How British imperialism paved the way for the Nakba

Marxist Theory · 2026-05-20

Core Argument¶

The article argues that the Nakba of 1948 was not simply the product of Zionist military superiority or the contingencies of 1947–48, but the logical culmination of British imperial strategy in Palestine. British imperialism deliberately cultivated the Zionist settler-colonial project as a loyalist proxy — a "little loyal Jewish Ulster" — to divide the indigenous population, suppress Arab national aspirations, and secure Britain's strategic grip on the Middle East and its oil reserves. The crushing of the 1936–39 Great Arab Revolt was the decisive turning point: it destroyed the organised Palestinian national movement, armed and institutionalised the Zionist paramilitary apparatus under British sponsorship, and created the conditions in which the Yishuv could "pluck the fruits" of that defeat a decade later. The Nakba, on this reading, was not an event that happened despite British policy but because of it.

Theoretical Grounding¶

The analysis is rooted in the classical Marxist tradition of imperialist analysis, drawing on Lenin's theory of imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism and the strategic imperative of dividing oppressed nations along ethnic and sectarian lines. The concept of "divide and rule" is deployed not as a cliché but as a concrete mechanism of colonial governance: the British deliberately fostered a loyalist settler population to act as a counterweight to the national liberation movement, mirroring the partition of Ireland and the creation of "Ulster" as a unionist redoubt. The article also draws on the Marxist understanding of the relationship between economic dispossession and political radicalisation — the systematic land theft and labour market exclusion that tore up the social fabric of Palestinian peasant life and drove the conditions for the 1936 uprising. The analysis sits within the broader Marxist tradition of analysing settler colonialism as a specific form of imperialist expansion, where the colonising power imports a population to displace and supplant the indigenous one, rather than simply extracting surplus value through exploitation of native labour.

Conjunctural Relevance¶

The article was published on the 78th anniversary of the Nakba (May 2026), situating it within the ongoing catastrophe of Palestinian displacement and occupation. The argument directly connects the historical role of British imperialism to the present conjuncture, where the Zionist project — now embodied in the state of Israel — continues to function as a proxy for imperialist interests in the Middle East. The article implicitly challenges the dominant liberal narrative that frames the Nakba as a tragic but distant historical event, instead insisting on its continuity with the current phase of occupation, settlement expansion, and periodic military assaults on Gaza and the West Bank. The reference to the "little loyal Jewish Ulster" strategy also resonates with contemporary geopolitics, where imperial powers continue to deploy ethnic and sectarian proxies to fragment and control regions — from the Kurds in Syria to the various militias armed by external powers across the Middle East. The article's publication by the Revolutionary Communist International positions it as a contribution to the Marxist left's ongoing effort to centre the Palestinian struggle as a key front in the fight against imperialism.

Where the Argument Continues¶

The article explicitly references a companion piece — "exposing the history of Israel-Palestine to 1993" — which presumably extends the analysis from the Nakba through to the Oslo Accords. This suggests a broader corpus within the IDOM/communist.red archive that traces the continuity of imperialist intervention in Palestine across the decades. The argument about British imperialism's role in creating the conditions for the Nakba also connects to wider Marxist debates about the character of the Israeli state — whether it is a settler-colonial entity, an imperialist outpost, or a combination of both. The article does not develop a detailed class analysis of Palestinian society during the Mandate period, nor does it examine in depth the role of the Palestinian elite who collaborated with the British to crush the 1936 strike — both areas where the argument could be deepened. The reference to Ghassan Kanafani, the Palestinian Marxist writer and PFLP leader, points towards a tradition of Marxist analysis of the Palestinian struggle that the article is consciously drawing on and continuing.

Connections¶

Ghassan Kanafani — The 1936–39 Revolt in Palestine: The article quotes Kanafani directly, and his analysis of the revolt's defeat as the precondition for the Nakba is the theoretical backbone of the argument.
Vladimir Lenin — Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism: The theoretical framework for understanding British imperialism's drive to partition and divide.
The partition of Ireland (1921) — The article explicitly draws the parallel between the creation of "loyalist Ulster" and the Zionist project in Palestine, a comparison that deserves deeper exploration in Marxist literature on settler colonialism.
Winston Churchill's role — The article highlights Churchill's centrality to both Zionist policy in Palestine and antisemitic conspiracy theories, a contradiction that reflects the instrumental logic of imperialist "philosemitism."
IDOM articles on the Nakba and contemporary Palestine — The companion piece referenced in the article, plus ongoing coverage of the Palestinian struggle on marxist.com and communist.red.
Against the Stream episodes — The RCI's video and podcast output likely covers the same historical terrain and extends the analysis to the post-1948 period.

Key Quotes¶

"Ronald Storrs, the self-styled 'first military governor of Palestine since Pontius Pilate', spoke with candour about the political purposes of facilitating a tidal wave of Jewish immigration and capital into Palestine. Fresh out of the partition of Ireland, Britain was aiming to create a 'little loyal Jewish Ulster' in the form of the Yishuv (Jewish settlements)."
"Acting as the largest employer in Mandatory Palestine, the Histadrut's policy was crystal clear: '[T]o allow Arabs to penetrate the Jewish labor market meant that the influx of Jewish capital would be employed to service Arab development, which is contrary to Zionist objectives.'"
"The systematic theft of land by the Zionists in the countryside created a deep-seated paranoia in the mind of the peasant that the Palestinian elite were colluding with their enemies. Constant fear of pauperisation in the cities and a looming sense of displacement fuelled the feeling that something had to be done."
"The British dispatched a Royal Commission to investigate the uprising. In 1937, the Peel report concluded that only through 'the dark path of repression' could the current administration be maintained. It proposed the partition of Palestine."
"Though the White Paper caused dismay within leading Zionist circles, it is undeniable that the sole benefactor of the revolt's defeat was in fact them. Playing second fiddle to the most powerful colonial force on the planet, the Zionist leaders had mastered the dark arts of repression."
"In the words of Ghassan Kanafani: 'It is no exaggeration to say that the economic and military presence of the Zionists, whose links with imperialism grew stronger, established its principal foundations in this period […] Thus in 1947 circumstances were favourable, for it to pluck the fruits of the defeat of the 1936 revolt.'"