The British accepted a Mandate for Palestine from the League of Nations in 1920, giving further international legitimacy to their already extant grip on the region. This Mandate tasked Britain with overseeing the land of Palestine while facilitating the establishment of a national home for the Jewish People there. The British were conflicted from the start — from their own imperial ambitions to the promises they had already made to the Jews and to the Arabs. They should have been able to anticipate the storm that lay ahead — after all, they engineered its components. Instead, their ambitions got the better of them and they failed in fulfilling their plans — the region was, and remains, fractured by promises and host to conflict.
“The Jews paid high prices for the land, and in addition they paid to certain occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay.”
— John Hope Simpson
The British administrative goals were complicated by their vague promises — to the Arabs, to the Jews, to the League of Nations. The land was already divided by centuries of Ottoman rule and unrest, with a population that had little in common beyond its shared residence in Palestine.
The British didn’t grant much, if any, autonomy to the mandate. Instead, they kept their administration very hands on to protect their economic interests in the region (with an emphasis on the Suez canal and the growing developments in the oil fields). Trying to balance their previous promises to the Arabs and to the Jews — and the need to try to maintain order within the Arab population — the British issued white papers to regulate and severely limit Jewish immigration. However, this served only to inflame tensions between both communities.
What, then, is Palestine?
As we touched on earlier, the Romans renamed the region Syria Palaestina to erase the connection to the Jewish sovereignty in Judea. The name Palestine remained from the Romans throughout the period of Ottoman rule. It is imperative that we note that Palestine was not a distinct political entity, rather it was a name specifying the geographic region — not unlike the term the Middle East. It was a collection of districts governed as part of the province of Syria — including a mix of cities like Jerusalem, Jaffa, and Gaza as well as rural areas controlled by various local tribes and leaders.
The people living there identified primarily by their religious, tribal, or local affiliations, not as a “Palestinian.” The population of the region was about 90% Arab (split between Muslim and Christian) and 10% Jewish. Most of the Jewish communities concentrated in cities like Jerusalem and Haifa — even building entire cities like Tel Aviv. The Arabs mostly lived in rural areas. During the course of the Mandate, the Jewish presence increased dramatically due to continuing immigration. Jews were, under Ottoman rule, welcome in Palestine — as dhimmis — though in the late 19th century this changed due to rising Arab nationalism and Ottoman decline.
The name “Palestine” was almost exclusively imposed by foreign rulers rather than adopted by the local population. As mentioned, the Romans used the name to disassociate the region from its Jewish history. While during the Ottoman Empire, the name Palestine was never an official designation. For much of its history, the land was known by its individual cities or regions — like Jerusalem, Galilee, or Judea. The idea of Palestine as a national identity was a product then of 20th century political developments.
With the establishment of the British mandate, the name Palestine took on a new political meaning. The mandate gave the region a defined border and administrative structure. However, the borders drawn up after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and as the British picked up the mandate for Palestine, did not accurately reflect the locations, needs, or desires of these disparate groups of peoples living in the region. The ambiguity, tension, and hope paved the way for both Jews and Arabs to begin seeing “Palestine” as more than just a geographic designation.
As we have already explored the Jewish connection to the land, we should now more deeply dive into the Arab connection — the other side at conflict here — and try to see if there is a clear case for a stronger claim for one side or the other.
The Arab Connection
To understand the Arab connection to Palestine, we need to look briefly at the history of Islamic conquest. In the 7th century, Muslim armies swept through the Levant, taking control of Jerusalem in 637 CE, under Caliph Umar. Palestine became part of the Umayyad Caliphate, and later the Abbasid Caliphate.
For centuries, Muslim rulers maintained control over the region, with brief interruptions during the crusades. The land’s religious significance to Muslims, particular Jerusalem, made it a focal point for jihad (holy war) to defend and reclaim Islamic rule.
The Ottoman Empire absorbed Palestine in 1517 and governed it for four centuries. While the Ottomans viewed themselves as custodians of the Islamic world, their control over Palestine was often indirect — relying on local tribal leaders. During the Ottoman period, immigration to the region by Jews was tolerated — and at times encouraged — especially for Sephardic Jews, as they were viewed as sharing a common victimization during the Crusades. This acceptance went only so far; Jews were still forced to live as second-class citizens with dhimmi status.
By the late 19th century, the Ottoman Empire was in decline. Its weakening control over Palestine simultaneously called for them to limit immigration while it also opened the door for European powers to intervene. In the end, this led to greater European Jewish immigration, which subsequently resulted in rising tensions between Arabs and Jews.
Emergence of National Identities
The British considered everyone living in the mandate “Palestinian.” This was an administrative term for them, rather than a national identity. For example, the British issued Palestinian passports to the residents of the region. Arabs, at the beginning of the mandate, still would identify according to tribal and religious affiliation. Everyone living there used the term to some degree or another. We should note that the British were the first government to issue “Palestinian” passports, official documents, and currency.
The Jews didn’t adopt it as an identity per se; however, they did embrace it. For example the Jewish newspaper, The Jerusalem Post was founded as The Palestine Post in the 1930s. There were political and advertisement campaigns using the term in favor of Zionism and Jewish tourism. The currency introduced by the Brits listed “Palestine” and used a combination of English, Hebrew, and Arabic. Jews, though they used the term, kept their eyes set on the goal of a Jewish state. Thus, they didn’t consider themselves “Palestinian” any more than a person from Toronto would consider themselves a North American over Canadian. It was a complementary identity to the overall identity of Zionist—whether Ashkenazic, Sephardic, secular, or something else.
For the Arabs, Palestine as a national identity grew in direct proportion to the rise of Zionism and the Jewish push for a home in Eretz Israel (Land of Israel). Under the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the Arab nationalist movement set aside some of their tribal differences — though infighting was still frequent — to adopt the term as a direct counter to the Jews. Additionally, Arabs from the region were encouraged to illegally immigrate into Palestine to help build a bulwark against what they saw as the Jewish threat.
It is important to really note that this sense of Arab nationalism in Palestine was not one of historical connection. The Arabs viewed this as both part of a jihad against the Jews and about retaining what they perceive to be Muslim-lands after their earlier conquest during the Muslim caliphate. The Jews, on the other hand, have always had a longing for Eretz Israel since their first exile. The Jews are incontrovertibly indigenous to the area whereas the Arabs were an invading power. It was against this backdrop that both Arabs and Jews wished to exert influence.
At the beginning of the mandate, Jews only accounted for ten percent or so of the population. If they were to be able to build a national home for the Jews under the terms of the mandate, there would need to be a bigger population of them—self-determination and autonomy require enough people to build and maintain their nation. Before we look more closely at that immigration, we need to understand what the realities of land ownership were at the time.
Land Ownership
Looking at the realities of the ownership of land in the Middle East during and before Ottoman rule is slightly surprising from the Western viewpoint. The Empire maintained control over the land through a complex system of land tenure — largely communal and feudal. For example, during the Ottoman empire land was held in four overall categories that translate to something like public land leased to individuals (generally for agriculture), privately owned land (mostly in urban areas) where the owners had full property rights, public land (for things like roads and infrastructure, and land set aside for charitable purposes. The public lands that were leased to individuals made up nearly three quarters of the overall area. Perhaps two or three percent of that was held by Jews. Of the amount of land that was privately owned (only about five or ten percent of the total land area, but the majority of the cities), Jews owned a significant portion.
In the mid-19th century, the Ottomans overhauled their land code to improve tax collection and further assert control over their territories. They wanted to modernize the Empire and to raise tax revenue by regularizing land ownership. These efforts required land use to be officially registered — and these changes gave rise to consequences that would help lay the groundwork of conflict.
Land ownership became more concentrated in a ruling class — primarily comprised of absentee landlords—as peasants (fellahin) who had worked the lands for generations failed to register their plots for a few key reasons. Namely, many were afraid of being conscripted into the Ottoman army, others were illiterate, and most were trying to avoid onerous tax burdens. These fellahin continued to work the lands, as tenant farmers or sharecroppers. The landlords, most of whom lived far away from the lands they controlled, frequently sold or leased the lands during waves of Jewish immigrations, especially as large swaths were bought up by Zionist organizations on behalf of the immigrants. This often resulted in the displacement of the Arab fellahin who were working the land.
When Britain assumed control over Palestine, these land ownership issues persisted and even intensified as they attempted to modernize land administration further — introducing measures to clarify land ownership. As these Arab peasants were displaced, tensions gave rise to resistance, as we will investigate later. Many Arabs felt that these land sales, though legal, were unjust — especially when Jewish settlers arrived.
Aliyah
Jewish immigration to Israel is generally referred to as Aliyah — which is a transliteration of a Hebrew word which literally means assent or rise but in accepted parlance means immigration to Israel. During the modern pre-State period, Jewish immigration more or less remained steady but had some particular waves — those historic waves are frequently referred to as the first through fifth Aliyah.
The first of these waves was during the period of 1882 through 1903. This First Aliyah, was comprised primarily of Eastern European Jews fleeing increasing pogroms. These Jews, though influenced by Zionist ideas, were emigrating to Palestine for practical reasons — namely personal safety and economic opportunity. They faced many hardships as Palestine was well underdeveloped. Disease and lack of agricultural skills were major hardships. Yet despite this, they were able to establish several agricultural settlements with the help of funding from wealthy Jewish philanthropists.
The Second Aliyah, taking place between 1904 and 1914, was yet again precipitated by rising antisemitism in Eastern Europe. These immigrants were greatly influenced by Zionist goals and socialist ideals. It was here that the kibbutzim really gained traction — we’ll get into them a bit more later, but for now it’s enough to know that they were communal, agricultural cooperatives. The land was largely purchased from absentee landlords, and this gave rise to tensions between the Jewish community — both new and established — and the Arabs. Unfortunately, this really set the tone for the upcoming periods.
From 1919 through 1923 the Third Aliyah took place. The migrants during this period were fleeing the fall out from the Russian Revolution and the chaos of Post-First World War Europe. Buoyed by hope from the promise of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, Jews from Europe moved en masse to the region. These increasing numbers of Jews required ever more land. Thus further land sales were concluded — again, many from absentee landlords. This inflamed already heightened tensions with the Arabs, who feared increasing economic competition, eventual dispossession, and, importantly, flat out didn’t like Jews.
The Fourth Aliyah took place from 1924 through 1929 and was comprised mostly of Jews from Poland and Hungary — where rising antisemitism and economic hardships forced Jews to seek refuge elsewhere. Unlike the earlier waves of immigration, these Jews were from the middle classes and focused on industry and commerce — rather than socialism. As a result, this period saw a marked increase in Jewish population in cities like Haifa. This led to an economic boom but also widened the gap between Jew and Arab, further straining relations.
The Fifth Aliyah took place between 1929 and 1939, primarily as a result of the rising power of the Nazis in Germany. After Hitler came to power in 1933, Jews seeking to escape persecution increasingly saw Palestine as their only real hope of refuge. As the Nazis instituted the Nuremberg laws, further increasing systematic antisemitism, many more Jews fled Germany and Europe. The ever increasing tensions between the Jewish and Arab communities gave the British unease over the overall situation. Fears for stability — and therefore their own economic interests — led the British to issue their white papers severely restricting Jewish immigration to Palestine. This was met with fierce resistance from Zionist organizations, as they viewed unrestricted immigration as essential for the survival of the European Jewry who were trying to escape the Nazis.
The tensions between the Arabs and the Jews were always going to increase as immigration changed the makeup of the population of Palestine. Jews wanted to buy land and build agricultural communities as well as increase commerce and trade in the cities. Arabs didn’t, until later, have as much external financial support and had been literally sold out by their brethren — as absentee, almost exclusively Arab, landlords sold their properties to the Jews. This influx of Jewish immigrants clashed with the Arab population’s aspirations to retain control — which led to many violent conflicts, such as the Arab Revolt (1936-1939) and set the stage for the eventual partition of Palestine. In an effort to stay safe outside of the cities, Jews built kibbutzim to form cooperative communities.
Kibbutzim
Kibbutzim (plural of kibbutz) are, at their core, a communal, cooperative, agricultural settlement. However, kibbutzim are a lot more important than that meagre definition would indicate — they were (and are) manifestations of Zionism in practice and embodied the principles of nation building. The kibbutzim, especially in the early years, represented a shared social experiment where shared labor, egalitarian ideals, and a sense of collective responsibility formed the backbone of society and common defense.
From the outset, agriculture was seen as a major avenue towards re-establishing a thriving community in the historic Jewish homeland. Beyond just raising livestock and providing substance, it was seen as a way of putting down roots and it was an expression of autonomy. They also offered hope for the settlers and settlers-to-be; it was possible to make the land fertile and rejuvenate life after persecution.
Beyond agriculture, the kibbutzim had another critical role: security. Many kibbutzim were established in isolated, vulnerable areas — near borders or in regions with little established Jewish presence. They became outposts for the defense of Jewish settlements, playing a crucial role in Zionist strategy. They frequently served as the first line of defense against hostile attacks during the Arab-Jewish conflicts. Members of the kibbutzim were frequently called upon to defend their homes from attacks, and many of these communities developed their own informal militias. Their agricultural tools often doubled as weapons, and their fields, unfortunately, sometimes became battlegrounds.
These kibbutzim offered an alternative to the rigid, capitalistic, individualistic societies that most Jews had experienced in Europe and elsewhere. Everything was shared — from work and childcare to resources and meals. Decisions were made collectively, often through a democratic process, reflecting a deeply ingrained belief in mutual aid and equality. These beliefs were sometimes more aspirational than realistic. Intended to be classless societies, where all members contributed equally and reaped the benefits of communal life equally, the kibbutz lifestyle was founded on lofty principles. However, far from utopias, these kibbutzim struggled with the realities of the human condition. As survivors of the Shoah immigrated, they often struggled to assimilate into the kibbutz way of life. Many of these survivors of unspeakable horrors, already struggling with profound psychological trauma, found it difficult to adjust to the rigid collectivism and demanding physical labor. This led to emotional isolation and a sense of alienation within what was meant to be a tight knit community.
Moreover, the kibbutzim were not immune to the divisions that existed within the broader Jewish community. As Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews — Jews from the Middle East and North Africa, respectively — added another layer of complexity to kibbutz life.
The kibbutzim were founded originally by Ashkenazi Jews and the arrival of Jews from other backgrounds led to tensions and, in some cases, outright discrimination. Whether internally or externally enforced within certain kibbutzim, divisions were made visible through segregation — in dining halls, recreational facilities, schools, who was represented in positions of power, and more.
Beyond race and trauma, class and education distinctions emerged as well — both within a particular kibbutz and between kibbutzim. Those communities that were founded by more educated Jews frequently developed superior schools and recreation programs for their children which led to conflict between kibbutzim. Those that absorbed less privileged immigrants struggled with underfund facilities.
These divisions, while often glossed over, were a reflection of the broader challenges facing Jewish society as they attempted to establish and build a nation. They highlighted the difficulty of building a unified community in the face of profound differences in culture, class, and experience.
That isn’t to say they were without value or were in some way “bad” — far from it. They were, and are, critical components of the foundation of Israeli society. The kibbutzim were central to the establishment of the State of Israel — playing crucial roles in agriculture, defense, and the shaping of Jewish identity. They also served a key position during the more restrictive periods of the British Mandate — providing routes for smuggling needed materials and absorbing immigrants who were unable to get official permission to settle in the land.
Tensions Boil Over
The Jewish community attempted to keep peace with their Arab neighbors; however, the Arabs, emboldened by the British leadership, were mostly unwilling to live side-by-side in harmony with the Jews. This period of the British Mandate was a transformative era in the history of Palestine.
Two pivotal events during this time — the Hebron Massacre (1929) and the Arab Revolt — intensified existing animosities but had long-term, profound consequences for the region. These events, underscoring the failures of British policies, highlighted the rising tide of nationalism that would shape the future of the Middle East.
The Hebron Massacre erupted in the summer of 1929, after a series of disputes over access to holy sites in Jerusalem ignited simmering tensions. Inflammatory rhetoric, speeches, media, and misinformation spread rapidly — fueled by local leaders, nationalist movements, and journalists. This wave of propaganda portrayed Jewish immigration and Zionism as existential threats to Arab identity and sovereignty. Tapping into the rising nationalism in the Arab world, this was the final catalyst that triggered the violent events in Hebron, a place of significant historic and religious significance to both Arabs and Jews. Arab mobs attacked the Jewish population, brutally killing more than five dozen Jews and maiming countless others. Synagogues, homes, and businesses were looted and destroyed. The British authorities failed to effectively quell the violence. Their inadequate response allowed the massacre to unfold and led to further distrust between the Jewish community and the British administration.
The massacre shattered the longstanding coexistence of Jews and Arabs in Hebron. The surviving Jewish residents were evacuated, effectively ending centuries of continuous Jewish presence in the city.
This same inflammatory rhetoric continued and was exacerbated with the Arab resentment of the growing Jewish population — as many Jews attempted to resettle in Eretz Israel as the rise of Nazism in Europe continued. A few years after the Hebron Massacre, Arab leaders called for a general strike to demand, among other things, the end of Jewish immigration, a national Arab government, and the prohibition of sales of land to Jews. The strike (1936) lasted six months — decimating the economy and bringing the already widespread discontent to yet another boiling point.
It was the tipping point for what is known as the Arab Revolt. Arabs were frustrated and felt the British favored the Jews, and under the guidance of Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, took things into their own hands. Guerrilla fighters targeted British installations and Jewish settlements — striking out with asymmetrical attacks, sabotage, and assassinations — with the aim of terrorizing the British into changing their policies. The British, instead of capitulating, cracked down on the uprising with mass arrests and the demolition of homes and villages suspected of harboring the terrorists. These actions further alienated the Arab population, but were effective, at least partially, in quelling the revolt by 1939. This did, however, lead to an attempt at placating the Arabs. The British were pressured into issuing the so-called white paper that severely limited further Jewish immigration into the region as well as their ability to buy land and record the sale.
There were some longer term consequences of this failed coup. The Arabs were supremely disillusioned and they had lost most of their senior political leaders — many were killed, exiled, or imprisoned. This meant the Arabs would have a tougher time banding together to organize effectively for several years and hampered their ability to negotiate en bloc with the British. These two watershed events, the Hebron Massacre and the Arab Revolt, intensified the conflict between the Jews and the Arabs and influences the dynamics of the region to this day. Even as the Jews faced violence in Palestine, it was nothing in comparison to the horrors of the Shoah—yet it was one of the only things allowing the Jews of the day any hope for a brighter future.
The Shoah and its Echoes
The Shoah, or the attempted genocide of the European Jewry by Germany during World War II, was one of the most profound events in modern history. Beyond altering the course of Jewish life forever, it left an indelible mark on global consciousness — especially as it regards the Jews’ identity and their quest for security and homeland.
For the Jewish survivors, Europe had seemingly closed its doors — with their homes stolen and belongings appropriated, they were homeless and mostly stateless.
Before the War, Zionism was a political movement gaining momentum, to be sure, but one which faced immense pressure — both internally with debate and externally from world powers who could not countenance the idea of a Jewish state.
The unprecedented scale of the Shoah — with the murder of more than six million Jews — created an unmistakable realization that Jews could not count on safety in Europe. We should note that even today, the population of the world Jewry has yet to recover to pre-World War II levels.
Survivors and other displaced persons had nowhere else to turn. The world grappled with the horrors in an abstract way, but Jews faced an existential question: where do we go from here?
This question was on the minds of many — in varying degrees of despair, anger, outrage, and hope. The leader of the Jewish Agency — someone who would become a principle founder of Israel and its first Prime Minister — David Ben-Gurion, remarked:
What have you done to us, you freedom-loving peoples, guardians of justice, defenders of the high principles of democracy and of the brotherhood of man? What have you allowed to be perpetrated against a defenseless people while you stood aside and let it bleed to death?
As more and more realized that the answer to these questions could only be internal reliance, resilience, and self-rule, the idea of a Jewish State became ever more critical to the Jewish people.
World sympathies shifted, slightly, to the side of the Jews — with Russia and the United States backing the idea, albeit with some caveats. Other countries were more skeptical, fearful of the potential instability a Jewish State could bring to the Middle East. Of course, this is not to say that the Shoah was necessary in regard to the eventual establishment of the State of Israel — to the contrary, the loss of that many Jews may have delayed the creation of the State.
We should take care to note, though, that the vanquished Nazi regime had operated in the Middle East up to and during World War II. The Germans recognized the strategic importance of the region, and they sought to align with Arab leaders during the war. Jerusalem’s Grand Mufti, al-Husseini, was a prominent collaborator with the Nazis and enthusiastically spread anti-Jewish propaganda across the Arab world at their behest.
The Nazis tapped into existing anti-colonial sentiments with their propaganda — positioning Jews as colonial agents and existential threats to the Arab populace. Nazi broadcasts, in both Arabic and Farsi, were disseminated throughout the region — stoking anti-Jewish sentiment with the aim of uniting the region against Jewish immigration and to sow discord among the Jews, Arabs, and European powers.
The end of World War II vastly changed the geopolitical landscape. The collapse of colonial powers and the ascendant superpowers, like the United States and the Soviet Union, set the stage for the reconfiguration of the Middle East. The British exhausted their political capital and tired of struggling to maintain control over Palestine — which led to competing nationalist movements among the Jews and various Arab populations.