How did land purchases, urbanization, and economic changes affect the distribution of Jewish and Arab populations in Palestine from 1920 to 1945?
Executive summary
Between 1920 and 1945 Palestine’s Jewish population grew rapidly through immigration (tens to hundreds of thousands) while the Arab population also rose—largely by natural increase—with British-era statistics showing Jews owned roughly 5–5.7% of the land by 1945 (about 1.39–1.49 million dunams) [1] [2] [3]. Land purchases, urban jobs and economic change concentrated Jewish settlement in coastal plains, valleys and new towns while many Arab fellahin moved into towns or remained in agriculture under increasing economic strain—an outcome that fueled political tensions and periodic violence [4] [5] [6].
1. Rapid Jewish immigration reshaped settlement patterns
Jewish immigration between World War I and World War II produced large demographic change: by some accounts the Jewish population rose from roughly 10% in 1919 to nearly 30% by 1939, and large influxes in the 1920s–30s (aliyot) put hundreds of thousands of Jews in Palestine, most clustered in newly founded towns, kibbutzim and cooperative agricultural projects in the coastal plain, Galilee and valleys [1] [7] [8]. Those immigrants were often settled where Zionist institutions and land purchases had concentrated holdings and infrastructure investment [4] [9].
2. Land purchases were legally significant but limited in area
Official British statistics show Jewish private and collective ownership in 1945 was a small fraction of overall territory—about 5.23–5.67% of Mandate Palestine, roughly 1.39–1.49 million dunams—though purchases were geographically focused in fertile coastal plains, Jezreel Valley and parts of Galilee [2] [4] [3]. Pro- and anti-Zionist writers debate scale and effect: some emphasize the modest national share but the political importance of concentrated acquisitions; others stress purchases from absentee landlords and state domain transfers that dislocated tenants [10] [11] [12].
3. Evictions, absentee landlords and legal frameworks changed rural life
A sizable share of lands bought by Jewish agencies came from large absentee landowners and state domain sales, which sometimes entailed eviction or displacement of tenant fellahin; British land-registration and transfer laws (and later restrictions) shaped how sales occurred and who benefited [11] [13] [3]. British commissions and inquiries noted complaints about evictions but also records indicating many displaced tenants found other agricultural work—historians and contemporary reports diverge on the scale and permanence of rural dispossession [14] [11].
4. Urbanization concentrated Arab populations in towns and grew an urban proletariat
Economic changes and the expanding Jewish-led economy—industry, ports, citrus exports and urban opportunity—drew many Arabs from the countryside into towns and the new urban economy; British and secondary sources record rising urban Arab working classes and greater Arab population growth in cities that also had large Jewish populations [8] [15] [6]. The result was increased demographic mixing in urban districts, competition for jobs and different social outcomes than in traditional rural communities [8] [6].
5. Natural increase vs. migration: competing interpretations
British reports and some demographers attribute most Arab population growth to natural increase rather than immigration—Roberto Bachi and the Survey of Palestine figures are cited to argue that the indigenous Arab community’s growth was mainly birth-driven, with net Arab migration modest in official tallies [16] [17]. Other analysts point to undocumented intra-regional migration and seasonal/illegal entrants—interpretations differ and estimating flows is contested because of registration gaps and illegal movement [18] [16].
6. Political fallout: economic change translated into conflict
Concentrated Jewish landholding, visible immigration, and shifting rural-to-urban patterns intensified Arab political mobilization and periodic violence—the riots of the 1920s and the 1936–39 Arab Revolt are repeatedly linked to land sales, immigration, economic dislocation and rising competition in towns [5] [19]. British policy oscillated—adopting land-transfer limits and immigration quotas at times—reflecting attempts to manage competing communal claims and mounting unrest [20] [21].
7. Limits of available reporting and contested claims
Sources agree on broad trends—Jewish population surge, limited but politically consequential land purchases, and significant Arab natural population growth—but they disagree on scale and effects: some stress displacement and absentee-sales as causes of dispossession [12] [11], while others highlight continuity of Arab demographic growth and argue many tenants remained employed or found new land [14] [16]. Estimating illegal migration, tenant outcomes and the precise social costs of land transfers remains contested in the referenced literature [18] [14].
Conclusion: Between 1920 and 1945, targeted land purchases combined with immigration-driven urbanization and economic shifts to reconfigure where Jews and Arabs lived and worked in Palestine—geographic concentration of Jewish holdings and urban opportunities for Arabs altered local balances and fed the political tensions that erupted repeatedly in the Mandate years. The precise human effects—how many were displaced, how many adapted—remain debated across the cited sources [4] [5] [16].