Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight

3 May 2024

The list of causes is exhaustive but missing a key cause that has been validated by Benny Morris, a historian cited multiple times in this article.

Benny Morris states, "Birth Revisited describes many more atrocities and expulsions than were recorded in the original version of the book. But, at the same time, a far greater proportion of the 700,000 Arab refugees were ordered or advised by their fellow Arabs to abandon their homes than I had previously registered. It is clear from the new documentation that the Palestinian leadership in principle opposed the Arab flight from December 1947 to April 1948, while at the same time encouraging or ordering a great many villages to send away their women, children and old folk, to be out of harm's way. Whole villages, especially in the Jewish- dominated coastal plain, were also ordered to evacuate. There is no doubt that, throughout, the departure of dependents lowered the morale of the remaining males and paved the way for their eventual departure as well"[1] here.

Given that it is imperative we also add that Arabs also left because of the encouragement of their fellow Arabs. While the amount can be debated, leaving this out is missing an important element of historical accuracy. If Benny Morris can be cited for Israeli atrocities, he should also be cited for this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionbear10 (talk • contribs)

I believe that's outdated and the current mainstream view is that the "Arab states encouraged Palestinians to flee" theory is now a debunked myth? Levivich (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Causes

Is it appropriate to say "the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus are also a subject of fundamental disagreement among historians." As far as I'm aware there is no significant "fundamental disagreement among historians" about the expulsions, only some details remain disputed in the most recent and best sources. See for example this article by Ilan Pappé. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight says in Line 2 "The causes for this mass displacement is a matter of great controversy among historians, journalists, and commentators." Might be better to fix it over there first. Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah and this is so complicated with so much nuance, that I'm not sure what the best way is to write it, but these are the points that I think Wikipedia should make across these articles:

• There is broad general agreement about what the causes were -- which can be summed up as "the Israelis caused it" -- but there is still disagreement about various details of the causes, the exact who/when/how/why's, the relative importance of various causes, etc.
• One thing right off the top is the now widely debunked Nakba denial myth that "they left because the Arab states told them to." I think it's important for Wikipedia to convey that scholars all say that did not happen, and in fact the opposite happened: the Arab leaders wanted Palestinians to stay, not leave.
• Then there's the "they left voluntarily" myth, where Wikipedia should convey that scholars agree that a small portion (70k or less than 10%) of mostly wealthy and upper-middle-class Palestinians left early (between September 1947 and March 1948) to avoid the war, but they thought they were leaving temporarily and would be able to return afterwards (as was the norm in prior conflicts)
• Scholars also agree broadly that the Israelis intentionally expelled Palestinians, and engaged in psychological warfare and other tactics (biological warfar, conventional warfare) in order to induce flight, and this was very successful... hence, broad agreement on "expelled or made to flee".
• Where scholars disagree -- this is Pappe v. Morris -- is whether the expulsion was always the plan and the partition was the first opportunity (the viewpoint of Pappe, Masalha, Wolfe and others), or whether the expulsion was something that wasn't pre-planned but started more organically on the ground with low-level commanders, and then became official policy later in the war (after May 1948)
• Scholars also disagree about whether the expulsions were militarily necessary or justifiable (Morris's view) or not (everyone else?)

There's probably other nuance but I gtg now :-) Levivich (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Levivich. Regarding that "there is broad general agreement about what the causes were -- which can be summed up as "the Israelis caused it" - I do find it odd to speak of the causes of something which was 'done', treating it as though it were something that 'happened' without agency. I suspect it would be better to rename/refocus the article 'Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight' to 'Historiography of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight'. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

For sure there are disagreements, see for examples the works of Efraim Karsh. Alaexis_¿question? 20:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Neil Caplan's The Israel-Palestine Conflict (2nd ed., Yale 2020), pp. 119 and 120, discusses the views of Karsh, Morris, Masalha, and others, and summarizes (according to Caplan) the current mainstream view about causes of the refugee problem.

Another book, a bit older, is Mark Tessler's A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (2nd ed., Indiana Univ. 2009), which covers causes and historiography of causes on pp. 291-307. Levivich (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Efraim Karsh#Reception - "Prominent New Historian Benny Morris called Karsh's Fabricating Israeli History "a mélange of distortions, half-truths, and plain lies that vividly demonstrates his profound ignorance of both the source material... and the history of the Zionist-Arab conflict," titling his article "Undeserving of a Reply". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Just because there exists denialism of this history doesn't mean we need to legitimize it. We don't describe the number of victims of the Holocaust as "a subject of fundamental disagreement among historians" though there are denialists regarding that history as well. Karsh is an example of WP:FRINGE and is not one of the WP:BESTSOURCES for this history. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Mmm, I personally agree with that, but idk about Wikipedia NPOV policy agreeing with it. Karsh's 2010 book Palestine Betrayed was published by Yale and has 100+ Google scholar cites (one of which is Caplan). Even if he is cited for criticism, so is Morris. Here is where I get stuck: under objective parameters of reliability, Morris gets in despite his non-mainstream views... doesn't Karsh, and Finkelstein (2018 Gaza book published by NC Univ IIRC), also make the cut, despite their non-mainstream views? Personally I don't see how, if Morris is an RS (and he is), Finkelstein isn't an RS, and if Finkelstein is (I think so), then isn't Karsh also? (Even if I don't like it.) Levivich (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I had the misfortune to read his missives on the question of the Jordan Israel secret agreement over splitting Palestine. He is off base imo but he's not alone so does have to be taken into account. Selfstudier (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:USEBYOTHERS: "How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

That's true. No evidence of "widespread doubts about reliability" has been presented so far. Morris criticising his other book is neither "widespread" not relevant. Alaexis_¿question? 09:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

See Efraim Karsh#Reception. And more can be provided I'm sure. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

An example here. -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

And another. -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Ehh, so what? Having critical reviews is normal. Here Benny Morris calls Ilan Pappe "one of the world’s sloppiest historians." This is not a grounds for disqualification from Wikipedia. Alaexis_¿question? 12:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

We are sort of getting away from the main question, is the way the lead is phrased correct, it seems to me that too much or equal weight is being given to one side when in fact it should be a majority/minority type thing. Selfstudier (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2024

Please can the current line in the first paragraph "At least 15,000 Arabs were killed in these expulsions." be replaced with "Up to 13,000 Palestinian Arabs were killed during the war, mostly civilians."

The sources for the 15,000 figure are among the very few non-academic sources used in the entire article. reliefweb.int is definitely not good enough. No academic/scholarly sources seem to support this as a credible estimate of Palestinians killed during expulsions. The highest academic estimate I could find for the total number of Palestinians killed during the 1947-49 war is the source I cited by Henry Laurens (scholar). 15,000 killed is also used on the Nakba page with the same non-academic sources. A dedicated section discussing the death toll is definitely needed on both articles.Tapu.Solre (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Tapu.Solre (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Not done. Consensus is required for this edit. Best left to EC editors for any discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this Henry Laurens source, it should be added to the article if someone can verify it. Also note that the ReliefWeb article is sourced to the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights. So we should likely (as of now) have the death at (13,000-15,000) with the three sources to support it. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a valid point, we should have a scholarly source for this and casualties should be discussed in the article itself before mentioning them in the lede. I've added a bettersourceneeded tag. Alaexis_¿question? 12:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I cannot find the material in a copy of the source, can anyone please provide the Chapter and the exact French phrasing. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm struggling to confirm this Laurens source. Do you have the French quotation? Or could you send a screenshot or something of the part that says "Up to 13,000 Palestinian Arabs were killed during the war, mostly civilians"? Are you sure it's from volume three? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks like great minds think alike eh @Selfstudier. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Per "this figure is also mentioned in most scholarly works", could you please provide a good scholarly source then @Makeandtoss? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

13,000 killed figure is by Aref al-Aref and is cited by Rashid Khalidi [2]. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I can certainly provide the full quote in French. "L'ordre de grandeur est de 13 000, soit un peu plus du double des pertes juives, ce qui fait une proportion grossièrement équivalente en fonction de la population totale. Mais il est clair que la plus grande partie des pertes palestiniennes concerne des non- combattants et correspond aux succès israéliens." It was possible to find the quote by searching the Google books url I provided. Laurens is also citing Aref al-Aref in his book.Tapu.Solre (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

French and English (DeepL translation):

French:

“Pour l'ensemble du conflit, les pertes juives et israéliennes atteignent un peu plus de 6 000 morts et le double de blessés, essentiellement des combattants, soit 1 % de la population du Yichouv à cette date, mais il faut prendre en compte le fait que les nouveaux arrivants et combattants volontaires venus de l'extérieur ont fourni un contingent non précisé de ces pertes.

Du côté arabe, les indications chiffrées sont moins précises.

Selon le recensement opéré par ‚Arif al-‚Arif en 1958*, le nombre de « martyrs » des armées régulières arabes s'éléverait à :

Égypte : 961 plus 200 irréguliers

Jordanie : 362 plus 200 irréguliers

Irak : 199 plus 200 irréguliers

Arabie saoudite : 68 plus 105 irréguliers

Liban : 11 plus 150 irréguliers

Syrie : 307 plus 204 irréguliers

Armée de secours : 512

Autres Arabes (Yéménites, Soudanais, Nord-Africains) : 200

Non-Arabes (Arméniens, Grecs, Européens, Hindous) : 42.

L'ordre de grandeur serait de 3 700.

Les pertes palestiniennes :

Identifiés nominalement comme étant morts à l'occasion d'un combat : 1 953

Noms non connus mais nombre, lieux et dates connus : 4 004

Noms et dates non connus mais lieux connus : 7 043.

L'ordre de grandeur est de 13 000, soit un peu plus du double des pertes juives, ce qui fait une proportion grossièrement équivalente en fonction de la population totale. Mais il est clair que la plus grande partie des pertes palestiniennes concerne des non-combattants et correspond aux succès israéliens.”

English (Deep L translation*):

"For the conflict as a whole, Jewish and Israeli losses amounted to just over 6,000 dead and double that number wounded, mainly combatants, i.e. 1% of the Yishuv population at that date, but we must take into account the fact that new arrivals and volunteer combatants from outside provided an unspecified contingent of these losses.

On the Arab side, the figures are less precise.

According to a census carried out by 'Arif al-'Arif in 1958 [Footnote here: “Volume 6 of the Nakba is devoted to drawing up lists of victims and, as far as possible, identifying them by name.”] the number of "martyrs" in the regular Arab armies was as follows:

Egypt: 961 plus 200 irregulars

Jordan: 362 plus 200 irregulars

Iraq: 199 plus 200 irregulars

Saudi Arabia: 68 plus 105 irregulars

Lebanon: 11 plus 150 irregulars

Syria: 307 plus 204 irregulars

Relief Army: 512

Other Arabs (Yemenis, Sudanese, North Africans): 200

Non-Arabs (Armenians, Greeks, Europeans, Hindus): 42.

The order of magnitude would be 3,700.

Palestinian casualties:

Nominally identified as having died in combat: 1,953

Names unknown but number, places and dates known: 4,004

Names and dates unknown but places known: 7,043.

The order of magnitude is 13,000, slightly more than double the Jewish losses, making a roughly equivalent proportion based on total population. But it's clear that the greater part* (la plus grande partie) of Palestinian losses involve non-combatants and correspond to Israeli successes."

• DeepL translation gave "the bulk of" but I've replaced that with "the greater part of" which is more accurate and more clear. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Morris 1948 p. 406: "In the 1948 war, the Yishuv suffered 5,700–5,800 dead — one quarter of them civilians ... Palestinian losses, in civilians and armed irregulars, are unclear: they may have been slightly higher, or much higher, than the Israeli losses. In the 1950s, Haj Amin al-Husseini claimed that 'about' twelve thousand Palestinians had died."

Caplan's Contested Histories (I don't know what page #, it's an e-book) [3]: "The war took the lives of some 6000 Israelis – a heavy proportion of the total population, 13 000–16 000 Palestinians, and 2000–2500 other Arabs, with many additional thousands of wounded."

However, these are war casualties, not specifically expulsion-and-flight casualties. On the other hand, they say "Palestinian," not "Arab," so I don't know if that includes the foreign Arab soldiers. And Morris says it includes civilians. Levivich (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Can we say something like >6,500 Arab civilian dead per Aref/Laurens? Since Laurens says 13,000 total Arab losses, of which "the greater part" were noncombatants? Or is that WP:SYNTH? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe better to fully explain it as ~"Laurens gives the total Arab dead in the 1947-1949 Palestine war as 13,000, "the majority of which were noncombatants." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

No need for attribution; the original phrasing is fine. I am pretty sure there is at least one source talking about casualties in an elaborate way, and would definitely mention how Zionist militias killed adult males during their offensive campaigns on the villages, but I am not sure where. Thoughts? @Oncenawhile: @Zero0000: Makeandtoss (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Death toll

I removed from the article:

At least 15,000 Arabs were killed in these expulsions.

References

It seems like the 15,000 number refers to total Arab dead in the 1948 Palestine war, including Arab League soldiers. See above discussion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Change Title of Article to "1948 Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinians"

Since one ethnicity (european jews) ethnically cleansed another ethnicity (arab muslims) from their land.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2024

change 700 000 to 700,000 MattFry7 (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

This change was made throughout the article with no edit summary. @ThurnerRupert, can you clarify the reason for this? It seems less clear to me, though both gaps and commas are apparently acceptable per MOS:DIGITS. Jamedeus (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

NPOV in lede

I think this article’s lede needs to have a paragraph on the Israeli perspective on this conflict and modern attitudes Alexanderkowal (talk) 06:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alexanderkowal NPOV does not entail covering every side's perspective in the lead. Were we to do that we could end up with a false balance. TarnishedPath^talk 07:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe:

(after Nakba day) The expulsion is viewed by the Israeli narrative as necessary, unavoidable, and part of the wider war of independence, and whilst Nakba denial has been increasingly challenged in recent years, the official narrative remains unaffected.

Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest you'd need some extremely strong sourcing for prose which makes excuses for displacing local inhabitants and which calls the establishment of Israel a "war of independence". TarnishedPath^talk 09:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m just summarising what’s in the lede of Nakba, there is a danger of false equivalence, the wording needs to be altered a bit Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this should be part of the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Surely the content is entirely relevant and due but the wording is very tricky to get the right weight and framing. MOS:LEDE says that a topic with its own section deserves to be mentioned in the lede. Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Alexanderkowal can you please quote me the exact wording that says that. I just had a brief flyover of MOS:LEDE doing a ctrl-f on the word "section" and I couldn't find wording that says topics with their own section deserve mention in the lead. TarnishedPath^talk 13:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

My bad, it's at Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section#Rule of thumb Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Grammar/naming convention

Intro paragraph says "...and after the establishment of the Israel, by its military." Should be "the State of Israel" or possibly "Israel" 24.19.44.221 (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Denialism present in article

It seems that there is some Nakba denial present in this article which does not belong.

Specifically:

1. At the beginning of a paragraph about depopulated Palestinian settlements, there is the sentence: "Yoav Gelber wrote that the Arab Liberation Army embarked on a systematic evacuation of non-combatants from several frontier villages in order to turn them into military strongholds." This is WP:FRINGE and undue for inclusion. Gelber is an Old Historian (in contrast with the New Historians and of the work cited, Palestine 1948: War, Escape, and the Emergence of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (2001/2006[2nd edition]), I looked for reviews and found one [here https://www-cambridge-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/16849DA444A9A17EF768C33919FE897C/stamped-S0020743802004075a.pdf/yoav-gelber-palestine-1948-war-escape-and-the-emergence-of-the-palestinian-refugee-problem-portland-ore-sussex-academic-press-2001-pp-410-dollar7950-cloth.pdf] which is quite critical of the work, stating that "Palestine 1948 is a book to be examined by scholars of the period with interest but to be used, if at all, by those who are unfamiliar with the subject with extreme caution." (emphasis mine), that it is "of use to scholars who can evaluate it against other materials. Still, the reader must beware. Gelber's approach to history does not usually allow for discussion of the revisionist views he rejects.", and that "Gelber argues the nationalist version of Israeli history of 1948". If there are no other reliable sources to support the statement that "Arab Liberation Army embarked on a systematic evacuation of non-combatants from several frontier villages in order to turn them into military strongholds." then we oughtn't include it, per WP:FRINGE.

2. In a paragraph describing that "the events of the Nakba were by that point [that is, by the year 2010] "widely described" as involving ethnic cleansing", there follows that "Not all historians accept this characterization. Efraim Karsh is among the few historians who still consider that most of the Arabs who fled left of their own accord or were pressured to leave by their fellow Arabs, despite Israeli attempts to convince them to stay." The ideas here cited to Karsh are plain denialism. We should be presenting these views only in the context of Nakba denial or not presenting them at all per WP:FRINGE: "A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. [...] If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight."

3. The lead paragraph beginning "The causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus are also a subject of fundamental disagreement among historians." needs to be altered significantly. For one, there only has been legitimate debate among historians, but today there no longer is. Second, the denialist factors listed should be removed, and indeed the inline citations supporting the dubious causes are quite weak here - "disinclination to live under Jewish control" is cited inline to two books which are not even about the 1948 war, and "Arab evacuation orders" is a known myth with its inline citation to Pittsburgh Press May 1948 (terrible source) and to a proper academic work which I can't access but which I can see includes as a footnote "In 1960–61 Walid Khalidi also investigated the BBC and FBIS radio transcripts recorded throughout the 1948 war to look for evidence of Arab evacuation orders but was unable to locate any at all.". This paragraph should be rewritten to state there is significant public and political debate, and should mention Nakba denial as that is cleary for for the lead anyway, but it should not give the impression that there isn't consensus in present day scholarship about the causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion. This lead paragraph also does not reflect the body as the dubious causes presented are (rightfully) not covered in the article. (Also note that the page causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight is itself very poorly written and replete with denialism and "Old History" and is not to be used as a source).

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. Regarding your first point, the review criticised Gelber's book for omitting various important aspects of the conflict, but not for inaccuracies

“ Gelber’s approach to history does not usually allow for discussion of the revisionist views he rejects... Gelber never mentions Golda Meyerson’s (Meir’s) visit to Abdullah and what was discussed. He simply relegates the matter to a footnote ... As for Dayr Yasin (p. 98 ff), Gelber never identifies the units that attacked the village and questions whether it contributed significantly to the panic that followed ”

It's a normal scholarly discussion. The reviewer believes that the book provides an incomplete picture of the events and suggests that it shouldn't be the only book an uninformed reader should read about this topic. This is irrelevant for this article which uses multiple books by New Historians and others as sources.

I'll respond to the other points later. Alaexis_¿question? 21:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

"not for inaccuracies"? - "No work by an Arab scholar in Arabic is cited, because, as noted, Arab scholars have not been interested in the subject in a serious historical manner.[Summarising/describing Gelber's view] Anyone who peruses the bibliography of Eugene Rogan and Avi Shalim's edited volume The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948 (Cambridge, 2001) will see how false Gelber's assertion is." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The assertion he deems false is "Arab scholars have not been interested in the subject in a serious historical manner". How is it related to the way Gelber's book is used here? Alaexis_¿question? 14:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Perhaps this could be modified based on Morris 2004? His gives a somewhat more balanced view on this. There is no evidence that the Arab states and the AHC wanted a mass exodus or issued blanket orders or appeals to flee. At the same time, the AHC and the Arab states often encouraged villagers (and, in some places, townspeople) to send their women, children and old people out of harm’s way. Local political and military leaders also ordered some villages to evacuate in order to forestall their (treacherous) acceptance of Jewish rule. In certain areas (around Jerusalem, and along the Syrian border), the Arab states ordered villages to uproot for strategic reasons.

2. I agree that this view of Karsh is on the extreme side. He's still a notable historian and I think it's okay to mention his view with proper framing/attribution. In general I wouldn't be opposed to replacing more extreme sources like Karsh with more moderate ones like Anita Shapira, except that Shapira would be too moderate to be considered part of an "Israeli narrative". Maybe the article can be restructured, but the current "two opposing narratives" structure calls for including less moderate voices such as Karsh.

3. While there's no (serious) debate today that expulsions occurred and were substantial, there is plenty of debate about the role of local commanders vs Zionist leaders, as well as the extent of flight and the reasons for it.

— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the role of local commanders vs Zionist leaders."? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Taking Ben-Gurion as an example (perhaps the most important one), there is some lack of clarity over whether he explicitly ordered any expulsions. Yitzhak Rabin signed an expulsion order for Lydda, but gave two conflicting accounts about whether it was based on an explicit order by Ben-Gurion. With that potential exception, Ben-Gurion didn't give any explicit expulsion orders, although Morris argues he was "projecting a message of transfer".

Others have emphasized the role of local commanders acting based on military rather than political objectives: At the local level, commanders wanted to remove from the war zone a population that might aid the enemy. Nor did they want to have to deal with the needs of an occupied civilian population, preferring to remove it. (Shapira summarizing Kleiman). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Both versions of Rabin's account have BG ordering the expulsion of the inhabitants. The difference may only be due to Bar Zohar. Also, we should be aware of an issue around temporary evacuation of non-combatants, which is a normal feature of wars. Zionist propagandists claim that such evacuations are evidence of "they left at their leaders' orders", while failing to mention that the Jewish side also evacuated non-combatants from the front line. A large number of them, in fact. Zero^talk 04:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Re your lede changes, I think expulsions and violence, and the fear thereof, were the primary causes may be reasonable, since in a way everything stemmed from violence/war of fear thereof. That said, I still feel the sources you added don't back this very clearly or directly. They're just not making it very clear which particular analyses they're rejecting. Clearly they reject certain extreme views like Karsh's, but beyond that they seem unclear, e.g. does chased out include those who left in 1947 in anticipation of fighting?

Consider the bit you removed, the demoralizing impact of wealthier classes fleeing. The sources you added don't mention this (purported) factor, so it's not clear if they reject it in some way. According to Morris, No one [...] disputes the fact that much of the Arab middle and upper classes fled Palestine.

I'm not sure this is the right place to mention Nakba denial, since the term is generally used for more fringe views (like the ahistorical view that the land was largely empty), not so much for more plausible analyses that are the focus of the article.

Also, why unlink causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Unlinked causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight since it is a terriblly written article. This article analyzes the causes much better than that article.

"The demoralizing impact of wealthier classes fleeing" can probably be readded, although that's maybe more a part of the flight than a cause of it.

Nakba denial seems pretty clear due for the lead.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight is currently assessed as B-class. I'm aware of your views on it but not sure they're widely shared. Even if there was consensus that it's a terrible article, MOS:L doesn't mention that as a consideration for linking. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it being linked or not. And I intend to fix that article in the near future anyway. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

This stuff might be less active denialism so much as just crappily dated. 2001 is very dated at this point, and 2010 is not exactly young. If there are later sources stating how consensus has changed, or abjectly contradicting these older sources, then we can obviate them. This isn't a historiography. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Changes

I made an edit implementing many changes here and was blanket reverted simply due to "there is a discussion in progress". I made many changes and it's not reasonable to simply revert them all. For instance I added sources and removed cleary bad sources. Please provide the actual reason why any changes are being disputed. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

If there's a proper discussion ongoing here, I haven't noticed it. I certainly haven't noticed any serious objections to tamping down the weight of a dated old historian source. I agree that the blanket revert was inappropriate, if not borderline disruptive. Very poor form. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It also isn't ideal to make major controversial changes to the lede when there's an active discussion that hasn't had much time to develop yet, and with concerns that haven't been addressed. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a little hard to assess your post above given its lack of supporting links, but if there's something that's off about an edit, common practice is to collegiately tweak it. Better for actual headway. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing

In the lead, there is an equivocating line that says: "The expulsion of the Palestinians has since been described by some historians as ethnic cleansing, while others dispute this charge." The ethnic cleansing sources are newer; the denial sources are older. Somewhat ludicrously, Benny Morris sources are used to support both. However, his 2021 admission of the ethnic cleansing drastically supercedes his 2008 denial. The other two denial sources, from 2002 and 2005, obviously precede Pappé's The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine and the last two decades of scholarship. The question that begs is: are there any current sources that still deny the ethnic cleansing? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Good point, this should be rewritten to express that the ethnic cleansing view is the mainstream or majority view and that the denial thereof is a fringe or minority view. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The Morris interview where he implicitly acknowledges ethnic cleansing was from 2004, no? Looks like the archive date was 2021.

I don't think Morris has ever denied that ethnic cleansing occurred, so he should probably be removed from that list of references. That said, it's his view that there was no top-down Zionist plan for systematic ethnic cleansing. He also tends to use less loaded language like "expulsions". — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes. Archive date. Erk. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)