israel since the time of the exile under the Romans, and Evangelical Christians had been advocating for such a Jewish restoration since the 1600s, this could never happen while Islam controlled the region.
Islamic jurists claim that the land of Israel is part of the region of dar al Islam, the region of Islam, and is part of the inheritance not of Abraham’s son Isaac, but of Abraham’s oldest son, Ishmael. Jewish and Christian peoples claim that the covenant promises bestowed upon Abraham were transferred to Isaac and then to his younger son Jacob – also known as Israel.
The issue at stake here is of great importance, even though many will dismiss this so-called ‘religious’ component. The fact is, the entire conflict revolves around this so-called ‘religious’ component.
In time four Islamic-dominated Arabic-speaking nations were established in those areas liberated by the British, Indian and ANZAC forces, namely Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. A very small percentage of that liberated area was earmarked for the Jewish National Home.
When the League of Nations in 1922 bestowed upon Britain the responsibility of preparing the land of Israel for a Jewish National Home, they recognised the ‘historic’ (meaning Biblical) connection between the Jewish people and this strategic land. Their decision for the establishment of a Jewish National Home was then enshrined into international law. Australia and New Zealand were both signatories to this decision.
Opponents to Israel’s restoration
Just as the Jewish returnees from exile in Babylon in circa 539 BC were met by opposition, so too there was much opposition to this modern-day restoration – which prophets such as Isaiah had predicted would happen some 2500 years before (Isaiah 11: 10-12).
This opposition, which was both political and physical, was spearheaded by Arab nationalists, led by the Muslim spiritual leader, Haj Amin el-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem. Haj Amin became the arch-type anti-Semite of his time. Opposition to the Jewish people in Europe then intensified with the rise of Nazism, which in the 1930 began to collude with the Arab nationalist movement in the Middle East.
Arrival of the second ANZACS
After the Second World War broke out the Australian and New Zealand governments sent four infantry divisions to the Middle East. The Australian 6th, 7th and 9th Divisions completed their training and were mostly based in the Gaza area from 1940 until 1943. From there they went and fought battles all over the Eastern Mediterranean/Middle East region. Their presence was integral to the safety and security of the 700,000 or so Jewish people of this region. The Australian soldiers were colloquially known as the ‘Diggers’ and many had played an important role in stopping the German-led thrust towards the Suez Canal in 1941, mostly at Tobruk.
Unfortunately, not all of the residents of the Middle East appreciated the presence of the ANZAC soldiers. Many within the Arab nationalist movement sympathised with the Nazi-led German regime, with Haj Amin openly collaborating with the Nazis. He lived in Germany and held audience with Adolf Hitler.
While he was in Germany the Nazi leadership made a crucial decision at a meeting in Wannsee on the outskirts of Berlin on 20 January 1942, calling for the murder and complete liquidation of eleven million Jewish people living in Europe – and surrounding regions. This included North Africa and the Middle East.
Then on 4-5 July 1942 Nazi leader Heinrich Himmler executed an order for the establishment of a specialised murder squad named the Einsatzkommando Agypten (Einsatzkommando Egypt) to be despatched to the Eastern Mediterranean. It was headed up by notorious Nazi mass-murderer Walter Rauff. His instructions were to implement the decision of the Wannsee Conference – of wiping out the Jewish people in the Middle East.
The Einsatzkommando Agypten, however, was only composed of some twenty-four Nazis. How could they implement the murder of 700,000 or so Jewish people in Egypt, ‘Palestine’, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria? They would utilise local collaborators, just as the Einsatzgruppen and other murder units did in the Soviet Union. There they murdered some two million Jewish people – and many of these executioners and collaborators were local Nazi sympathisers.
“At about the same time as the charge was taking place the members of the British War Committee met in London and voted in favour of establishing a Jewish National Home in Palestine.”
The local collaborators in the Middle East would likely be associated with the Arab nationalist stream, including the Muslim Brotherhood. They took their inspiration from Haj Amin el-Husseini – who was involved behind the scenes for the implementation of this plan.
The Nazi unit was based at Athens awaiting the German-led victory at El Alamein. Thankfully no such Axis victory resulted. At both the first and second battles of El Alamein from July-November 1942 soldiers of the British Empire (Commonwealth) defeated the soldiers of the German Reich and Italy.
All the Jewish and freedom-loving peoples in the Middle East were relieved. This sentiment is summated in the words of a Bible (Hebrew Tenach) given later to Field Marshal Montgomery by the Jewish leadership, which stated: ‘Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery, the gallant leader of the victorious British forces by whose hand God has placed salvation in Zion in the days of El Alamein.’[iii]
Many thousands of Allied soldiers were killed in the battles of El Alamein, including several thousand ANZACs. ANZAC soldiers played a huge role in protecting the Middle East from the genocidal policies of the Nazi regime – and their local collaborators.
Further conflict after the war
After the War the Arab nationalist movement continued in its efforts to stop the establishment of a Jewish National Home. The United Nations then took over control of the Mandate, to determine the best solution for the future of the land of Israel. They decided upon a plan of partition, and on 29 November 1947 a majority of nations voted for the establishment in Palestine of both a Jewish State and an Arab State. Australia and New Zealand voted in favour.
The collective Arab leadership (the Arab Higher Committee in Palestine and the nations of the Arab League), unfortunately refused to accept the decision of the United Nations. They refused the opportunity of establishing an independent Arab nation within the land of Israel west of the Jordan River.
On 14 May 1948 hours before Britain’s Mandate over Palestine ended, Israel declared its Statehood. The member states of the Arab League, in defiance of the United Nations decision, then immediately invaded the fledgling Jewish State.
The spiritual dynamics behind the conflict in the land of Israel
Why did the collective Arab leadership defy the United Nations decision; why did they refuse to establish their own national entity; and why would they not agree to the possibility of allowing both peoples to attain their national aspirations? In brief, because they preferred to destroy the nascent Jewish State of Israel rather than establishing their own state.
The reasoning behind this decision cannot be fully rationalised. It is very similar to the question of why is there anti-Semitism. Both defy logic, as both are spiritual matters. The Arabic-speaking and Islamic nations cannot tolerate the existence of a Jewish national entity in the land of Israel, be it small or large, because it is related to the spiritual forces energising Islam. These forces are in opposition to the universal redemptive plan of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – which Christians see as being consummated in Jesus.
Central to this redemptive plan was that Almighty God promised the land of Israel on oath to Abraham (Genesis 15) and through him to Isaac and Jacob. One very important principle of covenant is that once a promise has been sealed with an oath then it cannot be broken. When Almighty God cuts covenant and seals the promises with an oath then blessings will follow from obedience and compliance, but curses will follow from disobedience and non-compliance. Incidentally the promise of the land in perpetuity was not contingent upon the people of Israel living in obedience to the conditions of the Sinai-Mosaic Covenant, as the land promise belonged to the former binding covenant with Abraham.
The battle therefore is not essentially about Israel against Arab nationalism or Islamic fundamentalism in whatever form, be it the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran etc. The stated goals of these entities is for the liquidation of the modern State of Israel, as epitomised in that slogan – ‘From the river to the sea Palestine shall be free.’
For clarity on this matter, one should be acquainted with the original Palestine National Covenant which is the ‘Constitution’ of the PLO, and the contemporary Hamas Charter. Both are unambiguous – Palestine as they call it, the land of Israel, is to be restored to Arab Islamic authority.
The PLO is mostly associated with Yasser Arafat, who was ideologically a protégé of Haj Amin el-Husseini – the close associate of Adolf Hitler. Arafat could be seen as the arch-type anti-Semite in the modern period. One wonders what our diplomats and politicians really thought after they had held audience with Arafat.
The battle over the land of Israel is a battle about the very integrity of Almighty God. Does the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob keep His covenant promises? Islam maintains that it, and not Israel, is the custodian of the covenant promises given to Abraham, and that these promises went through the line of Ishmael and not through the line of Isaac and Jacob. Islamic tradition holds that Ishmael went to Mecca and was a direct ancestor of Muhammad. Islamic jurists would maintain that Jewish scribes changed the text of the Torah, inserting Isaac in place of Ishmael. [iv] There is no room for ambivalence here. It can only be one son or the other.
In this context does anyone really think that those who refused to accept the validity of Israel’s national existence in 1947 – and thereafter – will adopt a different attitude today? If so just look at the outcome to the unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. After that withdrawal there were no Israeli citizens or military presence in Gaza. Yet neither the Palestinian Authority (PA) or Hamas established a thriving and safe national entity there. I witnessed this as I then often took tours to that very region for some twenty years, and there were more terrorist incursions and rocket attacks into Israel after 2005 than prior to the Israeli withdrawal. Where’s the logic in that scenario?
The witness of the ANZAC Memorial
One of the main places I took my ‘In the footsteps of Allenby and the ANZACS’ tours was to the ANZAC Memorial at Kibbutz Beeri adjacent to Gaza. This Memorial is in the general area where the Light Horse and Mounted Rifles fought in 1917, and is also near to where the Australian ‘Diggers’ (including my own uncles) trained from 1940 onwards before going to fight and stop the Fascist and Nazi threat from entering into the land.
This ANZAC Memorial is like a witness attesting to our presence and role during both World Wars: of how our men fought and died so that the power of Islam could be broken over the land of Israel; and of how our men fought and died to ensure the spirit of Nazism and its evil designs did not succeed in destroying the Jewish people and democratic freedoms.
It is there as a reminder to us that we have a responsibility to continue to uphold those values, especially as our current government seems to be heading in a direction of actually overturning the achievements of what our brave soldiers have fought for. I am not talking here about the genuine needs of the Arabic-speaking residents of Gaza, Judea and Samaria. These needs are real and need to be considered. But addressing these needs must not be at the expense of sacrificing the genuine needs for Israel to maintain its safety and integrity.
We, and especially our governments, must realise that the ultimate aim of the Islamic world is not the establishment of an independent Arabic-speaking State alongside the Jewish majority State of Israel – it is for the ultimate destruction of the State of Israel and the reconquest of that region to bring it under Islamic spiritual control. If this happens then what will happen to the non-Muslim peoples living there? Israel most certainly is not a perfect democratic country, but it surpasses the surrounding countries in regards to human liberties and freedom.
Our peoples, our governments, must understand the broader dynamics of this conflict, and we must make the right decision to stand on the side of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. To do otherwise will be folly, and will ultimately lead to dire consequences. This issue concerning to whom were the covenant promises bestowed, Isaac or Ishmael, is a real and tangible issue. Australia and New Zealand will be greatly blessed if they choose the right son, but will endure severe consequences if they choose the wrong son.
© Kelvin Crombie 2025. Heritage Resources.
[i] This decision is thereafter known as the Balfour Declaration.
[ii] Throughout this entire campaign most of the soldiers were from Britain, Australia, New Zealand and India.
[iii] This Bible is now on display in the Christ Church Heritage Centre, Jerusalem.
[iv] Abrahamic covenant: Isaac or Ishmael from a Quranic perspective, in www azahari.blog/2024/10/05/abrahamic-covenant-isaac-or-ishmael-from-a-quranic-perpective.
0 Comments