Palestinian Revolution Dbq

Between 1936 and1939 there was a revolt by Palestinian Arabs in Palestine that was targeted mainly against the British but also the Jews. During this period each side had various aims. To address the rising discontent the British proposed a partition of Palestine, but partition would not avoid the emerging conflict.

There were three main players in the revolt: the British, the Palestinians and the Jews. The British, as rulers of the mandate, would have wanted to establish their authority and power. However, due to the emerging possibility of conflict in Europe, Britain was also looking to improve relations with the Arabs in order to protect their interests and position in the Middle East. This can be discerned in the 1939 White Paper, which

heavily favoured Arab demands.

The Jewish aims, in addition to bring the revolt to a conclusion, were to continue to develop their own security and further their influence, all to ensure the development of a Jewish state in Palestine.

The revolt caused the Jews to develop greater self sufficiency in the region. For example, when the British destroyed the Port of Jaffa, the Zionists were able to obtain permission to build their own port, increasing their influence and limiting the Palestinians’. M.J. Cohen notes the uncompromising nature of the Zionists to Palestinians demands shows their commitment to their goal. His analysis of the political interactions between the two groups reveals that negotiations were unsuccessful because the leaders on both sides were unwilling to make sacrifices, particularly in regards to continued Jewish immigration and the number of Jews in Palestine. This shows that the main political bodies of both groups had greatly opposing views to the point that compromise was unable to be made between

them.

Many Palestinians had three broad aims; cessation of Jewish immigration, banning of sale of land to Jews and for an independent Palestinian state and the end of the British mandate. However, some also attempted to use the revolt for personal gain and settling old disputes. Noting the presence of internal structural tensions within Palestinian society, Khalid emphasises that the revolt demonstrated a lack of unity on behalf of the Palestinians as well as the internal conflicts amongst them, which led to its failure. He draws attention to how divisions existed not only within the leadership but also between the leadership and the Palestinian populace. These differences were largely due to mistrust and disagreements about tactics. The leadership was more interested in ensuring a Palestinian state and a halt to Jewish immigration, but the rebels were focused on ensuring autonomy and control of their local area.

Divisions within Palestinian society are further illustrated by Hillel Cohen who offers a social perspective of the Palestinians’ values. Some Palestinians believed in violent action against any who were seen to be associated or collaborating with the Jews and there was a large emphasis on finding those who were considered to be traitors to the Palestinian Arab cause. Arabs who were deemed to not be showing an adequate amount of support for the cause were also attacked. Cohen notes that several groups had a strong emphasis on identifying Palestinians who associated with the Jews as traitors. This shows that Palestinian society had plenty of reason for intra-ethnic conflict, providing ample opportunities for fractures to appear within their society.

The leadership also had divisions. Rival factions within the Palestinian leadership engaged in a struggle against each other to further their own power. The Mufti, Muhammad Amin al-Husayni (and his supporters) was one of the main factions. al-Husayni used the revolt to his advantage to move against his Arab political opponents. This included assassinations and kidnappings. Contrary to this view of the Palestinian leadership and society being divided, Matter presents the Mufti as the revolt’s reluctant but key leader and that the nature of the revolt - as well as British attempts at suppression - would radicalise him. However he does concur with the perspective offered by Khalid that there was limited control over the revolt and the rebels by the leadership, showing Palestinian society lacked internal organization.

Hillel Cohen explores the complexities of the ethnic relations between the Jews and Palestinians by discussing how some Palestinians collaborated with the Jews. This was done for personal, economic and political reasons. In particular, collaboration between the Nashashibis and Zionists is emphasised. The Nashashibis, the Husayni’s main political opponents, were another important player in the revolt. Like the Husayni’s they sought to increase and protect their own political position. They also desired revenge against the Husayni’s for previous grievances, and working with the Zionists provided an ideal opportunity to carry out their desires. Hillel Cohen also notes that increasing numbers of Arabs were willing to collaborate with the Jews.

The proposed Peel Plan would not have been a suitable solution to the emerging conflict.

Subsequent events reveal that if the plan came into fruition, conflict would not be averted. At the time prominent Palestinians, most importantly the Mufti, had an extremist version of Palestinian nationalism that would not allow for the existence of a Jewish state in Palestine. Others feared that a Jewish state was the first step towards the Jews taking over Palestine. Thus if a Jewish state had resulted from the 1937 partition, in all likelihood it would have been immediately attacked. In the aftermath of the 1948 Israeli declaration of independence, the Arabs immediately attacked. The same factors in play in 1937 were the same as those that in 1947-1948 led to conflict. The Plan also called for the transfer of 200,000 Arabs out of the land designated for the Jewish state. This would have created a further problem. It was acknowledged that force would be needed to remove the Palestinians and this would only stir up further resentment amongst the Palestinians. Wider world history has also revealed that when partition occurs, extreme violence and displacement follows, which is greater than if partition had not occurred. If the Palestinians had been merged into Trans-Jordan, it is likely that they would have had continued resentment towards the Jewish state, particularly in light of forced removal of Palestinians. Ethnic tensions would not have been resolved, as evidence from past

partitions has shown. Additionally, the subsequent events revealed that Israel and the Arab world would be in multiple conflicts, thus there would have been greater potential for the Arab Palestinians to engage in conflict again with the Jews. For these reasons, the Peel Plan would not have been a workable hence fair solution to the emerging conflict, and may have in fact have exacerbated the conflict if it had occurred.