Jump to content

Talk:1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Casualties

The figures given by Cleveland for Jewish and British deaths are impossible. Here are some figures from other places, all except the last a primary or secondary source unlike Cleveland. All figures are persons killed. "Forces" means British police or military including Arabs and Jews in those capacities.

  • Reports of the Mandatory to the LoN:
    • 1936 - Jews 16, Arabs 192 (estimated 1000), Forces 37
    • 1937 - Jews 32, Arabs 44, Forces 21
    • 1938 - Jews 206, Arabs 454 (estimated 1000 unconfirmed), Forces 163
    • There was no report in 1939.
  • Palestine Post 25 Jul 1938 - 20 Britons, 33 Jews, 44 Arabs in 1937
  • Morris, Righteous victims, p151 - 77 Britons, 255 Jews, 1000 Arab rebels in 1938
  • ibid, p159-160 - between 3000 and 6000 Arabs, "several hundred" Jews, total for 1936-1939
  • Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, 1946: "During the Arab revolt, from the middle of 1936 to the end of 1939, there were 1,791 verified deaths and 3,288 cases of injury as a result of the disorders. In addition, it is conservatively estimated that some 2,000 Arab rebels were killed by police and military action."
  • [1] (a highly pro-Zionist biased source) "a total of 415 Jewish deaths were recorded during the whole 1936-1939 Arab Revolt period"

A point of variation is that some fraction of the security forces were Jews, and some Arabs, and these may or may not be included in any particular count (but the 1937 and 1938 British reports itemise this information). There must be a detailed compilation of all the official statistics somewhere, but I don't know where it is. However, it is clear from the above that Cleveland is wrong. Perhaps his figures are casualties rather than deaths. --Zero 12:19, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, on closer look, Cleveland dosen't even provide a reference for that; moreover, none of this work even has footnotes/endnotes, so point taken. On the Arab front, note however, the 5,032 Arab killed (and 14,067 injured) cited in From Haven. I should have looked more closely at Cleveland's own sources (rather, lack thereof) as to this from the outset. I'll see if I can find more pertinent data in Swedenbrug's article with its ~150 footnotes soon. Feel free to modify the article accordingly in the interim. El_C 12:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here are some 1939 casaulty figures from the Palestine Post (K=killed, W=wounded, "brigands" is what the newspaper calls Arab rebels). The counts for brigands are lower estimates since the circumstances often did not allow accurate counting.

  • (PP Jul 3). First 6 months. Arab civilians 260K 301W; Arab police 8K 6W; Jewish civilians 57K 150W; Jewish police 30K 42W; brigands 219K 100W; British police 5K 21W plus 6K 17W accidentally; soldiers 20K 38W.
  • (PP Aug 1). July casualties. Arab civilans and police (not separated) 31K 70W; Jewish civilians and police 7K 13W; British 1K 7W; brigands 9K 6W.
  • (PP Sep 1). August casualties. Arab civilians 41K 12W; Jewish civilians 5K 21W; Jewish police 4K 5W; brigands 31K 3W; British police/soldiers 6K 11W.
  • After that the monthly reports ceased and I can't find a summary for 1939. Probably this was war-time censorship in action. --Zero 05:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

From all this we see 323 Jewish civilian causualties from 1936 to 1939 not counting the last 4 months of 1939 (but by then the rebellion was essentially over). The "more than 400" figure posted in many places is unsustainable, but could be possible if Jewish members of the police and military are included. The Arab death toll is impossible to separate into civilians and others, or according to the party causing the death. --Zero 05:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Great Uprising → Arab Revolt (Palestine, 1948) – No reason stated.

Reasons given in requested moves were as follows. Andrewa 21:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Great Uprising → Arab Revolt (Palestine, 1948)   (Discuss)
Current name is not NPOV. It's a propaganda term unused elsewhere. — Scott Adler 06:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Relisting. --Dijxtra 19:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Andrewa 21:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Support per Humus's research. Guy Montag 02:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support this name change... I have never heard the term Great Uprising used anywhere, it has always been some version of "Arab revolt"... current name sounds POV also. Herostratus 18:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - this or similar move is long overdue. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Of course, the year is wrong. I suspect that at some point every revolt/uprising was called "Great Revolt" or "Great Uprising". Is this really the greatest or the most notable one? I doubt it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      It's not an extraordinary claim but an article name, which should be based on what is used in the academic literature and not on what people think it might imply (leaving aside the fact that the word "great" which seems to rub people up the wrong way is pretty obviously referring to scale rather than to moral characteristics). Article naming is meant to be based on what names are commonly used (preferably in reliable sources), not on the absolute accuracy of the name in question. Note that we also have articles such as Glorious Revolution and British Isles which many people would object to for political reasons but which reflect common usage. Palmiro | Talk 12:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
      I am really surprised to see the absence of any acceptable alternative to this non-descriptive and POV title. How's Great Arab Uprising (Palestine 1936-1939) for a compromise? ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      I'm a bit befuddled by that. If having 'great' in the title makes it POV, your new suggestion seems just as bad. If that isn't what we are being told makes the current title POV, what does? Palmiro | Talk 11:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      Unqualified "Great" is surely a POV. That is why I propose to specify time & space at least. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      I guess you would want to remove Great from the Great Depression as well since it is POV...? --Inahet 23:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      If there was a dispute, I would definitely consider it. But AFAIK, there is none. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      Plus there really isn't another ideological side whose viewpoint would not be represented by using the title "Great Depression".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      The unwillingness to compromise here is even more befuddling, considering that Great Uprising is far from being a unanimous and universally recognized name (as opposed to Great Depression - thank you for a good example). ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      What is even more befuddling than that is there has been a proposal made to find out what is the most prevalent name, yet you claim there has not been any. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, your first reason for the suggested move is that the title is POV, and this is the first time you suggested that the title is not the universally recognized name. Had you brought up the latter the first time around you would have much success because the first argument is just farce. --Inahet 00:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      Lame excuses. I did not bother to make a search earlier, now I did and will post the results below in a moment. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      Whatever, Palmiro already came up with the idea to find what the most prevalent name is, so I can't understand what the basis is for your "befuddlement." Also, lame web book searches are not reliable, how about obtaining academic sources on the subject?--Inahet 03:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      Yes, how about backing up your claims? So far, as can be seen from #Book search results, the term has been used in various contexts and unless I am convinced otherwise, Great Uprising looks like a good candidate for a disambig. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      Which claim?? I never claimed that "Great Uprising" was the most prevalent name, I said if that is its name then it should remain that way even if a couple Wikipedians find it POV. Read my posts carefully or don't respond at all :-D. I'm for Palmiro's proposal, why don't you review and accept it yourself? --Inahet 16:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, such a move must be motivated on the basis of sources meeting Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources in history (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#History ). The only historical source cited in the article calls it the Great Revolt, so if we are moving it to anywhere on the basis of our current state of knowledge it should be to that. Looking through the indexes of relevant books in English that I have readily to hand I find two Great Revolts, two Arab Revolts, one Great Rebellion and one Arab Rebellion. That doesn't seem to suggest a compelling case for any particular alternative name. I would also humbly suggest that it would be unhelpful to include the year 1948 in any new title, as proposed by the person calling for the move. Palmiro | Talk 22:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    One further argument for using the name "great revolt" or "great uprising" is to avoid confusion with the better known Arab Revolt of 1916, without having to resort to disambiguation in the article name. Regarding the argument that many revolts may have been called The Great Revolt at a given time, there's no evidence that this possibility is actually causing any problems, and nobody has landed on this talk page saying how come this isn't about the Great Revolt of 1593 in Nether Istria. That would seem enough reason to take it that the current name is working for us. If people don't like the name because of its possible implications but cannot provide evidence for a change on the basis of Wikipedia:Naming Conventions, they should seek to change the naming conventions, not the name of this article. Palmiro | Talk 12:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The name- "Great Uprising", is soley representative of one pov, we should use a more neutral and matter of fact term.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    In what way is it representative of POV? It is representative of academic usage, and I don't think there was any larger revolt during the years of the British Mandate. Palmiro | Talk 12:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --Ian Pitchford 13:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons stated by Palmiro. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. People don't refer it that way. km5 17:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see the POV. If that is the name then why should we change it? To appease some people who dont agree with the adjective used in the title? It's the name, get over it. I see POV pushing on the part of those who are supporting the move. --Inahet 17:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Per Humus sapiens and Herostratus and Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg... this is long overdue, name is simply not only POV, it's also not recognised by anyone. Amoruso 11:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    And your empirical evidence for this assertion would be what? Granted we have no evidence for the use of the term 'uprising', we have no evidence presented in favour of Arab Revolt (Palestine, 1948) either. I am quite disappointed to see some well-known and generally reliable editors jumping in in support of a name change proposed without any evidence by someone who clearly doesn't have an idea what the article is about, and themselves providing no empirical justification either but merely a statement of their feelings. These decisions should be based on history and historiography, not on emotions or political correctness. Palmiro | Talk 13:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Historical names should not be changed because the name does not sound well in the ears of some, and those proposing a change did not provide any academic citation to support their claim. --Thameen 18:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

*Support- who uses this phrasing? 69.244.98.126 01:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC) (Anon vote and the user's first edit. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC))

  • Support - The article has to be moved somewhere, because as the information below demonstrates, "Great Uprising" refers to too many other events, some of which are arguably more historically significant than this one. I would suggest "The 1936-39 Revolt in Palestine", which is the name of an article that is linked from this article, with the notation that it is from the Palestinian point of view. So while it may not be the most often used name, it is an acceptable name from the Palestinian point of view, and it is reasonably NPOV all around. 6SJ7 04:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per 6SJ7. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support name change adds specificity and reduces ambiguity. gidonb 12:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Per Humus's data below. -- Avi 13:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

*Supportper Humus72.72.15.145 13:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC) another anon with only this edit. --Inahet 17:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Support per Humus's excellent research, which shows the "Great Uprising" name to be confusing and non-specific, and that there are better and widely used alternatives. Jayjg (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    But it hasn't yet been shown what the more widely used alternative is. Humus' research does indeed show that the current name is ambigous, but doesn't really help us to decide what alternative name would be best (cf my comments above). Palmiro | Talk 18:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per Humus's data and common sense. --Shamir1 23:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

  • Relisting. --Dijxtra 19:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 1948 looks wrong if it happened in 1936-1939 --Henrygb 20:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • What are the alternatives here? May I suggest that the current proposal, which as noted above is uninformed and for which no evidence based on reliable sources has been provided, except I suppose by me, be officially withdrawn by Dijxtra (or Herostratus, I'm not sure which of them is the proposer), and that we try and identify the most common academic use, the most common usages outside the academic sphere as evidenced by google etc., and then see what looks like the best option in line with scholarly usage, and whether there is a need for a disambiguation component? And might I also suggest, however impudently, that one of the people who objects to the current title take the lead in doing this? Palmiro | Talk 14:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this vote above was not needed in the first place. the one who proposed the change of title did not provide any reason for this, I wonder on what bases was the vote conducted. As far as I know from my reading of Arabic books and talks with the old people who fought in it, the revolution of 1936 was called "the 1936 revolution", "Thawrat al sitta wa thalathen", but this is in Arabic books and Palestinian oral history. In English the most common name was the "Great Uprising", and it was great indeed relative to the size of uprisings that preceded it from both sides.--Thameen 18:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    Well, al-thawra al-3arabiyya al-kubra is a title I've seen pretty often in Arabic. Palmiro 21:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Great Uprising could mean just about anything. It could be a reference to the Movie "Mars Attacks" as far as we know. Title has to be changed as proven by Humus sapiens below. Amoruso 13:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Book search results

Here are results of a quick book search. Unless I did something wrong, the first result relevant to our topic comes at #19.

Search for "great uprising"
  1. The Prince: The Great Uprising by Daniel Betcher (03 January, 2006) - iUniverse, Inc.
  2. Call to Action: An Interpretation of the Great Uprising, Its Source and Causes by James B. Weaver (1892) - Iowa Printing Co
  3. The Indian wars of the United States,: From the first settlement at Jamestown, in 1607, to the close of the great uprising of 1890-91 by Edward Sylvester Ellis (1902)
  4. Wolf Ear the Indian;: A story of the great uprising of 1890-91 by Edward Sylvester Ellis (1915) - Cassell
  5. The Great Uprising in India, 1857-58: Untold Stories, Indian and British by Rosie Llewellyn-Jones () - Boydell Press
  6. Hungary's fight for national existence: Or the history of the great uprising led by Francis Rakoczi II, 1703-1711 by Ladislaus Hengelmuller von Hengervar (01 January, 1913) - Macmillan
  7. Memories of the crusade: A thrilling account of the great uprising of the women of Ohio in 1873, against the liquor crime by Stewart (1890) - H. J. Smith & Co
  8. March of the New York Seventh Regiment: The great uprising in New York City, 1861 by Martha J Lamb (01 January, 1885)
  9. Robert Annys: poor priest: A tale of the great uprising by Annie Nathan Meyer (1901) - Macmillan & co., ltd
  10. The First Regiment New Hampshire Volunteers in the Great Rebellion: Containing the story of the campaign; an account of the "Great uprising of the people ... associated with the early war period by Stephen G Abbott (1890) - Sentinel Printing Co
  11. THE INDIAN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES. From the First Settlement at Jamestown, in 1607, to the Close of the Great Uprising of 1890-91. With Numerous Illustrative Incidents by Edward S Ellis (1902) - J. D. Kenyon & Co
  12. Etna Vandemir,: A romance of Kentucky and "the great uprising." by Sallie J Hancock (1863) - Cutter, Tower & Co
  13. "Haughty Conquerors": Amherst and the Great Indian Uprising of 1763 by William R. Nester (30 July, 2000) - Praeger Publishers
  14. Lend Me Your Ears: Great Speeches in History, Updated and Expanded Edition by William Safire (30 October, 2004) - W. W. Norton & Company
  15. Classic Hikes of the World: 23 Breathtaking Treks - by Peter Potterfield (07 February, 2005) - W. W. Norton & Company
  16. The Great War: Breakthroughs by Harry Turtledove (03 July, 2001) - Del Rey - page21 : " ... black Socialist republics that had flared to life in the great uprising at the end of 1915-and been crushed, one after another, ... "
  17. The Pullman Strike: The Story of a Unique Experiment and of a Great Labor Upheaval (Phoenix Books) by Almont Lindsey (15 December, 1994) - University Of Chicago Press
  18. Never Come to Peace Again: Pontiac's Uprising and the Fate of the British Empire in North America by David Dixon (30 April, 2005) - University of Oklahoma Press
  19. The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Documentary Record, 1967-1990 by Yehuda Lukacs (31 January, 1992) - Cambridge University Press - page392 : " ... 392 Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Documentary Record This great uprising has revealed the gigantic energies of our valiant people in ... "
Search for Arab Palestine 1936-39 revolt or uprising
  • Memories of Revolt: The 1936-1939 Rebellion and the Palestinian National Past by Ted Swedenburg
  • The Jewish State: A Century Later by Alan Dowty page59 : "... The Arab uprising of 1936 to 1939"
  • A Never-ending Conflict: A Guide to Israeli Military History by Mordechai Bar-On - page21 : " ... The Palestinian uprising of 1936-1939, which is popularly known as the "Arab Revolt, ... "
  • "The Intifada and the Uprising of 1936-1939: A Comparison of the Palestinian Arab Communities." In The Intifada, ed. Robert Freedman.
  • Protest, Power, and Change : An Encyclopedia of Nonviolent Action by Roger Powers - page13 : " ... Arab Revolt, 1936-1939 Palestine..."
  • Subject Encyclopedias: User Guide, Review Citations, and Keyword Index. Part II by Allan N. Mirwis - page32 : " ... 42-43 ARAB REVOLT ^ Protest, Power and Change, HM 278 Palestine, Arab Revolt, 1936-1939,"
  • Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict by Norman G. Finkelstein and Norman Finkelstein - page13 : "During the Arab Revolt of 1936-39, Weizmann conceded..."
  • Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy by Shlomo Ben-Ami - page7 : "That the Arab Revolt of 1936-9... "
  • Cain's Field: Faith, Fratricide, and Fear in the Middle East by Matt Rees - page103 : "The Arab Revolt of 1936-1939 claimed the lives of many Jews, but it degenerated into ..."
  • Inside Israel: The Faiths, the People, and the Modern Conflicts of the World's Holiest Land by John Miller, Aaron Kenedi, and David K. Shipler - page88 : "With the outbreak of the Arab Revolt in 1936, all hope for reconciliation and coexistence evaporated. ... "

Questions? ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Humus, this is very helpful. However, to get a full picture we should compare also the alternative titles we might use: "Arab Revolt", "Great Revolt" and "Great Arab Revolt", each with and without a disambiguation element such as "Palestine", "1936" and/or "1936-39" and see how they pan out.
What exactly do you mean by a book search - was this on google or on a library/reference database? It would be helpful to know. Palmiro | Talk 23:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I used a9.com this time. As you can see, I didn't complete my formatting effort. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you think you will have time to complete this to consider the various possible titles? As it is we are comparing apples and oranges ;) Palmiro | Talk 00:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I am afraid not very soon. IMHO, we have enough evidence that Great Uprising should be a disambig. As for specific name in English, it's been called Arab revolt, uprising, rebellion, disturbances, disorders, intifada [2], etc. Here are a couple more relevant LoN/UN docs: [3], [4]. There are a few suggestions above to make it descriptive & neutral, I'm sure it's possible. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Where to now?

I've closed this poll to remove it from the requested moves backlog, as there is no prospect of consensus for the move as proposed. Please continue the discussion, it's obvious that there should be a move of some sort, and relist with a specific name once there is a prospect of consensus on it. Andrewa 21:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible new names and their merits

Go for it! Andrewa 21:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I think 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine is pretty good. I don't understand where the word "great" is coming from, and the date is important per formats of differnet conflicts etc. Amoruso 01:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There were no objections for almost 3 weeks, so I made the move. Let's fix double redirs. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Woops, I see I missed this one. I would have preferred a thorough survey of academic literature, but since I amn't in a position to carry one out myself I can hardly demand that other people do it I suppose. I'm happy to leave it here in the absence of any such survey or clearly better alternative, especially as long as "Great Uprising" remains a redirect, just to have something we can link to without typing all that in. Palmiro | Talk 23:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


Early discussions

William L. Cleveland's A History of the Modern Middle East, was too much of an overview (its "the Peel Commission and the Great Revolt" is very brief), I had to dig up Ted Swedenburg's The Role of the Palestinian Peasentry in the Great Revolt (1936-1939), with/for its prodigious 148 footnotes, the problem was finding Albert Hourani's The Modern Middle East where it is reprinted. Most importantly for our immediate purposes, it has figures (i.e. the Hagana expended 14,500 men for the Greal Revolt, etc.). But I need to get reaquainted with it before any further changes to the article. I will revisit this article later as I am writing in haste. El_C (18:41, 15 Aug 2004)

Please provide the source of the "14,500" Haganah men that were employed by the British Army. This is roughly three percent of the local population. Are you including all Hagahah members, e.g. little old ladies knitting caps? Thousands did join the police during this period, and Wingate founded the Special Night Squads, which evolved into the Palmach, but the number 14,500 appears inflated by severalfold. Perhaps a comparison might be made to 1948, when the Haganah had 60,000 "members" but only 10,000 rifles and not a single heavy weapon or even a trained batallion commander. Most Haganah members were merely activists, they had no military training whatsoever. Arabs tend to inflate Israeli numbers in order to explain their defeats, rather than look within their own societies. 68.5.64.178 04:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

superAddendum:

Editing and writing in haste is a harsh mistress, as is doing so on the verge of exhaustion. I have yet to look at the Swedenburg piece, but I would just like to point out some drawbacks in the article that my singular (omt minr edts) edit has far from covered:

  • The article neglects to give us logistics. Approximately 5000 armed Arab revels. Advantage: supported by Arab poulation. Disadvantage: poorly armed/trained/organized. Approximately (eventually) 20,000 British troops + approximately 14,500 Hagana troops. Advantage: well armed/trained/organized. Disadvantage: not supported by Arab population. (and connecting the Irgun into the equation).

Some problematic excerpts:

One of the following two competing explanations are generally given for those riots, depending on the partiality of the speaker: Discontent and feuds with the British leadership's tolerance of Jews [Or] Muslim fears of becoming a minority in what they considered their territory.

  • Of Jews where? Doing what? I changed that to 'Jewish immigration and land purchases.' If the reference was to Jews as such then this needs to be qualified.

Rather than inflicting economic damage to the Jewish population, the strike resulted in a sharp economic rise for the Jews of Palestine.

  • Why/how did it result in a sharp rise in economic growth for the Jewish inhabitants of the BMoP?

with armed gangs conducting attacks on British and Jewish targets and many lesser acts of violence, often against civilians.

  • What type of targets were favoured. Lesser acts of violence as in how (presumably lesser to attacks, but back to square one, what did these attacks consist of? ) As for these lesser acts of violence being committed often against civilians, needs a quantitative scope (even if crude, so long as it has a sound basis), otherwise the author has to concede to writing some (knows they happned, under the understanding they happned often, but without demonstrating relationality).

The British responded by greatly expanding their military forces and clamping down on Arab society. Many of the practices later adopted by Israel, including "administrative detention" (imprisonment without charges or trial), house demolitions, and so on, derive from British practice during this period.

  • Israel began adopting this practice when? It is derived how? (similar in administrative, procedural, etc. form? ) It is, of course, helpful to know how many were imprisoned.

More than 100 Arabs were hanged.

  • When? Throughout the entire three-year period? This qualification should be included. Also, hanged for what? Were there trials/tribunals (i.e. tried and hanged for offences involving ... )

maintained a policy of restraint during this period with a few notable exceptions.

  • If one is to speak of exceptions to the Hagava as being notable, that means they are noteworthy. Either ommit notable or the exceptions need to be mentionesd.

[The M-NO] adopted a policy of retaliation and revenge. Their actions, which included setting off bombs in public places, killed hundreds of civilians and did not have the effect of quelling Arab violence.

  • Killed hunderds of civilians, but how many combatants?

The British government issued a White Paper and, in effect, reversed their support of the Balfour Declaration by announcing an absolute limit of only 75,000 on future Jewish immigration to Palestine.

  • I ommited that because it failed to tie this to the Great Revolt. It is almost mentioned as an afterthought, and restatament of these facts, in this form, as a conclusion possesses a visible POV undertone, in my opinion. The Churchill WP is inserted seemingly out of the blue. It is pertinent as a topic, undountedly, but if one is to include it in the article, a relationship should be made to preceding initiatives (if by name and brief description only; incidentally, I found similar issues with the WP article, see my revisions to which for details).

That are some of the initial thoughts that come to my mind as per a well-warranted revision of the article (which far from saying it is in anyway valueless or incompetent). I am hopeful that some of these issues a highlighted could be addressed by other contributors, as I do not know how expediently I would be able to attend to this article at length (I have several other earlier ongoing articles longoverdue for attention and further research, and crucially, my scheduale may become rather unpredictable soon). I will end the longwindedness on this note. El_C (05:39, 16 Aug 2004)

  • I am afraid it will take me longer than I have hoped, at least until I could attend to other articles to which I was previously committed. El_C (17:52, 27 Aug 2004)

US Labor History

Could someone add an entry on the Great Uprising in US labor history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.104.108 (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Historiography problems

The Zionist version of Israeli history acknowledges only one authentic national movement: the struggle for Jewish self-determination that resulted in the Israeli Declaration of Independence in May 1948. This narrative has no room for an anticolonial and anti-British Palestinian national revolt.

  • Many Zionist movements (Irgun) were openly anti-British and anti-colonial. This is even inferred in the article itself. According to Dore Gold, "Anyone who knows the history of the Jewish people knows that the history of Israel is a national movement and not a colonialist movement." The Israeli Army ultimately fought against the British airforce during the 48 war.

So, the British leadership chose the Arabs over the Zionists well before the aliyas began. In the book, The Secret War Against the Jews, Loftus, archives and official statements from British officers includes claims that the British occupiers made numerous attempts to stifle Zionist policy, preventing Jews from praying at the Western Wall, reducing Jewish immigration to quotas demanded by the Arabs, and even shipping thousands of Zionist immigrants to Nazi POW camps in Cyprus.

Many Zionist historians and writers, including Morris, Oren, and Dore totally believe the Zionist narrative is not inherently colonial and thus pro-British.

In fact I don't know a single historian who have become the authors of the Zionist narrative that see Jewish self-determination as synonymous with colonialism. Not to say Zionist leaders (DBG) hadn't made attempts to win the hearts and minds of the British occupiers. But then again the British colonialists were committed to Arab nationalism more than Jewish, considering they shaped and carved the borders of today's modern Arab states. Jordan's original leaders were imported from what is now Saudi Arabia.

  • Furthermore, what is the Zionist narrative anyways? Zionism is a spectrum and not a fixed philosophy. If the section is to remain, the least we should do is attribute the comments to the Swed and not phrase them as fact. Also, what book does this statement come from? I cannot find it anywhere. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Not to make any comment on the general quality of this section of the article (which I have not studied enough) but you sure have trouble with your sources. You must try to do better than professional propagandist Gold and conspiracy monger Loftus. I mean, really, do you believe such arrant nonsense as "even shipping thousands of Zionist immigrants to Nazi POW camps in Cyprus"? Zerotalk 11:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Secret War Against the Jews can't be any less reliable than some guy named Swedenberg who I've never heard of and makes sweeping generalizations of Zionism that conflicts with other sources in the article. Instead of attacking the sources with buzzwords, why don't we apply wiki policy and try to balance the section with facts? Sound good? Oh, and as far as conspiracies go: Cyprus internment camps. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Nothing in that article about the camps being Nazi camps. Oh, now I get it! Camps constructed by Nazi POWs, that is true. I have read both Swedenberg's book and Aaron&Loftus' book. The first is careful and academic, the second is wild conspiracy theory with no redeeming features. According to this book, every Western politician or soldier who ever lived is a vicious anti-semite and British Intelligence runs a long-term operation to monitor the movements of almost all the Jews in the world (isn't that a La Rouche claim too?). Meanwhile, they get many well-known facts wrong. For example, they claim that Folke Bernadotte was head of the International Red Cross and was killed by a bomb. (He was vice-chairman of the Swedish Red Cross and was shot dead.) Zerotalk 02:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I've never read Swedenberg's book. In fact, I don't even know what book is being cited. It's just a last name and page #. And yes, the camps in Cyprus were designed for Nazi POW or any other enemy prisoner. Jews and Nazis were separated if I recall however. Seeing as you totally dismissed this blatant fact as a conspiracy, I can't put much faith in your rather hostile and personal assessment of Loftus book. But this is a non-issue for now. What we have is a section that cannot be verified by other sources and even conflicts with other references in the article. Zionists fought against the colonialists, as did the Palestinian nationalists. But they also fought alongside the British in WWI and helped police Palestine, while the IDF eventually fought against the British in the 1948 war and Arabs fought alongside the empire. The statements need to be attributed to Swedenberg (a minority opinion) if they are to remain. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The specs for Swedenberg's book can be found in the bibliography. You can read bits of it at google. Zerotalk 10:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any comment for the rest of my post? It seems Swedenberg is a member of Middle East Research and Information Project, hardly a neutral and balanced organization. Benny Morris, a self-described Zionist and salaried employee of an Israeli university subsidized by the Zionist state, has contributed an enormous amount of research that conflicts with the so-called "colonial Zionist history." The section is problematic because it states Swedenberg's analysis as fact when it is merely a scholarly opinion of a minor professor. Personally I think the section is totally unnecessary and belongs in a blog more than anywhere else. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Rename this article?

I'd also question the title. 'Arab revolt in Palestine' does not really give a fair desciption; it was a Palestinian revolt, non a pan-Arab one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.236.1 (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the name of this article is confusing. I've never seen the events described here referred to as Great Uprising, but always as Arab revolt or Arab rebellion. None of the references I have at hand have Great Uprising in their index. This includes:

  • Benny Morris's Righteous Victims
  • J.C. Hurewitz's The Struggle for Palestine
  • Fred J. Khouri's The Arab-Israeli Dilemma

As an alternative, I propose either 1936-1939 Arab revolt or Arab revolt (Palestine). Brian Tvedt 02:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

edits of "RonaldMerchant"

Given that "RonaldMerchant" is now indefinitely blocked for misrepresenting a source and again indefinitely blocked for socking, I reviewed his/her edits and decided to undo them. Please do not put any of it back without checking against reliable sources. Some highlights:

  • "On 19 April, 1936...": plagiarised, including the source, from p39 of Rose, "A Senseless, Squalid War". Also added "16" not supported by the source for "after two days".
  • "In August, the Syrian Fawzi al-Qawuqji, ..." : plagiarised almost verbatim from p40 of the same book. True source replaced by another that contains neither "sentenced to death" or "southern Syria".
  • "the oddest of occurrences in the history of the mandate": a quote from same book without attribution

Some material can go back cautiously, with due regard to honest sourcing. Zerotalk 10:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Chronology

On the Palestinian side, fighting Arabs were the:

  • United Kingdom
  • British Army
  • Palestine Police Force
  • Special Night Squads
  • Palestinian Liberation Organizations
  • Peace Bands

The flag of Israel, depicting a blue Star of David on a white background, between two horizontal blue stripes was adopted on October 28, 1948, five months after the country's demise. The origins of the flag's design date from the 12th-century.

The article depicts flags that were not the flags that were used during the revolt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.142.200 (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The flag of the Arab Revolt used in the infobox is also incorrect. It is the flag of the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire in 1917. Dabbler (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure? I think this was the Arab Higher Committee's flag--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
See description at File:Arab Revolt flag.svg "This is the 1917 Arab revolt / Hashemite dynasty flag, which includes the four Pan-Arab colors". It may also have been used in 1936-39 biut I think that a citation is required to demonstrate that it was the flag used by the Arab Higher Committee. Dabbler (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Anarchonism

Isn't it anarchonistic to write that the palestinian arabs revolted? The were palestinian arabs, however the didn;t refer to themselves as palestinians. What are your opinions?

Palestine_Arab_Congress and Musa al-Husayni among other examples that can be cited from before 1936.Historylover4 (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Large block quotes from Hughes

There seem to be some very large quotes taken from Hughes, plus some of the material cited from Hughes is either very close paraphrasing, or nearly verbatim. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Accepted pending change of 79.181.1.20

In my role as a WP:Reviewer, I accepted this, but not without hesitation.

  • The quotation marks in question have been in place a while, in any case, so they may deserve some assumption of validity.
  • If the sources quoted there include those words, then use of quotation marks would even be quite valid. I do not have access to the sources, so cannot check.
  • That said, use of all those little bits of text within quotation marks is not really good English or even Wikipedia style. If this article were about a fictional story and a fictional revolt, no one would ever chop things up with quotation marks around words and phrases like that. So I have to come to the conclusion that to at least some extent, the quotation marks represent a POV, and their removal represents a good-faith effort to improve the construction and style of the paragraph.
  • Role of a reviewer is not necessary to affirm accuracy (unless accuracy or its lack is patent). It is to protect against vandalism (and other policy violations).

There is enough room in this case for me to assume that the edit was made in good faith. Any disagreements should be discussed in good faith here. In my role as a reviewer, there were not grounds to reject this edit. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Historiography vs History

Historiography is the history of the history. It means that historians books about a period become 1st sources and we need comments directly dealing with the way the history is/has been/was written to complete a section dedicated to the historiography.

The historiography in this section was a pure WP:OR more even not neutral by the use of 1st sources added to negate the point advance by a reliable secondary sources. The 1st sources that were added are even not appropriate given if the 36-39 period is cited in these books, they do not deal with it. It is in fact correct that the 36-39 period has not been studied enough by scholars.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead - first sentence

The first sentence of the Lead reads: "The 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine was a nationalist uprising by Palestinian Arabs in Mandatory Palestine against British colonial rule, as a demand for independence and opposition to mass Jewish immigration." This is cited to page 136 of Benny Morris's Righteous Victims. However, the contents of that page, in which Ben-Gurion's interpretation of Arab fears is given, do not support the text. The text is therefore unsupported.     ←   ZScarpia   23:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Connection Mufti with Nazi Germany as of 1933

I added a fully documented item coming from the book of Gilbert Achcar about the early contacts between the Mufti and the Nazis. It looks an important compliment. 94.111.118.166 (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed it because it doesn't appear to have anything to do with the "Origins" of the revolt. Does the source mention that this was related to the revolt or its origins in any way? If not, then it's merely original research that has no place in this article. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The Mufti thanked Nazi Germany for the help he received during the revolt. Several sources, including Gert Wunsch and others from Nazi Germany, makes it indeed relevant.
The Ha'avara is of the same level of relevance. 94.111.118.166 (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC) changed margin 94.111.118.166 (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Does the source for the following sentence you added (As of the election of Hitler, the Mufti took immediately contact with the nazis as reported by general Wolff in March 1933) mention this in relation to the 1936 revolt's origins/causes or background? Your explanation above doesn't answer the question. We have to go by what the reliable sources say. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The relation is that the nazis gave a lot of support to the revolt. This could only happen due to the early relations. The mufti thanked then for the support in the revolt. I thought it was here, but I read it in a realible book. Shall look for it. 94.111.118.166 (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
This is on pages 134–135 of the English edition of Achcar's book. Needless to say, the book does not tie this to the 1936–9 revolt. Nor does the book of Nicosia that Achcar is quoting. As well as that, the extract is strongly misleading since both Achcar and Nicosia say that the Arabs realised that Germany was a source of their problems (due to the Nazi agreement with the Zionists) and that Wolff reacted negatively. Nicosia says "Wolff's avid support for Zionist aims in Palestine was reinforced by a contemptuous view of the Arabs as a people and the aims of Arab nationalism in Palestine" (The Third Reich and the Palestine Question, p87). Basically this is unacceptable editing on :94.111.118.166's part and can't be accepted. Zerotalk 02:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Jewish families fleeing old city of Jerusalem for safety reasons under British escort

I found a contemporaneous video news report, dated May 21, 1936, from the British Movietone/Associated Press archive. It depicts, among other things, Jewish families in Jerusalem fleeing their homes with all their belongings under UK army escort to prevent "molestations" from Arabs. See video here: http://www.aparchive.com/metadata/view/d0315e3c40454e36831ce515cd2c5c73 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomar1988 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Characterization of the Irgun policy of Black Sunday

I have reverted this edit, which NMMNG claims is correcting "almost comical POV-pushing". I quote from the source: This time the Irgun under Raziel jumped into the fray with unrestrained terror. They not only retaliated, but also taught Arabs new tricks in the art of terrorism, or as Israeli historian Morris put it, they inserted a "new dimension" in the conflict. He goes on to describe the planting of bombs in buses and marketplaces and notes that this soon led to Arab imitators and continuing use in many decades of the conflict.

I find the previous phrasing much more reflecting the source. NMMNG removed the word terrorism for some reason best known to himself. Perhaps one can even call it "almost comical POV-pushing". I have kept NMMNG's auxiliary statement about a shift in Irgun policy. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The idea they "formally embarked on terroristic operations" is what I called a comical POV push, as if they would ever make such a formal deceleration. That's a super POV interpretation (not to mention completely unsourced), as I'm fairly sure you understand. I changed the language you used to something more neutral as well, although I note you seem to have found that "formal embarkation on terrorism" not to be wholly appropriate on second thought? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
All writing involved interpretation - the real problem is that people treat every interpretation as evidence of ulterior motives. If someone makes a formal decision to plant bombs in marketplaces, which was done with long planning (see the section mentioning the bomb-making in the Black Sunday article), which the source describes as "jumped into the fray with unrestrained terror", then there's nothing wrong with describing it this way in the prose. "Formal" does not mean "public": it means, among other things, "officially sanctioned". And the terror was very much officially sanctioned. However, to not nitpick over small points, I use both the "formally declared the end of Havlagah" and "embarked on a campaign of terror". I am not wedded to using the word "terrorism", though it is accurate and the sources describe it as such. I have just added "indiscriminate" to the description. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Please quote me a source that directly supports "In November 1937, the Irgun formally embarked on terroristic operations". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
See this. While there was a month of havlagah observed by the Irgun High Command, Raziel was pressured to act and he thereby authorized the bombing of Arab coffee houses in Haifa and Rosh Pinah, attacks in several districts of Jerusalem and centres of militancy, including in the nearby village of Lyftah, and the shooting at buses on the Tiberias-Safed route. The attacks began at first light on 14 November 1937 - 'Black Sunday' - on Arab pedestrians in Aza district in Jerusalem's Rehavia distict. Raziel was the head of the Irgun. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I know who Raziel was. Where does that say "formally embarked on terroristic operations"? Even Collin Shindler who by no stretch of the imagination could be considered a fan of Israel uses neutral terminology rather than the comical POV push you're trying to justify. Please try again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Right, so if the head of the Irgun orders a series of terrorist operations, described as terrorist in numerous sources, it is a POV-push to call it "formally embarked on terroristic operations". Please don't waste my time: I'm done here. I'm fine with the text as it is, because I don't think it's worth fighting over. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll take that as "I couldn't find a source that supports the non-neutral language I wanted put back in the article". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
If the leader of an organization decides that the organization will embark on a course of action, that's a formal decision according to the normal rules of English. I can't see what other point is being made here. Zerotalk 08:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
So first of all, that's nonsense, in English or otherwise. Leaders often take a course of action that deviates from official policy - breaking the rules, or doing so in secret. And sometimes when that is found out, they are deposed. More importantly . where in the above text does it say terrorist actions? we have a policy on this, you know: WP:WTA. Editors can't simply decide that a certain action looks like terrorism to them, and put that in the article. Epson Salts (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
'Independent action by Maximalist members of Betar was only averted when the Jerusalem Commander of the Irgun, David Raziel, agreed to a coordinated assault on centers of Palestinian Arab militancy. This took place on 'Black Sunday' 14 November 1937.' Shindler 2009 p.195. The official policy response was coordinated by him and Moshe Rosenberg with Jabotinsky, who didn't want to know the details. The decision made was to break with the havlagah policy. Your scenario is speculation.Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully, everyone is satisfied enough with the text as it is right now. So, no real need to continue the discussion. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

"only through funds made available by Germany ..."

Despite claims made by multiple publications that just copied it from each other, this is not a quotation from a German document. Actually it comes from the propaganda pamphlet "The Arab Higher Committee" compiled by Nation Associates in the lead-up to the 1947 partition vote. What it purports to be is an American summary of a German document with no date, no signature, and no known original. Even if that is a correct description, which is the most we can hope for, it is obviously useless as an evidentiary source. There is a book by Francis Nicosia in which he examines every German and British archival source he can find on the question of where the weapons used by the Palestinian rebels came from. I've been meaning to summarise it in the article and will try to get to it soon. Zerotalk 11:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Label error

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.33.112.246 (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Jews executed

The article claims that four Jews were executed in the infobox. As far as I'm aware, only two were, Shlomo Ben-Yosef and Mordechai Schwarcz. Anyone have any information on the other two?--RM (Be my friend) 16:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

worth a laugh

This article wins the award for the most biased, untrue article on wiki, and we know there are a lot of them. No-one would ever read these lies and think them true, so not sure what you think you will achieve, but its worth a laugh to see how people try to force lies as truth!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:203:B600:4882:8250:CF06:26C9 (talk) 10:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect reference

Apologies if I'm putting this in the wrong place, but the scholar Ted Swedenburg, referred to regularly here, is incorrectly cited as "Swedenberg" multiple times. Thanks. --howserman (Be my friend) 12:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Possible bias?

This article sounds like it was written by a Palestinian. It needs to be re-written as the tone is very pro-'Arab'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.65.191.89 (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  • A big problem indeed. A common problem in the English Wikipedia. Any historical subject must view Islamic Jihad as the work of angles, while any peson they fight is a heaven that deserves a faith worse than death. The article actually says ""The Great Revolt", was a nationalist uprising by Palestinian Arabs". A concept invented in 1992. So how did these "soldiers of god" go to the 1930's? Fancy time travel indeed. 185.120.126.25 (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 September 2019

Add in the "Muslim Brothers and the 1936 Palestinian Revolt" Wikipedia Section found as a sub section in the Wikipedia Article on "Hassan al-Banna", who founded the Muslim Brotherhood and planned the 1936 revolt with Mohammad Amin al-Husseini 173.53.99.105 (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. It does not usually make sense to copy complete sections of one article to another. It would make more sense to link from this article to another article, or to use the {{main}} template to indicate that there is more information on a specific subsection in another article. Please propose one of these changes, or discuss here to obtain a consensus for such a change. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 September 2019 Spelling/grammar/punctuation correction

Please change the wikilink Arif Abd al-Raziq in the template, according to the name of the article: Aref Abdul Razzik. Liadmalone (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done By moving Aref Abdul Razzik to Arif Abd al-Raziq. Sceptre (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Problem with Jewish death

The civilian character of the Jews killed is omitted. This article make it look like most of Jewish casualties were of the haganah. Also the "virtual" manpower of the haganah put together With the British force make it look like the haganah as an active actor, while the haganah role was primarily the defense of the Jewish population ( with minor exceptions). Please precise the civilian Jewish death and the role of the haganah. --Trixieybi (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

A better source is needed for the claim that the revolt would not have occurred without Nazi German financing.

"Files seized at the German High Command in Flansburg reveal that the Arab riots "only through funds made available by Germany to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was it possible to carry out the revolt in Palestine." [136]"

I think a better source is needed for the the case that the revolt could not have occurred without Nazi money. The source is 'Freda Kirchwey, a Woman of the Nation.' which is about an editor of The Nation magazine not the history of Israel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freda_Kirchwey

This JPost article seems to imply Nazi Germany supported the Mufti after 1939. Why didn't JPost mention the earlier Nazi financing?

The Grand Mufti’s Nazi connection https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/The-Grand-Muftis-Nazi-connection-347823

Geo8rge (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

It isn't surprising that someone found this claim sourced to Kirchwey. Kirchwey was of course a major (non-Jewish) Zionist activist who received a personal letter of thanks from the Israeli government after her energetic campaign for the Zionist cause. A claim made by her means nothing and treating it as wiki-reliable is a travesty. Fortunately we have far better sources written by real historians who have studied the documentary evidence in detail. I'm looking at "Nazi Germany and the Arab World" by Francis R. Nicosia, which spends some pages on this question. He documents that various Arabs sought material support from Germany, but that Germany refused it.(p81) He says "German support, perhaps in the form of money and/or weapons might have been under consideration in Berlin by 1937. However, there does does not seem to be any support for this in the archives."(p82). And later, "the Foreign Office in Berlin informed the German Consulate-General in October 1937 that Germany would not provide arms for the Arab revolt in Palestine."(p88) On the other hand, Italy does seem to have provided financial support. Zerotalk 08:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Frankly, you should be disqualified for accepting to have a bad faith bias with your "Zionist, mean nothing " comment. The Nicosia arguments are convincing as the arguments put forward by other academics are too. I think you seem to ignore that you are not suppose to give your personal expertise, as cherry picking literature won't make your judgment on anything relevant to anyone. Sincerely --Trixieybi (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Frankly you should learn the difference between activism and scholarship before casting aspersions. Zerotalk 20:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Completely irrelevant remark. You are not here as a scholar or as an activist. --Trixieybi (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
You miss the point entirely. Kirchwey was an activist, Nicosia is a well-known scholar whose specialty is Nazi policy in the Middle East. We don't treat these two professions as equal. Zerotalk 04:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

So in this book it's mentioned that Husseini recognised the financial contributionfrom Nazi Germany. Regarding the previous debate, both scholars are obviously legit on Wikipedia. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/holocaust-paul-bartrop/10.4324/9780203701195 --Vanlister (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Page number? I have electronic access to this book and tried every search term I could think of as well as scanning the index. Zerotalk 01:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 December 2020

Change
It caused the British Mandate to give crucial support to pre-state Zionist militias like the Haganah, whereas on the Palestinian Arab side, the revolt forced the flight into exile of the main Palestinian Arab leader of the period, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem – Haj Amin al-Husseini.
to
The revolt forced the flight into exile of the main Palestinian Arab leader of the period, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem – Haj Amin al-Husseini.
Photojack50 (talk|contribs) 12:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. h 14:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Second problem with Jewish death : Why not talking about Jews killed during the uprising?

I don't see a good reason to omit massacres and killings of Jews that occured during that period. It is well documented that the rebels and Arab gangs have consistently targeted Jews. --Trixieybi (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

As for your previous suggestion, you need to provide reliable sources. Zerotalk 02:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
It's a big problem if you write on the subject while ignoring that.

Here examples: Shavit, Ari., My promised land : the triumph and tragedy of Israel, Random House Audio, 2013, Martin Gilbert, Routledge Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 2005, Edelheit, Abraham J. Verfasser., The Yishuv in the shadow of the Holocaust : Zionist politics and rescue Aliya, 1933-1939, John Bowyer Bell, Terror Out of Zion, 1976, p. 39-42, Chronologies of Modern Terrorism, Barry Rubin et udith Colp Rubin, 2015

The house of a familly murdered during a massacre in Tiberias in 1938

--Trixieybi (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Trixieybi: See WP:EDITREQ (edit requests).. I'm not trying to be unhelpful but you need to do some of the work yourself. That link shows you how to do an edit request. If there are multiple requests, it might be better to do them one at a time, keep it simple.Selfstudier (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

So, what came out of it? If that photo comes it (why didn't it already?), please mind the caption provided by the file: "... in which a Jewish family were burned alive by Arab rioters". "The house of a family murdered..." does not identify the victims, nor does it tell the story. Arminden (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 14 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 23:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine → 1936–1939 Palestinian revolt – Simple Maudslay II (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 15:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Against: Maudslay II, did you even read the proposed name in full context? "Palestinian revolt" - in Palestine? So the inhabitants of Palestine revolted, right? Wrong. Only the Arab inhabitants did. The Jews fought against the Arabs and cooperated with the Brits in doing so. How were the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine called? Palestinians. Ooops... So a significant part of the Palestinians who fought against what, the "Palestinian revolt"? No such thing. It was officially the Arab revolt, with strictly Arab participants (those fighting pro, not contra). Not even starting to discuss further aspects of the self-definition of the participants, the evolution of the term "Palestinian" etc., that being a major can of worms. So let's stick to well-established English historical terminology, leaving out more ideological aspects of it.
    More than happy to agree to "1936–1939 Arab Revolt (or Great Arab Revolt) in Palestine", with as many capital letters as one (I, II, ∞) might find desirable. Just careful with that, as the Great Arab Revolt and Arab Revolt are already taken. Arminden (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • PS: Should I have placed this on the indicated "discussion subpage"? I have no idea. Anyway, It doesn't look as if people were running in their millions to discuss it. Kumbh Mela, don't worry, your Guinness Book position is safe! Arminden (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This is an interesting but nonetheless incorrect take. If you are looking for a revolt throughout history that included the entire population of a given region, you'll be left searching forever as there is always going to be opponents to revolts.
    It's also disingenuous and actually quite a biased political point of view to identify the Arabs in Palestine as simply Arabs and not Palestinians. To say that it was the "Arabs" that were revolting and not the "Palestinian inhabitants" is an attempt to equate the indigenous Arab population in Palestine with the growing Jewish immigrant population which is simply ahistorical. It's especially incorrect given that the article outlines that this was an anti-colonial and nationalist revolt and so to not identify the Palestinian Arabs as the colonised population, then you'd be left confused as to which side was the Indigenous/national/colonised population. The point of view presented would also suggest that events like the resistance to Apartheid in South Africa would need to be labelled specifically as the "Black population of South Africa's resistance to apartheid" as a large portion of the white population was fighting against that resistance.
    I also think that contemporary knowledge would point to the fact that most of the Jewish and British populations in Palestine (although not all) would not (and do not) see themselves as Palestinians, whereas the Arab population does. There's also an acceptance that when people refer to "Palestinians" it's synonymous with the Indigenous Arab population of Palestine, the same population that was leading this revolt.
    Either way, I don't think it's a huge deal, I just think it's an unnecessary addition to point out that the Palestinians that were revolting were Arab in the title rather than simply a point in the article     James Morched (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Maudslay II: I think you might consider shutting this one down (remove the RFC tags)Selfstudier (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@Selfstudier: I did. @Aseleste: Please close this rm. -- Maudslay II (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TAP

This article says that the Trans Arabian Pipeline was targetted in the revolt, but the TAP article says that the pipeline construction started later, in 1947. 68.174.110.168 (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Jaffa article says that two swaths of biuldings in Jaffa were destroyed by the British, on a N-S and on an E-W axis. This article doesn't mention it. If it occurred, I'd like to know where as it would of interest to see the effect in the present day. 68.174.110.168 (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It is the IPC pipelines from Kirkuk to Haifa built in the early 30s and in operation since end of 1934. TAP is just nonsense, as it didn't exist in the 30s and never had a terminal in Haifa. --131.152.145.240 (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You are quite........correct! Zerotalk 10:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Till today the highest point of old Jaffa is garden and open square. That's the British work. Eyal Morag (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Bernard Montgomery.

Bernard Montgomery not connected to the Arab revolt in Palestine. There was other Monty. The entry on Bernard Montgomery don't connect him not to the revolt nor to Palestine or near in 1936-1937 . Eyal Morag (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually it is the same Monty and it does appear in his article (search for "Palestine"). He commanded the 8th division in northern Palestine from 28 Oct 1938 to July 1939. Zerotalk 04:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

plus an additional 6,000 to 15,000 part-timers.

A figure with such a large variance means Morris has nothing but guesswork or surmises.Nishidani (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Casualties

@Browserman20: There is good uptodate info and sourcing on this at Appendix B of Hughes, Matthew (2019). Britain's Pacification of Palestine: The British Army, the Colonial State, and the Arab Revolt, 1936–1939. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-10320-7. (in the sources).Selfstudier (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

“Policy of open-ended Jewish immigration“

- since when did Britain give permission via official policy to allow 60,000 Jews into Palestine in a single year? There was never any such policy, surely? The policy Britain agreed to was “the creation of a Jewish state but one which would not infringe upon the rights of Palestinian Arabs”. Whether you agree that such a commitment is unworkable or a farce is irrelevant here. What is relevant is that the UK had little ability to stop the mass immigration of Jews - it inherited this mess from the Ottoman Empire and arguably handled it very poorly, but the idea they facilitated the level of Jewish immigration via “policy” is doubtful. Smuggling was not policy. 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:C171:E52A:B6BF:9E18 (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Cycle? Counter Attack?

Here is a good Hebrew account which includes the Arab views, and is truthful in bringing the evidence of Jewish limited revenge attacks on Arabs following the later massacres. The cases were individually brought to court but were able to get an acquittal.

The Arab side's atrocities were actually carried out by mobs, in horrific actions, mostly attacking the Ultra-Orthodox Jews or pacifist groups who were actually anti-zionist and in any case had no means of defense. Could you call that "a cycle of counterattacks"?

Are you counting the British attacks against the Arabs as Jewish "counter attacks"? Were there any counterattacks after the 6 man Jewish defensive force murdered at Tel-Hai including Trumpeldor starting with Deborah Bechler, or the 5 ultra-orthodox yeshiva students murdered in the Old City in Jerusalem a month later in 1920? What about counterattacks after the murders of women, elder rabbis, and young children in that year? (13-year-old Joseph Hamdi. Or Fruma Bernstein, murdered with her son Abraham by Ali Abu Shajar, the Arab neighbor who she breastfed as a baby along with her son Abraham. Or how about the stabbing of the 70-year-old Rebbe of Rahamstriwka Rabbi Mordechai Twersky early in June, or the 69-year-old Shmuel Zilberman a carpenter who had made the doors for the Al Aqsa mosque on the temple mount, killed by his good neighbors who promised him no harm would come his way during the Passover holiday, but then joined the mob. 79 year old Mordechai Assado who went to the door to talk to the mob thinking he could appease them, and they stabbed him in the heart. Or David Derii who was murdered in his simple Jerusalem home with his wife and baby badly wounded, and his belongings were stolen. 31-year-old Haim Mevorach was visiting his family in Jaffa and was butchered so badly with others that they could not bury him separately.

Like now, also then, the claim was that the Jews are invading and therefore do not deserve to live, and should be driven out with violence.

Granted, after the 1921 massacre at the Immigrants Building in Jaffa and then the brutal murder of Brenner and his fellow authors, there were revenge attacks launched by armed Jews. But can you call this a cycle of "counter attacks"? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 05:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

"elder rabies" Do you mean rabbis? Because rabies is a viral disease and can't be murdered. Dimadick (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes of course. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

1929 Hebron Massacre and Tel Aviv attack vs. the Jewish Policeman's Revenge attack

Could the 1929 Hebron Massacre and Arab Attack on Tel Aviv, vs. the Jewish Policeman's "revenge" attack against who he claimed to be fighters, be considered as a "cycle of counterattacks"? After the attack on the (anti-zionist) orthodox Jews of Hebron what would you say? Do you count the leftist Jewish Policeman's revenge on the fighters as a counterattack? In 1965 he told reporters:

On Friday morning the atrocities began after an inciting sermon at the Hassan Beq Mosque. The mob prepared themselves for the attack in an orchard near the intersection. As a member of the Haganah defense forces, I was told to be aware of the tense situation. I took my gun (from the small police station where he was the only Jew) and left. At the end of Herzl Street, I saw several young men with sticks and hand pistols preparing to stop the mob. I told them to take cover since the British had given the Arabs many guns.
- They did not heed his warnings, and a while later he heard shots. He continued his story:
Rushing to the area, I found them under attack, yelling Henkis help us! They are murdering our guys. I fired at the gang, and they dispersed. By then four of the Haganah members were murdered. The rest were able to get away. Binyamin Goldberg (son of "The Unknown Benefactor" Yitzhak Leib Goldberg) came running towards me, but was shot in the head, and fell into my hands. I was able to get him to the hospital, but there he succumbed to his wounds.
The following is Hankis' version of the contested subsequent events: I was told that the headquarters are in the orchard, and noticed people entering and leaving a small house on the hill. I called to the Haganah members and asked who wishes to join me in the attack on it. I chose three men. I prepared bullets and we approached the house silently, opening the gate with no sound. When I heard them inside speaking I crashed the door open suddenly. There were seven Arabs inside with pistols, bats, and knives. Before they could stand up I killed them all. We closed the doors and went back to our positions.
Hinkis tried to hide the trail that lead to him, but was reported to the British police by a fellow Jew, and was sentenced to death for attacking innocent civilians in a revenge attack for his murdered friends (initially claiming he killed a child), but Hinkis continuously claimed it was a continuation of the defensive actions. It was "revenge" on the actual murderers of his friends. It is interesting to note that the Israeli groups from the left where he came from, and where he continued after that, as a worker in the leftist Davar newspaper, sided with him as "a protector of the Tel Aviv community". While atrocities against Arabs by Jewish rightist groups (in 1947 and 1948) were regularly denounced by them.

פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 05:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, you don't like the article. That's not a basis on which to proceed. Nor is copy-pasting lies like "since the British had given the Arabs many guns" (never happened except for police; actually during the revolt which is the subject of this article, the British armed Jews). About Hinkis (irrelevant to this article, there is a different article about 1929), the people he killed were a family (3 men and 2 women) and though it is true that no child was killed, a 5-year-old was shot with the bullet damaging internal organs and 2-month-old baby was hit on the side of the head and spent 10 days in hospital. Hinkis got off very lightly: released after 6 years and received as a hero. Zerotalk 15:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Combatants

Hughes has better figures if I recall correctly. Can one sum the respective lists in the info box. As we have it GB and its Haganah ally killed twice the number, as the highest estimate, given for Palestinian combatants. Nishidani (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1936–1939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine/Archive_1&oldid=1223035318"