BIA Head Admits to American Indian Genocide
January 31, 2009 by Russell Means Freedom
Filed under News
2000 – Head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs admits to crimes, “Remarks of Kevin Gover, Assistant Secretary–Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, at the Ceremony Acknowledging the 175th Anniversary of the Establishment of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.” CLICK HERE for Full Text.
“Immediately upon its establishment in 1824, the Office of Indian Affairs was an instrument by which the United States enforced its ambition against the Indian nations. As the nation expanded West, the agency participated in the ethnic cleansing that befell the western tribes. War begets tragedy, but the deliberate spread of disease, the decimation of the bison herds, the use of alcohol to destroy mind and body, and the cowardly killing of women and children made for tragedy on a scale so ghastly that it cannot be dismissed as merely the inevitable consequence of the clash of competing ways of life. After the devastation of tribal economies, the BIA set out to destroy all things Indian by forbidding the speaking of Indian languages, prohibiting traditional religious activities, outlawing traditional government, and making Indians ashamed of who they were. Worst of all, the BIA committed these acts against the children entrusted to its boarding schools. The trauma of shame, fear, and anger has passed from one generation to the next, and manifests itself in the rampant alcoholism, drug abuse, and domestic violence that plague Indian country. The BIA expresses its profound sorrow for these wrongs, extends this formal apology to Indian people for its historical conduct, and makes promises for its future conduct. “
Followup on Obama’s “Final Solution”
January 25, 2009 by Russell Means Freedom
Filed under News
Response to Mentally Challenged Americans (who do not understand the Constitution of the United States of America)
My statements and video regarding President Obama’s “Final Solution” to the “Indian Problem” have generated a lot of response, about 10 to 1 in agreement. So, this message is directed at the 10% of our readers who do not yet understand our history and the significance of President Obama’s statements.
While many people point out the President Obama was referring to the Tribes of Palestine or the Tribes of Israel, or just using the word willy-nilly; we disagree. The ONLY “Lines of Tribes” in America are those of the American Indians.
Other people have pointed out that President Obama has spoken to Indian groups and invited “Native Journalists to the White House” and Tribal Councils to the inauguration. Below is a common response that I will address.
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 10:55:25 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Obama Announces “Final Solution” to “Indian Problem”With all due respect, why would Obama invite his newly adopted Crow parents to the White House for the Inauguration? Why would he invite a team of Native journalists to accompany him the week before the Inauguration? If he was going to dissolve the sovereignty, why did he invite all of the tribal councils to meet with him in Washington? Why didn’t he just ignore them like every other politician has ever done?
I am not saying he is NOT going to dissolve sovereignty, I am just curious. I am going to forward this on to one of the Native journalists, Jodi Rave, who was on that traveling team with Obama and ask her what she thinks. I think she will have better insight into these questions than I will. And in the meantime, I think it is better to know the answers to those questions before one spreads hate and dissension. I have seen radical activists make things worse because they assumed it was better to go full steam ahead into attacks. It is toooooooo early in the game to make these assumptions. I am not saying ignore it, I am staying, watch and wait. Its very early in the game.
In the meantime, here is her blog from her trip. There is a lot amount of stuff about the Crow tribe participation. Start from the bottom up. http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=59108769417&h=dSZGc&u=xl_MP
Respectfully,
C.R.
Dear C.R. and others yet sleeping,
It is evident that you have not read, or at least not understood, Einstein’s definition of Insanity: “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
As a Lakotah/Dakota and Crow Indian, I don’t have the time, nor the desire to explain colonialism to you. I will point out the insidious and self-destructive nature of the colonized mindset.
Those “Natives Journalists” mentioned above who were invited to Washington, D.C. are part of an ongoing conspiracy to sell out the American Indians. The Tribal Councils invited by Obama are also known as the “Tribal Government” or, in a more sophisticated society, “Colonial Puppets” and “Vichy Indians.” “Native American” is U.S.A. “Newspeak” term used to identify all its indigenous prisoners which include, but are not limited to, the Marshall Islands, Palau, Micronesia, American Samoa, Aluetes, Inupiats, Yupiks, Hawaiians and American Indians.
You say “watch and wait.” While you and the rest of the World have been watching and waiting, these “Natives” are, and have been, aiding and abetting the continual loss of our People, our Land, our mineral rights, and our water rights. And all along, the government denies us redress as in the Cobell case. (http://www.indiantrust.com/)
The history of the U.S.A.’s genocidal policies spans all 43 past presidents. How can we be expected to trust the 44th president?
George Washington…
In 1779, George Washington instructed Major General John Sullivan to attack Iroquois people. Washington stated, “lay waste all the settlements around…that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed”. In the course of the carnage and annihilation of Indian people, Washington also instructed his general not to “listen to any overture of peace before the total ruin of their settlements is effected”. (Stannard, David E. AMERICAN HOLOCAUST. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. pp. 118-121.)
In 1783, Washington’s anti-Indian sentiments were apparent in his comparisons of Indians with wolves: “Both being beast of prey, tho’ they differ in shape”, he said. George Washington’s policies of extermination were realized in his troops behaviors following a defeat. Troops would skin the bodies of Iroquois “from the hips downward to make boot tops or leggings”. Indians who survived the attacks later re-named the nation’s first president as “Town Destroyer”. Approximately 28 of 30 Seneca towns had been destroyed within a five year period. (Ibid)
Thomas Jefferson…
In 1807, Thomas Jefferson instructed his War Department that, should any Indians resist against America stealing Indian lands, the Indian resistance must be met with “the hatchet”. Jefferson continued, “And…if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, ” he wrote, “we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or is driven beyond the Mississippi.” Jefferson, the slave owner, continued, “in war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of them”. (Ibid)
In 1812, Jefferson said that American was obliged to push the backward Indians “with the beasts of the forests into the Stony Mountains”. One year later Jefferson continued anti-Indian statements by adding that America must “pursue [the Indians] to extermination, or drive them to new seats beyond our reach”. (Ibid)
Abraham Lincoln…
In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln ordered the execution, by hanging, of 38 Dakota Sioux prisoners in Mankato, Minnesota. Most of those executed were holy men or political leaders of their camps. None of them were responsible for committing the crimes they were accused of. Coined as the Largest Mass Execution in U.S. History. (Brown, Dee. BURY MY HEART AT WOUNDED KNEE. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1970. pp. 59-61)
Theodore Roosevelt…
The fourth face you see on that “Stony Mountain” is America’s first twentieth century president, alleged American hero, and Nobel peace prize recipient, Theodore Roosevelt. This Indian fighter firmly grasped the notion of Manifest Destiny saying that America’s extermination of the Indians and thefts our their lands “was ultimately beneficial as it was inevitable”. Roosevelt once said, “I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth”.
In Gaza, the reported statistics are 65% unemployment and an average life expectancy for males of about 73 years. On the Pine Ridge Sioux Indian Reservation, the unemployment rate is over 80% and the average life expectancy for men is just 44 years, lower even than Haiti. This county, Shannon, is the poorest in the U.S. What the government has done to the Indians is a holocaust worse than what the Nazis perpetrated. In 1492, it is estimated that the Indian population was between 12 and 20 million. By the 1900 census, this figure had been reduced to 250,000 full-bloods. Now there is even less. An extermination rate both greater in absolute numbers and percentage population than what happened to the Jews and Gypsies in Germany.
Yet this extermination is celebrated in the media and movies with notions of “manifest destiny”, “westward expansion” and the totally inaccurate portrayal of Indians as savages. Clearly the European invaders were the savages!
Need I say more on this?
For a full listing of the deprivation here, see this link:
http://www.republicoflakotah.com/?page_id=544
Now, it’s not just the American Indian I am concerned about, it is ALL Americans. You should be alarmed with Obama’s economic and financial planning which will guarantee that you and yours will soon be reduced to the same abject poverty we have been enduring for more than a century. Welcome to the U.S.A Reservation!
Obama Announces “Final Solution” to the “Indian Problem”
January 23, 2009 by Russell Means Freedom
Filed under Media
The inaugural address is THE most important speech a President EVER makes. Billions of People look at it. The speech is written over a period of many weeks by a whole team of writers. It is edited and re-edited. Each word and each phrase is scrutinized so as to not offend anyone. Click to View the VIDEO.
“For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers.” He has placed our successful AND peaceful way of life and Spirituality into the category of “Non-Believers!”
Then he uses the phrase “the lines of tribes shall soon dissolve.” What does he mean? Certainly, NOT the tribes of Israel. Who, but the American Indians are referred to as Tribes? We are the ONLY ones.
Obama’s “Final Solution” to the centuries-old “Indian Problem” is total dissolution. Click to View the VIDEO.
PLEA FOR ATTORNEYS
January 21, 2009 by Russell Means Freedom
Filed under News
This case is not a straight murder trial. It is a political trial where the government is trying to dredge up, sensationalize and demonize the American Indian Movement (A.I.M.). The government continues in its centuries-old unlawful and racist prosecution American Indian People.
We must put a stop to this decades-long unlawful prosecution!
PLEA FOR ATTORNEYS: Marshall’s court-appointed defense attorney, Dana Hanna, is a babe-in-the-woods when it comes to such a high-profile political case. Marshall desperately needs qualified counsel that understands the methodology of political trials.
US Government Continues to Attack Innocent American Indians by Utilizing the Now Defunct American Indian Movement (A.I.M.) to Fan the Flames of Racism in the Heart of the Republic of Lakotah (Now Known as the State of South Dakota)
Anna Mae Aquash (b. Indian Brook, Nova Scotia, Canada, March 27, 1945; d. mid-December 1975) was a Mi’kmaq activist from Nova Scotia, Canada who became one of the most active and prominent female members of the American Indian Movement (AIM) during the early 1970s.
After nearly three decades of dormancy, law enforcement attempts to “solve” the murder of Aquash recently resumed.
Murder:
On February 24, 1976, Aquash was found dead by the side of State Road 73 on the far northeast corner of the Pine Ridge Reservation, about 10 miles from Wanblee, South Dakota, close to Kadoka. Her body was found during an unusually warm spell in late February, 1976 by a rancher, Roger Amiotte.
FBI’s Initial Cover up:
At the Pine Ridge morgue, a doctor and nurse found blood on the woman’s head. However, BIA pathologist Dr. W. O. Brown, described the case as “awfully routine,” reported no blood, and concluded the woman had died from “exposure” two weeks earlier, in early February. On FBI instructions, Brown severed the victim’s hands for later identification and approved a burial.
“It was the darndest thing I ever saw,” said mortician Tom Chamberlain, “an unidentified corpse buried without a death certificate or burial permit.” On March 3, 1976, the anonymous body rested in a pauper’s grave on Pine Ridge. On that day, the FBI identified the dead woman as 30-year-old Anna Mae Aquash from Shubenacadie, Nova Scotia, a member of the American Indian Movement (AIM). The Bureau notified the Pictou family in Canada that Anna Mae had died “by natural causes.”
The family requested another autopsy, and AIM lawyer Bruce Ellison petitioned the FBI to exhume the body. On March 11, Dr. Garry Peterson examined the corpse, noticed “a bulge in the dead woman’s left temple and dry blood in her hair,” and revealed the actual cause of death: a .32 caliber bullet “shot at close range into the back of her head.”
FBI Blames AIM for the Murder:
The story itself raises many obvious questions, including:
- Why would an AIM “hit squad” take Aquash, in the presence of so many witnesses, from one city to another, across two states, to several apartments and a defense office (more than likely under surveillance), then execute her?
- If the FBI seriously considered the death of Aquash to have been carried out by AIM in 1976, we can be sure vast amounts of resources would have been devoted to this case at that time. Instead, the FBI attempted to cover it up!
There are many theories about who may have been behind the murder of Anna Mae. John Trudell fingers Dennis Banks, stating in both the 1976 Butler and Robideau trial and the Looking Cloud trial that Banks told him about the killing before the body had been identified. In Dennis Banks’ autobiography, Ojibwa Warrior, he states that he was informed by John Trudell that the body that had been found was Annie Mae. Banks states that he did not know until that time that Aquash had been killed.
The FBI’s version is that Aquash was taken from a house in Denver, Colorado, by Graham, Looking Cloud, and Thelda Clarke. She was then driven to various offices & apartments in Rapid City, S. Dakota. One of these included the legal offices of the Wounded Knee defense committee. From there, she was taken to houses on Pine Ridge and Rosebud Reservations, then executed on a desolate road near Wanbli, on or around Dec. 12, 1975 (where her body was found two months later).
According to the FBI, Aquash was suspected of being an informant and had sensitive info related to the Oglala shoot-out. Because of this, she had to be killed.
History of the Prosecution’s Grand Juries
Denver, Colorado, Detective Abe Alonzo, spent years visiting and questioning Looking Cloud about the murder. During these years, the Government, through Alonzo, gave Looking Cloud immunity and tried to turn him into prosecution witness. It was only after this immunity expired that Looking Hawk was indicted.
After 29 years, the FBI, blatantly ignoring both Trudell’s 1976 testimony, and his testimony in the Looking Cloud trial, was turned away by Grand Juries in 1976, 1983, 1994, and 1999. In the fourth Grand Jury, Russell Means testified that Vernon Bellecourt, now deceased, and a former spokesperson for his own Intergalactic American Indian Movement wherein he purportedly was the Grand Poupa of AIM, was the person who ordered the murder. Not until a fifth grand jury was convened in March, 2003 did the U.S. Attorney for South Dakota finally get indictments against Arlo Looking Cloud and John Graham.
In August 2008, a sixth federal grand jury indicted a third man, Vine Richard “Dick” Marshall, with aiding and abetting the murder. It is alleged that Graham, Looking Cloud and Clark had taken Anna Mae to Marshall’s house where she was held just prior to her being driven to her death.
Looking Cloud is an Oglala Lakota and a father of two. He also has serious substance abuse problems that were exploited by Alonzo during his investigation. In March 2003, in an alleged video-taped confession, Looking Cloud admitted to being under the influence of alcohol. Alonzo then fed him leading questions, and Looking Cloud slurred contradictory answers. He allegedly confessed that he had been the unwitting accomplice in Aquash’s execution by AIM. He stated that he witnessed Graham take her to the edge of a ravine and shoot her in the back of the head.
The Looking Cloud Trial
On February 8, 2004 Arlo Looking Cloud was tried before a U.S. federal jury and five days later was found guilty. While the prosecution called 23 witnesses, his government appointed lawyer called only one, an FBI agent! NO physical evidence linking Looking Cloud to the crime was presented!
Although, a videotape was shown in which Looking Cloud admits to being at the scene of the murder but claims that he was unaware that Aquash was going to be killed. In that video, in which Looking Cloud is interviewed by Detective Abe Alonzo of the Denver Police Department and Robert Ecoffey, the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Office of Law Enforcement Services, taped on March 27, 2003, he states that Graham was the trigger man. This interview granted Looking Cloud immunity for his information. When the immunity expired he was arrested!
Looking Cloud’s video-taped statement reflects the FBI’s version of events, except in one important detail: according to Looking Cloud, he did not know what was occurring until moments before John Graham took her out of the car and shot her. The FBI’s version of events has always been based on rumors within AIM that Anna Mae was a suspected informant. Candy Hamilton, a friend of Aquash, reports that it was common for people to be suspected of being an informant at this time.
Over the years, many people had in fact informed or gave evidence to police. It is a common practice of police and the FBI to use informants & collaborators. In 1975, Douglas Durham was exposed as an FBI infiltrator who worked at the highest levels within AIM.
During the trial , government witnesses gave conflicting testimony, including that of an admitted informant: Kamook Banks (former wife of AIM leader Dennis Banks, current wife of B.I.A. cop Robert Ecoffey !). Under cross-examination, Kamook revealed she was paid $42,000 by the FBI to wear wiretaps & record meetings with Looking Cloud, Banks, & others.
Despite requests to change lawyers, the judge has consistently denied this basic right. Although he entered a plea of not guilty, his video-taped confession from April/03 was not challenged by his lawyer!
Graham adamantly denies any involvement in the death of Anna Mae. He claims that the U.S. government threatened to name him as the murderer of Anna Mae if he “didn’t co-operate”. Claiming that he last saw Annie Mae on a drive that took them from Denver to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, where he left her at a “safe house” (in his own words, in an interview with Antoinette Nora Claypoole), Graham explains why he believes he is being charged as her murderer:
“…in the mid-80s or sometime about there. The FBI showed up at my home in the Yukon, and asked me all kinds of questions about Anna Mae and the death. They were trying to say I was there, or I knew about it, or I was aware of it. And I had to tell them I wasn’t aware, I wasn’t around there and I wasn’t involved in her killing at all. And they wanted me to name leadership that would have given the order to that effect, to kill Anna Mae. And they were trying to tell me they would put me in the witness protection program, they would change my identity, they would relocate me if I would go to testify in front of the federal Grand Jury in South Dakota against the AIM leadership. So I told them I couldn’t do that because it never happened.
I never, ever received orders of any kind like that from any of the AIM leadership. And so I wouldn’t do it; I wouldn’t cooperate with them. And they left. Then they came back a year or so later and said…. if I didn’t cooperate with them to put this information on the AIM leadership, then I would be facing all these charges myself.”
During this interrogation, Looking Cloud states that he is still under the influence of alcohol; the FBI not only continue to ask him questions, they get him to sign statements!
Looking Cloud was denied the right to choose his own lawyer. During his trial, every witness for the prosecution presented AIM in the most negative light possible, and they contradicted each other in their testimonies. Many people could have been called as defense witnesses, to testify that Aquash had been afraid of the FBI, not AIM. But the defense called only one witness—FBI Agent Price! He was questioned for 10 minutes on Aquash as to whether she was an FBI informant. If only to accentuate the obvious set-up, the prosecution didn’t even bother to cross-examine Agent Price, the sole witness for the ‘defense.’
Looking Cloud’s lawyer made few motions and did not challenge Alonzo’s manipulation of his client. Looking Cloud was not allowed to take the stand to defend himself; all that was shown was the videotaped interview that he had given.
Due to an “unfortunate accident,” Denver police claim to have lost these critical recordings; the only evidence given was hearsay based on alleged conversations with Looking Cloud over the years.
A large focus of the trial did not even concern Looking Cloud, but instead AIM & the case of Leonard Peltier. In a Feb. 7th news release, Peltier’s lawyer Barry Bachrach stated:
“Who was on trial? The majority of the testimony presented had nothing whatsoever to do with Arlo Looking Cloud, but prominent members of the American Indian Movement. There was not one iota of proof presented to support many witnesses’ “beliefs”. And for every witness presented, there are any number of other individuals who could be called to appear and who would tell very different stories.”
Arlo Looking Cloud now claims that, over the years, the FBI & police would periodically pick him up and feed him drugs & alcohol while indoctrinating him with their version of events.
On April 23, 2004 he was given a mandatory sentence of life in prison.
South Dakota in the Early 70’s
AIM first came to South Dakota when a call was made for outside help to get serious convictions against white men responsible for a racially motivated murder that took place in a Nebraska border town. A Lakota man had been publicly humiliated and later murdered by 2 white brothers. Disinterested law officials didn’t have the time of day to bother to investigate the death of an Indian. Angry Lakotas and AIM members caravaned to the Nebraska border, only miles away from Pine Ridge, and confronted the law officials.
The sight of hundreds of angry Indians, shocked law officials and they immediately caved in to their demands. A year later, a young man was murdered by a rich white businessman, who had told people that he was “gonna go kill himself an Indian.” A riot occurred at the Custer courthouse because police beat the mother of the victim. The riot lasted over an hour, and 2 cop cars were overturned, and the vacant building beside the courthouse was torched.
U.S. Government’s Motive to Grab Resources
Thirty years after the death of Aquash, the US government has renewed its war against the last remnants of AIM. As in the 1970s, this attack is only part of a larger war to gain control over Native lands and resources.
In 1975, with his control of the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota secured by force, Tribal President Wilson set about ceding uranium-rich areas of the Reservation to the federal government. AIM assisted in protecting Pine Ridge’s traditional families from the constant onslaught of violence, which culminated in the AIM occupation and government siege of Wounded Knee in the Spring of 1973. From 1973 to 1976, the people of Pine Ridge lived under the “Reign of Terror”—more than 76 Natives, mainly traditional Lakotah and AIM members, were murdered, primarily by,, Wilson’s goons, a term coined by the elderly women who protested against them. Later, in a perverse play on words, the goons called themselves, “Guardians of the Oglala Nation” (GOONs). In response the Wilson and his GOONs, AIM launched a campaign to expose the injustice and protect the innocent.
On June 26, 1975—while Wilson was in Washington, DC, signing away an eighth of the reservation—the FBI launched an attack on an AIM camp at Pine Ridge. The US was dealt a humiliating blow—two FBI agents lost their lives. Although Joe Stuntz Killsright, a Lakotah defender, was killed in the shoot-out, an estimated 40 Native men, women and children escaped.
In extreme rage, the FBI violently harassed Lakota families. They drafted a list of people that they suspected were present at the shoot-out, and they blamed Leonard Peltier, Bob Robideau, Dino Butler and Jimmy Eagle for killing the agents. The four young men went on the run. Butler and Robideau were eventually arrested, tried and acquitted by an all-white jury, so the FBI targeted Peltier for the “murder” of the agents. Of course, there has never been an investigation into Stuntz Killsright’s death.
FBI’s Counter-intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) Directly Targets AIM and Its Members
Press Release
September 24, 2006
“REP. McKINNEY INTRODUCES LEGISLATION TO RE-OPEN CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS INTO COINTELPRO PAST AND PRESENT
(Washington, DC) Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA 4^th ) has introduced legislation calling for a re-opening of the investigations of the 1970’s by the United States Select Committee to Study Government Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities chaired by Senator Frank Church which led to startling revelations concerning federal, state and local intelligence and law enforcement agency violations of Constitutional rights of privacy, limits on search and seizure, surveillance, wiretapping and disruption of dissent and protected activities, and massive collection of dossiers by FBI, CIA, NSA, Pentagon, Defense Intelligence Agencies and other local agencies, targeting the civil rights, Native American and anti-war movements of the period and “neutralizing” their leadership and discrediting the efforts for social change over decades.
The most infamous of these abuses was the FBI’s COINTELPRO operations, or counter intelligence program…, Following the attacks on September 11, 2001, there were immediate calls to renew COINTELPRO-style surveillance, go to Continuity of Government, release intelligence agencies from the restrictions of the Church Committee era laws (which included the establishment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court to pre-approve Presidential surveillance programs), calls to end the principle of Posse Comitatus, which separates police and military functions, and renewed surveillance and disruption by the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Transportation Security Agency (TSA), Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and by certain provisions of the USA PATRIOT ACT…”
The US made its first violent attack against AIM in 1972, in what became known as the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Takeover. Indians had been conducting a peaceful protest outside the BIA headquarters in Washington, DC, when they were attacked by riot police. In response, the Indians barricaded themselves inside the building, smashed up offices and took top-secret documents. These documents proved that the government was illegally handing out Reservation land, water and mineral rights to corporations.
At this time, Aquash was “snitch-jacketed” by the FBI. This tactic of the FBI’s Counter-intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) undermined valuable members of a group by casting them in suspicious situations. Wherever Aquash went, arrests would follow. She’d be released, while other AIM members were slapped with charges and high bail. In September 1975, FBI Agent David Price attempted to force her to sign an affidavit implicating Peltier for the murder of the two FBI agents. She refused to cooperate, and Price promised her that she wouldn’t live to see the year’s end.
Aquash went underground, turning to AIM for protection and putting her fears of the FBI in writing. In late February, her body was found outside of Wanbli, on Pine Ridge. Four FBI agents joined the “investigation,” including Price. They cut off her hands for “fingerprint analysis,” and despite the visible bullet hole in the back of her head, they determined that the cause of her death was exposure. They quickly arranged for her to be buried as a Jane Doe. After this cover-up came to light, the FBI released a statement announcing that Aquash was not a government informant. As intended, this statement insinuated that AIM might have believed Aquash to be an informant and murdered her.
Through Dickie Wilson, the corrupt Tribal President of Pine Ridge, the FBI established a paramilitary group made up of local boys who called themselves the Guardians of Oglala Nation (goons).
The FBI trained and supplied the goons with bullets, guns and intelligence on AIM. Indians began to arm themselves for protection against the onslaught of assaults, torched houses, and hit and runs, and drive-by shootings. Only years later, did it become clear to Indians why the FBI reacted so brutally to the bold assertions Lakotas were making in the districts of Pine Ridge.
Unknown at that time, the US had an eye on developing uranium mining on a portion of the sacred Black Hills, and an area known as Sheep Mountain. This area has proven to be one of the richest in uranium deposits in the US. The FBI implemented their counterintellegence operation in Pine Ridge in order to weaken and destroy the urban Indian movement, and to subjugate the traditional Lakotas once and for all. The FBI Counterintellegence Program (COINTELPRO), targets political groups that are viewed as a threat to national security.
Often these groups were fighting oppression, systemic racism, and were attempting to make things better for their people. This program discredits organizations, and its’ members through media smears. Infiltrators staged many scandals that put AIM in a bad light to weaken their popularity and wide-support.
COINTELPRO has lethal consequences, as any means necessary can be used to thwart the enemy. This is why so many AIM members have been criminalized, imprisoned, or outright murdered as a result of this FBI program. Also the once powerful and effective movement became riddled with FBI informers, and infiltrators. As the violence escalated, the paranoia and suspicion grew. The FBI put trustworthy AIM leaders in situations that made them look suspicious, which the FBI call snitch jacketing, or bad jacketing. Soon, it was hard for people to tell the difference between whom they could trust, and who was working with the feds.
The FBI officially and publicly ended its COINTELPRO operations on April 28, 1971. But FBI documents obtained by NFIC from the FBI Reading Room in the capital indicate that in November of 1973 the FBI continued “COINTEL measures to further disrupt AIM leadership” which it had employed in its discredited former counterintelligence program. There is also ample evidence that many of the actions by the FBI in the 1970’s across the country where grossly illegal!
Trial Scheduled for February 24, 2009
By Heidi Bell Gease, Journal staff | Tuesday, January 13, 2009
“The attorney for Richard “Dickie” Marshall, one of two men charged with killing American Indian Movement activist Annie Mae Aquash in 1975, has asked that the trial be moved back two months.
Marshall, 57, and John Graham, 52, are to go on trial Feb. 24 in U.S. District Court in Rapid City. Both men are charged with first-degree murder.
On Monday, Marshall’s defense attorney, Dana Hanna, filed a motion for continuance, saying he needs more time to prepare for the trial.
Hanna said he had read more than 5,000 pages of case background information provided by the federal government but has not reviewed those documents with his client. He also said he needs but has not received copies of the more than 100 audio cassette tapes produced during the investigation.
Hanna’s motion also states that the government has refused to provide records or information concerning other AIM-related events during the 1970s that could come into play during the trial.
“I require more time to locate and interview witnesses, gather records, subpoena evidence, research legal issues and to investigate the case,” Hanna wrote.
Marshall was indicted last August, more than 32 years after Aquash’s body was found on Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in February 1976. She had been shot in the head.
Marshall and Graham would face life in prison if convicted. A third man charged in the case, Arlo Looking Cloud, was convicted of murder after a 2004 trial and is serving a life sentence.”
We must put a stop to this decades-long unlawful prosecution. As in previous cases, the prosecution will try this case before an all-white jury using racial bias and fabricated evidence to further it’s centuries-old campaign to wipe out every trace of the once great Lakotah people:
- Wounded Knee trial of Russell Means and Dennis Banks where all charges were dismissed by Judge Nichol due to “gross misconduct” by the F.B.I. and U.S. Attorneys.
- Over 200 trials of Wounded Knee defendants have been held and ALL have either been dismissed or found not guilty.
- Over a five-year period, Russell Means endured twelve criminal trials as a sole defendant. Again all charges were dismissed or returned with not guilty verdicts.
Weekend Update 07 – I Pray for My Relatives
January 9, 2009 by Russell Means Freedom
Filed under Commentaries
Russell speaks about how the great religions founded in the Middle East must learn to follow their own first Great Rule: Thou Shalt Not Kill. He continues to comment on President Obama’s poor staff selections. This isn’t the kind of change Americans had hoped for!
Documentary on Palestinian History
January 6, 2009 by Russell Means Freedom
Filed under News
-
60 years of Misery & Ethnic-cleansing
-
7 wars
-
5 million Palestinian Refugees
-
3 million Occupied
-
1.5 million Abducted / Hostages
-
254 km of an Apartheid Wall
-
562 Humiliation Check Points
-
20,000 Political Prisoners
-
400 Children Held in Israeli Dungeons
-
468,831 New Settlers on Occupied Land
-
Disappearance of Palestine
-
Number of World Leaders in UN Violations = 69

1948 Palestinian Exodus – View the Video
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
History
The history of the Palestinian exodus is closely tied to the events of the war in Palestine, which lasted from 1947 to 1949. Many factors played a role in bringing it about. Ruins of the Palestinian village of Suba, near Jerusalem, overlooking Kibbutz Zova, which was built on the village lands.
The 1948 Palestinian exodus (Arabic: الهجرة الفلسطينية, al-Hijra al-Filasteeniya), referred to by Palestinians as al Nakba or al Naqba (Arabic: النكبة), meaning the “disaster”, “catastrophe”, or “cataclysm,”[1][2][3] refers to the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem during and after the 1948 Palestine war.
History
The history of the Palestinian exodus is closely tied to the events of the war in Palestine, which lasted from 1947 to 1949. Many factors played a role in bringing it about. Ruins of the Palestinian village of Suba, near Jerusalem, overlooking Kibbutz Zova, which was built on the village lands.
For more information on the historical context, see Zionism, Palestinian nationalism, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, 1948 Arab-Israeli war.
By 1951, the United Nations (UN) estimated 711,000 Palestinian refugees existed outside Israel,[4] with about one-quarter of the estimated 160,000 Arab Palestinians remaining in Israel as “internal refugees.” Today, Palestinian refugees and their descendants are estimated to number more than 4 million people.[5]
Historians have argued over the causes of the Palestinian exodus. In early decades following the exodus, two diametrically opposed schools of analysis could be distinguished. The ‘Israeli Government claimed that the Palestinian Arabs left because they were ordered to and were deliberately incited into panic by their own leaders, who wanted the field cleared for the 1948 war’. While ‘The Palestinian Arabs charge that their people were evicted at bayonet-point and by panic deliberately incited by the Zionists.’[6] From the 1960s Walid Khalidi[7][8] and others have maintained that the Expulsion of the Palestinians was a deliberate policy.[9]
With the opening up of Archival sources in the West and Israel, particularly the opening of the Protocols of the Israel’s Cabinet Meetings and the declassification of the Haganah Archive in Tel Aviv along with the IDF and Israeli Defence Ministry Archive in Givatayim,[10] a greater insight has been gained into the events leading up to the creation of Israel and the events surrounding its birth, in particular with the publication of the study by Benny Morris: The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem.
“New Historians” have presented a viewpoint suggesting around half of the Palestinians of the exodus were purposely expelled by Israeli army, though this was not an organized policy.[11][12] However, Walid Khalidi and other Palestinian historians, supported by Ilan Pappe, defend the thesis that the expulsions formed part of a deliberate plan.[13]
The initial exodus and the current situation of Palestinian refugees is a contentious topic of high importance to all parties in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
First Phase of the Exodus, December 1947 – March 1948
In the first few months of the civil war the climate in the Mandate of Palestine became volatile, although throughout this period both Arab and Jewish leaders tried to limit hostilities between Jews and Palestinian Arabs.[14] According to historian Benny Morris, the period was marked by Palestinian Arab initiatives and Jewish reprisals.[15] On the other hand, Simha Flapan points out a pattern in which terrorist attacks by Irgun and Lehi resulted in Palestinian Arab retaliations and then ‘the Haganah – while always condemning the actions of Irgun and Lehi – joined in with an inflaming counter-retaliation’.[16] Typically the Jewish forces carried out reprisals directed against villages and neighborhoods from which attacks against Jews had allegedly originated,[17] The attacks were more damaging than the provoking attack and included killing of armed and unarmed men, destruction of houses and sometimes expulsion of inhabitants.[18] The Zionist groups of Irgun and Lehi reverted to their 1937-1939 strategy of indiscriminate attacks by placing bombs and throwing grenades into crowded places such as bus stops, shopping centres and markets. Their attacks on British forces reduced British troops’ ability and willingness to protect Jewish traffic.[19] General conditions deteriorated: the economic situation became unstable and unemployment grew.[20] Rumours spread that the Husaynis were planning to bring in bands of fellahin (peasant, farmers) to take over the towns.[21] Some Palestinian Arab leaders sent their families abroad. While Gelber claims that the Arab Liberation Army embarked on a systematic evacuation of non-combatants from several frontier villages in order to turn them into military strongholds.[22] Arab depopulation occurred most in villages close to Jewish settlements and in vulnerable neighborhoods in Haifa, Jaffa and West-Jerusalem.[23] The poor inhabitants of these neighborhoods generally fled to other parts of the city. Many rich inhabitants fled further away, most of them expecting to return when the troubles were over.[24] By the end of March 1948 thirty villages were depopulated of their Palestinian Arab population.[25] Approximately 100,000 Palestinian Arabs had fled to Arab parts of Palestine, such as Gaza, Beersheba, Haifa, Nazareth, Nablus, Jaffa and Bethlehem some had left the country altogether; to Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt.[26] Other sources speak of 30,000 Palestinian Arabs.[27] Many of these were Palestinian Arab leaders, middle and upper-class Palestinian Arab families from urban areas. Around 22 March the Arab governments agreed that their consulates in Palestine would only issues entry visas to old people, women and children and the sick.[28] On 29-30 March the Haganah Intelligence Service (HIS) reported that ‘the AHC was no longer approving exit permits for fear of [causing] panic in the country’.[29]
While expulsion of the Palestinians had been contemplated by some Zionists from the 1890s (see Zionist quotes), during this period there was no official Yishuv policy favoring expulsion and Jewish leaders anticipated that the new Jewish state would have a sizable Arab minority. The Haganah was instructed to avoid spreading the conflagration by indiscriminate attacks and to avoid provoking British intervention.[30] On 18 December, 1947 the Haganah approved an aggressive defense strategy, which in practice meant ‘a limited implementation of “Plan May” (Tochnit Mai or Tochnit Gimel), which, produced in May 1946, was the Haganah master plan for the defence of the Yishuv in the event of the outbreak of new troubles… The plan included provision, in extremis, for “destroying Arab transport” in Palestine, and blowing up houses used by Arab terrorists and expelling their inhabitants.[31] In early January the Haganah adopted Operation Zarzir, a scheme to assassinate leaders affiliated to Amin al-Husayni, placing the blame on other Arab leaders, but in practice few resources were devoted to the project and the only attempted killing was of Nimr al Khatib.[32]
The only authorized expulsion at this time took place at Qisarya, south of Haifa, where Palestinian Arabs were evicted and their houses destroyed on 19 February – 20 February 1948.[33] In attacks that were not authorized in advance several communities were expelled by the Haganah and several others were chased away by the Irgun.[34]
According to Ilan Pappé the Zionists organized a campaign of threats,[35] consisting of the distribution of threatening leaflets, ‘violent reconnaissance’ and, after the arrival of mortars, the shelling of Arab villages and neighborhoods.[36] The idea of ‘violent reconnaissance’ was to enter a defenceless village at night, fire at everyone who dared leave his or her house and leave after a few hours.[37] Pappé also notes that the Haganah shifted its policy from retaliation through excessive retaliation to offensive initiatives.[38] During the ‘long seminar’, a meeting of Ben-Gurion with his chief advisors in January 1948, the departure point was that it was desirable to ‘transfer’ as many Arabs as possible out of Jewish territory, and the discussion focussed mainly on the implementation.[39] The experiences in a number of attacks in February 1948, notably those on Qisarya and Sa’sa’, were used in the development of a plan, detailing how enemy population centers should be handled.[25] According to Pappé plan Dalet was the master plan for the expulsion of the Palestinians.[25]
Palestinian belligerency in these first few months was ‘disorganised, sporadic and localized and for months remained chaotic and uncoordinated, if not undirected’.[40] Husayni lacked the resources to mount a full-scale assault on the Yishuv and restricted himself to sanctioning minor attacks and to tightening the economic boycott.[41] The British claimed that Arab rioting might well have subsided had the Jews not retaliated with firearms.[42]
Overall Morris concludes that the ‘Arab evacuees from the towns and villages left largely because of Jewish – Haganah, IZL or LHI – attacks or fear of impending attack’ but that only ‘an extremely small, almost insignificant number of the refugees during this early period left because of Haganah or IZL or LHI expulsion orders or forceful “advice” to that effect’.[43] In this sense, Glazer[44] quotes the testimony of Count Bernadotte, the UN mediator in Palestine, who reported that “the exodus of the Palestinian Arabs resulted from panic created by fighting in their communities, by rumours concerning real or alleged acts of terrorism, or expulsion. Almost the whole of the Arab population fled or was expelled from the area under Jewish occupation”.[45][46]
See also: List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war
Second Phase of the Exodus, April 1948 – June 1948
Benny Morris maintains that from April 1948 Ben-Gurion was a “transferist”; although Ben-Gurion gave no explicit orders, Ben-Gurion projected a “message of transfer”, and that a “consensus of transfer” was created.”. Also Benny Morris upholds that Ben-Gurion was correct in expelling the “Arab” population of Palestine on the grounds that “Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here.”[47] Benny Morris puts the main causes for the Palestinian exodus as:-
“Above all let me reiterate, the refugee problem was caused by attacks by Jewish forces on Arab villages and towns and by the inhabitants’ fear of such attacks, compounded by expulsions, atrocities, and rumour of atrocities – and by the crucial Israeli Cabinet decision in June 1948 to bar a refugee return.”[48]
By May 1, 1948, two weeks before the Israeli Declaration of Independence, nearly 175,000 Palestinians (approximately 25%) had already fled.[49]
The fighting in these months was concentrated in the Jerusalem – Tel Aviv area and most depopulations took place in Jewish controlled areas, such as Tiberius, Haifa, Jaffa and the coastal region. The Deir Yassin massacre in early April, and the exaggerated rumours that followed it, helped spread fear and panic among the Palestinians.[50]
Even so, Palestinians fled the city of Haifa en masse, in one of the most notable flights of this stage. Historian Efraim Karsh writes that not only had half of the Arab community in Haifa community fled the city before the final battle was joined in late April 1948, but another 5,000-15,000 left apparently voluntarily during the fighting while the rest, some 15,000-25,000, were ordered to leave, almost certainly on the instructions of the Arab Higher Committee. Karsh concludes that there was no Jewish grand design to force this departure, nor was there a psychological ‘blitz’, but that on the contrary, both the Haifa Jewish leadership, including Mayor Shabtai Levy, and the Hagana went to great lengths to convince the Arabs to stay, to no avail.[51][52] However Efraim Karsh based his observations on a “British Police Report” of the 26 April sent after the British Forces had evacuated from Haifa and the Jewish forces had taken over the Port of Haifa and the Palestinian Population had already fled. The British Report of 22 April at the height of the fight for Haifa portrays a different picture.[53] Furthermore, two independent studies, which analysed CIA and BBC intercepts of radio Broadcasts from the region concluded that no orders or instructions were given by the Arab Higher Committee.[54]
According to Morris “The Haganah mortar attacks of 21-22 April [on Haifa] were primarily designed to break Arab morale in order to bring about a swift collapse of resistance and speedy surrender. […] But clearly the offensive, and especially the mortaring, precipitated the exodus. The three inch mortars ‘opened up on the market square [where there was] a great crowd […] a great panic took hold. The multitude burst into the port, pushed aside the policemen, charged the boats and began to flee the town’, as the official Haganah history later put it”.[55] According to Pappé [56] this mortar barrage was deliberately aimed at civilians to precipitate their flight from Haifa.
The Haganah broadcast a warning to Arabs in Haifa on 21 April: ‘that unless they sent away “infiltrated dissidents” they would be advised to evacuate all women and children, because they would be strongly attacked from now on’.[57]
Commenting on the use of ‘psychological warfare broadcasts’ and military tactics in Haifa, Benny Morris writes:
Throughout the Haganah made effective use of Arabic language broadcasts and loudspeaker vans. Haganah Radio announced that ‘the day of judgment had arrived’ and called on inhabitants to ‘kick out the foreign criminals’ and to ‘move away from every house and street, from every neighborhood occupied by foreign criminals’. The Haganah broadcasts called on the populace to ‘evacuate the women, the children and the old immediately, and send them to a safe haven’… Jewish tactics in the battle were designed to stun and quickly overpower opposition; demoralization was a primary aim. It was deemed just as important to the outcome as the physical destruction of the Arab units. The mortar barrages and the psychological warfare broadcasts and announcements, and the tactics employed by the infantry companies, advancing from house to house, were all geared to this goal. The orders of Carmeli’s 22nd Battalion were ‘to kill every [adult male] Arab encountered’ and to set alight with fire-bombs ‘all objectives that can be set alight. I am sending you posters in Arabic; disperse on route’.[58]
By mid-May 4000 Arabs remained in Haifa. These were concentrated in Wadi Nisnas in accordance with Plan D whilst the systematic destruction of Arab housing in certain areas, which had been planned before the War, was implemented by Haifa’s Technical and Urban Development departments in cooperation with the IDF’s city commander Ya’akov Lublini.[59]
According to Glazer (1980, p.111), from May 15, 1948 onwards, expulsion of Palestinians became a regular practice. Avnery (1971), explaining the Zionist rationale, says,
I believe that during this phase, the eviction of Arab civilians had become an aim of David Ben-Gurion and his government …. UN opinion could very well be disregarded. Peace with the Arabs seemed out of the question, considering the extreme nature of the Arab propaganda. In this situation, it was easy for people like Ben-Gurion to believe the capture of uninhabited territory was both necessary for security reasons and desirable for the homogeneity of the new Hebrew state.[60]
Edgar O’Ballance, a military historian, adds,
Israeli vans with loudspeakers drove through the streets ordering all the inhabitants to evacuate immediately, and such as were reluctant to leave were forcibly ejected from their homes by the triumphant Israelis whose policy was now openly one of clearing out all the Arab civil population before them …. From the surrounding villages and hamlets, during the next two or three days, all the inhabitants were uprooted and set off on the road to Ramallah…. No longer was there any “reasonable persuasion”. Bluntly, the Arab inhabitants were ejected and forced to flee into Arab territory…. Wherever the Israeli troops advanced into Arab country the Arab population was bulldozed out in front of them.[61]
After the fall of Haifa the villages on the slopes of Mount Carmel had been harassing the Jewish traffic on the main road to Haifa. A Decision was made on 9 May 1948 to expel or subdue the villages of Kafr Saba, al-Tira, Qaqun, Qalansuwa and Tantura[62] On the 11 May 1948 Ben-Gurion convened the “Consultancy” the outcome of the meeting is confirmed in a letter to commanders of the Haganah Brigades telling them that the Arab legion’s offensive should not distract their troops from the principal tasks:
“‘the cleansing of Palestine remained the prime objective of Plan Dalet” [63]
The attention of the commanders of the Alexandroni Brigade was turned to reducing the Mount Carmel pocket. Tantura being on the coast gave the Carmel villages access to the outside world and so was chosen as the point to surround the Carmel villages as a part of the Coastal Clearing offensive operation in the beginning of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. On the night of 22-23 May 1948 1 week and 1 day after the declaration of Independence of the State of Israel the coastal village of Tantura was attacked and occupied by the 33rd Battalion of the Alexandroni Brigade of the Haganah. The village of Tantura was not given the option of surrender and the initial report spoke of dozens of villagers killed with 300 adult male prisoners and 200 women and children[64] Many of the villages fled to the Fureidis (previously captured) and to Arab held territory. The Captured women of Tantura were moved to Fureidis and on the 31st May Brechor Shitrit the Minister of Minority Affairs of the provisional Government of Israel, sought permission to expel the refugee women of Tantura from Fureidis as the amount of refugees in Fureidis was causing problems of overcrowding and sanitation. [65]
According to a report from the military intelligence SHAI of the Haganah entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948″, dated 30 June 1948 affirms that:
At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%… of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases…[66][67][68]
By the estimates of Morris, 250,000 to 300,000 Palestinians left Israel during this stage.[69] Keesing’s Contemporary Archives in London place the total number of refugees before Israel’s independence at 300,000.[70]
Third Phase of the Exodus, July-October 1948
Israeli operations labeled Dani and Dekel that broke the truce was the start of the third phase of expulsions. The largest single expulsion of the war began in Lydda and Ramla July 14 when 60,000 inhabitants (nearly 10% of the whole exodus) of the two cities were forcibly expelled on the orders of Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Rabin.
According to Flapan (1987, pp. 13-14) in Ben-Gurion’s view Ramlah and Lydda constituted a special danger because their proximity might encourage cooperation between the Egyptian army, which had started its attack on Kibbutz Negbah, near Ramlah, and the Arab Legion, which had taken the Lydda police station. However the author considers that, Operation Dani, by which the two towns were seized, revealed that no such cooperation existed.
In the opinion of Flapan, “in Lydda, the exodus took place on foot. In Ramlah, the IDF provided buses and trucks. Originally, all males had been rounded up and enclosed in a compound, but after some shooting was heard, and construed by Ben-Gurion to be the beginning of an Arab Legion counteroffensive, he stopped the arrests and ordered the speedy eviction of all the Arabs, including women, children, and the elderly”.[71] In explanation, Flapan cites that Ben-Gurion said that “those who made war on us bear responsibility after their defeat”.[72]
Rabin wrote in his memoirs:
What would they do with the 50,000 civilians in the two cities … Not even Ben-Gurion could offer a solution, and during the discussion at operation headquarters, he remained silent, as was his habit in such situations. Clearly, we could not leave [Lydda's] hostile and armed populace in our rear, where it could endanger the supply route [to the troops who were] advancing eastward. … Allon repeated the question: What is to be done with the population? Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture that said: Drive them out! … ‘Driving out’ is a term with a harsh ring … Psychologically, this was one of the most difficult actions we undertook. The population of [Lydda] did not leave willingly. There was no way of avoiding the use of force and warning shots in order to make the inhabitants march the 10 to 15 miles to the point where they met up with the legion. (Soldier of Peace, p. 140-141)
Flapan maintains that events in Nazareth, although ending differently, point to the existence of a definite pattern of expulsion. On 16 July, three days after the Lydda and Ramlah evictions, the city of Nazareth surrendered to the IDF. The officer in command, a Canadian Jew named Ben Dunkelman, had signed the surrender agreement on behalf of the Israeli army along with Chaim Laskov (then a brigadier general, later IDF chief of staff). The agreement assured the civilians that they would not be harmed, but the next day, Laskov handed Dunkelman an order to evacuate the population.[73][74]
Additionally, widespread looting and several cases of rape[75] took place during the evacuation. In total, about 100,000 Palestinians became refugees in this stage according to Morris.[76]
Fourth Phase of the Exodus, October 1948 – March 1949
This period of the exodus was characterized by Israeli military accomplishments; Operation Yoav, in October, this cleared the road to the Negev, culminating in the capture of Beersheba; Operation Hiram, at the end of October, resulted in the capture of the Upper Galilee; Operation Horev in December 1948 and Operation Uvda in March 1949, completed the capture of the Negev (the Negev had been allotted to the Jewish State by the United Nations) these operations were met with resistance from the Palestinian Arabs who were to become refugees. The Israeli military activities were confined to the Galilee and the sparsely populated Negev desert. It was clear to the villages in the Galilee, that if they left, return was far from imminent. Therefore far fewer villages spontaneously depopulated than previously. Most of the Palestinian exodus was due to a clear, direct cause: expulsion and deliberate harassment, as Morris writes ‘commanders were clearly bent on driving out the population in the area they were conquering’.[77]
During Operation Hiram in the upper Galilee, Israeli military commanders received the order: ‘Do all you can to immediately and quickly purge the conquered territories of all hostile elements in accordance with the orders issued. The residents should be helped to leave the areas that have been conquered’. (October 31, 1948, Moshe Carmel) The UN’s acting Mediator, Ralph Bunche, reported that United Nations Observers had recorded extensive looting of villages in Galilee by Israeli forces, who carried away goats, sheep and mules. This looting, United Nations Observers report, appeared to have been systematic as army trucks were used for transportation. The situation, states the report, created a new influx of refugees into Lebanon. Israeli forces, he stated, have occupied the area in Galilee formerly occupied by Kaukji’s forces, and have crossed the Lebanese frontier. Bunche goes on to say “that Israeli forces now hold positions inside the south-east corner of Lebanon, involving some fifteen Lebanese villages which are occupied by small Israeli detachments”.[78]
According to Morris[79] altogether 200,000-230,000 Palestinians left in this stage. According to Ilan Pappé, “In a matter of seven months, five hundred and thirty one villages were destroyed and eleven urban neighborhoods emptied […] The mass expulsion was accompanied by massacres, rape and [the] imprisonment of men […] in labor camps for periods [of] over a year”.[80]
The United Nations using the offices of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation and the Mixed Armistice Commissions was involved in the conflict from the very beginning. In the autumn of 1948 the refugee problem was a fact and possible solutions were discussed. Count Folke Bernadotte said on September 16:
No settlement can be just and complete if recognition is not accorded to the right of the Arab refugee to return to the home from which he has been dislodged. It would be an offense against the principles of elemental justice if these innocent victims of the conflict were denied the right to return to their homes while Jewish immigrants flow into Palestine, and indeed, offer the threat of permanent replacement of the Arab refugees who have been rooted in the land for centuries[81][82]
UN General Assembly Resolution 194, which was passed on December 11, 1948, and reaffirmed every year since, was the first resolution that called for Israel to let the refugees return:
the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.[83]
The Lausanne Conference of 1949
In 1949 at the Lausanne conference, Israel proposed allowing 100,000 refugees to return. The offer implicitly included an alleged 25,000 who had already returned surreptitiously and 10,000 projected family-reunion cases and would allow Israel to resettle the returnees where it saw fit.[84] It was further conditional on a full peace treaty that would allow Israel to keep all the territory it had captured and on the Arab states agreeing to absorb the remaining refugees.
Safran wrote that “The Arab states, who had refused even to negotiate face-to-face with the Israelis, turned down the offer because it implicitly recognized Israel’s existence”.[85]
Morris, however, in a more differentiated analysis, resumes:
In retrospect, it appeared that at Lausanne was lost the best and perhaps only chance for a solution of the refugee problem, if not for the achievement of a comprehensive Middle East settlement. But the basic incompatibility of the initial starting positions and the unwillingness of the two sides to move, and to move quickly, towards a compromise – born of Arab rejectionism and a deep feeling of humiliation, and of Israeli drunkenness with victory and physical needs determined largely by the Jewish refugee influx – doomed the ‘conference’ from the start. American pressure on both sides, lacking a sharp, determined cutting edge, failed to budge sufficiently either Jew or Arab. The ’100,000 Offer’ was a classic of too little, too late. [86]
In the first decades after the exodus two diametrically opposed schools of analysis could be distinguished. In the words of Erskine Childers:[87] ‘Israel claims that the Arabs left because they were ordered to, and deliberately incited into panic, by their own leaders who wanted the field cleared for the 1948 war’, while ‘The Arabs charge that their people were evicted at bayonet-point and by panic deliberately incited by the Zionists.’ Alternative explanations had also been offered. For instance Peretz[88] and Gabbay[89] emphasize the psychological component: panic or hysteria swept the Palestinians and caused the exodus.
Changes after the advent of the ‘New Historians’
Israel opened up part of its archives in the 1980s for investigation by historians. This coincided with the emergence of various Israeli historians, called New Historians, who favored a more critical analysis of Israel’s history. The most famous scholar of this group, Benny Morris, concludes that Jewish military attacks were the main direct cause of the exodus, followed by Arab fear due to the fall of a nearby town, Arab fear of impending attack, and expulsions. The traditional Israeli version was replaced by a new version stating that the exodus was caused by neither Israeli nor Arab policies, but rather was a by-product of the 1948 Arab Israeli War.[90][12] The Arab version hardly changed[91] but did get support from some of the New Historians. Pappé calls the exodus an ethnic cleansing and points at Zionist preparations in the preceding years and provides more details on the planning process by a group he calls the ‘Consultancy’.[92]
Results of the Palestinian exodus
Abandoned, evacuated and destroyed Palestinian localities:
List of villages depopulated during the Arab-Israeli conflict
Several authors have conducted studies on the number of Palestinian localities which were abandoned, evacuated and/or destroyed during the 1947-1949 period. Based on their respective calculations, the table below summarises their information.[93]
Source: The table data was taken from Ruling Palestine, A History of the Legally Sanctioned Jewish-Israeli Seizure of Land and Housing in Palestine. Publishers: COHRE & BADIL, May 2005, p. 34.
Note: For information on methodologies; see: Morris, Benny (1987): The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987; Khalidi, Walid (ed.): All that Remains. The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948. Washington, D.C: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1992, App. IV, pp. xix, 585-586; and Sitta, Salman Abu: The Palestinian Nakba 1948. London: The Palestinian Return Centre, 2000.
According to COHRE and BADIL, Morris’s list of affected localities, the shortest of the three, includes towns but excludes other localities cited by Khalidi and/or Abu Sitta. The six sources compared in Khalidi’s study have in common 296 of the villages listed as destroyed and/or depopulated. Sixty other villages are cited in all but one source. Of the total of 418 localities cited in Khalidi, 292 (70 percent) were completely destroyed and 90 (22 percent) “largely destroyed”. COHRE and BADIL also note that other sources refer to an additional 151 localities that are omitted from Khalidi’s study for various reasons (for example, major cities and towns that were depopulated, as well as some Bedouin encampments and villages ‘vacated’ before the start of hostilities). Abu Sitta’s list includes tribes in Beersheba that lost lands; most of these were omitted from Khalidi’s work.[94]
Another study, involving field research and comparisons with British and other documents, concludes that 472 Palestinian habitations (including towns and villages) were destroyed in 1948. It notes that the devastation was virtually complete in some sub-districts. For example, it points out that 96.0% of the villages in the Jaffa area were totally destroyed, as were 90.0% of those in Tiberiade, 90.3% of those in Safad, and 95.9% of those in Beisan. It also extrapolates from 1931 British census data to estimate that over 70 280 Palestinian houses were destroyed in this period.[95]
Palestinian refugees
Total population 4.9 million (including descendants and re-settled)[97] Regions with significant populations
Gaza Strip, Jordan, West Bank, Lebanon, Syria
Although there is no accepted definition of who can be considered a Palestinian refugee for legal purposes, UNRWA defines them as ‘persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict’. UNRWA’s definition of a refugee also covers the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948. This comes in contrast to the standard definition of refugee as defined by UNHCR. The final UN estimate was 711,000,[4] but by 1950, according to UNRWA, the number of registered refugees was 914,000.[98] The U.N. Conciliation Commission explains that these numbers are inflated by “duplication of ration cards, addition of persons who have been displaced from area other than Israel-held areas and of persons who, although not displaced, are destitute,” and the UNWRA additionally noted that “all births are eagerly announced, the deaths wherever possible are passed over in silence”, as well as the fact that “the birthrate is high in any case, a net addition of 30,000 names a year.” By June, 1951 the UNWRA had reduced the number of registered refugees to 876,000 after “many false and duplicate registrations [were] weeded out”.[99] Today that number has grown to over 4 million, one third of whom live in the West Bank and Gaza; slightly less than one third in Jordan; 17% in Syria and Lebanon (Bowker, 2003, p. 72) and around 15% in other Arab and Western countries. Approximately 1 million refugees have no form of identification other than an UNRWA identification card.[100]
In another study, Abu Sitta[96] shows the following findings in eight distinct phases of the depopulation of Palestine between 1947-1949. His findings are summarized in the table below:
* Other sources put this figure at over 70 000.
Source: The table data was taken from Ruling Palestine, A History of the Legally Sanctioned Jewish-Israeli Seizure of Land and Housing in Palestine. Publishers: COHRE & BADIL, May 2005, p. 34. The source being: Abu Sitta, Salman (2001): From Refugees to Citizens at Home. London: Palestine Land Society and Palestinian Return Centre, 2001.
The Prevention of Infiltration law
Following the emergence of the Palestinian refugee problem after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, many Palestinians tried, in one way or another, to return to their homes. For some time these practices continued to embarrass the Israeli authorities until finally they passed a law forbidding Palestinians to return to Israel, those who did so being regarded as “infiltrators”.[101]
According to Kirsbaum[102] over the years, the Israeli Government has continued to cancel and modify some of the Defence (Emergency) Regulations of 1945, but mostly it has added more as it has continued to extend its declared state of emergency. For example, even though the Prevention of Infiltration Law of 1954 is not labelled as an official “Emergency Regulation”, it extends the applicability of the Defence (Emergency) Regulation 112 of 1945 giving the Minister of Defence extraordinary powers of deportation for accused infiltrators even before they are convicted (Articles 30 & 32), and makes itself subject to cancellation when the Knesset ends the State of Emergency upon which all of the Emergency Regulations are dependent.
Land and Property laws
Palestinian refugees – Area of UNWRA operations.
Following its establishment, Israel designed a system of law that legitimised both a continuation and a consolidation of the nationalisation of land and property, a process that it had begun decades earlier. For the first few years of Israel’s existence, many of the new laws continued to be rooted in earlier Ottoman and British law. These laws were later amended or replaced altogether.
The first challenge facing Israel was to transform its control over land into legal ownership. This was the motivation underlying the passing of several of the first group of land laws.[103].
Initial ‘Emergency Laws’ and ‘Regulations’
Among the more important initial laws was article 125 of the Defence (Emergency) Regulations [104]
According to Kirshbaum, the Law has as effect that “no one is allowed in or out without permission from the Israeli Military”. “This regulation has been used to exclude a land owner from his own land so that it could be judged as unoccupied, and then expropriated under the Land Acquisition (Validation of Acts and Compensation) Law (1953). Closures need not be published in the Official Gazette”.[102]
The Absentees’ Property Law’
The Absentees’ Property Laws were several laws, first introduced as emergency ordinances issued by the Jewish leadership but which after the war were incorporated into the laws of Israel.[105] As examples of the first type of laws are the Emergency Regulations (Absentees’ Property) Law, 5709-1948 (December) which according to article 37 of the Absentees Property Law, 5710-1950 was replaced by the latter;[106] the Emergency Regulations (Requisition of Property) Law, 5709-1949, and other related laws.[107]
According to COHRE and BADIL (p.41), unlike other laws that were designed to establish Israel’s ‘legal’ control over lands, this body of law focused on formulating a ‘legal’ definition for the people (mostly Arabs) who had left or been forced to flee from these lands.
The absentee property played an enormous role in making Israel a viable state. In 1954, more than one third of Israel’s Jewish population lived on absentee property and nearly a third of the new immigrants (250,000 people) settled in urban areas abandoned by Arabs. Of 370 new Jewish settlements established between 1948 and 1953, 350 were on absentee property.[108]
Laws enacted
That enabled the further acquisition of depopulated lands, and related laws. Among the more important regulations were:
* The Land (Acquisition for Public Purposes) Ordinance (1943). To authorise the confiscation of lands for Government and ‘public’ purposes.
* The Prescription Law, 5718-1958.[109] According to COHRE and BADIL (p. 44), this law, in conjunction with the Land (Settlement of Title) Ordinance (Amendment) Law, 5720-1960, the Land (Settlement of Title) Ordinance (New Version), 5729-1969 and the Land Law, 5729-1969, was designed to revise criteria related to the use and registration of Miri lands – one of the most prevalent types in Palestine – and to facilitate Israel’s acquisition of such land.
Films about the exodus
* 500 Dunam on the Moon Is a documentary film Directed by Rachel Leah Jones, about Ayn Hawd a Palestinian village that was captured and depopulated by Israeli forces in the 1948 war.
* The Palestinian Catastrophe 1948 is a documentary film Benny Brunner and Alexandra Jansse, that follows the events surrounding the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem.
The Nakba’s role in the Palestinian narrative
The term “Nakba” as a euphemism for “disaster” or “catastrophe” first appeared in George Antonius’ The Arab Awakening, published in 1938, before the creation of the State of Israel. On page 312, Antonius writes,
“The year 1920 has an evil name in Arab annals: it is referred to as the Year of the Catastrophe (Am al-Nakba). It saw the first armed risings that occurred in protest against the post-War settlement imposed by the Allies on the Arab countries. In that year, serious outbreaks took place in Syria, Palestine, and Iraq.”
Thus, this early “Nakba” was a response to the division of Arab-populated lands into British and French mandates, and the Balfour Declaration promoting an independent Jewish state.[110]
The term “Nakba” was given its present meaning by Constantin Zureiq, a professor of history at the American University of Beirut, in his 1948 book Ma’na al-Nakba (The Meaning of the Disaster). After the Six Day War in 1967 Zureiq wrote another book, The New Meaning of the Disaster, but the term Nakba is reserved for the 1948 war. Muhammad Nimr al-Hawari also used the term Nakba in the title of his book Sir al Nakba (The Secret of the Defeat) written in 1955.
Together with Naji al-Ali’s Handala (the barefoot child always drawn from behind), and the symbolic key for the house in Palestine carried by so many Palestinian refugees, the ‘collective memory of’ the Nakba ‘has shaped the identity of the Palestinian refugees as a people’.[111]
The events of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War greatly influenced the Palestinian culture. Countless books, songs and poems have been written about the Nakba. The exodus is usually described in strongly emotional terms. For example, at the controversial 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban, prominent Palestinian scholar and activist Hanan Ashrawi referred to the Palestinians as “a nation in captivity held hostage to an ongoing Nakba, as the most intricate and pervasive expression of persistent colonialism, apartheid, racism, and victimization” (original emphasis).[112]
In the Palestinian calendar, the day after Israel declared independence (May 15) is observed as Nakba Day. It is traditionally observed as an important day of remembrance.[111]
See also:
* Arab diaspora
* 1948 Palestine war
* 1947-48 Palestinian civil war
* 1948 Arab-Israeli war
* 1967 Palestinian exodus
* Eilaboun massacre
* Ethnic cleansing
* History of Palestine#Post-Mandate
* Land and Property laws in Israel
* List of villages depopulated during the Arab-Israeli conflict
* New Historians
* Palestinian diaspora
* Palestinian infiltration
* Palestinian refugee
* Palestinian Chilean
* Palestinian Exodus 1949 to 1956
* Plan Dalet
* Prevention of Infiltration Law
* Expulsion of Germans after World War II (contemporary “exodus”, executed 1944 – 1950)
* Ilan Pappe
Palestinian flag Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestine war:
District of Acre: al-Amqa · Arab al-Samniyya · al-Bassa · al-Birwa · al-Damun · Dayr al-Qassi · al-Ghabisiyya · Iqrit · Iribbin, Khirbat · Jiddin, Khirbat · al-Kabri · Kafr ‘Inan · Kuwaykat · al-Manshiyya · al-Mansura · Mi’ar · al-Nabi Rubin · al-Nahr · al-Ruways · Suhmata · al-Sumayriyya · Suruh · al-Tall · Tarbikha · Umm al-Faraj · al-Zee
District of Baysan: Arab al-’Arida · Arab al-Bawati · Arab al-Safa · al-Ashrafiyya · al-Bira · Danna · Farwana · al-Fatur · al-Ghazzawiyya · al-Hamidiyya · al-Hamra · Jabbul · Kafra · Kawkab al-Hawa · al-Khunayzir · Masil al-Jizl · al-Murassas · Qumya · al-Sakhina · al-Samiriyya · Sirin · Tall al-Shawk · al-Taqa, Khirbat · al-Tira · Umm ‘Ajra · Umm Sabuna, Khirbat · Yubla · Zab’a · al-Zawiya, Khirbat
District of Beersheba:
al-Imara · al-Jammama · al-Khalasa
District of Gaza:
Arab Suqrir · Barbara · Barqa · al-Batani al-Gharbi · al-Batani al-Sharqi · Beit Daras · Bayt ‘Affa · Bayt Jirja · Bayt Tima · Bil’in · Burayr · Dayr Sunayd · Dimra · al-Faluja · Hamama · Hatta · Hiribya · Huj · Hulayqat · Ibdis · Iraq al-Manshiyya · Iraq Suwaydan · Isdud · al-Jaladiyya · al-Jiyya · Julis · al-Jura · Jusayr · Karatiyya · Kawfakha · Kawkaba · al-Khisas · al-Masmiyya al-Kabira · al-Masmiyya al-Saghira · al-Muharraqa · Najd · Ni’ilya · Qastina · al-Sawafir al-Gharbiyya · al-Sawafir al-Shamaliyya · al-Sawafir al-Sharqiyya · Simsim · Summil · Tall al-Turmus · Yasur
District of Haifa:
Abu Shusha · Abu Zurayq · Arab al-Fuqara · Arab al-Nufay’at · Arab Zahrat al-Dumayri · Ayn Ghazal · Ayn Hawd · Balad al-Shaykh · Barrat Qisarya · Burayka · al-Burj, Khirbat · al-Butaymat · Daliyat al-Rawha’ · al-Dumun, Khirbat · al-Ghubayya al-Fawqa · al-Ghubayya al-Tahta · Hawsha · Ijzim · Jaba’ · al-Jalama · Kabara · al-Kafrayn · Kafr Lam · al-Kasayir, Khirbat · Khubbayza · Lid, Khirbat · al-Manara, Khirbat · al-Mansi · al-Mansura, Khirbat · al-Mazar · Naghnaghiya · Qannir · Qira · Qisarya · Qumbaza · al-Rihaniyya · Sabbarin · al-Sarafand · al-Sarkas, Khirbat · Sa’sa’, Khirbat · al-Sawamir · al-Shuna, Khirbat · al-Sindiyana · al-Tantura · al-Tira · Umm al-Shawf · Umm al-Zinat · Wa’arat al-Sarris · Wadi Ara (village) · Yajur
District of Hebron:
Ajjur · Barqusya · Bayt Jibrin · Bayt Nattif · al-Dawayima · Dayr al-Dubban · Dayr Nakhkhas · Kudna · Mughallis · al-Qris Horkins · al-Qubayba · Ra’na · Tall al-Safi · Umm Burj, Khirbat · az-Zakariyya · Zayta
District of Jaffa:
al-’Abbasiyya · Abu Kishk · Bayt Dajan · Biyar ‘Adas · Fajja · al-Haram · Ijlil al-Qibliyya · Ijlil al-Shamaliyya · al-Jammasin al-Gharbi · al-Jammasin al-Sharqi · Jarisha · Kafr ‘Ana · al-Khayriyya · al-Mas’udiyya · al-Mirr · al-Muwaylih · Rantiya · al-Safiriyya · Salama · Saqiya · al-Sawalima · al-Shaykh Muwannis · Yazur
District of Jerusalem:
Allar · Aqqur · Artuf · Bayt ‘Itab · Bayt Mahsir · Bayt Naqquba · Bayt Thul · Bayt Umm al-Mays · al-Burayj · Colonia · Dayr Aban · Dayr ‘Amr · Dayr al-Hawa · Dayr Rafat · Dayr al-Shaykh · Deir Yassin · Ein Karim · Ishwa · Islin · Ism Allah, Khirbat · Jarash · al-Jura (Jerusalem) · Kasla · al-Lawz, Khirbat · Lifta · al-Maliha · Nitaf · al-Qabu · al-Qastal · Ras Abu ‘Ammar · Sar’a · Saris · Sataf · Sheikh Badr · Suba · Sufla · al-Tannur, Khirbat · al-’Umur, Khirbat · al-Walaja
District of Jenin:
Ayn al-Mansi · al-Jawfa, Khirbat · al-Lajjun · al-Mazar · Nuris · Zir’in
District of Nazareth:
Indur · Ma’lul · al-Mujaydil · Saffuriyya
District of Ramla:
Abu al-Fadl · Abu Shusha · Ajanjul · Aqir · Barfiliya · al-Barriyya · Bashshit · Bayt Far, Khirbat · Bayt Jiz · Bayt Nabala · Bayt Shanna · Bayt Susin · Bir Ma’in · Bir Salim · al-Burj · al-Buwayra, Khirbat · Daniyal · Dayr Abu Salama · Dayr Ayyub · Dayr Muhaysin · Dayr Tarif · al-Duhayriyya, Khirbat · al-Haditha · Idnibba · Innaba · Jilya · Jimzu · Kharruba · al-Khayma · Khulda · al-Kunayyisa · al-Latrun · al-Maghar · Majdal Yaba · al-Mansura, Ramla · al-Mukhayzin · al-Muzayri’a · al-Na’ani · an-Nabi Rubin · Qatra · Qazaza · al-Qubab · al-Qubayba, Ramla · Qula · Sajad · Salbit · Sarafand al-’Amar · Sarafand al-Kharab · Saydun · Shahma · Shilta · al-Tina · al-Tira · Umm Kalkha · Wadi Hunayn · Yibna · Zakariyya, Khirbat · Zarnuqa
District of Safad:
Abil al-Qamh · al-’Abisiyya · Alma · Ammuqa · Arab al-Shamalina · Arab al-Zubayd · Ayn al-Zaytun · Baysamun · Biriyya · al-Butayha · al-Buwayziyya · Dallata · al-Dawwara · Dayshum · al-Dirbashiyya · al-Dirdara · Fara · al-Farradiyya · Fir’im · Ghabbatiyya · Ghuraba · al-Hamra’ · Harrawi · Hunin · al-Husayniyya · Jahula · al-Ja’una · Jubb Yusuf · Kafr Bir’im · al-Khalisa · Khan al-Duwayr · Karraza, Khirbat · al-Khisas · Khiyam al-Walid · Kirad al-Baqqara · Kirad al-Ghannama · Lazzaza · Madahil · al-Malikiyya · Mallaha · al-Manshiyya · al-Mansura, Safad · Mansurat al-Khayt · Marus · Mirun · al-Muftakhira · Mughr al-Khayt · al-Muntar, Khirbat · al-Nabi Yusha’ · al-Na’ima · Qabba’a · Qadas · Qaddita · Qaytiyya · al-Qudayriyya · al-Ras al-Ahmar · Sabalan · Safsaf · Saliha · al-Salihiyya · al-Sammu’i · al-Sanbariyya · Sa’sa’ · al-Shawka al-Tahta · al-Shuna · Taytaba · Tulayl · al-’Ulmaniyya · al-’Urayfiyya · al-Wayziyya · Yarda · al-Zahiriyya al-Tahta · al-Zanghariyya · al-Zawiya · al-Zuq al-Fawqani · al-Zuq al-Tahtani
District of Tiberias:
Awlam · al-Dalhamiyya · Ghuwayr Abu Shusha · Hadatha · al-Hamma, Tiberias · Hittin · Kafr Sabt · Lubya · Ma’dhar · al-Majdal (Tiberias) · al-Manara · al-Manshiyya · al-Mansura, Tiberias · Nasir al-Din · Nimrin · al-Nuqayb · Samakh · al-Samakiyya · al-Samra · al-Shajara · al-Tabigha · al-’Ubaydiyya · al-Wa’ra al-Sawda’, Khirbat · Yaquq
District of Tulkarm :
Bayt Lid, Khirbat · Bayyarat Hannun · Fardisya · Ghabat Kafr Sur · al-Jalama, Tulkarm · Kafr Saba · al-Majdal, Khirbat · al-Manshiyya · Miska · Qaqun · Raml Zayta · Tabsur · Umm Khalid · Wadi al-Hawarith · Wadi Qabbani · al-Zababida, Khirbat · Zalafa, Khirbat
Notes:
1. ^ Ha’aretz 13 May 2008 Palestinian refugees, Israeli left-wingers mark Nakba By Yoav Stern
2. ^ Badil Nakba 60
3. ^ A History of the Modern Middle East by William L. Cleaveland, 2004, p. 270 The term “Nakba” emerged after an influential Arab commentary on the self-examination of the social and political bases of Arab life in the wake of the 1948 War by Constantine Zureiq. (Prior to that, the term had more commonly referred to the 1920 Battle of Maysalun, in which France invaded Syria and deposed Arab Revolt leader King Faisal I.) The term became quite popular and widespread that it made the term “disaster” synonymous with the Arab defeat in that war.
4. ^ a b United Nations General Assembly (1951-08-23). “General Progress Report and Supplementary Report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine” (OpenDocument). Retrieved on 2007-05-03.
5. ^ UNRWA Doc. UNRWA estimate 4.25 Millions in 2005
6. ^ Erskine Childers, ‘The Other Exodus’, The Spectator, May 12, 1961 reprinted in Walter Laqueur (ed.) The Israel-Arab Reader: A Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict,(1969) rev.ed.Pelican Books 1970 pp.179-188 p.183
7. ^ Institute of Palestinian Studies Khalidi, Walid “Plan Dalet Revisited: Master Plan for the Conquest of Palestine” in Journal of Palestinian Studies Vol 18 no. 1, (Aut. 88): 3-37. Republish article from the early 1960s
8. ^ Institute of Palestinian StudiesKhalidi, Walid “Why did the Palestinians Leave, Revisited” in Journal of Palestinian Studies Vol 134, no. 2 (Win. 05): 42-54
9. ^ Institute for Palestinian StudiesCorrespondence between Erskine Childers, Walid Khalidi, Jon Kimche, Hedley V Cooke, David Cairns and Edward Atiyah
10. ^ Eugene L Rogan and Avi Shlaim 2007 p. 38
11. ^ B. Morris 2004 pp.5-7,pp.38-64,pp.462-587
12. ^ a b B. Morris, ‘Response to Finkelstein and Masalha’, J. Palestine Studies 21(1), p. 98-114
13. ^ Ilan Pappe (2007)
14. ^ Morris, 2004, p. 90-99
15. ^ Morris, 2004, p. 65
16. ^ Flapan, 1987, p. 95; also quoted by Finkelstein, 1995, p. 82
17. ^ Morris, (2004), p. 76
18. ^ Morris, (2004) p. 76, 125
19. ^ Morris, (2004) p. 66
20. ^ (Gelber, p. 75)
21. ^ (Gelber, p. 76)
22. ^ (Gelber, p. 79)
23. ^ Morris, 2004, pp. 99-125
24. ^ Morris, 2004, p. 138
25. ^ a b c Ilan Pappé, 2006, p. 82
26. ^ Morris, 2004, p. 67
27. ^ (Glazer, p.104)
28. ^ Morris, 2004, p. 134
29. ^ Morris, 2004, p. 137, quoting Haganah Archive (HA) 105\257)
30. ^ Morris, 2004, pp. 68-86
31. ^ Morris, 2004, p. 75
32. ^ Morris, 2004, p. 76
33. ^ Morris, 2004, p. 130
34. ^ Morris, 2004, p.125
35. ^ Ilan Pappé, 2006, p. 55
36. ^ Ilan Pappé, 2006, p. 73
37. ^ Pappé, 2006, p. 56
38. ^ Ilan Pappé, 2006, p. 60
39. ^ Pappé, 2006, p. 63
40. ^ Morris, 2004 p. 86
41. ^ Morris, 2004, p. 87
42. ^ Morris, 2004, p.75
43. ^ Morris, 2004, pp. 138, 139
44. ^ Glazer 1980, p.109
45. ^ UN Progress Report, September 16, 1948, Part 1 Section V, paragraph 6; Part 3 Section I, paragraph 1 to 3;. According to Glazer, this observation by Count Folke Bernadotte is frequently cited not only as an example of descriptions of panic, but also as evidence that the Zionists pursued a policy of expulsion.
46. ^ UN Doc. a/648 Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine Submitted to the Secretary-General for Transmission to the Members of the United Nations Part 1 Section V para 6. It is not yet known what the policy of the Provisional Government of Israel with regard to the return of Arab refugees will be when the final terms of settlement are reached. It is, however, undeniable that no settlement can be just and complete if recognition is not accorded to the right of the Arab refugee to return to the home from which he has been dislodged by the hazards and strategy of the armed conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine. The majority of these refugees have come from territory which, under the Assembly resolution of 29 November, was to be included in the Jewish State. The exodus of Palestinian Arabs resulted from panic created by fighting in their communities, by rumours concerning real or alleged acts of terrorism, or expulsion. It would be an offence against the principles of elemental justice if these innocent victims of the conflict were denied the right to return to their homes while Jewish immigrants flow into Palestine, and, indeed, at least offer the threat of permanent replacement of the Arab refugees who have been rooted in the land for centuries.
47. ^ “Survival of the Fittest”Avi Shavit Interview with Benny Morris – 01.11.04
48. ^ Eugene L. Rogan and Avi Shlaim 2007 p. 38
49. ^ Howard M. Sachar. A History of Israel from the Rise of Zionism to Our Time. Published by Alfred A. Knopf. New York. 1976. p. 332. ISBN 0-394-48564-5
50. ^ Morris 2004, p. 264
51. ^ Nakbat Haifa: Collapse and Dispersion of a Major Palestinian Community, E. Karsh, Middle Eastern Studies, Volume 37, Number 4/October 01, 2001
52. ^ British Police Report: Arab Flight From Haifa
53. ^ Situation in Haifa. Report by John Fletcher-Cooke to UN Secretary-General 22nd April 1948.
54. ^ Erskine Childers, Walid Khalidi, and Jon Kimche 1961 Correspondence in The Spectator on “Why the Refugees Left” [Originally Appendix E of Khalidi, Walid, “Plan Dalet Revisited: Master Plan for the Conquest of Palestine” in 18 no. 1, (Aut. 88): 51-70.
55. ^ Morris, 2004, pp. 191, 200
56. ^ Ilan Pappé, 2006, p. 96
57. ^ ‘British Proclamation In Haifa Making Evacuation Secure’, The Times, Thursday, April 22, 1948; pg. 4; Issue 51052; col D
58. ^ Morris 2004, pp. 191, 192
59. ^ Morris 2004, pp. 209-211
60. ^ Avnery, Uri (1971): Israel Without Zionism: A Plan for Peace in the Middle East. New York: Collier Books, pp.224-25.
61. ^ O’Ballance, Edgar (1956) pp. 147, 172.
62. ^ Benny Morris (2004) p.246; Summary meeting of the Arab Affairs Advisor in Netanya 9 May 1948 IDF 6127/49//109
63. ^ Ilan Pappé (2006) p. 128.
64. ^ Benny Morris (2004) p. 247 unsigned short report on Tantura Operation, IDFA 922/75//949, and ya’akov B.’, in the name of the deputy OC ‘A’ company ‘Report on Operation Namal’ 26 May 1948, IDFA 6647/49//13.
65. ^ Benny Morris (2004). Shitrit to Ben-Gurion 31 May 1948 ISA MAM 302/48.
66. ^ Kapeliouk, Amnon (1987): New Light on the Israeli-Arab Conflict and the Refugee Problem and Its Origins, p.21. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 16, No. 3. (Spring, 1987), pp. 16-24.
67. ^ Review by Dominique Vidal in Le Monde Diplomatique
68. ^ Morris, Benny (1986): What Happened in History. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 15, No. 4. (Summer, 1986), pp. 181-182.
69. ^ Morris 2006, p. 262
70. ^ Quoted in Mark Tessler’s A History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict: Keesing’s Contemporary Archives (London: Keesing’s Publications, 1948-1973). p. 10101.
71. ^ Oren, Elhanan (1976): On the Way to the City. Hebrew, Tel Aviv.
72. ^ Ibid.
73. ^ Peretz Kidron interview with Ben Dunkelman, Haolam Hazeh, 9 January 1980.
74. ^ Kidron, Peretz (1988). Truth Whereby Nations Live. In Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens (Eds.). Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question Verso. ISBN 1-85984-340-9, p. 87.
75. ^ Ari Shavit – Survival Of The Fittest? An Interview With Benny Morris: Logos Winter 2004
76. ^ (Morris, 2004, p. 448)
77. ^ Morris, 2004, p. 490
78. ^ UN Doc. PAL/370 UN Press Release dated 6 November 1948
79. ^ Morris (2004), p. 492
80. ^ Ilan Pappe (Spring 2006). “Calling a Spade a Spade: The 1948 Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” (HTML). Retrieved on 2007-05-03.
81. ^ UN Doc A/648 Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine Submitted to the Secretary-General for Transmission to the Members of the United Nations see part 1 section V para 6
82. ^ Bowker, 2003, pp. 97-98.
83. ^ “United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194″. United Nations General Assembly (December 11, 1948). Retrieved on 2007-05-24.
84. ^ Morris 2006, p. 578
85. ^ Nadav Safran, Israel: The Embattled Ally, Harvard University Press, p 336.
86. ^ Morris 2006, p. 580
87. ^ Erskine Childers, ‘The Other Exodus’, The Spectator, May 12, 1961 reprinted in Walter Laqueur (ed.) The Israel-Arab Reader: A Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict,(1969) rev.ed.Pelican Books 1970 pp.179-188 p.183
88. ^ Reported by Philip Mendes, A historical controversy: the causes of the Palestinian refugee problem; retrieved from the Australian Jewish Democratic Society website on 1 November 2007.
89. ^ Reported by Philip Mendes, A historical controversy : the causes of the Palestinian refugee problem; retrieved from the Australian Jewish Democratic Society website on 1 November 2007.
90. ^ B. Morris, 2004 pp.5-7,pp.38-64,pp.462-587
91. ^ Khalidi, Walid (1961).
92. ^ Ilan. Pappé, (2006)
93. ^ Ruling Palestine, A History of the Legally Sanctioned Jewish-Israeli Seizure of Land and Housing in Palestine. Publishers: COHRE & BADIL, May 2005, p. 34.
94. ^ Ruling Palestine, A History of the Legally Sanctioned Jewish-Israeli Seizure of Land and Housing in Palestine. Publishers: COHRE & BADIL, May 2005, p. 35.
95. ^ Saleh, Abdul Jawad and Walid Mustafa (1987): p.30.
96. ^ Abu Sitta, Salman (2001).
97. ^ http://www.un.org/unrwa/publications/pdf/rr_countryandarea.pdf Refugees Per Country & Area; 2005
98. ^ Who is a Palestine Refugee? UNRWA ‘s operational definition
99. ^ Assistance To Palestine Refugees UN Doc A/1905Report of the Director of the UNRWA, 28 September 1951
100. ^ (Bowker, 2003, pp. 61-62)
101. ^ Jiryis, Sabri (1981): Domination by the Law. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 11, No. 1, 10th Anniversary Issue: Palestinians under Occupation. (Autumn, 1981), pp. 67-92.
102. ^ a b Kirshbaum, David A. Israeli Emergency Regulations and The Defense (Emergency) Regulations of 1945. Israel Law Resource Center, February, 2007.
103. ^ Ruling Palestine, A History of the Legally Sanctioned Jewish-Israeli Seizure of Land and Housing in Palestine Publishers: COHRE & BADIL, May 2005, p. 37.
104. ^ geocities.comIsraeli Emergency Regulations & The Defense (Emergency) Regulations of 1945 by David A. Kirshbaum
105. ^ Absentees’ Property Law (1950)
106. ^ See article 37 Absentees’ Property Law 5710-1950
107. ^ Ruling Palestine, A History of the Legally Sanctioned Jewish-Israeli Seizure of Land and Housing in Palestine. Publishers: COHRE & BADIL, May 2005, p. 41.
108. ^ Peretz, (1958)
109. ^ Prescription Law (1958)
110. ^ Plaut, Steven “How ‘Nakba’ Proves There’s No Palestinian Nation” Jewish Press 4/30/2008
111. ^ a b (Bowker, 2003, p. 96)
112. ^ http://www.i-p-o.org/palestine-ashrawi.htm
Bibliography
* Abu Sitta, Salman (2001): From Refugees to Citizens at Home. London: Palestine Land Society and Palestinian Return Centre, 2001
* Arzt, Donna E. (1997). Refugees into Citizens: Palestinians and the End of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Council on Foreign Relations. ISBN 0-87609-194-X
* Atiyah, Edward Selim, (1958) The Arabs, London, Penguin Books,
* Beit-Hallahmi, Benny (1993). Original Sins: Reflections on the History of Zionism and Israel. Oliver Branch Press. ISBN 1-56656-131-0
* Benvenisti, Meron (2002) Sacred Landscape. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-23422-7
* Bowker, Robert (2003). Palestinian Refugees: Mythology, Identity, and the Search for Peace. Lynne Rienner Publishers. ISBN 1-58826-202-2
* Cleveland, William L. “A History of the Modern Middle East” Westview Press; Third Edition (July 22, 2004) ISBN-10: 0813340489 ISBN-13: 978-0813340487
* Dershowitz, Alan (2003). The Case for Israel. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0-471-67962-6.
* Finkelstein, Norman (2003). Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, 2nd Ed. Verso. ISBN 1-85984-442-1
* Fischbach, Michael R. (2003). Records of Dispossession: Palestinian Refugee Property and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-12978-5
* Flapan, Simha (1987) “The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities” Published by Pantheon ISBN 039455888X ISBN 978-0394558882
* Gelber, Yoav (2006). Palestine 1948. War, Escape and the Emergence of the Palestinian Refugee Problem. Sussex Acadam Press. ISBN 1-84519-075-0.
* Glazer, Steven (1980): The Palestinian Exodus in 1948. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 9, No. 4. (Summer, 1980), pp. 96-118.
* Kanaaneh, Rhoda A. (2002). Birthing the Nation: Strategies of Palestinian Women in Israel. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-22944-4.
* Kapeliouk, Amnon (1987): New Light on the Israeli-Arab Conflict and the Refugee Problem and Its Origins. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 16, No. 3. (Spring, 1987), pp. 16-24.
* Katz, Shmuel (1973) Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine Shapolsky Pub; ISBN 0-933503-03-2
* Khalidi, Walid (1959). Why Did the Palestinians Leave? Middle East Forum, July 1959. Reprinted as ‘Why Did the Palestinians Leave Revisited’, 2005, Journal of Palestine Studies, XXXIV, No. 2., pp. 42-54.
* Khalidi, Walid (1961). Plan Dalet, Master Plan for the Conquest of Palestine. Middle East Forum, November 1961.
* Lehn, Walter & Davis, Uri (1988). The Jewish National Fund. London : Kegan Paul.
* Milstein Uri (1998) “History Of Israel’s War Of Independence”, Vol III. 1998 (English). University Press of America ISBN-10: 0761807691 ISBN-13: 978-0761807698.
* Morris, Benny (2001). Revisiting the Palestinian exodus of 1948. In The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948 (pp. 37-59). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-79476-5
* Morris, Benny (2004). The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-00967-7
* Masalha, Nur (1992). Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought, 1882-1948. Beirut: Institute for Palestine Studies. ISBN 0-88728-235-0
* Nur Masalha (2003). The Politics of Denial: Israel and the Palestinian Refugee Problem. London, Pluto Press.
* O’Ballance, Edgar (1956): The Arab-Israeli War 1948. London: Faber and Faber,
* Pappé, Ilan (2006). The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Oxford: One World Books. (2006) ISBN 1-85168-467-0
* Pappé Ilan (1992) “The Making of the Arab Israeli Conflict 1947-1951″ Published by I B Tauris ISBN 1-85043-819-6
* Peretz, Don (1958). Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. Washington: Middle East Institute.
* Plascov, Avi (1981). Palestinian Refugees in Jordan, 1948-1957. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-7146-3120-5
* Quigley, John B. (2005). The Case For Palestine: An International Law Perspective. Duke University Press. ISBN 0-8223-3539-5
* Rogan, Eugene L., & Shlaim, Avi (Eds.). (2001). The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-79476-5
* Rogan, Eugene L., & Shlaim, Avi (Eds.). (2007). The War for Palestine” 2nd Edition Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ISBN 978-0-521-87598
* Sa’di, Ahmad H. & Abu-Lughod, Lila (Eds.). (2007). Nakba: Palestine, 1948, and the Claims of Memory.Published Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-2311-3579-3
* Safran, Nadav Israel: The Embattled Ally, Harvard University Press,
* Saleh, Abdul Jawad and Walid Mustafa (1987): Palestine: The Collective Destruction of Palestinian Villages and Zionist Colonisation 1882-1982. London: Jerusalem Centre for Development Studies
* Schechtman, Joseph B (1963) The Refugees In the World (New York,)
* Schulz, Helena L. (2003). The Palestinian Diaspora. Published London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-26821-4
* Segev Tom (1998) “1949 the first Israelis” published Henry Holt and Company ISBN 978-0-8050-5896-3 ISBN 0-8050-5896-6
* Sternhell, Zeev (1999). The Founding Myths of Israel: Nationalism, Socialism, and the Making of the Jewish State. Published Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-00967-8









