1945 anti-Jewish riots in Tripolitania

1945 Anti-Jewish riots in Tripolitania
Jews in Italian Libya (number of Jews in each city)
LocationTripoli, British Tripolitania
Date5–7 November 1945
TargetLibyan Jews
Attack type
Violent pogrom, massacre
Deaths140+ Libyan Jews killed
InjuredHundreds of Jews injured
PerpetratorsMuslim Libyan rioters

The 1945 Anti-Jewish riots in Tripolitania was the most violent rioting against Jews in North Africa in modern times. From November 5 to November 7, 1945, more than 140 Jews were killed and many more injured in a pogrom in British-military-controlled Tripolitania. 38 Jews were killed in Tripoli from where the riots spread. 40 were killed in Amrus, 34 in Zanzur, 7 in Tajura, 13 in Zawia and 3 in Qusabat.[1]

The British Military Administration was heavily criticized for acting too slowly to stop the rioting. Major-General Duncan Cumming, the British Chief Civil Affairs Officer, noted that Arab nationalism had been provoked by reports about Council of Foreign Ministers proposals "to hand the country back to Italian tutelage or to some other country with suspected Colonial designs," and that "It would seem that reports of the situation in Palestine and of anti-Jewish disturbances in Egypt finally touched off the pent-up excitement in the direction of the virtually defenceless Jews rather than against Italians. Hooliganism and fanaticism have played an important part in the disturbances together with a general tendency to loot."[2] Official British reports highlight background factors responsible for the general tension at the time, such as economic hardship and the uncertain political future of Tripolitania. The neighbouring British province was expect to become the independent Cyrenaica Emirate, whilst contemporary post-war proposals for Tripolitania included a return to Italian rule and a trusteeship under the Soviet Union.[3]

At least 550 Libyans were arrested for their suspected involvement in the pogrom.[4]

As a result of the slow British response, a widely held belief amongst Libyan Jews is that the riots were instigated by the British in order to show that the Libyans could not rule themselves, or as some kind of warning to Libyan Zionists relating to the ongoing Jewish insurgency in Palestine against British rule.[5][6] However, American diplomats believed that the British had been caught unaware and "were sincere in their desire to curb [the] outbreaks promptly". State Department observer John E. Utter "believed that blame for the initial troubles lay with both sides—Jews primed for provocative behavior by Zionist propaganda and Arabs stirred by anti-Jewish riots in Cairo."[7]

Together with previous persecutions of Jews by the Axis in Libya during World War II, the Tripoli rioting became a turning point in the history of Libyan Jews, becoming a central factor in the 1949–51 emigration organized by the Jewish Agency.[8]

  1. ^ Goldberg, p112
  2. ^ Bills 1995, p. 41: "The local British Military Administration was stung by criticism that it moved too slowly to contain the violence. Chief Civil Affairs Officer D. C. Cumming asserted that though there were twenty thousand Jews in Tripoli, there was little history of Arab-Jewish hostility in the city or province. The situation had changed, said Cumming, when a smoldering Arab nationalism was fanned by provocative press reports about CFM proposals "to hand the country back to Italian tutelage or to some other country with suspected Colonial designs." Further, he wrote, "It would seem that reports of the situation in Palestine and of anti-Jewish disturbances in Egypt finally touched off the pent-up excitement in the direction of the virtually defenceless Jews rather than against Italians. Hooliganism and fanaticism have played an important part in the disturbances together with a general tendency to loot." Cumming said that the BMA had acted quickly to restore order and minimize casualties once the seriousness of the situation was understood."
  3. ^ Goldberg 1990, p. 113 #2: "In contrast to this explanation, official British reports, which also underline that the riots were unexpected, tend to point to a variety of factors, without singling out a major cause or assigning responsibility. Such background factors are not difficult to locate. Economically, the province of Tripolitania was still struggling with the dislocations of war. Many people had come to the city from the countryside seeking employment, which was not to be found. Along with the economic stress was considerable political anomie. Tripolitania had been freed from Italian rule by the British, but its political future was uncertain. Promises of independence had been made to the neighboring province of Cyrenaica, where Sanusi forces actively had abetted the Allied effort, but no commitments had been made to Tripolitania. Various proposals about the political future had been offered, including return to colonial status under Italy and, later, a trusteeship under the Soviet Union."
  4. ^ Daniel, Clifton (November 13, 1945). "3 BRITISH COURTS TRY LIBYA RIOTERS". The New York Times.
  5. ^ Goldberg 1990, p. 113 #1:"It is useful to start with a hypothesis widely held by Libyan Jews—that the riots were instigated by the British.. [who may have been] attempting to show that native Libyans were incapable of ruling themselves, or that they were seeking to warn Jewish activists in Palestine who were militantly opposed the British mandate there."
  6. ^ The Libyan Arena, Scott L. Bills, p.175, "For a report from an American serviceman who blamed the riots on the "skilled hands of British engineers," see Sgt. Joseph Sweben, Tripoli, to Truman, 9 November I945, 865C.oo/II-945, RG 59, DSNA. The sergeant believed that British authorities could have stopped the rioting "in five minutes flat" if they had acted decisively. Instead, "Arabs ran wild through the streets of Tripoli on the evening of November 4th."
  7. ^ Bills 1995, p. 42: "The American vice-consul in Tunis offered a similar analysis. He advised, "My own opinion is that [the] British, who with [the] Jews, were caught unawares... were sincere in their desire to curb [the] outbreaks promptly but that they were more anxious not to do anything which would bring [the] hostility of [the] Arab world upon them and were thus hesitant in taking strong measures promptly." A later report by State Department observer John E. Utter, based on extensive interviews in Tripoli, found "that this pogrom was uninspired and unexpected." The British were slow to respond for fear of being accused of fascistic methods, and Utter believed that blame for the initial troubles lay with both sides – Jews primed for provocative behavior by Zionist propaganda and Arabs stirred by anti-Jewish riots in Cairo. Worsening economic conditions contributed to an ugly mood in the capital, said Utter. The "horde of unemployed roving about Tripoli streets was ripe to enter into any disorder which might furnish an opportunity for looting. The Jews were the richest target." For American officials, the Tripoli riots of early November suggested neither British anti-Semitism nor imperial conniving. The outbreaks were, however, a sure sign that Near East affairs could turn violent in this and other ways if the big powers were unable to reach a satisfactory agreement."
  8. ^ Goldberg 1990, p. 122: "A number of years, and additional political upheavals, were to pass before the State of Israel emerged as a reality, and not until Spring 1949 did the British administration give permission to the Jewish Agency to organize immigration to Israel. There is little doubt however that the riots, separated from the mass immigration by about four years, were a central factor in bringing it about. Although Jews probably would eventually have left an independent Libya, as they have the other countries of the Maghrib, under different circumstances the emigration might have been more gradual, as in the cases of Morocco or Tunisia.