1948 Nekbe Incident

The Nakba is the term used to describe the forced displacement, population movement, dispossession, and social disintegration experienced by hundreds of thousands of Palestinians during the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. In Arabic, the word “an-Nakba” means “catastrophe” and encapsulates this transformation in Palestinian history in its physical and cultural consequences.

The Nakba is regarded as a historical event that caused permanent changes to the region’s demographic structure and left Palestinian society facing long-term exile, refugee status, and identity loss. During this process, the depopulation or complete destruction of numerous villages, the forced displacement of civilians, and fundamental changes in the legal status of those who remained formed the core components of the Nakba. As such, the Nakba is considered one of the central concepts in history, international law, and refugee studies for understanding the shaping of Palestinian society after 1948. The event continues to hold a central place both in the collective memory of Palestinians and in regional political debates today.

Historical Background

The events of 1948 that led to the Nakba were the culmination of political, demographic, and social dynamics that had developed over centuries in the land of Palestine. The historical context of this period encompasses a layered framework that includes the long-standing settled structure of Palestinian society and the nationalist movements that gained momentum from the 19th century onward.

Palestine had changed hands among Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman empires since antiquity and, due to its strategic location, was frequently a site of population movements and cultural interactions. From the medieval period onward, the region remained under Islamic rule for centuries, developing a social structure dominated by an Arab population. During the Ottoman era, Palestine preserved its multi-religious and multicultural character; until the late 19th century, the majority of its population consisted of Muslim Arabs, followed by Christian Arabs and Jewish communities.

The Jewish people, dispersed across a wide geographic area since antiquity due to wars and exiles, had maintained the religious concept of the “Promised Land.” However, the idea of returning to Palestine in a modern political sense gained momentum in the 19th century under the influence of rising antisemitism and nationalist ideologies in Europe.

Political Zionism became an institutionalized movement with the First Zionist Congress convened in 1897 under the leadership of Theodor Herzl. Herzl’s book Der Judenstaat and the program adopted at the congress brought the goal of establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine onto the international stage. The first organized waves of migration during this period initiated the settlement of a limited Jewish population in Palestine, still under Ottoman rule. The Ottoman administration gradually introduced regulations to restrict immigration and limit land purchases.

After World War I, Palestine came under British mandate administration under the political influence of the 1917 Balfour Declaration. This declaration pledged support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in a region where approximately 90 percent of the population was Arab. Between 1920 and 1948, the British administration implemented a series of policies that facilitated Jewish immigration and organization while generating political fractures within the Arab community.

During this period;

• The Jewish population increased rapidly over a few decades.
• The Jewish Agency transformed into a proto-state structure with military and economic institutions.
• Competition among large Arab families hindered the emergence of a unified political response.

Although rising Arab-Jewish conflicts prompted Britain to establish various commissions in search of solutions, these efforts failed to produce lasting outcomes.

In the post-World War II period, U.S. support became decisive within the Zionist movement. The political influence of Jewish communities in the United States and the approach of President Truman’s administration played a key role in bringing the Palestine issue onto the United Nations agenda. Meanwhile, tensions in Palestine escalated; due to increasing violence, political deadlock, and international pressure, the British government decided in 1947 to hand over the region to the United Nations (UN).

The UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) examined the parties involved and prepared two main reports. The majority report proposed dividing Palestine between an Arab state and a Jewish state. On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly voted to adopt the majority plan. Following the plan, tensions in the region rapidly escalated into armed conflict. In the early months of 1948, violence intensified between cities and villages. This environment restricted the movement of Palestinian civilians and triggered the beginning of mass displacement.

The Emergence of Zionism

In Jewish tradition, the concepts of “Zion” and the “Promised Land” had long carried primarily religious and spiritual meaning, with Jerusalem regarded as a sacred center. In this understanding, return to Palestine was sustained as a spiritual expectation rooted in messianic belief and sacred texts.

In the second half of the 19th century, the rise of nationalism and antisemitism in Europe transformed this religious expectation into a political program. Increasing anti-Jewish movements across Europe, particularly in Russia, strengthened the search for a secure national framework for Jews and redirected attention toward Palestine.

The first organized initiatives of the modern Zionist movement began with the “Lovers of Zion” society in Eastern Europe. Although this society achieved limited success due to lack of coordination and financial resources, it initiated the first mass migrations to Palestine and established the idea of “returning to Zion” as a practical goal.

The decisive figure in transforming Zionism into a systematic and political movement was Theodor Herzl, a Hungarian-Jewish journalist. After witnessing the antisemitic atmosphere surrounding the Dreyfus Affair, Herzl focused on the “Jewish question”; in his 1896 book Der Judenstaat, he detailed how Jews could migrate to Palestine and establish a political entity there.

Herzl argued that for Zionism to succeed, it required international and institutional organization; he secured the founding of the World Zionist Organization at the First Zionist Congress held in Basel in 1897. The Basel Program adopted at the congress defined the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine as the central objective of the Zionist movement.

Under Ottoman rule, Zionist leaders sought support from Sultan Abdulhamid II and made various efforts regarding land acquisition and settlement. However, the Ottoman administration rejected these demands through regulations that restricted immigration and land purchases. This situation pushed the Zionist movement to seek the protection of a powerful imperial state, gradually turning its focus toward Britain.

The “Land Without a People” Narrative

The displacement of the Palestinian population is linked to a colonial discourse within Zionism. This narrative is based on the view of Palestine as a “land independent of its people.”

This perspective is epitomized in the frequently cited Zionist slogan: “a land without a people for a people without a land.” Under this narrative, Palestine is depicted as a territory abstracted from its indigenous population, awaiting “reclamation,” while Jews are presented as a community historically deprived of their homeland, destined to return to these lands and re-enter modern history by establishing a national state. At this point, Zionism, like other colonial discourses, activates claims of modernization and civilization. Palestine is portrayed as a “traditional and backward” society, thus an area open to external modernizing intervention. This understanding, which codes Jewish settlement as “modernization,” provides a crucial ideological framework that legitimizes the displacement of the Palestinian population.

Within this framework;

• Israel is positioned as a “modern and civilized entity,”
• while Palestinian society is, in some narratives, depicted as “problematic, backward, even a kind of disease center”; this language facilitates coercive policies toward the local population under the pretext of “saving the land.”^【1】 

Thus, the Zionist discourse became intertwined with a Europe-centered colonial modernization ideology, extending beyond a national project. The emphasis on reconstructing and revitalizing Palestinian land emerged within a context that marginalized the historical presence and claims of the indigenous population.

The Role of Regional and Global Powers

Britain’s role in Palestine was central to the occurrence of the Nakba. The 1917 Balfour Declaration contained Britain’s commitment to support the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. This declaration granted international legitimacy to Zionist demands at a time when approximately 90 percent of Palestine’s population was Arab.

After World War I, Palestine was placed under British mandate at the 1920 San Remo Conference, a decision later confirmed by the League of Nations. The British mandate administration pursued policies that facilitated Jewish immigration and organization, while generating increasing dissatisfaction and political tension within the Arab community.

Following the Balfour Declaration;

• The Jewish Agency and other Zionist institutions gained opportunities to strengthen their political, economic, and military structures in Palestine.
• The Arab community, weakened by internal divisions, struggled to mount an effective resistance against Zionist settlement and British support.

Throughout the mandate period, Britain established various commissions to resolve Arab-Jewish conflicts. However, these efforts failed to produce lasting peace due to both sides’ rejection of proposed solutions.

After World War II, the direction of the Zionist movement increasingly shifted toward the United States. Under pressure from American Jewish communities and lobbies, the U.S. government began offering more open support to Zionist demands regarding Palestine. Particularly during Harry Truman’s presidency, the United States adopted a pro-partition stance at the United Nations. The Truman administration played a decisive role in securing the adoption of the plan to divide Palestine into Jewish and Arab states by applying political and economic pressure on other countries during UN votes.

The plan prepared by the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) proposed dividing Palestinian territory between two states. While Zionists supported this plan, Arab states and Palestinian Arabs vehemently opposed it. The United States’ role during this period was one of the decisive factors in granting international legitimacy to the Zionist movement and facilitating the establishment of the State of Israel. U.S. support was also a critical factor in Britain’s decision to withdraw from Palestine and transfer the issue to the UN.

United Nations Partition Plan (1947)

By 1947, the political and social tensions in Palestine had reached a point where Britain declared it could no longer govern the region and transferred the Palestine issue to the United Nations. In response, the UN established a research mission, the Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), to examine conditions on the ground. Based on its investigations, UNSCOP presented two distinct recommendations to the General Assembly:

Partition Proposal

The majority recommendation endorsed by the committee proposed dividing Palestinian territory into:

• A Jewish state,
• An Arab state,
• A region of Jerusalem under international administration. The territory allocated to the Jewish state included areas with significant Arab populations but also encompassed regions with concentrated Zionist settlements. The Zionist movement viewed this proposal as an acceptable solution toward achieving statehood.^【2】 

Federal Single-State Proposal

The minority group within the committee proposed structuring Palestine as a single federal state. Under this model:

• Arabs and Jews would be subject to a common federal government,
• Each community would enjoy autonomy in its internal affairs.

This proposal was seen by Arab representatives as more balanced but was rejected by the Zionist movement.^【3】 

On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly voted to adopt the partition plan outlined in the majority report. This decision dramatically altered the course of conflict in Palestine:

• The Jewish side welcomed the decision as a victory toward statehood.
• The Arab side completely rejected it, arguing that it contradicted the region’s demographic realities and denied Palestinians their right to self-determination.

Following the decision, tensions in the region escalated rapidly; armed clashes intensified in cities and rural areas, opening the path to the Nakba.

The 1948 War and the Establishment of the State of Israel

Following the adoption of the 1947 Partition Plan by the UN General Assembly, political tensions in Palestine rapidly transformed into widespread conflict. Violence erupted between the Zionist movement, which accepted the plan, and Palestinian Arabs, who rejected it. By the early months of 1948, attacks spread, and mutual clashes became persistent in cities, villages, and along transportation routes.

Relations between the two communities completely broke down, and armed groups gained increasing influence. Zionist organizations (Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi) concentrated their military forces and launched operations against Arab settlements. In the Arab community, lacking a centralized organized military force, local militias and volunteer units became the primary actors in the conflict. During this period, incidents such as attacks on roads, armed clashes in urban centers, village raids, and mass migration movements intensified.

Britain, unable to maintain control due to escalating violence, announced that it would completely withdraw from Palestine on 15 May 1948. This declaration created a major political and military vacuum; both sides sought to strengthen their positions within it. In the final months of the mandate, the British administration’s capacity to maintain public order had severely weakened, and British forces largely chose to remain neutral, further deepening the conflict.

Hours before Britain’s withdrawal, on 14 May 1948, Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion declared the establishment of the State of Israel in Tel Aviv. This declaration was an early step toward statehood, preceding the date stipulated in the UN Partition Plan. The establishment of the state was the culmination of long-standing Zionist efforts in:

• Land acquisition,
• Immigration policies,
• Military organization,
• Diplomatic initiatives.

Arab States’ Intervention and Regionalization of the War

Immediately after the declaration of Israel’s establishment, the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon entered Palestine and launched military operations against the newly formed state. With this phase, the conflict shifted from a local civil war between two communities to a regional war.

Despite the intervention of Arab armies;

• Zionist forces were more militarily organized,
• Possessed significant advantages in arms and logistics,
• Quickly gained control of strategic areas.

During this period, numerous Arab settlements were depopulated or captured, contributing to the expansion of the population movement defined as the Nakba.

Outcomes of the War and Armistice Agreements

The conflicts throughout 1948 ended in 1949 with a series of armistice agreements. As a result of these agreements;

• Israel began controlling a larger territory than that allocated to it under the UN Partition Plan.
• The West Bank came under Jordanian control.
• The Gaza Strip was placed under Egyptian administration.
• Nearly one million Palestinians became refugees due to the depopulation of their villages and towns, forced to migrate to regions such as Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank.
• Approximately 15,000 people were killed.
• 675 villages and towns were destroyed.^【4】 

Infographic on the Nakba (AA)

The “Present Absentee” Category

One of the most significant outcomes of the Nakba was the reclassification of the legal status of Palestinians. During Israel’s post-1948 population census, the “present absentee” category was created, placing Palestinian individuals in a gap between their physical presence and their legal status. Those classified under this category:

• Had temporarily left their villages during the conflicts,
• Were not found at their registered addresses during the census,
• Were therefore legally deemed “non-existent,”
• And consequently lost their property rights and right of return.
• This practice led to the dispossession of a large portion of Palestinians and their exclusion from citizenship rights.^【5】 

Refugee Camps and the Disintegration of Social Structure

A significant portion of displaced Palestinians began living in refugee camps established with the support of international organizations after dispersing to neighboring countries. With the creation of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), these camps transformed from temporary shelters into permanent settlements, shaping the new social structure of the Palestinian people.

According to UNRWA, as of 2010, 43.4 percent of the approximately 10.9 million Palestinian Muslims worldwide were in refugee status.^【6】 

The Continuity of the Nakba

The Nakba is not merely a single event of 1948; it has acquired a dimension of continuity through institutional structures that continuously affect the legal and social existence of Palestinians, particularly through emergency regulations and property laws. Practices such as restrictions on daily movement, fragmentation of social spaces, denial of property transfers, and the persistent closure of the right of return have long-term shaped Palestinian life. Thus, the Nakba has become not just a wartime moment but a permanent historical and sociological condition at the heart of modern Palestinian history.

The generations born after the Nakba, though most have never seen Palestine, have constructed their identity through family narratives, collective memory in the camps, cultural elements, and literary and oral productions related to the experience of exile. For this reason, Palestinian identity has been transmitted from the first generation of the displaced to subsequent generations not as a geographical belonging but as a historical memory and a claim to rights.