Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →

Contents

Fundemantal problem with this article not addressed

This article continue to suffer from the same problem it did 6 month ago. It serve no purpose to make minor corrections (an external link here, a minor twick there). It is impossible to get this article to be NPOV when a group of "owners" engage in gang revert to circumvent the 3RR rule.

My guess is that either there will eventually be enough bold editors who would like to tackle this issue or that the corrections will have to come from other directions. I can not do it alone but I am sure going to keep trying.

Also, anybody who reads Benny Morris should also read Efraim Karsh. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/humanities/medstu/ek.html

Karsh analyzed both arabic and hebrew documents (Morris is not fluent in arabic unlike Karsh) from the time and Karsh shows where Morris has taken some of his points out of context.

Excerpt: http://www.meforum.org/article/466


After reading at least one of Karsh's books, Morris himself stated:

"Karsh has a point. My treatment of transfer thinking before 1948 was, indeed, superficial".

Benny Morris, Times Literary Supplement http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/humanities/medstu/rev2bk.html

Very nice of you to raise that example, which appears on Karsh's own web page. It gives us an opportunity to learn something about Professor Karsh's honesty and integrity. If this quotation is fairly presented, it would seem that Karsh scored a point against Morris, forcing Morris to back down. At least, that is what Karsh wants us to think. However, turning to the source (Times Literary Supplement, 28 November 1997) we find that in fact Morris wrote exactly the opposite. Rather that conceding about "transfer" in the direction of Karsh's viewpoint, he wrote "Since writing my books on 1948 (The Birth and 1948 and after, 1990, revised 1994), I have begun to probe pre-1948 Zionist thinking on transfer, and the evidence so far unearthed and published, of which Karsh is well aware, has only strengthened my original conclusion - that the Zionist leadership devoted much time and thought to the subject and consensually accepted a transfer solution to the Arab problem (though it preferred, for good diplomatic and political reasons, not to publicize this)." In other words, Karsh misrepresents this document. If we can't trust Karsh to be honest about such easily obtained sources as TLS, why should we trust anything he writes about obscure documents in the archives? --Zero 10:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Morris returned to this same point in his article in the Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol 27 (1998) pp81-95. There we writes "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. ... Perhaps I erred in not attributing enough weight to the Zionists' 'transfer' predisposition in explaining what actually happened in Palestine in 1948." Then, after giving some examples, Morris concludes "Karsh can shout until he is blue in the face that the Zionist leaders in the 1930s and 1940s rejected all thought of transfer: Mountains of evidence speak to the contrary." --Zero 10:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
The issue is "cause and effect" not historical evidence of intention in the 1930s to an event took place in late 1948. You can not "proove" the cause and effect relation. No one can. That is why it needs to be on a seprate article. Zeq 05:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


I removed a section which has nothing to do with the exodus itself. in a paraphrase on slim's words "you would have to find a mainstream academic source who made a strong and direct connection, and not only that, but who argued that the Palestinian exodus could not " have occured without the events in this section. In anycase this section imply one specific POV and can not be inserted back without a balancing section to present the other side. Zeq 06:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Its relevance is completely obvious. Don't do that again. --Zero 08:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
No it is not relevent to this article and as such it should not be here. There is already an article about history of zionism. This article is about the exodus which was part of the war. Don't revert without PROPER explnation of your reverts. See slim mesasage on my talk page what is the standard for including material on this article. Zeq 10:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Its relevance is completely obvious. Stop playing these games, Zeq. You know better. --Zero 10:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
You are the one "playing games" this whole section dos not belong here. You want to add it to zionism or start a new article about transfer intentions of zionist leaders be my guest. Zeq 10:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
One of the most frequently debated issues surrounding the Palestinian exodus is that of whether it was the product of a long-standing Zionist policy or attitude. You can argue whether that debate is properly presented, but you can't suppress it. Its relevance to this page is completely obvious. --Zero 11:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC) And, to answer your point about "mainstream academic source", in fact every substantial work on the Palestinian exodus I have ever seen (dozens) regards it as an important question even if they disagree on the answer. --Zero 11:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
This is about the Palestinian esodus that took part during the war. This is not an article about Zionist transfer policy. You seem to forget that the exodus took part during a war. You can argue it was planned but zionist intentions 40 years or 4 years before have not a place on this article. In any case next time explian your reverts before reverting twice. Zeq 11:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not the "zionism transfer" article

It seems there is great confusion what should or should not be on this article. There is a clear yardstick that you seem to fiollow but it must be followed all the way. There is no place for "transfer" in this article unless you adopt the POV that the exodus is part of a plan that was in the making for 40 or at least 5 years before 1948.

The way to address this is to write an article about the "Zionist transfer plan" - - describe it in NPOV terms. Provide evidence that there was such a plan etc....In this article you can say that some claim that the exodus was implemnatation of that plan and some think it was not (which is indeed the cvase among acdemics who investigated it - please bring sources to such) As it is now inclusions of this section is byitself a biased POV. Zeq 15:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, Zero has addressed just these issues in his contribution above. Please please please read and take on board other people's talk page contributions.Repeating your views ad nauseam while refusing to engage with the points made by others is not the way to reach agreement, Palmiro | Talk 16:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
"It seems there is great confusion" - not for most editors. I strongly urge you to follow Palmiro's advice. Ramallite (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I suggested a way in which this info can be on Wikipedia. You can not overload this article with details that occured years before the vent only because you have POV about a theory. For that Theory you better start another article. This article is about the exodus don't confuse it with other subjects. Zeq 18:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
The tragedy of this particular refugee problem (like a few others) wasn't the fleeing or expulsion; most people flee neighborhood battles (or hurricanes or tsunamis) planning to return, and many people have been expelled (like Kosovo Albanians), but here it was the inability to return. You should have understood this from the article. A key question is "Why were these refugees not allowed by Israel to return?" You cannot just say "Israel needed to guarantee a Jewish majority and Arabs would upset that balance so the refugees were blocked from returning' - that would be POV, not to mention the implications of how it sounds. Therefore, a history of Zionist plans is given to put the importance of not allowing the return of the Palestinian refugees (whom this article happens to be about) in context, and this was worked on and NPOVed as satisfactorily as possible before either of us came to Wikipedia. So if you want to argue against its inclusion, you need to recognize this angle first. I think Zero adequately demonstrated its relevancy above, and he probably knows more about the history of our country than either of us do. Ramallite (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The issue is not my POV. The issue is to represnt in this article the same level of context and POV of both sides. So far this article is a complete failure of Wikipedia NPOV policy. I am sure you too can see that. Try writing this article from scartch "fromthe enemy POV" and you will see two things: 1. Things that are missing 2. Things that the "enemy" would not agree to be here.

At that point try to find a way to merge the two articles. I have included here links to the other POV (in talk above)

Surly you understand that "zero's relevancy" imply accepting his POV. Every intelegent person can see this and I am sure you do too. My suggestion above (breaking it to two articles) is clearly the right way to do it and comply with wikipedia policy. Zeq 05:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the history of this talk page prooves that there were attempts to make this article NPOV but they failed. The same problem that it has 6 month ago (other complained about it not me) are still here. On the other hand 3 years ago it was NPOV to the other direction.... flip floppiong POV based on a momantary majority out of 6 editors is not what Wikiopedia is all about. This is why this article is a failure of the NPOV policy. Zeq 05:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, please stop removing this section, which is within concensus. It is highly relevant to this article.--Doron 08:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

No Doron it is nor relevant. This is about an event that took place in 1948. Distrting Herzel words from 1904 have nothing to do with it. It is not NPOV to include a one sided irelevant section in order to create the POV that the whole exodus was planned. The refral to history of the zionist-palestinian conflict is more than enough. "consensus does not exist on nothing in this article so don't "wave" this false argument. Zeq 10:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The relevancy of this section is clear from the text -- the article is about the Palestinian exodus during the Zionist war of independence, and the section is about the idea of forcing a Palestinian exodus in Zionist thought.--Doron 12:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Distorting Herzl

Clearly we need a seprate article for the issue of transfer, if not we must in the name of NPOV put this into the article (which is now completly based on Benny morris one sided view):

Distorting Herzl Consider, for example, Morris's charge that Herzl wished to dispossess Palestinian Arabs because of his fear that the Jewish state would lack viability if it were to contain a large Arab minority. Morris bases this assertion only upon a truncated paragraph from Herzl's June 12, 1895 diary entry, which had already been a feature of Palestinian propaganda for decades.[16] But this entry was not enough to support such a claim. Below is the complete text, with the passages omitted by Morris in italics:

When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly … It goes without saying that we shall respectfully tolerate persons of other faiths and protect their property, their honor, and their freedom with the harshest means of coercion. This is another area in which we shall set the entire world a wonderful example … Should there be many such immovable owners in individual areas [who would not sell their property to us], we shall simply leave them there and develop our commerce in the direction of other areas which belong to us.[17]

By omitting the opening sentence, Morris hides the fact that Herzl viewed Jewish settlement as beneficial to the indigenous population and that he did not conceive of the new Jewish entity as comprising this country in its entirety. This is further underscored by Herzl's confinement of the envisaged expropriation of private property to "the estates assigned to us"—another fact omitted by Morris. Any discussion of relocation was clearly limited to the specific lands assigned to the Jews, rather than to the entire territory. Had Herzl envisaged the mass expulsion of population, as claimed by Morris, there would have been no need to discuss its position in the Jewish entity. Morris further ignored context. There was no trace of a belief in transfer in either Herzl's famous political treatise, The Jewish State (1896), or his 1902 Zionist novel, Altneuland (Old-New Land).[18] Nor for this matter is there any allusion to "transfer" in Herzl's public writings, his private correspondence, his speeches, or his political and diplomatic discussions. Morris simply discards the canon of Herzl's life work in favor of a single, isolated quote.

Most importantly, Herzl's diary entry makes no mention of either Arabs or Palestine, and for good reason. A careful reading of Herzl's diary entries for June 1895 reveals that, at the time, he did not consider Palestine to be the future site of Jewish resettlement but rather South America.[19] "I am assuming that we shall go to Argentina," Herzl recorded in his diary on June 13. In his view, South America "would have a lot in its favor on account of its distance from militarized and seedy Europe … If we are in South America, the establishment of our State will not come to Europe's notice for a considerable period of time."[20] Indeed, Herzl's diary entries during the same month illustrate that he conceived all political and diplomatic activities for the creation of the future Jewish state, including the question of the land and its settlement, in the Latin American context. "Should we go to South America," Herzl wrote on June 9, "our first state treaties will have to be with South American republics. We shall grant them loans in return for territorial privileges and guarantees." Four days later he wrote, "Through us and with us, an unprecedented commercial prosperity will come to South America."[21]

In short, Morris based his arguments on a red herring. He not only parsed a quote to distort its original meaning, but he ignored the context, which had nothing to do with Palestine or Arabs. Zeq 17:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, three problems:
  1. You said "Clearly we need a seprate article for the issue of transfer, if not we must in the name of NPOV put this into the article". But you put your text into the article while deleting the 'transfer issue'. Although you said if we have one then we should have the other, you ended up deleting the first and then having the other.
  2. Your latest entry is beyond the scope of this article. You have added the opinions of another article and presented them here as fact (you even said "facts" in your edit summary, which makes it hard for other editors to take you seriously and make you sound like a propagandist.) For example, stating "Arab opposition to Zionism was not based only on economic and social issues. It was colored by the traditional Muslim vision of the Jews as second class citizens" as a fact in this article, instead of saying "according to...." is clearly POV-pushing. I'm surprised you don't see that after being on WP for as long as you have.
  3. Read this from the webpage where you copied your most recent entry:

    This material is copyright ©2005 by MidEastWeb for Coexistence Middle East Resources http://www.mideastweb.org and Ami Isseroff and may be reprinted for nonprofit use, provided credit is given to MidEastweb for Coexistence http://www.mideastweb.org . Do not copy this Web Page - please link to us. You may redistribute this material by email, if you identify the source and give the URL of this page http://www.mideastweb.org/zionism.htm Please feel free to copy all links on this page to your Web site, but do not copy the text of the Zionism article.

    You have copied their text without attribution, which I think is against their copyright rules. Since you have been self reverting a bit recently, why don't you do it yet again? You seem to be having fun with it :)
Ramallite (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

To/from Doron (from his talk page):

You are entitled to your view that nakba was orchestrtaed by Herzel 40 years in adavnce or that he created an idology for it but it is only your POV, not more. Wikipedia is the palce for NPOV articles. The Nakba article is not the place to start a discussion on "Mishnato shel Hertzel" I f you rad Hertzel vision "Medinat hayehudim" (which is the reason you live in Israel) you will see that he planned to work according to Int'l law and cooperation with the local poulation.

There need to be anrticle about the Nakba but it does not need to be a distorted one Zeq 10:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Herzl is a prominent Zionist, and since the Palestinian exodus took place during their war with the Zionists, the predisposition of Zionists with regards to the prospect of a Palestinian exodus is highly relevant to the article. The reason why I live in Israel has nothing to do with it and is none of your business.--Doron 12:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
As I said, this is your POV. Other do not see it this way. Zionism does not equial nakba (although you may think it is). You want to discuss the "predisposition of Zionists " to ideas about trnasfer - do it on the zionism page. The nakba is a specific event that was part of the war not part of some design by Hertzel. When disussing Hertzel plans in "zionism" or "Hertzel" you will need to bring both his (complete quote) from his diary including other ideas that he has about cooperation with the Palestinians. This "cherrypicking" of selective qyuotes from Herzel diary is not NPOV. Zeq 12:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
First, I'm only referring to the relevance of the section. If you have other problems with the section such as accuracy or balance, this is not a reason for deleting it entirely without trying first (perhaps with other editors) to make it better.
As for relevance, the relevance is quite obvious, as: a) Zionists addressed the idea of a Palestinian exodus before it took place; b) Zionists were involved, one way or another, with the Palestinian exodus. I don't think I can make it clearer. You have not addressed these points.--Doron 13:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Doron, this is your Original research.

First this is not 100% true (include many inaccuracies and caustion which is not true) for example in:

"From the start of their endeavor, Zionist Jews strove to create a Jewish state in Palestine, which Jews considered their biblical homeland and had lived there as a minority for centuries, built on Jewish traditions and culture. The demographic reality of Palestine, in which most residents were non-Jewish Arabs, was for them a major obstacle to the establishment of such a state."

Second trying to create the connection that such zionist desire had cause the nakba (which is an event that occured during the war) is sneaking in a Original research POV.

No ned to be a weasle. If you want to say something say it but make sure you bring the opposite POV. But the important issue is that you:

  • Take the causion between what Zionist say to the nakba for granted
  • don't present any other view
  • "proove" you POV by selctive quotes
  • do it all the wrong article. this is an article about the nakba not about the zionists and their desires.

Zeq 13:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say I don't understand what you are saying. I am not talking about accuracy, I am talking about relevance. I claim that the section talks about what Zionists had to say about the possibility of a Palestinian exodus, and since Zionists played a key role in the Palestinian exodus, the section is relevant. Which part of what I'm claiming you disagree with?--Doron 13:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Doron, do you want to send me a phone number I'll call you and explain. maybe it would be more clear.
I prefer having the discussion here where other editors can contribute. If it's absolutely necessary to talk on the phone, I'll send you my phone number and we can talk today.--Doron 16:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
As for Relevence. many things are relevent but we have different articles. By includinga selective cherrypicking history of Zionism in this page you create a causation that exist in your (and others) POV. Trying to balance this POV (with other staemnets by Hertzel, with other zionist quotes from BG, Sharet etc.. would create a too large article. There should be (there is) another place for discussion about zionist desires and does creating a Jewish state means creating a Nakba for the Palestinians - of course the UN did not think so and in 1947 created a Jewish state without causing or mandating removal of Palestinians. Bottom line is that in your POV there is a clear connection or relvancy but that is only your Original research and POV. Please remove the section to another article. This article is regading events that started in the year 1947. Even if many zionists dreamed about a transfer (which is not true) there is no way to proove causation between that desire and the events that actually took place during the war.

In a different way to look at this is that you have to find an acceptabel accedemic source who say that without those words in Herzel diary there would have been no Nakba. (i.e. that the Nakba was only caused by what Hertzel wrote in his diary in the 1800s ) and even than you will have to bring the other POV which says that the Nakba was not caused by Hertzel words and show all other ideas Hertzel had about cooperaqtion with the local population. I am asking agin in a civil way: Please revert your edits. It is POV and Original research. Zeq 14:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This could be a better place for discussions about zionism: Zionism Zeq 14:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

If your argument is that the section is not balanced, then balance it. Show that while there were some Zionists that desired a Palestinian exodus, others (perhaps most of them?) rejected it. Don't just delete it.
You have not said anything to convince us that it is not relevant. It is relevant because it refers directly to the issue of a Palestinian exodus, and it is important because Zionist ideology is what drove the whole Zionist movement in immigrating, settling and fighting for this country.
The article is not claiming that Herzl's words translated into expulsion orders. But to say that ideas expressed by Zionist thinkers about a Palestinian exodus is irrelevant to the article on the Palestinian exodus is plain absurd, surely you can see this.--Doron 16:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
This artyicle is not about what is in this section. The place to balance it would be when this section is moved to an article about zionism or zionist policis etc. In that article would be the right place to show that there were voices to one side and to the other. I think you indeed do not understand how much something that looked to you as "relevant" is your OWN POV and your own original research. It is not just that this section (by itself) is not balanced. including this section in this article creates a binding between two things that there is no assurance that one is the cause of the other. For example there are many zionist who thought that a Jewish state could exist side by side to a Palestinian state (surly you know such people) there are many zionist that thought Palestinians could live inside israel (they still do today) so your binding of Zionism to Nakba is not appropriate in this article. We will not turn this article into a discussion about the different directions of Zionism. Read what you wrote and you will see that this is where we are headingh if we keep this section here. Please remove it to it's right place. (zionism or zionism transfer policies ) Zeq 16:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW, this argument "But to say that ideas expressed by Zionist thinkers about a Palestinian exodus is plain absurd" is an argument I like. I can think of several viwes of "Zionist thinkers" about the subject that I would add to this article. Think hard about this and you will understand why your statment is not true.

I will try to give you an example. imagine that in this article Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II I will include anti german statements in the late 1800s and desire of some in polland to own the city of Gdansk (who used ot be German before the war). I suggest you look at the article Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II and get some prepective. If you want to say that the whole Nakba was planned, or that Nakba is the inevitable result of zionism say it (but source it) Zeq 16:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

As for your example, I know very little about that subject, but it appears that such statements are certainly relevant to that article.
As for saying that the whole Nakba was planned, I am not saying that, and neither is the article. The article is merely giving what the Zionist leaders and thinkers had to say about a Palestinian exodus.
Now I am saying this: (a) Zionists talked about a Palestinian exodus; (b) Zionists were involved in the Palestinian exodus. I can't understand how you fail to see the connection between (a) and (b).--Doron 17:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You are doing a very misguided original research. to Include in this article you would need a good source that sais that "(b)" could not have occured without "(a)". If you can not see that we are doomed to just revert each other. Zeq 17:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Nooo, original research is when a Wikipedia editor does original research. In this case, the link is made in published literature (e.g., Morris), so original research it isn't. Claiming that (b) could not have happened without (a) is a much stronger claim, that is certainly POV. I am merely claiming that (a) and (b) are related, and thus (a) is relevant to the article on (b).--Doron 23:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

also your use of the term "zionist leaders" is highly misleading: You mis quote Hertzel ( a zionist leader) and later say that another zionist leader (like Carmel) was invloved. although both are "zionst leaders" they are not the same people (as your a & b) imply. Zeq 17:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a lot in that section besides a discussion of what Hertzl wrote. If your problem is only with the part about Hertzl, why are you deleting the whole thing? Ramallite (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
This is explained in great detail above. Please read. also read User_talk:Zeq#Palestinian_exodus. same yardstick must apply Zeq 20:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't get it. That discussion is about an irrelevant section that you added, a different section. First you add a section without even trying to justify its relevance, and now you are deleting a section, claiming it is irrelevant?--Doron 23:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


Cherrypicking lengthy quotes from Herzl's early diaries is indeed a distortion of the Zionist movement and its intentions - it's kind of like cherrypicking out of context quotes from the Talmud, in order to "prove" that Judaism is a racist religion. If you want to provide balance, quote party platforms, or policies adopted at Zionist congresses. Jayjg (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Doron, Your repeated argument is "I don't get it" and there is not much I can do more than i did so yopu will understand. But let me try:

It is not the content that is the issue. For you youi want contect that fit your POV to be in and content that does not to be out. But this is not how wikipedia works. There are rules and such rules apply equaly . Furthermore even within the rule you have to balance and bring all POV. So even as it is the discussion about transfer is not complete. Hertzel "stae of the jews" actually talks about cooperation with the palestinians. No one broght this. I still think that thie whole section should be moved to "zionism" or similar place for an in deapth discussion. This is not the place for it. here we need to talk about the events of 1947-1950. I again suggest you look at Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II and also keep in mind that your argument "But to say that ideas expressed by Zionist thinkers about a Palestinian exodus is plain absurd" to keep this section here is something that open the door for views you do not like as well. In any case the only yard stick is a strong proof (by a source) that there is strong relevancy . Zeq 03:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

  • No, I'm not saying I don't get it, I'm saying you don't get it. You have not addressed my argument, which is the relation between (a) and (b) above. You keep saying that there is no proof that (a) caused (b), but neither is the article claiming this. (a) and (b) are related even if there is no proof that the relation is causal.
"related" is not enough. Read User_talk:Zeq#Palestinian_exodus
Shall I assume you admit it is related?--Doron 08:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
The article by including the tarnsfer section is creating the impression that one is the cause of the other.
Then the article must state clearly that this is not the case. The impression caused by possible misrepresentation is no grounds for censorship.--Doron 08:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
If you want to say it, don't be a weasle say it, and give sources that proove it.
Also bring the other POV.
or if you do not want to say it: not take it out.
but be honest, don't "sneak the ineondo in by keeping the section.
I suggest you mind your language and refrain from calling names. Read WP:ATTACK and WP:FAITH.--Doron 08:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Doron, I appologize. But this does not mean I think it is related. You should write clearly in the article what you are trying to say. If you think Herzel caused the Nakba say it. That is all. (and source it) Zeq 08:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
For the hundredth time: I don't think Herzl caused the Nakba! What I do think, is that Ben-Gurion (and probably most Zionists) would have liked there to be no Arabs in Palestine. What I know, is that Ben-Gurion spoke in favor of a population exchange. I think Zionist leaders' opinion on the possibility of a Palestinian exodus is an important aspect of the discussion on the Palestinian exodus, I am not claiming that it proves the Zionists had a plan to force a Palestinian exodus. That's all.--Doron 10:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • You don't need to explain to me what Wikipedia is, this is not making your explanation any clearer.
  • If you want to quote Herzl about cooperation with the Palestinians to counter the quotes in that section, by all means do so.
What does Herzel desrire for cooperation with the palestinians has to do with Nakba ? he dies 44 yeas before the Nakba.
I was just suggesting you balance "Zionist pro-exodus" quotes with "Zionist anti-exodus" quotes, you pick whichever suites you.--Doron 08:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no contradiction between having a discussion about "Zionism and transfer" here and in the article on Zionism, as it is relevant to both articles.
No. There is. You can put a link there as the start of the history section.
There is no contradiction, many subjects are covered by several articles which overlap. By your logic, one cannot say that Cats hunt Mice in either article, but rather create a new article Relations between cats and mice.--Doron 08:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Time didn't start in 1947, whatever was said about a Palestinian exodus before it took place is relevant.
Let me just quote ramallite from above: "By your logic, this article should then include everything about the conflict - the 1948 war, the Zionist Congress, the First through Fifth Aliyas, the 1967 war, and maybe even Golda Meir's secret love affair with Yasser Arafat! There is already a link to the Jewish exodus "
Hey - I was just referring to Zeq's attempts to insert non-related events into this article, not the removal of relevant stuff. Ramallite (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Let me get it straight Zeq, you think that the Jewish exodus from Morocco is relevant to the Palestinian exodus, but you think that what the Zionists thought about the possibility of a Palestinian exodus is irrelevant to the Palestinian exodus? How can you explain this?--Doron 08:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
And it is again just based on your argument 9which you are not saying) that it was planned. If that is the case :
say it and source it.
I didn't say it was planned. Neither is the article saying it.--Doron 08:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


  • I don't know what you think my POV is or what views I may not like. I am not claiming the section proves the existance of a Zionist master plan, or that it is balanced, or even that its contents are correct. I am just saying that if the Zionists where involved one way or another in the departure of the Palestinians, and if the idea of transferring the Palestinians has been brought up before by Zionist leaders, then this should be written in the article one way or another.--Doron 09:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Again you want to sneak it in. Either it was a neccesary cause (in such way that the Nakba could not have occured without it) or it does not belong here. Zeq 11:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm away from home and barely have time to read this discussion, but suffice it to say that Herzl is going back in. Just because Karsh can make a phoney argument about it (which is what is copied above) is no reason to take it out. Look at the first sentence that Karsh claims tells a different story: "When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us." Karsh claims "By omitting the opening sentence, Morris hides the fact that Herzl viewed Jewish settlement as beneficial to the indigenous population". This is complete rubbish as Herzl wrote STATE not INDIGENOUS POPULATION. Herzl distinguished between the ruling class (the state) who would be advantaged, and the poorer classes who would be eased out. This is quite clear if you read the whole passage. Herzl also knew that in all the places being considered (not just Palestine) the poorer classes were not landowners but tenants. Buying the land legally from the landowners was to be the first step in removing the poor. Btw, one might think about Karsh's first ellipses (...) and wonder why he omitted this text at that place: "Let the owners of immovable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back." We should not claim too much from this passage, though. Herzl was not describing a master-plan. What it proves is that he was amenable to the idea, which is relevant to our article. --Zero 11:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Just make sure to include all this discussion (I mean the source for it cause this is not your OR I hope) in the article to make sure it is not only one side POV. Zeq 12:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Zeq, you keep making a lot of bad faith comments about other people's POV. I told you in early October, stop referring to what you think other people's POV is all the time and attacking them, it is really bad and makes you very unlikable and difficult to work with. Also, your attempts to strike equivalency between something User:SlimVirgin told you on your talk page about an unrelated subject and the section you are trying to remove here is disingenuous. Slim was advising you about something where it is not obvious there is a relation, and you are trying to apply the same reasoning to something where it is obvious that there is a relation to almost everybody (except you). In other words, what you are doing is against policy. If the Zionist ideals have nothing to do with the reason that refugees were not allowed to return to their homes, then I suggest you remove any mention of Hertzl and Zionism history from the Israel article, since Hertzl died decades before Israel was established. Ramallite (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry Rama I did not attack anyone or made any "bad faith" comment. People have a right to their POV but the article need to be NPOV. that is all. If anyone is hurt by the good faith discussion we have here it is not my intention and if anyone is hurt by it I appologize to that person. never is my intention to refelect about any of my fellow editors. I only talk about the content of the article and if I say they are entitled to their POV I do mean it: But not as one sided on the article. On the article only NPOV . Hope this is clear. Zeq 15:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

also I am not disruppiting anything. We are enganged in editing. Everyone is free to edit and to discuss. If this is not what we are all doing ? I think that this kind or argument : "I suggest you remove any mention of Hertzl and Zionism history from the Israel article, since Hertzl died decades before Israel was established." is the type of argumentn that suggest distrupting wkipedia to make a point. All I can do is point you again to what slim wrote to me. It apply to all type of material Zeq 15:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Rama I re-read the policy that you linked to. thank you for bringing this policy to my attention. I can understand why you may think that my edits are aganst that policy. I don't agree with you but reading this policy I sure can learn how to be a "better" wikipedian. Thank You again for bringing it to my attention. Zeq 16:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Repeating myself, a cherrypicked quote from Herzl's diary is neither NPOV nor relevant to the Palestinian Exodus, unless you can show that this diary entry actually had any relevance in the thinking of the Zionist movement as it was actually constituted. Jayjg (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Doron's argument

Moved Doron quote:

For the hundredth time: I don't think Herzl caused the Nakba! What I do think, is that Ben-Gurion (and probably most Zionists) would have liked there to be no Arabs in Palestine. What I know, is that Ben-Gurion spoke in favor of a population exchange. I think Zionist leaders' opinion on the possibility of a Palestinian exodus is an important aspect of the discussion on the Palestinian exodus, I am not claiming that it proves the Zionists had a plan to force a Palestinian exodus. That's all.--Doron 10:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply: This is perfect original_research. All I ca do is again quote Slim in User_talk:Zeq#Palestinian_exodus "If you want to add a paragraph about X, you would have to find a mainstream academic source who made a strong and direct connection, and not only that, but who argued that the Palestinian exodus could not, and should not, be regarded as separable from X" (in the original X was Jewish exodus but it should not matter what X is. In this X is "Zionist ideas about transfer". Zeq 11:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Doron is entirely correct. What he writes is known by most people who have taken the time to study the subject. SInce there are plenty of historians who have expressed these opinions, it doesn't count as original research either. --Zero 12:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Which has been done by Morris and debated by Karsh, not to mention many other writers; It's not for editors here to substitute their own judgement. --Ian Pitchford 12:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC) P.S. Herzl's original plan was to buy Palestine from the Ottoman Empire. Transfer wasn't a big issue then because Zionists expected to swamp the local Arab population with massive immigration; but no one ever considered that the "Jewish National Home" (the whole of the land of Israel; not just Palestine) would be under the domination of Arabs. Transfer only became prominent when it become clear that immigration was not bringing about the majority expected.
Since I am not a researcher, I can not and will not argue with the [[original_research the 3 of you are doing. The rules are clear, the policy is clear. If someone else (ramallite, Jayjg, slim) want to contribute you are welcome. Zeq 12:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Zeq stop talking rubbish. You're just an attention-seeker. --Ian Pitchford 12:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If I was a researcher, I would reply to Ian's last PS that maybe this show that in Herzel time the country was almost empty and that Arab immigration into Palestine came later with the economic development brought by the Zionists. starting in 1900 (Hertzel died 1904). But I am not a researcher so I would not argue that. Surly this subjects (including other words by Zionist leaders become relavnt to the article under the new rules you use. So Far you are "Cherrypicking" which is clearly POV. Zeq 12:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
You don't need to be a researcher, probably none of us is (I certainly am not), all you have to do is open a book. The issues in the article have all been published in the past, so there's no original research issue.--Doron 13:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Doron, bring sources which say one is the result of the other, and bring sources that say they are not. This is the proper way to edit in Wikipedia. what you have done so far is OR and POV. Zeq 13:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Read carefully: I am not CLAIMING that one is the result of the other! Nobody here is!--Doron 14:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


So if one is not the cause of the other why is it here ? Zeq 14:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
For the last time: the article is about the Palestinian exodus. The section is about one particular aspect, which is Zionist thought about a possible Palestinian exodus. It's as simple as that.--Doron 14:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
And I again ask a simple question: Is there any relation between their thoughts on the subjects (I don't even accept that this is what they thought about, but for the sake of argument let's accept that) to the actual events that have transpired during the war ? I.e. did their thoughts mature to a plan and the plan was implemented. If so write it and source it. If not then it is not relevant (see this User_talk:Zeq#Palestinian_exodus for an inclusion critiria) . 15:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not their thoughts materialized into the events that took place is up for the reader to decide. But their thoughts on the subject are just that: on the subject, which is the subject of this article.--Doron 15:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

No. It is us to decide if this fits the inclusion crtiria. Wkipedia is not a heap of unrelated facts that leave the user to conduct his own OR Our job is to present sourced info , present both sides of the issue. So if there is an acdemic source that thinks this is realted and there is another source that think it is not we need to present that. There maybe other ways to arrive to the concusion that it is relevant to this article but I hve not seen any. In any case the way it is now is not NPOV. . Zeq 19:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad we agree. Lots of academic work has been done connecting the two (Morris is an easy example), so, as you suggest, it is relevant.--Doron 08:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Doron, If this is the case bring the source claim not your won claim. I think Morris himslef claimed the opposite as well, so you will need to bring that and other academic and other sources who argue for the opposite POV. So you have work to do. I would suggest that the whole title of the section is not correct as well and need to be changed for "reasons for the nakba". Zeq 08:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Morris' book is full of quotes from Zionist leaders, it's pretty clear. But you seem to be missing it again -- the section is not claiming that the Nakba are a result of Zionist thought. The title is perfectly fine.--Doron 08:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Doron

Doron, Fine. You argued that "Lots of academic work has been done connecting the two" - fine bring it on the article (i.e the article should quote Morris's claim and if he justify it with quotes from others bring his justifications with or without those quotes) Next, find the other POV (some of it also by Morris, some by others) and bring their claim. This is how NPOV articles are done. This would replace what is on the article (and on the talk page just above this reply) so far: An (unsourced)Original reaserch of your interpretation of Morris's ideas (and since it is unsourced we can not verify your claim) and then you are presenting it in a POV manner. This is what needs to be Fixed. You now have work to do. Zeq 09:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I am just claiming that Zionist quotes about transfer are relevant to this article. Morris' book is full of them. I have nothing to prove. As for the "other side", it is you who is claiming that there is another side, so the burden is on you. It is not enough just to say you dispute the section, you have to substantiate your claims.--Doron 09:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Doron, we are back at square one. Your claim "Morris' book is full of them" is not the issue. The issue is: What exactly is 'Morris' claim' ? What does he try to argue by bring thse quotes ? If as you say "I am just claiming that Zionist quotes about transfer are relevant to this article" - this is your Original research. If it is Morris who claim that, please describe (and source in the article) what you think Morris claim is, bring Morris' claim into the article. Bring counter claim (also by Morris and by others) - this is how a non OR and non POV article should be done. It is what you want to argue so you have work to do and then we can all review it and verify it. I don't "dispute the section" I dispute the Original research that you are doing to justify why this section should be included. All I can do is again quote Slim in User_talk:Zeq#Palestinian_exodus "If you want to add a paragraph about X, you would have to find a mainstream academic source who made a strong and direct connection, and not only that, but who argued that the Palestinian exodus could not, and should not, be regarded as separable from X" (in the original X was Jewish exodus but it should not matter what X is. In this X is "Zionist ideas about transfer". Zeq 09:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Morris made the connection. That's all I need. It's not original research.--Doron 09:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Show it, source it and spell out what exactly does he claim: Is he claiming that the zionist ideas of transfer were the sole reason for the nakba ? . Zeq 09:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Morris quotes Zionist leaders discussing the idea of transferring Arabs in the same way the article does, and that's enough to establish that the section in this article is not original research (as it echoes Morris). If you want to learn more, I suggest you read the book.--Doron 10:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

No. I think you are wrong. Doron, In wikipedia it is important to source your claim so that other could verift them. I for one thinnjk that you understanding of Morrios is different from that of most people. I think it is reasonable to argue that uin his book of 1988; The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949, Morris argues that the approximately 700,000 Palestinians who fled from their homes in 1947 left mostly due to Israeli actions or fear of Israeli actions, but not as the result of a preexisting expulsion plan. At the same time the POV that the Palestinians left voluntarily or after pressure/encouragement from Palestinian or outside Arab leaders also need to be presented to create an NPOV. It seems we have 3 positions: 1. Morris 2. Karsh and others 3. Yours

all 3 need to be presented (if you can show your POV is not OR) . Zeq 10:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you stop attributing opinions to other editors. You are wrong, I have no position on the question why the Palestinians left. I am only pointing out that quoting Zionist leaders has been done (e.g. by Morris), and therefore it is perfectly fine for Wikipedia.--Doron 10:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

No Doron, you wrote: ""Lots of academic work has been done connecting the two" . This is your opinion not mine, write it in the article and source it. As for what Morris is saying read this Benny_Morris Zeq 10:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not an opinion, it is a fact. Morris' book is full of quotes like the ones here.--Doron 11:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Is this an article about Morris book ? If not what needs to be in this article is Morris view on the Nakba and the reason for it. You can quote from Morris, paraphrase his ideas and bring quotes he uses to support his ideas . But what we now have : Cherrypicking quotes in order to present a POV that is not in Morris original book is Original research. Zeq 12:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the quotes in this article are all in Morris' book.--Doron 12:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Page please, and what is the context, i.e. what is Morris trying to proove with these quotes ? Zeq 13:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
What out of all this is from Morris and what is OR (or other source not identified):

"From the start of their endeavor, Zionist Jews strove to create a Jewish state built on Jewish traditions and culture in Palestine, which Jews considered their biblical homeland and where a Jewish minority had lived for centuries. The demographic reality of Palestine, in which most residents were non-Jewish Arabs, was for them a major obstacle to the establishment of such a state. The most important means to achieve a demographic shift was through aliyah, Jewish immigration to the land of Israel. However, the Palestinian Arab population had a much higher birthrate than the Jewish counterpart, as well as some immigration [1]. Even with Jewish immigration, the Arab population greatly outnumbered the Jewish one. It was therefore clear that it would not be possible to bring about a Jewish majority in any part of Palestine, with the exceptions of the Haifa area, Jerusalem, and some northern districts. Furthermore, Jewish immigration was restricted by both the Ottoman Empire and theBritish, and relatively few diaspora Jews actually wished to, or were able to, immigrate to Palestine, most preferring to move to North America. While a few Palestinian Arabs were amenable to Jewish immigration, most were not, and incidences of violence between the communities occurred, including the Hebron Massacre of 1929 and the bombing campaigns of the Irgun the decade after. During and after World War II, when Jews were desperate to flee Hitler's final solution, their attempts to immigrate to Palestine were frustrated by the British mandatory authorities. The Arabs were adamant that the Jews not be permitted establish a state in the region, while the Zionists were determined to do so. The only viable solution, according to the United Nations, seemed to be a partition of Palestine. Yet however the land was partitioned, the part belonging to Jews would probably contain an Arab majority or at least a very large Arab minority <-- source for this . It is not true mathematically many types of partions that would ensure sepration between people are possible --!> . For some of the Zionist leadership, the "transfer" of a large Arab population appeared to be the only solution."

Zeq 13:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
The crux of this is more or less what Morris says in the first chapter, page 44, of the Hebrew translation of "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947--1949".--Doron 21:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Zeq, are you arguing with Doron only for the sake of argument? Or do you honestly dispute what he is stating? It is clear that the quotes by Morris in this article make your argument moot, since Morris (not Doron or anybody else) claims relevance between Zionist thought and the Nakba. If you think there is an opposing POV (which I'm not sure there is, not everything in the world has to have two POVs), then please do us all a favor and find these sources and add them in a relevant and encyclopedic manner. And stop using what User:SlimVirgin told you, those comments addressed your attempts to introduce an unrelated event into this article and are not relevant to this argument. Instead of responding to me, please find a reputable source that specifically refutes Morris' argument (even if it's Morris himself like you claim) and start editing (amicably). Don't argue about it, just do it! Ramallite (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Ramallite: Please assume good faith. And I will not stop using what User:SlimVirgin told me for the simple reason that rules apply in both ways. What happeing here is that the article IS very strong POV. I listened to your message the other day and decided to avoid making changes to the text that would lead to editwar. Instead i discuss it on the talk page. If I will edit the page I will remove the section that is unrelvant - this is what we discuss here. If soemone argues that the section is what Morris sais (it is not) then it is up to that person to Bring Morris own work (and source it). I am not planning to find sources to refute what so far seems a case of Original research that is in this article. As for what Morris is saying read this Benny_Morris, you will see that my comment about his book ("uin his book of 1988; The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949, Morris argues that the approximately 700,000 Palestinians who fled from their homes in 1947 left mostly due to Israeli actions or fear of Israeli actions, but not as the result of a preexisting expulsion plan.") is a more or less a quote from that page. Zeq 15:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour

I have decided to stop editing this article for a while. There is a desruptive behaviour by at least one editor that makes it impossible to edit this article without getting into editwars (which I want to avoid). I will wait for some time to see if this disruptive behaviour is stopped and there is a move by other editors to make this article more NPOV and less OR. Zeq 15:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

A note to everyone (including jayjg)

I am personally, a big believer in the two state solution. I would like to see the Palestinian state established on almost (98%-100%) of the area beyond the green line.

I also would like to see a solution to the Palestinian refugees that would include their right to emigrate to Palestine. (Similar to the right of Jews to immigrate to Israel). It is really not Israel's right to do what it does now (without any success) like trying to tell the Palestinians who can and who can't enter Gaza.

Given that i am not the only one who think this way and given that in 1947 the UN thought also about two state solution (albeit in slightly different bordrs but that is history now) and given that many Zionist leaders also wanted that solution and given that Herzel in his formal writings "the state of Jews" (where he also considered Argentine) did not suggest anything bad to the local population (which was very small anyhow) and only talked about the benefits Jews can bring to a country at the edge of the ottoman empire. And given that Even people Like Jabotinsky talked about how Jews, Christian and Arabs will be able to live together (but also talked in the famous "iron wall" how the Arabs must understand that the Jews will not be moved away) to make a long story short: There are many historical evidence that a Jewish state can (in the eyes of many) exist side by side to a Palestinian state. What I am saying here is that the Nakba was not "a necessary condition" in order to create a Jewish state in part of Palestine. The two states can coexist (I hope) and I am sure that therefore history of Zionism is not relevant to this article. (On the other hand events in the 1948 war, including massacres such as deir Yassin and also others are relevant) On the other hand if you insist talking about the transfer idea I remind you about the peel commission and the idea about moving population from both sides. The current text that talks about "no ability to partition Palestine" is so wrong that I can not think of anyone who suggested it. (maybe Kahane)

The bottom line is that this article is in a need of serious work to make it NPOV. such work can not go on as long as there are people who feel such level of "ownership about this article that does not allow any dissenting voices. Zeq 14:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Added paragraph

Zeq, I have two questions about the paragraph you added recently:

  1. How is it relevant to the Palestinian exodus?
  2. Where can this quote be found?

--Doron 07:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It is from Ben Gurion speech from 1947 and it has nothing to do with the xodus but it related to the whole section about the transfer discussion which is still here (although it should moved to a separate article) it is just the tip of the evidence that shows that the cherypicking of quotes currently in this section is POV (so i brought a balancing quote) It will have to b expnded 9see my ealier note) Zeq 14:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Two things: First, although I don't question the accuracy of your new quotations, I don't think you should start a paragraph with the words "The Transfer idea of the 1937 Peel comission has lost it's apeal as the voices of spliting the country to two states" - because now you have 'cherry-picked" a quote to show another opinion of Ben Gurion (of which some were public, others were private) but you cannot make your own conclusion that the idea of transfer had "lost it's appeal" by 1947 - especially as the opposite had probably happened by 1947 given your own edits on 1948 Arab-Israeli War. If the idea had lost its appeal, the refugees would have been allowed back after all. "Lost it's appeal" is your own original research, so be mindful of that. Second, I'm sick of this word "cherry-picking", could you find something else to pick, please? Ramallite (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Cherrypicking is a known word in English. Not sure why you think my edit in another article are different than here. What i suggest is that one article about the transfer idea (by the eys of Jews, Palestinians and the peel comission) will be made and anty other article (this one, the 1948 war) can refernce that article. I also suggest to you that as I said many times: There are two version of what took place and we can do an honest job presenting both. Zeq 15:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The 'cherry-picking' thing was a joke (I just hate euphemisms but that's just me), but the important thing here is that the words "had lost its appeal" is your own original research, and unless you can quote a notable person who thought the same, you should remove these words. Ramallite (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Zeq, I'm glad you're finally actually contributing, rather than erasing an entire section. Hoping not to quell your cooperative spirit, I must say a great portion of your quote is irrelevant to the article, and there would have to be some editing and use of ellipsis. BG's and Sharett's declaration of good will with regards to the Arab population may balance their transfer quotes, but the whole bit about Jewish refugees does not belong here at all.
And I second Ramallite's comment about you jumping to conclusion with regards to the transfer idea loosing its appeal.
Isn't sabra-picking a lot more fun?--Doron 15:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It is all one big issue: Israel wanted a place for Jewish refugees. One side claim they wanted it at the expense of local population and the other say they wanted it side by side to the Arabs. Zeq 16:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

"Israel wanted a place for Jewish refugees" - please show the relevance of this statement without engaging in original research. Palmiro | Talk 16:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The issue of the transfer that you so love to engae in came about from israel desirte to allow jewish immigraqtion into the country. So the issue is it side by side to palestinians or at their expense. It is speled very clearly at the text of the UN speeches. (this is without using the words "no cherrypicking" :-)Zeq 16:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The text you have added does not make this connection, and the reader cannot guess it. If the text does not make it clear (in a non-OR manner) why the issue of settling Jewish refugees is relevant to this article, these bits ought to be removed.--Doron 19:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The text makes it very clear (before Ian changed it) BG talks sepcifically about where to settle the refugees. In any case the text can be expended to explain it more clear if you want clearly the main issue is that a Jewish state in parts of Palestine did not intended to be at the expense of the Arabs Zeq 03:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The text is not clear, and neither is your explanation. This article is about Palestinian refugees, what does his quote about the Jewish refugees have to do with it? They do not mention a Palestinian exodus anywhere in these quotes. Please clarify.--Doron 10:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Zeq, why did you revert Ian? He didn't remove any of your stuff (except the commented-out bit, but that is now irrelevant since we are addressing these concerns in the text). Unless I'm mistaken, Ian added some more text to yours, but yours is still there, moved down a bit. Please check. Ramallite (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
For long time he try toremove these comments (which do not affect the visiable text but are important to editors) second he re added the Herzel quote that even jayjg agreed is out of place. Third, as far as I could tell he insrted more unrelevant quotes from BG. Ian is welcome to add in a way that does not revert progress that has already been made and as long as what he adds is relevant. Zeq 06:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
OK Zeq, let's stick to your editing standards. We delete everything from the article that cites a peer-reviewed publication by a noted scholar and stick in anything we like the sound of, together with speculation without sources, as per your edits to this article and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article, e.g., in that article you want to add that there was "a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy", without any evidence that there was such a belief (plausible or otherwise) or reference to any peer-reviewed publication discussing this issue. So if any editor of this article thinks it's plausible that the Palestinians were facing a genocidal enemy bent on destroying Palestine and expelling the population then it's perfectly legitimate to include that opinion in this article and to then insert a few links to relevant propaganda websites in support such as [2] [3] [4] [5]. Any editor who doesn't get their own way can then continually disrupt the article and pester dozens of other uninvolved editors on their talk pages about "violation of NPOV" policy as per user Zeq [6]. Do you want us all to adopt your approach? --Ian Pitchford 14:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

OK Ian you made your WP:Point now let's move on. Zeq 17:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, as soon as you agree to abide by the instruction editors get at the bottom of every edit page: "Content... must be based on verifiable sources". At the moment you are so intent on disruption that you are even deleting the sources for material that you have added yourself, e.g. [7]. --Ian Pitchford 18:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Not sure what when wrong in the edit. Zeq 19:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Those who want to continue and connect Herzel to the nakba are well advised to read this: [8] Zeq 12:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I hear Herzl's lawyers are already preparing a lawsuit--Doron 08:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The issue is creability of Wikipedia. Can you turn this article into one that present both of the POV/narrative of History ? Zeq 20:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm assuming we're still talking about the added paragraph (as the title of this discussion implies) -- I'm not sure how exactly it presents an opposite POV. The section in which it was added claims that Zionist leaders contemplated transferring Arabs out, I suppose an opposite POV would be that they did not contemplate such a transfer, or at least did not aspire to it, which is what you seem to claim. Your quotes make a much weaker claim, which is that they did not declare such aspirations, but rather declared their willingness to cooperate. Reading the section as a whole, one learns that the Zionist learders liked the idea of transferring the Arabs, but they were shy about openly advocating it. If you find this description biased, provide references that give a different view. I believe this description is correct, and it is based on published research, but if you can come up with a reputable published work that claims the opposite (for example, something to substantiate the claim in your edit that by 1947 the transfer idea had "lost it's apeal [sic]"[9]), I will be happy to discuss it. So far, you have been doing several things that did not contribute much to Wikipedia:
  • You have repeatedly engaged in revert wars, by adding or removing things clearly without concensus.
  • You have repeatedly removed an entire well-quoted section that is based on published work on the Palestinian exodus.
  • You added material whose relevance is not apparent (Jewish refugees from Arab lands) and failed to explain its relevance.
  • You added unsubstantiated claims (that the Zionist leaders abandonded the transfer idea).
It's not enough to preach about Wikipedia values to everyone here, you ought to adhere to them yourself.--Doron 06:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

and no one here bothered to make this article NPOV or proove that the talk about transfer (or cherrypicking quotes to fit this description) has anything to do with the events that did took place during the war. As for the relavncy of what I added: It is relevant it is just tat theowners of this article do not allow any dissenting voices and this is the biggest problem:

  • This article is POV and undermines Wikipedia creadablity.

Zeq 14:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The article is not 'owned'. If you explain why it is relevant instead of ranting, you will get better results. I've seen cooperation between Wikipedians that hold opposite points-of-view many times.--Doron 16:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is not a place where a disstenting POV can be expressed. This is wjat I mean by owned. Zeq 16:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


I agree with Doron and I really don't see what Zeq is talking about. --Street Scholar 19:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Clearly you see the muslim POV which is good. But here in Wikipedia we try to show both POV, including the one you don't see. Zeq 21:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how one editor agreeing with another means that there is a 'Muslim' POV. Zeq, I think the main problem here is that you are not making a distinction between 'opposing POV' and 'completely unrelated topic'. You were able to remove 'apple-picking' (or is it cucumber-picking) of Hertzl's quotes and introduced more direct quotes by Ben Gurion, which is good (especially after Ian put them in proper context). But remember that when you first came to this article, you argued that the 'opposing POV' was the Jewish exodus, which makes no sense, since many if not most people can agree with both issues, so they are hardly 'opposing', they are just unrelated. As Doron said, you also tried to introduce OR by saying that the transfer idea had 'lost its appeal' by 1947. You are very good at accusing others of 'owning' and 'being blinded by their POV', but you are not so good at taking criticism yourself. The question now is, what in the world is the 'dissenting POV' that is missing in the article that 'the owners' refuse to add? Please say it clearly and accurately: The dissenting POV is that ........what? Ramallite (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I told youb many times. I repect the Palestinian narative of the Nakba. Next to it, with equal validity is how the Israeli side see the evenets oncluding the bigger context. Thi is the essence of the NPOV policy to get both POV on the same page. I have answered your exact question already but I will do it again:
  • The refugees left as opart of the war. It was not pre planned. They followed the efendy class who left first. They received instruction to leave from Arab leaders. There were massacres by both sides. Jews have been escaping areas captured by Arabic forces and to some of them they returned (Negba) and to some they did not (Atarot) The exchange of population that resulted is part of the story. No doubt, the Palestinian refugees got the short end of the stick but keeping them as refugees for 50 years was the stated policy of the Arab leadership. (israel is also a country of people who use to be refugees 50 years ago, look where we are today) Zeq 04:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I rather think your POV is represented in the article:
  • "The refugees left as part of the war" -- In the first line of the article.
  • "It was not pre-planned" -- In "Alleged 'Master Plan'": "Other historians are sceptical of that conclusion... no central directive has surfaced from the archives...".
  • "They followed the efendy class" -- "This first flight contributed to the demoralization of the Palestinians and left them virtually without any leadership".
  • "They received instructions to leave from Arab leaders" -- In "Did Arab leaders endorse or call for the refugee flight?", first Morris quote.--Doron 09:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No Doron it is not represnted. Maybe, just maybe I should be the one to represent my view ? Zeq 17:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me ask you a question:

Do you think this article is NPOV ? or near NPOV ? look at the history page. 3 years ago it included only the Israeli narative (or parts of it) has any of that POV remain on the page ? Now look at the talk page, 6 months ago people compklained about the exact issues I am reaising. Has any of the dissenting POV able to express himself on this page. Don't you understand that such "ownership" of the page is not what Wikipedia is all about ? can you see the enemy POV as the NPOV asks you to ? Zeq 04:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

An example how NPOV look like

I stumbled on an article that starts:

"Islamist terrorism is terrorism that is carried out to further the political and religious ambitions of a segment of the Muslim community. The term Islamic terrorism is used more commonly, especially in Western media, but some believe it to be a smear against Islam."

and here it is, right on the top of the article is show what do two different views think about the subject. this is NPOV. Zeq 18:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

So how would you like this article's intro to look like? Would you like to give an example here? Ramallite (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


Zeq, can you clearly state what you have a problem with rather then just posting irrelevant stuff? --Street Scholar 20:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I and others have stated this many times before. Read the talk.
If you, when reading this article think it is NPOVthere is no point in me trying to convince you otherwise. "


____

Zeq, you have been at WP long enough to know that a sentence like "This is a somewhat peculuar statement" or "the Palestinians had fled after losing a war that they themselves have initiated" are both factually incorrect and very POV for Wikipedia purposes. You are the one who inserted the Ghada Karmi and Hanan Ashrawi quotes, now you are claiming they are POV? Ramallite (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite, as unpleasant as it may be for you to acknowledge, these facts are accurate. The 1948 war was initiated by the Arabs. After losing the war, they naturally fled. I'm not quite clear on what is in dispute here?

S

I think this is an encyclopedic text:

According to Palestinian author Dr. Ghada Karmi: "the majority of accounts of the Holocaust are in English, as opposed to accounts of the Palestinian Nakba, or “Catastrophe” (the creation of Israel in 1948) which are written mostly in Arabic. Most consider the mere comparison of the two to be outrageous, considering that in the Holocaust the Jews were murdered whereas in 1948 the Palestinians had fled after losing a war that they themselves have initiated. At the World Conference Against Racism in 2001, prominent Palestinian scholar and activist Hanan Ashrawi referred to the Palestinians as

...a nation in captivity held hostage to an ongoing Nakba [catastrophe], as the most intricate and pervasive expression of persistent colonialism, apartheid, racism, and victimization. This is a somewhat peculuar statement considering that most Palestinians are not members of Israeli society to begin with."


what you added (not the text I brought) is good as tears evoking specch but nor encyclopedia. Zeq 04:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

POV NPOV tag

Zeq, perhaps you could approach this with a little less narcissism. You may consider this article to have a strong pro-Palestinian bias. You are one person. Lots of other people disagree with you. The fact that one editor is unable to get the article to represent his point of view suggests that it is not widely held to have a massive bias, particularly of the sort you claim.

Zeq is NOT the only one who thinks pro-Palestinian editors presume to "own" this section. There is NO true opportunity to convey any balanced perspective. It is one thing to provide a biased perspective, it is quite another to try and argue that it lacks bias. What IS or IS NOT relevant/biased/POV, etc. cannot really be determined. Trying to reach some illusion of a concensus on what the "real" facts are is futile. This is one of the topics on which there is bound to be eternal disagreement. I don't see any solution other than having a "revert war" until one side grows tired of the silly game. None of the editors here want people to know what "really happened" - they simply want readers to know their personal perspective of what happened. Lets call it as it is...

S

Your approach can only end in us having a straw poll to determine how many editors agree that "this article has a strong pro-Palestinian bias", how many disagree, and then putting on a tag such as "Five editors consider that this article has a strong pro'Palestnian bias, three consider that it has a moderate pro-Palestinian bias, eleven consider that it complies with the neutral point of view, and four think that it displays a pro-Israeli bias."

This is lunacy, and if you're not capable of editing an article in a collaborative way that is no excuse for you adding templates to it to indicate what you personally think of it. Palmiro | Talk 16:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I added from the Ashrawi speech because what you had added by itself was something I considered out of context. If you think the statements in bold above are encyclopedic, then I am very disappointed that you have been at WP all this time and still don't know what NPOV is. I don't see anybody 'comparing' the Holocaust with the Nakba. The author you mentioned was comparing languages of the narrative of each people's tragedy (at least that's how I understood it). The anonymous editor who added the sentence above (first one in bold) was clearly trying to provoke the reader into thinking that the Palestinian author was making a comparison, and such a statement would need to be sourced anyway. As for the second sentence in bold above, this is the anonymous editor's personal opinion, and you think this is encyclopedic text? You can't be serious. Ramallite (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
As for the POV tag, I'm going to return it to my version because that's what you have been saying all along. Your argument was "Next to it, with equal validity is how the Israeli side see the evenets oncluding the bigger context. Thi is the essence of the NPOV policy to get both POV on the same page." If I am wrong about that, please fix it accordingly, but don't say 'some editors' because you are so far the only person on this discussion page with these specific objections. The Hertzl quote others objected to has been removed. Ramallite (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
And the reason for lask of Israeli perspective is argued to be a strong palestinian bias. Let people characterise there own arguments, and they will let you characterize yours. jucifer 16:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
"And the reason for lask of Israeli perspective is argued to be a strong palestinian bias" - by yourself, yes. I would argue that some issues don't necessarily have to have equally strong perspectives by both sides simply because they may not exist. In any case, thanks for your comment, and it would be great if you would give input as to what specifically can be added to this article in order for the tag to be removed. Ramallite (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Is there a mechanism whereby I can add a POV tag to the POV tag? Just curious. Palmiro | Talk 16:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There you go right there, comparing the Nakba to the Holocaust by stating: "comparing languages of the narrative of each people's tragedy" - as if these two tragedies are by any means comparable...

Your question Palmiro shows EXACTLY what i am complining about. The Palestinian/Arab/pro-arab/muslim side thinks that he own this article even to the level of not agreeing with the words on the stupid tag. Zeq 16:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The "POV because" tag is unauthorized and should not be used - it just invites further edit warring over the nature of the dispute, the exact wording of the warning, etc. Jayjg (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"not authorized" - since when an editor in wikipedia needs an "authorization" from anyone ? Zeq 19:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Zeq is NOT the only one who things pro-Palestinian editors presume to "own" this section. There is NO true opportunity to convey any balanced perspective. It is one thing to provide a biased perspective, it is quite another to try and argue that it lacks bias. What IS or IS NOT relevant/biased/POV, etc. cannot really be determined. Trying to reach some illusion of a concensus on what the "real" facts are is futile. This is one of the topics on which there is bound to be eternal disagreement. I don't see any solution other than having a "revert war" until one side grows tired of the silly game. None of the editors here want people to know what "really happened" - they simply want readers to know their personal perspective of what happened. Lets call it as it is...
S
And your edits that introduce your own POV as fact, delete sourced information, and insist on taking out a photograph, is your way of 'balancing' things? Or your way of affirming your calling it as it is? It sounds that you are admitting that you do not believe in editing with a neutral point of view, which would make you unsuitable for editing Wikipedia unless you change your mind and start trying to abide by policy. Ramallite (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed I argue that it is impossible and quite pretentious to suggest that one can edit with a neutral point of view. I remove sections that are either not relevant to the point, or those that present the issue in a way that appears to me to be biased. Just as the removal of them appears biased to you. There's no real end to it. The difference between us is that you presume to be neutral and I do not. Your editing clearly suggests that you are far from neutral.

S.

Objections

I have stated my objections many times. I am not the first nor the last. If you go back to comments made over 6 month ago they are all the same: This article takes the Palestinian view of things. I would actually chalange Ranallite to do what the NPOV policy actully ask you to do "wriote it from the enemey POV". Go over this article without my help. Search the web for how it is presented else where and decide for your self: 1. What is missing 2. What should not be included

and end up with a balancced article that can explain the Palestinian view and the Israeli view in an equal NPOV manner.

But first let us realize that there are two POV on this issue and let us read the NPOV policy again (especially as I pointed out the section about religion) because to the Arab side this article has a "religious" aspect: The Nakba is the core narrative of the Palestinian people. The snactum sanctury (if I still remeber my Latin)Zeq 17:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, I feel am one of the very few around here who, whenever I actually 'write' something, it is usually over 50% against my personal views. I think there is a lot to be said about that since some of my views are on my user page so I am sure you can see how difficult it is for me yet I do it. In fact, that is how I measure if what I am writing is NPOV, where I disagree with over 50% of the stuff I'm writing. You have never appeared to have attempted to edit anything that is less that 100% your own POV, and that is the main difference between you and me. Have you ever written anything you disagreed with? As for this article, as I said above, there are some stories that do not have two equal and opposing POV. I don't think I will find any research beyond what is here that will be strongly 'pro Israel' about expelling Palestinians as will be "pro-Palestinian" about expelling Palestinians. Some things in life are like that. And of course, I would not look at propaganda pages unless they are from an official body (such as the MFA website of the Israeli government). Now I many be wrong, and there is a strong Israeli POV (non racist, non propaganda, and reputable) that is missing here. If you have any, please list them, and I will attempt to incorporate them. Ramallite (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
You don't have to stay out of my way, since I'm still not sure what else I can add. I have heard a lot about Morris and listened to him speak, but have not read his books. The German editor you quoted below was trying to make it more NPOV, I don't think he was shifting it to a Palestinian POV. He is saying that it is normal for civilians to get out of the way of gunfire and canons, and I have a feeling he is right. There is no single truth, and 'total systematic expulsion" and "left at their own free will" is indeed rubbish. Nobody just wandered out of their door whistling and left at their own free will, and there was no 'total systematic expulsion' otherwise there would be no Israeli Arabs. So I'm lost as to what else to do. Lastly, it's funny that you say that I am the one who can make this NPOV, since you made over ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY edits to my RfA (not counting other pages) trying to convince people that I cannot do this sort of thing. ;) Ramallite (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The collective wisdom was that I was wrong. So here is your chance to deliver on this. Or do you want me to do it ? Zeq 17:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


Why I think you should read the talk page

Here is what a German editor wrote about this article nearly two years ago:

"And as a basis for rewriting the article, I think we should adopt a view that it is totally normal human behaviour for civilians to move out of an area in a war. This is directed against extremist views and arguments on both sides "total systematic expulsion" vs. "but they left on their own free will!" which I consider both as rubbish and which should be clearly marked as views. In history there is no "one single truth". --Elian"

The same problems are here today and have been raised multiple times by myself and others.

Take a week, two weeks. Edit this article to the best of your understanding of the NPOV policy. I will stay outof your way. (but read the talk first and the NPOV policy) after this week (or two weeks) I am sure we will have a beter article and who knows, maybe I will not have more objections. I actully think you can do it Ramallite and that it will be good for your understanding of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Zeq 17:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"it is totally normal human behaviour for civilians to move out of an area in a war" - that is true, but it does not imply that any particular circumstance should be described in that manner. Actually we should try to describe the known facts. --Zero 11:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

POV-because

Is there any policy making the POV tag official? Any policy making POV-because undesired? As I see it, the POV-because is an expansion of the POV tag so that the reader could get a quick overview over what is disputed. Noone, probably exactly what the word means - not a singe person on or off the planet, is going to actually read the talk page to understand the dispute before reading the article.

Edit warring or not, there should be a short explanation of what is disputed in the POV-because tag, and an extensive, easy-to-find, explanation on the talk page.

-- Heptor 00:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that the article itself should be as free from our opinions as possible. Allowing an opinion to accompany a POV tag goes against that. A suggestion: as well as placing an ordinary POV tag on the page, a POV-because tag can go on the Talk page. The latter could have an even more expansive explanation of why someone thinks the tag is justified. --Zero 10:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia policies should be followed in the same way on all articles. There is room to more than one POV. this is the essence of NPOV. Zeq 12:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
In a nutshell you have explained why you are a bad editor. NPOV does not consist of multiple POVs! You think you can push any POV rubbish you like into an article and that you are covered by pretending to invite opposing POV rubbish. Wrong! Mixing together different colored lumps of shit doesn't produce a flower; it produces a heap of multicolored shit. The NPOV policy requires you to edit in an NPOV fashion. People have patiently tried to explain this to you, but you seem incapable of understanding. Your edits are seriously damaging to the encyclopedia. --Zero 13:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
In a nut shall this was an unprovoked Personall attack which is also wrong. Read what is NPOV then we will talk again. Zeq 16:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Zero has hit the nail on the head. Zeq, part of why you have been engaged in edit wars in virtually every WP article you have touched is because you think NPOV only means "gathering different points of view". You seem to have not understood that each POV has to be itself presented in a NPOV fashion, and it is your responsibility to do so. Plus you frequently find hate blogs on the internet and use them as sources, when there are much more reputable sources you could use - but that's another story. In the future, I recommend that you present alternative POVs in a NPOV fashion (which means you will not always be able to cut and paste quotations as you are used to doing). Zero is absolutely right, and as an administrator, I'm sure he is quite familiar with original research and doesn't need to be reminded by you. Ramallite (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
No, you are wrong I am merely trying (in some articles) to correct the balnt POV that is in these articles. I present facts (usually as quotes) this is the recomended style. I never add any of my research like Zero tries to do. and you clearly can not blame me for Zero erevert wars (without even using talk). BTW, have you understood the articles about refugees I sent you on your talk page or you still think it has nothing to do with our sitaution ? I think we should strive for articles that advocate no single point of view, sometimes this requires multiple points of view without presenting one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view." Clearly, in this article this does not take place and I am glad you and Zero now confirm that (by misrepresnting what NPOV means) Zeq 18:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Zero, NPOV is actually presenting all (notable) POVs. Read Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#How_can_I_tell_if_my_article_has_a_POV.3F: "You should attempt to give proportionate space to opposing views". No reason to accuse people of being bad editors because they state Wikipedia policies, right? -- Heptor talk 00:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
BTW, mixing many enough multicolored lamps produces the white color. I can hardly see it produce "shit", multicolored or otherwise. -- Heptor talk 00:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, you know, analogies suck. What I am getting at here is that the POV "Some people think X is a wonderful person." is not turned into a good article by adding "Some other people think X is a terrible person". Expressing only the extremes like that conveys very little useful information to the reader. Even though it is true that important POVs should be described in the article, they should be described in a detached manner (as if by a Martian student of human affairs) and not in the sort of manner you would find in a USENET flame war. In other words, POVs should be presented in an NPOV manner. --Zero 09:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, this analogy does suck, and so does your attack on Zeq. I hope we now agree that there is room to more than one POV, of course presented in an as NPOV manner as possible. -- Heptor talk 23:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


I am not going to interfere in discussion between Zeq and Ramallite here, but I actually think Zero's suggestion is a good compromise. I expanded the idea a litte, with POV-because tag on top of the page, and suggestion to explain why article NPOV is disputed.

Just so this is noted, I still think that POV-because in a disputed article is even better. It makes this problem with the article more clear to an average reader, who may be either too lazy or too dumb to actually check the talk page. -- Heptor talk 10:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

An example of a more balanced text about Palestine population

This article as it is now present ONE POV as a complete truth. It list facts which are wrong, facts whicg are possibly right (and may or may not be relevant) and disputed facts without identifying them as such. It uses material quoted (presumibly) from Morris to create the im[pression that the Palestinian exodus was a result of long standing ideas of transfer by Zionst leaders.

In fact, zionist leaders have different views, that are not mentioned here and there is no indication that any of their ideas have actually contributed to the exodus. In fc\act, Morris claim that it did not - but this quote from Morris is not mentioned in this article at all

The bottom line is that this article is completly POV and my calls for editors to take the time to fix it have not been answered. As such I am proposing a different text and also moving the disputed text on the talk page for reexamination - why it is relevant. If this is because the (Original Research ) argument that Transwfer ideas by Zionist leaders have caused the Nakab - this argument should be stated clearly, and other POV should be presented as well.

Zeq 07:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

To Ian: It has been suggested before that this article is about the exodus NOT about the pro and cons of transfer ideas by Zionost leaders. [10] It was suggested that this article will be made more NPOV (the tag is nor here without reason) so make your effort in trying to solve this dispute instead of just trying to force your POV.Zeq 12:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You are one of a kind, Zeq. You suggested it and three people disagreed with you (and none agreed). You lost the argument. Get over it. --Zero 13:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I suggested something else: That "your side" will try to make this article more NPOV and I will stay out and would not edit it. I have waited for few days. No one seem to do anything so I started to make this article more NPOV. The problem is that you look at this as "win" or "loose" (you words) instead of a colborative effort in amking the encyclopedia better and conform to it';s own policies. Zeq 14:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is an alternative, more NPOV text:

Proposed new text

The population figures for mandatory and Turkish Palestine are of historical interest and figure in many historical debates. The Zionist claim that Palestine was "a land without a people" is challenged by pro-Palestinian historians who cite census figures showing a substantial Palestinian-Arab population by 1914. The Zionists note that most of this increase seems to have occurred after 1880, when Jews began developing Palestine. In particular, Joan Peters ("From Time Immemorial") claimed that a large proportion of the population increase among Arabs was due to immigration. Pro-Palestinian historians try to make a case that Zionist settlement had begun displacing Palestinians before 1948. The goal of the present is to examine the claims in the light of the best available statistical data, without supporting the contentions of either side, and without any intention either to denigrate from the tragedy of Palestinian refugees or to use the data to question Jewish claims to Palestine. The moral claims of the sides should not depend on percentages of population.

Uncertainties in the data - These debates flourish because of the lack of good information and confusion over the meaning of census figures, and the will of partisans to distort history. Census figures of the Ottoman Empire were unreliable. Foreign residents were not counted, and illegal residents did their best to evade the census, as did people wishing to evade military services and taxes. The population figures of the British mandate were more reliable, but there was no published census taken after 1931. Mandatory figures for the period after 1931 are based on hospital and immigration records and extrapolation, it seems. Nomadic Bedouin were not counted or undercounted in both Ottoman and British censuses. Those who became settled in Palestine would then add to population figures. In studying the population of Palestine between 1800 and 1948, we must keep in mind that there was only one agreed-upon reliable census in all that time, which took place in 1931. The British census of 1922 was taken in less than settled conditions, and may have undercounted the population. The Ottoman figures certainly undercounted. The census data of 1922 and 1931 and the estimates based on these censuses have also been challenged but they appear to be internally consistent. That is, in the main, the number of people reported by the British mandate in 1922 and 1931 is consistent with the rates of natural increase that they reported. The numbers given in the 1945 survey are about 100,000 or more below what would be expected based on the number of refugees and remaining population in 1948. Uncertainties in infant mortality and underreporting of births would not account for all of this discrepancy. It could be due to illegal immigration or in part to settling of nomadic Bedouins in the Palestinian Arab population..

Economics and Immigration - Under the British Mandate, which began after WWI, Jewish population increased due to immigration, especially in the 1930s. Arab population also increased at an exceptional rate. According to records, about 18,000 non-Jews entered Palestine between 1930 and 1939 when there were more or less reliable figures. In the same period, about 5,000 non-Jews left. This does not count illegal immigration of course, or immigration prior to 1930. Economic analyses show that by the 1930s the standard of living of Palestinian Arabs was approximately twice that of Arabs in surrounding countries, whereas in Ottoman Turkish times it was lower than in surrounding countries. Some of the farm population may have suffered economic hardship, characteristic of any industrializing and urbanizing society, but in the main, the standard of living improved, and it improved much faster than it did in surrounding countries. There is no doubt that this improvement in conditions was an attractant for immigrants as well as resulting in improved health and larger families. Additionally, British activity in building the port of Haifa during the 1920s and in operating it during WW II undoubtedly attracted at least some immigrants. However, there is no hard evidence that more than 100,000 or 200,000 (out of about 1.3 million in all of Palestine, and about 7-800,000 in the area that was to become Israel in 1948) Palestinians had immigrated to the land that was to become Israel. It is impossible to determine at present when this immigration took place. 100,000 Arabs immigrating in 1880 would have produced many descendants by 1948 than 100,000 Arabs immigrating in 1930. However, since economic conditions did not improve until mandatory times, it is unlikely that the bulk of the immigration occurred under Turkish administration.

Joan Peters, in her book "From Time Immemorial," argues that most of the increase in Arab population was in fact due to illegal Arab immigration. Her figures are not accepted by most demographers and historians, including Zionists. Norman Finkelstein and others have criticized her thesis and shown evidence of poor scholarship. Finkelstein's analysis also shows that the largest increases of Palestinian Arab population occurred close to Jewish population centers in Palestine, which would argue against the Palestinian contention that the Zionists were dispossessing Arabs. We do not know if this increase was due to population shifts in Palestine or immigration from outside Palestine. It is certain that there was at least some illegal Palestinian-Arab immigration, as noted in British mandatory reports. Immigration from Transjordan was not illegal, and was not recorded as immigration at all until 1938. Beginning in the 1920s when they built Haifa port, and especially during and just prior to World War II, the British recruited Arab workers from the Houran in Syria and elsewhere. Arabs also came to Palestine before the war, attracted by higher wages. However, since much of the depletion of Palestinian population that had occurred in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was due to migration to neighboring countries, many of these returning Arabs may have been families returning to Palestine.

This is material copied from Ami Isseroff's amateur analysis of Palestinian population. Only a small part of it is relevant to this article. --Zero 10:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Are you calling a wikipedia editor who have done hugh amount of work on this subject "an amateur" ? is this a personal attack ? Zeq 14:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
What? are you Ami Isseroff? This keeps getting better... Palmiro | Talk 20:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
No, he is not Ami Isseroff. Ami Isseroff has a brain and I respect his writing. However, his article mentioned here has some big faults especially in the section where he tries to estimate the number of refugees. He made a serious mathematical error there, causing him to omit tens of thousands of refugees from his calculations. --Zero 01:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Never met Amy Issarof but his writing is much more NPOV than what we have Here. So if he can write in NPOV so can we. If he made a mistake we should be able to correct it (or write him to fix it) Zeq 04:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Zero, please don't start making personal attacks again. -- Heptor talk 11:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I read the text, and it seems neutral to me, except a few reservations I made. It presents the controversy from all angles. Rejecting a text on Wikipedia because it is amateurish is like inhabitants of an aquarium rejecting a new resident because he smells fishy. My reservations are following:

  • What economic analysis does show that "by the 1930s the standard of living of Palestinian Arabs was approximately twice that of Arabs in surrounding countries, whereas in Ottoman Turkish times it was lower than in surrounding countries."
That's a good question, but why is it relevant to this article? We have other articles about the more general history of Palestine. --Zero 13:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
There is of course a question on how much the background of an event should be covered in an article, but I think this is important to how many people understand the situation. Article version suggested by Ian Pitchford also goes quite deep into the detail, so there is no reason to expand the article even more. It may be reasonable to separate the background section into its own article at a later point. -- Heptor talk 23:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • typo: "100,000 Arabs immigrating in 1880 would have produced many descendants by 1948 than 100,000 Arabs immigrating in 1930." Correct to: "100,000 Arabs immigrating in 1880 would have produced many more descendants by 1948 than 100,000 Arabs immigrating in 1930."
  • Joan Peters's opinion is clearly a small minority view, and should not be mentioned.

-- Heptor talk 21:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason we don't need amateur demography is that there is plenty of readily available professional work. This is important because demography is a difficult subject that needs expertise. --Zero 13:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
A basic question is why stuff such as pre-WWI immigration, or lack of, is relevant to this article about something that happened in 1948. Someone exiled in 1948 was just as much a refugee if their grandparents had immigrated from Egypt as if their grandparents were born in Haifa. And let's not lose perspective: at the 1931 census, the proportion of persons born outside Palestine were Muslims, 2%; Christians, 20%; Jews, 58%. --Zero 01:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
OK. Good question. There is a whole discussion about "trannsfer ideas by zionist leaders" (which btw is not NPOV, not in it's text and not in the fact that the there is cherrypicking of quotes and not presenting the other ideas by sometims the same people) . In any case the fact that the Palestinian population grow just next to the Jewish urban centers goes against the whole concept that the "transfer: section tries to show.
I can't see the logic in your second sentence. Even if was a reasonable description (which can easily be disputed), the Zionists only had the power to transfer Arabs after 1948. Previous to that, they were restricted to things like trying to convince each other not to hire Arabs (without much success). The transfer section should present evidence for and against the common claim that the transfer of Arabs was an integral part of the Zionist program. Its relevance to the article is completely obvious. --Zero 13:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
My suggestion (if anyone want to talk about the "transfer" is to describe it in NPOV . Also to say clearly what is the connection between the "transfer ideas" to the actual exodus: Could the exodus take place without those ideas ? (of course it could) so what exactly is the point in discussing all those issues of 50, 40 ,30,and evne 10 years before the war ? If we discuss some we must discuss all. If we decide to focus only on the years of the war let's do that. Zeq 04:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

disputed text

Transfer principle

Zionist Jews strove to create a Jewish state built on Jewish traditions and culture in Palestine, which Jews considered their ancestral homeland and where a Jewish minority had lived for centuries. The demographic reality of Palestine, in which most residents were non-Jewish Arabs, was for them a major obstacle to the establishment of such a state.

The most important means to achieve a demographic shift was through aliyah, Jewish immigration to the land of Israel. However, the Palestinian Arab population had a much higher birthrate than the Jewish counterpart, as well as some immigration [11]. Even with Jewish immigration, the Arab population greatly outnumbered the Jewish one. It was therefore clear that it would not be possible to bring about a Jewish majority in any part of Palestine, with the exceptions of the Haifa area, Jerusalem, and some northern districts. Furthermore, Jewish immigration was restricted by both the Ottoman Empire and the British Mandate, and relatively few diaspora Jews actually wished to, or were able to, immigrate to Palestine, most preferring to move to North America.

While a few Palestinian Arabs were amenable to Jewish immigration, most were not, and incidences of violence between the communities occurred, including the Hebron Massacre of 1929 and the bombing campaigns of the Irgun the decade after. During and after World War II, when Jews were desperate to flee Hitler's final solution, their attempts to immigrate to Palestine were frustrated by the British mandatory authorities. The Arabs were adamant that the Jews not be permitted establish a state in the region, while the Zionists were determined to do so. The only viable solution, according to the United Nations, seemed to be a partition of Palestine. Yet however the land was partitioned, the part belonging to Jews would probably contain an Arab majority or at least a very large Arab minority. For some of the Zionist leadership, the "transfer" of a large Arab population appeared to be the only solution.

The idea of transfer was not, in 1947-1949, a new one. Benny Morris writes "many if not most of Zionism's mainstream leaders expressed at least passing support for the idea of transfer during the movement's first decades. True, as the subject was sensitve they did not often or usually state this in public" (Morris, 2001, p. 41; see Masalha, 1992 for a comprehensive discussion).

In 1937 the Peel Commission placed transfer on the political agenda. The commission recommended that Britain should withdraw from Palestine and that the land be partitioned between Jews and Arabs. It called for a "transfer of land and an exchange of population", including the removal of 225,000 Palestinian Arabs from what would become the Jewish state, along the lines of the exchange between the Turkish and Greek populations after the Greco-Turkish War of 1922. This was a huge step forward for the Zionists. David Ben-Gurion did not spare the superlatives when he wrote in his diary:

... and [nothing] greater than this has been done for our case in our time [than Peel proposing transfer]. ... And we did not propose this - the Royal Commission ... did ... and we must grab hold of this conclusion [i.e, recommendation] as we grabbed hold of the Balfour Declaration, even more than that - as we grabbed hold of Zionism itself we must cleave to this conclusion, with all our strength and will and faith (quoted in Morris, 2001, p. 42)

Despite the fact that the notion of transfer or population exchange had been proposed by the Peel Commission and that David Ben-Gurion had spoken in favor of it at the plenum of the Zionist Congress, the subject was still very sensitive with respect to the Palestinian Arabs [12]. There were attendees at the Twentieth Zionist Congress in 1937 who opposed it [13], but the final resolutions of the Congress noted the "historic connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine, and its inalienable right to its homeland" and affirmed "that the field in which the Jewish National Home was to be established was understood at the time of the Balfour Declaration to be the whole of the historic Palestine, including Transjordan" ('Zionists And Palestine Decision To-Day, For And Against Partition', The Times, Wednesday, 11 August, 1937; p. 12; Issue 47760; col C).

According to Morris, Ben-Gurion, while in favor of the Peel plan, considered it important that it be publicized as a British plan and not a Zionist plan. At a meeting of the Jewish Agency Executive on 7 May 1944 to consider the British Labour Party Executive's resolution supporting transfer as a solution to the problems of Palestine Ben-Gurion said

When I heard these things ... I had to ponder the matter long and hard ... [but] I reached the conclusion that this matter [had best] remain [in the Labor Party Program] ... Were I asked what should be our program, it would not occur to me to tell them transfer ... because speaking about the matter might harm [us] ... in world opinion, because it might give the impression that there is no room in the Land of Israel without ousting the Arabs [and] ... it would alert and antagonize the Arabs ... (quoted in Morris, 2001, p. 46-47, citing Central Zionist Archives, Jerusalem, S100/42b, protocol of JAE meeting).

At the same meeting Moshe Sharett, director of the Jewish Agency's Political Department, declared:

Transfer could be the crowning achievements, the final stage in the development of [our] policy, but certainly not the point of departure. By [speaking publicly and prematurely] we could mobilizing vast forces against the matter and cause it to fail, in advance. ... What will happen once the Jewish state is established - it is very possible that the result will be the transfer of Arabs. (quoted in Morris, 2001, p. 46)

The other members of the JAE Yitzhak Gruenbaum (later Israel's first interior minister), Eliahu Dobkin (director of the immigration department), Eliezer Kaplan (Israel's first finance minister), Dov Joseph (later Israel's justice minister) and Werner David Senator (a Hebrew University executive) all spoke favorably of the transfer transfer principle (Morris, 2001, p. 47).

In his speech to the UN General Assembly's Political and Security Committee on May 12, 1947, Ben Gurion said:

The mandatory power was charged by the League of Nations with the carrying out of a definite settlement... The terms of that settlement as decreed by the conscience and the law of nations, are common knowledge. It is the restoration of Palestine to the Jewish people...
Palestine, which for the Jewish people has always been and will always remain the Land of Israel was in the course of centuries conquered and invaded by many alien peoples, but none of them ever identified its national faith with Palestine. The Jewish nation in Palestine is rooted not only in past history but in a great living work of reconstruction and rebuilding, both of a country and of a people...
We are told that the Arabs are not responsible for the persecution of the Jews in Europe, nor is it their obligation to relieve their plight. I wish to make it quite clear that it never entered our minds to charge the Arabs with solving the Jewish problem, or to ask Arab countries to accept Jewish refugees. We are bringing our homeless and persecuted Jews to our own country and settling them in Jewish towns and villages. There are Arab towns and villages in Palestine - Nablus, Jenin, Ramleh, Narnucka, Libia, Terschicha. You will not find a single Jewish refugee in any of them. The Jews who have returned to their country are settled in Petah Tiqva, Rishon le Zion, Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jerusalem, Daganiya, the Negev, and other Jewish towns and villages built by us.
A Jewish-Arab partnership, based on equality and mutual assistance, will help to bring about the regeneration of the whole Middle East. We Jews understand and deeply sympathize with the urge of the Arab people for unity, independence and progress, and our Arab neighbors, I hope, will realize that the Jews in their own historic homeland, can under no conditions be made to remain a subordinate, dependent minority as they are in all other countries of the Diaspora. (New York Times, 13 May, 1947, pp. 12-13)

Moshe Sharett also spoke at the same meeting of the UN; in his address he stated that:

Jews must be allowed to resettle in Palestine in unlimited numbers, provided only they do not displace or worsen the lot of the existing inhabitants who are also there as of right... Were it not for the presence in Palestine today of over 600,000 Jews who refuse to be left in the minority position under Arab domination; were it not for the urge to settle in Palestine, of hundreds of thousands of homeless and uprooted Jews in Europe, in the Orient, and elsewhere; were it not for the hopes and efforts of millions of Jews throughout the world to re-establish their national home and build it up into a Jewish state, then the United Nations would not be faced with the problem of Palestine as it is now... they (Arab leaders) say that the Jews have settled in Palestine at the expense of the Arabs. That debit item, too, we cannot admit. There has been no receiving of Jewish immigrants by Arabs nor any settlement of Jews at the expense of the Arabs...
But a Jewish minority in an Arab State will have no such security at all. It will be at the mercy of the Arab majority, which would be free from all restraints... The question of our living with the Arab peoples and the relationship of a Jewish State with them is, of course, the dominant question of the future... From personal observation and direct experience accumulated over a period of forty-one years' residence in Palestine, I can affirm that there is nothing inherent in the nature of either the native Arab or the immigrant Jew which prevents friendly co-operation. On the contrary, considering the admitted great difference of background, they mix remarkably well. By mixing I do not mean assimilation, for the Jew does not come to Palestine to assimilate to the Arab, but to develop his own distinctive individuality. Nor does he expect the Arab to assimilate to him. What I mean is co-operation between a self-respecting Jew and a self-respecting Arab, and between the two communities.(New York Times, 13 May, 1947, p. 12)

What is wrong with this article (and the transfer section) - take 2

In a nutshall the problem is that the text here talks about transfer by using quotes from Benni Morris book (presuembly) but in his later book Morris himself admited that his discussion of the transfer was suerfissial at best and that actually no corolation (according to Morris) exist between the talk of tarnsfer and the events in the war that led to the Palestinian exodus. I will be glad to provide refrences to all I wrote above if needed (although I am sure people like zero with access to libs know exactly what I am talking about) Signed: Zeq.

Actually Morris did not write any such thing. --Zero 13:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Benni Morris in his book "The Birth of the palestinian Refugees problem" page 286 of the 1991 Hebrew version (and also as far as I know in the British version from 1987) wrote:

"This tragedy (refering to the exodus) is a result of a war, not of pre meditated intention, nor Israeli Nither Arab "

These words, are why some Palestinians (after seeing him as a hero) now see in him yet another zionist propagadist. You can not have both ways: Either you rely on Morris as a reliable historic source or you don't. One can not cherrypick some quotes from Morris and give tham an interprestation that Morris clearly sais is not there. Zeq 13:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


We can not by including this text about transfer here in this article create the impression that the talk of transfer caused the exodus. That claim is controvesial even among scholars.
There should be an encylopedia discussion of the transfer ideas (as one possible way) as well as alternatives that have been discussed by all the parties invlovd in the conflict over the years. (example is the peel comission) that discussion must be in a seprate artcle (something like : "The transfer concept in Israeli-palestinina conflict") unless we can find a mainstream schoalrs who claim that it what caused the exodus, in fact we must rely on what slim has said in User_talk:Zeq#Palestinian_exodus : " If you want to add a paragraph about X, you would have to find a mainstream academic source who made a strong and direct connection, and not only that, but who argued that the Palestinian exodus could not, and should not, be regarded as separable from X. Even then, you'd have to argue your case to have it included, unless you can show that it's the consensus among Israeli historians, for example, that the first could not be examined without examining the second." (X in that case was the jewish exodus, although since we are dealing with policy any other subject could apply instead of X) Zeq 13:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

One more thing that is important to note

Is that Morris made mistakes in his quotes (when disussing the transfer idea). The most egregious of these was the distortion of an October 1937 letter from David Ben-Gurion to his son. Morris cited the letter as saying, "We must expel Arabs and take their place," when Ben-Gurion actually said the opposite.

As I said before, I do think the transfer idea desrsve an article in Wikipedia. It was suggested as a "population swap" by the 1937 peel commison. Morris claim (although this have revceivec critism) that even Hertzel himslf has thought about the idea. In any case an article about the transfer, it's supporters, opponetnts should be discussed. However, not a single scholar claim that the talk about transfer is what caused the war or it's tragic resulys. We here in Wiki can not make Original claims. (even if they are served as collection of cherrypicked quotes) We must address the subject of "tarnsfer" in a non POV matter and including it in this article makes it seem as if we endorse a view that the exodus was caused by the talk of transfer. (that is a POV not endorsed by the scholars such as Morris and Karsh) Zeq 13:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

From a review of Morris book

source: [14]

".... and even Benny Morris, arguably the most prominent New Historian, conceded that Efraim Karsh’s rebuttal of his ‘transfer’ thesis was overwhelming. Both Morris and Nur Masalha had propagated the myth that David Ben Gurion favoured the ‘transfer’ — expulsion — of Palestine’s Arab population. But in the Times Literary Supplement Morris was forced to admit: "Karsh has a point. My treatment of transfer thinking before 1948 was, indeed, superficial." And with Benny Morris throwing in the towel, the even more strident Masalha is dismissed by Karsh as a "propagandist" whose "list of distortions is infinite."

He is refering to what Morris himself wrote in the Times on Nov 18, 1998. Zeq 14:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Really? You checked? Actually it was Nov 28, 1997 and you can find what he really wrote higher up on this page. Just use your browser's friendly search function to locate the phrase "Very nice of you". Apparently you forgot that you already knew about it, since a "reply" of yours is right there. --Zero 14:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


OK. Let's try to summerize: Karsh claim Morris misquoted. You claim I misquoted Karsh and that Karsh misquoted Morris (but you offer no proof) You claim that I have bad memory. so what do we make of this all: Is the conclusion that we here in wikipedia have a section that "proove" that zionist leaders permeditataed the tarnsfer (all the way from Herzel) ?
I don't think so. In fact other than badmouthing me and Karsh you really did not say much. This is a very loaded subject. I suggest you find quotes from real scholars, quotes which show both POV on the subjects and use those (instead of your attempts for OR which claim everyone else is wrong) PS. it must be very late for you cause your writing is less coherent than usuall. Zeq 15:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Anyone with access to TLS can confirm that Karsh indeed misrepresents Morris in his quotation.[15] Stop playing games, Zero has already refuted this claim. --Cybbe 16:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
No One is playing any game. Zero have not refuted anything. In any case, the issue is not me (as you try to turn it into) not even Karsh. The issue is: Do all historians think that there is a causation between the transfer talks to what actually took place during the exodus. If you have a proof for that please present it. Otherwise it is you who is playing games. Zeq 17:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Just noticed that the link provided Cybbe leads no where. So who is playing games. Becide the quote about Morris's article came froma different source not Karsh. Zeq 17:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
It works like a charm. I did note, however, that you would have to have access to the TLS archives in order to view the article, and that service is not free of charge. --Cybbe 18:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
can you provide a link that works ? Do you claim that Morris did not say that. (I am not asking if Zero's quote is correct- It is a diversion and I sure it is correct) In any case you are focusing on this quote which is really not the issue of the debate we have . The issue is to make the article NPOV and so far nither you nor Zero have not anything to fix the current biased POV this article has been. So stop the games and diverstions. What Karsh and Morris say about each other is really not the issue here. Zeq 18:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The exact quote from times:

"Karsh has a point. My treatment of transfer thinking before 1948 was, indeed, superficial".

Benny Morris, Times Literary Supplement

If this is not true and as Zero claim this is a misquote By Karsh of what Morris wrote in the article then we should see that Morris is suing Karsh for libel. This of course did not occur. Instead Zero bring us a quote from Morris that is true but tries to divert the attention. Zero quote MOrris as saying that zionist leadrs thought a lot about transfer. You know what ? I am sure they did. But do their thoughts caused the Nakba ? Proof to that has yet to surface and wikipedia is not the place for Original research to claim that "zionists thoughts" in some magic wat caused the Nakba. So much for "refuting" Karsh quote of Morris..... Zeq 17:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Transfer thinking and expulsion

Here are a few quotations that can go in the article:

  • Without doubt, the crystallization of the consensus in support of transfer among the Zionist leaders helped pave the way for the precipitation of the Palestinian exodus of 1948. Similarly, far more of that exodus was triggered by explicit acts and orders of expulsion by Jewish/Israeli troops than is indicated in The Birth (Morris, 2001).
  • ..the Druze experience provides evidence that undermines Benny Morris' claim, expressed in The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, that the expulsion of Palestinian Arabs is best characterized by randomness rather than design, and reinforces Morris' revised view, expressed in this volume [above] that the expulsion during Operation Hiram was purposeful. (Parsons, 2001)
  • My feeling is that the transfer thinking and near-consensus that emerged in the 1930s and early 1940s was not tantamount to pre-planning and did not issue in the production of a policy or master-plan of expulsion. The Yishuv and its military forces did not enter the 1948 War, which was initiated by the Arab side, with a policy or plan for expulsion. But transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism - because it sought to transform a land that was 'Arab' into a Jewish state and a Jewish state could not have arisen without a major displacement of Arab population; and because this aim automatically produced resistance among the Arabs which, in turn, convinced the Yishuv's leaders that a hostile Arab population could not remain in place if a Jewish state was to arise or safely endure. By 1948, transfer was in the air. The transfer thinking that preceded the war contributed to the denouement by conditioning the Jewish population, political parties, military organisations and military and civilian leaderships for what transpired... it was accepted as natural and inevitable by the bulk of the Jewish population (Morris, 2003, p. 60).

--Ian Pitchford 16:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine so these are quotes that say that "transfer was built into Zionism" - this is for sure one POV. (and Morris as representative of this view point even takes it further in his discussion what should be done to solve the conflict). Me, and many others who see themself as supporters of the two-state solution represent a different view point but since I am not a scholar my view does now count. But thatother view, the view that zionism can co-exist side by side with a Palestinian state and even witha large Palestinian population inside Israel is what we see in reality now that is possible and there were many who argued this for years, including Zabotinsky at the far right. Now we need to find quotes of those who do not think this way and present this as the other POV. I am still not sure that it is this article the place for this discussion: Clearly the exodus occured as part of the war and the war goal was to perotect the jews from attack by the arab armies. Zeq 17:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is what few scholars and Critics think about Karsh work

Fabricating Israeli History: "The New Historians"

"The impact of Norman Cohn's 'Warrant for Genocide', which exposes the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' forgery, is dwarfed in comparison to Karsh's book, which rips the veneer off certain respectable-looking scholars... Not only are they empty vessels, Karsh shows in this astonishing book, but they are something much worse: vessels overflowing with deadly dynamite".

Yoram Bronowski, Ha-aretz

"Whatever the future holds for the New Historians, though, nobody interested in their views can afford to bypass Karsh's insightful work".

Itamar Rabinovich, The International History Review

"Efraim Karsh is a fine scholar, an absorbing writer and a well respected director of Mediterranean Studies at King's College, London. In Fabricating Israeli History, he takes to task the new school of Israeli historians who are challenging what they see as the myths that have cast a rosy glow over their country's past. In doing so, he demonstrates how the pen can be, not just mightier, but much nastier than the sword".

Bernard Josephs, The Jewish Chronicle

"...Karsh seems to have scored a palpable hit on the contentious issue of the strategic thinking of Ben-Gurion."

The Economist

"The first serious, comprehensive analysis of the revisionist school of national historians in Israel in the State's fifth decade of sovereignty. A frontal, no-holds barred assault that cannot fail to sharpen the debate between the established school and its opponents. It is required reading for the inquisitive no less than the engaged professional historians."

Professor JC Hurewitz, Columbia University

"Efraim Karsh, whose scholarship in all the relevant documentation in English, Hebrew, and Arabic far outweighs that of the New Historians, has delivered a crushing blow to them, revealing how hollow and superficial their theses are".

Hyam Maccoby, Midstream

"The first full-length and detailed rebuttal to those Israeli scholars who call themselves the 'new historians'... Karsh's key strength is the application of unprejudiced common sense to clarify issues clouded by the pseudo-scholarship of propagandists."

Daniel Pipes, Middle East Quarterly

"...a skilful surgical probing and occasionally a savage attack on the New Historians."

Jerusalem Post

"Fabricating Israeli History is an incisive analysis of the origins of the Arab-Israeli conflict... Efraim Karsh is a witty and an eloquent writer as well as a reputable historian with all the necessary methodological and linguistic tools (Hebrew, Arabic, and English) to demolish the "new historians" who have created the myths which dominate the airwaves and headlines of much of the media... The book is only 205 pages long and there is not a word that can be called 'extraneous'".

Norman Berdichevsky, Contemporary Review

"In this easy-to-read and thoroughly convincing volume of historical detective work, Efraim Karsh strips away the academic cloak with which the New Historians have wrapped themselves. He demonstrates not only that they have reached baseless (and ludicrous) conclusions, but also that their historiography is downright dishonest... not only has Karsh shattered the myths created by the New historians by ripping apart their historiography, but he has also produced a very important contribution to the literature on the Arab-Israeli conflict. For in the process of debunking the debunkers, he has powerfully supported the traditional interpretation of the conflict's origins".

David Rodman, The Partisan Review

"Karsh has done a good service in questioning and probing certain assumptions of the revisionists...".

Martin Kolinsky, The Times Higher Education Supplement

"This book takes issue with the revisionists through careful analysis of the sources and documentation of the period."

History Today

"This concise, well-documented study deals convincingly with the views of Israel's New Historians (Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe, Avi Shlaim) who bitterly accuse Israel's leaders (Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir etc.) with all troubles suffered by the Palestinian Arabs.


Jewish Review

"Karsh has a point. My treatment of transfer thinking before 1948 was, indeed, superficial".

Benny Morris, Times Literary Supplement

"Important volume".

Choice

"Totally undermines the foundations on which the 'new hisotriography' is predicated".

Shabtai Teveth, Sefarim

"Systematic and efficient demolition of all fundamentals of the 'new historians 'revolutionary' conclusions".

Menahem Ben, Tel-Aviv Weekly

Zeq 17:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

So who is benny Morris ?

Since what we are now starting to deal with is Karsh creability Vs. Morris her are few quotes from Morris:

And today? Do you advocate a transfer today?

If you are asking me whether I support the transfer and expulsion of the Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza and perhaps even from Galilee and the Triangle, I say not at this moment. I am not willing to be a partner to that act. In the present circumstances it is neither moral nor realistic. The world would not allow it, the Arab world would not allow it, it would destroy the Jewish society from within. But I am ready to tell you that in other circumstances, apocalyptic ones, which are liable to be realized in five or ten years, I can see expulsions. If we find ourselves with atomic weapons around us, or if there is a general Arab attack on us and a situation of warfare on the front with Arabs in the rear shooting at convoys on their way to the front, acts of expulsion will be entirely reasonable. They may even be essential.
Including the expulsion of Israeli Arabs?
The Israeli Arabs are a time bomb. Their slide into complete Palestinization has made them an emissary of the enemy that is among us. They are a potential fifth column. In both demographic and security terms they are liable to undermine the state. So that if Israel again finds itself in a situation of existential threat, as in 1948, it may be forced to act as it did then. If we are attacked by Egypt (after an Islamist revolution in Cairo) and by Syria, and chemical and biological missiles slam into our cities, and at the same time Israeli Palestinians attack us from behind, I can see an expulsion situation. It could happen. If the threat to Israel is existential, expulsion will be justified.

Zeq 18:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

Nothing here for almost 2 weeks. We'll try unprotection. If problems continue, let us know at RfP. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss changes you want here or else I will reprotect. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
And I picked a random point and archived some of the discussion. Talk pages should not be over 150K and this one was almost double that. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I reprotected. Please use this space here to talk this out. We can't have pages protected forever. Short leash this time. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
This article need to be shorter and the trnasfer section dos not belong here as it is covered in other articles. Zeq 12:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The article doesn't need to be shorter and the transfer section is a vital part of it. Its relevance is supported by the material already included and by the additional references cited above. --Ian Pitchford 13:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
You are not responding to the arguments made above, the discussion about transfer does not belong in an article about the exodus itself unless there is a consensus that the talk of transfer is what produced the exodus. or in other words: that it was such an intergral part of it the exodus ciould not occured without it (which of course is not true) Zeq 14:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is about the exodus of the Palestinians. It includes sections on the desire and need of Israel's leaders for that exodus and actions taken by them to encourage it. These sections should not be deleted. --Ian Pitchford 15:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem: You are putting words in their mouth. Did their words brought the exodus ? of course this is the version of History that you want Wikipedioa to addopt. Zeq 17:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Nothing I said above is inaccurate. If your only complaint is that you don't think alternative explanations of the exodus are given sufficient prominence then why don't you work on augmenting the article? Here are a few, including one from your favored historian, Karsh:
The claim of premeditated dispossession is itself not only baseless, but the inverse of the truth. Far from being the hapless victims of a predatory Zionist assault, the Palestinians were themselves the aggressors in the 1948-49 War, and it was they who attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to 'cleanse' a neighbouring ethnic community. Had the Palestinians and the Arab world accepted the United Nations resolution of 29 November 1947, calling for the establishment of two states in Palestine, and not sought to subvert it by force of arms, there would have been no refugee problem in the first place. It is no coincidence that neither Arab propagandists nor Israeli 'new historians' have ever produced any evidence of a Zionist master plan to expel the Palestinians during the 1948-49 War. For such a plan never existed. (Karsh, Efraim (2003). Rethinking the Middle East. London: Routledge. ISBN 0714683469, p. 157).
Or for something contemporary
The Jewish Agency declares that this exodus has been carried out deliberately by the Arabs to besmirch the Jews, to influence the Arab Governments to send more help, and to clear the ground for attack by regular Arab forces. The simplest, most human explanation is that the Arabs have fled out of pure disorder. To all its problems Palestine has now to add that of a mass of refugees in flight. ('British Aid Haifa Evacuees Three Officers Wounded', From Our Own Correspondent, The Times, Saturday, 24 April, 1948; pg. 4; Issue 51054; col B).
--Ian Pitchford 21:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia can not take sides. The current vesrion of the article does. Imagine that the whole article would be based on the idea that "Had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN resolution, not a single Palestinian would have become a refugee. An independent Arab state would now exist beside Israel. The responsibility for the refugee problem rests with the Arabs." - would you not think this is POV ?. What you are doing is the mirror image. We either interduce all POV on the cause or just describe the facts. Zeq 05:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course this is POV. But maybe there is a way to be between this "propaganda" and the thesis of "israeli historians" who defend the idea Arabs fleed the fights because they were afraid and because they were asked by arabs "leaders". Christophe Greffe 14:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia should explain all significant points of view in an NPOV fashion. --Ian Pitchford 09:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree wih Ian. I see 3 of them :
"israeli historians" and israeli officals who defend the ideas that "Arabs fleed" the fights. Some documents/quotes should be added to explain why they claim this and on what "material" they base this.
"palestinian historians" who defend the ideas that "Arabs were driven out" or "massacred" in a part of a "master plan".
"new (israeli historians)" who defend the idea there were "massacres" but deny the idea this was prepared or intentional.
For me last 2 point of views are npov presented but first one is not documented enough and is pov "treated by omission in the article. Christophe Greffe 14:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

some material

Hello. FYI :

Pappé describes the "old" (my name for them in constrast to new) historians theory" as such (free traduction from French) : "How to explain this phenomenon departure of a whole nation ? Israeli historians are talking about a domina effect, arguing that elites had given examples and then jewish successes in the battle pushed population to chose to leaver" He refers to Eliezer Beeri "Reschit Hasichsuch Israel Arav (Beginning of israeli-arab conflicts) Tel Aviv, 1985, pp 44-47. More interesting I think is a quote from a speech of Ben Gourion at Knesset on 11 october 1961 (free translation from French) : "Arab left areas assigned to Jewish state... immediately after the vote of the UN resolution. And we possess explicit document testifying that they left Palestine (sic) following instructions of Arab leaders, Mufti first, who claimed at the end of the Mandate, that invading arab armis would destroy jewish state and threw jewish to sea, dead or alive." (ibidem pp. 158-159). Maybe this is propaganda from Ben Gourion. May not. Whatever this is what he told.

Christophe Greffe 23:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"Israeli historians" and David Ben-Gurion (who issued expulsion orders) are/were pefectly well aware of what happened. It's instructive to compare Efraim Karsh's account of the situation in Haifa (linked in paragraph two of the article) to other accounts, e.g., the action to break Arab resistance in Haifa - which was called Operation Passover Cleansing - involved Haganah radio and loudspeaker vans making Arabic broadcasts saying that "the day of judgement has arrived" and calling on the Arab population to "evacuate the women, the children and the old immediately and send them to a safe haven". A British intelligence officer reported that "During the morning [the Jews] were continually shooting down on all Arabs who moved both in Wadi Nisnas and the Old City. This included completely indiscriminate and revolting machinegun fire, mortar fire and sniping on women and children sheltering in churches and attempting to get out... through the gates into the docks." Nimr al Khatib reported that "Suddenly a rumor spread that the British army in the port area had declared its readiness to safeguard the life of anyone who reached the port and left the city. A mad rush to the port gates began. Man trampled on fellow man and woman [trampled on] her children. The boats in the harbour quickly filled up and there is no doubt that that was the cause of the capsizing of many of them." Morris reports that the Carmeli Brigade's 22nd Battalion had orders "to kill every [adult male] Arab encountered" (The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, 2003, pp. 189-192). In the Wikipedia article this situation is described as "Some cases of expulsion are well-documented, such as in Lydda and Ramle. So is the attempt by some Jewish leaders in Haifa to stem flight". --Ian Pitchford 10:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


The current impasse

In an attempt get past the current impasse, I have listed the issues in the revert war that broke out during the brief period the page was unlocked. Brian Tvedt 02:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hanan Ashwari quote

Zeq has repeatedly truncated this quote, deleting everything after "Nakba [catastrophe]".

...a nation in captivity held hostage to an ongoing Nakba [catastrophe], as the most intricate and pervasive expression of persistent colonialism, apartheid, racism, and victimization. More than half a century ago [53 years], the Palestinians as a people were slated for national obliteration, cast outside the course of history, their identity denied, and their very human cultural and historical reality suppressed. We became victims of the myth of a land without a people for people without a land whereby the West sought to assuage its guilt over its horrendous anti-Semitism by the total victimization of a whole nation. [http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=1825&CategoryId=1

Zeq, why do keep truncating this quote? It is made clear that it is the opinion of Hanan Ashwari, and is not presented as fact, but as an illustration of the Palestinian narrativie. You are of course free to present the Israeli counter-narrative with quotes from prominent Israelis germane to the topic. Brian Tvedt 02:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia not a place to evoke tears. Zeq 08:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I have never heard of such a policy for Wikipedia. What I do know is the WP:NPOV policy, which states that we should "present all significant, competing views sympathetically". The view of the Palestinians on their own exodus is certainly significant. Of course the Israeli view should be presented also; you are welcome to present quotations that illustrate how Israelis view the Palestinian exodus. Brian Tvedt 01:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I was actually quoting what Zero have said about another article. If we are going for the most posssible tear evoking text we should do the same in other articles as well. Is wikipedia the place to give relevant facts or is it the placve for a POV-competio "who is the most victimized" ? I think it is a place for facts. We can bring, in a factual way what the Palestinians think of their own exodus and we also, in such case have to bring what other people think of it. Zeq 03:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Please tell me what article you are referring to, and what was the context when Zero said that. Brian Tvedt 11:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
What I said was that "the article should not be written emotively and should not sound as if it was written by the mothers of the victims. We are here to recount historical events, not to evoke tears or anger or any other emotion". This is referring to our own text, not necessarily to direct quotations, though if evoking tears was the only reason for choosing a particular quotation I'd be doubtful about that too. --Zero 13:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Section on the 'Transfer principle'

Zeq has repeatedly deleted most of the information in this section. I don't think there's any need for Wikipedia editors to prove that this material is relevant, as Benny Morris, the most prominent historian in this field, devotes a whole chapter in his book to it. Brian Tvedt 02:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There is an article about transfer. Even Morris himslef sais that the exodus is not a result of transfer. We can link to an article about Morris, we can link to article about transfer but we can not create the impression that the only possible explnation is that "talk of transfer" caused the exodus. Zeq 08:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually Morris write in Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisted (2004):
The transfer thinking that preceded the war contributed to the denouement by conditioning the Jewish population, political parties, military organizations and military and civilian leaderships for what transpired. Thinking about the possibillities of transfer in the 1930s and 1940s had prepared and conditioned hearts and minds for its implementation in the course of 1948 so that, as it occurred, few voiced protest or doubt; it was accepted as inevitable and natural by the bulk of the Jewish population.
Although Morris doesn't say that transfer thinking caused the exodos by itself - the exodus, according to Morris, was triggered by the war, which he holds the Palestinians to have started - he does very clearly state that transfer thinking contributed to the exodus. That and the fact that Morris has a whole chapter of his book on "the idea of 'transfer' in Zionist thinking" justifies having a section devoted to the topic in this article. Of course some parts of the section can be changed but there is no reason to delete it. Brian Tvedt 01:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Section 'Jews also fled...'

After these two paragraphs:

The fighting in these months was concentrated in the Jerusalem - Tel Aviv area, where consequently, most depopulations took place. The Deir Yassin massacre in early April, and the exaggerated rumours that followed it, helped spread fear and panic among the Palestinians.
By the estimates of Morris, 250,000 to 300,000 Palestinians became refugees during this stage.

Zeq wants to insert this section:

Jews fled from mixed neighborhoods such as the border areas between Jaffa and Tel Aviv, as well as from Jaffa itself. On January 5, 1948 it was decided to evacuate Jewish mothers and children from the Etzion block, with the aid of the British. On [16] On January 16, 1948 35 Jews on their way to help the Gush were killed in an ambush. On March 1948 a convoy was ambushed in the outskirts of Bethlehem on it's way to provide military and medical help to the Gush. This have led to the continued attacks by the Arab forces until The Final Massacre
On the 13th of May in which the defenders of Kfar Etzion surrendered to the Arab Legion and local Palestinian forces: the inhabitants were killed or taken prisoner and carried across the Jordan. Their settlements were completely demolished. The settlements Neveh Ya'akov and Atarot north of Jerusalem, also captured, were totally obliterated. All the residents of the Jewish quarter in the Old City in Jerusalem, conquered by local forces with the aid of the Arab Legion, were taken captive. No Jew was allowed to return to the Old City -- not even the ultra-Orthodox who detested Zionism and were prepared to live under Arab rule.

Let's see, the total Jewish population in the Etzion Bloc was under 500 (according to the link provided by Zeq), the Neveh Ya'akov and Atarot settlements had about 300 residents (see Israeli settlements#Population), and according to Benny Morris there were about 1,500 Jewish residents in the Old City (Righteous Victims, page 225). I don't see why the Palesinian exodus article should devote more than twice as many words to the plight of 3,000 Jews than it does to 250,000 to 300,000 Palestinians. Brian Tvedt 02:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You "d'ont see" because this is YOUR POV. The rality in 48 was that there was war, there were massacres from both sides. people fled areas that were about to be captured by the other side (or were about to be attacked by their own side -,like th haifa situation and more) and at the end Jews won the war which meant that more palestinians than jews have lost and left territory. So let's tell it as the facts are without dleting those part of the 1948 history that is not convinient to you. No one denies the Palestinian suffesring and the fact that hundrds of thousands ended up refugees for over 50 years - how ever it is not a part of demonizing master plan by Israel and there are other who are responsible for the venetual outcome.Zeq 08:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not the mirror image of you. I don't try to insert long passages on the plight of the Palestinian refugees into the Jewish exodus from Arab lands article.
To get beyond fights over POV, we have to have objective criteria for deciding what should be included or excluded in the article. You inserted a passage under the heading Second stage of the flight, April 1948 - June 1948 that is twice as long as the current text, which talks about the 250,000 Palestinians that went into exile during this period. My objective criteria supporting the removal of your passage are: (1) the article is about the Palestinian exodus, after all, so naturally the focus should be on the Palestinians; (2) in any case the number of Palestinians who lost their homes during this period outnumbered the number of Jews who lost their homes by a factor of 100 to 1. Now what is your objective criteria for including this material? Brian Tvedt 02:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


The focus of this article is indeed about the Palestinian exodus but it should include relevant events that were part of the war: The fact that there were massacres from both sides. The rality in 48 was that there was war, there were massacres from both sides. people fled areas that were about to be captured by the other side (or were about to be attacked by their own side -,like th haifa situation and more) and at the end Jews won the war which meant that more palestinians than jews have lost and left territory. So let's tell it as the facts are without dleting those part of the 1948 history that is not convinient to you. No one denies the Palestinian suffesring and the fact that hundrds of thousands ended up refugees for over 50 years - how ever it is not a part of demonizing master plan by Israel and there are other who are responsible for the venetual outcome. Zeq 04:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
You will need to refer to a reputable historian who says that the evacuation of Jewish settlements in land allocated to the Arab state in the partition plan and the emptying of the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem contributed to the Palestinian exodus. We are able to point to a reputable historian (Benny Morris) who says that "transfer thinking" contributed to the exodus. Even if you are able to find such a historian, the passage as you wrote it is still misleading - lacking numbers, it gives the impression that the movement of Jewish population was comparable to the movement of Palestinian population, when in fact the number of Palestinians who were forced to move was MUCH larger. You have listed essentially all of the places were Jews were forced to move. A comparable list for the Palestinians would list hundreds of villages. Most importantly, please explain why you think the text on Jewish flight should be twice as long as the text on Palestinian flight in the same period (April 1948 - June 1948). Brian Tvedt 12:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Historians skeptical of the 'master plan' thery

In the following paragraph Zeq inserts the phrase "such as Benny Morris and others" after "other historians".

Other historians are sceptical of that conclusion. They emphasize that no central directive has surfaced from the archives and that if such an omnipresent understanding had existed, it would have left a mark in the vast amounts of documentation the Zionist leadership produced at the time. Furthermore, Yosef Weitz, who was strongly in favor of expulsion, had explicitly asked Ben-Gurion for such a directive and was turned down. Finally, settlement policy guidelines drawn up between December 1947 and February 1948, meant to handle the absorption of the anticipated first million immigrants, planned some 150 new settlements, about half of them in the Negev, with the rest along the lines of the UN partition map (29 November, 1947) for the north and centre of the country.

"That conclusion" being "the Palestinian Exodus was planned in advance by the Zionist leadership". Zeq has a point here, in that Benny Morris has expressed skepticism of the 'master plan' theory. However, Zeq's version of the paragraph leaves the impression that Morris endorses the later assertions about Ben-Gurion and the settlement policies, which I don't believe he does (he is on record calling Ben-Gurion a "tranferist"). Probably these are due to Efraim Karsh. In any case, they should be properly attributed. At the same time, we should make clear, perhaps in another paragraph, that Morris does not agree with Khalidy. Brian Tvedt 02:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV policy require of us to present both version orf History Zeq 08:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually Weitz claimed that Ben-Gurion agreed with him informally and only declined to make a formal policy. So the above paragraph is misleading. --Zero 09:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

A big problem with this paragraph is that there is no source for the sentences which start "Furthermore, Yosef Weitz,…" and "Finally, selltement policy…". I suggest deleting that paragraph and replacing it with one that simply states that Benny Morris does not accept the 'master plan' theory. We can include the quote that Zeq has been saying is missing, that the exodus is due to war not premeditated design. We can of course include the views of other historians, but they need to be properly attributed. Brian Tvedt 02:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I don't understand properly what you say but "new historians" claim there was no master plan. I have the feeling this is an argument that would prove there was one. Maybe they are wrong but this is not their thesis and we are not allowed to answer this question for them (at least in wikipedia).
I think it is 'npov' to discuss about master plan 'if' an historian defends this idea (eg khalidi) and it is 'npov' to give counter arguments 'if' historians give counterarguments but this is 'not npov' to give 'ourselves' counterarguments we would have found. This is true as well when we want to write about the "master plan" and when we write about the "genocide threath".
I think a 'npov' view is to report "views" (whereever they come) but not to argue for or againts another unless in reporting arguments reported by others.
what do you think about this ? Christophe Greffe 12:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Christophe understands the NPOV policy perfectly. Brian Tvedt 02:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

comments on 4 former points by christophe greffe

Fully agree with Brian and I support him in his trial to solve the impasse.

I think material introduced by Ian is revelant and 'must' be added. Maybe other facts should added and documented anyway but nothing can be done in one day.

But I see more problems in the alleged master plan paragraph.

  • I think this Ians's sentence is POV : 'From the aforementioned prevalent idea of transfer, and from the actual expulsions that took place in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, Walid Khalidy'

There are many comments by Morris in the "aforementioned etc" and whether the events commented are events indeed taken into account by Khalidi and in that case Khalidi view is disproportionned or these events are not in Khalidi's thesis and then this sentence should be changed.

I think the way it is written make the text sound too much like a defense of Khalidi's point of view. What Zeq added (underline khalidi is palestinian and give the name of historian that contest his view) is more than welcome and I think this would not be enough to equilibrate this paragraph (ie treat npov their pov).

  • There lack "tradtionnal historian" point of view. I have some material of Prof. Yoav Gelber (high detractor of Pappe) to add.

Have a nice day :-) Christophe Greffe 07:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Brian has proven alreay that he want to remove relevant parts of History and include unrlevant parts. I am sure he think the same of me. Maybe it would be best if people who don't have an opinion will be the only one involv in writing thjis article. This will leave out myself, zero, Ian, ramallite , palmiro, Brian etc.... Zeq 08:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Zeq. I don't agree with you ;-). I think everybody has a pov and that nobody can fully make abstraction of his own. Unfortunately for wiki, hopefully for each of us. I think everybody can write but given the situation everybody should agree to discuss with the others and only make modifications *after* there is an *agreement* or consensus. [cfr my suggestion of compromis in the ArbCom]. I justify also this by the wiki policy that suggests to consider everybody is of good faith and therefore we should work in having in mind that if someone disagrees with what we write that indiscutably clearly means there is a problem... Maybe just a misunderstanding but at least a problem... What do you think about this ? Christophe Greffe 12:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Status?

Do we still need protection? If no, please make a request on request for protection. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need protection anymore. Two changes that should be made right away: (1) Since the article make so much use of Benny Morris, it should make clear that he does not accept the 'master plan' theory. Of all Zeq's complaints about the article, this is the one with the most merit. (2) The Palestinian narrative section should be balanced with representative quotes from the Israeli counternarrative, i.e. that the exodus was self-inflicted. As a start, Efraim Karsh quotation that Ian suggested will do. This is better than snipping the quotes from Palestinians that are in the article. As for the section on Zionist transfer thinking, that has been discussed many times, the latest being in the section directly above, and Zeq simply has no argument for deleting it. Perhaps some parts of it can be modified; that can be discussed as we move forward. Brian Tvedt 01:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

So Zeq, you have reverted to your preferred version but referred to it as the pre-edit war version. Zeq, the pre-edit war version was the version that was here before these edit-wars involving you started, namely the version by User:Ynhockey on November 7, 2005 here. Don't you agree that this is the "pre-edit war version"? Ramallite (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not "my prefered version" but it is the vesrion that was before Ian and Zero's reverts. I have maintained for a long time that this article is NOT NPOV. Even after the removal of subjects that should be elsewhere it is still kostly giving only one POV. I have made an offer some time ago for you and othjers to make this article not POV but that suggestion was ignored. I also would like the arb com to take a good look at this article but they so far refused. Zeq 09:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

About "self inflictive" - this is not the "zionist narraitive" there are many people on the israeli side (like me) that acknowledge the partial responsibility of israelis to the exodus. However, it was done not out of preconcoved master plan but part of a war in which both sids suffered from massacres and left some areas. Since the israelis won surly it was the palestinian who suffer in greater number. If the palestinians will win there would have been a massacre and exdous of the jews. That was how things were in that war. Zeq 09:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, this edit war was started by you and your edit summary was not honest. --Zero
Zero, the above is a personall attack that also assume bad faith. This is a violation of two policies. I have suggested above to avoid editing this article giving everyone (including you) an opportunity to make NPOV. You choose not to accept this offer so I started to remove just part of the POV that is in this article. You have then jumped in ina revert war. Can you honestly say that this article is NPOV ? I think this is better answered by the Arb Com but as you know they are not eager to take this case. It is clear why: If they accept it they would either have to make it POV (which does not fit at least one arbcom member bias) or they would have to give wikipedia stamp of aproval to a biased article. so don't preech to me about honesty or accuracy. Zeq 12:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I repeat my accusation. You claimed you were reverting to before the edit war but in fact you reverted to the version that you created to cause the edit war. You knew and know that this is exactly what you were doing. --Zero
Zero, the above is another personall attack that also assume bad faith. This is a violation of two policies. I have suggested in the past to avoid editing this article giving everyone (including you) an opportunity to make NPOV. You choose not to accept this offer so I started to remove just part of the POV that is in this article. You have then jumped in ina revert war. Can you honestly say that this article is NPOV ? I think this is better answered by the Arb Com but as you know they are not eager to take this case. It is clear why: If they accept it they would either have to make it POV (which does not fit at least one arbcom member bias) or they would have to give wikipedia stamp of aproval to a biased article. so don't preech to me about honesty or accuracy. Zeq 03:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, the term self-inflicted comes directly from Efraim Karsh [17]: "The Israeli 'narrative' of this episode sees the Palestinian tragedy as primarily self-inflicted…". Appararently you don't actually read this commentator you recommend so highly. Right now you are being very disruptive. I made an offer to remedy two of your complaints about the article and instead you went ahead and made massive changes without even responding to the points raised under the headings Section 'Jews also fled...' and Section on the 'Transfer principle' on this talk page. That will not make you look like a mature, responsible editor if this dispute ever makes it to the ArbCom. Brian Tvedt 12:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Brian, I just noted that Karsh 9as described by you) is not the only view. I am not into "making me look mature" as I am not the issue. I would like to see ArbCom take a good look at thisd article and decide : Does it meet minimal Wikipedia standards ? Zeq 12:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Making this article NPOV

An offer was made some time ago Talk:Palestinian_exodus#Why_I_think_you_should_read_the_talk_page but no editor picked the ball. So there is no alternative but to remove the biased and one sided (and also non relevant info ) which should be moved to a more relevant place . see also Talk:Palestinian_exodus#What_is_wrong_with_this_article_.28and_the_transfer_section.29_-_take_2 Zeq 13:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There was no reply to any of my suggestion so I removed some of the blant POV in this article on the way to make it more NPOV as the NPOV policy require. Zeq 06:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, you have been answered many times already. Most recently, in Talk:Palestinian_exodus#Section_on_the_.27Transfer_principle.27 I have provided a quote from Benny Morris in which he clearly states that transfer thinking contributed to the Palestinian exodus. That and the fact that Morris devotes a whole chapter of his book on the origins of the Palestinian refugee problem to pre-war Zionist transfer thinking are enough to justify devoting space to the topic here. You don't get to have your way by making a point, ignoring the responses people make to it, then repeating the same point endlessly. I urge you to stop your senseless reverts, and think about how you can constructively contribute to this article. You are welcome to bring in the perspectives of other historians (properly sourced), or opinions from prominent Israelis to go alongside the Palestinian views that are already there. Brian Tvedt 11:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Brian, You have not shown that the talk is what caused the transfer. i.e. that it could not occur without it. Furthermore Morris himself sais the exact opposite. So the talk of transfer must be placed in aseprate article otherwise it creates the impression that Wikipedia endorse your POV.

In his book of 1988; The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949, on the origins of the Palestinian refugee problem, Morris argues that the approximately 700,000 Palestinians who fled from their homes in 1947 left mostly due to Israeli actions or fear of Israeli actions, but not as the result of a preexisting expulsion plan. This was at the time a controversial position, as the official position in Israel had been that the Palestinians left voluntarily or after pressure/encouragement from Palestinian or outside Arab leaders.

so we have 3 POVs:

1. Self inflicated 2. resulted from a war but not pre-planned 3. Pre-planned

There is not a single respectable historian that claim it was pre-planned. So we should descrive the two main stream POVs (1 & 2) or if you find crediable sources claiming it was pre-planed we should present this view as well. This is how the NPOV policy require from us. When we discuss possible cause #2 we should show that many (jews and Arabs) have left their homes as a result of fightings. It happened that the Israeli won so naturally more Palestinians ended up suffering and leaving and not being able to come back. We should discuss these options as possible causes (we can not take a stand) and present them in equal light. We can not endorse one POV over the other. Zeq 12:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Zeq; you are really something: here you copy one paragraph out of the Benny Morris-article here on WP, namely the paragraph about his 1988 book......but why on earth don´t you look further down the page???.. at his latest findings?? ..That is, to his 2004 book: "The birth of the Palestinian refugee problem revisited" / Benny Morris. - 2nd ed. Regards, Huldra 08:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC) (PS: not that the Benny Morris article is very good.....I should know...look at the history: I wrote what you copied above..... ;-D )
Huldra, do you honestly think this article is NPOV ? I never claimed Only one view point should be here but the furst rule of NPOV is to describe the dispute between scholars, not to endorse one side. This artyicle present things as 100% while even Morris himself has a different view each time he is asked. Zeq 09:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I just don´t understand how you can say that the article as it stands is "100%" (I assume you mean 100% one-sided). And yes, while I´m not familiar with every interview that Morris has made, in his published works there has been a developement: towards accepting premeditation. (Morris is not alone: read eg "Blaming the victims" about pre-planning -and the care zionist took not to leave a paper trail.)
And whether you (or I) like it or not: Benny Morris is a very influential writer/historian. I think he is the only Israeli historian people around my parts of the world (=Scandinavia) have heard of (if they have heard of any at all). Like it or not. If you think that the views of other historians should be better represented; then for heavens sake: represent them. Go ahead. Just don´t remove perfectly well sourced inf.!!! (Hmmm, I feel I have said this to you before....over at the Arab Israeli perhaps? Ah, as the Americans say: "It is Déjà vu all over again!") Regards, Huldra 11:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)PS: but please: no copy and paste from propaganda websites..
No surprize that they only heard about Morris in Scandinavia. This is called "leftist bias". There are other Historians and Morris himself has more than ONE POV. There is an article on Morris and there is anarticle on Transfer, this is the Exodus article and we can not endorse one potential aspect (unproven as cause) as the only cause just because it fit our anti-zionist POV. We can not present just one narritive of ther events. This is the essence of NPOV: To describe the conflicting views of this one historical event and to give each POV the same validity using NPOV terminology. Zeq 16:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
But dearest Zeq: who is stopping you from presenting other points of view?? (unless those views have been shown to be factually wrong, that is). As I said: go ahead! ...just dont´t delete perfectly sourced material!
As for showing the context: you seem to think that if you delete all thoughts about the pop. issue before 1948, ah, then the article will be (more) NPOV! (I hope I have understood you correctly here?) If this is your view then I strongly disagree. By removing that you are left with the impression that, well, it was a war, and as in all wars: "shit happens". Nothing intended. The result (=the Palestinian exodus) "just happened" to be positive, ney: vital to the young Jewish state. Just luck! But as I said: please do add/expand the article if you like... Regards, Huldra 17:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
It is explained in great detail above. I removed parts that should move to other articles. The POV about transfer should be refrazed as one possible aspect along with other POVs. The article is too long so the first step is to remove what should not be here (for example polemic not encyclopedic. see above for complete explnation. Zeq 20:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Nothing you say above justifies deleting a whole section, deleting most of the images, and re-adding typos and factual errors. The information on your points 1 and 2 should be expanded, and you've even been given material on this. What's the problem other than your lack of knowledge and ability to write English? --Ian Pitchford 12:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Nothing justify keeping this article so POV. It must be reworked from scratch. Even if consensus (which i don't agree exist) of few wikipedia editor want to keep it so biased the only thing this shows is that Wikipdia is a anti-israli biased encyclopedia which can not enforce it's own mechanisms of neutrality. Zeq 13:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


Hello all, I'm new here, but I figured what the hell, I'd wade into this anyway. Just a comment on Benny Morris, he's definately proven that the Zionist leadership considered expulsion of the Palestinians a viable strategy from the mid-1920s onward, but he points out that while this created a collective mindset among the Yishuv that expulsion was increasingly the only solution to the issue, that doesn't translate into a pre-existing master plan and that nothing was inevitable. I, personally, think the distinction is important, and I do tend to find myself with agreement with Morris on this. Mattm1138

You are correct. And this article is about the Exodus itself, not on the mindset of Jewish leaders in the 20s and on. Zeq 08:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
So, you believe the two are unrelated? Mattm1138 23:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Many scholars belive there is no causation between the tals about the issue of transfer (which was an exchange of population) to the exodus. The exodus occured as part of the war. It is normal for people to escape war zone.
In His Book "fabrication of the History of israel" Chapter 2, page 46 (By Efriam Karsh a London based professor) Prof Karsh devotes a whole chapter to the "transfer" issue. That POV is not represented at all in the article.
Among other things, Karsh shows that Morris brought slective and half-quotes from Ben Gurioun for example Because there was a large Palestinian population in nablus and Jenin Ben Gurioun ordered the Israel army not to attack those cities" because he did not want "many palestinians inside the Israeli territory". So you see, the talks about who will be majority where can leade to explsion but can lead to avoiding conquring an area.
This article is POV because it tries to put our 2006 thinking by using the words of 1930s and 1940s. Zeq 08:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
For the record, Morris also believes that given the genocidal intentions of the Arabs, the expulsions were completely justifiable. Mattm1138 01:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Article is unprotected

I unprotected the article for several reasons. The main one is that protection is pointless in this case. The idea of protection is to spur discussion and to calm people down. Well, the article was protected for 11 days and it didn't help. I protected it again yesterday but then heard User:Zaq and User:Ian Pitchford say that they want this article protected until the ArbCom makes a ruling. Well, right now the vote is 1-0 to take the case and it's been like that for 2 weeks now. Even if they do take the case, it will be several weeks before any resolution comes. Well, we can't have it protected for that long. The whole idea of a wiki is for open editing. So I am unprotecting it. We're going to follow a different tact since protection is not working like it is supposed to. I am putting this article on my watchlist. Any further 3RR violations will lead to 24 hour blocks. Continued excessive personal attacks will also lead to blocks. I don't like to do that, but it's obvious that that's what it will take until people try to work this out. Btw, has there been a Request for Comment on this article? If not, I would suggest one. The arbcom case is about sourcing, not about this article per se. More eyes and ears might help here. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not just that 3RR policy does not work. This article is a complete failure of the whole wikipedia system.
I have argued this for a long time: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=29193600#complete_failure_of_wikipedia_NPOV_policy and made suggestions on how this can be fixed. But it seems no one care. So I will put this article back to where it was before the 3RR Violation in hope discussion will start. Zeq 13:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted that edit, and not capriciously. The comment about the text being removed screamed of bad faith. Mediation doesn't seem like a bad idea, and I'd be willing to serve as a mediator if the relevant parties are interested. This isn't formal, of course. Just something to try to provide some temporary solutions while ArbCom does its work. Tom Lillis 15:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
You have just removed yourself from being considereda mediator by balming one party ahs having bad faith. Read the talk thAT GOES BACK 3 YEARS OF PROBLEMS IN THIS ARTICLE if after you do it you will revert your last edit you can qulaify as mediator. Zeq 15:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

"ownership" of this article

For several months I (and now other editors) are trying to make changes to this article but not a shred of these changes remained. It seems that there is a group of editor (a clique) that "own" this article. This is a problem. A serious problem. One that ArbCom should pay attention too. Not a single Wikipedia policy or tool worked in this article. If Wikipedia is unable to create an NPOV article despite all the time and effort that went (over years) into this article Maybe it should just be delted ? written-off as a Wikipedia failure.... Or maybe those who insist on making this article into a ptropeganda tool wouild understnd that if they don't stop this article would be gone ? It seems that a new tool should be developed instead of "protecting" an araticle to induce discussion: That tool is the threat of deleting an article on which no consensus can be reached over such a long time. Zeq 20:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are incapable of getting your edits to articles accepted by other editors, yet other editors generally sympathetic to Israeli positions do not experience this problem, perhaps you should start thinking about your approach to editing (and to using talk pages). It is not really a very fruitful approach, either for you or for anyone else. I have said this to you umpteen times already but you seem disinclined to listen to me, or indeed to anyone else. Palmiro | Talk 23:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Which other "pro Israeli editors" were able to contribute to this article  ? If Indeed this is the case I will rethink my aproach ? Please show me - Please be specific and site diffs that remained in this article unmodiofied. Zeq 04:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
No reply. so I chaged the article to be a bit more NPOV. Zeq 16:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The transfer issue is a key component of every scholarly treatment of this matter. Please do not delete the material again. --Ian Pitchford 16:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
It is not presented in an NPOV and create caustion where no shcolar argued. Better move to the transfer article. Zeq 16:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
How could ideas about the reasons for the Palestinian exodus belong in an article other than that on the Palestinian exodus? The dispute over the "master plan" theory is discussed. If you want to expand it by covering more of what the historians and/or primary sources say please do so. --Ian Pitchford 17:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
In your POV these are "the reasons" but that is just your POV. Nothing more. There are other POVs and wkipedia can not endorse just one. Zeq 19:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
See above. --Ian Pitchford 20:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


I did. still waiting for ahred of proof that POV others than the "owners" can be found on this article. So far: None. Zeq 20:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Image/Zero

From what I have learned, Arab population centers from which Palestinian refugees originated have met with different fates: some were left in ruins, as in the photograph; others were demolished and replaced with new construction; others were inhabitated by Jewish and I assume also Arabs. The photograph tells a confusing story: did the buildings fall apart from neglect over the last nearly 60 years? Were they deliberately demolished? Why does the land around them seem so barren? To add more confusion, there are areas west of Hebron that are outside the 1949 armistice lines - was this place abandoned in 1948/49 or in 1967? --Leifern 17:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This location is inside the green line. It was depopulated in 1948 and was demolished by the IDF except for a few larger buildings, some of which are still used by the Jewish town of Bayt Guivrin (established nearby in 1949). The area in the photograph is not especially barren by local standards; the whole region looks more or less like this (at least in summer). The sabra cactus in the photo was used as a fence during the British Mandate and so often appears around the locations of former and current villages. --Zero 18:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
This image can not be in Beit Jabrin (also called beit Gouvrin) which is west of Hebron. The area is a different type of land (ascan be seen in these photos: http://www.trekker.co.il/israel-govrin.asp http://www.boker.org.il/meida/negev/desert_biking/govrin/allpics.htm
Where was this image published as "beit Jabrin" ? Is the source crediable ?

Zeq 18:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a few minutes by car from the remarkable ancient underground city shown in the photos. The source of the photo is a highly reliable one: me. If you live in Israel then you know that similar sights can be seen all over the country. --Zero 16:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not going to argue with you about if the source of the photo is relaible or not (you being the source) but if you ARE the source then the caption for this photo is your original research which violate policy. Please remove this photo and you Original research caption . Zeq 20:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Photographs are not original research (see WP:NOR) - Zero is not adding to existing body of knowledge with this photograph. I question the extent to which the photograph adds much to the article, but that's another matter altogether and not worth having an argument about. --Leifern 20:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Leifern. We might also mention that "Wikipedia encourages users to upload their own images". --Zero 21:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
But the misleading caption is. Hebron is far from the green-line. Zeq 21:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
"Inside the green line, west of Hebron" is a good description of where it is. Looking at a map is not original research, dear fanatical Zeq. --Zero 21:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a subject that ArbCom decidd will use only scholarly sources. The caption (that this is a ruins etc...) is your OR. Please remove the caption. There is really no connection between any map to whare YOU claim to have taken the photo. Zeq 21:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I seeq mediation on the issue can Zero use his own Original reserach in the caption of the photo. Zeq 05:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, but my question really is whether this is a good illustration for the article. People on either side of the issue can interpret (and comment) this their own way. In other words, for someone to interpret the photograph the way you intended it, he/she would either have to assume or know that this was a) inside the 1949 armistice line; b) probably taken in the summer, when the grass turns brown; c) demolished rather than fallen apart; and who knows what else. Or someone else might arrive at simply assume that this is a) in the territories; b) indicative of agricultural neglect; c) decayed rather than demolished. If this weren't such a controversial issue, I wouldn't make a big deal about it, but I would imagine that a picture of a refugee camp might make the point more clearly. I used to have one that I took in 1976, but I can't seem to find it. I am not inclined to delete it, but I think we should try to find a better image sometime soon. --Leifern 18:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The refugee experience consists of what is left behind together with what replaced it. Both the former village and the refugee camp are relevant. Missing detail can be added, but this is not an article about one particular village. --Zero 16:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Original research in the article

"Transfer principle" section

At the moment, the article contains an enormous amount of unsupported claims. In the section on the first stage of refugee flight, all the figures are unreferenced. In the second section, the claim that exaggerated rumours about Dar Yassin "spread fear and panic" is also unsupported. The most to blame is the section on "transfer principle". The first four paragraphs in that section contain a total of one reference to a website of dubious reliability, and many factual claims, like "While a few Palestinian Arabs were amenable to Jewish immigration, most were not", are unsourced. Equally unsourced are miscellaneous statements of opinion such as: "Zionist Jews strove to create a Jewish state built on Jewish traditions and culture in Palestine, which Jews considered their ancestral homeland and where a Jewish minority had lived for centuries. The demographic reality of Palestine, in which most residents were non-Jewish Arabs, was for them a major obstacle to the establishment of such a state." or "It was therefore clear that it would not be possible to bring about a Jewish majority in any part of Palestine, with the exceptions of the Haifa area, Jerusalem, and some northern districts." I have placed the appropriate tags throughout. Pecher Talk 12:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have definite mind about "tranfer principle" but both 1st and 2nd phase paragraph are not personnal research of their authors. All this is given -eg- by Morris. Reference should be added anyway. Christophe Greffe 13:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe this sentence could be removed : "Irgun and Lehi played an important role in intimidating the Palestinian Arab population" because this is well documented and explained later and is controversial. All historians do not agree that this was revelant to the exodus. Christophe Greffe 13:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

More unsourced claims:

  • "For some of the Zionist leadership, the "transfer" of a large Arab population appeared to be the only solution."
  • The Peel Commission called for "removal of 225,000 Palestinian Arabs from what would become the Jewish state".
  • "...relatively few diaspora Jews actually wished to, or were able to, immigrate to Palestine, most preferring to move to North America."

Looks like "original research" tag is justified on this section. Pecher Talk 18:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

concerning the romaval of 225,000 Palestinian Arabs from what would become the Jewish state, that is written in section 10 of the report of the commission [18]. Nevertheless, they are talking more about an exchange rather than a transfer. Anyway that is correct.
concerning the point 3, I wonder who can claim he was in the mind of "jewish" of the diaspora. That is obviously a POV form its author. Christophe Greffe 20:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

'alleged master plan'

Would not the following sentences be a POV ? Good arguments maybe but this sounds much like a response to Morris counter-argument to Khalidi... I think a reference should be interesting.

Supporters of the "Master Plan" theory argue that the missing central directives have not been found because they were deliberately omitted or because the understanding of the significance of explusion was so widespread that no directive was necessary. They claim that the Zionist leadership in general and Ben-Gurion in particular were well aware of how historiography worked. What would be written about the war and what light Israel would be presented in was so important that it was worth making an intentional effort to hide those of their actions that might seem reprehensible.

Christophe Greffe 15:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

We must call these "supporters" by name. Pecher Talk 15:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
At least. Agreed. Christophe Greffe 15:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The Nakba and its role in the Palestinian narrative

A couple of curious unsourced statements in the section:

  • "Together with Naji al-Ali's Handala..., the Nakba is perhaps the most important symbol of Palestinian discourse." Symbol of discourse? The most important one? I have scratched my head for a while, but still failed to comprehend what is meant here.
  • "Nakba Day (May 15th, the day Israel declared independence) is considered an important day in the Palestinian calendar..." I know Gregorian calendar, Julian calendar, Jewish calendar, Muslim calendar, Chinese calendar, but never heard of "Palestinian calendar".

Of course, tags have been added there. Pecher Talk 18:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

First stage of flight

No references at all in the whole section, e.g. the number of refugees is unreferenced.

here is one from Pappé [19]. He says 70,000. There is also his mind about master plan.Christophe Greffe 20:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't have an account with Google, so I cannot search through Google books at the moment. Pecher Talk 21:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
It is in Pappé, A history of modern Palestine, p. 131. Christophe Greffe 09:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Other interesting statements:

  • "War appeared inevitable." I cannot help wondering to whom is appeared inevitable.Pecher Talk 18:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean. Do you say this is false or a pov ??? Arab leaders had announced they would prevent by arms the partage of Palestine. Christophe Greffe 20:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
It's unsourced; that's the problem. Pecher Talk 21:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
As I wrote elsewhere : can each sentence be source ? Particularly that "obvious" one. Or do you see a bias with this ? Christophe Greffe 09:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • "Irgun and Lehi played an important role in intimidating the Palestinian Arab population." Again, no source, and the reader is left wondering who else intimidated the Palestinian Arab population.Pecher Talk 18:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Who else ? What do you mean ? Christophe Greffe 20:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe no one? Still, no source for this claim. Pecher Talk 21:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
After a night thinking about that I think that even if there was a source for this, this would remain controversial because some historians do not agree about that role. Simply eg Gelber quoted below in the article. As a consequence this should be moved elsewhere where the thesis that Irgun and Lehi would have played a role would be developed with sources. Eg in the section : "what generated the palestinian exodus". Christophe Greffe 09:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • "This first flight contributed to the demoralization of the Palestinians and left them virtually without any leadership." Interestingly, the article fails to discuss who those fleeing "leaders" were. My personal opinion is that it's better to be without leaders who are the first to run.Pecher Talk 18:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
In the just above reference, Pappé writes about the 70,000 that left the country : "belonging to the social and economic elite of the country". In this reference [20] Gelber writes : "Unaware of the difference between anti-colonial insurrection and a national war, the Palestinian leaders preferred to conduct the struggle from safe asylum abroad as they had done during their rebellion against the British in 1936/9.". I think this is enough to justify the sentence. Christophe Greffe 20:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Not quite. There is nothing on "demoralization" in this reference. In addition, it's best to call the "Palestinian leaders" by name. Pecher Talk 21:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
could you suggest a more appropriate sentence ? Christophe Greffe 09:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, placed the "original research" tag on the section. Pecher Talk 18:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is npov enough the way it is written. It would not be readable if it would only consist of quotes. Summurazing is a good way of working. If something is false it must be removed of course. I agree going deeper into details if you make constructive proposals ie : if you "write" your suggestions of what to add or change in fonction of the information we have. If your claim is "we delete everything". I just answer I don't agree. So what are your suggestion ? Christophe Greffe 21:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't want to "delete everything". I simply point out to unreferenced information in the article, that's it. Usually, when I see a good way of fixing a problem, I go and fix it. This time, I didn't see an easy way to fix the problem of lack of references, so I drew the attention of others to it. If you see good references, just put them in. Pecher Talk 21:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I think you made an very interesting and important work these last days ! From my side I added references and answer your comments. Let's go on. Christophe Greffe 09:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Another question on this section:

  • There was also cases of outright explusions such as in Qisarya where roughly 1000 Palestinian Arabs were evicted in February.

This seems very 'factual', but the only reference is the link in Qisarya, which is to a not-really credible website. A book reference for this would be nice 80.178.205.240 14:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactions

Pecher, you removed "exaction" from the title I had chosen. I perfectly agree. My mother langage is French and I didn't find the appropriate word to "summarize" this. He wrote "terror campaign" then "actions" and "finally exactions" having in mind none was good...

"IDF units terrorized them to hasten their flight, and isolated massacres — particularly during the liberation of Galilee and the Negev in October 1948 — expedited the flight"

What can we write in the title to summarise" reasons given by Gelber for 2nd phase of flight ?

Christophe Greffe 15:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

relevance?

I have read the NPOV debate and feel that although most of the article is making at least an effort at balance, there are some areas which are problematic - either by error or in purpose. See, for example, this paragraph, which appears in the reasons section, under "Arab leaders responsibility for the refugee flight":

When asked whether in Operation Hiram there was a comprehensive and explicit expulsion order Morris replied,
Yes. One of the revelations in the book is that on October 31, 1948, the commander of the Northern Front, Moshe Carmel, issued an order in writing to his units to expedite the removal of the Arab population. Carmel took this action immediately after a visit by Ben-Gurion to the Northern Command in Nazareth. There is no doubt in my mind that this order originated with Ben-Gurion. Just as the expulsion order for the city of Lod, which was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, was issued immediately after Ben-Gurion visited the headquarters of Operation Dani [July 1948].

This quote comes right after a quote by Morris, in which he substantiates the claims as to Arab leaders calling for evacuations. I argue that this passage is totally irrelevent to this section (it may belong in some other section) as it is neither suppport nor refutation to the theory discussed in that section (i. e., the actions of Arab leaders). 80.178.205.240 10:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC) In addition, I think the section 'Alleged Master Plan' should be a subsection of 'The transfer principle' section, as it is more an elaboration of that first theory than an independent theory. And another thing: the following paragraph, which appears at the end of that section, seems irrelevant, as the information mentioned in it is already mentioned at the top of the same section. 80.178.205.240 10:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree here. Pecher Talk 18:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
No. The idea of transfer in Zionist thought prior to the Nakba is a separate issue from the question of whether the Zionist/Israeli political and military command had, during the 1947-49 war, a defined plan to bring it about. Palmiro | Talk 18:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I beg to disagree. Khalidi's ideas explicitly draw upon the prevalence of the tranfer thinking on part of Zionist leadership as on a key premise for further argument. Look at how the first sentence is begins "Based on the aforementioned alleged prevalent idea of transfer...". So, the "transfer principle" is already built in Khalidi's arguments. He then develops the "transfer principle" by alleging the existence of a "master plan" during the war. Pecher Talk 18:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
"Based on ... Khalidi" : that is what is written, but is that true ? I am not sure (see just below). Christophe Greffe 19:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I see 3 questions in the discussion and only 1 yes or 1 no as answers...

removal of the quote overmentionned from "arab leaders responsability for the refugee flight

I agree. This section is not devoted to introduce the flight due to the israeli army. Christophe Greffe 19:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"alleged master plan" subsection of "transfer principle"

I don't agree. The reason is that I am sure that Khalidi didn't build his theory basing his point of view on Benny Morris abstracts... He wrote his thesis far before. I think the way information is introduced is a personnal research. This is even more obvious when we realized than Morris don't agree with the "master plan" theory.

It is me who wrote these 2 sections in the paragraph "what caused the palestinian exodus" but when I did, I didn't know if I had to push the transfer principle in it. "transfer principle" didn't cause the palestinian exodus.

I think the "alleged master plan" should be kept in that paragraph, maybe some more information about what khalidi think was the importance of the transfer principle in the master plan added but that "transfer principle" should be pushed elsewhere and in particular AFTER these paragraphs. The "transfer principle" is interesting and I think relevant for the understanding of the palestinian exodus but not only as argument to explain why jews would have organised this transfer. It also illustrates why exodus was seen "inevitable". Christophe Greffe 19:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

a pagraph repeated at the beginning and at the end of the section

another thing: the following paragraph, which appears at the end of that section, seems irrelevant, as the information mentioned in it is already mentioned at the top of the same section.

I don't know. What paragraph and what section exactly ? Christophe Greffe 19:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The quote is:

Additionally, some historians have interpreted clauses from Plan Dalet as the central directive, the "master plan" - specifically the section instructing commanders to destroy and depopulate villages containing a population that was hostile or difficult to control.

It repeats the same argument as:

He based that thesis on Plan D, a plan devised by the Haganah high command in March 1948, and which stipulated, among other things that if Palestinians in villages controlled by the Jewish troops resist, they should be explled.80.178.205.240 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The last sentence should be removed. Note I change the statement according to which Khalidi would be the only one to support the master plan thesis and added Pappé with reference. Christophe Greffe 00:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"Absentee property" section

Moshe Dayan quote

The quote from Moshe Dayan looks like an attempt to manipulate and mislead the reader. While the section is about absentee property, Dayan talks about purchased property: "We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs, and we are building a Hebrew, Jewish state. In a considerable portion of localities we purchased the land from the Arabs. Instead of Arab villages Jewish villages were established." Essentially, Moshe Dayan is saying: there were Arabs, we purchased land from them, and established Jewish villages in place of Arab villages on the purchased land. The section, though, uses the quote to buttress its point that Jewish villages were established on absentee property on which Moshe Dayan does not say a word. If anything, the quote contradicts the message of the section, not endorses it. Pecher Talk 19:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. 80.178.205.240 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Fisk quote

The section says with reference to Robert Fisk that 70 percent of Israeli land might be absentee property. I strongly doubt that Robert Fisk can be a reliable source of information, especially on this issue. After all, Fisk is a strongly anti-Israeli journalist after whom the term fisking was coined for his numerous inaccuracies. Pecher Talk 19:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Fisk is a highly respected journalist who is known for his trenchant commentary on all the regimes with which this region is saddled. The term "fisking" was coined by some barely-notable right-wing fanatic bloggers who objected to his writing, probably on account of its accuracy if anything. The first instance of this practice involved a political and ethical attack on an article of Fisk's, which did not appear to question his honesty in reporting facts. A journalist who writes for reputable newspapers and has published books of scholarly merit is in any case rather more entitled to be taken into consideration than some random collection of malcontents on the internet. However, a better source (i.e. an academic work or official source) would of course be preferable. Palmiro | Talk 19:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm ok with Fisk if you're ok with Joan Peters. --Leifern 19:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm OK with you equating Fisk and Joan Peters if you can point out where Fisk was unmasked writing a fraudulent and misleading book. Palmiro | Talk 20:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
No problem here [21]. Pecher Talk 20:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I searched this link above for the words "false" "falsification" "fraudulent" "incorrect" "exaggerate" "mislead" (but no others) and got zero results. Karsh is only accusing Fisk of extreme bias (which is a true assertion) but that is a far cry from fraudulent and misleading. Anyway, Karsh himself has been rebutted by Morris, a fellow Israeli. Ramallite (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
"accuracy" turned up a segment that Fisk had gotten some historical dates wrong, like what year Sadat was assassinated and when Khomeini moved headquarters and stuff like that... what a fraud... ;) Ramallite (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Isn't this argument somewhat redundant given that the figure reported by Fisk is the lower of the two given? --Ian Pitchford 20:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
What about this paragraph? "First there is the problem of simple accuracy. It is difficult to turn a page of The Great War for Civilisation without encountering some basic error. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not, as Fisk has it, in Jerusalem. The Caliph Ali, the Prophet Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, was murdered in the year 661, not in the 8th century. Emir Abdallah became king of Transjordan in 1946, not 1921, and both he and his younger brother, King Faisal I of Iraq, hailed not from a “Gulf tribe” but rather from the Hashemites on the other side of the Arabian peninsula. The Iraqi monarchy was overthrown in 1958, not 1962; Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem, was appointed by the British authorities, not elected; Ayatollah Khomeini transferred his exile from Turkey to the holy Shiite city of Najaf not during Saddam Hussein’s rule but fourteen years before Saddam seized power. Security Council resolution 242 was passed in November 1967, not 1968; Anwar Sadat of Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, not 1977, and was assassinated in October 1981, not 1979. Yitzhak Rabin was minister of defense, not prime minister, during the first Palestinian intifada, and al Qaeda was established not in 1998 but a decade earlier. And so on and so forth." Pecher Talk 20:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
These would indeed to be errors of fact, but essentially matters of carelessness, poor proofreading or fact-checking. They indicate a sloppy book, not a fraudulent and misleading one such as Peters'. Palmiro | Talk 20:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not relevant whether his errors are a result of sloppiness, ignorance, or fraud. What matters is that he is not a reliable source. Pecher Talk 20:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression that you were citing this in response to my remarks to Leifern. That was how I interpreted your presentation of it with the comment "No problem here". Palmiro | Talk 20:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
It's probably not worth the while to split hairs on whether Fisk is trying to mislead his readers or just not particularly knowledgeable on the subjects he is covering; probably, everyone agrees that he is biased and not particulalry reliable. Pecher Talk 20:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

::Isn't this argument somewhat redundant given that the figure reported by Fisk is the lower of the two given? --Ian Pitchford 20:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Christophe Greffe 09:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Source for the entire section?

Looks like I have found the source for the entire section on absentee property http://www.missionislam.com/nwo/estewishstate.htm. The similarities are just striking. The quotes from Fisk, Jewish National Fund, and Moshe Dayan are exactly as on this page. I don't believe in numerous coincidences and it is more than unlikely that the author of the source in question chose to quote precisely the same paragraphs as did the editors of this section. Furthermore, the unreferenced claims like "Of 370 new Jewish settlements established between 1948 and 1953, 350 were on absentee property" or "In 1954 about one third of Israel's population lived on absentee property" can also be found on that page. Amusingly, the quote from the Jewish National Fund ostensibly comes from a work by Lehn and Davis, but the work itself is not listed among the references. Since when does http://www.missionislam.com qualify as a reliable source? And don't tell me that the editors quoted from Israel - An Apartheid State by Uri Davis from which the webpage has taken its content because this book is not listed among the references. Anyway, I don't think that the book in question would qualify as a reliable source either. Pecher Talk 20:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If the source is a propeganda web site we should add a link to that site. After all: Wikipedia is about propeganda. Zeq 06:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Of these I've checked the Fisk quotation in The Times, and found it to be accurate. I haven't seen the Lehn and Davis book, but I saw the same quotation in Fischbach, Michael R. (2003). Records of Dispossession: Palestinian Refugee Property and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231129785, which seems a good enough source. The same book covers the Absentees Property Law of 1950, which was passed by the Knesset on 14 March (5710/1950). The figure of about 32,000 for present absentees looks about right as estimates are usually in the region of 30,000-35,000. --Ian Pitchford 20:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


Annoying statement

This is from the 'History' section, stage four. It seems to me to be not NPOV (*)and unreferenced, but also not in the right section, because it takes a stand as to the causes. Regarding Palestinian Exodus in this stage, the section says:

Most of it was due to a clear, direct cause: expulsion and deliberate harassment.

While the quote given in the section only includes orders to "purge the conquered territories of all hostile elements" (which does not necessariliy include civilains) and to helpthe residents "to leave the areas that have been conquered". Also, the quote refers to only one of the operations. Thus, coming to the conclusion that 'most' refugee flight during this stage was the result of delibarate expulsion and intimidation is quite an overstatement.

80.178.205.240 13:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Request for citation tag added. Pecher Talk 13:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I think all 4 sections should only deal with pure facts without analysis (numbers of refugees, from where they left or were expelled if there is no controversy about that precise expulsion). Reasons explaining these facts (eg orders, harashment, terrorism, etc) or historians' comments should then be written in the other paragraphs. There is much redundant informations everywhere. Christophe Greffe 13:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't have said it better. 80.178.205.240 14:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • (*)did you mean "NOT NPOV"? Zeq 14:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

yeah, exactly.80.178.205.240 15:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Alleged "Transfer principle" section

This section is too long as it is. It is also the same as the "alleged Master plan" section and thus must be combined.

So serious shortening is in order

also, as a look in previous talk will show, Most of this section comes from benny Morris book while Morris himself rejected the view that the exodus was a result of "talks about transfer" by zionist leaders during the 30s and 40s.

The word "transfer" itself (when discussed by zionist leaders) has to be understood as it was used at that time. The Peel Commission suggested a bi-directional transfer of population. The best place to discuss all these transfer aspects is in the article: Population_transfer#Middle_East which has many parts missing in it, with a link here to the more detailed discussion there.

Zeq 15:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I am against combining the two section. The "Master Plan" theory has different supporters than the "prevailing transfer idea" theory; While Morris supports the second, he denies the first. However, this section should definitely shorted and be made more to the point. Its introduction, for instance, starts by realting unsourced historical background, instead of stating what the theory is and who are its supporters (Morris).
I believe the section should start something like this:
Benni Morris, in his book, suggested that the prevalent ideas of population transfer in Zionist ideology contributed to the expulsion of Arabs during the 1948 war.
  • he later changed his mind (or added to it) see: [22] Zeq 16:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Than it should make a *short* summary of what is the population transfer idea, and maybe contain one or two of Moriss' references to Zionist thoughts. Finally, it should bring some Historian who opposes Morris' claim (there are quite a few, but if we can't find one we'll skip that), and summarize his ideas. That would be much more readable (and encyclopedic) than what is there now. 80.178.205.240 16:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


Hello Zeq. Section "alleged master plan" is very short. I don't think it must be shortened. I would nevertheless remove the first sentence. (This has already been made by Pecher but Palmiro reverted this.). As said before Khalidi don't use Morris's theory. That is not chronologically possible. He may of course use in his theory similar facts than Morris but in that case who know which ones ? Christophe Greffe 16:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello IP80 ;). I agree. I think it is interesting also to keep one or both of last 2 quotes of the sections but to reduce them to the facts relevant with Morris theory. Christophe Greffe 16:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Christophe. I am IP80 - I just registered so I can have a name. to the point, I actually feel that the last two quotes are not too relevant to Morris' argument - care to expand why you think otherwise?Rudy Wagner 16:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rudi. I think following excerpts are because they proove jewish leaders didn't want a state with a jewish nation being a minority. I think this is well-known are not controversial but a quote is better :
In his speech to the UN General Assembly's Political and Security Committee on 12 May, 1947, Ben Gurion said:
"(...) We Jews understand and deeply sympathize with the urge of the Arab people for unity, independence and progress, and our Arab neighbors, I hope, will realize that the Jews in their own historic homeland, can under no conditions be made to remain a subordinate, dependent minority as they are in all other countries of the Diaspora. (New York Times, 13 May, 1947, pp. 12-13)"
Moshe Sharett also spoke at the same meeting of the UN; in his address he stated that:
"(...) Were it not for the presence in Palestine today of over 600,000 Jews who refuse to be left in the minority position under Arab domination; were it not for the urge to settle in Palestine, of hundreds of thousands of homeless and uprooted Jews in Europe, in the Orient, and elsewhere; were it not for the hopes and efforts of millions of Jews throughout the world to re-establish their national home and build it up into a Jewish state, (...)(New York Times, 13 May, 1947, p. 12)
Christophe Greffe 16:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


That is exactly why both of them agreed to the partition plan where border were drawn in a way that in the Jwish state there is a Jewish majority and in the Arab state there is a Palestinian majority. The Jewish side accepted these borders and concept but the Palestinian side did not.
I have warned many times (and unfotrunatly even ArbCom did not undertood this) that no one of us can cherrypick quotes on this sensitive subject and try to "proove" a specific theory base on such quotes.
Lets stick to facts i.e. events that took place, not quotes from this or taht political speech. People said so many things and changed their mind often. This article is not about zionism, or about Zionist aspirations. This article is about The exodus itself . We can off course mention what differet scholars theorized were the reason for it, but turnning the article into a heap of quotes trying to "proove" this or that thoery is not the job of Wikipedia. So please let write this article in the most NPOV possible.
If you want an example look how the German exodus from sudatenland is describe in wikipedia. facts, just facts. (or different accounts of the events in places where there wwere more than one acount. This whole discussions of "Zionist motives" does not belong in this article, it has little to do with the events that brought the exodus itself which was the simple fact that it is normal for people to leave combat zone and believe that soon they will be back - Every person would think this way. Zeq 18:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Christoffe, I get you point; However, there are several questions to adress. First, as Zeq pointed out, wanting the Jews not to be aminority is not the same as supporting a transfer of Arabs - it could mean a preference for a smaller Jewish state. Second, and more important: Is the connexion of these quotes to the Arab expulsion 'Original Research', or does Morris mention them as corroboration? if Moriss uses them, it should be clearly noted; otherwise, the quotes have no place here [Btw, they hardly prove Moriss' point, since both quotes talk about a peaceful settlement]. Anyway, both quotes should be shortened, and since they are brought by Morris as support for the same exact point, I feel that only one of them should remain in the rewrite. Rudy Wagner 09:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The first one of Ben Gourion. The one from Sharett is not clear. Christophe Greffe 09:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Definition of "refugee"

Few people have noticed that "refugee" according to UNRWA is someone who ahs been in palestine for only two years prior to the exodus in 1948. This was a big change compred to any previous definition.
I bet you can't quote any previous definition. --Zero 08:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
This has to be looked at at the context of population moves (transfer) as some (but not all ) of those who call themself "Palestinian refugees" have actually only moved to palestine area in the few years before the war. They came because of increased economic activity generated by the Jewish immigration and development. Some have returned to their country of origin but still acording to UNRWA short time defintion ( 2 years stay in Palestine ) are considered "refugees".
It is also important to note that there is already an article on Palestinian refugees and some of the current aspects of the issue should be moved there. This article is about the The exodus itself which is an event that took part in 1947-1948. Not before, not after.
Zeq 16:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
UNRWA definition also covers all descendants fo refugees. It is often argued that in practice spouses of refugees can also claim refugee benefits. Pecher Talk 16:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
This is inline with the Arab leadership wish to keep the problem as a political problem to use against israel instead of trying to solve it. It is an important aspect about the subject (which should be discussed in Palestinian refugees if all the refugee data is moved there.
Also this link is of some value on the question of why did they leave: [23] I think it was in the article at some point.
Zeq 16:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Today it is wiser to refer to the "palestinian exodus" article in the "palestinian refugee" article rather than to fuse these articles. This one deals with the exodus of the palestinians that took place during the war. We don't need to refer to the criteria used by UNRWA to define what was a refugee and what was not. Christophe Greffe 16:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You are correct and we need to move the "demographics" section to that article about the refugees. Leaving here maybe a refernce to that article. This article is about the exodus itself not about current numbers of so-called "refugees" . Zeq 08:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. This article is about the exodus, and maybe about its *direct* consequneces (i. e. mediation, absentee property, and what happened to the refugees immediately after the war). Demographics should be moved to the 'refugee' article (but I think a that article already has all this info - we should check). Rudy Wagner 09:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I share your mind about demographics. I also agree that the better is if quotes come from Morris'book. I used this argument concerning Khalidi's thesis. I also agree we don't have to prove anything. I misused the word : replace this by illustrate. But to be more clear : here my concern is that I think people must better understand what is Morris's theory exactly. In fact, I didn't know this and the article doesn't help me to understand. Rudy wrote "it has had consequences on the exodus" but which ones ? My concern is more to make Morris's theory clear -even with non perfect quotes- than to have something that can be interpretated as I think it is currently.
What does Morris claim :
  • Transfer principle was in the air. It has had consequences on the exodus : there was no master plan but israeli expelled palestinians during the second phase of the war to achieve this principle;
or
  • Transfer principle was in the air. Jewish leaders (see quotes) and british authorities (see peel's report) was aware that it was inevitable. Events naturally led to the palestinian exodus and Israeli forced this when needed;
or
  • Jewish leader was aware of the importance of the transfer principle to have a viable state. They had no master plan to achieve this goal but when they have had the opportunity they expelled by force palestinians;
I think first we must agree on what is Morris's theory and second we must make it univoque. At best in illustrating this with his own quotes. If needed by illustrating this correctly. I also underline that this maybe Morris theory itself is not clear as we could deduce from Karsh and Finkelstein's comment about this (see Benny Morris's article).
Where are the editors that wrote this section ? They mind would be more than welcome... (thanks for your patience to understand my point. Not easy with my english). Christophe Greffe 09:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Example of an NPOV article on a similar sensitive subject

Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II also look at previous versions which may be a bit more NPOV. Zeq 18:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of the article

Hi everyone, I know this article has long been a subject of heated political debate, but I wish to believe that the purpose of everyone working here is to make this a *good* *encyclopedic* article. In this sense, there are a few problems in the arrticle, which I think we can - working together - resolve. Because of the sensitive nature of the article I have made only minor changes to it so far, and would like to put forth my suggestions on this talk page before we proceed. I will go over the article along the section lines. rudy wagner

most important. strong support. Christophe Greffe 11:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro

The intro of this article ia pretty good, though could be reworded to be more dynamic. One thing that don't belong in an intro, is the Lausanne conference (which has to go to the mediation section). [rudy wagner]

I would only leave first 3 paragraphs and move or delete others because they are developed later. The intro should only fix the context. Christophe Greffe 11:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we could add that these events have important consequences today and are in the heart of the discussions between israeli and arabs even if this would be more appropriate for "palestinian refugee article rather than palestinian exodus. Christophe Greffe 11:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

As noted above, this actually does not belong here but in the Palestinian Refugee article. And in any case, should not be right at the beginning but rather in the Consequences.Rudy Wagner

support. for clarity and quality of the article we must have in mind people that read may not have read anything about that. So order must be logical. Christophe Greffe 11:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The Nakba and its role in the Palestinian narrative

This section could benefit from more scholarly sources reflecting on the Nakba's role in Palestinian circles; As it is now, it is not clear how the quotes in the end reflect on that role. However, if no such scholarly sources are available, I believ the section to be well enough as it is. Rudy Wagner

support. I would also move somewhere else. After understand why "an event" is important I think people must have understood "what it talks about". Christophe Greffe 11:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

History

As proposed above in the talk page, this section should resort to facts - how many refugees at each stage, from where, documented expulsions, documented flights etc. - and leave all comments and POVs to the next section. Specifically, I'm not sure that bringing Rabin's quote in the third stage is necessary, as it has to do with the way the decision is made rather than with what actually happened.Rudy Wagner

Essential for both npov and clarity. Christophe Greffe 11:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Most importantly, the section must be significantly expanded. The article is now lopsided in the sense that although the article is about an historic event, it talks little about history itself, while dwelling extensively on the likely causes of Palestinian exodus. We should make it balanced, so that the bulk of the article will be devoted to history, while a separate section will deal with the controversy between historians. Pecher Talk 11:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. I found in Palestine Post article about the refugee problem. "external world" started to realize the problem and discuss this around may 1948, after first massive run away. The history section could be expanded with materials showing world's reaction to the exodus. This is history. Resolution 194 could also be noted because it were voted during flights. The Lausanne could be left for the "palestinian refugee" article. Christophe Greffe 12:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What generated the palestinian exodus

Here we have an introduction of main theories on the subject, and then some more on each theory.

  • 1. The theories brought forth belong to Morris, Khalidi, Israeli official sources and Gelber respectively, and this should be clearly noted.
  • 2. I think that the logical order should start with the official Israeli position, as it is both first chronologically and the one attacked by the others; Than Morris, Khalidi, and finally Gelber, whose theory is some kind of compromise between these positions.
  • 3. We could call them "Theories" (i.e. "The Transfer Principle Theory", "The Master Plan Theory" etc.) and get rid of the pesky "alleged".
  • 4. Each section should begin by stating who brought forth the theory and when. Than it should state the theory in short, and bring some of the support that historian brings for his argument, prefferably as quotes from the Historian himself, and not 'quotes of quotes'. Than, it should bring a paragraph detailing the words of oponents of this theory (if found).
  • 5. I don't know enough about Khalidi's idea to know if the "Master Plan" should be under the "Tranfer Principle" or not - we should discuss this.
support 1-2 for npov.
support 3 that is more encyclopedic. "alleged" was a result of disputes.
support 4 except if clarity is in balanced. I underline we must be sure to "reflect" author's theory view and the best way is to use their "own" quotes only.
as already written above I support the come back here on the talk page of the author of both master plan and transfer principle sections. Christophe Greffe 11:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Transfer Principle

This is the section most in need of cleaning. In my opinion, it should start by introducing Morris, than introducing his views of the Peel commision and Zionist response, and then quoting the referred article in which Morris clearly states his point - that the prevalent 'atmosphere of transfer' played a part in the actions of the Israeli army in the war. the rest of this section is either irrelevant or original research... Rudy Wagner

I don't know. I still doesn't understand Morris'theory precisely. Christophe Greffe 11:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Master Plan

Not many problems here, aside from having to find which supporters of the theory attacked Morris.

support but still cannot agree that Khalidi used Morris theory as could be understood from the introduction of the section. Christophe Greffe 11:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

See below a quote from Morris who argued against the master plan theory. Khalidi is the only one supporting it and Karsh (in his book) shows that Khlaidi misrepresnted many facts. Zeq 10:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Arab leaders' endorsment=

We should try to find a Historian who supports or has supported this theoery (there must be; i know a great debate happened in israel on the subject) and quote him rather than Weitz. Also, this section is clearly divided into arguments made by Jewish leaders and arguments made by Arab leaders. Since these arguments are completely different in structure and purpose, this section should be split into two sub-sections.Rudy Wagner

Isupport. It would be very important to find some. I already looked at here in the past and was amazed none historians was quoted [24]. Would Bard have missed this if there were some ? Christophe Greffe 11:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I have a name : Simha Flapan . He is quoted by Pappé as denying the plan D. He wrote a book : "Birth". I don't have more today. Christophe Greffe 23:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Flapan was one of the first Israeli authors to openly state that the Palestinians were expelled. I doubt he matches the requirement here. --Zero 13:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The Two-stage theory

Gelber's theory, though interesting, is not that important that so much space should be given to it. Rudy Wagner

No comment. I am pov because wrote this section. Note all this comes from a reliable but unique article found on the internet. Gelber's book on the subject is expensive. I just claim for full clarity.

=====Hope of return (or better confidence in return) ===== (added by Christophe Greffe 11:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)) In fact there is a 5th explanation given in the last paragraph of 2 stage theory section : hope to return. I didn't know where to put it and maybe this could be added in another short section as a fifth explanation. I think other historian share this thesis because this was not the first time I read this. Nevertheless highest care must be taken to talk about this as this could lead to the introduction of a whole section about the right to return which has nothing to do here. I hesitated to open this Pandora box for the quietness of this article. Christophe Greffe 11:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hope of return" is not a reason for leaving. Most refugees hope to return. -- Zero 11:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Zero. It is not what Gelber claims. Here is what he writes :
When they ran away, the refugees were confident of their eventual repatriation at the end of hostilities. This term could mean a cease-fire, a truce, an armistice and, certainly, a peace agreement. The return of escapees had been customary in the Middle East's wars throughout the ages. When the first truce began in June 1948, many tried to resettle in their hamlets or at least to gather the crops. However, they were fated for a surprise.
Their Jewish adversaries belonged to an alien European civilization whose historical experience and concepts of warfare were different. Three years after the end of the Second World War, it was inconceivable that Germans who had been expelled by the Czechs, Poles and Russians would ever return to the Sudeten, to Pomerania, to Silesia or to East Prussia. The mass repatriation by the allies of millions after the war concerned their own nationals. Refugees or deportees of defeated belligerents resettled to begin anew life elsewhere. People still remembered the exchange of populations between Turkey and Greece in the early 1920s. Europe was full of White Russians who had left their homeland after the revolution and the subsequent civil war. The vast majority of Israelis did not think that the Palestinians should fare better and wanted to apply this principle to the Middle East, naively ignoring its different cultural concepts and historical experience.
More, I understand your point but I don't fully agree. When you are confident you will be allowed to go back, you leave more easily than if you think that you lose everything forever. It is "alternative history" from Gelber but I think his point is that if palestinian would have been convinced they will never been allowed to come back, they would have fought or stayed. I am sure that I read this somewhere else about the fact they the palestinians was sure the campaign would be short and they could come back very fast. I think the author even claimed they had left most of their goods because they know they would come back. I think this is a "reason" to flight.
Nevertheless your comments make me think that "hope" is not appropriate and that section should be called "confidence in return". This is the word used by Gelber. Christophe Greffe 12:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Christophe Greffe 12:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


I'll continue later... but I wanted to hear your comments. Rudy Wagner 10:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

we are not in a hurry. All this happened more than 50 years ago and wikipedia is 4 year's old. This is a pov but good work Rudy !Christophe Greffe 11:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Righteous victims - could someone check ?

Could someone check that this text is indeed an excerpt from p.252-258 of Righteous Victims by Morris. If so this answers much of our comments [25]. The structural weakness of palestinian society would also therefore be a theory of Morris. nb: I know the website is pov. I don't care. This is just for the quotes of Morris. Christophe Greffe 13:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

In Page 286 of "The birth of the Palestinian refugee" Morris is VERY clear: "This tragedy is a resut of a war, not of pre-meditated intention. Nither Jewish nor Arab" Zeq 08:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I own the book, tell me what to look for and I'll be happy to do the check for you. Mattm1138 01:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Matt ! In the website, they claim they quote the p252 to p258 of Morris. I just wonder if this is true or if this is a summary. If this is a summury, does it reflect properly what Morris says ? Christophe Greffe 12:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I did a comparison, and they seem to have copied it more or less verbatim with a few stylistic exceptions that don't actually change the words.
As for the intentions of the Arab armies, this is a bit more controversial. The leaders of the Arab states at the time were publicly making pronouncements about the upcoming going to be a 'war of extermination and a momentous massacre'(Righteous Victims, pg. 219), but privately there was total disarray because they hadn't made any sort of real preparation to fight a war. Some would say that means Israel wasn't existentially threatened in 1948. Certainly, you can argue in response to that argument that the fact that the entire Arab war strategy was incompetent and poorly planned doesn't negate the fact that the Arab states had made a conscious rejection of Israel's existence, and that the only real way of accomplishing that goal would have to be through mass slaughter, but that may be going too far into the realm of POV. Frankly, I know what my own views on this subject are, but I'm trying not to let them filter in. Mattm1138 22:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Efraim Karsh

Efraim Karsh is director of the Mediterranean Studies Programme at King's College, University of London, and editor of the quarterly journal Israel Affairs.

His important article about Morris: [26]

Zeq 10:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

An important article on the subject

http://www.meforum.org/article/466 Zeq 12:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Dayan quotation

I removed the famous Dayan quotation:

We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs, and we are building a Hebrew, Jewish state. In a considerable portion of localities we purchased the land from the Arabs. Instead of Arab villages Jewish villages were established. You even do not know the name of the villages and I do not blame you, because those geography books no longer exist. Not only the books, but the villages no longer exist. Nahalal was established in the place of Mahalul, Gevat in the place of Jibta, Sarid in the place of Hanifas and Kefar Yehoshu'a in the place of Tel Shaham. There is not a single settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab village. (Dayan, March 19, 1969; as quoted in Haaretz, April 4, 1969)

The problem is that it is out of place for a reason hardly anyone realises (and I did not realise until now). All of the examples he gives are of moshavim established in the 1920s, not of settlements formed in place of Arab villages abandoned in 1948. In each case the land was purchased, and in each case some eviction of Arab tenants was involved. This is relevant to the history of Palestine, but not particularly relevant to the topic of this page. Dayan was certainly not admitting (at least in these sentences) anything about what happened in 1948. --Zero 13:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Not just arab leaders

Arab soldiers appeared in the village one day in late 1947 with dire news. "They asked people in Salameh to leave, because a war was going to happen there," he said. "They said, 'Go for a week, or a month -- then come back.' "So they left. And when they tried to come back, the Jews prevented them, " Saleh said he was told. "So they stayed in the West Bank, and the United Nations built Balata refugee camp."

Zeq 17:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC) source? Rudy Wagner 10:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/28/MNGNTDURFV1.DTL&hw=stannard+gaza+refugee&sn=006&sc=240

Anon edits ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_exodus&diff=40764219&oldid=40763982 - Is this the new Wikipedia style ? Zeq 09:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

NEutrality and factual accuracy disputed???

The last comment made on this page is dated to Feb.27, while today is May 8. For almost 9 days, no serious effort has been made to resolve the issues.

I propose removing the red tag of disputed neutrality and factual accuracy from this article.

If there is more to be discussed, then lets start discussing, and remove this tag ASAP.

Bless sins 12:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I am also proposing to change the subsection title "What generated the Palestinian exodus" to "Causes of the Palestinian exodus" or "Reason behind the Palestinian exodus". Bless sins 12:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, have you read the discussion above? I have suggested a rewrite of the article and most people around here agreed. However, I am waiting for more voices (and till I have a little time...) to make the changes. Rudy Wagner 09:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There is indeed a consensus that the article must be rewritten along the lines discussed above. It is moving slowly in that direction, but much more work still needs to be done. Pecher Talk 15:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Misrepresnting Benny Morris

This [27] is clearly wrong as Morris has saidd the exact opposite:

"Benny Morris, in particular, disagrees with the "Master Plan"/"Transfer Theory" ideas. He writes: My feeling is that the transfer thinking and near-consensus that emerged in the 1930s and early 1940s was not tantamount to pre-planning and did not issue in the production of a policy or master-plan of expulsion; the Yishuv and its miltary forces did not enter the 1948 War, which was initiated by the Arab side, with a policy or plan for expulsion. (Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, p. 60) "

Clearly this quote deserve to be in the article. Zeq 10:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand *what* is wrong. Nothing in the article says tha Morris accepts the "master Plan" Theoty. Rudy Wagner 10:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The quote is about Transfer. Zeq 10:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

And the quotation has been in the article throughout the time you've complained about it not being there. --Ian Pitchford 10:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Zeq, I sympathise with your feeling that Morris's opinion was not being accurately presented in the article, so I not only checked that the quote you wanted was present but I added the next few sentences as well. Say "toda". --Zero 13:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Morris's opinion on Khalidi's theories was presented absolutely adequately. The rest of the quote, which has recently been added serves only to once reiterate Morris's transfer principle theory. However, that's clearly excessive: Morris is already given more than sufficient airtime in the "Transfer principle" section; discussing the transfer principle again in a different section amounts to pro-Morris propaganda. Pecher Talk 18:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Pecher... After pro palestinian and pro israelian propaganda we now have to face pro historian propaganda !!! We will never succeed in writing something decent :-(((((. I officially complain about the fact that neither Pappé nor Laurens theory is developed in the article ! They are most famous French historians on the topic !!! Christophe Greffe 19:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Causes of palestinian exodus

Unless I am wrong, there is few controversy on waves 1 , 3 and 4. Only phase 2 is mostly debated by historians.

Therefore, I would suggest that the reshaping would not have a paragraph explaining the "causes" of the palestinien exodus (as if there was just one) but that the causes of each wave would be introduced separately.

Each wave events should be introduced in details (as Ian did for 1st one recently) and in each phase, historians's mind (or silence...) given.

Any mind about that ?

Christophe Greffe 10:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to it. Pecher Talk 15:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

These sections need to be expanded, but we would need to be careful not to confuse alternative meanings of the word "cause" - what in evolutinary biology we refer to as the "proximate cause" and the "ultimate cause". It could be that there were different reasons for the exodus during each wave, but that the cause of the exodus was the same throughout, e.g., "transfer thinking", "expulsion master plan" or "civil strife". Our structure shouldn't constitute an implicit endorsement of one explanation of an issue that's disputed. --Ian Pitchford 15:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, and that's another argument for putting only consensus material into the "History" section, while presenting disputes between historians in a separate section. Pecher Talk 18:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes Ian, you are right about the structure. And I agree with Pecher (but said before) that only facts should be in the history section. But, refering to Pappé (in French) I see that even Khalidi does'nt claim that all waves were due to "master plan". Concerning 4 waves, personally, even in the so-called israeli historiography, I didn't find denial of expulsions occuring after october. Only silence. Concerning Lydda, I found that official version whether kept silence, whether... admitted the expulsions but excused them. I think this deserves to be deepened (confirmed) and if correct written. (all this needs quotes, no problem of course about this !).
What would be the appropriate structure for this ? At least, I think the word cause must be removed... Maybe what influenced the palestinian exodus. They are different way to introduce this and the most neutral must be found. Another way would be to introduced the "reasons" or "influences" historian by historian (that is not a proposal, just an idea to think about) :
  • history
  • each historian's mind (without controverse)
  • controversed and discussions

Christophe Greffe 19:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


Removal of NPOV material; is this acceptable?

I find that Zero0000 removed the following material from the discussion of Israeli offers to resettle the refugees:

"Israeli offers to relocate the refugees were spurned" (Palmer, R.R. and Colton, Joel. 1971. A History of the Modern World, 4th ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, p. 957)

Colton and Palmer is a well-recognized history textbook and a NPOV source. Zero0000 (Talk | contribs) explains his/her reasoning for removing this insertion as, "There was no "Israeli offer to relocate the refugees"." I do not think Zero0000's say-so overrides a recognized history textbook and I have reinserted the material. User:Bill Levinson 17:30 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Zero did and he was right because it was not the appropriate place for them. I put them back in the article at their right place.
Here's Morris on the issue: 'The decision in principle, not to allow a return, taken in Tel Aviv in summer 1948, hardened into an iron resolve during the following months.' (p. 550); Moshe Shertok told Acheson in Washington on 22 March, 1949: 'it was out of the question to consider the repatriation of any substantial numbers of the refugees' (p. 553); 'Yadin and, implicitly, Ben-Gurion rejected compromise on repatriation.' Yadin's opinion was that "The refugee problem is no concern of the Land (sic) of Israel... We must say openly: If they [i.e., the Arabs] want war - let them continue pressing us on the refugee problem." (p. 556); 'Israel formally informed the PCC of its readiness to take back "100,000" refugees on 3 August making it conditional on 'retaining all present territory' and on the freedom to resettle the returnees where it saw fit.' (p. 577). --- It would be better to rely on contemporary scholarly works rather than old textbooks. --Ian Pitchford 18:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC).
Ian. This is what they claim... Point. Unless this sentence is out context and betrays their mind, it must be there. I don't know those guys but until someone checks, it cannot be deleted. Christophe Greffe 20:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand Christophe. You think a false statement made in an obscure textbook 35 years ago has to be included in an encyclopedia? --Ian Pitchford 22:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

When sources disagree on a fact and one source is more detailed and clearly more authoritive, we go with the detailed and authoritative one. I believe that is a reasonable interprettation of Wikipedia guidelines on sources. Also, I repeat that the sentence "Israeli offers to relocate the refugees were spurned" by itself makes no sense. I can't understand what it is saying. Where did Israel offer to relocate the refugees to? What does "relocate" mean? --Zero 00:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ian Pitchford; your statement that the material in a recognized textbook is "false" is merely your say-so; it is not NPOV, it is not referenced as required by Wikipedia and must therefore be regarded as your original research, and it carries no more weight than a statement by anyone on the street. Zero, the book was not more specific (I was sort of interested in this myself); that is in fact all it had to say on the subject. I have reinserted the material with elaboration from another source, as prompted by your feedback.

"Israeli offers to relocate the refugees were spurned" (Palmer, R.R. and Colton, Joel. 1971. A History of the Modern World, 4th ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, p. 957). This reference provides no additional detail but this reference [28] elaborates, "As a goodwill gesture during the Lausanne negotiations in 1949, Israel offered to take back 100,000 Palestinian refugees prior to any discussion of the refugee question. The Arab states, who had refused even to negotiate face-to-face with the Israelis, turned down the offer because it implicitly recognized Israel's existence. (Nadav Safran, Israel: The Embattled Ally, Harvard University Press, p 336)" Hopefully this will clear up the ambiguity. User:Bill Levinson 0:50 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The references to Morris' book are given above Bill. --Ian Pitchford 15:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved the entire discussion of Laussane to the appropriate place in the page (rather than the introduction), and shortened it. I also removed a statement saying that it was proper of Arab states not to accept Israel's offer, because this statement was both unverified (actually unverifiable, as it goes to matters of ethics) and POV, and removed this passage which seem to be OR:

However the October 1950 Progress Report of the UNCCP (referred to above in footnote 1) makes it clear that this Israeli resettlement offer was made with preconditions not found in General Assembly Resolution 194, which calls for the refugees to be allowed to return to their former homes, not to be resettled in other areas designated by the Israelis. In addition, Resolution 194 - which, besides enshrining the Palestinian right of return, also provided for the establishment of the UNCCP - did not require face-to-face talks. The Arab delegations were uwilling to meet the conditions demanded by Israel for direct negotiation, and they preferred that the UNCCP continue to act as the intermediary. The Arab delegations can not be blamed for sticking to the terms of reference provided by the Lausanne Protocol and 194, to which all parties involved had agreed.

Rudy Wagner 08:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any objection. Perfect. Christophe Greffe 11:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Rudy, you've added a claim to the article sourced to this lobby group: CAMERA. It's essential that we rely on good quality sources in Wikipedia generally and in this article in particular. Also, if Safran is genuinely the source the link is not only superfluous but detracts from the credibility of the claim. Would you agree to remove the link? --Ian Pitchford 15:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The Safran quote is accurate (I read it in the original). I see no problem in removing the link and leaving the quote. Rudy Wagner 10:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I am the person who made the March 9 changes regarding the Lausanne talks. I apologize for doing so without discussion or even a 'by your leave'. It was my first attempt to edit a Wikipedia item. But I do stand by the changes I made. The article as it is does not attempt to put the Lausanne Peace talks within their own context. Professor Safran's spin on what occurred at Lausanne should not be included unless what he is spinning is first put forth withinin its own terms of reference. Resolution 194 of Dec 11, 1948 created the UNCCP and authorized it to mediate negotiations on the territorial and refugee issues which arose from the 1948 war, leading to a comprehensive peace settlement among all parties. The parameters of a fair settlement on territory was provided by the map of the Resolution 181 partition boundaries which was attached to the Lausanne Protocol (which can be found in footnote 1, the October 1950 UNCCP Progress Report). On refugees Res 194's right of return was clearly cited by the Protocol as the template for a just solution. Those were the terms of reference that everyone agreed to beforehand. All of the negotiators, including Israel's Walter Eytan, signed the Protocol the same day that Israel was narrowly voted into the General Assembly by Res 273. That Resolution is the only membership resolution which contains a conditional clause referring to previous Resolutions, viz, 181 and 194. If word of Israel's promise to negotiate on that basis had not reached New York, she would have certainly failed to gain membership. President Truman's angry May 29, 1949 telex to Ben-Gurion is yet another clear indication that the Israelis were reneging on commitments previously made to reach a comprehensive peace agreement. Ilan Pappe has studied these matters and, in contrast to Safran, reached correct conclusions, I gather. My information is based primarily on the account of Hazem Zaki Nuseibeh, a Palestinian negotiator who wrote "Palestine and the United Nations". Your truly, Tertium Quid

Mr. Quid: *quote* your sources. If your information is based on Pappe and Nuseibeh, quote their work, or at least add 'according to Pappe', or 'Pappe disagrees and claims that...'. Rudy Wagner 10:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

History section - 4th stage

In this section appear the following statements:

It was clear to the villages in the Galilee, that if they left, return was far from imminent. Therefore far fewer villages were spontaneously depopulated than previously. Most of it was due to a clear, direct cause: expulsion and deliberate harassment, as Morris writes 'commanders were clearly bent on driving out the population in the area they were conquering' (2003, p. 490).

Now these are some strong section in what is supposed to be a 'just-the-facts' section, and their source - this short quote from Morris - hardly supports trhe conclusions. I beleive it should be reworded or verified more strongly. Rudy Wagner 09:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

agreed.

Stages or waves ?

Wouldn't it be more neutral to talk about waves than stages ? In French, we are clearly talking about different stages in a conflict or an operation and waves of refugees... Talking about stages would mean there is some sort of progression... Christophe Greffe 11:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "stages". "Waves" is more colorful but I think we should prefer dry language. --Zero 02:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Current issues

I've been asked to mediate at this page, but am unable to see what the current issues are. Are there any? Jayjg (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jay,

I suggest we start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Palestinian_exodus/Archive1#Proposed_rewrite.2C_2003

This was written nearly 3 years ago and still, the article is not NPOV on this simple introduction.

This article gives unbalanced wiight to the Pro-Palestinian view, the word Nakba itself is not NPOV.

The work of benny Morris is presented (and misrepresented) in this article widely, while others, such as Gelber, Karsh, Bard are almost absent.

Let us examine the issue of "transfer":

The word has different meaning in the 1930 (such as when it was used in the peel comission report of 1937) and in the 1948. (btw, today in israeli-Palestinian politics it is taking a whole new meaning)

Instead of moving the discussions of the transfer issues to: Population_transfer#Middle_East and explaining the different meanings of the word (in the 30s: excchange of population proposed by Peel, In the late 40s: an orgenized expulsion) the word is used in various unrelvent quotes here in this article .

The confusion abouty the word "transfer" (the mis-use I should say) is discussed by Karsh in Ch.2 of "The new historians, fabrication of the Israeli History" .

Other issues such as the definition of "Refugee" used by UNRWA - a definition different from any other UN organization - should be mentioned. Specifically:

  • That anyone who came to Palestine even 2 (two) years before 1948 is considered "refugee from Palestine" (other UN org use a much higher number of years to detrmine the origin of a person residence)
  • That UNRWA has prepetraited the condition and the number of Refugees (3rd generations) have increase instead of decrease.

On top of that this article present the facts in a one sided way, in-correct "facts" and more.

My suggestion is to simply re-write this article. from scratch. This article is at the core of the Palestinian Israeli dispute. This fact should be clear to any reader without engaging in any attempt to favor one view on the other (as it is now)


Thank You, Zeq 20:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Zeq, I can't understand what you're saying here. Can you point to a specific sentence or paragraph, and explain what it wrong with it and how it should be re-written? Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Jay, it is not a line here a line there issue. The article is so poorly and one sided it need to be re-writen.

for start Suggestion of an outline: (from 2003 ! talk page):

  • short abstract what happened (carefully worded)
  • a little bit of historical details about the war 1948 with the different flight and expulsion movements (If I trust Morris there happened both: spontaneous flight and direct expulsion)
  • what happened after the war, confiscation of the property, conference of Lausanne, right of return, UN-resolutions, creation of UNRWA etc.
  • at the end of the article a resumee of the ongoing debate:
    • Israeli view: flight encouraged by Arab leadership and surrounding Arab countries, mention of "New historians".
    • Arab view: systematic expulsion
    • Arab demand: granting of right of return
    • Israeli fear of the demographic consequences for Israel as a Jewish state
  • second refugee wave 1967...

And as a basis for rewriting the article, I think we should adopt a view that it is totally normal human behaviour for civilians to move out of an area in a war. This is directed against extremist views and arguments on both sides "total systematic expulsion" vs. "but they left on their own free will!" which I consider both as rubbish and which should be clearly marked as views. In history there is no "one single truth". by --Elian quoted by Zeq 21:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

PS. I will add more issues later. some are discussed in my previous message and in past talk pages.

Why not create a sub-page and work on the new version in there? Jayjg (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jayjg. I didn't examine the article thoroughly, but one good place to start would be the quoataion of the "prominent Palestinian scholar and activist Hanan Ashrawi" who described Palestinians as
...a nation in captivity held hostage to an ongoing Nakba [catastrophe], as the most intricate and pervasive expression of persistent colonialism, apartheid, racism, and victimization. More than half a century ago [53 years], the Palestinians as a people were slated for national obliteration, cast outside the course of history, their identity denied, and their very human cultural and historical reality suppressed. We became victims of the myth of a land without a people for people without a land whereby the West sought to assuage its guilt over its horrendous anti-Semitism by the total victimization of a whole nation.
This is an emotion-laden appeal, presented to influence, not to inform. I do not see how this belongs in an encyclopedia. -- Heptor talk 22:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is in a section headed "The Nakba and its role in the Palestinian narrative" and is identified clearly as Ashrawi's opinion. It would be odd if the article did not have a Palestinian viewpoint. --Ian Pitchford 22:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Ian, and I'll also add that opinion similar to this is very common among Palestinians. Deleting it would be an example of the process of exclusion that Ashwari describes. --Zero 02:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, it seems quite odd that it would be the first section in the article, rather than one of the last. One should really describe the events first, before giving psychological analyses or long POV quotations from activists. Jayjg (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that (except if the quotation is to illustrate a particular point of the historical narrative). --Zero
That sounds sensible all right. Palmiro | Talk 11:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
It is better to move it to the end, yes, but I still don't see why an encyclopedia should contain emotional appeals of any kind. Look at the Rwandan Genocide, or Holocaust for that matter. Those were disasters on an entirely different scale than the Palestinian Exodus. Still, both articles are limiting themselves to presentation of facts, without coloring them in emotion. -- Heptor talk 14:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the Holocaust article has a whole section on "impact on culture". Palmiro | Talk 14:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Holocaust had an impact on culture, hence the section... As far as I see this section is quite descriptive, the most emotional part would be ´German philopsopher Theodor Adorno famously commented that "writing poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric".´ Still, it is not as emotional as the appeal of Hanan Ashrawi. I don't think it would be difficult to find much more emotional appeals, both about Rwandan Genocide and Holocaust. (by Heptor)
Moving it to the end is fine. The Karmi/Ashrawi quotes were initially added by Zeq when he expanded the title to include the words "and its role in the Palestinian narrative". The Ashrawi quote was ridiculously out-of-context so I had to expand it for the proper context. I think Zeq's adding something about the narrative was a good idea (would be useful in other disaster article also, I believe), but that's just my opinion. Ramallite (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, this, for all that it's emotional, is indeed about the impact of the Nakba on Palestinian culture, is it not? It may be a fairly emotional evocation of it, but the important thing is that it testifies to the importance of the Nakba on Palestinian culture. I'm quite prepared to accept that there may be other ways of doing this, seeing as this is an encylopedia and we should be seeking to banish emotional quotes, lively narrative, straightforward descriptions of things, vivid writing, etc... Palmiro | Talk 22:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Th issue is to include this quote as part of the role Nakba has on the palestnian natartive but all we need for that is a small part: " a nation in captivity held hostage to an ongoing Nakba [catastrophe] " shows the effect it has to this day.

BTW - was it you who told me(again and again:-) not to just bring quotes from other web sites......:-)

Zeq 14:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to lifting large chunks of online articles and inserting them unsourced into Wikipedia articles, not taking a quotation (and citing it as a direct quotation) !! ;) Ramallite (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I have to disagree with Ramallite here. We should keep emotions out of articles as much as possible. Emotional appeals simply do not belong in an encyclopedia. -- Heptor talk 17:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not really an appeal is it? It's a Palestinian perspective in a section dealing with that perspective. Without it the article is pretty much a summary of some of the debate between different Israeli historians about how they want to describe and explain the exodus. --Ian Pitchford 18:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not it's palestinian perspective is immaterial, because it is factually incorrect. If it were listed as an example of commonplace Palestinian propaganda on the events, sure, but presenting it as factual (the current problem) is wrong. BlatherAndBlatherscite 20:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Although I don't really have as much of a problem with emotions in articles about tragedies, or rather descriptions of narratives, I'm not saying that Hanan's quote has to stay no matter what. I'm saying two things: First, although a section on 'Nakba in the Palestinian narrative' wasn't my idea, I think it's a good addition, but I'm not married to the contents as they stand right now (not that I'm against them either) if anybody has ways to make the section better, and two, if Hanan's quotation stays, "" a nation in captivity held hostage to an ongoing Nakba" alone is unacceptable. It makes no sense on its own, has no context, and no point. As for its being 'factually incorrect', that's a point of view: she's saying "Palestinians as a people" and "national identity", not an actual obliteration of souls (genocide) as far as I understand it. This is very much in tune with the Palestinian perspective to this day. Ramallite (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If I may word it more ambiogously, I ask two potentially separate questions:

  • Is this quotation Hanan Ashrawi a pathos argument, rather than factual information?
  • Should Wikipedia allow such pathos arguments?

I believe the answers should be yes, and no. It is indeed interesting that the article relies so much on Israeli sources, more specifically on left-wing Israeli sources. But that I believe is an entirely different issue. As to BlatherAndBlatherscite comment, I really just don't see this statement containing any facts at all, incorrect or otherwise. -- Heptor talk 21:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

BlatherAndBlatherscite is talking about "factual repairs" while at the same time bringing in camera.org as a source for these facts - so I personally (and publicly) am not encouraged by his/her edits. Back to your argument: It may indeed be a pathos argument, but it is in a section entitled "the Palestinian narrative" and these words are actually pretty benign compared to other narratives regarding the Nakba by Palestinian refugees (whom Hanan is not one of), politicians, poets, musicians, etc. So such statements are not objectionable to me in a section that has the word "narrative" in the title. Now if you are arguing for the removal of the section altogether, that's a separate topic. As for facts, I think most Palestinians will recall massive efforts to erase any acknowledgment of the word "Palestine" and even "Palestinians" by early Israeli leaders, most famously Golda Meir and also Yitzhak Shamir and others, on if they believed the Palestinian identity actually existed or ought to exist. Bibi's book actually talks about giving 'the inhabitants of Judea and Samaria' civil rights while absolutely denying them sovereign rights in a final solution. You'd be hard pressed to find any Palestinian who believes that Israel did not attempt to deny or abolish the Palestinian identity or Palestinian nationhood. But now I think we are off topic. Ramallite (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I do have to point out that you got slightly off topic... I don't have any comments about rest of the section as a Wikipedian, even though I think Dr. Ghada Karmi's formulation does not hold logically: I have heard many bad things about conditions in Ramallah and rest of the other occupied territories, but it is hardly compareble to Auswitz (safer showers, among other things). But, the fact that few records of the Palestinian exodus exist in English as compared to the Holocaust is relevant. -- Heptor talk 22:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
She is not trying to draw equivalence between the Holocaust and the Nakba, if that's what you mean. At least, I don't see it that way and see no reason anybody should. Ramallite (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, this would be in the eye of the beholder, if the beholder wishes to move even further off topic :) This whole section is totally off topic now, so I just as well start a new one. -- Heptor talk 23:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I guess it just isn't about beauty any more, huh? Ramallite (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Nope, not after being exposed to the picture of zero's feet a few times :( -- Heptor talk 23:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If this is really his feet he has a condition in his legs that require surgery. Who ever feet it is should urgently see a doctor. Zeq 04:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Zeq, I'm already spoken for. --Zero 09:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
You are not speaking about the last post by Ramallite, I hope? -- Heptor talk 11:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
That's our secret. (Btw, I should know better than to use dated idioms in forums where English skills are mixed. Anyone who doesn't have a clue what all this means can see definition (2) of "spoken for" at [29].) --Zero 12:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I understand now, thanks for the link. I am sure many people have been disappointed. -- Heptor talk 12:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

New Section

Hope this one stays on topic. So the issue is:

Should the following quotation of the "prominent Palestinian scholar and activist Hanan Ashrawi" stay in the article? He described Palestinians as

...a nation in captivity held hostage to an ongoing Nakba [catastrophe], as the most intricate and pervasive expression of persistent colonialism, apartheid, racism, and victimization. More than half a century ago [53 years], the Palestinians as a people were slated for national obliteration, cast outside the course of history, their identity denied, and their very human cultural and historical reality suppressed. We became victims of the myth of a land without a people for people without a land whereby the West sought to assuage its guilt over its horrendous anti-Semitism by the total victimization of a whole nation.

I understand the question is two-fold:

  • Is this a pathos argument, rather than factual information?
  • Should Wikipedia as an encyclopedia allow pathos arguments?

Heptor talk 23:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It isn't bring presented as being historically factual, it is being presented as a representation of what Palestinians think. I'd prefer something sounding a little less like a public speech, but it will do until we find something better. Maybe Ashwari's writings contain something suitable. --Zero 09:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If it were presented as historical fact, we would have deleted it at once without any discussion.

I don't say this is presented in dishonest way, but this is an emotional presentation never the less; it just has no place in an encyclopedia. What do you think, how much effort it would take to find a quotation like this, and add it to the Israeli West Bank barrier:

"Palestinian Terrorism, as a pervasive form of cold-blooded murder of innoscent people, turned Israel into a nation in fear, a nation where taking the bus to school is a question of survival, a nation desperate to find a way out of the situation, many times even trying to negotiate with the very men who uncompromisingly seek its destruction, and of course rejected in every attempt to bring forward a reasonable solution. What choice does this nation have than to build a fence as the last and only barrier it now has against the terrorists?"

Would it matter if I could attribute this to some Israeli writer or historian and place it in a relevant section? I think not; and the reason is exacly the same as for the Hanan Ashrawi. Or is this kind of material now acceptable? -- Heptor talk 20:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm really itching to respond to this but I'll be off topic again. Sufficed to say that if such a quote existed and was inserted into the IWBB article - as a quotation - it would be fought over to remain as 'sourced material' expressing a point of view of (whoever). I'd bet money on that. I'd probably look for another quote to balance it, but wouldn't argue to remove it as long as the person saying it is notable enough (which rules out my uncle Jebediah bin Salamyahu). Ramallite (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually let's step back a bit - does anybody object to a section on the 'Nakba in the Palestinian Narrative' in and of itself? What sort of material would and would not be suitable in such a section? Should it be a separate article? It seems that any such section would by definition include examples, such as literature, poetry, speeches, cartoons, or what ever. So I don't know where to go with this - should this section stay in this article? Zeq added it for apparently different motives, (I believe he was trying to express a POV that the Palestinians dwell on this too much and continue to complain of being victims, or something of the sort, but that POV by itself would not be neutral or sourced, actually) so where do we go from here? Ramallite (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I actually both hope and and expect you'd loose that money. There is one short quotation that I found quite emotional, in the "Israeli Opinion" section as a quotation of Israeli Cabinet Minister for Jerusalem: ´the barrier "was born, first and foremost, to prevent them from continuing to murder us"´. Still, it is only one sentence, and is a part of an argument. Or do you disagree that it is highly probable that some right-wing Israeli politician or historian ever said something similar to the example I gave?
I don't think anybody here objects existence of the section, or what kind of information it should contain. The problem with the quotation is that it is too emotional. But I do tend to agree that including only the beginning, "...a nation in captivity held hostage to an ongoing Nakba [catastrophe]", does not provide enough context. Moshe suggests a good solution for the problem. Either writing on Palestinian Exodus, or, say, Coastal Road massacre, an encyclopedia should focus on describing the situation, with as little emotional appeal as possible. -- Heptor talk 23:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I hope you and others realize that when I asked "Does anybody object to a section on the 'Nakba in the Palestinian Narrative' in and of itself? What sort of material would and would not be suitable in such a section? Should it be a separate article?", I was honestly asking for opinions and not being rhetorical (I think it was understood as such but I just want to make sure). So given what you wrote above (you don't object to the section existing, just to emotional content), I have to ask again what sort of material would be in such a section if not examples of narrative? Understand that I am not necessarily arguing that Hanan's quote should remain, I wouldn't mind removing it if we can come up with an alternative. BUT - alternative 'narrative' examples will not necessarily be any less emotional, which again begs the question whether this section should exist in the first place. A real cache-22 perhaps! Can you or anyone else suggest how a section like this can exist without examples? Or is it simply finding the least emotional (and then perhaps the least representative) examples possible? Maybe this is all my background that is biasing me, because I honestly can't think of any narrative about the Nakba that isn't emotional - and now I have songs in my head that will stay there until the morning... damn. Ramallite (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I had to take break for a couple of days due to a deadline, pardon the delay. I presented the quotation with some more context, while also shortening it[[30]]. I hope I took enough of the quoation so that it can not be understood as an attempt to "express a POV". I still think an example from litterature, and not from a controversial conference, would still be even better, do you agree? Hope you wouldn't loose any more sleep over this...
I have urgent deadlines of my own to lose sleep over, so this is the least of my worries (and I was only talking about persistent songs in my head, not losing sleep) :) Anyway, the quote looks okay, and when I have more time I'll see if there is anything in the literature that's suitable. Thanks. Ramallite (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Heptor talk 14:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Heptor does have a point; quotations from people who lived at the time regarding the historical sequence of events, or quotations from historians on the same topic, are obviously relevant. However, modern quotations from activists which do not described the events in question, but rather emotional reactions to them, seem out of place in an encyclopedia article. Jayjg (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The Nakba remains the key event in Palestinian historical awareness and Palestinian society would be totally different without it. This is an important subject which numerous articles and books have been written about. It wouldn't hurt us to have a short section on that topic too, and good way to do that would be quote a Palestinian expressing feelings representative of how Palestinians as a group feel. The historical accuracy of the quotation is irrelevant. Ashwari's statement is not a bad choice until we find better. --Zero 23:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it is necessary to show some kind of statement illustrating the Palestinian POV, as a POV it is obvious that the statement will consist mostly of opinions, however instead of having a lengthy argument consisted soley of one writer's opinions of the entire conflict, we could just mention several factual events and show the reaction of the Palestinian Populace to each one, and hopefully end up presenting a picture of the feelings of the population without showing the bias emotional appeal that currently is in question.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Factual repair

I have made some small factual repairs to the mention of the Lausanne Conference, which had an incredibly biased structure that omitted relevant facts, as well as removing the unnecessary quotation that was nothing but emotional appeal. Please discuss these on the talkpage before reverting.

Your information is complete wrong, especially "Israel proposed allowing all Palestinian "refugees" who had left areas which Israel had taken over to return." This is out by a factor of 7 or 8. --Zero 07:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
You are completely misinformed. BlatherAndBlatherscite 20:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually Zero is not completely misinformed, and he isn't even partially misinformed - he is probably more informed than most of us on these matters. There is already a discussion going on above regarding the Ashrawi quotation, and it is not good faith editing to just remove it outright during a discussion and then come here and say "discuss before reverting". First you discuss, reach an agreement, then edit the article. I'm restoring it until this happens. Ramallite (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
It should be very clear that all but the first words of this quote have no encyclopedia value. Surly, as an informed person Zero knows that. He would describe it as "polemic not encyclopedic" Zeq 21:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Zeq, as I wrote above, the first few words, by themselves, make no sense, have no context, and make no point. It's not even POV - it's non-sensical. It's like saying "The people of Israel, who have suffered" by itself. Just like that. Nothing else. It needs context especially since it is in a section entitled 'narrative' Ramallite (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
BlatherAndBlatherscite, stop puting that totally false claim about the Laussanne conference into the article (and into Laussanne Conference, 1949). And stop telling people to discuss it first when you have provided no sources and no discussion. You can pick up any real history book that covers this topic and find that your "fact" is not a fact at all. If Israel re-admitted all the refugees that had fled the region controlled by Israel at the time of the conference, Arabs would have become the majority population in Israel. How many Zionists would have liked that, do you think? --Zero 22:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong, Zero. The offer included all "Palestinians" who would have needed to come back inside the 1949 borders of Israel. The fact that the arab states called "Refugees" those people whose land THEY swallowed up is relevant. BlatherAndBlatherscite 23:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, but nevertheless, do you have anything to back up your claim that 'all' refugees were offered repatriation? Ramallite (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Try reading the actual documents of the conference rather than Zero's biased distortions. BlatherAndBlatherscite 23:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you point me to a URL then? Ramallite (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

BlatherAndBlatherscite is a troll, and not not even a very clever one. Anyone here disagree? --Zero 08:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

While I did not follow the debate and have absolutly no opinion about this user's behavior, I ask you to refrain from making personal attacks; this is still against the Wikipedia policy. -- Heptor talk 21:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

BlatherAndBlatherscite, if you have any evidence for your claims, please bring them forward, rather than make vague unsourced claims. Zero0000, personal attacks don't help. Jayjg (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy for trolls: they die. If Blathers continues behaving the same way (not only here but in other parts of W/P too) I intend to take the necessary action to prevent it. My question here was to give other people (such as yourself) the opportunity to argue that Blathers is not a troll. Maybe I could have expressed it better, but I think that raising the issue before loading the shotgun was reasonable thing to do. Another proof it is a troll is that it filed a compaint about being stalked against three people who had reverted it when there was no evidence of stalking at all. This is classic troll behavior. --Zero 22:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no interest in arguing with you on this, I just really dislike when people are called names on Wikipedia. But by all means, present your argument in orderly fashion and take whatever steps you deem necessary. -- Heptor talk 23:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
PS: I will also note that BlatherAndBlatherscite does not provide any sources for his edits. BlatherAndBlatherscite, please find a credible source for your addition, and then come back. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for what is considered good sourses. -- Heptor talk 23:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's be on-topic

I feel that much words are being written on truly unimportant points - the Laussane Conference and Ashrawis' quote - while more pressing problems are ignored. The most major one is the one I have already pointed out - that the 'theories' section is unnecessarily long and somewhat POV. The 'Transfer Principle' section actually does very little to explain Morris' view, and rather present a full Historical account, much of which is irrelevent in an encyclopedia article devoted to the exodus. I have already suggested shortening it considerably, in a way that was approved by Chris Greffe, but did not do so because I haven't heard agreement or disagreement from others. Another idea, suggested by Greffe, was to re-organize the article according to the stages of flight, and to include the discussion of 'proximate cause' (i. e. - ran away or expelled) in the discussion of each stage, thus showing where consensus exists and where it doesn't. This leaves the 'theories' section to discuss various 'ultimate cause' theories. Rudy Wagner 11:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The best solution would be to delete the section on "two-stage theory" It has needlessly long quotations, is sourced to web pages rather than Gelber's book and doesn't add anything new. It could be summarised as "Gelber argues in his "two-stage theory" that Palestinians fled during the civil war because of the disintegration of their weak and backward society and that from the outbreak of war with the Arab states they fled because of the military success of the Israeli army and the failure of the Arab forces to protect them." --Ian Pitchford 19:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the idea of re-organizing it the way suggested by Greffe is quite reasonable, and will be helpful to the reader. Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I have proposed this idea before and see no reason not to support it again. Sections on history must be substantially expanded, while sections on "theories" must be reduced to 1-2 paragraphs per theory. Pecher Talk 22:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello.
About Gelber
I have just acquired Gelber's book and don't have finished to read this. I will give the references from his book more precisely. I hesitated to summarize his views due my weak qualities as editor in English.
Please note that Gelber doesn't introduce his work as if he had a new "2 stages theory" and I have the feeling theses words "mislead" his thougts. He aslo considers 4 stages. But he rathers says something like : Pappé, Khalidi and palestinian exagerate drastically with the master plan. They take one paragraph out of a 75 (?) pages documents and read this out of his context (the expected attack of neighbouring countries). He also precises that it was written by "soldiers" and not by the "arabists" advisers of BG who should have had the responsability of such a plan.
His theory concerns rather the weakness of Palestinian society rather than a 2 stages new theory.
To prove this he shows day to day events focusing more on the weaknesses of the palestinian society to withstand war and particularly during Yishuv operations at Jerusalem, Haifa, Jaffa, Tiberiade and Safed.
About Gerber, please note this quote from Morris in the "thanks'page" of birth revisited: [31]
About structure
The more I think about this and the more I think the article mislead the historians view about the exodus. As written before, I see mainly controverse around phase 2 (ie 250-300k / 650-750k refugees). For the remaining, it seems to me all historians agree (or at least nobody writes his disagreement on the facts that) : first 100k voluntary fleed. Last 300-350k were chased by Haganah (on oral and later direct orders) (Lydda - Ramle - Galilee campaign - Neguev campaing).
For stage 2 :
  • Pappé (agreeing with Khalidi's mind) says that all was around a master plan
  • Morris says there were many reasons, among which the "transfer principle" (I don't know what he thinks exactly in fact but I haven't the feeling he says this was main reasons. He also talks about the collapse). I am waiting for his revisited book.
  • Gelber says there were many reasons, main being the collapse of Palestinian society (with a day to day report of events) and refuting the alleged call of arab authorities (with a day to day report of their attempt to stop it).
  • XXX (Schetchman ? certainly Karsh) on the contrary focused on these calls, don't they ?
  • I don't know what Shlaim says.

Christophe Greffe 10:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ian - please note that the sections summarizing Morris' view is much longer than Gelber's section, so it stands to reason that we should shorten that one (considerably)along with the Gelber section. Rudy Wagner 16:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
That's true, but we should cover views in proportion to their importance and Morris' book is the most well known scholarly work in the field. --Ian Pitchford 18:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • all this does not belong in this subject:

Zionist Jews strove to create a Jewish state built on Jewish traditions and culture in Palestine, which Jews considered their ancestral homeland and where a Jewish minority had lived for centuries. The demographic reality of Palestine, in which most residents were non-Jewish Arabs, was for them a major obstacle to the establishment of such a state. David Ben-Gurion wrote in 1917:

The realization of Zionism is now on the agenda... History does not wait. Non-Jewish Palestine waited 1800 years without Jews... During the next 20 years we have to create a Jewish majority in the Land of Israel. This is the essence of the new historical situation (Ben-Gurion, Memoirs, vol I, 1971, p. 98, quoted in Beit-Hallahmi, 1993, p. 79).

With characteristic candour Ze'ev Jabotinsky wrote in 1923:

Zionism is a colonizing adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot - or else I am through with playing at colonization... Any native people - it's all the same whether they are civilized or savage - view their country as their national home, of which they will always be the complete masters. They will not voluntarily allow, not only a new master, but even a new partner. And so it is for the Arabs. Compromisers in our midst attempt to convince us that the Arabs are some kind of fools who can be tricked by a softened formulation of our goals, or a tribe of money grubbers who will abandon their birthright to Palestine for cultural and economic gains. I flatly reject this assessment of the Palestinian Arabs (quoted in Beit-Hallahmi, 1993, pp. 103-104).

.... Zeq 10:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

I have moved around some of the images in this article, which were not in the appropriate sections. In my opinion, it is much more natural to have a picture of Khalidi in the section detailing his own theory, than in a section about the theory he opposed. I have left all the information in the article. Rudy Wagner 11:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

what si the stamp with the blood doing here anyhow ? it is a propeganda stamp issued by a goverment on an event that has it's own article not this article. It is time to remove propeganda from this page. Zeq 14:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This stamp should actually be moved to the Dier Yasin page. Rudy Wagner 10:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I think this image is fine for the article and in keeping with practice elsewhere in Wikipedia. Stamps are used quite often in Wikipedia because of the dearth of good non-copyright images. Additionally, historians are pretty much unanimous on the role of the massacre in the exodus. --Ian Pitchford 11:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
This is goverment issued propeganda and has no place to be anywhere in Wikipedia (excpet for the propeganda article. I think this should get to ArbCom. Zeq 13:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
It's a relevant image for a key event in the war. --Ian Pitchford 19:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for "Transfer Principle Theory" section

We have long talked about this section being poorly written, as it is now a telling of an argument - or a story - most of which is not related to Morris' thesis on the cause of the exodus, which is what this section was supposed to be about. I have attempted a re-write of that section, along the following lines:

  1. The section should begin with a clear statement of Morris' theory. The development of the reasoning behind the theory should be written concisely and clearly.
  2. Quotes should be only of Morris or off leaders *quoted by Morris*. Including other quotes is either distracting or OR.
  3. The picture caption should give information on what is in the picture.
  4. the section should conclude in Morris' take on how the reasons he gives effected actual events.
  5. (not done yet) some criticism of Morris should be added.

So I made a first attempt, here. Tell me what you think. Rudy Wagner 10:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


  • In short Rudy, you want this section to include just one POV, which is actually not even what Morris sais. Zeq 13:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Zeq, this section is *about* a theory. It should include only this theory. Other sections should include Gelber's theory (which is btw supported by a few other Israeli historians), Khalidi's theory, and the 'Arab calls' theory. If you think I misrepresented Morris, please enlighten me. Rudy Wagner 18:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
You Can not describe the theory in a sympatic tone. Why don't you ask Jayjg or SlimVirgin ?
You must present those all POV about this theory. So clearly you can not have only Morris POV.
Also you are misrepresnating what Morris's view is. He clearly talked about two things:
  1. There was no pre-planning
  2. There was talk about the transfer idea.
Now only if you can prove that the actual exodus itself "could not have occured" without #2 - only then does this issue have to be in this article. Other wise it has to move to an article about transfer.
Zeq 18:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Back to Shlomo Ben-Ami: the "philosophy of transfer" was an "ideological construct" that provided the "legitimate environment for commanders in the field actively to encourage the eviction of the local population... Ben-Gurion did not have to issue particular orders for expulsion. Rather he established the srategic-ideological framework of the war effort... To Ben-Gurion the war was not just about the physical survival of a small Jewish state, it was about the conquest, the possession and the settlement of the land... The expulsion of the Palestinian Arabs from areas taken over by the Israelis was to the military commanders a natural, perhaps even a compelling, outcome of the drive to conquer and possess the land by military force" (Scars of War, pp. 44-46). --Ian Pitchford 19:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Zeq (and all of you): Please realize that this article doesn't have to *prove* anything. It is only a summary, quoting noted historians. Morris (and others) contend that transferist thinking played a large part in the exodus. This is exactly what we should write (in this section). Not proof or evidence for that, only their theory. Zeq - I don't see how my argument is 'sympathetic' to Morris - I believe it is rather neutral. As for Morris saying there was no master plan, that actually does appear in the article, as his criticism of 'the master plan theory'. Rudy Wagner 13:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

comments by Zero : transfer's theory is not only Morris's theory but many's theory

I think it is quite wrong to put the whole transfer theory on the shoulders of Morris. He didn't originate the idea and he was by no means the only one to write about it. Morris should appear in the section as a major actor but not as the only one. For example, we could quote historian (and former Israeli diplomat) Shlomo Ben-Ami:
The debate about whether or not the mass exodus of Palestinians was the result of a Zionist design or the inevitable concomitant of war should not ignore the ideological constructs that motivated the Zionist enterprise. The philosophy of transfer was not a marginal, esoteric article in the mindset and thinking of the main leaders of the Yishuv. These ideological constructs provided a legitimate environment for commanders in the field actively to encourage the eviction of the local population even when no precise orders to that effect were issued by the political leaders. (Lost name of book just now, maybe Scars of War, p44)
It is also of interest to note that the transfer theory is supported by some in the extreme right (who want to complete the process). One of the most detailed I've seen was written by a rabbi better known as a Baruch Goldstein apologist. This point is not very important; maybe one sentence and a link is enough. --Zero 11:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)   Adding: Actually it is worth reading Rabbi Chaim Simmons' article [32]. It should not be relied on as a source since he is obviously a propagandist, but many of his claims are sourced to places which can be checked without a huge amount of trouble. --Zero 12:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Zero, This is even a better source than Radio Islam. Zeq 13:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I think this can be solved in considering that Morris is indeed the most notorious representative of transfer's theory. We can in another section, criticism indicate who are all the other people who agree with him (Ben-Ami, etc) and what they criticize (Finkelstein, Karsh, ...) Christophe Greffe 12:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

comments by Christophe Greffe : are you sure this is exactly what Morris says ?

1. You work with the idea of developping each author's theory. In that sense, I consider what you write perfect. We could develop each main author theory with at each time, whether a picture of their book or a photo of them.

2. My only concern is : is this really Morris's theory ?

Because he himself summarized his analysis in Righteous and I don't feel like it is exactly the same as the summary you give. It sounds to me he considers there were for him plenty of other reasons and an essential background (the necessity of the transfer)... Maybe I am wrong... This is what I understand from these (long) excerpts of Righteous : [33] Christophe Greffe 12:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chris,
I read the article you quoted, and I think it generally agrees with what I wrote, though I could tweak some things and write "Transferist thinking was an important precondition..." instead of what I wrote.
Look, morris is smart, and in this article he actually gives as reasons arguments by almost everybody else, including Gelber's ideas on the fragility of Palestinian society. However, he groups all those reasons together and than devotes an entire section to transferist ideas as the important precondition to expulsion. According to that, I feel that my interpretation of his theory is fair, but we can change it a bit to make it conform better to this document. Rudy Wagner 18:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your anwer. I agree with you and your summary is good and honnest. My concern is linked with where or how we would add the "other" informations (I discuss this below).
Another concern I have is about understanding what is Morris theory in fact : "tranferist thinking was an important precondition". This reflects Morris'style perfectly because... what does it mean ? I am too matieralist, that is a main bias I have... Christophe Greffe 17:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

A Few Comments

Rudy's is a good, readable summary as far as it goes, but I don't think there's a good reason to exclude the historical context or to present this as Morris' argument even though his is the most notable exposition of it. However, the historical context could be expanded in a separate section to explain that immigration to Palestine didn't meet the Yishuv's targets, that they couldn't meet even the reduced British immigration quotas, that many of those who did move to Palestine eventually left etc, etc. There are plenty of good sources for the statistics and analysis for the background to "transfer thinking" and for the lobbying in favour of transfer. The picture caption is a good summary of the thesis of Morris' book in his own words, i.e., that transfer was inevitable whether there was a plan for it or not, whereas the proposed caption puts forward a view that most of Morris' critics don't accept. As you say "the section should conclude in Morris' take on how the reasons he gives effected actual events", assuming that we are having a separate section for explanation of the critics' arguments. We do need more from critics who think Morris conclusions are too strong, such as Karsh, and those who think his conclusions are too weak such as Ilan Pappé, Baruch Kimmerling, Norman Finkelstein, Shlomo Ben-Ami, Avi Shlaim, Nur Masalha and Laila Parsons. It's clear that contemporary scholarship has finally been acknowledged when a former foreign minister/public security minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami, can write that the Palestinian's were "practically evicted" and that, "The reality on the ground was that of an Arab community in a state of terror facing a ruthless Israeli army whose path to victory was paved not only by its exploits against the regular Arab armies, but also by the intimidation and at times atrocities and massacres it perpetrated against the civilian Arab community. A panic-stricken Arab community was uprooted under the impact of massacres that would be carved into the Arabs' monument of grief and hatred." in a debate with Norman Finkelstein about his new book. --Ian Pitchford 12:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ian writes : However, the historical context could be expanded in a separate section to explain that immigration to Palestine didn't meet the Yishuv's targets, that they couldn't meet even the reduced British immigration quotas, that many of those who did move to Palestine eventually left etc, etc.
It is a little bit POV to develop the historical background in the way that would argue in favour of a given theory rather than another. That is for example the main problem of the article about the war of 1948. To work in the way you suggest, a different article must be written for each theory. And different points in the historical background will be stressed. by each historian. That is feasible but the problem is how to deal this in practice. That will also show that there are different true histories.
About the last quote you give, I hope this is not the point defended by the scholars you quote because there are some problems and that is why the events must be introduced phase by phase. Christophe Greffe 15:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I refer you back to your argument on my talk page that we must "report all relevant information given by all relevant people". --Ian Pitchford 19:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Comments

  1. If the theory is not only Morris', this hould be noted, and possibly a quotation from another scholar added, or a list of scholars supporting the theory.
  2. As Christopher Greffe noted, *there is no reason* to add what Ian calls 'the historical context'. This so-called 'context' is not needed in order to bring across the point of the 'transfer principle' theory (as I have shown in my draft), and definitely not need to explain this event. Maybe it should be referenced in the article, just like the entire war is referenced.
  3. As for the picture caption - if it is a good summary, it should be in the article text; a picture caption should refer to what is *in* the picture.

Rudy Wagner 18:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply

1. I agree.
2. The historical context is needed if the reader is to have some idea of just why transfer thinking was "near-consensus" such that "transfer was inevitable" (Morris, p. 60).
3. We don't need a picture caption explaining a book cover. A summary of the central argument of the book in the author's own words is quite appropriate.
--Ian Pitchford 19:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

2. We are concisely presenting Morris' theory, *not* proving it. Providing evidence and background is Morris' job as a historian; An encyclopedia should only give a reasonable summary of the the theory, which I believe my version did quite well in that. btw, I had not completely removed the historical part of Morris' argument, only shortened and summarized it, in these sentences:
According to Morris, the demographic reality of Palestine, in which most residents were non-Jewish Arabs, had long been a major obstacle to the establishment of a Jewish national state. As the attempt to achieve a demographic shift through aliyah, Jewish immigration to the land of Israel, had not succeeded (due both to higher Arab birth rate and immigration [1] and to restictions by the British Mandate), some Jewish leaders adopted the "transfer" of a large Arab population as the only viable solution. (Morris, 2003, p. 69)
We can add that "transfer was inevitable" quote towards the end of the section, in the part where Morris summarizes the status in 1947, though I would really like to have it expanded, because such a short quote smells of misrepresentation.
3. I feel that the quote is misleading when it comes alone as a picture caption, especially when the quite isn't in the text of the article itself.

Rudy Wagner 13:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Origins

The origin of the "transfer theory" depends on what you think it is. If you just mean the idea that Zionists always had a plan (or at least a preference) for transferring Arabs out of Palestine, then of course that was the expressed fear of the Arabs of Palestine at least since the time of the Balfour Declaration. They didn't have access to the Zionist's private communications, but the fear was based on their analysis of the situation, common sense (the obvious great difficulty of achieving a Jewish majority purely by immigration), and supported by the public utterances and writings of some on the Zionist right. These fears were expressed to the various British enquiries. As far as written history is concerned, there were authors who expressed this opinion from the time of the British mandate until now (I'll try to locate an example or two, this is difficult) but their sources were limited. An important article was "The wordless wish" by Erskine Childers (1971); if I remember correctly it contains a clear statement of the transfer theory. Much changed in the 1980s when British and Israeli archives started to be opened (and also some Zionist archives). Morris did a lot of the seminal archival work, but I'm not sure his prominent perceived connection to the subject is because of that or because of the fame he achieved from the first edition of Birth. --Zero 13:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow. What we are talking about is *not* transferist ideas in zionist policy but rather the explanation of the Palestinian Exodus in terms of this 'transferist thinking'. If you are saying that this idea was not brought up by Morris but by others (Childers and others), I wellcome you to add pertinent information about them to my version (preferably at the beginning, something like 'the idea that transferist ideaology is responsible for the Exodus was first brought up by...' However, since these Historian are much less notable than Morris and his contemporaries, I don't think that much emphasis should be given to them. Rudy Wagner 18:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are we not talking about "transferist ideas in zionist policy"? That's exactly what Morris does in chapter two of his book "The idea of 'transfer' in Zionist thinking before 1948'. --Ian Pitchford 19:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that is *not* the subject of the article. The 1948 war is very relevant to the article, and many books on the subject include details of the war and its origins - but in this article, the war is (rightly) referenced as a link. This is an encyclopedia article about *the exodus* and nothing else; thus, transferist ideas interest us only insofar as their effects on the exodus. Rudy Wagner 13:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rudy. The article talks too much on "transfer thinking", but throws very little, if any, light on whether that "thinking" had any effect on the refugee flight itself. Pecher Talk 14:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


Newest Attempt

I have incorporated some of the suggestions given here into my suggestion, here. Here are the changes I made:

  1. Added statement as to the originators of the theory. Ian - names would be nice.
  2. Added Shlomo Ben Ari quote and mentioned others who support the theory. Zero - We need a better reference.
  3. Added Morris quote on inevitability of transfer to article text, though I still think it'd be better in context.
  4. Added a paragraph detailing what I know on the critics of the theory. A quote would be nice here ( Zeq - can you find one?)
  5. Changed picture caption.

I believe this answers most of the objections, except for Ian's insistence on more 'background', to which I can't agree, especially since even in the historical section we refer the 'background' to other articles. I suggest moving this version into the article itself and starting to improve on it there. Rudy Wagner 14:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Without appropriate background the reader isn't going to have any understanding of where transfer thinking came from or why it came to be the consensus such that people could act on it without explicit orders. As I said, the fact that it's a whole chapter of Morris' book is sufficient justification for a section here. I also think that the sections on the actual events of the war are the ones in most need of attention. However, things like this can always be addressed as the article develops. Wikipedia advises editors to be bold and we probably wont get anywhere waiting for consensus. There's a Karsh quotation on the talk page in this section: Talk:Palestinian exodus#Unprotected. The Ben-Ami reference is Ben-Ami, Shlomo (2005). Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy. Weidenfeld & Nicholson. ISBN 0297848836 (p. 44).--Ian Pitchford 17:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
We can refer to the 1948's war article. People are clever enough to go and read this. They will have äll the background and get more information about the global aspect. A point where I agree with Ian is that some historical background could be added if it was emphasized by the defender of one theory. But to be npov, I think :
  • this cannot be added in the "common" history section of this article because we would orientate the reader
  • only if the author, himself, emphasized this. Else this is personnal research.
Did Morris quoted Ben-Ami ? Christophe Greffe 17:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, there is no reason to stuff anything that can be elated to the subject into the same article. Even more importantly, the article should never present opinions as facts. So, it's inappropriate to present the transfer principle os that the reader would have an "understanding of where transfer thinking came from"; instead, the article should say what Morris and his acolytes say about "transfer thinking" and how they link it to the refugee flight. Pecher Talk 21:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course you're right and it often becomes clearer as an article develops that some material belongs elsewhere. There's not much point in quibbling about this now given that there are big gaps in the history of the exodus itself. With regard to Morris I don't think he has many acolytes, most of the works I've read seem to think his conclusions are just too weak and don't follow from his evidence. In the end all he seems to be saying is that the Palestinians were driven out by a combination of psychological warfare tactics and direct expulsion but that the only pre-planning was "transfer thinking". It boils down to an argument between different historians about what a plan is. --Ian Pitchford 12:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I feel that the almost-consensus here (except for Ian) is that there is no need for a lengthy 'background' section in order to understand the 'transfer theory' section. A possible compromise is to move this 'background' info into a different (existing or non-existing) article and link there. It should also be obvious that: 1. If this info needs to be in the article, it will have to be shortened and 2. It has to go within the 'transfer principle' theory section.
So, being bold, I am putting this version into the article, and will be moving what is now in the article to this talk page, so we can sort through it and check whether any of it needs to go back to the main article. Rudy Wagner 16:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

And here it is. Btw, Ian, I did not use your Karsh quotation because it attacks the 'master plan' theory and not Morris. Rudy Wagner 16:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Text removed from Article

Zionist Jews strove to create a Jewish state built on Jewish traditions and culture in Palestine, which Jews considered their ancestral homeland and where a Jewish minority had lived for centuries. The demographic reality of Palestine, in which most residents were non-Jewish Arabs, was for them a major obstacle to the establishment of such a state. David Ben-Gurion wrote in 1917:

The realization of Zionism is now on the agenda... History does not wait. Non-Jewish Palestine waited 1800 years without Jews... During the next 20 years we have to create a Jewish majority in the Land of Israel. This is the essence of the new historical situation (Ben-Gurion, Memoirs, vol I, 1971, p. 98, quoted in Beit-Hallahmi, 1993, p. 79).

With characteristic candour Ze'ev Jabotinsky wrote in 1923:

Zionism is a colonizing adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot - or else I am through with playing at colonization... Any native people - it's all the same whether they are civilized or savage - view their country as their national home, of which they will always be the complete masters. They will not voluntarily allow, not only a new master, but even a new partner. And so it is for the Arabs. Compromisers in our midst attempt to convince us that the Arabs are some kind of fools who can be tricked by a softened formulation of our goals, or a tribe of money grubbers who will abandon their birthright to Palestine for cultural and economic gains. I flatly reject this assessment of the Palestinian Arabs (quoted in Beit-Hallahmi, 1993, pp. 103-104).

The most important means to achieve a demographic shift was through aliyah, Jewish immigration to the land of Israel. However, the Palestinian Arab population had a much higher birthrate than the Jewish counterpart, as well as some immigration [34]. Even with Jewish immigration, the Arab population greatly outnumbered the Jewish one. It was therefore clear that it would not be possible to bring about a Jewish majority in any part of Palestine, with the exceptions of the Tel Aviv and its environs and Jerusalem (Quigley, 2005, p. 36). Furthermore, Jewish immigration was restricted by both the Ottoman Empire and the British Mandate, and relatively few diaspora Jews actually wished to, or were able to, immigrate to Palestine, most preferring to move to North America (Sternhell, 1999, p. 79).

While a few Palestinian Arabs were amenable to Jewish immigration, most were not ('The Two Worlds of Palestine', New York Times, 16 May, 1948, pp. 10-11) , and incidences of violence between the communities occurred, including the Riots in Palestine of 1929 and the bombing campaigns of the Irgun the decade after. Prior to, during and after World War II, when Jews were desperate to flee the resurgence of European anti-Semitism culminating in the ascension of Nazi Germany and Hitler's "final solution", their attempts to immigrate to Palestine were frustrated by the British mandatory authorities. The Arabs were adamant that the Jews not be permitted establish a state in the region, while the Zionists were determined to do so. The only viable solution, according to the United Nations, seemed to be a partition of Palestine. Yet however the land was partitioned, the part belonging to Jews would probably contain an Arab majority or at least a very large Arab minority. For some of the Zionist leadership, the "transfer" of a large Arab population appeared to be the only solution. (Morris, 2003, p. 69)

In 1937 the Peel Commission placed transfer on the political agenda. The commission recommended that Britain should withdraw from Palestine and that the land be partitioned between Jews and Arabs. It called for a "transfer of land and an exchange of population", including the removal of 250,000 Palestinian Arabs from what would become the Jewish state (Arzt, 1997, p. 19), along the lines of the exchange between the Turkish and Greek populations after the Greco-Turkish War of 1922. This was a huge step forward for the Zionists. David Ben-Gurion did not spare the superlatives when he wrote in his diary:

... and [nothing] greater than this has been done for our case in our time [than Peel proposing transfer]. ... And we did not propose this - the Royal Commission ... did ... and we must grab hold of this conclusion [i.e, recommendation] as we grabbed hold of the Balfour Declaration, even more than that - as we grabbed hold of Zionism itself we must cleave to this conclusion, with all our strength and will and faith (quoted in Morris, 2001, p. 42).

Clearly, the idea of transfer was not, in 1947-1949, a new one. Benny Morris writes "many if not most of Zionism's mainstream leaders expressed at least passing support for the idea of transfer during the movement's first decades. True, as the subject was sensitive they did not often or usually state this in public" (Morris, 2001, p. 41; see Masalha, 1992 for a comprehensive discussion).

Despite the fact that the notion of transfer or population exchange had been proposed by the Peel Commission and that David Ben-Gurion had spoken in favor of it at the plenum of the Zionist Congress, the subject was still very sensitive with respect to the Palestinian Arabs [35]. There were attendees at the Twentieth Zionist Congress in 1937 who opposed it [36], but the final resolutions of the Congress noted the "historic connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine, and its inalienable right to its homeland" and affirmed "that the field in which the Jewish National Home was to be established was understood at the time of the Balfour Declaration to be the whole of the historic Palestine, including Transjordan" ('Zionists And Palestine Decision To-Day, For and Against Partition', The Times, Wednesday, 11 August, 1937; p. 12; Issue 47760; col C).

According to Morris, Ben-Gurion, while in favor of the Peel plan, considered it important that it be publicized as a British plan and not a Zionist plan. At a meeting of the Jewish Agency Executive on 7 May 1944 to consider the British Labour Party Executive's resolution supporting transfer as a solution to the problems of Palestine Ben-Gurion said

When I heard these things ... I had to ponder the matter long and hard ... [but] I reached the conclusion that this matter [had best] remain [in the Labor Party Program] ... Were I asked what should be our program, it would not occur to me to tell them transfer ... because speaking about the matter might harm [us] ... in world opinion, because it might give the impression that there is no room in the Land of Israel without ousting the Arabs [and] ... it would alert and antagonize the Arabs ... (quoted in Morris, 2001, p. 46-47, citing Central Zionist Archives, Jerusalem, S100/42b, protocol of JAE meeting).

At the same meeting Moshe Sharett, director of the Jewish Agency's Political Department, declared:

Transfer could be the crowning achievements, the final stage in the development of [our] policy, but certainly not the point of departure. By [speaking publicly and prematurely] we could mobilizing vast forces against the matter and cause it to fail, in advance. ... What will happen once the Jewish state is established - it is very possible that the result will be the transfer of Arabs (quoted in Morris, 2001, p. 46).

The other members of the JAE Yitzhak Gruenbaum (later Israel's first interior minister), Eliahu Dobkin (director of the immigration department), Eliezer Kaplan (Israel's first finance minister), Dov Joseph (later Israel's justice minister) and Werner David Senator (a Hebrew University executive) all spoke favorably of the transfer transfer principle (Morris, 2001, p. 47).

In his speech to the UN General Assembly's Political and Security Committee on May 12, 1947, Ben Gurion said:

The mandatory power was charged by the League of Nations with the carrying out of a definite settlement... The terms of that settlement as decreed by the conscience and the law of nations, are common knowledge. It is the restoration of Palestine to the Jewish people...
Palestine, which for the Jewish people has always been and will always remain the Land of Israel was in the course of centuries conquered and invaded by many alien peoples, but none of them ever identified its national faith with Palestine. The Jewish nation in Palestine is rooted not only in past history but in a great living work of reconstruction and rebuilding, both of a country and of a people...
We are told that the Arabs are not responsible for the persecution of the Jews in Europe, nor is it their obligation to relieve their plight. I wish to make it quite clear that it never entered our minds to charge the Arabs with solving the Jewish problem, or to ask Arab countries to accept Jewish refugees. We are bringing our homeless and persecuted Jews to our own country and settling them in Jewish towns and villages. There are Arab towns and villages in Palestine - Nablus, Jenin, Ramleh, Narnucka, Libia, Terschicha. You will not find a single Jewish refugee in any of them. The Jews who have returned to their country are settled in Petah Tiqva, Rishon le Zion, Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jerusalem, Daganiya, the Negev, and other Jewish towns and villages built by us.
A Jewish-Arab partnership, based on equality and mutual assistance, will help to bring about the regeneration of the whole Middle East. We Jews understand and deeply sympathize with the urge of the Arab people for unity, independence and progress, and our Arab neighbors, I hope, will realize that the Jews in their own historic homeland, can under no conditions be made to remain a subordinate, dependent minority as they are in all other countries of the Diaspora. (New York Times, 13 May, 1947, pp. 12-13)

Moshe Sharett also spoke at the same meeting of the UN; in his address he stated that:

Jews must be allowed to resettle in Palestine in unlimited numbers, provided only they do not displace or worsen the lot of the existing inhabitants who are also there as of right... Were it not for the presence in Palestine today of over 600,000 Jews who refuse to be left in the minority position under Arab domination; were it not for the urge to settle in Palestine, of hundreds of thousands of homeless and uprooted Jews in Europe, in the Orient, and elsewhere; were it not for the hopes and efforts of millions of Jews throughout the world to re-establish their national home and build it up into a Jewish state, then the United Nations would not be faced with the problem of Palestine as it is now... they (Arab leaders) say that the Jews have settled in Palestine at the expense of the Arabs. That debit item, too, we cannot admit. There has been no receiving of Jewish immigrants by Arabs nor any settlement of Jews at the expense of the Arabs...
But a Jewish minority in an Arab State will have no such security at all. It will be at the mercy of the Arab majority, which would be free from all restraints... The question of our living with the Arab peoples and the relationship of a Jewish State with them is, of course, the dominant question of the future... From personal observation and direct experience accumulated over a period of forty-one years' residence in Palestine, I can affirm that there is nothing inherent in the nature of either the native Arab or the immigrant Jew which prevents friendly co-operation. On the contrary, considering the admitted great difference of background, they mix remarkably well. By mixing I do not mean assimilation, for the Jew does not come to Palestine to assimilate to the Arab, but to develop his own distinctive individuality. Nor does he expect the Arab to assimilate to him. What I mean is co-operation between a self-respecting Jew and a self-respecting Arab, and between the two communities.(New York Times, 13 May, 1947, p. 12)

comments

Hello Rudy. Thank you for your work. Personnally I found the former version more consistent and clear. But before to go deeper or to discuss this into details, I think we need to agree on the general structure. From my side there are 2 big questions :

  • Which scholars will deserve a theory section ?
  • How do we introduce the controversies about each other theory ?

I had in mind 4 stages and explanation of each stage by all. Here you don't follow this. The way we go currently, I would suggest the following :

1. Description of the exodus (only facts that do not "proove" any theory)

2. A "what caused" section

2.1 Descritption of all the causes (in chronological order with the stages ?)
2.1.1 ...
2.1.2 ...
2.2 Responsabilities
2.2.1 The Tranfer Idea
2.2.1.1 Description by its main representative (Morris)
2.2.1.2 Nuances by some followers and list of them
2.2.1.3 Controverses
2.2.2 The Daleth Master Plan
2.2.2.1 Description following its main representatives (Khalidi)
2.2.2.2 Nuances by some followers and list of them
2.2.2.3 Controverses
2.2.3 Call for flight from
2.2.3.1 Description following its main representatives (Karsh)
2.2.3.2 Nuances by some followers and list of them
2.2.3.3 Controverses

My concern is that I foresee hard discussions around npov in the direction we take... Christophe Greffe 16:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't realy get your '2.1' section. What kind of information would go there? Also, I am not very fond of sub-sub-sub-headings, and believe that although this is a logical framework to follow, we should not have 'section headings' like 2.2.2.1, but only follow this outline in writing. Rudy Wagner 16:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I agree about the 2.2.2.2.... This is just because I care much about structure. This is a bias from my engineering background to cut everything in pieces that way. (2.1) was intended to gather all causes ponctullay and detail to what, to where and to when they refer. (2.2) was intended to gather more synthetic conclusions (theories). Christophe Greffe 18:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

More things to do

Just to make sure: after this shortening of the "transfer principle" section, we should go and do the same thing to the other theories, esp. Gelber's and the "Arab leaders endorsement". Btw, after having read some more, I must say that 'mainstream' Israeli historians (i. e. those who are not New Historians, have almost never argued for the arab leader's endorsement theory, and most of them support either an "it's natural for people to run away from war" view (Karsh), or Gelber's theory. Thus, I believe we should probably re-arrange 'arab leaders call for flight' section, and maybe even rename it. Rudy Wagner 16:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Rudy. I still don't know how you intend to organize. Here is a summary of Gelber's point concerning first phase of flight. Feel free to reorganise this and/or correct style.

First phase flight causes following Gelber

In his book Palestine 1948, Yoav Gelber distinguishes several causes to the beginnings of the Palestinians' mass flight that occurred during the civil war period from December to beginning of April :

  • the generally deteriorating conditions, the unstable economic situation and growing unemployement (p.75 ; p.78);
  • the Haganah, Irgoun and Lehi retaliations that terrified the Arabs (p.76)
  • the fear of a some purely palestinian conflict spread by rumours that Husseinis were planning to bring in bands of fallahin to take over the towns in a domestic terrorism like in 1936-9 (p.76) or due eg to Muslim Brethren enforcement of some strict code of behaviour (p.80)
  • the bad exemples given by the flight of the leaders (p.76)
  • the fear of repreasals to the Army of Liberation's attacks (p.77)
  • the economical situation in the cities (p.78)
  • the Haganah's campaign of propaganda (p.79)
  • the gathering of population in main villages and towns (p.79)
  • systematical evacuations of civil population near the borders and performed by the Army of Liberation (p. 79)
  • some ponctual actions as the evacuation of 3,000 children from Haifa organized by local national comittee (p. 81).

He emphasizes 3 points :

  • "The flight during this phase of the civil war still resembled previous reactions to anarchy in Palestine, as in the Middle East in general. No one expelled the escapees or occupied their homes and lands, excpt for their own quasi-administrations" and "no massacres or deliverate intimidation of any kind took place yet" (p.82).
  • All arab authorities (local national comittees, Arab Higher Comittee and Arab Liberation Army) took many measures to prevent or stop the flight (p.81).
  • "Until April 1948, Ben Gourion regarded the escape as a calculated withdrawal of non-combattant population upon the orders of Arab commanders and out of military considerations" (p.82).

See you. Christophe Greffe 18:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I will try to make this summary into a rewrite of that section, including info from other Historians that supports some of the things described here. However, no time to do so now - I'll be back only over the weekend, as I must do some real work.... Rudy Wagner 07:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the Exodus

From the article:

"Strategically, the period was marked by Arab initiatives and Jewish reprisals (Morris, 2003, p. 65), although the Irgun and Lehi reverted to their 1937-1939 strategy of placing bombs in crowded places such as bus stops and markets, and their attacks on British forces reduced British troops' ability and willingness to protect Jewish traffic (Ibid, p. 66). "

This is not an accurate description or synopsis of what took place at this time. This should be part of another article (the 1948 war) and debated there.

As far as the exodus is concerned, there were 3 factors at that time:

  1. Arabs attacked Jewish vilages and public transportaion. Jews were on the defensive.
  2. Rich Palestinians (Effendi class) started to leave.
  3. After an attack by Kakugi army failed, Palestinians started to leave their vilages fearing that the Jews would do to them what they wanted to do to the Jews.

Zeq 19:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the quotes above have nothing to do with the article. Pecher Talk 15:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

How could the strategies of armed groups during the war have nothing to do with the Palestinian exodus? Surely, no historian claims that. --Ian Pitchford 16:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This is just an example because Jayjg asked me about specific issues with this article. Of course the issue is that the whole article is written from a Palestinian perspective and lines like the above quotes tried to create the "impression" that faults only the Jews for what took place.
More than that. I have actually located the source for much of this article. It was copied from a fairly balanced (but copyrighted) article from a balanced organization. But wait ... do you think the NPOV was kept? No ! the balance was removed and only one sided accusations and innuendo remained. (Like the above quote that was added and does not appear in the original)
So now, there is one more reason to re-write this article. Not only 3 years of non NPOV article but also copyright violation. Zeq 16:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The strategies of armed groups like the Irgun and Lehi culminating in the Deir Yassin massacre were a contributory factor in the Palestinian exodus. All history books cover this stuff. This article has been written by a large number of people and doesn't have a single source. What you refer to as a quote isn't one, as you can see from the lack of quotation marks. The source is given. Anbody can "locate the source for much of this article" by following the references supplied. --Ian Pitchford 18:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. By quote I meant this is a quote from the article. It is not relevant and should be removed
  2. I claim that much of this article (like most of the transfer section) is copied and in violation of copyright.
Zeq 20:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
"This article has been written by a large number of people and doesn't have a single source." 90% of the article, including nearly all of the "history" section is sourced to Morris, a highly controversial historian. This is precisely what we call "POV-editing". The first stage section is written so as to hammer the word "expulsion" into the subconsciousness of the reader. "During this period there was no official Yishuv policy favoring expulsion", "The only official expulsion at this time took place", "LHI expulsion orders": expulsion, expulsion, expulsion. If there was just one expulsion, mention it, and stop at that. Well, no, the article must focus the readers' attention on "expulsions" and prepare them that there will be more expulsions in the future: look, there are few now, but there is more to come. The problem with the article is exactly as it was before: it revolves around Morris and his "transfer principle". It is POV-hammering, masquerading as history. Pecher Talk 20:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the emphasis is on expulsion because that's what the debate revolves around: the role of direct expulsion and the extent to which expulsion was pre-planned. The history section does concentrate on Morris simply because his book is the most detailed and thorough recent account. We could list all of the c. 400 villages cleared and the role of psychological warfare and direct expulsion in each according to a variety of historians, but that's probably better done elsewhere. This article is supposed to be a summary, although most of the history including most of the controversial events - aren't yet covered. You imply that Morris is controversial because of his emphasis on "transfer thinking" but of course he's also controversial for minimising the extent to which expulsions were pre-meditated. There's barely a word about that criticism in the article or about the evidence that doesn't fit into his model. --Ian Pitchford 20:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"There's barely a word about that criticism in the article or about the evidence that doesn't fit into his model." Indeed, that's precisely the definition of a POV-article. Pecher Talk 21:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

So, has anyone able to explain why is this in the article:

"Strategically, the period was marked by Arab initiatives and Jewish reprisals (Morris, 2003, p. 65), although the Irgun and Lehi reverted to their 1937-1939 strategy of placing bombs in crowded places such as bus stops and markets, and their attacks on British forces reduced British troops' ability and willingness to protect Jewish traffic (Ibid, p. 66). " Zeq 08:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Another Passage

The following passage should either not be in the History section, or be balanced:

Overall Morris concludes that the 'Arab evacuees from the towns and villages left largely because of Jewish - Haganah, IZL or LHI - attacks or fear of impending attack' but that only 'an extremely small, almost insignificant number of the refugees during this early period left because of Haganah or IZL or LHI expulsion orders or forceful "advice" to that effect' (Morris, 2003, pp. 138-139).

This is only Morris' view, and it is debated by others (such as Gelber) who attribute flight at this stage to inner Palestinian causes.
Rudy Wagner 09:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

My views on what needs to be done here

The problem with this article is that it keeps mixing the facts with the theories. In order to clean it up, the simple facts of the exodus needs to be presented, followed by the various historical debates as to the causes. I believe others have made this suggestion. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with Jay.
  • Surly, the facts are also disputed and that the way they are presented (division into stages) is also disputed.

In any case I can only quote Elian from 2003 again:

  • short abstract what happened (carefully worded)
  • a little bit of historical details about the war 1948 with the different flight and expulsion movements (If I trust Morris there happened both: spontaneous flight and direct expulsion)
  • what happened after the war, confiscation of the property, conference of Lausanne, right of return, UN-resolutions, creation of UNRWA etc.
  • at the end of the article a resumee of the ongoing debate:
    • Israeli view: flight encouraged by Arab leadership and surrounding Arab countries, mention of "New historians".
    • Arab view: systematic expulsion
    • Arab demand: granting of right of return
    • Israeli fear of the demographic consequences for Israel as a Jewish state

And as a basis for rewriting the article, I think we should adopt a view that it is totally normal human behaviour for civilians to move out of an area in a war. This is directed against extremist views and arguments on both sides "total systematic expulsion" vs. "but they left on their own free will!" which I consider both as rubbish and which should be clearly marked as views. In history there is no "one single truth". by --Elian quoted by 04:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

comments about JayJG's proposal

Hello. I am just here a few minutes... What writes Jay sounds logical and I supported this before when it was first proposent but I changed my mind. I don't think this is achievable because the weight given to each event is different by each historian. "Facts" are neutral but the choice of the "facts" to report in comparison with others is not.
What do you think about the following structure :
  • An introduction explaining what is the article about (as done currently)
  • A reference, without more, to the 1948's war article.
  • An introduction of the different theories on the subject.

I would also to come back on 2 different topics I wanted to discuss above :

  • wave or stage. I didn't understand the use of the term "stage" because in my English, a stage is a step in a process. A wave is just an event. I didn't insist too much because English is not my mother language but I noticed that Morris talks about "waves of flight" and "stages of the war". "stage" here is particularly unwelcome (if I understand this word properly). (see Morris, Birth... revisited).
  • I suggested -and still suggest- in the case we would keep in the article a historical section, to separate the 4th waves and the explanation for each of them. Morris clearly writes in the introduction of Birth... revisited that each "waves" had different process or reasons.
Finally, I want to add I appreciate very much Rudy's work and way of working. Unforntunately now I have started to read Birth revisited, I do not agree that we "summarize" his theory just by the "transfer idea". In the first version of his book (as he writes!) he had only allocated 4 pages (!) to this and he expanded this section after all controversed about this. His books explains the "Birth of the palestinian refugee problem". The "tranfer idea" is only what "piece of meat" around which propagandist fights to prove their ideas (this is my pov) but he underlines this in his book too in refering to this controversy.

Christophe Greffe 11:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think we are missing something, because we keep mixing 'direct causes' with 'ultimate causes'. Direct causes is what caused a specific village or family to leave; an 'Ultimate Cause' is a general interpretation of the entire historical event and a general attribution of it to a deeper cause, which has been acting for years. in this case, historians debate both.
What I believe we should do is distinguish between them. i.e, we should write a section called 'direct causes of exodus', which will include 'forceful expulsion', 'intimidation' 'refugee flight as a result of fear', 'refugee flight in hope of return', 'refugee flight because of arab orders'. We should explain each of these, and give the most striking example of it. Than we should write that the proportion in which each of these causes played a part in the exodus is debated by Historians.
Than we should have an 'ultimate causes' section, whichshould be a shortened version of what we already have, taking out what belongs in 'direct causes', and adding the mainstream Israeli view of today - i. e, that *there was no ultimate cause* other than the normal desire of people to leave a war zone.
What should then be left in the 'History' section? only facts - i. e.: where did Palestinians leave? When? How? Where to? How many? The division into stages can be kept for clarity (though it should be noted that it was proposed by Morris). Rudy Wagner 09:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is a pov to talk of 4 differents waves here even if this is Morris's way of describing. The division in "4" waves is not controversial, is it ? More it helps clarifying others point of view :
Gelber sees 3 phases but links much the first 2 : (Beginning (= 1st of Morris) - Collapse (= 2nd of Morris) - After the war (= 3rd and 4th of Morris). As far as I understand, Pappé makes 2 too : "anecdotic 70 first thousands" (=1st of Morris); "consequences of Daleth Plan" (=2-3-4 of Morris). etc
For the "when-how-how many-where to" I agree. I would separate each city and gathers together villages for wage 1-2 and events in the war for 3-4 (3 main events if I am right and some expulsion after Lausanne agreement).
Christophe Greffe 12:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)::::Christophe, that is the problem:
  • "this is Morris's way of describing"
  • This is Morris's POV
Both are the same ...... We can only present "Morris's way" in the section about Morris's view. The rest should be NPOV description of the facts. Zeq 13:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Zeq, do you know someone else who describes the facts about palestine's flight ? If so, how does he talk about the differents waves... ? Christophe Greffe 15:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a good description: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/refugees.html Zeq 16:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, that isn't necessarily the most reliable source for neutral facts about the Palestinian exodus. Lokiloki 19:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
the jewishvirtuallibrary is self edited, not written by an historian and introduces only the old propagandist israeli point of view. Christophe Greffe 10:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
As if Khalidi is NPOV.....Zeq 12:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
No because Khalidi is quoted by Morris, Gelber, ... and even Mitchell G. Bard while Mitchell G. Bard is not quoted either by Morris, Khalidi, Gelber, Pappé, or whoever. That makes all the difference. Christophe Greffe 15:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Being quoted as a specvific POV does not make anyone to be NPOV.
That is why Khalidi is quoted as "palestinian historian" or "palestinian scholar". I will precise when I cross him again. Bard is not quoted at all. Christophe Greffe 21:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The libraray is not "self edited" see this: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/boards.html

Zeq 16:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Bard would review himself ? Christophe Greffe 21:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
No. Look at the comitee. Beside We here in wikipedia are bring the source and every reader could decide on their own. Zeq 05:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Describing the controversy

http://www.ajds.org.au/mendes.htm

Zeq 16:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

interesting and at least well sourced. Christophe Greffe 10:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Nakba day

It is very strange that the simpl fact that palestinian choose Israel independence day for Nakba day is not mentioned in this article:

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22independence+day%22+nakba&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=independence+day+nakba

Zeq 09:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

evidence on the Master Plan theory

Movin g to talk a paragraph added by 206.239.111.66 (talk · contribs): Another piece of supporting evidence on the Master Plan theory is from commander Ben Dunkelman, a Canadian Jew who led the Zionist attack on Nazareth. In his autobiography, he indicates that after the town surrendered, he received orders from General Chaim Laskahov to expel the civilian citizens but he refused the orders. Nazareth is the only city where mass exodus did not occur, creating a "natural experiment" where Nazareth serves as the "control group" to support the cause-and-effect theory of the Zionist orders. Yitzhak Rabin corroborated Dunkelman's assrtion, also claiming that he too received orders to "drive out" the Arab populations. - Even if some commander(s) in some place(s) gave such orders or others, I don't see how can this serve as "evidence on the Master Plan theory". ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course. You are right. Alithien 18:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
What would constitute evidence of a master plan? --Ian Pitchford 18:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Analysis made by historians referring to some facts as "evidence of a master plan". We could also expect from editors they introduce the full information they have on a topic, and not only some parts that go in one direction. Why did that IP forget to specify that Ben Gourion vetoed that order ? Alithien 21:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Some historians do make that analysis, which is a good reason to include it as a topic in the article. Ben-Gurion did issue explicit expulsion orders. --Ian Pitchford 15:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
All or some ? If some, please indicate which one and prove your fairness in the wikipedia project by adding (all) the ones who do not. Ben Gurion did issue explicit expulsion orders. Some historians like Morris and Gelber write exactly the contrary concerning this episode. Even if Morris add an interesting footnote on that topic. Alithien 15:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Some means some, not all, and it doesn't need to be all, just a significant point of view to be worthy of inclusion. Morris and Gelber are discussed at length in the article and supporters of the expulsion thesis are already mentioned too. We've also discussed on this talk page previously Parsons' work on the differential expulsion of Christian/Muslim Arabs v. Druze Arabs, which indicates a systematic approach to expulsion and not just a case of people fleeing chaotically from invaders, but the information is not in the article yet. A relevant quotation or two from Ben-Gurion would be appropriate and it would be interesting to see how long they remain in the article. --Ian Pitchford 15:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No historian refers to this episode as "another piece of supporting master plan theory". If some do anyway, please indicate who does so precisely. More, the way this episode is presented here is pov because other historians (Morris, Gelber) analysed this another way. I don't care what would indicate whatever according to personnal analysis. Proove your fairness towards the wikipedia project by introducing all points of views. If you want to discuss this with me, I suggest you find a metiator. Alithien 16:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, if all of the events in which commanders followed expulsion orders from the IDF general staff and the political leadership are not evidence of an expulsion plan then there was no expulsion plan by definition, but it doesn't alter the fact that Palestinians were expelled as a direct result of expulsion orders. In any case, there are other accounts of this specific event in which Dunkelman was challenged by Ben-Gurion for not carrying out the expulsion order and of course Dunkelman was subsequently dismissed from his position as military governor. --Ian Pitchford 17:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Who is the historian ? Where are the quotes ? Did you chose a mediator ? I unfortunately lost all confidence in you :-(. See also next section. (nb: I will not be on wiki before the WE). Alithien 18:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
You can search Google Print just as easily as I can Christophe. --Ian Pitchford 18:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I think I do it better, Ilan. Alithien 18:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Then you should be able to find the evidence yourself in just a few minutes. --Ian Pitchford 18:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Since this article discuss plans from the 30 and 40s

I have long argued that this article should NOT discuss plans that eventually had nothing to do with the events them selfs. The exodus was caused by a flight that took part in a war and it is normal for people to leave their homes if battles are going on there.

Now, a new study on plans made in the 40s come to light: http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-kuntzel-s05.htm . If we are discussing plans and their affect on "mindset" (which is the Benny Morris argument) we must bring to the reader these plans as well. Maybe if one side wanted to us a military win to genocide the other that side was fearfull that the same will happend to them when they loose. Zeq 03:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

OOPs, corrected link: http://www.ww4report.com/node/1845 and http://www.ejpress.org/article/7448

Zeq 03:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that yishuv feared a genocide threat is emphasized several times by Morris in the Birth (...) revisited. Zeq, don't give to Morris the image some give of him in selecting "quotes" from his work. You should read his book(s)... ;-) Alithien 15:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
That's not quite right. Morris asserts that they might have feared genocide, or rather implies that a genocide might have been a possibility. He doesn't actually refer to a specific "genocide threat" or support his claims with any evidence. --Ian Pitchford 16:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I give the quote this week-end and I will provide some from Gelber's book too. Just for pleasure, I will also check what Karsh says about that. We can then analyse all these precisely. Alithien 17:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

In the introduction to his study : "The birth of the Palestinian refugee problem revisited", Benny Morris comments his works. He writes "Throughout, when examining what happened, the reader must also recall the wider context (...) - ~the intention of the Palestinian leadership and irregulars and later, most of the Arabstates'leaders and armies in launching the hostilities in november-december 1947 and in invading Palestine in may 1948 to destroy the Jewish state and possibly the Yishuv (the Jewish community in Palestine) itself; the fears of the Yishuv that the Palestinians and the Arab states, if given a chance, intended to reenact a Middle Eastern version of the Holocaust; (...)" (The Birth revisited, p.7).

In the conclusions of the same study, Benny Morris writes about the expulsion : (...) [their] frequency (...) increasing following the pan-Arab invasion of mid-May 1948 that threatened the Yishuv with extinction. (The Birth revisited, p.589).

I assume my English is not good and that I was wrong when I wrote : "the Yishuv feared a genocide threat". Alithien 18:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It makes you wonder whether he read page 33 of his own book on the Yishuv's military pre-eminence. Morris is perfectly well aware of the research showing that Transjordan was collaborating with the Yishuv and that the other Arab states were more interested in thwarting Abdullah's ambitions than anything else. --Ian Pitchford 18:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
1. I think you didn't mean p.33. There is nothing there concerning the current matter. Only 2 minds (British and Arab League) of the relative chance of victory of both sides. What would be revelant here is what the Yishuv and Ben Gourion thought about the situation. I provide some info about this asap. Alithien 12:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
2. From what you have just written, may I deduce that you would select quotes from Morris going to what you consider the "right" direction rather than fairly reporting his point, even if you would consider he is wrong ? May I deduce you could hide such a biasing strategy behind requirements people DO NOT DELETE any "properly sourced quotes" ? I think wikipedia npov's policy should be corrected to take into account this eventuality. Would you mind indicating where I am wrong ? Alithien 12:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
3. "Finkelstein and [another writer] share a method : they selectively quote from [my books] what suits their purposes while ignoring, and in Finkelstein's case, ridiculing what doesn't. Neither seems to know anything about 1948 beyond what is to be found in my books and neither marshals sources or material from elsewhere that could serve to contradict my findings." Benny Morris (see. [Finkelstein]).
4. I have been hesitating for more than 4 months about all this. Today, I made my mind. Alithien 12:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with the Palestinian exodus Christophe? --Ian Pitchford 13:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

1. The fear of the genocide threat is important in the context of the Palestinian exodus.
2. The NPOV is an important matter on WK. Alithien 23:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Morris implies 1. That would be more evidence of a master plan for expulsion. --Ian Pitchford 09:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Morris emphasizes the context. He writes that to understand what happens reader must have in mind what jewish feared or not. He just underlines this but doens't say why this is important. This is what concerns WK.
If somebody is not able to understand what he means by writing that, this is not WK concerns except if this unability or refusal to see this impacts npov. Alithien 11:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there's any doubt that Morris makes assertions about the context along the lines you suggest. --Ian Pitchford 13:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

plans

Most of this article is about "plans" not on what acatually occured. Zeq 15:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree completely. It needs far more on the actual history. --Ian Pitchford 16:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Much of the history of the conflict is omitted from the entire page regarding the history of the conflict prior to the creation of the Israeli state. The entire time I perused this article I kept thinking "What about the writings of Twain, Churchill and Marx during their journalist years regarding Palestine? What about the fact that many Palestinians immigrated to the basically unihabited area for employment. What about how Jews harrassed/forced Arabs from their homes by throwing garbage into their yards and homes, so they could purchase the land? Thankfully, the article did discuss the Israeli land confiscation, but what about the Arab land confiscation of Jewish lands during the 1950's? What about the Three Nos of Khartoum? etc." Both sides have blood on their hands, and the West is equally guilty.

Similar to to others, I found the entire article to provide a pro-Palestinian bias.

With regards,

aspacia I am new, so please forgive me if I spoke out-of-turn. Aspacia 21:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to state your opinion about the article here. However, my opinion is that you are wrong on most counts. For example, Palestine was not "basically uninhabited" and the Khartoum announcement is outside the scope of the article. --Zerotalk 06:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


Omitting to mention zionist intentions regarding the Palestinian Exodus, is as absurd and ridiculous as omitting Hitler's intentions regarding the Holocaust. It is unbelievable that anyone can still pretend that zionists had nothing to do with the Palestinian Exodus. Sounds to me like nazi revisionists. Interestingly enough there is still is a direct correlation between nazism and zionism that runs through our days. [User:mickyx65it|Mike] May 29 2006.


So now we're comparing nazism to zionism? That's funny, because one wanted the destruction of an entire people, the people that Zionism wanted to bring home. That is absurd and is hateful slander. It goes back to the whole "Zionism is Racism" in the UN. User: FDR315

In addition, this entire article conistently quotes and relies on 1 source, Benny Morris. Benny Morris has been an extremely controversial historian, and having most of your quotes and sources from him is not credible. I urge Wikipedia Administrators to review this article.

Citation does not guarentee neutrality

"Strategically, the period was marked by Arab initiatives and Jewish reprisals..." Pro-Palestinian bias? Hardly...Smitty Mcgee 18:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

Broken external link removed, replaced with link to WP article --Dicconb 00:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

maru (talk) contribs 05:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)