Introduction
The occurrence of the First World War led to the British mandate over Palestine and, later, the state of Israel. Nonetheless, Britain’s policies also contributed to long-term antagonism that persists among Jews and Arabs (Angrist, 2010). The land that Palestinian Arabs and Jewish settlers now occupy had earlier been under the rule of Britain when it conquered Palestine following the decline of the Ottoman Empire. Therefore, it became a complicated matter for Britain as it had to handle tensions between the two parties. The mandate sought to establish a homeland for Jews that could accommodate this belief within the scope of the Zionist movement. However, conflicts emerged around Jewish immigration and land purchases (Angrist, 2010). As a result, Britain imposed restrictions on Jewish immigration and soured its relations with the Zionist leaders. Many Arabs moved when the transition from British rule to the Israeli one took place by violent means. Although it indeed empowered the creation of Israel, the British inability to compromise the diverging Jewish and Arab aspirations was bound to lead to ongoing regional violence. By looking at important incidents and policy measures during the British mandate, it is possible to demonstrate how this difficult time established the future state of Israel but also sustained disputes that continued post-independence.
British Mandate Period
The establishment of the British mandate over Palestine occurred following the First World War and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Control of the area became formally official under a British mandate, which was granted by The League of Nations in 1920 (Hurewitz, 2022). This mandate was to last for an interim period until Palestine could become an independent nation. Britain had pushed for regional control for several reasons (Hurewitz, 2022). Palestine contained important religious sites like Jerusalem and Bethlehem that Britain wanted to claim protectorate status over. Britain also saw strategic value in Palestine, given its location near the Suez Canal, which was Britain’s vital trade route to India (Hurewitz, 2022). Additionally, Britain was supportive of the Zionist movement, which called for establishing a Jewish national homeland in Palestine. When Britain assumed its role as the mandatory power in Palestine, tensions quickly rose between the area’s Arab and Jewish inhabitants (Hurewitz, 2022). At the time, Arabs made up a majority of Palestine’s population. There was an established Arab Palestinian society under Ottoman rule. However, Jews formed a significant proportion that consisted of traditional Jewish communities living in Palestine for ages and new Jews in waves coming in from Europe since the last century toward establishing a Jewish homeland.
The Jew migration into Palestine was high in the initial years of the mandate as a result of pogroms in Eastern Europe and Nazi’s growth during the 1930s. By 1939, Jewry accounted for almost 30% of Berlin’s total population, despite constituting less than ten percent in 1922 (Hurewitz, 2022). These Yishuv Jews formed new agrarian communities and factories in Palestine. This growth fueled Arab resentment and distrust. Arab Palestinians increasingly saw the Jewish newcomers as intent on displacing them by purchasing Arab land. Between 1920 and 1939, Britain struggled to manage growing Arab-Jewish hostilities (Hurewitz, 2022). In the late 1920s, tensions erupted into violent clashes over prayer rights at the Western Wall. In the 1930s, an Arab nationalist independence movement emerged in Palestine, influenced by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s pan-Arabism (Hurewitz, 2022). Palestinian Arabs carried out strikes, demonstrations, and violent attacks on Jews. They resented Britain’s support for the Zionist project and increasingly called for independence.
In the late 1930s, Arab militants launched the Arab Revolt against British rule and further Jewish immigration. British forces brutally suppressed the insurgency using controversial tactics like house demolitions. The revolt resulted in thousands of Arab deaths and highlighted the failure of Britain’s dual commitment to Zionists and Palestinian Arabs (Mason, 2020). The British mandate era was thus characterized by growing clashes and distrust between Jews and Arabs in Palestine against the backdrop of Britain’s shifting policies and failure to reconcile competing nationalist movements (Mason, 2020). While the mandate was created partly to facilitate Jewish statehood, tensions over immigration and land fueled lasting hostility between Arabs and Jews that would erupt with new ferocity following Israel’s 1948 founding.
Toward Statehood
Britain’s policies in Palestine had failed to bring stability and reconciliation between Arabs and Jews by the end of World War II. Britain’s restrictions on Jewish immigration angered Zionist groups, while Arab nationalists demanded independence (Mason, 2020). Against this backdrop, Britain relinquished the Palestine mandate and handed the issue to the newly formed United Nations. The United Nations agreed upon dividing Palestine into two separate Jewish and Arab states in 1947 (Mason, 2020). UNSCOP submitted a majority report that recommends partition because it viewed the opposite objectives of Zionists and Palestinian nationalists as being irreconcilable (Golan, 2023). The report meant to divide Jews and Arabs in such a way that would be possible. As the minority, the Yishuv was going to take control of 55 percent of Palestinian territory under the UN partition plan (Mason, 2020). Zionist leaders accepted the plan and were strongly opposed by Arab-leading individuals. As it was, violence was already a reality, preceding the withdrawal of Britain from Palestine in May 1948 (Golan, 2023). The militias of Jews and Arabs who emerged as a result of the mandate attacked. One month later, Israel declared independence, and the first Arab-Israeli war commenced. Arab states’ armies invaded the Jewish state.
In 1948, Arabs either ran away on their own accord or were driven out of their homes during and after the same war. These refugees saw the creation of Israel as a cause of their displacement, commonly referred to as the Nakba (Walsh, 2021). Israel rejected this demand, and there was no return. It caused a permanent Palestinian refugee problem. Tensions between Israelis and Palestinians escalated with the destruction of hundreds of Palestinian villages during the war. The war concluded in 1949, with Israel victorious (Walsh, 2021). However, Israel now controlled more territory than the original UN partition plan allocated, including the western half of Jerusalem and other areas allotted for the Arab state. Armistice lines at the war’s end served as Israel’s temporary borders until 1967, often called the “pre-67 lines” (Walsh, 2021). Israel’s borders following the war surprised even Israeli leaders. They had not planned on occupying so much territory but seized new areas in response to military gains. The 1949 armistice lines left lasting questions (Walsh, 2021). Palestinian and wider Arab anger festered over the expulsion of refugees and loss of land. They still saw Israel as illegally occupying Arab territory, refusing to recognize its legitimacy.
Legacy
The British mandate’s expiration and Israel’s establishment fundamentally reshaped the Middle East and created a complex legacy still evident today. On the one hand, Israel’s founding realized the Zionist movement’s vision of reviving a Jewish nation-state in the ancestral homeland (Sadiq & Tsourapas, 2021). It provided refuge for Jewish survivors of the Holocaust and Jewish communities facing persecution in Arab lands. Israel developed into a thriving democracy and close ally of Western powers. However, the clashes between Arabs and Jews under the mandate continue reverberating. The dispossession of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs spurred an enduring refugee crisis and determination to seek justice and restoration (Sadiq & Tsourapas, 2021). This fueled Palestinian nationalism and Arab antagonism toward Israel. Acts of Palestinian militantism and Israeli reprisals perpetuated cycles of violence after 1948 (Sadiq & Tsourapas, 2021). Also, the unresolved issues surrounding Palestinian refugees and contested borders have been at the core of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. UN Resolution 194 codified the Palestinian refugees’ right of return, which Israel has long rejected on demographic grounds (Sadiq & Tsourapas, 2021). Many Palestinians still inhabit refugee camps and demand a return to their pre-1948 homes. The question of Palestinian statehood in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem also remains unsettled, leaving the conflict legally unfinished.
Israel’s control over additional territory beyond the original UN partition borders also created dilemmas that complicate Middle East politics today. Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights is still viewed as an illegal occupation by most world bodies. Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank conquered from Jordan in 1967, continues despite international condemnation (Rumelili & Strömbom, 2022). Debates over annexation versus strategic occupation divide Israelis. The Palestinian national movement evolved to embrace armed struggle and terrorism, most notoriously by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Groups like Hamas and Hezbollah emerged from refugee camps with maximalist aims to eliminate Israel by force (Rumelili & Strömbom, 2022). While many nations urged diplomacy, these uncompromising stances helped perpetuate conflict after 1948 (Rumelili & Strömbom, 2022). Arab states, excluding Egypt and Jordan, which eventually recognized Israel, have traditionally refused normalization with Israel in solidarity with the Palestinian cause. This environment of hostility helped trigger additional wars, like the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War between Israel and Arab coalitions (Rumelili & Strömbom, 2022). Israel’s unacknowledged nuclear weapons program also became a source of wider regional tensions. However, Arab-Israeli dynamics slowly began shifting with the 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty, the 1993 Oslo Accords establishing Palestinian Authority rule in Gaza and the West Bank, and the recent Abraham Accords between Israel, Bahrain, and the UAE (Rumelili & Strömbom, 2022). However, a final resolution remains elusive, with the core disputes rooted in 1948 still unsettled between Israelis and Palestinians.
The Arab Revolt
The Arab Revolt from 1936 to 1939 represented the peak of Palestinian Arab resistance against British mandatory rule and Jewish immigration during the mandate era. The tensions that exploded into nationwide rebellion during these years highlighted the failure of Britain’s contradictory policies to satisfy either Jewish Zionists or Arab nationalists (Angrist, 2010). The main Arab nationalist forces leading the revolt were the Arab Higher Committee headed by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini and the more secular group known as the Independence Party. They demanded an immediate end to Jewish immigration, prohibition of land sales to Jews, and the rapid creation of an independent Arab state in Palestine (Angrist, 2010). These Arab nationalist aims directly opposed the goals of the mainstream Zionist movement, which sought increased Jewish immigration and eventual statehood in at least part of Palestine. The revolt also attracted religious support from clerics who were concerned with the influx of European Jews and the spread of secular lifestyles.
The outbreak of sustained violence began with a six-month general strike in 1936 organized by the Arab Higher Committee. This escalated into attacks on Jewish settlements, British military targets, and Palestinian Arabs deemed collaborators. It quickly grew into a large-scale rural guerilla insurgency, albeit one lacking central coordination and discipline. Britain responded by sending thousands of troops to quell the revolt (Angrist, 2010). Britain also set up military courts and expanded the use of collective punishments like mass detentions, demolitions of homes, seizures of livestock and property, and public whippings. These harsh tactics often targeted innocent civilians and ultimately enhanced resentment. By 1939, after three years of bloody conflict, which resulted in thousands of casualties on all sides, British forces and Jewish militias like the Haganah succeeded in largely suppressing the mass rebellion (Angrist, 2010). However, the Arab revolt revealed the extent of Arab hostility and the untenable situation for Britain. It was a key factor influencing Britain to drastically curtail Jewish immigration in the 1939 White Paper. Britain also attempted to conciliate Arabs by removing Jewish National Fund members from an advisory council, prohibiting land transfers to Jews in certain areas, and suppressing Zionist political activities.
The UN Special Committee on Palestine
The UN Special Committee on Palestine was tasked with the responsibility of addressing the conflict that existed in the region. With Britain deciding to withdraw from Palestine after World War II, the United Nations was tasked with determining the disputed territory’s future (Golan, 2023). The UN General Assembly voted in early 1947 to establish the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP). UNSCOP consisted of 11 member states considered reasonably neutral regarding Palestine (Golan, 2023). After conducting investigations and in-country hearings, a majority report of the committee recommended terminating the British mandate and partitioning Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states. The minority report urged establishing a unified federal state (Golan, 2023). The majority argued that the competing Zionist and Palestinian nationalist aims were irreconcilable, thus requiring partition and two states. The borders proposed granted 55% of the territory to the Jewish state despite Jews being the minority population (Golan, 2023). The Negev desert comprised much of the Jewish state’s land allocation. The minority report warned partition would escalate tensions and violence.
UNSCOP’s proposed borders outraged Arabs, who opposed any Jewish state in Palestine. However, Jewish leaders accepted the plan, hoping to gain international legitimacy for statehood. They planned to increase the land under their control, especially the holy city of Jerusalem, intended for international control (Golan, 2023). The UNSCOP reports sparked vigorous debate within the UN General Assembly, but the details of the partition plan remained mostly unchanged. Despite Arab state opposition, the UN voted 33-13 for Resolution 181 in November 1947, approving the majority recommendation to partition Palestine after Britain’s exit (Golan, 2023). This decision provided a pivotal international endorsement and legal framework used six months later for Israel’s declaration of independence (Golan, 2023). However, the borders proposed by UNSCOP failed to prevent the outbreak of war between Jews and Arabs after independence, showing the limits of the UN’s ability to resolve clashing nationalist movements. The unfinished status of borders and Palestinian statehood continues to haunt the region today.
Conclusion
Conclusively, the tumultuous decades of British mandatory rule fundamentally shaped the modern Middle East by laying the groundwork for the creation of Israel. However, Britain’s contradictory policies during this era also fueled enduring tensions between Jews and Arabs in the region. While the mandate facilitated Jewish statehood, Britain’s failure to reconcile competing nationalist aims created a volatile environment once independence arrived. The dispossession and displacement of Palestinians in the 1948 war spurred regional conflict that continues today. Though Israel emerged from the mandate as a new nation, Britain’s legacy was one of sowing conflict along with enabling independence. The clashing dreams of Arabs and Jews to control the same land were set on a collision course under the mandate, perpetuating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that remains unresolved over 70 years later.
References
Angrist, M. P. (Ed.). (2010). Politics & society in the contemporary Middle East. Boulder, Colo: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Pp 1-28. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/31127187/9781588267177-libre.pdf?1392220385=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DPolitics_and_society_in_the_contemporary.pdf&Expires=1699481677&Signature=L3zZRr7scz-dVu6o~VM1Yk~EwyJPUm7A-udvBISgWcqNmXRNX7kj2UAM12m-Eaa7vdSFUaQTdHgYpSwR0CVWnv4Cu7tYrR~v~VRA-z6PQ0qZtyf3nJ0NX4XbDpA~Wrx8i21oNJgn26EKP0XqGPissjkPcXFRsXQQCGnhuN-c44jvU7-2mIHKhzFqlbqQyJYiPjnyEZ3q-fV-0Eg0hSP~jsvgpy5y0tMXMd2XmmMQviIQG3mv0CSVYMl5CN10xLIEZtBM9~G5bWFo~VpddA22bXVRjDrBXeAhKOZW6aT5rk714vHIWQlRdm-gdRKZ8EbvEpY2w-ruiS6nziBIAuoMBg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
Golan, A. (2023). Foundations of a geopolitical entity-the Gaza Strip 1947–1950. Middle Eastern Studies, 1-13. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00263206.2023.2195635
Hurewitz, J. C. (2022). The struggle for Palestine. Plunkett Lake Press. Pp 59-113. https://books.google.co.ke/books?hl=en&lr=&id=yeh8EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1633&dq=British+Mandate+Period&ots=BQvTovnRhh&sig=5ZJoz5XnmQ5IYCnkT6-4bsyuzyw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=British%20Mandate%20Period&f=false
Mason, V. (2020). The liminality of Palestinian refugees: Betwixt and between global politics and international law. Journal of Sociology, 56(1), 84-99. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1440783319882539
Rumelili, B., & Strömbom, L. (2022). Agonistic recognition as a remedy for identity backlash: insights from Israel and Turkey. Third World Quarterly, 43(6), 1361-1379. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01436597.2021.1951607
Sadiq, K., & Tsourapas, G. (2021). The postcolonial migration state. European Journal of International Relations, 27(3), 884-912. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13540661211000114
Walsh, M. (2021). Observations on Oslo. Southern California International Review, 72. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e24ff6badd14d1f160917ee/t/61da59e5ab4f6d0b2462fdc0/1641699815857/Final_Book_i22.pdf#page=72
write