Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Refugee Total

This article put the final estimate of the # of Palestanian refugees at ~700k, however, the Idiot's Guide to the Middle East Conflict puts the number at 500k. Can this be resolved?

Scholar references puts the final estimate around 700k. Any tertiary source, such as the IGtoME conflit should refer to reliable secondary sources such as these scholars. Alithien 06:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

hotly debated issue

I see there is some "trouble" around this sentence :

How each of those factors contributed to the Palestinian exodus remains a hotly debated issue.

It seems quite acceptable to me. What is the matter with it ?
Thank you, Alithien 14:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would remove the word "hotly" as Original Research. --Blue Tie 13:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How about "remains an issue of some debate"?Tiamut 14:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It think it is hotly debated. Let's just think about the confrontation between Efraim Karsh, Ilan Pappe and Yoav Gelber and it is not finished yet today.

I think in "neutralizing" the sentence we do not respect NPoV. Alithien 13:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

How about "strenuously"? Perhaps it's more the word itself and not the level of debate that sounds so bad when the word "hotly" is used?FlaviaR 19:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this view represented anywhere in the article ?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/857767.html

Zeq 12:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

the article there By Shlomo Avineri can be considered as a part of the debates about how each of the various related factors contributed to the Palestinian exodus. It is common in the in the Israeli media to put the responsibility of the Palestinian exodus (partially like in this article or sometimes completely) on the Palestinians themselves. --Wisamzaqoot 13:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

read it again. It is talking about what both sides did. The problem it raise is that "The Palestinians are not prepared to deal with this complex reality" and so does Wikipedia. Zeq 13:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no contradiction between what I said and what you said Zeq. In fact it is common to find both, the Palestinians and the Israelis accusing each other of denying thier role in the Palestinian exodus. For example, in the previous article, Avineri tried to blame Palestinians because they are denying what he supposed to be as Palestinian responsibility on their exodus. On the other hand, you can find so many Palestinian thinkers who are blaming Israel because it still refuses to confess any responsibility of what happened to the Palestinians.

An other important point, I don't think it is correct to claim that all Israelis or all Palestinians are denying thier role.

--Wisamzaqoot 20:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's not a bad idea to have a short section about this. Perhaps something like "Legacy of the Palestinian Exodus" whic would include the existing section The Nakba's role in the Palestinian narrative and also discuss how both sides view their responsibility. And, perhaps, something a bit optimistic as well: [1]. I'll write it myself if there's no objection.--Doron 04:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

go ahead. it's a free country. Zeq 08:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Alyoshenko's edit

Alyoshenko, the reason I reverted your edit is because it gives a very one-sided view. It's easy to spin an event to lay the blame all on one side, that could also be done from the Israeli POV with this intro. The point is that articles have to give a balanced picture of what happened, and the violence leading up to the expulsion of Palestinians certainly wasn't all on the Israeli side.

Also, I don't think that all historians yet agree that what occurred in 1948 was ethnic cleansing - some for example, are still claiming that Palestinians left mostly of their own free will - so to boldly assert that what occurred was an unequivocal case of ethnic cleansing is POV. Gatoclass 06:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

welcome back. Zeq 06:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Gatoclass, could you be more specific? What are the exact phrases or formulations you thing are POV? Could you please just edit those instead of ditching the whole paragraph? Cheers and thanks, Pedro.Gonnet 11:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really, because the whole paragraph is POV, and I have neither the time nor the inclination to fix it when a passable (if admittedly somewhat bland) alternative version already exists. Gatoclass 12:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? Look, if you don't have the "time nor the inclination" for constructive editing, then just let it go. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 14:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't put words into my mouth. I said no such thing. But since you are bent on pursuing the matter, here are some of my objections.

(Edit: On reflection, I've decided to delete the rest of my original, somewhat hasty response to Pedro. I'm concerned that my original comments might be misinterpreted as an apologia for ethnic cleansing, or a belittling of Palestinian suffering. Perhaps I should say, for the record, that I personally think "ethnic cleansing" is probably an apt description for what happened to Palestinians in 1948. I was simply trying to illustrate why I thought Alyoshenko's edit fell short of encyclopedic standards - not trying to defend Israel's record on this issue. My apologies for any misunderstandings which may have arisen from my original statement). Gatoclass 06:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I was about to write something similar, but Gato took the words out of my mouth (or off of my keyboard...). In any case, the intro isn't even close to NPOV, nor would "editing" it be a useful endeavor. It is clearly tendentious and one-sided. IronDuke 14:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Gatoclass' analysis was excellent. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Gatoclass, your reading of the intro seems far more offensive than the intro could possibly have meant to have been.

If I may make a suggestion: apparently nobody is happy with the old intro. I'll take some time tomorrow and re-write it so that it reflects what's in the article. I will post it here first and we can discuss it here. Please wait for it before accusing me of pushing my own POV.

Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 15:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your statement that Gatoclass's reading of the intro seems far more offensive than the intro could possibly have meant to have been, people who have extreme and rigid ideological views rarely realize how offensive those views are to those who don't share them. If anything Gatoclass understates the issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The current introduction is awful. An encyclopedia is supposed to tend to newcomers as well as people versed on a topic; one would get the impression the partition had been implemented or that "fighting" truly characterised the expulsion of Palestinian Arabs. It is internally confused, grammatically poor and brings up "Israel" too often for an article in which the events began before that state's inception. If someone could please illustrate what, other than the term "ethnic cleansing," is "tendentious" or unsourced, I would be grateful. Alyoshenka 10:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It has already been illustrated at length, above. Your version states that rabid Zionist zealots forcibly evicted almost a million Palestinians, when, in fact, the early and middle phases of the conflict were characterized by the upper and middle class fleeing a worsening political and economic situation, and the evictions were mostly by Arab forces. It completely ignores the situation in cities such as Haifa, where the Jewish forces encouraged Arabs to stay, and Arab leaders ordered them to leave. Here's what Efraim Karsh, Head of Mediterranean Studies at King's College London, and leading Middle East historian has to say on the matter:

Why did such vast numbers of Palestinians take to the road? There were the obvious reasons commonly associated with war: fear, disorientation, economic privation. But to these must be added the local Palestinians’ disillusionment with their own leadership.

The British High Commissioner for Palestine, General Sir Alan Cunningham, summarized what was happening:

The collapsing Arab morale in Palestine is in some measure due to the increasing tendency of those who should be leading them to leave the country. . . . In all parts of the country the effendi class has been evacuating in large numbers over a considerable period and the tempo is increasing

Hussein Khalidi, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, was more forthright. "Forty days after the declaration of a jihad, and I am shattered," he complained to a fellow Palestinian. "Everyone has left me. Six [AHC members] are in Cairo, two are in Damascus-I won’t be able to hold on much longer. . . . Everyone is leaving. Everyone who has a check or some money - off he goes to Egypt, to Lebanon, to Damascus."

The desertion of the elites had a stampede effect on the middle classes and the peasantry. But huge numbers of Palestinians were also driven out of their homes by their own leaders and/or by Arab military forces, whether out of military considerations or, more actively, to prevent them from becoming citizens of the Jewish state. In the largest and best-known example of such a forced exodus, tens of thousands of Arabs were ordered or bullied into leaving the city of Haifa against their wishes and almost certainly on the instructions of the Arab Higher Committee, despite sustained Jewish efforts to convince them to stay. Only days earlier, thousands of Arabs in Tiberias had been similarly forced out by their own leaders. In Jaffa, the largest Arab community of mandatory Palestine, the municipality organized the transfer of thousands of residents by land and sea. And then there were the tens of thousands of rural villagers who were likewise forced out of their homes by order of the AHC, local Arab militias, or the armies of the Arab states.[2]

I hope that's helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it certainly isn't. I'm somewhat taken aback that you find Efraim Karsh and the Australia/Israel-and-Jewish Affairs Council a sound or reasonable rebuttal to my sourced introduction. Alyoshenka 19:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

m:The Wrong Version

There are serious issues with this article, and the edit summaries are not pretty either. Y'all have a week to try and work this out on the talk page; please use the time appropriately, wisely, and cordially. Thank you. -- Avi 15:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Draft For New Introduction

As promised, here is my first draft of a new intro for the article. I used the following methodology:

• I stuck to the timeline and numbers given by Morris, which is what is used in the rest of the article and does not seem to be disputed.
• The events highlighted are what seem to be the major milestones in the article. I chose only events that do not seem to be disputed.
• As for the reasons behind the exodus, I stuck with Morris' explanation that most Palestinians fled in fear and that some were expelled (see the section on the third phase of the flight), as this does not seem to be contested by anybody. I purposely stayed away from both the "Arab leaders' endorsement of flight" and the "Master Plan" or "Transfer principle" theory, since these are a) theories and b) contested issues. I only allude to them in the last sentence.

I would be very happy if we could tackle this sentence by sentence. If anybody strongly disagrees to this suggestion as a whole, please be so kind as to write-up you own proposal for an introduction, since nobody seems to be happy with the old one and the edit-warring will go on unless we find some kind of solution everybody can agree with.

The Palestinian exodus (Arabic: الهجرة الفلسطينية al-Hijra al-Filasteeniya) refers to the refugee flight of Palestinian Arabs during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. It is called the Nakba (Arabic: النكبة), meaning "disaster" or "cataclysm," by Palestinians.

Following the November 1947 approval of the UN Partition Plan for Palestine, friction between Jewish and Arab communities intensified, frequently erupting into violence.

This violence was characterized by Arab initiatives and Jewish reprisals, bombings by the Irgun and Lehi and attacks on the British mandate forces.

This prompted many Palestinian Arab leaders and middle and upper-class Palestinian Arab families from urban areas to flee areas to be under Jewish control, further deteriorating the already fragile social fabric.

In the months surrounding the Israeli Declaration of Independence in May 1948, the fighting intensified further, concentrated in in the Jerusalem - Tel Aviv area, where most depopulations took place.

During these months, an estimated 250,000 to 300,000 Palestinians fled amidst rumors of atrocities such as Deir Yassin.

During the following months, from July to November 1948, as the Israelis pushed back the invading Arab armies, another 300,000 Palestinians fled or were forcibly expelled.

By the end of the war, according to a 1951 United Nations estimate, 711,00 Arabs had fled or been expelled from areas controlled by Israel

The reasons for the exodus and the current situation of Palestinian refugees is a contentious and politically controversial topic of high importance to all parties in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Overall, the introduction makes the Palestinians look like the victims, but hey, this is an article on the Palestinian exodus and any person forced to leave their country for whatever reason is a victim, which is why I do not consider it a NPOV-issue. If you think it still needs some balancing-out, please feel free to add facts and/or events of equal relevancy and degree of acceptance from the main article!

Looking forward to your comments/suggestions! Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 09:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good start. I would like to work on tightening it a bit further (I will try to make more concrete suggestions to that end soon). But all in all it most faithfully reflects the article's current contents and avoids the totally bland and rather uninformative intro that is in place currently. Tiamut 13:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Overall, I think this is not bad. I would avoid getting into the estimates of the numbers who fled/were expelled, both before and after the Arab armies' invasion, as this is a point of contention - if we say 250-300K fled before, and 300K after, we are implicitly accepting an overall figure of 600K, which is not accepted by either side. (Israel's estimates are lower, Palestinian estmates are higher.) We should stick with the current formulation of "hundreds of thousands" for the entire exodus, and get into specifics in the article. Isarig 15:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, as promised, these are my suggested tweaks. I think it still needs more work and I have italicized a part of it that is sourced to Benny Morris further down in the article. I would like to know if someone has a copy of the book, what is being referred to exactly by "Arab initiatives and Jewish reprisals." Thanks.Tiamut 17:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The Palestinian exodus (Arabic: الهجرة الفلسطينية al-Hijra al-Filasteeniya) refers to the refugee flight of Palestinian Arabs prior to and during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Palestinians refer to these events as al-Nakba (Arabic: النكبة), meaning "the disaster" or "the cataclysm".

Following the approval of the UN Partition Plan for Palestine in November 1947, friction between Jewish and Arab communities intensified, frequently erupting into violence.

The violence was characterized by Arab initiatives and Jewish reprisals, bombings by the Irgun and Lehi, and attacks on the British Mandate forces.

This prompted many Palestinian Arab leaders and families from the urbanized middle and upper-classes to flee from areas that were to fall under Jewish control as outlined in the partition plan, further deteriorating the already fragile social fabric.

Prior to and just after Israel's Declaration of Independence in May 1948, the fighting intensified further, concentrated in the Jerusalem - Tel Aviv area, where most depopulations of Arab villages took place.

It was during this time that an estimated 250,000 to 300,000 Palestinians fled amidst rumors of atrocities such as the massacre at Deir Yassin.

Between July and November 1948, as the Israelis pushed back invading Arab armies, another 300,000 Palestinians fled or were forcibly expelled.

By the end of the war, according to a 1951 United Nations estimate, 711,000 Arabs had fled or been expelled from areas that came to be controlled by Israel.

The reasons for the exodus, and the current situation and future status of Palestinian refugees, are often contentious but of great importance to all parties involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Tiamut 17:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It completely mischaracterizes the earliest stages of the flight, unsurprisingly to the detriment of Israel. Here's what the article says:

Strategically, the period was marked by Arab initiatives and Jewish reprisals (Morris, 2003, p. 65), although the Irgun and Lehi reverted to their 1937-1939 strategy of placing bombs in crowded places such as bus stops, shopping centres and markets, and their attacks on British forces reduced British troops' ability and willingness to protect Jewish traffic (Ibid, p. 66). General conditions deteriorated: the economic situation became unstable and unemployment grew (Gelber, p. 75). Rumours spread that the Husaynis were planning to bring in bands of fallahin to take over the towns (Gelber, p. 76). Some Palestinian Arab leaders set a bad example by sending their own families abroad (Gelber, pp. 76-77). The Arab Liberation Army embarked on a systematic evacuation of non-combatants from several frontier villages in order to turn them into military strongholds (Gelber, p. 79).

How about incorporating a more realistic summary of that period into the proposed intro? Next, the second section also POVs the article, again, unsurprisingly, to Israel's detriment. The Deir Yassin massacre and exaggerated rumors surrounding it suddenly becomes just one example of an unspecified number of "atrocities", and the rumors are no longer exaggerated. Really, guys, NPOV shouldn't be this difficult; try "writing for the enemy" for a change. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Jay is correct.

NPOV should not be that hard for those who edit with good faith so just try harder. Thanks. Zeq 21:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding your criticism of the mention of Deir Yassin... The events at Deir Yassin are reduced to a rumour in the intro, yet Deir Yassin really happened and was an important psychological factor. May I suggest the following compromise (changes/additions in italics)?

It was during this time that an estimated 250,000 to 300,000 Palestinians fled amidst rumours of forced evictions and massacres.

Deir Yassin is no longer mentioned by name, but its relevance for the exodus remains. Degrading such events, which nobody denies took place, to mere rumours is pushing NPOV real hard, but I can justify it for myself in that the rumours are what caused fear which fueled the exodus and the Deir Yassin massacre is mentioned in the article in the correct context.

As for the numbers not adding up, since they are from different sources, they never will add up exactly. The missing 100'000 or so are from the very early phase. This number is given by Morris and as all his numbers, are rounded estimates. May I suggest the following (changes/additions italicised)?

This prompted many Palestinian Arab leaders and families from the urbanized middle and upper-classes (approximately 100'000) to flee from areas that were to fall under Jewish control as outlined in the partition plan, further deteriorating the already fragile social fabric.

(...)

Between July and November 1948, as the Israelis pushed back invading Arab armies, approximately another 300,000 Palestinians fled or were forcibly expelled.

I would rather keep the numbers in there, since it gives a good feel for the dimensions of each stage. The final UN count is widely accepted and should be mentioned here as a grand total.

Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 07:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem with the Deir Yassin stuff. Your version says "amidst rumors of atrocities such as the massacre at Deir Yassin" Where did the word "atrocities" come from? Which other "atrocities", besides Deir Yassin, had rumors surrounding them? Your new version still talks of "rumors of massacres" - how many massacres had rumors about them? In fact, the article itself says it correctly: "The Deir Yassin massacre in early April, and the exaggerated rumours that followed it, helped spread fear and panic among the Palestinians" That's exact wording that actually makes sense. Deir Yassin was the massacre about which exaggerated rumors were spread, by both sides, each for their own reasons. There's no need to re-write it into something that it is not, and something unsourced and misleading as well. As for the other section, it wasn't about the numbers not adding up, but about the information that was left out. Where did the part about the economy deteriorating (a critical factor in migrations) go? Where did the part about rumors regarding the fellahins, and Arab Liberation Army evacuations of border towns, and Arab leaders setting a bad example go? Anything that could possibly implicate Arabs as having even the slightest bit of culpability has been stripped from the intro, or proposed to be stripped. NPOV means both sides. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg. I used the word "atrocities" because I guess that word best describes massacres in general. Anyway, I posted a suggestion to change that sentence -- could we focus the discussion on the most recent version?

As for the use of the plural, check List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. It's been a while since I've read Morris' first book, but I remember him citing more than one massacre. The point is that the massacres contributed to the climate of panic amongst Palestinian Arabs which led them to flee. Morris cites Deir Yassin as an especially vivid, well documented example. I will try to find an exact quote this evening.

The numbers thing was not addressed to you, but in response to Isarig's comment.

Regarding your comment on the deteriorating economy, may I suggest the following change (additions/modifications in italics):

This prompted many Palestinian Arab leaders and families from the urbanized middle and upper-classes to flee from areas that were to fall under Jewish control as outlined in the partition plan, further deteriorating the already fragile social fabric and aggravating the economic situation.

As for the Arab Liberation Army, there were, to my knowledge and in the article, no forced evacuations and this is not cited as contributing to the exodus.

I would greatly appreciate it -- and we would save a lot of time and effort -- if you could formulate your suggestions as concrete changes to the introduction instead of just pointing out its weaknesses. The protection will be lifted tomorrow and I was hoping we could avert another edit war by constructing an introduction together that everybody can agree to. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 07:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's my take:

The Palestinian exodus (Arabic: الهجرة الفلسطينية al-Hijra al-Filasteeniya) refers to the refugee flight of Palestinian Arabs prior to and during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Palestinians refer to these events as al-Nakba (Arabic: النكبة), meaning "the disaster" or "the cataclysm".

Following the approval of the UN Partition Plan for Palestine in November 1947, friction between Jewish and Arab communities intensified, frequently erupting into violence. The violence was characterized by Arab initiatives and Jewish reprisals, though the Irgun and Lehi resumed their tactic of bombings, and attacks on the British Mandate forces, which reduced their ability and willingness to protect Jewish traffic.

The increased fighting was combined with deteriorating economic conditions. Many Palestinian Arab leaders and families from the urbanized middle and upper-classes to flee from areas that were to fall under Jewish control as outlined in the partition plan, further deteriorating the already fragile social fabric and aggravating the economic situation. The Arab Liberation Army embarked on a systematic evacuation of non-combatants from several frontier villages in order to turn them into military strongholds. During this period approximately 100,000 Palestinians fled.

Prior to and just after Israel's Declaration of Independence in May 1948, the fighting intensified further, concentrated in the Jerusalem - Tel Aviv area, where, consequently, most depopulations of Arab villages took place. The Deir Yassin massacre in early April, and the exaggerated rumours that followed it, helped spread fear and panic among the Palestinians. It was during this time that an estimated 250,000 to 300,000 Palestinians fled.

Between July and November 1948, as the Israelis pushed back invading Arab armies, approximately another 300,000 Palestinians fled or were forcibly expelled.

By the end of the war, according to a 1951 United Nations estimate, 711,000 Arabs had fled or been expelled from areas that came to be controlled by Israel.

The reasons for the exodus, and the current situation and future status of Palestinian refugees, are often contentious but of great importance to all parties involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

--Jayjg ^(talk) 14:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. Would it be possible, in the future, to highlight the portions you modified? It would make editing easier. As you may imagine, I'm not quite happy with

The increased fighting was combined with deteriorating economic conditions. Many Palestinian Arab leaders and families from the urbanized middle and upper-classes to flee from areas that were to fall under Jewish control as outlined in the partition plan, further deteriorating the already fragile social fabric and aggravating the economic situation. The Arab Liberation Army embarked on a systematic evacuation of non-combatants from several frontier villages in order to turn them into military strongholds. During this period approximately 100,000 Palestinians fled.

First of all, this is giving a lot of weight to one phase in which only roughly 1/7th of the refugees left. Secondly, the Arab Liberation Army bit is attributed to Gelber alone (I have not found references to it elsewhere) who is as best contentious as a reliable source. Thirdly, it is not clear which percentage of the 100,000 can be attributed to these evacuations. All this information is in the body of the text, so not having it in the introduction won't mean it is lost. It just doesn't meet the criteria I set out at the beginning of this section (uncontested, significant milestones).

Furthermore:

The Deir Yassin massacre in early April, and the exaggerated rumours that followed it, helped spread fear and panic among the Palestinians.

This makes Deir Yassin look like the only event that fueled the exodus. This is not true. You're basing it on a snippet of Morris' book which mentions it, but in no way gives it exclusivity. Again, I'm concentrating on the major reasons for the exodus, not individual events.

Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 15:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Karsh confirms what Gelber says; which other "massacres" are cited as fueling the flight? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Gelber gives many causes to the flight of April-May-June. He clearly explains, as does Morris (and I should check for Karsh but I am confident yes) that it is an accumulation that generated the exodus. Why don't you buy Gelber's book ? It is maybe 20$... Alithien 08:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion for the introduction:

The Palestinian exodus (Arabic: الهجرة الفلسطينية al-Hijra al-Filasteeniya) refers to the refugee flight of Palestinian Arabs prior to and during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Palestinians refer to these events as al-Nakba (Arabic: النكبة), meaning "the disaster" or "the cataclysm".

The reasons for the exodus, and the current situation and future status of Palestinian refugees, are often contentious but of great importance to all parties involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

It's short, sweet and to the point. An introduction is supposed to give the very basic information. I think this accomplishes that goal. Screen stalker 15:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This is also good:

The Palestinian exodus (Arabic: الهجرة الفلسطينية al-Hijra al-Filasteeniya) refers to the refugee flight of Palestinian Arabs during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. It is called the Nakba (Arabic: النكبة), meaning "disaster" or "cataclysm," by Palestinians.

Following the November 1947 approval of the UN Partition Plan for Palestine, friction between Jewish and Arab communities intensified, frequently erupting into violence. After the Israeli Declaration of Independence in May 1948, the fighting intensified further. By the end of the war hundreds of thousands of Arabs had fled or been expelled from areas controlled by Israel; in 1951 the United Nations gave the final estimate of their number as 711,000.

The initial exodus—as well as the related Jewish exodus from Arab lands—and the current situation of Palestinian refugees is a contentious and politically controversial topic of high importance to all parties in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

-- Short, sweet, to the point. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Short, but I can agree to this if you remove the "—as well as the related Jewish exodus from Arab lands—" since it has nothing to do with the article. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 08:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, why did you remove the before and during the 1948 arab-israeli war ? Alithien 08:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not neutral to state the violence intensified further after May 15, particularly in an artilce concerning the exodus The real start up was the yichouv counter strike that started in April even if it was not purposed to make the refugees flee (at the exception of Yiftah operation where they were used)

Alithien 08:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Vote on new Introduction

I don't know how this is usually done on Wikipedia, but since the protection on this article is about to be lifted, I suggest we take a vote on the introduction as it stands with the modifications suggested by Tiamut and myself. This version would be the follwing:

The Palestinian exodus (Arabic: الهجرة الفلسطينية al-Hijra al-Filasteeniya) refers to the refugee flight of Palestinian Arabs prior to and during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Palestinians refer to these events as al-Nakba (Arabic: النكبة), meaning "the disaster" or "the cataclysm".

Following the approval of the UN Partition Plan for Palestine in November 1947, friction between Jewish and Arab communities intensified, frequently erupting into violence.

The violence was characterized by Arab initiatives and Jewish reprisals, bombings by the Irgun and Lehi, and attacks on the British Mandate forces.

This prompted many Palestinian Arab leaders and families from the urbanized middle and upper-classes to flee from areas that were to fall under Jewish control as outlined in the partition plan, further deteriorating the already fragile social fabric and aggravating the economic situation.

Prior to and just after Israel's Declaration of Independence in May 1948, the fighting intensified further, concentrated in the Jerusalem - Tel Aviv area, where most depopulations of Arab villages took place.

It was during this time that an estimated 250,000 to 300,000 Palestinians fled amidst rumours of forced evictions and massacres.

Between July and November 1948, as the Israelis pushed back invading Arab armies, approximately another 300,000 Palestinians fled or were forcibly expelled.

By the end of the war, according to a 1951 United Nations estimate, 711,000 Arabs had fled or been expelled from areas that came to be controlled by Israel.

The reasons for the exodus, and the current situation and future status of Palestinian refugees, are often contentious but of great importance to all parties involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The discussion regarding this version is still ongoing and probably will be for quite some time. This can therefore not be a final vote but more of a poll to see where we stand. Please sign you name below in the corresponding category. "Accept with modifiactions" means that the Introduction is not perfect, but could go live for further, minor editing. If you chose "Accept with minor modifications" please state what those modifications might be. If you chose "Reject" please also state why so that we can work towards a consensus. Cheers and thanks, Pedro.Gonnet 08:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Accept
  • Pedro.Gonnet 08:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept but I still would like someone with the Benny Morris source in their possession to explain the contect of the sentence that mentions "Arab iniatives and Jewish reprisals" because I want to make sure what it is referring to. Tiamut 14:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Accept with minor modifications
• Reject
  • Reject Too long, too detailed, lacking in cohesion, and basically only duplicating information contained in the body of the article. Gatoclass 15:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject Per Gatoclass. I would add only that it is poorly written as well. How does one "deteriorate" a "fabric," exactly? IronDuke 15:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject. Sorry for rejecting your hard work. It is well written, but still too long. I think if we only take the first paragraph and the last paragraph, that will be enough of an introduction. Introductions need to be short. Screen stalker 15:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject per above. The current intro is tighter, more neutral, cleaner - proposal is long and incoherent, POV, and invites controversy. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject. Long and redundant with body text. -- Avi 16:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject. per jayjg Zeq 16:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject this attempt to put the entire article in the intro. The current one is little less POV and reads better. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Other
  • I think it is too long and that in an introduction there should be no room for controverses. So this should be synthetised and any subject of controversed whether removed whether specified clearly as controversed. Alithien 08:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry but I think it is too long and analytical for an introduction. The periodisation should be left for the body of the article. The present introduction is not too bad but I'd suggest two improvements. (1) "The Palestinian exodus refers to" is bad English; it should be "The Palestinian exodus was". (2) The Jewish exodus from Arab lands should not be mentioned. It happened later and the juxtaposition of the two events is a political position. And please don't "fix" it like in Jewish exodus from Arab lands, where the last sentence of the intro just looks silly. --Zero^talk 09:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• not true. they are important one in the context of each other and are mirror image. Should be mentioned for NPOV. Zeq 18:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

comments

• This introduction is quite neutral. In particular the "The violence was characterized by Arab initiatives and Jewish reprisals, bombings by the Irgun and Lehi, and attacks on the British Mandate forces" is audacious (extremely difficult to source) but seems to me respecting NPoV. If somebody reads French, all details with sources for this "increase of violence" are detailled here : 100 deaths / week - all proportions kept, more than in Irak today .

I think to think this in Jerusalem Tel-Aviv are where most depopulations of Arab villages took place. is inaccurate. Morris explains how Ben Ami operation and Yiftah operation depopulated Galilea but more of all most depopulation arose in Haifa, Tiberiade, Jaffa, Safed, BeitShean and Acre. Alithien 08:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• about the title

We sometimes forget but there were 2 palestinian exodus : one of 700k+ people in 1948 and one of 300k+ in 1967. Both should be mentionned or the title adapted... Cheers, Alithien 10:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Deir Yassin Massacre

Jayjg, you wrote:

Here's the problem with the Deir Yassin stuff. Your version says "amidst rumors of atrocities such as the massacre at Deir Yassin" Where did the word "atrocities" come from? Which other "atrocities", besides Deir Yassin, had rumors surrounding them? Your new version still talks of "rumors of massacres" - how many massacres had rumors about them? In fact, the article itself says it correctly: "The Deir Yassin massacre in early April, and the exaggerated rumours that followed it, helped spread fear and panic among the Palestinians" That's exact wording that actually makes sense. Deir Yassin was the massacre about which exaggerated rumors were spread, by both sides, each for their own reasons. There's no need to re-write it into something that it is not, and something unsourced and misleading as well.

Well, I've got the Morris (2003) book in front of me, and on page 264, where the statement is from, I read:

The 'atrocity factor' certainly fuelled the process. What happened, or allegedly happened, at Nasser ad Din demoralized Arab Tiberias. In a more general way, the massacre at Deir Yassin, and the exaggerated descriptions broadcast on Arab radio stations for weeks undermined morale throughout Palestine, especially in the countryside.

So that's already two "massacres" in contributing to the atrocity factor. In the preceding pages (pp 254-264, "The South, April-June 1948"), Morris details a number of attacks on villagers resulting in death tolls similar to Deir Yassin (i.e. in excess of 100).

We were both wrong in one point, though: Morris, also on page 264, says:

A major factor in the exodus from the towns was the earlier fall of and exodus from other towns.

And farther below:

A major factor in the urban exodus was the dissolution an flight of the local civil and military leadership just before and during the final battles.

And finally, on page 265:

Undoubtedly, as was understood by IDF intelligence, the most important single factor in the exodus of April-June was Jewish attack. This is demonstrated clearly by the fact that each exodus occurred during or in the immediate wake of military assault. No town as abandoned by the bulk of its population before the main Haganah/IZL assault. In the countryside, while many of the villages were abandoned during Haganah/ILZ attacks and because of them, other villages were evacuated as a result of Jewish attacks on neighbouring villages or towns; they feared that they would be next.

So Morris does not attribute the exodus in this phase only to fear of an attack, but to the attacks themselves. The "atrocity-factor", as he calls it, was only an additional factor which "fuelled the process".

I will extend the "Second stage" section accordingly as soon as the article is unblocked. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 10:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jay and Pedro,

Take care there is a controverse here :

Morris writes the main factor of this second wave was the "israeli attack but Gelber, Karsh or Sachar consider this was only second factor and the first one is the "collapse of the palestinian society". (see the reference in the article).

Also take care that Morris is not always constant :

In The Birth, p.236, he writes But, ironically, it was not the Haganah's Operation Nahshon and its follow-ups (...) which had the most lasting effect of any single event of the war in precipitating the Palestinian exodus. On 9 April, 80 IZL and 40 LHI troppers (...) attacked Deir Yassin (...). p.239 he explains all the propaganda and rumours around the massacre and p.240 he writes that according to IDF intelligence (HIS-AD), Deir Yassin [was] a decisive accelerating factor.

My understanding is that for Morris, in this atmosphere of violence and civil war, the Yishouv attack was the main factor (and Deir Yassin and rumours around it the main event) that generated the second wave of the exodus and that, for Gelber and others, the main factor was the uncapability of the [Arab] Palestian society to withstand a climate of civil war with his [usual] military operations, massacres and propaganda.

From my point of view, they say quite the same. Alithien 03:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alithien,

Morris also mentions the collapse of society, yet only in the first phase. Contrary to Gelber, Karsh and Sachar though, he cites hunger due to the collapse of any kind of logistics as one of the main causes for flight in that phase.

Note that Morris is also unequivocal that in the second phase, villages were only evacuated immediately before or during attacks. It is based on this that he concludes that the attacks themselves were the main cause, and not just the fear thereof.

Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 07:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I have the same reading as you. :-)

I would say that it is not because a village is attacked that it should be evacuated (it could also withstand, eg. jewish settlements were ordered to withstand) and that it is not because a village is not able to withstand that it should collapse (just as in most cities). Both causes are needed all together so I don't see how they can distinguish one from the other. But this is my understanding...

For 1st phase, I think than Gelber's analysis is better and go deeper into details.

(I went back to the historic of this talk page and copy here this comment :)

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

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

He emphasizes 3 points :

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

Alithien 15:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Gelber's synthesis

Here's Gelber (own) synthesis (In Palestine 1948 (...), p.116) :

(...) Until 1948, they ran away primarily from the chaos, the anarchy, the economic deterioration and the miserable living conditions under circumstances of civil war. During April and May they fled because the fighting was approaching their doorsteps, directly hit them or threatened to subordinate them to a Jewish rule.

(...)

Rumours of Deir Yassin's massacre might have terrified Palestinians into fleeing, but its role in provoking the mass flight has been overstated. This slaughter did not represent any policy. Even the perpretrators had not foreseen its outcomes an dhad not intended them. Using Deir Yassin to prove a premeditated plot for deporting the Palestinians is baseless. This bloodshed was an almost natural consequence of the civil war's mehtodes of warfare. Obviously it was not the worst of the war's atrocities. The massacre of 240 Jews in Gush Etzion after its surrender in 13 May, and the massacre of approximately 250 Arabs in Lydda in July were surely worse, particularly as they took place following capitulation and not in the midst of combat.

(...)

(...) The truth is that the Palestinians collapose under the hardships of civil war. They were un prepared for it, unorganized and unaware of the different, national nature of the war and the significance of mass exodus on their own future.

It is not clear to me if his mind is really different from Morris. He just goes one step further...

What do you think about that ? Alithien 17:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alithien,

Thanks for posting the extensive quote! What bothers me most with Gelber's analysis is that he misses two -- in my opinion major -- point. First of all, that economic hardship won't make 100,000 people (before 1948) flee within less than a year. Hunger and fighting will. Secondly, he skirts the issue that (after 1948) most Palestinian Arabs left their homes as a direct consequence of the fighting at their doorstep. He paints a very abstract picture with a climate of fear and vague motives, but, as opposed to Morris, makes no effort to take a look at the detailed facts of who left when under what circumstances. I'd attribute that to Gelber not being a real historian... Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 08:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have definitive opinion about Gelber.

But Morris has one. In the Birth revisited, see p.viii (last line of the 1st paragraph) and see p.2. I also read (but don't remember where, he was estimated for his empathy.)

According to Pappé, Palestine 1947, in the first wave they simply left because they had the opportunity to do so... When Pappé and Gelber say roughly the same, I think we can agree there is no controverse on a subject. :-)

Gelber doesn't have to make efforts about the details. He read Morris's work and quote it in his books.

Again, I don't see where Morris and Gelber disagree : according to them : due the collapse of the palestinian society, the Palestinian flee when the combats were at their doorsteps.

Cheers, Alithien 16:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Politicaly motivated editing ?

what do you think this is: [3] ??? Zeq 08:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that there is a legitimate view that puts those two events together. We are 60 years away from both those events (which took place at about the same time - esopecialy since the pal exodus took place in 1949 and after even in 1967) and the Jewish one took place also in 1949 to the 1950s). In any case both are mirror image and part of each side narrative. NPOV was ignored in this last edit. (after Zero suggested that this section will be removed) Zeq 08:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

How are they related?--Doron 08:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish exodus is mentioned a few lines later in the "History" section and in the "See also" section. I just don't think this belongs in the introduction, especially since the sentiment was to keep it short and to the point. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 09:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The lead should stand on it's own. The Jewish exodus has been in the lead for a long time. Both events are part of the over all narative of both people. Even Doron and Zero together can not ignore the fact that there was massive population movment in the area as a result of the war. The reprocations are still being felt today so the Nakba is an on-going issue.

As for Zero, let us not forget we are talking about an editor that is capable of doing this edit: [4] - you see if the names of non jews were wwritten in diffrent letters by a municiplaity he finds this appropriate to the issue of the a bus bombing (altough the timing of the vents was different) and here he try to convince us that both events did not occur at the same time (un true) and that therefor one should be removed from the article (un true) Zeq 12:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, take your issues with Zero somewhere else, this article talk page is not the place. Back to the issue -- nobody is ignoring anything -- so, again, how are they related?--Doron 13:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is undeniable that these two events are related, for three reasons: (1) They were mirror images of one another, since Arabs fled Jewish lands, and about the same number of Jews fled Arab lands; (2) They helped escalate one another. True, Arabs would have probably still driven out the Jews in their lands had it not been for the Palestinian exodus, but the Palestinian exodus only fueled propaganda and hate in the region (and vice versa); (3) The exodus of Jews is frequently used as legal precedent to argue against a Palestinian Right of Return: the entire world (including the Arab and Jewish community) regarded the countries to which the Jewish refugees fled as being responsible for assimilating them, and totally absolved Arab states from any obligation to allow them return or compensation (as has been the case with every exodus of refugees in the history of the world, with the exception of the Palestinian exodus). This establishes legal precedent in the Middle East whereby the host country--not the country of origin--is responsible for the assimilation of refugees.

This is why I think the two exodi are undeniably related. However, I do not think that the Jewish exodus from Arab lands belongs in the intro. We've finally managed to cut down the intro. Let's keep references to the Jewish exodus short, few and appropriate. Screen stalker 15:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the introduction is better as it is now. These two events are related, but for a different and unique reason: the Arab-Israeli war and the Palestinian exodus provoqued that Arab leaders force the hebrew exodus. I really did not get the "legal precedent" issue at all. Any action by any country is a "precedent" but by no means "internationally legal". This would equate to saying that soviet deportation of chechenyans in the 40s created a legal precedent whereby any country was allowed to displace their inhabitants at will. Moreover, there do exist multiple cases in which displaced people have come back from a similar exodus. Take a look at what happened in Rwanda in 1994, would you have agreed to a Tutsi leader arguing against or impeding the return of expelled tutsis, moreover, on the basis that tutsis return would have changed the demographics of their country to an unacceptable extent? Would you have agreed to a serbian leader arguing that expelled albano-kosovars' return to Kosovo would have changed the demographics of Kosovo to an unfavourable extent? Look at Sudan, would you then agree that displaced people in Darfur have no right to return to Darfur? Wheren't all these people helped by the international community to return to the land where they had been expelled? Of course they were, and once again it did not constitute nor developed any "legal precedent". Unfortunately.--Jorditxei 17:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No improvement on the introduction

Again, this introduction is still shoddy. I've stated why the use of time markers such as the partition and Israel's "independence" is unacceptable for an introduction on the Palestinian exodus; to refresh, for unversed readers, the partition was not implemented. Who saw fit to append "open war" to that sentence? War between whom? "Arab communities?" The amount of Palestinians involved with al-Husayni and al-Qawuqji was almost negligible, especially in proportion to the amount driven out during the conflict. Alyoshenka 14:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not entirely certain that I agree with your assessment. However, I have further edited the intro to try to achieve consensus.

Thoughts on the matter? Screen stalker 15:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Alyoshenka. If time markers should be chosen they should be the ones of the waves. And among these, the second waves that starts April 1 is the best known for the arab palestinians exodus. Alithien 15:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

NB: remember jewish were palestinians too at that time... Alithien 15:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of the waves is perhaps best. Lending an invocation of Benny Morris'—which can be easily sourced—should help to satisfy consensus. Alyoshenka 16:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

title

• Don't you think 1948 palestinian exodus would be more accurate (there was an exodus in 1967 too) ?
• Don't you think arab palestinian exodus would be more neutral (jewish were palestinians too) ?

Alithien 16:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right. Palestinian exodus should be a disambiguation page that leads to two choices Arab Palestinian exodus of 1948 and Arab Palestinian exodus of 1967. (As an aside, I really hope we never have to add another one that reads Palestinian exodus of 200_, but you never know.) The weird thing is I don't think that "Palestinian exodus" is even that widely used a term. Most people who use a term to refer to these events use al-Nakba. But I am fine with al-Nakba being redirected to the Palestinian exodus disambiguation page, or Arab Palestinian exodus page , with redirect there to those searching for Palestinian exodus. Tiamut 16:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I think "Palestinian exodus" should lead to the current page, though, with a redirect header clearly at the top. "Nakba" or variants thereof should still lead to the current page. Alyoshenka 16:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the first title suggestion. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 07:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Screen stalker 15:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer not doing it myself... Alithien 16:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Cutting this article

The Palestinian Exodus entry is way too long. It is an important historical event, and deserves a significantly long entry in wikipedia. But this article blows it out of proportion; it's almost as long as the Palestine article! And there is plenty to cut. There are many quotations from various sources which say the exact same thing, and a good deal of overly detailed sentences. Small cuts here and there would be helpful, and large-scale cuts are necessary. Suggestions? Screen stalker 17:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been making some cuts and would like to add to that list another cut, but only with the blessing of other editors. I would like to cut the following paragraph from the Haifa section:

An appeal has been made to the Arabs by the Jews to reopen their shops and businesses in order to relieve the difficulties of feeding the Arab population. Evacuation was still going on yesterday and several trips were made by 'Z' craft to Acre. Roads too, were crowded with people leaving Haifa with all their belongings. At a meeting yesterday afternoon Arab leaders reiterated their determination to evacuate the entire Arab population and they have been given the loan of ten 3-ton military trucks as from this morning to assist the evacuation.

I think that the first three sentences are merely a repetition of the previous quotation. Only the last sentence offers anything new. And so, I would like the paragraph to read as follows:

At a meeting yesterday afternoon Arab leaders reiterated their determination to evacuate the entire Arab population and they have been given the loan of ten 3-ton military trucks as from this morning to assist the evacuation.

Objections? Screen stalker 16:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

---

It appears that some of my cuts have met objections, so I would like to discuss them. One of them involves the following passage, which to me seems unnecessary, since the article never tries to use Atiyah's writing as evidence that there was a policy to evacuate Arabs. It's not as though this quotation is untrue; it just seems unnecessary, since Atiyah is already being quoted as saying that it was Zionist policies, not Arab policies, which caused the Exodus. Here is the passage:

Edward Atiyah himself in the Spectator of June 23, 1961 dismissed that his book could be used as evidence of "Arab orders". He wrote:

[T]here is no suggestion whatever in what I wrote that the exodus of the Arab refugees was a result of a policy of evacuating the Arab population. What I said is something quite different from the Zionist allegation that the Arab refugees were ordered or ever told by their leaders to evacuate which is the main point in the whole controversy.

Yes, I still object to cutting this. Atiyah is quoted in the subsection "Claims by Arab Leaders" in the section "The "Arab leaders' endorsement of flight" Theory" -- therefore putting it in the context of endorsing the theory. The first part of the quote is commonly misused to misrepresent Atiyah. While having the longer quote -- in which he places the blame squarely on the Israelis -- leaves little room to (mis)interpret the first sentence, given the context in the article in which he is being quoted, I think it is all the more important to make it clear that the quote is usually mis-used. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 14:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that Atiyah's reserves the bulk of his criticism for Israel. Perhaps this quotation should go in the criticism section. I will be bold, and move it to that section, without the accompanying clarification. If you are still objected, feel free to revert, and we will continue discussion. Screen stalker 15:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be a bit bolder myself and just delete the quote. It doesn't make a case for the "Arab leaders' endorsement of flight" theory and putting him in the critics' section without his qualifying statement regarding his quote doesn't make sense either. The quote is too weak to make an argument in one way or another, which -- I guess -- completely justifies its removal. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 16:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that Al-Azm's analysis of the situation on the ground is refreshingly real and objective, not to mention important for the historical context of the Palestinian Exodus. Don't get me wrong; I think this quotation needs to be cut. But I don't think it needs to be cut out. As of yet, I have not edited it back into the article. I'd like to come to agreement as to how and where it will be before that happens. Screen stalker 21:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, we were discussing the Atiyah quote here. I removed it. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 07:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. Started mixing up the quotations. At any rate, I do think Atiyah's explanation ought to go in the "criticism" section, although I agree that it should be cut significantly. Why are you opposed to this? Screen stalker 17:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm against putting the crippled (and thus significantly weaker) version of Atiyah's quote anywhere. If you want to leave the quote in the criticism section, then please use the full quote. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 06:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How about we use the full first quotation in the criticism section for now, and discuss possible cuts to it? I may be misunderstanding you (which is why I did not yet make the edit); you mean that the first passage will go in the criticism section, and we will delete the second one, right? Screen stalker 14:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There are two parts: his full quote and his dismissal of the use of his quote. It could live with the full quote if it is placed in the criticism section. Looks like we have an agreement :) Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 13:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't you just love it when that happens? Screen stalker 14:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Again with regard to cutting Atiyah's quotation, I figured that I would be bold. I am sorry that my edits seemed objectionable to you, Pedro. Do you have any ideas as to how to cut this quotation substantially without harming its contents? Screen stalker 13:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, no idea... Taking out snipplets only confuses the reader into thinking that there's something to hide and makes reading more difficult and doesn't really shorten the quote. Just leave it as it is. If you want to shorten the article, then take it out entirely. Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 15:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. But in the interest of coming to consensus, I'll put this argument to rest (at least for now). Screen stalker 15:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreements to disagree are good agreements too -- this has been a very good discussion and I thank you for that. The problem with cutting quotes is that it has too often been used to alter their meaning and when people see ellipses, they get suspicious and tend to assume the worst, which only weakens the quote... Cheers and many thanks, Pedro Gonnet 15:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Morris quotation in "Claims by Arab Leaders" section

I am concerned about the Morris quotation in the "Claims by Arab Leaders" section, for a few reasons:

1. Morris is quoting Dr. Weigart who is quoting al-'Azam. That's double hearsay, which wouldn't normally be a big deal, if it were the only objection on the table.
2. Morris isn't an Arab leader. I realize that he is quoting al-'Azam, but the quotation is more his own analysis of al-'Azam's writing than al-'Azam's own words. And yet this quotation is the "Claims by Arab Leaders Section."
3. Morris' point is actually antithetical to al-'Azam's point... again, in the Arab Leaders section.
4. This quotation is unnecessarily long for one that makes a point which has already been made by the same author earlier on (i.e. "Had such an order (or series of orders)..."
5. This quotation blatantly contradicts the facts present within this article; Morris says that Syrian leadership was the only Arab leadership to request that Palestinians leave their homes, in spite of evidence quoting the Iraqi leadership, Arab Higher Committee, and even Palestinian leadership to the contrary.

I am in favor of removing this quotation. Objections? Screen stalker 18:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Morris thanks Dr Weigart for the reference to al-'Azam's memoirs. It's nothing to do with hearsay. As for the remaining evidence: the AHC made multiple appeals for the population to remain put; evidence of local evacuation orders indicates once again that there were no blanket calls for Arabs to leave the country - why ask people to move out of some areas if they had been asked to move out of all areas?; Schechtman, the source of the other alleged quotations, was a Revisionist Zionist politician and most probably the person responsible for making up the "evacuation orders" story. --Ian Pitchford 19:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the evidence suggests that there was no blanket order telling people to get out of all areas. Rather, there was a series of orders, each urging (or sometimes compelling) people to leave their respective areas, which amounted to more or less the entire nation.

But, on the subject of Morris, I think everything that you have said about his quotation is entirely reasonable. I personally disagree with most of it, but that is irrelevant. But the main issue I have with the excerpt from Morris is that there is already a Morris quotation saying this exact same thing (recently moved to the "Criticisms of the 'endorsement of flight' theory" section). Do we really need two quotations from the same author saying the same thing? Screen stalker 21:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I have read no objections in over a week, I will go ahead and make the edit. If anyone has further objections, feel free to revert. Screen stalker 14:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted the change. Since this is quite a contested article, it is full of claims and counter-claims. These were added as a sort of compromise. Morris' critique of the misuse or use without context of al-'Azam's statements are both important and relevant. By removing this critique, you are making the article one-sided. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 07:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the article would be more one-sided without Morris' quotation. The quotation doesn't really even talk about what Al-Azm said. It is simply a statement that there was no blanket order or set of orders for evacuation of Arabs. That seems oddly like another Morris quotation in the criticism section.

I was not aware of the compromise which created the status quo of the article. However, even now that I am aware of it, I do believe that getting rid of the Morris quotation would make the article better. Since that is the only important question at hand, I maintain my position that this reference to Morris ought to be removed.

As per the question of misuse of Al-Azm's words, it is entirely possible that his words are removed from their original meaning. However, Morris is only speculating as to what that original meaning may have been. So he could very well be misusing Al-Azm's words. If this had been a comment from Al-Azm, I would consider keeping it in the article. But someone else speculating years and years later as to what he meant is not incredibly helpful in putting his words into their context. Screen stalker 14:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, then by that logic, remove both quotes: Al-Azm's and Morris'. By quoting Al-Azm in this context, you are interpreting his words as to mean that the Arab leaders endorsed the flight. Read the quote carefully: even if Al-Azm says "it is we who constrained them to leave it" he qualifies this as an "invitation to the people of Palestine to flee from it and seek refuge". Going from there to orders is a long shot -- and that's exactly Morris' point.

Delete both quotes. It will make the article even shorter, which is what you're working at... Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 14:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The best way to make the article shorter is to delete it entirely. But that wouldn't be very helpful. What I'm working at is making sure that all relevant and important information appears in the article, but is not repeated unnecessarily, and that no information which is altogether irrelevant or unreliable is brought into the article.

At any rate, I don't think that Al-Azm's quotation is intended to imply that Al-Azm supported Palestinian flight, but rather that it was his opinion that the actions of Arab governments facilitated this flight.

While we're on the topic, I suppose that all references in the Haifa section to Jews attacking Arabs should be deleted, since they do not support the endorsement theory... Screen stalker 15:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't mind if we dropped the whole "Flight from Haifa" section. What Karsh states is that 15'000-25'000 Palestinians were ordered to evacuate during the fighting (I don't have his book, but it would be nice if someone could post the exact quote to know when those 15'000-25'000 were evacuated exactly). This is not a strong argument for the "Arab leaders' endorsement of flight" theory. It's a small example (the fate of up to 25'000 as opposed to a total of 700'000) of how the flight took place in one single city and it is only so full of counter-quotes because its argument is incredibly weak.

This is similar to the Edward Atiyah quote and also the Al-Azm quote in that they are all weak arguments and should therefore appear with qualifiers (i.e. clarifications/corrections by the original authors) or not at all. I will be bold one again and remove the Al-Azm quote. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 16:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Haifa makes a weak case or countercase for the endorsement of flight theory. I wonder if, perhaps, a significantly shorter version of it should be placed in the "Second Stage of the Flight" section. If I have your blessing to do this, I would be more than happy to transfer some of the text over.

Unfortunately, I disagree (surprise, surprise) with the assessment that Al-Azm's words are weak. Here we have an individual who discusses the mistakes of Arab leadership, whose own position as an Arab leader makes him a strong authority on precisely the issue that the article discusses. The article never shies away from quoting Jewish leaders on the mistakes (or worse) that Jews made during this period. I don't think Arab leaders should be any different. But I don't see the reason to include Morris' explanation of Al-Azm's words, for reasons discussed above. I therefore reinstated Al-Azm's quotation. I have a feeling we will keep discussing for a while... Screen stalker 21:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary this is an exceedingly weak claim. The best evidence in support of Arab evacuation orders would be those evacuation orders but, as the historians keep telling us, there is no evidence of such orders in any of the contemporary records; hence the people who want to keep this story alive fall back on unsupported claims in obscure Arabic memoirs. The removal from this article of Morris' and Porath's critique of the Al-Azm claim is tacit concession of its weakness. --Ian Pitchford 21:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Screen stalker, I don't want to fall into a 3R-trap, so I'm asking you to please revert your own revert. The point is to make a strong argument (exceptional claims require exceptional sources, etc...) that Arab leaders instigated the flight. This quote does not make that argument. Even disregarding his own retractal, he speaks of the "Arab governments' invitation to the people of Palestine to flee from it and seek refuge in adjacent Arab countries" (my italics). No orders, no advancing armies, no nothing. If you want to keep this quote in, you're going to have to make a very strong argument as to how it corroborates the "endorsement of flight" theory. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 07:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm restarting the alignment. I hope you don't mind. With regard to Al-Azm's quotation, I think that "[T]he Arab governments' invitation to the people of Palestine to flee from it and seek refuge in adjacent Arab countries" provides great insight into the accusation regarding the Arab leaders' endorsement of flight. What's more, Al-Azm adds context of the bearing of this action on the Palestinian Exodus. If this were just another Israeli historian saying this, I wouldn't think it so critical to the article (as there are plenty of Israelis who say that Arab leaders encouraged the flight of Palestinians). But here is an Arab leader who gives an account of the Arab leaders' endorsement of flight. This is an important piece of information to have in the article. Screen stalker 17:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting your edit! The big difference here, citing your last post, is: "invitation [..] to flee [..] and seek refuge" and "Arab leaders' endorsement of flight". In the first case, the reasons for fleeing were given and as all historians agree, most of it happened during the fighting. I would actually be more shocked if the neighbouring Arab countries had refused to take on refugees. In the second case, you're implying that the Palestinians left because the Arab leaders told them to. Not because they were being shelled. That's the big difference and the reason why Al-Azm's quote doesn't fit the claim this section is all about. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 06:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As other sources substantiate, Arab leaders made this call during the exodus. Therefore it had strong implications on the flight. I think that one can make the case that by reaching out to Palestinians, and going out of their way to invite them accross the border, Arab leaders endorsed/encouraged/promoted/escalated their flight. In fact, Al-Azm himself makes that case. Screen stalker 15:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I must admit, I am a bit lost... What case does Al-Azm make? That he offered to take war refugees? If there are, as you say, sources that substantiate the claim that Arab leaders endorsed the flight, then why don't you add them instead of this quote? Again, exceptional claims require exceptional sources -- if there actually were Arab orders to evacuate, then you will find them, and you can post them instead of having to rely on the somewhat contorted interpretation of a single quote. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 15:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not pretend to know whether or not there were orders from Arab leadership for a large-scale evacuation of Palestinians. I also do not think that Al-Azm's quotation makes the argument that there were such orders. But it is written by Arab leader, who discusses Arab leaders' encouragement of flight. I don't think that that is an exceptional claim, and I think that this quotation proves it exceptionally, certainly better than just another Israeli historian. His position as a respected Arab leader means that he can provide some real perspective as to the question of whether Arab leaders encouraged flight. Again, by calling upon Palestinians to come into their countries, Arab leaders encouraged their flight. Al-Azm himself makes that argument.
Oh—with regard to Haifa again—do we agree that that section ought to be moved to the "Second Stage of the Flight" section? Screen stalker 20:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so we still have a conflict here: you're talking about "encouraging flight" and Al-Azm is talking about taking refugees. Those are completely different things. This section argues that the Palestinians left because the Arab leaders encouraged them to do so -- that is not what Al-Azm says. If people are refugees, then they already had a reason to leave. Seriously, using that argument, Switzerland encouraged the flight of Kosovo Muslims by welcoming them as refugees. Syria encourages the flight of Iraqis by welcoming them as refugees. What would this make of the British Mandate's Zionists during WWII?

As for the Haifa section, yes, I would be very grateful if you could move it! I will do my best to help massage it into the new section. Cheers and thanks, Pedro.Gonnet 13:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If Switzerland had announced vocally that it would be willing to accept Kosovar refugees, and the Swiss President subsequently declared that this action escalated the flight of refugees from Kosovo, I think that that declaration would be appropriate to place in a section regarding what Swiss officials had to say regarding the possibility that leadership in Switzerland encouraged/endorsed the flight of Kosovars. I'm not saying that it would necessarily prove that Switzerland encouraged the flight of Kosovars; but it is a very relevant piece of information. Screen stalker 17:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if the Serbs were arguing that the Kosovars left Kosovo on the urging of the Swiss and such a quote, saying that Switzerland had "welcomed refugees", was all they had, then that would be rather weak, wouldn't it? We're trying to keep the article short and to the point, right? Well, adding weak quotes to add weight to a point is not the way to go... Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 07:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right in saying that if this were the quotation were the only evidence presented on the matter, the case made by the supporters of the Arab Leaders' Endorsement Theory would be pretty weak. But this quotation is part of a greater fabric that people like Schechtman write about. We have enough quotations from Jewish sources, and third-party sources regarding this ALEoF Theory. But when an Arab leader basically says "it is because of our actions that the Palestinian exodus was as bad as it was," that is of great relevance to the question as hand. True, it doesn't make the case for the argument all on its own. But it is a valuable source for a reader who is curious about the Palestinian Exodus. Screen stalker 13:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we focus too much on primary sources on not enough on secondary sources. Schetchman developed at his time, with the material he had, the theory that the palestinian exodus was due mainly to Arab call for it. Nowadays historians have more material and consider it is not the case and give as much "facts" or "quotations" to show they sometimes call for evacuation and often tried to stop it. Alithien 15:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

But we're not talking about Schectman here. We're talking about Al-Azm, an Arab Leader who gives a very good inerpretation of his own words. Why do we need someone else to interpret them again years and years later? Screen stalker 15:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, by taking his words as "proof" that it was the Arabs who caused the exodus, it is you who is interpreting him. Again, if you have better sources, then use them instead of Al-Azm. Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 15:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Screen stalker,

I think we are talking about Schetchman because he quoted Al-Azm.

We should not use Schetchman because he is too pov and too old.

We should not use Al-Azm because he is primary source, involved in the events, who was maybe wrong or maybe right, maybe he was honnest, maybe had a hidden agenda, ??? -> Only reliable historians could comment and analyse what he said.

Alithien 11:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Al-Azm said:

the Arab governments' invitation to the people of Palestine to flee from it and seek refuge in adjacent Arab countries, after terror had spread among their ranks in the wake of the Deir Yassin event. This mass flight has benefited the Jews and the situation stabilized in their favor without effort.
...
Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homeland, while it is we who constrained them to leave it. Between the invitation extended to the refugees and the request to the United Nations to decide upon their return, there elapsed only a few months.

Pardon me on this following one, as I do not have the entire quotation at hand:

Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees [...] while it is we who made them leave. [...] We brought disaster upon [...] Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave. [...] We have rendered them dispossessed. [...] We have accustomed them to begging. [...] We have participated in lowering their moral and social level. [...] Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon [...] men, women and children-all this in the service of political purposes.

It isn't my interpretation that Al-Azm is saying that Arab leaders encouraged Palestinian flight. It's Al-Azm's interpretation. The fact that Schechtman is the one quoting him doesn't change anything. Schechtman is a historian. Alithien, you yourself said we should be using historians. Schechtman is no more POV than Morris, or any other historian we quote in this article. But here he is not even making commentary; he is simply quoting Al-Azm.

I understand that Al-Azm is a primary source. I think that makes him a better source. The fact that he is an Arab leader means that he is in a better position to give testimony as to what Arab leaders did with regard to Palestinian flight during this time. Screen stalker 15:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Screen stalker, do you have the unparsed quote anywhere? Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 15:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Not yet, but I'll work on getting it. Screen stalker 13:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Here it is. Note that the ellipsis near the end appears in the secondary source. By the way that it is written (by that I mean that it is not within square brackets), it would seem that it was also that way in the original, but that is impossible to tell for certain.

Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees to their country, while it is we who made them leave it. Between the invitation extended to the refugees and the request of the United Nations to decide upon their return there elapsed only a few months.
Is this wise and established policy? Is this the coordination in planning? We brought disaster upon one million Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave their land, their homes, their work and their industry. We have rendered them dispossessed, unemployed, whilst every one of them had work or a trade by which he could gain his livelihood. We have accustomed them to begging and to contenting themselves with the little which is distributed to them by the United Nations. We have participated in lowering their moral and social level by housing tens of women and men in one hall with nothing but a curtain separating one family's bed from another family's bed. No one is thus protected from vices. Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson and throwing bombs upon houses and vehicles carrying men, women and children - all this in the service of political purposes in Lebanon and Jordan. Some of them became so accustomed to crime that their thirst for it is never quenched. Some of them are engaged in murder and house burglary. Some of them have so despaired of life that they consider it easy to lie and to swindle and allow themselves to cheat and to rob their partners in business and in agricultural work - those merciful persons who wanted, because of pity for this people, to associate them in their business and work... Their jealousy of those living in comfort, similar to the comfort which they left in their country (of origin), vies in their hearts with their hatred for the Jews. The sentiments of humanity, pity and mercy abandoned their hearts because they became needy of it. If anyone behaved mercifully towards them they consider him as paying part of what is due to them, and they are not thankful to him. No wonder in all this, after the calamities which they endured in fleeing their father-land, in the degradation of begging, in the contempt of living as a yoke upon a stranger. (Khaled El-Azm, former Prime Minister of Syria, Memoirs (Arabic) Mudha-karat Khaled El-Azm, 3 volumes (Al-Dar al Muttahida lil-Nashr), Vol. 1, pp. 386-7. Quoted in Dr. Maurice M. Roumani, The Case of the Jews from Arab Countries: a Neglected Issue, p. 37.)

I don't think the last half or so is relevant to this topic, but I figured that I would include as much of what Al-Azm said as I could. Keep a few things in mind: (1) Roumani gives a different spelling for Al-Azm's first and last names, (2) The words "of origin" appear in what appears to be Roumani's interpretation of Al-Azm (since it is in parentheses), although this appears late enough in the text to where it shouldn't matter, and (3) It would be nice if we could find Al-Azm's memoirs, so we could cite the original source. I have tried to find them, but have come up empty handed, so if other editors would like to take a shot, I would be very appreciative. Screen stalker 23:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Okie dokie. I figured I would be bold again. Screen stalker 14:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

First stage of the flight, December 1947 - March 1948

The mere division of "the flight" to such stages is POV. not all sides accept that there is such "division" to "stages".

the article need to be NPOV - including how it is internaly structured. Zeq 05:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, so, are you implying there was no "flight" and that actually calling it such is POV? Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 07:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Nither - clearly there was " a flight" and no problem calling it as it is.

I am implying that the division into "stages" is artificial and POV. Therefor the article structure needs to change to become NPOV. Zeq 08:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please explain in what way the division into stages is POV. Pedro.Gonnet 09:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, could you please name "as side that doesn't accept that division".

Thank you, Alithien 07:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

1. I repeat: the "division" is artificial and is not widely acedemicaly acknowledged. The article should not be based on the theory that there were several "stages" to the flight. (unless this is presented as one POV out out many others POV - all should be given equal wight.)

Again, this is an organizing principle to structure the article. There does not seem to be any consensus to do away with it. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 16:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Why was this:[5] removed ????? Zeq 16:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, see my conversation with User:Screen stalker on this very page... I think I stated my reasons quite clearly. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 16:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, you forgot to answer my question and name "a side that doesn't accept that division"...

Note there is still this misunderstanding between stages and waves in the article. Alithien 17:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, while I can understand why it bothers you that this article is divided into phases, it has to be organized somehow. We can't just clump all of that information together. Do you have any suggestions as to how to improve the sectioning?

As for the Al-Azm quotation, you are more than welcome to contribute to the discussion over whether or not it should be included in the article. Screen stalker 14:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I find this section to be heavily POV, with detailed negative descriptions of Jewish activities, at least once labeled as "terrorist (I removed that qualifier, since it was the only time it was used in the section - a definitely one-sided view)" and only the vaguest, shortest mentions of anything the Arabs did, making it sound as if Jews were the ones - and the only ones at that - bombing civilians, etc. I also removed the unfair qualifier from Benny Morris' name - he is a historian just as the others are - and note that his opinion is given short shrift, whereas the anti-Israeli ones are given much more attention. However, I am unsure as to whether I should either delete some of the detail, or add counter-balancing detail. Is brevity truly the soul of wit in this instance? I lean to that, but will bow to the will of the majority.FlaviaR 17:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Schechtman Quote

In the section "Claims by Arab leaders":

Some of the Arab leaders and their ministers in Arab capitals declared that they welcomed the immigration of Palestinian Arabs into the Arab countries until they saved Palestine. Many of the Palestinian Arabs were misled by their declarations [...] It was natural for those Palestinian Arabs who felt impelled to leave their country to take refuge in Arab lands -- and to stay in such adjacent places [...] so that to return [...] would be easy when, according to the promises of many of those responsible in the Arab countries [...], the time was ripe. Many were of the opinion that such an opportunity would come in the hours between sunset and sunrise.

The Arab National Committee in Jerusalem, following the March 8, 1948, instructions of the Arab Higher Committee, ordered women, children and the elderly in various parts of Jerusalem to leave their homes and move to areas 'far away from the dangers. Any opposition to this order [...] is an obstacle to the holy war [...] and will hamper the operations of the fighters in these districts.'[16]

This quote is so heavily parsed it hurts the eyes to read. Could somebody with the original Schechtman book please deliver the original? Schechtman's dubious character as a reliable source would be reason enough to delete this quote. If it's going to stay here I would suggest that it at least be complete. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 16:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have the book, although not with me at the moment. I will type up the entire quotation as soon as I can. Unfortunately, as I recall, this quotation is very long. Dubious as though you may consider Schechtman, he probably wrote more books about the subject of refugees than any of the editors here. His work comes from a period closer to the events of 1948 than some of the historians we quote (and certainly closer than now). He should not simply be blacklisted as "dubious" and removed. Screen stalker 15:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is what Schectman writes:

Most explicit in this respect [having to do with Arab orders to evacuate Palestine] is the Memorandum of the Mufti-led Palestine Arab Higher Committee, "The Problem of the Palestine Arab Refugees" (Cairo, 1952, p. 11). It establishes that

Some of the Arab leaders and their ministries in Arab capitals ... declared that they welcomed the immigration of Palestinian Arabs into the Arab countries until they saved Palestine. Many of the Palestinian Arabs were misled by their declarations and hence intended to leave the country. ... It was natural for those Palestinian Arabs who felt impelled to leave their country to take refuge in Arab lands near their own and to prefer to stay in such adjacent places in order to maintain contact with their country so that to return to it would be easy when, according to the promises of many of those responsible in the Arab countries (promises which were given wastefully), the time was ripe. Many were of the opinion that such an opportunity would come "in the hours between sunset and sunrise." Moreover, at that time, such declarations were a cause that led many to leave Palestine, even people with families that included many wives and children. These people preferred to leave with their families on the assumption that the solution of the Palestine problem would take a short time, as was understood from the dictates of Arab responsibilities.

That is exactly as it appears in Schechtman's book. The only edit I have made was inserting [having ... Palestine], in order to give some context to Schechtman's explanation. Screen stalker 13:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

An acdemic source not in this article

[6] Zeq 17:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Odd that Porath doesn't know Shlaim was born in Iraq. --Ian Pitchford 20:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Where a person was born means nothing. Zeq 12:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Who cares. I think Ian wanted to point out that the rave review was probably not too thorough. If you think it might make a good source, by all means: buy it, read it and if it contains new/good information, add it with correct quotes and references. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 12:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Did Porath really read the book ?

Most of it focuses on the arab states responsability in the defeat.

Only Khalidi view is biased as Porath describes and not as much as he claims.

More, in the French version Henry Laurens clearly explains Plan Daleth was not a plan for ethnic cleansing and I still wonder where Porath read this in that book. Certainly in Khaladi's article but certainly not elsewhere. Alithien 17:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that whatever he read, he is professor and he thinks the books is not neutral. That should be taken into account in an article related to the book but not to the particular information sourced by the book. Alithien 17:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There are basicly two POV:

1. The palestinian view - represented well in this article
2. the Israeli view: that events were not part of a pre meditatded cleansing but reuslt of a war.

The article needs to give both major POV same level of emphasis.

In addition, there is great critism of Benny Morris work (by Karash) not mentioned here. He contardict (with facts, academic sources) much of what Morris claim as "facts" Zeq 18:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What facts claimed by Morris are contradicted by Karsh ? Alithien 19:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

better and better

Don't you find the article improves itself step by step ? I think so...
Good work. :-) Alithien 10:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Morris 2001

There are a number of quotes from "Morris 2001"... What book is this? Is this the refugee probelm revisited? Could somebody add a real reference? Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 14:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It is given in the references section :

Morris, Benny (2001). Revisiting the Palestinian exodus of 1948. In The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948 (pp. 37-59). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-79476-5

I have this book in French. The authors/editors are Eugene Rogan and Avi Shlaim. This is a good reference book. Zeq gave us an article from an israeli prof. criticizing it just here above. Alithien 09:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

1948 Palestinian exodus -- External Links

Hi Isarig,

The link Link to commentaries by Efraim Karsh, an opponent of the Israeli New Historians, in which he disputes the accuracy of the Palestinian refugee narrative. which you insist on maintaining is busted (points to Perednik, Gustavo). This nonwithstanding, it has nothing to do with the 1948 Palestinian Exodus and does not satisfy WP:EL.

The link 'San Francisco Chronicle' article describing two Palestinian friends' differing opinions on the 'Right of Return' also has nothing to do with the Exodus itself and would be better suited in Palestinian refugees.

The link History of Zionism, including internal debate on the Arab of Palestine issue has a lot to do with Zionism, but nothing to do with the 1948 Palestinian Exodus.

The link Historical narrative from pro Israeli perspective. is just propaganda and makes claims diametrically opposed to what is in the article.

The link The Big Arab Lie, an article by David Meir-Levi suffers from the same problem. If it contains any useful information, then feel free to add it to the article. It is, however, strongly biased and doesn't cite sources...

Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 07:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Pedro, I agree almost completely. The one disagreement I have with you is that the San Fran Chronicle article would probably go best in the Palestinian Right of Return article. Screen stalker 15:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wherever, just not here ;) Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 15:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. "Palestine Facts" is not propaganda, and just your say-so doesn't make it so. The fact that it was linked under such a stupid name - "pro-Israel position" - doesn't make it so either.FlaviaR 18:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Section on modern nakba

This article is link from the word nakba.

As such there need to be a section (or a disamb page) for modern day "Nakbas" such as

1. many Palestinian from fatah described Hamas take over of Gaza (and the many Fatah people who became refugees) as "nakba" or "wort than nakba"
2. From BBC[7]:

   "Now it is Palestinian refugees from Nahr al-Bared camp, suffering what many characterise as a greater catastrophe than their loss of Palestine in 1948 with the establishment of Israel. "

3. Thousands of Palestinians are now forced from Iraq
4. 340,000-450,000 palestinians were kicked out of Kuwait in May 1991

Zeq 07:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The BBC-article doesn't mention the word Nakba once. If you can find good. solid reliable evidence of the use of the term "Nakba" for anything other than the 1948 Exodus, then feel free to start articles on those. You can then make a disambiguation à la Holocaust vs. Holocaust (disambiguation), i.e. Nakba should still point to 1948 Palestinian exodus, at least until you can show beyond reasonable doubt that the expression is also used to mean other events.

Oh, and please only add the disambiguation page once you have the pages on the other "Nakbas".

Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 07:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

+1 Alithien 11:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

More infor

Hi all, I am a new user in the english wikipedia and would like to cooperate on this article. I have quite a lot of scholar articles written on this issue and will introduce new references in the following days. Please feel free to give me any advice on editing or revert my changes if are not accurate nor adequate. I will rather prefer to introduce the reference in the text and then see if everyone agrees given that introducing each paragraph in the talk page first to seek consensus would make the task really tedious. Thank you.--Jorditxei 13:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to find scholar publications from authors opposing the New Historians in JSTOR and other research motors but they have none of their publications. Example, JSTOR: No publications for Efraim Karsh on the issue, No publications for Joseph Schechman, No publications for Itamar Rabinovitch and No publications for Shabtai Teveth. In ASE research tool: No publications for Efraim Karsh, No publications for Itamar Rabinovitch, No publications for Shabtai Teveth and No publications for Joseph Schechman. Are these people scholars? Have they got any support among scholars? Do you have any publications from these authors accesible from the internet? Thank you.--Jorditxei 11:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jorditxei! I usually use www.isiknowledge.com... For "Karsh E*" I get 118 hits, most of them in the journals "Commentary", "International Affairs" and "The Times Literary Supplement". Schechtman scores 7 hits in "Jewish Social Studies". These Authors are most well known for their books, which will not appear in such databases. There are, however, academic and non-academic books. This distinction has been the source of quite some discussion here. Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 12:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have seen that the only truly scholar is Efraim Karsh. Itamar Rabinovitch was an israeli ambassador, Schechman was an israeli politician, Teveth a member of israeli government or bibliographer of Ben-Gurion. Do we accept the views of these non-scholars in wikipedia? I already found some articles from Karsh, but none for the others, is Karsh the only scholar that opposes the New Historians? Thank you for your link, I will look there.--Jorditxei 12:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to Wikipedia's rules WP:RS, Schechtman definitely doesn't make the cut. But there are a number of people here who disagree, so he gets pushed anyway. It's an ongoing battle ;) Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 12:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I have no access to the link you gave me (maybe bcs I am not in the UK). In any case I found some articles from Karsh in the internet so that would be ok. What about Schechman, Rabinovitch and others? Did you manage to find any publications from the link you gave me. If you could send me via email those articles I would appreciate. I have quite a huge litterature from the New Historians from JSTOR and other scholar research tools but none from these others, I already imagine that I will be accused of POV because didn't introduce these sources although given all this factors I would think that among scholars those who oppose the NHistorians are clearly a minority. Have you had any discussion on this issue? Thank you.--Jorditxei 12:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, for Rabinowitsch I get the following two hits:

• Rabinovitch I, The view from Damascus (The Arab-Israeli conflict), NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS 47 (12): 58-58 JUL 20 2000
• RABINOVI.I, MODERN HISTORY OF SYRIA (INCLUDING LEBANON AND PALESTINE) - TIBAWI,AL, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MIDDLE EAST STUDIES 3 (4): 502-503 1972

Judging from the different dates though I would guess it's not the same Rabinowitch in both cases. The results for Schechtman are:

• SCHECHTMAN JB, AMERICAN DIPLOMACY DURING 2ND WORLD WAR, 1941-1945 - SMITH,G, JEWISH SOCIAL STUDIES 30 (1): 62-63 1968
• SCHECHTMAN JB, ARABS - NARRATIVE HISTORY FROM MOHAMMED TO PRESENT - NUTTING,A, JEWISH SOCIAL STUDIES 28 (4): 236-238 1966
• SCHECHTMAN JB, MIDDLE EAST AND WEST - LEWIS,B , JEWISH SOCIAL STUDIES 28 (4): 236-238 1966
• SCHECHTMAN JB, HOUSE OF THEIR FATHERS - HISTORY OF ZIONISM - LITVINOFF,B, ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE 366 (JUL): 186-188 1966
• SCHECHTMAN JB, THE ARAB-WORLD TODAY - BERGER,M, JEWISH SOCIAL STUDIES 27 (2): 134-136 1965
• SCHECHTMAN JB, THE SINAI CAMPAIGN OF 1956 - OBALLANCE,E, JEWISH SOCIAL STUDIES 26 (4): 245-247 1964
• SCHECHTMAN JB, JORDAN, A STATE OF TENSION - SCHWADRAN,B, JEWISH SOCIAL STUDIES 22 (4): 249-250 1960
• SCHECHTMAN JB, FOR THE LIFE OF ME - BRISCOE,R, JEWISH SOCIAL STUDIES 21 (4): 270-271 1959

These are, as far as I can tell, book reviews. Finally, Teveth scores the following 6 hits:

• TEVETH S, THE FOUNDING OF ISRAEL, COMMENTARY 90 (1): 13-13 JUL 1990
• TEVETH S, THE PALESTINE ARAB REFUGEE PROBLEM AND ITS ORIGINS, MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES 26 (2): 214-249 APR 1990
• TEVETH S, CHARGING ISRAEL WITH ORIGINAL SIN, COMMENTARY 88 (3): 24-33 SEP 1989
• TEVETH S, BENGURION,DAVID, TLS-THE TIMES LITERARY SUPPLEMENT (4470): 1344-1344 DEC 2 1988
• TEVETH S, WEIZMANN,CHAIM - THE MAKING OF A ZIONIST LEADER - REINHARZ,J, MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES 24 (2): 254-257 APR 1988
• TEVETH S, NO VICTOR NO VANQUISHED - THE YOM KIPPUR WAR - OBALLANCE,E, MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES 17 (4): 539-541 1981

whereas the last two are also book reviews. I don't have access to any of the articles, but if your library has these journals (note that it's usually the same journals), you should be able to find the articles. Note that altough the search engine I used is quite complete, there might be other journals out there that are not linked! Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 13:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

For Rabinovitch, none of those sources you give appear to be on the issue of the Palestinian exodus, so I don't think there is need to look for them. In Schechtman's case, none of the articles seem to deal with the issue neither (would you agree with this?). As regards Teveth I will look for: *TEVETH S, THE PALESTINE ARAB REFUGEE PROBLEM AND ITS ORIGINS, MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES 26 (2): 214-249 APR 1990 (which again seems to me the only publication dealing with the issue). Please would you tell me if you agree on this. By the way I have found a really interesting article by Steven Glazer: The Palestinian Exodus in 1948, which reviews the different litterature, I can send it to you if you like. There the author refers to the "traditional israeli version" citing different authors. I think I will use this in the article, although he clearly claims that in his opinion the evidence provided by the New Historians appears to him as being more convincing than that of these authors... In any case, thank you very much.--Jorditxei 13:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It would actually be really cool to have a reference to some academic literature pitting the new vs. old historians against each other. Could you send me the Glazer article? The Teveth article is available here, but I don't have access... Cheers and thanks, Pedro Gonnet 14:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pedro, no luck: I looked for the article by Shabtai Teveth and did not found it, the reason being that the publications of the Middle Eastern Studies I have access to have no articles available on the internet sooner than 2000... I will look for it in my library but don't think will find it. Good luck.--Jorditxei 13:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

New proposals by Jorditxei

I have been introducing changes to the text as can be seen in the history of the page. I will continue introducing changes as I keep reading the different articles on the issue. Although I have tried to introduce the opinions of scholars from different political/ideological spectrums I mush acknowledge that I have had much more difficulties in finding articles from authors that support the traditional israeli version of the palestinian exodus. This is due, in my opinion, to the fact that most of these authors rarely publish in scholar journals and rather publish in book format. Therefore I strongly encourage other users to introduce material that may be found in those books and not in scholar journals. I would also like to point that I have (and will) stick to historiographical material (articles, publications, that refer to documents describing or giving a clue of what happened) rather than political opinions, the latter not being included. For example, in certain occasions I have found that Efraim Karsh or Mitchell Bard dispute the New Historians' work not on the basis of historical documents (which they also do anyway) but on political arguments like arabs should have accepted the 1947 UN Partition plan and that would not have created the exodus problem. Personally, and I am open for debate on this issue, I think we should not introduce arguments like this one because they are mainly political and introducing them would provoque the response from "the other side", for example, that the partition plan was unacceptable and both british and hebrew knew it. I think this would start a political (not historical) debate which I consider inadequate in the article. Cheers. --Jorditxei 13:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I am noticing a pattern here; it seems that all of these sources support the contention that Jews expelled Palestinians from Israel. But we are adding so much volume to the article that it wouldn't even be funny. And, of course, the natural product of this is that we must also add as many sources refuting these arguments. Which, of course, puts us back to where we are now. Except that the article will be longer, and will be something along the lines of 75% quotations, 25% actual article. I would like to avoid that if we can. Screen stalker 15:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree. Firstly, I don't see quotations as a problem, instead I see it as something positive, I will always prefer a text which clearly states who says what. We like it or not, if we don't use quotations then another user will come and add even without knowing that what is said is already the opinion of some author. This has already happened to me. So I don't see where the problem is but in any case, if there were a problem, then we can just change the wording of the article so there is no quotation abuse. Secondly, I have tried hardly (I can assure you) to find the publications of lets say "anti-expulsion authors" and personally, these people have published less than pro-expulsion authors, are fewer in number than pro-expulsion authors and clearly do not publish much in scholarly journals. I already talked about my difficulties here, here and here. So yes, we should look for these sources to reflect the scholar discussion as best as possible but I don't see why we should not include more information of other sources just because this would oblige us to look for more sources. This is the way I understand the wikipedia policy WP:NOT#PAPER. Moreover, personally I think this article is in real need of more sources. Just look at how many sources: bibliography and references has Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 90 references and more than the double of ouvrages in the bibliography. So I don't understand why this article does not need more sources if similar ones have the triple references and more than the double ouvrages. Moreover, the information I have included is not repeated, but rather adds more historical documents or opinions that are not in the text yet: for me, this clearly adds value in such a controversial article. If instead the problem is that it is hard to find "anti-expulsion" authors, then I would understand this as clearly pointing that those authors are a minority and precisely that explains the reason why it is hard to find them. This is the way I understand the wikipedia policy: WP:NPOV#Undue weight and in particular the words of Jimbo Wales. Hope this makes you change your mind. Cheers.--Jorditxei 19:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I can understand where you are coming from. I really can. It can be frustrating if an article does not contain all the valid pieces of information that it could possibly contain. But Wikipedia:Article_size provides some good guidelines on this issue. It gives the example of a 65 KB article that should be cut in length. This article is 62 KB in size. You proposed additions are 53 KB in size. Assuming that at the moment they are 70% content, 30% discussion (a very conservative estimate), you would be adding 37 KB to the article, putting it at almost 100 KB of size. That is a lot. And, of course, we shouldn't forget that there will be at least as many sources added, which counter the theory that Jews expelled Palestinians from Israel.

I do not doubt that you have searched thoroughly for anti-expulsion authors. But after you did such a remarkable job finding so many quotations from pro-expulsion authors, I am surprised you found so few (I have seen none) anti-expulsion works. I do not believe that the entire body of works of the anti-expulsion authors, politicians and historians culminates to what is included here. And if that is not the case, then the limiting factor on including their works is not that they wrote few of them, but they still remain to be found. If you are not objected, I would like to add as many anti-expulsion quotations as I can find over the next few weeks. My goal here is twofold: first, to make it clearer why I think it is impractical to add this edit to the article; and second, to make sure this addition will truly be NPOV if it is added. Screen stalker 14:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You clearly convinced me on the size discussion. I still find it strange that Israeli-Palestinian conflict is larger in size, but if the policy says what you say then it is clear that the article should not be made lengthier. Nevertheless, I think that what we could do is to make separate articles of the too lengthy sections in the article. I think this would be really appropriate: we could put the quotes in those articles and then write a summary here (without need of the quotes!!). This would also make it possible to continue increasing those parts separately. What do you think? As of anti-expulsion authors, first, I do have included some of their arguments here in last paragraph. I can honestly tell you that I did look for their arguments but found it tough for the reasons explained. I completely agree that those arguments are needed but please, look first for academics: Karsh, Skyler, Ballard, etc. Then try with other non-academic but well-known sources: Rabinovitch, Teveth, Schechman, etc. And please try to find reputable sources first, then the others. You'll see it is not as easy as you may think. In any case I completely agree they should be here and encourage you and others to bring those arguments here. Cheers.--Jorditxei 15:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I would have no objections to creating a "Causes of the 1948 Palestinian Exodus" article, and moving most of the stuff that is in the section of the same name there. In fact, I think I will be bold and do that. In that article, we will have much more space with which to work. If editors become upset at this, they may feel free to revert my edit. I still think that much of the information here should be cut. The suggested edit is very good, but also very long (sometimes unnecessarily so). Screen stalker 19:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I will make a list of sources that I would like to see incorporated in the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus discussion page. Screen stalker 19:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Section "Criticisms of the "endorsement of flight" theory"

I would like to propose the following text in this section:

According to Glazer (1980, p. 101), not only did Arab radio stations appeal to the inhabitants not to leave, but also Zionist radio stations urged the population to flee, by exaggerating the course of battle, and, in some cases, fabricating complete lies.

More evidence is presented by Walid Khalidi. In his article the author argues that steps were taken by Arab governments to prevent Palestinians from leaving, ensuring that they remain to fight, including the denial by Lebanon and Syria of residence permits to Palestinian males of military age on April 30 and May 6 respectively. He also considers that Arab radio broadcasts were urging the inhabitants of Palestine to remain and were discussing plans for an Arab administration there. To the contrary, Khalidi then points to what he describes as the Zionist "psychological offensive" which was highlighted by, though not limited to, radio messages warning the Arabs of diseases, the ineffectiveness of armed resistance and the incompetence of their leaders.

Glazer (1980, p.102) acknowledges that Schectman offers quotes from the Lebanese weekly Kul Shay, from al-Huda, a Maronite newspaper published in the United States, and several statements made by various Arab officials, among them Emil al-Ghoury, at the time Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, and Msgr. George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Haifa and Galilee. These quotes and statements all imply Arab complicity in, if not initiation of, the exodus. Nevertheless, the author cites the fact that Childers went back to these sources, checking them for the full meaning, and, in his opinion, found that they were taken out of context. According to Childers, on closer examination, these statements were meant to indicate the opposite of what the Zionists tried to imply. According to him, what had in effect happened was that by carefully selecting those words which fit their story, these Zionist historians had edited history.

According to Glazer (1980, p.105), among those who blame Arab news reports for the resulting panic flight are Polk et al. and Gabbay. They maintain that the Arabs overstated the case of Zionist atrocities, made the situation seem worse than it was and thus caused the population to flee, rather than to fight harder, as was hoped. According to Glazer, Gabbay, in particular, has assembled an impressive listing of sources which describe Zionist cruelty and savagery.

In this sense, Glazer (1980, p.105) cites the work done by Childers who maintains that it was the Zionists who disseminated these stories, at the time when the Arab sources were urging calm. He cites carefully composed "horror recordings" in which a voice calls out in Arabic for the population to escape because "the Jews are using poison gas and atomic weapon". Additionally, he refers to radio broadcasts by the Zionists which in the opinion of Childers were designed to demoralize the Arab audience.

In the opinon of Glazer (1980, p.108) one of the greatest weaknesses of the traditional Zionist argument, which attempts to explain the exodus as a careful, calculated and organized plan by various Arab authorities, is that it cannot account for the totally disorganized way in which the exodus occurred. In this sense, Glazer cites John Glubb's observation,

Voluntary emigrants do not leave their homes with only the clothes they stand up in. People who have decided to move house do not do so in such a hurry that they lose other members of their family - husband losing sight of his wife, or parents of their children. The fact is that the majority left in panic flight.

In the opinion of the author, the terror felt by the population was helped along by Zionist psychological tactics: radio broadcasts sought to undermine morale and give the impression that Palestinian resistance was futile; civilian populations were warned of alleged impending epidemics as well as alleged dissension in the ranks of the Arab forces. Later, rumours were spread by the Israeli forces that they possessed the atomic bomb.

As regards the evidence provided supporting the idea that arab leaders incentivated the flight of palestinian population, Glazer (1980, p. 106) states:

I am inclined to prefer Childers [research] because the sources he cites would have reached the masses, who would then react accordingly. Radio was the most widely used form of communication, and the "horror recordings" were broadcast on the scene. Gabbay's evidence, newspapers and UN documents, were designed for outside consumption, by diplomats and politicians abroad and by the educated and influential Arab decision makers. This is not the kind of material which would necessarily have been in the hands of the common Palestinian. Thus I believe that Childers' contention, claiming that Zionist provocation had more to do with causing the exodus than backfiring atrocity propaganda, is borne out.

According to Flapan (1987, p. 5), the idea that Arab leaders ordered the Arab masses to leave their homes in order to open the way for the invading armies, after which they would return to share in the victory, makes no sense at all. In his opinion, the Arab armies, coming long distances and operating in or from the Arab areas of Palestine, needed the help of the local population for food, fuel, water, transport, manpower, and information. The author cites a report of the Jewish Agency's Arab section from 3 January 1948, at the beginning of the flight, which in his view suggests that the Arabs were already concerned with the possibility of flight, "The Arab exodus from Palestine continues, mainly to the countries of the West. Of late, the Arab Higher Executive has succeeded in imposing close scrutiny on those leaving for Arab countries in the Middle East. Flapan maintains that prior to the declaration of statehood, the Arab League's political committee, meeting in Sofar, Lebanon, recommended that the Arab states "open the doors to . . . women and children and old people if events in Palestine make it necessary, but that the AHC vigorously opposed the departure of Palestinians and even the granting of visas to women and children.

Flapan (1987, pp. 5-6) further maintains that to support their claim that Arab leaders had incited the flight, Israeli and Zionist sources were constantly "quoting" statements by the Arab Higher Committee to the effect that "in a very short time the armies of our Arab sister countries will overrun Palestine, attacking from the land, the sea, and the air, and they will settle accounts with the Jews. He claims that some such statements were actually issued, but they were intended to stop the panic that was causing the masses to abandon their villages. In his opinion, they were also issued as a warning to the increasing number of Arabs who were willing to accept partition as irreversible and cease struggling against it. From his point of view, in practice the AHC statements boomeranged and further increased Arab panic and flight. But there were a great many other statements that could not be so misconstrued. According to Aharon Cohen, head of Mapam's Arab department, the Arab leadership was very critical of the "fifth columnists and rumormongers" behind the flight. When, after April 1948, the flight acquired massive dimensions, Azzam Pasha, secretary of the Arab League, and King 'Abdailah both issued public calls to the Arabs not to leave their homes. Fawzi al-Qawuqji, commander of the Arab Liberation Army, was given instructions to stop the flight by force and to requisition transport for this purpose. Muhammad Adib al-'Umri, deputy director of the Ramallah broadcasting station, appealed to the Arabs to stop the flight from Janin, Tulkarm, and other towns in the Triangle that were bombed by the Israelis. On 10 May Radio Jerusalem broadcast orders on its Arab program from Arab commanders and the AHC to stop the mass flight from Jerusalem and its vicinity. Flapan considers that Palestinian sources offer further evidence that even earlier, in March and April, the Arab Higher Committee broadcasting from Damascus demanded that the population stay put and announced that Palestinians of military age were to return from the Arab countries. All Arab officials in Palestine were also asked to remain at their posts The author claims that such pleas had so little impact because they were outweighed by the cumulative effect of Zionist pressure tactics that ranged from economic and psychological warfare to the systematic ousting of the Arab population by the army.

Flapan (1987, pp.23-24) offers the following explanation for what he calls the "myth" of Arab-instigated flight. He claims that

...it served to cover the traces of the unsavory methods employed by the authorities (from the confiscation of food, raw materials, medicaments, and land to acts of terror and intimidation, the creation of panic, and, finally, forcible expulsion) and thus to exorcise the feelings of guilt. In many sectors of society, especially the younger generation. Many of them bore the burden of the operations that caused the Arab flight. Their feelings of moral frustration and revulsion were not easily eradicated.

In addition to alleviating guilt feelings, the myth served as a successful weapon in political warfare. It helped strengthen the age-old Zionist thesis that the Palestinians were not a people with national aspirations and rights but simply Arabs who could live anywhere in the vast expanses of the Arab world. On 4 May 1948, Ben-Gurion wrote that "history has proved who is really attached to this country and for whom it is a luxury which can be given up. Until now not a single Uewish] settlement, not even the most distant, weak, or isolated, has been abandoned, whereas after the first defeat the Arabs left whole towns like Haifa and Tiberias in spite of the fact that they did not face any danger of destruction or massacre.

This contention ignored the fact that the large majority of the Palestinians who fled their homes did not leave the country. Like many Jews caught in the same circumstances, they evacuated battle areas and moved to safer places. The spontaneous movement of Palestinians back to the country-what was known then (and punished) as "infiltration," and which started even before the end of the war-and the persistent refusal of the majority of the Palestinian refugees to "rehabilitate" themselves in Arab countries must certainly be considered demonstrations of the tenacity of their attachment to their homeland.

The myth of voluntary exodus became Israel's major argument against accepting even partial responsibility for the refugee problem, not to mention consideration of the refugees' right to repatriation.

That is my proposal, I will continue introducing new sources in future as I keep reading the articles. Thanks.--Jorditxei 19:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on the proposal

One of the main issues with it is that it keeps violating WP:NPOV; that is, you keep using wording that, in effect, asserts that the material you agree with is correct and simple fact. For example, you state that Khalidi "discusses steps taken by Arab governments to prevent Palestinians from leaving". No, not according to WP:NPOV. Rather, Khalidi "argues that Arab government took steps to prevent Palestinians from leaving". As an exercise, try re-writing the section assuming your point of view was that everything they said was, in fact, not true. The wording would be completely different. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly true. Is there anything else that bothers you about the text at this time?Hornplease 22:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see it re-written in a NPOV way first. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg. In my defense I will say that the text follows the exact wording of the article I cite but in any case I will change any wording that does not appear to indicate it is the opinion of some of the authors. Please tell me if any more changes are needed. Thank you.--Jorditxei 08:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the text in the way pointed out by Jayjg and also added a new quote. Please Jayjg could you tell me if the wording is acceptable to you now? Thank you.--Jorditxei 10:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this would be a very good addition to the article. However, we must be careful to remember that this is the "Criticisms of the 'endorsement of flight' theory" section, not the "Transfer Principle theory" section or the "Master Plan theory" section. This section should be limited to evidence that Arab leaders did not encourage flight, not that Zionist leaders did. For example, this sentence should probably be cut: "To the contrary, Khalidi then points to what he describes as the Zionist 'psychological offensive' which was highlighted by, though not limited to, radio messages warning the Arabs of diseases, the ineffectiveness of armed resistance and the incompetence of their leaders." There are a few others, too. Screen stalker 14:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the fact that my proposal provides evidence in favour of considering that Zionist leaders encourage flight. The problem I see is that both facts are very related and that there is no other section in which I would see those claims fit better. Would you consider they would be better placed in the "Transfer Principle Theory" section? I think placing them there would cut the phrases from context. What do you think, would you propose to cutting those phrases and introducing them in other section? Thank you for your response.--Jorditxei 16:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If the explanations regarding the Zionist involvement in the expulsion cannot be placed independently in another section, perhaps they should altogether be cut. To be honest, I don't think that that would be a bad thing. We have plenty of quotations to that effect. More evidence does not mean more information, or better information, or for that matter a better article. We have enough historians and politicians making this argument. Why do we need any more? Screen stalker 15:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You only seem to have worked on one paragraph. For example, in the very next paragraph you use phrase like that Glazer "cites the fact that Childers went back etc.", and "In fact..." You still don't seem to be taking WP:NPOV seriously. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but the fact that Childers went back to that sources is a fact, what is an opinion is the conclusions drawn by him, and the text reflected that when it said: "found that in his opinion etc." or should I say that in the opinion of Childers he went back to that sources?! Nevertheless I have changed the text so it is (more?) clear that it is his opinion. I have also made other changes so I think now it is quite clear that each statement is the opinion of this or that author. Please tell me if you would agree with the text right now. Thank you.--Jorditxei 09:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

Calling it an "exodus" is like calling the purge of jews from Poland an "exodus". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.168.72.245 (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know how some of the people posting here respond to this article: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9474.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.0.170 (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)