In 1917 the British Government gave its sanction to the establishmentof a Jewish National Home in Palestine. In 1948 the independentState of Israel came into existence as an outgrowth of that sanction.At the end of this thirty-one year period the Jews constituted aboutone-third of the population of Palestine, but their tremendous zeal,backed by a large financial outlay by the Jews of the Diaspora, madethem more than a match for the remainder of the population. During thethree decades of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, they had builta prosperous community in the midst of a conservative society.

My dissertation examines Muslim-Christian relations in Palestine during the British mandate period, specifically, around the question of what constituted Palestinian-Arab identity. More broadly speaking, the dissertation addresses the topic within the context of the larger debate concerning the role of material factors (those related to specific historical developments and circumstances) versus that of ideological ones. in determining national identities. At the beginning of the twentieth, century, two models of Arab nationalism were proposed-a more secular one emphasising a shared language and culture (and thus, relatively inclusive of non-Muslims) and one wherein Arab identity was seen as essentially an extension of the Islamic religious community, or umma. While many historians dealing with Arab nationalism have tended to focus on the role of language (likewise, the role of Christian Arab intellectuals), I would maintain that it is the latter model that proved determinative of how most Muslim Arabs came to conceive of their identity as Arabs. Both models were essentially intellectual constructs; that the latter prevailed in the end reflects the predominance of material factors over ideological ones. Specifically, I consider the impact of social, political and economic changes related to the Tanzimat reforms and European economic penetration of the nineteenth century; the role of proto-nationalist models of communal identification-particularly those related to religion; and finally, the role played by political actors seeking to gain or consolidate authority through the manipulation of proto-nationalist symbols.

Britain's presence in Palestine coincided with a promise to Zionists to support the establishment of a Jewish national home. For two decades, Britain continued to support Zionist aims in Palestine including immigration and colonization, even in the aftermath of the first phase of an Arab Revolt in 1936 that shook the foundations of British colonial rule and could not be suppressed without intervention from neighboring Arab states. With the Arab Revolt in full force again from 1937 to 1939, in the midst of preparations for war in Europe, British statesmen questioned and reinterpreted promises the British government had made to Zionists two decades earlier. The resulting new policy was published in the White Paper of May 1939. By using the White Paper as a lens it is possible to widen the scope of investigation to examine the end of British rule in Palestine in a broader context than that provided by the years after World War II, 1945 to 1948. The White Paper of 1939 introduced three measures: immigration quotas for Jews arriving in Palestine, restrictions on settlement and land sales to Jews, and constitutional measures that would lead to a single state under Arab majority rule, with provisions to protect the rights of the Jewish minority. The White Paper’s single state was indeed a binational state, where it would be recognized by law that two peoples, two nations, inhabited Palestine. But the provisions of the White Paper were self-contradictory. Constitutional measures and immigration restrictions advanced the idea of a binational state with a permanent Jewish minority, while land restrictions aimed to keep Jews where they had already settled, legislation more in keeping with the idea of partition. The debate between partition and a binational state continued throughout these years. This work examines the motivations for the White Paper, foremost among them to keep the world Jewish problem separate from Britain's Palestine problem and to assure stability throughout the Middle East. An investigation based on the White Paper introduces a number of important debates that took place between 1936 and 1948 and echo into the present. / text

No description available.