Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Numbers in the lead

I made a couple of changes to the lead which I will comment here briefly. First, I felt that when there is a page that says that the numbers vary from 400K-900K+ that it is best to simply say that numbers vary and link to the estimate page, rather than chose an arbitrary figure. I also removed the reference to Masalha since his reference uses a number even higher than that originally given (750K as opposed to 725K) and the page in question does not show how he arrived at his percentages or where his numbers came from. Also, considering that there is so much dispute/question over the numbers, it seems wrong to use a source that knowledgeable readers know is highly skewed as favorable to one side and unfavorable to the other. I know this may be controversial, but please consider that it is less controversial than what was there before. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 05:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, is it really necessary to include the expression "ethnic cleansing" twice in the lead? Snakeswithfeet (talk) 05:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The quote from Pappe in the first paragraph of the lead gives UNDUE weight to the opinion of one historian, who is a self-admitted partisan to boot. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment, Mr Know More. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

RolandR removed my changes saying only that my comments on the talk page did not justify removal of well-sourced material. Unfortunately he did not explain his rationale on the talk page. So I am hoping that some more explication here will help

original version:

The 1948 Palestinian exodus (Arabic: ?????? ??????????, al-Hijra al-Filas?iniya), also known as Nakba (Arabic: ??????, an-Nakbah), meaning the "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm", occurred when approximately 725,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the Civil War that preceded it.

my version, with underlined changes:

The 1948 Palestinian exodus (Arabic: ?????? ??????????, al-Hijra al-Filas?iniya), also known as Nakba (Arabic: ??????, an-Nakbah), meaning the "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm", occurred when Palestinian Arabs left, fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the Civil War that preceded it. Estimates of the numbers vary greatly.

1. approximately 750K in original version links to the page Estimates of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948 which gives a wide range of figures
2. Wikipedia should not choose a number from this range, but simply link to the page with these the estimates made by others
3. It is a well known fact that not all of the Arabs simply "fled," a number of them simply left, well before the fighting actually started, as soon as the partition was announced by the United Nations. This is amply covered in the link Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus given and which remains in both versions.

I also removed this sentence and its accompanying link: "Nur-eldeen Masalha writes that over 80 percent of the Arab inhabitants of the area that was to become Israel left their towns and villages.," because

1. In reading the reference Masalha uses the figure 750K which clashes with the 725K originally given and must base his 80% on that number.
2. He does not give his sources or his reasoning or mathematics.
3. There are many sources that do provide the math as the Estimates page shows, so there is no reason to include that particular figure since there are many other authors who have facts and figures as well. For example in 1959 Walter Pinner published a study that came up with a figure of 526K. (Pinner, Walter. The Legend of the Arab Refugees: A Critical Study of UNRWA's Reports and Statistics. Tel Aviv: Economic and Social Research Institute, 1967. 54-56.) Joseph Schechtman uses 500-600K. (Schechtman, Joseph B. Population Transfers in Asia. New York: Hallsby Press, 1949. page 131) Why should we use a particular person's figures? Why not use the Israeli number of 400K? Each side has its own reasons for minimizing or maximizing the number. Better to let the information speak for itself as in the "Estimates" page and simply say, "estimates vary widely"?
4. including Masalha's 80% comment in the lead like that implies that we stand behind it as accurate.

I hope Roland R will come to the talk page and discuss how this does not justify my changes. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The number of refugees to be included in the lead has been discussed several times in the past, and the figure used has been agreed by previous consensus. If you want to alter that, you should try to seek a new consensus; until you do, there is no justification for your edit, and certainly none for removing any figure from the lead.

Regarding Masalha, this is a cited reliable source. Your analysis of his figures is unallowable original research. If you have a different reliable source challenging Masalha's interpretation, you are welcome to add this; but you can't unilaterally determine that a respected academic expert is not reliable. RolandR (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Roland, I am not saying that Masalha is unreliable. Nor am I analysing his figures. There is nothing to analyse. He makes a statement without giving any source for his numbers. The complete sentence in Masalha (175) reads: "The Zionist dream of de-Arabizing the country and realizing a clear Jewish majority finally came about during the 1948 war, when 750,000 Palestinians, or more than 80 percent of the Arab inhabitants of what became Israel, took up the road of exile." This is a clear POV statement with no supporting footnote or further elaboration on these numbers. I am saying that there are plenty of other reliable sources that challenge these Masalha's numbers, and with more justification in their writing, (Pinner, Schechtman, Friedlander, Schriff, even some UN sources) but it would be inappropriate to argue those numbers & authors in the lead. Besides, there is already a link to the estimates page and that should be sufficient. Why should we chose one particular estimate as the one writ in stone? My edit was meant to be somewhat WP:BOLD and I am not sure where this consensus was achieved. I find it hard to accept a consensus over the fact that estimates vary widely. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That is the first sentence of an exhaustively footnoted chapter, which fully bears out Masalha's summary. It is simply not true that he has not provided any evidence for his figures. That is the point of using reliable sources — we don't need ourselves to check the writer's sources, we trust that s/he has already done so.RolandR (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You are parsing words here. We are not talking about Masalha's summary. We are talking about Masalha's use of a particular figure which is not, repeat not, footnoted or sourced. First you tell me it isn't true that he hasn't provided the evidence for his figures, and then you tell me we are not required to do so anyway based on the fact that he is a reliable source. Well, shall I then provide a half dozen or more other reliable sources that say something different? I prefer not to do this as it would be bulky and unencyclopedic. But I will on the grounds that no particular author's numbers should be chosen as correct, as this article does. Why is it necessary to chose a particular figure when we have a whole article addressing the fact that there are a wide range of estimates? You do not begin to answer any of the legitimate questions and points addressed above. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a comment on the "left/fled/expelled" terminology, namely that this is a bit of a useless point. If an Israeli Arab left his home in Israel in June 1948 and was prevented from returning in 1949, he became in 1949 expelled by Israel and thus a "Palestinian" refugee. --Dailycare (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no definition of expulsion that does not involve being pushed out or removed. The fact that they were not permitted to return does not make a case for expulsion. (Had they chosen to stay peacefully, there would have been no issue of return.) The fact that many Arabs left without being expressly expelled or even frightened ought in all fairness to be a part of this "exodus." Snakeswithfeet (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Israeli Arabs who left on their own accord should be considered part of the exodus since they've been prevented from returning, which makes them refugees. Preventing their return is motivated by Israel's desire to modify the demographic makeup of the country, so it's part of the same project as physical expulsions. --Dailycare (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Late Great State of Israel

I removed the following footnote from the second sentence:

Aaron Klein (April 2009). The Late Great State of Israel: How Enemies Within and Without Threaten the Jewish Nation's Survival. WND Books. pp. 112–. ISBN 9781935071082. Retrieved 22 January 2011."The exact number of persons who fled is a matter of dispute, ranging from fewer than five hundred thousand to over nine hundred thousand, depending on the source. Israel officially puts the figure at about five hundred twenty thousand. Similary disputed is the specific cause for the flight."

I don't doubt that the sentence added to the article is true, which is why I left it in the article with a {{cn}} tag. I just don't think this book qualifies as a reliable source.

There are several clues that The Late Great State of Israel is not a RS. First, its subtitle, "How Enemies Within and Without Threaten the Jewish Nation's Survival", indicates that it is a polemic and not a work of scholarship. Second, it is published by WND Books, an imprint associated with WorldNetDaily. This also indicates that the book has a political agenda. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus

cn template is not needed since the concept is embedded in the article when one mouseovers the 750,000. Klein was not needed either however since the statement is generic. However, the rationale that Klein is a polemic, not a work of scholarship and has a political agenda therefore is not an RS needs to be considered though. #1)you should have to demonstrate through external sources that his work is not considered a work of scholarship. #2) An external source should call his work a polemic #3)lots of writers/journalists and even historians have political agendas. If we are going to remove works by those who presumably have a "political agenda", particularly in the area of the middle east, we would not have many authors left to quote. Klein is a journalist, not an historian, and his Wikipedia bio shows that he is a columnist for the The Jewish Press, and his articles have been republished by Ynetnews and The New York Sun. He has written three books, and is currently stationed in Jerusalem.

However, Illan Pappe's The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine is not a polemic? According to wiki a polemic is "a form of dispute, wherein the main efforts of the disputing parties are aimed at establishing the superiority of their own points of view regarding an issue." Pappe does not have a political agenda? Yet we use his oft-described "tendentious polemic" to convict Israel of ethnic cleansing in the lead.

I was able to find a few (quite a few) external sources that do not consider Pappe's work academic but polemical such as:

• ME Forum Seth Frantzman refers to "Pappe's Polemics"
• "the other by Ilan Pappe, a blatantly tendentious polemic. "
• Ami isseroof " what he writes is not history, but vicious and polemical historical fiction."and "Pappe's work is not scholarship however. Pappe's book, like his previous books, is destined to be added to the vast corpus of anti-Zionist literature that is being accumulated, with the purpose of creating a new "narrative" - a history that never happened. It has the same scientific and intellectual value as Lysenko's "experiments" and the forged Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
• Neil Berry "In 2008 Pappe decamped to Britain’s Exeter University, having become a public enemy in Israel on account of his anti-Zionist activism and insistence that Israel was founded on the 'ethnic cleansing.'"
• Mike Moore, Christian Witness to Israel "Pappe's anti-Israel bias is so extreme that he recently gave an in-depth interview to the German antis-Semitic neo-Nazi paper National Zeitung in which he repeated his charges against Israel. ..Most anti_Israel writers at least claim to base their findings on documentary evidence, but Pappe is a self-confessed post-modern relativist for whom historical research is 'a backward-looking projection of political attitudes and agendas regardless of actual facts'.

I was able to find nothing at all and no one who claimed that Klein's book on Israel was polemical or agenda-based. So if we accept your argument to reject Klein as a RS, we should certainly reject Pappe, whose inciteful and disputed language does not below in the lead of this or any other article, in my opinion. I would appreciate your views. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood how reliable sources are defined. Whether Pappe is a historian depends on whether other historians consider him so and cite his work, not on whether Klein is a reliable source. --Dailycare (talk) 11:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not say Pappe was not a historian, just that he is not a RS based on the criteria given by Malik Shabazz. Some of the references above calling Pappe's book a "polemic" are from academics. Historians can write polemics too, and Pappe is a case in point. A number of other historians (Morris included) have claimed that Pappe has an agenda. Incidently, Pappe's book "Ethnic Cleansing" was not published by an academic or university press, as Klein's was not. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether he's a RS is judged based on WP:IRS. Based on the biographical info on his article here, I think it's an unlikely claim that historical material by him wouldn't have been published in WP:RS. Who published the "Ethnic cleansing" book in particular isn't relevant to this question as far as I can see. --Dailycare (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that Wikipedia rules can eliminate someone who is an academic historian writing in his field of expertise. So people like Pappe and Karsh who are activists as well as historians count as reliable sources. But personally I won't cite either of them and I'll urge other editors to voluntarily do likewise. Aaron Klein's book is a different matter; obviously it is purely a polemic with no chance of meeting WP:RS. Zero^talk 04:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I can't for a moment accept that there is an equivalency between someone of the quality of Efraim Karsh and Ilan Pappe. You may note that Pappe's Wikipedia article calls him a "political activist" right in the lead. That's because it is undeniable. Not so for Karsh. And while you may stay away from using Pappe, it can be seen that he is continually referenced by others [1]. Karsh has a much broader focus, having written books about the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf Conflict, the Soviet Union, Syria, as well the Arab-Israeli conflict. For Pappe, it is all Israel-Palestine, all the time. He is a one trick pony.Snakeswithfeet (talk) 05:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

My opinion of Karsh is based on my own comparisons between his claims and the primary documents he refers to (where I can access them). Also on his behavior in the public sphere. I'm not an expert but I know a propagandist when I see one. Zero^talk 07:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Israeli resettlement program

It seems to me that at least the first paragraph of the now deleted section is well supported by the new source I introduced. Is your objection that the second paragraph, which discusses UN resolutions is unsupported? Tzu Zha Men (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That isnt a reliable source either, the PRRN is a repository of documents. It hosts a wide range of opinions but does not claim any of them are accurate. Would you, for example, say this paper could be used to say, as a statement of fact, that the creation of Israel was the "largest ethnic cleansing operation in modern history."? nableezy - 23:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that at least the first paragraph of the now deleted section is well supported by the new source I introduced. Oh really? Can you show me where it supports "Following the Six-Day War, Israel gained control over a substaintial number of refugee camps in the territories it captured from Egypt and Jordan"? "The neighborhoods were given an electricity, water, sanitation network, and paved sidewalks, and the Israeli government also built schools, health clinics, shopping centers, and allocated land for mosques"? "Once the home was built, the refugee became the full owner of the property, and was included in the Israeli Land Register"? "The shelters in refugee camps from which the refugees moved from were then torn down, with the hope that the refugee camps could eventually be dismantled to make way for new refugee neighborhoods"? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

One approach which was partially successful was initiated by Israel in the early l970's, called the 'build your own home' program. A half a dunam of land outside the camps was given to a Palestinian who then financed the purchase of the building materials, and usually with friends, erected a home. Israel provided the infrastructure: sewers, schools, etc. More than 11,000 camp dwellers were resettled into ten different neighborhoods before the PLO, using their time-honored tactics of intimidation, ended the program. The Israeli authorities would say that if the people were able to stand up to the PLO within eight years every camp resident could own a single dwelling home in a clean and uncongested neighborhood. - Seems to be support for most of what you call out there. If you really need sources that say, for example, that 'Following the Six-Day War, Israel gained control over a substantial number of refugee camps in the territories it captured from Egypt and Jordan' I'll find separate sources for that, as it is really quite uncontroversial historical fact. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You did not address the issue that this is not a reliable source. nableezy - 23:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I saw that paragraph. It doesn't support 3/4 of the first paragraph. Where are the electricity and the paved sidewalks? the health clinics, shopping centers, and mosques? Where does it mention the Land Register? Where does it mention dismantling the refugee camps? It doesn't, which means the source doesn't support what was written.

Also, nableezy has raised a good point with respect to whether it is a reliable source at all. It appears to have been culled from a listserv. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that everything in this paragraph can be verified by RS given a bit of time. Consider the article about Sheikh Radwan which verifies the existence of such housing projects. Of course it is slanted to the Palestinian perspective, ("In 1971, the Israeli government attempted to disperse the concentration of Palestinian refugees as part of an Israeli authority policy of counter insurgency and military repression of the Palestinian refugees."...I kid you not, it says this!) but it has sources. Leave the para in with CN tags for the time being until we can address your concerns about shopping centers and mosques etc...172.132.30.247 (talk) 05:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not, something as dubious and obviously slanted as this must stay out until proper sourcing and balance is achieved. Zero^talk 02:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably the origin of this story is a rehousing project in Gaza, described here (which concludes that the purpose was political rather than humanitarian). Between 8,500 and 11,000 refugees were moved out of the camps. According to this article, the scheme involved demolition of the original dwellings and was condemned by UNGA resolution 42/69 J of Dec 1987. There have also been various projects for the West Bank proposed, but I don't think much was actually done there. According to this paper, a major proposal by Israel in 1983 was squashed by the US State Department. Most references to a "build your own home" project refer to a scheme for expanding Jewish settlements. Zero^talk 04:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Possibly this was the original article, which says, in part,

In the early 1970s, Israel initiated what it called the "build your own home" program. A half a dunam of land outside the camps (equal to about an eighth of an acre) was given to Palestinians who then financed the purchase of building materials and, usually with friends, erected a home. Israel provided the infrastructure: sewers, schools, etc. More than 11,000 camp dwellers were resettled into 10 different neighborhoods before the PLO, using intimidation tactics, ended the program.

or this UNISPAL link quotes the rep of Israel, plus further text:

3. In a note verbale dated 28 June 1989, the Permanent Representative of Israel replied as follows:

"This resolution is unbalanced and distorted in that its sponsors intentionally ignore the improved living conditions in the Gaza district since 1967. Resolution 43/57 E does not mention the considerable increase of pupils attending school in the Gaza District since 1967, nor does it mention the significant drop in the illiteracy rate among inhabitants in the Gaza District since that year. Furthermore, it does not mention the extensive development of medical care or the improvement of environmental services - including water supply, sewage and refuge disposal. By conveniently omitting these facts, the sponsors of resolution 43/57 E continue in their approach to perpetuate the refugee problem and the refugees' living conditions in Gaza.

"Nothing more can be more indicative of this approach than this resolution's condemnation of Refugee Rehabilitation Projects. Since 1967, Israel has initiated Community Development Projects in the Gaza District enabling almost 15,000 families, approximately 120,000 persons to leave the refugee camps on a voluntary basis and relocate to nearby residential areas. This figure represents over one third of the total refugee population in Gaza. Israel's vital role in planning and implementing those housing projects has been recognized by both the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner of UNRWA in their respective reports (A/40/613 and A/40/13).

.....

11. The Israeli authorities, according to information available to the Commissioner-General, have to date allocated approximately 3,914 plots of land in the Gaza Strip for housing projects. A total of 2,605 plots have been built on by 3,714 refugee families comprising 22,946 persons; buildings on 236 plots are under construction, 936 plots are still vacant and 137 have been built on by non-refugee families. In addition, 3,034 refugee families, consisting of 18,823 persons, have moved into 2,666 completed housing units consisting of 5,893 rooms.

12. Refugee families are continuing to purchase plots of land at subsidized rates for the construction of houses in the projects developed by the Israeli authorities in the Beit Lahiya, Nazleh and Tel-es-Sultan areas. The construction of multi-storey apartment blocks in Sheikh Radwan, sponsored by the Israeli authorities and offered for sale upon completion, as reported last year (A/43/653, para. 12), continues, but the process has slowed down considerably due to the prevailing situation.

In the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Nora Levin writes (p 52):

in the Gaza Strip, the experience of the Arabs working in and attending the hospital at El Arish also reveals the capacity for slow change of old embittered attitudes. The hospital was originally staffed by 13 doctors and served an Arab population of 60,000. In September, following the Six-Day War, the Egyptian doctors left the hospital and their patients and returned to Egypt. The hopsital was then "adopted" by two hospitals in Tel Aviv and the Israeli model of an "integrated" project was soon apparent. A small staff of Israeli doctors, nurses and technical training and administrative personnel are training a local Arab staff that will take over operation of the hospitals as soon as possible.

or possibly this article published by the Humanitarian Practice Network will support some of the section that was proposed.

Neither UNRWA nor, for that matter, any other international agency or foreign government, has been willing to undertake or participate in projects designed to improve the unacceptable living conditions and overcrowding in the refugee camps, particularly in the Gaza Strip, and to effectively rehabilitate the Palestinian refugee population. To give one example. In the 1970s and 1980s, the Israeli Civil Administration undertook new housing projects in Gaza, allowing the eventual relocation of more than 11,500 families away from the hardships of the refugee camps. Despite appeals by the Israeli authorities, no international humanitarian assistance was forthcoming to enable the rehabilitation of significantly larger numbers of refugee families.

There is more than enough evidence here to include and conclude that Israel did indeed make humanitarian efforts toward resettling the Palestinians. Of course when the view here is that every humanitarian effort by Israel must either be excluded or interpreted "as part of an Israeli authority policy of counter insurgency and military repression," it is hard to hold much hope for a fair and balanced presentation of the facts. 172.129.176.3 (talk) 05:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Totally unbalanced lead

• nakba
• disaster
• catastrophe
• cataclysm
• fled
• expelled
• nakba
• nakba
• nakba
• ethnic cleansing
• forced deportation
• ethnic cleansing
• massacre
• expulsion
• ethnic cleansing
• nakba

• That makes about one such word per line in the lead!

• Pappe (a self-admitted advocate for the Palestinian cause) is cited twice in the first paragraph. With the exception of Tessler (and I can find criticism of Tessler as anti-Israel), all of the authors cited are either Palestinian or well-known advocates for the Palestine view. This subject matter is relevant not only to the Palestinian Arabs, but to the Jewish Israeli side as well and much has been written on this from the Jewish/Israeli perspective that should be included in the lead to make a balanced presentation. I am seriously thinking of putting a *DISPUTED* tag on this article until it is "fixed." Thoughts, please. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Do you expect the first sentence not to include the word nakba and its English translation? The rest of the first sentence says the Palestinian Arabs "left, fled or were expelled". That seems like a neutral summary of the reasons why people left, and I added it to Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries months ago. That first sentence has six of your complaints—nearly half—in it.
2. The two sentences about the first use of the term nakba and Pappe's view of it, probably don't belong in the lede per WP:LEDE.
3. Do you realize the entire first section is the lede, not just the first paragraph? That deflates your argument that there is "once such word per line". There are many "such words" in the first sentence, which is appropriate. Several more in the first paragraph, many of which don't belong there. And that's it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Malik, you miss the point entirely. It averages out to that. Please try not to be so literal and attempt to understand the broader point. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you do see some of the problem since you say some of it "probably doesn't belong in the lede" and "several more in the first paragraph, many of which don't belong there." Perhaps you would be good enough to fix the parts of it that you agree don't belong, and I won't feel the need to add the tag. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No, Snakeswithfeet, I got your point. You looked at the lede, ignored statements that attribute the Palestinian exodus to the desire to flee a war zone, and instead counted the number of times the word nakba is used. Trust me, I got your point. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Repetition is one of the techniques used to create effective propaganda. That's the broader point. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Now you're unbalancing the first paragraph. First by trying to stack it in favor of your argument, and now by deleting a neutral sentence. Please put it back. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It may seem to you unbalanced, but to me it seems stacked in favor of your argument, which is why I am suggesting tagging this article as "disputed." Since you will not permit me to expand the article with a few quotes of my own for balance, at least allow me to remove a few instances of "ethnic cleansing" from this horribly unbalanced article. A few lines down we have another instance of this argument "in your favor", The expulsion of the Palestinians has since been described by some historians as ethnic cleansing.[11][12][13] , the implication being that all or most of the Palestinians were expelled, and yet there are a number of reliable sources that say only a small percentage of the Arabs were actually expelled, and that many had left prior to any hostilities whatsoever, and others left upon rumors of military advances by Jews. Such a sentence needs either needs clarification and expansion, as I did earlier in the edit you struck, or should be removed altogether as presenting only one view. If you will not allow the other view in the lead, ie that most of the Palestinians who left did so not because they were expelled, but for a number of other reasons, then I have no choice but to tag the article as disputed. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read the sentence you deleted? I think not. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course I did. It was an opportunity to quote a self-acknowleged Palestinian Arab advocate and use both "forced deportation" and "ethnic cleansing" in the same sentence. I left it in originally trying to balance it by adding some further quotes by Benny Morris and and another, but you removed the attempt to provide balance by adding, so I added balance by subtracting. I have tried to bring my concerns here but you have not answered them. Did you "even bother" to read the concerns in the paragraph above? Snakeswithfeet (talk) 03:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As I thought, you stopped at the words "ethnic cleansing". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you are not editing in good faith, so I have tagged the article. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 05:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Outside(ish) opinion:

• Nakba redirects here, so no surprise that it's a lead term.
• Palestinian exodus has some use, but is not really the most common term, but does meet neutrality well
• The Pappe–Tessler—Bernadotte sequence nicely covers the range of perspectives, while including Tessler's meta-summary of opinions
• Multiple causes are addressed in summary in the first sentence and in the sentence paragraph, with a wikilink to causes. Seems good.
• The decisive difference to most outsiders is not between fleeing in fear and being forceable expelled, but between the right to come back or not. This is addressed here.
• The issue of the later disposition of refugees is discussed without obvious bias.

Despite the lead's overall quality, it's legitimate to add new material (Morris, perhaps, although I haven't read the diff) to improve it.

Thought on this dialogue: "self-admitted advocate for the Palestinian cause" reveals more about the user of the description than about Pappe.--Carwil (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• I expressed no objection to the use of "Nakba" in the lead, though 5 times might be seen (by some) as excessive, especially when you add to it "disaster" ,"catastrophe", "catalcysm," "massacre" plus three "ethnic cleansings" a "forced deportation" a couple of "expulsions." "Flight" the most commonly used word in many narratives, is only used once in the lead.
• If we are to use a self-admitted advocated for the Palestinian Arab cause in the lead, then we should be able to use self-admitted advocates for the Jewish/"Zionist" cause too, as for example Schechtman, Samuel Karsh, Katz, and others. Neutrality can be achieved best through use of neutral spokesmen; barring that, equal time for both sides. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Get real, Snakeswithfeet. There is one (1) quotation that favors the pro-Palestinian narrative and one (1) that favors the pro-Israel narrative. I don't know what planet you live on where you think "balance" means one Pappé has to be offset by three or four pro-Israel voices. Keep it up and you're going to have a very short Wiki-career. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That last part sounds like a personal threat. I would advise you to rephrase. Marokwitz (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No, not a personal threat. A fact of Wiki-life. If an editor's view of balanced editing is "six of mine for every one of yours", that editor can expect to have a short Wiki-career. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it's you who should "get real". There's one quote from Pappe describing the Palestinian side. Then there's a quote from Tessler saying there's a disagreement on what happened (neutral) and then Tessler quoting from Bernadotte about "the hazards and strategy of the armed conflict" which also implies there was a strategy of expulsion.

Then in the next paragraph we have Masalha and Khalidi both very much pro-Palestinians.

So to sum up, there is one quote by a self-proclaimed pro-Palestinian activist explicitly giving the Palestinian POV, one neutral quote by someone most people would have never heard of (who happens to be a founding member of the Palestinian-American Research Center) and a quote from Bernadotte which at best can be interpreted both ways and certainly doesn't explicitly give the Israeli POV.

Also, Snakeswithfeet wasn't suggesting that "one Pappé has to be offset by three or four pro-Israel voices". He was giving examples of pro-Israeli voices that can be used. He didn't say they should all be.

The lead is very obviously unbalanced, includes card stacking, and you're trying to block attempts to make it more balanced. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the lead should have quotations at all. It should just be a brief summary of the article. At most it should note that there is a controversy over the details. Zero^talk 09:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That would probably be the best solution. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I meant to reply to Snakeswithfeet last night. "Equal time for both sides" may help us write articles about ongoing debates, but is a poor general rule for an encyclopedia. While both sides may have words ("nakba", "War of Independence") or opinions, each side is not entitled to its own facts. Nor is each side's interpretation of all the facts necessarily due equal weight. Further, "sides" held by serious scholars should not necessarily coincide with different facts, or even different interpretations of those facts. Instead of counting numbers on each side, we should be having a conversation about the quality of reliable sources.

Morris (below), Masalha, and Khalidi are all being cited as providers of information. Pappé (in the lead) and Tessler offer examples of interpretation. Doing so seems valuable.

Benny Morris, who accepts the necessity of Israeli actions in 1948 ("Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here." [2]), nonetheless describes the "Israeli POV" as propaganda: "If, on the other hand, the Israeli propaganda line is accepted — that the Palestinians fled "voluntarily" or at the behest of their own or other Arab leaders — then Israel is free of original sin. … On the other hand, at no point during the war did Arab leaders issue a blanket call for Palestine's Arabs to leave their homes and villages and wander into exile. Nor was there an Arab radio or press campaign urging or ordering the Palestinians to flee. Indeed, I have found no trace of any such broadcasts — and throughout the war the Arab radio stations and press were monitored by the Israeli intelligence services and Foreign Ministry and by Western diplomatic stations and agencies." (Making Israel, p. 20)

Morris likewise takes a critical approach to the Palestinian narrative of planned, systematic expulsion. He concludes "As I have set out in great detail in The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem the truth lies somewhere in between these two explanations. While from the mid-1930s on most of the Yishuv's leaders, including Ben-Gurion, wanted to establish a Jewish state without an Arab minority, or with as small an Arab minority as possible, and supported a 'transfer solution' to this minority problem, the Yishuv did not enter the 1948 war with a master plan for expelling the Arabs, nor did its political and military leaders ever adopt such a plan. There were Haganah/IDF expulsions of Arab communities, some of them with Haganah/IDF General Staff and/or cabinet-level sanction — such as at Miska and Ad-Dumeira in April 1948; at Zarnuqa, Al-Qubeiba, and Huj in May; in Lydda and Ramle in July; and along the Lebanese border (in Bir'im, Iqrit, Tarbikha, Suruh, al Mansura, and Nabi Rubin) in November. But there was no blanket or grand policy of expulsion." (Making Israel, p. 20)

Where useful, this perspective could add to the balancing of the text, but on the basis of presenting the overall view of scholarly, reliable sources, not on the mistaken basis of balancing "two" POVs.--Carwil (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Carwil, how does your conclusion differ from my comment: "Neutrality can be achieved best through use of neutral spokesmen; barring that, equal time for both sides? Nor do I understand to what "each side is not entitled to its own facts" means. Did I offer up any unique facts? You speak to the neccesity of "having a conversation about the quality of reliable sources." This is precisely what I was doing when I wrote that Pappe was a "self-admitted advocate for the Palestinian cause" and which you poo-pooed as saying more about me than about him! If we are going to use Morris to support 30% of this article, why would we be loathe to include his conclusion in the lead? It is after all what he terms his "conclusion." I do take issue with your opinion "Nor is each side's interpretation of all the facts necessarily due equal weight." What is the justification for that? Snakeswithfeet (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Carwil, you don't answer the questions generated by your responses! I asked you 1) in what way my description of Pappe said more about me than about him, and 2)by what policy you say each side's interpretation is not necessarily due equal weight? Why in this case would the Israel side not require equal weight? I can provide scholarly RS that clearly express a differing POV...there is no single view by scholarly reliable sources. There are at least two views that opposed. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 06:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict]NoMoreMrNiceGuy about sums up my view of the lead. The quotes I added, (which Malik Shabazz reverted with "unnecessary; the lede is a _summary_, not a place to stack the argument in your favor;") were from Benny Morris, who is fully 1/3 of all the references in this article, and by Joseph Schechtman, who is generally supposed to be the "official view" of Zionist Israel. (Schechtman, by the way, is mentioned in the bibliography but not referenced once, while Pappe is referenced 16 times.) Both quotes are fairly innocuous, and intended to balance the accusation of "ethnic cleansing" made by Pappe in the sentence ahead of it.

Similarly, "Benny Morris, whose works on the Arab-Israeli conflict are often quoted, says in the Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem that "the Palestinian refugee problem was born of war, not by design, Jewish or Arab." Joseph Schechtman in his 1952 book, The Arab Refugee Problem, said, "This mass flight of the Palestinian Arabs is a phenomenon for which no single explanation suffices. Behind it lies a complex of apparently contradictory factors."

I could have added Morris' conclusion that "Most of the 700,000 'refugees' fled their homes because of the flail of war (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders)" and can make a pretty good case that "ethnic cleansing" did not take place, which is the Jewish/Zionist view (not represented in the lead). Attaching the appellative "ethnic cleansing" to this situation is a recent one not shared by most mainstream historians. Quoting Pappe in the lead would be like adding a little something from Joan Peters or from Alan Dershowitz's The Case for Israel in the lead. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with zero that removing all the quotes would be best, but barring that your suggested Morris quote is certainly appropriate. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

MrNiceGuy, how would you propose to deal with this sentence which is not a direct quote? "Although some authors, such as Ilan Pappé, describe this exodus as forced deportation or ethnic cleansing,[4][3] "Snakeswithfeet (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Make it "opinions attributed to specific people" rather than "quotes" then. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Snakeswithfeet, what about this cite from Morris: "Morris also says that ethnic cleansing took place during the Palestinian exodus, though Morris considers that to have been justified."? --Dailycare (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. He doesn't exactly say that, though. Shavit uses the term and Morris runs with it. Morris seldom uses that combination of words himself, I don't believe, though he uses "cleanse" which was a term that has since been conjoined with "ethnic" to create "ethnic cleansing," a whole new concept. Morris stipulates "ethnic" cleansing to argue that what the Jews did was necessary for its survival, the natural right of self-defense, as he says above it was his conclusion that the exodus was the result of the "flail of war," a conclusion reached by other prominent historians as well. I didn't read it to say that Morris justifies ethnic cleansing, but rather that Jews were generally justified for fighting the war for their state(and their lives), and what happened was the result of that war. That is why I attempted to put the full quote in the footnote, which was edited out by Malik Shabazz. I wouldn't have used it and consider the use of it intellectually dishonest, but I am clearly in the minority here so I did not attempt to cut it. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 06:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing Morris on "ethnic cleansing"

Before we start debating Dailycare's proposal (and please debate it above this subhead), I'm adding the citation of Benny Morris' use of "ethnic cleansing" on 1948.--Carwil (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ari Shavit: So when the commanders of Operation Dani are standing there and observing the long and terrible column of the 50,000 people expelled from Lod walking eastward, you stand there with them? You justify them?

Benny Morris: I definitely understand them. I understand their motives. I don’t think they felt any pangs of conscience, and in their place I wouldn’t have felt pangs of conscience. Without that act, they would not have won the war and the state would not have come into being.

You do not condemn them morally?

No.

They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.

There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing.

And that was the situation in 1948?

That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.

The term “to cleanse” is terrible.

I know it doesn’t sound nice but that’s the term they used at the time. I adopted it from all the 1948 documents in which I am immersed.

From Shavit, Ari (2004). "Survival of the Fittest? An Interview with Benny Morris". Logos. 3 (1). Retrieved 2011-05-17. (reprinted from Ha'aretz)

Or, directly from the Haaretz website: 1 2 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

He uses "ethnic cleansing" once, when replying to a direct question about ethnic cleansing. Otherwise he uses just "cleansing". The two are not the same. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

In the 2004 book of Morris, the phrase "ethnic cleansing" does not occur (maybe it was not fashionable then). The word "cleansing" appears many times as translation of the Hebrew tihur. Zero^talk 10:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think ethnic cleansing implies a planned removal, which as far as I can tell Morris does not think happened, which is probably why he doesn't use it. The way it is stated in the article doesn't seem to be in line with Morris' scholarly work. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

In recent years Morris made many remarks to journalists or in newspaper op-eds that he would never write in his books. However, so far as I know, he has never publicly repudiated any of his own research except to acknowledge errors of detail. Zero^talk 13:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it makes a difference to the victims if they were "ethnically cleansed" or merely "cleansed" from their homes. Ben Gurion uses "cleansed" in the citation in the article ("the cleansing of Palestine remained the prime objective") and his objective was to create an ethnically homogenous Jewish population. --Dailycare (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what is the purpose of the question here but I met two times ethnic cleansing in Morris's works :

• In 1948: A History of the First Arab=Israeli War, pp.407-408, he writes : During the 1948 War, (...) although there were expulsions and although an atmosphere of what would later be called ethnic cleansing prevailed during critical months, transfer never became a general or declared Zionist policy. Thus, by war's end, even though much of the country had been "cleansed" of Arabs, other parts of the country -notably central Galilee- were left with substential Muslim Arab popultions (...).
• In another publication I didn't find back dated 1999 (?). It is published on the web and called "encyclopaedia of genocide" or "encyclopedia of mass violence" or ??? He wrote a "general history" article and gave as an exemple the exodus and compared this to/named this "ethnic cleansing" (if somebody finds this ; I am interested).

Noisetier (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

My memory still works but only with 50% efficiency : here is it. He writes : "In retrospect, it is clear that what occurred in 1948 in Palestine was a variety of ethnic cleansing of Arab areas by Jews. It is impossible to say how many of the 700,000 or so Palestinians who became refugees in 1948 were physically expelled, as distinct from simply fleeing a combat zone."

Noisetier (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a typical example of Morris's (dare I say the "H" word for fear of a BLP violation?) attitude. He wants it both ways. How can you square that with the other statement above that "Most of the 700,000 'refugees' fled their homes because of the flail of war (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders)" ? This is one reason why I personally agree with Karsh's (and others') criticism of him in Fabricating Israeli History and elsewhere. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 04:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The explanation (apart from Morris' propensity to making wild claims when he doesn't have his academic hat on), is that "cleansing" in many/most cases consisted of not allowing the refugees back. Civilians usually flee from war zones, it is normal behavior. The moment they were forbidden to return is the moment they were forcibly exiled. Zero^talk 09:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It is normal for civilians to flee from war and it is also normal not to allow them back if the territory changes hands. "Ethnic cleansing" has a specific meaning which from reading Morris' work I don't think he thinks happened. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I see that we all have a wp:or break ; so I will make my own comments ;-)

I don't agree with you Zero0000. The blocking the return is not enough to state these events were ethnic cleansing. It is a very bad (and illegal) behaviour but that "just" consists in taking people wealth in hostage, which is not the same and which is "understandable" in the context (an eye for an eye, ...)

• From what I know of the 1948 war history, I consider that operation Yiftah (April 48 in Galilee) and what happened at Lydda and Ramle during operation Dani (July 1948) are "perfect" and not discutable exemples of ethnic cleansing in the sense that expulsions were premedited, violences and massacres occured to haste the flight, expulsions were performed under the orders and the will of higher rank officers (Yigal Allon) (with the potential support of Ben Gurion). And I am 100% sure that face to face, Yoav Gelber would agree with me.
• The cleansing of the coastal plain by Alexandroni brigade is discutable. Same for Yoav despite some massacres of civil population. (And I am quite sure Yoav Gelber would disagree with me and think these were military actions).
• Most operations : Nahshon, Ben Ami, the attacks on Haïfa / Jaffa / Jerusalem suburbs, operations around the Jerusalem road, Dekel due to Dunkelman, Hiram too despite massacres, were clearly military operations and the expulsions that occured at that time must be analysed in such a context. (I am sure that Nur Masalha would disagree with me.)

NB: Morris is a great historian - we just have to sometimes read between the lines. Same for Gelber, Masalha, Finkelstein, Segev (the only humanist one with Laurens), Sela, Tal, (Palumbo), Esber, Laurens, ... W. Khalidi is a very poor historian. Karsh is pure bad faith : he refuses to see the evidence and transform details into main events. Pappé is my prefered one : he writes excellent novels and is quite well documented for a fantasy writer. (Even if, sometimes, he reminds us key points, such as with the 'village files' that all others seemed to have "forgotten").

End of the wp:or break ;-)

Noisetier (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Preventing return as such amounts to expulsion, not ethnic cleansing. However, if return is prevented on ethnic grounds (for example, return is granted to Jews but not to Arabs) then that's ethnic explusion, or ethnic cleansing. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

But it wasn't prevented on ethnic grounds but for a number of other specific reasons, quoting below from Anderson et al, cited below:

• Refusal of the Arab states to accept historical responsibility for the plight of the Arabs which it opposed and tried to prevent.
• Fear that a large Arab population, indoctrinated by years of propaganda directed toward the destruction of Israel, would undermine the security of the country.
• The vacuum left by the Arabs has been filled by the incoming Jewish refugees. [From both Europe and the Arab states']
• The young Israeli government, struggling to absorb a new immigrant population of almost 700,000, which is still growing, could not survive under the burden of reconciling and rehabilitating a hostile Arab population as well.
• The consistent refusal of the Arab states of many proffers from Israel to discuss a settlement of the question.
• Perhaps the most important of all is the fact that the conditions which existed in 1947 when the U.N. partition resolution was adopted, have radically changed. Then it was envisaged that there was sufficient viability in the Jewish state to absorb an existing Arab minority of 42 percent. That premise rested on three considerations:

1. That the Jewish state would be called upon to absorb only the Jewish refugees of Europe, estimated between 500,000 and 700,000
2. That the economy of Israel would be related to its integration in the economies of the Middle East.
3. That there would be peace in the area.

ANDERSON, D. (1951). The Arab refugee problem: how it can be solved : proposals submitted to the General Assembly of the United Nations. [U.S.A.], [s.n.]. p.67 ff Snakeswithfeet (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record, this document does not have an author clearly indicated. It has a list of 19 people in alphabetical order as having "submitted" it to the UNGA. Schechtman says in the intro of his 1952 that this document was "to a considerable extent, based on the material" in his own publications. Zero^talk 10:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really! World Catalog lists it under Anderson. Since you have a paper copy of this, you are aware that Schechtman is not mentioned in the list of 19 who have put their names on it. What Schechtman says in the intro of his 1952 book is This publication [ie the 52 book] is an attempt to summarize the essential facts of the Arab refugee problem. Two similar attempts, on a smaller scale -- "Arab Refugees:Facts and Figures" and "Settlement Prospects for Arab Refugees" --were made by this author in 1949 ..... The valuable publication The Arab Refugee Problem: How it can be solved, Proposals submitted to the General Assembly of the United Nations,...was, to a considerable extent based on the material contained in the above mentioned publications." This by no means suggests that he authored the 1951 Anderson publication, which was full of facts and figures, and we do not know which portions were based on what. It was signed on to by 19 respected humans, including Sumner Welles, Earl G. Harrison,Archibald MacLeish, Reinhold Niebuhr, Earl G. Harrison, Kenneth Scott Latourette, and others. When you sign on to a document like this it means that you approve the contents, no matter who might be responsible for the original material it is based on. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

(Excuse me for fixing your markup.) I wasn't suggesting that Schechtman actually wrote it, though some amount of coordination behind the scenes is very likely. I also agree that the 19 persons whose names are listed bear responsibility for it. Anderson is not distinguished from the others, I expect he only appears in catalogues because his name is alphabetically first. Zero^talk 01:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the markup. I was having such difficulty with my browser today that I switched browsers. I got so frustrated I did not go back and correct my work. Zero, you do a lot of editorializing, with comments like "some amount of coordination behind the scenes is very likely"! You don't know this; it is sheer conjecture on your part. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not the forum for debating the causes, but it must be said that the key link between your Arab state-related reasons and Palestinian Arabs is none other than their ethnic identity. How does this affect the text?--Carwil (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You are right that this is looking a bit much like a bulletin board...but...the "reasons" listed in the booklet Snake quoted (which I have on paper) are excuses for excluding a group of people defined by their ethnicity. They don't alter the fact that ethnicity was the primary criterion for excluding them. This becomes even clearer when we recall that lots of Arabs who did not leave also lost their homes on flimsy excuses. To first approximation (and it is a very good approximation despite some exceptions), the way someone was treated depended on whether they were Arab or Jew. Zero^talk 02:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC):;

Your statement that ethnicity was the primary criterion for exclusion is your opinion and the opinion of some others. It is not the opinion of the majority of mainstream historians. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 05:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with both your points. Last one first, ie that this was "ethnic" cleansing. The Arabs weren't allowed to return not because of who they were but because of how they behaved. Had they never resorted to violence Israel would never have had a justification for removing them. There is an Arab population in Israel that pretty much enjoys the same rights and responsibilities as any other Israeli today. A large portion (if you accept one of Morris quotes: "most") of the Arabs left of their own volition, this is just a known fact, particularly the better off portion, the political leadership etc. Many left out of fear and some were expelled. The fact that Israel has not let them return has zero to do with the fact that they are Arab, and everything to do with the fact that they are "indoctrinated by years of propaganda directed toward the destruction of Israel, [which] would undermine the security of the country," . Snakeswithfeet (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM does not apply here. I have tagged the article as "disputed" for a reason. We then are permitted to discuss the issues of difficulty and attempt to resolve them. I say that the lead is totally unbalanced because it provides only one view of the situation, the view that Israel chased the Arabs out with a stick in a purposeful policy of ethnic cleansing. This is one view, but it is very much not the only view, which one would not realise by reading the lead, which after all is what the average reader comes to first. Let me quote another author that is sometimes used. My purpose is not to WP:SOAPBOX but to provide RS that express the view that makes the lead unbalanced. Here is one from Naomi Shepherd, 1999.

No British analyst predicted the behavior of the mass of Palestinian Arabs which - more than any other factor- secured a Jewish majority in that part of Palestine which became the Jewish state. The flight of most of the Arab population during the 1948 war, following the defection of its leadership, ensured Jewish control of a far larger area of Palestine than had been envisaged in the various partition plans. There appears to have been a complex set of reasons for this exodus, varying from district to district and with no single cause or directive. During the first decades after the Mandate various explanations were offered: Jews argued that the Arabs fled because they were promised to return to all of Palestine in the wake of victorious armies from the neighbouring states and the annilhilation of the Jews; the Arabs, that there was a concerted plan behind the expulsion of a number of refugees from a handful of towns and villages by the Haganah... Recent historical research has questioned both these assumptions. While the Arabs undoubtedly hoped for an early return, and the Hagana had a contingency plan for the strategic control of Palestine, the flight was spontaneous and the expulsions were ad hoc and uncoordinated. What is undisputed is sthat the Palestinian Arab refugee problem remained for years a basic factor in the Israel-Arab conflict, and on still unsolved." Snakeswithfeet (talk) 05:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That is well written and concise. That is unbalance in the sense of white-washing (everybody is guilty and so nobody is guilty) and in the sense it avoids controverses. That is a good text. But this proposal is not NPoV in the sense it does not give all relevant points of view on the matter. This rather gives the current Israeli historians "compromise" (not to seek too deep into "details") and that "forgets" the current Palestinian historians point of view and the one of many other historians who support their analysis, which is -pov. New ones in the arena such as Saleh Abd al-Jawad or Rosemary Esber, Under the cover of War: Zionist expulsion of the Palestinians also talk about ethnic cleansing, as Morris does in the references I give here above (from 2 wp:rs sources ! and with much nuance in the most recent one).

Seen from wp, we can all fight 100 years to claim that we are right and that some historians are better than others but that would lead to nowhere. The best is to take into account all historians point of views, starting by those we don't like. And the idea the events were an ethnic cleansing is well represented among them (much more than by Pappé alone).

Snakewithfeets, are you aware of this last point ? How do you suggest to deal with this ? Noisetier (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't propose that the phrase "ethnic cleansing" is used in the voice of the article. I don't like phrases like that that hide the complexity of reality. Zero^talk 10:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm also one of the editors who's lost sight of the edit we're discussing here. Just one point, earlier it was argued that "The Arabs weren't allowed to return not because of who they were but because of how they behaved". This misses the point. Most of the refugees were normal civilians who hadn't taken any part in any hostilities. I'd say 99% of them were. They weren't allowed to return because they were Arabs. Jews who'd committed violent acts were allowed entry, on the other hand. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

While you may believe that the reason that the Palestinians were not allowed to return was because they were Arabs, I daresay you would not be able to back that up with a RS. Your comment that 99% of refugees were normal civilians who had not taken part in any hostilities, is also OR which I very much doubt you can backup with a RS. Most of the Jews who were granted entry to Israel were the surviving remnant of the Holocaust as well as some 300,000 Jews from the Arab states and North Africa who "fled or [have] been evacuated to Israel." (Anderson, p 95). By 1951 Israel was expecting another 400,000 within the following three years. By 1951, Israel had absorbed the entire Jewish population of Yemen, about half the Jewish population of Iraq, and most of the Libyan Jews. Virtually all, according to the Anderson et al book, of the Jews of Iran registered for asylum in Israel. The Arab population was able to chose which country they chose to go to - Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Egypt. The Jews had only Israel. Did some of the Jews commit violent acts? Maybe. The Arabs declared war on the Jews. In war, innocent people get hurt. There is no way around that. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I have in mind 5 reasons reported by historians to explain that they weren't allowed to return :

• because they were enemies (they constituted a 5th column ; compare with Druzes who could stay) - that cannot be denied;
• because Arab states had nothing to offer and Israel nothing to ask in exchange of their return due to Israel's military supremacy (former version of this is also that Arab states refused to offer peace to Israel in exchange of their return)
• because the Zionist project (a state where Jews could benefit from full self-determination) could not succeed with a too big Arab minority and so they were not welcome back (and which is true - self-determination means relevant majority)
• because they were Arabs and Palestinians Arabs were not considered a civilised people by Western culture at the time and so, had no right to prevent the "cilivisation mission" and had no right at all (remnants of XIXth century colonialism and racism)
• because Israel needed their lands for the new immigrants (Weitz and KKL/JNF)

Noisetier (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Noisetier, statements such as this "because they were Arabs and Palestinians Arabs were not considered a civilised people by Western culture at the time and so, had no right to prevent the "cilivisation mission" and had no right at all (remnants of XIXth century colonialism and racism)" is not the kind of statement you would expect to find in the work of mainstream historians in explaining the situation, and Israel never ever made any statements to that effect, so it would be simple editorializing on the part of anyone who made such a comment, including "historians" of any stripe. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL. I am not responsible of the fact you don't make the difference between : "were not considered" and "were". Noisetier (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Now I am thinking if we can decide which causal elements are accurate and neutral, we can put aside the points of contention such as whether the exodus comprised "ethnic" cleansing, or was instead strategically necessary 'cleansing' of hostile elements, in a section of its own as contested or being argued by historians. The lead should say that the Arabs left, fled or were expelled as it does, that the numbers and the causal elements are contested. That Israel put conditions on the return of the refugees and has continued to do so. If I am not mistaken some Palestinian Arabs were permitted to return in "family unification" programs early on, as well as thousands who infiltrated in were permitted to stay. Also if I am not mistaken, the Arabs did not accept at least one proposal for 100,000 Arabs to return. Compensation was also discussed and rejected by the Arabs early on. All this bears on the Nakba and the tone of the lead should reflect such an understanding, instead of being loaded with such words that imply that the main cause of the exodus has been determined and laid to the fault of Israel. This may be a popular view; it may even be Morris's view; but it is not the view of many other historians that we cannot reject on grounds that they "favor" Israel. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You refuse to answers to the questions you are asked. This is not constructive at all. Do you understand why ? Why don't you answer ? Could you please answer to the questions you are asked ?

Are you sure that this 'primary information' : "Also if I am not mistaken, the Arabs did not accept at least one proposal for 100,000 Arabs to return" has not been widely commented by all historians ? Are you really 100 % sure ? Could you tell me who among scholars wrote relevant papers on the topic ?

About this : "we cannot reject on grounds that they "favor" Israel." - I cried after I saw this. Really. Noisetier (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The "100,000 Offer" was made during the Lausanne Conference. I believe it has been quite widely commented on by many historians. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes of course, it has been meticulously dissected. Btw, the "family reunification scheme" involved very few people. Morris cites Foreign Ministry counts of less than 2000 by Sept 1951. Zero^talk 10:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Noisetier, I am not sure which of your many questions you want an answer for. When Carwil did not answer my questions, I reiterated them for him [3] but he has not answered them either so I guess this works both ways. I did not say that the 100,000 had not been commented on by historians. I did not have a reference at my fingertips which is why I worded it that way. I like to provide references whenever I assert factual information, whether here or on the article page. Rereading the lead, I see it is actually in there. My broader point seems to be ignored, which is that the imbalance in the lead is generated by the unwillingness to accept the wider picture written about by historians, that the exodus was not generally considered to have been purposeful, and that Israel did make an effort to reach out to the refugees after 1948, though as part of a larger settlement with the other Arab states, that Israel has attempted to integrate the Arab population within Israel and to provide some governance and services to the Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza over the years. I am not saying that the lead or the article should read like Israel has bent over backwards to be good guys but instead, the lead reads like Israel is some ogre, bent on ethnically cleansing and expelling Arabs and stealing their land. Any honest read of the situation in 1948 makes it clear that what happened was part of the war scenario. That's all I'm trying to say. At this point I plan to leave this, although if you have specific relevant questions I will answer them. may attempt to make one or two BOLD edits to the lead, because this conversation is becoming too scattered. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• I had asked you how you intended to manage the fact that many historians (which is far from the majority, which is very far from all but which is quite far from only one propagandist) pictured the events as forced expulsions or ethnic cleansing...
• I ask you if you was aware that the question of the "100,000" was pictured by the majority of historians very differently than "as part of a larger settlement with the other Arab states, that Israel has attempted to integrate the Arab population within Israel" ?
• I asked you if you understand that NPoV is not to give a balance picture of the events, but to balance fairly all the relevant points of view of the events. And we can agree with this or not, Karsh & Pappé and all other historians who published let's say after 1990, give relevant points of view here.

To come back to the WP:OR break, I think you are 100% right when you write : "Any honest read of the situation in 1948 makes it clear that what happened was part of the war scenario." I think I agree with each word but that doesn't prevent me to state as well that any honest read of the events of Lydda and Ramle after the conquest of the city makes it clear that what happened there would be defined with today's words as an ethnic cleansing. End of the WP:OR break.

Noisetier (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• OK - I will take each one as it comes. I did not say "only one propagandist", I said "only one view of the situation", that is, the view that Israel "chased the Arabs out with a stick in a purposeful policy of ethnic cleansing." I agree that there are "many historians" (though I might argue that some of these historians are more "activist" than historian) that do argue that. But as you say, it is "very far" from the majority or "all", and as such, the opposite view, that the exodus was caused by "the flail of war" (and a war that was forced on Israel, was not by choice) and not because of any policy of forced expulsion or ethnic cleansing should have fair weight in the lead. The lead should acknowledge that a debate over the "cause(s)" exists, and leave it to the article to go into more detail regarding the controversy/description/causes, with due weight on the view of each side.

• It would be best if you quoted me precisely, so I can defend precisely ;). What I wrote was: "My broader point seems to be ignored, which is that the imbalance in the lead is generated by the unwillingness to accept the wider picture written about by historians, ... that Israel did make an effort to reach out to the refugees after 1948, though as part of a larger settlement with the other Arab states, that Israel has attempted to integrate the Arab population within Israel and to provide some governance and services to the Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza over the years." Yes, I am aware that there were a number of differing views concerning the 100,000 offer, and that the Arab delegations insisted that no other negotiations were to be taken up before Israel agreed to accept all refugees back. Israel for its part insisted the return "form a part of a general plan for resettlement of refugees...and ... be limited by considerations of the security and economy of the State."

• You ask, if I "understand that NPoV is not to give a balance picture of the events, but to balance fairly all the relevant points of view of the events. And we can agree with this or not, Karsh & Pappé and all other historians who published let's say after 1990, give relevant points of view here." I am not sure that NPov does not require us to give a balanced (factual) picture of the events and to use RS to do so. The events themselves may not be "balanced" but we should give a fair representation of thinking on both sides on the issue we are trying to describe. It is not up to us to say the Jews ethnically cleansed the Arabs anymore than it is up to us to say that the 90% of the Arabs ran away like a bunch of rabbits. I think we can remain neutral in the lead. Again, I personally can't accept Pappé as a scholar with anywhere near the rigor or integrity of Karsh, but admit that he gives a relevant point of view in the discussion of the debate over causes. I definitely don't believe that historians after 1990 are necessarily any better or any worse than those who came before! though I think they tend to stronger personal biases than earlier historians. Most of my arguments are applying only to the lead at this point. Agree Pappe is a relevant POV but inappropriate in the lead.
• Lydda and Ramle can be dealt with as it comes along, same as everything with RS to light the way. If there are opposing viewpoints, both can be given "equal time." Hope I've addressed all your concerns! Snakeswithfeet (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)