Why did the Palestinians leave – 1948 War

Thank you for confirming that only 6 out of 440 Arab Palestinian settlements were depopulated because of Arab leadership exhotations to flight. That is just over 1%. While is does confirm your original comment that both the Arabs and the Israelis were responsible for the flight, it does answer my question as to what degree each of the two parties were culpable.

Arab culpability; Just over 1%

Now let us turn to the results or consequences of Israeli military action:

1) Military assault on settlement = 215 (this is war) - clearly this was a result of the Israeli military. There is no way it can be reasoned that Morris' descriptions of attacks on Arab settlements were due to exhortations by the Arab leaders to their followers to flee.
2) Influence of nearby town's fall = 59 - ditto
3) Expulsion by Jewish forces = 53 - utterly obvious
4) Fear (of being caught up in fighting) = 48 (what you failed to mention was that in this class falls the well-documented and intense Israel propaganda campaign involving leaflets; loud speaker broadcasts from Jeeps; radio broadcasts (well recorded); and 5) below; certainly not performed by the Arab leaders
5) Whispering campaigns = 15 - see 4) above

Which brings us to the following score: Arab leadership 6 // Israeli military 390

I would suggest that that is still a case of some Israeli and some Arab culpability, but it sure puts the degree of culpability into perspective.

And even it we split hairs as to whether propaganda by the Israeli was a contribution to the Arab Nakba, and the Whisper campaigns, and the bombing and gunning of civilian settlements; and the pre-dawn blaring of loudspeakers of a coming attack, then ....

.... we still end up with a score of Arabs 6 // Israelis 116

That the Arabs were the main responsibility for the depopulation of Arab settlements? Either way it is MYTH BUSTED!!!!

 

I sympathise with that view.

But what the 6 : 390 culpability ratio does is to highlight that memories of ethnic cleansing are not easily swept under the carpet just because of the passage of time .... and in this case, only just over 60 years.

So when the question is asked "Why are the Palestinians so reluctant to seek compromise", here we have one of many reasons; although I do have to grant, a very BIG one with deep scars.

And when those affected by the exodus look at the Israeli Settlements on their (non-Israeli) land, does anyone think that that helps those 1948 memories to fade? And when a 2008 ceasefire is broken and two months later 1400 of their people lie dead versus 3 Israelis, how much wound-healing does that foster?

 

Interesting for you to say it is disputed then provide a wikipedia article that explains mostly Israeli planning to expel the Palestinian population. What you provided goes over the concept of transfer in Zionism, and the Zionist's Plan Dalet among other things. The only part that they attempt to dispute this is by saying that the Palestinians left from Arab orders from above... And hence the reason for the OP...

The same table states that only 6 places left on Arab orders - in which I had pointed out in the OP...

To put it simple, you have proved absolutely nothing with this post. If anything at all, it substantiates my claim that the Arabs countries didn't evacuate the Palestinians and demand them to leave.

Possibly I blame the Israeli side mostly because you haven’t proven that there is any reason to “blame both sides.” The ethnic cleansing began before the Arab countries intervened in the war.

Exactly, in my previous post in which you had already responded to above, I had said: “The vast majority of Palestinians left their homes due to Zionist military assaults on their villages. Other factors included straight out expulsion, fear of being caught up in the fighting due to the influence of the fall or exodus of other towns, or psychological warfare geared to obtaining an Arab flight from the village. On the other hand, Borat's claim of Palestinians leaving on "Arab orders" is patently false. There is no evidence to suggest that most of the Palestinians left due to orders by the demand of Arab countries.”
Moreover, the military assaults on all these Palestinian villages were to get the Palestinians out of the villages. Throughout the war there were hundreds of civilian villages attacked, and for a lot of them, the entire city was then destroyed. Take for example Haifa, Morris ascribes this town for leaving due to a military assault. But as the information in the OP provides, this was military assault included several acts of terror and attacks on the civilian population of the town. In this way it would get rid of the population. To continue with the case of Haifa (since this accounted for over 60,000 of the refugees) the Haganah also rejected the Palestinian residents truce offerings, and continued to assault the city.

Also, if the plan was to just fight a war, why then did the Zionists block the return of all refugees – including using techniques such as destroying their villages.

By the way, there is more than just a known amount of 440. Salam Abu-Sitta for example has cacluated some 531 or more villages and towns.

What you have just done is prove that the Zionists are responsible for most of the exodus. Their military assaults on Palestinian villages, along with their expulsions, psychological warfare, and the fear they brought to the Palestinians due to destroying neighboring communities resulted in most of the exodus.
And Lydda and Ramle for example, just two of the villages that were, expelled, consisted of 60,000 of the refugees – yes only two…

The truth isn’t “in-between” until you can prove that the Arab countries are responsible for most of the refugees.

 

Also I'd like to add a few more important details.

Since your quoting Morris's statistics I'd like to point out that Morris had written that:

"Certainly Ben-Gurion wanted as few Arabs as possible to remain in Israel. Certainly the majority of the country’s political and military leaders were happy to see the Arabs go. Certainly, many officers and officials did what they could to facilitate departure, including occasional expulsions (though, as I pointed out in Birth, in most towns and villages the Haganah ⁄ IDF had no need to issue expulsion orders as the inhabitants fled before the Jewish troops reached the site; the inhabitants usually fled with the approach of the advancing Jewish column or when the first mortar bombs began to hit their homes). But between what most people want and policy, there is, and was then, a line of demarcation."

And he also wrote that: "Above all, let me reiterate, the refugee problem was caused by attacks by Jewish forces on Arab villages and towns and by the inhabitants’ fear of such attacks, compounded by expulsions, atrocities, and rumors of atrocities — and by the crucial Israeli Cabinet decision in June 1948 to bar a refugee return."

 

Sure it is. But countries are defeated or succeed based on generalizations. For instance---if 90% of the Palestinians would support Israel---but 10% wanted to destroy her....I would generalize the other way.

 

Again and Again and Again.
You guys just dont stop.

There is no myth to bust.
48 was a war.
WAR.
Have you guys ever been at a war?
Except for deliberate expulsions of population, which count for 12% to 21% of the population, all others left because there was a war going on.
I know it is hard for you to comprehend, since you have never been in a state of war, never needed to hide while rockets explode all around you, never needed to grab a weapon and fight for your survival, but this is what happens at wars.
In 1991, while rockets were flying from Iraq into Tel aviv, Tel aviv looked like a ghost city.
Everyone left.

In the second lebanon war, when rockets were flying at a daily rate of 100 into northern israel, people left northern israel and looked for places to stay somewhere else.

The same with the palestinian population.

12%-21%.
That's it.
That's your "tranfer" agenda, Plan dalet, etc.
I know that you wont agree, and continue to twist things around.

I wish that you could be more objective, but i know you won't.

BTW guys, i havent seen you say a word about jews who were expelled from places that the arab legion/jordan conqured.
Why is that?
Do i sense a lack of objectivness by your side?
To make it short - Israel won.
Others lost.
The palestinian suffered.
If Israel had lost - the jews would had suffered.
If israel did not win the 67 war, there would still be no jews in east jerusalem.

 

I haven't met a single Palestinian who wants to destroy Israel, and I've been to the West Bank. As far as the Palestinian diasphora, many who advocate for the Palestinian cause would be in favor of the 67 borders. I'm sure there are some racist Palestinians out there just like there are racist people of every and all kinds, but I really have a hard time believing that 90% of Palestinians want to destroy Israel, I have a hard time believing even 50% think that.

 

Are you saying that the majority of the Palestinians want to apply for Israeli Citizenship--with the intent being loyal to its government, laws and way of life??

 

Not objective?

It is us who find you to be utterly intransigent. Because there is a war does not mean that people flee. Rhodesians did not flee when the terrorists attacked. Jews did not flee when the Arab legion attacked. The people of Baghdad did not empty the city in their tens of thousands when the 'Murkans invaded. The Vietcong did not disappear when the Yanks decided to mess with SE Asia. The people of Timor did not run away when Indonesia took their country. The Sandinistas did not flee when 'Murka supported the militia of the dictator. The Iranian did not flee after 'Murka encouraged the vicious evil tyrant with WMDs in Iraq to invade them. The Basques did not flee in an overwhelming majority when Franco's nationalist forces invaded their territory, and neither did the Catalonians. The citizens of Arnhem did not exit in droves never to be seen again in 1944. The people of Southern Angola did not flee en masse when UNITA and the SADF rolled through.

So that is a lame story invoking war for such the massive Palestinian flight, and made even lamer by insisting that we HAVE TO ACCEPT YOUR SPIN or be guilty of subjectivism.

When you have had Deir Yassin and then a jeep pitches up on the hill over your village at 4 in the morning and someone speaking accented Arabic tells you that tomorrow it will happen to you, then you lift up your skirts AND YOU RUN!!! And it has nothing to do with war. It has to do with Plan Dalet and the criminal actions by the Zionist terrorists then used by the Haganah to frighten the crap out of other villagers. That is NOT war, that is the fulfilment of Ben Gurion's 1938 view on the merits of "forced transfer" and is ethnic cleansing of the worst kind, and I am not the least embarrassed in continuing to believe that given the shed-loads of evidence.

When hundreds of children died in the long march from Lyddah, and old people fell by the wayside, that was not war ... those were war crimes; crimes against humanity, tacitly OK'ed by Ben Gurion himself and witnessed by Rabin, scarring him psychologically for life. And then pamphlets (there are scans available on the web, and they sell as collectables) which were dropped from the sky warning that Lyddah could happen again in other Arab towns if they did not leave. That is not war; that is deliberate depopulation.

And most of this happened OUTSIDE the area demarcated for the Jews in '181'. That is not a defensive war ... that was an aggressive invasion aimed at securing Eretz Yisrael. Who do you think you are fooling by denying that?

So horse bollocks to the war story being the reason that way less than half of the original Palestinians remained in what was to become Israel. The actions of the Israeli military were not just to stop the support of the Arab Legion by the local Palestinians, it was a clear ploy to remove them. And when they were refused re-entry afterwards by the politicians, the full sickening face of raw ethnic cleansing was finally displayed for all to see. Correction .... for those to see who are not utterly blinkered.

 

intransigent, lame story ,horse bollocks .
Fine.
Enjoy debating this with khalil.

 

I'm saying that I've not met a single Palestinian either in the occupied or outside of it that wants to "destroy Israel". That's not to say there aren't some, but I'm positive the number that do is not 90% or even 50%. Wanting peace and to go back to the 1967 borders is not calling for the destruction of Israel either. You basically claimed that 90% of Palestinians want to "destroy Israel". Please note that you can be critical of a government, you can have a land dispute with that government, you can object to some of its laws, and you can even find your interests in conflict with it's interests without calling for its destruction, so lets be clear. The number of Palestinians who want Israel to cease to exist and who have no regard for the human rights of the Jewish population is not 90%, its not 50% either. Likewise vice versa. Making exaggerated statements about the beliefs and ambitions of the "other side" only leads to further polarization and due to the perceived lack of willingness to compromise for peace of each side by the other a vicious cycle of vilification, dehumanization, an eventually outright violence begins.

 

I am not surprised that you withdraw at this stage. It follows a long-established pattern on this Forum.

Your offer of "the flail of War" as being the main reason why the Palestinians left is certainly a far more intellectually sound reason for the flight of the Palestinians that the usual rubbish that the Zionist apologists serve up --- namely that "the Arab leaders told them to go". If over half of the Palestinians were "told to go" one could rightly ask where the evidence of the "telling" is. For such a massive flight to have been instigated by the Arab leadership there should have been loads of evidence of such instructions being given. But there isn't. In fact the "loads of evidence" consists of the Arab leadership telling their followers to stay put.

So instead you offer up the "flail of war" as being the reason for the Palestinian exodus. And I countered that this overwhelming majority taking flight is plainly absent in the theatre of war in other countries, other conflicts and other wars. Why should entire villages have emptied? Why should this have happened only in Palestine? And the reason of course is very simple .... it didn't.

Some flight by the more canny, more well off, and more obvious targets did take place in Palestine just as it took place in San Salvador, Guatamala, Catalonia, Beirut, Baghdad, south Vietnam, etc. But those who fled from Mandate Palestime in the first month of two after ‘181’ were the usual suspects ... wealthy merchants and traders; senior academics; prominent politicians; popular authors and poets. But the shepherds and the goat tenders rarely flee. The rural school teachers and the clinic nurses don’t flee. The village baker and the water carrier don’t flee. The tea seller and the carpenter don’t flee. The clerics and the small shop owners don’t flee. The tenders of the olive and almond trees don’t flee.

Why did all of them flee in the Palestinian case? Why were ENTIRE villages depopulated by the score … by the hundreds? Not even the town beggar was left behind?

Because it was not “the flail of war” that caused the flight. That is never enough to cause total frenzied flight. Instead it was a highly efficient and systematic program that did; a program capable only of being carried out by a well-coordinated on-the-ground force of many thousands, appropriately managed, with sufficient and varied means of threat, and with sufficient dedication and ruthlessness …. such as the Zionist military forces. And their motivation was the dream of Eretz Yisrael. There simply is no other plausible explanation for this utterly uncharacteristic response by a largely rural society that fits the facts anywhere nearly as well.

And the most amazing thing of all is that the Zionists have managed to hide these real facts from “the West” and have substituted a series of easily refuted alternatives. But there has not been any systematic refuting of the victims of the Holocaust. At first it was simply not ethically acceptable to question the victims of the Nazi horror. And then it was too late or it was not politically “correct”. One could be accused of being a racist, or even worse …. an anti-Semite.

So this largest of all the Zionist Myths lives on; fed by those willing to continuously revitalise a list of so-called evidence whose elements are clearly lies (easily refuted), or out-of-context cherry-picking (easily demonstrated) or references that cannot be verified because they refer to sources which cannot be inspected, such as obscure newspapers.

And once that is done and the list is reduced to tatters, the standard ploy is for the playing of the “flail of War” card. But as I have shown that card is also dog-eared and doesn't stand up to comparison with the facts that hundreds of villages were totally emptied. Totally!!!

What on earth could cause such a flight? The answer is obvious. And at that point the opposition posters typically withdraw.

But they will be ack in a few weeks, posting the same old lists; reciting the same 50-year old mantras of Arab leaders and flails of War.

 

Why did the Palestinians leave? They were forced out by the Israelis who stole their land and also looted their houses,then stole their houses as well,this is all documented history.

 

all this back and forth to absolutely no gain.

it does not matter any more why many palestinians fled or why 400 palestinian villages were destroyed. It was war. It was as nasty and evil as every other war and to the victor goes the spoils as it has been since recorded history.

Fact of the matter is there is NO WAY that the surviving palestinians and the hundreds of thousands descendant are going to return to Israel proper. It just ain't happening, regardless of the morality, the internationa; legality or the ethics of such. Yet for some reason there is a huge number of people who want to argue this issue. IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

now as soon as the palestinians and their supporters realize this, then some sort of compromise/solution can actually be crafted. But until they do, they will just keep pissin' inthe wind to absolutely no avail, despite their passionate desires.

 

The reason is because some believe that the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is simply a myth, while others pin most- if not all the blame- on the Arab side for why the Palestinians left (which is obviously not the case as has been established on this thread).

 

The reason is because some believe that the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is simply a myth, while others pin most- if not all the blame- on the Arab side for why the Palestinians left (which is obviously not the case as has been established on this thread).

 

This may be off topic, but I think this thread can come to a conclusion. But before that I'm wondering if we should open more threads in the debate section pertaining to the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict?

 

No wonder you cannot understand why this ugly conflict continues. I am truly appalled at your medieval view of international law.

In fact, your post represents the most appalling lack of either basic knowledge or sense of reality that I have seen for a long time. Either way you have no clue.

I presume that you are equally unable to see why the Indigenous Americans still believe that they were screwed … after all … IT WAS WAR … and to the victor go the spoils. But, yes in those long-gone days you would have been correct. But "war-gain" all ended after WW1. Or did you not know that? Don't bother answering, most Zionist apologists have no clue as to what "modern" (LOL ... almost 100 year old) legislation means, judged by their posts which are in lock-step with yours.

But let me tell you that in modern times, since International Law changed in the form of the Covenant of the League of Nations; of the Kelogg-Briant pact; of the Nurenberg Trials; of the Charter of the United Nations, the people of, for instance, East Timor refused to accept your trite and glib brushing aside of their pain and continue to fight until the ‘Murkan-supported dictators in Jakarta called “Uncle!!” and gave them their rightful territory. And Nelson Mandela and his supporters (not those who slunk off to get grants to study in Newcastle) continued to resist until the ‘Murkan-supported Apartheid regime in South Africa saw the light and De Klerk called “Uncle!!” and gave up .

Since all of the above, and in fact long before, WAR HAS NOT BEEN A LEGAL WAY TO ACQUIRE TERRITORY, let alone to Ethnically Cleanse a nation. If you do not know that, then you have no right to expect to be seriously accepted on this Forum. Your knowledge of modern law, as I said, utterly vacant.

 

Okay jump up and down. Scream from the rafters. Insist on justice that will never come.
Demand international law be adhered to.

It still ain't gonna happen.

You can argue till you're blue in the face. You can win the "its your fault" debate. It still ain't gonna happen.

the palestinians have been absolutely mired in misery because they think the injustice of the past is more important than the promise of their future.

Go ahead be all superior and wave the righteous banner of international law. A "law" that cannot be enforced is not a law, it is a guideline - an expression of the desire for a particular behaviour.

So focus on who is more to blame for the fiasco. Villify the evil jews, celebrate the poor palestinians but it will not make a difference to the outcome.

Only realization on the palestinian side that their future is far more important than the past and on the Israeli side that the WB is NOT Israel can trust begin to be built. It is only in a relationship of trust can the conflict be brought to a reasonably positive conclusion.

BTW - I am more than cognizant of the history of this conflict as you well know. Your reaction to my pragmatism indicates I have hit home with an ugly truth. One you desperately don't want to accept because it offends your sense of what is legal and what is just. get back to me when you find any significant examples of justice being administered to the victors in war - that is something typically reserved for the losers.

PS, did i miss something or didn't the maps of europe get redrawn after WW1 and WW2?

 

You put your finger on it!!!!

As I posted to you on another thread --- of course the clock won't be turned back to 1948. But to deny that the Palestinian Nakba is of any concern today is tantamount to asking the same question about the Holocaust.

The simple fact is that the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians has to be added to the scales of weighing the rights and fairness of what has happened in Palestine, and in fact the screwing started long before 1948. Then came 1967. Then came the settlements. These are all mega-straws on the camel's back that need to be dismantled before a robust future relatively free from conflict can be created. And it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who need to do this, not the British or the Norwegians or the US.

But I repeat, to deny anything from McMahon, through Balfour, San Remo, The Mandate, the 1939 White Paper, UNGA 181, the Nakba, the subsequent Israeli declaration of independence, 1967, the occupation of 40+ years, the refugee camps of 70 years, etc, will be to trivialise the complexity of the task.

 

You ask a valid question.

The redrawing of international borders after WW1 was the last manifestation of the "we are the best, and we will dictate". this last of the Empire attitude was subsequently overshadowed by various international agreements and a massive independence drive which involved decolonialisation that continues to this day.

And since then, indeed, War has not been a tool to acquire territory. All the changes after wars have come with accompanied peace/surrender agreements.

There has been two glaring exceptions. The most obvious was a State that was such a pariah in the world view that it was TOLD by the victors what would happen ---- namely The Third Reich.

The other is the 1966/1967 war in the southern Levant. That remains to be resolved by the proper reasoned and just implementation of UNSC resolutions 242 and 338, and by that I do NOT mean a mindless return to the 1949 Armistice lines.

You are correct that accommodation is required. The Arabs need to accept that 1948, no matter how bitter, is an entrenched fact. The Jews need to accept that, no matter how bitter, Eretz Yisrael is a lost dream.

 

Not even remotely close. It is hyperbolic nonsense to compare the industrialized murder of millions of jews, roms, gays, poles, russians etc. to al nakba. And besides who is denying the catastrophe? The only issue seems to be that you and others think that the refugees were all forced out at gun point, some Israelis and their supporters think they all left of their own volition, and the majority of people who think that it was a combination of many factors including forced removal and choice. the arabs that stayed became Israeli citizens the arabs that left became perpetual refugees.

I totally agree that for the most part the settlements must be dismantled. I agree with you that it is theft. Of course, in order for the palestinians to have a viable state, they will need to swap land so that free and clear access between gaza and the WB can be had. There is simply no country on earth that can exist in two seperate and very distinct locations cut off from each other with no sovereign access.

Both sides were screwing with each other from day one. Let's not forget that every time the arabs chose violence, it only made the jews stronger. From the arab riots in 21 and 29 and the civil war of the late 30's, to the war of independence etc.

No, i do not trivialize the task at hand in the slightest. To put it into clearer perspective for you.

If you agree that a two state solution is the most plausible resolution between the two parties, then the concept of 67 green line as the starting point for borders with appropriate mutually beneficial land swaps is a reasonable starting point and one which most can agree upon. (of course the fanatics on both sides will never accept such a compromise, but I think the majority should and will).
So, once that is determined, all the past history of diplomatic initiatives are of little or no relevance to the solution.

Then the issue of refugees - well, we both know that the Israelis will not allow hundreds of thousands of arabs to return. Its a non-starter, so an alternative must be found - most likely some form of compensation and perhaps a small number returned as a token of trust. I think giving the compensation to the PA (assuming a united government) to be used by them to build out infrastructure and housing for all those refugees who wish to return to their nation of palestine.

Then, there are the issues of militarization, border control, air space control, etc. that must be put on the table and a reasonable compromise found for each. I think this part of a plan will be the most onerous since the palestinians will demand instant sovereignty and the Israelis will want a stretched out timetable.

Jerusalem is the one issue which personally I dont see a way of to acceptable resolution. But I'm sure there are many smarter guys on either side that might. I'd like to see an international city, but I don't think it stands a snowball's.....

My contention has always been that the palestinians have focussed on the real and percieved injustices of the past at the direct expense of the future of their nationalist dreams. '

I also contend that with very few exceptions, Israeli "overtures" of peace were nothing more than diplomatic/public relations smoke screens.

 

I think that the turks might have a bone to pick about only Germany getting told where and what their borders were going to be and maybe the slavs and the czechs, And it can be argued that the end of colonialism and the creation of all those new countries was a direct result of WW2.

I do agree that any dream of eretz israel will remain exactly that - a bad dream. And that the palestinians have to accept Israel's existence.
I just wish all concerned would start acting like grownups instead of greedy ideologically driven arses.

 

Again, for the most part I agree.

UNSCR 242 is the only possible starting point (the 1967 borders) and this time there should be no reliance in --- "Look, we gave them back NEARLY all that we took, and they were not happy". Imagine a thief pleading "all fair" in court based on that reasoning, but I know that you feel that law is largely irrelevant. Luckily this time around there are players like Mahmoud Abbas and Khaled Meshaal who carry less paranoia than Yassar Arafat did in Oslo and at Camp David 2, but on the Israeli side the man who bragged that he sank 'Oslo' is now the Israeli Prime Minister.

Regarding the Nakba and the Holocaust they remain the single greatest tragedy to have befallen both nations, disasters that have perhaps befallen less than half a dozen peoples in modern times. No Joe the Plumber in the West has any remote idea of the impact of either; they are both way above his field of reference.

Your second paragraph is however still way off line. You have not come even close to answering how 400+ villages could become TOTALLY, I repeat, TOTALLY depopulated, with ample record of people trying to return, if it were not for a dedicated campaign of "forced transfer", simply because there was a war on. It had to have been deliberate cleansing that cleared the slate.

OLE!!!! Hands across the divide

So .... now the question is .... what needs to happen for a peace process to get underway? I think a thread in the Debate section is called for on that topic.

 

Seems so, Khalid, but don't be surprised if Shmuel Katz's list reappears in the near future. At least we have this thread as a reference.

I have picked up on your suggestion and started another thread. See ya!!