Britain in Palestine
Cultural Connection
'Britain in Palestine,' the latest exhibtion to be held at The Brunei Gallery at SOAS, offers a unique historical perspective on a topic that is often denied reasoned dialogue.
Local children and British band Jaffa, 1930s (credit: SOAS)
It succeeds for the most part, although—invariably on a subject as contested, vast, and prone to intellectual and political conflict—it has some flaws.
The exhibition sets out to “tell the story of what happened to Palestine and its people under the British mandate for Palestine. It will show how and why Britain got involved in Palestine, and the impact of British rule upon the country. Vivid and moving personal stories will portray the dilemmas of ordinary people caught up in the extraordinary circumstances of mandate-era Palestine featuring dramatic photographs, personal testimonies, important original documents, and poignant personal belongings that have survived from the time.”
Overall, it does this in a way that is historically accurate, analytical, and fair minded.
Still, there are some major omissions.
The exhibit only minimally addresses Jordan’s (or as it was originally called, Trans-Jordan’s) relationship to Palestine, neglecting to acknowledge that of which was originally included in the Balfour Declaration alongside Palestine as one entity, which was proposed to include a homeland for the Jewish people. Four fifths of that land was ultimately dedicated to the creation of an Arab state in Jordan, and Jews were barred from settling there.
British Palestine Policemen in Haifa, 1946-47.
There is a complex history of violent conflict as well as cooperation between the differing religious and ethnic communities of Palestine, but the exhibit largely focuses on the conflict.
More acknowledgment of the often peaceful day-to-day relations between the communities would have provided greater context and helped provide greater understanding of the interactions of the communities, which were not necessarily defined by conflict. However, conflict punctuated the years of British rule in Palestine.
Finally, the issue of the Holocaust and the fact that Britain effectively closed Palestine to Jewish immigration and thus sealed the fate of millions of European Jews who would be murdered in the Holocaust—by refusing to offer them even temporary refuge in Palestine—receives little attention.
The exhibit mentions it in passing, but the disastrous consequences for the Jews of Europe are barely alluded to: hundreds of thousands of innocent lives—possibly millions—could have been saved had Britain allowed Jewish immigration to Palestine (even only temporarily) and lifted the drastic restrictions it had issued in the 1939 White Paper that played a devastating role in sealing the fate of the European Jewry.
The exhibit is particularly strong in its depictions of the colonial conflicts that led to Britain’s mandate in Palestine.
The exhibit is particularly strong in its depictions of the colonial conflicts that led to Britain’s mandate in Palestine, and to the way in which the Ottoman Empire, France, Britain, and Russia jockeyed for power and influence in the Middle East while paying lip service to the rights and welfare of local populations affected by these power struggles for political control and resources.
It states honestly and without caveat, “Under the British, Palestine was less democratic than it had been under Ottoman rule.” But it is careful not to romanticize Ottoman rule either, which also often impacted local populations in negative ways—requiring military service in Ottoman forces for men, for example.
The exhibition also sensitively depicts the plight of the local Palestinian Arab population, Jewish refugees escaping persecution in Europe, and orphaned children after World War I.
One particularly moving panel includes photos and descriptions of orphans being cared for at a Christian Jerusalem orphanage. They are all of different faiths and backgrounds but share the experiences of loss and suffering as a result of the War.
There are also fascinating letters, objects, and memorabilia from British soldiers, residents of Palestine, new immigrants, and family members of British doctors and missionaries who lived there.
A letter from a Jewish emigrant from Vilna to his parents reveals that many of the cultural differences that are still observed today between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv were already evident as early as 1929.
He wrote home, “You can’t at all imagine the frivolousness and impulsivity, hedonism and empty-headedness that pervades in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem seems to me in comparison so serious, dignified, and deliberate, and I like that.”
Of course the differences run deeper than that as well, with Tel Aviv being a more secular and liberal city, Jerusalem more religious and conservative, as well as ancient in comparison to Tel Aviv’s youthful vitality.
Images of Palestinian refugees, video testimonies, and objects from the homes to which many did not return convey the tremendous loss and displacement they suffered.
Unfortunately, the exhibition closes with a panel that detracts from much of the analytical rigor and accuracy that characterizes it. The panel refers to Arab armies “entering” Palestine, when in fact they had not entered it but declared war upon it and violated the UN partition agreements creating two states, one Jewish and one Arab in Palestine. This is not made clear.
It then states that “750,000 Arabs ended up in refugee camps following the 1948 war for Palestine, the Nakba.”
The Nakba refers to the catastrophe of this displacement, and the war is generally considered by Israelis to be a war of independence and self-defense against invading Arab armies who rejected the UN partition plan, as did most of the local Arab militias. Some acknowledgment of this is necessary to adequately depict both perspectives.
A more careful and accurate rendering of this final component of the exhibit would have maintained its otherwise nuanced and fair approach which includes a variety of voices and perspectives and consequently offers valuable insight into the history of Palestine under Britain.
This is a comprehensive and well crafted exhibition which will educate even those with a strong knowledge of the history and politics of the British rule of Palestine.
It also humanizes the diverse protagonists—perhaps one of the exhibit’s strongest elements.
British fighting terror in Palestine
ReplyDeleteHow the British Fought Arab Terror in Jenin and elsewhere in Palestine
"Demolishing the homes of Arab civilians…" "Shooting handcuffed prisoners…" "Forcing local Arabs to test areas where mines may have been planted…" These sound like the sort of accusations made by British and other European officials concerning Israel's recent actions in. In fact, they are descriptions from official British documents concerning the methods used by the British authorities to combat Palestinian Arab terrorism in Palestine and elsewhere in 1938.
The documents were declassified by London in 1989. They provide details of the British Mandatory government's response to the assassination of a British district commissioner by a Palestinian Arab terrorist in Jenin in the summer of 1938. Even after the suspected assassin was captured (and then shot dead while allegedly trying to escape), the British authorities decided that "a large portion of the town should be blown up" as punishment. On August 25 of that year, a British convoy brought 4,200 kilos of explosives to Jenin for that purpose. In the Jenin operation and on other occasions, local Arabs were forced to drive "mine-sweeping taxis" ahead of British vehicles in areas where Palestinian Arab terrorists were believed to have planted mines, in order "to reduce [British] land mine casualties." The British authorities frequently used these and similar methods to combat Palestinian Arab terrorism in the late 1930s. British forces responded to the presence of terrorists in the Arab village of Miar, north of Haifa, by blowing up house after house in October 1938. "When the troops left, there was little else remaining of the once busy village except a pile of mangled masonry," the New York Times reported.
The declassified documents refer to an incident in Jaffa in which a handcuffed prisoner was shot by the British police. Under Emergency Regulation 19b, the British Mandate government could demolish any house located in a village where terrorists resided, even if that particular house had no direct connection to terrorist activity. Mandate official Hugh Foot later recalled "When we thought that a village was harboring rebels, we would go there and mark one of the large houses. Then, if an incident was traced to that village, we would blow up the house we had marked." The High Commissioner for Palestine, Harold MacMichael, defended the practice "The provision is drastic, but the situation has demanded drastic powers."
MacMichael was furious over what he called the "grossly exaggerated accusations" that England's critics were circulating concerning British anti-terror tactics in Palestine. Arab allegations that British soldiers gouged out the eyes of Arab prisoners were quoted prominently in the Nazi German press and elsewhere.
The declassified documents also record discussions among officials of the Colonial Office concerning the anti-terror methods used in Palestine. Lord Dufferin remarked "British lives are being lost and I do not think that we, from the security of Whitehall, can protest squeamishly about measures taken by the men in the frontline." Sir John Shuckburgh defended the tactics on the grounds that the British were confronted "not with a chivalrous opponent playing the game according to the rules, but with gangsters and murderers."
There were many differences between British policy in the 1930's and Israeli policy today, but two stand out. The first is that the British, faced with a level of Palestinian Arab terrorism considerably less lethal than that which Israel faces today, nevertheless utilized anti-terror methods considerably harsher than those used by Israeli forces. The second is that when the situation became unbearable, the British could go home; the Israelis, by contrast, have no other place to go.