Differing narratives - How rational choices lead to the Arab exile in 1948.

In the Israel-Palestinian conflict there is one issue that is inescapable and on which it seems that there can never be reconciliation. For Palestinians is it called the Nakba and for them it is the forced exile of hundreds thousands of their people. For most Israelis it is the voluntary departure of Arabs.

But which narrative is true? People can (and do) go over the evidence for each and every village, town and city but ultimately those can at best only resolve the proximate cause of the departure. If one really wishes to understand what happened, then one must seek to understand not just that one event, but the entire series of decisions being made by the Arab populaces that left.

Before we can talk about the decisions being made, we should first be clear that some Arabs were forcefully deported (Benny Morris puts that at ~10% of all Arabs that left) and for the purposes of this post we will use that number). The discussion of those what were deported is outside the discussion of this post along with any legal and moral obligations that Israel has to those people and their descendants. Nor will this post cover those who left as individuals. (Historians estimate anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 Arabs left as individuals before a single village was attacked/abandoned/depopulated.) This post will only cover those communities where either all of most of the community left as a single act or as a closely connected series of events.

Out of those villages/towns that became depopulate (or mostly depopulated) of Arabs we can speak of two categories: (1) those that openly started the conflict support of the ALA/Army of the Holy War/Arab League and (2) those that declared a policy of neutrality/non-aggression.

For those villages that openly supported the goals and methods of the ALA/AofHW/etc, it is only natural and rational that they would expect to be treated by the Yishuv forces in the same way they had planned to to treat the Jews. Thus it was only rational for them to flee the advancing Yishuv forces as they believed failing to do so would result in their own deaths.

But what of the villages that (at the start of the conflict at at least) had a policy of neutrality or even non-aggression? By most accounts such villages made up the majority of Arab villages at the start of the 1947 war. The Arab forces focused on fortifying Arab villages and the non-Arab villages (Druze, Circassians and Maronites) were largely left to their own devices. This meant that they could (and did) maintain their own relations with the the Yishuv.

This meant that for a Druze village to maintain neutrality, all it had to do was not take part in the the hostilities, but for an Arab village to maintain neutrality they had to ensure that no Arab forces used their village as a base for attacking nearby Jewish villages and Jewish convoys. Such a thing might seem simple, but it was neither simple nor was it is necessary safe to do so.

From the very beginning the ALA and allies made it very clear to everyone that this would be war to the finish - a war in which their could be no neutrals. Therefore any refusal to support the ALA by other Arabs carried with it an inherent risk of being labeled a traitor to the cause. It was (probably) easy enough to decline joining the fight directly but things were not that simple - especially given that at the time everyone expected the Arab forces to win.

It was common for Arab irregulars to show up to a village with an offer to help "defend it from Yishuv attack". For a neutral village to reject such an offer risked being labeled being labeled as traitors - which could carry a heavy price - so many made the rational choice to accept. Of course those that accepted quickly found that Arab forces did not simply stay as a defensive force but that they used the village as a base for attacking nearby Jewish villages as used the village itself as a vantage point from which to snipe at Jewish farmers and convoys. Thus those villages that accepted "protection" quickly found their neutrality to be a thing of the past. Thus when their "defenders" later fled the villagers had every reason to have the same beliefs as those who had openly supported the genocide of the Jews from the start and fled expecting the Jews to treat them and the ALA had planned to treat the Jews.

Even for those who initially rejected Arab forces being billeted in their villages, their rejection was not always accepted. In some cases the Arab forces simply moved in anyways, forcing the villages to either accept it or fight (not surprisingly few if any chose to fight). In other cases villages that rejected billeting Arab forces discovered that casualties from Arab attacks on Jewish villages were simply transported to their villages with the expectation that the villagers would help care for the wounded. Refusing to care for the wounded was a certain way to be labeled a traitor. Given how everyone expected the war to end (with Arab victory) it would have been irrational to try and maintain neutrality under those circumstances. Thus their only reasonable choice was to break their neutrality and side with the Arab forces. They too would have thus have reason to fear that the Jews would treat them as the Arab forces had planned to treat the Jews.

Hopefully by now some of the readers have spotted what looks like a flaw in this line of reasoning: Certainly some Arab communities (especially those that lived in mixed communities such as Haifa where the Jewish community urged the Arabs to stay) know very well that the Jews had no intent or interest in massacring them. Why then would those people leave of their own accord?

The answer is that everyone (from the Arabs themselves, to the major European powers, to the U.S. and Canada) believed that Israel could not survive unless the Arab states agreed to accept it - something the Arab states were adamant they would not do. This means that as the military theaters came to a close the Arab residents had to make a choice. They could follow the Arab league orders to evacuate - which by common belief meant they would be able to return within a few years in the wake of the Arab armies, or they could side with the Jews and risk having their fate tied to them - which by common belief meant death or displacement. The decisions of many to leave was thus a reasoned one based on the information available and common beliefs at the time.

Not a very moving exciting, but a very important one. The Arabs communities that left did so not based on fear, nor were they forced out by either the Jewish or Arab forces. They left because based on the available evidence and opinions it was the rational choice to leave. 

So what does that mean for those of us who are "Pro-Israel" in terms of our legal and.or moral obligations to the Arabs that left? As far as I am concerned they made a choice - they chose to side against us and with the Arab league, they chose to leave. Thus we have no moral or legal obligation towards them for their departure. Those who legally owned land (which was very few - another post for another day) should be compensated for the loss land. Those who rented are entitled to nothing, nor are any of them for other forms of compensation. That said I do sympathize with those who left and do believe we should assist somewhat with their resettlement out of compassion