Understanding the Nakba - Commemorating Nov. 29

One of the devices available to partisans on all sides is the choice of frame. Want to show that Israel is a small island surrounded by an Arab/Muslim sea? Show a map that extends from Iran to Morocco with Israel as tiny blue diamond in the middle. Want to show Israel as an expansionist power? Show the maps of the proposed partition, followed by the 1949 armistice lines, the occupation of 1967 and then the reduction of Palestinian lands as a result of settlement construction. Both frames are true, but when you point to one and not the other you are guilty of shading reality in pursuit of an agenda.

The Nakba, or Palestinian exodus of 1947-48 is another piece of history subject to repeated ideological assaults and revisions. The stakes are high; so many political points can be won later in the day based on which frame is initially accepted. In the struggle to have one version of history emerge triumphant, we lose sight of the fact that history is not a single dominant series of facts leading inexorably to a conclusion. It is many stories, often all true but still contradictory. We can't expect all the participants to be able to jump from their own perspective to an objective, multi-faceted understanding; but those of us striving for peace can recognize that more than one narrative needs to be presented.

[The Palestinians commemorate November 29th, 1947 as the date that the United Nations approved a partition plan. This led to the end of the British Mandate and the establishment of a world-sanctioned Jewish State in Palestine.]

Part of the legacy of ideological warfare conducted over the past 60 years is that well-meaning folks are often quite ignorant of what professional historians actually agree upon. It's true that Israeli propaganda claimed for many years that Palestinians left willingly in responses to radio broadcasts to await the destruction of the Jewish forces, and then return. But those same folks might not be aware that in Israeli high schools and departments of Middle East studies, that version is no longer seen as credible.

Since the Israeli/Jewish narrative was dominant in the West for so many years, it can be tempting to think that it's progressive to emphasize the suppressed Palestinian narrative on its own. But it too has flaws. For example, there is the claim that Palestinians couldn't possibly have accepted a two state solution, as it was so unfair towards the Arab majority in Palestine. However, there were political forces calling for accepting it throughout the Arab world - namely, the Communist Parties of the region and their supporters. A nonviolent response to Israel's birth would probably have resulted in a far smaller number of Palestinian refugees, and hence in an Israeli state less dominated by a Jewish majority.

It is also repeated, uncritically, that ‘all' of the Palestinian refugees were expelled, when in fact a large proportion left before the outbreak of hostilities. This is especially true for the wealthy and middle classes, who abdicated their responsibility towards their own people. (Contrast with the British elite during the Blitz years - very few left for safer shores.)

What follows is a description of some of the controversies, and my own sense of what positions are reasonable to hold.

Q: Where the Palestinians expelled, or did they leave voluntarily?
A: Many were forcibly expelled. Many fled in a climate of fear exacerbated by the tactics of the Jewish forces. Many left before and during hostilities when there was no immediate military threat to their community. However, all three groups were prevented from being allowed to return to their homes. This refusal to allow civilians to return home is a violation of human rights, and it allows some to treat the entire population who found themselves on the wrong side of the armistice line to be considered refugees according to international law. (Many still inside Israel were also prevented from returning to their villages as well - they are called ‘present absentees.')
Importance: The Israeli refusal to formally accept any responsibility for the Palestinian refugee problem is tantamount to the denial of the Holocaust. Arguing over the specifics, or debating how responsibility might be shared is reasonable, but blaming Palestinian civilians for having made themselves refugees is the ultimate in ‘blaming the victim' and should not be tolerated.

Q: What does ‘justice' mean vis-à-vis the refugee problem?
A: It means having their tragedy recognized by the world, including Israel and supporters of Israel, as a historic wrong perpetrated against them.
Importance: The Palestinian narrative came of age in the refugee communities of Lebanon, Jordan and the Gaza Strip. The overarching symbol is that of the key to a home left being in Israel, or documents proving ownership over land. The Arab states of the 1950s feared the refugee population as a threat to internal stability while remaining committed to political supporting their cause. The result was that large populations stayed in abject poverty, preventing from integrating into a new society or returning home.
Even so, over the years many of the refugees did leave the camps to participate in other societies. Many pursued education and found jobs throughout the Arab world. Others established expat communities in South America. In Jordan, the Palestinian population was finally encouraged to join Jordanian society en masse, transforming refugee camps into suburbs and neighborhoods of nearby Jordanian cities.
The international consensus is that most Palestinians outside Palestine are unlikely to want to move to Israel. At the same time, some communities (especially in Lebanon) are in desperate need. For this reason, negotiators on all sides have been working for years on plans for calculating and distributing compensation, allowing some number to move to Israel and/or the West Bank, and addressing the needs of the rest. In other words, the need to grant justice to the refugee community needs to be balanced by the need to avoid the creation of another injustice, which might occur of Israeli society was "forced" to allow an unlimited right of return. This conversation is a bit academic, as no one thinks that Israel can be "forced" to commit national suicide in that manner.

Q: Do UN resolutions uphold the right of return?
A: In the aftermath of the Nakba, the UN passed resolution 194 which calls for the Palestinian refugees to be allowed to return OR compensated for their losses. It's important to recognize that UN resolutions such as these do not have the force of international law, and in order to be the subject of coercive measures they need to be approved by the Security Council - which has never happened. And probably couldn't, as the US would probably exercise its veto.
Importance: 194 is ambiguous, but proponents of the right of return often make an effort to present it as perfectly clear. 194 doesn't resolve important questions: is compensation a fair exchange for not being allowed to return? Is compensation and the right of return a collective or individual right? Does UN support for a two state solution stand in opposition to 194? Is 194 part of "international law"? Nonetheless, 194 definitely places some responsibility on Israel for addressing the Palestinian refugee problem, and as such serves to apply pressure on Israel to take official responsibility for its role in the Naqba.

Q: Did Israel plan to expel as many Palestinians as possible, or was this a result of many disconnected, military decisions at various levels?
A: Open question. Why would the answer to this question matter, in terms of resolving today's issues? Most scholars see the expulsion, on the scale that it occurred, as a series of opportunities exploited by the Israeli side over the course of the war rather than a premeditated policy.

Q: Were Arab regimes to blame for not integrating the Palestinian refugee populations?
A: One of the main reasons for the attack of Arab states against Israel in 1948 was to prevent the flight of Palestinians from Palestine. Some regimes did all that they could to integrate the refugee populations, to the extent that they outlawed Palestinian organizations and actively prevented them from organizing (Jordan). Others saw the refugees as a demographic threat that risked causing serious internal problems down the road (Lebanon). Others used the Palestinian cause as a way of burnishing their nationalist credentials (Iraq). The Arab world is not, and was not unified in how it addressed the Palestinian issue. Palestinian resistance has often been aimed at Arab regimes in addition to Israel and Zionist targets.

Here's what I struggle with: how can I empathize with the Palestinian tragedy, and commit myself to hearing the voices of the Palestinian refugees - while not necessarily accepting every part of their narrative and desired outcomes? For me justice is not a zero-sum game, but a mutual effort to find outcomes both sides can live with. The voice of reconciliation is not always loud enough to be heard over the cry for justice. That forces us to try harder to hear both at the same time.

This is part one of a series devoted to the commemoration of the 29th of November, the anniversary of the UN vote that established the state of Israel. I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving!