Why Were Some Arabs Expelled During the Nakba, While Others Stayed?

The displacement of Arabs from Palestine during the 1948 War, known to Palestinians as the Nakba (meaning “catastrophe”) and to Israelis as the War of Independence, remains a pivotal event in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. During this time, hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs were displaced, while others managed to remain within the newly established state of Israel. To understand why some were expelled while others stayed, it’s important to consider the complex dynamics of the war, the decisions made by various actors, and the evolving priorities of the Israeli state and military forces.

A Question of Framing and Context

The framing of this event is inherently political and ideological. For Palestinians, the term Nakba emphasizes the scale of the displacement and the ongoing suffering of Palestinian refugees. For Israelis, the term War of Independence underscores the achievement of statehood and survival against Arab attacks. Historians often use the more neutral term 1948 War, but even so, different perspectives emerge regarding the causes, scale, and outcomes of the displacement:

• Displacement During War: Most historians agree that around 750,000 Palestinian Arabs were displaced during the 1948 War. This displacement occurred through a combination of factors:
  • Military Actions and Expulsions: Jewish militias (like the Haganah and later the Israeli Defense Forces) carried out operations that included expelling Arab residents from towns and villages. These actions were often strategic, aimed at securing key locations or ensuring control of vital roads.
  • Fear and Panic: Some Arab residents fled their homes due to fear of violence or as a result of hearing about massacres, such as the one at Deir Yassin, where over 100 Arab villagers were killed by Jewish paramilitary groups. These events spread fear, contributing to further departures.
  • Prohibitions on Return: After the conflict, Israel implemented policies that prevented displaced Palestinians from returning to their homes, fearing that the return of large numbers of Palestinians would undermine the demographic stability of the newly established Jewish state.
• Why Some Arabs Stayed: Despite the mass displacement, approximately 150,000 Palestinians remained within what became the borders of Israel and later gained Israeli citizenship. The reasons for this include:
  • Geographic and Strategic Considerations: Some areas where Palestinians lived did not see the same level of military action or were occupied later in the war, after the dynamics of displacement had shifted. For instance, the Galilee region retained a significant number of its Arab residents.
  • Local Agreements: In some cases, Jewish forces made agreements with local Arab leaders, allowing certain villages to remain if they pledged not to resist.
  • Luck and Timing: For some, their ability to stay was a matter of timing—if they were in areas that the Israeli forces captured after the bulk of the displacement had already occurred, they were more likely to remain.

Diverging Historical Perspectives on Responsibility and Justification

While there is broad consensus among historians that the 1948 War involved both planned expulsions and spontaneous flights of Palestinians, the interpretation of these events often reflects ideological leanings:

• Israeli-Centric Perspectives: Historians sympathetic to Israel often stress the context of the war: Israel’s fight for survival against an invasion by neighboring Arab states, which rejected the United Nations’ plan for partitioning Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. They argue that many Palestinians left at the urging of Arab leaders, who promised a return after the anticipated Arab victory. This narrative portrays the expulsions as part of the chaos and harsh realities of war rather than a systematic ethnic cleansing.
  • They also emphasize that some Palestinians who stayed were granted citizenship and that many of those who fled remained within Israel’s borders during the war, suggesting that displacement wasn’t a uniform process but rather affected by a mix of factors.
  • Additionally, this view often points to the large number of Jews who left or were expelled from Arab countries in the years following the 1948 War, framing it as a kind of population exchange, albeit an unintended and uneven one.
• Palestinian-Centric Perspectives: Historians focusing on the Palestinian narrative argue that the mass displacement was more deliberate and systematic. They emphasize that the Nakba was not just a wartime tragedy but part of a broader effort by the emerging Israeli state to ensure a Jewish majority in its territory.
  • They highlight policies like the destruction of depopulated Arab villages and the prevention of refugee return as evidence of intentional actions to solidify Jewish demographic control.
  • This perspective also stresses the long-term consequences for Palestinians, such as statelessness, loss of property, and the denial of the right to return, all of which have perpetuated their refugee status and suffering for generations.

The Ongoing Impact of the 1948 War

The outcomes of the 1948 War still shape the lives of Palestinians today, with millions living as refugees in neighboring countries, in the West Bank, or in the Gaza Strip. The debate over responsibility for the displacement and the right of return remains a core issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The reasons some Arabs stayed in Israel while others were expelled are a blend of military strategy, local dynamics, and the broader political goals of the time.

Responsibility for the Displacement of Palestinians: Competing Narratives

The question of who bears responsibility for the displacement and ongoing suffering of Palestinians during and after the 1948 War is among the most contentious aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Historians and scholars have long debated whether the displacement was a result of an intentional plan by Jewish forces or a consequence of the chaos and strategic decisions of a brutal war. While a general consensus exists on many of the basic facts, interpretation varies widely, often aligning with broader ideological sympathies.

Two Main Perspectives on the Displacement

1. The Perspective of Intentional Ethnic Cleansing
   • Intentionality Behind Expulsions: Some scholars, particularly those sympathetic to the Palestinian narrative, argue that the expulsions were part of an intentional strategy by Zionist leaders to create a Jewish-majority state. While there is no concrete documentation of a direct order for mass expulsion, this view suggests that the absence of written commands is typical in cases of ethnic cleansing, where orders are often communicated verbally or through indirect means.
   • Plan D and Its Role: A critical document in this debate is Plan Dalet (Plan D), a military strategy developed by the Haganah (the pre-state Jewish militia) in 1948. Plan D called for the occupation of Arab towns and villages, particularly in strategically important areas. Proponents of the ethnic cleansing interpretation argue that Plan D was a blueprint for forcibly removing Palestinians to secure territory and change the demographic makeup of the future state. They highlight actions taken during the execution of the plan, such as the expulsion of entire villages, as evidence of this intention.
   • Massacres as a Strategy of Terror: Events like the massacres at Deir Yassin and Lydda are often cited as examples of deliberate terror aimed at driving Palestinians out. These incidents fueled fear among Palestinians, leading to large-scale flight from other areas. According to this perspective, while these violent acts were not necessarily the direct cause of every displacement, they served as effective psychological warfare, contributing to a broader pattern of expulsion.
   • Statements from Leaders: Some Jewish leaders’ remarks during this time suggest an awareness of the strategic benefits of Palestinian departure. While these statements are not formal directives, they are often interpreted as reflecting a broader understanding among Israeli leaders that the war presented an opportunity to alter the region’s demographics.
2. The Perspective of Military Necessity and Unintended Consequences
   • Plan D as a Military Strategy: Historians sympathetic to the Israeli perspective tend to interpret Plan D differently. They argue that it was primarily a military plan aimed at consolidating control over strategically important areas and ensuring the security of Jewish communities. The plan was developed in response to the shifting dynamics of the war, especially as Palestinian irregulars and later Arab armies began attacking Jewish convoys and settlements. The strategy called for securing key roads, like the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv corridor, which required clearing villages that could serve as bases for enemy forces.
   • Expulsions as a Tactical Measure: According to this view, the expulsion of Palestinian villagers was not part of an overarching plan for ethnic cleansing, but rather a tactical decision to ensure that recaptured or conquered territories could be held. The concern was that if villagers remained, they could provide support to irregular Palestinian fighters or act as a fifth column for the invading Arab armies.
   • Spontaneous Flight and Social Collapse: Another significant factor emphasized by this perspective is the breakdown of Palestinian social cohesion. When local Palestinian leaders fled—sometimes hoping to return after a quick Arab victory—their departure left a power vacuum, leading to panic and widespread flight among ordinary villagers. The departure of residents from Haifa after the city’s fall is often cited as an example of this dynamic. Although many historians admit that the Haifa case was somewhat exceptional, it illustrates a broader pattern where fear and chaos prompted many Palestinians to leave, even without direct military pressure.
   • War Context and Comparative Displacement: Historians with this view also place the events of 1948 in the broader context of mid-20th century conflicts, which saw massive population movements, such as those following the partition of India and Pakistan. They argue that displacement during wartime is tragically common, and that the actions of Jewish forces should be seen in this context, rather than as a unique plan of systematic ethnic cleansing.

The Role of War Crimes and Violence

• Acknowledgment of War Crimes: Both sides generally acknowledge that Jewish forces committed war crimes during the conflict, including massacres and other acts of violence against Palestinian civilians. The scale and frequency of these actions are often points of debate. Some argue that these actions were the inevitable excesses of war, given that the Haganah and later Israeli forces were the victors and thus had more opportunities to commit abuses.
• Justification of Violence: Some scholars sympathetic to Israel justify certain violent actions as necessary in an existential war for the survival of the Jewish people. They point to the Holocaust and the desperate need for a safe haven for Jews as key factors that drove the urgency of establishing a Jewish state, even at the cost of displacing Palestinians. Zionist leaders viewed the war as a zero-sum struggle against a region that had rejected the UN partition plan and included rhetoric from Arab leaders calling for the removal of Jews from Palestine.
• Palestinian Rejection of Zionism: In contrast, scholars sympathetic to the Palestinian cause argue that Palestinians did not reject coexistence with Jews per se, but rather opposed the colonial nature of Zionism. They point out that the Zionist movement in the early 20th century was explicitly colonial, and that many Palestinians resented being displaced from their ancestral lands to make way for new Jewish settlements. They argue that the Arab rhetoric of 1948 was primarily saber-rattling and did not reflect a true genocidal intent against the Jewish community.

The Unresolved Refugee Crisis: A Unique Historical Case

One aspect that distinguishes the Palestinian displacement from other population displacements of the time is the enduring refugee status of those who were expelled or fled. While other large-scale displacements, such as those in Europe after World War II, led to the integration of refugees into new states, the Palestinian refugees remained in camps for decades:

• Lack of Absorption by Host Countries: Many scholars argue that the refusal of Arab host countries to grant citizenship or fully integrate Palestinian refugees has perpetuated the crisis. In contrast to refugees in Europe who were absorbed into national populations, Palestinians have been kept in camps in Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria, with their refugee status passed down through generations.
• The Role of International Politics: The continued conflict between Israel and its neighboring states, coupled with the political importance of the Palestinian cause in the Arab world, has meant that the refugee issue has never been resolved. The creation of a permanent refugee population is not simply a result of the events of 1948 but is intertwined with subsequent regional dynamics and the lack of a comprehensive peace agreement.

Why Hasn’t the Palestinian Refugee Situation “Resolved” Like Other Refugee Crises?

The enduring nature of the Palestinian refugee situation is a unique case when compared to other historical examples of displacement, such as the population exchanges between Greece and Turkey, the partition of India, or the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe after World War II. Unlike those examples, which resulted in relatively stable national identities and integration over time, the Palestinian refugee issue has persisted for over 75 years. Understanding why involves a mix of historical, political, and social factors that have kept the situation unresolved.

The Role of National Identity

A common comparison with other refugee crises centers around national identity—why couldn’t Palestinians integrate into neighboring Arab states the way, for example, German speakers in different parts of Europe came to identify with their new national homes? Here’s why the Palestinian case is different:

• Distinct Palestinian Identity: While it is true that before the 20th century, many Palestinian Arabs considered themselves part of a broader Syrian or Levantine cultural sphere, Palestinian national identity evolved rapidly during the British Mandate period and crystallized even more after the 1948 War. This new identity was defined not just by common language or culture but by the specific experience of displacement and conflict with the Zionist movement. Unlike German speakers who were absorbed into various European nations or Indian migrants who settled into new territories after partition, Palestinians retained a strong sense of connection to their lost homes in historic Palestine, reinforcing their distinct identity over time.
• Cultural and Linguistic Similarities with Neighboring Arabs: It’s true that Palestinians share linguistic, religious, and cultural ties with their neighbors in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. But these similarities do not necessarily mean that full integration is a straightforward process. Other historical examples (such as the differences among Greek-speaking communities in the Ottoman Empire or the diverse identities within the Indian subcontinent) show that shared language or culture doesn’t automatically translate into a shared national identity. Identity can shift in response to historical experiences—something that has shaped the Palestinian experience uniquely.

Political Factors and Host Country Policies

While cultural and identity factors are important, political considerations play an even more decisive role in the persistence of the Palestinian refugee issue:

• Host Countries’ Reluctance to Integrate Refugees: After the 1948 War, many Arab host countries, such as Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, did not grant citizenship to Palestinian refugees. Lebanon, for example, maintained a strict policy of keeping Palestinian refugees in camps, denying them access to many aspects of public life, including property ownership and certain professions. This has left Palestinians in a perpetual state of marginalization, unable to fully integrate into society even after multiple generations.
• Jordan as an Exception, but with Limits: Jordan stands out as the one country that did grant citizenship to many Palestinian refugees, especially after it annexed the West Bank in 1950. However, this integration has not been complete. Even in Jordan, there are distinctions between “East Bankers” (Jordanians of non-Palestinian descent) and “West Bankers” (Palestinians). Additionally, many of the Palestinians who fled after the 1967 war remained in camps with a more tenuous status, and integration remains a politically sensitive issue.
• Arab States’ Political Strategy: A significant reason for the lack of full integration is the political strategy of using the refugee issue as a point of leverage against Israel. For many Arab countries, maintaining the status of Palestinian refugees has been a way to keep international focus on their right of return and to maintain pressure on Israel regarding a solution to the Palestinian question. The refugees themselves have been seen as a symbol of the broader struggle against Israeli occupation, and absorbing them fully into neighboring countries would have meant potentially relinquishing a key element of that struggle.

The Role of International Organizations and the Legal Status of Refugees

• UNRWA and the Inheritance of Refugee Status: The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), established in 1949 specifically for Palestinian refugees, has played a unique role in the Palestinian refugee situation. Unlike the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which focuses on resettling or integrating refugees into host countries, UNRWA’s mandate has been focused on providing services to Palestinian refugees in their camps and keeping their status as refugees active. This has contributed to the maintenance of refugee status across generations, which is different from other refugee situations where the status typically ends once individuals resettle or integrate into new countries.
• Inherited Refugee Status: One of the most unique aspects of the Palestinian refugee situation is that their status as refugees is inherited across generations. This means that the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of those who fled or were expelled in 1948 (and later, in 1967) continue to be classified as refugees. This has kept the issue alive through the decades and has meant that what started as a displacement of 750,000 people has grown into a population of over 5 million registered refugees today.

The Ongoing Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Another key difference between the Palestinian refugee situation and other historical displacements is the ongoing nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The root causes of the displacement have never been addressed through a comprehensive peace agreement:

• Unresolved Right of Return: The issue of whether Palestinian refugees have a “right of return” to their homes in what is now Israel remains one of the most intractable issues in peace negotiations. Palestinians and their supporters argue that international law, specifically UN Resolution 194, enshrines this right, while Israel sees it as a threat to its existence as a Jewish-majority state.
• Absence of a Sovereign Palestinian State: Unlike other refugee situations that eventually found resolution through state creation or population exchange agreements, the lack of a sovereign Palestinian state complicates matters. The West Bank and Gaza Strip remain under varying degrees of Israeli control and occupation, while no state has been established that could serve as a final home for Palestinian refugees. This ongoing statelessness contributes to the persistence of the refugee issue.
• Impact of Continued Conflict: The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza, along with periodic wars, have kept Palestinians in a constant state of crisis and displacement. The lack of a stable environment makes it difficult for Palestinian refugees to envision integration into new societies, as many continue to hope for the realization of their right to return to their ancestral homes.

Comparative Analysis: Why Did Other Situations Resolve?

• Population Exchanges with National Realignments: In cases like the Greek-Turkish population exchange or the partition of India, there was a relatively clear realignment of populations based on emerging national borders. Both Greece and Turkey were able to integrate their populations by redefining national identities, while in India and Pakistan, refugees were absorbed into the newly formed national fabric despite the trauma of partition. In Europe, post-war expulsions of Germans were part of broader geopolitical realignments and the creation of homogeneous nation-states, often with direct support from the newly formed governments for resettlement.
• International Consensus and Finality: In many of these cases, there was a clear sense of finality and international consensus on the outcomes. The international community did not leave room for claims of return or restitution, even when injustices had been done. For the Palestinians, however, the 1948 War did not result in a comprehensive agreement or an end to hostilities. Instead, it set the stage for ongoing conflict, which has kept their status unresolved.

Conclusion: A Deeply Divided Legacy

The question of who bears ultimate responsibility for the displacement of Palestinians during the Nakba remains one of the most divisive issues in Middle Eastern history:

• Historians on the Palestinian side argue that the expulsions were part of a broader strategy of ethnic cleansing, with Israeli leaders using the war as an opportunity to alter demographics.
• Historians on the Israeli side focus on the context of a war for survival, arguing that military necessity and the collapse of Palestinian society led to the displacement, with strategic considerations rather than genocidal intent driving many decisions.

Despite these differing interpretations, what is clear is the immense scale of suffering that followed, creating a refugee crisis that persists to this day. The 1948 War was not only a battle for territory but a struggle over identity, belonging, and the right to a homeland, making its legacy one that remains profoundly unresolved for both Israelis and Palestinians.

The displacement of Palestinians during the Nakba and the reasons some remained while others were expelled is a topic that cannot be fully understood without recognizing the competing narratives and the deeply entrenched political contexts. While many historians agree on the general sequence of events, their interpretations often diverge on questions of intent, responsibility, and the nature of the tragedy.

• Why Some Stayed: Geography, local agreements, and timing played key roles in determining why certain Palestinian communities remained in Israel.
• Why Others Left: Fear, forced expulsions, and the dynamics of war contributed to the massive displacement, creating a refugee crisis that persists to this day.

This complex and multifaceted history continues to inform the perspectives of those on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, influencing their views on justice, historical responsibility, and the path toward any future resolution.