ثورة فلسطين - أسبابها ونتائجها
The Palestine Revolt: Its Causes and Consequencesby Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā

Page 451

Normalized
transcript

Printed page 451

بلادهم، إلا بظلمهم وإسرافهم في أمرهم، فهؤلاء القوم يتحرون أن يكونوا أقل منهم ظلمًا، وأمثل حكمًا، ولو لم يفعلوا إلا النظام في الظلم، والمساواة بين كبير الناس وصغيرهم في الحكم، لكفى ذلك مروِّجًا للدعاية لهم، والتنويه بفضلهم على غيرهم، على أنهم لا يساوون أنفسهم بغيرهم من أهل هذه البلاد، ولا يتنزهون عن محاباة صنائعهم وأعوانهم على تمكين نفوذهم فيها، ولا يتقون ظلم أي زعيم وإذلال أي عزيز يطالب باستقلالها، أو يأنسون منه خطرًا على حكمهم، أو اشمئزازًا من ظلمهم.

وللإنكليز مزية أخرى على غيرهم من المستعمرين، ولا سيما اللاتين وهي - كما قال لنا الدكتور يعقوب صروف من دعاتهم وسماسرة سياستهم - أنهم يسمحون لأهل البلاد التي يسوسونها بشيء من ثروتها ومظاهر الحكم والجاه فيها يتمتعون به في ظلهم، من حيث يعترق الآخرون لحمها، وينتقون المخ من عظمها، ويستأثرون بالكبير والصغير من الحكم والنفوذ فيها، وقد قلدتهم دولة أخرى في نصب تماثيل للحكم في بعض مستعمراتها من أهلها؛ لكنها لم تدع لهم أدنى نصيب من مسمى الأسماء التي تفضلت عليهم بها، فكانت أضر على أهل بلادهم منها على أهل البلاد التي لم تنصب فيها شيئًا من هذه التماثيل.

وأما فضيلة الإنكليز العليا فهي أنهم أدنى إلى مراعاة سنن الاجتماع، ومسايرة ما يتجدد فيه من الأطوار والأحوال؛ ولكن بعد طول الروية والاختبار، والتنازع بين طرفي التفريط والإفراط، كما يعلم من الفرق البيِّن بين إدارتهم في مصر والسودان، وفي الهند وزنجبار، بسبب اختلاف حال كل من القطرين الزوجين المتقابلين في العلم والجهل، والقرب والبعد من قوة الرأي العام، وكما ظهر أخيرًا من التفاوت في تصرفهم وسياستهم في القطرين العربيين المتجاورين، فلسطين وشرق الأردن من جهة والعراق من جهة أخرى بسبب التفاوت بين حاليهما في القوة والضعف، ففي العراق مئات من الألوف الشاكي السلاح، وألوف كثيرة من الضباط العلماء بفنون القتال، وقد أضرموا نار ثورة قُتل فيها عشرات الألوف من الرجال، وأُنفق فيها الملايين من المال، ومن ورائهم زعماء سياسيون يعرفون كيف يطالبون بالحرية والاستقلال، وقد قربوا منهما، ولن يرضوا بما دونهما.

English
translation

their countries except through their own injustice and excess. The English seek to be less unjust and to govern better. Even a regular system of injustice and equal treatment of high and low in judgment is enough to promote favorable claims about them. Yet they do not treat themselves as equal to the people of those lands, refrain from favoring clients who strengthen their influence, or hesitate to wrong and humiliate any respected leader who demands independence or appears to threaten their rule or resent their injustice.

Another advantage the English have over other colonizers, especially the Latin peoples, is what Dr. Yaʿqūb Ṣarrūf, one of their advocates and brokers of their policy, told us: they allow the inhabitants of the lands they govern to enjoy some of their wealth and the outward signs of rule and standing under English protection. Others strip the flesh from the land and pick the marrow from its bones, keeping every large and small share of government and influence for themselves. Another state has copied the English by setting up figures from the local people as a show of government in some colonies, but has given them no real part in the offices whose names it bestowed on them. The result has been more harmful to their people than in places where it installed no such figures.

The highest virtue of the English is that they come closest to observing the laws of society and adapting to new conditions, though only after long reflection, testing, and conflict between excess and neglect. This is clear in the difference between their administration of Egypt and Sudan, and of India and Zanzibar, owing to the different conditions of each pair of territories in learning, ignorance, and the strength of public opinion. It has appeared more recently in their different conduct toward the neighboring Arab territories, Palestine and Transjordan on one side and Iraq on the other, because of the difference in their strength and weakness. Iraq has hundreds of thousands under arms and many thousands of officers trained in war. They kindled a revolt in which tens of thousands of men were killed and millions in money spent. Behind them stand political leaders who know how to demand freedom and independence. They have come close to both and will accept nothing less.

Analysis

Riḍā says English rule can appear fairer than local rulers while still favoring clients and suppressing leaders who seek independence. He contrasts English methods with those of other colonizers, then argues that English policy changes with the strength of the people governed. His comparison of Iraq with Transjordan and ארץ ישראל EREẒ YISRAʾEL is a political reading of relative force. A British parliamentary answer of 1920-11-16 reported 8,200 Arab insurgent casualties and estimated one killed for every three wounded, implying about 2,050 killed rather than tens of thousands. A 1922 parliamentary explanation tied about £5.25 million in excess expenditure to extra troops sent because of the revolt, supporting only his broad claim that millions were spent. A 1929 return lists the regular Iraqi Army by units rather than headcount and does not test his wider figures for armed inhabitants or trained officers.

A comparative study of colonial Africa supports a limited institutional distinction behind Riḍā's contrast. It finds that British governments generally ruled more indirectly and devolved more authority to existing local institutions, while French administrations followed a more centralized plan and ended more precolonial lines of succession. The comparison does not establish that British colonial rule was just, that local rulers retained meaningful sovereignty, or that the pattern applied uniformly in every territory Riḍā names.

Iraqi leadership included major Shiʿi religious figures as well as the political leaders Riḍā names in general terms. Mohammad Reza Kalantari identifies Muḥammad Taqī Shirāzi as pivotal in mobilizing the population in 1920 and records support from other leading mujtahids in Najaf, Karbala, and Kāẓimayn. This supports the presence of organized leadership behind the independence demand. It does not prove that independence was already close, reduce the revolt to clerical leadership, or confirm Riḍā's numerical claims.