- Incident Date:
March 1, 1920
- Location:
- Resource Link:
The first incident in the British Mandate era between Arabs and Jews leading to many others. The Franco-Syrian war was underway and most Jewish settlers chose to remain neutral between Pro Syrian Arabs and the French. The Jews had arrived in Tel Hai in 1905 under support of Baron Rothschilds Palestine Development Fund. The British had abandoned the area and the French had intentionally caused suffering to the Southern Lebanese population.
Several hundred Shiite Arabs in southern Lebanon marched to the village to demand to look for French soldiers and spies. As they approached, a Jewish farmer fired a shot in the air to summon reinforcements from others. The Jewish settlers led by a Russian Jew Joseph Trumpeldor (a former Russian military member and early Zionist socialist activist who helped organize the Zion Mule Corps and bring Jewish immigrants to Palestine) tried to influence the Arabs to go away thru negotiations.
The Arabs were allowed to enter the village and look for the French soldiers. They encountered a female Jewish settler, Deborah Drachler who pointed a gun at the Arabs and a shot was fired off. Starting a firefight between the Jews and Arabs. Trumpeldor was shot and wounded. The Arab leader seeing this proposed a ceasefire stating they would leave saying it was a misunderstanding and the Jewish force approved the ceasefire.
As the Arabs were leaving, one of the Jewish fighters shot at the Arabs. The firefight recommenced. 6 Jews and 5 Arabs were killed in the fighting. Trumpeldor died from injuries and the survivors of Tel Hai withdrew from the village. The abandoned village was then set fire to by the Arabs.
The Franco Syrian war ended in July 1920 and Tel Hai was able to be resettled in 1921. Jews listed Trumpeldor as a hero and said he was fighting to defend Tel Hai. The Zionist movement created a myth around Trumpeldor, his last words and the event to push their interests in the area and establishing Israel borders. To hear this story from some Jewish publications today, they still push incorrect information of the event to show the Jews as victims of an unprovoked attacked where the Arabs came into a building and starting shooting young Jewish settlers and they fought back in what could only be seen as a Rambo type action movie with 10 Jews against 200+ Arab fighters and killed many Arabs in the process causing the Arabs to want to retreat. The courtyard site is now a Jewish museum pushing propaganda about the event with a statue of a Lion.
A comprehensive and meticulously-researched book by Nakdimon Rogel, published in 1979, perused the events which led up to the battle of Tel Hai. The book offered a critical examination of the historical process vis-à-vis the political myth that developed around it. At the time when Rogel’s book was published, Yael Zerubavel researched the development of the Tel Hai myth and its changing interpretations and status over the years. Her influential book Recovered Roots: Collective Memory and the Making of Israeli National Tradition was published in 1995. Zerubavel’s analysis presents the multiple memory agents who had contributed to the making of the new myth and a wide array of texts and rituals that forged a new national tradition, partially based upon elements borrowed from Jewish tradition. Her study also examined the political conflicts around the myth and the later contestation of its status and meaning in public discourse.1
By the early 1970s, the authenticity of Trumpeldor’s saying became the subject of a vigorous and public discussion. Speculation grew on whether he did in fact say the canonical statement attributed to him, “It is good to die for our country,” or similar words that conveyed this message. An alternative version that before he died he had spat out a curse in Russian, his maternal tongue, circulated in the public discourse at the time.
Author Perspective :
Throughout history and into the modern era, it has been a common practice in war zones for one side to conduct searches among the civilian population to identify and detain individuals associated with the opposing forces. This practice has been observed in numerous conflicts, including World War I, World War II, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, the Iraq War, and the conflict in Afghanistan. Currently, Israel is implementing similar measures in Gaza, and Ukraine is doing the same within its contested regions.
In any military conflict, it is standard procedure to respond with force when fired upon. Soldiers are trained to react defensively if, during a security check for enemy combatants, a homeowner or any individual points a firearm at them and shoots. This response is particularly ingrained after initial gunfire is detected upon arrival at a suspected location. Drawing from personal experience in the Afghanistan war, the training and expected reaction in such scenarios is clear and immediate. Ask any combat veteran how they would have responded if upon doing a home check for enemies in a combat zone if the homeowner pulled a gun and fired it at them.
Many articles concerning this incident are written by Jewish authors and predominantly present a narrative that supports Israel, often suggesting that the Arab inhabitants should not have reacted to gunfire and threats with weapons. This portrayal sometimes frames the Arab response as an unprovoked assault on the village. However, other accounts and even the Wikipedia entry, in its initial overview of the event, state Arabs assualted the village but in the details they mention that the conflict escalated after a local Jewish resident brandished a firearm against the Arabs, and gunfire was directed at them as they were departing.
Viewing the incident from both an Arab and Jewish perspective, Jewish settlers from Europe were attempting to establish a community in what is considered a disputed and militarized area.
In the book “We Are Coming, Unafraid: the Jewish legions and the Promised Land in the First World War”, one can view how the Jews did not want to fight for other countries for reasons as “useless suffering and death” for those countries. They felt if they fought in small legions (many which were insignificant) for the British, United States and Canada that they would help them settle into Palestine with their militaries. After the British pulled out of area, they refused to leave believing once settled they cannot abandon the area.
If the Arab groups’ intent was solely aggression against the Jewish presence, they could have overwhelmed and attacked all four villages in the area due to their overwhelming numbers against the Jews. The Arabs had hundreds against several dozen Jews. They could have easily slaughtered the entire village. However, they focused on conducting specific home inspections rather than initiating a broad assault.
Given that the conflict with French and Syrian forces was active, one could argue that for their own safety, the Jewish settlers should have evacuated the village to avoid being subjected to searches. After all, is that not the perspective Israel claims today should happen in Gaza? The difference is in Tel Hai, the Arabs did search the homes, while in Gaza, Israel bombs the cities killing anyone within the area.
The comparable action in 1920 would have been if Arabs bombed the village, killing everyone in pursuit of looking for French soldiers. Instead as history has shown of the incident, the Arabs were conducting a routine action in the village before having to defend themselves from Jewish settlers not once but twice in same incident after the Jews broke the ceasefire and attacked a second time. Using the incident to portray themselves as the victim in history.
