Talk:1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine

NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removing the POV tag

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

Great Uprising or Great Revolt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not my opinion, it's a plain fact that anyone can check. Ask any Israeli lawyer where Israel's "Emergency Regulations" came from. The British passed the main regulations in 1937 then amended them in 1945. Israel adopted them in 1948 except for a few that were explicitly repealed by the Law and Administration Ordinance (1948). Some other British laws such as one on collective punishments passed in 1936 were part of Israeli law until repealed in the 1960s. All this is common knowledge. See [1] for more information (or any convenient book on the sources of Israeli law). Since Jordan did not repeal these regulations in 1948 with regard to the West Bank, they were deemed to still apply there in 1967 (Military Proclamation 2, 7 June 1967). --Zero 14:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photos leaders of the Revolution

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

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

Irgun attacks on the British during WWII

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

References

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

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

Picture

@Al Ameer son: Can you please upload a newer version of this picture? [2] through [3]. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Ok, here is the Getty[4] caption: "This photograph was found on the body of Nur Ibrahim a well known leader of the Arab rebellion, who was killed by a patrol of the West Kents (Photo by Popperfoto via Getty Images/Getty Images)". This[5] page says "This picture was found on the body of Nur Ibrahim, well-known leader of the Arab rebellion, who was killed with four of his men in the hills by a British patrol. November 16, 1938. Photographer:Sydney Morning Herald", which is obviously incorrect, but it may be where it was first published. But if it's true, then it is public domain per Australian copyright laws too. It's a bit complicated, so perhaps it's a good idea to ask at Commons[6], but it can perhaps result in us having a more solid copyright tag and then we can use any large resolution version of the photo. FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I've started a section about it here:[7] FunkMonk (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Doing a Google image search, I found an even larger version[8] and updated the one on Commons, so all you have to do is update the description with the circumstances, and I think you could use any of the links above as source for that. Note I also found there is another version of the image on Commons:[9] FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

By the way, interesting that this[10] image appears to show female fighters. Could be nice to find a higher res version and more info about it, to counter some modern stereotypes. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, Google image research works like a charm[11], it's Fatima Khalil Ghazal. FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2024

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

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

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

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

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

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request

This edit in lead has a few grammar mistakes. "Was began" doesn't make sense. I think it would be better if sentence read (changes in bold): The first phase began as spontaneous popular resistance, which was seized on by the urban and elitist Arab Higher Committee, giving the movement an organized shape that was focused mainly on strikes and other forms of political protest, in order to secure a political result.2800:250A:20:768B:17D8:D622:8C9E:E4D5 (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, done. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Change to lead to be discussed and reviewed

I changed the lead from:

[...] demanding Arab independence and the end of the policy of open-ended Jewish immigration and land purchases with the stated goal of establishing a "Jewish National Home".

to

The movement sought independence from British colonial rule and the end of the British authorities' support for Zionism, which sought the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine by means of mass migration and displacement of the local Arab population.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

What you wrote is so blatantly biased. Please change it back to the more neutral language 1Rudster (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request: Change biased text

Please, change

The movement sought independence from British colonial rule and the end of the British authorities' support for Zionism, which sought the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine by means of mass migration and displacement of the local Arab population.

to

demanding Arab independence and the end of the policy of open-ended Jewish immigration and land purchases with the stated goal of establishing a "Jewish National Home".

The current version is:

1) biased. Is sounds like the Grand Replacement conspiracy theory.

2) incorrect. Only some types of Zionism seek displacement of Arabs. Socialist Zionism, the most popular at that time, demanded one state for Arabs and Jews.

3) Also, the current version doesn't clearly tell the exact aims of Arabs (end migration and ban land purchases).

Thank you! CEO of NYC (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

All of the early Zionist leaders explicitly stated that they were going to replace the indigenous population, and transfer it elsewhere. This was done openly, not conspiratorially. But I suggest you read Matthew Hughes, Britain’s Pacification of Palestine: The British Army, the Colonial State, and the Arab Revolt, 1936–1939, Cambridge University Press 2019 ISBN 978-1- 107- 10320-7, starting with its incipit:

'The Arab revolt from 1936 to 1939 – al-Thawra al-Kubra, ‘the Great Revolt’ in Arabic – was a popular uprising by Palestinians battling British Mandate rule in Palestine and Jewish immigration to the country.' p.1

From the second aliyah onwards, socialist Zionism implemented the substitution wherever possible of Arab labour with Jewish labour recruited from the immigrants. It was intrinsically ethnosocialist, despite a scattering of nice statements.Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Not done. Also the requested edit offers no sourcing. Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I tried to remove "sought the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine by means of mass migration and displacement of the local Arab population," but was reverted. However, I think it should be removed. It's POV, and it's not necessary for the summary of this article. Also, it's an oversimplification of what Zionism was or is. First of all, there were many strains of Zionism and it's not at all clear that displacement was sought, as CEO of NYC said, the dominant type of Zionism was labor Zionism at the time. Andre🚐 18:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

While it is true that there were many strains of Zionism, the revolt was against the strain that was mainstream in Palestine at the time (as perceived by the Palestinians). The existence of other strains that had minor influence is irrelevant. Zero^talk 10:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)