No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 April 2018
The story of Hebron during the 1948 Palestine War remains largely untold, obscured by the larger historical forces of the Palestinian Nakba (Catastrophe) and refugee crisis that resulted from Israel's declaration of independence. This article examines the history and historiography of Hebron from mid-May 1948 until the departure of Egyptian troops from the country on 30 April 1949, a period referred to as the ‘Dual Era’, an unusual configuration between Jordan and Egypt in which both countries temporarily ruled over the city. It analyses the Dual Era against an emerging Egyptian and Jordanian proto-pan-Arab nationalism as each country's locally based leaders vied for support for their rule from the Palestinian population in Hebron.
Special thanks to David Brookshire, Rochelle Davis and Issam Nassar for reading and commenting on this article. Thanks also go to Salim Tamari at the Institute for Palestine Studies in Ramallah and Mutaz Qafisheh at Hebron University for inviting me to present earlier versions of this article.
1 To my knowledge, nobody has written a monograph in English examining urban history in modern Hebron, but one Ph.D. dissertation exploring nineteenth-century Hebron has recently been completed at New York University. Examples of studies on cities during the war or as a result of the war include: Tamari, S. (ed.), Jerusalem 1948: The Arab Neighbourhoods and their Fate in the War, 2nd edn (Jerusalem and Bethlehem, 2002)Google Scholar; LeVine, M., Overthrowing Geography: Jaffa, Tel Aviv and the Struggle for Palestine (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 2005)Google Scholar; Weiss, Y., A Confiscated Memory: Wadi Salib and Haifa's Lost Heritage (New York, 2011)Google Scholar.
2 Letter to prime minister, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, document number 30/2/6/35, 14 Mar. 1951, found in Jordan's National Archive. I employ this term though it may not have been the precise term for the entity. In Salih al-Majali's memoir, he uses the term ‘al-hukm al-thuna'i’ or condominium for the shared Egyptian–Jordanian rule in Hebron. al-Majali, S.R., Siratuhu wa-Hayatuhu Tiba'i‘hu, ed. al-Majali, R.S. (Amman, 1997), xmlGoogle Scholar. A few sources refer to Bethlehem as part of the Dual Era but not in enough detail to include more than a passing reference.
3 The Egyptian–Israeli Armistice Agreement discusses the Bethlehem–Hebron areas in Article VI.4. Hebron became a headquarters for Egypt and a main focus of attention, thus, the sources discuss this city in more detail. Bethlehem is occasionally mentioned in Article VI.4, but is not emphasized in this article for lack of additional corroborating sources. The armistice agreement can be found at: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/arm01.asp accessed 4 Jan. 2018.
4 Abdullah al-Tall, a Jordanian officer during the war, called King Abdullah out as a traitor for his actions. See n. 27. Shlaim advances the idea that King Abdullah reached an agreement with the Jewish Agency prior to the war to divide Palestine between them. Shlaim, A., Collusion across the Jordan: King Abdullah, the Zionist Movement, and the Partition of Palestine (New York, 1988)Google Scholar.
5 Sami ‘Amr, a Hebronite, had a seventh-grade education, yet kept two diaries, one during World War II and a smaller one during the first four months of 1949, an important part of the period studied here. Katz, K., ‘The “Dual Era” in Hebron through the diaries of Sami ‘Amr’, Biography, 38 (2015), 325–44Google Scholar. For the diary of Muhammad al-Shrouf, see Winder, A., ‘After the Nakba in Nuba: a Palestinian villager's diary, 1949’, Biography, 37 (2014), 398–xml.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 The Arab Archives for the late 1940s and into the early 1950s are limited. I mined the Israel State Archives, which holds most of Jordan's documentary record for the 1948–67 period without finding anything to add to this study. See also Rogan, E. and Shlaim, A. (eds.), The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948 (Cambridge and New York, 2001).Google Scholar
7 Bishtawi, I., Al-Shaykh Muhammad ‘Ali al-Ja‘bari wa-dawruhu fi al-hayat al-‘amma, 1900–1980 (Amman, 2005)Google Scholar; Jbara, T. et al., Madinat Khalil al-Rahman (Hebron, 1987)Google Scholar; al-Dabbagh, M. M., Biladuna Filastin: Fi diyar al-Khalil, vol. V, part 2 (Kafr Qara’, 2002).Google Scholar
8 al-‘Arif, A., Al-Nakba: Nakbat Bayt al-Maqdis wa-l-firdaws al-mafqud, vols. I–IV (Sayda, 1956–62)Google Scholar; Glubb, J.B., A Soldier with the Arabs (New York, 1957)Google Scholar; Abu Nowar, M., The Jordanian-Israeli War, 1948–1951: A History of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (Reading, 2002)Google Scholar; al-Sharif, K. and al-Siba‘i, M., Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun fi Harb Filastin (Cairo, 1984; first printed in 1951)Google Scholar. R.S. al-Majali compiled, edited and did additional research in publishing his father's papers under the title: al-Majali, Siratuhu.
9 Shlaim, Collusion across the Jordan.
10 The minister of defence's order appointing Mustafa al-Rifa‘i appears in The Hashemite Papers (THP), Jordanian Administration in Palestine, 1948–1951, vol. VI (Amman, 1995), 49.
11 Glubb, A Soldier with the Arabs, 143.
12 Abu Nowar, The Jordanian–Israeli War, 257.
13 Glubb, A Soldier with the Arabs, 133.
14 Document number 433/20, dated 29 Jun. 1948, appears in THP, vol. VI, 66–7. The signature is unclear. Of the two documents related to this appointment in THP, one bears the imprimatur of the representative of the prime minister and the minister of defence, the second just the representative of the prime minister.
15 Al-Majali, Siratuhu, 97–9.
16 Glubb, A Soldier with the Arabs, 133.
17 Ibid., 199ff.
18 Arab politicians do not usually make decisions based on public opinion. In this case, Prime Minister Nuqrashi had little choice. F. Gerges, ‘Egypt and the 1948 war’, in Rogan and Shlaim (eds.), The War for Palestine, 154.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid., 154–5.
21 ‘Arif al-‘Arif says that Egyptian forces occupied the southern sector, including Hebron, since 20 May 1948. Al-Nakba, volume IV, 912 n. 2.
22 Glubb, A Soldier with the Arabs, 133.
23 Al-Sharif and al-Siba‘i, Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun, 130–3. The specific word choice in quotation marks, indicating that they were not Egyptian regular troops, is on p. 131.
24 Hobsbawm, E., ‘Introduction: inventing traditions’, in Hobsbawm, E. and Ranger, T. (eds.), The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge, 1983), 6–7, 11–12Google Scholar; Tal, D., War in Palestine, 1948: Israeli and Arab Strategy and Diplomacy (New York, 2004), 176–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
25 Al-Sharif and al-Siba‘i, Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun fi Harb Filastin, 130–3.
26 Glubb, A Soldier with the Arabs, 133.
27 In contrast to Glubb, he does not mention that Egypt's position was critical at the time that Jordan's forces returned to Hebron. Al-Tall was a favoured Jordanian officer and negotiator until he opened a letter from the king prior to delivering it to its Israeli addressee. He did not like its contents, lost confidence in the king, resigned and ultimately left Jordan for exile in Egypt, where he presented evidence to the press that King Abdullah was a traitor. He published his Karitha Filastin (The Palestine Catastrophe) in Cairo in 1959. Al-Tall was pardoned by King Hussein, the grandson of King Abdullah in 1967.
28 A. al-Tall, Karitha Filastin (Cairo, 1959), 411.
29 Ibid., 411–12.
30 Ibid. The same ‘Abd al-Muhsin Abu al-Nur's actions were strongly critiqued by Hashemite loyalist ‘Ali al-Khatib in a report to the Diwan al-Maliki, discussed below.
31 See n. 6.
32 Salih al-Majali, who had been appointed military governor in June, is mentioned in the report. ‘Ali al-Khatib's position in Hebron is not clear and the time period is not fully clear. The date of the letter does not indicate how long he may have been in a position of authority or what that position was. Document number (42) (453–128 to 122), THP, vol. VI, 434ff.
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid. The term ‘Dual Era’ was not mentioned in the report.
36 ‘Abd al-Muhsin Abu al-Nur would later become a member of the Free Officers Movement in Egypt and would serve in high-level roles under President Gamal ‘Abd al-Nasser.
37 Document number (42) (453–128 to 122), THP, vol. VI, 434ff.
38 Ibid.
39 See n. 5.
40 See n. 5.
41 Sami ‘Amr, diary entry, month of Feb. 1949. (A copy of the diary is in the possession of the author.)
42 Diary entry, 26 Mar. 1949.
43 Diary entry, 26 Mar. 1949.
44 Diary entry, 27 Mar. 1949.
45 Diary entry, 30 Mar. 1949. Muhammad al-Shrouf's diary concurs with the events of the protests of the same dates. See Winder, ‘After the Nakba in Nuba’. Shaykh Muhammad ‘Ali al-Ja‘bari was the mayor of Hebron. In a presentation on this topic to the College of Law at Hebron University on 4 Apr. 2016, I shared this story based on Sami's diary, noting that al-Shrouf's diary concurred with the account. Nabil al-Ja‘bari, the son of Shaykh Muhammad ‘Ali al-Ja‘bari, who attended my presentation, contradicted this account. He related family lore, stating, ‘my father had told me this did not happen’. I was unable to interview Nabil al-Ja‘bari following the talk, as to whether his father kept documentation regarding this event. The authorized biography of Shaykh al-Ja‘bari, by ‘Imad Bishtawi, Al-Shaykh Muhammad ‘Ali al-Ja‘bari, is absent on the subject.
46 Mukhlis ‘Amr was a first cousin of Sami ‘Amr. Fakhry and Sami married sisters by the names of Hanafiyya and Suhayla. Sami married his first cousin, once removed, when he married Suhayla. Fakhry also married Sami's first cousin, once removed, when he married Hanafiyya. They were the daughters of Abdullah Bashir ‘Amr, himself Sami's first cousin and an important supporter of King Abdullah. Fakhry Hammuri was a schoolteacher of Arabic language and literature. Correspondence with Samir ‘Amr, 14 Apr. 2014.
47 Katz, ‘The “Dual Era” in Hebron’, 536.
48 Israel delayed the start of the negotiations with Jordan and pursued back channels with King Abdullah so as to push a military effort in the south, during which Israel took territory not allotted to it in the Partition Plan, before the armistice agreement was signed. Abdullah's Arab Legion was under-staffed and under-supplied and could not engage the Israeli forces in the south. Abdullah did not pursue the matter and the United Nations members did not force Israel from territory not assigned to it in UN Resolution 181. Ben-Dror, E., ‘The armistice talks between Israel and Jordan, 1949: the view from Rhodes’, Middle Eastern Studies, 48 (2012), 883–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49 Shlaim, Collusion across the Jordan, 362, and al-Tall, Karitha Filastin, 443ff.
50 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/arm01.asp accessed 4 Jan. 2018.
51 Al-Tall, Karitha Filastin, and Bishtawi, Al-Shaykh Muhammad ‘Ali al-Ja‘bari, for example.
52 THP, Jordan–Egypt Relations, 1925–1951, vol. XII (Amman, 1998), 380–2. Al-Majali includes photos from the farewell celebration prior to the departure of the Egyptians from Hebron in April 1949. Al-Majali, Siratuhu, 259–62.
53 Katz, ‘The “Dual Era” in Hebron’, 536–8.
54 Feldman, I., Governing Gaza: Bureaucracy, Authority, and the Work of Rule, 1917–1967 (Durham, NC, and London, 2008), 100–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55 The Egyptian deputy governor general to the governor general; this comes from a response to a complaint by Beersheba employees to the war minister, 21 Jun. 1949, from a group of documents Feldman found in Dar al-Watha'iq in Cairo. See her Governing Gaza, 100 nn. 24 and 25.
56 Letter to HJK prime minister, dated 14 Mar. 1951, document number 30/2/6/35, signed by Fathy al-Hammuri, Ya‘qub al-Janidi, Ibrahim al-Nathir, Hilmi Zayd, Sa‘id Mukhtar and Yusif Musa al-Hammuri. This document, found in the Jordanian National Archive, appears to be the only document that exists in the archival record about this topic for this period.
57 Ibid.
58 Diary entry, 31 Mar. 1949.
59 Shaykh Fathy was born in 1919 and died in December 2014. The Hammuri men have long served as religious leaders and scholars in Hebron. Correspondence with Samir ‘Amr, 30 Dec. 2014.
60 Beersheba is briefly mentioned in one document but it is not clear if this city is part of the Dual Era. Bethlehem is mentioned in a few cases, but there are not enough details in that case to understand any of the tensions between Jordan and Egypt in that city. Hebron is the strongest case for understanding this situation based on the sources.