The Nakba – Something that Did Not Occur (although it had to occur)
In March 2004 a commemoration was held near the ‘Cinema City’
(Herzliya) for the Palestinian village of Ijlil which existed at
the site until 1948. Its inhabitants fled upon hearing of massacres
committed against Palestinians by Zionist forces in the area. A
detailed report about the village, its uprooting and the fate of
its refugees, was published in the local paper ‘Sharon Times’ on
the occasion of the memorial.
These are two rather incidental examples for the denial of the
Palestinian Nakba by Jews in Israel. While it would certainly be
possible to find even stronger examples, there appears to be no
need for proof of the argument that the Jewish public in Israel
denies the occurrence of the Nakba. The Nakba denial is found in
the geography and the history taught in schools, on the maps of the
country and in the signs marking places on its surface. All of them
ignore, almost completely, the event which made possible the
establishment of the Jewish State as a state with a Jewish majority
and a Palestinian minority, after the majority of the indigenous
people of the country were evicted, their properties destroyed
and/or confiscated for the benefit of the new state.
How can we understand this denial of the Nakba? Can it be explained
in psychological terms as the denial of an event that cannot be
comfortably accepted? Could we also say that recognition of the
suffering inflicted on the Palestinians would ‘remove’ Jews in
Israel from the status of the ultimate victim which justifies
almost each evil action? Or maybe the denial is a result of plain
ignorance? There may be various correct explanations for this
phenomenon. This article will try to shed light on one aspect of
the discourse about the Nakba in Israel (before and after its
establishment).
It will show that the Nakba represents for the Zionist subject an
event that cannot possibly have occurred and – at the same time –
had to occur. From early on, Zionism ignored the existence of the
Arab inhabitants of Palestine. It is, therefore, not possible that
some 800,000 persons were ethnically cleansed from the country and
that more than 500 Palestinian villages were destroyed. On the
other hand, the expulsion of the Palestinian majority from their
country was inevitable for Zionism that aimed to establish a Jewish
State, i.e. a national home for the Jewish people in the world on a
territory ruled by a Jewish majority on the basis of law.
The Nakba – an event that did not occur
Zionist identity was built from the beginning on a two-fold
negation: it negates time and space of the Jews outside Zion, a
‘negation of exile’ which extends beyond the realm of religion, and
it negates time and space of those indigenous to the territory of
Zion. The latter is best defined by the well-known statement of
Zionist leader Israel Zangwill about, “a people without land
returning to a land without people.” Attitudes of the leaders and
architects of Zionism towards the indigenous inhabitants of ‘Zion’
were situated between their perception as (temporary) guardians or
holders of the land on one end, and their absolute non-existence as
a relevant factor on the other extreme. In this aspect, Zionism
resembles other colonialist projects.
Edward Said writes in his book ‘Orientalism,’ that for the
Orientalist there is “no trace of Arab individuals with personal
histories that can be told (…) The Arab does not create existential
depth, not even in semantics” (…) The oriental person is oriental
first, and human second.” According to the approach of Zionism, a
typical orientalist movement, indigenous Arabs of the country exist
and live in it, but they are of no importance in the sense of
deserving a relationship similar to that shown to ‘European
humans.’ They certainly do not constitute a people or a collective
able or interested in realizing itself as such, or similar to the
Jewish national collective.
If Palestinians do not ‘really’ exist, as opposed to the ‘reality’
of Zionist existence, then also their expulsion cannot occur. It is
not possible to expel somebody who is not present. According to
Zionism, the violent events around 1948 did in fact occur, but only
in form of an unavoidable response to the disturbance caused by the
‘locals,’ who did not accept the establishment of the new entity,
the Jewish State. Therefore, what is important to understand, teach
and tell about this period is the story of ‘liberation’ and
‘independence’ of the Jewish people in its homeland. According to
this approach there was certainly no Nakba or tragedy for any
other, because the other had never really existed in the land.
Hundreds of villages in the costal areas, in the south and in the
center were not expelled; rather ‘territorial continuity’ was
created according to the Haganah’s Plan Dalet.
The space is thus ‘naturally’ Jewish. It must only be realized and
transferred to Zionist control. Jewish territorial continuity and
Jewish demographic homogeneity in Palestine represent the core of
the Zionist project. Therefore, the Zionist subject cannot
understand or see the catastrophe inherent in this project,
especially since what is involved is the historical realization of
an idea that derives its relevance from the Bible and a modern
nationalism turned into a religion in many aspects. The Zionist
subject cannot see the Nakba or seriously debate its circumstances.
It must strip off its inner essence, in order to start to see it as
an event that has shaped the space in which Zionism realized
itself.
Ever since 1948 the Nakba is dismissed, and must be dismissed, from
the consciousness of the Zionist subject, because its existence
challenges the basis on which it was built – a people without land
for a land without people. Recognition of the Palestinian Nakba
signifies the destruction of the ground underneath the feet of this
subject which understands itself as autonomous unit. Therefore, any
such recognition, or even the attempt to look at this tragedy as
something that happened to somebody else here is outrageous and
almost incomprehensible. It is possible to recognize that some
massacres happened here and there, as a result of local battles and
fighting; it is possible to recognize that all Arab armies tried to
destroy us, the subject that wished to form itself. It is
impossible, however, to look at the Nakba as a catastrophe
committed by this subject in order to form itself, or as a
necessary process for the Zionist subject.
The Nakba – an event that had to occur
On the other hand, and paradoxically, the Nakba – the violent
expulsion of the inhabitants of the country and the transformation
of those remaining into refugees in their homeland, or into
second-class citizens – is a necessary event, because it brought
about the realization of the ethnically pure, closed and autonomous
Zionist subject which builds itself in the framework of a state
aimed exclusively for him/her. Without the Nakba, the Zionist
subject might have become contaminated intellectually by foreign
ideas and practices, such as bi-nationalism, or even physically
from living in a space over which s/he does not exert exclusive and
absolute control. Benny Morris, for example, describes eloquently
how the idea of transfer was found strongly in the heads and
writings of Zionist leaders back in the early decades of the 20th
century, based on the profound understanding that the establishment
and existence of the Jewish state will require the eviction of the
native inhabitants of Eretz Isra’el.
Morris then proceeds to show that also in the process of the Nakba
Zionist leaders decided immediately, and in his opinion rightly so,
not to permit the return of the refugees so as not to infringe upon
the possibility of the establishment of a Jewish state. The
decision then, by the Israeli government, to prevent the return of
the Palestinian refugees, clearly indicates that its members were
aware of their capability to bring about ethnic cleansing and also
justified this indirectly. Some Arab villages had maintained good
neighbourly relations with the Jews until 1948 and some intervened
on behalf of Arabs to stay in the country, however even this did
not help them to remain in their homes. Zionism was not concerned
with this village or that, depending on its attitude or behavior
towards the new state. Arabs stayed in the country as a result of
mercy, and, according to Morris, this was a mistake. The Zionist
project had to evict the inhabitants of the country in order to
realize itself.
Yosef Weitz, one of the heads of the Jewish National Fund at the
time, provides evidence which is surprising in its honesty. He
tells of the destruction of the village of Zarnuqa after its
inhabitants had been expelled, despite of numerous calls by Jews to
abstain from their expulsion. He describes how he stood in the
village watching the bulldozers destroy the buildings which until
recently had housed their inhabitants, feeling nothing. The
destruction of Palestinian lives does not cause any doubts or
emotional disturbance. He is even surprised about the fact that he
feels nothing. As if this destruction was expected and
premeditated.
The Nakba continues as a non-event and causes anxiety when
it appears
If the basic argument outlined above is correct, it
can help explain two processes related to the Nakba, one situated
in the reality of the violent conflict, the other in the
consciousness of Israeli Jews who become exposed to the Nakba.
The Nakba as an event that did not occur in the past continues to
not occur also today. Extra-judicial assassination of Palestinian
leaders, confiscation of land, barring of Palestinian farmers from
working their land by means of the wall under construction and the
denial of their basic human rights are understood by the Zionist
subject as means of the war against terrorism and as defensive acts
necessary in order to fight the intolerable and illegitimate terror
of the Palestinian people, who, according a recent statement by an
Israeli leader, are seen as a genetically abnormal species.
If the Nakba never happened, it is impossible that millions of
Palestinians today are refugees who demand restitution of their
rights. It is also impossible that the Palestinians demand control
of at least one fifth of Palestine, because they also had nothing
before. In the eyes of the Zionist subject, everything that is
happening today is completely disconnected from the historical
context of the Nakba. Reference to the past of 1948 is made only in
line with the Zionist narrative which holds that, ‘just like they
did not accept us here in the past (e.g. according to the UN
Partition Plan), they continue to try to throw us into the sea also
today.’
The above also helps explain the indifference, in Israel, towards
the question of Palestinian return. On no other issue related to
the conflict is there a similar and broad consensus like the
consensus against Palestinian return. As a matter of fact, there is
not even a need to oppose return, because the very discussion of
this topic is perceived as an existential threat. It is therefore
excluded from the agenda of public debate without meaningful
reference.
All Zionist Jewish political parties share this approach, which
meets the logic of the argument that the Nakba never happened and
results in a situation where the rights of millions of people
remain denied until this day. If the Nakba was perceived by the
Zionist subject as an event that really took place, there could be
some Israelis, at least among the Zionist left, who would realize
that some responsibility must be taken by the Israeli side for what
happened in 1948. However, if there was no Nakba, there is also
nothing to take responsibility for.
Another interesting process related to the denial of the Nakba is
what happens to Jewish Israelis who become exposed to it for the
first time, whether through activities organized by Zochrot or
otherwise. The Jewish Israeli individual experiences the encounter
with the Palestinian Nakba as a kind of surprising slap in the
face. Suddenly, and without prior warning or preparation (a result
of years of denial), s/he is confronted with a tragedy that
happened to the Palestinian neighbor, while s/he feels part of the
side that had caused it. This creates intolerable feelings of guilt
and helplessness.
Guilt may be relatively easy to cope with, because it can be
recognized and forgiveness can be requested. If we are ready to
really listen to the voice of the Nakba, the major problem,
however, is the challenge of all we have grown up with. The Zionist
subject stands on somewhat shaky ground. It established itself by
means of a violent process that is denied as an event that did not
happen. When the ghostly spirit of this process is risen (by
Zochrot, for example), it triggers astonishment and anger. If,
however, we rise above these emotions towards a more objective
perspective of this threatening past, we may be able to find the
key to conciliation almost sixty years after the Nakba.
Eitan Bronstein works at the School for Peace at Neve Shalom-Wahat
al-Salaam and is the founder of Zochrot (Remembering). This article
first appeared in Haq al-Awda (May 2004). Translation from Hebrew
by Ingrid Jaradat Gassner.