1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War

Knowing very little about the first Arab/Israeli war I was eager to read about this period/conflict in history. Benny Morris’ book is excellent. The book is extensively researched, very informative and a well balanced narrative of events. I highly recommend this book.

No need to repeat a synopsis of what the book contains - several of the reviews here have provided a very good digest. And indeed, Morris' '1948' is an extremely informative, generally unbiased and well-written rendition of its subject.There are a couple of insights that Morris didn't furnish us with. For example, why didn't the Mufti opt for the 1937 British proposal that would have allotted 70% of Palestine's land-area to a sovereign Palestinian state? Al-Husseini knew that the locals couldn't defeat the Jews, and also knew that the invading Arab armies, if victorious, would take apart Palestine for themselves. Sure, the Jews might use their 20% (the remaining 10% was to be an international zone) as a springboard to expand (Ben Gurion hinted as much), but Al-Husseini's best - and only - bet was to insist the British be strategically placed as a permanent buffer. The British might have agreed, so why did the Mufti spurn the only real option he had?There is also other information missing. What was the population of Gaza at the start of 1948 - and at the end of that year? Same question re the West Bank. And where were the Bedouin in this mix? Etc. Still, the book contains no end of useful facts, and is an exceptional contribution to the Israeli-Palestinian debate in numerous ways.The MAJOR shortcoming of this book is its last chapter. Here Morris loses his footing and becomes shallow commentator, not careful historian. I wrote an article on how Jews are raised on a bogus narrative - and sadly, Morris, who so methodically and honestly debunks that bogus narrative in all the chapters (and courageously did the same in "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem"), falls back exactly into that sloppy and dishonest category. I'll excerpt from that article (the full piece can be accessed at [...]"Ask any Jew how 700,000 Palestinians became refugees, and you'll invariably get this kind of answer:"The Palestinians were offered partition and rejected it. Instead, they attacked the Jews, calling on the surrounding Arab states to help drive the Jews out of Palestine. The Arab armies invaded, exhorting the Palestinians to vacate their towns and villages so the field would be clear - the Palestinians were to join military units over the border and return victorious. "But the Arabs failed. The Jews, despite being grossly outnumbered, drove back the invading armies, and then refused to let these war-making Palestinians return to their homes. After Israel won this 1948 war to establish her independence, the Arab states summarily expelled their Jewish communities that had lived in their lands for over 2,000 years. So there was mutual displacement - of Arabs from Palestine, of Jews from the Arab countries. And thus Israel, which never started this whole conflict, cannot be accountable for the Palestinians' plight."Now, let's bring in the missing precision.For starters, it wasn't "the Palestinians" who rejected partition; it was the Palestinian leadership. "The Palestinians" were never asked by their despotic leadership if they favored compromise. Needless to say, this was no elected leadership; the British imposed the mufti, Amin Al-Husseini, on the Palestinians, and his strongmen were widely detested. In fact, more Palestinians died fighting the Al-Husseini clan than died fighting the Jews. So we simply don't know how Palestinians would have voted on a compromise with the Jews, especially given that many Arab villages had close relations with their Jewish neighbors - as literally thousands of testimonies on both sides affirm.Next, it's a major stretch to say "the Palestinians attacked the Jews". When in Nov 1947, the UN stunned the Arab world by voting for a Jewish state in half of Palestine, less than 0.1% of Palestinians responded with violence. In the week following the famous pronouncement, a dozen small-scale attacks by Palestinians on Jews were recorded; in most cases, carried out by just 3 or 4 attackers. One concerted attack by over 100 Palestinian militants did take place in the Galilee - but that was about it. Countrywide, fewer than 300 Palestinians - out of a population of 1.35 million - attacked the Jews at this juncture.Within months the violence did severely escalate - but the provocation hardly came from the Palestinians alone. Extremists among the Arab public attacked Jewish civilians indiscriminately, and Jewish extremists, arguing it was fatal to show weakness to Arab adversaries, responded in like manner. In increasing numbers, ordinary civilians on both sides were dragged in.However, what primarily sent this civil war into high gear were the ominous preparations by the surrounding Arab states to invade May 15, 1948. That was the date the British were set to depart Palestine - which would leave the Arab armies a clear field. The Jews, increasingly concerned they'd be overrun if the local Arabs joined the invaders, felt they had little choice but to remove the local threat. So the civil war turned brutal as the Jewish forces enacted a full-scale expulsion policy.Israeli archives show it was not the straightforward decision that Israel's detractors claim. The Jewish leaders knew that expulsion would induce the very enmity they so feared, and were very reluctant to start a war with hundreds of Arab villages which had thus far studiously avoided violence against their Jewish neighbors. And there was the moral issue; many of these villages had actually conspired against Arab warmongers, constantly alerting Jews to Arab marauders in the vicinity. How could the Jews suddenly start expelling these friendly villages?But Palestine's Jewish immigrants, many of them survivors of the Nazi death-camps just a few years back, took no chances - for even Palestinians very friendly towards Jews might turn coat and assist the invading Arab armies. Some might view the chance to establish their own state as paramount; others might fear retribution by the invading Arab armies if they desisted from joining the Arab cause.And so, in Feb 1948, Jewish forces started forcibly removing all Arab villages that lay along the expected invasion routes. Initially, the instruction was to relocate the villagers a short distance away, but the operation soon degenerated into wholesale expulsions from Palestine itself. The Jewish forces, many of the units filled in the course of battle by barely trained immigrants, were far less disciplined than the Israeli army of today - and the looting of Arab property was rife. A slew of atrocities were committed by Palestinians and Jews alike, and many prisoners shot to save the headache of housing them. The British tried to keep the lid on, but in several instances, behaved barbarically themselves.And then came the turning point.In the second week of April 1948 - five weeks before the last British soldier was set to leave and the massing Arab armies set to invade - occurred an event that more than any other, changed the course of the civil war. In truth, it's the event that enabled Israel to become a viable Jewish state. Yet, ask most Israelis - let alone, Jews in the Diaspora - about Deir Yassin and its aftermath, and fewer than 1 in 10 will have a clue. In America, almost no Jews have even heard of the place; the standard Jewish narrative omits all reference to it.Deir Yassin was a small village - estimates range from 400 - 600 residents - a few miles west of Jerusalem. All accounts speak of it being friendly towards the Jews, although a few historians contend it had recently been infiltrated by militiamen. As their national campaign to empty Arab villages intensified, the Jewish mainstream forces assigned (reluctantly, say historians) two Jewish terror groups the task of clearing Deir Yassin. The taskforce, made up largely of teenage hotheads, met unexpected resistance and simply lobbed grenades through windows, wiping out entire families. Over 100 residents of Deir Yassin were killed, some (according to several reports) shot in the back as they fled.The local Arab military command, hoping to enrage Palestine's citizens and goad the Arab states into early action, gave the event enormous publicity - and for good measure, doubled the actual death toll and added non-existent accounts of rape. The two Jewish terror groups, hoping to scare other villages into fleeing, contentedly affirmed this embroidered accounting. The mainstream Jewish leadership, though, was appalled and highly concerned at the international fallout - the massacre might cause an already divided world community to reconsider whether Jews were deserving of a state if they couldn't be trusted to protect Arab villagers. So, for several reasons (including the chance to taint Jewish right-wing parties), mainstream Jewish leaders also gave the event much publicity - by loudly putting distance between themselves and the `tiny, rogue' Jewish terror groups.The net effect of all this publicity cannot be overstated; in the 7-week period that followed, 350,000 demoralized and frightened Palestinians (of the eventual 700,000 total) fled Palestine. Some put up a fight, but many fled before the Jewish forces even arrived on the scene. And all were prodded along their way until encamped beyond the envisioned border of an upcoming Jewish state. This hardly jibes with the Jewish narrative that says the Palestinians, upon the exhortation of the invading Arab armies (which, by the way, had not yet invaded at that juncture), vacated their homes in some grand, coordinated campaign against the Jews.Furthermore, if any Palestinians were responding to the Arab regimes' calls to evacuate, it was surely not because they trusted these regimes. The Palestinians knew full well that the Arab states were invading not to help Palestinians, but to acquire territory for themselves. It was no secret that Jordan coveted the West Bank, and wanted to use it as a springboard to annex Syria. And that the deployment of Syrian troops was primarily designed to thwart the Jordanians - and perhaps acquire some of Palestine for themselves. And that the Egyptian deployment in the south mimicked exactly what the Syrians were up to in the north. In fact, the Arab armies' evacuation-orders to the locals, certainly in some cases, appear designed to prevent Palestinians siding with their Jewish neighbors.Teamwork between the Palestinians and the Arab regimes as the Jewish recital goes?Hardly.In sum, most of the Palestinian refugees were victims three times over. First, by their despotic and grossly incompetent leadership. Second, by the surrounding Arab regimes which used them as pawns for a land grab. And third, by the Jews, whose desperate quest for a homeland brooked little compassion for the Palestinians standing in their way."Quite frankly, I grimmaced when Morris - who, more than anyone, was a pioneer in bravely explaining all the above - ended his book '1948' with the kind of shallow imprecision that is far more characteristic of his barely-informed critics.Gordon Miller

To start with, I am not Jewish nor Arab. I am also not American or European. I initially purchased this book within the context of my interest in military history. I own the hardcover version of this title.I was pleasantly surprised by Morris and his candour in this book. As the editorial said, "Morris was not afraid of offending both camps" - I agree with this. This book details the pros & cons of both sides - unashamedly listing victories that the Arabs achieved and the atrocities that the Israelis committed. I did not expect that. Be aware however, that the author is Jewish and no matter how hard he might try to be objectionable, there has to be some level of bias - not that I found much of it. I could not fault his research, honesty, detail and ability to engage the worldwide reader. I also only found a couple of typing errors, rare in mass publications these days.I encourage you to read this book.I leave you with two questions that the book left with me (unanswered):First comment/question: With this war eventuating hot-on-the-heels of WWII and its Holocaust, I found it interesting (from a purely objective point of view), that when given the means, the opportunity and the power to do so, the Jews also committed atrocities against their defeated foe (military & civillian - Muslim & Christian). Morris argued that in the context of WWII, the expulsion of potential usurpers, confiscation of legally owned property, looting, murders, massacres and rapes perpetrated by the Jewish forces were on an infinitely smaller scale. But I had to take into account that the battles detailed in his book were over a far smaller time frame and geography, merely weeks & months and a few thousand square miles, compared to 6 years and over an entire continent, in Germany & Britain's case in WWII. Without any desire to be branded 'anti-semitic' (the phrase is used only a few times in the book), I wondered if these admitted crimes attributed to the Jews would have perpetuated in scale had time, larger scale geography and distance from disciplinary commanders had been greater? As disgusting as the Holocaust and other ethnic cleansing events in our recent history has been, I wondered whether every nation is a potential "atrocity-committer", given the right circumstances?Second comment/question: Morris detailed a number of acts of violence perpetrated on the Jews over their more modern history. From my own study I too have found regular acts of barbarism against people of Jewish descent. It left me wondering why it is that one specific race should be subject to continual acts of aggression, wherever it is they may choose to live (Europe, Russia, North Africa, Middle East, etc). Is it because Jewish people stick together, only ever assimilating in small ways of absolute neccessity? Is it because (as Morris spoke about in detail in his book) the Jews are experts in subterfuge and underhanded tactics in order to get what they want? ...And this eventually annoys the original locals to the point of violence (if given the right circumstances - as said above).- OR -The Hebrews are the original chosen People of God, and therefore they are forver/wherever blessed? This would show that no matter where it is the Jews find themselves living (desert, jungle, village or city anywhere in the world)- they thrive! They have an inate ability to be successful, have an attitude of excellence and strongly linked family values. ...And this eventually annoys the original locals to the point of violence (if given the right circumstances - as said above).

A book that doesn't shy away from exposing Israel's crimes. However it shows a balanced perspective and shows the Arabs would have done the same if not worse.

Excellent, broad, and detailed analysis of the 1947/48 war.

Great book with a comprehensive historical summary of the Israeli-Palestinian and the Israeli-Arab conflict. I loved the book. I recommend it.

Balance is hard on any topic as grey as the Arab Israeli conflicts - but this work maintains that fine and wavering line well.

A really excellent book, a lot of detail and maps. This is a very fair account of what happened, both leading up to the war, during the war, and after. I've always wondered how such a small, nascent nation could win against such a large and (seemingly) more powerful opposition. This explains it very well. Although the writer Benny Morris is himself Israeli, he certainly doesn't pull any punches about atrocities carried out by Israelis during the war. It was a very dirty war on both sides. I can't recommend it enough.