However Source A isn’t completely unreliable. It is written after the attack on Deir Yassin, so things would have calmed down, and the writers would have had a wider perspective of events since then. It is less bias than it could have been, had it been written directly after the attack, because if it was written then, the Arabs would have been a lot angrier. It contains a lot of facts that could have been checked, for example the number of deaths, and the date of the attack. This makes the source more reliable. Source A is useful because we can see the Arab point of view clearly, and if we know that they wanted to make the Jews look bad, then the source is useful to see how they did that. There are lots of details, for example dates, number of deaths, and other details on the attack on Deir Yassin. Source A isn’t very useful, because it focuses on the Israeli attack on Deir Yassin, and blames this attack for the growing Palestinian refugee problem, without taking a look at the wider conflict.
Source B is an Israeli view of the Arab exodus from Palestine in 1948. It is an extract from a statement to the UN, by Israeli’s then foreign minister. It contradicts source A, as it says the Israeli’s weren’t to blame for the Palestinian refugee issue. They partly accept blame for the attack on Deir Yassin but say it was ‘Jewish Dissidents’ so therefore it wasn’t a deliberate act of terror sanctioned by Israel.
In source B, the date of the British departure, and the Arabs attacking Israel is given. By writing the date for the Arab attack, it could be trying to make this attack seem more important that the Jewish attack on Deir Yassin. Source B claims that the refugees are a normal consequence of war, and it says ‘already…hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs had left their homes and had become refugees as a result of the fighting that had taken place in the country’. The source then goes on to shift the responsibility of the refugees to the Arabs, as it says the number of Palestinian refugees ‘swelled’ after the ‘regular Arab armies joined in the fighting’. They are passing the blame from themselves, to the Arab leaders, other countries, and other Armies.
The statement was made to the UN by Israeli’s foreign minister. She was an important figure at the time; so many people would have believed what she said. The statement was made to the United Nations, who both sides wanted support from. Because of this, it was thought that no one would lie to the UN, as if anyone found out, it would make your side look really bad, and make the other side’s claim to Palestine stronger.
Source B is reliable because it is official status, therefore trustworthy. It was also presented to the UN, which means it wouldn’t have been able to contain lies or deliberately make the Palestinians look bad. It is also a secondary source, which means it can give a wider scope and perspective of what happened. However being a secondary source can also make source B unreliable. Years had passed since the attacks, so there was time for errors, and stories could have been created that were untrue. The speech was designed to shift the blame for the refugee problem from the Jews to the Arabs, so we know that it would have been written in such a way that whoever read it would be led to believe the Jews weren’t to blame.
Source B is useful, because like with source A, we know it has a purpose, which is to blame the opposite side. Knowing this we can see what the Israeli point of view was. They say that the attack was part of a war, and not a ‘massacre’ as the Arabs claimed. We know who wrote the source, and there are also details of the wider conflict, like the Arab attacks. This makes it different from Source A, which concentrates only on the attack on Deir Yassin, and blames this attack for the refugee problem. Source B accepts some Jewish responsibility, which makes it a lot less one sided than source A.
Source C is written by an Irish journalist and was published in 1961. It investigates the Jewish claim that the Palestinians left after order from their leaders to make room for the Arab army. It says that there was ‘not a single order, or appeal, or suggestion about the evacuation from Palestine from an Arab radio station inside or outside Palestine in 1948’. It also says there were ‘repeated appeals…for the civilians of Palestine to stay put’.
Source C discredits source B because the Israelis claim that the Palestinians weren’t forced out by them, but were told to leave by their own leaders. Source C is based on fact, and is written by a journalist who is neither Arab nor Israeli. It uses neutral language and is based on fact, which makes the source reliable. However it is hard to trust because we don’t know anything about the journalist who wrote it. He could have had a motive that we don’t know about. As he is Irish, he may be involved in the conflict in Ireland, and therefore may feel sorry for the Palestinian refugees, and can relate to their situation. This could make the source unreliable.
It is useful, because it goes to the origin of the Palestinian refugee problem, and says that the Palestinians weren't told to leave by their own leaders. However it isn’t useful because it is one sided and we don’t know if we can trust what it says. It doesn’t help us decide who is to blame for the refugee problem because it is only what one person is saying and we don’t know if it can be trusted.
Source D is an extract from comments made by Palestinian refugees on the work of the UN. It says that they refused houses and compensation from the UN to help them settle in their home countries, because they want ‘nothing short of a return to our homeland’. It shows how much pride the Palestinian refugees have, as they want nothing less than getting the land back, which they believe, is rightfully theirs. It is different to the other sources because it is written by refugees, not by outsiders. This could make it more reliable, as they are actually there, however it could also make it unreliable because they are saying what they are for a reason: they want their land back. It is useful because it gives us a reason why the problem still continues – because the Palestinians are stubborn, and won’t accept anything but their land back. It is not useful, because it only shows one side, and doesn’t give a balanced argument. It also doesn’t say anything about how the problem started.
Source E is an Israeli view, made by the Israeli ambassador to the UN. It claims the Arabs have let the refugee problem continue for ‘political motives’. It says there is plenty of room for the refugees in the ‘vast Arab world’. It is blaming the other Arab countries. It says there is enough room for ‘a million refugees’. This makes the Arabs look bad, as it looks like they are deceiving people into thinking the refugees have nowhere to go, when actually they have. This makes the Israelis claim to the land stronger as the Palestinians look bad.
Source E is reliable because the ambassador to the UN was an important figure at that time, and therefore many people would say he was trustworthy. However it is unreliable because it is one sided, and trying to shift the blame to the Palestinians to make them look like the side in the wrong. It is useful to see the Israeli point of view, but not very good in seeing the overall picture. As it was an official for Israel, he may have been told what to say, for the good of Israel, so what he said might not actually be his own beliefs.
Source F shows two women, an Arab and an Israeli, in 1973, holding up signs showing their position, and then the same two women 20 years later still in the same position. This shows the extent of the problem, that it has continued, and not much has changed in 20 years. It is quite reliable as it is a primary source (a photo), and it shows a person from each side. However it may not be what it seems. It could be deliberate propaganda, and as the photographer isn’t mentioned, we don’t know if he/she has another motive, and if they are neutral or on one side. It is useful because it shows both sides, however it is not useful because the pictures aren’t really put in context and we don’t know whether they are trustworthy or not.
Source G is a video by John Pilger, called ‘Palestine is still the issue’. It blames the Israeli’s for the Palestinian refugee problem. He makes a judgement straight away, as in the introduction he says that the Palestinians were ‘forced off their land’ and are now ‘stateless and humiliated’. It says that the Palestinians have no army, and that the suicide bombings are ‘desperate acts of terror’, because the Israeli’s have ‘ruthless control of their lives’. He portrays the Palestinians as victims. He tries to make his arguments seem balanced by saying the ‘courageous Israeli’s’, but then goes on to say that the US backs the Israeli’s. This could make the audience feel sorry for the Palestinians. He also creates this effect by using emotive and descriptive language. He blames many countries for the refugee problem, including the US, the UK and Israel.
He uses images along with persuasive commentary to create an image in the viewers’ head. He showed an Israeli workplace that had been vandalised. He showed the damage that had been done, and described the smell. He also showed that children’s paintings had been ruined, which emphasises there are innocent victims. He describes the damage as ‘cultural vandalism’, and as a deliberate attempt to destroy the Palestinians as a nation. He also shows horrible images of Israeli soldiers breaking an ‘innocent’ Palestinians bones, and claims this is ‘Israeli policy’, and part of a ruthless scheme.
John Pilger interviews ten different people, both Palestinian, Israeli, and outsiders. The first interview is with a Palestinian woman who claims their lives aren’t in their own hands. She says they feel humiliated, and scared of the Israeli settlements. The next interview is with an Israeli soldier. He says that the soldiers do feel emotion, and he feels bad that he has the power to take any Palestinians ID. Next was an interview with the family of a Palestinian suicide bomber. They said that they were surprised she was driven to it, but understand that she was horrified by the images she saw working in an ambulance. He then interviewed an Israeli historian who said that the suicide bombings were an insane act, and that young people needed hope instead of despair if they didn’t want the problem to continue. An Israeli writer claims that the Israeli’s need protecting from the Palestinians, and that most things are just a precaution. Pilger interviews an Israeli settler who says that God gave the Israelis the land over 3000 years ago, and that life is full of conflict. He blames the politicians for the refugee problem.
A Palestinian doctor blamed the Israeli’s, and said she feels ‘abandoned by the world’. She tells of how her home had been crushed, and her land taken away. A Palestinian from the Union of Palestinian Medical Relief Committee claims that the Palestinian towns have been made like prisons. The final interview is with Dori Gold, the senior advisor to the Israeli Prime Minister. He says that 9/11 was a wakeup call to how much terrorism is developing, and that it will soon progress to nuclear levels. He says that terrorism needs to be eliminated, and that no one has the right to deliberately target civilians. He says that Palestinians target civilians, but Israeli’s target leaders. This interview is different to the rest however, because John Pilger argues with the person being interviewed, and tries to discredit what he is saying.
Source G is reliable because it uses real images, and interviews with real people. We can see things through the camera with our own eyes and make our own judgements. He uses Israeli’s, Palestinians, and outsiders to interview, which could mean he is giving a balanced argument. It uses real people and real experiences. However it is unreliable because the interviews are selective; the interviewees may have their own motives. The pictures, although real, could have been edited, and again, may be selective about what they show. He carefully selected the people he interviewed to re-enforce the message he was trying to get across. He chose an Israeli soldier to ‘balance’ his argument, but even this interviewee made the Palestinians look like victims, which backed up Pilgers overall message. His opinion was backed up by the contrast in living conditions between the Israeli’s and the Palestinians, however we don’t know if this is reliable as it didn’t show the living conditions of all Israeli’s or Palestinians.
Source G is useful, because it is a British person’s account, so we would think that maybe they would give a balanced argument, as they don’t have a personal motive, as they aren’t involved in the conflict. There are first hand accounts from people who are actually there, and real images. These are all useful. However the biased commentary and music which accompany the images could make them less useful, as they affect the way the viewer looks at them.
Although many of the sources are quite useful, there are many things they don’t mention. They don’t tell how refugees are a normal consequence of war, and none of them show how the Israeli’s feel threatened by the Palestinian refugees. They see them, and the terrorist attacks as a threat to their Jewish identity, which they have tried to rebuild after the holocaust.
The Fedayeen are an example of a threat to the Jews. They are groups of activists or ‘self sacraficers’ who came from refugee camps. They began to attack Israeli settlements in the 1950’s. Another example is the PLO. They claim that the state of Israel had been formed on an injustice and that the land rightly belonged to the Arabs. They aimed to unite the Palestinian refugees and regain the land that had been lost to the Israeli’s. They adopted methods which they thought wood terrorise Israel into giving up the conquered lands. These methods included hijackings of aeroplanes, kidnappings, bombings, and attacks on Israeli settlements. The Jews blame the Arab countries, and say there is plenty of room for the refugees, and that the refugee problem is being deliberately continued for political motives.
In many of the sources, the Israeli’s are seen as the terrorists and criminals, and the Palestinians as the victims. However there is evidence that contradicts this, for example after the uprising of Arabs on the West Bank and Gaza strip, which saw civil disobedience e.g. riots and protests, the Israel’s didn’t fight back using terrorism, they decided that the best way to minimise trouble was to use undercover units to target specific individuals. How the Israeli’s dealt with the Intifada shows how they were trying to cut down the violence. We cannot come to a firm conclusion about who is to blame for the refugee problem just on the sources given, because there is no mention of any of these facts.
These sources do not allow me to come to a firm conclusion about who or what is responsible for the Palestinian refugee problem, because there are strong arguments for both sides, and sources that support both cases.
Arab sources suggest that the Palestinians were forced out of their homes by Israeli’s, and that the state of Israel was founded on a war crime and is therefore illegal. They describe ‘cold blooded’ attacks by Israeli’s and the ‘massacre’ of innocent people. They say that there was ‘not a single order, or appeal, or suggestion about the evacuation from Palestine from an Arab radio station inside or outside Palestine in 1948’. This discredits the Israeli claim that the Palestinians were told to leave by their own leaders. Palestinian sources also claim that after the Palestinians were ‘forced out’ of their homes, they were then ‘refused entry back in’ by the Israeli’s. In the Arab sources, Palestinians are seen as victims, having their lives controlled by Israeli soldiers, and have to resort to ‘desperate acts of terror’ to have their voices heard.
Israeli sources suggest that the Arab leaders told the Palestinians to leave their homes, and that Palestine and Israel are rightfully theirs. They claim that the Jews are under constant threat from uprising Palestinian refugees, who are targeting innocent civilians and using violence to try and get their point across. One Israeli source claims that the refugee problem is being kept alive for political motives, to try and make the Israeli’s look bad. It claims that there is ‘enough room in the vast Arab world for a million refugees’.
All of the sources cannot be completely reliable, because they all seem to have a motive. They don’t give a balanced argument for both sides, and their basic aim is to make the other side look bad. It is hard to come to a firm conclusion about who is responsible for the refugee problem, and why it still continues today, because most of the sources contradict each other. There is not enough evidence for either side, to decide who is to blame overall.
