Alternative Historical Discourses

Please bear in mind as I begin this post that my goal with this blog, in general, is to share a little bit of this place with home. I know the Middle East is pretty far from Tennessee in more ways than just distance, but hopefully with what I write they might be brought just a little closer together.

With that in mind, I’m continuing my little discussion series on Palestine and Israel, and what better way to continue on “Nakba Day” than to write about the Nakba. This post is entitled “alternative historical discourses” because I’m mostly talking to an audience based primarily in the West, where the mainstream historical discourse is very much different. However, here in Jordan the story I’m about to tell is the mainstream account.

Today is May 15 and commemorated by many, in many parts of the world, as Nakba Day. Nakba in Arabic means “catastrophe”- Arabic, being the poetic language that it is, has a number of synonyms for catastrophe- so the word nakba has gained the ingrained, specific meaning of the historical event to which it refers. That event is the exodus of approximately 725,000 Palestinians from their homes upon the establishment of the state of Israel and the subsequent violence that followed. Of course the meaning, origins, and use of the term are debated, sometimes for academic reasons, more often for political reasons, but my description is that of its popular use as it has come to be today.

The events leading up to and following the Nakba are highly disputed. The way the story is told generally lays the foundation for the storyteller’s political and ideological arguments. Oftentimes, the story involves numerous atrocities and racial violence, with the storyteller’s side being the clear victim and the other side being inhuman monsters.

Despite the politicization of the story from any way you look at it, the fact remains, as Nakba Day commemorates, that 725,000 people, most of them completely uninvolved in any violence or politics, were more or less forced away from their homes and their homeland. Some of them left semi-willingly, at the strong behest of Arab armies who promised them they would be able to return after a few days (now 63 years). Many of them, if not most, left in panic at the approach of Israeli military and paramilitary units, particularly after widespread news of the Deir Yassin Massacre, among other massacres. Many others were forced out of their homes by those same units, facing either death or dislocation.

Those people became refugees that no one wanted. The ones who fled to Arab countries faced refugee camps that still exist today, disadvantage in all social matters, and institutional discrimination. Those who fled elsewhere, such as the United States and other Western countries often face discrimination as well, finding travel one of the most difficult things to accomplish. A great account of the Palestinian experience (and really the history of the development of the Palestinian identity) is a book called Palestinian Identity by Rashid Khalidi. That is the same Khalidi that a few misguided people labeled “a terrorist” and a radical during the 2008 Presidential Campaign. While Khalidi is very critical of U.S. policy in the Middle East, I seriously hope that doesn’t make him a radical and a terrorist considering I agree with his outlook in some significant ways.

(Rashid Khalidi, Wikipedia)

Another good, quick look at the identity issue from a firsthand perspective is on my friend’s blog. I’m sure she would love it if anyone would also comment, if they feel inclined to do so http://roseanon.blogspot.com/2011/05/al-nakba-and-thereafter-struggle-within.html

The whole concept of alternative discourse is a key debate in perceptions of history. One of the best expressions of this particular debate is through a group of Israeli historians known as the “New Historians.” This group focuses on revisiting the Israeli national discourse and reassessing it from both a factual and analytical standpoint. The best expression of their views on the Nakba and the establishment of Israel is:

• The original Israeli version said that Britain tried to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state; the New Historians demonstrate that it tried to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state
• The original Israeli version said that the Palestinians fled their homes of their own free will; the New Historians demonstrate that the refugees were chased out or expelled‎
• The original Israeli version said that the balance of power was in favour of the Arabs; the New Historians demonstrate that Israel had the advantage both in manpower and in arms
• The original Israeli version said that the Arabs had a coordinated plan to destroy Israel; the New Historians demonstrate that the Arabs were divided
• The original Israeli version said that Arab intransigence prevented peace; the New Historians demonstrate that Israel is primarily to blame for the dead end.
(This is adapted from Avi Shlaim's description of the New Historians from an article in Ha’aretz, an Israeli newspaper)

Again, this post is intended to present a very very brief introduction to an alternative historical account than the one that is generally promulgated in the United States, for various reasons.
I hope this post was beneficial in some way. History is a funny thing: we boil it down to some key lessons for our history books, but oftentimes the devil is in the details and we often forget those details.

Thank you for your interest.

-Brennan