This is probably one of the best set ups for a reading. The two main readings involved the perspective of the Palestinians who were being pushed out of their home to make way for the Zionists, or in 1948 better know as the Israelis. The other reading however is a critique of the exodus of the Palestinians due to war. I find this fascinating because these documents in away support and attack each other. In reading these we have some representation from both parties.
Starting with the Palestinians, in the Return to Half Ruins the author is telling the story through his fathers eyes. This I assume takes place after the Arab nations launch an attack on the Israel. He gives a great prelude which I will state very briefly. Since his father was child the British Empire was present, although that soon changed when Israel became a new nation. The Israelis pushed the inhabitants out forcing them to flee. There is a natural religious tension between the Israelis and the Arabics, as a result this caused mass panic for the Palestinians in the area when the Israelis came their way. In the end his father is able to reach America where he graduated from Princeton. After years of living in the United States his father wanted to return to his homeland but could not, instead he would go to Egypt and other surrounding places to get back in touch with his culture. However in the end he and his father were able to tour Jaffe, “the heart of [his] father’s Palestine” and there he told his son and author of his experience.
There next reading follows those who were pushed out of Haifa. The personal emotions were touching and actually seen before, I will get to this later. What I found the most interesting was the account taken in such detail. Haifa was a city where many Palestinians lived and prior to the time of the Israeli offensive there was under British Control. However, once the British left their was a power vacuum that was quickly sealed by the Israelis. Sensing the danger, thousands of Haifa locals tried to leave city and did so while other were unable to escape. Due to the religious differences there was two day battle that ended with a Israeli victory. Those who were left in the town were left under the Israeli command.
The third article like the most because it is a comparison between what was said during the time of the war and what we know to be true today. For example, according to the reading, Israelis they felt that the British conspired agains them by persuading “her Arab allies, and especially her client, King Abdullah of Jordan, to invade Palestine upon expiry of the British Mandate and do battle with the Jewish state as soon as it came into the world” which was later found out to be false. However at the time since the theory stuck, many believed it and many thought that the Arabs were about to attack the new Jewish state, which they did but not because of the British. Secondly, the Israeli state said that the Palestinians left on their own terms because they were told by their leaders too, which was also not true. The last example of deception I am going to mention is that of great victories Israel won. Israel displayed their soldiers as outnumbered every time yet coming out victoriously. In the article the author mentioned how the Israelis soldiers did do well however, were not always outnumbered and how they did take loses. Part of the Israelis success was their organization and ability as well as having weapons that the Arabs didn’t have.
So with that said I would like to point out the interesting facts that I believe were meant to be derived from these readings. I find that an underlying theme is the displaced persons and here is an example of yet again, another displaced group, the Arabs, but more specifically the Palestinians. Despite what Israel stated about them voluntarily leaving, they did not want to. However once they were removed from the land they had no place to go. Despite being Arabic they could not all assimilate into other Arabic countries so easily. As a result they had to split apart and find refuge across the Middle East. This is still a problem today. The reason why I called it the domino theory is because when Israel found a new home after being displaced they displaced the people living their previously.
Personally I don’t know enough to say who is wrong or right. Yes the Israeli state was formed without the input of the local Palestinians and felt that they needed to protect themselves. The article mentioned how the war began but not as clear as I was hoping and then after doing more searching I am a little bit more confused than prior. I think the Arab nation was threatened by their brothers homeland being taken away and being supported by Russia, United States, and Britain that they attacked the Israelis to get their land back however it backfired when the Israelis were able to successfully counter attack and gain even more land than they were initially allowed.
I enjoyed that the articles were people’s stories as well. It made them easier to relate to because though most of us have not been displaced it illustrates the struggles of war which are still prevalent within our society today. It is interesting to compare the articles from the Palestine’s point of view to what we read about Zionism last week. It is easy to view Zionism as a great cause, which it was at the time because it helped rehabilitate Jews after the Holocaust, but thousands of people were moving into a country that was already home to other people which led to more strife and turmoil.