In late August 1929, the Arabs of Mandatory Palestine did what they did best: slaughter defenseless people — in this case, as in many, Jews.

The massacre took place on August 23–24, 1929, in Hebron, then part of British-controlled Mandatory Palestine.  Arab mobs attacked Jewish residents of Hebron, killing nearly 70 Jews and wounding 60 others.  Many homes and synagogues were ransacked and torched. The obligatory raping of women occurred.  The attacks were carried out by Arab Palestinians against the long-established Jewish community in Hebron.  The Jewish community had lived in Hebron for millennia, way before there was even a single Muslim on the planet.

In the 1920s, consistent with the Balfour Declaration (1917), the agreement (1919) signed between Emir Faisal and Chaim Weizmann (representing the Zionist Organization), and the San Remo Resolution (1920), rising Jewish immigration and nationalism were proceeding as intended.

Inconsistent with these agreements was the creation from Mandatory Palestine, the "national home for the Jewish people," of Transjordan.  The Jews got one eighth of the land, the Arabs seven eighths.

Despite this, the Arabs objected to the mere stump of land reserved for the Jews and increased tensions with the Jews of Palestine.  This erupted in violence in Hebron in 1929.  These tensions were incited more than most realize by the British government and its failure to follow the conditions and agreements under which it was given mandate over Palestine.

To assist and effect the Arab violence (mostly if not all from Muslims as they followed the directions of Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the British-appointed grand mufti of Jerusalem), the British had disarmed Palestinian Jews weeks earlier as part of policies meant to appease the Arab population.  This left the Jewish community vulnerable to attack.

The specific law used by the British to disarm the Jews was the Firearms Act of 1929, which required licenses for firearms and allowed confiscation of weapons by authorities.  This disarmament was strongly protested by the Jewish community at the time.

The Firearms Act was directed primarily at disarming the Jewish population for several reasons.  Among them:

There had been some instances of violence between Jews and Arabs in Palestine by the late 1920s. The British aimed to prevent intercommunal violence by disarming both sides. However, in practice, the disarmament was enforced more thoroughly and punitively against Jews. Arabs managed to "hide" weapons, often provided by the Brits, from authorities.

British officials were also influenced by Arab leaders who warned of violence if Jewish immigration and arms were not restricted. This led to policies appeasing Arab demands.

There was antipathy and distrust towards Zionism among some British officials, which translated into selectivity in disarmament, resulting in selective slaughter.

And, quite interestingly, the British were concerned about rising Jewish immigration and nationalism in Palestine in the 1920s. Disarming Jews was seen as a way to limit the ability of Jewish militias to resist British rule.

Government attempts at disarming populations often precede oppression:

Nazi Germany in the 1930s implemented strict gun control laws that disarmed Jews and other "enemies of the state" while exempting Nazi party members. This left populations vulnerable ahead of the Holocaust.

The Ottoman Empire disarmed Armenians in the late 19th and early 20th centuries prior to the Armenian Genocide, where up to 1.5 million Armenians were killed.

In the 1970s, Idi Amin's regime in Uganda forcibly disarmed tribes such as the Karamojong before persecuting them.

In 2007, gun confiscation laws targeted indigenous hill tribes in Burma/Myanmar, stripping them of weapons shortly before human rights abuses by the military.

In 1990s Rwanda, the Hutu government implemented gun control against the Tutsi population in advance of the genocide, where over 800,000 Tutsis were massacred.

The Soviet Union and China both restricted gun ownership to consolidate power and repress dissent, leading to the death of tens of millions from famine, purges, and gulags.

Systematic disarmament along ethnic, religious, or political lines has often preceded state-sponsored violence and genocide throughout history, as it strips populations of means to resist persecution by the government and its preferred groups — as the Brits did for the Arabs to kill Jews.

Over the last three months, there has been much activity to control guns.

On a federal level there is the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which, among other provisions, expands background checks to private gun sales, potentially forcing everyone to become an FFL or suffer the consequences, and regulations banning "ghost guns" — currently under challenge in court.

States have been active, too.  California now requires background checks to purchase ammo (July 2023), Colorado has increased the waiting period for sales and the minimum age for purchase (June 2023), Maryland is trying to control private gun sales in a manner similar to the Feds (July 2023), Massachusetts is regulating magazine capacity (May 2023), and New Mexico tried to ban the right to carry firearms (September 2023).  New York is attempting, similar to the Feds, to make private sellers of guns FFLs (June 2023).  Washington is doing the same (July 2023).

These are just some of the efforts made by governments to impede citizens from acquiring firearms.  It is more than clear that the effects of these attempts will be felt overwhelmingly by the law-abiding.

So two things to remember from Hebron:

1. Government disarming of the public results in no good.

2. The saying is true: "Disarm Israel, and there will be a massacre.  Disarm the Muslim Arabs, and there will be peace."  History proves it.

Image via Pexels.