Table of Contents
This tenth installment delves into the pivotal Great Palestinian Revolt of 1936 and the ruthless suppression tactics employed by the British mandate, exploring the political maneuvering behind the 1939 White Paper, the geopolitical shifts of World War II, and the complex, often compromised stances of neighboring Arab regimes—specifically Egypt and Jordan—on the eve of the Nakba.
In the Name of ALLAH, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. All praise is due to ALLAH, and Peace and Blessings be upon the Messenger of ALLAH, His family, His companions, and those who follow Him.
Welcome, beloved brothers, to a new article in “The Story of Palestine“. This series summarizes the history of Palestine from the inception of the idea of a Jewish return to the land, up until the eruption of the Flood in October 2023. The goal is to understand the roots of this story: Why does it remain a burning, inflamed issue after more than a century? How did Herzl succeed where his ancestors failed for 3,000 years? And what is the future of this story as mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah, and as indicated by current events?
For those who wish to verify the details, these articles are extracted from my book “Summary of the Story of Palestine“1. A download link is provided, where one can refer to every piece of information and its sources.
In the previous article, we covered the beginning of the resistance in Palestine, reaching the story of the Great Palestinian revolt which began in 1936 and continued until 1939. It must be noted that, as is customary in every Islamic Jihad, this revolution involved Muslims from Egypt, Jordan, the Levant, and Iraq. Volunteers arrived, and some even became leaders within the movement. The most famous name worth mentioning here is Fawzi al-Qawuqji; this is a significant name, and further details about him will appear later.
The British Mandate’s Brutal Suppression of the Palestinian Revolt
As with every popular uprising, the British weaponry was deployed with extreme violence to extinguish all resistance. The British killed, utilized assassination tactics, and employed arrests, exile, and military trials. This was accompanied by extensive security and intelligence operations, covered by political maneuvers designed to sow division among Palestinian leaders. Plots were hatched to abort the movement and attempt to turn it into sectarian strife, religious conflict, or internal fighting between tribes, clans, and families, or between Muslims and Christians.
If one reflects on what Britain did and the forms of repression used by the British mandate, it becomes clear they followed a specific path:
- Killing field commanders, meaning the practical military leaders.
- Separating political leaders from events on the ground, either through exile or by facilitating their escape from Palestine. If they did not arrest a leader—or calculated that an arrest might cause too much trouble—they exiled him or allowed him to flee.
- Stripping the people of all types of weapons; if even a single empty bullet casing was found in a house, the entire house would be blown up.
- The British used civilians as human shields. As mentioned previously, the Palestinian revolt involved blowing up vehicles and setting ambushes. In response, the British would tie civilians to the front of their cars and trains so that the Palestinians would not attack them.
- Sieges were laid upon villages.
- Massive arrest campaigns were launched, extending to the relatives of those who joined the revolution or even those merely suspected of joining.
- Many homes were blown up, particularly in Jaffa, which witnessed the most extensive demolition operations.
Ultimately, Britain threw its entire weight behind ending this revolution, which lasted for three years. They entered with twenty thousand of their troops, commanded by four senior generals who had participated in World War I. Britain was forced to effectively re-occupy all of Palestine militarily. As previously stated, the peak of the Palestinian revolt was in the summer of 1938. By late 1938 and early 1939, Britain was re-establishing military control over Palestine, imposing martial law, and relying on 100,000 soldiers. This equated to one soldier for every four Palestinians. One can imagine the extent to which Britain was annoyed and felt endangered: one soldier for every four people!
To appreciate the magnitude of this cost, one only needs to remember that a fanatical Zionist prone to excessive violence like Jabotinsky believed the force necessary to establish Israel would be no less than 50,000 soldiers. Now, visualize how Britain had to rely on 100,000 soldiers. Unlike the British, who were a superpower with immense strength, Zionist gangs had grown and formed alongside them. These gangs also began—with the British mandate turning a blind eye and operating in parallel—to execute bombing operations in markets and crowded squares, specifically in Arab areas and cities.
Evaluating the Outcomes and the White Paper Deception
In summary, the three years—the years of the revolution—resulted in the martyrdom of 5,000 Palestinians. We are speaking of a society of only 400,000 people, so 5,000 is a massive number. Additionally, about 14,000 were wounded. This is not counting those arrested, exiled, or forced to flee. Some estimates suggest that the total number removed from the Palestinian force represented one-tenth of the adult males fit for combat.
Some observers mention that this revolution saw the liquidation of the generation that could have stood up to the Zionist gangs ten years later, when Israel would begin to declare itself. Thus, it can be said that the practical reality is that the Nakba effectively occurred when the Palestinian revolt was extinguished in the late 1930s. There is no doubt that the Palestinians showed brave resistance, but when evaluating this resistance, it appears it was scattered and dispersed.
This is not to cast blame, but to evaluate. Imagine this Palestinian society, deprived of any political representation and subjected to the conspiracies previously explained. Imagine that the first planned popular movement—the large demonstration organized in 1933 which turned into the Jerusalem and Jaffa uprising—took 15 years to materialize. The period from 1917 to 1933 is evidence of how this society suffered from conspiracies that scattered it and hindered the emergence of leadership: 15 years passed before they could organize a peaceful popular movement similar to Gandhi’s resistance in India.
This resistance, besides being scattered, suffered from a massive disparity in power and weaponry. It certainly suffered from a weakness in cadres because a generation had been crushed ten years prior to this revolution. It also suffered from global complicity, with Britain at the head of the world at that time, and from Arab betrayal. The role of the Arabs in pressuring the Arab Higher Committee to end the manifestations of the revolution has been discussed; even the existing Arab capitals were ruled by regimes subservient to the occupation.
It must be remembered that the British Empire was the strongest global power of its era. Consider that nations with vast populations and abundant resources could not liberate themselves from British occupation, and when they did, it was with difficulty and after decades—India, Egypt, and Iraq, for example. All these peoples, with their large numbers and resources, could not easily liberate themselves from the English. How then can one speak of a people like the Palestinians, who were few in number and poor in resources, and imagine they could succeed alone in such a confrontation?
In truth, the Palestinians displayed heroic bravery. The results they achieved were unexpected given the huge difference in capabilities between the two sides. Indeed, the mere launch of this Palestinian revolt, fighting these battles, and achieving these results expresses rare courage. Yet, it cannot be said that the results were zero.
Britain was forced by this revolution to seek palliative solutions, especially as the drums of World War II began to beat around 1939. Britain needed to calm this region and its peoples. Consequently, it announced the cancellation of the partition plan, released the deportees exiled from the Arab Higher Committee, proposed a conference in London between Arabs and Jews, and issued what is known as the “White Paper” in May 1939.
This White Paper is considered the largest British concession in favor of the Palestinians. It actually ignited a dispute between the British and the Jews because the English pledged to restrict Jewish immigration to no more than 75,000 per year. They also banned the sale of land to Jews in certain areas and restricted it with conditions in others. However, it must also be said that the British mandate remained very rigid regarding granting amnesty to field revolutionaries, as well as permitting the return of the Palestinian political leader, Haj Amin al-Husseini. Britain wanted a non-threatening calm; they wanted quiet without the seeds or personalities that could reignite the revolution. Consequently, Haj Amin al-Husseini could not return to Palestine.
It is true that he went on a difficult and exciting journey, moving between Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, and Turkey, eventually going to Germany to try to ally with the Germans. Since the Germans were enemies of the English, he attempted to secure a promise from them contradictory to the Balfour Declaration: that the Arabs would ally with the Germans in exchange for the Germans enabling them to liberate their lands and end the Zionist project. This agreement actually happened between Amin al-Husseini and the Germans, and the Germans even trained some Arab forces and supplied them with some weapons, but in the end, this situation overturned with defeat.
When Germany and Italy were defeated in World War II, the Englishman stood as the victor. Afterward, the rising American power appeared, which effectively ended the war and dropped the curtain of victory. In this war—World War II—the English, French, and Russians were exhausted, while the Germans, Japanese, and Italians were crushed. The victorious party that retained its strength was the Americans.
Here, Britain abandoned the White Paper. After victory was achieved, Britain retracted its promises regarding the White Paper. The Foreign Secretary at the time, Bevin, issued a statement abandoning it. Large waves of immigration began to flow; two massive Jewish waves arrived during World War II—one of 90,000 and another of more than 60,000. Consequently, Haj Amin al-Husseini’s situation worsened. After the defeat, he was forced to flee to France, where he was arrested. He managed to escape again and eventually reached Egypt. He tried at that time to lead what can be called the most dangerous phase in the Palestinian Jihad, which is the phase prior to the occurrence of the Nakba and the establishment of Israel.
The Egyptian Stance: Political Ambivalence under Occupation
Before entering the story of the Nakba, a look must be taken at the conditions of the Arab countries surrounding Palestine. Without examining the situations in these Arab lands, one can never truly understand what happened during the Nakba. Generally, Arab countries were in miserable conditions after World War I. Moving from the First World War to the Second, Arab lands were subject to foreign occupation. The occupation established subservient governments in these countries, perhaps granting them formal independence that neither nourished nor satisfied hunger, but hegemony, presence, and the upper hand belonged to the English and French.
We start with Egypt, the largest and most populous Arab state. When World War I ended, the British occupation in Egypt was about 40 years old (starting in 1882). The English occupied Egypt primarily to preserve the regime of the Muhammad Ali family, as this regime had introduced Westernization to Egypt and made it akin to the hen that lays golden eggs for foreigners.
Therefore, when World War I broke out, one of the promises the English made to calm the Egyptians and the elite—and to buy time—was a promise to evacuate Egypt. After the war ended, the English dragged their feet. It became clear that Egyptian politicians were incapable of extracting or enforcing this promise from Britain. A massive revolution erupted, the very famous 1919 Revolution in Egyptian history. This revolution nearly shook the English presence to its core.
Without going into too many details, the English successfully worked to absorb this revolution and manufacture a leadership loyal to them. What happened in Egypt was similar to what happened in Palestine later: true leaders were killed, imprisoned, smuggled out, or exiled. The only leadership figures remaining were those known to the British. The English absorbed the revolution and crafted Saad Zaghloul. This man was loyal to the English and one of their most sincere men in Egypt, yet they paved the way for him to take charge and lead this revolution.
What did Saad Zaghloul do practically? He pulled the revolution from the streets and entered it into the corridors of politics and negotiations, emerging with a formal independence and a constitution. Even within this constitution, most powers belonged to the King, not the people, and Parliament’s powers were limited.
In this way, the revolution failed; it succeeded formally in bringing a constitution and parliament, but practically, everything the English did remained. Therefore, the period from 1923 to 1948 (when the Nakba occurred) is called the “Liberal Era” in Egypt. The actual hegemony belonged to the English and their Westernized followers who controlled the press and media, led political parties, and struggled—peacefully, of course—for independence through rounds of negotiations, achieving no real independence even after 30 years.
During this period, the concept of the nation-state, the Egyptian national state, and the secular state became entrenched. The Egyptian politician did not care for or concern himself with the issue of Palestine. In fact, Egypt at that time had a Jewish community, which was influential and had its own Jewish press supporting Zionism. There were newspapers named Israel, The Sun (Al-Shams), and The Israelite Union. These papers spoke with a Zionist tongue and promoted their cause.
Often, the Egyptian politician sought to benefit from these conditions. Facing an influential Jewish community and Jewish press, he would sometimes align with Zionist rhetoric. One could find an Egyptian leader, such as a head of government or minister, sympathizing with Jewish rights while declaring his denunciation and condemnation of the resistance, viewing it as a manifestation of religious fanaticism and intellectual extremism.
The issue of Palestine was not, as people imagine now, a constant cause in Egypt. It was not so. At that time, it was a controversial issue, open to opinion and counter-opinion, and even neglect; one might find individuals with no opinion on the subject at all.
I would like to point out that among the important sources explaining this situation is the book by Dr. Awatef Abdel Rahman, titled Egypt and Palestine, published in the “World of Knowledge” series. This book studies the Egyptian press of that time, which was a mouthpiece for political parties and influential figures.
Another book with great documentation is by the late historian Counselor Tariq al-Bishri, titled The Political Movement in Egypt. A smaller book that summarizes this topic, where one can see the impact of Jews in Egypt at that time, is by the Egyptian national leader Ahmed Hussein, founder of the Young Egypt Party, titled Half a Century with Arabism and the Palestine Cause. Though small, it excellently summarizes the situation.
Many viewers might be surprised that the Egyptian authority and elite often supported the Zionists explicitly. They would indeed imprison Palestinians and imprison those sympathetic to them. For example, Palestinians in Egypt who chanted against Balfour during the British Foreign Secretary’s visit were arrested.
Furthermore, during the Al-Buraq Uprising in 1929, the Egyptian government—headed then by Mohamed Mahmoud Pasha—was against the uprising. The official newspaper, named Al-Siyasa (Politics), threatened Egyptians and Palestinians in Egypt with expulsion for inciting “sectarian strife” and “agitating public opinion.” Indeed, some Palestinians were arrested, including Abd al-Qadir al-Husseini (who would later become a Palestinian leader); they were arrested and expelled. At the same time, the government received a delegation of Jewish students from the Hebrew University and arranged the best reception for them.
In 1930, the Egyptian government was headed by Ismail Sidqi, known in Egypt as the “Enemy of the People”. He closed a Palestinian newspaper named Al-Shura. The newspaper of the Royal Palace—named Al-Saraya—considered the creation of a national home for Jews in Palestine as a solution to Palestine’s problems because they would bring European expertise and capital. This was the exact Zionist vision at the time.
When Zionists promoted the importance of their state, they said, “We will benefit the country, develop the land, and bring European expertise and capital”. The Egyptian Royal Palace newspaper echoed this, criticizing “extremists” for obstructing this solution and claiming that Palestinians were beginning to accept this solution and coexist with the Jews.
Imagine another scene: The Egyptian government, under Ahmed Zeiwar Pasha, sent the president of the Egyptian University (Cairo University), Ahmed Lutfi el-Sayed—a famous figure dubbed the “Professor of Generations” and a liberal—in an official delegation to attend the opening ceremony of the Hebrew University. Taha Hussein also sent a congratulatory telegram on the occasion of the Hebrew University’s opening. Later, Taha Hussein visited Jerusalem upon an invitation from the Hebrew University and the British Governor. This was mentioned by his wife, Suzanne Taha Hussein, in their memoirs. She also recounted how Taha Hussein circumvented laws to send an Egyptian student to complete his studies at the Hebrew University.
In 1932, there was an exhibition in Tel Aviv, and the Egyptian government participated with official representation. When the Great Palestinian revolt occurred in 1936, the Egyptian government, headed by Mustafa el-Nahhas Pasha (leader of the Wafd Party), approved the travel of hundreds of Egyptian workers to Palestine to fill the shortage caused by the strike.
Another incident involves Mohamed Mahmoud Pasha, the head of the government. In 1938, a journalist in Europe asked him, “What do you intend regarding the Palestine issue?” He replied, “I am the Prime Minister of Egypt, not the Prime Minister of Palestine”. This was the government’s stance.
Books were published in Egypt praising the “Jewish Nation” and heralding the return of Jews to Palestine. The book History of the Israelites by the Jewish historian Makaryus Shahin, which we have cited, was published in Egypt at that time. Books were even published requesting the support of the King and the Egyptian authority in establishing the Jewish state and saving the “poor Jewish people”, such as the book The Awakening of the Jewish World by Elie Levy Abu Assal.
Conversely, publishing a book about Palestine and the massacres and destruction occurring there was fraught with danger. The book Fire and Destruction in Palestine was published anonymously and distributed in a way that circumvented the authorities. If copies were found, the possessor faced problems. The Muslim Brotherhood printed a book with this title, and there is a story narrated by Mahmoud Abdel Halim in his book The Muslim Brotherhood: Events that Made History.
As mentioned, there was a Jewish press in Egypt speaking for the Zionist movement, with significant activity in buying the consciences of Egyptian journalists and politicians. Egypt had little press freedom then, and newspapers relied on advertisements. I refer you to Ahmed Hussein’s book regarding this topic.
The purpose is not to evaluate the Egyptian authority’s stance on Palestine—that requires more space—but the bottom line is that for Egyptian politics and the elite, Palestine was not a matter of principle or a settled issue. Opinions and positions varied, and a single party’s stance might flip as it balanced accounts with the English or other parties. It cannot be said that the Egyptian authority or state stood with Palestine.
Ultimately, the army, police, striking force, and economic resources were under the control of the British mandate. No matter how sympathetic and solidary the Egyptian people were, or how ready for sacrifice and Jihad in Palestine, they could not move except within the limits allowed by the British authority. There is a beautiful quote by Dr. Awatef Abdel Rahman: “Egypt was one of the main centers for Zionist propaganda in the Arab world“. If you look at our world at the moment you are reading this article, you will find Arab capitals that are indeed main centers for Zionist propaganda.
Transjordan’s Role: The Artificial State and Hidden Agendas
This was the state of Egypt. As for the second country, Jordan, it is the most important and dangerous regarding Palestine among the confrontation states. Looking at Jordan’s situation before the Nakba, it was ruled by AbduLLAH, son of Sharif Hussein. When World War I ended, Sharif Hussein found nothing of the promised dream of an Arab Caliphate—no Caliphate, no Levant, no Iraq. Even the Arabian Peninsula was lost to him. His miserable story ended with him dying in exile in Cyprus, with no kingdom or emirate, having previously been the Sharif of Hejaz. This was the penalty for his betrayals after placing his efforts and forces at the service of the English.
For his son AbduLLAH, the English manufactured a country. They carved out a piece in the desert east of the Jordan River for him. even the name of this place was anomalous in the world of nations; it was called the “Emirate of Transjordan”. They could not find a natural name for this region. It is like saying “the place behind the chair”. “The Emirate East of the Jordan River” was a place with no name to express it. Later, in 1947, they changed it to a grand name, “The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan”.
This piece of desert was devoid of resources and capabilities, not containing even a single city deserving of the name. Amman was the most important city, yet it was still a large village because social and commercial conditions had not made it a major city; it was merely a crossing and passage for caravans. This Emirate was inferior in every way to being a state, let alone a kingdom.
AbduLLAH inherited a strong relationship with the English from his father, Sharif Hussein. He was one of the most sincere and obedient men to the English, to the point that his relationship with them was described as a “unique intimacy with no parallel”. This description came from a British historian named Mary Wilson, who wrote an excellent history book titled King AbduLLAH, Britain and the Making of Jordan, which is essential reading. This book is very serious in tracking the origin of Jordan and AbduLLAH’s personal development.
The British mandate supplied him with the necessary funding to have an army, spend on himself, create authority, and pay the Arab tribes in the region. His army was composed of English leadership. He tried to form a “Desert Patrol” from the tribesmen, but at the head of this army was the famous English commander, Glubb Pasha.
However, AbduLLAH was not content. He was resentful that the battles they entered with the English resulted only in this piece of desert land. He saw how his younger brother, Faisal, was made King of Syria and then King of Iraq—countries with resources, rivers, and the true meaning of statehood. He was shocked to find himself on this piece of land. Even the Hejaz was lost after AbdulAziz Al Saud seized it—and Al Saud could not have seized these properties had the English not allowed it, for the English had effectively washed their hands of Sharif Hussein.
So how could he expand? To the north, France controlled Syria; to the east was his brother in Iraq; to the south, Al Saud; and to the west, the English in Palestine. He saw no option but to expand to rule Palestine. He wanted to stretch from East of the Jordan to West of the Jordan. Consequently, Palestine was the only land without a government, and as mentioned, the English were keen for it not to have a government. Thus, this was the place where he could be an alternative.
Britain granted him formal independence but continued funding his army because the country had no resources. Being incapable, powerless, and inextricably linked to the English, his policy was to be the most obedient and best agent for the English, hoping they might allow him to expand into Palestine. Correspondence even reveals that when he learned of the British intention to leave Palestine, he was struck with severe panic. He imagined that the English lifeline supplying him with money would end, to the point that he considered leaving the rule of Jordan—an example of behavior befitting only the lowest agents attached to the occupation, ready to depart if the occupier departs.
AbduLLAH ruled for 30 years, from 1921 to 1951. He was a very dangerous example of betrayal and total alignment with English and even Zionist schemes. The King of Jordan acted as the best English governor Britain placed to manage a colony. Reading his history, one finds he handed over to Britain several people who sought refuge with him, imagining he was initially a nationalist and Arabist. He handed some of his own subjects to the English, who then handed them to the French.
He made many attempts to attract Jewish companies to Transjordan, not to mention his meetings and arrangements with Zionist leaders like Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, and Moshe Dayan. He had arrangements with them before the Nakba. AbduLLAH played one of the most dangerous roles in handing Palestine over to the Zionists. He was the only Arab ruler who agreed to the partition decision of Palestine. Why did he agree? Because the British promised him that the land assigned to the Arabs in the partition would belong to him.
AbduLLAH did not announce this agreement publicly when he made it. Instead, he donned the robe of the mujahid warrior defending the Arabism of Palestine, gathering his army to enter Palestine. Indeed, his army entered under the slogan of defending Palestine’s Arabism, and the English allowed this. When they decided to withdraw, the English permitted him to enter not to defend Palestine, but to annex the West Bank to his kingdom.
This was the land crafted to be the Arab part in the partition plan. Thus, he did not enter to defend the Arabism of Palestine but to confirm and execute the partition decision so that a Zionist state would arise, and no Arab or Palestinian state would be created. The partition decision mandated the creation of two states; what actually happened was the implementation of only half of it—the creation of the Zionist state, Israel. Because of AbduLLAH, no Arab Palestinian state was born.
In the next article, ALLAH willing, we will examine the situation of the remaining confrontation states surrounding Palestine before opening the story of the Nakba.
We ask ALLAH, the Blessed and Exalted, to teach us what benefits us, and to benefit us with what HE has taught us.
Peace be upon you and ALLAH’s mercy and blessings.
Sources:
- Mohamed Elhamy. قصة فلسطين | 10. الرحلة المريرة.. كيف وصلنا إلى النكبة؟!. Telegram Video.
