More on the context
Matthew Hughes , whose book on Palestine revolt I've
posted about, has this lecture on the law and imperial policing/ counterinsurgency,
In it he looks at the way British used law. He argues that the putting down of revolts was not down by wholesale violent excess. But was justified and organised through legal methods. He quotes from army manuals and handbooks that set out regulations for suppression of a revolt.
These manuals were also produced in pocket form so officers could carry them when out on active duty.
They gave legality to actions that army took. Written in such a way as to give commanders on the ground leeway. So collective punishment for example was legal.
In theory army personal when in policing operation like this were also subject to civil law. In practise it was almost impossible for Palestinians to take legal action.
The system of emergency regulations carried over into Israel state when it was founded. Used to keep Palestinians in check.
Whether these were moral uses of force is not the question. Its that they gave a legal basis.
This he argues is for the following reasons:
It meant this was organised use of violence. Pressure could be applied to populations at varying levels. Depending on their cooperation or opposition to authorities. More efficient use of violence for an aim. Which was pacification.
A legal framework gave officials and soldiers a justification for use of violent methods. Here is discussion of how to get ordinary people to use extreme measures. Mentions Hannah Arendt study of Himmler. Following orders that were "legal" made the level of violence seem allowed and normal.
He discusses how to research the violence used. Its not easy and in history of British Empire there is debate on amount of violence used in comparisons to other Empires.
A problem is that the brunt of the violence was directed at ordinary poor Palestinian villagers. Who do not leave records. Most critical records are those left by British missionaries. It takes a lot of digging into archives to find enough evidence.
As said above apart from the memory of this revolt that lives on in Palestine the Israel state suppression of Palestinians uses British methods they inherited when they took over.
Though arguably the flattening of Gaza as a collective punishment goes beyond anything the British would have done.
Hughes points out that in British Empire the most brutal were the settlers. As in Kenya British settlers acting as police did the worst things. They, unlike the British conscript army were defending their homes and way of life.
The same goes for Zionists. British Imperial policy was to pacify colonial population of Palestine. Not remove it and take their land.
Hughes mention this article he helped to advise as an historian
A 300-page dossier details atrocities by British soldiers against Palestinians during UK rule.
www.bbc.co.uk
Meanwhile, Mr al-Masri seeks to argue that the ensuing conflict left the Palestinians entirely vulnerable, as the newly created State of Israel adopted some of the emergency powers left by the British.
"Britain should see the ways and means to compensate… [to] be brave and say: 'Sorry I did this'," he says.
www.aljazeera.com
