57.6.3 The British Mandate: Uprisings and Immigration

OCR Specification focus:
‘Mandate-era uprisings and immigration challenged authority and coexistence.’

Between 1917 and 1948, British rule in Palestine faced escalating tension as Jewish immigration and Arab uprisings transformed the region’s political landscape and imperial strategy.

Background to the British Mandate in Palestine

Origins of the Mandate

Following the First World War, Britain gained control of Palestine under a League of Nations Mandate in 1920. The Balfour Declaration (1917) had promised support for a “national home for the Jewish people,” while Britain simultaneously assured Arab leaders of post-war independence. This dual commitment created inherent contradictions in British policy and fostered resentment among both Jewish and Arab communities.

Strategic Importance of Palestine

Britain valued Palestine for its geopolitical position:

As a route to India and the Suez Canal.
As part of its broader imperial presence in the Middle East.
As a buffer against rival powers, particularly France and later Italy.

The British Mandate’s aim was to administer Palestine while preparing it for eventual self-governance. However, demographic change and nationalist aspirations soon made this aim difficult to realise.

Jewish Immigration and Demographic Change

Early Immigration Waves

Jewish immigration to Palestine accelerated during the Mandate period, largely driven by Zionist aspirations and persecution in Europe.

Zionism: A nationalist movement advocating the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

The main waves of Jewish immigration, known as Aliyot, included:

Third Aliyah (1919–1923): Around 35,000 Jews arrived, many influenced by socialist ideals and building agricultural settlements (kibbutzim).
Fourth Aliyah (1924–1928): Roughly 80,000 middle-class immigrants, mainly from Eastern Europe, arrived, intensifying urban growth.
Fifth Aliyah (1929–1939): Driven by rising antisemitism and Nazi persecution, about 250,000 Jews settled in Palestine.

By 1939, the Jewish population had risen from about 60,000 in 1918 to over 450,000, altering the demographic balance and fuelling Arab fears of displacement.

File:Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine (1920-1945).jpg

Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine, 1920–1945. The chart shows rising annual arrivals across the Mandate, with especially large increases in the 1930s. Note that the final years extend to 1945, which slightly exceeds the 1919–1939 focus of this subsubtopic. Source

British Policy and Immigration Controls

Initially, Britain supported Jewish immigration under the Mandate’s terms. However, growing Arab resistance led to restrictions:

Churchill White Paper (1922): Affirmed the Balfour Declaration but stated that Jewish immigration must not exceed Palestine’s “economic absorptive capacity.”
Passfield White Paper (1930): Recommended limits on land sales and immigration, though later reversed under Zionist pressure.
MacDonald White Paper (1939): Imposed a strict cap of 75,000 Jewish immigrants over five years and proposed an independent Palestine within ten years, enraging Zionists.

These shifting policies reflected Britain’s attempt to balance conflicting promises and maintain imperial authority amid rising unrest.

Arab Resistance and Uprisings

Causes of Arab Opposition

Arab resistance was driven by several interlinked factors:

Fear of dispossession due to land purchases by Jewish settlers.
Opposition to Zionism and the perceived betrayal of wartime promises of independence.
Economic pressures as Jewish immigration altered labour markets.
Nationalist sentiment, inspired by anti-colonial movements elsewhere.

The 1920 and 1921 Disturbances

The first major outbreaks occurred in Jerusalem (1920) and Jaffa (1921), where Arab mobs attacked Jewish communities. These events:

Highlighted Arab anger over increasing Jewish immigration.
Prompted Britain to strengthen its security presence.
Led to the creation of the Haganah, a Jewish self-defence organisation.

The 1929 Hebron and Safed Riots

In 1929, rumours over Jewish intentions regarding the Western Wall triggered widespread violence:

133 Jews and 116 Arabs were killed.
Long-established Jewish communities in Hebron and Safed were destroyed.
Britain established the Shaw Commission (1930), which attributed the violence to Arab fears about land and immigration.

The riots exposed Britain’s inability to reconcile competing nationalist movements and underscored the volatility of the Mandate.

The Arab Revolt, 1936–1939

Outbreak and Phases

The most significant uprising occurred between 1936 and 1939, a three-year revolt against British rule and Jewish immigration. It unfolded in two phases:

1936–1937: A general strike, boycott of British goods, and sporadic violence targeted British infrastructure and Jewish settlements.
1937–1939: Escalation into full-scale guerrilla warfare following Britain’s rejection of Arab demands.

Leadership and Organisation

The revolt was led by the Arab Higher Committee, formed under Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. It demanded:

An end to Jewish immigration.
A halt to land sales to Jews.
Establishment of an independent Arab state.

British Response and Repression

Britain deployed tens of thousands of troops, imposed collective punishments, and used aerial bombardment to suppress the revolt. It also:

Arrested or exiled Arab leaders, weakening nationalist leadership.
Relied increasingly on Jewish paramilitary groups like the Haganah to maintain order.

British troops parading in Jerusalem, 1936, during the Arab Revolt. The image shows regular army forces on public display inside the city, reflecting the intensification of security under the Mandate. It focuses on order-keeping rather than combat and aligns directly with the syllabus emphasis on uprisings and security. Source

By 1939, the revolt was crushed, but its suppression deepened Arab hostility toward Britain and fuelled Jewish determination for statehood.

British Policy Shifts and Imperial Challenges

The Peel Commission (1937)

In response to the revolt, Britain appointed the Peel Commission, which:

Recommended partitioning Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states.
Recognised the Mandate’s failure due to irreconcilable nationalist claims.

Peel Commission partition proposal, 1937. The map indicates proposed Jewish and Arab states with a retained British corridor, illustrating why both sides reacted strongly. This visual includes cartographic detail strictly limited to the plan and does not add extraneous information. Source

While Zionist leaders were divided over the plan, Arab leaders rejected it outright, refusing any partition of Palestine.

The 1939 White Paper

Issued amid growing tensions and looming war, the MacDonald White Paper (1939) marked a major policy shift:

Limited Jewish immigration and land purchase.
Promised an independent, binational Palestine within ten years.

Zionists condemned the White Paper as a betrayal, especially as it coincided with the Nazi persecution of Jews. Arab leaders, while welcoming restrictions, distrusted British intentions.

Legacy of Uprisings and Immigration

Long-Term Consequences

The period from 1920 to 1939 transformed the political landscape of Palestine:

British authority was repeatedly challenged by both Arab and Jewish resistance.
Jewish immigration created the demographic and institutional foundations of a future state.
Arab nationalism was radicalised by repression and disillusionment.
Britain’s attempts to mediate between communities ultimately failed, leading to escalating conflict.

These developments set the stage for intensified violence during and after the Second World War, culminating in Britain’s withdrawal and the partition of Palestine in 1948.

FAQ

The Arab Higher Committee, formed in 1936 and led by Haj Amin al-Husseini, centralised leadership of the revolt by uniting diverse Arab factions under one political voice. It coordinated strikes, boycotts, and diplomatic efforts, articulating clear demands such as halting Jewish immigration and ending British rule.

Its role extended beyond organising protests — the Committee acted as a liaison with other Arab states, gaining regional support and drawing attention to the Palestinian cause internationally. However, British repression, including arrests and exiles of its members, weakened the Committee and fragmented the nationalist movement, contributing to the eventual suppression of the revolt by 1939.

The Haganah, founded in 1920, began as a self-defence force protecting Jewish settlements from attacks during periods of unrest. Over time, it evolved into a more organised paramilitary body that cooperated with British authorities, particularly during the Arab Revolt (1936–1939), when Britain relied on Jewish forces for intelligence and local security operations.

The Haganah also helped build infrastructure and training that later formed the basis of Israel’s defence forces after 1948. Its dual role — defensive against Arab attacks and supportive of British policing efforts — illustrates how Jewish institutions gained strength under the Mandate while Arab nationalist movements were fragmented.

Large-scale land purchases by Zionist organisations and Jewish settlers often displaced Arab tenant farmers, fuelling resentment and fear of dispossession. Although many sales were made legally, they disproportionately concentrated land ownership in Jewish hands, especially in fertile areas.

Key consequences included:

Increased economic insecurity for rural Arab populations.
Growth of nationalist rhetoric warning of a “landless Arab class.”
Heightened political activism against both British policies and Zionist aims.

This land question became a central grievance behind riots in the 1920s and the broader Arab Revolt, reinforcing perceptions of British favouritism toward Zionism.

Although the Peel Commission (1937) acknowledged that Arab and Jewish aims were irreconcilable, Britain soon reconsidered its recommendation due to practical and geopolitical concerns. Arab rejection of partition and subsequent escalation of violence made implementation unfeasible without massive force.

Additionally, growing European tensions in the late 1930s made Britain wary of destabilising the Middle East, a region crucial to imperial defence. Partition risked alienating Arab allies and jeopardising strategic interests, particularly oil supplies. These factors contributed to Britain abandoning the Peel plan in favour of alternative approaches, such as the 1939 White Paper, which aimed to appease Arab opinion.

The revolt exposed the limits of Britain’s ability to govern Palestine amid deepening nationalist conflict. Its violent suppression damaged Britain’s legitimacy and convinced policymakers that balancing Arab and Jewish demands was becoming impossible.

Consequences for policy included:

A shift toward appeasing Arab opinion, seen in the 1939 White Paper.
Greater caution about large-scale Jewish immigration during a volatile period.
Increased reliance on Jewish institutions for policing and administration.

The revolt also influenced Britain’s post-war approach, as officials recognised that continued imperial rule was untenable, laying the groundwork for Britain’s eventual withdrawal and the 1947 UN partition plan.

Practice Questions

Question 1 (2 marks)
Identify two key causes of Arab resistance during the British Mandate in Palestine (1917–1939).

Mark scheme:

1 mark for each correctly identified cause.
Award up to 2 marks for any two of the following:
Fear of land loss and dispossession due to Jewish land purchases.
Opposition to Zionism and the creation of a Jewish homeland.
Perceived betrayal of wartime promises of Arab independence.
Economic pressures and competition for jobs caused by increased Jewish immigration.
Rising Arab nationalist sentiment influenced by global anti-colonial movements.

Question 2 (6 marks)
Explain how British policies towards Jewish immigration changed during the Mandate period in Palestine and why these changes occurred.