WHITE PAPER #1 Interestingly enough, as scholars investigating the plight of 1948 Refugees, one cannot deny that the

responsibility falls largely in the hands of both the British and Palestinian Leaders. The latter, is of course, in reference to Rashid Khalids overall argument concerning this question, over who was responsible for the plight of 1948 Palestinian Refugees? Khalids main argument is that the complete collapse of Palestinian socially, military, diplomatic solution in the 1948-49 war is because of the failure of the 1936-39 revolt and its lasting effects. He claims that it was not the new historian perspective of the result of war; rather it is the British and predominately the Palestinian leadership. In particular he puts much of the emphasis of blame on Hajj Al-min al-Hussayni, who served British interests during the mandate period leading up to the Al-Nakhba. Not only did he put down a growing nationalist movement in Palestine during the years prior to 1936-1939, but after his exile. He continued to lead without knowing the situation in Palestine and the growing threat of Zionism, this is signified in both his rejection of the Peel Commission and the White Papers. While the Peel Commission granted national home for Arab Palestinians and the white papers would have halted both Jewish immigration and land purchases. Many Palestinian leaders felt that, while maybe unfair to the Arab majority, they should accept these terms, yet Hussayni rejected them. Another important factor is the re-division of the already divided leaders and socital class in Palestine, caused by the failure of the Great Revolt. The politics of notables basically is the concept of feuding families, such as the nashibbis and hussenis, yet also local loyalties to cities and villages split the community. The economic consequence of

the revolt, especially the boycott hurt the Palestinians Industry. The ensuing worldwide economic collapse resulted in hundreds of farmers (Felhadin) who could not make ends meet, so they moved to the cities and urban centers. This created increasing burden on the Palestinian upper class, which only widened the divide between elites and lower classes. The British played a major role in the lack of leadership or any political cohesiveness, which ultimately led to the collapse of the Palestinian society in 1948-49 war. They appointed a grand mufti (Husyani), to govern over the ulema (muslim clergy), which was a complete reversal of Islamic law. Also, the British had their own interests in the region, which can be seen in the Balfour declaration, McMchoan-Hussayni Correspondence and the Skyes-Picot agreement.he most significant consequence of the Revolt was that British opposition to Arab Palestinians, was solidified in the Arab revolt, which resulted in confiscating arms, killing or exiling their leaders and increased presence of British troops. The most significant factor was the Palestinian political realm and representation, or lack thereof, which was completely disproportionate, in terms of the Yishuv and Jewish Agency, who were backed by British support. In 1948, when the civil war finally came about, the Palestinian Arabs were in complete disarray; politically, economically, socially, diplomatically, and militarily. From 1948s onslaught, the consequences of the great revolt set the tone for an utter capitulation of Palestinian society. Also it was highly probable, in contrast to the highly organization and motivated Yishuv, who were backed by British. Ultimately, Palestinian leaders call to abandon their homes, came to embody sentiments of al Nahkba. Thus, the question regarding Palestinian plight of 1948, stems from failures on part by the

Palestinian leadership, as well as, Pro-Zionist sentiment within British policy implementation.

Works Cited

1. Palestinian Identity
Khalidi Rashid, Columbia, 1997.

2. Benny Morris