Al Nakba: refugees

It is quite clear, as unclassified documents around "Al Nakba*" are being released that the situation in Palestine around 1948 was very mixed. 

The Zionism managed to get hold of their military and political objectives through the British Empire, that washed their hands off in 1947. Before that, it is documented, that the British Mandate was selling land -not their own-. All kinds of manoeuvrings were indeed done, in order for people to loose their rights to claim. This certainly involved also the "Balfour Declaration" in which promises of land owning, were made. Registrations under the Ottoman ruling were dismissed, while they, themselves -the Ottomans-, that had been ruling Palestine from 1517 to 1917 also did some "dealings and willings" with Arab property. But what can you expect? 

By the time of the creation of the State of Israel, many native Arabs were -unbelievably- "drawn" towards the Zionists, for several reasons, as Hillel Cohen* explains, therefore also the varied motives for selling property and collaborating with Zionists: "Some wanted money, some sold land or acted as intelligence agents for the Zionists even while publicly denouncing illegal land sales, but there were also non-monetary motivations. Some thought that cooperating with the Zionists would improve the life of their clans and villages. Others thought that it was impossible to defeat the Zionists and, therefore, wiser to cooperate with them. Others were committed nationalists who believed that staying on the land was paramount, and that working for and cooperating with the Zionists was the strategy that would enable them to stay on the land. Others were driven to collaborate with the Zionists or with the British out of their intense hatred for Hajj Amin al-Husayni".

On the other hand the land was bought from an extremely fearful population that did not have time to seat to negotiate. Many villages were destroyed, others just left their villages in fear that they would run the same fate, and a generalised panic generated by the knowledge of what was going on in other towns such as Deir Yassin -where a mixed population of fighters were making difficult the reaching of Jerusalem by the Zionist forces-. Some were ordered to leave certain towns, to where, people, later returned and some did not. Some were exiled within the borders. Some were taken in truck out of the borders to Jordan, and many of these joined an Arab militia.

Many refugees then left encouraged by Arab leaders, Arab radio transmissions. But also some Arab leader told them to stay and not to panic. 

Most of the refugees thought of leaving for a short period -two weeks-, but the Arab surrounding countries did not give their promised support. They were betrayed by them. Only in 1967 the Arab Nations reacted in an 18 years delay, with a war that ended up in a huge failure, only to make things worse.

So, even though it is very obvious that the refugee condition came out of a change in the previous status quo, and that testimony written on the diaries of commanders of those times, made it very explicit that of the purposes and objectives of their campaign was to "get as much land as possible with as little of Arab population as possible", it was nevertheless an expression of desire. Truth is that more than 400 villages were destroyed some tiny settlements of the fellahin-peasants-, some much bigger. Just look for where tight groups of sabra cactuses in line are around the fields... they usually marked the borders of a household in those times.

Part of the refugee condition depended on the Arabs themselves. In many areas -in what today is called Israel- a big Arab population lives, they are there. Such is the case of Nazareth, Akko, Jaffa, Abu Ghosh and many more. Their inhabitants are from for many generations there, others are from migrations from other towns.

Even if moral, how does the compensation for damages resumes in all these cases? And, under who's responsibility it falls besides the Israeli?

Something to think about...

*