Table of Contents
From Discontent to Uprising
The period of British rule in Palestine saw growing political frustration among the Arab population. Arab leaders and communities felt that their political aspirations were being sidelined while Jewish immigration and land purchases expanded under the framework of the Mandate. This discontent did not erupt all at once. It built gradually through petitions, delegations, and sporadic violence, and eventually culminated in major rebellions against both British authorities and the Zionist project.
Understanding these Arab revolts and the political responses to them sheds light on how a local conflict over land and governance became a deeply entrenched national struggle. It also reveals how early decisions and reactions shaped patterns of resistance, repression, and negotiation that would echo for decades.
The 1920 Nabi Musa Disturbances
The first major outbreak of Arab violence under British rule took place in April 1920, during the Nabi Musa religious festival in Jerusalem. Tensions were already high: the future of the territory was unclear, the Balfour Declaration had promised support for a Jewish “national home,” and Arab elites feared marginalization.
The festival, a traditional Muslim pilgrimage and celebration, brought large crowds into the city. Speeches denouncing Zionism and expressing Arab nationalist sentiments helped fuel the atmosphere. Over several days, attacks on Jewish neighborhoods and businesses occurred, leaving multiple people dead and many wounded. British forces were slow and disorganized in their response, exposing weaknesses in their control.
The disturbances had several political consequences. For Arab leaders, they demonstrated both the depth of popular anger and the potential power of mass mobilization through religious and nationalist symbolism. For the British, the violence underlined the volatility of Jerusalem and the need to enhance security. For Zionist leaders, the attacks reinforced fears about their vulnerability and encouraged the development of more organized self-defense groups.
The 1921 Jaffa Violence and Urban Unrest
In May 1921, violence erupted again, this time in and around the port city of Jaffa. The immediate trigger was a clash between different Jewish political groups during a May Day demonstration. The confrontation quickly escalated into widespread rioting in which Arab crowds attacked Jewish residents, particularly in mixed neighborhoods.
Over several days, dozens of Jews and Arabs were killed. The events in Jaffa highlighted the urban dimension of the conflict, in which close proximity, economic competition, and political tension could very quickly turn lethal. The British authorities again intervened, but the perception among many Arabs was that British policies fundamentally favored Zionist goals, even if British security forces sometimes repressed both sides.
Politically, these early outbreaks prompted Britain to issue reports and recommendations, often acknowledging Arab fears but stopping short of fundamental policy change. They also pushed both Arab and Jewish leaders to think more systematically about organization, propaganda, and relations with the colonial power.
The 1929 Western Wall Clashes
The next landmark moment came in August 1929, centered on the Western Wall in Jerusalem, a site deeply significant to Jews and located adjacent to the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount, holy to Muslims. Disputes over access, rights, and religious symbolism around the Wall had been growing. Small incidents and mutual provocations gradually turned the area into a flashpoint.
In August, tensions surged after demonstrations by Jewish groups asserting claims to the Wall and counter-mobilization by Muslim and Arab leaders warning of threats to Islamic holy places. Rioting soon spread beyond Jerusalem to cities such as Hebron and Safed. In Hebron, long-standing Jewish communities that pre-dated Zionist immigration were attacked; dozens of Jews were killed, and many survivors were evacuated, ending centuries of continuous Jewish presence there.
The 1929 violence was particularly shocking because of its scale and brutality, and because it affected communities that had not been central to the political disputes over the Mandate. British investigations afterward recognized that Arab fears regarding land, immigration, and political control were central to the unrest, even if the immediate spark had been religious in form. For many Arabs, the events confirmed that religious symbols could serve as powerful vehicles for broader political grievances. For Zionists, they reinforced the belief that Jews would never be safe without sovereign control and strong defense institutions.
The 1936 General Strike: A New Form of Resistance
By the mid-1930s, Palestinian Arabs were not only reacting to specific incidents but also increasingly organizing around a broader nationalist agenda. The most significant expression of this was the general strike that began in April 1936, marking the start of what is often called the Arab Revolt of 1936-1939.
The general strike started as a protest against British rule and Jewish immigration. It included the shutdown of shops, cessation of work in key sectors, and boycotts of British and Jewish goods and institutions. This was not simply spontaneous unrest; it was a coordinated political tool, supported by many Arab urban notables, rural leaders, and emerging nationalist activists.
The strike represented a political innovation. Instead of isolated riots, it was a sustained, collective economic and social protest intended to pressure the British into policy change. The core demands included ending Jewish immigration, halting land sales to Jews, and establishing national representative institutions that would give the Arab majority decisive power.
Britain struggled to break the strike. The authorities used a mix of coercion and negotiation, including arrests, curfews, and limited concessions. The strike’s duration of several months and its broad participation demonstrated the depth of Arab discontent but also imposed heavy economic and social costs on Arab society itself, especially on workers and small business owners.
The Rural Insurgency and Guerrilla Warfare
As the 1936 strike wore on, the character of the revolt shifted. What began primarily as an urban-led political strike evolved into a more rural-based armed rebellion, particularly after the formal end of the strike later in 1936. Peasants, local clan leaders, and militants took up arms in the countryside, targeting British police stations, railways, roads, and Jewish settlements.
This phase of the revolt saw the emergence of guerrilla bands operating from villages and hill regions, using ambushes and hit-and-run tactics. The countryside became a battleground where the British sought to reassert control through military operations, punitive measures, and collective punishments.
The armed rebellion was not only directed at British and Zionist targets. It also had an internal dimension. Rivalries among local leaders, disputes over strategy, and accusations of collaboration led to violence within Arab society itself. Some landlords, urban elites, or political rivals were targeted as traitors or obstacles to the nationalist cause. This internal conflict weakened Arab political cohesion and deepened social fractures that would have lasting consequences.
British Countermeasures and Repression
The British response to the 1936-1939 revolt became increasingly militarized and harsh. Reinforcements from Britain and other parts of the empire were brought in. Military courts, curfews, and extensive police powers were used to crack down on suspected rebels and their supporters.
Collective punishment became a central tool. Entire villages could face demolitions, fines, or curfews if they were believed to be harboring rebels. The British also used measures such as administrative detention, allowing them to hold individuals without trial, and expanded intelligence networks to penetrate rebel organizations.
In urban centers, Arab political leaders were arrested, exiled, or pressured to call off the revolt. In the countryside, British forces conducted search-and-destroy operations, destroyed homes and crops, and built fortified positions. These policies inflicted heavy material and human costs on the Arab population. They also decimated much of the existing Arab leadership, both political and rural, leaving a vacuum that would be keenly felt in the years leading up to 1948.
At the same time, Britain increasingly relied on Jewish security forces, both official and semi-official, for intelligence, auxiliary policing, and infrastructure protection. This cooperation between British authorities and Zionist institutions during the revolt had long-term effects on the balance of power between the two national communities.
Arab Political Organizations and Leadership
Parallel to the cycles of revolt, Arab political organization in Palestine underwent significant changes. Early in the Mandate, politics was often dominated by prominent families, such as the Husseini and Nashashibi clans, whose influence was tied to landownership, religious positions, and connections with the Ottoman and then British administrations.
These families and their allies formed various committees and parties, including municipal councils and later the Arab Executive Committee, which sought to represent Arab interests to the British. However, these bodies were frequently divided by personal rivalries and differing strategies toward the Mandate authorities. Some leaders favored negotiation and petitioning; others were more inclined to support mass mobilization and confrontation.
In 1936, in response to growing unrest and pressure for unified leadership, various Palestinian Arab parties and notables came together to form the Arab Higher Committee. This committee tried to centralize decision-making and coordinate actions such as the general strike. Its leadership, closely associated with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, became the symbolic face of the Palestinian national movement during the revolt.
Yet these leadership structures were vulnerable. British repression, internal divisions, and exile of key figures gradually eroded their effectiveness. The heavy reliance on a narrow elite base also meant that many segments of society, particularly peasants and the urban working classes, felt partially represented but not fully integrated into decision-making. This gap contributed to the rise of more radical and localized forms of resistance.
The Role of Regional Arab Politics
Palestinian Arab revolts unfolded within a wider Arab political environment. Leaders in neighboring countries, especially in what would become Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, watched events in Palestine closely. They saw the conflict as part of a broader struggle against European colonialism and the perceived encroachment of Zionism.
During the 1936-1939 revolt, Arab governments and political leaders played an ambivalent role. On the one hand, they expressed solidarity, offered rhetorical support, and occasionally allowed volunteers or arms to cross borders. On the other hand, they were cautious about provoking Britain, upon which they often depended for political survival, military support, or moves toward independence.
At key moments, regional Arab actors intervened to influence Palestinian tactics. For instance, appeals from Arab kings and leaders were instrumental in persuading Palestinian leaders to call off the 1936 general strike, with promises that Arab states would advocate for their cause diplomatically. However, the limited tangible results of this diplomacy deepened Palestinian frustrations and contributed to a sense of isolation and betrayal.
The interplay between Palestinian revolts and regional Arab politics helped to establish patterns that would continue: public declarations of solidarity from Arab states, behind-the-scenes pressure for moderation, and constraints imposed by each state’s own relationship with Western powers.
Commissions, White Papers, and British Policy Adjustments
Each major episode of unrest was followed by British inquiries and policy pronouncements. These official responses formed an important part of the political landscape in which Arab revolts took place.
After the 1921 and 1929 violence, commissions examined causes and offered recommendations. These often recognized Arab concerns about immigration and land, but the resulting policy changes were typically limited. Arabs found that their demands for majority rule and an end to the “national home” policy were consistently rejected.
The most significant inquiry related to the 1936-1939 revolt was the Royal Commission commonly referred to as the Peel Commission. It concluded that the Mandate, as originally envisaged, was unworkable because the objectives of Jews and Arabs were fundamentally incompatible. The commission proposed partitioning the country into separate Jewish and Arab states with a continued British presence in certain areas. This marked the first official British recommendation of partition as a solution.
Arab leaders generally rejected the idea of partition, seeing it as a violation of the territorial integrity of Palestine and an unjust reward for Zionism. While the details of partition belong to other chapters, what mattered for Arab political responses at this stage was the deepening conviction that violent revolt had not achieved their core goals, and that British policy still leaned toward accommodating Zionist aspirations.
By 1939, with war looming in Europe and the revolt having severely strained British resources, Britain issued a new policy document, the White Paper of 1939. It limited Jewish immigration and land purchase and envisioned a more unified, majority-Arab state in the long term. Many Palestinian Arabs saw this as a partial victory, a product of their years of struggle. Zionist leaders, however, regarded it as a grave betrayal of earlier promises. For Arabs, the White Paper raised difficult questions: whether to trust British commitments, how to react to Zionist opposition, and how to position themselves as global war approached.
Internal Debates: Moderation, Militancy, and Strategy
Throughout the Mandate period, Arab responses were not monolithic. Within Palestinian society and the broader Arab world, intense debates took place over how best to confront British rule and Zionist immigration. These debates shaped the nature and timing of revolts.
Some leaders emphasized diplomacy, petitions, and appeals to international opinion. They argued that violence would provoke repression, harm the economy, and damage the Palestinian cause in the eyes of the world. Others insisted that only sustained, forceful resistance (mass strikes, boycotts, and armed struggle) could compel Britain to change course.
These disagreements were not purely ideological. They were tied to social positions, regional interests, and personal rivalries. Urban elites with economic ties to the British economy often preferred cautious approaches, while rural leaders and younger activists tended to favor more radical methods. As the costs of revolt mounted, especially during 1936-1939, some previously militant voices reconsidered their stance, while others doubled down, believing that backing down would confirm Palestinian weakness.
The absence of stable, unified institutions capable of mediating these debates made it difficult to coordinate strategy. This fragmentation meant that revolts were often powerful but also uneven, with waves of enthusiasm followed by periods of exhaustion and disillusionment.
Consequences for Future Palestinian Politics
The Arab revolts and their political responses during the British Mandate left a complex legacy. On one hand, they helped to crystallize a distinct Palestinian Arab national identity, forged through shared struggle, sacrifice, and confrontation with two stronger powers, Britain and the Zionist movement. They also demonstrated the capacity for mass mobilization, from general strikes to rural guerrilla warfare.
On the other hand, the revolts had devastating social and political costs. British repression weakened or removed much of the traditional leadership. Internal conflicts and rivalries eroded trust. The economy suffered, and many communities bore the physical and psychological scars of violence and punishment. When the Mandate period moved toward its final crisis in the 1940s, Palestinian Arabs entered it with a history of determined resistance but also with diminished organizational capacity and unresolved divisions.
The experience of revolt and its outcomes would deeply influence how Palestinians and the broader Arab world viewed future negotiations, international proposals, and armed struggle. It also shaped how Zionist leaders and the British assessed Arab capabilities and intentions, feeding into the calculations and fears that would define the closing years of the Mandate and the wars that followed.