Palestinian internally displaced persons (IDPs) inside Israel are
part of the larger Palestinian refugee population that was
displaced/expelled from their villages and homes during the 1948
war in Palestine - the Nakba. While most of the refugees were
displaced to the Arab states and the Palestinian territories that
did not fall under Israeli control (i.e., the West Bank and the
Gaza Strip), some 150,000 Palestinians remained in the areas of
Palestine that became the state of Israel. This included
approximately 30,000-40,000 Palestinians who were also displaced
during the war. As in the case of the Palestinian refugees who were
displaced/expelled beyond the borders of the new state, Israel
refused to allow internally displaced Palestinians to return to
their homes and villages.
Displacement did not end with the 1948 war. In the years following
the establishment of Israel, internally displaced Palestinians, a
small number of refugees who had returned spontaneously to their
villages and Palestinians who had not been displaced during the war
were expelled for security and other reasons. Israeli officials
also carried out forced transfers of Palestinians from one village
to another within the borders of the state in order to facilitate
colonization of these areas. This included, for example,
Palestinians from the villages of Iqrit, Bir'im, al-Ghabsiyya, Krad
al-Baqqarah and Krad al-Ghannamah. Residents of these villages were
expelled to Lebanon and Syria or transferred and resettled in
nearby Palestinian villages. During the 1950s, the Israeli Defense
Forces (IDF) forced the Bedouins of the Naqab (Negev) to abandon
their traditional nomadic lifestyle; some 110,000 Bedouins were
concentrated in designated zones in the north of the Naqab1 and the
forced transfer of Bedouins is ongoing.2
During the 1950s, the Israeli military forces destroyed most of the
depopulated Palestinian villages, except for some mosques, churches
and cemeteries. According to Palestinian historian Walid
al-Khalidi, out of 420 villages, only six were not destroyed3 and
Jewish settlements were established on the land of these destroyed
Palestinian villages. Between October 1948 and August 1949, the
Israeli government built 109 settlements4 and also planted forests
in order to "hide" the traces of the original Palestinian
villages.
At the same time, the Israeli authorities built new housing units
for some IDPs in designated so-called "shelter villages"5 in order
to partially resolve the IDPs' housing problems. However, the
number of housing units constructed by the government was marginal
compared to overall IDP housing needs after the war and, in order
to acquire these units, IDPs were required to cede their housing
and property rights in their villages of origin. In addition, most
of the land for government-constructed housing was confiscated from
existing Palestinian villages (i.e., the shelter villages).6
Between 1948 and 1966, internally displaced Palestinians, like
other Palestinian citizens of Israel, were placed under military
rule. This enabled Israel to complete the expropriation of their
lands by applying the same Israeli laws used to confiscate the land
of Palestinian refugees - i.e., the 1950 Absentee Property Law. In
addition, the depopulated Palestinian villages were declared
"closed military areas" in order to prevent the IDPs' return.7 The
practice also blocked the implementation of several Israeli High
Court decisions permitting internally displaced Palestinians from
the villages of Iqrit, Bir'im and al-Ghabsiyya from returning to
their villages. In fact, the case of Iqrit and Bir'im became
emblematic. In 1951, the Israeli Supreme Court confirmed the
displaced persons' right to return to their villages, but the
government bypassed the court's decision and the military razed the
villages to the ground. In spite of the many subsequent petitions
by the inhabitants of Iqrit and Bir'im to be allowed to return to
their villages, to this day, the Israeli authorities have postponed
the implementation of the court decision; the villages remain in
rubble.
In July 2003, the Israeli Supreme Court turned down the petition.
It had accepted the state's claim that Israeli interests - based on
a combination of the security situation and the Palestinian
refugees' continued demand for the right of return - did not
justify their return. Thus, despite a series of promises made by
previous governments - notably by David Ben-Gurion in 1948 - to the
refugees that they would be allowed to return to their villages,
the state won the case by raising the specter of the return of some
200,000 "present absentee" refugees and setting a precedent for
cases concerning the right of return.8
Population
The IDPs inside Israel are one of the unlucky categories of the
Palestinian refugees as far as registration of status is concerned.
Israel has never recognized them as a separate sector of the
population nor their status as refugees or IDPs. Unlike for the
majority of Palestinian refugees, who are registered with the
United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees
(UNRWA), there is no registration system for internally displaced
Palestinians.
The number of internally displaced Palestinians in Israel today is
estimated to be around 274,000 persons. This, however, does not
include the Bedouins displaced after 1948 in the Naqab; the urban
IDPs - e.g., from Haifa and Acre (Akka) - who were permitted to
return to their cities of origin but were denied the right to
repossess their homes and properties; Palestinians who were
transferred after 1949 from outlying village settlements (khirba)
to the village proper in the Wadi A'ra area; and the Palestinians
who remained in their villages but lost their lands. If all these
categories of displaced persons are included, their total number
would today exceed 300,000.
Patterns of Displacement
The displacement of Palestinians during the 1948 conflict followed
two main patterns. The first was characterized by direct
displacement to the "permanent" places of refuge, such as the Arab
countries. This type describes the movement of most of the
externally displaced Palestinian refugees. The second pattern was
characterized by indirect displacement from one place to another
(three to four times on average),9 according to the sequence of the
occupation of the Palestinian villages by the Israeli troops. This
type of displacement describes the movement of all the IDPs in
Israel. It was less organized and more anarchic than external
displacement, but still collective, according to the family or the
village.10 The latter pattern was continuous and spread out over a
longer period of time than the first pattern of displacement.
Several factors explain the patterns of internal displacement
inside Israel. Some IDPs found refuge in nearby villages in which
they had relatives, family and friends. Nearby villages were also
the most similar socially and culturally to the depopulated
village. Religion also played a role in the choice of shelter
villages, especially for the displaced Christian minority (some 10%
of the total IDP population).11 Economic considerations also
influenced the choice of shelter villages, especially in the latter
part of the 1950s and the beginning of the 1960s after the IDPs
realized that the period of displacement would not be short as they
had expected and hoped.
Economic conditions in the shelter villages were generally
miserable, due to restrictions on freedom of movement, the effects
of the war on the Palestinian economy and the limited resources in
the villages. Since the beginning of the 1950s, many IDPs have
migrated from the villages to urban centers in search of better
economic opportunities.12 IDPs from the depopulated village of
Saffuriya, for example, migrated to Nazareth from the upper Galilee
during the end of the 1950s.13 The Palestinian sociologist Majid
Al-Haj noted that, during the end of the 1950s and the beginning of
the 1960s, approximately 35.5% of the IDPs who migrated to urban
centers were pushed by economic considerations.14 For many of them,
economic prosperity was seen as an alternative to their refugee
status.
Israeli involvement in the IDPs' affairs was another factor
affecting the choice of a shelter village. The Israeli authorities
transferred IDPs as well as local villagers from one place to
another for military and security reasons. This form of internal
population transfer was often carried out to facilitate the
repopulation of areas targeted for Jewish settlement.15 While
Israeli authorities helped IDPs to rent empty homes in shelter
villages16 or, in some cases, register the property in their names,
they also forced the IDPs to give up their rights in their villages
of origin.17
In addition to the primary patterns of displacement, there were two
rare patterns of IDP displacement that took place after 1948. Under
the first, Israel permitted some IDPs to return to their villages
and cities of origin. Some of the IDPs from the cities of Haifa,
Acre and Jaffa, and from the villages Sha'ab and Eilut, for
example, were allowed to return to their localities, but were not
permitted to repossess their homes and property. They were only
permitted to look for new housing in their localities of origin as
mentioned above.18 Under the second rare pattern of displacement, a
small number of displaced communities were able to rebuild their
neighborhoods on land beside their village of origin. Part of the
population that remained from the village of Ayn Hawd, located at
the foot of Mt. Carmel, for example, rebuilt homes adjacent to
their original village which was settled by Israeli artists.19
Further examples include al-Mansura in the Wadi A'ra area, as well
as the case of displaced Bedouin communities in the north and south
of Israel. Many of these villages are not recognized by the
government - they are known as "unrecognized villages" - and do not
receive government services.20
Distribution
It is estimated that 47 out of the 69 Palestinian villages that
remained after the war,21 in addition to the cities of Lydda and
Jaffa and the village of Abu Ghosh, provided shelter to internally
displaced Palestinians. Today, the IDPs make up the majority of the
population of these cities and villages. Most, however, reside in
separate neighborhoods organized around the structure of their
villages of origin. These neighborhoods are often named after the
villages of origin. A similar phenomenon can be found in
Palestinian refugee camps throughout the region. The IDPs also
reside in Palestinian cities in Israel, including Nazareth and
Shafa'amr, and in cities with mixed Jewish-Arab populations, such
as Haifa and Acre.
While the dependence of Palestinian locals and IDPs on the Israeli
economy reduced the economic gap between them, the degree of
dispossession experienced by IDPs is one of the primary reasons for
their economic underdevelopment and their inferior status in the
social class structure. The limited resources accessible to IDPs
precluded the possibility of social and economic integration in the
shelter villages.22 The end of military rule over Palestinians in
1966, and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in
1967 opened Palestinian markets to Israeli goods. While the
economic gap between IDPs and the locals in the Palestinian
villages was reduced, the general economic gap between the
Palestinians in general and the Jewish population remained.23 In
general, the economic challenges faced by IDPs has become less
distinct with time, due to the common problems faced by both
sectors of the Palestinian community inside Israel (IDPs and
locals), including the lack of agricultural land, dependence on the
Israeli economy and the absence of an independent Palestinian
economic structure.
Politically, it should be noted that during the first stage of
displacement, in which internally displaced Palestinians were not
yet organized, IDPs adopted a neutral stance towards local
conflicts. This position led to a dynamic in which the local
population offered more benefits to IDPs in order to win their
support. This also gave IDPs greater status in the shelter
villages. In these villages, the IDPs participated in local
elections under political parties related to their villages of
origin. In Yafia' village, for example, refugees from the
depopulated village of Ma'alul participated in elections under the
banner of the "Ma'alul Refugees party." These political parties
often focused on issues of interest or concern to all the
population and not only refugees (i.e., question of integration) as
a means of attracting political support from local parties.24 At
the national level, IDPs are more politically active in comparison
to other sectors of Palestinian society in Israel. Some members of
the Knesset are IDPs (generally as representatives of the
non-Zionist political parties).
The Challenge of Return
During the first stage of displacement, it seemed that Palestinian
refugees in general and IDPs in particular had disappeared behind
their problem. Nonetheless, the campaign of refugees and IDPs to
return to their homes of origin began with the first days of
displacement. Over the last decade, this campaign has assumed new
proportions.
* Nakba (1948-1967)
During the conflict and the beginning of the displacement, the main
challenge faced by Palestinians was to escape from danger. Refugees
and IDPs, in addition to the locals and the host societies,
believed that the return of the refugees and the IDPs would be "a
matter of time," and displacement would be temporary.25 By the end
of the war, many of the IDPs and some refugees from Syria and
Lebanon tried to return to their villages by crossing the Armistice
Line, often in the middle of the night, despite threats by the
Israeli government against returnees - referred to as
"infiltrators." Israeli military forces deported or killed most of
these persons.26
IDPs and all Palestinians inside Israel tried to return to their
villages of origin also by sending letters to the Israeli
ministries. These letters were generally written by the mukhtars
and the village elders.27 They focused on the good relationship
between the residents of the village of origin and their Jewish
neighbors and their desire to live in peace under Israeli rule.28
The Israeli response was invariably negative. At the same time, the
Israeli government announced its willingness to assist the IDPs,
but only in cases of resettlement in a new shelter village.29
The shock of the 1948 war, in addition to the collapse of the
national leadership, was one of the reasons surrounding the
confusion over the norms for the struggle against Israeli
governmental policies. The military rule (1948-1966) limited
effective political participation. Out of fear, the IDPs refrained
from expressing their political views publicly. The only Israeli
party working to resolve the IDP and refugee problem during this
period was the Israeli Communist Party (ICP),30 which led to
greater support for this party among IDPs,31 especially since the
ICP had been demanding that the government resolve the problems of
the IDPs, including allowing them to return to their villages of
origin.32 Generally speaking, the absence of a Palestinian
leadership and organizations helped the Israeli government in its
attempts to shift the case of the IDPs to a humanitarian rather
than a political issue. The hope expressed by Palestinian refugees
that the Arab states would defeat Israel and secure Palestinian
return and self-determination disappeared by the end of this stage.
This situation led, finally, to the Palestinian revolution by the
mid-1960s and the 1970s.
* Return Becomes Secondary (1967-1993)
This stage began in the mid-1960s. The primary factor leading to a
shift in focus for the campaign to return was the 1967 war, in
which Israel occupied the rest of the Palestinian territories and
displaced more than 350,000 Palestinians. The war also led to the
collapse of Arab national unity and the failure of the Nasserite
movement. Up until this time, the Palestinians had expected that
the Arab states would liberate Palestine. Following the 1967 war,
they began to look inwardly for a solution to their plight rather
than relying on Arab states to do it for them. The mid-1960s was
marked by several events, including the establishment in 1964 of
the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the beginning of
the Palestinian revolution against Israel in 1965. Inside Israel,
new political movements were established, including the nationalist
Arab movement al-Ard ("the Land") in 1964 and Rakah, the new
Communist party, comprised primarily of Palestinians and IDPs.
While Palestinian refugees outside adopted the principles of
shahada and fida (martyrdom and self-sacrifice for liberation), the
Palestinians inside Israel in general and the IDPs in particular
adopted al-sumud (steadfastness) in their struggle.33
By the end of the 1960s, the intensity of the debate among IDPs and
refugees over return declined because of the Israeli occupation of
the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The IDPs focused on their
relationship with the Palestinians in the occupied territories, in
addition to their economic development.34
Throughout this stage, the problem of the IDPs was relegated to
second place by the political demands of the Palestinian parties
inside Israel that had focused since 1967 on two basic rights: a)
Israeli withdrawal from the 1967 occupied territories and the
establishment of an independent Palestinian state; and b) equality
for the Palestinians inside Israel. In exile, the right of return
was superseded by the Palestinian revolution, self- determination
and the struggle for liberation.
* A New Process of Organization (1993-present)
The beginning of this stage coincided with the beginning of the
negotiations between the Israeli government and the PLO in the
early 1990s, the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, and the
establishment of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the "liberated"
cities in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
This current stage is also characterized by the development of a
mass campaign for return headed by the IDPs and the refugees
themselves. They felt that the Oslo peace process had ignored their
right of return. Despite differences between IDPs and refugees in
the West Bank and Gaza, the response to the peace process was
similar. One of the positive aspects of the Oslo peace process with
regard to refugees, however, was that it engendered increased
interest and awareness about the Palestinian refugees and the IDPs.
As the different parties searched for solutions to the conflict,
there was a need to study the main "obstacles" between the
Palestinians and the Israelis, including the refugee issue.35
In April 1992, the IDPs organized the first public meeting in which
they established a follow-up committee concerning the affairs of
IDPs inside Israel. The committee reaffirmed that IDPs were part of
the Palestinian people and voiced the protest that the negotiations
with the Israeli government were ignoring their rights.36 The
committee also demanded the implementation of UN resolutions
pertaining to the Palestinian refugees, including General Assembly
Resolution 194 (III) of December 11, 1948.37 Three years later, the
follow-up committee called for a meeting of IDPs in the village of
I'bilin (March 11, 1995), with the participation of representatives
of some 28 depopulated villages.38 The participants decided to
establish a National Committee for the Defense of the Rights of
Internally Displaced Palestinians inside Israel (officially
registered as an association in 1998), as a response to the
exclusion of IDPs and refugees from the Oslo process. The
Association is comprised of representatives of the villages of
origin. On March 16, 1995, the High (or Higher) Follow-Up Committee
for Arab Citizens in Israel announced its support for IDPs, and
welcomed the Association for the Defense of the Rights of the
Internally Displaced Palestinians (ADRID) as the representative
forum of IDPs inside Israel.39 ADRID has called upon the government
of Israel to implement UN Resolution 194 to allow the IDPs and the
refugees to return to their homes; it has organized activities in
the villages of origin, including marches, and has collected
archival material on the villages, in addition to cooperating with
the Palestinian members of Knesset.
In March 2000, the IDPs organized a second conference in Nazareth,
with the participation of local committees, Palestinian political
parties, and representatives of the PLO. The final statement of the
conference reaffirmed the statements of the first conference in
I'bilin (1995), including the reaffirmation of the right of return
of IDPs and refugees.40 For its part, ADRID continues to coordinate
with other refugee committees and organizations in the West Bank,
based on shared principles, including UN Resolution 194. In October
2000, November 2001 and November 2002, ADRID participated in the
annual coordinating meeting between Palestinian refugee committees
and organizations held respectively in Cyprus, Brussels and
Copenhagen.41 One of the main outcomes of these meetings was the
establishment of a "Palestinian Right of Return Coalition"as an
umbrella union for most of the refugee and the IDPs organizations.
The IDP campaign has become one of the main centers of the
Palestinian right of return, despite the particularities of their
case - the IDPs are citizens of Israel and not refugees.
Conclusion
The struggle of the internally displaced inside Israel is not easy.
In the past, IDP committees had to confront interference in their
work by the PLO, which was concerned that IDP activities could
damage the peace process with the Israeli government.42 The
committees face other problems, including defining a policy
vis-à-vis Israeli public opinion. Other questions include the
position of the committees towards IDPs who received compensation
from the Israeli government and the relationship of the situation
of IDPs to the larger refugee issue.
The campaign of the Palestinian IDPs inside Israel has also been
affected to a large extent by the process of building Palestinian
civil society inside Israel. Palestinian civil society structures
virtually disappeared in the aftermath of the 1948 war, the
establishment of the state of Israel and the mass displacement of
Palestinians. With the end of military rule inside Israel in 1966,
some of these organizations reappeared, especially in the political
arena and in the area of social services. During the 1990s, some
656 new Palestinian associations were registered inside Israel,
including Ittijah (the Union of Palestinian NGOs inside Israel),
established in 1995.
On the political level, an increasing number of Palestinian
political parties have focused on the problem of the internally
displaced Palestinians. During the 1996 Israeli general elections,
Hadash (a joint Arab-Jewish party) and Balad raised the case of the
IDPs as one of the main issues affecting the Palestinians inside
Israel. Other Palestinian parties have also raised the issue of
IDPs,43 in addition to some of the Zionist left forums like the
Ta'ayush and Gush Shalom movements.
Endnotes
1. See 'Aref Abu-Rabia', "Bedew al-Naqab: al-nuzoh wal-tawtin
al-qasri wal-mahmiat al-tabie'ia" (Bedouins in the Negev:
Displacement, Forced Resettlement and Natural Zones). Nashrat
al-Hijra al-Qasriyya, 5 (Oxford: November 1999), pp.31-33
[Arabic].
2. In 1957, Israel deported al-Syajj Arabs in the Negev. In the
mid-1970s, Israel deported Arab al-Mafjar near the city of Hadera
and, in 1981, after the 1979 signing of the Camp David Accords
between Israel and Egypt, the Israeli government deported thousands
of Bedouins from Tal al-Meleh from the Negev. In 1995, the Israeli
infrastructure minister ordered the destruction of al-Hawashleh
village in the Negev and Arab al-Jahalin. See Hillel Cohen,
HaNochim nefcadim: haplitim hafalistinim bamdinat yisrael meaz 1948
(The Present Absentees: The Palestinian Refugees in Israel since
1948). (Jerusalem: The Institute for Israeli-Arab Studies, 2001).
See also Wakim Wakim, al-Muhajarun al-lajeun fi watanihom (The
Internally Displaced, Refugees in their Homeland). (Cairo: Center
of Human Rights Studies, 2001) [Arabic].
3. These six villages are: Tarbicha in Acre district, Balad
al-Sheikh, al-Tireh, and Ein Hawd in the Haifa district, and Ein
Karem, Malha, and Deir Yassin in the Jerusalem district. See Walid
Al-Khalidi, All that Remains. The Palestinian Villages Occupied by
Israel in 1948. (Beirut: Institute for Palestine Studies,
1987).
4. Ibid.
5. In Umm al-Fahm, Yamma and Sha'ab and Ein Rafa near Jerusalem,
the Israeli government built some 20 housing units for the IDPs; in
Jaljulia 10; Ramla 45; and in Nazareth more than 200. The State of
Israel Archives, The Housing Ministry File 4410/61621, cited in
Cohen (2001).
6. In October 1958, the Israeli government confiscated some 56
plots from Tamra village in the Galilee in order to resettle the
IDPs. A few months later, the government confiscated almost 70
dunums in Judaida village and 24 dunums in al-Jish. See Cohen
(2001).
7. See Charles Caiman, "Ahri ha-Ason haarivim bamdinat yisrael
1948-1950" (After the Catastrophe: the Arabs in the State of Israel
1948-1950), Mahbarut Lamhkar Vibikarit, 10 (Haifa: 1984).
8 See Nihad Boqa'i, Returning to Kafr Bir'im. (Bethlehem: Badil
Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights,
2006).
9. M. Sa'eed, "Al-laje'un fi al-dakhel" (The Internal Refugees),
Al-Asswar 12 (Acre: Winter 1992).
10. Majid Al-Haj, "The Arab Internal Refugees in Israel: The
Emergence of a Minority within the Minority," in Ian Lustick (ed.),
Arab-Israeli Relations: A Collection of Contending Perspectives
Recent Research (London: Garland Publishing, 1994).
11. Caiman (1984).
12. Cohen (2001).
13. See M. Cabaha and R. Brazilai, "Haplitim bearzam, haplitim
hapnimiem bamdinat yisrael 1948-1996" ("Refugees in Their Homeland,
the Internal Refugees in the State of Israel 1948-1996"), Skirot
al-Ha'aravim Bayesrael No. 2 (Giv'at Haviva: Institute for Peace
Studies, 1996). The migration of the IDPs from Safurriya village to
Nazareth can be explained if we take into consideration the
geographic proximity of Safurriya to Nazareth, and the process of
the reuniting of IDPs from Safurriya in the al-Sfafri neighborhood
in Nazareth.
14. Al-Haj (1994).
15. This includes, for example, the transfer of Rehania IDPs in
Kfar Kana and the transfer of Tarshiha residents to Me'elia
village. General proposals for the resettlement of IDPs in Majd
al-Krum were discussed by the Transfer Committee headed by Joseph
Weitz.
16. In 1950, the village department of the Custodian of Absentee
Property announced that it was going to study the question of
renting empty houses in the shelter villages to IDPs in 20
villages. Israeli Defense Army Archive, 263/66/2, cited in Cohen
(2001).
17. In some cases, the Israeli authorities asked IDPs to register
their secondary houses as "permanent property" in exchange for
ceding their rights in the villages of origin. This includes IDPs
in al-Jish, in April 1961. See, Sa'eed (1992).
18. There was a high percentage of IDPs in Nazareth: more than
4,500 IDPs inside the city and an additional 5,000 IDPs in the
nearby villages. The Israeli government was afraid to allow such a
large population of IDPs remain in one place. It therefore decided
to allow the IDPs from Haifa, Acre and Jaffa to return to their
cities of origin. A special ministerial committee recommended that
IDPs from Eilut (560) and Hittin also return, but the military
rejected the latter village for security reasons. The two Bedouin
tribes of Krad al-Baqqara and Krad al-Ghannameh were transferred in
1956 to Sha'ab village, which was empty and had been declared a
"closed military zone." Villagers from Sha'ab who had been
displaced to the nearby villages were allowed to return to the
village. See Cohen (2001).
19. The Association of Forty defends the rights of the unrecognized
Palestinian villages. Ein Hawd village was recognized in 1994 by
the Israeli government as part of the local council of Hof
Hacarmel.
20. See Cohen (2001). For more details on the unrecognized villages
see http://www.assoc40.org.
21. This included Nazareth (3,000-6,000 IDPs), Acre (1,000), Majd
al-Krum (850), al-Rama (550-850), Yafia' (370-750), Abu-Snan (400),
Kufr Yasif (400), Kufr Kana (270-600) and Shfara'amr (500).
22. See Majid Al-Haj, "Al-Laje'un al-Arab fi Israel: Lajeun fi
Watanihom" (The Arab Refugees inside Israel: Refugees in Their
Homeland]. Al-Mawakib 5, (May-June 1988).
23. Cabaha and Brazilai (1996).
24. Ibid.
25. Al-Haj (1994).
26. On 24 May 1949, for example, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF)
deported some 61 persons from Farridiyya village and Samiria
village. The IDF also deported two families from Mi'ar village that
had come from Arraba village. Yoman hamilhama shel hamimshal
hazvai, IDF Archive, 850-721/72 and IDF archive, 721-842/72, cited
in Cohen (2001).
27. The mukhtars and the village elders were the main mediators
between the Israeli government and the Palestinians inside
Israel.
28. Such letters were sent, for example, to Israeli prime minister
and defense minister Ben-Gurion and to Minorities Minister Bachour
Shitrit. The letters sent by IDPs from Haifa in Nazareth and Madima
village (Tiberias) in Nazareth, and Suhmata in Bqe'n and the IDPs
of Mi'ar in Kabul village. See State of Israel Archives, Minorities
Ministry file, 44/1319, 39/308, 35/1319, 41/1319, cited in Cohen
(2001).
29. Sa'eed (1997).
30. Al-Ittihad, the party newspaper, reported weekly about the
problem of the IDPs. See, for example, Haifa IDPs in Nazareth in
3.1.1948., IDPs in Shfara'am in 7.1.1949, demand to return the IDPs
from al-Damoun in 31.1.1949, demand to return the IDPs from Iqrit
in Rama, against the closing of the de-populated villages in
10.7.1949, the displacement of al-Ghabsiyya villagers in 5.2.1950,
26.2.1950, and displacement of the IDPs of A'ra valley in
1.10.1950, cited in Cohen (2001).
31. Sa'eed (1999).
32. The members of Knesset of the Israeli Communist Party demanded
in mid-1949 that the IDPs from al-Mjedil, Eilut, Ma'alul, Birwa,
Damoun, Fargha, Iqrit, etc. be allowed "to return to their villages
of origin." See Devti Hakneset, 1, 1949, 5-84, cited in Cohen
(2001).
33. See Ingrid Jaradat, The Public Campaign for the Defense of the
Palestinian Refugee Rights in Historic Palestine (Bethlehem: Badil
Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights,
2000).
34. Cohen (2001).
35. Rosemary Sayegh (1998). "Dis/Solving the Refugee Problem"
Middle East Report (Summer 1998).
36. Sa'eed (1999).
37. See Wakim Wakim, "Al-muhajrun fi watanihom wal-mahatat
al-re'isia" (Internally Displaced in their Homeland and the Main
Stations), Al-Ittihad newspaper, special supplement on Land Day
(March 2001 b).
38. The representatives of the depopulated villages are from eight
villages of more than 500 inhabitants, in addition to some 22
smaller villagers. See Cohen 2001.
39. Wakim (2001 b).
40. Wakim (2001 b).
41. Badil (2002).
42. Cohen (2002).
43. Sa'eed (1999).
<