I made it a third of the way through Louis Theroux’s one sided agent provocateur piece. I have admired his work in the past, but this was so grossly lacking in historical accuracy and nuance, it made my skin crawl. In the current climate it feels like yet another huge dump on Israel, and frankly Theroux could, and should have done better. He throws around the terms ‘illegal settlers’, ‘occupation’, and ‘Geneva Convention’ with reckless abandon and no consideration for international law. Frankly he needs to listen to Natasha Hausdorff, or read a piece such as this. But no, that would result in a balanced perspective and might even vindicate Israel in some people’s eyes. Because let’s face it, Louis Theroux has global clout. I just wish he’d used it to better and honest ends.
Hebron is always where western leftists go to do human rights tourism. Yes, it represents the worst of the occupation but there is also a cottage industry of NGOs that take people around. There’s something kind of dishonest about people like Theroux or Ta-Nehesi Coates (who went on such a tour specifically for famous authors) acting like they’re putting themselves in crazy danger. They go on these arranged tours but present it as if they’re experiencing these places and people on their own.
If Louis had gone to Jenin and embedded with some crazy-ass Hamas people, I would watch that!
tbh I have never totally understood the Louis Theroux hype. He made a documentary about Philadelphia (where I’m from) and it struck me as the kind of thing that might appear on conservative cable news: Louie in a bulletproof vest (?!) surrounded by ~scary black guys~.
Fantastic piece, Drew! Louis Theroux's BBC documentary was complete garbage, totally one-sided and biased and left whole swaths of Middle Eastern history. He over-simplifies the complex history of the holy city of Hebron. Jews have lived in Hebron for over three millennia. It's one of the four holy cities in Jerusalem. Located in Hebron is the Cave of Patriarchs where three important biblical couples are buried: Abraham and Sarah, Issac and Rebekah and Jacob and Leah. Christian Crusaders and Muslim rulers both at one point or another, expelled the Jewish population from Hebron. Islamic rulers forbade Jews from praying at the Cave of Patriarchs in the thirteenth-century. Jews who lived in Hebron under Arab Muslim rule were dhimmis or second-class citizens and they were the targets expropriatory taxes and steep fines and of pogroms in 1517 and 1835.
It was at one time also a revered site of Jewish learning. In 1929, a horrific massacre broke out as Arab mobs brutally murdered men, women, children, babies, and old people, ransacked and destroyed civilian homes and the Holy Ark of the Sephardic Synagogue of Abraham was ransacked. Sixty-seven Jews lost their lives in massacre. It was essentially the end of the centuries-old Jewish community in Hebron. The British authorities evacuated most of the population. Many Jews would return to Hebron in 1931 in order to try and rebuild but most would also be evacuated by the British who said they couldn't protect the Jews, with the outbreak of the 1936-39 Arab Revolt.
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan conquered and occupied the holy city from 1948-1967. They imposed a religious apartheid on the Jews who still remained here. They strictly prohibited access to the city for Jews. The Beit Hadassah building became an Arab girl's school. The ancient Abraham Avinu synagogue was destroyed. The ruins of the synagogue were used as a goat and donkey pen. The adjacent courtyard into an abattoir and public toilet. The ancient cemetery in the city was desecrated and left as an overgrown vegetable patch.
After Israel reconquered the West Bank in their glorious victory in the Six-Day War in 1967. Jews now once again had access to one of the most important cities for their faith. This is when Jewish settlers started returning and building settlements. It wasn't illegal at all. The Jewish people are indigenous to Hebron and have lived there long before the Arabs ever showed up. Louis Theroux never mentions any of this. Nor does he ever mention the Khartoum Resolution and the three 'nos' agreed upon by the Arab and Muslim nations. Baruch Goldstein was a monster and a genocidal psychopath and I 100% condemn the extremists in the settler community and any attacks they commit on Palestinians, but none of this changes the fact the Jewish settlements in Hebron are completely legal and the Jewish people's presence there LONG predates when the settler movement started building homes there in 1967.
I don’t know. I don’t think Israel is uniquely evil or the most moral army. Abstractly, Jewish ppl living there shouldn’t be a problem but the current reality is that the Israeli state is engaging in state sponsored ethnically cleansing where they are deliberately trying to get rid of the Arab population living there and repopulate it with their own ethnic group. They encourage and subsidize settlers so they can eventually annex the land. That’s what it makes it so grotesque. I actually think Gaza war is more complicated but the West Bank settler shit is more egregious and we shouldn’t be associating ourselves with it. On net, it’s bad for us to be seen funding this, weakens the moral case we’re trying to make to developing world for maintaining territorial integrity in Ukraine when we’re funding territorial conquest in West Bank. It’s the 21st century and territorial integrity must be protected.
I also support wholeheartedly the two-state solution, decry violent extremism on both sides. Drew has made no mistake in setting out the longstanding connection of Jews to Hebron. That's worth doing and enlightening. But it is not helpful. This type of digging back into the mists of time is a serious driver to all the current bloodshed in the historical Palestine. The only way to end conflict is to draw a line at a point in history. The line here was drawn in 1948. Palestine has for thousands of years been shared by a mix of competing cultures and religions with ample blood spilled on all sides throughout its history. There have not been clearly defined, durable territorial lines, which is the very seat of the problem. So 1948 set about, for the first time, establishing a place of refuge for the Jewish nation, and rightly so. Prior to that, the Jews had nothing and the Arabs had it all. There was equivocation at the time but by and large, Jews were grateful to have a place that the international community recognised and supported as their own. The threats that ensured from their Arab encirclers and the 1967 response, while understandable, did nothing to advance peace in the Middle-East. Hebron's capture at that time must be considered illegal in international law and a threat to the hopes of peace. For some Zionist fundamentalists, it was an opportunity to re-establish deep ties to their "holy" sites but, more than that, to want to take exclusive control from the land's rightful owners. Thus the flashpoint was created. The land is no part of Israel. As much as many Jews love Hebron, they must not threaten Palestinian sovereignty over it. What they ought to be doing is negotiating access for religious observance, not snatching land for development.
Drew's point has nothing to do with sovereignty. The Arab point that they want to keep Hebron 'Judenrein' ie free of Jews ie Ethnically Cleansed of Jews is as abhorent as anything the 'settlers' say.
Sovereignty does not talk to the rights of a person to live there. There is virtually no talk of pushing all Arabs out of Hebron there is talk of establishing a right of Jews to live there too.
Just as in Israel 2million Arabs live with equal rights - Hebron can have Jewish People living there should they so wish. I don't agree with the motivation to risk your life to live among hostile neighbours - but they have that right and are not 'illegal' settlers whatever the UN say.
No one has managed to explain why Israel does not legally have sovereignty over the West Bank/Judea Samaria. It is just parroted by European countries that the 'settlements are illegal' without any explanations by any legal experts explaining why this is.
You’re injecting crazy time zones to justify settler shit. What happened in the Bible is irrelevant this is so stupid. We should be able to unequivocally condemn shit like Hamas attacks, settler terrorists, River to the sea from both sides. Gaza war is complicated but Qualifying or nuancing settlers makes me question peoples commitments, just like idiots who want to qualify or nuance Hamas attacks on civilians.
Drew Pavlou’s account of the 1929 Hebron Massacre is broadly factual in its key claims, though the framing is political.
What’s true:
- The 1929 Hebron Massacre happened. On August 23–24, 1929, 67 Jews were killed by Arab rioters in Hebron. The violence followed tensions over Jewish access to the Western Wall and false rumors that Jews were threatening Muslim holy sites.
- The victims included non-Zionist Jews. Many of Hebron’s Jewish residents were part of a longstanding, religious community that had lived there for centuries and were not part of the Zionist movement.
- British authorities failed to protect the Jewish population. The British Mandate forces were unprepared and slow to act. The remaining Jews were evacuated, and the Jewish presence in Hebron ceased until after the 1967 war.
What’s framed or omitted:
- The massacre was part of a larger outbreak of violence across British Mandate Palestine, including in Jerusalem and Safed. The unrest was fueled by nationalist and religious tensions, as well as fears about Jewish immigration and land purchases.
- The historical memory of the massacre is often used today to support political positions. While the facts are accurate, they’re sometimes presented selectively—either to justify modern Israeli settlement in Hebron or to challenge Palestinian narratives.
In short, Pavlou’s description of the massacre is historically truthful, but like many historical events, it is being invoked to serve a broader contemporary argument.
I'm sure that anyone seriously interested is already aware of Ilan Pappé's opinion. And probably mostly dismissed him. You should address the points in the article rather than give a generic reference.
I made it a third of the way through Louis Theroux’s one sided agent provocateur piece. I have admired his work in the past, but this was so grossly lacking in historical accuracy and nuance, it made my skin crawl. In the current climate it feels like yet another huge dump on Israel, and frankly Theroux could, and should have done better. He throws around the terms ‘illegal settlers’, ‘occupation’, and ‘Geneva Convention’ with reckless abandon and no consideration for international law. Frankly he needs to listen to Natasha Hausdorff, or read a piece such as this. But no, that would result in a balanced perspective and might even vindicate Israel in some people’s eyes. Because let’s face it, Louis Theroux has global clout. I just wish he’d used it to better and honest ends.
Such cheerleading for what is known throughout the world as common theft
Thank you, Drew, for this important clarification and your support for Israel. ❤️🙏🇮🇱
Drew I love you. But I have a very important question: do you sleep?!
Spent all day on this one
Great piece, Drew. I learned a lot!
Hebron is always where western leftists go to do human rights tourism. Yes, it represents the worst of the occupation but there is also a cottage industry of NGOs that take people around. There’s something kind of dishonest about people like Theroux or Ta-Nehesi Coates (who went on such a tour specifically for famous authors) acting like they’re putting themselves in crazy danger. They go on these arranged tours but present it as if they’re experiencing these places and people on their own.
If Louis had gone to Jenin and embedded with some crazy-ass Hamas people, I would watch that!
tbh I have never totally understood the Louis Theroux hype. He made a documentary about Philadelphia (where I’m from) and it struck me as the kind of thing that might appear on conservative cable news: Louie in a bulletproof vest (?!) surrounded by ~scary black guys~.
Only focussing on a region’s history when it makes Israel and the Jews look bad is a telltale sign of the documentary maker’s personal biases.
Good work Pavlou for exposing this fraud of a documentary.
Your article also shows that humans are not infallible and documentaries are never to be blindly trusted as objective sources.
Fantastic piece, Drew! Louis Theroux's BBC documentary was complete garbage, totally one-sided and biased and left whole swaths of Middle Eastern history. He over-simplifies the complex history of the holy city of Hebron. Jews have lived in Hebron for over three millennia. It's one of the four holy cities in Jerusalem. Located in Hebron is the Cave of Patriarchs where three important biblical couples are buried: Abraham and Sarah, Issac and Rebekah and Jacob and Leah. Christian Crusaders and Muslim rulers both at one point or another, expelled the Jewish population from Hebron. Islamic rulers forbade Jews from praying at the Cave of Patriarchs in the thirteenth-century. Jews who lived in Hebron under Arab Muslim rule were dhimmis or second-class citizens and they were the targets expropriatory taxes and steep fines and of pogroms in 1517 and 1835.
It was at one time also a revered site of Jewish learning. In 1929, a horrific massacre broke out as Arab mobs brutally murdered men, women, children, babies, and old people, ransacked and destroyed civilian homes and the Holy Ark of the Sephardic Synagogue of Abraham was ransacked. Sixty-seven Jews lost their lives in massacre. It was essentially the end of the centuries-old Jewish community in Hebron. The British authorities evacuated most of the population. Many Jews would return to Hebron in 1931 in order to try and rebuild but most would also be evacuated by the British who said they couldn't protect the Jews, with the outbreak of the 1936-39 Arab Revolt.
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan conquered and occupied the holy city from 1948-1967. They imposed a religious apartheid on the Jews who still remained here. They strictly prohibited access to the city for Jews. The Beit Hadassah building became an Arab girl's school. The ancient Abraham Avinu synagogue was destroyed. The ruins of the synagogue were used as a goat and donkey pen. The adjacent courtyard into an abattoir and public toilet. The ancient cemetery in the city was desecrated and left as an overgrown vegetable patch.
After Israel reconquered the West Bank in their glorious victory in the Six-Day War in 1967. Jews now once again had access to one of the most important cities for their faith. This is when Jewish settlers started returning and building settlements. It wasn't illegal at all. The Jewish people are indigenous to Hebron and have lived there long before the Arabs ever showed up. Louis Theroux never mentions any of this. Nor does he ever mention the Khartoum Resolution and the three 'nos' agreed upon by the Arab and Muslim nations. Baruch Goldstein was a monster and a genocidal psychopath and I 100% condemn the extremists in the settler community and any attacks they commit on Palestinians, but none of this changes the fact the Jewish settlements in Hebron are completely legal and the Jewish people's presence there LONG predates when the settler movement started building homes there in 1967.
I don’t know. I don’t think Israel is uniquely evil or the most moral army. Abstractly, Jewish ppl living there shouldn’t be a problem but the current reality is that the Israeli state is engaging in state sponsored ethnically cleansing where they are deliberately trying to get rid of the Arab population living there and repopulate it with their own ethnic group. They encourage and subsidize settlers so they can eventually annex the land. That’s what it makes it so grotesque. I actually think Gaza war is more complicated but the West Bank settler shit is more egregious and we shouldn’t be associating ourselves with it. On net, it’s bad for us to be seen funding this, weakens the moral case we’re trying to make to developing world for maintaining territorial integrity in Ukraine when we’re funding territorial conquest in West Bank. It’s the 21st century and territorial integrity must be protected.
I also support wholeheartedly the two-state solution, decry violent extremism on both sides. Drew has made no mistake in setting out the longstanding connection of Jews to Hebron. That's worth doing and enlightening. But it is not helpful. This type of digging back into the mists of time is a serious driver to all the current bloodshed in the historical Palestine. The only way to end conflict is to draw a line at a point in history. The line here was drawn in 1948. Palestine has for thousands of years been shared by a mix of competing cultures and religions with ample blood spilled on all sides throughout its history. There have not been clearly defined, durable territorial lines, which is the very seat of the problem. So 1948 set about, for the first time, establishing a place of refuge for the Jewish nation, and rightly so. Prior to that, the Jews had nothing and the Arabs had it all. There was equivocation at the time but by and large, Jews were grateful to have a place that the international community recognised and supported as their own. The threats that ensured from their Arab encirclers and the 1967 response, while understandable, did nothing to advance peace in the Middle-East. Hebron's capture at that time must be considered illegal in international law and a threat to the hopes of peace. For some Zionist fundamentalists, it was an opportunity to re-establish deep ties to their "holy" sites but, more than that, to want to take exclusive control from the land's rightful owners. Thus the flashpoint was created. The land is no part of Israel. As much as many Jews love Hebron, they must not threaten Palestinian sovereignty over it. What they ought to be doing is negotiating access for religious observance, not snatching land for development.
Drew's point has nothing to do with sovereignty. The Arab point that they want to keep Hebron 'Judenrein' ie free of Jews ie Ethnically Cleansed of Jews is as abhorent as anything the 'settlers' say.
Sovereignty does not talk to the rights of a person to live there. There is virtually no talk of pushing all Arabs out of Hebron there is talk of establishing a right of Jews to live there too.
Just as in Israel 2million Arabs live with equal rights - Hebron can have Jewish People living there should they so wish. I don't agree with the motivation to risk your life to live among hostile neighbours - but they have that right and are not 'illegal' settlers whatever the UN say.
No one has managed to explain why Israel does not legally have sovereignty over the West Bank/Judea Samaria. It is just parroted by European countries that the 'settlements are illegal' without any explanations by any legal experts explaining why this is.
If anything they are disputed areas!
ouggg so yap so so yap.. shut ur yap..
You’re injecting crazy time zones to justify settler shit. What happened in the Bible is irrelevant this is so stupid. We should be able to unequivocally condemn shit like Hamas attacks, settler terrorists, River to the sea from both sides. Gaza war is complicated but Qualifying or nuancing settlers makes me question peoples commitments, just like idiots who want to qualify or nuance Hamas attacks on civilians.
Drew Pavlou’s account of the 1929 Hebron Massacre is broadly factual in its key claims, though the framing is political.
What’s true:
- The 1929 Hebron Massacre happened. On August 23–24, 1929, 67 Jews were killed by Arab rioters in Hebron. The violence followed tensions over Jewish access to the Western Wall and false rumors that Jews were threatening Muslim holy sites.
- The victims included non-Zionist Jews. Many of Hebron’s Jewish residents were part of a longstanding, religious community that had lived there for centuries and were not part of the Zionist movement.
- British authorities failed to protect the Jewish population. The British Mandate forces were unprepared and slow to act. The remaining Jews were evacuated, and the Jewish presence in Hebron ceased until after the 1967 war.
What’s framed or omitted:
- The massacre was part of a larger outbreak of violence across British Mandate Palestine, including in Jerusalem and Safed. The unrest was fueled by nationalist and religious tensions, as well as fears about Jewish immigration and land purchases.
- The historical memory of the massacre is often used today to support political positions. While the facts are accurate, they’re sometimes presented selectively—either to justify modern Israeli settlement in Hebron or to challenge Palestinian narratives.
In short, Pavlou’s description of the massacre is historically truthful, but like many historical events, it is being invoked to serve a broader contemporary argument.
ChatGPT says:
Drew Pavlou’s account of the 1929 Hebron Massacre is broadly factual in its core claims, though his framing is pointed and politicized.
Excellent piece Drew. Small spello -- Sehardic -> Sephardic. Theoux -> Theroux.
It would have been helpful if you had spent more time on researching Ilan Pappe’s, the Jewish historian’s, books
I'm sure that anyone seriously interested is already aware of Ilan Pappé's opinion. And probably mostly dismissed him. You should address the points in the article rather than give a generic reference.