Total Immersion Education in New Zealand
March 1, 2009 by Russell Means Freedom
Filed under News
Te Wharekura o Rakaumangamanga:
The Development of an Indigenous Language Immersion School
Barbara Harrison University of Waikato
Abstract
In the early 1980s, the Maori people of New Zealand began a dynamic language revitalization movement. The establishment of Maori immersion programs in state funded schools constituted one major aspect of the movement. This article describes the development of the Maori language immersion program in one New Zealand school for children ages 5 to 17. In 1985, the first immersion classroom of 5-year-olds was established. Immersion classrooms were added year by year as the first class of children progressed through primary school, junior high, and high school. The first class completed the final year of high school in 1997, and students entered polytechnics or university programs in 1998. The article briefly summarizes the historical background, cultural context, and program of the school. Indicators of school performance, including student achievement on national examinations, are considered. The findings are examined in terms of a selection of the research and theoretical literature. This case study has implications for researchers and educators who are working in indigenous language schooling and for those who are interested in theoretical explanations relating to the success or failure of minority students in school.
In 1984, New Zealand’s national Department of Education granted permission to a primary school in Huntly in the Waikato region of the country to establish Maori language immersion programs. When Rakaumanga School was re-designated as a bilingual school in July 1984, an outside observer might have had many reasons for pessimism about the future of the school.
Nearly all of the 180 children, ages 5 to 12, were Maori, and the socioeconomic level of the community would later be classified as “1” on a scale of 1-10, where 1 was the lowest level. The first language of nearly all the children was English. There were almost no teaching resources available in Maori and no formal Maori curricula. No funding was available specifically to support Maori language instruction. There were few courses at teacher training institutions for Maori teachers, and there were too few certified teachers fluent in Maori to meet the national demand. The school had no computers or staff who were competent in the use of computers, and the buildings and furnishings were overcrowded and in dire need of refurbishment.
No high school in the country offered a secondary program in Maori to meet the needs of students who might emerge from bilingual primary schools such as Rakaumanga. Parents 104 Bilingual Research Journal, 22:2, 3, & 4 Spring, Summer, & Fall 1998 and other members of the local community had limited roles in the management of the school through the School Committee and the PTA. By the end of 1997, however, the first group of six students had completed the 7th Form (the final year of high school) at Te Wharekura o Rakaumangamanga. (For convenience, the school is commonly referred to simply as “Rakaumanga”.) With the exception of English transition classes, these students had completed their entire school program in Maori immersion classrooms. All six entered polytechnics or university programs in 1998. Younger students at the school were demonstrating their achievements with good scores on the national School Certificate and Bursary examinations, and the Education Review Office had issued glowing reports based on their reviews.
The author visited the school in 1986/87 and completed a research paper using standard methods of participant observation, interviews, and reviews of historical and other documentary data (Harrison, 1987). She then became a permanent resident of the Waahi community, participating in several educational programs and countless community events over the following decade. She continued her association with Rakaumanga, serving as minutes secretary to the trustees and attending numerous meetings and events within the school. She utilized her extensive field notes, minutes, other documentation, and interviews to complete this article in consultation with members of the school staff and trustees.
Background
A Brief History of the Waikato Tribe Ogbu (1978) and Barrington (1991) provided international audiences with concise histories of contact between Europeans and Maori, the indigenous people of New Zealand. Their descriptions included general histories of Maori schooling in the 19th and 20th centuries. Each of them pointed out the similarities between the impact of colonization on Native Americans and on Maori in New Zealand. They concluded that Maori school underachievement was related to New Zealand’s history of conquest, colonization, and indigenous subordination in much the same way that similar factors have contributed to underachievement of involuntary minorities in the United States.
As a rule, Maori do not see themselves as a single ethnic group but rather as members of more than 60 distinct tribes. The generic term is commonly used when it is necessary or convenient to refer to the indigenous people as a whole, but each tribe sees its particular history as important.
The history of the Waikato tribe in the 19th and 20th centuries is of particular importance to this case study because Rakaumanga is located within the tribe’s territory, the majority of the school’s children are affiliated to this tribe, and specific traditional and historical conditions continue to influence the school and its program today. In 1858, tribes from around New Zealand selected the Waikato chief, Potatau Te Wherowhero, as King. The political and spiritual movement Indigenous Language Immersion 105 surrounding the King’s selection became known as the King Movement.
Te Wherowhero died in 1860 and was succeeded by his son Tawhiao who became the second Maori King. King Tawhiao’s descendant, Te Arikinui Dame Te Atairangikaahu, was crowned as Queen in 1967, and she continued to serve as paramount leader of the King Movement at the time of this writing. British and settler armies invaded the Waikato region of New Zealand in 1863, driving the Maori King Tawhiao and his people into exile in a neighboring region of the country for more than 20 years.
Tawhiao and other members of the tribe returned to the region in the 1880s, but the government had confiscated 1.2 million acres of their land leaving only small parcels in Maori ownership. Because of the loss of its economic base, the tribe suffered terribly from poverty and disease through the remainder of the 19th century and through much of the 20th century. However, almost as soon as the wars of the 1860s ended, Tawhiao and his descendants began to negotiate with the government for the return of the tribe’s ancestral land (McCan, 1993). These negotiations continued into the 1990s and resulted in a major settlement in 1995. The remembrance of the land confiscation, the effects of the loss of the economic base, and the settlement negotiations were significant dimensions of the social and political context for Rakaumanga and its community during the development of the school’s immersion program.
The Community Huntly was a town of about 7,000 on the Waikato River, just south of Auckland, New Zealand’s largest metropolis. The town’s population was more than half Maori. The river divided the town into Huntly East and Huntly West. Rakaumanga was in Huntly West within walking distance of Waahi Marae and the Maori community surrounding the marae. (A marae can be briefly defined as a Maori community center.) Waahi was the home marae of the Maori Queen Te Arikinui Dame Te Atairangikaahu and her immediate family, including her brother, Professor Sir Robert Mahuta.
As Director of the Centre for Maaori Studies and Research at the University of Waikato in nearby Hamilton, Professor Mahuta encouraged a number of researchers to investigate various aspects of the community of Waahi so a number of reports are available about the community (Centre for Maaori Studies and Research, 1984; Egan & Mahuta, 1983; Mahuta & Egan, 1981; Shear- Wood, 1982; Stokes, 1977, 1978). A brief summary is given here.
The main township of Huntly East developed in the late 19th century because of the coal mines in the vicinity and because the railroad and main highway from Auckland passed along the east side of the Waikato River through the township. Maori residence in the vicinity dates from pre-contact times but was interrupted when the tribe was driven out of the Waikato region by the British and settler army in 1863-64. King Tawhiao’s people returned to the area in the late 19th century, and Waahi and its community have served as an important center of the King Movement throughout the 20th century. The 106 Bilingual Research Journal, 22:2, 3, & 4 Spring, Summer, & Fall 1998 King Movement, its history, ideology, spirituality, ceremonies, and other events were central to life in the Waahi community.
During the 20th century, Maori in and around Huntly West became farmers, coal miners, slaughterhouse workers, laborers, and tradesmen. In the 1970s, the New Zealand government decided to build a massive coal-fired power station on the west side of the river, immediately adjacent to Waahi Marae. This necessitated the relocation of Rakaumanga from a position north of Waahi to one south of the marae. It also set in motion political activity by Professor Mahuta and the Waahi community, which led to compensation from the government, the rebuilding of the marae, and continuing programs of small-scale economic and political development for the community.
By the late 1980s, development activity began to focus on negotiating a settlement with the government over the longstanding grievance regarding the confiscation of more than 1 million acres of Waikato land in the 1860s. The negotiations formally began in 1989 and continued until 1995. Professor Mahuta led the negotiations as principal negotiator for the Tainui Maaori Trust Board. (The Trust Board was the legally recognized authority of the local Waikato tribe.) The negotiations seemed to be important to everyone in the community. They were a constant topic of discussion. In the early stages, the tribe had to fund its own legal costs and other activities associated with the negotiations so many members of the community participated in fund-raising activities that contributed to the negotiation process. On one occasion, a train called The Tainui Express was chartered to take several hundred tribal members to Wellington. On arrival in Wellington, passengers participated in an emotional and moving display of tribal loyalty and strength during a march on the Court of Appeals where a case relevant to the negotiations was being heard. The negotiations and surrounding political action contributed to an atmosphere where people believed that positive political action would have positive social consequences.
Schooling, Language Shift, and Revitalization As with other indigenous peoples in European colonies, the introduction of schooling to New Zealand Maori resulted in a shift away from the indigenous language toward the language of the majority society. By the 1980s, most Maori children in New Zealand were learning English as their first language. However, a major language revitalization movement began in the early 1980s. There have been a number of manifestations of this movement. A claim was lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal, the tribunal that considers claims related to the Treaty that was signed in 1840 between Maori chiefs and representatives of the British Crown. This claim was lodged early in 1985 stating that the Maori language was a taonga (treasure) and that the government should enact legislation recognizing Maori as an official language.
The Tribunal’s 1986 finding was unequivocally in favor of the claimants (Benton, 1987, p. 68). Shortly thereafter, a Maori Language Act was passed that established Maori as an official language of New Zealand; the Maori Indigenous Language Immersion 107 Language Commission was established with the stated purpose of undertaking activities to support the maintenance of the Maori language; and the government began to provide financial support for Maori language programs at several different levels of schooling.
These events led to increased demands for Maori speakers to be employed as teachers in schools, in government agencies, in radio and television broadcasting, and in other institutions. Another significant dimension of the revitalization movement was the establishment of Kohanga Reo, the early childhood Maori language “nests”: Te Kohanga Reo programs were initiated in the early 1980s. The language nests are Maori language immersion preschool programs for infants from birth to five years of age. They were initiated in response to the realization that the Maori language was disappearing because children were learning only English, but it was also an attempt to place both the authority and the responsibility for the preschools with local family groups or whanau. (Harrison, 1993, p. 157) By 1994, more than 13,000 Maori children were enrolled in 819 Kohanga Reo programs (Ministry of Education, 1995, p. 38).
Maori educators soon realized that children would quickly lose the Maori they had learned in Kohanga Reo when they entered English-speaking primary schools at age 5. As more and more children entered Kohanga Reo during the 1980s, the pressure to establish Maori language primary school programs intensified. It is important to note that the immersion program at Rakaumanga depended on children entering school at age 5 with a background in Maori language developed during attendance at Kohanga Reo. Without the six local Kohanga Reo sending children on to primary school at Rakaumanga, the immersion program could not have operated as it did. It is also important to note that Rakaumanga was not the only school in New Zealand seeking and gaining permission to teach in Maori. In 1994, the Ministry of Education recognized 28 schools as Kura Kauapa Maori (Maori philosophy schools), and some level of Maori medium instruction was taking place in 379 other schools (Ministry of Education, 1995, p. 40). Although Rakaumanga chose not to seek official status as a Kura Kaupapa, it was part of a general movement within the country toward the provision of Maori immersion or bilingual programs for those families who wanted to send their children to such programs.
Changes in teacher training affected the development of Maori immersion programs. Between 1986 and 1998, the number of Maori students at the University of Waikato increased from 417 to 2634. The number of Maori students in the Teachers College/School of Education grew from 87 to 572. Programs were established to teach the Maori language to Maori students, to train fluent Maori speakers as teachers, and to improve the fluency of certified Maori teachers. Some Maori-speaking teacher trainees were sent to Rakaumanga to complete a portion of their training under the supervision of Rakaumanga’s teachers. Although the University did not provide funding to 108 Bilingual Research Journal, 22:2, 3, & 4 Spring, Summer, & Fall 1998 Rakaumanga to cover the costs involved, this arrangement enhanced opportunities for the school to recruit and train teachers to suit the school’s needs.
It would have been much more difficult for Rakaumanga to establish their immersion program if the new programs to train Maori teachers had not been established at about the same time. Policy changes within the Ministry of Education improved the availability of teaching resources in Maori. A portion of the budget for resource development was set aside for development of resources in Maori including mathematics and science curricula. Although the commercial materials available were still extremely limited, those that were available helped to alleviate the persistent problem for teachers of preparing resources by hand. School Restructuring In 1988, the government issued Administering for Excellence: Effective Administration in Education (Taskforce to Review Education Administration, 1988), and in 1989 restructuring of the school system began in accordance with the recommendations in this report.
From Rakaumanga’s standpoint, the most important changes included the devolution of responsibility for recruiting staff, developing policies, and managing the school’s operating budget to a locally elected Board of Trustees. Basic funding for all schools would be issued on a per pupil basis with supplementary funding for schools in low socioeconomic communities and for Maori language instruction. If a school could attract more students, it would receive more funds for its operating budget. Also, the Education Review Office (ERO) was established to review and evaluate the performance of schools. The ERO included a Maori division charged with bringing a Maori perspective to reviewing activities of schools with a Maori philosophy.
The restructuring helped to establish a context where it was politically possible for Rakaumanga to develop a Maori immersion program, but persistent political activity by the school community with support from the Tainui Maaori Trust Board also contributed to change. Because there were three schools in different regions of the country—Rakaumanga in Huntly, Ruatoki in the rural Tuhoe region near the East Coast, and Hoani Waititi in South Auckland— seeking to expand their Maori immersion programs into the secondary level at about the same time and because of the national emphasis on language revitalization, it was difficult for the Ministry of Education to ignore the political pressure being generated by the Maori community in Huntly.
The School Program
A Community School The school program was anchored in the local community. The complementary roles of the school and community were recurrent themes in the school’s strategic plan, developed in 1993. The Waikato dialect of Maori Indigenous Language Immersion 109 was the dialect of instruction. The curriculum incorporated history, customs, values, and the natural environment of the local community. School activities were closely linked to activities of the King Movement and to activities at local marae. Parents, elders, and other community members were encouraged to visit classrooms, participate as volunteers, join the trustees, engage in fundraising, attend parent-teacher conferences, and chaperone school trips. Fluent Maori speakers from the local community were trained by the school to serve as substitute teachers for one day at a time.
The school’s multipurpose hall served as a community education center where members of the local community were enrolled in informal or university Maori language classes in the evenings. Members of the community were encouraged to enroll in teacher training programs and were expected to return to the school to teach when they had completed the training programs. The principal, Barna Heremia, described his relationship with the community: If I need something to be done, I can call on anyone from Taniwharau Club or Waahi or the other marae. I can ask for anything from a karakia (prayer) to unveil something to a plumber. When they want me or something from the school, they just need to ring. The parent community is more informed now because of the open door nature of the school. Parents have seen the success with the older students and that has added to their confidence.
From the very beginning, it was important for the school to be out in the community. The school cannot survive insulated within its boundaries. The school is there at every major gathering, either the school as a whole or myself. Although there were strong relationships between the school and community, the school made a concerted effort to remain neutral with respect to conflicts between factious in the community. There were a number of conflicts especailly regarding the land claims negotiations and settlement. However, Rakaumanga’s principal, staff, and trustees insisted that differences of opinion be respected and that those differences have minimum impact on the functioning of the school and the education of the children. School Organization In 1985, the first immersion classroom of new entrants (5-year-olds) was established.
There were eight children in the first immersion group but the number later increased to nine when one student transferred from an immersion school in the Auckland region. Class sizes for classes following the initial group have averaged about 28 students, so patterns tested with the small group were later put into practice with larger groups. There were approximately 180 students in the entire school in 1985. As the first group of children grew older, immersion classrooms were added year by year until the primary school reached full immersion in 1992. Then, the school opened new classes at the junior high school level and, in 1995, at the senior school level. Six of the nine children in the initial 1985 classroom completed secondary school in 1997 and 110 Bilingual Research Journal, 22:2, 3, & 4 Spring, Summer, & Fall 1998 continued into polytechnic or university programs. The second class (22 students) was in the final year of high school at the time of this writing. When the school was redesignated as a bilingual school in 1986, the goals of the school were given as follows:
• Acquire sufficient fluency in the Maaori language to assure the maintenance of that language over time.
• Acquire knowledge of and confidence in their heritage to enable them to successfully confront contemporary institutions within New Zealand.
• Acquire appropriate academic skills and knowledge to allow them to succeed at the secondary level and in later life experiences. (Harrison, 1987, p. 21)
In 1993, when a strategic plan was developed, the goals were restated in more expansive language and new goals were added; however, the essential elements did not change (Te Wharekura Kaupapa Maori a Rohe o Rakaumanga, 1993). The strategic plan also stated that the school would operate as one unit for students from age 5 (new entrants) through high school (Form 7). There would be one governing board, one principal, one staff, and one guiding philosophy. Curriculum Organization In 1993, the Ministry of Education established a national curriculum framework for all primary and secondary schools in the country (Ministry of Education, 1993).
The framework defined seven essential learning areas (languages, technology, mathematics, health and well-being, social sciences, art/performing arts, and science) and essential skills for all age levels from age 5 through age 17. The framework was broad enough to allow Rakaumanga to include local perspectives in the essential learning areas so that the Rakaumanga curriculum included local as well as mainstream content. The school made every effort to utilize resources from the local community and the local environment. However, the system of national examinations for students at ages 15 to 17 meant that Rakaumanga students had to take examinations comparable to those taken by other students in New Zealand so mainstream resources-such as a science laboratory–were essential for successful student performance. While the school’s primary focus was on instruction in Maori, it also aimed to promote fluency and literacy in English for its students.
The aim was for all children to become bicultural and bilingual so they could thrive in both Maori and in English environments. The assumption was that because children were living in a predominantly English-speaking country, they would learn English at home, in the community, and through the media. Children began formal instruction in English in English transition classes at about age 10 for 2 hours each week until they finished school. Indigenous Language Immersion 111 Pedagogy The group attending the retreat in 1993 agreed on the following principles of instruction (Te Wharekura Kaupapa Maori a Rohe o Rakaumanga, 1993, p. 4): We believe that the curriculum must be based on a Maori pedagogy.
An holistic approach must be taught through te reo Maori (the Maori language). Teaching must be whanau (family) based and must cater to the individual and to the collective group. The principal described the school’s teaching philosophy: Our program is not just language. It is also Maori knowledge and practices. You cannot teach the language without teaching those other two things and you can’t teach those other two things without the language. You can only understand the term by using it in the proper Maori context… Teacher expectations equal student achievement. All of the teachers believe that their kids can succeed. Teachers see failure as their fault.
Resources Teachers and parents created most of the Maori teaching resources by hand. The Learning Media division of the Ministry of Education provided some Maori teaching resources, but in some cases, teachers and parents created resources by pasting Maori text over the English text in books. The Ministry contracted Maori staff to develop science and mathematics curricula in Maori in the early 1990s. Staffing When Rakaumanga was designated as a “bilingual school” in the mid- 1980s, all staff of the school were Maori but only a small number were fluent speakers of the language. As non-Maori-speaking staff moved on to other positions, fluent Maori speakers were recruited to replace them.
By 1998, all teachers were fluent speakers. Two teachers had been raised in homes where Maori was the only language used. Four others had been raised in homes where Maori was the predominant language. The other teachers had learned Maori as a second language through university study. In 1998, there were 25 certified teachers in the school. Six support staff were paid and six support staff worked voluntarily five days a week, every week that the school was open. There were about six other parents who worked voluntarily a couple of days a week. Four of the teaching staff were members of the Waikato tribe, two were of European descent, and the others were Maori from other tribes. All of the support staff were from the local tribe. The principal described the motivation of the support staff: 112 Bilingual Research Journal, 22:2, 3, & 4 Spring, Summer, & Fall 1998 Over half are from the old Native School.
In the early years, we had to work really hard to change negative feelings about the school with parents. They were from a generation who went through real hard years when the school was suppressing anything Maori, but those same people are the ones that are here and are determined that their mokopuna (grandchildren) would have things they never received when they were here. The principal had a preference for first-or second-year teachers because they were often highly motivated, were eager to prove themselves, and would offer fresh ideas on teaching techniques. If they were carefully supported, he believed they could be productive. He said: With the exception of four teachers, everyone else began here as Year 1 teachers. All of them were part of those groups we helped train. They apply their own techniques about how a piece of learning should be conducted.
There is a curriculum but there is flexibility . . . We capitalize on the individual skills of teachers.
Assessment of School Performance
The Education Review Office The ERO was established in 1990 with the primary responsibility of monitoring and reviewing performance of schools. One section of the ERO was staffed by Maori speakers. This division had responsibility for monitoring performance of schools with Maori philosophies. When conducting a review, the ERO sent a team to visit the school for several days. The team examined written documentation, observed in classrooms, and collected information from staff, members of the trustees, and others. Since 1990, the ERO had conducted both a compliance review and an effectiveness review at Rakaumanga.
The 1997 Effectiveness Review Report summarized their findings: The Wharekura o Rakaumanga provides a high quality educational service to students, whanau and iwi (tribe). Education is centred on holistic needs of all, resulting in the development and achievement of relative outcomes for all. A wharekura community with a shared vision contributes to its effectiveness. The challenge to the wharekura is the retention of this united commitment from all concerned parties, to ensure the kaupapa of the wharekura continues to grow from strength to strength. (Education Review Office, 1997, p. 9) National Examinations In New Zealand, the major measures of academic achievement at the secondary level were scores on national examinations. Students ordinarily took School Indigenous Language Immersion 113 Certificate examinations at age 15 (Form 5).
Students needed to pass the examinations in three subject areas before they could progress to the next grade level. At age 16, students ordinarily took 6th Form Certificate examinations. In the 7th Form (the final year of secondary school), students took Bursary examinations, which determined their eligibility to enter polytechnic or university programs. Rakaumanga’s first concern was with national examinations in Maori. The school negotiated with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to accelerate the examinations in Maori so that students took these exams when they were three years younger than other students. The school believed that because its students were in immersion programs, they would be ready to take the exams three years in advance of other New Zealand students.
By accelerating the Maori examinations, more contact time was available for study in other subjects in the 5th Form year and students would already have passed one School Certificate subject, thus alleviating some of the pressure associated with these examinations which were so crucial to the future of every New Zealand child. The first group of nine students took the School Certificate in Maori at age 12 in 1992. All nine students passed. Six of these students took the 6th Form Certificate Maori in 1993 and Bursary Maori in 1994. All six passed each of these exams.
The same pattern has prevailed for all students in classes following the first small group. All of the students who have taken the examinations at the accelerated times have passed all of the examinations in Maori. In addition, the Maori Language Commission assessed Maori language competence of the students. All 5th, 6th, and 7th Formers from Rakaumanga, Hoani Waititi, and Ruatoki schools participated in Kura Reo Wananga (intensive language courses) with the Language Commission. The chairperson of the commission stated that students had, by the 7th Form, achieved a level comparable with the third year of university study in Maori. Rakaumanga students also took examinations in English, math, science, geography, history, and graphic design at the 5th, 6th, and 7th Form levels. Students had achieved an 80% passing rate in all subject areas except English. The school negotiated with NZQA to offer all the examinations except English and art in Maori at the 5th, 6th, and 7th Form levels.
The process for doing this was very complicated, and, as the result of the complications, the school had sought and obtained accreditation to assess student progress in terms of a new system of “unit standards” in the future. School staff and parents were concerned about the low scores on the English examinations, and the school had requested that the Ministry of Education conduct research to assist them in identifying and solving problems with English achievement. Growth in Student Numbers Another easily calculated measure of success was the growing number of students who enrolled each year. No parent was compelled to send his or her child to Rakaumanga.
A primary school with a predominantly Maori population and a 114 Bilingual Research Journal, 22:2, 3, & 4 Spring, Summer, & Fall 1998 program taught in English was within walking distance of Rakaumanga. Huntly College, the town’s central secondary school with a program taught in English, was also within walking distance. But Rakaumanga’s enrollment expanded from approximately 180 to more than 300 between 1985 and 1997. There was no comparable expansion in the total population of Huntly during this period. Secondary School Retention Nationally, there had been a steady increase in the percentage of Maori students completing 7th Form from less than 5% in 1981 to about 30% 1994. The disparity between Maori and non-Maori persisted, however, with about 16% of Maori receiving a Seventh Form Award in 1994 compared with about 42% of non-Maori (Ministry of Education, 1995, p. 41).
The secondary program at Rakaumanga was too new and the numbers at Rakaumanga were too small for sensible statistical comparisons with other secondary schools in New Zealand. The school was pleased, though, with its retention rate. The principal described it as follows: All of the 22 students started as new entrants (age 5). The stability of the student population is really important, critical. This group was originally 28. Two moved because parents moved. Three girls became pregnant. We tried to have them back but it didn’t work. Four students in the 7th Form have been in special education needs programs since they were 5. They have learning disabilities. They are now 17, turning 18. Kids drop out when they start to struggle.
Those four would have dropped out if they had been at other schools. They are as much a part of Rakaumanga’s success as the ones at university. These four want to go into trades: joiner, engineer, interior decorator, and brick layer. Those four are the only ones who have opted for a career in trades. The other 18 will go on to university or polytechs. Those four are as much a success as anything else. The kids in that class, they love one another. The other 18 care about those four and they show they care. They are patient. For every success, everyone celebrates it.
Other Indicators In 1992, Clive Aspin conducted research at Rakaumanga and used his findings to complete his Master of Arts thesis for Victoria University (Aspin, 1994). Aspin found that students at Rakaumanga who had been taught mathematics in Maori did better on mathematics achievement tests at age 10 than students at a comparable school who had been taught in English. Perhaps the number of researchers who are attracted to a school can also be called a measure of success. Aspin (1994), Harrison (1987), Jefferies (McConnell & Jefferies, 1991), and Tuteao (1998) had completed research at the school. Haupai Puke and Anaru Vercoe were conducting doctoral studies at the school in 1998. Indigenous Language Immersion 115
Discussion
Rakaumanga’s principal was very careful about the claims that were made for the school. He said that Rakaumanga had demonstrated the following: Learning in your own language and learning in your own culture do not in any way disadvantage you in carrying out examinations. The Maori language immersion instruction for children ages 5 through 17 was the school’s most notable characteristic, but the school also provided a notable example of academic achievement for indigenous children.
In the Rakaumanga case, there were a number of factors operating in such a way as to hinder development of the program and success in school for Maori children (cf Ogbu, 1978; Barrington, 1991). These factors included a history of conquest and colonization, negative or unsuccessful experiences in school for several generations of Maori, loss of the indigenous language and the tribal economic base, low socioeconomic status, discrimination in employment, and high unemployment. At the same time, changes in policies and perceptions that occurred during the 1980s and 1990s can be identified that have been advantageous for the development of the immersion program. These changes included the following: Recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi.
The Treaty of Waitangi came to be recognized in the 1980s and 1990s as an agreement for Maori and non-Maori to act in a partnership relationship in all aspects of life. Barrington noted the close relationship between recognition of the Treaty and the educational rights of Maori: Much greater prominence is also now being given to the Treaty of Waitangi, signed in 1840 between the crown and Maori tribes as a basis for the resolution of land claims and as a symbol of the move for greater acknowledgment of the rights of the Maori partner in all areas of New Zealand life including schooling. (Barrington, 1991, p. 309) Recent recognition of the partnership relationships inherent in the Treaty has led to the establishment of bicultural policies in government agencies, universities, and other institutions.
These policies resulted in improved employment prospects for Maori, especially Maori who were fluent in the language, and these policies made it easier for Maori to survive in mainstream institutions. Bicultural policies also resulted in increased program offerings aimed at Maori students at all levels of the educational system, including polytechnics and universities. No one would claim that these policies have solved all the problems associated with colonialism in New Zealand, but most would agree that the policies represented an improvement over assimilationist or integrationist policies of the past. 116 Bilingual Research Journal, 22:2, 3, & 4 Spring, Summer, & Fall 1998 Maori Language Policy An on-going language revitalization movement in combination with political action and increased recognition of the Treaty contributed to the recognition of Maori as an official language of New Zealand.
The national language policy supported the allocation of government funding for Kohanga Reo and other Maori language education programs. Management and Governance Factors in Education The restructuring of the education system, which began in 1989, established local boards of trustees with authority for formulating policies, hiring staff, and managing the operating budget. Local communities throughout the country—mainstream as well as Maori—were empowered.
The Ministry of Education and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority retained authority for many decisions, but local boards of trustees gained authority for decisions that they hadn’t previously enjoyed. The national system of education in New Zealand provided stable funding for all schools based on a per pupil basis. Funding for Rakaumanga increased each year as the student population increased. The school received supplementary funding because of the low socioeconomic status of its student population, and a small amount of funding per pupil to support Maori language instruction. Additional funding supported Maori language instruction by providing positions such as the Resource Teacher of Maori. Teacher Training
The system for training teachers in New Zealand facilitated the entry of Maori teachers into classrooms at Rakaumanga. All teacher trainees spent three years taking courses in teacher training institutions. These courses were primarily on campus, but trainees spent a few weeks in each of the three years working in schools under the supervision of experienced teachers. In the fourth and fifth years of training, teacher trainees worked full-time in schools under the supervision of experienced teachers with additional supervision from staff of the teacher training institution. The trainees received a full-time salary for the fourth and fifth years of training. This system made it possible for Maori teachers to enter classrooms at Rakaumanga on a short-term basis during the first three years of their training. Then, at the beginning of the fourth year, they could become full-time salaried staff of Rakaumanga while they completed their training. New programs specifically for Maori teachers had been established at the universities of Waikato and Auckland as well as at other institutions in the 1980s and 1990s.
The New Zealand primary school principal was viewed as a headmaster rather than as an administrator or manager of the school. Individuals were appointed the position of principal because they were outstanding teachers. They did not have to have formal educational qualifications beyond their Indigenous Language Immersion 117 teaching certification, but, for Rakaumanga, the principal did have to be a fluent speaker of Maori. This system facilitated the recruitment of someone who was Maori for the position of principal. (Fortunately, the principal at Rakaumanga was able to acquire the necessary managerial expertise through on the job experience and training.) Community Factors There were a number of significant factors in the particular community that were indirectly advantageous to the school. There was strong leadership in support of education from Te Arikinui Dame Te Atairangikaahu and Professor Sir Robert Mahuta. Dame Te Ata was a trustee for the national Te Kohanga Reo Trust, and she supported the development of local Kohanga Reo and other language instruction programs.
The land claim settlement negotiations led by Robert Mahuta gave hope to the local tribal community for an improved economic situation and greater autonomy in tribal affairs. The settlement itself provided funding for polytechnic and university scholarships for tribal members and for Kohanga Reo programs in the tribal area. From the early 1990s, Te Arikinui and other highly ranked community members presented the scholarships and educational grants at the annual Coronation celebrations in May. Other community leaders and parents were deeply committed to the establishment of Kohanga Reo and to the immersion program at Rakaumanga. The six Kohanga Reo in the local area were essential in preparing children to enter an immersion program at Rakaumanga. A stable student population at the school was the result of commitment on the part of parents to the goals of the school.
The strong extended family ties within the local Maori community and the national benefit system also contributed to the stability of the student population. Individual Leadership The development of the immersion program at Rakaumanga might never have happened without the leadership of a small group of teachers and parents. This small group was committed to the maintenance and revitalization of the Maori language and to the establishment of a school program that would allow their children to study in Maori. For nearly two decades, this small group was involved in political action and negotiations with the Ministry of Education, which resulted in the development of the school. The principal gave this description: In the early period people would lay their bodies down. A staunch, small number of committed people saw the vision. The biggest number in the community were uncertain or skeptical. Now that has shifted. The bulk of the people share in the realization. The small group are facilitators now. There has been a lessening of fanaticism.
This small group had clearly stated goals and strong individual leadership. Without the leadership of Barna Heremia, a teacher in the school since the 118 Bilingual Research Journal, 22:2, 3, & 4 Spring, Summer, & Fall 1998 1970s and principal since 1990, the program might never have developed. The Chairperson of the Trustees, Taitimu Maipi, was also the Chairperson of the School Committee in the 1980s. Several members of the trustees had been staunch supporters of the immersion program since its establishment. Two teachers, Wiha Malcolm and Shirley Rarere, had been staff of the school since its redesignation as a bilingual school in 1984.
Related Literature
Indigenous Language Schooling The Rakaumanga case has shown that a national language policy can contribute to the maintenance and revitalization of an indigenous language. Benton pointed out that, “The ad hoc nature of language policy formulation in New Zealand has been a feature of the national political culture since the country’s establishment.” However, in recent decades, there has been “. . . the acceptance of the special status of Maori, aided no doubt by perceptions of its symbolic value to a nation in search of a unique identity, and indeed of its potential economic values, but grounded in legal obligations reinforced by politically astute and determined activism” (Benton, 1996, p. 95). The immersion program at Rakaumanga could not have developed as it did without the national Maori language policy.
It was taken for granted in New Zealand at the time of this study that Maori people had the basic human right to use, maintain, and revitalize their traditional language. While the Rakaumanga community had to undertake substantial political action in order to convince the Ministry of Education that they could also use Maori effectively as a medium of instruction for children, New Zealand’s language policy contributed to their ability to win that argument.
Unfortunately, there are no comparable language policies in North America to support the right of indigenous people to develop programs in their own languages. Burnaby described the fragmented schooling situation and its impact on a potential language policy for Aboriginal people in Canada: “The essential characteristic of this picture is that the administration of Aboriginal education is so fragmented geographically and administratively that coordination and cooperation on policy is virtually impossible” (Burnaby, 1996, p. 212). In the United States, the Indian Nations at Risk Task Force recommended in 1992 that “. . . all schools serving Native students will provide opportunities for students to maintain and develop their tribal languages . . .” (Ricento, 1996, p. 144).
However, there are multiple factors that prevent implementation of this recommendation. Holm and Holm (1995, p. 150) reported that they were unable to extend instructional programs in Navajo beyond the fifth grade, and California recently passed an initiative to require “that all children be placed in English language classrooms” (Section 305 of the Initiative Statute: English Language Education for Children in Public Schools). Indigenous Language Immersion 119 The Rakaumanga case suggests that policies should be established which would give Native American communities the flexibility to institute programs of community choice, including programs in Native American languages where such programs are desired. The Rakaumanga case reinforces the importance of programs to prepare indigenous people as teachers and principals for indigenous language schools.
Statements regarding the contribution of indigenous teachers to successful schooling for indigenous children appear repeatedly in the literature (Begay et. al, 1995; Holm & Holm, 1995; Lipka & Ilutsik, 1995). It is clear that the Rakaumanga immersion program could not have operated without the Maori teachers who constituted the majority of its staff, and the school could not have recruited sufficient numbers of Maori teachers without the programs at the University of Waikato designed for Maori teachers. The Rakaumanga case points to the advantages of stable per pupil funding, as opposed to the fluctuating patterns resulting from various political shifts in the United States which caused such disruption at Rough Rock (McCarty, 1989). The Rakaumanga case also reinforces the importance of school structures that empower local communities, especially local communities of indigenous people. Tuteao (1998), a member of the local Waikato tribe, identified empowerment as a major component of the ethos of the school, from the early years of the 20th century when the school was a Native School to the present day. Cummins (1997) and others have also written about the importance of self-determination among minority groups in North America.
New Zealand’s school restructuring in 1989 empowered the Rakaumanga community and facilitated the opportunity for them to develop a program that “worked.” Minorities and School Achievement The Rakaumanga case sheds some light on another strand of research literature focusing on the relationship between involuntary or subordinate minorities and school achievement. In 1978, Ogbu proposed a theoretical explanation for the success or failure of minority students in school. One of the cases he used to support his theory was the case of Maori in New Zealand. In 1991, Barrington developed a more detailed description of the history of relationships between European settlers and Maori, and the history of Maori schooling. Barrington’s description supported Ogbu’s view that Maori school underachievement could be attributed, at least in part, to a history of conquest, colonization, and subordination. Barrington added that school policy changes in recent years had the potential for improving Maori schooling, and the Rakaumanga case has shown that Barrington’s optimism was justified.
The grassroots movements to reclaim the right to teach in Maori which he described have had positive outcomes, at least in the one case described here. 120 Bilingual Research Journal, 22:2, 3, & 4 Spring, Summer, & Fall 1998 Gibson (1991) pointed out that minority groups are dynamic in their adaptations. The cultural models and educational strategies of minority communities are in a constant process of renegotiation. Mobility strategies change as the societal context changes and as the minority group’s situation within a given society itself changes… Educational institutions have become more responsive to the needs of minorities because the minorities themselves have refused to accept the status quo and have demanded that the system uphold their rights and address their needs. (Gibson, 1991, pp. 370-71) Recent publications by Ogbu and Simon also emphasize the dynamics within minority communities and in the relationships between minorities and the larger societies: “Structural barriers and school factors affect minority school performance; however, minorities are also autonomous human beings who actively interpret and respond to their situation.
Minorities are not helpless victims” (Ogbu and Simons, 1998, p. 158). We see from the New Zealand case in general (Barrington, 1991) and the Rakaumanga case in particular that the relationship between Maori and the majority society has been a dynamic relationship with rapid change occurring on all sides in the past 15 years. Indigenous people can change but so can the majority societies and their institutions. In spite of a history of colonization and subordination, interaction between the development of appropriate policies, funding, and “beliefs about or interpretations of schooling” (Ogbu and Simon, 1998, p. 163) in one local community led to improvement in schooling for the community’s children. Rakaumanga has shown that national policy changes and institutional adaptations can create contexts where it is possible for indigenous and other involuntary minority people to establish successful school programs for their children.
Note: My thanks to Harry F. Wolcott, who visited Rakaumanga in November 1997 and then suggested that this article be prepared for publication. Thanks to Barna Heremia, Taitimu Maipi, and an anonymous reviewer who offered helpful comments on earlier versions of the paper.
References
Aspin, S. (1994). A study of mathematics achievement in a kura kaupapa Maori. Wellington, New Zealand: Unpublished Master of Arts in applied linguistics thesis, Victoria University.
Barrington, J. (1991). The New Zealand experience: Maoris. In M. Gibson & J. Ogbu (Eds.), Minority status and schooling: A comparative study of immigrant and involuntary minorities (pp. 309-326). New York: Garland Publishing. Indigenous Language Immersion 121
Begay, S., Dick, G., Estell, D., Estell, J., McCarty, T., & Sells, A. (1995). Change from the inside out: A story of transformation in a Navajo community school. Bilingual Research Journal, 19 (1), 121-140. Benton, R. (1987). From the Treaty of Waitangi to the Waitangi Tribunal. In W. Hirsh (Ed.), Living languages: Bilingualism and community languages in New Zealand (pp. 63-74). Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.
Benton, R. (1996). Language policy in New Zealand: Defining the ineffable. In M. Herriman, & B. Burnaby (Eds.), Language policies in English-dominant countries: Six case studies (pp. 62-98). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Burnaby, B. (1996). Language policies in Canada. In M. Herriman & B. Burnaby (Eds.), Language policies in English-dominant countries: Six case studies (pp. 159-219).
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Centre for Maaori Studies and Research (1984). The development of coal-fired power stations in the Waikato: A Maori perspective. Occasional paper No. 24. Hamilton, New Zealand:
The Centre, University of Waikato. Cummins, J. (1997). Minority status and schooling in Canada. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 28 (3), 411-430. Education Review Office (1997). Effectiveness review report: Te Wharekura o Rakaumanga. Wellington, New Zealand: The Office.
Egan, K., & Mahuta, R. (1983). The Tainui report. Occasional paper no. 19 (revised edition).
Hamilton, New Zealand: Centre for Maori Studies and Research, University of Waikato. Gibson, M. (1991). Minorities and schooling: Some implications. In M. Gibson, & J. Ogbu (Eds.), Minority status and schooling: A comparative study of immigrant and involuntary minorities (pp. 357-381). New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Harrison, B. (1987). Rakaumanga school: A study of issues in bilingual education. Hamilton, New Zealand: Centre for Maaori Studies and Research, University of Waikato.
Harrison, B. (1993). Building our house from the rubbish tree: Minority-directed education. In E. Jacob, & C. Jordan (Eds.), Minority education: Anthropological perspectives (pp. 147-164).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Holm, A., & Holm, W. (1995). Navajo language education; Retrospect and prospects. Bilingual Research Journal, 19 (1), 141-168.
Lipka, J., & Ilutsik, E. (1995). Negotiated change: Yup’ik perspectives on indigenous schooling. Bilingual Research Journal, 19 (1), 195-208.
Mahuta, R., & Egan, K. (1981). Waahi: A case study of social and economic development in a New Zealand Maori community. Occasional paper No. 12. Hamilton, New Zealand: Centre for Maori Studies and Research, University of Waikato. 122 Bilingual Research Journal, 22:2, 3, & 4 Spring, Summer, & Fall 1998 McCan, D. (1993). Whatiwhatihoe: The Waikato raupatu claim. Waltham, MA: Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts.
McCarty, T. (1989). School as community: The Rough Rock demonstration. Harvard Educational Review, 59 (4), 482-503. McConnell, R., & Jefferies, R. (1991). The first year: Tomorrow’s schools as perceived by members of boards of trustees, principals and staff after the first year. Hamilton, New Zealand: Monitoring Today’s Schools Research Project, University of Waikato.
Ministry of Education (1993). A guide to the New Zealand curriculum framework. Wellington, New Zealand: The Ministry.
Ministry of Education (1995). Nga haeata matauranga: Annual report on Maori education 1994/95 and strategic direction for 1995/96. Wellington, New Zealand: The Ministry.
Ogbu, J. (1978). Minority education and caste: The American system in crosscultural perspective. New York: Academic Press.
Ogbu, J., & Simons, H. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A culturalecological theory of school performance with some implications for education. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 29 (2), 155-188.
Ricento, T. (1996). Language policy in the United States. In M. Herriman & B. Burnaby (Eds.), Language policies in English-dominant countries: Six case studies (pp. 122-158). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Shear-Wood, C. (1982). Blood pressure and related factors among the Maori and Pakeha communities of Huntly. Occasional paper No. 17. Hamilton, New Zealand: Centre for Maori Studies and Research, University of Waikato.
Stokes, E. (1977). Te iwi o Waahi: The people of Waahi Huntly. Occasional paper No. 1. Hamilton, New Zealand: Centre for Maori Studies and Research, University of Waikato.
Stokes, E. (1978). Local perceptions of the impact of the Huntly Power Project 1971-1973. Occasional paper No. 4. Hamilton, New Zealand: Centre for Maori Studies and Research, University of Waikato.
Taskforce to Review Education Administration (1988). Administering for excellence: Effective administration in education: Report of the taskforce to review education administration. Wellington, New Zealand: The Taskforce.
Te Wharekura Kaupapa Maori a Rohe o Rakaumanga (1993). Rakaumanga kura strategic plan 1993-1998. Huntly, New Zealand: Te Wharekura.
Tuteao, V. (1998). Maaku anoo e hanga tooku nei whare ko ngaa pou o roto, he maahoe, he patatee, ko te taahuhu he hiinau, te wharekura kaupapa Maaori aa rohe o Raakaumangamanga. Unpublished Master of Arts in education thesis, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
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






