Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

shira

(30,109 posts)
Tue May 17, 2016, 12:18 PM May 2016

The Double Nakba

Last edited Tue May 17, 2016, 01:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Ben-Dror Yemini
The Double Nakba
Op-ed: Reconciliation will only be achieved when the Arab world stops deceiving itself and takes responsibility for the double nakba. Both the Arab one and the Jewish one. Inshallah.
Published: 05.16.16, 00:31 / Israel Opinion

...Calls supporting transfer were also heard from the Zionist movement, but they were fewer compared to those coming from Europe. In any case, Arab opposition to the UN partition plan of November 1947, declarations of destruction and the invasion of Israel immediately after its independence was declared, led to 711,000 Arabs – at the time they were not called Palestinians - becoming refugees. Most of them fled. Some were deported.

Jews also became refugees. Many leaders in the Arab world spoke menacingly of the imminent destruction awaiting the Jews of Palestine and Arab countries if the partition plan was approved. The Arab League passed a resolution that, in practice, turned the Jews into hostages. A series of pogroms against Jews in Arab countries have made it clear that a chapter in history had come to an end. The Jewish minority in the Arab countries, which numbered one million people, was mostly forced to flee. It was the Jewish Nakba.

The Arabs of Palestine came under Arab jurisdiction. With the exception of Jordan, which made them citizens for the purpose of annexing the West Bank, the refugees became second-class citizens in the Arab countries. They suffered under a military regime in Gaza and suffered veritable apartheid in Lebanon that continues to this day. They were not supposed to be foreigners. After all, they all spoke the same language, had the same culture, had the same religion and, in many cases, were members of the same family.

None of the tens of millions of refugees from those years is still a refugee. None of them received "the right of return." Only the Arabs who turned into Palestinians had their status perpetuated. Instead of being taken care of by the the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), they were granted their very own agency – the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). Their number grew. It is meritorious to show empathy for refugees. But the insistence on their "right of return," the code name for the destruction of Israel and refusal of any agreement, suppresses any desire for empathy. Reconciliation will only be achieved when the Arab world stops deceiving itself and takes responsibility for the double nakba. Both the Arab one and the Jewish one. Inshallah.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4803313,00.html

25 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Double Nakba (Original Post) shira May 2016 OP
Yep King_David May 2016 #1
You know why, but still a good question. n/t aranthus May 2016 #2
Two wrongs don't make a right. Little Tich May 2016 #3
The Palestinians need to recognize that they have the most responsibility. aranthus May 2016 #4
Sigh. Little Tich May 2016 #5
You really need to read Morris in full. aranthus May 2016 #6
Morris indeed argues that it was justified to expel Palestinians. Little Tich May 2016 #7
So you would support the right of return aranthus May 2016 #8
Best the "refugees" integrate into the country's they were born in... King_David May 2016 #9
But then they could not be used as a weapon aranthus May 2016 #10
All of them should have that right. Little Tich May 2016 #18
I respect your consistency. aranthus May 2016 #19
Not so much so for those Europeans who have ancestors or who themselves were refugees. Little Tich May 2016 #21
Not really. aranthus May 2016 #22
I've met Germans who are still unhappy about their grandparents being expelled from from their homes Little Tich May 2016 #25
Neither the Turk or Greek side will allow refugees or their descendants.... shira May 2016 #23
Interestingly, Greece and Turkey did agree on a population exchange, which is an argument in your Little Tich May 2016 #24
Jews were expelled from the Arab countries as revenge for the Arabs being expelled from Tony_FLADEM May 2016 #11
Not a word of truth to this. aranthus May 2016 #12
According to Benny Morris they started expelling the Palestinian Arabs before the war started Tony_FLADEM May 2016 #14
No he doesn't say that. aranthus May 2016 #16
In my previous post I said the Palestinians started being expelled in 1947 Tony_FLADEM May 2016 #17
Completely wrong aranthus May 2016 #20
Did you make that up ? King_David May 2016 #13
Which part is made up? Tony_FLADEM May 2016 #15

Little Tich

(6,171 posts)
3. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Wed May 18, 2016, 12:28 AM
May 2016

All Palestinians and Jews should have the right of return and their properties restored. Israel should recognize its responsibility for the Nakba, but the Arab states should recognize their responsibility for driving out Jews as well.

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
4. The Palestinians need to recognize that they have the most responsibility.
Wed May 18, 2016, 02:05 PM
May 2016

Last edited Wed May 18, 2016, 02:35 PM - Edit history (1)

They started the war that made them refugees and led to the occupation of their proposed state by their brother Arabs. There is no way that Israel can or should recognize any responsibility for the Nakhba, because it is a myth. It's wrong to admit something that isn't true, and it's especially wrong for Israel to admit to some lie that is part of a campaign to destroy it.

"Nakhba" doesn't mean merely that there are refugees (which every Israeli knows and admits) or even that Israel has some responsibility for the refugee problem (which many, if not most Israelis also know). Nakhba is the Arab understanding of the refugee problem. They mean that the Paestinians:

1. Are the innocent victims
2. Of the intentional expulsion of all of the refugees
3. Without which Israel could not have come into existence.

Each of those elements is false and as a whole they make up a gross lie about Israel and history. Why should Israel admit something that is so blatantly false? Especially when many or most of them readily admit the truth? And when the lie is part of a campaign to destroy the Jewish state?

Little Tich

(6,171 posts)
5. Sigh.
Wed May 18, 2016, 10:29 PM
May 2016

I can really recommend that you read Benny Morris' The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem revisited:

Benny Morris
Source: Wikipedia

The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (2004)
In his updated The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (2004), Morris answers critics of the first version and adds material from the opening of new Israeli government archives. He writes that the contents of the new documents substantially increase both Israeli and Palestinian responsibility for the refugee problem, revealing more expulsions and atrocities on the Israeli side, and more orders from Arab officials to the Palestinians to leave their villages, or at least to send their women and children away. Morris writes that his conclusions are unlikely to please either Israeli or Palestinian propagandists, or "black-or-white historians".


Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Morris#Selected_book_summaries

This book is more or less factually correct, and it's written from a pro-Israel angle. Copies are floating around on the interwebs, if you want to have a look. Google it.

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
6. You really need to read Morris in full.
Wed May 18, 2016, 11:01 PM
May 2016

He's quite clear that the Palestinians have the bulk of the responsibility because they started the war.

Little Tich

(6,171 posts)
7. Morris indeed argues that it was justified to expel Palestinians.
Thu May 19, 2016, 02:10 AM
May 2016

But at least he doesn't invent some fantasy that the Palestinians were allowed to stay, but chose to leave, or that they were encouraged to do so by the Arab leadership in radio broadcasts. Unlike Morris, however, I think that no civilians should be forced to leave their homes or be considered responsible for their own expulsion.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about what Morris consider to be the main causes of the Nakba:

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus
Source: Wikipedia
(snip)

Causes of the first wave, December 1947 – March 1948
Morris gives no numbers regarding the first wave, but says "the spiral of violence precipitated flight by the middle and upper classes of the big towns, especially Haifa, Jaffa and Jerusalem, and their satellite rural communities. It also prompted the piecemeal, but almost complete, evacuation of the Arab rural population from what was to be the heartland of the Jewish State—the Coastal Plain between Tel Aviv and Hadera—and a small-scale partial evacuation of other rural areas hit by hostilities and containing large Jewish concentrations, namely the Jezreel and Jordan valleys." More specific to the causes Morris states: "The Arab evacuees from the towns and villages left largely because of Jewish ... attacks or fear of impending attack, and from a sense of vulnerability." According to Morris expulsions were "almost insignificant" and "many more left as a result of orders or advice from Arab military commanders and officials" to safer areas within the country. The Palestinian leadership struggled against the exodus.

Causes of the second wave, April–June 1948
According to Morris the "Haganah and IZL offensives in Haifa, Jaffa and eastern and western Galilee precipitated a mass exodus." "Undoubtedly ... the most important single factor in the exodus of April–June was Jewish attack. This is demonstrated clearly by the fact that each exodus occurred during or in the immediate wake of military assault. No town was abandoned by the bulk of its population before the main Haganah/IZL assault." Also many villages were abandoned during attacks, but others were evacuated because the inhabitants feared they would be next. A major factor in the exodus was the undermining of Palestinian morale due to the earlier fall and exodus from other towns and villages. Morris says that the "Palestinian leaders and commanders struggled against [the exodus]" but in many cases encouraged evacuation of women children and old people out of harms way and in some cases ordered villages to evacuate.

Regarding expulsions (Morris defines expulsions as "when a Haganah/IDF/IZL/LHI unit entered or conquered a town or village and then ordered its inhabitants to leave&quot Morris says that the Yishuv leaders "were reluctant to openly order or endorse expulsions" in towns but "Haganah commanders exercised greater independence and forcefulness in the countryside": "In general Haganah operational orders for attacks on towns did not call for the expulsion or eviction of the civilian population. But from early April, operational orders for attacks on villages and clusters of villages more often than not called for the destruction of villages and, implicitly or explicitly, expulsion." Issuing expulsion orders was hardly necessary though, because "most villages were completely or almost completely empty by the time they were conquered", "the inhabitants usually fled with the approach of the advancing Jewish column or when the first mortar bombs began to hit their homes." The Givati Brigade engaged in expulsions near Rehovot.

Causes of the third and fourth waves, July–October 1948 and October–November 1948

In July "altogether, the Israeli offensives of the Ten Days and the subsequent clearing operations probably send something over 100,000 Arabs into exile." About half of these were expelled from Lydda and Ramle on 12 through 14 July. Morris says that expulsion orders were given for both towns, the one for Ramle calling for "sorting out of the inhabitants, and send the army-age males to a prisoner-of-war camp". "The commanders involved understood that what was happening was an expulsion rather than a spontaneous exodus."

In October and November Operations Yoav in the Negev and Hiram in central Galilee were aimed at destroying enemy formations of respectively the Egyptian army and the Arab Liberation Army, and precipitated the flight of 200,000–230,000 Arabs. The UN mediator on Palestine Folke Bernadotte reported in September 1948 that Palestinian flight, "resulted from panic created by fighting in their communities, by rumours concerning real or alleged acts of terrorism, or expulsion". United Nations observers, who had been dispatched to monitor how the partition plan, reported in October that Israeli policy was that of "uprooting Arabs from their native villages in Palestine by force or threat". In the Negev the clearing was more complete because "the OC, Allon, was known to want "Arab-clean" areas along his line of advance" and "his subordinates usually acted in accordance" and the inhabitants were almost uniformly Muslim. In the Galilee pocket, for various reasons, about 30–50 per cent of the inhabitants stayed.[150] More specifically regarding the causes of the exodus Morris says: "Both commanders were clearly bent on driving out the population in the area they were conquering," and "Many, perhaps most, [Arabs] expected to be driven out, or worse. Hence, when the offensives were unleashed, there was a 'coalescence' of Jewish and Arab expectations, which led, especially in the south, to spontaneous flight by most of the inhabitants. And, on both fronts, IDF units 'nudged' Arabs into flight and expelled communities."

Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus#Morris.27s_Four_Waves_analysis

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
8. So you would support the right of return
Thu May 19, 2016, 12:35 PM
May 2016

for Sudeten Germans to the Czech Republic, thereby turning it into another German state. For Silesian and Prussian Germans to return to Poland. Ask the Czechs and Poles how they would feel about that.

I realize that I'm not going to convince you of anything. So there isn't any point continuing the discussion.

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
10. But then they could not be used as a weapon
Thu May 19, 2016, 02:27 PM
May 2016

against the Jewish state. Must keep the end goal in mind.

Little Tich

(6,171 posts)
18. All of them should have that right.
Thu May 19, 2016, 09:17 PM
May 2016

I think the right to live in one's ancestral / historic homeland is an inalienable human right that applies to everyone. This is something that I actually believe.

Oh, and concerning Poland - don't forget the Ukrainians...

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
19. I respect your consistency.
Fri May 20, 2016, 12:36 PM
May 2016

I also hope that you have the self awareness and other awareness to realize that if you said something like this to actual Europeans that they would likely react with horror and outrage.

Little Tich

(6,171 posts)
21. Not so much so for those Europeans who have ancestors or who themselves were refugees.
Fri May 20, 2016, 10:30 PM
May 2016

People seem to remember these things for a long time, and sometimes all that's needed is recognition that a wrong was committed. However, restitution of stolen property and a right to live where they would've lived if no wrongs were committed would be the most appropriate compensation.

However, there seems to be a remarkable consistency with every place that people fled from - the people living there now don't want the refugees or their descendants back: Kosovo, Poland, Israel or Bhutan - it's all the same, they would of course react with horror and outrage...

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
22. Not really.
Tue May 24, 2016, 04:47 PM
May 2016

The Germans aren't talking about returning, or demanding compensation. And what if it is the side with the refugees that has committed the wrong (that is they started the war, such as the Germans in WWII or the Palestinians in I?P)? that's only one good reason why there is no right of return, nor should there be.

Little Tich

(6,171 posts)
25. I've met Germans who are still unhappy about their grandparents being expelled from from their homes
Tue May 24, 2016, 09:34 PM
May 2016

just because they were ethnic Germans.

And even if Germany did do something wrong, why should civilians have to suffer? I don't believe in collective punishment. We seem to differ on that point - I think that civilians as a group shouldn't be held responsible for the behavior of states, but you do.

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
23. Neither the Turk or Greek side will allow refugees or their descendants....
Tue May 24, 2016, 05:44 PM
May 2016

Now tell me, why do you think the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, ISIS, etc... all call for Right-of-Return? Be honest.

I think that WRT all Palestinian refugees & their descendants you have the very same goal as the above groups. I know BDS has those goals - the same BDS you say you oppose. But I still don't know why you oppose them.

Little Tich

(6,171 posts)
24. Interestingly, Greece and Turkey did agree on a population exchange, which is an argument in your
Tue May 24, 2016, 09:27 PM
May 2016

favor.

However, IMHO it's still not OK to remove people from their homes and tell them that they or their descendants can never come back. It doesn't matter if governments agree to it - it's still wrong.

You brought up Syria as an example, and I think that we'll see that some of the Syrian refugees won't be allowed back - simply because they're from the wrong ethnic group, and their land was taken by another ethnic group. When an ethnic group is removed from an area, the ethnic group that did the removing is always trying to prevent that group from returning. It happened in Israel, and it will happen in Syria too. The arguments against their return will be exactly the same as those Israel use against the return of displaced Palestinians, and the arguments supporting their return will be exactly the same as those in favor of giving the Palestinians the right to return to their ancestral homeland.

Tony_FLADEM

(3,023 posts)
11. Jews were expelled from the Arab countries as revenge for the Arabs being expelled from
Thu May 19, 2016, 05:33 PM
May 2016

what became the state of Israel.

If the Palestinian Arabs hadn't been expelled the Jews from the Arab Countries wouldn't have been. Not saying it was right to expel the Jews from the Arab Countries but it's important to put it in context and some of them wanted to leave.


The Arabs had started being expelled in 1947. By the time the Arab-Israeli War started 300,000 Arabs had already been displaced.

The UN Partition was unworkable. The land allocated to the Jewish State would have started out with a 40% Non-Jewish population and the land allocated for the Palestinian state was not adequate for a country to be viable. It was only accepted for strategic reasons.

Israel has a right of return law. How can there be a right of return from 70AD but from 1948 there is no right of return?

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
12. Not a word of truth to this.
Thu May 19, 2016, 05:50 PM
May 2016

Where do you get this stuff from? Please cite your sources. Especially for the Jewish expulsion as revenge and the 300,000 displaced before may 1948.

Tony_FLADEM

(3,023 posts)
14. According to Benny Morris they started expelling the Palestinian Arabs before the war started
Thu May 19, 2016, 07:42 PM
May 2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus


Look at the section titled: Main causes of the Palestinian exodus according to Israeli historian Benny Morris

Palestinians began fleeing in 1947 because of attacks.

Jews lived in the Arab countries for hundreds of years before Israel came into existence in 1948. Do you agree?

This wouldn't be a reality of there was historical conflict between Jews and Arabs which isn't the case. They were expelled from the Arab countries after 750,000 Palestinian Arabs became refugees. If this wasn't the reason they would have been chased out of those countries sooner which isn't the case.

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
16. No he doesn't say that.
Thu May 19, 2016, 08:00 PM
May 2016

First because he recognizes that the war started in December, 1947, when the Palestinians started it. More to the point, he doesn't actually say that Arabs were being expelled in 1947. He says that they left. Expulsion is the intentional forcing out of people. While that happened in 1948, he doesn't say that it happened in 1947. Look at the chart below the text. He doesn't say expulsion until July, 1948.

Jews lived in Arab countries as second class citizens (subject to the Muslim version of pogroms) for centuries. They were allowed to be second class citizens because they were "people of the book" and because they paid a special tax, the Jizya. As people of the book they had four choices: convert; pay the Jizya, leave or die (the same choices that ISIS gives people today). As long as the Jews knew and kept their place, then they could stay. By creating Israel, the Jews "broke the deal" and that opened up the Jews of the Middle East to greater oppression.

Tony_FLADEM

(3,023 posts)
17. In my previous post I said the Palestinians started being expelled in 1947
Thu May 19, 2016, 08:44 PM
May 2016

Causes of the first wave, December 1947 – March 1948

More specific to the causes Morris states: "The Arab evacuees from the towns and villages left largely because of Jewish ... attacks or fear of impending attack, and from a sense of vulnerability."[136]

He says Palestinians were attacked and this is why some of them left. Isn't that the same as expelling them? Why else were they attacked?

This happened in December *1947*

As I mentioned in my previous post the partition plan was unworkable. Palestinian Arabs numbered 900,000 and Jews numbered 300,000 so the Israeli side had an incentive to expel Arab Palestinians because of the disparity in population totals between the 2 sides.

Where and on what date did the Palestinians start the war?

The Irgun started it on 12/31/47 by attacking some Arab workers at an oil refinery. They and the Stern Gang were against partition so they attacked Arabs hoping to get revenge attacks which would escalate things and a wider conflict would be used as a means to attain more land which is what occurred.

In the Arab countries some Jews were happy where they were living and in other instances they were not. It depends on who you ask about that.




aranthus

(3,385 posts)
20. Completely wrong
Fri May 20, 2016, 12:47 PM
May 2016

No, an attack is not the same as expulsion. Expulsion is the intentional driving out of people.

Why were Arabs attacked? Because they attacked the Jews and the Jews were counter-attacking and defending themselves.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%9348_Civil_War_in_Mandatory_Palestine#Beginning_of_the_Civil_War_.2830_November_1947_.E2.80.93_1_April_1948.29

No, the Partition Plan was not in itself unworkable. It failed only because the Arabs demanded all of Palestine for themselves. They opposed Partition because they opposed any Jewish state. That's why they went to war.

I'm familiar with the Haifa Oil Refinery attack. But you can see from the above Wikipedia article that the war actually began at the end of November, 1947 with Arab attacks on Jews.

There's just no truth to your position.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Israel/Palestine»The Double Nakba