Table of Contents
This eighth installment delves into the rapid Zionist military and intelligence growth under British Mandate, examining societal divisions, the forging of Palestinian national identity, and the challenges of resistance amid colonial exploitation. It reflects on these turbulent shifts through an Islamic lens, highlighting the enduring spiritual lessons from the Quran and Sunnah in this critical phase of Palestinian history.
Continuing the British Mandate’s Shadow on Palestine
In the name of ALLAH, praise be to ALLAH, and Peace and Blessings upon the Messenger of ALLAH, His family, companions, and those who follow Him.
Welcome, dear friends, to a new article in “The Story of Palestine“, where we concisely recount the core of Palestinian history—from the birth of the idea of Jewish return to Palestine up to the eruption of the Flood in 2023. We aim to grasp the roots of this tale: why it still burns fiercely after over a century, how Theodor Herzl succeeded where his ancestors failed for three thousand years, and what the future holds as revealed in the Quran and Sunnah, and as suggested by events.
For those who value verification, I remind you again: these articles are drawn from my book “Summary of the Story of Palestine“1. I’ll include a download link, so anyone wishing to cross-check the information can do so with edition and page references.
We continue the remaining threads of the story—the British Mandate’s preparation and nurturing of a Jewish state. In the previous article, we paused at the 1930s. By the end of that decade, World War II ignited, drawing fifteen thousand Jews to fight alongside the Allies, granting them invaluable experience in training, weaponry, and military sciences.
In truth, we can say that “Haganah”, the Zionist gangs that began military drills and formed the seed of the Israeli army, truly transformed into a real force at this moment, even possessing a fleet of aircraft.
World War II led to a surge in Jewish immigration to Palestine, especially from Germany and Europe, as Jews suffered Nazi persecution. We must note that some of this oppression occurred with the approval and support of Zionist organization leaders, who welcomed anything that spurred Jews to migrate to Palestine.
Even Ben-Gurion remarked:
“If given the choice between saving all German Jewish children to migrate to England or saving only half to migrate to Israel, I would choose the latter“
He was willing to sacrifice half the Jewish children if it meant they came to Palestine rather than England.
Zionist Strategies and Clashes During the British Mandate
Concurrently with this military evolution, there was also progress in security and intelligence. The intelligence apparatus worked on what was called the “Village Files”, compiling detailed data on every Palestinian village.
In 1939, tensions arose between Zionists and the British. How? The British had striven to suppress the Great Palestinian Revolt, which lasted three years from 1936 to 1939—details we’ll cover, ALLAH willing.
Needing to calm Palestine as World War II began, they convened a conference in London and issued the White Paper, appearing to backtrack on establishing a Jewish state by pledging to restrict Jewish immigration under the British Mandate.
Zionists rejected this, as it hindered their state project, especially with war displacing more Jews from Europe. The British now seemed an obstacle amid Europe’s expulsion of Jews, particularly from Germany under the widespread Nazi persecution symbolized by the Holocaust.
Ben-Gurion navigated this rift with Britain cleverly, a shrewdness captured by contemporary American historian Eugene Rogan:
“David Ben-Gurion pledged to aid the British army in fighting fascism as if the White Paper never existed, while opposing its clauses as if the war had not erupted“
He separated the issues, supporting the British while rejecting the White Paper.
While Zionist Haganah gangs fought alongside the British in World War II, more radical splinter groups emerged. These broke from Haganah—the main Zionist military arm—and formed other gangs, notably “Irgun,” which split in 1937.
Irgun further splintered into an even more extreme group known as “Stern”, in 1940, named after its Polish Jewish founder, Yair Stern.
Zionist Radicalism and British Mandate Confrontations
These latter gangs engaged in combat against the British, viewing them as barriers to the Zionist state project.
The final gang, Stern, harbored such intense animosity toward the British that it reached out to Nazi Germans. The Nazis, persecutors of Jews, were contacted for cooperation to dismantle British presence in Palestine. Germany against Britain, and Stern’s Jews against Britain—they pursued alliance to erode British control. Stern viewed the British as a greater peril to Jews than Germans, as the British threatened the Jewish state via the White Paper, restricting Jewish immigration and contemplating partitioning Palestine to allocate part to Arabs for a state—proposals Stern opposed.
Although Stern did not succeed in allying with the Nazis and persisted in attacks on the British—who tracked and killed them—these assaults from Irgun and Stern continued relentlessly against the British, culminating in the assassination of the highest British official in the Middle East, Lord Moyne, in a famous operation in Cairo on November 6, 1944, because he supported the White Paper.
Crossing the World War II phase reveals a profoundly dismal picture in Palestine at war’s end across all levels.
First, on the international level, the Allies triumphed over the Axis powers. Palestinians and Arabs had pinned hopes on the Axis, as they opposed Britain, which sided with the Jews. Thus, Arab and Palestinian dreams and aspirations collapsed, allowing the Zionist state project to proceed without political hindrance, as its patron had prevailed.
On the internal level, Zionism solidified its presence. Haganah gangs transformed into a true army, equipped with experience, training, military sciences, weapons, and gear, having participated in World War II. Jewish immigrant numbers surged, with over ninety thousand arriving in Palestine during the war, and more than sixty thousand following in subsequent years. Jews seized 270,000 dunams of land and established 73 new settlements.
The renowned Egyptian leader Ahmad Hussein remarked:
“The Nazi Holocaust ultimately turned every Jew into a Zionist“
Jews worldwide clung to the necessity of this Jewish homeland, making migration to it an act embraced by all world Jews—if not actively pursued and prioritized—even those in Arab lands under the British Mandate.
Global Power Shifts and Zionist Realignment
The Zionist security apparatus completed its detailed plan on Palestinian villages, compiling data on each village’s land, population, economic state, political factions, and the ease or difficulty of occupation. It expanded, recruiting agents, and grew stronger in monitoring Palestinian society and its remaining influential centers.
Among World War II’s key outcomes: the sunset of British and French empires giving way to the dawn of American and Soviet ascendancy. In truth, Zionism swiftly read this shift, rapidly transferring its activity center—its reliance and weight—from Britain to America in 1942.
Accordingly, Zionism adopted its customary strategy of aligning with the dominant global power to achieve its goals. At that time, America and the Soviet Union were inheriting British and French presence and colonies in the East. Thus, America pursued what was termed “liquidating old colonialism“. America employed a different colonial method: indirect hegemony, ruling through local governments. Hence, it raised slogans of peoples’ liberation and self-determination—not for peoples’ sake but to displace traditional rivals or old colonialism.
What matters now is that as Zionists turned against the British and placed themselves in American service—even Haganah gangs, the main army under the Jewish Agency—began rebelling against the British, attacking their bases and killing soldiers. Haganah itself secretly collaborated with Irgun and Stern.
Naturally, the climax of this cooperation was a vital operation: bombing the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. This perilous attack on July 22, 1946, targeted the hotel as Britain’s administrative hub in Palestine. Over ninety died. Menachem Begin—Irgun’s leader, later Israel’s Prime Minister who signed Camp David with Sadat—detailed it in his memoirs, published as “The Revolt” or “The Terrorism” in Arabic.
We can say this operation—the King David Hotel bombing—was decisive, confirming to the British that Zionists had revolted against them, now serving as an extension of rising American power seeking to expel Britain from its ancient colonies.
Forging Palestinian Identity Amid British Mandate Divisions
From that point, Zionism adopted the mantle of a liberation movement, striving to oust the British occupier from the Jewish homeland. This argument remained a banner Zionists raised everywhere, especially in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, when liberation and oppressed peoples’ ideas dominated—portraying themselves as partners in peoples’ rights, struggle, and self-determination, claiming they arose to free their land from British occupation.
Here, diverse operations ensued in sabotaging British trains, targeting soldier and officer quarters, assaulting Acre prison to free Zionist terrorists detained by the British for anti-British actions. Though the British pursued the Jews, their laxity encouraged them. To the extent that British commander Glubb Pasha, founder of the Jordanian army, believed these Zionist operations were coordinated with the British to hasten withdrawal, hand the land to Zionist terrorist organizations, and accelerate Israel’s establishment—a view he expressed in his memoirs.
At this juncture, Britain declared it could no longer resolve the Palestinian problem, referring it to the United Nations—the new organization World War II victors founded to manage global affairs. Post-World War I, there was the League of Nations; now, the United Nations. Thus, the Palestinian issue entered a new stage after the British Mandate’s groundwork for a Jewish state.
Imagine: the infant had matured to assail the mother who nurtured and suckled it.
If we conduct a general survey, we’d say: the tally of conditions in the British Mandate era—in those thirty years from 1918 to 1948.
Jewish numbers multiplied thirteenfold, from 50,000 (8% of the population) in 1918 to 650,000. Palestinians owned 98.5% of the land; Jews now held 6%.
When the British entered Palestine, Jews had no single soldier. Upon leaving, Jews had 60,000 armed men, three arms factories, secret hideouts, vast weapon depots, hundreds if not thousands of armored vehicles, and aircraft roaming and bombing Palestinian towns and villages.
The Zionist Triumph and Palestinian Upheaval
Upon British arrival, Jews lacked popular organization or leadership body. By departure, they had a functioning government in the Mandate’s shadow.
Herzl was the idea’s originator, the seed’s planter, but this shouldn’t overshadow subsequent efforts, especially the dangerous trio: Chaim Weizmann, Herbert Samuel, and Ben-Gurion. These three matched Herzl in importance and peril. They harnessed all international conditions to create the Zionist state, while ensuring Israel’s non-total dependence on Westerners, not hostage to Western political moods. They built self-reliant Jewish military, economic, and security strengths, making their power a factor in political equations. They crafted favorable conditions before the state’s birth or announcement, so when declared, Israel was already fait accompli.
What we’ve outlined is the Zionist side of the story. But the Palestinian side wove another, parallel, intertwined tale. How? Let’s begin from the start.
Palestinians, we can say, endured a tremendous shock with the British Mandate occupation. They had suffered horrific ordeals during World War I years, with many locals conscripted to fight for the Ottoman Empire across multiple fronts. Clashes with Allied forces caused extensive destruction in Palestinian cities, a severe famine claiming many lives. Gaza was among the hardest hit, site of the three Gaza battles between British and Ottomans.
With Ottoman defeat in World War I, Palestinians found themselves under foreign occupation for the first time in six centuries. Since the Mamluk era, when Crusaders were driven from Levantine coasts, no foreign invader had set foot. They knew only Islamic caliphates: Mamluks and Ottomans. Years after World War I, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk arose in Turkey, abolishing the caliphate and declaring: “We are not responsible for Ottoman lands“. He limited to Turkey’s current borders, saying: “This is the independent Turkish homeland; we have no connection to other lands Ottomans ruled“.
Here, Palestinians confronted a bizarre, deviant situation unprecedented. For fourteen centuries, since entering Islamic rule—even before, under Roman or Persian empires—this land was always a province of a greater empire: the Islamic Caliphate. It had never been a separate entity.
Emerging Divisions and Resistance Roots
Now, this land piece became both isolated and occupied. No surrounding rulers saw defending Palestine as their duty. A vacuum formed, like severing a member from a body or a chamber from a vast palace, with none accountable.
This was an ideological earthquake, a fierce psychological upheaval. Until then, Palestinians didn’t recognize themselves as “Palestinians”. The term lacked meaning; a Palestinian identified by family: “I’m from Husseini, Nashashibi family”, or city: “from Acre, Haifa, Jaffa”, or faith: “Muslim”, or affiliation: “Ottoman”.
But with this quake, a fresh meaning surfaced, a novel idea, a new identity: Palestine. Palestine transcended mere land; it became a national homeland distinct from others, under occupation—a homeland demanding freedom and independence.
Of course, nationalistic ideas were spreading then, seeping even into Palestine. To understand how national patriotism infiltrated Palestine, we observe several entry points or gateways, such as:
Increasing literacy rates in schools established by missionary groups and foreign missions. During foreign influence in the late Ottoman era, numerous schools arose offering strong education, graduating students proficient in foreign languages. The Ottoman state also founded schools to retain Ottoman lands’ children, but even these were infiltrated by nationalistic ideas, spreading from foreigners and into Ottoman schools.
Graduates from neighboring countries like Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria, where nationalism prevailed, as it underpinned curricula, echoed in newspapers, media, books, and novels.
Nationalism gained traction among the growing educated class, socially elevated—this the first gateway.
Societal Fragmentation and British Mandate Tactics
The second gateway: nationalism was the idea carried by foreign occupation. Undoubtedly, the occupier disseminates its ideology in occupied lands, willingly or forcibly. As the occupier reorganizes political and economic affairs to suit itself, it also reshapes ideas. Those under occupation adopt the victor’s traits, “the vanquished is fond of imitating the victor“, so the occupier’s ideas spread among many, especially classes close to the occupation, the socially ascending.
This occurred in all lands, in Egypt, Tunisia, all occupied territories—not just Palestine, but Palestine was among those where nationalism spread, influenced by the victorious British occupation, as all Europe was nationalistic.
The third gateway: the collapse or exposure of the Islamic cover, with no longer a caliph or caliphate, leading defeated ideas to face rejection and aversion, people fleeing them. Undoubtedly, war’s losers see their ideas defeated, victors’ ideas triumphant. Thus, a wave shifted from Islamic caliphate and identity ideas to nationalisms, those abandoning Islamic thought embracing nationalism.
The fourth gateway: no leaders in surrounding lands saw defending Palestine as their duty, the occupier operated from a nationalistic idea and environment, itself forming a national identity in Palestine—forming a Jewish state—and shaping a global system based on nationalism in the League of Nations.
For all this and lesser reasons, nationalism became the refuge and means to oppose the occupier, to pursue independence. Raise banners of national liberation and independence, call for self-determination rights. Of course, self-determination was championed by the American president, peoples in colonies clung to it, seeking independence agreements with occupiers.
Thus, we can say nationalism spread among the land’s people, gradually termed the “Palestinian people“. Later, this solidified, necessarily so, as it now faced dual occupations: British Mandate and Zionist.
The Birth of Palestinian Resistance
From its inception—with this modern national meaning—the Palestinian people waged battles to affirm existence and land rights, striving to liberate from British Mandate occupation and survive existential threats.
This doesn’t imply Palestinians forsook Islamic belonging or identity. Across struggle and resistance phases, Islamic presence overwhelmed, Islamic sanctity the greatest factor in rousing sentiments, enflaming energies, and welcoming aid from Muslims outside Palestine. But the intent now is that these elements swept the political context of possible, available actions, and political-media discourse toward nationalism—toward a national aim to free a nation-state called Palestine.
Hence, we see from Herbert Samuel onward, a prime British Mandate priority was blocking Palestinians from forming a state or representative political entity. The British refused any representative council—parliament—knowing Arabs would dominate. They obstructed leaderships that could voice Palestinians, stifling movements that might build Palestinian political power.
British Mandate policy pursued two opposing paths: empowering, supporting, nurturing, cradling a Jewish state despite lacking all state essentials; and preventing, hindering, depriving Palestinians of any Palestinian state formation, though they possessed all state requisites. This unique, anomalous situation occurred only in Palestine.
Other Arab lands under British occupation favored installing a subservient regime. Egypt had its king, Jordan AbduLLAH, Iraq Faisal, and so on—Palestine was denied even this puppet system.
Thus, rivalries festered among major families, like Husseini and Nashashibi. Hence, the British hunted Haj Amin al-Husseini, Palestine’s effective political leader, to apprehend him. He took refuge in Al-Aqsa Mosque. To avoid provoking Islamic feelings, the British deployed a Muslim Indian battalion—from their army—to storm Al-Aqsa for his capture. But Amin al-Husseini fled abroad, commencing his external struggle. I recommend his rich, essential memoirs.
The British Mandate Controls the Islamic Institutions
The British also issued decisions to place the administration of Sharia courts and waqf funds under English government control, aiming to paralyze the authority and resources of Mufti Husseini (Amin al-Husseini). These Sharia courts and endowments were seen as the last remnants of Islamic governance’s features and landmarks.
At the same time, secular nationalistic ideas spread, along with leftist communist tendencies, infiltrating the Palestinian elite and its intellectuals among the youth—the educated young rising socially. Naturally, this also eroded the cohesion and harmony of Palestinian society, as these secular, nationalistic, and leftist ideas created divisions between authentic Islamic belonging and these Western concepts.
Additionally, this educated youth ascended socially by assuming positions in the administrations and institutions established by the occupation. These young people and administrations oversaw daily affairs and details: taxes, education, irrigation, grains, agriculture, laws. Thus, this class of employees reinforced the authority of the English administrative system.
They did not do this intentionally or as agents, but this was the only existing and possible path for school graduates; upon graduating, what would they do? They would become employees in a government administration. This was the sole avenue for social advancement, with salaries and social status available there, so naturally, all sons of middle and lower classes aspired to it, and upper-class sons clung to it to maintain their social positions—a phenomenon that occurred in all Arab lands, all occupied territories.
Consequently, we can discuss that Palestinian society suffered from foreign occupation authority, incoming Western ideas, and a dominant system that provided, determined, or framed specific paths for learning and financial and social advancement. All this eroded the formation of a resistance movement and its harmony as well.
There was another division the English occupation exploited: the Muslim, Christian, and Jewish split. Events’ trajectory, dominant powers’ nature, and policies’ character drew Jews toward integration into the Zionist project and pulled Christians toward seeking refuge and protection with the English.
Ideological Infiltrations and Social Climb
Christians, for instance, who opposed colonialism did not do so from an Islamic standpoint but sought a nationalistic, Arab, secular approach. This was impossible in an environment where the majority was Muslim and its core issue was Islamic.
This English favoritism policy toward the Christian minority, empowering them in high positions and granting special privileges, gradually pulled these Christians—except a few—toward the occupation’s side, extracting them from anti-occupation ranks to the occupation’s side.
There was another division the occupation worked on: between peasants and city dwellers. The occupation sought to draw family elites into jobs subordinate to the British government, thus forming classes closer to the British, while lower classes and peasants remained distant, their social and economic conditions extremely difficult.
Yet, it must also be said—despite all these storms, waves, and tragedies—that most books and sources repeatedly mention natural coexistence between Muslims and Jews, especially native Jews of Arab origins, particularly in large cities, commercial cities naturally accustomed to many ethnicities and numerous guests. Sometimes reading these suggests no problems existed among Arabs, as if the social context was isolated and separate from the political situation.
This social context was filled with tolerance and natural dealings, to the extent—for example—Salah Khalaf, one of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s founders, in his very beautiful memoirs titled “Palestinian Without Identity” (he was from Jaffa)—says:
“It was not rare for love to occur between a Palestinian young man and a Jewish girl, or for marriage to a Jewish girl“
This social state, in truth, did not change until shortly before the Nakba, when danger became overwhelming and earthquakes very near.
When we understand these conditions in which Palestinian society existed, our understanding improves of the resistance nature this society produced, and of the obstacles and problems facing this resistance. This also guides and adjusts our expected expectations from this resistance, as naturally we’ll ask: How did Palestinians resist this creeping Zionist danger? If we don’t know this state Palestinian society was in, we might not understand the resistance it produces.
How did Palestinians resist? This is what we’ll see, ALLAH willing, in the next article.
We ask ALLAH, Blessed and Exalted, to teach us what benefits us, to benefit us with what HE taught us, and to increase our knowledge.
Peace be upon you and ALLAH’s mercy and blessings.
Sources:
- Mohamed Elhamy. قصة فلسطين | 8. كيف صارت فلسطين يتيمة.. عصر الاحتلال الإنجليزي. YouTube Video.
