The mandate and British policy

League of Nations

An international organization established in 1919 by the peace treaties that ended the First World War. Its purpose was to promote international peace through collective security and to organize conferences on economic and disarmament issues.

The end of the war raised expectations for independence among both Arabs and Jews. Their hopes were, however, dashed when Britain ended up as first de facto and later de jure in control of Palestine. Indeed, the Arab territories of the Ottoman Empire were divided up and placed under French and British mandates awarded at San Remo in 1920 and ratified by the League of Nations in 1922, a territorial division which bore a remarkable resemblance to the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement. Yet, while Britain, on the one hand, was clearly expanding its power in the Middle East, on the other, it continued to back Arab, Jewish and Armenian claims for independence, often as a means to undermine rival European Powers, particularly France. Indeed, British policy was more often than not driven by European factors or imperial considerations and this placed the British authorities in a rather awkward position in Palestine as the conflict between Arabs and Jews escalated.

Britain's position was further complicated by the divergence in views that emerged between its officials on the ground and those in London. British officials in Palestine tended to be more sympathetic to the Arabs. This tendency was further strengthened by the fact that the Zionists in pursuit of equal rights had on a number of occasions appealed over the head of the local administration to London. Moreover, the local administration believed that Zionists' aspirations for statehood threatened stability not only in Palestine but also in other parts of the British Empire, particularly those with Muslim populations.

see Table 5.1

British policy under Sir Herbert Samuel, the first high commissioner of Palestine, was to uphold its pledge to assist the fulfilment of Zionist aims but also to ensure that the Arab population's civil and economic rights were safeguarded. In concrete terms, this meant that Samuel ensured that Arabs could not stop Jewish immigration and land purchases while at the same time he gave Arabs a part in the mandate's civil administration. He encouraged both Arabs and Jews to build institutions and made several attempts to reconcile the two communities as he did not believe that co-existence was impossible. His attempts, however, were undermined by an increasing cycle of inter-communal violence.

The 1921 Nebi Musa riots constituted the first outbreak of large-scale Arab—Jewish violence. The unrest, as well as the British response, laid down the

Table 5.1 British high commissioners for Palestine, 1920-48

pattern for the rest of the mandate period; it was characterized by urban clashes between the two groups, in this case in Tel Aviv and Jaffa, followed by Jewish and Arab reprisals and by Arabs attacking outlying Jewish settlements. The British response was an investigation into the causes of the disturbances and a subsequent temporary halting of Jewish immigration.

A similar pattern can be observed following the 1928—29 Wailing Wall riots, which were the result of Muslim and Jewish suspicions, each thinking that the other was planning to lay sole claim to the area which encompasses the remnants of the Jews' Second Temple as well as the Muslims' Al-Aqsa mosque and Dome of the Rock. Almost a year of tension finally descended into outright violence in Jerusalem, followed by Arab attacks on the Jewish quarters of Hebron and Safed, leaving an estimated 133 Jews and 116 Arabs dead. The British response was an investigation into the causes of the riots by the 1929 Shaw Commission which concluded that Arab feelings of hostility were caused by their landlessness and fear for their economic future as a result of Zionist land purchases and immigration. The 1930 Hope-Simpson Commission was then charged with formulating pro­posals to tackle these problems, with the result that recommendations to limit both Jewish immigration and land purchases became the basis of the 1930 Passfield White Paper. The White Paper blamed the Jews for inciting the riots and demanded that the Zionists make concessions in regard to their demand for a national home. Jewish protests in Palestine and London elicited a letter from the British prime minister, Ramsay MacDonald, repudiating the White Paper, which, in turn, angered the Arabs.

What is interesting when looking at the early investigations of the causes of the riots is that all of the commissions seemed to be aware of the growing impossibility of co-existence and the mutually exclusive national aspirations, yet it was not until the 1937 Peel Commission that partition was recommended and not until 1947 that partition and separation became the preferred choice of ‘resolving' the conflict. Throughout the 1920s and, indeed, the 1930s and 1940s the British approach to regulating the conflict appeared to revolve solely around the issue of Jewish immigration and land purchases.

The effects of this policy in the 1920s become clear when looking at the 1930s. Inter-communal tension remained high and hopes harboured by Samuel for reconciliation faded. Both Zionists and Arabs felt betrayed by the British and felt they could not rely on the British to ‘protect' them. While the Zionists established their own defence organizations in Palestine, their main political tool was exerting pressure on British policy in London. Diplomacy was lower on the Arab agenda for three key reasons. First, their representatives lacked access to high-level European decision-makers and the necessary language skills to argue their case eloquently. Second, European Orientalist attitudes towards Arabs and Muslims were ungenerous, to say the least. And, third, Arab leaders assumed that the British would always side with their fellow ‘Europeans' — the Jews. They had, however, learnt one important lesson from the riots of the 1920s — that British policy­makers responded to the use and threat of violence — and this was drawn upon when the Arab Revolt erupted in 1936, catching both the Palestinian leadership and the British mandate authority by surprise.

Arab Revolt

Peasant uprising in Palestine between 1936 and 1939 characterized by strikes and civil disobedience during the first year and violence against the British and Zionists during the subsequent two years.

mufti

A government-appointed Muslim religious official who pronounces usually on spiritual and social matters.

The exception is the mufti of Jerusalem who also played a political role.

The Arab Revolt is significant for a number of reasons: it brought to the fore the land question, as the revolt predominantly drew upon Arab peasants; it signalled clearly that the Arabs were not going to accept quietly the Zionist state­building project; and it left no doubt that a distinctly Palestinian identity existed. With respect to the Palestinian leadership, on the one hand it showed a certain degree of unity among urban notables, but, on the other, reflected the clear dissatisfaction of the rural population with their urban leaders, with the exception of the mufti of Jerusalem, HajjAmin al-Husayni. The British response to the outbreak of the revolt was brutal repression, followed by the 1937 Peel Commission which, following the pattern of previous commissions, concluded that co-existence was impossible but, unlike its predecessors, recommended partition. This recommendation, however, was not heeded. Over the next two years the revolt escalated from general strikes and civil disobedience, which had characterized much of 1936, to outright rebellion from 1937 to 1939. The possibility of Palestine becoming ungovernable at a time when Europe was sliding into another world war led the British authorities to rely on tried and tested methods of conflict regulation rather than experimenting with new approaches. Moreover, in 1938 the Woodhead Commission declared that partition was not feasible and the Foreign Office expressed concern that a pro-Zionist policy would drive the Arabs into the arms of the Axis Powers. All these dimensions were reflected in the 1939 MacDonald White Paper issued only a few months before the Second World War, which severely restricted Jewish immigration and land purchases, while seemingly guaranteeing the achievement of an Arab Palestinian state within ten years. The White Paper achieved the desired result in the sense that the Arab Revolt came to an end. The Arab Revolt had also achieved its desired result: a complete reversal of British policy, a clear step back from the Zionist state­building project while simultaneously supporting Arab independence. However, for the Jews faced with the unfolding events in Europe, the White Paper came to represent the deepest act of betrayal.