Yehuda Lave is an author, journalist, psychologist, rabbi, spiritual
teacher, and coach, with degrees in business, psychology and Jewish Law.
He works with people from all walks of life and helps them in their
search for greater happiness, meaning, business advice on saving money,
and spiritual engagement.
From Jerusalem Post: Israel will lift almost all the remaining coronavirus restrictions starting on June 1, the Health Ministry announced Sunday night. The number of active cases in Israel has dropped to 500, compared with 88,000 at the peak of the pandemic, it said.In light of the significant drop in morbidity, Health Ministry Yuli Edelstein said the ministry would not seek to renew regulations that require businesses and venues to operate either under the Green Pass or the Purple Standard systems, which are due to expire on May 31.
The question of whether to eliminate the obligation to wear a mask indoors is currently being debated by experts and officials. A decision is expected within the next few days or weeks.“Israel is going back to normal,” Edelstein said. “Less than half a year ago we started the vaccination campaign. Thanks to the excellent work of the health system – health funds, hospitals, MDA, Magen Israel and employees of the Health Ministry – and thanks to the amazing mobilization of Israeli citizens, we have carried out the best vaccination campaign in the world.”
The Three Musketeers at the Kotel
Thousands of Israeli Jews Purchasing Guns following Guardians of the Walls Pogroms
According to Israel’s Homeland Security Ministry, in the last two weeks, since the riots in the mixed cities, more than 2,700 civilians have applied for a firearms license.
In Israel, there are currently about 145,000 civilians with a personal weapons license, in addition to the security forces. Homeland Security Minister Amir Ohana recently extended a regulation that allows security guards to carry their weapons outside work hours. Ohana advocates making weapon possession easier, and last week tweeted: that “law-abiding citizens carrying weapons are a force-multiplier for the authorities, for immediate neutralization of threats and danger.” The police appear to support Ohana’s position.
The right-wing NGO B’Tzalmo posted a call to the residents of the mixed cities Lod and Ramla, where many of the Arab riots against Jewish homes and individuals had taken place, to seek the group’s assistance in acquiring a weapons license. The message read:
Residents of Lod and Ramla we are with you!
We undertake to represent free of charge any citizen who has graduated from military or national service who has applied for a weapon and was refused.
So go ahead and apply for a gun license, it’s simple and easy!
Share and tag this post, dear residents of Lod and Ramla!
In addition, as you understand, the cost of our fight is particularly high, since it is not a simple legal battle. We would be happy for any financial help in this matter.
So, kind of free of charge.
A senior law enforcement official told Haaretz that “the number of requests is enormous but makes sense in light of the security situation in the country.” According to him, the requests express “the public’s fear that in the moment of truth the police will not be there, and they prefer to defend themselves in case of danger to life. After the images we’ve seen in Lod, Ramla, and the Arab Triangle and the Negev, it makes sense for citizens to want to arm themselves to protect themselves and their families.”
Weapons stores across the country are reporting “hysterical” sales, according to Kan 11 News, with a rise of hundreds of percent in applications for a firearms license. Naftali Miller, of the Aroma Arms Tactical weapons company, told Kan 11, “People really feel that something is happening here. They feel they want the ability to defend themselves if they’ll have to.”
Gun ranges around the country have been booked solid, and it’s been difficult to find a free target.
Gun laws in Israel are comprehensive despite soldiers being allowed to carry their service weapons on or off duty. Civilians must obtain a firearms license to lawfully acquire, possess, sell or transfer firearms and ammunition. In 2018, Israel significantly loosened firearms restrictions, allowing all citizens who had undergone combat training and qualified in Advanced Infantry Training (Rifleman 07) to apply for a private handgun license.
Those holding firearms licenses must renew them and pass a shooting course every three years. Security guards must pass these tests to renew their license to carry firearms belonging to their employers. Applicants must demonstrate that they have a safe at their residence in which to keep the firearm. Permits are given only for personal use, and holders for self-defense purposes may own only one handgun and purchase an annual supply of 50 cartridges (although more may be purchased to replace rounds used at a firing range).
Most individuals who are licensed to possess handguns may carry them loaded in public, concealed, or openly.
In recent years, criteria for obtaining a firearms license have been added, and today most applications are based on the criteria of service in a combat unit and residence in a locality near a fence or settlement.
The Ministry of Internal Security stated this week that “all the applications submitted have been received at the division’s service center and will be examined in the coming days prior to their transfer for further processing by the district licensing bureaus.”
According to data from the Homeland Security Ministry, about 60% of the applications are granted. The rest are rejected due to non-compliance with the criteria, refusal by the police to grant the license or opposition from the Ministry of Health.
Since the beginning of the Arab riots in Lod, the police have confiscated dozens of licensed weapons from Jews who came to the city to help the Jewish community defend itself. The police mainly fear that a Jew would use his weapon in a way that would lead to an escalation of the situation. Four Jewish residents of Lod were arrested on suspicion of murdering a resident of the city, Musa Hasson, who reportedly attacked them with a Molotov cocktail. The four, who carried licensed weapons, were detained for three days and released on restrictive conditions, and are being charged with negligent manslaughter.
Almost Like Being in Love - from "Brigadoon" (1954) - Gene Kelly
America is going through convulsions that may destroy it as the country we and the world have known for more than two centuries.
For all its flaws – virtually all of which were not unique to America but universal throughout human civilization – America has been regarded more than any other nation in modern times as a force for good in the world.
When a country is hit with a severe earthquake, its people do not look first to France or Germany – let alone to Russia or China – for assistance. They look to America. When bad people invade a country, the people of the invaded country hope and pray America will come to their aid. And for more than a century, when beleaguered people saw American troops, they generally danced with joy.
When people in any country in the world want to better their lives, whether in terms of freedom, human rights, or economic opportunity, they think of immigrating to America more than to any other country.
Approximately 340,000 Africans came to America as slaves. But millions of Africans have come to America because they wanted to. To these millions and to many millions of Africans who have not been given visas to immigrate to America, America is the land of systemic opportunity, not systemic racism.
The only people to deny these facts are America’s homegrown America-haters. They see America as a force of evil at home and abroad.
So, too, they deny that on the planet called Earth, without a credible threat of American intervention, evil triumphs. In addition to America’s seminal contribution to vanquishing German and Japanese fascism, had America not won the Cold War, communism would have destroyed millions more lives than the more than 100 million it did.
Had America not sacrificed 37,000 of its finest young men, all of Korea would be the giant concentration camp that became North Korea. Had America triumphed in Vietnam, that country, too, would have ultimately been half-free instead of entirely enslaved.
The Stalinist communists who conquered South Vietnam produced a society so hellish nearly a million Vietnamese “boat people” risked drowning, being devoured by sharks, and murdered, tortured, and raped by pirates on the high seas to leave the communist hell that followed America’s withdrawal from their country.
I remember the shame I felt as an American when I saw crowds of Vietnamese who had helped America begging to be taken out of Vietnam along with American troops when the last American helicopters left Vietnam – and who were simply abandoned to their fate.
Now America is poised to do in Afghanistan what it did then – abandon the people it defended to the Islamist sadists known as the Taliban. How many Afghan boys and women will be raped when we leave? How many Afghan men will be tortured to death? Only G-d knows. But you don’t have to be G-d to know that it will be a large number.
So, why would we do such a thing – again?
Three reasons are given.
One is, “We cannot stay in Afghanistan forever.”
That argument is offered as if it is so self-evident that it needs no explanation. Which is probably why no one seems to offer one. But why can’t we stay there “forever” if doing so saves a country and tells the world that America sticks to its commitments and protects its allies?
We have stayed in Germany and South Korea “forever.” Is the world better or worse for it?
The second argument is, “We cannot nation-build.” That argument, too, is offered as if it were self-evidently valid. But it’s a phony argument. No one argued that we were in Afghanistan to “nation-build.” We were there because 9/11 was launched against us from there. And there is every reason to assume more terror will be directed from Afghanistan if we leave. And our presence there has kept Pakistan from falling into the control of Islamists.
Bret Stephens has recently argued that we didn’t go to Afghanistan “to kill Osama bin Laden, who was just one in a succession of terrorist masterminds. It was to prove Bin Laden wrong about America’s long-term commitments, especially overseas. In August 1996, Bin Laden issued his notorious fatwa declaring a war on the United States that he hoped would be long and bloody. He observed that, in one conflict after another, the Americans always cut and run.”
The third argument is that remaining in Afghanistan costs America blood and treasure. The blood argument is emotionally irrefutable. Every American killed in Afghanistan is an immeasurable tragedy. But in the last six years, the U.S. has lost fewer than 20 service members annually in hostile engagements in Afghanistan. Between 2006 and 2018, we lost twice as many service members to training accidents than to all overseas actions.
As for treasure, we spend between $50 and $100 billion a year in Afghanistan. That is far more morally justifiable than the trillion or more dollars we have spent in the last year to bail out Democratic governors and mayors and the unions they serve.
For the record, I would have made the identical argument if Donald Trump were president and removed us from Afghanistan. But the actual withdrawal is being conducted in a different administration.
Moral arguments didn’t matter to one Democratic senator in 1975. As he put it in a Senate speech on April 23: “I do not believe the United States has an obligation, moral or otherwise, to evacuate foreign nationals…. The United States has no obligation to evacuate one, or 100,001, South Vietnamese.” That senator was Joseph Biden of Delaware.
To Democrats and Republicans who support the retreat from Afghanistan, I have a question: If Afghanistan comes to resemble Cambodia’s killing fields, will you still think it was the right decision? Or, to put it another way: Is there any level of evil, any emboldening of America-hating Islamists, any effect of an American defeat on the world or on America that would make you regret your decision to withdraw?
What's My Line? - Groucho Marx; PANEL: Henry Morgan, Michele Lee (Apr 23, 1967)
Israel last month marked its 73rd Independence Day, observed as
always directly after its Memorial Day for fallen soldiers and victims
of terrorism. The latter event carried a bittersweet distinction: For
Israelis, the preceding year was by far the least bloody in their history — only three died in violent attacks — and the year before was second-calmest — with 11.
That these figures should be cause for celebration is an
illustration of Israelis’ resignation to living in an environment with
no parallel in the developed world — a reality that one of their
preeminent novelists and peace activists calls, bleakly, death as a way of life.
For there is no education like experience, and in its nearly
three quarters of a century of existence, this country has known three
wars with multiple neighbors, two more in Lebanon, three in Gaza, two
intifadas and innumerable individual hostile acts. But to make sense of
the conflict today it is instructive to look further back still to the
events of exactly a century ago, before there was a Jewish state or even
a Palestine Mandate.
On May 1, 1921, in the interlude between Britain’s conquest of the
land and the League of Nations’ ratification of its mandate, riots shook
Palestine. It was the first time since the Crusades that civilians in
the Holy Land had experienced what would later be termed, with grim
sterility, a mass-fatality incident. And it was, for the Zionist movement, a turning point in its perception of the “Arab question” and its own relation to armed force and retribution.
The Balfour Declaration, the British conquest of the Land and the
end of the Great War had produced euphoria in the Yishuv movement —
that is, the Jews living in pre-state Israel — convincing it that dreams
of sovereignty in Palestine were on the brink of fulfillment. But, as Israeli historian Benny Morris writes,
the “massive violence of 1921 left an ineradicable impression on the
Zionists, driving home the precariousness of their enterprise.”
The necessity of a strong defense — a conviction previously limited
to a few diehards — now began trickling into mainstream Zionist thought.
“The Arab attacks of May forced a number of Yishuv leaders to ask
— although only behind closed doors — whether the time had come to
‘call a spade a spade,’ i.e. to acknowledge that there did exist a
genuine, widespread or intense Arab hostility,” adds another historian, Neil Caplan.
For the Yishuv, the May riots marked the first step in confronting what the Israeli scholar Anita Shapira calls “the terrifying prospect of a war without any end in sight.”
The mass grave of the Jewish victims of the riots of 1921. (Wikimedia commons/ CC-BY-2.5/ Dr. Avichai Teicher)
Enter Mr. Churchill
In February 1921, David Lloyd George — British prime minister during the Balfour Declaration and a committed Zionist
— gave Winston Churchill a new job. A member of the wartime and postwar
cabinets, Churchill was then known primarily as the man behind the
disastrous amphibious attempt to choke off the Ottoman capital at
Gallipoli. He would now be secretary of state for the colonies, the
position most singly responsible for, among other things, Britain’s
A month after his appointment Churchill visited
Palestine for the first time. In Tel Aviv, he met mayor Meir Dizengoff
at city hall on Rothschild Boulevard, and in Jerusalem he marked the
groundbreaking ceremony for the Hebrew University.
Days later, he met leaders of Palestine’s Arab community at the
British headquarters, Government House. Led by former Jerusalem mayor
Musa Kazem al-Husseini, they read him a 39-page memorandum.
Colonial secretary Winston Churchill with Sir Herbert Samuel during a visit to Jerusalem in March 1921. (Public domain)
Compared to the Zionists’ polished, well-organized and comparatively
well-funded public-relations operation, the memo was an underwhelming
effort. Typographical errors abounded, with the title page even
Jews, it said, were “clannish and unneighborly,” active across
the globe as “advocates of destruction” who amassed wealth while
impoverishing their countries of residence. It recommended he read “the
Jewish Peril,” better known as the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”
The memo’s tone was threatening to the extent of self-sabotage. Yet
viewed in hindsight, it was also prophetic.
“The Arab is noble and large-hearted, he is also vengeful and
never forgets an ill deed. If England does not take up the cause of the
Arabs, other Powers will,” it said. “If she does not listen, then
perhaps Russia will take up their call one day, or perhaps even
As for the Balfour Declaration, it “is a contract between England and
a collection of history, imagination and ideals existing only in the
brains of Zionists who are a company, a commission but not a Nation.”
A Palestinian protest meeting against Jewish settlement of then-British Mandate Palestine. (Courtesy Ian Black)
The Jews were scattered across the earth, said the memo. “Religion
and language are their only tie. But Hebrew is a dead language and might
be discarded. How then could England conclude a treaty with a religion
and register it in the League of Nations? … the Arabs have not been
consulted, and will never consent,” it said.
If the Arabs’ message was calculated to galvanize Churchill, it badly misfired. He rebuffed their pleas, telling them:
“It is manifestly right that the Jews should have a National Home
where some of them may be reunited. And where else could that be but in
this land of Palestine, with which for more than 3,000 years they have
been intimately and profoundly associated? We think it will be good for
the world, good for the Jews and good for the British Empire. But we
also think it will be good for the Arabs who dwell in Palestine.”
And yet if Churchill hoped his remarks would persuade the Arabs
that resisting the Jewish national home was futile, he too had
miscalculated. His fulsome defense of Zionism appears to have only inflamed them more.
The first of May 1921 was “May Day,” the international day of labor solidarity. Two processions
were scheduled for the occasion, both planned by Jews. One was by Ahdut
Ha’avoda (Labor Unity), a new party headed by David Ben-Gurion and Berl
Katzenelson, in Tel Aviv. Their rally was authorized.
In 1937, Labor leader Berl Katzenelson addresses a youth rally at Ben Shemen. (Zoltan Kluger/GPO)
The other, in Jaffa, was by the far smaller Socialist Workers Party,
which dreamed of a Soviet Union of Palestine and had distributed flyers
in Yiddish and Arabic to that effect. Theirs was not.
The twin labor marches collided in Manshiya, a mixed Arab-Jewish quarter in Jaffa surrounding the Hassan Bek Mosque. Fists flew, and one female Marxist was knocked down and suffered a bad head wound.
By then some Arab residents of Jaffa had assembled in Manshiya.
They were perturbed by the rising frequency of immigrant boats docking
at Jaffa Port in the few years since the British arrived and World War I
ended, unloading some 20,000 Jews upon their shores. And they had come
under the impression that most Jews were Bolsheviks, and that Bolsheviks
opposed property, marriage and religion itself.
Jaffa Port, circa 1921-1926. (Courtesy of Nazarian Library, University of Haifa)
Two members of the nascent Palestine Police — constables Cohen and
Tawfiq Bey — worked stoutly to keep their respective communities apart.
Then one of their British comrades fired in the air, and in the
confusion it was unclear who had opened fire and at whom.
There were now several thousand people in Manshiya, where
according to a subsequent commission of inquiry, “a general hunting of
the Jews began.” Jews were assaulted — some fatally — in their homes and
shops with blunt instruments, and afterward women, children and even
the elderly came to loot. Three high-ranking Arab effendis including the
mayor arrived to calm tempers but found Manshiya’s main street entirely
pillaged. The dead and wounded were carried to Tel Aviv’s Herzliya
Gymnasium, Palestine’s first Hebrew-language high school.
Meanwhile, another crowd gathered at the Jewish immigrant hostel
in Jaffa’s Ajami neighborhood, where some 100 new arrivals were staying
until they could find work. To the immigrants’ relief, a pair of Arab
policemen arrived. But they too began shooting at the hostel and its
main gate. A superior ordered them to stop, but then went home for
lunch. The officers kept firing, the gate was opened, and the mob poured
Some men tried fleeing into the street and were beaten to death
with sticks and wooden boards. Others were killed in the hostel
courtyard. One Arab policeman attempted to rape several women; other
Arab neighbors gave shelter to the desperate Jews. Several hours passed
before a small contingent of British troops arrived from Lod and
An Arabic account of the period describes the events in rather different terms. In the telling
of the fighter-chronicler Subhi Yasin of Shefa-‘Amer (which the Jews
called Shfaram), it was the Zionists who were the bellicose party. Their
aggression was not physical but demographic and political: their
unwavering determination to make Palestine their own.
Damage to a home in the city of Hadera caused during the 1921 riots. (Courtesy of author)
“Anxiety reigned over the sad fate awaiting the land and people due
to the British policy that would make Palestine into the Jewish national
homeland, and in the brave Arab city of Jaffa a new revolt erupted on
the 1st of May 1921. Arab freedom fighters set upon the Zionist
immigrants’ center and killed several Jews… Dozens of Arab freedom
fighters were martyred by the bullets of the British police… treacherous
bullets fired to protect the Jewish aggressors,” Yasin wrote.
A year earlier had seen an attack in Jerusalem’s Old City on the Muslim festival of Nebi Musa, and against the one-armed warrior Joseph Trumpeldor
and his comrades at Tel Hai in uppermost Galilee. However these
strikes, while shocking to the Yishuv, had inflicted death tolls in the
single digits — five and eight respectively.
Moreover, the earlier incidents had occurred under a temporary
military administration left over from the war, which was considered
to Zionism and ill-equipped to maintain law and order. The 1921 assault
played out under a new, civil administration headed by Herbert Samuel,
who as the first Jew in Britain’s Cabinet had been crucial in laying the groundwork for the Balfour Declaration four years prior.
Worse, this time it was on an utterly different order of
magnitude. By day’s end, 27 Jews were dead and more than 100 were
wounded. Moshe Shertok (later Sharett), a Zionist activist from
Palestine then studying in London, wrote his siblings back home: “The
catastrophe ” — the shoah, in Hebrew — “came abruptly.”
Palestinian Arabs gather at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem, in an anti-Zionist demonstration on March 8, 1920, prior to the Nabi Musa holiday on which violent rioting took place. (Public domain)
The second day
In the Jaffa satellite village of Abu Kabir, Arabs were massing near the grand, faded 19th-century home that locals called the Red House.
A family of recent immigrants from Russia had rented it from an effendi
named Mantoura. They ran a dairy farm and sublet rooms on the upper
floor. Four of the boarders at the time were writers; one was Yosef Haim
Brenner, himself Russian-born, had been in Palestine over a
decade and was among the pioneers of modern Hebrew literature. His work
tussled with the same questions occupying so many Jews at the time:
faith or doubt; separateness or universalism; sensuality or asceticism;
Hebrew or Yiddish; Old World, New World or Old-New Land. He wore a
shabby black wool coat and left his hair and beard long. He seemed an amalgam of a character in Hasidic legend and what the Russians called a yurodivi, a holy fool.
Author Yosef Haim Brenner, who was murdered in the 1921 Jaffa riots. (Public domain)
Brenner admired the Arabs’ rootedness in the land, but likened them to a dormant volcano. An ardent Zionist, he nonetheless feared
Palestine could never provide the safe haven for Jews that the
movement’s founders envisioned: “You want to provide refuge for an
injured sparrow in a rooster’s coop?” he wrote.
“Tomorrow, perhaps, the Jewish hand writing these words will be
stabbed, a ‘sheikh’ or ‘hajj’ will drive his dagger into it in full view
of the English governor,” he had written shortly before, “and that
Jewish hand will be unable to do anything… for it does not know how to
hold a sword.”
The day after the Jaffa riots, Brenner and his fellow boarders
determined the Red House was unsafe and left for Tel Aviv on foot. At
the time, rumors were circulating that Jews had killed Arab children.
The gossip was exaggerated but not without some basis: In Manshiya Jews
were found beating a number of Arabs, including a woman and a boy.
Brenner’s group got as far as the nearby Sheikh Murad cemetery,
where mourners were burying policeman Mahmoud Zeit’s son, killed the day
before in unclear circumstances. A lynching ensued: Four of the Jews
were killed with rods and hatchets; two others, including Brenner, by
gunfire. His body was found the next day, face down and naked below the
“A horrible murder,” investigators later wrote, describing him as
a “Jewish author of some repute.” Brenner’s group and dozens of victims
from Jaffa were buried in a common grave at Tel Aviv’s one and only
The Haganah — the Jewish self-defense group founded just the year
before — forbade acts of revenge, but not all its members were inclined
to listen. History would record the May 1921 riots as not just the worst blow yet landed to the Zionist settlement enterprise, but the first time Jews from the Yishuv launched acts of revenge.
A monument to victims of the 1921 rioting in Tel Aviv. (Courtesy of Nazarian Library, University of Haifa)
A person identified
in the Haganah archives only as “A.S.” recalled that on the riots’
second day, he called together eight volunteers, all armed with
automatic weapons. He told them to break into Arab homes and destroy
everything, sparing only small children. They achieved “good results,”
History would record the May 1921 riots as the first time Jews from the Yishuv launched acts of revenge
A baker named Ibrahim Khalil al-Asmar said
Jews entered his home, beat him with wooden sticks and pointed a
revolver at him. In Yiddish he pleaded: “I have not been out; I have not
done anything.” Eliyahu Golomb, father of the Haganah, confirmed that
one of the group’s members had gone rogue and killed a hunchbacked Arab,
with his children, in an orange grove. “The Jews are doing terrible
things,” wrote a student at the Herzliya Gymnasium.
The official Haganah history book notes
there was “a grain of truth” to allegations of Jews, including at least
one policeman, shooting Arab civilians. The assailants were acquitted
for lack of evidence, the book observes, “but the deeds themselves were
The riots spread to other Jewish villages — Kfar Saba, Rehovot,
Hadera — causing extensive damage but no casualties. On May 5, a massive
contingent of Bedouin reported
to be several thousand struck Petah Tikvah, killing four Jews, wounding
a dozen more and requiring British air strikes to quell. A Jewish
architect working for the British used his connections to “lend” the
Haganah weapons from the Jaffa armory (the ruse was revealed just last year).
It was nearly a week before order was restored. At least 100
people were dead, almost equally split between Jews and Arabs, with some
150 Jews and 75 Arabs wounded. As far as could be discerned, the fallen
Jews were all killed by Arabs. Of the Arabs killed, the majority
succumbed to the bullets and bombs of British troops and police. How
many, innocent or complicit, were slain by Jews will likely never be
Farmers in 1937 on their way to cut fodder in the fields of Kibbutz Givat Brenner, named after Hebrew-language Yosef Haim Brenner who was killed in May 1921. (Zoltan Kluger/GPO)
The same day that order was restored, High Commissioner Samuel
appointed a commission of inquiry headed by Thomas Haycraft, the jurist newly arrived from the island of Grenada to serve as the inaugural chief justice of Palestine’s supreme court.
Photo taken at the Cairo Conference of 1921. Seated: from right: Winston Churchill, Herbert Samuel. Standing first row: from left: Gertrude Bell, Sir Sassoon Eskell, Field Marshal Edmund Allenby, Jafar Pasha al-Askari. (Wikimedia commons)
And just a day after that, Samuel named Hajj Amin al-Husseini,
a relative of the former mayor, as mufti of Jerusalem. The younger
Husseini had fled the country the year before amid allegations of
inciting the Nebi Musa riots, but Samuel had subsequently pardoned him
as a goodwill gesture. Now he was on track to be the most powerful man
in Arab Palestine (within months Samuel created a Supreme Muslim
Council, which Amin soon headed too), with consequences more profound
than anyone at the time conceived.
Further palliative measures followed. To conciliate the Jews, a
small number of arms were distributed to each Jewish community — a
British wink at the technically illegal Haganah. To conciliate the
Arabs, Samuel temporarily suspended immigration, and a handful of ships
were forced to return to Europe with their despondent migrants.
Ben-Gurion, on a fundraising trip to London when the riots broke out,
would need to wait three months to return.
In a speech in Jerusalem a month after the riots, Samuel labored to calm nerves.
The Jews, however, quickly realized that his words were aimed not at
allaying their anxieties but the Arabs’. The high commissioner affirmed
he would “never impose upon them a policy which the people had reason to
think was contrary to their religious, their political, and their
economic interests,” and in any case “the conditions of Palestine are
such as do not permit anything in the nature of a mass immigration.”
The assurances failed to placate Arab fears.
Hitler hosts Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini in 1941 in Germany. (Heinrich Hoffmann Collection/Wikipedia)
“The bloodshed which occurred in Jaffa and the Bolshevik principles
which the Jewish immigrants are spreading in Palestine are but the
natural result of the Balfour Declaration,” warned the Jerusalem newspaper Bayt al-Maqdis.
“In this critical hour we once again appeal to the Government to
retract that Declaration and that policy, before the situation worsens
and the Government finds itself unable to quench the fires of disorder.”
We cannot patiently watch our homeland pass into others’ hands. Either us or the Zionists!
“We cannot patiently watch our homeland pass into others’ hands. Either us or the Zionists!” said
members of the Palestine Arab Executive. “There is no room for both
elements struggling together in the same area. The laws of nature
require that one side be defeated… There is no escaping the fact that
one of us must win.”
‘Much to revenge’
The Haycraft Commission worked for 10 weeks and heard nearly 300 witnesses. That autumn it issued its report.
It attributed the instigation of the slaughter squarely to the Arabs,
castigating their “savagery” and “brutality.” The Jews acted with equal
ferocity, it contended, “but they had much to revenge [sic].”
After deploring the violence, the commission laid out its causes.
Arab fury, it concluded, came from fears of Jewish demographic,
economic and political domination. It said the Zionist leadership had
failed to allay the Arabs’ fears — on the contrary, it had only
magnified them — and recommended Britain clearly and publicly enunciate
its plans for Palestine.
That enunciation came in the form of the 1922 White Paper, known to posterity as the Churchill White Paper but largely written
by Samuel himself. It reaffirmed the Balfour Declaration’s vision of a
Jewish national home in Palestine, but rejected any idea of creating a
wholly Jewish Palestine, one “as Jewish as England is English.” Such a
project would be impracticable, it said, and was not Britain’s aim.
Crucially, it determined that immigration should continue, but only
insofar as allowed by the country’s “economic capacity… to absorb new
From left, Lords Edmund Allenby, Arthur Balfour and Sir Herbert Samuel, at Hebrew University in 1925. (Library of Congress)
The Zionists were irate, but for his part Churchill remained devoted as ever to their program. In parliament a month later, he chastised colleagues who would bin Balfour.
Yes, he acknowledged, there had been sporadic violence, but even a
million pounds a year would not be too high a price for Britain’s
“guardianship of this great historic land, and for keeping the word she
has given before all the nations of the world.”
Palestine’s development was a boon to the British Empire as much as to the Arabs, he reiterated.
An alleyway leading to Jaffa Port, circa 1921-1926. (Courtesy of Nazarian Library, University of Haifa)
“I am told that the Arabs would have done it themselves. Who is going
to believe that? Left to themselves, the Arabs of Palestine would not
in a thousand years have taken effective steps towards the irrigation
and electrification of Palestine. They would have been quite content to
dwell — a handful of philosophic people — in the wasted sun-scorched
plains, letting the waters of the Jordan continue to flow unbridled and
unharnessed into the Dead Sea,” Churchill said.
Shortly after, Churchill again hosted Palestinian-Arab leaders in London. Again he rejected their demands for self-government and the abrogation of the national home.
“The British Government mean to carry out the Balfour
Declaration. I have told you so again and again. I told you so at
Jerusalem. I told you so at the House of Commons the other day. I tell
you so now… We intend to bring more Jews in. We do not intend you be
allowed to stop more from coming in,” Churchill said.
Publicly, Zionist leaders continued to insist the riots had been the
work of a few criminals, or a handful of effendis anxious that their
capacity to exploit Arab peasants was being imperiled. Certainly, they
assured the British, there was no consolidated Palestinian-Arab national
movement to speak of.
Ben-Gurion exemplified the predominant denial
of the time. Throughout the 1920s, he continued to insist Arab
opposition was a small-scale phenomenon, to be overcome by educating the
Arab masses on the brotherhood of the working classes and the material
benefits of Zionism.
Illustrative: David Ben Gurion, left, and Yitzhak Ben Zvi, right, as law students in Turkey in 1912. (photo courtesy the GPO)
One Zionist leader in Palestine, Jacob Thon, dissented.
Blaming the outburst on the effendis was fine as a tactic, he said, but
“between ourselves, we should realize that we have to reckon with an
Arab national movement. We ourselves — our own [actions] — are speeding
the development of the Arab national movement.”
Another dissenter was a new immigrant from Germany, fast climbing
the Zionist ranks, named Haim Arlosoroff. It was true, he wrote, that
by European standards Palestine lacked a recognizable Arab national
movement. Arab education was too undeveloped, its commerce too limited,
its industry non-existent. The Arabs had too many squabbles: Effendi
against peasant, Muslim against Christian, family against family.
Religion moved the masses more than any notion of nationhood. Under such
circumstances, he reckoned, no recognizable national movement existed,
nor could it anytime soon.
Between ourselves, we should realize that we have to reckon with an Arab national movement
But denying something was afoot among Palestine’s Arabs was a grave
mistake, “like a doctor who stands at the bedside of a patient wallowing
in malarial fever and denies the existence of the disease because the
patient’s blood does not resemble those he is used to seeing under his
microscope,” Arlosoroff said.
Is there an incipient Arab movement in Palestine? “There is,”
Arlosoroff concluded, bolding the text for emphasis, and dismissing its
significance would bring “calamity.”
The relative calm that followed the 1921 riots allowed the national
home to progress. In summer 1922 the League of Nations Council confirmed
the draft of the Palestine Mandate,
and a year later it came into effect. Fulfilling Zionist hopes and
labors, the Mandate’s text enshrined the Balfour Declaration’s call
facilitating the Jewish national home, while at the same time
safeguarding Arab civic and religious — but not, explicitly, political —
rights. Lord Balfour himself visited in 1925 to inaugurate the Hebrew
University, and the Jews feted him with a gourmet picnic in Petah Tikvah
in the same field where blood had run four years before.
Lord Balfour, seated at head of table, banqueting in the spot where the riots had taken place in 1921. Chaim Weizmann, future first president of Israel, can be seen in the foreground. (Courtesy Weizmann Institute)
By decade’s end, the placidity had proven an illusion. The year 1929 brought massacres
in Hebron and Safed that surpassed anything seen in 1921. And spring
1936 saw the eruption — once again, in Jaffa — of the Great Arab Revolt,
Palestine’s first “intifada,” which flamed not for days but three
years, leaving not dozens but more than 500 Jews dead, along with
several hundred British personnel and several thousand Arabs.
A war for the ages
It is an intriguing counterfactual exercise to ponder how Zionist
leaders of a century ago might react if they knew that in 2021, despite a
handful of peace deals,
the Arab-Jewish war rages on. For some, such as Herbert Samuel or the
American head of Hebrew University Judah Magnes, the thought of
potentially endless strife was too dreadful to contemplate and justified
significantly rolling back Zionist ambitions – above all, on the pace
of immigration – for the sake of peace. For others, it was an unnerving
but unavoidable reality to be confronted without illusions.
Ben-Gurion’s own evolution
on the question came around the late 1920s or early 1930s. By the
mid-’30s he appears to have concluded that Jewish and Arab aspirations
for Palestine were mutually exclusive, condemning both to a “war of life and death” unlikely to subside anytime soon.
Illustrative; Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, Southern Front Commander Yigal Allon (to his right) and Yitzhak Rabin (between them) pictured on the southern front during the 1948 War of Independence. (IDF / Wikipedia)
Shortly before the outbreak of the 1936 Arab Revolt, Ben-Gurion confided
to Magnes that the difference between them was that the latter was
prepared to sacrifice large-scale immigration for peace, while to him,
for whom peace was also dear, the imperative of Zionism stood above all
others. To the Arab intellectual George Antonius, he said, “If we have
to choose between pogroms in Germany and Poland, and in Palestine, we
prefer the pogroms here.”
And at the peak of the Arab Revolt, 10 years before Israel’s
birth, Ben-Gurion gave a remarkably candid address to colleagues, one
that surveyed the future with a mix of nearly fatalistic acceptance and
The Arabs are not to blame if they do not want this
country to stop being Arab… our enterprise is aimed at turning this land
into a Jewish one
“Let us not delude ourselves: We are facing not terror but war. This
is a national war the Arabs have declared upon us. Terror is just one of
its means,” Ben-Gurion said.
“There are two peoples” in Palestine, Ben-Gurion said, drawing
out the key words for weight. “The Arabs are not to blame if they do not
want this country to stop being Arab… our enterprise is aimed at
turning this land into a Jewish one.”
The Jews faced not an uprising of hundreds of armed men, nor even
of thousands, but of the entire Arab people, he said. They should
expect years of armed conflict; they should assume the struggle against
them will grow fiercer.
“We have losses, bitter losses,” Ben-Gurion told them, “and they may continue for perhaps hundreds of years.”
Oren Kessler is a Tel Aviv-based writer and analyst, and the
former deputy director for research at the Foundation for Defense of
Democracies in Washington. His first book, “Fire Before Dawn: The First
Palestinian Revolt and the Struggle for the Holy Land,” is forthcoming
from Rowman & Littlefield.