Skip Navigation



The English Historical Review Advance Access published online on March 12, 2009

The English Historical Review, doi:10.1093/ehr/cep002
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
CXXIV/507/313    most recent
cep002v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hughes, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2009]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

The Banality of Brutality: British Armed Forces and the Repression of the Arab Revolt in Palestine, 1936–39*

Matthew Hughes

Brunel University

Matthew Hughes for article entitled ‘The Banality of Brutality: British Armed Forces and the Repression of the Arab Revolt in Palestine, 1936-39.’ This article argues that the British used the legal system to legitimise brutal actions during their counter-insurgency (or colonial policing) campaign to defeat rebels during the Arab revolt in Palestine, 1936-39. The law was (re)constructed to provide a veneer of legal respectability to actions carried out by servicemen operating in the field against Arab rebels, allowing for reprisals and punitive actions against Palestinian civilians, targeted by the British in their offensive against rebels who were often hard to defeat in open battle. Lawlessness was the law. Servicemen were guided by a legal system that meant that they could accept the premises of their government that allowed for brutal actions, and they could do so with all the energy of good bureaucrats obeying orders. It shows that the British repression of the revolt was brutal and included torture and atrocities, notably at the villages of al-Bassa in 1938 and Halhul in 1939. More generally, its examination challenges the idea of British ‘exceptionalism’ in repressing imperial rebellions – the idea that there was a more benign British ‘way’ of dealing with colonial revolts. It suggests, however, that while some level of brutality became systematic and systemic, atrocious acts were exceptional and, comparatively speaking, British forces were more restrained than other colonial powers operating in similar circumstances. It also raises the issue of regimental differences in counter-insurgency methods.


* This article has been completed during tenure of the US Marine Corps University’s Major-General Matthew C. Horner Chair of Military Theory, funded by the Marine Corps University Foundations through the gift of Mr. and Mrs. Thomas A. Saunders. The author also acknowledges the support of the British Academy, the American University in Beirut, and the following individuals: Martin Alexander, Ian Beckett, Joanna Bourke, Ze’ev Elron, David French, Itamar Radai, Najate el-Rahi, Helen Sader, Avi Shlaim and Asher Susser.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.