The Palestine Revolt of 1936
and Other Arab-Israeli Prehistory
Outside of a perennial longing of Jews to return to the land from which they had been exiled millennia ago the Zionist movement traces to the Dreyfus Affair. Russian pogroms had already taught Jews of their tenuous existence in eastern Europe;
Dreyfus showed that even in liberal France where Jews had legal equality safety was at best an illusion. The goal of Zionism was simple, find some land, somewhere, where Jews could live in peace.
Balfour Declaration
From a Zionist point of view the 1917 Balfour Declaration, which stated British support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, was a simple advancement of their stated goals. The British hoped the declaration would stimulate interest in the United States to enter World War I and encourage Jewish Bolsheviks in Russia to continue fighting Germany. Of course, at the same time others in the British government were promising Palestine to Arabs.
Hebron Massacre
By 1929, Arab resentment against Jewish immigration and the British failure to keep their promises of independent Arab states boiled over. A minor dispute over a screen erected at the Wailing Wall escalated into a pogrom. Arab rioters attacked Jews throughout Palestine. The worst of these occurred in Hebron. Rioters ravaged the city, breaking into homes and murdering the inhabitants. In all, 67 Jews were killed and British troops took all of the remaining Jewish survivors out of the city for their own safety. Jews were not allowed in the city again until 1967.
There was another Hebron Massacre. In 1994, an Israeli born in the United States attacked worshipers in a Hebron mosque killing 29, although some Arab sources claim the death toll equal to the 1929 massacre.
Hebron, where Abraham settled and made his covenant with God, is holy to both Arabs and Jews.
The Palestine Revolt of 1936
Now we come to the meat of things. The 1936 revolt was a defining moment in Arab-Jewish relations and, strangely, saw the first uses of some now common strategies.
The riots started after the Mufti of Jerusalem called for a general strike and boycott of all Jewish businesses. Gangs would attack Jewish buses by throwing rocks (as in the later Intifadas). The picture above shows an armored bus of the time. The Irgun responded with a program of terror bombings targeting non-combatants that became the template for modern Palestinian terror campaigns.
The British were initially overwhelmed. One of the strategies they developed was the use of human shields. They would take Arab hostages and tie them to the front of trucks ("the bonnets of lorries," to use the British expression), or place them in front of trains so any attack on troop transports would first kill innocent Arabs.
British Army Captain Orde Wingate organized elite counter-insurgency units called Special Night Squads (above, during the day). These units were manned by Jews and led by Brits. Wingate was an evangelical Christian who devoutly believed there had to be a Jewish state in Palestine for the anti-Christ to annihilate as a precursor to the second coming of Jesus.
The Arab Revolt of 1936 caused the flight of Palestine's intellectual and financial leadership. Much like in Iraq, any Arab who could leave did. The number of Palestinian Arabs willing to work with and coexist with Jews evaporated.
Of course, the British paid back the Jewish leadership that stayed loyal to England during the revolt by stabbing them in the back and cutting off German Jewish refugee access to Palestine
British White Papers:
Balfour Declaration
Hebron Massacre
There was another Hebron Massacre. In 1994, an Israeli born in the United States attacked worshipers in a Hebron mosque killing 29, although some Arab sources claim the death toll equal to the 1929 massacre.
Hebron, where Abraham settled and made his covenant with God, is holy to both Arabs and Jews.
The Palestine Revolt of 1936
The riots started after the Mufti of Jerusalem called for a general strike and boycott of all Jewish businesses. Gangs would attack Jewish buses by throwing rocks (as in the later Intifadas). The picture above shows an armored bus of the time. The Irgun responded with a program of terror bombings targeting non-combatants that became the template for modern Palestinian terror campaigns.
when you'd finished your duty you would come away nothing had happened no bombs or anything and the driver would switch his wheel back and to make the truck waver and the poor wog on the front would roll off into the deck. Well if he was lucky he'd get away with a broken leg but if he was unlucky the truck behind coming up behind would hit him. But nobody bothered to pick up the bits they were left. ~sourceThe British also tortured both Arab and Jewish prisoners (although mostly Arabs) using electronic shock, whippings, and waterboarding. The British used a strategy that the Israel Defense Force has adopted of demolishing the homes of suspected Arab "troublemakers."
The Arab Revolt of 1936 caused the flight of Palestine's intellectual and financial leadership. Much like in Iraq, any Arab who could leave did. The number of Palestinian Arabs willing to work with and coexist with Jews evaporated.
Of course, the British paid back the Jewish leadership that stayed loyal to England during the revolt by stabbing them in the back and cutting off German Jewish refugee access to Palestine
Arab Investigation Centres were torture centres established by the British administration during the 1936-1939 Great Arab Revolt in Mandate Palestine.[1]
The Centres were established on the authority of Sir Charles Tegart, a senior police officer ‘headhunted’ from British India.[1] Victims were waterboarded and generally given the ‘third degree’ until they ‘spilled the beans’.[1] One such centre in a Jewish quarter of West Jerusalem was closed only after colonial official Edward Keith-Roach, the governor of Jerusalem, complained to the High Commissioner.[1] Keith-Roach argued that ‘questionable practises [sic]’ were counter-productive both in terms of the information gathered and the effect on local people's confidence in the police.[1] The Anglican Archdeacon in Palestine believed police abuses were the cause of the violence rather than a response to it. He detailed the daily complaints from Arabs of beatings at the hands of rampaging police officers in a letter to the Mandate Chief Secretary in 1936.[1] An Anglican chaplain in Haifa also wrote to the Lord Bishop in Jerusalem, Graham Brown, in December 1937 about an incident he witnessed in which a suspect whose teeth were already knocked out before he was brought into the station was given another brutal beating:[1]
Palestinians themselves also made complaints to the authorities.[1] There are accounts in Arabic of suspects being tortured, being beaten until they were unable to walk, being blown to bits, being left in open cages in the sun without sustenance, being beaten with wet ropes, ‘boxed’ and having their teeth smashed, of having their feet burnt with oil and of ‘needles’ being used on suspects and of dogs being set upon Arab detainees.[1] British and Jewish auxiliary forces maltreated Arabs by having them hold heavy stones and then beating them when they dropped them.[1] Guards also used bayonets on sleep-deprived men and made them wear bells around their necks and then dance.[1]
Arab prisoners jumped to their deaths from high windows to escape their captors, had their testicles tied with cord, were tortured with strips of wood with nails in, had wire tightened around their big toes, hair was torn from their faces and heads, special instruments were used to extract fingernails, red hot skewers were used on detainees, prisoners were sodomised, boiling oil and intoxicants were used on prisoners, as were electric shocks, and water was funnelled into suspects’ stomachs. There were also mock executions.[1]
Despite protests and revulsion expressed even by British officials and Anglican clergy extrajudicial executions, torture, beatings and general violence remained commonplace responses by the police during the Arab revolt.[1]
British White Papers:
White Paper of 1939
(1939)
White Papers: Table of Contents | Churchill Paper (1922) | Passfield Paper (1930)
 |
In the statement on Palestine, issued on 9 November, 1938, His Majesty's Government announced their intention to invite representatives of the Arabs of Palestine, of certain neighboring countries and of the Jewish Agency to confer with them in London regarding future policy. It was their sincere hope that, as a result of full, free and frank discussions, some understanding might be reached. Conferences recently took place with Arab and Jewish delegations, lasting for a period of several weeks, and served the purpose of a complete exchange of views between British Ministers and the Arab and Jewish representatives. In the light of the discussions as well as of the situation in Palestine and of the Reports of the Royal Commission and the Partition Commission, certain proposals were formulated by His Majesty's Government and were laid before the Arab and Jewish Delegations as the basis of an agreed settlement. Neither the Arab nor the Jewish delegation felt able to accept these proposals, and the conferences therefore did not result in an agreement. Accordingly His Majesty's Government are free to formulate their own policy, and after careful consideration they have decided to adhere generally to the proposals which were finally submitted to and discussed with the Arab and Jewish delegations.
The Mandate for Palestine, the terms of which were confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations in 1922, has governed the policy of successive British Governments for nearly 20 years. It embodies the Balfour Declaration and imposes on the Mandatory four main obligations. These obligations are set out in Article 2, 6 and 13 of the Mandate. There is no dispute regarding the interpretation of one of these obligations, that touching the protection of and access to the Holy Places and religious building or sites. The other three main obligations are generally as follows:
To place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People. To facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions, and to encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency, close settlement by Jews on the Land.
To safeguard the civil and religious rights of all inhabitants of Palestine irrespective of race and religion, and, whilst facilitating Jewish immigration and settlement, to ensure that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced.
To place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the development of self governing institutions.
The Royal Commission and previous commissions of Enquiry have drawn attention to the ambiguity of certain expressions in the Mandate, such as the expression `a national home for the Jewish people', and they have found in this ambiguity and the resulting uncertainty as to the objectives of policy a fundamental cause of unrest and hostility between Arabs and Jews. His Majesty's Government are convinced that in the interests of the peace and well being of the whole people of Palestine a clear definition of policy and objectives is essential. The proposal of partition recommended by the Royal Commission would have afforded such clarity, but the establishment of self supporting independent Arab and Jewish States within Palestine has been found to be impracticable. It has therefore been necessary for His Majesty's Government to devise an alternative policy which will, consistent with their obligations to Arabs and Jews, meet the needs of the situation in Palestine. Their views and proposals are set forth below under three heads, Section I, "The Constitution", Section II. Immigration and Section III. Land.
Section I. "The Constitution"
It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration. But, with the Royal Commission, His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.The nature of the Jewish National Home in Palestine was further described in theCommand Paper of 1922 as follows"During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community now numbering 80,000, of whom about one fourth are farmers or workers upon the land. This community has its own political organs; an elected assembly for the direction of its domestic concerns; elected councils in the towns; and an organisation for the control of its schools. It has its elected Chief Rabbinate and Rabbinical Council for the direction of its religious affairs. Its business is conducted in Hebrew as a vernacular language, and a Hebrew press serves its needs. It has its distinctive intellectual life and displays considerable economic activity. This community, then, with its town and country population, its political, religious and social organisations, its own language, its own customs, its own life, has in fact `national' characteristics. When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognised to rest upon ancient historic connection."His Majesty's Government adhere to this intepretation of the (Balfour) Declaration of 1917 and regard it as an authoritative and comprehensive description of the character of the Jewish National Home in Palestine. It envisaged the further development of the existing Jewish community with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world. Evidence that His Majesty's Government have been carrying out their obligation in this respect is to be found in the facts that, since the statement of 1922 was published, more than 300,000 Jews have immigrated to Palestine, and that the population of the National Home has risen to some 450,000, or approaching a third of the entire population of the country. Nor has the Jewish community failed to take full advantage of the opportunities given to it. The growth of the Jewish National Home and its acheivements in many fields are a remarkable constructive effort which must command the admiration of the world and must be, in particular, a source of pride to the Jewish people.In the recent discussions the Arab delegations have repeated the contention that Palestine was included within the area in which Sir Henry McMahon, on behalf of the British Government, in October, 1915, undertook to recognise and support Arab independence. The validity of this claim, based on the terms of the correspondence which passed between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sharif of Mecca, was thoroughly and carefully investigated by the British and Arab representatives during the recent conferences in London. Their report, which has been published, states that both the Arab and the British representatives endeavoured to understand the point of view of the other party but that they were unable to reach agreement upon an interpretation of the correspondence. There is no need to summarize here the arguments presented by each side. His Majesty's Government regret the misunderstandings which have arisen as regards some of the phrases used. For their part they can only adhere, for the reasons given by their representatives in the Report, to the view that the whole of Palestine west of Jordan was excluded from Sir Henry McMahon's pledge, and they therefore cannot agree that the McMahon correspondence forms a just basis for the claim that Palestine should be converted into an Arab State.His Majesty's Government are charged as the Mandatory authority "to secure the development of self governing institutions" in Palestine. Apart from this specific obligation, they would regard it as contrary to the whole spirit of the Mandate system that the population of Palestine should remain forever under Mandatory tutelage. It is proper that the people of the country should as early as possible enjoy the rights of self-government which are exercised by the people of neighbouring countries. His Majesty's Government are unable at present to foresee the exact constitutional forms which government in Palestine will eventually take, but their objective is self government, and they desire to see established ultimately an independent Palestine State. It should be a State in which the two peoples in Palestine, Arabs and Jews, share authority in government in such a way that the essential interests of each are shared.The establishment of an independent State and the complete relinquishmnet of Mandatory control in Palestine would require such relations between the Arabs and the Jews as would make good government possible. Moreover, the growth of self governing institutions in Palestine, as in other countries, must be an evolutionary process. A transitional period will be required before independence is achieved, throughout which ultimate responsibility for the Government of the country will be retained by His Majesty's Government as the Mandatory authority, while the people of the country are taking an increasing share in the Government, and understanding and cooperation amongst them are growing. It will be the constant endeavour of His Majesty's Government to promote good relations between the Arabs and the Jews.In the light of these considerations His Majesty's Government make the following declaration of their intentions regarding the future government of Palestine:The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.The establishment of the independent State will be preceded by a transitional period throughout which His Majesty's Government will retain responsibility for the country. During the transitional period the people of Palestine will be given an increasing part in the government of their country. Both sections of the population will have an opportunity to participate in the machinery of government, and the process will be carried on whether or not they both avail themselves of it.As soon as peace and order have been sufficiently restored in Palestine steps will be taken to carry out this policy of giving the people of Palestine an increasing part in the government of their country, the objective being to place Palestinians in charge of all the Departments of Government, with the assistance of British advisers and subject to the control of the High Commissioner. Arab and Jewish representatives will be invited to serve as heads of Departments approximately in proportion to their respective populations. The number of Palestinians in charge of Departments will be increased as circumstances permit until all heads of Departments are Palestinians, exercising the administrative and advisory functions which are presently performed by British officials. When that stage is reached consideration will be given to the question of converting the Executive Council into a Council of Ministers with a consequential change in the status and functions of the Palestinian heads of Departments.His Majesty's Government make no proposals at this stage regarding the establishment of an elective legislature. Nevertheless they would regard this as an appropriate constitutional development, and, should public opinion in Palestine hereafter show itself in favour of such a development, they will be prepared, provided that local conditions permit, to establish the necessary machinery.At the end of five years from the restoration of peace and order, an appropriate body representative of the people of Palestine and of His Majesty's Government will be set up to review the working of the constitutional arrangements during the transitional period and to consider and make recommendations regarding the constitution of the independent Palestine State.His Majesty's Government will require to be satisfied that in the treaty contemplated by sub-paragraph (6) adequate provision has been made for:the security of, and freedom of access to the Holy Places, and protection of the interests and property of the various religious bodies.the protection of the different communities in Palestine in accordance with the obligations of His Majesty's Government to both Arabs and Jews and for the special position in Palestine of the Jewish NationalHome.such requirements to meet the strategic situation as may be regarded as necessary by His Majesty's Government in the light of the circumstances then existing. His Majesty's Government will also require to be satisfied that the interests of certain foreign countries in Palestine, for the preservation of which they are at present responsible, are adequately safeguarded.His Majesty's Government will do everything in their power to create conditions which will enable the independent Palestine State to come into being within 10 years. If, at the end of 10 years, it appears to His Majesty's Government that, contrary to their hope, circumstances require the postponement of the establishment of the independent State, they will consult with representatives of the people of Palestine, the Council of the League of Nations and the neighbouring Arab States before deciding on such a postponement. If His Majesty's Government come to the conclusion that postponement is unavoidable, they will invite the co-operation of these parties in framing plans for the future with a view to achieving the desired objective at the earliest possible date.During the transitional period steps will be taken to increase the powers and responsibilities of municipal corporations and local councils.
Section II. Immigration
Under Article 6 of the Mandate, the Administration of Palestine, "while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced," is required to "facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions." Beyond this, the extent to which Jewish immigration into Palestine is to be permitted is nowhere defined in the Mandate. But in the Command Paper of 1922 it was laid down that for the fulfilment of the policy of establishing a Jewish National Home:"it is necessary that the Jewish commun ity in Palestine should be able to increase its numbers by immigration. This immigration cannot be so great in volume as to exceed whatever may be the economic capacity of the country at the time to absorb new arrivals. It is essential to ensure that the immigrants should not be a burden upon the people of Palestine as a whole, and that they should not deprive any section of the present population of their employment."In practice, from that date onwards until recent times, the economic absorptive capacity of the country has been treated as the sole limiting factor, and in the letter which Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, as Prime Minister, sent to Dr. Weizmann in February 1931 it was laid down as a matter of policy that economic absorptive capacity was the sole criterion. This interpretation has been supported by resolutions of the Permanent Mandates Commissioner. But His Majesty's Government do not read either the Statement of Policy of 1922 or the letter of 1931 as implying that the Mandate requires them, for all time and in all circumstances, to facilitate the immigration of Jews into Palestine subject only to consideration of the country's economic absorptive capacity. Nor do they find anything in the Mandate or in subsequent Statements of Policy to support the view that the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine cannot be effected unless immigration is allowed to continue indefinitely. If immigration has an adverse effect on the economic position in the country, it should clearly be restricted; and equally, if it has a seriously damaging effect on the political position in the country, that is a factor that should not be ignored. Although it is not difficult to contend that the large number of Jewish immigrants who have been admitted so far have been absrobed economically, the fear of the Arabs that this influx will continue indefinitely until the Jewish population is in a position to dominate them has produced consequences which are extremely grave for Jews and Arabs alike and for the peace and prosperity of Palestine. The lamentable disturbances of the past three years are only the latest and most sustained manifestation of this intense Arab apprehension. The methods employed by Arab terrorists against fellow Arabs and Jews alike must receive unqualified condemnation. But it cannot be denied that fear of indefinite Jewish immigration is widespread amongst the Arab population and that this fear has made possible disturbances which have given a serious setback to economic progress, depleted the Palestine exchequer, rendered life and property insecure, and produced a bitterness between the Arab and Jewish populations which is deplorable between citizens of the same country. If in these circumstances immigration is continued up to the economic absorptive capacity of the country, regardless of all other considerations, a fatal enmity between the two peoples will be perpetuated, and the situation in Palestine may become a permanent source of friction amongst all peoples in the Near and Middle East. His Majesty's Government cannot take the view that either their obligations under the Mandate, or considerations of common sense and justice, require that they should ignore these circumstances in framing immigration policy.In the view of the Royal Commission the association of the policy of the Balfour Declaration with the Mandate system implied the belief that Arab hostility to the former would sooner or later be overcome. It has been the hope of British Governments ever since the Balfour Declaration was issued that in time the Arab population, recognizing the advantages to be derived from Jewish settlement and development in Palestine, would become reconciled to the further growth of the Jewish National Home. This hope has not been fulfilled. The alternatives before His Majesty's Government are either (i) to seek to expand the Jewish National Home indefinitely by immigration, against the strongly expressed will of the Arab people of the country; or (ii) to permit further expansion of the Jewish National Home by immigration only if the Arabs are prepared to acquiesce in it. The former policy means rule by force. Apart from other considerations, such a policy seems to His Majesty's Government to be contrary to the whole spirit of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, as well as to their specific obligations to the Arabs in the Palestine Mandate. Moreover, the relations between the Arabs and the Jews in Palestine must be based sooner or later on mutual tolerance and goodwill; the peace, security and progress of the Jewish National Home itself requires this. Therefore His Majesty's Government, after earnest consideration, and taking into account the extent to which the growth of the Jewish National Home has been facilitated over the last twenty years, have decided that the time has come to adopt in principle the second of the alternatives referred to above.It has been urged that all further Jewish immigration into Palestine should be stopped forthwith. His Majesty's Government cannot accept such a proposal. It would damage the whole of the financial and economic system of Palestine and thus effect adversely the interests of Arabs and Jews alike. Moreover, in the view of His Majesty's Government, abruptly to stop further immigration would be unjust to the Jewish National Home. But, above all, His Majesty's Government are conscious of the present unhappy plight of large numbers of Jews who seek refuge from certain European countries, and they believe that Palestine can and should make a further contribution to the solution of this pressing world problem. In all these circumstances, they believe that they will be acting consistently with their Mandatory obligations to both Arabs and Jews, and in the manner best calculated to serve the interests of the whole people of Palestine, by adopting the following proposals regarding immigration:Jewish immigration during the next five years will be at a rate which, if economic absorptive capacity permits, will bring the Jewish population up to approximately one third of the total population of the country. Taking into account the expected natural increase of the Arab and Jewish populations, and the number of illegal Jewish immigrants now in the country, this would allow of the admission, as from the beginning of April this year, of some 75,000 immigrants over the next five years. These immigrants would, subject to the criterion of economic absorptive capacity, be admitted as follows:For each of the next five years a quota of 10,000 Jewish immigrants will be allowed on the understanding that a shortage one year may be added to the quotas for subsequent years, within the five year period, if economic absorptive capacity permits.In addition, as a contribution towards the solution of the Jewish refugee problem, 25,000 refugees will be admitted as soon as the High Commissioner is satisfied that adequate provision for their maintenance is ensured, special consideration being given to refugee children anddependents.The existing machinery for ascertaining economic absorptive capacity will be retained, and the High Commissioner will have the ultimate responsibility for deciding the limits of economic capacity. Before each periodic decision is taken, Jewish and Arab representatives will be consulted.After the period of five years, no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it.His Majesty's Government are determined to check illegal immigration, and further preventive measures are being adopted. The numbers of any Jewish illegal immigrants who, despite these measures, may succeed in coming into the country and cannot be deported will be deducted from the yearly quotas.His Majesty's Government are satisfied that, when the immigration over five years which is now contemplated has taken place, they will not be justified in facilitating, nor will they be under any obligation to facilitate, the further development of the Jewish National Home by immigration regardless of the wishes of the Arab population.
Section III. Land
The Administration of Palestine is required, under Article 6 of the Mandate, "while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced," to encourage "close settlement by Jews on the land," and no restriction has been imposed hitherto on the transfer of land from Arabs to Jews. The Reports of several expert Commissions have indictaed that, owing to the natural growth of the Arab population and the steady sale in recent years of Arab land to Jews, there is now in certain areas no room for further transfers of Arab land, whilst in some other areas such transfers of land must be restricted if Arab cultivators are to maintain their existing standard of life and a considerable landless Arab population is not soon to be created. In these circumstances, the High Commissioner will be given general powers to prohibit and regulate transfers of land. These powers will date from the publication of this statement of policy and the High Commissioner will retain them throughout the transitional period.
The policy of the Government will be directed towards the development of the land and the improvement, where possible, of methods of cultivation. In the light of such development it will be open to the High Commissioner, should he be satisfied that the "rights and position" of the Arab population will be duly preserved, to review and modify any orders passed relating to the prohibition or restriction of the transfer of land.
In framing these proposals His Majesty's Government have sincerely endeavoured to act in strict accordance with their obligations under the Mandate to both the Arabs and the Jews. The vagueness of the phrases employed in some instances to describe these obligations has led to controversy and has made the task of interpretation difficult. His Majesty's Government cannot hope to satisfy the partisans of one party or the other in such controversy as the Mandate has aroused. Their purpose is to be just as between the two people in Palestine whose destinies in that country have been affected by the great events of recent years, and who, since they live side by side, must learn to practice mutual tolerance, goodwill and cooperation. In looking to the future, His Majesty's Government are not blind to the fact that some events of the past make the task of creating these relations difficult; but they are encouraged by the knowledge that as many times and in many places in Palestine during recent years the Arab and Jewish inhabitants have lived in friendship together. Each community has much to contribute to the welfare of their common land, and each must earnestly desire peace in which to assist in increasing the well-being of the whole people of the country. The responsibility which falls on them, no less than upon His Majesty's Government, to cooperate together to ensure peace is all the more solemn because their country is revered by many millions of Moslems, Jews and Christians throughout the world who pray for peace in Palestine and for the happiness of her people.
Sources: The Avalon Project
Irgun
The Irgun - Etzel - (Hebrew) is the popular name of the "Irgun Tzva'i Leumi" (Hebrew, acronym Etzel) - The National Military Organization. The Irgun was a "dissident" (revisionist) Zionist terrorist group founded in reaction to Arab riots. In 1930, a small group of Hagannah officers set up the "Second Organization" - Irgun Beth, because they wanted to take offensive as well as defensive action in reprisal for Arab attacks. This group soon identified itself with the revisionist movement, and in April 1937 it renamed itself the Irgun Zvai Leumi (National Military Organization, IZL or Irgun).
The Irgun carried out reprisals against Arab civilians in the 1930s Arab uprising, including several bombings, and following World War II, became active in operations against the British alone or in cooperation with LEHI(Stern Gang) and the Hagannah, as well as in terror operations against Arab civilians. For a time, the Irgun continued to exist after the formation of the IDF. However, in June of 1948, the revisionist party tried to bring a shipload of arms and immigrants into Israel, the Altalena. The arms would be for the use of the Irgun, perpetuating its existence as an independent fighting organization. Prime Minister David Ben Gurion ordered the arms turned over to the IDF. When the revisionists refused, the IDF sank the Altalena.
Synonyms and alternate spellings: IZL IZ"L, Irgun, Irgun Tzva'i Leumi, Irgun Zvai Leumi
Pre-State Israel:
Pre-State Israel:
The 1936 Arab Riots
(April - November 1936)
Pre-State Israel: Table of Contents | Photos of 1936 Riots | 1929 Hebron Massacre
|
Violence again erupted in Palestine in April 1936. In that month, six prominent Arab leaders overcame their rivalries and joined forces to protest Zionist advances in Palestine. The Arab High Command, as the group was known, was led by the Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, and represented Arab interests in Palestine until 1948.
The Arab High Command began their protest by calling for a general strike of Arab workers and a boycott of Jewish products. These actions swiftly escalated into terrorist attacks against the Jews and the British. This first stage of the "Arab Revolt" lasted until November, 1936. The second stage began in September 1937, shortly after the Peel Commission recommended the partition of Palestine. In this second phase, clashes with the British forces became much more severe, as did the attacks on Jewish settlements.
By 1936 the increase in Jewish immigration and land acquisition, the growing power of Hajj Amin al Husayni, and general Arab frustration at the continuation of European rule, radicalized increasing numbers of Palestinian Arabs. Thus, in April 1936 an Arab attack on a Jewish bus led to a series of incidents that escalated into a major Palestinian rebellion. An Arab Higher Committee (AHC), a loose coalition of recently formed Arab political parties, was created. It declared a national strike in support of three basic demands: cessation of Jewish immigration, an end to all further land sales to the Jews, and the establishment of an Arab national government.
The intensity of the Palestinian Revolt, at a time when Britain was preparing for the possibility of another world war, led the British to reorient their policy in Palestine. As war with Germanybecame imminent, Britain's dependence on Middle Eastern oil, and therefore the need for Arab goodwill, loomed increasingly large in its strategic thinking. Jewish leverage in the Foreign Office, on the other hand, had waned; the pro-Zionists, Balfour and Samuels, had left the Foreign Office and the new administration was not inclined toward the Zionist position. Furthermore, the Jews had little choice but to support Britain against Nazi Germany. Thus, Britain's commitment to a Jewish homeland in Palestine dissipated, and the Mandate authorities pursued a policy of appeasement with respect to the Arabs.
Britain's policy change in Palestine was not, however, easily implemented. Since the 1917 Balfour Declaration, successive British governments had supported (or at least not rejected) a Jewish national home in Palestine. The Mandate itself was premised on that pledge. By the mid-1930s, the Yishuv had grown to about 400,000, and the Jewish economic and political structures in Palestine were well ensconced. The extent of the Jewish presence and the rapidly deteriorating fate of European Jewry meant that the British would have an extremely difficult time extricating themselves from the Balfour Declaration. Furthermore, the existing Palestinian leadership, dominated by Hajj Amin al Husayni, was unwilling to grant members of the Jewish community citizenship or to guarantee their safety if a new Arab entity were to emerge. Thus, for the British the real options were to impose partition, to pull out and leave the Jews and Arabs to fight it out, or to stay and improvise.
In 1937 the British, working with their regional Arab allies, Amir Abdullah of Transjordan, King Ghazi of Iraq, and King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia, mediated an end to the revolt with the AHC. A Royal Commission on Palestine (known as the Peel Commission) was immediately dispatched to Palestine. Its report, issued in July 1937, described the Arab and Zionist positions and the British obligation to each as irreconcilable and the existing Mandate as unworkable. It recommended partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, with a retained British Mandateover Nazareth, Bethlehem, and Jerusalem and a corridor from Jerusalem to the coast.
In 1937 the Twentieth Zionist Congress rejected the proposed boundaries but agreed in principle to partition. Palestinian Arab nationalists rejected any kind of partition. The British government approved the idea of partition and sent a technical team to make a detailed plan. This group, theWoodhead Commission, reversed the Peel Commission's findings and reported in November 1937 that partition was impracticable; this view in its turn was accepted. The Palestinian Revolt broke out again in the autumn of 1937. The British put down the revolt using harsh measures, shutting down the AHC and deporting many Palestinian Arab leaders.
With their leadership residing outside Palestine, the Arabs were unable to match the Zionists' highly sophisticated organization. Another outcome of the Palestinian Revolt was the involvement of the Arab states as advocates of the Palestinian Arabs. Whereas Britain had previously tended to deal with its commitments in Palestine as separate from its commitments elsewhere in the Middle East, by 1939 pan-Arab pressure carried increasing weight in London.
In the Yishuv, the Palestinian Revolt reinforced the already firm belief in the need for a strong Jewish defense network. Finally, the Arab agricultural boycott that began in 1936 forced the Jewish economy into even greater self-sufficiency.
In an effort to quiet the revolt, the British sanctioned the arming of the Haganah. The two groups cooperated until, in 1939, the disturbances came to an end. The ending of the disturbances was partly due to Charles Orde Wingate, a officer in the British army. Wingate, pro-Zionist and a Christian, organized Special Night Squads of Jewish volunteers to combat the attackers.
Ultimately, the British military suppressed the revolt, but the British government in effect rewarded them with the publication of the 1939 White Paper.
Once the rebellion was supressed, the yishuv entered a period of relative peace with the Arabs of Palestine. It was only the UN announcement of partition which would bring on additional hostilities and tensions.
Eighty Jews were murdered by terrorist acts during the labor strike, and a total of 415 Jewish deaths were recorded during the whole 1936-1939 Arab Revolt period. The toll on the Arabs was estimated to be roughly 5,000 dead, 15,000 wounded, and 5,600 imprisoned.
Sources: The Jewish Agency for Israel; The World Zionist Organization; Palestine Facts ; U.S. Library of Congress
In Hebron, the Jewish community which had been there for hundreds of years, refused the help proffered by the Haganah underground when it seemed that Arab agitation was beginning. They trusted their neighbors.
The principle instigators were Haj Amin El Husseini and Aref el Aref. Aref el Aref, along with Husseini, had been responsible for previous riots. He had now been appointed district officer of the Beersheba district. Aref el Aref paid a visit to Hebron shortly before the riots and preached an inflammatory sermon on Thursday, August 22. Rumors were spread that the Jews had killed Arabs in Jerusalem, that the Jews had burned down the Al-Aqsa mosque (supposedly this was documented with a fake photo) or that the Jews were planning to build a synagogue near the wailing wall.
There are many indications that the Arabs, as well as the British had advance warning of the disturbances, yet the British did nothing to try to head them off. There was one British policeman in Hebron, Raymond Cafferata. He commanded a force of 18 mounted police and 15 on foot. Of these, all but one were Arabs. Eleven were over age and there was but a single Jew among them.
Beginning about 3 PM on Friday, August 23, there was agitation in Hebron. People returning from prayers in Jerusalem were claiming that the Jews were killing Arabs there. Arabs began stoning the Hebron Yeshiva. An orthodox Yeshiva student tried to leave the Yeshiva building and was stabbed to death. Cafferata now managed to quiet things down for the present.
The riots began in earnest, however, on the morning of Saturday, August 24. Arabs killed 64 to 67 Jews in Hebron and wounded many others. Babies were beheaded. Old rabbis were castrated. There were incidents of rape, torture and mutilation. Hands and fingers were torn off bodies, apparently for jewelry.
Cafferata and the Jewish policeman shot at the rioters and killed 8 of them. The Arab policemen fired in the air. Cafferata called for reinforcements, but these arrived only about noon, five hours later. The British had a total of 292 police in Palestine and were busy dealing with disturbances elsewhere presumably. Cafferata, not a friend of the Jews, testified:
About noon, British reinforcements arrived. Arab prisoners were forced to bury the dead in mass graves. They starting singing in celebration during the proceedings.
After visiting Hebron, the High Commissioner John Chancellor wrote to his son:
The Hebron Massacre of 1929
In August of 1929, Arabs instigated violence in the Jerusalem area that spread to most of Palestine. The violence began in Jerusalem and soon spread to Hebron, Motza, and Safed, all old Jewish communities in Palestine that supposedly lived in harmony with their Arab neighbors, rather than Zionist settlements.In Hebron, the Jewish community which had been there for hundreds of years, refused the help proffered by the Haganah underground when it seemed that Arab agitation was beginning. They trusted their neighbors.
The principle instigators were Haj Amin El Husseini and Aref el Aref. Aref el Aref, along with Husseini, had been responsible for previous riots. He had now been appointed district officer of the Beersheba district. Aref el Aref paid a visit to Hebron shortly before the riots and preached an inflammatory sermon on Thursday, August 22. Rumors were spread that the Jews had killed Arabs in Jerusalem, that the Jews had burned down the Al-Aqsa mosque (supposedly this was documented with a fake photo) or that the Jews were planning to build a synagogue near the wailing wall.
There are many indications that the Arabs, as well as the British had advance warning of the disturbances, yet the British did nothing to try to head them off. There was one British policeman in Hebron, Raymond Cafferata. He commanded a force of 18 mounted police and 15 on foot. Of these, all but one were Arabs. Eleven were over age and there was but a single Jew among them.
Beginning about 3 PM on Friday, August 23, there was agitation in Hebron. People returning from prayers in Jerusalem were claiming that the Jews were killing Arabs there. Arabs began stoning the Hebron Yeshiva. An orthodox Yeshiva student tried to leave the Yeshiva building and was stabbed to death. Cafferata now managed to quiet things down for the present.
The riots began in earnest, however, on the morning of Saturday, August 24. Arabs killed 64 to 67 Jews in Hebron and wounded many others. Babies were beheaded. Old rabbis were castrated. There were incidents of rape, torture and mutilation. Hands and fingers were torn off bodies, apparently for jewelry.
Cafferata and the Jewish policeman shot at the rioters and killed 8 of them. The Arab policemen fired in the air. Cafferata called for reinforcements, but these arrived only about noon, five hours later. The British had a total of 292 police in Palestine and were busy dealing with disturbances elsewhere presumably. Cafferata, not a friend of the Jews, testified:
- "On hearing screams in a room I went up a sort of tunnel passage and saw an Arab in the act of cutting off a child's head with a sword. He had already hit him and was having another cut, but on seeing me he tried to aim the stroke at me, but missed; he was practically on the muzzle of my rifle. I shot him low in the groin. Behind him was a Jewish woman smothered in blood with a man I recognized as a[n Arab] police constable named Issa Sherif from Jaffa in mufti. He was standing over the woman with a dagger in his hand. He saw me and bolted into a room close by and tried to shut me out-shouting in Arabic, "Your Honor, I am a policeman." ... I got into the room and shot him."
- (Bernard Wasserstein, The British in Palestine: The Mandatory Government and the Arab-Jewish Conflict 1917-1929, Oxford England, Basil Blackwell, 1991)
About noon, British reinforcements arrived. Arab prisoners were forced to bury the dead in mass graves. They starting singing in celebration during the proceedings.
After visiting Hebron, the High Commissioner John Chancellor wrote to his son:
I do not think that history records many worse horrors in the last few hundred years...
I am so tired and disgusted with this country and everything concerned with it that I only want to leave it as soon as I can.
The surviving Jews were evacuated by the British, but some returned and lived in Hebron until the riots of 1936.
Ami Isseroff
Sources:
Morris, B., Righteous Victims, Alfred Knopf, New York 1994 pages 111-120.
Segev, T., One Palestine Complete, Henry Holt, N.Y. 1999, pp 314-327.
The Palestine Riots and Massacres of 1929
In the summer of 1929 the Arabs of Palestine initiated rioting and massacres against the Jewish population in several towns. The targets were not Zionists who had dispossessed Arabs of their lands, but for the most part Jewish communities of the "old Yishuv," communities that had lived in Palestine for many hundreds of years. The pogroms were of the same general character as pogroms that had taken place sporadically in Palestine for hundreds of years, usually referred to euphemistically by Jews of Safed, Tiberias, Jerusalem and Hebron as "Meoraot" - "events." The worst massacres took place in Safed, Hebron, Jerusalem and Motza. Like the pogroms of past ages, these "disturbances" featured angry crowds stirred up over a religious or other dispute, Imams preaching "Kill the Jews wherever you find them" and mobs screaming "Aleihum" (get them) and "Itbach Al Yahood" - murder the Jews. In a few days, over a hundred Jews were murdered and several hundreds were wounded.
The racist riots of 1929, like those of 1920 and 1921, were distinguished from those that took place under the Ottoman Turks by two features. Supposedly, Palestine was now under a British Mandate, and being built as a Jewish national home, a place of refuge and safety for Jews. The occurrence of the riots did tremendous damage to the Zionist cause, far beyond the actual loss of lives and property, because they it seem that Palestine was unsafe for the Jews after all, just like everywhere else. The second feature was that the riots were part of the anti-Zionist agitation stirred up by the Husseini family, even though they were not directed against Zionist settlers, but against the old communities.
Throughout the 1920s, tension had been brewing between Palestinian Jews and Arabs for some time, with little or no action by the mandate government to alleviate it. The Arabs of Palestine had come to be dominated by two clans, the Husseinis and the Nashashibis. The Husseinis controlled the Palestine Arab Executive and Supreme Muslim Council. Haj Amin El Husseini was Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. The Nashashibis became the mu'aridan, the opposition. The Husseinis hoped to further their position by exploiting hatred against the Jews. The issue that generated tension was not land purchases or Jewish immigration. Though there had been large land purchases in the Valley of Jezreel, there was not much Jewish immigration during this period. The issue of contention was an imagined Jewish threat to the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, centering around Jewish attempts to improve the facilities of the nearby wailing wall, a remnant of the Jewish temple, where they gathered for prayer. The wailing wall is part of the West Wall, Al Buraq, where according to Muslim belief, Muhammed tethered his horse when he was miraculously transported to Jerusalem. Thus, it is holy to Muslims too.
There is no doubt that the mosque built on the site of the temple was never a source of joy for Jews, but Jewish tradition holds that the temple can only be rebuilt when the messiah comes. The Zionists certainly had no designs on the mosque itself. The wailing wall however, because of its proximity to the mosque of Al Aqsa, was long a source of friction. Islamic law holds that no non-Muslims may pray in proximity to a mosque while prayers are held in the mosque, because that would disturb the prayers of the faithful. The Jews of Jerusalem had gotten many warnings during the hundreds of years of Muslim rule, about prayer at the wailing wall or in synagogues in the Jewish quarter that supposedly disturbed the prayers of the Muslims. This "Holy Place" was a natural place of contention.
In 1922, a Palestinian delegation to the Hajj (pilgrimage) in Mecca had declared:
The Islamic Palestinian Nation that has been guarding al-Aksa Mosque and Holy Rock since 1,300 years declares to the Muslim world that the Holy Places are in great danger on account of the horrible Zionist aggressions... The Zionist Committee, which is endeavoring to establish Jewish rule in Palestine and to rob al-Aksa from the Muslims on the plea that it was built on the ruins of Solomon's Temple, aims at making Palestine a base of Jewish influence over the [Arabian] peninsula and the whole East.
In 1928, the Muslims tried to get the British to confirm their rights over the Western Wall, including the space used by Jews for worship. Husseini had helped to organize refurbishing of the long neglected mosques in Jerusalem now he initiated new construction activities in October of 1928. Bricks from the "construction" fell "accidentally" on Jewish worshippers in the wailing wall area below. The Arabs drove mules through the prayer area. Muezins (the announcers of the mosques) who called the faithful to prayer turned up the volume in their PA systems so as to disturb the Jewish prayer.
The Zionist community, especially the right, took up the challenge. Right-wing Zionists of the revisionist movement demanded Jewish control of the wall. Some even demanded rebuilding the temple, alarming the Muslims even more and providing a factual basis for the agitation. On August 14, 1929, about 6,000 Jews paraded in Tel Aviv and that evening, about 3,000 gathered at the wall in Jerusalem for prayer, a huge crowd for the then very cramped space. The next day the right-wing Betar revisionist youth paraded by the hundreds, carrying billy-club batons. Rumors circulated that the Jews were about to march on the Haram as Sharif - the Al-Aqsa mosque compound. The Arabs circulated inflammatory leaflets, apparently printed earlier. One read, "Hearts are in tumult because of these barbaric deeds, and the people began to break out in shouts of 'war, Jihad... rebellion.'... O Arab nation, the eyes of your brothers in Palestine are upon you... and they awaken your religious feelings and national zealotry to rise up against the enemy who violated the honor of Islam and raped the women and murdered widows and babies." The Jews had killed no-one, and had attacked no-one.
On Friday August 16, after an inflammatory sermon, a mass of Arab demonstrators proceeded from the mosques to the Western Wall, where they burned prayer books. The British High Commissioner, Sir John Chancellor, was on leave in England. The acting British High Commissioner, Harry Luke, ignored the problem and claimed that "only pages" of prayer books had been burned.
The British were woefully unprepared to deal with disturbances. In all of Palestine there were 292 British police. In Hebron, there was a single British police officer commanding a tine force of Arabs, many of them old, and one Jew.
On August 17, a riot in the Bukharian Jewish quarter of Jerusalem left one Jew dead. The funeral, held August 20, turned into a mass demonstration with cries for vengeance. Beginning on August 22, Arab villagers, armed with sticks, knives and guns, gathered in the Haram as Sharif. Following Friday prayers and the usual inflammatory sermon on August 23, they poured out into the streets of Jerusalem and proceeded to murder and loot. By the time the riots were over in Jerusalem on August 24, 17 Jews were dead. The rioters opened fire simultaneously in several neighborhoods, evidence indicating that the massacres were probably orchestrated by the Supreme Muslim Council.Near Jerusalem, the small town of Motza was attacked by Arabs who killed every member of the Makleff family but one. A very young boy, Mordechai Makleff, hid under a bed. He grew up to be Chief of Staff of the IDF for a brief time during the War of Independence. Several settlements next to Motza had to be abandoned. In other settlements, the inhabitants were protected by friendly Arab neighbors. Kibbutz Hulda was evacuated by the British. Arab marauders burned the kibbutz. The British killed 40 Arabs there. The worst fury of the Arabs, however, was directed at the tiny ancient Jewish community of Hebron, where 64-67 Jews were massacred in a few hours of rioting on August 24, 1924.
The British flew in additional reinforcements from Egypt and elsewhere. The riots spread to Tel-Aviv and Haifa and Safed. In Safed, 18 Jews were killed and 80 injured.
In all 133 Jews and 116 Arabs were killed in the riots, 339 Jews and 232 Arabs were injured. Most of the Arabs were killed by the British police and some by the Haganah in self defense. There were also instances of Jewish atrocities. Jews broke into a mosque and destroyed a Quran. In Tel Aviv, Arabs killed four Haganah men, so the Haganah retaliated by raiding an Arab house and killing four people.
The riots of 1929 changed the attitudes of Jews to the Arabs. Arthur Ruppin, who had helped found the Brit Shalom peace group, which advocated a binational state, withdrew from the group. He could no longer believe in Jewish-Arab coexistence. The writer Shai Agnon wrote, "I do not hate them [the Arabs] and I do not love them; I do not wish to see their faces. In my humble opinion we shall now build a large ghetto of half a million Jews in Palestine, because if we do not, we will, heaven forbid, be lost."
The massacres of 1929 had thus launched two themes that were to recur in the history of Israel and Palestine: agitation related to the al-Aqsa mosques and the Jewish desire for separation from the Arabs of Palestine, for self-protection.
The British were horrified by the massacre. However many of the British personnel had no great love for Zionism or Jews, and the British government was unwilling to subsidize Palestine, which would be required to support a large police force, and no desire to incur the enmity of the Arab world. They refused adamantly to allow any independent legal Jewish self defense force.
The immediate consequences of the riots were that the British caved in to every demand of the Arabs. Though only a small number of Jews had immigrated to Palestine under the mandate, the British accepted at face value the claim of the Mufti that these immigrants, rather than the world economic depression, were at fault for the real or imagined woes of the Arabs of Palestine. In the year 1930, when unemployment reached 25% in some countries, Palestinian Arabs had an unemployment rate of 4%. This "misery" was the "fault" of the Zionist immigration. These were the findings of the Shaw commission which investigated the "causes" of the riots, and of the Hope-Simpson report, which was commissioned to justify the policy changes. Simultaneously with the Hope-Simpson report the British Government issued the Passfield White Paper, which made it clear that Britain intended to sharply curtail Jewish immigration. The Passfield White Paper of 1930 caused an uproar in Parliament however. Moreover, the League of Nations indicated that Britain would be violating the terms of its mandate to foster a national home for the Jewish people if it curtailed immigration. Consequently, Prime Minister Ramsay Macdonald soon backed down and wrote a letter to Chaim Weizmann, read publicly in Parliament, which "explained" that "His Majesty’s Government never proposed to pursue such a policy."
The British also issued a set of discriminatory regulations that restricted Jewish rights in the wailing wall, returning the situation to the same state as existed under the Ottoman Empire, when Muslim - Jewish relations were governed by the inferior dhimmi status of Jews in Islam.
See also:
No comments:
Post a Comment