The Invention of Palestinian Citizenship, 1918–1947

Summary

A history of how Palestinian nationality and citizenship were invented under the British Mandate, arguing that citizenship was not an accepted, uncontested reality but was contested and reshaped from 1918 through the 1940s, with the 1925 Palestine Citizenship Order-in-Council 1925 and its amendments spurring debate over Palestinian civic and political identity among Palestinian Arabs, the Palestine Administration and the British Government (The Invention of Palestinian Citizenship, 1918–1947, PDF p.13 / printed p.2). Britain framed citizenship as a legal, apolitical status in order to facilitate a Jewish national home, codifying Arab and Jewish Palestinian nationality separately and offering more favourable acquisition to Jewish immigrants than to Palestinian Arabs, including Arabs temporarily abroad (PDF p.35-37 / printed p.24-26); the 1925 Order’s Article 1 made nearly 730,000 Ottoman nationals resident in Palestine citizens, while its Article 2, as retroactively shortened by Herbert Samuel, left an estimated 20,000-25,000 Palestinian-born people abroad with less than a year to return and opt in (PDF p.61-63 / printed p.50-52); and Palestinian Arabs, in Banko’s account, answered with a Communitarian citizenship in which membership in the Arab community by birth or descent carried inherent civil and political rights to the state (PDF p.67-69 / printed p.56-58). Chapter 4 completes the diaspora account: emigrants in Honduras, Haiti, Mexico and El Salvador, denied consular protection and return, generated the demand for a ‘right to return’ (haqq al-‘awda) and, through the Bethlehem Committee for the Defence of Arab Emigrant Rights to Palestinian Citizenship (DAER, formed 1927), an internationalist claim to nationality by descent, while the July 1931 amendment gave ‘treaty nationality’ only to those who had left in 1924-1925 (PDF p.103-123 / printed p.92-112). Chapter 5 argues citizenship was bureaucratised into a ‘politics of distinction’ between Arab and Jewish citizens — through passports, naturalisation, minor-children rules and dual-nationality practice — even though individual officials applied the provisions unevenly and revocation after 1930 was threatened more often against Jews deemed subversive (PDF p.124-149 / printed p.113-138). Chapter 5 concludes that by 1931 the changes to the Order ‘simply affected a legal realm’ and granted no greater civic, political or social rights, while an estimated 30,000 Arab emigrants and their children remained without citizenship by the mid-1930s (PDF p.155-157 / printed p.144-146). Chapter 6 traces how, between 1926 and 1935, the Arabic press, populist groups and the Independence Party (Istiqlal) turned citizenship into a political, rights-based practice — municipal franchise fights, ‘no taxation without representation’, land and labour claims, and the representation of peasants, workers, women and students as rights-bearing citizens (PDF p.158-179 / printed p.147-168). Chapter 7 follows the 1936 general strike and the first phase of the Revolt, in which the Arab Higher Committee adopted ‘no taxation without representation’ as the hallmark of citizenship practice while British emergency legislation reclassified Arabs from citizens to a colonised ‘population’ (PDF p.180-196 / printed p.169-185). Chapter 7 concludes with the Peel Commission report of July 1937: it was favourable to the Arab emigrants — approximately 40,000 had lost their chance to acquire citizenship, and out of more than 9,000 applications only 100 were accepted — and listed three citizenship options for a partitioned Palestine, while the draft amendment that followed was not published for two years (PDF p.197-206 / printed p.186-195). Chapter 8 concludes the book: the 1939 amendment gave Palestinian-born Arabs abroad with an ‘unbroken personal connection’ the right to opt in for the first time, yet from 1925 to 1946 fewer than 500 did so, and Banko closes that mandate citizenship ‘was not a citizenship that they envisioned nor was it for them’ (PDF p.217-218 / printed p.206-207, PDF p.225 / printed p.214).

What the file is

The Invention of Palestinian Citizenship, 1918–1947, by Lauren Banko, Edinburgh University Press, 2016. 289 PDF pages, about 116,087 words in the text copy supplied. Access basis given with the source: open-license (OA via OAPEN; licence not stated in scan). The book’s copyright page (PDF p.5) gives ISBN 978 1 4744 1550 7 (hardback), 978 1 4744 1551 4 (webready PDF) and 978 1 4744 1552 1 (epub), © Lauren Banko, 2016. The book came out of a PhD thesis submitted to the History Department at SOAS, University of London (PDF p.8). The text copy carries PDF page markers and is clean for prose; no figures or tables occur in the book. The volume closes with Notes (printed p.215-255), a Bibliography (printed p.256-272) and an Index (printed p.273-278), all read in full. Printed page numbers in the front matter use roman numerals (Acknowledgements printed p.vii = PDF p.8), and in the body printed pages run eleven behind PDF pages (Introduction begins printed p.1 on PDF p.12; Chapter 2 begins printed p.23 on PDF p.34). PDF p.1, PDF p.3 and PDF p.7 are blank. The copyright page prints “Related RightsRegulations” as printed, and the Acknowledgements print “manscript” as printed (PDF p.8, confirmed against the original).

Section by section

• Front matter (PDF p.1-11): blank pages, title pages, copyright page, and the contents: Acknowledgements vii; 1. Introduction 1; 2. Inventing the National and the Citizen in Palestine: Great Britain, Sovereignty and the Legislative Context, 1918–1925 23; 3. The Notion of ‘Rights’ and the Practices of Nationality and Citizenship from the Palestinian Arab Perspective, 1918–1925 55; 4. The Diaspora and the Meanings of Palestinian Citizenship, 1925–1931 84; 5. Institutionalising Citizenship: Creating Distinctions between Arab and Jewish Palestinian Citizens, 1926–1934 113; 6. Whose Rights to Citizenship? Expressions and Variations of Palestinian Mandate Citizenship, 1926–1935 147; 7. The Palestine Revolt and Stalled Citizenship 169; 8. Conclusion – The End of the Experiment: Discourses on Citizenship at the Close of the Mandate 196; Notes 215; Bibliography 256; Index 273.

• Acknowledgements (PDF p.8-10 / printed p.vii-ix): the focus on citizenship came indirectly out of interest in Mandate Palestine; its implications “loom large today in the nature of citizenship and nationality granted to, revoked from and manipulated by a number of actors in Israel, the Palestinian territories including East Jerusalem and European and American governments” (PDF p.8). The narrative of Palestinian Arab émigrés before 1948 has been crucial to the civic identity of Palestinian refugees post-1948. Doctoral supervisor Nelida Fuccaro is thanked, with archivists and institutions in Britain, Palestine, Israel and Beirut, and funding from PARC, CBRL, PEF and SOAS during 2011 and 2012.

• Dedication (PDF p.11): to the author’s mother Dana Banko (1948–2015) and father Blaise Banko.

• Introduction (PDF p.12-33 / printed p.1-22): opens with an August 1929 Arabic press editorial concluding that the riots after the Wailing Wall violence stemmed from the 1925 Citizenship Order, which supported large Jewish immigration, did not foster loyalty among Jewish Palestinian citizens who remained English, Italian or French and did not immediately naturalise, and denied ipso facto citizenship to Palestinian Arabs residing even temporarily outside the mandate (PDF p.12-13 / printed p.1-2). Banko argues ‘citizenship’ in mandate studies has been treated as uncontested when its provisions, status and terminology were contested and reshaped through the 1940s until 1948. The Introduction sets out the principle of nationality (Rogers Brubaker: states as and for certain nations), the League’s propagation of that principle and its Permanent Mandates Committee’s visualisation of Arab mandates as states-to-be for certain ‘nations’, the mandate as a transition between Ottoman reform and indirect colonial rule, and, under the heading Marking Nationals, Making Citizens, Engin Isin’s ‘making citizens’ as social, political, cultural and symbolic practices beyond paper decrees (PDF p.16 / printed p.5). Palestinian Arab leaders framed a communitarian citizenship in which birth or descent granted the national community ownership of its territorial political entity and its resources; neither citizenship nor nationality, on their account, could be imposed by a foreign power (PDF p.16-18 / printed p.5-7). The eventual Order “did not delineate rights but rather jurisdiction” (after William Hanley on Egypt), focusing on who was a Palestinian citizen and how one could naturalise; the key Arab grievance was lack of British protection of their ‘majority’ rights against unrestricted Jewish immigration (PDF p.19 / printed p.8). British precedents are surveyed: racialised inclusion/exclusion by culture, lineage, language, descent and religion; jus sanguinis and jus soli made obsolete as sole determinants by nineteenth-century colonialism; the 1914 British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act grounding nationality in allegiance to the Crown (PDF p.21-22 / printed p.10-11); stratified protégé citizenship; and an apolitical citizenship in Palestine, after Ilana Feldman, offering rights in a social and perhaps diplomatic rather than political sense (PDF p.23 / printed p.12). Ottoman nationality is set out as territorial rather than ethno-cultural, with Tanzimat Osmanlilik (Ottomanism), the millet mediation before it, and a post-1908 shift toward Turkish nationality in citizenship legislation (PDF p.24 / printed p.13). Vocabulary is treated directly: ‘jinsiyya’ (nationality), ‘muwātana’ (citizenship), ‘huquq midaniyya’ (civil rights) and ‘qawmiyya’ (pan-Arab nationalism), with citizenship and nationality used interchangeably and ‘midaniyya’ denoting urban civic identity (PDF p.26 / printed p.15). 1918 was no clear break: Arabs of Greater Syria continued to stress identification as Arab, yet former Ottoman, nationals into the 1920s. The Palestinian Arab diaspora (mahjar), especially in Latin America, and its emigrants (muhājarīn) are presented as major makers of a counter-definition of Palestinian citizenship linked to Arab nationality, neglected by historians of Palestine. Sources are British office records, Parliamentary debates, mandate legislation, the Arabic press and nationalist documents; some diaspora sources outside the Levant and Britain were not consulted. The chapter outline (PDF p.29-33 / printed p.18-22) assigns Chapter 2 to British legislation and whether acquisition favoured Jewish immigrants, Chapter 3 to Arab civic/political community and communitarian citizenship after Raymond Rocco, Chapter 4 to the diaspora and the ‘right to return’ demand, Chapter 5 to citizenship offered and revoked differently for Arabs and Jews after 1925, Chapter 6 to Arab expressions of rights and the Istiqlal Party case study, Chapter 7 to the Revolt, Peel and ‘stalled’ citizenship, and Chapter 8 to 1939-1948. The Introduction closes: Palestinian nationalism did not appear in 1918 with a clear political identity; citizenship and nationality were forged through reinterpretations of Ottoman precedents alongside political participation and civic engagement (PDF p.33 / printed p.22).

• Chapter 2, Inventing the National and the Citizen in Palestine: Great Britain, Sovereignty and the Legislative Context, 1918–1925 (PDF p.34-65 / printed p.23-54): opens in October 1922, when Arab members of the advisory committee met High Commissioner Herbert Samuel over Norman Bentwich’s draft nationality law and were struck by a plan to give Jewish immigrants ‘provisional nationality’ while Arabs remained ‘former Ottoman subjects’ categorised as ‘ex-enemy aliens’; Abdul Khader al-Muzaffer proclaimed ironically that ‘Palestine is a land of marvels and this new regulation [for provisional nationality] is one of them’ (PDF p.34-35 / printed p.23-24). The Advisory Council disbanded soon after over its solely advisory role. The final 1925 Order offered more favourable acquisition to Jewish immigrants than to Arabs from the former Ottoman provinces, Egypt and North Africa, bolstering facilitation of a Jewish national homeland (PDF p.35 / printed p.24). Because administrators feared Arab political rights would threaten obligations to the Zionist movement, citizenship was framed as legal and apolitical with minimal civil rights, power resting with the high commissioners overseen by London, within a dual administrative structure (PDF p.37 / printed p.26). The section Great Britain, Palestine and the League of Nations: Sovereignty, Nationality and State Succession, 1919–1922 (PDF p.38-50 / printed p.27-39) traces the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA South, December 1917 to mid-1920), Samuel’s arrival in July 1920, the unclear concept of sovereignty (Susan Pedersen: the mandate system as a discursive arena), the League sidelining nationalist representatives, the Colonial Office / Foreign Office divergence (Aaron Klieman) and other departments’ claims, Lord Robert Cecil’s opposition to League interference, the Permanent Mandates Commission, William Rappard and Frederick Lugard, the transfer of Palestine’s civil administration to the Colonial Office in 1921, San Remo in April 1920 and the grant of the mandate to Britain despite Arab objections evident in the King-Crane Commission report. Territories remained nominally Ottoman until the 1923 peace treaty with Turkey; the unaccepted Treaty of Sèvres would have ended Ottoman nationality, so inhabitants remained Ottoman nationals. From 1918 to Lausanne’s ratification Britain dealt with two ‘nationality’ groups: native Ottoman subjects and immigrant Jews arriving after 1914, the latter to be defined in provisional national terms. The World Zionist Organization under Chaim Weizmann, alone given an advisory role by Mandate Article 4, shaped the charter and nationality legislation; Weizmann proposed freedom of religion as part of ‘civil rights’, and Baron Rothschild proposed separate citizenship and full British subject status for Jews; the British noted the potential difficulties of such a measure — Arab demands for the same status as British subjects, widespread opposition to the Mandate, a mass emigration of Jews with full British protection, and the impossibility of maintaining a suitable administration. Article 7 required a nationality law specifically for Jewish immigrants without defining nationality or mentioning Arabs. Early drafts provided that immigrants who took up residence within two years of ratification would lose their existing nationality and automatically become Palestinian citizens; that automatic loss was at odds with the Zionist aim of a self-governing Jewish national homeland, as the forced imposition of the nationality of a non-Jewish, British-administered territory. Separately, until ratification Zionist leaders such as Weizmann asked the Foreign Office for consular protection for Jewish immigrants, and that request framed Article 12, which entitled all citizens to British protection abroad (PDF p.43-45 / printed p.32-34). Neither League nor charter stated where authority in Palestine came from, and the administration hesitated to legislate from 1920 to 1923.

• Chapter 2 — Norman Bentwich and the Meanings of Nationality, Citizenship and the Imperial Protégé (PDF p.45-58 / printed p.34-47): Bentwich’s 1939 international-law article is quoted for his distinction: in ‘Oriental’ countries citizenship marked allegiance to a state whereas nationality was a matter of race and religion; both Arabs and Jews were equally Palestinian citizens but claimed separate nationalities, so the Order emphasised citizenship to foster a civic but not political identity (PDF p.45-46 / printed p.34-35). Wartime Britain and France created new statuses for Ottoman Jews — France’s ‘of Jewish nationality from the Levant’ and Britain’s ‘Ottoman (Spanish) Jew’ (Sarah Abrevaya Stein; Aviva Ben-Ur) — exempting protégés from enemy-alien deportation/detention, while other Ottoman nationals were classified ‘enemy aliens’. Because inhabitants of an A mandate were neither British subjects nor Palestinian citizens, their consular protection and travel status were ambiguous (PDF p.47-48 / printed p.36-37). Bentwich hoped non-Ottoman Jewish immigrants could automatically receive Palestinian citizenship; provisional nationality certificates conveyed British imperial protection; Foreign Office legal advisor H. W. Malkin advised imposing citizenship automatically, warning Britain ‘shall have the spectacle of the Jewish National Home containing quantities of Jews who are not citizens’ (PDF p.48 / printed p.37). Draft regulations had to conform to the 1914 and 1919 British nationality/aliens acts, including a five-year residency requirement for naturalisation as British subjects. Foreign Secretary Curzon and Samuel disputed protection for Palestinians in Egypt; Curzon argued privileges should go only to select, ‘better-educated’ individuals, stating the Egyptian administration assumed Muslim Levantine Arabs to be ‘on a lower plane of civilisation than the average Egyptian’ (PDF p.49-50 / printed p.38-39). In August 1920 the Foreign Office published two categories: Ottoman nationals by birth or descent abroad who could prove paternal descent, and non-Ottoman residents (mainly Jewish immigrants) wishing to adopt Palestinian nationality, both required to undertake to opt for Palestinian nationality once a law passed; natives habitually resident fell into neither and remained in diplomatic limbo, and by 1923 no nationality law had been promulgated (PDF p.50-51 / printed p.39-40).

• Chapter 2 — The Draft ‘Nationality’ Order: Definitions, Concepts, and the Status of Palestine, 1922–1924 (PDF p.51-58 / printed p.40-47): legislation could not on paper contradict trusteeship, reclassify Palestine as a Crown colony or impose British subject status. Nationality was connected to the organic law and a partially elected legislative council; three options for a nationality/electoral order were outlined, Samuel favouring a nationality order-in-council first, but none was adopted before League approval; the Palestine Order-in-Council 1922, enacted 10 August 1922, defined a foreigner as a national or subject of Europe, America or Japan, and defined the Palestinian citizen for enfranchisement as ‘Turkish subjects’ habitually resident and other habitually resident inhabitants (Jewish immigrants) who applied for provisional citizenship within two months (PDF p.52-53 / printed p.41-42). Voting was on a communal/religious basis through secondary electors; the Arab boycott caused the legislative council’s creation to fail. The Treaty of Sèvres and Treaty of Lausanne institutionalised racial separation and required nationality orders within twelve months of Turkish endorsement. Sèvres Article 129 would have given ipso facto Palestinian nationality to non-Ottoman Jewish residents of two years while keeping birth nationality; Bentwich suggested an amendment allowing those Jews the option to receive Palestinian citizenship and renounce their former nationality, the Zionist Organisation seconded the amendment, and Lausanne excluded Article 129. Some Zionist leaders then objected to Bentwich’s amendment — the Joint Foreign Committee of the Jewish Board of Deputies, headed by Lucien Wolf, and the Anglo-Jewish Association termed their disagreement ‘a very grave objection’ — on the grounds that Jewish residents would be forced to give up their birth nationality upon receiving Palestinian nationality. The Colonial Office then proposed that Jewish immigrants could also declare their desire not to become citizens and be authorised to remain in Palestine, the Foreign Office agreed, and the consensus that followed was that Palestinian citizenship should not be enforced on Jews but made an option (PDF p.54-55 / printed p.43-44). Sèvres Article 125, which Winston Churchill advocated Palestine be listed under, barred Arabs of Syria or Iraq from opting for Palestinian nationality as racial majorities in their own countries, and Jews in Arab lands, considered ‘Arab’ not ‘racially’ Jewish, could not opt either (PDF p.55 / printed p.44). The Home Office suggestion that jus sanguinis be limited so nationality did not pass indefinitely through native-born Palestinian fathers begins at PDF p.55 and continues at PDF p.56.

• Chapter 2 — terminology, residency and dual nationality (PDF p.56-58 / printed p.45-47): the Home Office limitation was that citizenship pass only to the first generation born outside Palestine; Bentwich chose not to mention it explicitly in the final draft despite its inclusion in the law. Terminology was never resolved: drafts used ‘Palestinian subject’ and ‘Palestinian nationality’, Samuel argued in February 1921 that ‘nationality’ was better, and the Foreign Office preferred ‘Palestinian citizen’, arguing ‘citizen’ denoted a national of a non-monarchial state and ‘subject’ wrongly implied subjection to the Crown. Bentwich advocated a short residency for Jewish immigrants; Home Secretary Edward Shortt called the two-year provision a ‘very special provision’ modifying Britain’s ordinary five-year requirement. Zionist leaders asked that Jews resident abroad be allowed dual nationality while declaring they would oppose the same right for Arabs; on their influence the final law required immigrants to surrender passports on naturalisation but not actually to renounce another nationality. The Foreign Office adamantly opposed granting nationality to Palestinian Arab emigrants even temporarily abroad where they might claim British protection, and from late 1922 petitions arrived from Arabs stranded in Latin America, Haiti and Cuba, to whom consuls — without definite instructions — sometimes refused passports or visas, leaving some to seek Syrian passports from French consuls. In 1923 League delegates debated whether a mandatory could create a new nationality at all; the Foreign Office told the Home Office Palestine did ‘not bear the slightest resemblances to an independent state’ [as printed], its inhabitants holding a local status and being internationally British-protected persons, and Palestinian nationality was a ‘creation’ giving Palestine a definite status under external British protection. Even Bentwich was confused as to the nature of British power; by early 1924 the Colonial Office and law officers concluded the population was under a unique type of British protection, though the League did not consider Palestine a British protectorate.

• Chapter 2 — The Treaty of Lausanne and the Implementation of Citizenship Legislation, 1923–1925, and Conclusion (PDF p.58-65 / printed p.47-54): Lausanne’s application in September 1924 forced a rush to complete the law. Samuel in December 1923 recommended adopting the 1922 Legislative Election Order framework so voting could be exercised by those with the ‘definite and incontestable right to Palestinian citizenship’; the Foreign Office warned provisional nationality could let ‘undesirable people’ such as communists, prostitutes and fugitives acquire citizenship without a waiting period. Edward Keith-Roach opposed the two-year residency, citing five-year requirements in Britain and its Dominions, the United States, Switzerland, Belgium, France and Italy, and warning Arabs would give a ‘tremendous howl’; Banko notes London correspondence shows attempts to placate both groups rather than pro-Zionist or pro-Arab bias in London itself. Lausanne required natives to be resident on its coming into force and to prove Ottoman nationality, so residence trumped jus sanguinis and jus soli; former Ottoman nationals abroad had to declare within two years and return to reside, disregarding the Ottoman jus sanguinis route. The Palestine Citizenship Order-in-Council 1925 came into force 1 August 1925 — the only citizenship order Britain enacted in any mandate territory. Its Article 1, mirroring Lausanne Article 30, made ‘Turkish subjects’ habitually resident in Palestine on 1 August 1924 automatically citizens on 1 August 1925, nearly 730,000 people; a subsequent article did the same for non-Ottoman provisional nationals. Article 2 allowed persons over eighteen, born in Palestine with Ottoman nationality and habitually resident abroad on 1 August 1925, to opt in with the Government of Palestine’s consent after six months in Palestine, provided they had not acquired a foreign nationality, by 31 July 1927. But Article 2’s ‘born in Palestine’ replaced Lausanne Article 34’s ‘native of’, on the Home Office recommendation against indefinite transmission by birth, denying ipso facto citizenship to certain descendants, and contradicting Lausanne, British nationality law, the 1869 Ottoman law and French mandate laws, all of which supported jus sanguinis acquisition. Naturalisation applicants had to declare permanent residence, swear allegiance and converse in English, Arabic or Hebrew, and surrender a passport or laissez-passer — a surrender distinct from renunciation of birth nationality. In November 1925 Samuel retroactively moved the option period to run from 6 August 1924, leaving the estimated 20,000-25,000 Palestinian-born abroad, mostly Arab Christians and Muslims including students and merchants, less than a year to opt; without ipso facto nationality they had lost Ottoman nationality under Lausanne, were barred unless they returned by 1 August 1926, and often could not travel to Palestine to serve the six-month residence because they lacked the very documentation the option required — in Latin America, Cuba and Haiti especially, and the Order was not published broadly outside Palestine until at least November 1925. Only in May 1925 was the title changed from Palestine Nationality Law to Palestine Citizenship Order-in-Council. The Conclusion: the Order offered a local citizenship independent of British nationality, its holders becoming British-protected persons abroad; it did not grant the political rights Arabs agitated for, and ultimate power over Palestinians’ legal status was claimed by the British Government and the local administration, with influence from the Zionist Organisation’s leadership — unlike the other Arab mandates, where citizenship legislation came through indigenous legislative bodies. The Permanent Mandates Commission reported in October 1925 that the Order ‘should do much to strengthen a sense of Palestinian nationality’, an intention Banko says the officials who advised on it, Bentwich’s later recollection excepted, never held.

• Chapter 3, The Notion of ‘Rights’ and the Practices of Nationality and Citizenship from the Palestinian Arab Perspective, 1918–1925 (PDF p.66-94 / printed p.55-83): opens with Balfour’s first visit to Palestine in early 1925, the Arab Executive Committee’s general strike, and Bethlehem politician ‘Isa Bandak, editor of Sawt al-Sha’b, questioning in print whether Jewish immigrants in Tel Aviv had ‘true’ Palestinian nationality or only a nationality ‘on paper’ granted by the British. Banko analyses Arab understandings in light of the transition into British imperial citizenship and of new spaces and institutions — the mandate itself and a growing civil society — using Raymond Rocco’s Communitarian citizenship: rights as a function of membership in a historically specific community, so that by virtue of membership in a primordial Arab community Palestine’s Arabs held rights to the state as its sovereigns. The chapter distinguishes the traditional notable (‘ayan) leadership from the middle-class populist (sha’bī) leadership, both from the same elite, differing in discourse and tactics, the populists rarely endorsing Amin al-Hussaini, the Husayni and Nashashibi factions or the Supreme Muslim Council. Its section Ottoman Precedents: Imperial Citizenship and Arab Nationality (PDF p.70-75 / printed p.59-64) traces the Tanzimat from the 1839 Noble Edict of the Rose Chamber, the Ottoman Nationality Law of 1869 codifying Ottoman citizenship without religious distinction and gained by jus soli and jus sanguinis (Karen Kern; Kemal Karpat: reconciling millet nationality with the European idea of citizenship; Hanley: its practical impact was through mobility control, identity documents, census, taxation, military service and courts, and it granted no political rights), the vocabulary of jinsiyya, muwatin and tabiiyet/ra’iya (‘flock’, protection for loyalty), territorial patriotism and watan (Rifa’a Badawi al-Tahtawi), Boutrus al-Bustani’s pamphlets from 1860 urging secular citizenship developed at imperial and local level and Syrian nationals’ ‘sacrifice for the nation’, the 1876 Ottoman constitution and natural-rights ideas, and after the 1908 Young Turk Revolution and Turkification, rights increasingly claimed as a function of Arab communal membership, synthesised linguistically with muwātana and qawmiyya. The section Post-war Palestine and the Development of a Political Community, 1918–1921 (PDF p.75-88 / printed p.64-77) follows the press — al-Karmil in 1909 claiming newspapers ‘inform[ed] citizens of their rights and obligations in this country’, Filastin in 1913 delivering free copies to Jaffa-district villages to ‘teach the peasants their rights’ (Mustafa Kabha) — the Muslim-Christian Association founded in 1918 in Jaffa and Jerusalem, with branches in every major town, Muslim–Christian unity slogans, stamps and a flag with the Holy Sepulcher and Dome of the Rock, which organised the First Palestinian Arab Congress in early 1919, whose delegates formed the Arab Executive in 1920; pan-Arab populists’ use of the fellah as embodiment of the nation; petitions, strikes and boycotts as civic practices (Michelle Campos on the 1908 boycott as republican citizenship); Filastīn’s November 1918 editorial that nationality must mean Arabs and Jews equal before the law; ‘national’ equated with ‘native’ (ibn al-balad), birth and descent entitling Arabs to national, civil and political rights (huquq midaniyya, huquq siyāsiya); the fellah’s land rights against the 1920 Land Transfer Ordinance, under which Jewish immigrants could buy land without provisional nationality and peasants without titles were evicted, lawyer W. F. Boustany arguing in 1922 for Beisan residents as ‘bona fide citizens’ whose ‘civil rights’ must be maintained; and the Third Congress of 1920’s goal of ‘international human rights, civil rights, historical, and social rights’ including representative government. Under The Concept of Palestinian Nationality and the Evolution of Citizenship Practices (PDF p.81-88 / printed p.70-77), Musa Kazim al-Husayni, elected Executive president in 1920, wrote to Churchill in 1921 that ‘countries with their civil and other rights and privileges are the property of their inhabitants and constitute an heirloom of the nation’, questioned whether British Jews serving in Palestine such as Samuel could be both Jewish and British nationals — ‘one -ism must be sacrificed for the other, but which for which?’ — and argued civil rights meant more than equality before the law, including representation, provincial government, native councils and Arab employment in the highest posts, inalienable and not granted by the Administration; the first Palestinian Arab Delegation (wafd) in London in 1921, secretary Shibli Jamal asking whether ‘the Hebrews [sic]’ became nationals by virtue of the Balfour Declaration, Churchill answering Jewish immigrants would become Palestinians, the delegation hearing of but not reading the draft nationality law, being evaded on whether a Palestinian legislative body could have a say, and reporting to Geneva that ‘this legislative capacity lies within the sphere of the national government set up by the people’; Advisory Council spokesman Turkan Bey protesting the two-year residency and first raising concern for stateless emigrants abroad; Mir’at al-Sharq’s 1921 ‘unity of citizenship between the countries of the Arabic world’; demands for the mandatory’s duties as provisional sovereign, including national schools to teach young people ‘how to grow up good citizens of Palestine’; the Haycraft Commission’s report that Tulkarm villagers were ‘more politically minded than a small English country town’; and the 1922 boycott of the Legislative Council elections, presented in the press as civil disobedience (al-‘asīyan al-madaniyya), endorsed by the Fifth Congress, with neither the Mufti nor the Supreme Muslim Council supporting the boycott — of 809 planned secondary electors only 134 Arabs were elected, mainly by Jewish voters, Wasserstein calling the elections ‘a fiasco, and … a humiliating setback for Samuel’s policy’ — followed by non-cooperation praised as national duty, strikes for ‘natural right’ (al-haqq al-tabī’ayyī) and the Sixth Congress of 1923. The final section, The Immediate Reactions to the 1925 Palestine Citizenship Order-in-Council (PDF p.88-94 / printed p.77-83), records Lord Plumer replacing Samuel in mid-1925, an August 1925 Sawt al-Sha’b open letter that some Jewish immigrants ‘should never be allowed to become [Palestinian] nationals and citizens’, the November 1925 changes giving emigrants less than nine months to return permanently, Mir’at al-Sharq on the confusion of ‘national’ (qawmī) and the shift of jinsiyya toward a territorial, legal meaning akin to wantaniyya [as printed], the Order’s September 1925 publication in the Arabic press and Palestine Gazette — every Arabic newspaper titling it the ‘Nationality Law’ (al-qanun al-jinsiyya) — and Bandak explaining its dangers: Britain enacted it to facilitate Zionist immigration, five-year residency was required in the United States and throughout Europe, and the lack of a full- or part-time residence restriction created ‘a wide crater in the roof of Palestinian nationality’. The Conclusion notes the November change was not immediately noted by the press, the Department of Immigration and Passports’ December statement that it could not accept requests from Palestinians abroad for passports or nationality certificates, Bandak and others lobbying for repeal and for new legislation by a national assembly, the divergence understood by Arab leaders as early as 1921, jinsiyya favoured over muwātana while ‘citizen’ (muwatin) appeared in petitions, and that the differentiation of Palestinian citizenship from Arab nationality hit emigrants most spectacularly.

• Chapter 4, The Diaspora and the Meanings of Palestinian Citizenship, 1925–1931 (PDF p.95-123 / printed p.84-112): opens in 1927 with the British Legation at La Paz, Bolivia rejecting Palestinian Arab Sari Ismael and others who applied under Article 2: the legation assessed that a lengthy absence — seven years in Ismael’s case — showed severed connections and no intention to return, assumed they held Turkish nationality by default as former Ottomans not resident in Palestine, and without a Turkish representative could not grant visas to return, although Ismael produced a laissez-passer from the Military Governor of Jerusalem proving he was in Palestine as recently as 1920; they remained in Bolivia stateless. The chapter argues the emigrants’ (al-muhajarīn) status created a space for discussion of citizenship and that emigrants acted out civic and political behaviours linking citizenship with nationality as former Ottoman Arabs understood it, the Palestinian Arab diaspora (mahjar) taking a new role after 1925 in developing Palestinian civic identity, while internal and external factors hindered the Administration from resolving their grievances. Two months before the Order was published a Foreign Office official noticed the Article 2 / Lausanne Article 34 conflict — the Order giving until August 1927, the treaty until August 1926 — but the Office took no decision, believing it ‘unlikely that there will be many applicants falling under Article 2 of the Order’; Samuel’s amendment then shortened the period to one year, with the six-month residence requirement leaving less than a year to return, and consuls failed to publicise the change. The mahjar stayed connected to Bilād al-Shām through the press: Akram Khater counts twenty-one new Syrian Arab dailies, weeklies and monthlies in the US from 1892 to 1907, and the mahjar press shaped emigrant self-perception in North America, as is presumed for Central and South American Turcos. Using Engin Isin, Banko presents men and women born in Palestine as ‘made’ into émigré citizens before and after 1925 through shared social, political, cultural and symbolic associations, including mutual aid societies and charities. Migration context: from 1860 to 1914 between 600,000 and one million Arabic-speaking Ottomans born in Greater Syria left for the Americas, about one-third returning, the Ottoman Government often financing return (Kemal Karpat), a large majority of southern Syrian migrants coming from the Bethlehem and Jerusalem environs, and Latin America attractive for lenient policies in Argentina, Brazil and Honduras. Under The Palestinian Arab Mahjar and Civic Identity, 1918–1925 (PDF p.99-123 / printed p.88-112), emigrants who had left before 1920 had no valid passports after 1918, could not claim consular protection, were denied entry to Palestine as indigenous members and, despite paying taxes on land and property in Palestine, could not vote; from 1918 they identified themselves as ‘Palestinians’ and former Ottoman subjects in protest letters. Émigré associations formed as religious or mutual aid societies developed a nationalist outlook; throughout 1918 clubs petitioned the MCA, Emir Faisal, King George V, the military administration and the League for an independent Syrian nation and against the Balfour Declaration, usually as ‘the Palestinian Colony’ of their host country — the San Salvador community signing a November 1918 protest to King George simply as ‘the Palestinians’, a shift from Syrian Arab to specifically Palestinian — and in 1919 signatories asked Prime Minister Lloyd George whether Palestinian Arabs came under British diplomatic protection. By the early 1920s émigré organisations voiced national ‘duties’: mutual aid societies sent money to refugees and the poor in Palestinian towns, elected representatives, and supported candidates at home; Palestinians in El Salto, Mexico publicised their society as committed to ‘continuing the defence of Palestinian rights from abroad’, and the Palestine Renaissance Society in New York appealed in 1923 for support of the jihad (struggle) against colonialism in Palestine. Before 1925 newspapers, congresses and delegations paid little attention to emigrants’ troubles; only Lausanne’s implementation and the Order made their legal status tenuous. Consular confusion is illustrated by a Bethlehem native refused a British passport in South America who travelled on a French passport, a Palestinian in Chile likewise, and a British consul in Mexico who stated he had no instructions to issue passports to Palestinians (PDF p.102-103 / printed p.91-92).

• Chapter 4 — Honduras, Haiti and the protection question, 1924–1925 (PDF p.103-106 / printed p.92-95): the question of diplomatic protection came to the fore in 1924 when Honduras’s second civil war led to more than 5,000 deaths and the La Ceiba Palestinian community’s shops and homes were damaged or destroyed; the community appealed to British consuls as Palestinian citizens but received no financial or political assistance, writing that the ‘international and humanitarian duty of the English state [was] to defend the rights of the natives of Palestine who have no one to defend them’, and Sawt al-Sha’b at home claimed the emigrants as British subjects and stressed Britain’s duty to protect Palestinian citizens again after uprisings in Brazil in August 1924. By the end of 1924 protection and re-entry remained unsolved; the press contrasted refusal to recognise Arab emigrants’ nationality with the facilities for Jewish immigrants to obtain provisional nationality — ‘not an apparent assault on the highest of our rights’ — while Britain lacked consular facilities and records in parts of Latin America. In 1925 consuls were instructed not to grant nationality certificates to non-permanent residents; the instruction was applied non-uniformly, as the Port-au-Prince, Haiti textile merchants’ case shows: allowed initially to travel on Ottoman nationality, warned no further protection would follow until they proved Palestinian citizenship, one merchant arguing the Jewish national home policy was ‘an attempt … to force [Arabs] to surrender their Palestinian citizenship’. By the end of 1925 claimants had to prove birth in Palestine, unrenounced Ottoman nationality and permanent residence, needed emergency certificates to enter Palestine — where natives were often treated as immigrants — and had to show it would be ‘reasonable and proper for him to be under British rather than Turkish protection’.

• Chapter 4 — Nationality as Citizenship: Ideological Concepts and Active Practices in the Diaspora and at Home, 1925–1931 (PDF p.106-113 / printed p.95-102): once the Order’s provisions became known, the denial of jus sanguinis and jus soli citizenship to Arab emigrants was reported in the Arabic press, emigrants depicting nationality as a right connected to birth and Arab ethnicity, and the debates produced the demand for ‘the right to return’ (haqq al-‘awda). ‘Isa Bandak wrote in 1926 that no less than 20,000 Palestinian Arabs abroad had no one to defend their interests; he and Musa Kazim al-Husayni held it natural that Ottoman nationality should have converted automatically into mandate citizenship. Sawt al-Sha’b framed the Order as a ploy to increase Jewish immigration, urged emigrants to register at consulates as Palestinian natives, and solicited the largest number of diaspora letters, from El Salvador, Honduras and Brazil in 1926 — one El Salvador letter claiming automatic ‘rightful nationality’ and recording a consul’s refusal of documents to Palestinian children born in El Salvador, another stressing that ‘[one] does not lose nationality’ under the Ottoman law of descent. Lobbyists from Bethlehem, Jerusalem and Ramallah pressed for extension of the August 1926 deadline; the press charged favouritism — Jewish immigrants permitted unofficial dual nationality while a stateless former Ottoman holding another nationality was barred — and colonial ‘injustice’. Musa Kazim told Colonial Secretary Leopold Amery in summer 1926 that the public held Britain responsible for transforming emigrants into ‘orphans from the government’; Amery refused changes or increased assistance, and Musa Kazim’s open letter sought a one-year extension, noting many emigrants had never received notice and the law was difficult even for competent legal authorities. The United Palestinian Society in Honduras petitioned for the government’s ‘duty to protect’ emigrants’ property and lives, and by early 1927 ‘right to return’ had become a loaded phrase standing for both jus sanguinis and jus soli; economic arguments followed, Bethlehem leaders warning of deprivation of ‘civil, political and social rights through no fault of their own’ and ‘urban decay’. In summer 1927 Mexico’s Society for Palestinian Unity, representing on Ambassador D. V. Kelly’s forwarding account 3,000 to 4,000 Palestinians in Mexico alone, protested that the English were trying to remove their nationality ‘to implement Zionism’, while a Honduras petition to the Permanent Mandates Commission from Palestinian landowners protested the High Commissioner’s refusal to recognise them as citizens yet asked to be informed of Jewish bankers willing to buy their land. In early 1928 twenty Palestinian students at Cairo’s al-Azhar University wrote in the same terms, asking whether they should change their nationality ‘so that the Jews replace us in our homeland?’

• Chapter 4 — The Committee for the Defence of Arab Emigrant Rights to Palestinian Citizenship (PDF p.113-117 / printed p.102-106): Bandak founded the Committee for the Defence of Arab Emigrant Rights to Palestinian Citizenship (DAER) in Bethlehem in 1927 as the central voice of the emigrants, a mediator with London and Jerusalem, a grassroots lobbyist addressing the British public, and the bearer of an internationalist rhetoric of the right to nationality; its secretary was Khalil ‘Isa Muqas, its membership mainly nationalist middle-class, and by mid-1927 it claimed to represent the (over-estimated) figure of 50,000 natives denied nationality. Its early 1928 memorandum to Plumer was not anti-British, stressed emigrants’ taxed property, and drew divided official responses — Amery holding the principles ‘quite fair and equitable’, another official urging a general grant as fairness and ‘considerable advantage to British interests’. In February 1928 DAER stated approximately 9,000 emigrants, of approximately 30,000 in the Americas and Europe, had requested citizenship by the end of 1927, and accused the Administration of obstructing nationality by descent to facilitate Jewish immigration; Chief Secretary Sir Steward Symes [as printed] meanwhile recommended reconsideration of applications from abroad. DAER’s forty-page Appeal to the Noble British People (early 1928), to which neither the Mufti, the factions nor the Arab Executive contributed, demanded nationality through jus sanguinis and jus soli and a general extension to all natives, invoking Lausanne Article 34 and an international right to nationality carrying diplomatic protection; it can be assumed not to have achieved its aims.

• Chapter 4 — Consuls, Emigrants and the British Government: Miscommunication and Divergent Practices and Conclusion (PDF p.117-123 / printed p.106-112): Foreign Office instructions conflicted — an October 1927 draft to San Salvador allowed a three-month single-journey emergency certificate to naturalise, contradicting earlier circulars for stateless Arabs — while Foreign Secretary Austen Chamberlain held non-citizen Arabs arriving on such visas liable to be ‘[suspected of] an attempt to evade the law’; Jewish immigrants, by contrast, were admitted to settle and take provisional nationality on the Zionist Organisation’s advice. Some consuls treated rejected applicants as Turkish by default, a position Banko notes had no basis in international law. The Colonial Office insisted extension needed Turkish consent yet advised against contacting Turkey and no such correspondence exists in the archives; Plumer required a ‘genuine desire to resume their connection with Palestine’, side-stepping the Arab position that naturalisation negated a right; Bentwich proposed reconsidering people ‘who by birth, race and sentiment are genuinely attached to Palestine’, while a Foreign Office official deemed those who had not returned in time to ‘never have been Palestinian, [and] … remain Ottoman subjects’. The Sociedad Fraternidad Palestina of San Salvador (September 1927, more than a thousand natives in trade) protested the destruction of fundamental rights to nationality; Ormsby-Gore proposed that a Palestinian by birth abroad with Turkish nationality ‘be freely granted permission to visit or settle in Palestine with his family’ but still naturalise. In April 1929 a Ramleh native’s lawsuit against the high commissioner and director of immigration succeeded, the High Court of Justice also ordering the government to pay expenses. Host governments grew hostile: El Salvador’s Palestinian Unity Committee called the 1929 expulsion of Arabs a ‘painful catastrophe [nakba]’, Bandak urging Chancellor to act for approximately 2,000 Palestinian residents; the Administration meanwhile collected taxes on emigrants’ property while denying them return. The Conclusion: the amended order was not ratified until July 1931, was limited to Palestinians resident abroad between 1924 and 1925, and gave them ‘treaty nationality’ ipso facto, the Home Office debating that periodic visits were not a ‘substantial connection’; in early 1933 Sawt al-Sha’b reported large numbers of natives taking Turkish citizenship for protection and a recognised passport, and from 1927 to 1937 the stated number registered as resident abroad rose by approximately 10,000 to in the region of 40,000. Emigrants nonetheless practised citizenship through civil societies, elections and aid home, and their arguments shifted terminology: nationality and citizenship began to be perceived as separate statuses, Ottoman Arab nationality being argued to entitle its holders to Palestinian citizenship.

• Chapter 5, Institutionalising Citizenship: Creating Distinctions between Arab and Jewish Palestinian Citizens, 1926–1934 (PDF p.124-149 / printed p.113-138; chapter continues in part 4): epigraph from Sir J. Risley, Colonial Office memo (May 1929): ‘[The Palestine Citizenship Order-in-Council] termed as an “Instruction” is just the sort of enterprise from the mind of Bentwich who loves the loose generalities of International Law.’ The chapter opens in 1930 with a Jewish Palestinian citizen facing revocation of naturalisation after three years’ absence: the Colonial and Foreign Offices feared citizenship used to claim ‘un-entitled’ British protection, yet Under-Secretary John Shuckerberg [as printed] decided ‘it would be better, at this juncture, not to risk a further squabble with the Jewish Agency’ over revocation, and the man remained a citizen. Banko argues administrators applied provisions differently for Jews and Arabs, but not in clear-cut consistent favouritism: local actions often managed communal relations for the administration’s conduct; Jewish citizens absent three years received warnings and a chance to refute loss of connection, and almost all held Palestine passports, often renewed on promises of return, while Arab emigrants mostly held none and were classified by consuls as (defunct) Ottoman citizens even into the 1930s. The chapter frames bureaucratisation after 1925: departments in London and Jerusalem used nationality and citizenship to classify, categorise and discipline, decentralised and unevenly, ultimately favouring smooth, swift naturalisation for Jewish immigrants partly from fear of conflict with the Jewish Agency and the Zionist Organisation, and preferring a Europeanised, white, entrepreneurial, self-sufficient immigrant type — a ‘politics of distinction’. Drawing on Emma Hunter (‘liberalism without liberties’, citizenship based on duties rather than rights) and Ann Stoler, Banko places the distinctions in colonial categorisation by whiteness, ‘the native’, character and European-ness, Jewish citizens being treated as more akin to British subjects in immigration and documentary identity.

• Chapter 5 — The Politics of Distinction: Palestinian Jewish and Arab Citizenships (PDF p.129-133 / printed p.118-122): the primary difference is traced to Jewish immigrants’ provisional nationality under the 1922 Legislative Council Election Order and to Mandate Article 7, which required a nationality law for Jewish immigrants and did not mention Arabs. The 1922 Order codified two citizen types — former Ottoman nationals resident, and non-Ottoman habitual residents — Jewish arrivals receiving provisional certificates on arrival, habitual residence undefined, with no requirement to surrender birth nationality or passports, while Arabs who acquired other passports were treated strictly as nationals of the passport state and could not immigrate back; the 1925 Order then required Article 2 natives to return, reside six months and prove permanence by 1 August 1926. After the 1929 riots the Shaw Commission, Independence Party, Awni Abd al-Hadi, Akram Zu’aytir, Arthur Wauchope, Harry Trusted, Young Men’s Muslim Association, Izz al-Din al-Qassam, Arab Higher Committee, Peel Commission, Fauzi al-Qawuqji, Palestine Arab Workers Society, 1936-39 Revolt in Palestine, John George Rock, Abd al-Latif al-Saleh, Husayn Khalidi, Harold MacMichael, Palestine Citizenship (Amendment) Order-in-Council 1939, Rex v. Ketter, UN General Assembly Resolution 181, Palestine Liberation Organization, Mutaz M. Qafisheh, Muhammad Izzat Darwaza recommended suspension of Jewish land purchases and an immigration quota and Hope-Simpson reported absorption capacity reached and fellahin dispossession, but in February 1931 Prime Minister Ramsey MacDonald wrote to Weizmann retracting the recommendations and reaffirming the Balfour Declaration, and no drastic changes followed. Officials noted in 1933 that Zionist influence made it ‘difficult for the Palestine Government to treat one set of Palestinian citizens differently from the rest’. A parliamentary bill to extend citizenship to any and all stateless Jews was opposed locally — an estimated 200,000 Jews worldwide had lost nationality and would gain automatic entry and British-protected status; the Colonial Office wrote that if it meant anything ‘presumably it seems that the whole of German Jewry should be granted Palestinian citizenship!’ — and although it did not advance as Hitler tensions grew, it popularised citizenship for Jews as a ‘natural’ right without residency; Ormsby-Gore’s view was that the ‘quality’ of Jews entering mattered.

• Chapter 5 — Internationalising Citizenship in the Palestinian Context: Enforcing Passports and Visas (PDF p.133-139 / printed p.122-128): interwar documentary identity forced states to classify inhabitants and issue papers; Palestine’s internationalisation brought together numerous ethno-national groups as citizens, comparable only to the composition (although not religion) of migrants to South Africa. Britain’s 1920 Aliens Restriction Order made the passport with photo the key identity document, but this did not readily translate to the mandates. Palestine passports were largely unavailable at the Order: temporary passports from 1920 were for officials only, regular printing began in 1926, and emergency certificates and laissez-passer served mainly Jewish provisional citizens and some residents, holders being theoretically treatable as British-protected persons even without fulfilling residency. The passport became documentary proof of nationality, citizenship and protection, statelessness being measured by its lack; John Torpey’s account of the passport as a bureaucratic technique for administering a nation’s boundaries and the League’s Nansen Passport after 1922 are set out. Before standard issue, consuls granted laissez-passer to Arabs on Ottoman passports, but Arabs could be refused and were disadvantaged by Ottoman documents, former Ottoman subjects including Sephardic Jews being regarded as enemies before Lausanne’s ratification, while European Jewish provisional-certificate holders did not face the same problems. Plumer in 1927 favoured more inclusive permission to settle for those born in Palestine without citizenship, against the Foreign Office; Bentwich announced sympathetic reconsideration for those ‘genuinely attached’, against J. H. Lloyd and the Colonial Office stance that creating a protected class abroad was ‘a nuisance to the Consuls and no credit to the Empire’ and the system ‘absolutely fair and equitable’. Emigrants in countries without a Turkish consulate could not obtain the Turkish documents Britain deemed them to hold, yet Turkish naturalisation was grounds for refusal since Arabs could not hold dual nationality. Provisional certificates’ expiration forced extension to the end of 1926 and a Foreign Office decision to stop endorsing laissez-passer after March 1927. The Palestine passport conferred no right of entry to the UK or Empire and no exemption from visa rules; Palestine had no consular service of its own, so the duty of protection fell on Great Britain. Naturalised citizens absent three years had to state reasons at passport renewal; validity for naturalised citizens was limited to two years in November 1926, Plumer calling Jews who acquired citizenship and left guilty of ‘the exploitation of Palestinian nationality’; debates centred on Jewish citizens, who travelled freely, while Arab emigrants were denied entry in the first place.

• Chapter 5 — Bureaucratising Palestinian Nationality: Naturalisation, Revocation and Amending Citizenship (PDF p.139-147 / printed p.128-136): under Arab protest and official concern, amendment was considered in the later 1920s, naturalisation reform being the main contention; institutionalised procedures differentiated by an entrant’s nationality, and the section analyses fitness for citizenship against colonial perceptions of Eastern European Jews as deviant, disloyal agitators, comparing the interwar US codification of hierarchy by national origin and its new category of the illegal alien. Naturalisation (instituted 1925) required knowledge of Hebrew, English or Arabic, good ‘character’, residence for two of three years, minimal fees and an oath; civil servants could be allowed to choose British or Palestinian citizenship with the high commissioner’s authorisation, one official warning against converting the ‘Palestinian Citizen’ into a British subject. Naturalisation enfranchised Jewish immigrants, yet significant numbers did not naturalise; Bentwich in 1929 urged it be made to appeal, initially blaming fees. Married women took their husbands’ nationality; proof of legitimate marriage became an obstacle. On minor children the practice diverged: Jewish men who naturalised could add minor children born outside the territory to their certificates, while children of Arab parents resident abroad without citizenship were not to be considered Palestinian and births abroad could not be registered at consulates, leaving consuls in Latin America without exact records of Palestinians by descent. Dual nationality was acceptable only for Jewish immigrants; Eastern European Jews could be stripped of their original nationality on applying and rendered stateless even if refused, one reason many retained provisional certificates; deported naturalised citizens lost British protection, Gerard Clauson proposing foreign states be asked not to strip deported or non-naturalised Jews, and by 1930 some European governments forced Jewish emigrants to renounce before leaving. DAER’s campaign from 1927 forced reconsideration of rejections — Amery inclined in 1927 to extend citizenship to emigrants maintaining connection, the Foreign Office rejecting thousands despite Ottoman documents — and serious amendment discussion began in 1929, Risley supporting change and criticising Bentwich’s ‘loose generalities’ and his lack of colonial-administration experience. Ormsby-Gore’s December 1927 proposal would have freely granted permission to visit or settle, with family, to Palestinians by birth abroad holding Turkish nationality, measuring communities’ take-up as genuine attachment. Risley’s proposed Article 1 addition would have allowed ‘treaty nationality’ declarations by those habitually resident on 6 August 1924 who left before 1 August 1925 and returned without another nationality, but would not have affected the vast majority who left before August 1924; Plumer sought consideration for those resident until October 1924 who returned by 1927. Bentwich proposed court determination of habitual residence and, more favourably to Arab demands, that anyone who left in 1924 or 1925 and returned within five years be treated as a habitual resident ‘as of right and not by naturalisation’, the Foreign Office countering with four years. In 1929 the Foreign Secretary held the entire Order should be amended, the Colonial Office agreeing in 1930; drafting immediately split the Foreign and Home Offices, including over high commissioners’ power to revoke. In July 1931 the Palestine Citizenship Order (Amendment) 1931 was ratified: treaty nationality incorporated, four years from issue to claim, ipso facto citizenship for Ottoman subjects habitually resident before 1 August 1925 unless another nationality had been acquired, a ‘substantial connection’ still required of those abroad, and explicit high-commissioner power to revoke or annul a naturalisation certificate for any reason deemed legitimate; in sum it qualified only Arabs who had left in the year between Lausanne’s ratification and the 1925 Order. Bentwich was replaced as attorney-general by Harry Trusted in 1931.

• Chapter 5 — The Amended Order, Subversive Citizens and the International Context (PDF p.147-149 / printed p.136-138; continues in part 4): after the amendment, amid heightened surveillance of people in transit in British and French territories, the distinctions did not necessarily privilege all Jewish immigrants: the Colonial Office and Palestine’s Criminal Investigation Department (CID) increasingly feared a connection between Bolshevism, anarchism and communism and Palestine’s urban, secular Jewish population, and revocation was threatened more frequently after 1930 against Jews, authorities placing some in the category of ‘undesirable persons’ for political beliefs, morals and suspected subversive acts — while removal rendered Eastern European Jews stateless and hard to deport. Chancellor expressed anxiety over Eastern European and Russian Jews’ socialist and internationalist affiliations; before 1931 high commissioners recommended annulment for a small number of ‘unsavoury’ Jewish immigrants, and a deported man’s wife and children lost status with him, revocations alarming the Zionist Organisation. Three years after the amendment, Dominions Office member K. O. Roberts-Wray stated it an ‘indisputable fact’ that the legislation was never intended to deny any Palestinian Jew his citizenship, opposed Palestine being ‘guided strictly’ by UK nationality law, and warned that provisional-certificate citizens from before 1925 could not be de-naturalised in any circumstance, implementing such a provision to ‘keep these dangerous elements outside Palestine’ risking confrontation with Zionist leadership; a 1934 Dominions Office memo to Sir John Maffey nonetheless supported depriving citizenship from any Arab or Jew who went to the Soviet Union for a course in communist propaganda, although many accused had citizenship by Ottoman nationality or habitual residence and removal had never been proposed for them. The chapter continues beyond PDF p.149.

• Chapter 5 — The Amended Order, Subversive Citizens and the International Context concluded, and Conclusion (PDF p.150-157 / printed p.139-146): Attorney-General Harry Trusted, Bentwich’s replacement, wished to minimise conflict with the Zionist Organisation and held in 1934 that three years’ residence abroad was ‘not enough [cause] to revoke Palestinian citizenship’ for a naturalised Palestinian Jew, in the case of a man naturalised in 1929 despite residence in Morocco since 1927, whose passport was renewed for three years on condition of permanent return; Jewish citizens abroad for three or more years received warning letters and leniency for poverty or illness (PDF p.150 / printed p.139). Against this, Khalil Marcos wrote in 1927 that 25,000 Palestinian natives lived in Latin America and were not considered citizens, while Jewish Palestinian citizens abroad were likely well under 1,000 and had passports; the Foreign Office saw the Arab emigrants as a class too large, widespread and unmanageable to depend on British protection, and treated them as if they had acquired ipso facto Turkish nationality after 1926, although that could not happen under international law (PDF p.151 / printed p.140). The status of Jewish women became contentious: Article 13 meant alien women who became citizens by marriage did not cease to be Palestinians on divorce; officials lobbied for an amendment against ‘undesirable’ women, and the 1932 Home Office noted the 1930 Hague Convention principles that women retained their original nationality upon marriage. Arthur Wauchope in 1931 proposed separate naturalisation for Jewish wives ‘on very easy terms’; the Dominions Office’s C. W. Dixon replied that the answer was that ‘Palestine citizenship is not “nationality”’, and Great Britain refused separate naturalisation in 1933 (PDF p.152-154 / printed p.141-143). The Foreign Office likewise argued Palestinian citizenship was not Palestinian nationality, so citizenship conferred only a non-political legal subjectivity and a passport, making inhabitants akin to colonial citizen-subjects. By the mid-1930s an estimated 30,000 Palestinian Arab emigrants and their children remained without citizenship; Lord Islington stated in Parliament in mid-1934 that the Arabs, ‘though fulfilling the duties of citizenship, [were] totally without its rights’ (PDF p.155 / printed p.144). The Conclusion: facilitating the Jewish national home encouraged a kind of settler-colonialism through citizenship legislation; favouritism was not, on Banko’s account, the driving force behind application of the policies, but different approaches reinforced Britain’s rule, Arabs and Jews were viewed as separate races in colonial vocabulary, and by 1931 the changes ‘simply affected a legal realm’ without granting the civic, political or social rights Arab nationalists requested (PDF p.155-157 / printed p.144-146).

• Chapter 6, Whose Rights to Citizenship? Expressions and Variations of Palestinian Mandate Citizenship, 1926–1935 (PDF p.158-179 / printed p.147-168): epigraph from Mir’at al-Sharq’s ‘Idrāb ghadān!’ [Strike Tomorrow!] (22 August 1931) calling a strike ‘civilised dissent’. In August 1931 populist groups convened a congress in Nablus that called a general strike against British policy allowing Jewish settlements to be armed; the Arab Executive Committee issued the official call on 23 August 1931 (PDF p.158 / printed p.147). The chapter argues the Arabic press disseminated a new language of citizenship rights and duties after the 1926 municipal elections plan galvanised debate: demands for a representative parliament, laws delineating citizens’ rights and a written constitution, and active expressions through boycotts, strikes and petitions (PDF p.159 / printed p.148). The Independence Party (Istiqlal) highlighted that rights should be given to all Palestinian natives, emphasising subaltern citizens — workers, students and peasants — and popularised citizenship as an inseparable political component of national identity (PDF p.160 / printed p.149). Under The Arabic Press and Mandate Legislation, Banko traces the franchise fight: the 1926 Municipal Franchise Ordinance separated voters by religious community and imposed a property-tax qualification and a 100-piasters tax payment for candidates, which a journalist called ‘contrary to the spirit of true democracy’; Bentwich advised Jewish immigrants awaiting naturalisation decisions were eligible to vote, and for the 1933 municipal elections applicants who had merely applied before 1 September 1933 could vote — Chief Secretary Moody told the Permanent Mandates Commission 1,500 applications awaited decision and 20 per cent failed to obtain citizenship, while in Haifa only two of seventy Jewish voters were actually qualified (PDF p.162-165 / printed p.151-154). Editorials read Jewish public-works concessions, employment and land legislation as negations of Arab citizenship rights; ‘Isa Bandak’s Sawt al-Sha’b invoked ‘no taxation without representation’ (la dara’ib bilā tamthīl); peasants’ tithes (werko) alone made up about 32 per cent of a family’s income by 1930, and Gaza peasant associations protested the 1928 Land Settlement Ordinance in rights language in 1928-1929 (PDF p.165-167 / printed p.154-156). Under Variations and Representations of Mandate Citizens, workers, peasants, women and students came to be represented as citizens: the Palestine Arab Workers Society aimed at benefits for all workers, work-hour limits and housing and health services; the first Palestine Arab Women’s Congress of 1929, attended by more than 200 women, and its Executive’s 1932 petitions demanded bona-fide Palestinian citizens replace foreign civil servants and a democratically elected national government; youth associations, the Young Men’s Muslim Association and Akram Zu’aytir’s Gandhi-inspired civil disobedience programme spread civic identity (PDF p.167-173 / printed p.156-162). Under Transitioning into the Second Decade of the Mandate: The Istiqlal Party, the party — officially formed in 1931, the first non-factional Palestinian party, based in Nablus — drew up its charter in Awni Abd al-Hadi’s home in December 1931, addressed its appeals to ‘the citizens’, and characterised boycott as a duty of citizenship; after 1933 its activities ceased under arrests and exile, and by the mid-1930s secret bands organised by Sheikh ‘Izz al-Din al-Qassam [spelled al-Qassem at PDF p.177] carried a rival, revolt-based civic identity toward the 1936-9 Revolt (PDF p.173-177 / printed p.162-166). The Conclusion: by 1935 Istiqlal and the youth movement had all but disappeared and five factional parties replaced them, but the preceding half-decade transformed citizenship from a middle-class concept into an active practice, the press publishing letters signed by ‘citizens of’ (muwatinīn min) rather than ‘nationals of’; the administration enshrined neither rights nor protections in a constitution, and when the general strike began in April 1936 it gathered massive support owing to the mobilisation of the late 1920s and early 1930s (PDF p.178-179 / printed p.167-168).

• Chapter 7, The Palestine Revolt and Stalled Citizenship (PDF p.180-196 / printed p.169-185; chapter continues in part 5): opens with the Peel Commission’s 1937 statement that ‘there is no genuine enthusiasm to be observed in Palestine for Palestinian citizenship’ and that ‘it is only the Arabs in South America who are really anxious for it’; Peel also validated the demand that Arab emigrants be given Palestinian citizenship in order to return. The Commission heard evidence from the end of 1936 to January 1937 (PDF p.180-181 / printed p.169-170). Banko argues the pre-1936 language of rights transformed among the rebel leaders, mostly lower-class Muslim villagers, into a language of patriotism, loyalty and anti-Zionism, in which citizenship as a bundle of rights had little currency although the aims of self-government and an end to Jewish immigration were shared. Under Palestinian Arab Civic Identity and the General Strike of 1936: al-Qassam’s death in November 1935 made him a martyr and reinvigorated a rural nationalist movement; Wauchope’s legislative council plan failed when Parliament refused to support it, and the November 1935 Nablus strike, Zu’aytir’s address to participants as ‘thanks to you, the citizens!’, and tax-refusal appeals from March 1936 built toward the strike (PDF p.183-187 / printed p.172-176). After the mid-April 1936 murders of two Jewish truck drivers and the reprisal cycle, nearly 140 senior Arab officials explained their resignation to Wauchope as civic duty; national committees formed, and on 25 April 1936 the Mufti met the five largest parties in Jerusalem to form the Arab Higher Committee (HAC). By mid-May the HAC announced ‘no taxation without representation’ as the hallmark of citizenship practice; village committees split between civil disobedience and armed revolt, and Fawzi al-Din al-Qawuqji’s first communiqué, addressed to the ‘citizens’, called taking up arms a duty (PDF p.187-189 / printed p.176-178). The strike was called off after six months in October 1936 and failed to paralyse the economy, its costs falling hardest on the poor (PDF p.190-191 / printed p.179-180). Under Stalled Citizenship: From the Citizenry to the ‘Population’: by early 1937 the Emergency Regulations — de facto martial law in Matthew Hughes’s term — denied the few rights Arabs had enjoyed, Chatterjee’s distinction between ‘the citizens’ and ‘the population’ framing the British reclassification of Arabs as a colonised population; collective punishment included the June 1936 demolition of old Jaffa’s Arab quarters, leaving up to 6,000 homeless, while Jewish Palestinians suffered neither collectively. The March 1937 Palestine Defence Order-in-Council made carrying firearms punishable by death and criminalised meetings of more than twelve people; after the September 1937 murder of District Commissioner Lewis Andrews the Colonial Office authorised torture of Arab suspects, and the HAC was declared illegal (PDF p.191-194 / printed p.180-183). Rebel leaders meanwhile ran their own courts, cancelled rents and rural taxes, and reduced mandate citizenship to a meaningless status by the end of 1937 (PDF p.195 / printed p.184). Under Palestinian Citizenship and the Royal Peel Commission: Arab leaders boycotted the Commission until January 1937 after nearly 2,000 more Jewish entry permits were allowed; the first case study, Hussein Khalil Abu Ziyad — born in Ottoman Palestine in the 1890s, who left in the early 1920s and retained Ottoman documents — was refused admission as a citizen after a California consul reported him ‘unsound and an inmate of a state hospital for the insane’, the Colonial Office fearing by the end of 1936 that his exclusion could be given a ‘political complexion [sic]’ and could not be justified under the 1933 Immigration Ordinance (PDF p.195-196 / printed p.184-185). The second case study and the chapter continue beyond PDF p.196.

• Chapter 7 — second case study, cantonisation, and Peel testimony (PDF p.197-200 / printed p.186-189): the second case study is John George Rock, Palestine-born son of Ottoman subject George Rock, naturalised British in the 1890s; the Home Office, applying the Ottoman Nationality Law of 1869, held in late 1936 that because the elder Rock had not automatically lost Ottoman nationality on British naturalisation, John George was not a British subject, although his father proclaimed that ‘on [his] naturalisation he swore allegiance to the British Government and no one else’. Talks on a further amended order paused for the Royal Commission. The Commission studied and rejected cantonisation — three cantons, Arab, Jewish and mixed, in L. G. Archer Cust’s version; Chief Secretary Sydney Moody asked ‘whether any of us know what cantonisation means?’ — but its partition recommendation reflected the same deeper questions. In January 1937 Arab witnesses stressed jus sanguinis and jus soli as rights to citizenship: Awni Abd al-Hadi stated at least 4,000 Jews entered yearly on tourist visas and were ‘lost’ from the counts; Akram Zu’aytir and schoolteacher Muhammed ‘Izza Darwazah argued citizenship was a natural right based on birth and descent; ‘Isa Bandak urged the Commission to implement the Arabs’ own suggestions; and Abd al-Latif al-Saleh traced Arab nationality from Ottoman times, held prejudice against the emigrants ‘forbidden by international law’, and argued the mandate text did not distinguish ‘civil rights’ from ‘religious rights’. Commissioner for Migration and Statistics Major E. Mills admitted the administration categorised Jewish and Arab citizens separately, and that at the end of 1936 only 43 per cent of the estimated 384,000 Jewish inhabitants were Palestinian citizens.

• Chapter 7 — the Peel report, partition options, and Conclusion (PDF p.200-206 / printed p.189-195): the July 1937 report noted naturalisation field officers visited Jewish settlements specifically to ensure immigrants naturalised (out of just over 6,000 applications in 1935, more than 1,500 were accepted by a field officer from Jewish settlements), and that 92,000 of the 384,000 Jewish residents in 1936 were recent immigrants unable to qualify; Peel affirmed the chief allegiance of many immigrants was to the Jewish community rather than to the Palestine Government. The Commission planned revisions ‘to enable all natives to obtain citizenship’ and was extremely favourable to the emigrants, over the restated British objection that it was ‘undesirable to grant Palestinian citizenship to persons who have been absent from Palestine for several years’; its report noted approximately 40,000 emigrants had lost their chance and that, the form’s ‘where do you intend to reside?’ question being answered with the current country of residence, out of more than 9,000 applications only 100 were accepted, concluding the Arabs should be restored ‘a right ordinarily enjoyed by the nationals of civilized peoples’ and that it was ‘reasonable and proper’ that protection be extended to the emigrants. It quoted itself: ‘There is no genuine enthusiasm to be observed in Palestine for Palestinian citizenship. It is only the Arabs in South America who are really anxious for it.’ For partition it listed three options — full citizenship for every adult Arab resident in the Jewish state if he wished (with an option of citizenship in the Arab ‘Mother State’), a minority statute recognising Arabs as a ‘National Minority’, and a ‘Nationality Statute’ recognising Arab Palestinians as ‘an Equal Nationality on par with the Jews, as a “staatsvolk”’ — suggesting the third was most feasible; the Arab Higher Committee argued minority nationality was inadequate and partition neither possible nor acceptable. Partition was not implemented (Foreign Office objecting, Colonial Office endorsing), and the draft amended order was not published for two years. The Conclusion: by 1937 Arab nationality and Palestinian citizenship were imagined as distinct statuses, each entailing a different type of political, civic and social belonging, varying by urban and rural leadership; the rebels’ parallel courts transformed citizenship into belonging to the Arab nation but fell short of providing rights, trying civilians as ‘traitors’ and ‘collaborators’ without constitutional protections.

• Chapter 8, Conclusion – The End of the Experiment: Discourses on Citizenship at the Close of the Mandate (PDF p.207-216 / printed p.196-205): opens in 1938 with deported leaders interned in the Seychelles; former Jerusalem mayor Husayn Khalidi, on hunger strike, wrote to High Commissioner Harold MacMichael of his shame in ‘remember[ing] I carry a British passport’, which ‘cannot accord its bearer the element once famed [of] British justice which accorded every citizen a right to stand his trial and defend himself’, petitioning: ‘[w]e are either subjects of Your Majesty’s Government and Empire or we are not’. The Foreign Office reaffirmed the following year that Palestinian nationality did not reflect nationality in an ordinary sense nor confer rights — a specialised, apolitical British-protected person status. The Revolt ended in 1939: authorities executed more than 100 rebels, Arab deaths totalled 5,000 and detained more than 5,500; the 1939 White Paper, describing limits to Jewish immigration and land purchases, greater Arab involvement and independence within ten years, was rejected by both the Arab leadership and the Zionist Organisation. Under Immigration, Nationality and Documentary Identity on the Eve of War, Germany’s treatment of Jews forced Britain to certify that Palestinian citizens seeking residence in Germany, such as doctor Mafid Abd al-Hadi, were Arab rather than Jewish; the Foreign Office warned in 1938 against impersonation of Palestinian citizens to obtain passports; in the first five months of 1938 passports were withheld from seventy-three Jewish women in Poland falsely claiming marriage to Palestinians, and of almost 4,500 Palestinian Jewish marriages in 1936 half had ended in divorce two years later. The 1938 Annual Report recorded more than 9,000 nationality certificates issued in 1938 (nearly 54,000 since 1925 out of almost 61,000 applications), more than 18,000 individuals acquiring citizenship that year, the majority Polish and German Jews, plus ninety-two ‘Turkish’ individuals, forty Syrians and seventeen Egyptians, and nearly 15,600 passports issued. In early 1939 the Foreign Office proposed passport covers read ‘Passport – British Mandated Territory of Palestine’, following the Rex v. Ketter report ‘Citizen in Palestine not a British subject’; by the end of 1938 more than 170,000 citizens had voluntary identity cards, in the region of 90,000 of them Arabs. Under Jewish Identity and Changes to Palestinian Citizenship, Shira Robinson’s ‘racial unmixing’ argument is set out; after Peel, Wauchope and the Colonial Office separately drafted amended orders, deferred and contested over Lausanne, security and the definition of ‘Jewish’; Commander Locker-Lampson’s bill for universal Palestinian citizenship for all Jews — intended, he said, as ‘a “gesture”’ for about 200,000 central European Jews — split the Commons 144 to 144 before withdrawal, the Colonial Office stating that if such a grant were contemplated for Jews abroad, ‘it would be imperative not to overlook the claims of Arabs born in Palestine who are living abroad’; the Jewish Agency request that German refugees receive ‘full rights of citizenship’ upon arrival was declined, MacMichael noting it would ‘differentiate between Jews in Palestine on the grounds of nationality’.

• Chapter 8 — the 1939 and 1942 amendments and Conclusions (PDF p.217-225 / printed p.206-214): on 25 July 1939 the Palestine Citizenship (Amendment) Order-in-Council 1939 was ratified: an alien woman married to a Palestinian citizen would receive naturalisation on separate terms from her husband (revoking the 1931 order’s Article 12), and amended Article 2 gave Palestinian-born Arabs abroad who possessed Ottoman nationality in 1925 or continued to hold Turkish citizenship, and had ‘since maintained an unbroken personal connection with Palestine and intend to resume permanent residence in Palestine’, two years to opt in through any British consul — an exclusive benefit to Arabs and a significant victory for the emigrants’ lobby, less than two years after Peel. A final 1942 amendment extended the option period to six years; yet from 1925 to 1946 fewer than 500 native Palestinian Arabs abroad returned and acquired citizenship, for reasons including high commissioners’ discretion over ‘unbroken personal connection’ (Mutaz M. Qafisheh) and wartime restrictions. The Conclusions hold that Britain acted from 1918 to 1942 to maintain support for Jewish immigration and naturalisation as the primary means of establishing the Jewish national home, that citizenship legislation never progressed beyond regulating legal/international status and documentary identity, and that the 1925 Order created more debate than it resolved; the middle-class political public and the emigrants, through ‘jinsiyya’ rather than ‘muwatana’, conflated nationality and citizenship; and by the early 1930s rural and lower-class Arabs actively demanded rights, before expressions of citizenship stalled as spaces closed. UN Resolution 181 (November 1947) is treated in its citizenship chapter: Palestinian citizens outside Jerusalem, and Arabs and Jews without citizenship living in Palestine, would become citizens of the state of their residence upon independence with all civil and political rights, Jerusalem residents becoming citizens of the City of Jerusalem unless they opted otherwise. The declaration of a Jewish state on 15 May 1948 led to an exodus of from 250,000 to 350,000 Palestinian Arab citizens; from 1948 to 1952 Palestinian Arabs were effectively stateless, Israel’s Supreme Court holding Palestinian citizenship terminated on 14 May 1948, and the 1952 Israeli Nationality Law affirmed denaturalisation retroactively, its Article 3 stating children born to stateless Palestinian Arab parents were also stateless; immigrant Jews came to be called ‘native nationals’ while Arabs were categorised as foreigners or aliens (zarim), and Arabs who received Israeli citizenship received it by residence, mirroring Lausanne. West Bank Arabs received Jordanian nationality only after the banks were united in 1950; Gaza’s 1962 Constitutional Order stated all Palestinians were one national entity with one Palestinian nationality, without Egyptian nationality; the PLO’s 1968 National Charter (Articles 4-5) passed Palestinian identity by blood and defined Palestinians as Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine, and anyone born after that date of a Palestinian father. The PA’s 1995 draft citizenship law was not passed, the third Draft Constitution envisioned citizenship passing by descent indefinitely, and the 2003 Basic Law, Article 7, states ‘Palestinian citizenship shall be regulated by law’ without defining Palestinians; Victor Kattan’s argument that all Palestinians have been denationalised since the end of 1948 is noted. The book ends: Arabs and Jews never became ‘national citizens’ during the mandate, and mandate citizenship ‘was not a citizenship that they envisioned nor was it for them’.

• Notes (PDF p.226-246 / printed p.215-235; Notes continue in part 6): the Notes to Chapter 1 (Introduction) are read in full (notes 1-42, PDF p.226-231): the September 1929 Sawt al-Sha’b editorial, the League Council minutes of April 1923, and the citizenship literature of Brubaker, Karatani, Isin, Hanley, White, Stoler, Cooper, Feldman, Habermas, Torpey, Marshall (via Turner: civil, political and social rights in stages), Campos, Ülker, Jayal and Gribetz, with extended notes on Indian identity legislation, the mahjar historiography (Norris, Fahrenthold, Arsan, Gonzalez, Karpat, Khater, Gualtieri and others) left largely without Palestinian emigrants, and on late Ottoman Palestine. The Notes to Chapter 2 are read in full (notes 1-94, PDF p.231-237): Colonial, Foreign and Home Office memoranda of 1919-1925 (Bentwich papers GB 165-0025, CO 733, FO 141, FO 371, FO 608), Cohen, Pedersen, Klieman, Roger Louis, Callahan on the mandate system, Stein and Ben-Ur on protégé Jews, the King–Crane Report (with the note that the mandate charter gave the Zionist Organisation privilege to assist the administration in contradiction with Article 22), Bentwich’s 1939 article, Qafisheh (pp. 75, 95-97), the 1925 Order at CO 733/88/383–98, and the note that British-protected persons and British subjects were accorded the same treatment until the 1934 British Protected Persons Order, which excepted Palestine and Transjordan from its definition. The Notes to Chapter 3 are read in full (notes 1-95, PDF p.237-244): Rocco’s communitarian citizenship, Hourani’s ‘politics of notables’, Kern, Karpat, Hanley, Makdisi, Salam, Davis on jinsiyya versus muwatana, the Arabic press of 1920-1925 (Mir’at al-Sharq, Sawt al-Sha’b, al-Ittihad al-‘Arabī, Bayt Laham), Min Awrāq Akram Zu’aytir and al-Kayyali’s Wathā’iq, the Haycraft Commission interim report, and the note that the official Arabic translation of the 1925 Order itself used ‘nationality law’ (qānun al-jinsiyya al-filastīniyya). The Notes to Chapter 4 are read through note 41 (PDF p.244-246): the La Paz legation memo of 8 April 1927 (CO 733/142/45–6), Schulz and Hammer on the diaspora, Khater, Isin, Gonzalez, Marin-Guzman, Foroohar, Norris and Plummer on Haiti, Logrono Narbona, the San Salvador colony’s 7 March 1919 letter to Lloyd George, the note that Palestinian passports were issued beginning in 1926 (Qafisheh, pp. 147-149), Honduras and Haiti travel-facilities files, the Foreign Office circular of 21 December 1925, and Sawt al-Sha’b diaspora items of 1924-1927.

• Notes concluded (PDF p.247-266 / printed p.236-255): the Notes to Chapter 4 are completed (notes 42-79): the Sawt al-Sha’b, Mir’at al-Sharq and al-Jamiyya al-‘Arabiyya diaspora items of 1927-1933, DAER’s Appeal to the Noble British People and its September 1927 memorandum (CO 733/142), the Honduras petition of 4 June 1927 whose signatories held they were ‘Palestinians, born, bred and reared, and no power of earth can sever our claims and rights as Palestinians’, the extended note on the Appeal’s German-consulate registration point and on children of natives of the separated Ottoman territories, Çaǧaptay on interwar Turkish citizenship law, and the Royal Commission’s nationality report (CO 733/347/4). The Notes to Chapter 5 are read in full (notes 1-95, PDF p.249-255): the revocation file of 5 December 1930 (CO 733/179/2/4), Hunter, Stoler, Robinson and Lee on colonial categorisation and race, Torpey and Ettinger on passports and borders, the passport files of 1926 (CO 733/114, CO 733/118, CO 733/121), the summary of Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the 1925 Order at note 36, the amendment drafting files of 1929-1934 (CO 733/171/14, CO 733/185/7, CO 733/203/13, CO 733/220/12, CO 733/238/14, CO 733/257), Khuri-Makdisi and Thomas on radicalism and intelligence, and the Passfield White Paper and the June 1934 Official Report extract. The Notes to Chapter 6 are read in full (notes 1-73, PDF p.255-260): the Mir’at al-Sharq strike editorial, Safran, Isin and Wood, Somers, Hunter and Sieder, the subaltern-studies note (Pandey; Chalcraft; Cronin; Bradley on Tsarist civil society), the Municipal Franchise Ordinance and voter-verification files (CO 733/113, ISA/M/205/37), the Nakkarah memoir manuscript cited by permission of his family, Lockman and Grinberg on Arab-Jewish labour cooperation (noted as not addressing citizenship), Fleischmann and the women’s-movement literature, the Women’s Congress petitions of 1932 (CO 733/221/9), the 1929 riots figures given at note 53 (133 Jews killed and 339 wounded, more than 120 Arabs dead and 232 wounded, fifty-five Arabs and two Jews found guilty of murder, as cited to Kolinsky, Porath and Bentwich), Shabib’s Arabic monograph on Istiqlal and Matthews, and Chatterjee. The Notes to Chapter 7 are read in full (notes 1-84, PDF p.260-264): the Royal Commission nationality documents, the press-censorship note (the 1933 Press Law, suspensions of all four Arabic dailies, Sufian on cartoons), Haiduc-Dale on Arab Christians, the party-platform note (Husaynis, Nashashibis, Khalidis; Rashid Khalidi), Swedenburg, Abu Gharbiyah, Yassin, El-Tahir and Zu’aytir’s diary, Hughes on collective punishment (first applied in 1921 after the Jaffa riots; the note 46 catalogue of punishments and demolition fines), the Abu Ziyad and George Rock files (CO 733/286/1, CO 733/306/13), Ahmed Khalid’s cantonisation suggestion (South Syria and Eretz-Israel; CO 733/248/20), the field-officer naturalisation note, and the HAC’s 1947 UN documents volume. The Notes to Chapter 8 are read in full (notes 1-43, PDF p.264-266): the Seychelles deportees’ petitions (CO 733/369/3), Rashid Khalidi’s The Iron Cage, Sheffer on appeasement, the 1938 passport, naturalisation and annual-report files (CO 733/363/1, CO 733/357/2, CO 733/399/10), the 1937 and 1939 amendment files (CO 733/332/6, CO 733/397/13), the 1942 Amendment Order, Qafisheh p.108, Resolution 181, Kassim’s Palestine Yearbook, Robinson, Dallasheh on Nazareth, the 1968 Palestinian National Charter (with ‘my emphasis’ noted), Assem Khalil’s CARIM report, the 2003 Amended Basic Law, Rouhana and Sultany, and Kattan on denationalised Palestinians.

• Bibliography (PDF p.267-283 / printed p.256-272): I. Unpublished — archival sources (ISA Mandatory Material M and MFA; PRO Colonial, Foreign, War and Home Office series; the Bentwich papers GB165-0025 at the Middle East Centre, Oxford; the Amery papers at Churchill College, Cambridge) and three dissertations/manuscripts (Barakat, Campos, and the Nakkarah memoir). II. Official Publications — the 2003 Amended Basic Law, the King-Crane Report, the Colonial Office administration reports, the Mandate for Palestine, the League Council minutes of April 1923, the Passfield White Paper (Cmd. 3692), the Royal Commission Report (Cmd. 5479), the HAC’s 1947 UN documents and the 1968 Palestinian National Charter. III. Books, Articles and Chapters, alphabetical from Abu-Manneh to Zachs and Bawardi, comprising the secondary literature cited in the Notes as credited in the reading notes. IV. Newspapers — Al-Difa’, Filastīn, Al-Huquq, Al-Ittihad al-‘Arabī, Al-Jamiyya al-‘Arabiyya, Al-Jamiyya al-Islamiyya, Mir’at al-Sharq, Sawt al-Haqq and Sawt al-Sha’b.

• Index (PDF p.284-289 / printed p.273-278): an alphabetical index of persons, places, laws, newspapers and concepts, with the fullest entries under citizenship (with its sub-entries), nationality, naturalisation, the 1925 Order, emigrants, immigration, passports, the Peel Commission, the Palestine Revolt and the press, as detailed in the reading notes.

Key passages

• “The unavoidable displacement of these native Palestinians due to the 1925 Citizenship Order-in-Council is an unspoken yet crucial element of the Palestinian Arab diaspora today as well as during the interwar years.” (The Invention of Palestinian Citizenship, 1918–1947, PDF p.32 / printed p.21)

• ‘Palestine is a land of marvels and this new regulation [for provisional nationality] is one of them’ (The Invention of Palestinian Citizenship, 1918–1947, PDF p.35 / printed p.24, Abdul Khader al-Muzaffer as quoted)

• ‘shall have the spectacle of the Jewish National Home containing quantities of Jews who are not citizens’ (The Invention of Palestinian Citizenship, 1918–1947, PDF p.48 / printed p.37, H. W. Malkin as quoted)

• ‘on a lower plane of civilisation than the average Egyptian’ (The Invention of Palestinian Citizenship, 1918–1947, PDF p.50 / printed p.39, Curzon reporting the Egyptian administration’s assumption, as quoted)

• ‘countries with their civil and other rights and privileges are the property of their inhabitants and constitute an heirloom of the nation’ (The Invention of Palestinian Citizenship, 1918–1947, PDF p.81-82 / printed p.70-71, Musa Kazim al-Husayni as quoted)

• ‘more politically minded than a small English country town’ (The Invention of Palestinian Citizenship, 1918–1947, PDF p.87 / printed p.76, Haycraft Commission on the villagers of Tulkarm, as quoted)

• ‘a wide crater in the roof of Palestinian nationality’ (The Invention of Palestinian Citizenship, 1918–1947, PDF p.92 / printed p.81, ‘Isa Bandak as quoted)

• ‘unlikely that there will be many applicants falling under Article 2 of the Order’ (The Invention of Palestinian Citizenship, 1918–1947, PDF p.96 / printed p.85, a Foreign Office official as quoted)

• ‘orphans from the government’ (The Invention of Palestinian Citizenship, 1918–1947, PDF p.110 / printed p.99, Musa Kazim al-Husayni to Colonial Secretary Amery, as quoted, on what the public held Britain to have made of the emigrants)

• ‘a nuisance to the Consuls and no credit to the Empire’ (The Invention of Palestinian Citizenship, 1918–1947, PDF p.136 / printed p.125, the Colonial Office on a class entitled to British protection but not living in a British-administered territory, as quoted)

• ‘the exploitation of Palestinian nationality’ (The Invention of Palestinian Citizenship, 1918–1947, PDF p.138 / printed p.127, High Commissioner Plumer on Jewish individuals who acquired citizenship and left Palestine, as quoted)

• ‘keep these dangerous elements outside Palestine’ (The Invention of Palestinian Citizenship, 1918–1947, PDF p.149 / printed p.138, the Foreign Office as quoted on de-naturalising citizens who travelled for communist propaganda)

• ‘though fulfilling the duties of citizenship, [the Arabs] are totally without its rights’ (The Invention of Palestinian Citizenship, 1918–1947, PDF p.155 / printed p.144, Lord Islington in Parliament, mid-1934, as quoted)

• ‘There is no genuine enthusiasm to be observed in Palestine for Palestinian citizenship’ (The Invention of Palestinian Citizenship, 1918–1947, PDF p.180 / printed p.169, the Royal (Peel) Commission, 1937, as quoted)

• ‘on [his] naturalisation he swore allegiance to the British Government and no one else’ (The Invention of Palestinian Citizenship, 1918–1947, PDF p.197 / printed p.186, George Rock as quoted)

• ‘whether any of us know what cantonisation means?’ (The Invention of Palestinian Citizenship, 1918–1947, PDF p.198 / printed p.187, Chief Secretary Sydney Moody as quoted)

• ‘a right ordinarily enjoyed by the nationals of civilized peoples’ (The Invention of Palestinian Citizenship, 1918–1947, PDF p.202 / printed p.191, the Peel Commission on the emigrants’ citizenship, as quoted)

• ‘cannot accord its bearer the element once famed [of] British justice which accorded every citizen a right to stand his trial and defend himself’ (The Invention of Palestinian Citizenship, 1918–1947, PDF p.207 / printed p.196, Husayn Khalidi on his Palestine passport, as quoted)

• ‘those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there’ (The Invention of Palestinian Citizenship, 1918–1947, PDF p.223 / printed p.212, Article 5 of the Palestinian National Charter of 1968, as quoted)

• ‘Palestinians, born, bred and reared, and no power of earth can sever our claims and rights as Palestinians’ (The Invention of Palestinian Citizenship, 1918–1947, PDF p.247 / printed p.236, Chapter 4 note 50, the Honduras petitioners of 4 June 1927, as quoted in the note)

Evidence the work relies on

• Records of the Colonial, Foreign, Home, Dominions and India Offices, Parliamentary debates, Trade and Treasury Offices, the Crown Agents and the Law Officers, as listed in the Introduction (PDF p.28 / printed p.17).

• Mandate legislation, the Arabic press and documents of nationalist and local societies and leaders (PDF p.28 / printed p.17).

• The Zionist Organisation’s commentary and advice, which the Introduction and Chapter 2 present as shaping the mandate charter and nationality legislation drafts (PDF p.28, p.43-44).

• The citizenship and imperial-history literature cited in the Introduction as read so far: Brubaker, Isin, Hanley, White, Stoler, Cooper, Wilson, Karatani, Habermas, Torpey, Marshall, Turner, Darwin and Lester, each as credited in the reading notes; and in Chapter 2, Cohen, Klieman, Pedersen, Lambert and Lester, Wasserstein, Lockman, Stein and Ben-Ur, each as credited in the reading notes.

• In Chapter 3, the Arabic press as named there — Sawt al-Sha’b, Mir’at al-Sharq, Filastin, al-Karmil and al-Ittihad al-‘Arabī — with petitions, letters and statements of the Muslim-Christian Association, the Arab Executive Committee, the Palestinian Arab Congresses and the 1921 Delegation, and the Haycraft Commission’s report, each as credited in the reading notes; and the citizenship literature of Rocco, Kern, Karpat, Hanley, Makdisi, Ülker, Watenpaugh, Gelvin, Kabha, Campos and Thompson, each as credited in the reading notes.

• In Chapter 4, mahjar press and association records and consular and Colonial Office cases of emigrants in Latin America, Haiti, Cuba and Chile, with Khater, Isin, Karpat and Logrono Narbona, each as credited in the reading notes.

• In Chapter 4’s completion, the Honduras 1924 claims, the Haiti merchants’ case, Sawt al-Sha’b’s letter columns from El Salvador, Honduras and Brazil, DAER’s memoranda and its 1928 Appeal to the Noble British People, and Foreign and Colonial Office correspondence over consular instructions, each as credited in the reading notes.

• In Chapter 5, Colonial and Foreign Office files on revocation, passports and naturalisation, the 1931 Amendment Order drafting correspondence, and the citizenship literature of Hunter, Stoler and Torpey, each as credited in the reading notes.

• Documentary sources in personal archives, libraries and state archives in the United Kingdom, Israel, the West Bank and Beirut (PDF p.28 / printed p.17); Arabic diaspora sources in the Americas, the Caribbean and the Philippines are noted as numerous but in part not consulted (PDF p.28).

• In Chapter 6, Arabic press coverage of the municipal franchise, land and labour legislation, records of the Istiqlal Party, the Women’s Congress and youth associations, and the citizenship literature of Somers, Hunter, Sieder, Weber, Chakrabarty and Matthews, each as credited in the reading notes.

• In Chapter 7, Peel Commission evidence and report, HAC communiqués, petitions and strike-committee records, and the revolt literature of Swedenburg, Provence, Chatterjee, Cormier and Couton, Hughes and Shepherd, each as credited in the reading notes.

• In Chapter 7’s completion and Chapter 8, Peel Commission evidence and report (including Mills’s citizenship figures and the naturalisation field-officer figures), Colonial, Foreign, Home and Dominions Office drafting files for the 1939 amendment, the 1938 Annual Report to the League, and the citizenship literature of Robinson, Qafisheh, Dallasheh and Kattan, each as credited in the reading notes.

• The Notes to Chapters 1-3 in full and to Chapter 4 through note 41, as read in this part, give the footnote-level citations for the Introduction and Chapters 2-4: British office files (CO 733, FO 141/371/608, GB 165-0025), the Arabic press, and the secondary literature, each as credited in the reading notes for PDF p.226-246.

• The remaining Notes (Chapter 4 notes 42-79 and Chapters 5-8 in full) and the Bibliography, as read in the final part, complete the footnote-level citations for Chapters 4-8 and list the work’s unpublished archival sources (ISA, PRO, the Bentwich and Amery papers), official publications and newspaper sources in full, each as credited in the reading notes for PDF p.247-283.

Analysis

Banko’s method is legislative and discursive history: the Introduction reframes Palestinian nationalism as forged through contests over citizenship — legal status, vocabulary, protection and rights — rather than appearing fully formed in 1918; Chapter 2 reconstructs how British officials, divided among themselves and influenced by the Zionist Organisation, drafted nationality into a dual, apolitical form before any Palestinian citizenship existed in law; Chapter 3 reconstructs the Arab side from the press, petitions and associations, framing it through Rocco’s communitarian citizenship rather than through liberal citizenship alone; Chapter 4 completes the diaspora side, framing emigrants through Isin’s ‘making citizens’ and tracing how their exclusion produced the ‘right to return’ demand and DAER’s internationalist rhetoric; and Chapter 5 shifts to the bureaucracy itself, framing naturalisation, passports and revocation as a ‘politics of distinction’ while stressing that application was uneven and not consistently favourable to Jewish immigrants in every local instance. The claims rest on the British office records and Arabic press the book lists, and the Notes (printed p.215-255), now read in full, supply the footnote-level archival, press and secondary citations behind every chapter, as credited in the reading notes. Chapter 6 shifts the method to the Arabic press and associational life, tracing citizenship as an active practice claimed from below; Chapter 7 follows that language into the strike and revolt, contrasting urban rights-talk with rebel patriotism and with the British administrative shift from ‘citizens’ to ‘population’ under emergency law. Chapter 7’s completion and Chapter 8 close the argument in the legislative register again: Peel vindicated the emigrants’ claim in principle while partition buried it, the 1939 amendment conceded the Article 2 principle fifteen years late and to little practical effect (fewer than 500 returnees by 1946), and the conclusion extends the story through Resolution 181, the 1952 Israeli Nationality Law, Jordanian and Gazan arrangements, the 1968 PLO Charter and the PA drafts, presenting the mandate’s unresolved definition of the citizen as a living legacy.

People, organizations, places and events

Lauren Banko, Norman Bentwich, Herbert Samuel, Chaim Weizmann, Winston Churchill, World Zionist Organization, League of Nations, Permanent Mandates Commission, Occupied Enemy Territory Administration, King-Crane Commission, Ilana Feldman, Colonial Office, Foreign Office, Palestine Order-in-Council 1922, Palestine Citizenship Order-in-Council 1925, Treaty of Lausanne, Edward Keith-Roach, Muslim-Christian Association, Arab Executive Committee, Supreme Muslim Council, Amin al-Hussaini, Musa Kazim al-Husayni, ‘Isa Bandak, Boutrus al-Bustani, Ottoman Nationality Law of 1869, Filastin, Committee for the Defence of Arab Emigrant Rights to Palestinian Citizenship, Palestine Citizenship Order (Amendment) 1931, Jewish Agency, Shaw Commission, Independence Party, Awni Abd al-Hadi, Akram Zu’aytir, Arthur Wauchope, Harry Trusted, Young Men’s Muslim Association, Izz al-Din al-Qassam, Arab Higher Committee, Peel Commission, Fauzi al-Qawuqji, Palestine Arab Workers Society, 1936-39 Revolt in Palestine, John George Rock, Abd al-Latif al-Saleh, Husayn Khalidi, Harold MacMichael, Palestine Citizenship (Amendment) Order-in-Council 1939, Rex v. Ketter, UN General Assembly Resolution 181, Palestine Liberation Organization, Mutaz M. Qafisheh, Muhammad Izzat Darwaza

Concepts

Palestinian nationality, Provisional Palestinian nationality, Tanzimat, Palestinian Arab diaspora, Communitarian citizenship, Conquest of Labour

How it relates to other sources

• Banko’s account of Palestinian nationality formed under Lausanne and codified by the 1925 Order, narrowed for Palestinians abroad while facilitating Jewish immigrant naturalisation, agrees with and gives the legislative drafting history behind the account in Rethinking Statehood in Palestine Chapter 8 (see Palestinian nationality).
• Her apolitical-citizenship point is credited to Feldman’s work, the author of Governing Gaza; Feldman’s Gaza administration history covers the same early Mandate administration from the bureaucracy’s side.
• Her treatment of Mandate citizenship as a legal status that offered Arabs no rights with which to challenge lack of protection stands before, and as background to, Molavi’s account in Stateless Citizenship (2013) of citizenship itself as the medium of exclusion for Palestinian-Arab citizens of Israel.
• Chapter 3’s account of the Muslim-Christian Association, the Arab Executive Committee and the 1922 election boycott as civic practices gives the early-Mandate prehistory of the organisations and leadership whose later party landscape The 1936-39 Revolt in Palestine surveys on the eve of the 1936-39 revolt.

Open questions

• The text gives the League’s approval of the Mandate as 24 June 1922 (PDF p.52 / printed p.41) and, in the next paragraph, ratification of the mandate in July 1922 (PDF p.52 / printed p.41); both dates are held as printed.
• The text gives Lausanne’s coming into force and the dates derived from it in several forms, all held as printed: treaty ratification in July 1924 for former Ottoman nationals abroad (PDF p.60 / printed p.49), habitually resident on 1 August 1924 as “the date that Lausanne came into force” (PDF p.61 / printed p.50), the option period retroactively from 6 August 1924 as “the date that the Treaty of Lausanne came into force” (PDF p.63 / printed p.52, and PDF p.96 / printed p.85), and its application in September 1924 (PDF p.58 / printed p.47).
• As-printed slips, each confirmed against the original where noted: “Related RightsRegulations” (PDF p.5), “manscript” (PDF p.8), “Great Britian” (PDF p.24 / printed p.13), “monarchial” for monarchical (PDF p.56 / printed p.45), “resemblances” for resemblance (PDF p.57 / printed p.46), and “wantaniyya” (PDF p.90 / printed p.79). Further as-printed slips confirmed against the original in part 3: “nationalitywould” run together (PDF p.120 / printed p.109), “nautralised” (PDF p.142 / printed p.131), and “principle interests” for principal interests inside the Ormsby-Gore quotation (PDF p.145 / printed p.134). The Colonial Office under-secretary’s name is printed “Shuckerberg” at PDF p.124 / printed p.113 and “Shuckburgh” at PDF p.143 / printed p.132; both spellings are held as printed. Further as-printed forms in part 4: “autumnn” (PDF p.161 / printed p.150), “effect” for affect in the Dixon passage (PDF p.153 / printed p.142), “affects” for effects (PDF p.195 / printed p.184), the name spelled “al-Qassem” once (PDF p.177 / printed p.166) beside “al-Qassam” elsewhere, “Nakkara” (PDF p.194 / printed p.183) beside “Nakkarah” (PDF p.167 / printed p.156), “guerilla” beside “guerrilla” on the same page (PDF p.177 / printed p.166), and the HAC communiqué’s “[qawmtik]” as printed (PDF p.188 / printed p.177). The Istiqlal Party’s founding is given by Banko as officially formed in 1931 (PDF p.174 / printed p.163), while The 1936-39 Revolt in Palestine gives the Independence Party as founded in 1932; both dates are held as printed (see Independence Party).
• Further as-printed slips confirmed against the original in part 5: “principle object” for principal object inside the quoted British objection (PDF p.201 / printed p.190), “correction notion” for correct notion (PDF p.212 / printed p.201), “publically” (PDF p.215 / printed p.204), “insitutionalisation” (PDF p.225 / printed p.214), “Pritts” [as printed] in the Notes (PDF p.229 / printed p.218), and “Augusr” for August in Chapter 3 note 53 (PDF p.241 / printed p.230). The name of Darwaza is spelled “Muhammed ‘Izza Darwazah” in Chapter 7 (PDF p.199 / printed p.188).
• In Chapter 3’s notes the same Sawt al-Sha’b article on the second part of the Balfour Declaration is dated 21 December 1924 at note 85 (PDF p.243 / printed p.232) and 24 December 1924 at Chapter 4 note 24 (PDF p.245 / printed p.234); both dates are held as printed.
• Further as-printed forms confirmed against the original in the final part: “Ngal” [as printed] in Chapter 5 note 38 (PDF p.251 / printed p.240) and in the Bibliography (PDF p.278 / printed p.267), “Pritts” [as printed] in the Bibliography (PDF p.279 / printed p.268), “Jad, Isla” for Islah Jad and “Isin, Egin F.” for Engin F. Isin in the Bibliography (PDF p.275 / printed p.264), the editor’s name spelled “Kassem” in the Bibliography’s Palestine Yearbook entry (PDF p.275 / printed p.264) beside “Kassim” in Chapter 8 notes 31 and 36 (PDF p.266 / printed p.255), Kathleen Wilson’s The Island Race dated 2003 in Chapter 1 note 13 (PDF p.227 / printed p.216) and 2013 in the Bibliography (PDF p.282 / printed p.271), the Index’s institutionalisation page run “202, 2–7” (PDF p.285 / printed p.274) and its statelessness entry’s “144. 172” with a full stop for a comma (PDF p.289 / printed p.278); both Island Race dates and all spellings are held as printed. In Chapter 6’s notes, Shabib’s monograph on Istiqlal is titled Hizb al-Istiqlal al-Arabī fī Filastin, 1932–1933 (note 60, PDF p.259 / printed p.248) and a ‘Biyyān hizb al-istiqlal’ is dated 8 March 1930 (note 62), beside the text’s statement that the party was officially formed in 1931 (PDF p.174 / printed p.163); all are held as printed.
• Internal conflicts in the book’s apparatus, each held as printed: Aviva Ben-Ur’s ‘Identity imperative’ is paginated 1–33 in Chapter 5 note 28 (PDF p.251 / printed p.240) and 165–95 in the Bibliography (PDF p.269 / printed p.258); Frederick Cooper’s chapter is titled ‘Citizenship and the politics of difference in French Africa’ in Chapter 5 note 14 (PDF p.250 / printed p.239) and ‘Citizenship and the politics of difference in French West Africa’ in the Bibliography (PDF p.271 / printed p.260); Rachel Sieder’s article title reads ‘Paz, progreso, justicia y honrade’ in Chapter 6 note 9 (PDF p.256 / printed p.245) and ‘Paz, progreso, justicia y honradez’ in the Bibliography (PDF p.281 / printed p.270); and Mohamed ‘Ali El-Tahir’s name is printed “El-Tahir” in Chapter 7 notes 27 and 37 (PDF p.262 / printed p.251) and “El Tahir” in the Index (PDF p.285 / printed p.274), but “Al-Tahir” in the Bibliography (PDF p.268 / printed p.257).

Coverage

PDF p.1-289 of 289, read in full in parts 1-6 of 6