The Nakba, the Cherished Catastrophe
The Beating Heart of the Body of Palestinian Victimization. A new perspective.
If you believe in the importance of free speech, subscribe to support uncensored, fearless writing—the more people who pay, the more time I can devote to this. Free speech matters. I am a university professor suspended because of a free speech issue, so I am not speaking from the bleachers. The button below takes you to that story if you like.
Please subscribe and get at least three pieces /essays per week with open comments. It’s $6 per month and less than USD 4. I know everyone says hey, it’s just a cup of coffee (with me, not per day but just one per month), but if you’re like me, you go, “Hey, I only want so many cups of coffee!” I get it.
But I only ask that when you choose your coffee, please choose mine. Cheers.
_______________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
The Nakba is the Arabic name for the displacement or voluntary departure of approximately 750,000 Arabs in the Arab-Israeli war. The war started when forces from Syria, Iraq, Transjordan and Egypt invaded Israel immediately after Israel declared independence on May 15, 1948.
The Nakba, or the Catastrophe in English, uses the definite article “the” in its description to heighten its sense of loss and humiliation; this 75-year-old Palestinian grievance is still as bitter as wormwood and sharp as a two-edged sword. 1
But is such singularity merited?
While the humiliation of the Nakba may be the still beating but wounded heart of the body of Palestinian grievances, it is a wound that never heals and demands constant attention.
A historical examination of other bloody or contentious borders that arose or were moved by war, the partitioning of land, or ethnic divisions leaves the Nakba looking comparatively less catastrophic than other “catastrophes.”
Indeed, in comparing it to other grand displacements, the Nakba distinguishes itself not by the number of people displaced, the unique relationship to the land, the violence, or the material loss of the dispossessed. It is unique as a catastrophe because its people decided, while cheered on by a grand cast of willing enablers, to make their loss an idol to be worshipped, a grievance that demanded their enduring obeisance. Palestinians insisted they would be refugees until the land they sold to the Jews and the untitled British Palestinian partition lands were given back to them; they rejected five lands for peace offers because they preferred to pursue magical thinking, a dream sequence that ended with Israel packing up and leaving.
Polling last November showed 75 % of Palestinians were only open to solving the conflict with Israel by implementing the “River to the Sea” solution, one in which their Palestine would encompass the land from the river Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea, and Israel would be no more.
Just 17% of Palestinians were open to a two-state solution.
But it would have settled years ago if it were just about land and there was no openness to compromise. However, the resistance to compromise predates the 1948 war. The 1937 Peel Commission offered over half of the British Palestinian Mandate to the indigenous Arab population. It was rejected.
The Palestinians might have settled years ago, and there would not be the absurdity of them deliberately breeding new generational grief. The Palestinian leadership, though, chose to cling to their humiliation, a humiliation that refuses to break into humility but rather metastasises into Jew hatred.
If one person representing Palestinian culture sat down and prepared to listen to a counsellor, that person would be told that they cannot move forward while consumed with resentment; they would hear that victimisation may initially taste sweet but quickly turn bitter. Their external locus of control assures only misery. It is just the neighbouring Jews who have made the desert bloom.
Enablers ranging from the UNHWR to Hamas and other extremists on both sides of the barricades have used the Nakba to further their own financial and political ends while creating a convenient method for so many to vent their anti-semitism while hiding behind a patina of political objectivity.
But anti-semitism did not start with the Nakba; it pre-dates Zionism by thousands of years.
History rhymes but seldom repeats. Of course, circumstances of displacement are not precisely the same, but why have incidents of more significant harm and displacement still seen refugees placed, allowing them to move forward in their lives?
The reason that the Nakba is so well known is not an issue of the size of the Catastrophe; it is that Jews are involved, and the Palestinians are the losing football team that refuses to leave the pitch, staying on and becoming quite good at making a noisy spectacle of themselves.
But when calm, one might listen to quieter voices, learn the degree of injury from the Nakba, and compare it to other 20th-century displacements. Here, one notes the differing levels of displacement, death, and loss of property arising from the formation of countries or other conflicts of the last century.
The Nakba's numbers do not sit at the top in the following chart of displacements in the 20th century:
The dispossessed of the Naqba indeed had historical ties to the land they left. But the case for Jewish ties to Israeli land is equally or more well-established, with archaeology proving thousands of years of Jewish connection to their lands.
Zionists did not take any land that they were not granted by the British or that they did not buy directly from Arabs. Most Jewish land purchases were made through organisations and involved large tracts of land owned by absentee landowners. Much of the land was uncultivated and swampy, rocky, or sandy. However, still, many Jewish organisations ended up paying exorbitant prices. For example, in 1948, rich black soil in Iowa sold for $110/acre, while Jews paid $1,000/acre for arid and semi-arid land in Palestine.
The bulk of the land that became the State of Israel was public land passed from the Ottoman Empire through the British Mandate to the newly founded Jewish State. About 30 per cent of the land was privately owned by Jews and Arabs. Some of those Arabs remained and became citizens of Israel.
When one looks at land taken after 1948 by Israel as they were responding to wars initiated against them, there is certainly no precedent for paying for conquered lands.
But Israel still cut new ground, voluntarily returning the Sinai to Egypt in 1982, an act unprecedented in history.
If one looks at many of the bloody borders that followed wars and country breakups and reformations, there is often much more than displacement; there is theft, and there is a significant loss of life.
None of them happened at any extraordinary level with the Nakba.
Arabs displaced via the Nakba did not suffer as much as those forced to move during the Indian partition or even the current conflict in Syria. In scale, both of these displacements dwarf the Nakba.
In the Indian partition, both Pakistani and Indian governments enacted laws to compensate property owners, but many refugees never received proper compensation. In the later 20th century, more laws were created to ensure compensation, but it was never assured in the chaos of changing borders, mass migration and the death of 1.2 million.
Considering the many fatalities and astronomical numbers above, it is difficult to frame the Nakba as truly catastrophic when compared to other permanent displacements larger and with more bloodshed and theft.
So why did the UN treat the original Palestinian refugees and their descendants differently?
If Israel is the problem, why wasn’t a Palestinian state declared when Egypt and Jordan were running the show in Gaza and the West Bank?
Why does the mandate of the UNHWR to resettle refugees exempt refugees from the 1948 Israeli War of Independence?
Why are Palestinians not included in the 1951 UN refugee convention?
The world seems to have selective standards. And that selective morality seems only for Palestinians in conflict with Jews. In the 1991 Gulf War, 400,000 Palestinians were kicked out of Kuwait because they supported Saddam Hussein. There were no street protests, no Jewish hospitals, cafes or bookstores being swarmed to cries of “Free Palestine!”
It’s hard to look at long-running conditions in Gaza or the West Bank and say that Palestinian refugees have been coddled.
Willingly used might be a better description. Palestinian leaders themselves even prefer to keep their people in camps in Gaza and the West Bank rather than resettle them locally. Why?
To keep them miserable, bitter and angry.
Today, scapegoating Israel distracts Middle Eastern governments from paying serious attention to their own country’s failings. So often, unhappy delusions are more saleable than admitting one’s failings.
There is no natural incentive for any country or organisation being paid to help maintain the Palestinian people to do anything but agitate against Israel. Hamas or Hezbollah care not a whit for Palestinians; the Palestinians are useful PR tools for the parents of these terrorist organisations, like the Iranians and Qataris, or other Jew-haters who advocate for the right of return for the descendants of those displaced in 1948. The right of return is nothing more than a polite code for the demographic destruction of Israel, and of course, Israel will have none of it. Jewish politeness and deference went up in smoke in the crematoriums of Dachau.
The Palestinians are valuable props for the Hamas' homicidal death cult and their masters in Qatar and Iran. Hamas love a dead Israeli baby the most, but they will live happily with a dead Palestinian baby. How many Middle Eastern governments truly want the Palestinian situation resolved?
For them, it would be like stepping naked up out of a dirty pool; there would be too much on display. Governments prefer to stay in their cloudy pools, covering up their human rights abuses and failures while filing complaints against the one tiny democracy in the Middle East the size of New Jersey.
As some medieval European communities blamed the plague and poor rainfall on the Jews, so many bad actors push the myth that whatever the problem, Israel is at fault, all the while proclaiming that the Palestinian wound is the greatest injury on the world body. But it is not. It is just a small one that many do not want to heal.
And objections over Palestine, of course, also offer a convenient mask to hide anti-semitism behind a mask of anti-Zionism.
The Catastrophe is not just about the land; it is that they have lost to those Jews; it is wounded pride; it is also the fact they can no longer subjugate those who, in past centuries, would be forced to follow two steps behind them while they rode high on their camels.
It is about the Islamists clinging desperately to the belief that they are innately superior to the Jews and the assumption that the existence of Israel is simply a case of divine misalignment that God will correct (they will offer to help).
Or perhaps Palestinian forbearance is simply a form of denial.
Proverbs 5:4
It’s the humiliation of the loss. The Haganah was barely an army. They had two airplanes they got from Czechoslovakia and had to smuggle in weapons. The Brit’s (yes the colonizers) were more sympathetic to the Arabs and many fought alongside the Arabs during the war. The regular armies of several Arab states all fought against Israel In the minds of the Palestinians how could they lose?
The maintenance of resentment and grievance so aided by western so called progressives is the major obstacle to peace. No other group has been propped up organizationally (UNWRA) to maintain a conflict this long.