Mandate Days: British Lives in Palestine, 1918-1948

by A.J. Sherman

One of the great dramas in British imperial history, the strife-torn three decades of British rule in Palestine, known as the Mandate, remain controversial even now, more than fifty years after the last British High Commissioner left Jerusalem. British policies, promises, and the mere presence of Britain in the Holy Land are still passionately debated and deplored. The thousands of British citizens who actually lived and worked in Palestine have, however, been overlooked. Here for the first time is their story, drawn largely from personal letters, diaries, and memoirs that vividly describe their success in adapting to life in Palestine, their attitudes toward Arabs and Jews, their accomplishments and missteps, and their strong sense of imperial mission. This powerful account brings to life a notable chapter in the history of the Middle East and provides a new perspective on the struggle there for independence and nationhood.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Israel, Middle East

264 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1998

Reviews

[Chris Phillips · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gosh such a complex story. A must read for anyone wanting to even begin to understand the horrific story of the people living now in the Palestine/Israeli region.

Do not ever for one moment believe that it is simple. Reading this book will make you realise that this area is in a terrible position, people here have never lived in peace all their lives.

Also realise that this region has been "played" with politically for over 100 years. It is NOT just JEWS and ARABS fighting for their religion. It is POLITICAL, rather than religious, and about race.

During WW2 everyone's sympathy was directed towards the Jews because of the Nazi (& others) hatred of Jews. I want to say this though MOST Jews are fine upright people as are Arabs. But to hear todays problems most people are fed up with their terrible treatment metered out to each other. But it is really political motivation, using religion to back it up.

The Jews who lived there before the European Jews started taking over parts of Palestine, were reasonably at peace with the Arabs (Christian And Moslem). However good Balfour's intentions might have been in his declaration for forming a homeland for Jews, has created a problem of making a living hell in most of Palestine.

The terrorists on both sides are evil, and seem to have no care for the religions they supposedly represent. All three of the Abraham religions in Palestine believe in the same God, the same Abraham , including "DO NOT KILL". When those terrorists ACT in their beliefe we might have peace there.

But this book will begin to help one understand the problems are NOT one sided, but MANY sided.

[Rida · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a good book and very impartial. It does what it says it does, and that is: present the lives of the British officers and civilians who ruled and lived in Palestine from 1918 to 1948. A few things are bothersome about it:
1. it only includes sketchy details of important skirmishes that are actually worthy of much more attention but that is pretty understandable I suppose as the book makes no claim to detailing the troubles anyway, only the lives of the British in the Palestine;
2. most frustratingly, it adopts the position that the British were victims of circumstances and had no real control whatsoever on Palestine or Palestinians (and subsequently the final culmination of the problems in the shape of the state of Israel) which is self-contradictory as the book details how the British exerted often brutal control over the Arabs and the Jews and quelled Arab and Jewish rebellion (the latter only to a limited extent especially given the ultimate realisation of Zionist schemes). A frequently asserted point is that the vast majority of the British on the ground in Palestine had serious misgivings regarding the prospect of establishing a Zionist 'Jewish homeland' on Palestinian land as they were the ones who understood its perils and impracticality, but the British Government in London was relentless in its promotion of the Zionist plan (and given the fact that the 'Mandate' was set up for the express purpose of establishing a Jewish homeland, that seems pretty obvious). That does not rule out Britain's role in the events that took place; if anything, it reinforces it vigorously.
3. the book mostly consists of a fairly constricted range of primary sources in the form of letters, autobiographies, etc. There is not a whole lot of explanation or interpretation besides cursory generalisations and reiterations. There are many facts that are not sourced.
This book is not adequate to gain a sufficiently informed understanding of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The information it has is strictly only to do with the British, who, though arguably very much part of the play, are not the main players at all.

[Rhuff · Rating 4 out of 5]

A. J. Sherman's perceptive overview of Britain's 30-year "rule" in Palestine has only one major defect, hence my four stars: it's too brief. Perhaps he thought greater depth would get redundant. Yet it's still a necessary gap-filler in the history of the modern Middle East, from Allenby's famous walk through the Lion's Gate in Jerusalem, to Cunningham's last flight out to the tune of Auld Lang Syne.

Though not discussed in great length, Britain's motive was to establish a flanking presence for the Suez Canal. To this end, and to secure war loans, HMG offered the promise of a Jewish national home, a settlement zone on the Ulster model. It also promised post-WW I Arab self-rule. This forked tongue approach would haunt, and doom, whatever plans Britain had for the enclave. One suspects, from the views Sherman quotes, that there really were none.

Initially, when Jewish colonists were small in number, HMG hoped to rule it like any other colonial outpost - patronizing the natives, who would be grateful for British law and order. Most Brits of any station were quickly disabused of Sunday school fantasies and came to dislike their official Zionist allies. They preferred their simpler relations with the Arabs, yet had to rely on Jewish backup in the 30s Arab revolt against both. With the Arabs thus broken, there was no other force to play against the Zionists. In any case, Britain's empire was a spent force by the '40s, and no match for their well-heeled and armed adversaries.

The book, however slim, is a trove of private memoirs, public proclamations, and first-hand accounts of daily life, social festivals, counter-terrorist reprisals, and general confusion and dismay that no one would be "reasonable." (Sounding much like modern and flustered US officialdom "crafting a workable peace process.") In the end Britain "divided and fled" much like it would do in Ireland, India, and Cyprus. This should be a warning to future "peace-process" promoters: Oslo has failed as heavily as the Peel Commission. The accords of very important English-speaking men do not carry the weight of hand-engraved stone tablets from Sinai.

[Gery · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sherman writes an intriguing book detailing the lives of the British administrative functionaries and soldiers throughout the time of British Mandate for Palestine. It becomes apparent that overall the British were not necessarily fond of either the Jews nor the Arabs, owing to the civil disobedience, regular violent riots and acts of sabotage, and the perceived closed-mindedness of both parties. The aggregate of the personal thoughts and accounts of British citizens stationed in Palestine however lead the reader to believe that "the majority of the British official community in Palestine were, [...] either pro-Arab strictly impartial in detesting both sides...“, and that explicit antipathy was generally reserved towards the Jews. A revealing part reads as follows:

Even for a Jewish British officer, the Arabs, "whether they whined, or threatened, or cajoled, or protested", were always "picturesque, ingratiating, sympathetic", while the Jews, right or wrong, were "clumsy, fussy and aggressive".

The officials had the unfortunate task of walking a tightrope between appeasing and not antagonizing either party in this seemingly irreconcilable conflict, and seemed to take their responsibility of providing a system of law and order more serious than their expressed duty to "use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of" a national home for the Jewish people. It is not a coincidence that the Permanent Mandates Commission thought the 1939 White Paper as inconsistent with the terms of the Mandate.

The British officials (rightfully) felt that Jews, Arabs, the Americans and all other parties were acting ungrateful and did not appreciate the difficulty of satisfying the Mandate while keeping civil peace.

Overall a very enjoyable read!

[Anthony · Rating 3 out of 5]

A decent history of the Mandate. Sherman is a bit of a hack writer in that he is unquestionably guilty of the old block quote trick. There are literally pages and pages of block quotes tied together by 2-3 original sentences from Sherman's pen. Still, worth taking a look at.

[Jennifer Plummer · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book contains discussion based on the British Mandates in Palestine. The author uses many primary sources such as diaries and journals from the British men and women who were both officers and civilians.

[Eve · Rating 4 out of 5]

A totally different perspective on the Middle-east. A must read for those who want to know, how we got where we are in the Israeli/Palestinian stand-off. A fascinating read.

[Elizabeth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mandate Days: British Lives in Palestine, 1918-1948 by A.J. Sherman - One of my WWII books from my history major. I liked the British take on this very tense region. Happy Reading!