al nakba podcast

Griff Harris discusses the historiography of Al-Nakba, the catastrophe that occurred in the late 1940s. The competing strands and narratives within this historiography have had a major impact on global understanding. Official histories from Israel and America denied Al-Nakba, while Palestinian historiography always acknowledged it. New historians, like Elan Papp, accessed archives and provided a revisionist perspective. Benny Morris, a Jewish historian, justified ethnic cleansing, but had conflicting viewpoints on massacres. Oral history is important due to the lack of written documents. The struggle of Arab Palestinians during Al-Nakba was hidden, but thanks to new historians, it is now acknowledged. Hello, I'm Griff Harris and this is my podcast assessment for the module Consensus and Contention where I study the Al-Nakba strand led by Dr Anne Caldwell. Today I'm going to be discussing the nature of change in the historiography of Al-Nakba and the competing strands and narratives that have occurred within this historiography and how that has had a major impact on the globe's understanding of the catastrophe that occurred in the late 1940s. To understand the change of historiography in the context of Al-Nakba I think it's important to first understand Al-Nakba and the context of which it occurred. After the second world war and the holocaust where Hitler systematically murdered Jews, Jewish people sought to find a homeland for which they could be safe from antisemitism and inspired by early writings of Theodor Herzl, a pioneering Zionist, he claimed that Palestine was the rightful homeland of the Jewish population and that they should replace the barbarianism of the Arab population and aim to create a state of Israel. Therefore in the following years the claim to Israel was eventually achieved. During this however Al-Nakba occurred and Al-Nakba occurred as a consequence of the expiration of the British mandate in the state of Palestine which allowed for the creation of the Jewish state to become more feasible and initiated by Plan Dalet which was the name given to the general plan of military operations, Palestine was dismantled with the prime objective of destructing towns and villages. Al-Nakba encompassed the death of approximately 15,000 Palestinians including many massacres like Deir Yassin and Tanshirah and furthermore 750,000 people were also displaced from their homes. However for me to understand this and to inform listeners of this is taking a long duration of time after the event for the full understanding of Al-Nakba to be fully acknowledged and understood and at first glance one may wonder how the past and what happened in the middle east has been misunderstood and to do that one must acknowledge that history is different from the past history is a separate notion of how the past has been portrayed and documented and is vital in this historiography and understanding of this historiography for the reasons for why the truth of Al-Nakba were not uncovered until the late 1980s and as Avi Shlaim remarks quite poetically history is a propaganda of victors. After the creation of the Jewish state of Israel in 1948 and after Al-Nakba had occurred official histories of Israel and America dominated the discourse and perspective of what occurred during the Al-Nakba. American and Israeli official histories didn't acknowledge Al-Nakba and was often referred to as Nakba denialism. This often goes hand in hand with the peacemaking notion and portrayal the state of Israel was trying to perceive. The Israeli historiography itself argued that Arab and Jewish people were not even just equal in the strength of their forces that Arab forces were overly stronger than the Jewish forces and created the sense of a miracle victory that occurred to create the state of Israel and also that Palestinians left on their own free will whereas the Palestinian historiography has always considered and never doubted the happening of Al-Nakba and how it occurred. you the classification of sources and archives that that historiography was not acknowledged and really taken seriously at the time and in light of the access to the newer archives that the new historians had especially Elan Papp who had access to the Israel Defense Force archives and the Haganah historical archives and was able to pioneer the revisionist perspective that the new historians portrayed. Avi Shlaim writes an agreement of Papp and agrees with the arguments of Elan Papp such as the direction of British policy during the Nakba. The central charge as Shlaim describes it was that the Britain secretly encouraged the Arabs that was portrayed in the official histories. However looking at evidence this is seen as incorrect. The foreign secretary of Benin aimed to create a greater Transjordan with the Arab side of the partition working with the leader of Transjordan however Shlaim sees this as going against our Palestinians and not secretly encouraged them to win back Palestine. Moreover another area of contention who had the balance of power during 1948 and although Arab Palestinians did outpopulate the Jewish population by about 1.2 million to 650,000 people the Yishuv were more prepared better mobilized and more organized during the conflict and this goes against the miracle victory portrayed in official histories. The Arab-Israeli conflict of Israel and although Avi Shlaim does acknowledge the fact that at the start of the conflict the Arab regular armies were better equipped this balance did not last throughout the entire conflict which shows that the IDF the Israel Defense Force were the stronger side and there was no miracle victory portrayed by Israeli official histories. So therefore it took Israeli Jewish historians for the world and for the history of our Nakba to be understood and to be accepted and to be listened to primarily. Of course these new historians were critiqued by some many Orientalists and Zionists critique new historians claiming that they're pushing a political agenda rather than a historical thesis and the views of Benny Morris with his justification of ethnic cleansing has reduced the weight of his historical perspective. Benny Morris has also had conflicting viewpoints on whether massacres during our Nakba really occurred and he has this change of heart and this contradicting viewpoint because of the nature of documents available to understand what massacres happened and this shows the importance of oral history in the historiography of our Nakba. Due to the nature and catastrophe of our Nakba written documents from survivors from massacres and villages are rare and always going to be rare because of the nature of what it was. So oral history and testimonies are a large part of the belief and consistent support for what happened in our Nakba and the importance of what happened and how it did happen and how it has to be shown and depicted in modern day history. In concluding my thoughts on the nature of the historiography of our Nakba and the changing narratives I was further intrigued and slightly mortified by the nature of how Arab Palestinians were not just stripped from their home but from their history as well. As a consequence of the expiration of the British Mandate in Palestine the creation of the state of Israel occurred and if it wasn't for the work of these new historians one must worry if present-day history would be one that acknowledges and understands the struggle of Arab Palestinians during our Nakba. The blatant hiding of archives and events that occurred in our Nakba leave one thinking what more classified sources could be obtained to further advance its historiography. Thank you for listening.