EVALUATION OF HISTORICAL WORKS

In order to make some sense of the conflicting and often contradictory reports that are presented, it is necessary to define certain criteria by which these reports can be measured. Only in this way can there be some standard for comparison, albeit a subjective standard. The following seven criteria are presented as a guide with which to evaluate the usefulness of the various writings.

1. Content of the Work Itself

This first section examines the writings by using the more general and familiar methods of historical criticism. It is an attempt to evaluate these sources on the basis of their qualitative content. We are concerned here that the authors provide positive evidence, that the quotes which the author cites are in keeping with the general tenor of the sources from which the quotes are cited and that the sources themselves are supportable.

On the basis of this standard, the work of Erskine Childers would rank as among the strongest. For years, Israeli historians have maintained that the Arabs were made to leave following instructions from their leaders, and despite the best efforts of the Zionists to persuade them to stay, they chose to leave. [8] Some went so far as to maintain that these alleged evacuation orders were broadcast on Arab radio stations. [9] Childers studied radio broadcast transcripts from the relevant time period and found that not only were there no orders to evacuate, but in fact the populace was continually urged to remain. This is positive evidence which directly contradicts the Zionist position. [10] Moreover, at the same time that Arab radio stations were appealing to the inhabitants not to leave, Zionist radio stations were urging the population to flee, by exaggerating the course of battle, and, in some cases, fabricating complete lies. [11] 

More positive evidence is presented by Walid Khalidi. In his article "Why Did the Palestinians Leave?" [12] the author discusses steps taken by Arab governments to prevent Palestinians from leaving, ensuring that they remain to fight, including the denial by Lebanon and Syria of residence permits to Palestinian males of military age on April 30 and May 6 respectively. Also cited are Arab radio broadcasts urging the inhabitants of Palestine to remain and discussing plans for an Arab administration there. Khalidi then points to the Zionist "psychological offensive" which was highlighted by, though not limited to, radio messages warning the Arabs of diseases, the ineffectiveness of armed resistance and the incompetence of their leaders. [13] 

Zionist historians have been hard pressed to come up with much concrete, factual evidence to bear out their position. As stated, much of the Zionist case has rested on the theory that the Palestinians were ordered to leave by their leaders, a claim which has been difficult for them to substantiate, as evidence is lacking.

Quotes have been used to a great extent in the literature of this question. It is not very difficult to search through a document or article, pick out a few sentences which support one's position, and then present this as evidence. In order to judge the value of these quotes, it is necessary to examine them in the context of which they were made.

In this regard Childers has again contributed greatly towards a clearer understanding of the matter. The common practice of Zionist works is to cite several lines from an Arabic newspaper as "evidence" that the exodus was the work of the Arabs themselves. Schectman, for example, offers quotes from the Lebanese weekly Kul Sbay, from al-Huda, a Maronite newspaper published in the United States, and several statements made by various Arab officials, among them Emil al-Ghoury, at the time Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, and Msgr. George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Haifa and Galilee. These quotes and statements all imply Arab complicity in, if not initiation of, the exodus. [14] Childers went back to these sources, checking them for the full meaning, and found that they were taken out of context. In fact on closer examination, these statements were meant to indicate the opposite of what the Zionists tried to imply. What had in effect happened was that by carefully selecting those words which fit their story, these Zionist historians had edited history. [15] 

8 See, for example, Joseph Schectman, The Arab Refugee Problem (New York: Philosophical Library, 1952), p. 6.

9 Marie Syrkin, p. 24.

10 See Erskine Childers, "The Other Exodus," in 7he Spectator, No. 6933, May 12, 1961, p. 672.

11 Childers, "The Wordless Wish," pp. 186-87. The period under discussion is April to mid-May, 1948.

12 Walid Khalidi, "Why Did The Palestinianis Leave? " in Middle hast Forum, Vol. XXXV, No. 7 (1959), pp. 21-24, 35.

13 Ibid., pp. 22-24. 

14 These quotations and statements, which appear in other Zionist histories as well, are cited in Schectman, pp. 9-10. See also Leo Kohn, "The Arab Refugees," in The Spectator, No. 6938, June 16, 1961, p.872.

15 See Childers, "The Wordless Wish," pp. 197-98.

Evaluasi Karya Sejarah  

Untuk memahami laporan yang saling bertentangan dan seringkali kontradiktif, perlu ditetapkan kriteria tertentu sebagai ukuran. Dengan cara ini, meskipun bersifat subjektif, ada standar yang dapat dipakai untuk membandingkan dan menilai kegunaan berbagai tulisan. Tujuh kriteria diajukan sebagai panduan untuk mengevaluasi nilai historis karya-karya yang membahas eksodus Palestina.

1. Isi Karya Itu Sendiri  

Bagian pertama ini menelaah tulisan-tulisan dengan menggunakan metode kritik sejarah yang umum. Tujuannya adalah menilai sumber berdasarkan kualitas isinya. Penting di sini adalah apakah penulis menghadirkan bukti positif, apakah kutipan yang digunakan sejalan dengan keseluruhan maksud sumber aslinya, dan apakah sumber itu sendiri dapat dipertanggungjawabkan.

Berdasarkan standar ini, karya Erskine Childers menempati posisi kuat. Selama bertahun-tahun, sejarawan Israel menyatakan bahwa orang Arab pergi karena diperintahkan pemimpin mereka, dan meskipun Zionis berusaha keras membujuk mereka untuk tinggal, mereka tetap memilih pergi. [8] Bahkan ada klaim bahwa perintah evakuasi itu disiarkan melalui radio Arab. [9] Childers meneliti transkrip siaran radio dari periode tersebut dan menemukan bahwa tidak hanya tidak ada perintah evakuasi, bahkan sebaliknya, rakyat justru terus didesak untuk tetap tinggal. Ini adalah bukti positif yang secara langsung membantah posisi Zionis. [10] Pada saat yang sama, radio Zionis justru mendesak penduduk untuk lari dengan melebih-lebihkan jalannya pertempuran, dan dalam beberapa kasus, menyebarkan kebohongan total. [11]  

Bukti positif juga dikemukakan Walid Khalidi. Dalam artikelnya “Why Did the Palestinians Leave?” [12], ia membahas langkah-langkah pemerintah Arab untuk mencegah orang Palestina meninggalkan tanah air, termasuk penolakan Lebanon dan Suriah memberikan izin tinggal bagi laki-laki Palestina usia militer masing-masing pada 30 April dan 6 Mei. Juga disebutkan siaran radio Arab yang mendesak penduduk Palestina untuk tetap tinggal serta membicarakan rencana pembentukan administrasi Arab di sana. Khalidi kemudian menunjukkan “serangan psikologis” Zionis yang ditandai, antara lain, oleh pesan radio yang menakut-nakuti dengan isu penyakit, ketidakmampuan perlawanan bersenjata, serta inkompetensi pemimpin Arab. [13]  

Sejarawan Zionis kesulitan menghadirkan bukti konkret yang faktual untuk mendukung posisi mereka. Sebagaimana disebutkan, banyak dari klaim Zionis bertumpu pada teori bahwa orang Palestina diperintahkan pergi oleh para pemimpin mereka—suatu klaim yang sulit dibuktikan karena minim bukti.

Kutipan telah banyak digunakan dalam literatur seputar persoalan ini. Tidaklah sulit mencari sebuah artikel atau dokumen, mengambil beberapa kalimat yang mendukung posisi tertentu, lalu menyajikannya sebagai bukti. Untuk menilai nilai kutipan ini, perlu diperiksa konteks ketika pernyataan itu dibuat.

Dalam hal ini, Childers kembali memberikan kontribusi besar untuk pemahaman yang lebih jelas. Praktik umum karya Zionis adalah mengutip beberapa baris dari surat kabar Arab sebagai “bukti” bahwa eksodus dilakukan oleh orang Arab sendiri. Schectman, misalnya, mengutip mingguan Lebanon *Kul Sbay*, surat kabar Maronit *al-Huda* yang terbit di Amerika Serikat, serta beberapa pernyataan pejabat Arab, di antaranya Emil al-Ghoury, Sekretaris Komite Tinggi Arab saat itu, dan Uskup Katolik Yunani George Hakim dari Haifa dan Galilea. Kutipan-kutipan ini tampaknya menyiratkan keterlibatan, bahkan inisiatif, Arab dalam eksodus. [14]  

Namun Childers meneliti kembali sumber-sumber itu, memeriksa arti lengkapnya, dan menemukan bahwa kutipan-kutipan itu diambil di luar konteks. Faktanya, jika diperiksa lebih dekat, pernyataan-pernyataan itu justru bermaksud menunjukkan kebalikan dari yang coba ditonjolkan Zionis. Yang sebenarnya terjadi adalah para sejarawan Zionis dengan sengaja memilih kata-kata yang sesuai dengan narasi mereka, sehingga pada akhirnya menyunting sejarah. [15]  

[8] Joseph Schectman, *The Arab Refugee Problem* (New York: Philosophical Library, 1952), hlm. 6.  
[9] Marie Syrkin, hlm. 24.  
[10] Erskine Childers, “The Other Exodus,” *The Spectator*, No. 6933, 12 Mei 1961, hlm. 672.  
[11] Childers, “The Wordless Wish,” hlm. 186–187. Periode yang dimaksud adalah April hingga pertengahan Mei 1948.  
[12] Walid Khalidi, “Why Did the Palestinians Leave?” *Middle East Forum*, Vol. XXXV, No. 7 (1959), hlm. 21–24, 35.  
[13] Ibid., hlm. 22–24.  
[14] Kutipan-kutipan ini juga muncul dalam sejarah Zionis lain, dikutip di Schectman, hlm. 9–10. Lihat juga Leo Kohn, “The Arab Refugees,” *The Spectator*, No. 6938, 16 Juni 1961, hlm. 872.  
[15] Childers, “The Wordless Wish,” hlm. 197–198.