The Jewish Revolt
This post will focus on the Jewish Revolt- a period focusing on three Jewish orgnanisations, further British ignorance, and the first American intervention in the conflict. Next post will finally talk about the 1948 war- otherwise known as the Nakba or ββdisasterββ.
During the 1940s three distinct military-based organisations should be highlighted for pressuring and furthering the Jewish revolt in Mandate Palestine. Haganah, Irgun, and the Stern Gang (also known as Lehi). These three organisations struggled against the 1939 white paper that severely restricted Jewish immigration to the region of Palestine (Brenner 1965). Haganah was considered the more moderate of the three, with a policy of havlaga (self-restraint)- up until the 1939 white paper Haganah collaborated with the British when it suited their interests (Brenner 1965)- eventually Haganah formed the backbone of the Israeli Defence Forces when the Israeli state was established in 1948. Irgun, also known as βThe National Military Organisation of the Land of Israelβ was a right-wing revisionist Zionist party led by Jabotinsky (Brenner 1965)- though military command was headed by David Reziel and Abraham Stern. Due to political differences- mostly to do with British presence in Palestine Stern split with Irgun in 1940 to form the Stern Gang (Brenner 1965). The Irgun revionist stance was captured in their specialised anti-communist wing following the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
Stern himself was alone in holding a belief that the only way to proclaim and independent Jewish state was to collaborate with Hitler (Brenner 1965). Stern was shot and killed in 1942 leading his followers to become even more militant in their actions- always carrying guns βto take one with themβ (Brenner 1965) in event of being stopped by the British.
The Irgun and Haganah took a less violent approach at first, instead encouraging and aiding illegal Jewish immigration into Palestine as a form of civil disobedience against the 1939 white paper (Brenner 1965). This activity culminated in yet another ship-based disaster- t
... keep reading on reddit β‘The Arab Revolt 1936-39
Welcome to Part three of a series on the Arab-Israel conflict. This time we are focusing upon the mandate once more- a key period called the Arab revolt. I was planning to fit in both the Arab and Jewish revolt into one segment but the write up proved this to be an impossibility. Next time we will cover the Jewish revolt before finally delving into the first of many wars to come.
The coming storm
There was a common cycle within the British mandate (Abboushi 1977). Zionist pressure on the British would present a favourable situation for them, leading to Arab political or diplomatic means to obtain some rights, this would inevitably fail leading to violence that would promote sympathies to the Arab side, and finally, Zionist superior diplomatic influence would annul these advances in London.
The fate of the 1930s white paper- also known as the Passfield white paper (Abboushi 1977) is a perfect example of this cycle. Some background beforehand, however. The Passfield white paper was a result of the 1929 disturbances within the mandate- the largest of their kind thus far. Also known as the Western Wall riots (Mattar 1988)- the cause of the disturbance was competing issues of access of the Western Wall- the site contains both important holy sites in the Wall for the Jewish population and the al-Aqsa mosque. Indeed, this location would become a focal point for riots and disturbances long into the future. The Shaw commission (Mattar 1988) found that the cause of the violence- of which was majority Arab attacks on Jews and their businesses, was based on a fear of continued Jewish land purchases, lacking economic situations, and competing national sentiments. Something important to note about this disturbance however is that it was spontaneous- as demonstrated by the Shaw commissions conclusions, no leader or interest group instigated the violence, it was a matter of spontaneous violence (Mattar 1988). It was popular for a time to blame the Mufti for the ensuing violence, but the historiography appears to conclude that his role was limited- he gave a speech at the wall and then called for calm before he left (Mattar 1988).
Following from this violence the 1930 white paper saw
... keep reading on reddit β‘
I'm currently working on a writing project (still in its early stages) where one of the principal characters is a (Palestinian) Arab man who served as an Ottoman army captain in WWI (though the story is set some 20 years later). I know Arabs served in the Ottoman army, far more than took part in the Revolt (per this article at least), but I have some questions regarding the wartime and post-war status of Arabs who stayed loyal to Constantinople.
- What discrimination from his Turkish peers and superiors might he have faced?
- What engagements might he have taken part in? Currently I have him having fought at Gallipoli at least, but I'd like to know what other engagements saw major committal of Arab forces. Relatedly, any knowledge of Arab involvement in Ottoman atrocities like the Armenian genocide would be appreciated.
- Post-war, what do we know about how loyalist Arabs were treated in the states that broke away from the Ottomans? Would he face hostility, acceptance, or a mix? Would he still command some kind of respect as a military officer?
Hello everyone,
I've been reading this (historical fiction) book in which one paragraph suprised me: It calls the Arab Revolt of 1916-18 "overrated" and says that it only started supporting the British in Palestine after "it was obvious that the Turks were losing", and that they participated in "no major or minor battle" but were looking "to share in the coming spoils".
I guess there is a different between the Arab Revolt earlier in Hejaz and later in Palestine, but so far my own research makes it seem like the Arabs were very effective at helping the British take Palestine and beyond from the Ottomans. But its all very confusing.
How would you rate the importance of the Arab Revolt in the Palestine region? Did Britain really do all the work? Do you share the sentiment from my book?
Also note: the book is a first edition from the 1950s, so maybe knowledge about the Palestine campaign was different back then?
Thank you for any insights!
The palestinian MOFA says http://www.mofa.pna.ps/en-us/palestine/thepalestinianflag
> The common version concerning the origin of the flag entails that the colors were chosen by the Arab nationalist βLiterary Clubβ in Istanbul in 1909, based on the words of the thirteenth century Arab poet Safi a-Din al-Hili.
Which already casts some doubt on it because they said 'the common version'.
The more common version I see in English sources is that it was designed by Mark Sykes. This is what's on wikipedia and they cite "The White Man's Burden" and "British Pan-arab policy" by Isaiah Friedman. I recall seeing this in my high school history textbook as well but could be mistaken.
Why is this origin so unclear? It doesn't seem like there's any incentive for Sykes to want to take credit for it (and in fact, if he did make it then he has a good incentive to make the origin seem more organic).
It would be also interesting how inherently different the French public's opinion was from the British. From what I understand at the time, the two nations still considered each other to be large competitors, and the French benefited from the agreement far more than the British. Was opinion shaped on how either side would potentially exploit the region?
https://preview.redd.it/4gavmvkcw2x61.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=cd6d7022c28ad96b8087925968d84c09c3b3a788
Is it random? In the most recent game Iβm playing, Tripolitania and Iraq both got released as SocDem, but in other games theyβve been varying other ideologies. What decides their starting ideologies?
People hate the Arab revolt because it is said that the revolt led to the end of the Ottoman Empire, that's true but after 1909, the ottoman empire itself was ruled by a secular, nationalistic party (Young Turks) who overthrew the Sultan and made their own system. So it was not the Old Ottoman Empire anymore.
The desert, the freeman traditons like berebers (nomadistic , mytologic and tribal), the revolt against foreigner empire , and the similitud about Paul and Lawrence both adopt the local culture and fight against the opresor empire furthermore Frank Herbert born near this epoch.
The Jewish Revolt
This post will focus on the Jewish Revolt- a period focusing on three Jewish orgnanisations, further British ignorance, and the first American intervention in the conflict. Next post will finally talk about the 1948 war- otherwise known as the Nakba or ββdisasterββ.
During the 1940s three distinct military-based organisations should be highlighted for pressuring and furthering the Jewish revolt in Mandate Palestine. Haganah, Irgun, and the Stern Gang (also known as Lehi). These three organisations struggled against the 1939 white paper that severely restricted Jewish immigration to the region of Palestine (Brenner 1965). Haganah was considered the more moderate of the three, with a policy of havlaga (self-restraint)- up until the 1939 white paper Haganah collaborated with the British when it suited their interests (Brenner 1965)- eventually Haganah formed the backbone of the Israeli Defence Forces when the Israeli state was established in 1948. Irgun, also known as βThe National Military Organisation of the Land of Israelβ was a right-wing revisionist Zionist party led by Jabotinsky (Brenner 1965)- though military command was headed by David Reziel and Abraham Stern. Due to political differences- mostly to do with British presence in Palestine Stern split with Irgun in 1940 to form the Stern Gang (Brenner 1965). The Irgun revionist stance was captured in their specialised anti-communist wing following the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
Stern himself was alone in holding a belief that the only way to proclaim and independent Jewish state was to collaborate with Hitler (Brenner 1965). Stern was shot and killed in 1942 leading his followers to become even more militant in their actions- always carrying guns βto take one with themβ (Brenner 1965) in event of being stopped by the British.
The Irgun and Haganah took a less violent approach at first, instead encouraging and aiding illegal Jewish immigration into Palestine as a form of civil disobedience against the 1939 white paper (Brenner 1965). This activity culminated in yet another ship-based di
... keep reading on reddit β‘The Arab Revolt 1936-39
Welcome to Part three of a series on the Arab-Israel conflict. This time we are focusing upon the mandate once more- a key period called the Arab revolt. I was planning to fit in both the Arab and Jewish revolt into one segment but the write up proved this to be an impossibility. Next time we will cover the Jewish revolt before finally delving into the first of many wars to come.
The coming storm
There was a common cycle within the British mandate (Abboushi 1977). Zionist pressure on the British would present a favourable situation for them, leading to Arab political or diplomatic means to obtain some rights, this would inevitably fail leading to violence that would promote sympathies to the Arab side, and finally, Zionist superior diplomatic influence would annul these advances in London.
The fate of the 1930s white paper- also known as the Passfield white paper (Abboushi 1977) is a perfect example of this cycle. Some background beforehand, however. The Passfield white paper was a result of the 1929 disturbances within the mandate- the largest of their kind thus far. Also known as the Western Wall riots (Mattar 1988)- the cause of the disturbance was competing issues of access of the Western Wall- the site contains both important holy sites in the Wall for the Jewish population and the al-Aqsa mosque. Indeed, this location would become a focal point for riots and disturbances long into the future. The Shaw commission (Mattar 1988) found that the cause of the violence- of which was majority Arab attacks on Jews and their businesses, was based on a fear of continued Jewish land purchases, lacking economic situations, and competing national sentiments. Something important to note about this disturbance however is that it was spontaneous- as demonstrated by the Shaw commissions conclusions, no leader or interest group instigated the violence, it was a matter of spontaneous violence (Mattar 1988). It was popular for a time to blame the Mufti for the ensuing violence, but the historiography appears to conclude that his role was limited- he gave a speech at the wall and then called for calm before he left (Mattar 1988).
Following from this violence the 1930 white paper saw Sir J
... keep reading on reddit β‘The palestinian MOFA says http://www.mofa.pna.ps/en-us/palestine/thepalestinianflag
> The common version concerning the origin of the flag entails that the colors were chosen by the Arab nationalist βLiterary Clubβ in Istanbul in 1909, based on the words of the thirteenth century Arab poet Safi a-Din al-Hili.
Which already casts some doubt on it because they said 'the common version'.
The more common version I see in English sources is that it was designed by Mark Sykes. This is what's on wikipedia and they cite "The White Man's Burden" and "British Pan-arab policy" by Isaiah Friedman. I recall seeing this in my high school history textbook as well but could be mistaken.
Why is this origin so unclear? It doesn't seem like there's any incentive for Sykes to want to take credit for it (and in fact, if he did make it then he has a good incentive to make the origin seem more organic).
