Talk:1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine

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! Zero^talk 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)

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)

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)

NPOV

This article is pretty much written with a Palestinian POV. Israeli historians refer to this as the "Arab Riot" and perceived it as a series of pogroms directed at Jewish targets. Also, the objectives and the effect of this series of events need further exploration - by many accounts, it was successful, in that it persuaded the British government to impose strict immigration quotas, setting the stage for what one might call the Great Jewish Uprising in Palestine. --Leifern 22:38, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

The Uprising is referred to as both the "Great Arab Uprising" and the "1936-1939 riots" (or the "1936-1939 events") in Israeli sources, depending on the context. When the uprising itself is the issue, the former is often used. When the Jewish casualties are the issue, the latter is often used.--Doron 00:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, The Encyclopedia of Jewish History, for example, calls it: 1936-1939 "מאורעות" (p.145; quotes in the original), which can be translated into incidents or events. In English, Cleveland's work calls it the 'Great Revolt' as does Swedenburg (to my knowledge, that is the most common English term used). El_C 02:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[b]y many accounts, it was successful, in that it persuaded the British government to impose strict immigration quotas

No, I think that's a too interpertive. We don't know, and it is counter-factual to assume, what the British would have done had the Jewish side agreed to the partition plan proposed by the Peel Commission. El_C 02:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It may or may not be too interpretive, but it is one common perspective on it. Which is why I wrote "by many accounts." You can't dismiss a perspective just because you don't agree with it. We don't know what Brits would have done if the Jewish Agency had accepted the recommendations of the Peel Commission, or if the Jewish side had simply agreed to British and Arab wishes to collectively drown themselves in the sea, or perhaps report to Berlin, either. In any case, it's telling that the Jews even considered the proposal, while the Arabs outright rejected it and started this "glorious" Uprising. --Leifern 03:17, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

Let's backtrack. I did not say I disagreed with it (as an interpertation), I'm limiting myself to the historiographical currents I know of/that are cited (as an approach, methodologically). I am more than pleased to review and comment on any of the sources you wish to bring forth. *** Indeed, by many accounts, the Revolt was successful when viewed as a decisive impetus for Britain's decision to scrap negotiations in favour of unilaterlism and curtail Jewish immigration, I know it was, I am the editor who enetered this information into Wikipedia. The problem with your sentence, is that its phrasing infers this as a logical, causal inevatibility. The would-be negotiations, whereby the Arab side (not to be pedanatic, -did- consider and then) rejected the proposals while that of the Jewish side (as I wrote in the P.C. article) remained "heatedly divided," can, therefore, be counter-factually interperted both ways, if. Honestly, I don't know what would have happned had the Jewish side agreed with the Plan: either the British would have still implemented the W.P (or something along those lines), or they would not have. It's difficult to speak in these terms precisely because it's so counter-factual and does not simply follow linearly from the Revolt to the WP. Now, I do have an opinion as to the 'glorious' or lack thereof nature of the Revolt; I don't think it's possible to write on this subtantively and not have one. In general, I have a certain sympathy towards peasent revolts, but this dosen't mean I identify with the ideology and/or practices of each one. At the event (again, continuing with my opinion), the Jewish leadership exhibited quite progressive political values and tendencies, while the Arab one was deeply reactionary (-even- with Berlin notwithstanding). But, criticizing the form the Revolt assumed, with its backward leadership, etc. (which I do, vehemently), dosen't take away from the Arab peasentry having had genuine greivences. El_C 06:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

History is always more complicated than historians would like you to believe, because the same event looks very different depending upon your point of view. I wouldn't dispute the (presumably) Palestinian perspective that this was a great (in the "good" sense of the word) uprising based on entirely legitimate grievances; but neither would I dispute the Jewish perspective that it was a series of all-too-familiar grievances; or the British perspective that it was a subversive insurrection. I don't think the purpose of an article like this is to vindicate one perspective or another, but to try make the events as recognizable for everyone as we can. There are lots of issues to consider here, such as whether the goals of the leaders were aligned with those of the peasants, whether the Jews were in fact the appropriate target; whether Jewish and British reactions and countermeasures were proportionate and effective; and not the least whether the White Paper was a well-advised move. --Leifern 13:51, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

Actually, some historians, such as yours truly, would like you to avoid such generalizations as than historians would like you to believe, and do emphasize on it being more complex than A-to-B-to-C, or one interpertation/vantage point, as my comment above clearly illustrates. I'm not certain why historians titled the Revolt Great (they did this before I was born), but I suspect it had to do with its scope being great (within the BMoP) rather than 'glorious,' as you seem to be suggesting (as well, I did not select the title for this article, it was chosen as such before I joined Wikipedia). Yes, clearly these are valid issues and a sensible approach (but I should stress, so long as it is grounded in the scholarship), I'm not implying otherwise (though the W.P. being well-advised is a bit of a stretch, and at any rate, belongs in the W.P. article). I would have raised these myself had I written substantively on the Revolt here. El_C 20:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Correction: I did, it seems, on Aug 15, 2004, one addition. I just forgot to return to the article (until yesterday). El_C 20:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My "historians would like you to believe" was a tongue-in-cheek comment, mostly referring to the fact that all historical accounts by necessity are reductionist, and even WP encourages us to be concise. --Leifern 20:43, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Fair enough, I misread how that was nuanced. El_C 21:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removing the POV tag

I am removing the tag since there seems to be no more outstanding Talk discussions. If someone disagrees, by all means restore it, but please start a new talk section to discuss your concerns, or put out an RFC, or something that would lead to eventual consensus. Thanks. --AladdinSE 01:42, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Great Uprising or Great Revolt

The title of the article is "Great Uprising". The article itself refers only to the "Great Revolt". Apparently both terms are used. Should there be some sort of clarification or consistency here? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To me the two terms are innocuous synonyms. What uprising in history wasn't a revolt of some kind? I did a google search for [The Great Uprising "Palestine"] and [The Great Revolt "Palestine"] and the Revolt returned much more references to the Great Jewish Revolt against the Romans. Uprising seems more appropriate to me. What sort of clarification were you contemplating? --AladdinSE 05:21, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

A clarification that both are used, and Wikipedia preferentially and consistently using whichever is more commonly used. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:38, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in such a clarification. --AladdinSE 07:29, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Purpose of riots and allegations of detentions, house demolitions, etc.

• The purpose of the riots was to put an end to Jewish immigration. It didn't fully succeed, of course, but there was no question what the goal was.
• Administrative detentions, house demolitions, etc., are commonplace among a number of countries that are engaged in a conflict. If you're going to list Israel, I'll insist that you do the research and list every single other country that does it, or it isn't relevant. Otherwise, it's just another gratuitous slight. --Leifern 15:08, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

Certainly to put an end to Jewish immigration, nevertheless "protest the impact of" is also a valid reason. As for mentioning every single country that employ those practices, that's completely unreasonable. This is an article about the Great Uprising. Only relevant parties can be mentioned. The British, the Jews and the Palestinians. --AladdinSE 17:15, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I could argue that the impact of Jewish immigration was economic prosperity, employment, and increased opportunities for education. Specifically, the Arab leadership wanted an end immigration (and thereby allow Jews to be murdered in Europe, something the mufti already supported), and your phrase obfuscates that. And unless you can prove and document that a) there is a causal connection between practices you allege among both the Brits and the Israelis; and b) that there is credible evidence that such practices are used in the same way; it is nothing but an attempt to smear Israelis. Which is what I think it is anyway. --Leifern 19:35, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

You could argue anything you want. The facts on the ground is that any country is going to be massively destabilized when vast numbers of foreign immigrants arrive espousing an alien movement (Zionism) and waving holy histories and scriptures which are completely foreign to the native population. No one is going to overlook the fact that these immigrants are arriving to establish a State in which Muslims and Christians will be second class citizens just because there are possible opportunities for "more jobs and education." I'm also sick of Zionists blaming Arabs for European atrocities. Arabs didn't want Europeans and foreigners PERIOD Jewish or otherwise. They went into league with the Brits and the French against the Ottomans and when the Brits and French betrayed them and become colonialists and broke promises, they became enemies. The Egyptians rose against the British and the Algerians and Syrians rose against the French, completely independently of the Palestine question. As for proving and documenting, that always amuses me when editors selectively apply these requirements. Where is the support and documentation for the version you put in? --AladdinSE 12:10, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Well, we're trying to create a neutral article here. My point is that we should stick with the neutral fact (which is that the rioters wanted immigration stopped) rather than interpretations of what the impact was. Similarly, if we're going to link two events, the linkage has to have some purpose and meaning. By writing that I could "argue," I was merely pointing out that there is a version of events that is in dispute with yours, and IMHO more credible. These disagreements should also be covered here, but I'd like to isolate them to the relevant articles rather than dragging them into every single one. --Leifern 13:03, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

One more thing: I don't remember anyone blaming Arabs for European atrocities (though Arab regimes should obviously be blamed for atrocities in their countries, of which there have been many). The reason European atrocities have been brought into the picture is because Jews in Europe between 1933 and 1945 were the victims of genocide and had little recourse of places to go to save themselves. That may be completely irrelevant to Arabs, but it wasn't irrelevant to the Jews - the riots resulted in even more restricted Jewish immigration, which was fine with the Arabs, but not so fine with the Jews, who were murdered. --Leifern 13:07, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

I find it hard to see what exactly is the dispute here. Clearly the Arabs wanted to stop Jewish immigration to Palestine, as Leifern claims, and the reason for that is the impact this immigration would have on Arab political prospects in Palestine, as AladdinSE claims. These two claims are perfectly consistent with each other and complement each other.--Doron 14:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The "emergency" practices that the British adopted at this time, and especially the regulations they passed to justify them legally, were a direct antecedent of the later Israeli practices. In 1948 many of those regulations were adopted wholesale into Israeli law. Since then the law as applied within Israel has been replaced by home-grown laws that still allow much the same practices, but in the territories the British regulations are still applied (the legal lineage passing through the Jordanian occupation). All of this is highly relevant to the article and deserves to be there. The existence of similar practices in other countries is beside the point. --Zero 14:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's your opinion - feel free to include as long as you write "User Zero000's opinion is..." You have no way of knowing what the antecedent is besides biased speculation. If you include this causal connection, I will have no choice but to explain why Israel does what she does, and argue the very premise. --Leifern 14:12, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

It's not my opinion, it's a plain fact that anyone can check. Ask any Israeli lawyer where Israel's "Emergency Regulations" came from. The British passed the main regulations in 1937 then amended them in 1945. Israel adopted them in 1948 except for a few that were explicitly repealed by the Law and Administration Ordinance (1948). Some other British laws such as one on collective punishments passed in 1936 were part of Israeli law until repealed in the 1960s. All this is common knowledge. See [2] for more information (or any convenient book on the sources of Israeli law). Since Jordan did not repeal these regulations in 1948 with regard to the West Bank, they were deemed to still apply there in 1967 (Military Proclamation 2, 7 June 1967). --Zero 14:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(Response to Leifern from yesterday) You did say Arab regimes wanted to "allow Jews to be murdered in Europe" which is outrageous. They had nothing to do with the European war. They were only concerned about their political status in Palestine. If anyone allowed Jews to be murdered in Europe it was Europeans. Arabs were busy fighting Ottomans and the British and the French for independence. As for sticking with neutral facts, I'm all for it but that does not mean discarding facts because they make Israel appear to disadvantage. Are you disputing that Israel adopted much of the British law codes regarding arrests demolitions and the like? --AladdinSE 14:52, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I would have to do research to find out whether Israel adopted British laws regarding such practices; I simply don't know. But it's absolutely irrelevant to the article about this uprising.

At the risk of ruining a good argument, why don't I summarize what we know for fact and what we don't know. We don't know that the Arabs had a cunning plan by which they would stop Jewish immigration to Palestine, leaving them to be slaughtered in Europe by the Nazis. We do know that: 1. Palestinian Arabs' political prospects were threatened by Jewish immigration (or at least that is how they perceived it); 2. Consequently, they objected to Jewish immigration and settlement and wanted to stop it; 3. Stopping Jewish immigration and settlement was one of the goals of the Great Uprising; 4. The British exercised harsh measures to counter the Uprising; 5. Some of these measures were later employed by Israel.

Now I believe this description is more or less NPOV, except that the last item appears to me to be irrelevant to the Uprising. Does the article reflect the above? What's missing?--Doron 17:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that point 5) is irrelevant; I'm not sure if "political prospects" were the central issue, but I'm willing to accept it for the time being. As for "letting Jews get murdered in Europe," that is precisely the consequence of the action. I haven't included it in the article, but it's more relevant to the issue than what Israel did or didn't do at a later stage. --Leifern 22:44, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

To avoid further argument, I'll agree that they are both irrelevant.--Doron 22:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That summary looks to be sound. As for point 5 not being relevant to the uprising, what could be less accurate. Only consider, a direct result of the uprising was that a bevy of laws and regulations were incorporated into the Israeli state because of the effectiveness the British had in clamping down on Arab rebellions. These laws are now used against later uprisings, the Intifads. That goes to the heart of the Uprising's legacy. --AladdinSE 07:02, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree this was a direct result of the Uprising. All British law was incorporated into the Israeli law once she gained independence, and to this day British law still has some status in Israel (even British laws that have been passed since then, AFAIK). There was nothing special about these particular laws in terms of effectiveness, I'm sure similar laws have been used in other countries and it is only by coincidence that the same laws that are used nowadays in Israel against Arabs (and Jews in certain occations) have also been used during the British mandate against Arabs and Jews. Had the British not introduced these laws, rest assured that Israel would have passed equivalent laws to suite her purposes. In other words, it's like saying that the fact that the IDF uses rifles is related to the fact that the British used rifles. The Uprising and the Intifada are two very different events in the history of the Jewish-Arab conflict, and I think the connection between the two is slim.--Doron 09:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course the Uprising and the Intifadas were two totally different events. One great event leaving a mark and a legacy which significantly connected to later events does not in any way merge the two events. The issuing of rifles is hardly the same as the adoption of a set of codified laws of a previous power. That other civil laws were adopted not related to suppression of dissent and armed risings does not detract from the Great Uprising's direct legacy into modern risings like the Intifadas. --AladdinSE 07:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

You have raised an interesting issue - to what extent was the Great Uprising an inspiration for the Intifada. If you have something to say about this, it would be very interesting, but it is quite a different issue from the similarity of means used by the authorities to counter these two uprisings.--Doron 09:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree it's an interesting point, but it would have to be substantiated both in terms of references and logic to belong in this article. The reason I'm saying this, btw, is that the "Israeli side" also can draw all kinds of links, and this whole article will become yet another debate forum. --Leifern 14:02, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

I don't think inspiration is the right word. I doubt the kids throwing rocks in the intifadas are thinking of Haj Amin al Huseyn and the Great Uprising. I was thinking of technical details regarding how a set of laws codified by the British for a specific purpose and then later adopted by Israel for a similar purpose, is a significant legacy, historical link, whatever you want to call it. --AladdinSE 06:45, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still see this as nothing but coincidence. Israel could have adopted any set of laws to counter the Intifada, and it just happend to already have suitable laws inherited from the British mandate. By the way, Israel used (and still uses) these very same laws even before the Intifada, and not just against Arabs, but also against extreme Left-wing Jews and extreme Right-wing Jews (which is, in my opinion, just as irrelevant).--Doron 09:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I find Doron's argument persuasive. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that the whole discussion is really unnecessary. The law AladdinSE refers to, that was used by Israel in the Intifada (as well as before and after), has nothing to do with the Great Uprising - it is the Defense (Emergency) Regulations 1945, introduced 6 years after the Uprising was over. See also on punitive house demolitions, deportation and administrative detention.--Doron 14:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That Btselem links are excellent, but in no way do they say that those laws had nothing to do with the Great Uprising. Coincidence? Not even close. The laws were specifically crafted as martial law measures designed to put down unrest, that were used against Arabs and Jews is besides the point. 6 years is not a lifetime by any means, and in any case the laws were only codified in 1945 out of regulations very likely used directly after the Uprising as a matter of military imperatives. The Uprising clearly inspired those laws, and it is a clear legacy to the present that these same laws are used to put down uprisings to this day. Incidentally, if you remember, it was not I who proposed this information about the laws designed by the Mandate Brits and adopted by Israel, it was another editor's, I just find it to be relevant and support it's inclusion. --AladdinSE 10:19, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

These means have been in use since the dawn of history. I'm sure the Romans detained and deported people and demolished houses back during the Great Jewish Revolt. The British did not invent anything new during the Great Uprising (or during previous riots in Palestine and elsewhere), and they codified these measures into the Defense (Emergency) Regulations a few years after the Uprising was over, after which Israel, inheriting the British legal system, has used these laws in many occasions, including the Intifada.

Therefore, we have the means, that were not unique to the conflicts in questions, as similar means have been used by the British (and other powers) in other conflict in Palestine as well as other territories, before and after; and we have the particular regulations, that have been codified after the Uprising was over, and thus had nothing to do with its suppression.--Doron 20:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Certainly they were influenced by the Revolt, but, by extension, relating that (methods of suppression) to the Intifida seems too much a stretch. The sets of laws themsleves are incidental here, unlike what was being enforced and how (compared to other uprisings). Fact is that the two uprisings were very different, very different conditions, domestically and beyond, as were the means used to combat both. Crucially, is there is a scholarly current or otherwise notable opinion which makes explicit use of these juxtapositions? El_C 21:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) Significance/relationality of this legal inheretness, that is. El_C 21:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not yet, and it has been a week since the issue first erupted. It's out for now, pending some sort of notable opinion linking the two. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I concur. I'm removing the npov tag for now. El_C 06:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to require a source for the juxtaposition of the Great Uprising and the 2 intifadas relative to the inherited British suppression laws and regulations. I will not return it if I cannot find one. SIGH oh for a few short hours to do some wiki research. If I never see another airport again it will be too soon. --AladdinSE 07:36, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

And you may well find it. Glad we can establish consensus. Safe flying. El_C 22:40, 18 Apr 2005 (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)

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)

• Support per Humus sapiens. Isarig 04:57, 5 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 [3], etc. Here are a couple more relevant LoN/UN docs: [4], [5]. 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)

• 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine - A slightly reworded 6SJ7's proposal. Change or make a redir to uprising if you prefer. This is descriptive, searchable, neutral and simple (no parentheses). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I am assuming that there are no objections. Correct? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  Actually, I'm not sure but that Great Arab Revolt, with or without (Palestine) as a disambiguating element, mightnt't be better. I think that on the whole, the shorter the better. Perhaps Great arab Revolt with a disambiguating header pointing to the Arab Revolt? Palmiro | Talk 00:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  Palmiro, could you elaborate? I'd like to make it short too, but for search it'd be useful to include time and place. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:35, 14 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)

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)

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.

• Segev cite includes a statement by PM of Britain: ""if we must offend one side, let us offend the Jews rather than the Arabs."

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"? Zero^talk 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.) Zero^talk 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. Zero^talk 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)

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)

Dead link

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!

• http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,788283,00.html'Palestine
  • In 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine on 2011-05-25 03:10:55, 404 Not Found
  • In 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine on 2011-06-02 12:31:55, 404 Not Found

--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. Zero^talk 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)

Photos leaders of the Revolution

Arab guerrillas in the British mandate of Palestine during a period of unrest. (Photo by Central Press/Getty Images)

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/arab-guerrillas-in-the-british-mandate-of-palestine-during-news-photo/2635376

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. Zero^talk 02:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Irgun attacks on the British during WWII

In the subheading "Impact on the Jewish Yishuv" the last sentence reads "During the War over 30,000 Jews joined the British forces and even the Irgun ceased operations against the British" Regardless of the source, this is not true. The Irgun attacked British targets in September 27 and 29 in 1944 . This statement is also misleading as it implies that members of the "Jewish Yishuv" were supportive of the British yet the Stern Gang for example was still very much actively involved in attacking British targets during the war.

References

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. Zero^talk 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. Zero^talk 11:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120924110414/http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/treaties/TS1/1937/6 to http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/treaties/TS1/1937/6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103061306/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/4941922311B4E3C585256D17004BD2E2 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/4941922311B4E3C585256D17004BD2E2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120127035141/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/88A6BF6F1BD82405852574CD006C457F to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/88A6BF6F1BD82405852574CD006C457F

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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

• Greetings .. There is a mistake in naming the Battle of Nur Shams, and the correct label is Battle of Anabta, Please edit it in an article: 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine.

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

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604202131/http://www.passia.org/jerusalem/publications/J_wom_org_british_man_txt.htm to http://www.passia.org/jerusalem/publications/J_wom_org_british_man_txt.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)

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)

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. Zero^talk 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. Zero^talk 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. Zero^talk 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. Zero^talk 01:20, 18 December 2020 (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)

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. Zero^talk 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)

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)

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)
  • Strike: 500/30 protection violation per WP:A/I/PIA. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 15:05, 21 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.

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. Zero^talk 04:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Correct the name of an article within an article: 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine

Please correct the title of the article Battle of Nur Shams to the Battle of Anabta In the main article 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. Selfstudier Nishidani.

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 of violence

It states in the article that "Since 1920 Jews and Palestinians had been involved in a cycle of attacks and counter-attacks". the statement implies that since 1920 Arabs attacked Jews which led to Jews attacking Arabs which led to Arabs attacking Jews and so on. This statement is false. It's true that there were many rounds of violence and within the rounds of violence there were some small cycles of violence in which Jews attacked Arabs and vice versa. But all these rounds of violence always started by unprovoked attacks of Arabs on Jews and were completely unrelated to the previous round of violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NadavNahari (talk • contribs) 05:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Intruders in the Arabs' native land seems provocative enough. Dimadick (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah colonizing a land under the armed watch of an occupying foreign power with the stated goal of creating a state for one religious group only (a minority of the indigenous population). No provocation there. 65.92.155.74 (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2023 (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. Zero^talk 15:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Relations between the rebels and Nazi Germany

Rubin & Schwanitz

The book of Rubin and Schwanitz is a complete load of drivel. It has to be weeded out. Schwanitz is on a personal crusade to prove that the Holocaust was inspired by al-Husseini. This by itself proves he can't be considered reliable. If you want an example from his book with Rubin, don't go past page 164 where he gives this response to the claim that al-Husseini visited Auschwitz: "The story seems credible, especially after the discovery of pages in Himmler's office calendar that prove beyond reasonable doubt that the two men met in the Ukranian town of Zhitomyr, near Auschwitz" (my emphasis). Actually Zhitomyr is 800 km in a straight line from Auschwitz and even with today's fast trains it takes at least 15 hours. Calling it "near Auschwitz" is a lie, but he knows that many readers will take it in without checking. Zero^talk 12:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Nazis, Islamists, and the Making of the Modern Middle East raises enough red flags to warrant caution. Selfstudier (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The book, in particular some its theories regarding al-Husayni, is certainly problematic and has generally received mixed reviews. Yet I only quote it in four instances. Second the authors provide a reference in all four of them. I could easily replace the reference concerning Canaris being al-Husayni's contact man, tho I will need to keep looking for the US' study of captured German records, the Abwehr sending 4k rifles in 1939 as well as al-Banna receiving 1k Pounds per month. In the cases of the US' and al-Banna Rubin & Schwanitz directly quote archival documents. Better to keep Rubin & Schwanitz until we find an alternative secondary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeGabrie (talk • contribs)

In Wikipedia we keep things out until we find better sources. Otherwise the encyclopedia would be full of arrant nonsense waiting for someone to find a source. Al-Banna was an Egyptian with his own agenda in Egypt, not a Palestian. (And sign your posts.) Zero^talk 11:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Al-Banna's ideology was based on the events in Palestine, plus he was a personal fried of Husayni, plus he received German money funneled to him via al-Husayni. I will replace Rubin & Schwanitz with Martyn Frampton's "The Muslim Brotherhood and the West. A History of Enmity and Engagement".— Preceding unsigned comment added by LeGabrie (talk • contribs)

Frampton says that the Muslim Brotherhood sent weapons to the Palestinian rebels (p40). This is perfectly plausible and I don't mind if it is mentioned. However, Frampton does not tie this support to Germany, so it can't go in a section about German support. Zero^talk 06:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Problematic passages

Some of the new material should be kept, but the cherry-picking and side snipes must be dramatically reduced. Examples:

• Some of the funding was also funneled via Saudi Arabia,[210] its king Ibn Saud expressing his sympathy for Germany due to its "battle" against "the Jews, the archenemy of the Arabs."[211] — The second part comes from a different source than the first part and is transparently intended to impute a motive to the funding without evidence. SYNTH of the worst kind. Also [210] does not indicate Ibn Saud was involved, and places it in May 1939 rather than the 1938 setting here.

• "transparently intended to impute a motive to the funding without evidence" What a far-fetched idea to propose that a Jew-hating, Germany-sympathizing king would aid Germany against the Jews. In any case, perhaps one could still slightly rephrase the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeGabrie (talk • contribs)

The funding, if any, was to Palestinians not Germans. Read your own source. You imputed an antisemitic motivation without any source. You aren't allowed to do that. Zero^talk 11:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia "aided" Germany in funding the Palestinian rebels by smuggling the money. Don't try too hard to nitpick. LeGabrie (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• "Also [210] does not indicate Ibn Saud was involved" Saudi Arabia was and is an absolute monarchy, of course he was involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeGabrie (talk • contribs)

That's what Original Research looks like. Anyway, not even despots micromanage every little thing that their government does. And this was little. Zero^talk 11:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• By summer 1939 the British too were aware of the German funding of the revolt. — The source says they suspected it, not that they were aware of it.

Right.

• Relations between the Arabs and the Palestine-Germans, many being members of NSDAP and proudly displaying Nazi emblems and pennants, were described as warm, with the latter reportedly teaching their anti-Semitic ideas to the Arabs. Some rebels also displayed German swastika flags and Hitler portraits or performed the Nazi salute. — The source attributes these to reports by Nazis, but why spoil a good story?

Except that Mallmann & Cüppers also quote the New York Times in one occasion. But yes, most accounts are by Nazis, this fact should be considered.

• I don't have access to Küntzel's "Nazis und der Nahe Osten", but I have "Jihad and Jew-Hatred". It is a low-quality Arabs=Nazis polemic based only on secondary sources. So Küntzel's reliability must be questioned. One issue is the pamphlet "Islam und Judentum" which is best known from the photo of the Bosnian soldiers posing with it. Küntzel apparently claims al-Husseini wrote it. (The National Library of Croatia agrees that his name is on it.) In any case, what does it have to do with the topic of this page?

"I have "Jihad and Jew-Hatred". It is a low-quality Arabs=Nazis polemic based only on secondary sources." Is that so? Küntzel is certainly biased in "Nazis und der Nahe Osten", but he does not equate Arabs with Nazis, like you claimed, nor does he rely only on secondary sources, but quotes various archival documents.

"In any case, what does it have to do with the topic of this page?" It is remarkable because the booklet was translated into German just a year after, so still during the revolt. Küntzel even speculates that Germany was involved in its creation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LeGabrie (talk • contribs)

Even if it was written in 1937, which I'd like to see the evidence for, that doesn't establish a relevance to the revolt. The revolt didn't equal al-Husseini. Zero^talk 11:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

"Even if it was written in 1937, which I'd like to see the evidence for" Küntzel refers to Edy Cohen, who apparently "discovered" the Arabic original published in Cairo and personally shared a translation with him.

"The revolt didn't equal al-Husseini." He was the political and ideological head of the revolt, if you like it or not. LeGabrie (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• There is more but I have to sleep sometimes.

Zero^talk 14:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Deleted content

Let us also take a look at what you deleted.

1) "delete attempt to tie the Arab revolt to the Holocaust" The deleted paragraph:

"Relations between al-Husayni, the eventual president of the Arab Higher Committee, and Nazi Germany are attested as early as March 1933, right after the election of the NSDAP. The German counsel of Jerusalem Heinrich Wolff reported in March 31 that al-Husayni expressed his approval of the Nazi's seizure of power. He also hoped "for the spread of Fascist and anti-democratic state authority to other lands" and warned that the "Jewish influence on the economy and on politics" must be resisted. In April Wolff, al-Husayni and some of his associates met again, with the latter again stressing their admiration for Germany and its anti-Jewish policies, but also expressing their concern for the increasing flow of Jewish refugees to Palestine. The Nazis attempted to make Germany Judenfrei by expelling its Jews to Palestine until adopting the Final Solution in 1941, a policy which conflicted directly with Arab national interests. While the Nazis vehemently opposed the notion of a Jewish state on ideological grounds they wanted to avoid an Arab state as well, as it would mean an end to the stream of Jewish refugees into Palestine. They preferred the continuation of British rule instead."

Summary: al-Husayni approached the Germans in 1933 and expressed his sympathy. He also decried the flow of Jewish refugees into Palestine due to Germany forcing out its Jews. A description of Germany's policy of expelling the Jews as well as its interest in avoiding both a Jewish and an Arab state follows. So where the hell do you see me tying the Arab revolt to the Holocaust? Why do you delete the entire paragraph? Vandalism IMO.

@Zero0000: Still waiting for your explanation. LeGabrie (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Third and last time: explain yourself or I will issue a complaint in the admins' noticeboard. LeGabrie (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I would read WP:BOOMERANG before doing anything hasty. Note that the boards are not interested in content issues. If you have a complaint about editor conduct then the place to raise that initially is on the editors talk page and not as threats on an article talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not about the content itself, which is now deleted for good anyway, but the fact that he deleted large amounts of content with an at best dubious justification and staunchly refuses to elaborate. So yes, it's about his conduct. I will consider to discuss the issue on his talk page, thanks. LeGabrie (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

In any case, don't expect an answer, since (a) Zero is probably punching out zeds at the mo, and the reasons are amply documented in the thread that followed. The German material introduced (familiar to all readers who look at any number of wiki pages) unduly highlights a German/Nazi connection with Palestine that was exiguous, despite the heatedly polemical books you brought to bear on the issue. Germany had almost no bearing on the revolt, financially, militarily or otherwise.Nishidani (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems that you do not understand what this particular issue is about. Leave this to Zero and me. LeGabrie (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

By now I have written more than enough on this talk page for you to understand my position on the subject. Repeatedly demanding an answer to a question is called badgering and you need to read WP:BADGER. As well as being against the rules, it is a good way to get your question ignored. However, I will clarify that my edit summary was not intended to charge you personally with any motive, but rather was a comment on the majority of the sources you brought, which in my opinion (and plenty of other peoples' opinions, see my quote from Richard Levy on this page) have the motive of associating the Arabs with the Nazis, and therefore with the Holocaust, to the benefit of Israel. Because I am very familiar with that literature and its transparent motivation, I am adamantly opposed to Wikipedia becoming an echo chamber for it. Zero^talk 01:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

"Repeatedly demanding an answer to a question is called badgering and you need to read WP:BADGER."

You made a major edit (-1350 bytes) and refused to discuss it. Which is against the rules and would otherwise lead to the restoration of the text. LeGabrie (talk) 11:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

"I will clarify that my edit summary was not intended to charge you personally with any motive, but rather was a comment on the majority of the sources you brought, which in my opinion (and plenty of other peoples' opinions, see my quote from Richard Levy on this page) have the motive of associating the Arabs with the Nazis, and therefore with the Holocaust, to the benefit of Israel."

You removed a very particular paragraph and gave an edit summary that read "delete attempt to tie the Arab revolt to the Holocaust", clearly implying that that particular paragraph (because why you didn't you delete the other text while you were at it?) you removed was me tying the revolt to the Holocaust, which is not true. Your sources talk doesn't make any sense either, since the text in question was exclusively referenced by Nicosia, which everyone here agrees is legit. You also didn't mention any sources in the edit summary, you just spoke of an "attempt", which, again, implies that you were talking about my text. So again: You deleted a major, well-referenced text on completely arbitrary grounds. Here's what I think what actually happened: you skimmed the text until reaching this passage:

"until adopting the Final Solution in 1941, a policy which conflicted directly with Arab national interests."

You misread it like the Final Solution actually was in Arab national interests. You didn't bother to read again and immediately deleted the entire paragraph. LeGabrie (talk) 11:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I made an editing mistake in my haste to go to bed. If I had thought about it a bit more I would have moved the whole new section to this talk page for discussion rather than trying to pick at it piecemeal. Zero^talk 12:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The offending edit summary is now gone; you can check. Zero^talk 14:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Good, thank you. LeGabrie (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

2) You removed Germany from the "Financial Support" area of the infobox, claiming that there is "no proven financial support from Germany". Yet this is directly contradicted by Nicosia and Mallmann & Cüppers as well as the primary source I directly quoted in the text. It should be re-added with references.

So add "substantial" to the sentence. The infobox is not for listing trivia. Zero^talk 01:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

3) "delete anecdote about a single anonymous individual" I included this quote because it perfectly illustrates all previously mentioned reasons why there were Arab sympathies for Nazi Germany: anti-semitism, aversion to the British and a certain association with Hitler. I don't know if the name of the insurgent is known, perhaps it was mentioned in the original publication, "Mord und Brand im ‚heiligen‘ Land" by Karl Kossak. LeGabrie (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Zero can reply here but I think you should dial it back on the uses of the word vandalism. WP:VANDALISM means something specific and if you cannot prove it, don't make the accusation. Selfstudier (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see how deleting an entire referenced paragraph can be justified by good faith, but we will see his explanation soon. LeGabrie (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The amount of German influence on the revolt

All of this newly recycled lowbrow citation from mediocre scholars and writers is primarily WP:Undue when not WP:Fringe. We are dealing with historical events and people which have been the object of intense scholarship for several decades, which has deconstructed the early post-war propaganda war waged by agencies and militants to assert in the fragile early years of Israel's struggle to achieve and sustain statehood, that the opposition to Zionism was directly linked to Nazism. I.e., what was happening in the MIddle East was a rerun or continuation of WW2, with a second Holocaust in the wings.

There is no doubt that links between Germany and the Palestinian opposition existed through 1933-1939. They are noway near the number of similar contacts over roughly the same period between Zionists and Nazi and Fascists. We do not, apropos the latter, tout the view by showcasing every jot and tittle of collaboration between them, to conclude that Zionism is essentially the outcome of German and Italian geopolitical assistance. Even less so should we make the mirror case for the notion that the Palestinian revolt was deeply influenced by German/Fascist ideology, money and influence. In both cases, the old dictum 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' was the overwhelming consideration, the contacts instrumental and cynical, to the respective ends, which were identical: achieving statehood in a country ruled and administered by Great Britain. The trivia cited by Schwanitz and co., restarted after the Al-Aqsa intifada and recycled the early postwar Zionist propaganda. It was 'instrumental' and struggled to make the casual incidentalia of history the hidden core of events. It has been carefully reviewed, scrutinized and assessed in the context of the best recent specialist scholarship and found glaringly wanting or quesrtion-begging. One summary of it we have on the al-Husayni page runs as follows:-

It has often been stated that the Nazis inspired and financed the Arab Revolt. According to Philip Mattar, there is no reliable evidence to support such a claim. In 1933, within weeks of Hitler's rise to power in Germany, the German Consul-General in Jerusalem for Palestine, Heinrich Wolff, an open supporter of Zionism, sent a telegram to Berlin reporting al-Husseini's belief that Palestinian Muslims were enthusiastic about the new regime and looked forward to the spread of Fascism throughout the region. Wolff met al-Husseini and many sheikhs again, a month later, at Nabi Musa. They expressed their approval of the anti-Jewish boycott in Germany and asked Wolff not to send any Jews to Palestine. Wolff subsequently wrote in his annual report for that year that the Arabs' political naïvety led them to fail to recognize the link between German Jewish policy and their problems in Palestine, and that their enthusiasm for Nazi Germany was devoid of any real understanding of the phenomenon. The various proposals by Palestinian Arab notables like al-Husseini were rejected consistently over the years out of concern to avoid disrupting Anglo-German relations, in line with Germany's policy of not imperiling their economic and cultural interests in the region by a change in their policy of neutrality, and respect for British interests. Hitler's Englandpolitik essentially precluded significant assistance to Arab leaders. This care for treating with respect English colonial initiatives (like the promotion of Zionist immigration) was also linked to Nazi ambitions to drive Jews out of Europe.

Italy also made the nature of its assistance to the Palestinian contingent on the outcome of its own negotiations with Britain, and cut off aid when it appeared that the British were ready to admit the failure of their pro-Zionist policy in Palestine. Al-Husseini's adversary, Ze'ev Jabotinsky had at the same time cut off Irgun ties with Italy after the passage of antisemitic racial legislation.

Though Italy did offer substantial aid, some German assistance also trickled through. After asking the new German Consul-General, Hans Döhle on 21 July 1937 for support, the Abwehr briefly made an exception to its policy and gave some limited aid. But this was aimed to exert pressure on Britain over Czechoslovakia. Promised arms shipments never eventuated. This was not the only diplomatic front on which al-Husseini was active. A month after his visit to Döhle, he wrote to the American Consul George Wadsworth (August 1937), to whom he professed his belief that America was remote from imperialist ambitions and therefore able to understand that Zionism "represented a hostile and imperialist aggression directed against an inhabited country". In a meeting with Wadsworth on 31 August, he expressed his fears that Jewish influence in the United States might persuade the country to side with Zionists. In the same period he courted the French government by expressing a willingness to assist them in the region.

Note the importance we accord Nicosia, whom you use. There is no cover-up. It is up to historians who specialize in the Arab Revolt (Hughes, Laurens etc.,) to make such a case of important linkage, and when they do so, we will report with proportionality their conclusions. Just sweeping around to come up with polemical tidbits by minor one-night-wonders in the industrial hyping of history for simpleton visions of the reality and making out the scattered archival disiecta membra they fish up is proof of such an intrinsic connection is POV-tainted because it lacks any sense of relative weight in historical overviews like this.Nishidani (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Richard S. Levy wrote about books of the genre we are dealing with:

Although varying greatly in worth, most have as their major message (or at least as a transparent subtext) the proposition that "the Arabs" of today are the spiritual heirs of National Socialism's genocidal mission targeting the Jews. (Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Volume 26, Issue 1, Spring 2012, Page 154)

This is the underlying reason for the intense focus on al-Husseini. Interestingly, Levy explicitly excludes Nicosia's work from this description, as anyone who has read Nicosia's careful polemic-free research can understand. A dispassionate look at the evidence shows that German interest in helping the Arab rebels came very late, as the revolt was on its last legs, and the support they provided was peanuts. Yet this negligible relationship is supposedly worth a large section and an infobox mention. As Nishidani pointed out, the Haavara agreement between the Nazis and the Palestinian Zionists meanwhile proved a very large source of income, but nobody wants that in the infobox. Zero^talk 11:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

" A dispassionate look at the evidence shows that German interest in helping the Arab rebels came very late, as the revolt was on its last legs, and the support they provided was peanuts.

But previously you claimed that there is no "no proven financial support from Germany". So what is it?

"As Nishidani pointed out, the Haavara agreement between the Nazis and the Palestinian Zionists meanwhile proved a very large source of income, but nobody wants that in the infobox."

A comparison that doesn't even make sense. How is a transfer agreement intended to lure Jews into Palestine comparable to the literal funding of the rebels by Germany? Here's the deal: Germany funded the rebels, Italy funded the rebels (and many Arab countries did so too, but I leave that to others). Both should be included, even if most historians agree that Germany's funding was limited (albeit this contradicts the account of Hans Pieckenbrock: "It was only through the funds provided by us that he [al-Husayni] was able to carry out the revolt in Palestine.", which, of course, could have been an exaggeration). Otherwise we might as well delete Italy while we are at it. LeGabrie (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Who is Hans Pieckenbrock? The dickhead boast by a presumably Nazi non-entity fails a simple test: Hughes, the reigning expert, states clearly that the Revolt was funded mainly by Arabs.Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Hans Piekenbrock (Mallmann and Cüppers, at least in the English translation, called him "Pieckenbrock") was a colonel of the Abwehr. The quoted note dates to June 1939 and was directed to Canaris. LeGabrie (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Note that Mallman and Cüppers do not show the memo to be written by Piekenbrock. They say it is unsigned and conjecture it was written by Piekenbrock. Zero^talk 13:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I am going to restore the long standing well sourced content. The removal is questionable at best. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't waste your, or our time. Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Not long standing, either. What we are discussing is very recent. Zero^talk 13:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

What appears questionable is the direct link between this material and the Arab Revolt. Peripheral information on foreign relations is tangential synth. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I would propose to keep the part discussing the initiation of the contact between Husayni and the Nazis, but to shorten the second half about Germany's Palestine policy. LeGabrie (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

You must (a) address the objections above (2) show some quality sources that link the Uprising significantly to Nazi policy and assistance (You won't find any consolation for your thesis in Matthew Hughes's, Britain’s Pacification of Palestine:The British Army, the Colonial State, and the Arab Revolt, 1936– 1939, Cambridge University Press 2019 pp.104-106, where the source of these rumours is noted, and the claims of notable influence dismissed). You've done neither.Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

"You must" Sorry, who are you again? LeGabrie (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Someone who is familiar with policy on consensus building, i.e.WP:Consensus. You are welcome to think that you need not answer objections by other editors, but that only means your proposals won't be taken seriously, per policy.Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no direct link between this deleted material and the Arab Revolt. It should remain deleted. Pngeditor (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I object. The entire chapter, around 1000 words, is about the relationship between Husayni / the Arab Higher Comittee and Nazi Germany. Writing two or three sentences about the initiation of that relationship, even if it pre-dates the revolt, is pretty much mandatory. It IS important to know that al-Husayni, the very leader of the revolt, approached Germany even before 1936. Or should we also delete the "Economic background", "Political and socio-cultural background" and "Prelude" chapters just because they deal with events before the revolt? Furthermore, the second half of the deleted text deals with Germany's Palestine policy even in the timeframe of the revolt, from 1933-1941. LeGabrie (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

You've ignored the points raised. I cited Hughes' standard history, where this kind of speculation is marginalized in historical terms, and shown to be a talking point used by Yishuv and Jewish Agency operatives as a hasbara just-so story blown up to influence British official opinion. Germany's assistance to the Revolt was negligible. Italy was the Axis power that actually tried to lend substantial aid (unsuccessfully), just as it did to Revisionist Zionists, Husayni's adversaries. The selective pushing of minor irrelevancies you are negaged in is just 'spin'. By the way, it's not a 'chapter' but a 'section' (2) 'initiation' in context is somewhat solecistic being a deverbal formation from 'initiate' i.e., 'begin' that only manages to create a different sense than the one you intended. 'The initiation of' anything implies a sacred ceremony, a formal ritual induction into something. Husayni wasn't 'initiated' into any relationship with Nazis that we know of. If you don't familiarize yourself with the topic'sextensive literature but promote fringe viewpoints, then arguing will be pointless.Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

"You've ignored the points raised." The only major point you and user:Zero0000 raised is the amount of Germany's funding (though Zero0000 originally claimed that there was no funding at all, but seems that he changed his opinion). I never claimed that Germany's funding was substantial, just that it existed and therefore should be mentioned in the article and the infobox. Additionally, I am also willing to rework and shorten much of the text. Husayni contacting Germany in 1933, however, should remain in the article. And Zero0000 claiming that I was trying to tie the revolt to the Holocaust is still bullcrap. LeGabrie (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

"If you don't familiarize yourself with the topic'sextensive literature but promote fringe viewpoints, then arguing will be pointless."

Try to be a bit less complacent. LeGabrie (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Try to be a bit less complacent. Seriously?

I am also willing to rework and shorten much of the text. That would be the least that should be done. Selfstudier (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Writing a four sentences long lecture because I used "initiation" instead of "begin" and using that error to accuse me of promoting "fringe points", therefore rendering arguing with me "pointless", is what I would call "complacent", yes. Not to mention that it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. LeGabrie (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Section rework

The addition is bloat. But the edit reminds one that we need a section on funding to gather in this material under one heading. Hughes, the most recent authoritative source, states that the major source was Arab, internal and foreign. Second, Italy supplied some assistance, which ended in late 38, when by the way Husseini was no longer present on the scene. Germany took up the slack, and comes third and last, with minor funding for a period. Our text as it stands inverts this, splattering details in several sections, instead of under one heading. Arab funding scarcely gets a mention, Italian funding 80 words, German funding 157 words.

I'll create a funding section and invert this bias restoring proportionality, and greatly cutting back the bloat. Poorly reviewed pseuds' corner crap from Schwanitz, Mallmann –Cüppers and Küntzel hasa no place here, nor does the fatuous boast by the Abwehr colonel Hans Piekenbrock, which contradicts everything we know from numerous modern studies. Nishidani (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

"Poorly reviewed pseuds' corner crap from Schwanitz, Mallmann –Cüppers and Küntzel hasa no place here"

Right, every book you don't like or know is "corner crap" and must be disregarded entirely. Schwanitz I don't care about, but why should we leave out Mallmann & Cüppers? It's exceedingly well referenced, even if it primarily focuses on Nazi sources. Many of the sources they relied on have not been considered by other modern authors. Additionally, I doubt that you read Küntzel 2019 either.

"nor does the fatuous boast by the Abwehr colonel Hans Piekenbrock, which contradicts everything we know from numerous modern studies."

I disagree, it should be mentioned. It is one of the few, if not the only Nazi source that confirms the German funding of the rebels. It should be quoted, but with a clarification that in contrast to Piekenbrock's claim, modern historians consider the funding to be insignificant.

• May I propose that I rework my text, shorten it by approximately 33–50% by deleting unnecessary information and quotes while adding clarifications where they are due? Subsequently we can add it to your new "Funding" section, if everyone is happy. LeGabrie (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

When modern historians say something is insignificant it is a violation of WP:DUE to include it here as though it were. The fact that it is one of the only sources for this makes it less suitable for use, not more. nableezy - 23:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

How do I give the source "undue weigth" if I just quote it? Does that mean we can't quote primary sources on Wikipedia if modern authors disagree with them? Can't we quote Herodotus, for example, even if we doubt his reliability right after? LeGabrie (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is what that means. We dont use primary sources that secondary sources consider insignificant. You arent here to prove a thesis but to summarize the sources with the weight they give to each aspect of a topic. And in this case it is approximately nothing. nableezy - 04:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear on my position, the bits I deleted are not the limit of what should be deleted. I think that the entire section on Nazis should be replaced by at most 2-3 sentences. Take out the cherry-picked rubbish from the Arabs-are-Nazis crowd and put in the careful summaries from authors like Nicosia and Hughes. Zero^talk 02:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The whole paragraph on Nazi ideology and viewing Arabs as sub-humans is also grossly off-topic (as a standalone paragraph) - some of this material could be due if reliable sources showed that these viewpoints specifically fed into decisions that the German government took with respect to the Arab revolt, but without this they are just tangential curios. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, after noticing the repetition of the point above that it was in fact Italy that was the more significant foreign backer of the revolt, I hunted down the material on Italy in the article and found it misplaced at the bottom of a section about Irgun. I've now moved that into the section on foreign relations - for which I've created a new header/subheader setup. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I did a major edit on all this, unaware of other edits today. If there are any reduplications, my apoloigies.Nishidani (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

By the way 'Financial support' in the infobox, Italy with no corresponding voice for example, Jewish Agency funding from abroad to assist the formation of the Haganah, and policing of areas, is unbalanced. Plenty of actors sent money, Iraq, Syria, etc. but the impact was nugatory as the sums were small. It should be removed.Nishidani (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, either we include all players, or none. Personally I would prefer to have them all. LeGabrie (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I propose to add the following passage: "The volume of Germany's funding was intentionally limited, as its goal was neither the collpase of the British Mandate nor the establishment of an independent Arab state (which would have been counterproductive to Germany's policy of expelling the Jews to Palestine), but to cause additional nuisance to the British. LeGabrie (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The Germans gave a little (what does "intentionally limited" mean? How much? To whom?) to the revolt to cause nuisance to the British. How is that at all significant for the Arab revolt? I have looked at 80-81 Nicosia 2014 (I also have Nicosia 1985 (The Third Reich and the Palestine Question)) and I am having trouble finding anything in there to support this claim, can you quote the passages that support this, please. Selfstudier (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The main part of what I wrote is from Nicosia 1980, Nicosia 2014 I used only for the part about how an independent Arab state would be counterproductive for Germany. The text goes like that:

"Thus, for a brief period in late 1938, a policy of limited German intervention in the Palestine conflict was undertaken, not to undermine and eliminate the British position in Palestine or to promote the cause of Arab independence, but simply to contribute to pressures which might dissuade Britain from intervening in Hitler's plan to destroy Czechoslovakia."LeGabrie (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

"limited German intervention" is not the same as funding? It's more usual to rely on later sourcing rather than the earlier if from the same author. let me see if I can get that article to see what else it says. Selfstudier (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

It's available on JSTOR. And "intervention" clearly refers to the funding of the rebels. LeGabrie (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a waste of time discussing this. There are more urgent things demanding more work here. LeGabrie's points have been addressed in the text.Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I have it now, there is a very iffy description of this limited German intervention following the paragraph you quote. In regards to funding it says " It is possible that the Abwehr began to provide some money to the Mufti at that time [Summer of 38]" which can equally be read to say that they did not and then there is an anecdote based on the German ambassador saying he gave 800 pounds to the Mufti's assistant. This is virtually irrelevant in terms of the revolt and this article. Selfstudier (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

How is this unrelated to the article? And why do you delete the text without reaching consensus? LeGabrie (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

There is a consensus and it is against inclusion. I am still inclined to cut the section further but will leave that to others. Selfstudier (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The consensus of this discussion is that Germany funded the rebels to a limited degree. Now you make it look like Germany didn't fund the rebels at all. The hell are you doing? LeGabrie (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no evidence of German funding for the revolt in the sources provided (and which were also misrepresented). An anecdotal 800 pounds to the Mufti's assistant is not funding for the revolt. Selfstudier (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

A lie, Nicosia 2014, p. 109 literally talks about several instances of Germany funding the rebels. LeGabrie (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

You wrote above The main part of what I wrote is from Nicosia 1980, Nicosia 2014 I used only for the part about how an independent Arab state would be counterproductive for Germany. Are you now saying that this was an incorrect statement and that you now wish to rely on Nicosia 2014? Selfstudier (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

That obviously only refered to the note behind "limited". I will rephrase the text to spare us from more useless arguing.LeGabrie (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Seeking to make some limited inferences do too much work in the name of trying to tie Germany to the revolt is not going to work. p.109 I just read again, "Canaris..apparently provided some financial aid for the Mufti’s political activities in Beirut" is a) not the revolt and b) note the word "apparently" and then two more German ambassador anecdotes. Duh. This is just undue, there is a plethora of evidence that the German government did not want to assist the revolt and only meagre and gossipy evidence to the contrary, which even if it were conclusively demonstrated as true would not amount to a hill of beans. Selfstudier (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. LeGabrie (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• Question: In "Funding" the following is said that "[s]ome funds were obtained from American sources.", quoting Hughes 2019, p. 107. Hughes doesn't mention any American sources though, at least not on that page, where he only focuses on internal rebel funding. LeGabrie (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah right, found it now. Wondering what the motiviation for these donations was tho. LeGabrie (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• Reworked the section about German funding. Made it more compact while using a lot of notes, which seems fitting for such a controversial issue. LeGabrie (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

  It's still all wrong and I have tagged it as such. Point me to where Hughes says Germany began to provide money to the insurgents. It is written "money" and buried the fact that it was 800 pounds supposedly given to a Mufti aide according to a German ambassador (if anyone believes that this happened or that if it did, this was for the revolt I will sell them a bridge). Then it says arms were shipped to Saudi and in the very next sentence that arms were not shipped to Saudi. Undue nonsense. And "The scarce evidence of German funding revolves around ambassador Fritz Grobba and Abwehr Admiral Canaris" is known as innuendo.Selfstudier (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

"Point me to where Hughes says Germany began to provide money to the insurgents."

"Italy [...] was keen, as was Germany, to support anti-British Arab nationalists and some Axis funding arrived for rebels but not sufficient to turn the course of the revolt."

"It is written "money" and buried the fact that it was 800 pounds supposedly given to a Mufti aide according to a German ambassador (if anyone believes that this happened or that if it did, this was for the revolt I will sell them a bridge)."

Nothing is buried, the 800 pounds are just an example, that's why I literally wrote "In an instance". Obviously must have been way more throughout the course of the rebellion if British and US intelligence caught on.

""Then it says arms were shipped to Saudi and in the very next sentence that arms were not shipped to Saudi."

I was pretty quite obviously talking about money, no clue how you can misread that. Just to quote Nicosia 2014:

"Indeed, in a note to Under State Secretary Ernst Woermann in the Foreign Office in Berlin in May 1939, Grobba did mention financial assitance that Germany had recently provided to Arab rebels in Palestine through Saudi Arabia."LeGabrie (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

This article is about Arab Revolt. We cover funding. Thanks for the figure from Fiore. That kind of datum is worth a million annotations re Germany, where as far as I know, no one has ever come up with any concrete details of that order or measure. I've read of al-Husayni getting $2,000, peanuts, particularly since he like so many middlemen, pocketed much of the money and it never reached the insurgents. I'll fix the page reference to Hughes tomorrow. A header like Axis Powers is anachronism.Nishidani (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

What would you think about an annotation that briefly summarizes all the evidence for German funding? LeGabrie (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

You should be able to fit that in a short sentence (or you could just write that there isn't any). The only number I see mentioned anywhere is 800 pounds which is a claim by Grobba. Your Obviously must have been way more throughout the course of the rebellion if British and US intelligence caught on is not in any source and is just your own opinion. Besides the UK only "suspected" it and I would be interested to see where the Americans got their (equally non specific) information from. Selfstudier (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem is, the evidence so far leads nowhere, and therefore, being inconclusive, it seems pointless to highlight the minutiae of a desperately scoured paper-trail that has failed to turn up a trace of a smoking gun. As such it has, like a zillion things, no no intrinsic significance for this kind of page, which still needs a lot of work to get in a mass of ignored details of cogent relevance. Perhaps, to illustrate the principles people like Zero and I, to name just two here, have insisted on for almost two decades, I should make a broader reflection that would through some light on the strict criteria controversial articles require. A lot of the material brought to bear here has nothing to do with sound historiography (the past), and everything to do with spinning or influencing the politics of 'knowledge' concerning Israel and the Middle East. Nishidani (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Speaking only for my self, addressing my POV. There are some areas or specific articles in wiki which are periodically afflicted by intense editing efforts that, reflecting some ‘new sources’ with sensational news or insights, endeavor to reorient the sober, neutral coverage of the topic in terms of mainstream scholarship by highlighting a conspiracy, either historical or ideological. I and Tom Reedy found ourselves haplessly in an epic battle lasting some years with numerous monochromatic editors working the Shakespeare Authorship Question, They were all convinced that there was an academic cover-up of the ‘fact’ that Shakespeare was someone else. They could table a banquet of, well, bullshit, a small part of it even under respectable university press imprint, in favour of their alternative candidate. In one and a half centuries, over 4500 books have speculated on the identity of the putative 'real' author, as opposed to the Stratford yokel, who penned the works. Our premise was, we only cite reputable scholars who have the credentials to work Elizabethan history and who specialize in that topic, none of whom incidentally, thought these hypotheses anything other than inflated puffery by one-track minds, making theoretical mountains out of skerricky molehills of archival leads. Newspapers would run extravagantly titled reviews of such books for a few weeks, and then the flatulent hype would die on its feet.

A similar thing happens with the Khazars. The article was stuck neck deep in the slough of despond of obsessively conflicting editing because most contributors would come to it only to pursue one small tile in its vast historical mosaic, to take positions over whether the Khazars converted to Judaism, or whether the theory itself is anti-Semitic. It took some months to rewrite it from top to bottom, place the conversion and the anti-Semitic literature (fringe) in their proper dimensions within the whole, and get the whole story on a rigorously academic footing. Idem with Amin al-Husayni – always conflicted, always pestered year by year by editors who come up with some scrap of news or pseudo-scholarly insinuation that there was some defensive coverup by Arabists of the outrageous truth of links between Nazism and Arab nationalist movements. All these efforts came bouncing off recent issues of books by the likes of Schwanitz, Gensicke, Mallmann and Martin Cüppers, Künzel et al, which would then be carelessly picked up and given a varnish of respectability by scholars who should know better, like Jeffrey Herz and David Patterson (A Genealogy of Evil: Anti-Semitism from Nazism to Islamic Jihad,) both published by eminently reliable university presses, despite deep flaws and an evident political bias to reframe Middle Eastern discourse in terms of some judaeophobic taint at the heart of Arab nationalism, if not indeed Islamic civilisation. Palestinian attempts to secure their state were inextricably interwoven with some congenital inerasable hatred oif Jews.All this means, as with Shakespeare, Khazars etc, that the theme ‘Jews’ scants all real interest in the immense, intricate corridors of Jewish history unless one can come up with some material that underlines, emphatizises the world’s enmity, and the guilt incumbent on us all unless we daily reckon with it.

For a century, anyone who reads widely into the I/P conflict will come across many accounts of Jewish victims of terrorism. They will come across far more references to Palestinian victims of terrorism. As early as the 1920s for example, one gets stuff like this:

When one of the Nablus detachment produced an old cigarette tin containing the brains of a man whose skull he had splintered with his rifle butt … I felt physically sick … the sight of that grog- blossomed face of the gendarme with his can half- full of human brains proudly brandishing his smashed rifl e- butt as proof of his prowess, altered something inside of me.

If one makes an experiment replacing ‘Jew’ for every mention of what happened to Palestinians in the Arab revolt, in works like Hughes’, one’s reading would be unbearably painful, horrific. An old man trotting by on his donkey who gets his skull smashed in by some laughing trooper, in the 1930s, was a normative incident. A few years later, this hilarious savagery was redeployed on an ineluctable industrial scale on the Jewish populations of Europe. We memorialize the latter, with good cause, and ignore the former variety of evil’s banality. This continues, for Palestinians, down to the present day. A couple of hundred are murdered yearly – all ‘terrorists’ by units controlling crowds, demonstrations – shot in the head by snipers, or shot in the legs or arms to incapacite them for life. It’s normal. The difference is, the Jewish chronicles of suffering are the subject of numerous books and articles. Newspapers never miss a beat to give the details, as opposed to incidents where a far greater number of Palestinian suffer from state violence. Barely a name, a brief generic blip in the newscycle, if mentioned at all. One engages intense ‘scholarly’ notice, the other falls below the radar. Systemic bias. And one must live with that. We are not here to right a just cause. But to document what only RS pick up, and we cannot fill the silence of their ‘aktive Ignoranz’ as I think .Matthias Künzel once lamented (stating what Arabists do in covering up the threat to Jews, while ignoring his own application of the principle to what Arabs suffer).

For someone like myself, whose thinking on history was totally reorientated out of its complacies by reading Raul Hilberg’s seminal classic as a youth, together with Solzhenitzen’s trilogy on the gulags, what remains incomprehensible is the polemical reading of Middle Eastern history by people who are Holocaust scholars. Their professional intimacy, and close research on, the lives and deaths of the Jewish victims of Nazi genocide, has zero impact on their reading of the Middle East, except as a warrant to write books to defend Israel as the bulwark against the kind of brutality suffered by Jews. The Jews are the only real subject, while the other half of the equation, the Palestinians are shadowy cyphers embedded within an abstract discourse on Islamic judaeophobia. In a practical sense, this means that if you read of some tragic incident of a Jewish person killed by terrorism, you investigate and generalize. If you happen to read similar things about Palestinians, you, well, turn the page with a sign, and perhaps a Rumsfieldian murmur that ‘Yeah, shit happens’. What you certainly do not do is make programmatic research into Palestinian lives, their tragedies, and the century-long torment they huddle under. That is reserved exclusively for Jewish history by a tacit ethnic divide in the criteria of relevance. People who grasp this and write about it have a long history of hitting the wall academically, and having their careers truncated. The word antisemitism itself risks becoming hollowed out, because every incident minutely documented of that enmity can be mirrored by citing identical behaviour by Jewish soldiers and settlers against Palestinians. But only the former, even if statistically a minor phenomenon, places an inexorable claim upon our attention.

To get back to the present context. For over a decade, numerous attempts have been made to appeal to the works by Schwanitz, Gensicke, Mallmann- Cüppers, Künzel et al in order to fill out some presumed lacuna in the numerous articles on Palestinians. Their literature was examined, competent reviews assessed, numerous errors noted, and their reliability doubted. They have zero competence beyond their German archives, finding there extraordinary cogency for theory-building out of minutiae what great scholars either fail to detect or evaluate as inconclusive picayune details. It’s annoying, being distracted from the pleasure of serious reading as one finds it necessary to take up the burden of sloughing through middle-brow rubbish that rarely merits scholarly notice. At times the boredom is relieved by some competent scholarwho looks into the nonsense and sets things into perspective, as happened when Zero and I nearly a decade happened on several long articles in Die Welt des Islams (from memory 2012) which responded to a flurry of books screaming Islamophobically about the Arab-Nazi connection. This had been diagnosed somewhat earlier by Peter Wien (Note that the one serious book there, Rene Wildangel’s Zwischen Achse und Mandatsmacht: Palästina und der Nationalsozialismus, is ignored by wikipedian editors. It fails to make the scandalous connection the sexy polemical atmosphere of rumour-mongering publicists want. It fails the 'is this pro-Israeli' subtext test). That relieved the workload – to have a whole special edition by Arabists devoted to this polemical tsunami where the hysteria of insinuation or of broadbrush generalizations by popular scandal mongers was closely scrutinized and put in its place. None of these people have the slightest familiarity with the topic area or a competent grounding in Arabic, or Islamic studies, no mastery of the overall historical contexts and long political and cultural traditions of that world – all obsessed with fishing up evidence for a contemporary anti-Israeli Jew baiting pandemic, one more wave in the never-ending ‘new antisemitic’ tsunami we are regularly warned about: they are all scrap-metal foragers in German archives, rehashing material mostly scoured and burnished of its rusty weight by formidable scholars like Nicosia, and palming off as rare metal strikes what is the dud coinage of alluvial fool’s gold. Nishidani (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Some of the trot made its way into Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world, nothing about funding tho, just " Notable examples of these common-cause fights include the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine and other actions led by Amin al-Husseini" (unspecified but notable, bah!) Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot, have one (or several) for me. Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 24 December 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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• British soldiers destroying Arab homes, 1937 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

This article

This is a very flawed article. It focuses on Arab action against British colonialists and the British response and tells very little about the murderous Arab terror against innocent Jewish repatriants and natives in the country ("Palestine"). Thus, it gives readers a very distorted impression of "just and innocent Palestinian Arab rebels, persecuted by Britis and Jewsih occupants", blasphemously idealizing these terrorists and murderers. What do I need to do to be able to edit this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A041:3A1:E700:D048:2A1:1B15:99C5 (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

You need to (1) get an account, (2) get 30 days of maturity and 500 edits outside of Arab-Israeli article space, (3) bring reliable sources to support your edits. Zero^talk 02:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Why do it need to have 500 edits(why not 50000?) "outside of Arab-Israeli article space"? Why has the Wikipedia's administration taken such great measures against editing this pro-terrorist (at the moment and for a long time) article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A041:3A1:E700:B8C8:56:BF03:104D (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

You can read the details here. Zero^talk 05:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 September 2023

The flag attributed to " Central Committee of National Jihad in Palestine" in infobox seems to be a flag of a certain "Ladonia" and nothing is cited to support this claim, i suspect vandalism therefore this (which uses a flag of so-called nation named "Ladonia")

"* Volunteers from Arab world Central Committee of National Jihad in Palestine (October 1937 – 1939)"

in source should be

"* Volunteers from Arab world

• Central Committee of National Jihad in Palestine (October 1937 – 1939)"

Cactus Ronin (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done thanks. Zero^talk 08:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Name change

I would change the Name of this article to

• 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Mandatory Palestine.

The current variant sounds like there was a independent "Palestinian" state. AstroSaturn (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Wrongly cited source -- requesting someone make a small change on my behalf

The article states that "By one estimate, ten percent of the adult male Palestinian Arab population between 20 and 60 was killed, wounded, imprisoned or exiled." It cites pp. 21 and 35 of Rashid Khalidi's 2001 text, The Palestinians and 1948 (link). This is incorrect. The proper pages are pp. 27 and 35. I cannot make the appropriate edit as I have not made enough contributions to Wikipedia, so I'm hoping someone will help me. Gkroth (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Picture

@Al Ameer son: Can you please upload a newer version of this picture? [6] through [7]. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: If allowed, then yes. @FunkMonk: Can you advise on this? We have an image in Wikicommons I uploaded from the archive of photographer Mohamed Ali Eltaher (archive link) dated 1937. There is a better quality version of the same image in the above-linked Aljazeera English article. Can we simply replace or is the improved version not public domain like the original? Al Ameer (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

It is the same picture from the same year so still in public domain despite the quality. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem here, for both versions, is that it's not where it was taken that determines the copyright, but where it was published and by who. It is possible it was first published in the UK or such, which would make the situation more complicated. The caption in the Arabic version says it's a Getty image. Perhaps this information can be tracked down there. FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, here is the Getty[8] caption: "This photograph was found on the body of Nur Ibrahim a well known leader of the Arab rebellion, who was killed by a patrol of the West Kents (Photo by Popperfoto via Getty Images/Getty Images)". This[9] page says "This picture was found on the body of Nur Ibrahim, well-known leader of the Arab rebellion, who was killed with four of his men in the hills by a British patrol. November 16, 1938. Photographer:Sydney Morning Herald", which is obviously incorrect, but it may be where it was first published. But if it's true, then it is public domain per Australian copyright laws too. It's a bit complicated, so perhaps it's a good idea to ask at Commons[10], but it can perhaps result in us having a more solid copyright tag and then we can use any large resolution version of the photo. FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I've started a section about it here:[11] FunkMonk (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Thank you for going above and beyond on this. I’m keeping tabs on the discussion at Commons and await its conclusion. Hopefully we’re even allowed to use the image in any version. Al Ameer (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

From what I gather, we can probably update to a larger version, we just need to be clear about the authorship issues in its description, and we should probably look for the highest res version available. I wonder if the killed rebel who owned the photo needs an article... FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for your diligence FunkMonk—I will proceed on that understanding. The highest-quality version appears to be the Alamy stock photo but it has watermarks. The next best might be the one used in the Aljazeera article, which is the one I’ll upload with the corrections about its authorship. Would the 1938 newspaper article need to be linked as well?

Unfortunately, so far, I could not find much about Nur Ibrahim (or Nour Ibrahim, Nūr Ibrahīm), at least to start an article, even though the newspaper calls him "well known". There were dozens of such rebel band commanders. Al Ameer (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Doing a Google image search, I found an even larger version[12] and updated the one on Commons, so all you have to do is update the description with the circumstances, and I think you could use any of the links above as source for that. Note I also found there is another version of the image on Commons:[13] FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah glad to see it uploaded now, thanks. It's such good resolution that now suddenly you can see some words written on the flag. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Good deal; added info about the circumstances of its discovery and publication, though still not sure identity of the photographer. As for the men in the photo, the Eltaher website claims that the photo shows Abd al-Qadir Yusuf Abd al-Hadi and his men (one of whom could have been Nur Ibrahim?). Al Ameer (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Probably good to add as much sourced info as possible to the description, yeah. It seems it's ok we don't know the exact identity of the photographer, which might make it an "anonymous work". FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Could have, no way to find out I guess. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

By the way, interesting that this[14] image appears to show female fighters. Could be nice to find a higher res version and more info about it, to counter some modern stereotypes. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, Google image research works like a charm[15], it's Fatima Khalil Ghazal. FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2024

Please remove the "dubious" tag from the last sentence of the lead. There is no reason given, and no discussion on the talk page. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:9D66:91FE:4F7D:11 (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. Selfstudier (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:9D66:91FE:4F7D:11 (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2024 (2)

Please change "the immediate spark for the uprising was the murder of two Jews" to "the immediate spark for the uprising was the [[1936 Tulkarm shooting|murder of two Jews]]". 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:9D66:91FE:4F7D:11 (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)