Over the years, facts can become distorted and exaggerated, so they can often be quite inaccurate. However, modern articles are sometimes better if you want an overall view of things, as the situation will have been analysed, and the truth may finally have been revealed. Also, when there are pressures of war in the world, writers will often write what people want to hear, because of fear for their own safety. This is when writers from the time may have a ‘forced’ biased view of the situation.
‘Source B’ is written by an Israeli, who is making a speech to the United Nations. It may be that the Israelis need help from the UN to sort out its countries problems. This might mean that Israel’s problems are exaggerated in order to stand a greater chance of receiving aid from the UN. In this speech, Israel’s foreign minister argues that the Palestinians left their homes due to the fighting in their home country, and that a lot of the Arabs left under instructions from their leader. She also states that the Arabs did not leave because of fear of being killed; they left to make room for the Arab armies.
This speech was made in 1961, still quite a long time after the Arab Exodus. I believe that because the worst of the fighting was over now, people were no longer afraid to speak out their views, thus giving us an opinionated, yet possibly more accurate source of information.
The journalist’s version of events was written at the same time as the foreign minister’s version of events. In this way, it might have somehow ‘swayed’ the opinion of the journalist. However, the information in ‘source C’ seems merely factual. The article says there are museum records proving that the Palestinian civilians were told to stay put, and not to evacuate the country. Because there is hard evidence backing this conclusion, I am inclined to believe the Irish journalist. As well as this, we can see that the museum received its information from a trustworthy, unbiased source (BBC recordings of Middle East broadcasts from throughout 1948). The information may have been untrustworthy if, say, the information had come from a Palestinian, who could have tampered with it, but as it is definitely from Middle Eastern broadcasts, I trust the evidence.
‘Source D’ shows us the views of the Palestinian refugees. I think this is possibly the best source of information, as the refugees themselves are the best people to give us their truthful opinion about the situation. They are the ones who are being affected by the conflict, so they are the ones who should speak out about it. It turns out that the Palestinian civilians are not willing to make a compromise with the Israelis; they want all of the land for themselves. They will not even accept funding from the UN to help them find ‘substitute homes’. This may be why there was so much conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians; neither party was willing to make a compromise; they both wanted the whole of Palestine.
This is backed up in ‘source E’: The Israeli ambassador wants to own Palestine, his argument is that the Arab world is big enough for all the Palestinian refugees, so the Governments should stop ‘pretending’ that there’s no room for them, and let them find homes in countries other than Palestine. Again, the two sides cannot agree on a compromise.
‘Source F’ shows two women, each holding up banners displaying their rights to live in Palestine. They are depicted demonstrating in 1973, and again in 1993, with the same messages on their banners. Neither of them can safely return to their homeland. The photographs prove that there have been many refugee problems within at least 20 years in Palestine. Neither of the women is blaming anyone, however. This may mean that they agree with their leader’s principles, but not with the fighting in their homelands. They may also be suggesting that they agree with the fighting, but not the principles of their leader.
Finally, I would say that the sources do not allow us to come to a firm conclusion about the reason for the refugee problem, but I think they allow us to come to a conclusion. The evidence is too biased, and we need more opinions from people that are unassociated with Palestine and Israel. Only then may we receive an unbiased answer to the question of why the Palestinian problem was so big. If I had to make a decision on the most reliable piece of evidence, I would say that it is the Irish journalist’s. I would be more inclined to support the Arabs. However, I am not fully on the side of the Arabs: I think that neither party was willing to accept responsibility for the condition the country was in, nor did they want to accept responsibility for the refugees. Also, neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis were willing to make a compromise, and ‘share’ the country. They both wanted all of it for themselves and their people.