CB, they were used as a political weapon against Israel. The UN establish a singular entity only top deal with those refugees the UN were not permitted to offer them new shelter or help them establish new businesses they were only directed to supply food and medicine.
All arab countries hosting those refugees were against any resettlement or work permits within their countries.
worldnetdaily.com
other sources
Despite Arab intransigence, no one expected the refugee problem to persist. John Blandford Jr., the
Director of UNRWA, wrote in his report on November 29, 1951, that he expected the Arab
governments to assume responsibility for relief by July 1952. Moreover, Blandford stressed the need
to end relief operations: "Sustained relief operations inevitably contain the germ of human
deteioration."64
all this in stark contrast to other instances
Perhaps an even better analogy can be seen in Turkey’s integration of 150,000 Turkish refugees from
Bulgaria in 1950. The difference between the Turks* handling of their refugees and the Arab states*
treatment of the Palestinians was the attitude of the respective governments.
Turkey has had a bigger refugee problem than either Syria or Lebanon and almost as big as
Egypt has....But you seldom hear about them because the Turks have done such a good job of
resettling them....The big difference is in spirit. The Turks, reluctant as they were to take on
the burden, accepted it as a responsibility and set to work to clean it up as fast as
possible.65
Had the Arab states wanted to alleviate the refugees* suffering, they could easily have adopted an
attitude similar to Turkey’s.
Another massive population transfer resulted from the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947. The
eight million Hindus who fled Pakistan and the six million Muslims who left India were afraid of
becoming a minority in their respective countries. Like the Palestinians, these people wanted to avoid
being caught in the middle of the violence that engulfed their nations. In contrast to the Arab-Israeli
conflict, however, the exchange of populations was considered the best solution to the problem of
communal relations within the two states. Despite the enormous number of refugees and the relative
poverty of the two nations involved, no special international relief organizations were established to
aid them in resettlement.
Had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN resolution, not a single Palestinian would have become a refugee. An
independent Arab state would now exist beside Israel. The responsibility for the refugee problem rests with
the Arabs.
The beginning of the Arab exodus can be traced to the weeks immediately following the announcement of
the UN partition resolution. The first to leave were roughly 30,000 wealthy Arabs who anticipated the
upcoming war and fled to neighboring Arab countries to await its end. Less affluent Arabs from the mixed
cities of Palestine moved to all-Arab towns to stay with relatives or friends.6 By the end of January1948, the
exodus was so alarming the Palestine Arab Higher Committee asked neighboring Arab countries to refuse
visas to these refugees and to seal their borders against them.7
On January 30, 1948, the Jaffa newspaper, Ash Sha'ab, reported: "The first of our fifth-column consists of
those who abandon their houses and businesses and go to live elsewhere....At the first signs of trouble they
take to their heels to escape sharing the burden of struggle."8
Another Jaffa paper, As Sarih (March 30, 1948) excoriated Arab villagers near Tel Aviv for "bringing down
disgrace on us all by 'abandoning the villages.'"9
Meanwhile, a leader of the Arab National Committee in Haifa, Hajj Nimer el-Khatib, said Arab soldiers in
Jaffa were mistreating the residents. "They robbed individuals and homes. Life was of little value, and the
honor of women was defiled. This state of affairs led many [Arab] residents to leave the city under the
protection of British tanks."10
John Bagot Glubb, the commander of Jordan's Arab Legion, said: "Villages were frequently abandoned even
before they were threatened by the progress of war."11
Contemporary press reports of major battles in which large numbers of Arabs fled conspicuously fail to
mention any forcible expulsion by the Jewish forces. The Arabs are usually described as "fleeing" or
"evacuating" their homes. While Zionists are accused of "expelling and dispossessing" the Arab inhabitants
of such towns as Tiberias and Haifa, the truth is much different. Both of those cities were within the
boundaries of the Jewish State under the UN partition scheme and both were fought for by Jews and Arabs
alike.
Jewish forces seized Tiberias on April 19, 1948, and the entire Arab population of 6,000 was evacuated
under British military supervision. The Jewish Community Council issued a statement afterward: "We did not
dispossess them; they themselves chose this course....Let no citizen touch their property."12
In early April, an estimated 25,000 Arabs left the Haifa area following an offensive by the irregular forces led
by Fawzi al-Qawukji, and rumors that Arab air forces would soon bomb the Jewish areas around Mt.
Carmel.13 On April 23, the Haganah captured Haifa. A British police report from Haifa, dated April 26,
explained that "every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on
with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and interests
will be safe."14 In fact, David Ben-Gurion had sent Golda Meir to Haifa to try to persuade the Arabs to stay,
but she was unable to convince them because of their fear of being judged traitors to the Arab cause.15 By
the end of the battle, more than 50,000 Palestinians had left.
“Tens of thousands of Arab men, women and children fled toward the eastern outskirts of the city
in cars, trucks, carts, and afoot in a desperate attempt to reach Arab territory until the Jews
captured Rushmiya Bridge toward Samaria and Northern Palestine and cut them off. Thousands
rushed every available craft, even rowboats, along the waterfront, to escape by sea toward Acre.”
— New York Times, (April 23, 1948)
In Tiberias and Haifa, the Haganah issued orders that none of the Arabs' possessions should be touched,
and warned that anyone who violated the orders would be severely punished. Despite these efforts, all but
about 5,000 or 6,000 Arabs evacuated Haifa, many leaving with the assistance of British military transports.
Syria's UN delegate, Faris el-Khouri, interrupted the UN debate on Palestine to describe the seizure of Haifa
as a "massacre" and said this action was "further evidence that the 'Zionist program' is to annihilate Arabs
within the Jewish state if partition is effected."16
The following day, however, the British representative at the UN, Sir Alexander Cadogan, told the delegates
that the fighting in Haifa had been provoked by the continuous attacks by Arabs against Jews a few days
before and that reports of massacres and deportations were erroneous.17
The same day (April 23, 1948), Jamal Husseini, the chairman of the Palestine Higher Committee, told the UN
Security Council that instead of accepting the Haganah's truce offer, the Arabs "preferred to abandon their
homes, their belongings, and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town."18
The U.S. Consul-General in Haifa, Aubrey Lippincott, wrote on April 22, 1948, for example, that "local
mufti-dominated Arab leaders" were urging "all Arabs to leave the city, and large numbers did so."19
An army order issued July 6, 1948, made clear that Arab towns and villages were not to be demolished or
burned, and that Arab inhabitants were not to be expelled from their homes.20
us-israel.org |
