Jewish Uprising Against the British Mandate

Following World War I, the separation of Palestinian territories from the Ottoman Empire and their transfer to British control represented not merely a change in political authority but also the beginning of a new era of conflict. In the 1917 Balfour Declaration, Britain formally pledged to the world’s Jewish population the establishment of “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. This statement directly contradicted promises of independence made to Arabs during the war. The British administration, by making conflicting promises to both Jewish and Arab populations over the same land, became entangled in an insoluble equation throughout the mandate period. The British mandate over Palestine was formally recognized at the 1920 San Remo Conference and came into effect in 1922 after approval by the League of Nations.

The primary duties of the British mandate were to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish national home while simultaneously safeguarding the civil and religious rights of the Arab population in Palestine. Yet this mandate definition contained an inherent contradiction from the outset: while Jewish immigration and settlement were encouraged, the political aspirations of the Arab majority living on the same land were postponed and ignored. As Jewish immigration accelerated throughout the 1920s, resentment among the Arab population toward British rule and Jewish settlements accumulated. This resentment intensified as a result of both economic competition and political marginalization.

As Jewish immigration increased, Jewish organizations such as the Haganah emerged, while the British administration simultaneously suppressed Arab protests and adopted a cautious stance toward limiting Jewish immigration. This dual policy eroded trust in the British among both Arabs and Jews. By the mid-1930s, the consequences of Britain’s contradictory policies began to manifest as a more visible crisis. Arabs felt politically excluded, while Jews experienced profound disillusionment due to Britain’s restrictions on immigration, which hindered efforts to rescue European Jews under pressure from Nazi Germany.

In this context, the British mandate, unlike traditional colonialism, assumed responsibility not only for control over land and resources but also for managing the emergence of one national movement and the suppression of another. Yet Britain neither succeeded in controlling the Jewish national movement nor in pacifying Arab opposition; instead, it laid the groundwork for the radicalization of both sides.

The Emergence of Paramilitary Structures (1918–1936)

From the beginning of Britain’s formal mandate over Palestine, the Jewish community oriented itself toward systematically and deliberately building a new national life. During this period, the Jewish settler community known as the “Yishuv” began establishing its own institutions and strengthening its cultural and political autonomy.

With the founding of the Haganah organization in 1920, the Jewish community began to exert influence not only culturally but also militarily in the region. The organization claimed its purpose was to defend Jewish settlements, citing the British administration’s occasional failure to provide adequate security against Arab attacks. Over time, the Haganah evolved into a semi-official military force that developed not only defensive but also active deterrence strategies.

During the same period, increased Jewish immigration from Europe altered the demographic structure. Between 1920 and 1939, approximately half a million Jews settled in Palestine through five major waves of Aliyah (mass Jewish immigration). The rise of the Nazi regime in Germany in 1933 further accelerated Jewish immigration.

Among those arriving during these waves were not only farmers and artisans but also intellectuals, engineers, doctors, and political organizers. This significantly expanded the social and technical capacity of the Jewish community while fueling economic competition and deepening the perception of a demographic threat among Arabs.

The Arab community, meanwhile, continued its political organization during this period. In the 1920s, Palestinian Arabs pursued their rights through peaceful protests and petitions against the British mandate but failed to produce consistent leadership. However, the violent events centered in Jerusalem and Hebron in 1929 changed the scale of the Arab-Jewish conflict.

The particularly deadly attacks on Jews in Hebron strengthened defensive instincts and the need for organization within the Jewish community. In the aftermath, efforts to restructure the Haganah were accelerated. Meanwhile, the British administration proved inadequate in ensuring security and at times displayed indifference toward Arab actions.

During this period, more radical tendencies also emerged within the Jewish community. In 1931, a group dissatisfied with the Haganah’s conciliatory line founded the Irgun (Irgun Tzvai Leumi). Irgun embraced armed struggle not only as a defensive measure but also as a tool for offensive action. Shaped within Vladimir Jabotinsky’s framework of “Revisionist Zionism,” this organization later carried out open armed attacks against British targets.

From the British perspective, the administration pursued a contradictory strategy: attempting to appease the Arab population while simultaneously avoiding restrictions on Jewish immigration. Yet this approach undermined trust in British rule among both communities. Arabs felt politically excluded; Jews believed their right to determine their own fate was being blocked.

During these years, the issue of land ownership became a major problem. Jewish institutions, particularly through the Keren Kayemet (Jewish National Fund), purchased land from Arab landowners. Much of this land was uncultivated, but the idea of land being sold triggered a sense of betrayal among the local population. These developments heightened social and political tensions within the Arab community and laid the groundwork for the major uprising that erupted in 1936.

The 1936–1939 Arab Uprising and the Transformation of British Policy

1936 marked the turning point when Arab resistance in Palestine under British mandate transformed into an armed uprising. Long-standing grievances within the Arab community—particularly the rapid increase in Jewish immigration, the transfer of land ownership, and Britain’s persistent postponement of Arab political demands—exploded violently. The uprising began in April 1936 with strikes and demonstrations in Jaffa and quickly evolved into armed rebellion in rural areas. The Arab Higher Committee, organized under the influence of Haj Amin al-Husseini, issued calls for strikes. Economic life came to a standstill; railways, roads, and communication lines were sabotaged. Jewish settlements and British installations became targets.

Initially, the British administration underestimated the rebellion and preferred administrative solutions. However, as the uprising transformed into militia-style organization in rural areas, Britain was pushed toward increasingly harsh methods. Between 1936 and 1939, approximately 20,000 British troops were deployed to suppress the revolt. The British army blockaded villages, conducted search-and-destroy operations, imposed martial law, and killed or arrested hundreds of Arabs. The British also exiled certain Arab leaders to dismantle the uprising’s political core. While this harshness achieved short-term success, it fundamentally damaged the trust relationship between Britain and the Arabs in the long term.

In response to the uprising, the Jewish community shifted toward tactical cooperation with the British. The Haganah provided intelligence to the British army and protected strategic areas in its role as an auxiliary security force. This arrangement also served as a form of armed training and organizational development for the Haganah. During this period, the Haganah established its first intelligence unit, the “Shai.” Meanwhile, radical factions that broke away from the Haganah—particularly the Irgun—began openly sabotaging British targets in some instances. Thus, a clear distinction emerged within the Jewish paramilitary movement between a pragmatic cooperation line and an independent terrorist line.

A Scene from the Arab Uprising Triggered by Jewish Immigration in 1936 (Library of Congress)

In 1937, the British administration not only suppressed the Arab revolt but also proposed for the first time a radical solution for Palestine’s future. The Peel Commission report, led by Lord William Peel, recommended dividing Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states. The report was categorically rejected by the Arabs. While the Jewish side welcomed it in principle, it remained cautious due to the narrow boundaries proposed and the unresolved status of Jerusalem. This effectively rendered the proposal unworkable. Ultimately, in 1939 Britain adopted a new policy, issuing the White Paper that restricted Jewish immigration and promised political supremacy to the Arabs.^【1】 

The 1939 White Paper declared that no more than 75,000 Jewish immigrants would be admitted to Palestine over five years and that further immigration would require Arab consent. Additionally, Jewish rights to purchase land were severely restricted. Britain sought to win the support of the Arab world as World War II loomed while simultaneously attempting to control Jewish immigration to preserve regional stability. Yet this new policy was vehemently rejected by the Jewish community in Palestine. With antisemitic waves in Europe reaching their peak and the Nazi threat rapidly intensifying, the closure of immigration channels triggered deep trauma and radicalization within the Jewish community.

The 1936–1939 Arab Uprising forced Britain to question the sustainability of its mandate; for the Jewish community, it laid the groundwork for institutionalizing the idea of shifting from defense to offense. For the Arabs, this uprising, though launched with great hope, became a memory of failure due to weak leadership, disorganization, and British repression. The uprising produced structural effects that would later influence Arab political consciousness and transform Jewish strategies of armed struggle.

Organization Under the White Paper Regime (1939–1945)

The 1939 White Paper deepened uncertainties regarding the future of the Jewish community in Palestine and caused a serious rupture in relations between Britain and the Zionist movement. The restriction of immigration quotas and the ban on land acquisition created profound disappointment among Jews who viewed Palestine as a refuge against rising antisemitism in Europe.

From 1939 onward, Nazi Germany’s aggressive foreign policy and systematic persecution of Jews made Palestine an urgent destination for thousands of Jews seeking to escape Central Europe. Yet Britain, to avoid provoking Arab opposition, refused to permit this immigration and began using its navy to intercept ships attempting to bring refugees illegally.

During this period, strategic divisions within the Jewish community became evident. While the Haganah avoided direct confrontation with Britain, it supported clandestine immigration operations (Aliyah Bet), establishing sea routes to smuggle Jews from Europe into Palestine. In the early 1940s, dozens of illegal immigrant ships sailed the Mediterranean, and Britain seized them, sending passengers to detention camps.

One of the most significant events occurred in November 1940 when the ship Patria exploded in Haifa harbor, killing over 250 Jewish immigrants. This tragedy intensified debates within the Jewish community regarding both British policy and the methods of defense organizations.

A Group of Jews Protesting the British White Paper Policy (Library of Congress)

In 1941, a group that further radicalized Revisionist Zionism founded Lehi (Lohamei Herut Yisrael – Fighters for the Freedom of Israel), which began advocating armed struggle not only against Arabs but also directly against British presence. Unlike the Irgun, Lehi developed such fanatical anti-British sentiment that it even considered cooperating with Nazi Germany. In this respect, Lehi evolved into a structure based on dogmatic and individual terrorism rather than classical national liberation movements.

During World War II, the dominant view within the Jewish community was “defeat fascism first, then settle accounts with the British.” The Haganah formed volunteer units alongside the British army to fight Nazi Germany; approximately 30,000 Palestinian Jews joined the British forces. Many of these units gained combat experience on Middle Eastern, North African, and Italian fronts and received training in military discipline and modern warfare. This limited cooperation with Britain during the war provided the Haganah with a critical cadre base for its postwar armed campaigns.

Yet during the same years, collective anger accumulated within the Jewish community against Britain’s White Paper policy. This anger would erupt into open rebellion after the war’s end. By 1945, two-thirds of European Jews had been murdered by the Nazis. Most survivors did not wish to remain in Europe and demanded entry to Palestine. Britain’s stance remained unchanged. Organizations such as the Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi now viewed this policy not merely as a governance issue but as an existential threat.

The patience and waiting exhibited by the Jewish community during the war years gave way to organized resistance after 1945. Britain’s sovereignty over Palestine was now questioned not only militarily but also morally; the institutional foundations of Jewish resistance were largely completed during this period.

Post-1945: The Open Phase of Armed Revolt

With the end of World War II, the Jewish community in Palestine turned toward direct and open armed struggle against Britain. The conflict deferred during the war had transformed into a systematic resistance. Hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees surviving the Holocaust sought to immigrate to Palestine, yet Britain continued enforcing the immigration restrictions of the 1939 White Paper. This situation led the Jewish underground organizations—Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi—to unite around a common goal: forcing Britain to withdraw from Palestine.

In the summer of 1945, the Hebrew Resistance Movement was established, bringing together these three organizations for coordinated actions. Within this framework, the Haganah focused on smuggling immigrants and sabotaging infrastructure; Irgun carried out more aggressive and symbolic attacks; and Lehi conducted direct political assassinations. This structure allowed simultaneous implementation of different strategies within the Jewish community.

Main targets of these operations included railway lines, police stations, radar stations, oil pipelines, and British military bases. By 1946, the scale and intensity of attacks had dramatically increased. The July 22, 1946, bombing of the King David Hotel by Irgun became one of the most striking examples of this campaign.

Bombs placed in the building, which served as the headquarters of the British civil administration, killed 91 people and generated widespread international reaction. This act demonstrated that Jewish resistance had crossed a psychological threshold and had strategically adopted direct targeting of Britain.

That same year, Haganah’s “Night Operations” (such as Night of the Trains and Night of the Bridges) effectively paralyzed the country’s transportation infrastructure. Lehi continued individual assassination operations targeting British officers and intelligence agents. During this period, the organizations did not limit themselves to military targets; they also employed psychological warfare and morale-degrading propaganda. Radio broadcasts, wall posters, and leaflets were used to conduct campaigns aimed at demoralizing British soldiers.

The Jewish resistance developed not only as a military tactic but also as a strategy to influence global public opinion. Refugee ships departing from camps in Europe—such as the Exodus 1947—were intercepted by British naval forces and generated intense criticism of Britain in the international press. Jewish organizations transformed these ships into symbols of resistance, increasing popular support and intensifying international pressure.

Another notable feature of this phase of armed revolt was the beginning of the collapse of British administration. As political control weakened, Jewish local organizations increasingly assumed administrative functions. Particularly, Palmach brigades affiliated with the Haganah carried out not only sabotage but also community relations, local security, and civil infrastructure protection. This reflected a transitional phase in which the Jewish community was preparing the structures of a future state.

By the end of this period, Britain, faced with rising economic costs, growing public opposition, and the unstoppable spread of resistance, abandoned its claim to solve the Palestine issue alone and decided to hand it over to the international community. Thus, in early 1947, the entry of the United Nations and the introduction of a partition plan marked the transition of the revolt into a diplomatic phase.

British Counter-Revolt Policies (1945–1947)

Following 1945, the intensifying Jewish resistance pushed the British administration toward more systematic and harsh measures. During this period, Palestine became for Britain not merely a colonial administration issue but also a critical test of its weakening empire’s prestige and military credibility. However, Britain demonstrated serious political and operational weaknesses in planning and executing its counter-revolt strategies. The lack of coordination among military units, police forces, intelligence networks, and civil administration expanded the maneuvering space for Jewish underground organizations.

The British first turned to large-scale arrest campaigns. Martial law was declared in suspected settlements; house raids, mass arrests, and interrogations intensified. In Jewish settlements, weapons searches were conducted, and individuals suspected of belonging to Irgun or Lehi were typically imprisoned without trial through administrative orders. Some of these individuals were even exiled to camps outside Palestine, such as in Eritrea or Kenya. These practices provoked backlash not only from resistance fighters but from the broader Jewish community.

In the summer of 1946, the British launched Operation Agatha (known in Jewish sources as “Black Saturday”), one of the largest counteroperations against Jewish resistance. During this operation, Haganah centers, kibbutzim, and agency offices were raided; hundreds of people, including senior officials of the Jewish Agency, were arrested. The aim was to dismantle organizational networks, but the Haganah’s centralized structure and redundant organization prevented long-term collapse. Moreover, these raids generated greater legitimacy for resistance among broad sections of the Jewish community.

British intelligence agencies (MI5 and CID) attempted to identify the leadership of Irgun and Lehi, but the underground organizations’ secrecy techniques, use of false identities, and cell-based structures limited their success. For example, Irgun leader Menachem Begin successfully evaded British intelligence for years. Yitzhak Shamir, a Lehi member who later became Prime Minister of Israel, was also actively involved in assassination operations during this period.

The British army and police forces gradually suffered from declining morale. British soldiers, unable to deter attacks in Palestine, became increasingly inward-looking and aggressive in response to rising casualties and harsh public reactions. Some military units were accused of excessive use of force against Jewish civilians, damaging Britain’s international image. Meanwhile, public opinion in Britain increasingly questioned the costs, casualties, and political uncertainty surrounding Palestine.

Another significant development during this period was the effectiveness of Jewish propaganda. Repression in Palestine resonated in Western public opinion, especially in the United States. Jewish organizations portrayed Britain as a repressive power closing its doors to Jews rescued from the Holocaust. This narrative particularly influenced the American administration; President Truman pressured Britain to admit 100,000 Jewish refugees to Palestine. Britain’s resistance to this demand further eroded international support.

By 1947, Britain clearly acknowledged its inability to manage the situation in Palestine militarily, politically, and economically. Its counter-revolt strategies neither crushed the resistance nor won public support. On the contrary, each wave of repression created greater legitimacy for Jewish resistance and strengthened its organizational capacity. This failure compelled Britain to hand over the Palestine issue to the United Nations, marking the transition to a diplomatic phase.

The Anglo-American Commission and the United Nations

By 1947, Britain declared it lacked the capacity to solve the Palestine issue alone and transferred the matter to the international community. This decision was driven by rising security expenditures, military losses, public discontent, and especially pressure from the United States. As U.S. global influence grew after World War II, the Washington administration sought greater say over the fate of European Jewish refugees and called on Britain to develop a new immigration policy for Palestine.

In this context, in 1946 Britain and the United States established the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry to jointly formulate a solution to the Palestine issue. The committee’s primary task was to examine the situation of Jewish refugees in Europe and make recommendations regarding their future settlement. The committee conducted field investigations in various camps and in Palestine, hearing numerous testimonies. Its report stated that 100,000 Jewish refugees should be immediately admitted to Palestine and suggested the possibility of establishing a federal structure granting equal rights to Arabs and Jews.

However, this proposal satisfied neither the Arabs nor the Jewish leadership. Arabs firmly opposed any further Jewish immigration and viewed the federal structure as a step toward establishing a Jewish state. Jewish leadership supported the immigration demand but showed little enthusiasm for an equal-sharing federation. The majority of the Zionist movement believed that no lasting solution to the Palestine issue was possible without the establishment of an independent and sovereign Jewish state.

Following the commission, Britain’s political indecisiveness became even more apparent. It maintained an ambiguous stance, seeking to avoid damaging relations with the United States while not losing its position in the Arab world. Yet the intensifying violence of Jewish resistance and mounting international pressure forced Britain toward a final decision. On February 14, 1947, Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin announced in the House of Commons that the British government could no longer resolve the Palestine issue and that the matter would be transferred to the United Nations. This declaration signaled Britain’s de facto withdrawal from the mandate and the international shaping of the future political solution.

The United Nations General Assembly established a special commission, UNSCOP (United Nations Special Committee on Palestine), to examine the Palestine issue. The commission held meetings with both Jewish and Arab parties, but the Arab side refused official cooperation. Ultimately, UNSCOP prepared a plan recommending the partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states and granting Jerusalem an international status. This proposal was approved by the UN General Assembly on November 29, 1947, with 33 votes in favor, 13 against, and 10 abstentions.

The Jewish leadership viewed the plan as a partial success and accepted it. The fact that sovereignty had gained international legitimacy for the first time, despite limited territory, facilitated its adoption. The Arab side categorically rejected the plan, arguing that it contradicted Palestine’s demographic and historical realities and granted the Jewish state more land than it deserved in terms of population and ownership.

Although the UN resolution represented a turning point in international legal and diplomatic terms, in practice it marked the beginning of a new wave of violence. Immediately after the resolution, armed clashes erupted between Jews and Arabs in Palestine. The British administration, rather than mediating between the parties, focused on safe withdrawal and orderly evacuation preparations. Thus, Britain ended its mandate administration without producing a solution and fully withdrew from Palestine in May 1948.

The Legacy of the Revolt: The Path to the Establishment of Israel

The UN partition plan adopted in November 1947 represented a political victory for the Jewish community in Palestine and an unacceptable loss for the Arabs. The clashes that began immediately after the resolution turned into civil war before Britain had even left the mandate. Jewish underground organizations shifted their armed struggle from the British to Arab militia groups. Britain, meanwhile, adopted a policy of neutrality, focusing its military units on evacuation preparations. This created a vacuum in security and political authority, which the Jewish community transformed into an opportunity to build a state in practice.

At the end of 1947 and the beginning of 1948, Jewish paramilitary forces—particularly the Haganah and Palmach—began gaining superiority over Arab militias in certain regions. During this period, the Haganah effectively used its military experience and intelligence networks acquired during its struggle against the British in operations against Arab forces. Meanwhile, organizations such as Irgun and Lehi drew attention through violent actions targeting Arab villages with civilian populations. The massacre in the village of Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948, in which numerous Arab civilians were killed, deepened the psychological dimension of the conflict. The event triggered widespread fear among the Arab population, leading thousands to flee their villages.

During this period, the Jewish side completed not only military but also political preparations. Under David Ben-Gurion’s leadership, the Jewish Agency continued seeking diplomatic support while laying the institutional foundations of the future state. Temporary administrative bodies were established, security units were unified under a single command, and armed forces were consolidated to form the infrastructure of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). In this transitional phase, the Haganah played a central role; organizations such as Lehi and Irgun were later integrated into the official security structure.

On May 14, 1948, as Britain fully withdrew from Palestine, David Ben-Gurion declared the establishment of the State of Israel in Tel Aviv. This declaration symbolized the culmination of over half a century of political, diplomatic, and military struggle by the Jewish national movement. Just hours after Britain’s departure, neighboring Arab states—primarily Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq—declared war on the newly established Israel, initiating the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

The Jewish revolt represented a far more complex process than a classic anti-colonial movement. It was a structure with multiple layered objectives: international recognition, acceptance of Jewish immigrants, and statehood. Armed struggle was merely one instrument among others; the primary efforts were conducted through diplomatic pressure, social organization, and ideological mobilization.

The legacy of the revolt directly shaped Israel’s state-building process. The Haganah became the core of the IDF; the Jewish Agency formed the foundation of the provisional government; and Ben-Gurion’s leadership consolidated both political authority and military control. Britain’s military and diplomatic failure not only marked the end of its mandate in Palestine but also accelerated its withdrawal from other colonies in India, Burma, and Africa in the following years. In this regard, the Jewish revolt stands as a symbolic turning point in the dissolution phase of global colonialism.