The collapse of the Ottoman Empire

The conflict in the southern Levant has brewed since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire was a vast and influential state that emerged in the late 13th century and lasted until the early 20th century, spanning over 600 years. Founded by Osman I in the Anatolian region, it expanded rapidly to encompass much of Southeast Europe, Western Asia, and North Africa at its peak, becoming one of the largest empires in history. The empire was characterized by a complex administrative system that incorporated a diverse range of peoples, cultures, and religions under a relatively flexible and tolerant rule, particularly through the millet system, which allowed religious communities to govern themselves in many aspects. The Ottomans were renowned for their military prowess, especially their elite Janissary, and for significant achievements in architecture, art, and science, with Constantinople serving as the empire’s cultural and economic hub. The empire began to decline in the 17th century due to internal strife, military defeats, and the rise of European powers, culminating in its disintegration after World War I and the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1923. The legacy of the Ottoman Empire continues to influence the political and cultural landscapes of the Middle East, Balkans, and beyond.

The Ottoman Empire ruled over the southern Levant from 1517 to 1917, following its conquest from the Mamluks. During Ottoman rule, this region was incorporated as a number of Sanjaks (administrative districts) into the larger administrative region of the Damascus Eyalet. In 1841, following the Egyptian-Ottoman War, the Jerusalem Sanjak was placed under direct rule from Constantinople as the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem.

Throughout Ottoman rule, the region experienced periods of economic stagnation and decline, punctuated by occasional development efforts such as the reconstruction of Jerusalem's city walls by Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent in the 16th century. The late Ottoman period saw increased foreign interest and influence, particularly from European powers, along with a rise in Jewish immigration driven by religious and nationalist movements. By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the region faced growing tensions among its diverse communities, influenced by both internal factors and broader geopolitical dynamics. The Ottoman rule in the southern Levant ended with the empire’s defeat in World War I, leading to the British Mandate over the territory.

After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the northern Levant was controlled by France through the French Mandate, and southern Levant was controlled by the United Kingdom through the British Mandate. The purpose of these mandates were to prepare the territories for self-rule but were heavily influenced by the strategic and economic interests of Britain and France, leading to prolonged periods of direct and indirect control.

France divided its mandate into the majority Sunni Muslim State of Damascus, the diverse State of Aleppo, the predominantly Alawite Muslim Alawite State, the predominantly Druze Jabal Druse State, and the Maronite Christian State of Greater Lebanon. This was intended to divide these states against each other based on religious and ethnic tensions; however, the opposition to French rule united the various communities largely supported the broader movement toward independence and the unification of Syria, ultimately leading the Great Syrian Revolt of 1925-27, thus establishing the Syrian Republic in 1930. Lebanon became independent in 1943, although French troops remained until the end of 1946.

Britain divided its mandate into the predominantly Bedouin Transjordan and the more diverse Palestine. To rule the Transjordan, however, the British chose the Hashemite family of predominantly Arab lineage, claiming dependency from the Prophet Muhammad. Ali bin Hussein, King of Hejaz and Grand Sharif of Mecca supported the British against the Ottoman Empire, and his sons, including Faisal and Abdullah, played key roles in the Arab Revolt of 1916-1918 on the side of the British. Faisal was given the Kingdom of Iraq while Abdullah was given the Emirate of Transjordan, later to become the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. King Abdullah II is the great grandson of this founding king. Emir Abdullah I unified the disparate Bedouin tribes of Transjordan by leveraging his Hashemite lineage and reputation as a leader of the Arab Revolt, which earned him respect among the tribes. He formed strategic alliances by incorporating tribal leaders into the administration, ensuring their interests were represented. Abdullah also worked with British advisors and the Arab Legion to maintain order, integrating Bedouin fighters into the military, which fostered a sense of national service. By balancing tribal governance with state structures and maintaining open dialogue, Abdullah successfully created unity among the tribes, laying the groundwork for modern Jordan.

This leaves the Mandate of Palestine to consider. The Tanakh narrates that Jews are descendants of Abraham, who migrated from Ur in Mesopotamia to Canaan. According to the biblical account, after a period of enslavement in Egypt, the Israelites returned to Canaan and conquered the land, often through violent means, including the alleged genocidal massacres of the Canaanites residing there. However, according to the work of archaeologist Israel Finkelstein, archaeological evidence suggests a different origin for the Judeans: they were likely descendants of Canaanite pastoral nomads.

The history of the Judahites up to 135 CE

The Younger Dryas period, occurring around 12,900 to 11,700 years ago, caused a dramatic cooling and drying of the climate, which disrupted the environment across the Near East, including Anatolia and northern Syria. As these harsh conditions made it increasingly difficult for nomadic hunter-gatherer societies to find sufficient wild resources, they migrated southward into the more fertile regions of the southern Levant and Mesopotamia. This migration coincided with the early cultivation of einkorn wheat, one of the first domesticated crops, around 10,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent. The development and spread of einkorn wheat supported the shift from nomadic lifestyles to settled agriculture, facilitating the rise of early Canaanite civilizations. These communities laid the groundwork for more complex societies in the region, as they transitioned from foraging to farming, leading to the establishment of some of the earliest agricultural societies in human history.

While the conditions and resources in the southern Levant never allowed its inhabitants to establish kingdoms and empires on par with those in Egypt, Anatolia, and Mesopotamia, the Canaanites often found themselves under the suzerainty of these more powerful neighbors. Nevertheless, the Canaanites benefited greatly from the strategic trade routes that passed through their lands, connecting Egypt with the kingdoms and empires to the north and east. This trade fostered economic prosperity and cultural exchange, allowing large cities such as Jericho, Ai, Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer to be established and flourish. However, the 4.2-kiloyear event around 2200 BCE brought severe droughts and environmental stress that affected the entire region, including the southern Levant. This climatic shift led to agricultural challenges and may have intensified competition for resources among the Canaanites and their neighbors. Despite these hardships, the Canaanite cities managed to endure and continue their role as important urban and trade centers, contributing to the region’s significance as a crossroads of ancient civilization, even without achieving political independence or dominance. One Canaanite city that emerged at this time in the Judean Mountains was Urusalim or the City of Peace.

With the onset of the Bronze Age Collapse around 1200 BCE, Canaanite towns and cities were severely impacted, leading to the disruption of economic systems, including the grain trade that was crucial to both urban centers and the pastoral lifestyle of nomadic groups in the region. Consequently, the nomadic Canaanite pastoral herders migrated into and settled in the less populated highlands of the Samarian Highlands and Judean Mountains. This movement likely led to conflicts with the settled Canaanite villagers over land and resources with one chieftain by the name of David apparently conquered Urusalim, renaming it Yerushalayim in their language with the same meaning, the city that would become the center of their culture and religion with the temple to YHWH ultimately becoming the sole place of worship of their deity. Over centuries, this history was reinterpreted, possibly to emphasize the distinct identity and perceived superiority of the now-settled Judahites over the Canaanites who remained in the southern Levant. This revisionist narrative served to differentiate the emerging Israelite identity from their Canaanite origins.

This widespread crisis that forced these nomadic Canaanite pastoral herders to settle in the highlands and mountains also forced many Greek populations to abandon their homelands and seek more hospitable areas to the south. Their movements contributed to a series of attacks on various regions, including the New Kingdom of Egypt, which, although ultimately unsuccessful, significantly destabilized Egyptian power and contributed to its decline. Among these migrating groups were the PLST or Peleset, identified as one of the Sea Peoples, who eventually settled along the Mediterranean coast of the southern Levant. These people, named occupied Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gath. The Judahite people referred to them as the P’lishtim (פְּלִשְׁתִּים), derived from the Hebrew root p-l-sh (פלש) meaning "to invade," reflecting their view of the Philistines as foreign invaders. Greek translators later adapted this term into Philistia (Φιλιστία) for the region and Philistinoi (Φιλιστίνοι) for the people.

Like the Israelite kingdom in the Samarian Highlands, the Philistine city-states were eventually conquered by the expanding Neo-Assyrian Empire. The Neo-Assyrian conquest forced many Israelites from the Samarian Highlands to flee south, swelling the population of Yerushalayim by as much as a factor of ten. The Neo-Babylonian (Chaldean) Empire devastated both Judah (including the complete destruction of Yerushalayim) and the Philistine coastal cities, and many Philistine elite, like the Judahite elite, were deported to Babylon. With the rise of the Achaemenid Empire and the fall of Babylon, under Persian rule, many Jews returned to Judah and Samaria, but the Philistine lands saw an influx of other cultures into this fertile coastal land, which was traversed by the Via Maris trade route, further diluting the original Philistine culture.

For the Jews, the Achaemenid Empire was more tolerant and less oppressive than the Neo-Babylonian Empire: many returned to Judah and Samaria and they were obligated to pay tribute, provide labour and resources as needed, and were expected to be loyal and stable buffer between the Persians and Egyptians. This arrangement persisted until the defeat of the Persians under Alexander the Great in 332 BCE, and with the latter's death in 323 BCE, the lands conquered by Alexander split into three empires. Judah fell first under the control of the Ptolemaic Empire centered at Alexandria, Egypt, and they received similar treatment as under the Persians. Under the Ptolemaic pharaohs, Hellenization (the introduction of Greek culture) was introduced into the southern Levant, but it was not imposed. Judah formed part of a buffer between Egypt and a second Alexandrian empire, the Seleucids. In 200 BCE, the Seleucid Empire defeated the Egyptians, and the border moved to the edge of the Sinai peninsula so Judah became a vassal of the Mesopotamian Seleucids. The Ptolemies were tolerant of Jewish religious practice, they did not impose Hellenization, and gave the Judahites significant autonomy. The Seleucids were draconian with Jewish religious practices being banned:

Infants found to be circumcised were executed. They were either executed together with their parents or their corpses were tied around their mothers' necks.
Observing the Sabbath was forbidden and refusing to work could result in public humiliation, torture, and even execution.
People could be required to eat pork as a test of loyalty to the Seleucids, and refusing to do so would result in public humiliation, torture and execution.
The Temple was desecrated and dedicated to Zeus, synagogues were destroyed, and the Torah and other books of the Tanakh were burned.

Such brutal repression soon led to the Maccabean Revolt, and the establishment of an independent Jewish Hasmonean kingdom. During the Hasmonean period, the kingdom expanded to encompass the former Philistine cities, so now Jewish customs were imposed, and in some cases, forced conversions to Judaism occurred, further eroding any lingering Philistine identity. By this time, the Philistines had largely disappeared as a distinct people, and the actions of the Hasmoneans ensured that any remaining elements of Philistine culture were fully subsumed under Jewish rule.

The Jews of the southern Levant would, however, see a similar decimation as had occurred to the Philistines. The Romans conquered the region and imposed the Edomite Herod (the Great) as the ruler of this client kingdom. When Herod's son Archelaus proved dangerous as a ruler, not having his father's diplomacy, Herod's kingdom was divided into three client states each ruled by a son of Herod, the largest comprising Judea, Samaria and Idumea being given to Archelaus. A decade later, Archelaus's ineptness caused the Romans to depose him and to incorporate his lands into the Roman Empire as the Province of Iudaea. Jewish resistance to this foreign rule led to the First Jewish-Roman War (66-73 CE) which led to the destruction of Yerushalayim and the destruction of the Temple, leading to the end of the temple cult and rise of Rabbinic Judaism, which focused on Torah study and synagogue worship rather than Temple sacrifices. Half a century later, Emperor Hadrian planned to build a Roman city, Aelia Capotolia, on the ruins of this city and to erect a temple to Jupiter on the Temple Mount. This led to the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132-135 CE), one that ended in the complete razing of Yerushalayim and the dispersion the remaining Jewish people throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. In the southern Levant, the only remnants of Judaism were in smaller rural villages and in the Galilee. South of Galilee, however, Emperor Hadrian settled Roman military veterans, officials and other colonists, including Syrians and others from around the Roman Empire to establish Roman control over the region. As one final insult, the Romans renamed the Province of Iudaea to one that echoed a different people, the Province of Syria-Palaestina.

Consequently, it must be made clear that the name "Palaestina" is a Latin word derived from a Greek transliteration of a what is apparently a Hebrew word meaning "invaders." This word was used by Judahites and Israelites to refer to the Greek settlers who invaded and settled along the coastal lands west of the Judean Mountains. The Romans adopted and used the name "Palaestina" as part of an effort to erase the memory and historical connection of the Jewish inhabitants to the southern Levant.

The southern Levant under Christianity and Islam

Following the adoption of Christianity by Emperor Constantine, the name Aelia Capotolia was slowly replaced by the Greek Hierosolyma (Ἱεροσόλυμα) and Latin Hierusalem, and throughout this time, there was a continuous, if minimal, presence of Jews in the southern Levant. This region would next be conquered by the Muslims, who divided the region into to military districts: Jund Filastin and Jund al-Urdunn (Jordan). Hierusalem was renamed to al-Quds (meaning "The Holy") following the Muslim conquest of the city in 638 CE. This change reflected the city's profound religious significance in Islam, particularly as the location of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock on the Haram al-Sharif (Noble Sanctuary), associated with the Prophet Muhammad's night journey and ascension to heaven (Isra and Mi'raj). The intention behind this renaming was to emphasize its sanctity within the Islamic tradition and to distinguish its new Islamic identity from its previous Roman and Byzantine names. By adopting the name al-Quds, Muslim rulers aimed to integrate the city into the broader Islamic world, honoring its status as one of the holiest cities in Islam and reinforcing its spiritual and cultural connection to the Muslim community.

At the time of the Muslim conquest, the majority of the population was Christian. While most adhered to the Orthodox Church of the Byzantine Empire, there were other eastern sects such as the Orthodox Chalcedonians, but also heretical sects such as the Monophysites. The Jewish presence was also significant in Galilee, but they were still banned from Hierusalem. The Samaritan Israelites lived in the vicinity of Mount Gerizim. Finally, there was a presense of Greek-speaking elites integrated into the administrative and military apparatus of the Byzantine Empire. Christians and Jews (and initially Samaritans) were tolerated under the Rashidun Caliphate as dhimmi, allowing them a degree of autonomy in their religious and communal but were required to pay the jizya tax. Over time, many of these groups adopted the Arabic language and, in some cases, converted to Islam. Additionally, just as had happened so often before under the Neo Assyrians and the Romans, the Muslim rulers encouraged Arab migration into and settled Arab tribes, including those who had played key roles in the military conquests, in the southern Levant to consolidate their control.

Under Muslim rule, the Jewish presence in the southern Levant persisted, albeit in fluctuating and often challenging conditions. During the early Islamic period, Jews lived in various towns and cities, including al-Quds, where they initially experienced relatively favorable treatment under the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates. The Muslims allowed Jews to return to al-Quds after being banned under Byzantine rule, and Jewish communities were active in trade, scholarship, and religious life. However, their circumstances varied significantly over the centuries due to political and social changes. Under the Abbasids, there were periods of tolerance but also instances of persecution. The Crusader conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 was particularly devastating for Jews, who, along with Muslims, were massacred or expelled from the city. Jewish communities found refuge in other parts of the southern Levant, such as Hebron, Tiberias, and Safed, with Safed later becoming a prominent center of Jewish learning and Kabbalistic scholarship in the 16th century.

When the Mamluks regained control in the 13th century, Jews were allowed to live in al-Quds again, but the community remained small and faced economic hardships. With the Ottoman conquest of al-Quds in 1517, Jewish life began to stabilize and grow under a generally more tolerant regime. The Ottomans allowed Jews from Spain and other parts of Europe, who had fled persecution, to settle in their territories, including Jerusalem. This period saw the formal establishment of the Jewish Quarter in al-Quds, where Jews could live and worship relatively freely, marking the resurgence of Jewish presence and community organization in the city.

Thus, it is evident that the ancestors of the Jewish people established a permanent and continuous presence in the southern Levant not only over the past three millennia, but also possibly tracing their roots back to the earliest settlements of the region. Throughout history, invading powers have repeatedly tried to erase or diminish the Jewish connection to the land. Notably, the Neo-Assyrians, Neo-Babylonian, Seleucid Greeks, Romans, and Muslims employed common strategies to exert control over the region:

Genocide, forced assimilation, and cultural suppression where the Jewish inhabitants were killed, exiled, or assimilated into the controlling culture while Jewish religious practices were suppressed.
Settler colonialism where non-Jewish people were invited to or even forcibly migrated to the region.
Cultural imperialism and symbolic erasure where foreign languages were introduced as the lingua franca and cities and even the entire region were renamed.
Cultural destruction where Jewish religious and cultural sites as well as sacred scriptures were destroyed.
Apartheid and economic suppression where restrictive laws were imposed on Jewish practices and land ownership and taxes.

Simply because one version or another of apartheid is supported by religious scriptures and may have certain alleged benefits, does not make it any less oppressive. Despite these efforts, the Jewish community maintained its cultural and religious identity, demonstrating resilience and a lasting bond with the land.

Jews living outside the southern Levant

While at the time of the Muslim conquest, it is estimated that 50,000 to 100,000 Jews lived in the southern Levant, many more lived outside that region. It is estimated that there were 200,000 to 500,000 Jews living in the lands of the former Western Roman Empire, another 150,000 to 300,000 in the Eastern Roman (or Byzantine) Empire, and another 500,000 to one million living in Mesopotamia, being descendants of those Jews who chose to to return to the southern Levant following the Persian conquest of Babylon. Thus, approximately 19 out of 20 Jews at that time lived outside Eretz Yisrael, the land of Israel.

In Christian kingdoms and realms, Jews were often barred from owning land, joining guilds, or holding public office, and faced numerous legal and social restrictions. As a result, Jewish communities placed a strong emphasis on education, both for religious reasons and as a critical means of economic survival. This focus on study and learning helped Jews excel in the limited business practices open to them, such as trade and money lending, as Christians were discouraged or even forbidden from charging interest (usury). Moreover, the skills developed through religious study and obeying their Covenant, including analytical thinking and negotiation, were beneficial in managing contracts and navigating their constrained economic environment.

Their success in those few practices that were allowed to them, however, caused great resentment, and together with religious bigotry, the Jewish diaspora became the scapegoats for all of society's wows. Jews were regularly expelled throughout the millennia-and-a-half since the Muslim conquest of Judah. Starting with Christian realms: England expelled all Jews from 1290 to 1657; France expelled Jews in 1182, 1306 and 1394, the last barring Jews until the 1500s; Spain expelled all Jews in 1492, Portugal followed suite in 1496-7 and Navarre in 1498, barring Jews until the 1700s. Russia expelled Jews from many of its eastern lands in 1791, allowing Jews to live only along the Pale of Settlement, a strip of land comprising parts of Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, and Latvia. These regions were the first to be occupied by Nazi Germany, and so became the focus of Nazi extermination efforts. Jewish life in Muslim realms was more tolerable, as Jews were a "People of the Book" and thus were given protections according to the Qur'an; however, this did not insulate them from acts of expulsion and genocide. For your interest, here are a list of significant mass killings of Jews:

Grenada in 1066: 4000 killed by a Muslim mob.
York in 1190: 150 died being attacked by a Christian mob.
Black Death Persecutions (1348-1351): thousands killed as scapegoats, some being burned alive by Christians.
Spanish Inquisition (Late 15th Century): thousands of Jews and and conversos tortured and executed by the Catholic Church.
The Khmelnytsky Uprising (1648-1657): 100 thousand or more Jews killed by Christians.
Fez massacre (1033): 6000 Jews killed and their women enslaved by Muslims.
Russian pogroms (1881-1884, 1903-1906, 1919-1921): tens of thousands if not 100 thousand killed by Orthodox Christians.
Farhud in Iraq (1941): at least 160 Jews killed by Muslims.
Jedwabne pogrom (1941): 340 Jews killed by Polish Christians.
The Holocaust (1941-1945): six million Jews killed by German nationalists, most of whom were Christian.
Keilce pogrom (1946): 42 Jews killed by Polish Christians.

Finally, following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, 900,000 Jews migrated, fled or were expelled from Muslim-majority countries, with over two-thirds settling in Israel, although this will be focused on later. Consequently, Jews living outside of the southern Levant have been killed on mass by Christian and Muslim mobs up to the middle of the 20th century.

The continuity of the Jewish people to today

Another point is that in both Christian and Muslim societies, conversion to Judaism was forbidden with severe penalties, including death, imprisonment, or social ostracism. In predominantly Christian nations, it has only been since the start of the Enlightenment that such restrictions were lessened and generally removed. In some Muslim today, laws against apostasy and blasphemy still exist, and converting from Islam to Judaism (or any other religion) can have serious legal implications, with Mahmoud Mohammed Taha being executed as recently as 1985 for apostacy; however, even today, apostates may see imprisonment and torture as with Mohammed Hegazy and a recent (2020) extra-judicial killing of a convert seems to be Yusuf Kintu, a former imam from Uganda. Additionally, Judaism is a tribal religion and Jews generally do not proselytize as the faith teaches that one need not be Jewish to be righteous. The conversion to Judaism is a long process involving study of Jewish laws, customs, history, and beliefs; keeping kosher dietary laws, and participating in Jewish holidays and rituals; regular meetings and discussions with a rabbi about their motivations, challenges, and growth; an appearance before a Bet Din, a rabbinical court usually composed of three rabbis; circumcision for men and circumcision a mikvah; and the formal acceptance of the mitzvot (commandments) of Judaism. Finally, genetic analysis has shown that: most Jewish populations, including Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi Jews, have a significant amount of genetic ancestry that traces back to the Levant region; these populations show closer genetic relationships to each other than to their non-Jewish neighbors; and the Cohen Modal Haplotype is a genetic marker found at high frequencies among Jewish men of the Cohen lineage, traditionally believed to be descendants of Aaron, the brother of Moses. Consequently, it can be reasonably well asserted that most Jews who are not descendants of recent conversions are likely the descendants of that Judahite tribe that lived in Judea, Samaria and Galilee two-to-three thousand years and who have been persecuted ever since the complete cleansing by the Romans in 135 CE with the wholesale killing, enslavement or expulsion of Jews from their ancestral lands followed by subsequent persecutions by Christians and then Muslims.

Zionism

Following almost two millennia of persecution in Christian and Muslim nations, some Jews began to describe a nationalist and political movement called Zionism that originated in the late 19th century with the aim of establishing a Jewish homeland in the historic land of Israel, then part of the Ottoman Empire. It developed against the backdrop of centuries of Jewish persecution and antisemitism in Europe, particularly in Eastern Europe, where pogroms and restrictive laws severely impacted Jewish communities. The movement was significantly shaped by Theodor Herzl, an Austrian journalist and playwright, who became one of its leading figures after witnessing the Dreyfus Affair in France, which underscored the persistent and pervasive nature of antisemitism in even the most progressive societies. In 1896, Herzl published "Der Judenstaat" ("The Jewish State"), advocating for the creation of a sovereign Jewish state as the solution to the "Jewish question."

"Der Judenstaat" (The Jewish State) has Herzl argue that the Jewish people, persistently subjected to anti-Semitism and persecution across Europe, require a sovereign state of their own to ensure their safety and self-determination. He presents the Jewish question not as a religious or social issue but as a national and political one that necessitates an international solution.

Herzl proposes the establishment of a Jewish state in either Palestine or Argentina, advocating for a structured approach involving the creation of a Jewish Company to manage logistics such as emigration, land acquisition, and the economic framework of the new state. He emphasizes that the Jewish state would not only provide a refuge for Jews but also contribute positively to global society by creating a modern and prosperous nation. Herzl's work calls for the support of international powers to secure legal recognition and facilitate this national aspiration.

Herzl's argument is built on the idea that Jews have maintained their distinct national identity despite centuries of dispersion and hardship. He believed that the Jewish state would resolve anti-Semitism by removing the root causes tied to Jewish diaspora existence in foreign lands. That this can only come the choice of Jews is summarizes by his words that "[n]o human being is wealthy or powerful enough to transplant a nation from one habitation to another. An idea alone can achieve that and this idea of a State may have the requisite power to do so. The Jews have dreamt this kingly dream all through the long nights of their history."

One might wonder why the concept of a Jewish state arose so late in history, but it is important to recognize that Judaism, particularly in its rabbinical form, has traditionally been a religious and cultural identity rather than a nationalist one. The notion of a nation-state, as we understand it today, only began to take shape with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which established the principles of sovereign states and non-interference, marking a shift from the dominance of feudal obligations and dynastic rule. For centuries, multi-ethnic empires like the Ottoman, Russian, and Habsburg empires thrived, relying on these older systems of governance. These structures persisted into the early 20th century and were even reconstituted under different forms, such as in the Soviet Union.

It was not until the Enlightenment that the concepts of nation-states and the self-determination of peoples truly solidified. Enlightenment thinkers promoted ideals of individual rights, democracy, and national sovereignty, which gradually replaced the idea of multi-ethnic empires with the aspiration for ethnically and culturally unified states. This intellectual shift set the stage for movements like Zionism. Individuals like Theodor Herzl began to reinterpret Judaism from a purely religious belief to one encompassing national identity, advocating for the establishment of a Jewish state as a response to persistent anti-Semitism and the failure of assimilation. In this context, Zionism can be seen as a product of Enlightenment thought, adapting the Jewish desire for a homeland into the broader 19th-century framework of nationalism and the right to self-determination.

Consequently, the following year, Herzl convened the First Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland, where the delegates formally articulated the goal of establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine and established the World Zionist Organization to promote Jewish settlement, diplomatic engagement, and fundraising efforts. Zionism quickly gained support among Jews in Europe, especially in Russia and Eastern Europe, where conditions were particularly harsh. Waves of Jewish immigration, known as Aliyah, began to settle in Palestine, starting with the First Aliyah in the 1880s, which brought thousands of Jews to the region to establish agricultural communities. By the early 20th century, Zionism had become a significant political and cultural force, advocating for Jewish self-determination and preparing the groundwork for future statehood, even as it faced opposition from both local Arab populations and elements within the Ottoman Empire.

Prior to the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, there was no indication that the Arabs living in the southern Levant were any different than those living south, east or north of that region in the Middle East. Before the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Arab societies were highly diverse, with clear distinctions based on tribal affiliations, regional identities, religious beliefs, and economic roles. Loyalty to one's tribe, local leaders, and immediate community was paramount. The Turkish Ottoman Empire managed these distinctions through a system of indirect rule that often allowed local leaders significant autonomy, thus maintaining the traditional social structures of the region.

In 1882, the population of the southern Levant was less than half a million, and 80% to 85% of these were Muslim with only 4% to 5% (20,000 to 25,000) being Jewish, most of whom were Sephardic, most of whom lived in the holy cities of

Jerusalem,
Hebron, the site of the Cave of Machpelah, also known as the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs and the first seat of King David,
Safed, the center of Kabbalah, a renowned hub of Jewish learning, and a refuge for Sephardic Jews expelled from Spain in 1492, and
Tiberias (the seat of the Sanhedrin after Jerusalem's destruction, the key site for the compilation of the Jerusalem Talmud, and the burial place of revered Jewish sages.

The first Aliyah (1882 to 1903)

The first Jewish migration, or Aliyah, to the southern Levant occurred between 1882 and 1903, bringing 25 to 30 thousand Jews from Russia and Romania, regions plagued by pogroms and anti-Semitic violence. Many of these Jews could be considered refugees in the broader sense because they were fleeing persecution, violence, and unstable political situations. They left their countries due to a genuine fear for their safety and well-being. These immigrants established agricultural communities (moshavot) such as Rishon LeZion, Zikhron Ya'akov, and Petah Tikva with financial support from philanthropists like Baron Edmond de Rothschild. The Ottoman Empire viewed this influx with suspicion, implementing restrictions on Jewish immigration and land purchases in Palestine, fearing demographic shifts and foreign intervention. Despite these efforts, enforcement was inconsistent, allowing some settlers to establish agricultural communities through local bribery and legal loopholes. This early tension between Ottoman policies and Zionist ambitions set the stage for future conflicts over Jewish settlement in the region.

The second Aliyah (1904 to 1914)

The Second Aliyah took place between 1904 and 1914, bringing around 35 to 40 thousand Jews, primarily from Russia and Poland (although now more from other eastern-European countries and Yemen), driven by renewed anti-Semitic violence (pogroms following the 1905 Russian Revolution that was blamed on the Jews), economic hardship, and the ideals of socialist Zionism. This wave of immigrants, many of whom were young and secular, sought to establish a Jewish homeland through labor and collective farming, founding kibbutzim (collective farms) and moshavim (cooperative villages) such as Degania, the first kibbutz. They emphasized Hebrew revival, both in language and culture, as a cornerstone of Jewish national identity. The Second Aliyah was marked by ideological fervor and a commitment to manual labor, setting the foundation for the labor Zionist movement that would dominate Jewish settlement in Palestine. Despite ongoing Ottoman restrictions on immigration and land ownership, these pioneers established crucial infrastructure and institutions that would later play pivotal roles in the formation of the State of Israel. Now, while some of these immigrants could also be seen as refugees, as they were escaping violence and persecution in Russia and other parts of Eastern Europe; however, a large portion of them were also ideologically motivated and may not fit the traditional definition of "refugee" as someone fleeing immediate danger: their migration was partially driven by the Zionist vision of rebuilding a Jewish homeland, which adds a dimension of voluntary relocation.

The Jewish world prior to the Great War

Prior to the outbreak of the Great War, there were Jewish communities in most countries, but their treatment was variable:

The most positive were countries like France, the United States, and The Netherlands, where Jews had legal equality and there were opportunities for social and economic integration.
Next, in countries like Germany, Italy, and Austria-Hungary, they still had legal equality but there significant economic limitations and greater social discrimination.
In Morocco, Russia and the Ottoman Empire, Jews had limited legal rights and faced significant social and economic discrimination.
The most harsh conditions were in countries like Yemen, Iran, and Romania, where Jews faced severe legal and social discrimination, as well as violence and persecution.

In these latter two categories, Jews from Russia, Romania, Yemen, Morocco, and Iran faced escalating pressures that compelled many to emigrate. While the largest numbers came from Russia due to its sizable Jewish population and severe persecutions, significant proportions of Jews from these other countries also left in search of safety and better lives. Specific events—such as the Kishinev Pogroms, Fez riots, and enforcement of Yemen's Orphan Decree—served as catalysts for these migrations. The emigration patterns highlight the widespread nature of anti-Jewish sentiment and the precarious position of Jewish communities across different regions. The destinations of these emigrants varied, with the United States being the primary refuge due to its open immigration policies at the time. Palestine attracted those motivated by Zionist ideals or seeking a return to the ancestral homeland, while others settled in Western Europe despite existing challenges there. These migrations significantly reshaped the demographics of Jewish populations worldwide, contributing to the growth of Jewish communities in the Americas and laying the groundwork for future developments in Palestine.

Thus, prior to the Great War, while a significant exodus occurred from Christian Russia, this was hardly a European phenomenon. Harsh conditions in many Muslim countries resulted in the migration of Jews to the United States, Western Europe and the land of Israel.

World War I

Thus, by the onset of World War I, the population had increased to approximately three quarters of a million people, and Jews now constituted 11% (approximately 80,000) of the people, so a factor of three to four. This all occurred during the rule of the Ottoman Turks. With World War I, the British sought to align the Arabs with their interests against the Ottoman Empire. It is worth watching the movie Lawrence of Arabia by David Lean, though understanding that the significance of T.E. Lawrence is overplayed and diminishes the agency and contributions of the Arab leaders and fighters, and those interested may chose to read Lawrence's own writings such as the "Seven Pillars of Wisdom," which focuses on the Arab revolt, his personal reflections, cultural and political observations and philosophical musings, but also conveys his sense of betrayal and disillusionment.

The latter sentiments are a consequence of conflicting agreements on the part of the British government. But before we can go there, we must consider what is called Syria. This was derived from the Assyrian Empire, which included much of the Levant, including Samaria, Philistia, Phoenicia and the northern Levant. The Romans split this region into the Province of Syria and the Province of Syria-Palaestina. Under Muslim rule, the region was called Bilad al-Sham, or Lands of the Damascus, which was understood to include all of Greater Syria. Under Ottoman rule, "Ottoman Syria" included most of what is described as the Levant bound by the Mediterranean Sea and the Euphrates River, from Arabian Desert and to the Taurus Mountains. Initially, all these lands constitued the eyalet (province) of Damascus, although over the centuries, new eyalets were carved off this, including the eyalets of Aleppo, Damascus, Tripoli, Acre and Gaza. The restriction of Syria to the northern Levant is more recent: a consequence of the establishment of the State of Syria. In letters sent by Sir Henry McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Egypt, to Sharif Hussein bin Ali of Mecca in 1915 and 1916, he promised support for an Arab state, but the boundaries were not clearly defined. In a letter dated October 24, 1915, he stated that Britain would recognize and support the independence of the Arabs "in the limits and boundaries proposed by the Sherif of Mecca," except for "portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo." These include the most fertile lands in the northern Levant west of the deserts, irrigated by the waters of the Orontes River, Barada River, Al-Kabir al-Shamali River, Afrin River, and Nahr al-Kabir al-Janoubi. If you consider all of Syria, however, this draws a north-south line that would continue south through Amman, and thus include all of the lands within the Jordan Rift Valley and lands to the west.

World War II

During World War II, Jewish migration to Palestine was severely limited due to both British restrictions and the impact of the war. In 1939, the British government issued the White Paper, which capped Jewish immigration to 75,000 over the following five years, a response to growing Arab opposition to Jewish immigration. Despite the escalating persecution of Jews in Europe, including the Holocaust, British authorities largely upheld these restrictions, leading to tension with the Jewish community in Palestine. Many Jews fleeing Nazi-occupied Europe attempted to reach Palestine through illegal immigration operations, known as Aliyah Bet, organized by the Jewish Agency and other Zionist groups. These operations involved smuggling Jews into Palestine by sea, often in overcrowded and unsafe boats. British authorities intercepted many of these vessels, detaining the immigrants in camps in Cyprus or returning them to Europe. Despite these obstacles, around 30,000 Jews successfully immigrated to Palestine during the war, contributing to the growing Jewish population and strengthening the Zionist movement's push for statehood after the war.

The Arab political responses were divided but largely continued opposition to Jewish immigration and British policies in Palestine. Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, actively aligned with the Axis powers, meeting with Hitler in 1941 and expressing support for the Final Solution, while advocating for the extermination of Jews and broadcasting pro-Nazi, anti-Jewish messages in Arabic. He saw Nazi Germany as a key ally against Zionism and called for Arabs to rise up and kill Jews:

"Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you."

Meanwhile, some Arab leaders, particularly in Iraq, supported the Axis, exemplified by the brief pro-German coup in 1941, while others, like those in Saudi Arabia and Transjordan, maintained alliances with the British. Arab organizations continued protesting Jewish immigration, but the region remained politically fragmented, with leaders pursuing different global alliances based on national and ideological interests.

At this time, the British presence in Palestine was strengthened, which helped to curb large-scale violence. At the same time, Arab political energies were partially redirected toward broader wartime concerns and regional dynamics, reducing the frequency of direct attacks against Jews. As a result, the overall incidents of violence and deaths were significantly lower than in the preceding years. However, the underlying tensions between Jews and Arabs remained high, stoked by inflammatory rhetoric from leaders like Amin al-Husseini, who, in exile, aligned with Nazi Germany and broadcasted anti-Jewish propaganda to the Arab world. Al-Husseini's speeches, urging Arabs to rise against Jews, contributed to maintaining an atmosphere of hostility, even if large-scale violence was less frequent during the war. This rhetoric ensured that while physical violence may have subsided, the ideological and political resistance to Jewish presence in Palestine continued to simmer.

During World War II, Jewish militant groups such as the Irgun and Lehi primarily focused their activities against British authorities due to frustration over immigration restrictions and policies hindering the establishment of a Jewish state. While most of their operations targeted the British, there were instances where these groups carried out attacks against Arab civilians that were not in direct response to immediate provocations. For example, in 1944, the Irgun conducted a bombing at an Arab marketplace in Jerusalem, resulting in the deaths of several Arab civilians. This attack was part of a campaign to assert pressure on both the British and Arab populations, reflecting a strategic shift to more offensive actions regardless of direct provocation. At this time, the Irgun had an estimated membership of around 3,000 to 5,000 individuals. Although their activities were somewhat reduced during the early years of the war due to a temporary truce with the British to focus on the fight against the Nazis, they resumed militant operations later in the war. The Lehi, which split from the Irgun in 1940 due to ideological differences—primarily their refusal to halt anti-British activities during the war—was smaller in size, comprising approximately 200 to 300 active members. Despite their limited numbers (together less than 2% of the Jewish population in the southern Levant), both groups had a disproportionate impact through their use of guerrilla tactics and targeted attacks, significantly influencing the political and security situation in Palestine during that period. The Haganah, the main Jewish defense organization in Palestine, had a significantly larger membership of 20,000 to 30,000, but its activities primarily involved defending Jewish settlements and cooperating with British authorities, seeing them as allies against Nazi Germany. The Haganah also facilitated illegal immigration (Aliyah Bet), helping Jews fleeing the Holocaust enter Palestine despite British restrictions under the 1939 White Paper. While largely defensive and cooperative with the British during the war, the Haganah also strengthened its underground military capabilities, preparing for future conflicts and advocating for Jewish statehood as the war drew to a close.

Post World War II up to the declaration of independence

In 1947, the Arab community still outnumbered Jews in a ratio of almost exactly 2:1, and Jews owned less than 10% of the land. At this time, the UN Special Committee on Palestine presented a partition plan that divided the Mandate of Palestine into 56% to the proposed Jewish state, 42% to a proposed Arab state, and 2% would become an international zone including Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and the surrounding territories. While city states have previously flourished (the Vatican, Monaco, Singapore and Hong Kong), it seems that this international zone would function more like the Free State of Danzig, a failure of the Treaty of Versailles. This partition was accepted by the Jews and wholly rejected by the Arabs:

One of the primary stated reasons Arabs rejected the 1947 UN Partition Plan was the allocation of 55% of the land to the Jewish state, despite Jews comprising only about 33% of the population. Arab leaders felt that this division was disproportionate, especially since Jewish land ownership at the time amounted to less than 10%. The remaining 45% was to be given to the Arab state, even though the Arab population was significantly larger and had a historical claim to much of the land. They also viewed the 33% Jewish population to be artificially inflated on account of Jewish immigration since the late 1800s.

However, this overlooks the fact that much of the land allocated to the Jewish state, especially the Negev Desert, was largely uninhabitable or sparsely populated. The Jewish population had also increased significantly due to immigration, much of it motivated by persecution in Europe. This fear of persecution was well founded, for since the founding of the State of Israel, in 1947, almost one million Jews lived in Muslim majority countries, today less than 30 000 now live in those same countries. The vast majority of Jews living in those countries left due to pressure, threats, and legal measures that made their lives untenable. Furthermore, the plan considered economic viability, which required connecting Jewish population centers with agriculture and the potential for development. Thus, while the Jewish state was given more land in terms of area, much of that land was desert, and its actual value was debatable.
Arab leaders fundamentally rejected the Zionist movement and the idea of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine. They viewed Zionism as a colonialist project, supported by Western powers, which sought to implant a foreign population into the Arab heartland. Many Arabs feared that the creation of a Jewish state would ultimately displace Arabs from their homes and lands, as Jewish immigration had been growing, and Zionist leaders were calling for a Jewish homeland. This deep opposition to the goals of Zionism made any plan that involved the establishment of a Jewish state unacceptable to Arab leaders.

This rejection of Zionism ignores the historical and religious connection that Jews have to the land of Israel, dating back three thousand years. Zionism, while supported by some Western powers, was primarily a national liberation movement aimed at securing a homeland for a persecuted people, particularly after centuries of European anti-Semitism, culminating in the Holocaust. The fear of displacement could have been mitigated by accepting the partition plan and working toward peaceful coexistence. Instead, rejection and ensuing conflict led to far more displacement and suffering for both Jews and Arabs.
Arabs in Palestine, like many other colonized peoples during the 20th century, aspired to national self-determination and sovereignty. Towards the middle of the 20th century, they sought the establishment of an Arab-majority state in Palestine, where Arabs would have full control of their land and governance. They viewed the partition as a violation of this right to self-determination, particularly because it was proposed by an international body and supported by Western powers that were mistrusted by the Arabs.

The argument for Arab sovereignty does not take into account that the Jewish population in Palestine also had a right to self-determination. Both Jews and Arabs had legitimate claims to the land, and the partition plan was an attempt to balance these competing nationalisms. Additionally, the prevailing view of the Arab majority was that all Jews living in this Palestinian state should live there as dhimmi, or second-class citizens, a status akin to apartheid. The international community however, through the United Nations, recognized the need for a compromise solution to prevent ongoing violence and conflict. Rejecting the partition meant rejecting a peaceful and legal process for achieving sovereignty for both peoples, leading instead to war and further loss of control for the Arabs.
The UN Partition Plan proposed placing Jerusalem under international administration due to its religious significance to Muslims, Christians, and Jews. Arab leaders rejected this provision, insisting that Jerusalem, a city sacred to Islam, should remain under Arab control. They feared that international administration would undermine Arab sovereignty over one of the most important religious and historical sites in the Arab world, for the Qur'an says that Muhammad ascended into heaven after travelling from the Kaaba to the "farthest mosque", which was subsequently interpreted as the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. They saw this as another attempt by foreign powers to impose their will on the region.

While Jerusalem is indeed a city of importance to Muslims, it is also significant to Christians and even more important to Jews, for whom it was the capital of their state for a millennium and the location of the only Temple to their god Yahweh: all these groups have deep religious and historical ties to the city. The internationalization of Jerusalem was proposed to ensure that it would be accessible and protected for all faiths, preventing any one group from claiming exclusive control. The rejection of this plan ignored the diversity of Jerusalem's religious communities and set the stage for future conflict over the city's status. International administration was intended as a fair compromise, which could have helped preserve peace and religious tolerance in the region.
During the mid-20th century, Arab nationalism and pan-Arabism were on the rise, with leaders across the Arab world calling for unity among Arab peoples. Many Arabs saw the partition plan as a betrayal of this unity, particularly since Palestine--with Jerusalem--was considered an integral part of the Arab world. Accepting the partition would, in their view, fragment the Arab nation and allow a foreign, Jewish state to be implanted in the midst of the Arab homeland. Arab governments, including those of Egypt, Syria, and Iraq, supported the Palestinian rejection of partition, emphasizing the need for solidarity among Arab nations.

While pan-Arabism was a powerful ideology at the time, it failed to account for the diverse realities. Jewish communities in the southern Levant had been building their own identity and infrastructure for almost a century, and rejecting partition did not strengthen Arab unity but rather led to a costly war that weakened the Arab position in the region. Additionally, many Arab states had their own interests in rejecting partition, and their support for Arabs of the southern Levant was not always consistent or effective.
Many Arabs distrusted the United Nations and Western powers, particularly Britain and the United States, whom they saw as complicit in the Zionist project. This distrust was rooted in the colonial legacy of Western interference in the Middle East, including the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the Balfour Declaration, and the British Mandate in Palestine. Arabs believed that the partition plan was yet another example of Western powers imposing their will on the region without regard for the wishes of the indigenous Arab population.

While the colonial history certainly created mistrust, the partition plan was supported by an international body, the United Nations, which included countries from outside the Western sphere, including the Soviet Union and various non-Western states. The rejection of the plan on the basis of Western distrust ignored the fact that many non-Western nations also supported a peaceful solution to the conflict. Additionally, the UN was attempting to create a framework for coexistence, not impose long-term foreign control over the region. By rejecting the plan, the Arab leadership once again missed an opportunity to work within a global diplomatic framework.

Additionally, the founding of Israel was a movement of a historically persecuted and stateless Jewish people seeking to return to their ancestral homeland, driven by a desire for self-determination and refuge from centuries of oppression. Unlike colonial ventures, which involve imperial conquest and exploitation, the Zionist movement was fueled by a profound connection to the land of Israel, deeply rooted in Jewish history and religion. Far from aiming to dominate or exploit, Jews sought to build a peaceful and secure homeland where they could live freely. Their immigration to Palestine was legal and supported by first the Ottoman Empire and later the international agreements during the British Mandate, making their efforts a legitimate and just pursuit of a long-denied right to national sovereignty.
Some Arab leaders and militias believed that rejecting the partition plan would lead to a swift military victory over the Jewish population, allowing them to take control of all of Palestine without the need for compromise. There was a strong belief, supported by various Arab governments, that the combined Arab forces would be able to defeat the embryonic Jewish state and prevent the establishment of Israel. This confidence in military success contributed to the rejection of the partition and the escalation of conflict.

This belief in a swift military victory reflected a clear intolerance toward any political presence of Jews in the southern Levant. It was an outright rejection of the Jewish community's pursuit of self-determination and an effort to deny this right to Jews already living in the region. The stated goal of many Arab leaders at the time was to eliminate the possibility of a Jewish state altogether, with some rhetoric suggesting the intent to drive the Jewish population out of the area, raising concerns about potential ethnic cleansing or even genocidal ambitions. Instead of accepting a compromise that recognized the Jewish people's right to a homeland in their ancestral land, the decision to pursue war escalated the risk of large-scale violence and displacement.

Jews, represented by organizations such as the Jewish Agency for Palestine, lobbied in favor of the adoption of this partition, while Arab leadership in the Mandate of Palestine and the broader Arab League soundly rejected it. Declarations were made by the Arab leadership that they would resist the implementation of the partition plan by any means necessary, including force. It was on November 29, 1947, that the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution that recommended the adoption of this partition plan. The next day saw the start of a civil war in the Mandate of Palestine.

The civil war was initiated by the Arabs in the British Mandate of Palestine, leading to widespread protests, strikes, and violent attacks against Jewish communities. The Jewish response was initially defensive: the Haganah and other Jewish militias focused on protecting Jewish neighborhoods and settlements from Arab attacks. However, as the conflict intensified and Arab aggression escalated, Jewish forces began to engage in retaliatory actions and, in some cases, launched offensive operations to secure areas designated for the Jewish state under the UN partition plan.

Up to this point, the surrounding Arab states had not yet officially intervened in the civil conflict, though they provided material and moral support to Palestinian Arab militias. The Arab League and individual Arab countries encouraged the Arabs in the British Mandate of Palestine to resist the partition plan and worked to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state. Notably, German and Bosnian veterans, including former intelligence officers, Wehrmacht soldiers, and even Waffen SS officers, were among the volunteers fighting for the Palestinian cause. These included hundreds of members from the 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS "Handschar" (1st Croatian) and the 23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS "Kama" (2nd Croatian). Considering the atrocities committed by the SS during World War II, culminating in the genocide of the Jewish people in Europe, one must critically reflect on the motivations behind employing individuals with such a deeply troubling history in this conflict.

In the first four-and-a-half months of 1948, numerous atrocities were committed by Arabs:

In January, two- to three-hundred paramilitary soldiers from the Arab Liberation Army surrounded the kibbutz of Yehi'am in Western Galilee. They were unable to penetrate the defences, but on March 27, a convey carrying supplies on route to this beleaguered settlement was attacked and 47 Jews were killed.
Similarly, the Hadassah Hospital and the Hebrew University campus on Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, were blockaded, with the one mile-and-a-half long mined and Arab-controlled road being the only access. The rhetoric of the commander of the Arab paramilitaries in Jerusalem, Abdul Kader Husseini, threatened that these outposts would be captured or destroyed, stating "Since Jews have been attacking us and blowing up houses containing women and children from bases in Hadassah Hospital and Hebrew University, I have given orders to occupy or even demolish them." On April 13, a convey of medical personnel, patients, and supplies, guarded by soldiers. 78 Jews were killed, including doctors, nurses, and patients. Two buses were set on fire and most of the victims therein were burned to death. One British officer, Jack Churchill, did attempt to coordinate help, but it was too little, too late, but he did manage to help subsequently evacuate approximately 700 doctors, students and patients from the hospital.
To be continued...

On May 14, 1948, the Jewish political leadership declared independence.

On May 15, 1948, armies from five Muslim states invaded the newly declared state of Israel, supporting Arab soldiers, irregulars, and paramilitary groups already in the region. Ultimately, forces from ten Muslim states contributed soldiers in an effort to nip the fledgling Jewish state in the bud. The primary objectives of these armies was to prevent the establishment of the state of Israel and to support Arabs in their quest to maintain absolute political control over the entire Mandate of Palestine. Most Arab countries refused to recognize any division of Palestine and sought to control the entirety of the land. The Arab League’s declaration described the Partition Plan as fundamentally unjust and stated that they would not accept the establishment of Israel by peaceful or forced means. The invading Arab armies launched coordinated attacks on critical Jewish settlements with the aim of overwhelming and destroying the nascent Israeli military, thus eliminating the Jewish state's sovereignty. The Egyptian, Iraqi, and Syrian armies launched assaults from the south and north, with the stated goal of “driving the Jews into the sea”—a term that underscored their intention of at best the political marginalization of the Jewish population and at worst the ethnic cleansing of the region. One exception was King Abdullah of Transjordan, who had a more nuanced goal. His army, the Arab Legion, primarily concentrated on securing the West Bank and East Jerusalem, with the objective of annexing these areas to Transjordan. While Abdullah had secretly negotiated with Zionist leaders, his ambitions were more territorial than ideological, seeking to expand Transjordan’s influence rather than completely eradicating the Jewish state. It is clear that the goal of the invading Arab armies was the destruction of Israel and the prevention of any Jewish state in the southern Levant. It was not their intention to simply ensure that Arabs maintained control of the lands allocated to them under the 1947 Partition Plan.

These invading armies were supported by the local Arab population, for the invading Arabs received significant support from the local Arab population. Many locals joined paramilitary groups and militias, such as the Arab Liberation Army, and actively fought alongside the formal Arab armies. They provided logistical support by supplying food, water, and shelter, and used their knowledge of the local terrain to offer reconnaissance and intelligence on Jewish positions and movements. In addition, some engaged in guerrilla warfare, participating in ambushes and small-scale attacks that complemented larger military efforts.

However, the level of support varied across different regions. While many Arabs were ideologically aligned with the goal of preventing the establishment of a Jewish state, not all were equally involved in the conflict. Some communities, particularly in mixed cities, were divided internally, and others sought to avoid the violence altogether. This variation in support highlights the complex dynamics within the local Arab population during the war.

While genocide was not core to the intentions of the invading armies, Arab leaders and commanders hinted at their genocidal intent, including phrases such as "driving the Jews into the Sea." Specifically, the Grant Mufti of Jerusalem called for the destruction of the Jewish population in the southern Levant. Arab propaganda would often encourage violent retribution against Jewish settlers. Fortunately, most of the professional armies showed constraint during the conflict.

The second agreement on the part of the British government was the Balfour Declaration, issued on November 2, 1917, a statement expressing support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in the southern Levant. The declaration was made in a letter from British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, and it was intended to garner support from Jewish communities worldwide during World War I. The declaration was significant because it marked the first time a major world power endorsed the Zionist aspiration for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. However, it also included a provision that nothing should be done to prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in the southern Levant or the rights and political status of Jews in other countries.

Following World War I, the Ottoman Empire's territories in the Middle East were divided among the victorious Allied powers under the Sykes-Picot Agreement and subsequent treaties. The League of Nations established mandates within this region, with France receiving the Mandate of Syria, which included present-day Syria and Lebanon. The British were granted by the League of Nations the Mandate of Palestine, which included the territories of present-day Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, and Jordan.

In 1921, the British created the Emirate of Transjordan (later Jordan) east of the Jordan River as a separate administrative division within the Mandate of Palestine. The name "Palestine" was subsequently applied to the territory strictly west of the Jordan River, covering what would eventually become Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank, and became the first modern use of that name.

The third Aliyah (1919 to 1923)

Following the Great War, a third Aliyah--now organized and supported by Zionist institutions--continued from 1919 to 1923, bringing about 35,000 Jews to Palestine, many of them from Eastern Europe. This migration was largely rooted in the instability and hardships faced by Jews in Eastern Europe following the Great War. The collapse of empires, political upheaval, and the Russian Revolution led to widespread violence and chaos, with Jews being targeted in pogroms, particularly in Ukraine and Russia, where tens of thousands were killed. Economic hardship further compounded their situation, as the postwar period saw poverty and unemployment rise in Jewish communities. Additionally, restrictive immigration policies in the United States and Western Europe, such as the U.S. Immigration Act of 1921, limited the options for Jews seeking refuge, prompting many to consider Palestine as a more viable destination. Many of these Jews were refugees fleeing war, persecution, and economic hardship, but a strong Zionist drive also shaped their migration, meaning not all were refugees in the traditional sense. Those who emigrated had a focus on establishing agricultural settlements and promoting labour Zionism which espoused ideas such as kibbutzim (collective farms) and moshavim (cooperative villages). These Zionists saw the act of manual labor and agricultural work as a means to "redeem" both the Jewish people and the land of Palestine by reconnecting the Jews to the land of Israel. In parallel during this time, non-Jewish migration to Palestine was limited. Arab workers from neighboring regions like Transjordan and Syria migrated for economic opportunities in the expanding cities and agricultural sectors. British colonial personnel also arrived with the establishment of the British Mandate. Additionally, small numbers of Christian clergy, pilgrims, and Armenian refugees settled in Palestine, but these movements were minor compared to the significant wave of Jewish immigration during this period.

During this time, the Arab demands were focused on both resisting the increased Jewish immigration and rejection of the Balfour Declaration. Even at this time, they supported no notion of of even a small Jewish state in the Mandate of Palestine. Instead, they sought a representative government in Palestine, that would represent their majority and protection of their rights and thus eliminating any Zionist political influence. Many hoped for political unity with Greater Syria to the north and at this time, there was no mention of a separate Palestinian nation-state.

Arab opposition to Jewish immigration led to violent actions marked by the intent to create widespread fear and insecurity. In events like the Nabi Musa Riots of 1920 and the Jaffa Riots of 1921, Arab mobs attacked Jewish civilians, looted homes, and destroyed property, aiming to disrupt Jewish settlement efforts and make daily life unsafe. These attacks specifically targeted non-combatants, with the goal of pressuring the Jewish population to abandon their aspirations for a homeland. In response, Jewish communities formed self-defense organizations such as the Haganah, recognizing the need to protect themselves from these calculated acts of violence intended to destabilize and intimidate.

One of the most significant outbreaks of violence against Jews occurred during the Jaffa Riots of 1921. Arab mobs, fueled by growing tensions over Jewish immigration and land purchases, attacked Jewish neighborhoods in Jaffa and surrounding areas. Over the course of several days, 47 Jews were killed, and many more were injured. The violence spread to other locations, such as Petah Tikva and Rehovot, with Jewish homes and businesses looted and destroyed. These attacks were a direct response to the rising Jewish presence in Palestine, intensifying the Arab-Jewish conflict during the British Mandate period.

The fourth Aliyah (1924 to 1929)

During the Fourth Aliyah (1924–1929), approximately 80,000 Jewish immigrants arrived in Palestine, predominantly from Eastern Europe, Poland, Hungary, and Romania. Many of these immigrants were motivated by a combination of rising anti-Semitism, economic instability, and new immigration restrictions in other countries, such as the United States, which implemented the Immigration Act of 1924. Unlike the earlier waves of immigrants, who were primarily motivated by socialist Zionism and sought to build agricultural collectives, the newcomers of the Fourth Aliyah were largely middle-class, urban professionals and tradespeople. These Jews were largely economic refugees fleeing rising anti-Semitism and economic discrimination. They focused on establishing businesses and contributing to the growing urban economy, particularly in cities like Tel Aviv. The British, continuing their mandate in Palestine, allowed this immigration while attempting to maintain a balance between Jewish aspirations and Arab concerns. However, the growing Jewish presence increasingly fueled tensions in the region, particularly as the economic impact of Jewish urbanization became more visible.

The Arab response during this period evolved significantly from the reactions seen during the Third Aliyah. By the time of the Fourth Aliyah, Arab fears extended beyond immediate opposition to Jewish immigration; they were now concerned with the long-term consequences of losing political and economic control of Palestine. Arab leaders, recognizing the rapid expansion of Jewish businesses and land purchases, sought not only an end to Jewish immigration but also the complete nullification of the Balfour Declaration and the establishment of an Arab-controlled state. The goals of the Arab resistance had become more focused on preventing the growing Jewish urban presence from further displacing Arabs from their economic and social positions of power. The leadership of Amin al-Husseini and organizations like the Supreme Muslim Council reflected a more organized and determined effort to resist the Zionist movement and challenge British policies that supported it.

As tensions continued to rise, Arab resistance frequently took the form of violent actions against Jewish communities. Arab groups, often spurred by leaders during public rallies, targeted Jewish neighborhoods, businesses, and individuals in a deliberate attempt to spread fear and disrupt Jewish economic and social life. Jewish civilians traveling on roads or working in agricultural settlements were ambushed, and these attacks were aimed at undermining the growing Jewish presence by creating an environment of instability and danger. The violence was clearly calculated to erode the sense of security in Jewish communities, making their continued development more difficult. In response, the Jewish population bolstered its self-defense groups, such as the Haganah, to guard against further attacks and protect their settlements, recognizing that these hostile actions were not isolated but part of a broader effort to push them out of Palestine.

During the 1929 Palestine Riots, the most significant violent outbreaks against Jews occurred in Hebron and Safed, where Arab mobs, incited by rumors regarding Jewish intentions toward Muslim holy sites, attacked Jewish communities. In Hebron, 67 Jews were killed, and in Safed, 18 Jews lost their lives, with homes and synagogues destroyed in both cities. These attacks were part of a larger wave of violence that swept through Palestine, including in Jerusalem, leading to a total of around 133 Jewish deaths and hundreds of injuries. The violence was driven by rising tensions over Jewish immigration, land purchases, and disputes about access to religious sites, further deepening the divide between Arabs and Jews.

The fifth Aliyah (1929 to 1939)

The Fifth Aliyah (1929–1939) saw the arrival of approximately 250,000 Jewish immigrants to Palestine, making it one of the largest waves of immigration under the British Mandate. The primary driving force behind this migration was the escalating persecution of Jews in Europe, particularly following Hitler's rise to power in 1933 and the spread of anti-Semitic policies in Germany, Poland, and other Eastern European countries. The rise of Nazism and the increasing persecution of Jews across Europe left many with no choice but to flee. While earlier aliyot had elements of economic migration and ideological Zionism, this Aliyah was primarily driven by the urgent need to escape life-threatening persecution. These new immigrants were distinct from previous waves, as many were middle-class professionals—doctors, lawyers, and businesspeople—who contributed significantly to the growth of urban centers, especially Tel Aviv, and helped expand the economy. Additionally, many immigrants joined rural agricultural collectives, further strengthening the kibbutzim and moshavim systems. The Jewish leadership in Palestine focused on integrating these new arrivals, providing housing, employment, and developing infrastructure to accommodate the rapidly growing population.

In response to the Fifth Aliyah, Arab leaders intensified their political resistance, recognizing the demographic shift and its potential consequences for their community’s future in Palestine. The Arab Higher Committee, led by Amin al-Husseini, became the central political body organizing the opposition to Jewish immigration. Arab leaders pressed the British government to halt further immigration and land purchases, fearing that unchecked growth would ultimately lead to the creation of a Jewish state. They petitioned the League of Nations and other international bodies, arguing that Jewish immigration was undermining Arab rights and sovereignty. By 1936, these political pressures boiled over into a widespread and coordinated movement, leading to the Arab Revolt, during which Arab leaders demanded an immediate halt to Jewish immigration and called for the establishment of an Arab state.

Violence against Jewish communities escalated significantly during this period, as the 1936–1939 Arab Revolt brought widespread unrest. Arab militias targeted Jewish settlements, infrastructure, and individuals in an effort to disrupt the growing Jewish presence. The violence was especially pronounced in rural areas, where agricultural settlements were frequent targets of ambushes and raids. Arab groups also attacked Jewish workers traveling between cities, aiming to make it increasingly dangerous for Jews to move freely throughout the region. The revolt included widespread strikes and protests but was marked by armed confrontations and a concerted effort to destabilize Jewish economic and social development in Palestine. Jewish communities responded by strengthening their self-defense networks, notably the Haganah, which played a critical role in protecting Jewish settlements.

The most significant Jewish casualties occurred during the Arab Revolt, which saw hundreds of Jews killed in various attacks. Among the most brutal incidents was the 1938 Tiberias Massacre, where 19 Jews, including 11 children, were killed when Arab militants attacked the town. While Jewish deaths were significant, the revolt saw far more Arab casualties, as British forces responded with a heavy hand, suppressing the uprising through military action and punitive measures. Thousands of Arabs, both militants and civilians, were killed during British operations, and Arab leaders were imprisoned or exiled. The British response to the revolt left a deep scar on the Arab community, but it did little to ease the underlying tensions that continued to drive the Arab-Jewish conflict in Palestine.

The Arab response to increased Jewish migration to Palestine was not limited to the southern Levant. Attacks against Jews occurred in several parts of the Arab world during the period from 1917 to 1939, driven by fears of Zionism and local anti-Jewish sentiment. In Iraq, anti-Jewish violence escalated, culminating in the Farhud of 1941, when mobs in Baghdad killed around 180 Jews and looted their properties. In Egypt and Syria, while large-scale violence was less common, there were instances of anti-Jewish riots, including in 1929 when several Jews were killed in riots in Aleppo. In Yemen, Jews faced increasing discrimination and hostility during the 1920s and 1930s, with Jewish communities being targeted by local authorities and tribal leaders, leading to forced conversions, property confiscations, and occasional killings, though the exact number of deaths remains unclear. These actions reflected broader Arab opposition to Jewish immigration and the growing Zionist movement, creating an environment of fear and insecurity for Jewish populations throughout the region.

The Peel Commission (1936-37)

The Peel Commission was established in 1936 by the British government to investigate the underlying causes of the Arab Revolt (1936–1939) in Palestine and to recommend a way forward for governing the increasingly volatile region. The commission was set up in response to escalating violence, strikes, and protests by the Arab population, who were deeply opposed to continued Jewish immigration and land purchases. After months of investigation, the Peel Commission released its report in 1937, identifying the irreconcilable differences between the Jewish and Arab communities as the root cause of the unrest. Its most significant recommendation was that Palestine be partitioned into separate Jewish and Arab states, marking the first formal proposal for dividing the land. The commission suggested that the Jewish state would comprise roughly 20% of the land in Galilee, the Jezreel Valley and the Sharon coastal plain, while the Arab state would take the majority of the remaining territory. Jerusalem and surrounding areas, including Bethlehem, would remain under British control as an international zone due to their religious significance.

The Jewish response to the Peel Commission’s report was mixed but generally inclined toward acceptance. The Zionist leadership saw the recommendation as a historic opportunity to establish a Jewish state, albeit within a limited territory. Though the proposed borders were much smaller than what the Zionist movement had hoped for, many leaders viewed partition as a stepping stone toward future expansion. The Zionist Congress, after internal debate, officially endorsed the Peel Commission’s partition plan as a basis for negotiation, seeing it as the first official acknowledgment of a Jewish state in Palestine. However, some factions, particularly the Revisionist Zionists led by Ze'ev Jabotinsky, rejected the plan, arguing that it compromised too much of the Jewish historical homeland.

The Arab response to the Peel Commission was overwhelmingly negative. Arab leaders, including Amin al-Husseini and the Arab Higher Committee, rejected the partition proposal outright, seeing it as an unacceptable concession of Arab land to the Jewish minority. The idea of partition, which would establish a Jewish state, was viewed as a violation of Arab national rights and aspirations. Arabs also opposed the idea of losing any control over Jerusalem and other religious sites, which were to remain under British authority. For the Arab leadership, the report only intensified their demands for an end to Jewish immigration, the annulment of the Balfour Declaration, and the establishment of a unified, independent Arab state across all of Palestine. The rejection of partition led to the continued Arab revolt against both British rule and the Jewish presence in Palestine.

Following the release of the Peel Commission report, violence escalated as Arab militants responded to the proposed partition with intensified attacks on Jewish communities. Arab groups, already engaged in the ongoing revolt, viewed the partition plan as a direct threat to their aspirations, and many sought to disrupt its implementation through violent means. Jewish civilians, agricultural settlements, and infrastructure were frequent targets, with attacks aimed at creating a climate of insecurity and undermining the Jewish presence in the proposed partition areas. These attacks were intended to instill fear and push the Jewish population out of the region. As a result, Jewish defense organizations like the Haganah continued to grow in strength, organizing defenses against further assaults. British forces also responded with increased measures to suppress the violence, but the cycle of attacks and reprisals continued, deepening the conflict.

One can compare this response to the negotiated response surrounding the establishment of Lebanon as a separate entity from Syria. The Maronite Christian community faced atrocities during the Ottoman rule, particularly during the Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990), but notably not in the period between the end of World War I and the outbreak of the civil war. During the Great War, approximately 200,000 people in the Mount Lebanon region died--most of whom were Maronite Christian--with many more suffering from severe malnutrition. This crisis resulted from a combination of Ottoman policies, incompetence, and indifference. The Ottoman Empire imposed a naval blockade on the Levant, preventing vital supplies such as wheat and other foodstuffs from reaching the region. They also requisitioned food and livestock for their war effort and, in some instances, weaponized food to subdue the local population. Further compounding the crisis, a locust plague in 1915 destroyed much of the year's crops, exacerbating food shortages. Finally, an economic collapse in the region further crippled the local population's ability to cope. Despite the establishment of Lebanon as a separate state—an outcome that frustrated the Arab population—this period did not witness the killings, attacks, or revenge-based violence that characterized conflicts in the southern Levant. After the Great War, several factors contributed to a relative reduction in violence in Lebanon, despite the proposed establishment of Lebanon as a separate country. The Maronite Christian majority allowed them to maintain political dominance in the newly established state, supported by the French Mandate (1920–1943), which provided military and political backing, ensuring the Maronites’ privileged position in governance. Additionally, Lebanon’s geographic isolation, particularly the mountainous terrain of Mount Lebanon, helped insulate the country from external influences and conflicts in the surrounding regions. Finally, with the failure of the Great Syrian Revolt of 1925 to 1927, and its brutal suppression by the French, together with the fragmented response of the Arab and Druze communities, there was no political will to oppose the establishment of a country independent of Greater Syria. These factors combined to create a period of relative stability, even as sectarian tensions simmered beneath the surface. The political situation, while tense, remained largely non-violent until the outbreak of the Lebanese Civil War in 1975.

At this time, many Arab leaders, especially Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and the Arab Higher Committee, viewed Jews as a subordinate minority and opposed their political influence in Palestine. They envisioned a future Arab-majority state where Jews could live, but only without the right to national self-determination or any role in governance. Jews would be expected to accept Arab sovereignty, similar to the dhimmi status under Islamic rule, with limited civil and religious rights. As al-Husseini stated, "Palestine is an Arab country, and Jews can live here only if they accept Arab sovereignty." This reflected a strong opposition to any form of Jewish political or national presence in Palestine. Amin al-Husseini himself was a fierce opponent of Jewish immigration to Palestine and openly advocated for violence against Jews. He played a key role in inciting the 1929 Palestine Riots and the 1936–1939 Arab Revolt, using his influence to encourage uprisings and attacks on Jewish communities. Al-Husseini’s rhetoric framed Jews as enemies of Islam and Arab identity, and he called for their removal from Palestine. Prior to the outbreak of hostilities, he already shown support for fascist regimes, and this would lead to a subsequent alignment with Nazi Germany, meeting with Adolf Hitler and supporting the Final Solution. He also broadcast anti-Jewish propaganda in Arabic and helped recruit Muslim soldiers for the Nazis, further endorsing violence as a means to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state. During this time, he said

"The Jewish struggle against Arabs is nothing new for us, except that as time passed, the location of the battlefield changed. Jews hate Muhammad and Islam, and they hate any man who wishes to advance the prosperity of his people and to fight against Jewish lust for possessions and Jewish corruption. We, the Muslims, must always bear in mind the Khaibar feast. If the Jews betrayed Muhammad in such a way, why wouldn't they treacherously persecute us today with the purpose of destroying us?!

By 1939, the population of Mandatory Palestine was predominantly Arab, with a significant Jewish minority. The total Arab population, including Muslims and Christian Arabs, numbered around 1.1 million, forming approximately 70% of the population. The Jewish population, which had grown due to increased immigration, particularly during the 1930s, stood at about 450,000, representing roughly 30%. A smaller group of around 27,000 consisted of non-Arab Christians, Druze, Samaritans, and other minorities. Thus, the demographic ratio in Palestine in 1939 was about 2.5 Arabs for every Jew, a significant shift from earlier years due to the steady influx of Jewish immigrants under the British Mandate.

Between 1917 and 1939, Jewish violence against Arabs was primarily retaliatory, arising in response to Arab attacks, especially during the Arab Revolt (1936–1939). The Haganah, the primary Jewish defense organization, focused on protecting Jewish settlements, but more militant groups like the Irgun and Lehi took a more aggressive approach, carrying out bombings in Arab markets and villages. Notable incidents include the 1938 Haifa bombing, which killed 21 Arabs, and the Jaffa bombing, where 24 Arabs were killed. Jewish violence during this period was generally a reaction to escalating Arab attacks, but groups like the Irgun increasingly adopted a strategy of retaliatory violence. Estimates suggest that during the Arab Revolt, around 400 Jews were killed by Arabs, while several hundred Arabs were killed by Jews, primarily in retaliatory attacks carried out by militant Jewish groups like the Irgun. These actions contributed to the cycle of violence between the Jewish and Arab communities in Palestine, further entrenching hostilities leading up to the broader conflict that would erupt in the 1940s.

The Jewish world prior to the Second World War

Prior to the outbreak of the Second World War, Nazi rule in Germany and Austria caused half of the Jews living there to emigrate, though often to other Western European countries that would fall under the Nazi yoke. The treatment of Jews in countries that resulted from the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman empires were also variable:

The most positive continued to be countries like France, the United States, and The Netherlands, where Jews had legal equality and there were opportunities for social and economic integration.
Next, in countries like Poland and other new Eastern European countries, they were granted legal equality but there significant economic limitations and social discrimination.
The most severe restrictions were in Nazi Germany and Austria, although newer countries like Hungary and Iraq join Russia and Morocco where Jews had limited legal rights and faced significant social and economic discrimination.
Nazi Germany and then Nazi Austria join Yemen, Iran, and Romania.

Thus, between the wars, one-and-a-quarter million Jews fled their homelands due to increasing persecution from mostly European countries:

Poland: 500,000
Germany: 304,000
Austria: 126,000
Romania: 95,000
Soviet Union: 70,000
Hungary: 50,000
Lithuania: 40,000
Czechoslovakia: 30,000
Latvia: 25,000
Yemen: 10,000

One quarter of these Jews fled to Palestine, although many found refuge in more moderate countries throughout the world:

Palestine: 320,000
United States: 200,000
Argentina: 50,000
United Kingdom: 50,000
France: 40,000
Brazil: 27,000
South Africa: 20,000
Mexico: 20,000
Canada: 16,500
Australia: 7,000

Half of the Jews who emigrated to Palestine came from Poland and another quarter came from former Austro-Hungarian (except for Austria) and Russian empires countries. Only 10% of Jews from Germany and Austria fled to Palestine, most seeking refuge in developed first- and second-world countries.