As Palestine and Iraq continue their descent into the abyss, we react to the daily unfolding of dire events in the region with dismay, anger and horror. Both crises are seen as the outcome of current political and economic factors; in reality, they stem from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War.

But the process involved in the creation of Israel has a far longer history than many of us think. Indeed, we usually trace the event back to the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which committed the British Government to undertake to carve out a 'homeland for the Jewish people'.

The Muslim view of this perfidious act is that the British, by creating Israel, sought to dominate the region, control its oil supplies and secure the Suez Canal. These were certainly powerful motives driving British policy, but according to a new book 'God, Guns and Israel' by Jill Hamilton, the greatest thrust behind this pro-Zionist strategy was provided by religion.

This book has given me a host of new insights into what went on behind the scenes, and I will be using some of them in this article. In the prologue, Hamilton says:

"The motives behind the British decision to create a Jewish homeland have never been fully explained. Nor has a reason been given as to why the discussions leading up to it were never debated in the House of Commons... the final discussions took place behind the closed doors of 10 Downing Street... Because this [Balfour] declaration bears the name of the Foreign Secretary, Balfour, it is usually his name alone which is associated with the formation of the Jewish homeland, yet ... he only took up the idea after it was accepted by Lord George's War Cabinet, of which he was not a member..."

It turns out that seven out of the ten members of the War Cabinet were Nonconformists who included Baptists, Methodists, Unitarians, Presbyterians and Congregationalists, among others.

This broad strain of Christian belief held the Old Testament very close to its heart. This part of the scriptures is far longer than the later, post-Christ New Testament, and is firmly rooted in Judaism.

After the Reformation, a number of sects broke away from both the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church, insisting that they would not accept the intermediary role claimed by the priesthood. This movement was given a huge boost by the invention of the printing press and the translation of the Bible into other languages.

The Evangelical movement is very close to the Nonconformist tradition, and both view Palestine through their deep study of the Old Testament and the events and people it so vividly describes.

For millions, this is the actual history of the period. To believers, the return of the Jews to their ancient homeland is a prophecy that is their duty to see fulfilled. Indeed, the Evangelists firmly believe that the Second Coming of Christ can only occur once the Jews return to the Holy Land.

There is clearly a paradox here: the Jews have been persecuted by Christians for centuries, enduring the worst pogroms at the hands of the British, the Spanish, the Russians and the Poles.

This age-old persecution culminated in the Holocaust carried out by the Nazis, aided by many of their European collaborators. And yet, a well-placed group of powerful politicians who believed firmly in the Bible and its teachings made it possible for the Jews to finally realise their millennia- old dream of their own state.

The paradox can best be understood by the deep affinity between Judaism and Nonconformist Protestantism. Those studying divinity and theology at Oxford and Cambridge had to understand Hebrew, together with Latin and Greek.

From their childhood, Christians had thrilled to resonant names like Jericho and Bethlehem. It was the Calvinist, Protestant moral ethos that had shaped British politics and colonial policies during the last half of the reign of Queen Victoria.

The first call to resettle Jews in Palestine came as long ago as in 1621 when Sir Henry Finch, a Member of Parliament and legal adviser to King James I published 'The World's Great Restoration' in which he argued that the English people should support 'Jewish settlement in Palestine'.

But James I was angered by Finch's argument that he should pay homage to a Jewish king, and threw both the author and the publisher into jail. However, this book brought the biblical pledge into the consciousness of the increasingly vocal Protestant movement.

Although many took up cudgels for the Jews in subsequent years, it was not until Lloyd George came into power that the Zionist movement acquired its most ardent champion at the highest level of power in the UK, then the acknowledged superpower.

From him, the torch of Zionism was passed on to Woodrow Wilson who put the weight of America behind the enterprise in 1919, and then Truman who recognised Israel within an hour of Ben-Gurion's declaration of statehood in 1948. The quick American support was crucial in ensuring the nascent state's survival. The Soviet Union followed suit within hours.

The Balfour Declaration was adopted by the delegates to the Versailles Conference of 1919 in which the post-First World War world was carved up. Ironically (and revealingly), the idea was even endorsed by the Arab representative, Prince Feisal, son of Sharif al-Hussain of Mecca.

Feisal was determined to become king of Syria, but had to content himself with being made king of Iraq, a post-Ottoman construct comprising three Turkish provinces. Feisal was advised by T.E. Lawrence ('Lawrence of Arabia') who drafted a letter from the Arab prince which was published in the New York Times in which Feisal 'hoped the Jews and Arabs would work together to reform the Near East.'

Today, many opponents of the Zionist state are convinced that successive American governments support Israel because of the 'Jewish lobby' that is supposed to control American media and finance.

The reality is different: while America's six million Jews constitute only 2.5% of its population, it is the 'religious conservatives' and the Evangelicals that provide Israel with its core supporters, making up as they do between 15 and 18% of the electorate.

Indeed, we are so accustomed to think of Christianity as a monolithic faith (just as Christians think of Islam as a single religion without schisms and differences), that we do not consider the implications of a deeply divided belief. Until we work towards a more nuanced approach, we will continue lashing out at shadows and speaking in slogans.

But whatever the future holds for the region and its people, one can only admire the tenacity with which the Children of Zion have clung to their dream. However, it is the ultimate irony that after centuries of struggle, now that Jews have achieved their goal, they are behaving as the very people who persecuted them.