Talk:1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Arab world WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

	1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents 1 Early discussions 2 Casualties 3 NPOV 4 Removing the POV tag 5 Great Uprising or Great Revolt 6 Purpose of riots and allegations of detentions, house demolitions, etc. 7 Rename this article? 8 Requested move 8.1 Survey 8.2 Discussion 8.2.1 Book search results 8.3 Where to now? 8.4 Possible new names and their merits 9 Possible bias?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Rename this article?

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)