Arabs Peacefully Accepted Jewish Immigration Before 1948

CLAIM:

Before Israel was created in 1948, Jewish immigration to Palestine was largely accepted peacefully by the Arab population, and the conflict only started later.

STATUS:

False.

KEY COUNTERPOINTS:

Organized Arab violence against Jewish communities in Palestine began in 1920 — over 28 years before Israel’s declaration of independence.
British government commissions of inquiry documented a pattern of escalating, Arab-initiated attacks on Jewish civilians throughout the 1920s and 1930s — not isolated incidents, but recurring massacres tied explicitly to opposition to Jewish immigration.
The 1936-1939 Arab Revolt was a structured, sustained campaign with three stated goals: end Jewish immigration, ban land sales to Jews, and achieve independence from British rule — all three in explicit opposition to a Jewish presence in Palestine.

EVIDENCE:

1920 Nebi Musa riots (Jerusalem): Arab religious leaders delivered incitement speeches during the annual Nebi Musa festival. Crowds attacked Jewish neighborhoods in the Old City, killing 5 Jews and wounding over 200. The British Palin Commission was convened to investigate. The military governor of Jerusalem, Ronald Storrs, later wrote that the violence caused all carefully built relations of understanding between British, Arabs and Jews to collapse.
1921 Jaffa riots: Arab mobs attacked Jewish neighborhoods in Jaffa, killing 47 Jews. The Haycraft Commission of Inquiry found that Arab hostility toward Zionist immigration was a central cause.
1929 Hebron massacre: On August 24, 1929, Arab mobs attacked the Jewish quarter of Hebron — a community with an 800-year continuous presence — killing 67 Jews including women, children, and yeshiva students. Jewish synagogues were desecrated and a Jewish hospital that treated Arab patients was ransacked. The British Shaw Commission described it as “a most ferocious attack” and “a savage attack of which no condemnation could be too severe.” The massacre was triggered by fabricated rumors that Jews were planning to seize Al-Aqsa Mosque — a lie the British confirmed was false.
1936-1939 Arab Revolt: A general strike launched in April 1936 explicitly demanded: (1) end to Jewish immigration, (2) ban on land sales to Jews, (3) independence from British rule. The British Peel Commission, appointed to investigate the revolt, concluded for the first time that the Mandate had become unworkable and recommended partition. Arab leadership rejected partition entirely.

PRIMARY SOURCES:

Shaw Commission Report (1930) — Report on the Palestine Disturbances of August 1929 https://britainpalestineproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/shaw-commission-reducedpdf_compressed-1.pdf The official British government inquiry into the 1929 riots, chaired by Sir Walter Shaw. Documented the Hebron massacre in detail, attributed primary responsibility to Arab attackers, and identified Arab political fears about Jewish immigration as the fundamental underlying cause.

“They took the form, for the most part, of a vicious attack by Arabs on Jews accompanied by wanton destruction of Jewish property.” Page 156.

“The fundamental cause… is the Arab feeling of animosity and hostility towards the Jews…” Page 164.

“The feeling… is based on the twofold fear of the Arabs that by Jewish immigration and land purchase they may be deprived of their livelihood and in time pass under the political domination of the Jews.” Page 164

Palin Commission Report (1920) — Report of the Court of Inquiry on the 1920 Nebi Musa Riots
https://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/yabber/yabber_palin.html
An unpublished British military commission investigating the April 1920 Jerusalem riots. One of the earliest official records of organized Arab violence against Jewish communities in Mandatory Palestine.

“The Army appointed a commission headed by Major-General Palin to enquire into the circumstances of the riot…The British remained in control of Palestine until they left in 1948. During this time, there were a series of violent incidents…mostly taking the form of riots by the Arab population against the Zionists and more generally against the Jewish population.”

Peel Commission Report (1937) — Palestine Royal Commission Report https://www.britannica.com/event/Peel-Commission
Commissioned by the British government in 1936 following the Arab Revolt, led by Lord Peel. The commission concluded that Arab-Jewish conflict had become irreconcilable and recommended partition — the first time Britain officially acknowledged the Mandate was failing. Arab leadership rejected partition and renewed violence.

“Palestinian Arabs, desiring political autonomy and resenting the continued Jewish immigration into Palestine, disapproved of the mandate, and by 1936 their dissatisfaction had grown into open rebellion.”

Britannica: 1936-1939 Arab Revolt in Palestine
https://www.britannica.com/event/1936-1939-Arab-Revolt-in-Palestine
Academic overview of the revolt’s causes and demands, confirming that the explicit aims of the 1936 general strike were to end Jewish immigration and land sales to Jews.

“The demands of the strike were an end to the rapidly growing wave of Jewish immigration (the Fifth Aliyah), a prohibition on land sales to Jews to prevent further Arab dispossession, and independence from British rule.”

STRONGEST COUNTER ARGUMENTS WORTH KNOWING:

Some historians argue that early Arab opposition was primarily political rather than violent — formal petitions, strikes, and civic protests — and that large-scale violence accelerated mainly due to rapid demographic shifts during the Mandate period. This is partially true and should not be dismissed; the violence did escalate as immigration numbers grew. However, the documented pattern of anti-Jewish massacres from 1920 onward undermines the claim that conflict only emerged in 1948.
British policies were inconsistent and often inflammatory. The Balfour Declaration created competing expectations, and successive White Papers swung between pro-Zionist and pro-Arab positions. Blaming British mismanagement for escalating tensions is a legitimate historiographical argument — but it does not explain or excuse the massacres of Jewish civilians who had no control over British policy.
Some Arab villages and individuals protected Jewish neighbors during the 1929 riots. This is historically documented and should be acknowledged. It demonstrates the conflict was not monolithic and that individual relationships sometimes crossed communal lines.

NOTES:

The burden of proof is entirely on the person making this claim. The documented record includes British government commissions, military reports, and eyewitness testimony — all of it produced by neutral or often pro-Arab British administrators — consistently describing organized, recurring Arab violence against Jewish civilians beginning in 1920. The conflict did not begin in 1948; 1948 was when regional Arab armies formalized what had already been a decades-long communal war.

Tactical communication note: When this claim appears in debate, the most effective response is to cite the Shaw Commission directly — a British government document that cannot easily be dismissed as Zionist propaganda. The commission explicitly called the Hebron attack “ferocious” and “savage,” attributed primary responsibility to Arab attackers, and documented the violence in clinical detail. The British had no interest in fabricating evidence against the Arab population; they were in fact generally sympathetic to Arab political concerns, which makes the commission’s conclusions more credible, not less.

Misleading framing to watch for: The claim often frames the conflict as a reaction to Israeli statehood or the 1948 war. This conflates cause and effect. The 1948 war was itself a continuation of violence that British mandatory authorities had been trying to suppress since 1920. Pointing to 1948 as the “start” ignores everything documented above.

**See more

Israel’s Conflict with Palestine Is a Simple Colonial Settler Project
Israel Started the 1967 Six-Day War

Explorer