Partition and Deir Yassan

The number of refugees and the reasons for their flight in 1948 have long been a source of fractious historiographic debate and negotiations starting points. One fact is reasonably agreed upon; on 27 November 1947, the Arab Palestinian authorities - the Arab Higher Committee led by the grand mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Hussein - rejected the UN General Assembly’s partition resolution 181. Israel’s subsequent military victory resulted in what the Palestinian narrative calls al-Nakba - the disaster; a passable Arabic transliteration of the Hebrew, Shoah. This victim identity permeates Palestinian historiography, and indeed, much of the post-Zionist or “new” Israeli historiography. It also colludes in attempts to co-opt the real Holocaust narrative for the Palestinian Nakba.

M&W insist that “the history of these events is well-understood.”[1] For two celebrated scholars of international relations the sloppy recourse to the claim that Israel started a long-planned war in 1948 in order to “ethnically cleanse” its land of Palestinians is disappointing. M&W, like countless Israel-haters, repeat the mantra “Israeli officials have long claimed that the Arabs fled because their leaders told them to, but careful scholarship (much of it by Israeli historians like Morris) have demolished this myth.”[2] But the history of these events is far from “well-understood.” The data are complex, sometimes robust, other times patchy, and often conflicting. And of course the elephant in the room is that it is only the governments of Israel, the U.S., U.N. and UK who have declassified documents from the period; we still know relatively little about the states and militaries of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Saud Arabia, Lebanon, and Syria.

Even when there is a degree of civilised consensus on the archival data, there are many informed differences of interpretation even among historians and scholars of integrity. So we can only cringe when M&W insist that Israel was always intent on ridding its land of all Arabs and that the “opportunity came in 1947-48, when Jewish forces drove up to 700,000 Palestinians into exile.”[3] No such academic consensus exists. On the contrary the issue is complex, the pattern of events chaotic. After all, this was a war! Indeed the top scholars do adduce evidence that some Arab leaders did urge Arab Palestinians to flee their homes in Israel. Nor does the Israeli historian Benny Morris say anything resembling what M&W cite him as saying. Here is what Morris actually wrote:

In some areas Arab commanders ordered the villagers to evacuate to clear the ground for military purposes or to prevent surrender. More than half a dozen villages — just north of Jerusalem and in the Lower Galilee — were abandoned during these months as a result of such orders....there was no Zionist policy to expel the Arabs or intimidate them into flight..[4]


Why would M&W risk their credibility by arguing “the only remaining debate of real significance regarding the expulsion of the Palestinians from their homeland was whether it was ‘born of war,’ as Morris argues, or by design, and Norman Finkelstein argues.”[5] Why must they corrupt their reputation as scholars by laying the decision of “expulsion” right from the get-go? Quelle surprise, because the source for this specious claim is Norman Finkelstein himself, writing in 2005, “the scholarly consensus is that Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1948”[6] except “few pockets of scholarly dispute remain: e,g., whether or not the Zionist leadership intended from early on to “transfer” the Palestinians out of Palestine.”[7] While this is the mainstream mantra of the orthodox postmodern historiography that AL had been seeped in, it is by no means a consensus and is conclusively rejected by the evidence. Finkelstein is a handy polemicist and crack footnote-checker of people such as Alan Dershowitz and Joan Peters. And to the extent he exposed shoddiness in some parts of Dershowitz and Peters’ polemics, Finkelstein is to be applauded. However, he has not done any of the archival research that Morris and several other notable historians have; Morris himself has rejected Finkelstein’s interpretations of Morris’ scholarship.[8]

AL and M&W mercilessly crib, rehash, and plain plagiarize from a carousel of opinions and interpretations found in books and newspaper articles by Finkelstein, Pappe, and, of course, AL’s eponomously-named pooch, Chomsky. A more coarse commentator might argue they pass each other’s lines around like a two-bob tart. Arab-Israeli historian Nur Masalha comes close to the state-of-play bemoaning “the impression that these discourses are basically the outcome of a debate among Zionists which unfortunately has little to do with the Palestinians themselves.”[9] In fact AL provides a rawer reality that it is overwhelmingly a sectarian debate among Jews, both actual Jews and Fair-weather Jews a la AL. Oh, and a heads-up to Masalha, these debates affect me and my non-Muslim/Jewish/Middle eastern world as well!

However, for the real butt-clinching riff we must read Loewenstein, who is what we might helpfully describe as a fair weather fan of Benny Morris…Now if I were a reader who did not know very much about these high-octane times, I would imagine that every single person within coo-ee of Jerusalem, Hebron, Ramallah, Haifa, Cairo, Amman, and Damascus would have been glued to their wirelesses as the findings of UNSCOP cooed across the ether on that November 29, 1947 night. The evening would have shivered with nerves. AL, citing Pappe, interprets the response to the news thus

Palestinian and Arab leaders generally rejected it, perhaps not fully realising the world’s determination to create a Jewish homeland. Hard line elements in the Zionist movement also rejected the partition. Soon after the UN declaration, the mass expulsion of Palestinians began in earnest. Some left after their leaders lost battles against the Zionists, but far more were thrown out during Jewish retaliation against Palestinian attacks on settlements. ‘Ethnic cleansing’ commenced. The desire of the Zionist leadership - transfer - had begun to be fulfilled.[10]


OK, let’s explore what really happened

Note AL once more presents the Palestinian/Arab leaders as poor befuddled dopey “perhaps not fully realising…” Hullo? This issue had been fought for many decades. Is AL suggesting that if the swarthy hooka-smoking magic-carpet flying “leaders” had had expert instruction they might have “realised?” If this is not classic orientalist stereotyping, god knows what is! Yet again we have his complete confusion about what ‘Zionist’ and ‘Jewish’ mean. He has the Arabs leaving after losing battles against Zionists and ‘Jewish retaliation.’ Is he suggesting that the battles lost were lost to non-Jewish Zionists?

These few days would make the plot for a fantastic film. This night would have had as much tension and drama as the announcements of Vatican II did for the world’s Catholics in 1965. Yet AL provides no sources, no personalities, no outpourings of rejoice, sorrow, revenge, no battles, no town names, only the reference of ‘historian’ Ilan Pappe. But by jingo, there was high drama. Let’s take a peep at the truth.

On November 30, the day after the U.N. decision to partition the British Mandate of Palestine, the Arab reaction began - violent, manic, the sword was par for the course. Seven Jews were killed. In the following days stabbings, shootings, beatings coupled the attacks on the consulates of Sweden and Poland (Danish cartoons anybody), torching of synagogues. Molotov cocktails in shops.[11] On December 3 the Palestinian leadership ordered the razing of the Jewish retail precinct in Jerusalem.[12] On December 4 over 100 armed Arabs attacked Kibbutz Efal on the outskirts of Tel Aviv.[13] But what do we get from AL? The unsupported claim that “Hard line elements in the Zionist movement also rejected the partition.”[14] However, it does not take long to find AL’s source, where in Pappe’s book we get violence “was activated by hot-headed youth on both sides,” triggered by the Haganah.[15] Of course, perish the thought that Arabs could get “hot-headed” without Zionist ‘triggers!’



The battle at Deir Yassan

While debate over the events at Deir Yassan is often heated, there are several facts that are not controversial. In the pre-dawn of April 8, 1948, two Zionist irregular para-military groups - Irgun and the Stern Gang - set off for Deir Yassan. Irgun headed by Menachem Begin and the Stern Gang headed by Yitzhak Shamir seized the village and its 750 residents, resulting in the most traumatic massacre of the Arab residents. Deir Yassan was thus a key turning point in the war.

The Haganah’s Operation Nachshon had been launched two days before to open the road to Jerusalem, on which Deir Yassan was strategically located. Convoys of food and supplies had not been able to reach the 2,000 Jewish residents of the Old City due to an Arab blockade placed the day after the U.N. Partition in November,1947. By March, 1948, the Arabs were increasingly successful in blockading road links between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, the city's only supply route. Deir Yassan was one of the key strategic vantage points as it was situated on a hill that provided a wide view of the vicinity and was located two kilometres from the suburbs of Jerusalem.

There are also several facts that are more disputed. Begin claimed that 100 Irgun members were involved and that a small open truck fitted with a loudspeaker was driven to the entrance of the village before the attack and broadcast a warning to civilians to evacuate the area, which many did.[16] Most writers say the warning was never issued, some arguing because the truck with the loudspeaker rolled into a ditch before it could broadcast the warning.[17] One of the fighters said the ditch was filled in and the truck continued on to the village.

“One of us called out on the loudspeaker in Arabic, telling the inhabitants to put down their weapons and flee. I don't know if they heard, and I know these appeals had no effect.”[18]

Irgun returned the villagers’ sniper fire with hand grenades through the windows of many houses. Despite the mythologising of the battle as a heartless massacre of innocent civilians, the battle continued for twelve hours. Most of the villagers fled, before Irgun escorted a representative of the Red Cross through the town and held a press conference. The New York Times' subsequent description of the battle was essentially the same as Begin's. The Times said 254 Arabs were killed, 40 captured and 70 women and children were released. No hint of a massacre appeared in the report.[19] And yet, Robert Fisk insists….…….…….……….The two Zionist groups were condemned by the Jewish Agency, whose leader David Ben-Gurion sent a telegram of apology and regret to King Abdullah. Ben-Gurion consequently forced Irgun and Stern to disarm - by force, in June 1948. While Morris[20] has since confirmed that the number was 110 Arabs murdered, this quibbling did nothing to deter the consequent Arab reactions.

Deir Yassan has been used iconically and mercilessly for propaganda ever-since. Many, such as Edward Said, have appallingly described Deir Yassan as the Palestinians’ Auschwitz. Many of the Deir Yassam dead were women, because Arab fighters dressed as women and shot Israelis to whom they had “surrendered”[21] Hizbollah, circa 2006 anybody? The Arabs immediately circulated rumours that women had been raped, even though this was a lie. As Hussein Khalidi, a Palestinian leader, said, “We have to say this, so the Arab armies will come to liberate us from the Jews.”[22] On the other hand, the men of Deir Yassan had little compunction in dressing as women, pretending to surrender before attacking.[23] Hazam Nusseibi, who was a journalist at the time, told the BBC years later that the deliberate fabrication of the rape charge


was our biggest mistake…as soon as they heard that women had been raped at Deir Yassin, Palestinians fled in terror. [24]

Thus, the chilling and tragic reality is that it was Arab lies about Deir Yassan that were largely to blame for their subsequent plight. On the other hand, Morris provides unconfirmed evidence that Irgun men “raped a number of Arab girls, then murdered them afterwards.”[25] And yet Robert Fisk ignores all this to insist…………………………….However, AL manages to weasel the “rape” issue. He even has the gall to quote Morris, but omitting Morris’ insistence that the rape allegations have never been verified.[26]

Three nights following Deir Yassan, something we do not find in AL or M&W is the Arab retaliation. A civilian convoy of doctors, nurses, medical school professors, and patients headed toward the Hadassah hospital to treat the sick, was ambushed by Haj-Amin Al-Husseini-directed Arabs, murdering seventy of the yishuv medicos.[27] To ensure there were no survivors, the Arabs doused the buses and cars containing the medical personnel with gasolines, “setting them alight.”[28] And then there is the grizzly revelation that British forces prevented Haganah from defending the Jewish medical convoy.[29] Not only does AL neglect all these thoroughly accepted facts, he appallingly repeats the lie that ruined Ilan Pappe’s academic career: the fabricated Tantura “massacre.”[30] MUP director, Lois Adler has yet to be called on her decision to include this lie; she must be called to account.

It is only later in AL’s book that the scandal of his either ignorance or indifference to the real source of genocidal tendencies in this dispute is revealed. “When the first Palestinian uprising occurred in 1987, it had been a long time in the making.”[31]. Actually Ant it was merely a continuation of the real first uprising which took place in 1921 before moving on to the massacres of Jews that took place during a two week orgy of Islamist-violence, nearly sixty years previously, in the summer of 1929: all choreographed by Yasser Arafat’s distant uncle - the grand-mufti of Jerusalem - Haj-Amin al-Husseini.[32] It started in Jerusalem and on Friday August 24, sixty Jews were massacred in Hebron, with a further hundred injured. On Thursday 30 August a further twenty Jews were murdered in Safed. During the two week jihad “133 Jews were killed and more than 300 wounded in the violence across the country.”[33] The ’Palestinian’s Auschwitz’ indeed! In the great tradition of Islamic genocide of Jews started by Mohammad in Medina, the slaughter has not stopped. Now many of AL’s ilk would describe this as “genocide” if the perpetrators had been English settlers in early nineteenth century Tasmania, Jenin, etc. Or perhaps AL might plea the Lyndall Ryan defence, “oh, historians are always making up numbers.”[34]

Of Morris’ exhaustive research Loewenstein takes away this……..AL suddenly has us at Israel’s entry into the United Nations in 1949.. . But we are given no idea that a little war involving five surrounding Arab armies invading Israel, and being thoroughly trounced by Israel for their effort! He offers this bizarre half-sentence “Israel had consumed much of Palestine, except the West Bank and East Jerusalem (control by Jordan) and Gaza (administered by Egypt).”[35] What is the difference between “controlled by” and “administered by?” And note he can’t wait to tell us how Israel has “consumed much of Palestine.”

But notice what he slyly omits? Transjordan had invaded and illegally stolen seventy percent of the allotted Arab state, with Egypt similarly illegally taking another ten percent in Gaza! To omit this dynamic, which forms the root of the whole situation of the Palestinians to this very day, is sloppy at least; downright malicious more likely. Also, the areas illegally annexed by Transjordan had been known as Judea and Samaria for 2,500 years, right up to 1959. Why has AL not acknowledged this? For somebody who claims to be “proud of my Jewish heritage” how can he delete 2,500 years of continuous Jewish urban civilisation by choosing the name substituted by a foreign non-Jewish illegal usurper?

Jordan’s annexation of Judea and Samaria was never internationally-recognised, except the seemingly odd de facto, though not de jure, recognition by Britain of Jordan’s sovereignty. Also, how can AL the “proud Jew” not raise a peep over the forced evacuations of all the Jews of East Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria following Transjordan’s theft of the area partitioned for the Arab state?[36] AL tells us “by now, only 20% of Israel’s populations was non-Jewish.”[37] Yet he seems not to care that the Jewish population of the newly-expanded Jordan to be zero! Damn, if only the proportion could have been reduced to the same level as post-Germany, eh?


[1] p.10. It is hard not smirk at the tired Chomsky strategy here.
[2] M&W p.10
[3] p.10
[4] Benny Morris, Righteous Victims (New York: Vintage Books, 2001), p. 256
[5] p.50
[6] p.3
[7] p.2
[8]
[9] Masalha Nur, “A Critique of Benny Morris,” p.211-220 in Pappe (ed.) p.213.
[10] Pappe, I. A history of modern Palestine: one land, two peoples, Cambridge: 2003 p.130 cited in AL at p.77
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16] Begin, M. The Revolt (NY: Nash Publishing, 1977), pp. xx-xxi, 162-163
[17] Perlmutter, Amos. The Life and Times of Menachem Begin, (NY: Doubleday, 1987), p. 214;
[18] Uri Milstein, History of Israel's War of Independence. Vol.4 (Lanham: University Press of America. 1999), p. 262.
[19]
[20] Morris, B., Righteous Victims: a history of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1999 (New York: Vintage Books, 2001), p.219.
[21] Milstein., Uri, History of Israeli War of Independence, vol. IV ed. By Alan Sacks University press of America 1996, p.262
[22] BBC Report, “Israel and the Arabs: The 50 year Conflict.
[23]
[24] ibid.
[25] Morris, Righteous Vuctims, p.208
[26]
[27]
[28] Morris p.209.
[29]
[30]
[31] AL p.89
[32] Arafat’s mother was a member of the Gazan al-Husseini clan
[33] Elpeleg, Z. The Grand Mufti: Haj Amin al-Hussaini, Founder of the Palestinian National Movement. (translated by David Harvey and edited by Shmuel Himelstein) Frank Cass:London 1993 p.22
[34]
[35] AL p.79
[36]
[37] AL p.79