Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	1948 Palestinian exodus is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Contents 1 Section "First stage of the flight, December 1947 - March 1948" 1.1 Discussion on the proposal 2 Section "Second stage of the flight, April 1948 - June 1948" 3 Section "Third stage of the flight, July-October 1948" 3.1 The Forth Stage 4 Section "The "Master Plan" Theory" 5 Section "The "Master Plan" Theory" 2 6 Section "The "Transfer principle" Theory" 7 Section "Absentee" property 8 Abandonned, evacuated and destroyed Palestinian localities 9 References 10 Neutral 11 Glazer deletion 12 Why isn't this article called Nakba? 13 Citation style 14 Requested move 14.1 Survey 14.2 Discussion 15 Islam's armies committing genocide 16 When the exodus took place 17 Removed obviously biased and racist section 18 Real funny 19 The Nakba's role in the Palestinian narrative 20 Good reference 21 New review 22 Lede 23 Flight No. Exodus Yes. 24 Title Incorrect, Should only read as Palestinian Exodus 25 Israel claims 26 Vigilance required against outside groups seeking to bias the editing process 27 Another recent article 28 1992 deportation

[edit] Section "First stage of the flight, December 1947 - March 1948"

Here I would like to introduce another quote after the last paragraph in the section (Morris' opinion):

Glazer (1980, p.109) quotes the testimony of Count Bernadotte, the UN mediator in Palestine, who reported that "the exodus of the Palestinian Arabs resulted from panic created by fighting in their communities, by rumours concerning real or alleged acts of terrorism, or expulsion. Almost the whole of the Arab population fled or was expelled from the area under Jewish occupation"^[1].

That is my proposal for this section. Thank you for your feedback.--Jorditxei 10:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on the proposal

I do not think this addition is necessary. Glazer is discussing a cause behind the exodus, which is perhaps best placed in "Causes of the Palestinian Exodus." Also, there is already a reference in this section making the same argument (Morris in the last paragraph). I don't think Glazer has anything much to add. Screen stalker 15:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the fact that Morris makes the same claim as Count Forke Bernadotte. But the point, in my opinion, is to cite different sources that arrive at the same conclusion and in particular when they cite another primary source (Count Folke Bernadotte's opinion in this case) which are of some importance and value on the issue. The point is that these primary sources are the ones that justify the claims of the different authors and therefore are needed to understand whether those authors have or do not have reliability. In my opinion my proposal would add value to the article because in this particular issue, with so much propaganda, I think that primary sources, declassified documents, etc. or very important, this is the reason why I proposed the text. Thank you for your feedback in any case.--Jorditxei 16:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is already incredibly long. While I am entirely in favor of including valid information in the article, we must be careful to avoid repetition. You are right in saying that this article is full of propaganda. That is why there is no space to fit multiple sources on the same issue. In this case, in particular, what Glazer is saying is said by many authors later on in the article. We already have multiple sources, and I see no reason for another. I think there are two things we should aspire to avoid in this article at the moment: (1) Placing so many quotations that they take up more volume than the actual article, and (2) Lengthening the article to the point where few people would want to read it. Screen stalker 15:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that the article is increadibly long, to the contrary is quite short in my view and is based in very few sources. What Glazer says points in the same direction that other authors, in the same way that what Karsh says is a repetition of what other authors said in the 50s. The point here is that the text of Glazer points to Count Folke Bernadette, which you will agree with me is an extremely important personality in those days of the Mandate. I think his point of view should clearly be in the text, and correct me if I am wrong, I haven't seen this declaration of Bernadette in the text. Once again, I think that quotation is unavoidable in such a controversial article as this one but once again I completely agree with you that avoiding quotations would be much better. In any case, I don't see why we shouldn't introduce the text and then discuss how to change the "quotation system". Cheers--Jorditxei 19:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section "Second stage of the flight, April 1948 - June 1948"

My proposal in this section is to add the following text after the paragraph starting with: "By mid-May only 4000 Arabs remained in Haifa." After this paragraph I would add:

According to Glazer (1980, p.111), from May 15, 1948 onwards, expulsion of Palestinians became a regular practice. Avnery (1971), explaining the Zionist rationale, says,

I believe that during this phase, the eviction of Arab civilians had become an aim of David Ben-Gurion and his government .... UN opinion could very well be disregarded. Peace with the Arabs seemed out of the question, considering the extreme nature of the Arab propaganda. In this situation, it was easy for people like Ben-Gurion to believe the capture of uninhabited territory was both necessary for security reasons and desirable for the homogeneity of the new Hebrew state^[2].

Edgar O'Ballance, a military historian, adds,

Israeli vans with loudspeakers drove through the streets ordering all the inhabitants to evacuate immediately, and such as were reluctant to leave were forcibly ejected from their homes by the triumphant Israelis whose policy was now openly one of clearing out all the Arab civil population before them .... From the surrounding villages and hamlets, during the next two or three days, all the inhabitants were uprooted and set off on the road to Ramallah.... No longer was there any "reasonable persuasion". Bluntly, the Arab inhabitants were ejected and forced to flee into Arab territory.... Wherever the Israeli troops advanced into Arab country the Arab population was bulldozed out in front of them^[3].

That is all for this section so far. Opinions? --Jorditxei 11:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section "Third stage of the flight, July-October 1948"

After the first sentence in the section and before Rabin's quote I would like to add the following:

According to Flapan (1987, pp. 13-14) in Ben-Gurion's view Ramlah and Lydda constituted a special danger because their proximity might encourage cooperation between the Egyptian army, which had started its attack on Kibbutz Negbah, near Ramlah, and the Arab Legion, which had taken the Lydda police station. However the author considers that, Operation Danny, by which the two towns were seized, revealed that no such cooperation existed.

In the opinion of Flapan, "in Lydda, the exodus took place on foot. In Ramlah, the IDF provided buses and trucks. Originally, all males had been rounded up and enclosed in a compound, but after some shooting was heard, and construed by Ben-Gurion to be the beginning of an Arab Legion counteroffensive, he stopped the arrests and ordered the speedy eviction of all the Arabs, including women, children, and the elderly"^[4]. In explanation, Flapan cites that Ben-Gurion said that "those who made war on us bear responsibility after their defeat."^[5]

Flapan maintains that events in Nazareth, although ending differently, point to the existence of a definite pattern of expulsion. On 16 July, three days after the Lydda and Ramlah evictions, the city of Nazareth surrendered to the IDF. The officer in command, a Canadian Jew named Ben Dunkelman, had signed the surrender agreement on behalf of the Israeli army along with Chaim Laskov (then a brigadier general, later IDF chief of staff). The agreement assured the civilians that they would not be harmed, but the next day, Laskov handed Dunkelman an order to evacuate the population^[6].

My proposal is to also add (at the end) the following text:

Glazer (1980, p. 112) critices writers who, in his opinion, either ignore the expulsions completely or try to explain them away. He cites the comment by Harry Sacher that "all the inhabitants of both Lydda and Ramleh, as of all the captured villages, chose evacuation and took the road to Ramallah, carrying with them such belongings as they could"^[7]. Also cited is the statement by Syrkin that, "it should be noted that while it was not Haganah policy to encourage the exodus, some hostile villages threatening the road to Jerusalem were evacuated by individual Haganah commanders ... a number of villages which served as bases for the enemy camped in the surrounding hills were forcibly cleared, and their inhabitants joined the exodus. But these were isolated instances, occurring late in the fighting, and involving numbers too small to affect the scope of the mass flight or to explain it"^[8]. Finally, the author cites Schectman who in his opinion attributes Arab flight to "atrocity propaganda" and thus does not even address the numerous instances of Zionist attacks and expulsions of Palestinian civilian when arguing that,

...the Arab population was particularly susceptible to such attrocity propaganda, to dire prophecies that the advancing Jewish forces would extermine them without mercy^[9].

That is all so far. Opinions? Thank you.--Jorditxei 11:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There are many problems and disagreements regarding this subject. However at present the article is a bad joke: "According to Flapan (1987, pp. 13-14) in Ben-Gurion's view Ramlah and Lydda constituted a special danger because their proximity might encourage cooperation between the Egyptian army, which had started its attack on Kibbutz Negbah, near Ramlah"

Ramlah is nowhere near Negba. Negba is not far from Gaza. Ramla is in central Israel. What could possibly be meant by the above statement? As for Nazereth, the article forgets to explain how it is that despite the order, much of the Arab population of Nazareth remained in Israel and their descendants are still there. Mewnews (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Forth Stage

The clean up expulsions and transferral of IDPs. Majdal 1950, Galilee transferrals 1948 and again 1951, Galilee expulsions 1956.

17th August 1950: Majdal’s inhabitants are served with an expulsion order (The Palestinians were held in a confined area since 1948) and the first group of them were taken on trucks to the Gaza Strip. Majdal is renamed Ashkelon by the Israelis. As regards the expulsion of civilian Arabs from Majdal and other areas, Egypt had accepted them on humanitarian grounds as they would otherwise have been exposed to "torture and death". That however did not mean their voluntary movement. Furthermore, testimony of the expelled Arabs and reports of the Mixed Armistice Commission clearly showed that they had been forcibly expelled.

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/ffeaceabb01e7a04852562cb00569dae!OpenDocument

30th March 1951: Israeli police (illegally evacuated) the Arab inhabitants of the village of Baqqara, numbering, with the neighbouring refugees living in the same village, about 980. The village of Baqqara is situated within the demilitarised zone on the western side of the Jordan River in the Huleh area. It goes without saying that such an action is a flagrant violation of article V, paragraph 2 of the General Armistice Agreement, which stipulates that no hindrance to the restoration of normal civilian life by the inhabitants could be allowed in the demilitarised zone.

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/181c4bf00c44e5fd85256cef0073c426/a75451c1745d5941052567230071172f!OpenDocument

The title of the article is incorrect. It should read the Palestinian Exodus. No year should be attached as it occured over several years.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section "The "Master Plan" Theory"

I propose to introduce the following text after the first paragraph in the section:

In the opinion of Glazer (1980, p.113), there is evidence that Zionist leaders were already thinking about removal of the indigenous population before the actual occurrence. On February 7, 1948, Ben-Gurion told the Central Committee of Mapai (the largest Zionist political party in Palestine) "it is most probable that in the 6, 8 or 10 coming months of the struggle many great changes will take place, very great in this country and not all of them to our disadvantage, and surely a great change in the composition of the population in the country"^[10].

Glazer considers that "it is clear that by the 1930's and into the 1940's, calls for the forcible transfer of Arabs out of Palestine were being made by the Zionist Revisionists and may well have been considered by the more moderate factions too"^[11].

Glazer (1980, p.113) states that the 1947 Partition Resolution awarded an area to the Jewish state whose population was 46 percent Arab and where much of this land was owned by Arabs. He considers that "it has been argued by the Zionists that they were prepared to make special accommodations for this large population; yet it is difficult to see how such accommodations could have coalesced with their plans for large-scale Jewish immigration; moreover, by August 1, 1948, the Israeli government had already stated that it was "economically unfeasible" to allow the return of the Arabs, at the very time when Jewish refugees were already entering the country and being settled on abandoned Arab property".

That is all. Opinions? Thank you. --Jorditxei 12:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section "The "Master Plan" Theory" 2

Once again in this section, I would like to add the following text after Benny Morris' quote:

Flapan (1987, p. 6) agrees with Morris in that the israeli tactics were not part of a deliberate Zionist plan, as the Arabs contended. He claims that "it must be understood that official Jewish decision-making bodies (the provisional government, the National Council, and the Jewish Agency Executive) neither discussed nor approved a design for expulsion, and any proposal of the sort would have been opposed and probably rejected. These bodies were heavily influenced by liberal, progressive labor, and socialist Zionist parties. The Zionist movement as a whole, both the left and the right, had consistently stressed that the Jewish people, who had always suffered persecution and discrimination as a national and religious minority, would provide a model of fair treatment of minorities in their own state". The author latter maintains that "once the flight began, however, Jewish leaders encouraged it. Sharett, for example, immediately declared that no mass return of Palestinians to Israel would be permitted"^[12]. In Flapan's view Cohen insisted in October 1948 that "the Arab exodus was not part of a preconceived plan." But, he acknowledged, "a part of the flight was due to official policy...Once it started, the flight received encouragement from the most important Jewish sources, for both military and political reasons."^[13]

Opinions? --Jorditxei 13:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section "The "Transfer principle" Theory"

I would like to propose the following text after the paragraph starting with "The idea of population transfer was first placed on Palestine's political agenda in 1937...":

Flapan (1987, p.4)^[14] cites further evidence which in his opinion supports the idea of an israeli will towards transfer policy. According to Ben-Gurion's biographer, Michael Bar-Zohar, "the appeals of the Arabs to stay, Golda's mission, and other similar gestures were the result of political considerations, but they did not reflect [Ben-Gurion's] basic stand. In internal discussions, in instructions to his people, the 'old man' demonstrated a clear stand: it was better that the smallest possible number of Arabs remain within the area of the state"^[15]. Flapan considers that Ben-Gurion himself wrote in his diary after the flight of the Arabs began, "We must afford civic and human equality to every Arab who remains," but, he insisted, "it is not our task to worry about the return of the Arabs"^[16]. Flapan (1987, p.12) also claims that during the early years of the state, Ben-Gurion stated that "the Arabs cannot accept the existence of Israel. Those who accept it are not normal. The best solution for the Arabs in Israel is to go and live in the Arab states-in the framework of a peace treaty or transfer."^[17]

In Flapan's (1987, p.12) view, with the proclamation of the birth of Israel and the Arab governments' invasion into the new state, those Arabs who had remained in Israel after 15 May were viewed as "a security problem," a potential fifth column, even though they had not participated in the war and had stayed in Israel hoping to live in peace and equality, as promised in the Declaration of Independence. In the opinion of the author, that document had not altered Ben-Gurion's overall conception: once the Arab areas he considered vital to the constitution of the new state had been brought under Israeli control, there still remained the problem of their inhabitants. On 11 May Ben-Gurion noted that he had given orders "for the destruction of Arab islands in Jewish population areas"^[18].

After the paragraph starting: "All of the other members of the JAE present, including..." I would like to include also:

According to Flapan (1987, p.16), "Ben-Gurion appointed what became known as the transfer committee, composed of Weitz, Danin, and Zalman Lipshitz, a cartographer. At the basis of its recommendations, presented to Ben-Gurion in October 1948, was the idea that the number of Arabs should not amount to more than 15 percent of Israel's total population, which at that time meant about 100,000"^[19]. The author cites that a week after he created the committee, Ben-Gurion told the Jewish Agency: "I am for compulsory transfer; I don't see anything immoral in it."^[20]

Flapan (1987, p.17) considers that "hand in hand with measures to ensure the continued exodus of Arabs from Israel was a determination not to permit any of the refugees to return. He claims that all of the Zionist leaders (Ben-Gurion, Sharett, and Weizmann) agreed on this point".

After the paragraph starting with: "While not discounting other reasons for the exodus, the 'transfer principle' theory suggests that this prevalent..." I would like to add:

In the view of Flapan (1987, p. 7) records are available from archives and diaries which while not revealing a specific plan or precise orders for expulsion, they provide overwhelming circumstantial evidence to show that a design was being implemented by the Haganah, and later by the IDF, to reduce the number of Arabs in the Jewish state to a minimum and to make use of most of their lands, properties, and habitats to absorb the masses of Jewish immigrants^[21].

After the paragraph starting with: "The 'transfer principle' theory came under attack from several historians, notably Efraim Karsh, ..." I would like to include the arguments made by Karsh on the issue in the article already cited in the text:

Karsh has criticised Morris accusing him to "seek to create an impression that Ben-Gurion endeavored to expel the Arabs out of Palestine when, what he discussed, was resettlement within Palestine". The author cites evidence supporting the idea that Ben-Gurion and the Jewish Agency Executive did not agree on transfer of palestinian arabs but rather had a much more tolerant vision of Arab-Jewish coexistence. For example, at the November 1, 1936 Jewish Agency Executive meeting, Karsh considers that Morris ignores Ben-Gurion's statement, "We do not deny the right of the Arab inhabitants of the country, and we do not see this right as a hindrance to the realization of Zionism^[22]." The author accuses Morris of omitting Ben-Gurion's assertions, in an October 1941 internal policy paper, that "Jewish immigration and colonization in Palestine on a large scale can be carried out without displacing Arabs," and that "in a Jewish Palestine the position of the Arabs will not be worse than the position of the Jews themselves^[23]."

Karsh has also criticised the fact that while Morris concedes that "the Yishuv and its military forces did not enter the 1948 war, which was initiated by the Arab side, with a policy or plan of expulsion," he argues that lack of an official policy made little difference, since "thinking about the possibilities of transfer in the 1930s and 1940s had prepared and conditioned hearts and minds for its implementation in the course of 1948.^[24]" In Karsh view, "Morris cites no evidence to support this claim nor could he, for there was never any Zionist attempt to inculcate the "transfer" idea in the hearts and minds of Jews. He could find no evidence of any press campaign, radio broadcasts, public rallies, or political gatherings, for none existed". Furthermore, in his opinion, Morris virtually ignores that the idea of transfer was forced on the Zionist agenda by the British (in the recommendations of the 1937 Peel Royal Commission on Palestine) rather than being self-generated. The author considers that Morris downplays the commission's recommendation of transfer, creates the false impression that the Zionists thrust this idea on a reluctant British Mandatory power (rather than vice versa), and misleadingly suggests that Zionist interest in transfer long outlived the Peel Commission^[25].

In contrast to Morris's thesis Karsh cites what Ben-Gurion told his party members, "In our state there will be non-Jews as well—and all of them will be equal citizens; equal in everything without any exception; that is: the state will be their state as well^[26]." Further, the author cites the explicit instructions of Israel Galili, the Haganah's commander-in-chief, on the "acknowledgement of the full rights, needs, and freedom of the Arabs in the Hebrew state without any discrimination, and a desire for coexistence on the basis of mutual freedom and dignity^[27]."

Karsh considers that the "mass of documentation also proves beyond any reasonable doubt that, far from being an act of expulsion, the mass Arab flight was a direct result of the fragmentation and lack of cohesiveness of Palestinian society, which led to its collapse under the weight of the war it had initiated and whose enormity it had failed to predict"^[28]. Further, the author considers^[29] that a number of scholars have already done outstanding work showing the faults of the new history. In his opinion, Itamar Rabinovich (of Tel Aviv University, currently Israel's ambassador to the United States) has debunked the claim by Shlaim and Pappé that Israel's recalcitrance explains the failure to make peace at the end of the 1947-49 war^[30]. Again, he claims that Avraham Sela (of the Hebrew University) has discredited Shlaim's allegation that Israel and Transjordan agreed in advance of that war to limit their war operations so as to avoid an all-out confrontation between their forces^[31]. The author claims that Shabtai Teveth (David Ben-Gurion's foremost biographer) has challenged Morris's account of the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem^[32]. In his opinion, Robert Satloff (of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy) has shown, on the basis of his own research in the Jordanian national archives in Amman, the existence of hundreds of relevant government files readily available to foreign scholars^[33], thereby demolishing the new historians' claim that "the archives of the Arab Governments are closed to researchers, and that historians interested in writing about the Israeli-Arab conflict perforce must rely mainly on Israeli and Western archives"^[34] and with it, the justification for their almost exclusive reliance on Israeli and Western sources.

The arguments made by Karsh again came under attack by the New Historians. Morris admits that "Karsh has a point, but it is not the one he makes. It is true that my treatment in Birth of pre-1948 "transfer thinking" among the Zionist leaders was superficial and restrictive. The subject requires a full-scale inquiry, covering the period from the 1880s until 1947, to determine the importance of the transfer idea in evolving Zionist thought at different points in time. Birth does not undertake such an inquiry, mainly because that was not the book's subject. Perhaps I erred in not attributing enough weight to the Zionists' "transfer" predisposition in explaining what actually happened in Palestine in 1948". Nevertheless the author still criticises Karsh for his conclusions on the jewish tolerant vision towards palestinian arabs, he claims that "the author [Karsh] reaches this conclusion by quoting extensively from a number of Ben-Gurion's speeches and memoranda. But Karsh appears unaware of the fact that politicians say different things to different audiences at different times and that what distinguishes good from bad historians is the ability to sort out the (heartfelt) wheat from the (propagandistic) chaff. Karsh also fails to take note of that fundamental rule that what statesmen, politicians, and generals do is far more telling Ben-Gurion was both more than what they say and a more certain indicator of devious and more their real desires and intentions". Morris claims that "it is true that Ben-Gurion did occasionally say that the Zionist movement must be careful not to go on public record in support of transfer, because doing so could cause the movement political harm, and occasionally expressed doubt whether the idea was practicable"^[35]. Further critics of Karsh thesis include Nur Masalha^[36], David Capitanchik^[37] and Husam Mohamad^[38].

Opinions?--Jorditxei 12:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section "Absentee" property

I would like to merge the following text with the first paragraph:

Flapan (1987, p.18) claims that "a more sophisticated form of pressure was achieved by legislation regarding property, particularly the Absentees' Property Law of 1950. This law, first promulgated in December 1948, stated that any Arabs not at their places of residence on 29 November 1947 would be considered absentees and their property subject to appropriation by the custodian of enemy property (an office soon replaced by the custodian of absentee property). Even Arabs who had traveled to a neighboring town to visit relatives for the day were considered absentees. As a result, two million dunams were confiscated and given to the custodian, who later transferred the land to the development authority. This law created the novel citizenship category of "present absentees" (nifkadim nohahim), that is, Israeli Arabs who enjoyed all civil rights-including the right to vote in the Knesset elections-except one: the right to use and dispose of their property".

According to Flapan, "a detailed account of exactly how "abandoned" Arab property assisted in the absorption of the new immigrants was prepared by Joseph Schechtman, an expert on population transfer who helped create the myth of "voluntary" exodus".

It is difficult to overestimate the tremendous role this lot of abandoned Arab property has played in the settlement of hundreds of thousands of Jewish immigrants who have reached Israel since the proclamation of the state in May 1948. Forty-seven new rural settlements established on the sites of abandoned Arab villages had by October 1949 already absorbed 25,255 new immigrants. By the spring of 1950 over 1 million dunams had been leased by the custodian to Jewish settlements and individual farmers for the raising of grain crops.

Large tracts of land belonging to Arab absentees have also been leased to Jewish settlers, old and new, for the raising of vegetables. In the south alone, 15,000 dunams of vineyards and fruit trees have been leased to cooperative settlements; a similar area has been rented by the Yemenites Association, the Farmers Association, and the Soldiers Settlement and Rehabilitation Board. This has saved the Jewish Agency and the government millions of dollars. While the average cost of establishing an immigrant family in a new settlement was from $7,500 to $9,000, the cost in abandoned Arab villages did not exceed $1,500 ($750 for building repairs and $750 for livestock and equipment).

Abandoned Arab dwellings in towns have also not remained empty. By the end of July 1948, 170,000 people, notably new immigrants and ex-soldiers, in addition to about 40,000 former tenants, both Jewish and Arab, had been housed in premises under the custodian's control; and 7,000 shops, workshops and stores were sublet to new arrivals. The existence of these Arab housesvacant and ready for occupation-has, to a large extent, solved the greatest immediate problem which faced the Israeli authorities in the absorption of immigrants. It also considerably relieved the financial burden of absorption^[39].

That is all for this section. Opinions welcomed.--Jorditxei 14:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abandonned, evacuated and destroyed Palestinian localities

I don't think this section is neutral.
I don't talk about the numbers (that are factualà but about the "comments" on the numbers that are "oriented".
I think how to keep the info in neutralizing this. Alithien 17:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry what do you mean when you refer to "the comments on the numbers that are oriented"? As you can see, that table is taken from Abu Sitta and is cited as such. If you have data from another author I suggest you provide it in order to justify the POV tag, otherwise I will consider it is just not justified. Cheers. --Jorditxei 18:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

The comments made by Khalidi just below the tables are not neutral and are oriented. If numbers are analysed they should be analysed by different sources and as long as it will not be done this section will not be neutral. In fact, below these numbers, the whole Morris books should be copied, as well as Gelber if they had to be analysed.

As it is written, the numbers/table tries to enforce some of Khalidi's thesis; which is not neutral.

The fact to put Plan Dalet / fr:Plan Daleth as a milestone is not neutral. First the milestone was not Plan Dalet but rather Operation Nachshon / fr:Opération Nahshon and more generally the Haganah offensive that mark this event but Plan Dalet is a text that was written far before

I don't mind the names of villages and cities. It was more for the esteatic.

May I suggest you read this article (I wrote alone in French and that 2 contributors here translated). It is a featured article on wp:fr : 1947-1948 Civil War in Palestine - fr:Guerre civile en Palestine de 1947-1948.

I also suggest you read fr:Plan Daleth.

Alithien 18:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes but the point is that you have already deleted that and I haven't added so why you keep the POV tag? What are the exact reasons to keep that tag, this is my question. You deleted the Khalidi phrase and the Plan Dalet "name", nobody has added that again, what else motivates the POV tag then? That is my question. Cheers. --Jorditxei 18:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I answered on your talk page.

I still think the comments currently are not neutral because the analyses of the numbers is only the Khalidi's one. (one side -> one pov -> POV flag).

It is hard work to correct this. I think about a solution but don't have any except removing all comments. Alithien 07:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand you, the text which has caused the POV tag is this one:

According to COHRE and BADIL, Morris’s list of affected localities, the shortest of the three, includes towns but excludes other localities cited by Khalidi and/or Abu Sitta (sorry but, is this wrong? why is POV?). The six sources compared in Khalidi’s study have in common 296 of the villages listed as destroyed and/or depopulated. Sixty other villages are cited in all but one source (is this wrong? where is the POV? This is just a description of the study). Of the total of 418 localities cited in Khalidi, 292 (70 percent) were completely destroyed and 90 (22 percent) “largely destroyed”. He also notes that other sources refer to an additional 151 localities that are omitted from his study for various reasons (for example, major cities and towns that were depopulated, as well as some Bedouin encampments and villages ‘vacated’ before the start of hostilities)(once again, is this wrong? No, its just an analysis of the figures, how can this be POV? Do you have another study that says that "the other sources refer to 100 instead of 151 localities? Why is this POV?). Abu Sitta’s list, which is the most comprehensive, includes tribes in Beersheba that lost lands; most of these were omitted from Khalidi’s work (once again, is this wrong? Do you have a source that says that tribes in Beersheba were not omitted from Khalidi's work?)

If you don't have any of these sources contradicting any part of the text, then the inclusion of the POV tag is not justified. Moreover, read please: "According to COHRE and BADIL". The mere fact that the text cites one author does not justify the POV tag, it would justify it if you had another source which contradicted that author and which was not included in the text. But you don't have such source or at least have not talked about that source here. Therefore, the point here is not that Khalidi's word should not be included but rather that you have to provide a source that contradicts him and include it that's all. Provide your source please. Cheers.--Jorditxei 11:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

[edit] Neutral

Since this is something ppl hear about on a day to day basis, I think it's important to get some facts straight.

1) Half this article is based and referenced on a heavily biased and controversial book by Benny Morris

2) Irgun was never declared a terrorist organazition by any international standards, nor did they make repeated bomb attacks as the article suggests. The bombing in the King David Hotel was done by a rogue faction within the group, and once the plan was uncovered there was an attempt within the Irgun to evacuate the people, however, the British authorities did not take the warning seriously and intervened.

3) Same goes for the Lehi orginization. The only orginizations in the area that target "crowded places such as bus stops, shopping centres and markets" is the recent Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

4) All Jewish orginizations at that period of time had a very strict code of conduct, since Judasim places such a high value on life (as opposed to modern day organizations supporting suicide bombers). Any supposed retributions to Arab attacks would violate this code. This is not to say that these instances did not occur. But it is to say that these were instances, and were done by rogue groups and not part of some Zionist Campaign, as the writer would have us believe.

Whoever101 19:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)but hey, whoever. 101.

Except that Morris's book is indeed biased (pro-Israeli) I think your claims are wrong. --JaapBoBo 15:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glazer deletion

Glazer is a reliable source. He refers to three authors, whom he calls 'propagandist writers'. So, one might write in this article e.g Glazer refers to Sacher, Syrkin and Schechtman as propagandist writers who ignore expulsions in their writings. However that doesn't seem very relevant for the article. To use citations here that Glazer used to show their fault seems really strange to me. --JaapBoBo 13:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why isn't this article called Nakba?

I'm sure this has been argued over extensively on talk, so sorry for bringing it up again. But why is this article titled with a custom-made phrase that almost nobody uses, instead of the term which every Palestinian and Arabic speaker uses, which is used in Israel (although the right-wing condemns it), and which is widely used in English sources? My impression is that we use the most widely used term for an event, even if it's slightly non-neutral or disfavored by a particular side. Witness Six-Day War and Yom Kippur War, for example. <eleland/talkedits> 16:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The name of this article is particularly clumsy and (I didn't think) had any currency anywhere. To my astonishment, Google finds a full 666 references for "1948 Palestinian Exodus" (although many of them simply point straight back to us here!). Nakba gets 366,000 references. I think that's over 99.8% to Nakba, under 0.2% to "1948 Palestinian Exodus". I've been through the archives and, although the word Nakba is used quite regularily, nobody has proposed changing the name of the article before. PR^talk 16:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure this article use to be called Nakba. I think part of the .2% found that Nakba was POV.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation style

This article needs to be clearly and once and for all put into footnotes or parenthetical citations. I think footnotes seem to be the more common so I started moving some... but, we need adherence to a style. If we use parenthetical references then footnotes hsould be reserved for asides and other comments, not sourcing. 71.185.168.99 (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Islam's armies committing genocide

I changed this text: The 1948 Palestinian exodus refers to the the prevention of Islam's armies from committing genocide ... to a more neutral version. The text is original research (see WP:OR). Besides that its not neutral (see WP:NPOV). --JaapBoBo (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

lol. Of course. No need to justify this in the talk page.

I think you should not have done so for the quietness of this article. Ceedjee (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have put this back. That was the more correct version. The goal of the "Pan-Arabist" armies was the complete destruction of the State of Israel, nothing more and nothing less, as proclaimed by the leaders of the states involved in the attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1948remembered (talk • contribs) 16:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] When the exodus took place

The exodus didn't take place during and after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
It took place :

• between December 1947 and the end of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, or
• during the last 6 months of the British Mandate and the First Arab-Israeli War, or
• during the 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, or,
• during the 1948 Palestine War.

I don't mind much what is chosen if it is correct. Ceedjee (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to use the 4th formulation. Ceedjee (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the second and forth forumula too, one must bear in mind that the state of israel was not established when the exodus started(and thus the exodus is not a result of a war between two(or more) states), also the palestinians don't consider the events of the last six months of british mandate a civil war, nor do the israilies consider the fights were against palestinian population.--Mayz (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Expulsions were still happening up to 1956 (Suez Crisis), Galilee expulsions, Majdal expulsions 1950

30th March 1951: Israeli police (illegally evacuated) the Arab inhabitants of the village of Baqqara, numbering, with the neighbouring refugees living in the same village, about 980. The village of Baqqara is situated within the demilitarised zone on the western side of the Jordan River in the Huleh area. It goes without saying that such an action is a flagrant violation of article V, paragraph 2 of the General Armistice Agreement, which stipulates that no hindrance to the restoration of normal civilian life by the inhabitants could be allowed in the demilitarised zone.

17th August 1950: Majdal’s inhabitants are served with an expulsion order (The Palestinians were held in a confined area since 1948) and the first group of them were taken on trucks to the Gaza Strip. Majdal is renamed Ashkelon by the Israelis. As regards the expulsion of civilian Arabs from Majdal and other areas, Egypt had accepted them on humanitarian grounds as they would otherwise have been exposed to "torture and death". That however did not mean their voluntary movement. Furthermore, testimony of the expelled Arabs and reports of the Mixed Armistice Commission clearly showed that they had been forcibly expelled. http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/ffeaceabb01e7a04852562cb00569dae!OpenDocument

I don't see much mention of the post War expulsions?Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed obviously biased and racist section

I have removed the obviously biased and racist "results of the exodus" section, which completely ignores the fact that the ARAB states of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq took over the allocated "Palestinian" lands, that these states and other ARAB states such as Saudi Arabia have passed laws denying Palestinians (no matter how long they live there) the right to have jobs or become citizens, and ignores completely the rest of the treatment of Palestinians by the ARAB governments while trying to vilify the Israeli government which has done much more in recognizing the rights of Palestinians than any ARAB state.

Do not put it back until you can do some HONEST and UNBIASED research. I removed this whole section because it makes a joke of your vaunted "NPOV" policy to leave it standing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1948remembered (talk • contribs) 16:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. The way to go about discussing how to improve an article is by being specific about the problems in a given text. Sourced material cannot be summarily deleted by other editors without engaging in substantive discussion that aims to improve the text in question. You are more than welcome to add information from other sources whose POVs you feel are lacking representation, per WP:NPOV. You cannot however, blank material from an article that has been added by other good-faith editors, over and over again, while ignoring their requests to discuss. Thank you. Tiamut^talk 16:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for writing but as the contributions of a racist who whines on their page about "Israeli Apartheid" show plainly that you obviously have no intention of writing an unbiased article. Thank you drive through enjoy your bacon and buh-bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1948remembered (talk • contribs) 23:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA. You certainly read and understood WP:VANDALISM quickly, even filing a report right away. Quite an accomplishment for a new user. Let's hope that we have the same success in internalizing this one, okay? Tiamut^talk 00:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Went to WP:HELP to find out how to report racist vandalism, that was the page it led me to. MOP says that was incorrect so I asked him the CORRECT place to report racists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1948remembered (talk • contribs) 14:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Bit of POV being displayed by 1948remembered

completely ignores the fact that the ARAB states of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq took over the allocated "Palestinian" lands.

statements like that ignores the fact that Israel invaded a good section of the area set aside for a Palestinian State. As we are dealing with up to 1953 whether Palestinians have jobs in other Arabic speaking countries is also immaterial.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Real funny

Looks like they've been at it again - ban anyone who comes in and disagrees with the jew-hating posters who made the article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.98.149 (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how refering to people as "jew-hating posters" is constructive in any ways. In fact it shows you have an opposite bias that could prevent your point of voiew from being taken seriously. --FreeThoughts (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"How dare you deny the holocaust, our people were exiled and killed! Also there's nothing to see behind this wall. Of course you don't smell records being burned." 76.30.98.149

[edit] The Nakba's role in the Palestinian narrative

It is stated in the article "The term "Nakba" was coined by Constantin Zureiq, a professor of history at the American University of Beirut, in his 1948 book Ma'na al-Nakba (The Meaning of the Disaster)." I have read in other places that the term was used by George Antonius in his 1938 book 'The Arab Awakening' where he wrote "The year 1920 has an evil name in Arab annals: it is referred to as the Year of the Catastrophe (Am al-Nakba). It saw the first armed risings that occurred in protest against the post-War settlement imposed by the Allies on the Arab countries. In that year, serious outbreaks took place in Syria, Palestine, and Iraq.” Perhaps the article here means "The word 'Nakba' was first used with reference to these events (surrounding the creation of Israel) by" or something like that, but perhaps some notion of its prior use in terms of a national catastrophe will help put in context its use in discussions of Palestinian identity. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good reference

this can be used here. Imad marie (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New review

Review of Benny Morris; might be useful for a source of neutral summaries rather than quotemining from his book, not that I am implying for a moment that anyone here might do something of that sort. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lede

Left a note for User:Pedrito regarding his reversion, but no answer yet. I have reinstated my edit for discussion at the talk page. I would prefer some discussion before a deletion of cited material. Thanks, Kaisershatner (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it took me 12 minutes to see your question and reply, and I was following WP:BRD. The material in question has been inserted, removed and discussed a number of times (you will probably find it in the archives). It definitely does not belong in the lead, but could be added as a sub-section at the end of 1948 Palestinian exodus#Results of the Exodus, if you have good sources making the link between both events.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 16.05.2008 14:33

Hi Pedrito. I think to follow BRD you might have left a note at the talk page regarding your view, but in any case, now that we are here I am glad to discuss the matter. I will review the archives before further comment so as not to retread the same ground. Thanks for your fast reply. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Pedrito, upon reviewing the archives I see this has arisen at least since 2005. I can understand the arguments against direct comparison in the lede of the Jewish exodus from Arab lands to the Palestinian 1948 exodus that is the subject of this article (I think the most compelling is that the expulsion/migration of Jews was not caused by the Palestinians per se and this article is about Palestinians, also there is some merit in the timing argument, with the Nakba a more specific event compared with the Jewish exodus). So I think I can see the logic in amending my addition to the lede, but isn't there some middle ground between no mention at all and the mention I have added? I ask because it seems to me to be a vital part of the historical context - I don't think it would be neutral to mention Muslim exodus from India without describing Hindu exodus from Pakistan, as an example. Maybe simply a see also, or link in the lede to the article on the Jewish exodus? Your thoughts? Kaisershatner (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As I have mentioned above, you might consider adding a sub-section to 1948 Palestinian exodus#Results of the Exodus regarding the Jewish exodus if you can find sources that put it in that context. Otherwise, until now we only had the link under "See also".

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 16.05.2008 14:57

Again, this does not belong in the lead. If you want to include it in the article, place it under 1948 Palestinian exodus#Results of the Exodus. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 19.05.2008 10:30

[edit] Flight No. Exodus Yes.

The term of use for the headings is erroneous. Flight no, the use of the term flight is POV.

Exodus is a neutral term. Uri Milstein, Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, Rogan, Ilan Pappe, Finkelstein, Tom Segev, Walid Khalidi, all have examples of forced expulsion.

as Benny Morris in 'The War for Palestine' edited by Eugene Rogan and Avi Shlaim, on page 38 puts it:-

"Above all let me reiterate, the refugee problem was caused by attacks by Jewish forces on Arab villages and towns and by the inhabitants' fears of such attacks, compounded by expulsions, atrocities and rumour of atrocities - and by the crucial Cabinet decision in June 1948 to bar a refugee return"

The term 'Flight' does not cover being bused to the Jordanian Armistice line and forcibly sent across under a volley of shots. The term flight does not cover expulsion orders issued by Moshe Carmel. The term 'flight' has to go from the headings it is not correct nor an accurate reflection of events..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title Incorrect, Should only read as Palestinian Exodus

As the Nakba was from 1948 up to 1953 the title is clearly incorrect. it is a bit of denial in putting that the Nakba down as occurring in only 1 year. Even the sections give a bit of a clue that 1948 should be omitted from the title.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason is that there was the 1967 Palestinian exodus.

Most of the exodus occured in 1948, so I don't agree with you.

See The Palestinian Exodus in 1948 of Steven Glazer published in Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Summer, 1980), pp. 96-118.

I think this proves the title is reliable and neutral enough.

Ceedjee (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Israel claims

‘Israel claims that the Arabs left because they were ordered to,

Israel makes no such claim. Supporters of Israel may argue that Arabs left because they were ordered to. But Israel makes no such claim. Israel just denies the right of return.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree again.

The official Israeli explanation is still' that they were ordered to left. I can bring a reference from Benny Morris, 1948 but I am quite sure Pappe says the same in his book.

Ceedjee (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vigilance required against outside groups seeking to bias the editing process

Vigilance must be maintained to ensure that outside groups do not try to unduly influence a bias of this article as reported by Electronic Intifada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.158.42 (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another recent article

Efraim Karsh in Commentary: summarising his recent thinking on the subject. Fairly useful. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Efraim Karsh is still living in the fifties along with the work he cites. Uri Milstein has done an upgrade on the "War of Independence" which takes into account Archive material released in the 80s. taking into account that many Diaries, Cabinet protocols and Haganah/IDF material are now available I think it is time that Efraim Karsh retired.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless and despite your opinion, he is still considered a respected historian. he is still active in publications. i'd be happier if the article showed more of his opinion as well, in particular because it cites so many sources from the group he's opposing, for neutrality reasons. also, i think it would be better if you refrained from using this talk page as a soapbox. 80.179.69.194 (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think too it is time Efraim Karsh retires. The problem is that we are assumed to quote reliable sources and give all points of views : WP:NPOV.

Else we will have to agree Ilan Pappe is not an historian but a novel writer (humor) ;-) Ceedjee (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1992 deportation

I removed this :

===Sixth Phase Deportations===

The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP) at its 194th meeting held on 21 January 1993 strongly condemned the mass deportation of over 400 Palestinians from the occupied Palestinian territory by Israel, the occupying Power, on 17 December 1992.^[1]. This has nothing to deal with the '48 exodus. I remind this articles deal with the exodus that occured due or in relation with the '48 war. There is another article named 1967 Palestinian exodus. More, the events of '92 has nothing to deal with an exodus. They didn't occur during a war. Ceedjee (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)