Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

splitting the article

I have analysed the size of the content of the article and come up with the following sizes of readable content:

• total size: 70 kB
• endorsement section: 24 kB
• transfer idea and master plan sections: 22 kB
• remaining sections: 23 kB

Wikipedia advises a optimum size between 30 and 50 kB (see [[1]]). So, I would propose to branch of two new articles called:

• 'Role of Arab leaders in the 1948 Palestinian exodus'

containing the endorsement section

a summary of this section should remain in the main article (so as to avoid non-npov), but in my view 35% of the article size in the endorsement theory is undue weight for a theory that according to Morris is responsible for only about 5% of the exodus.

Branching of an article with a name like 'Arab leaders endorsement of the 1948 Palestinian exodus' is not desirable. That would mean that only endorsement actions by the Arab leaders would be in this article, while Arab leaders in fact also tried to stop the exodus. This could of course be mentioned in a criticism section, but I think that would not be neutral.

• 'Jewish motivation and policy regarding the 1948 Palestinian exodus'

containing the transfer idea and master plan sections

these are both indirect causes, and it is quite natural to put them in a separate article; above that I think they should stay together because Jewish motivation (transfer idea) on the one hand naturally supports a master plan, but on the other hand makes a master plan obsolete (at least in my interpretation Morris brought up the transfer idea to support his thesis that there was no master plan).

A small summary should remain.

Maybe we can wait some time, but I think somewhere in the near future we have to do something.

Anyone wants to comment?

--JaapBoBo 21:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I would ask that you change the title of the proposed "Jewish motivation and policy ..." article to "Yishuv motivation and policy ...." Also, before I agree to this proposal, I'd like to know where the "Gelber's Two-Stage Theory" and "Palestinian Arabs' fear" sections go. --GHcool 21:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose the remaining sections stay in the present article. 'Yishuv' is okay with me. --JaapBoBo 21:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Great. I support your proposal. --GHcool 00:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

First, let's get something straight: Morris didn't say that EoF accounted for at most 5% of the exodus. He said Arab orders accounted for at most 5% of the exodus. The two are hardly alike, as you no doubt agree.

Secondly, the longest section by far of the EoF is the criticism section, so if you feel like summarizing EoF, you can just cut most of that off. Personally, I think that section is far too long as it is, but whatever.

As far as the second part of that proposal, I'm just going to stay out of that conversation for now. Screen stalker 01:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

@Screenstalker: if you ask me why the criticism section is so long i;d sat that's because the endorsement is claimed to be the main cause of the exodus. That claim is clearly bullshit, so the length of the criticism section seems justified to me. If the claim would only be Morris's pov the criticism section could be shorter. --JaapBoBo 08:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the article would not be allowed. See WP:POVFORK. We'll have to work out our issues here. Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 16:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this proposal would constitute a POV fork any more than Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus is a POV fork from 1948 Palestinian exodus. --GHcool 17:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Pedro, I am aware that the danger exists, but I have several reasons not to agree with you:

1) we don't fork of pov's but certain aspects of the subject of the article, i.e. the role of Arab leaders and the motivation of the Yishuv. Both, of themselves, or quite well-defined subjects, and can contain pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian pov's. The link you provided states:

There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article.

but my proposal isn't going halfway as far.

2) a summary of each article will remain in the present article.

--JaapBoBo 18:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If new articles should be created on these topics, I think the proposed title should be changed. Instead of yishuv (or jewish) motivation that are poved because they sound as if the yishuv had such intentions, which is -true or false- controversed.

I would simply suggest : Transfer Idea and Master Plan that seem available (they are red when I write this) and where context and all arguments pro and contra and the controverse could be detailled and explained. Alithien 11:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "Yishuv motivations" is probably not the best way to put it, but I wouldn't want an article titled "master plan" or "transfer policy" because that assumes them as indisputable facts, which would be even more pov than saying that the Yishuv had motivations during the Palestinian exodus. I propose Yishuv policy and the 1948 Palestinian exodus for that section and keep JaapBoBo's original suggestion, Role of Arab leaders in the 1948 Palestinian exodus, for the second article. --GHcool 18:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with GHCools arguments against Alithien. However I disagree with dropping the word 'motivation'. The transfer idea refers to a 'motivation', the master plan to a 'policy', so I think both words should be in the article title. Of course we can think about other words that cover the same substance. --JaapBoBo 21:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A fair point. Consider: Yishuv administration and the 1948 Palestinian exodus. --GHcool 22:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

yishuv motivations is pov just to talk about the transfer idea and the master plan. It is even more pov than both these are controversed when they are many others that are not. If you want to deal with yishuv motivations, then you will have to give all of them and not only to focus on those that you want to emphasize. That is not the purpose.

You take the direction of the usual alledged titles which degenerates in crazy discussions : alledged motivations and policies of the Yishuv in 1948.

You have material and data concerning the "master plan (theory)" and concering the "transfer idea" (theory)", so chose a title to discuss this but don't use a title stating you will discuss yishuv motivations or administrations when you don't have data about them.

NPoV once more and stop hiding behind the fact you don't have to discuss what you don't know. Alithien 06:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

NB: I would like to add that transfer idea and master plan are the current title of the sections that you would like to split... :-) Alithien 11:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The purpose is to give all relevant pov's. This is perfectly possible in an article titled 'Yishuv motivation and policy regarding the 1948 Palestinian exodus'. And by the way, the transfer idea is hardly controversed. After all, the only criticism (in the article) is from Karsh and Morris qualifies him as ignorant as to what really went on in the Middle East in 1948 and "Karsh employs his usual method of focusing on the one document that seems to uphold his argument - often while twisting its real purport - while simply ignoring the mass of documents that undercut it." (Morris, 1998, 'Review: Refabricating 1948', J. Palestine Studies 27(2), p. 81-95). The Mater plan is indeed really controversial. --JaapBoBo 19:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that the transfer idea is not controversed (except Karsh, Shapira and Tevet. Maybe Gelber but he doesn't comment this). The Master Plan is more controversed. But anyway the problem is not there.

That transfer idea was one of the motivations is already more controversed. I don't think we could find this eg even in Morris. Motivation of what exactly ?

And what where the motivations of the Yishuv in 1948 ? The ultimate motivations was to provoke the exodus of Palestinians ? This is the goal of the Yishuv and the Zionism since the beginning ? They don't have nationalist motivations, economical motivations, social motivations ? They didn't face a war and this didn't motivate their attitude ?

Once again, I add the current title in the article is "transfer idea" and "plan daleth" and not "motivations". Alithien 08:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Alithien: They don't have nationalist motivations, economical motivations, social motivations ? They didn't face a war and this didn't motivate their attitude ?

I think they did have those motivations. By creating an article 'Jewish (or Yishuv) motivation and policy regarding the 1948 Palestinian exodus', this type of content can be added. You seem to assume that after creating the article it will not be changed. If you find those two sections one-sided now, the new article is an opportunity to make it more npov. --JaapBoBo 18:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't fint the current sections particularly pov. Maybe not well organised and maybe the mind of Massalah lacks to the transfer idea article and the debate between him and Morris about that. There are too many people who discuss the transfer idea.

But they talk about the Transfer idea and the master plan. They don't talk about the yishuv intentions and I assume we will not use the expression jewish intention else we would have to discuss also about the intentions of the jewish all around the world in 1948...

I think we have plenty of material about the transfer idea but very few about the yishuv intention and so we would have difficulties in neutralizing this. Alithien 19:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me propose another possibility, branching of three articles with neutral names:

• 'Role of Arab leaders in the 1948 Palestinian exodus' (EoF section)
• 'The 'transfer idea' and its role in the 1948 Palestinian exodus' (transfer idea section)
• 'Role of Yishuv leaders in the 1948 Palestinian exodus' (master plan section)

I hope you all find these names neutral. With regard to the transfer idea I would like to add that it's existence seems undisputed (even Karh doesn't deny the transfer idea, but says it was forced upon the Yishuv by the Peel commission), and that I would like a referral to the 1948 exodus in the title of such an article. --JaapBoBo 09:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree because I predict that "Role of Yishuv ..." and "Transfer idea" articles will become POV forks. I would prefer to keep the transfer idea within the role of the Yishuv article. Thank you. --GHcool 17:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

splitting the article II

In another section of the discussion I saw people start talking about a restructuring of the article. The sturcture right now is indeed liable to improvement. However, I don't think we can save much space though, so we'd still end up with a long article. Therefore I think forking of is still a good idea (of course adequate summaries should stay in the article):

• 'Role of Arab leaders in the 1948 Palestinian exodus' (EoF section)
• 'Role of Yishuv leaders in the 1948 Palestinian exodus' (transfer idea section, master plan section)

What would be left in the article are the more direct causes and circumstances of the exodus. Morris' view and the two stage theory have a similar sturcture in common (e.g. Gelber divides the first stage also in phases similar to Morris). Probably also the 'ethnic cleansing' section could be combined with these. The remaining two sections ('Arab fears' and 'psychological warfare') could either remain, or be integrated into the 'waves'. --JaapBoBo 16:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, I would support this. --GHcool 19:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Schechtman out!

I think we should take Schechtmans opinions out of the article. Particularly I am referrring to this part in the section 'Palestinian Arab fears':

Schechtman explains in his book The Arab Refugee Problem that a large part of the exodus was caused by a phenomenon which he calls The Fear Psychosis, namely Arab fear of attack, reprisal and the other stresses of war. Schechtman himself attributes this to purely to the perspective of the refugees, but other sources also place responsibility with propaganda put out by both the Jews and the Arabs. He expounds this theory as follows:

In the Western world fighting is carried on by the organized military; the civilian population, even when conquered, is comparatively safe. Arab warfare against the Jews in Palestine, however, had always been marked by indiscriminate killing, mutilating, raping, looting and pillaging. This 1947-48 attack on the Jewish community was more savage than ever. Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands. Wounded and dead alike were mutilated. Every member of the Jewish community was regarded as an enemy to be mercilessly destroyed. [...]
[T]he Arab population of Palestine anticipated nothing less than massacres in retaliation if the Jews were victorious. Measuring the Jewish reaction by their own standards, they simply could not imagine that the Jews would not reply in kind what they had suffered at Arab hands. And this fear played a significant role in the Arab flight.

Reasons:

• Two neutral contemporary reviewers find his book not objective:

• ‘’But if the publisher’s claim that this is an objective exposition cannot be justified and the book, though well produced, is expensive, it yet brings together information about the various UN attempts to find a solution which may be convenient for reference; in itself, however it is hard to believe that it will do much more than confirm an opinion that the continued misery of the refugees is the fault of nobody but the Arabs.’’ (Reviewed Work(s): The Arab Refugee Problem. by Joseph B. Schechtman, Author(s) of Review: S. G. Thicknesse, International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 29, No. 3 (Jul., 1953), p. 381)
• ‘’Despite its claim to objectivity, and the reputation of the author, the present volume will scarcely survive as the last word in the treatment of a great tragedy...’’ (Reviewed Work(s): The Arab Refugee Problem by Joseph B. Schechtman, Author(s) of Review: Linden A. Mander, The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Jun., 1953), p. 382)

• Childers finds that the book is unreliable, as it states in the article (referring to sources quoted by Schechtman and Khon):

Childers went back to these sources, checking them for the full meaning, and, he 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 (Childers.The Wordless Wish.pp. 197-198.).

If there is any truth in the passage it shouldn't be hard to find a more objective and reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaapBoBo (talk • contribs) 19:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I say we remove the passage! --JaapBoBo 18:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree Schechtman is biaised and it is not difficult to show that all scholars(*) today agree with that.
(*) except Karsh.
I fully agree that any doubt that would make believe arabs exodus would have been due to "arab calls" is not welcome ! But I think we should not delete the material because I think it is important to point out what was the official israeli explanation - who developed this - why - how long it survived - what were its consequences - who first claimed it was not right - who still use this today...
Schechtman is quoted by Childers, Glazer, Flahan, Morris and Pappé (I assume others) and Glazer in 1980 summarized all the arguments why the Israeli versions was not reliable and he cites Schechtman, Kohn, Kimche and Syrkin as the israeli historians who developed the famous theory.
This is an important information.
nb: note that such section would be particularly not "pleasant" for pro-israeli-biaised readers. Alithien 19:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that Schechtman is biased, but I've heard similar claims made by other reliable historians in 2007 (although not as selective or polemical in their writing style as Schechtman). To me, Schechtman is the flipped side of Khalidi's coin. In fact, Khalidi seems to define himself in this way quite literally in his writings. Both are serious historians that emphasize their own historiography and largely ignore the historiography of the other side in order to make bold claims. Alithien makes a good point when he says that other scholars like Khalidi and Childers bring up Schechtman and so we are obligated to give the readers of this article the benefit of being familiar with Schechtman's work, if for no other reason than to make an informed decision to dismiss it. Schechtman's research is also important in understanding the Israeli historiography (indeed the entire world's historiography) before the work of the New Historians became popular. --GHcool 19:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad GHCool affirms Schechtmans unreliability. According to the second reviewer I mentioned above Schechtman did have a good reputation, but this book (or should we say this subject) was an exception.

Apparently other sources are also available. So in that respect there is no objection to remove the 'fear psychosis' paragraph.

Indeed in the article Khalidi and Childers bring up Schechtman, but only in connection to EoF arguments. So also in that respect there is no objection to remove the 'fear psychosis' paragraph.

As to GHCool's referral to 'understanding the Israeli historiography' I'd like to point out that this is not an article about that subject. If an opinion or conclusion is refuted it should not be in. It would of course be on its place in an article called 'Israeli historiography of the Palestinian exodus'.

--JaapBoBo 20:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I do not affirm Schechtman's "unreliability" any more than I affirm Khalidi's "unreliability." I only affirm that Schechtman unbiased towards Israel just like Khalidi is biased towards the Palestinian Arabs.

Secondly, JaapBoBo seems to think that Schechtman's research has been overturned or disproven or otherwise made null and void. This is an inadequate explanation of what the New Historians were all about. The way I understand it, Schechtman is less controversial for his actual research than for the proportion of blame he assigns to the Arabs for the Palestinian exodus. The same can be said for Khalidi, except he reverses the proportion of blame to the Zionists. That makes both Schechtman and Khalidi biased sources, but still reliable sources of biases that exists among prominent historians.

Thirdly, Wikipedia precedent dictates that controversial and "old" theories for why a phenomenon occurs deserves a place alongside new theories, if for no other reason than to refute it. For example, consider that the Sexual orientation article includes a variety of theories for the causes of homosexuality that are interesting from a historical point of view, but highly unlikely from a scientific/psychological point of view. --GHcool 22:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo,

Removing Schechtman would not mean removing the fear psychosis section.

Fear is given as a cause more often than psychological warfare. Alithien 07:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right, but it would remove Schechtman's twisted description of the fear and the term 'fear psychosis', which was already banned from the title of the section (see [[2]]). --JaapBoBo 07:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, fear was probably more important than psychological warfare, because it was the main aim of psychological warfare, while psychological warfare was not the only reason for fear. --JaapBoBo 07:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

As JaapBoBo knows, Arab propoganda and the fleeing of their own leaders early in the war were as instrumental in stirring the Palestinian Arabs' fears as the Zionists' psychological warfare. While some historians place a greater blame on the Zionists for instilling these fears, some other historians (of which Schechtman is one) argues that it was the Arabs propoganda abroad and at home that stirred the most fears. Both views (and perhaps even a third "they were both to blame" option) deserve a place in this article. --GHcool 17:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

We've discussed this before. You can't just brand every source that doesn't agree with you. Schechtman is a historian, like it or not. Screen stalker 14:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If you don't agree, why don't you say so earlier?

I realise Schechtman is a historian, but the question is whether he is a reliable historian. On this subject he clearly is not!

--JaapBoBo 15:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear JaapBoBo,
Please do not remove Schechtman without consensus just because you don't like him. I sympathize with your plight because I don't like some of the other people quoted in this article. Instead of removing a notable scholar despite the prevailing opinion that he should not be removed, perhaps it would be more mature to simply accept that not everybody agrees with your point of view. Thank you. --GHcool 18:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

These words from you GHCool, considering your actions in the finkelstein debate, are really remarkable! --JaapBoBo 19:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As JaapBoBo knows (or should know), one must get consensus to change the status quo before it is changed, not after. In the case of Finkelstein, the status quo was his exclusion so the pro-Finkelstein people had to fight an uphill battle in order to get him included. Schechtman's case is the opposite: the status quo is his inclusion and so the anti-Schecthman people must fight an uphill battle in order to get him excluded. --GHcool 19:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There was concensus here because you and ScreenStalker raised no serious objections. So the status quo is now: Schechtman out. --JaapBoBo 19:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Schechtman 2

Besides the issue of Schechtmans reliability I have other problems with this citation of Schechtman.

• his use of the term The Fear Psychosis, which is quite an exceptional claim: a psychosis is something for psychiatric patienst, not for a mass of people. In that case you call it panic or mass panic.
• Arab warfare against the Jews in Palestine, however, had always been marked by indiscriminate killing, mutilating, raping, looting and pillaging. This 1947-48 attack on the Jewish community was more savage than ever. Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands. Wounded and dead alike were mutilated. Every member of the Jewish community was regarded as an enemy to be mercilessly destroyed. [...] is an exceptional claim that needs evidence from a more reliable source.
• [T]he Arab population of Palestine anticipated nothing less than massacres in retaliation if the Jews were victorious. Measuring the Jewish reaction by their own standards, they simply could not imagine that the Jews would not reply in kind what they had suffered at Arab hands. And this fear played a significant role in the Arab flight. I think this is or borders on a racist opinion: Arabs were to stupid to think out of their framework of thinking. It certainly is an exceptional claim

Combining the unreliability of Schechtman and the exceptionality of his claims I don't think this should be in the article. --JaapBoBo 20:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, you cannot invent a new status quo. Status quos exist objectively. You cannot remove something and then say that the status quo was its absense. That's called doublethink.

Secondly, as I and ScreenStalker illustrated above, Schechtman is relevant for the same reason the Khalidi is: he is a generally reliable historian with a more extreme view than other historians and is referred to in others' works. Perhaps we can form a compromise on this issue: no Schechtman, no Khalidi. Thoughts? --GHcool 21:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of deals like Schechtman for Khalidi. According to Wikipedia policy we should consider each's merits on it's own. --JaapBoBo 22:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree. --GHcool 06:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Schechtman is a disgrace, and each of these 3 clips demonstrate it, particularily User:JaapBoBo's #2. Under almost no circumstances should we be quoting anyone who has ever published something as nasty (and patently false) as "Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands."

Clp #3 is nasty racism, when more or less the same thing could have been expressed in far more moderate terms. It's the only one of these clips that (may) have needed to be said, may have an element of scholarship in it.

Clip #1 is nasty (though it might be an accident). "Psychosis" is a disease, Schechtman seems to be saying that Palestinians have diseased minds. PR^talk 19:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

@ PR, Schechtman's statement that no quarter had been given to Jews is true (or at least has not yet been proven false). We've been over this: the two exceptions that you provide don't apply. Even if they did, they are two exceptions in a conflict that touched millions.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but I was always under the impression that psychosis simply implied a mental state which didn't view things as they truly are, not necessarily a mental disease.

I agree we shouldn't "trade" Schechtman for Khalidi, but we should use the same standards to judge all authors (see Morris "racism"). Screen stalker 12:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

of course even one exception would prove Schechtman false, as he surely is. --JaapBoBo 15:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

@Screenstalker: I'm a bit disappointed that you are actually asking for proof that the 'no quarter whatsoever ...' statement is not true. I mean, it's a ridiculous statement, even the Nazi's weren't that bad. --JaapBoBo 15:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

psychosis --JaapBoBo 16:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein revisited

JaapBoBo's last post on Finkelstein:

Returning to the subject. GHCool, you are accusing me of boycotting Karsh, yet I leave the less extreme pieces of Karsh in. On the other hand you are blocking everything I'd like to add from Finkelstein.

Further you (GHCool and ScreenStalker) are talking about all criticism as if it is equal. It's not. The criticism on Karsh is certainly much more severe than that on Finkelstein. In fact in our argument on Finkelstein you haven't shown proof of his unreliability. Karsh work is very one-sided and simply aimed at driving through his point. Finkelstein is much more honest. --JaapBoBo 19:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

GHCool's response to JaapBoBo's last post on Finkelstein:

For criticism of Finkelstein, look no further than The Case for Peace: How the Arab-Israeli Conflict Can Be Resolved by Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz devotes nearly an entire chapter of the book to criticisms of Finkelstein's scholarship and conduct. I won't quote the whole chapter, but here's the first paragraph on Finkelstein:

"Finkelstein is a transient academic who describes himself as 'in exile' at DePaul University because he has been-by his own account-'thrown out of every school in New York.' [There is a footnote to a July 1, 2003 article in the Irish Times. The Case For Peace was written years before Finkelstein's denial of tenure and resignation from DePaul.] The former chairman of the political science department at one such college told me that Finkelstein was fired for 'incompetence,' 'mental instability' and 'abuse' of students with politics different from his own."

The rest of the chapter is devoted to criticism of actual scholarly misconduct and intimidation that I'm happy to quote here, but fear that it wouldn't make much of a dent since I've brought up the same points in earlier arguments and they didn't change anybody's minds before. Dershowitz isn't the only critic of Finkelstein. Dershowitz cites criticisms by Peter Novik (author of The Holocaust in American Life) and Leon Wieseltier and others. Since The Case For Peace was published, there has been even more criticism of Finkelstein, which I would be happy to find upon request. --GHcool 06:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein devastated the reputation of Joan Peters's (or her book "From Time Immemorial", anyway) with his analysis, later picked up and accepted by most (I think, prove me wrong). Finkelstein then caught Dershowitz copying whole-sale from the Peters book .... and Dershowitz has clearly cheated hideously over Finkelstein's mother (and lots of other stuff). However, Dershowitz has produced *nothing* like that on Finkelstein - which is why he comes out with this highly personalised abuse of him. I don't understand why GHcool chooses to repeat this personal abuse, as doesn't belong on these pages against anyone, let alone a victim of modern McCarthyism. PR^talk 18:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets look at the text with Finkelstein reference that I want to include:

Furthermore Finkelstein argues that transferist thinking is close to the core of Zionist thinking. According to Finkelstein Zionism claims for the Jews a prevalent right to Israel, their historical homeland, and accedes the Arabs only rights as incidental residents.. He writes: 'the mainstream Zionist movement never doubted its 'historical right' to impose a Jewish state through the 'Right of Return' on the indigenous Arab population of Palestine.' and 'Zionism's claim to the whole of Palestine ... called into question any Arab presence in Palestine.'

Now I don't think the Dershovitz claims say anything at all about the reliability of this text (all kind of vague accusations, it makes me rather wonder what kind of chap Dershovitz is). So, in case you cannot offer anything better and conforming to wikipedia policy to exclude this text I will put it in. --JaapBoBo 21:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to thank JaapBoBo for starting a new section. I've taken the liberty of moving his post where he claims, "The criticism on Karsh is certainly much more severe than that on Finkelstein." This statement was probably made in ignornace, as can be seen by the above from Dershowitz, Novik, and Wieseltier. I'd rather not get into a pissing contest about which scholar is the most criticized. I don't feel its very productive to the article. I hope that JaapBoBo feels the same way.

To comment on the text JaapBoBo wants to include, it looks vague at best and just plain parroting of propoganda at worst. I would say that for all intents and purposes, Finkelstein is not much more than a glorified layman who read a lot of books and deliberately misinterpreted and misrepresented them. His credentials do not meet the standards of any of the other scholars cited in this article (including Khalidi, who I respect even if I don't agree with his conclusions). He is basically a writer of a polemic book; nothing more, nothing less. I proposed that we include all writers of all polemic books and include Finkelstein as well. This proposal has not yet been accepted, but it also has not yet been rejected. The proposal is still on the table. The other offer, to find the reliable historian that Finkelstein cites in his book (his name escapes me, but I remember it started with a "G") and quote him instead, was also neither accepted nor rejected. That offer is also still on the table. I feel like I am being more than reasonable here by giving not just one, but two options for compromise. All JaapBoBo has to do is pick one of the two and he will essentially get what he wants. --GHcool 05:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for GHcoolGHcool to provide *any* evidence that Finkelstein has been found to cheat or be unreliable in any way. In fact, this has gone on for so long, and so many requests have gone unanswered, that I'm coming to wonder if our colleague doesn't have any such evidence, and his persistent attacks on Finkelstein are entirely about "poisoning the well". (There's other nonsense in that post, but lets get the major bar to using an author out of the way first). PR^talk 17:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel as though I've met PalestineRemembered's challenge several times already. People believe all kinds of illogical things and it is often difficult for them to let go of these beliefs despite the extreme unlikeliness of their validity. Therefore, I am no longer interested in proving that Finkelstein is a charleton since no amount of proof seems to satisfy PalestineRemembered. I am only interested in either compromise or keeping the status quo. I've given two options for compromise. We patiently await a response. --GHcool 20:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I favor keeping Finkelstein's material. We need some way to provide materials and viewpoints from acknowledged sources on both sides of this issue. --Steve, Sm8900 21:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sm8900, would you than be in favor of keeping all other materials and viewpoints from all other sources? That was the compromise I proposed. --GHcool 22:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It must be increasingly clear that there is nothing whatsoever on Finkelstein's scholarship - so careful has he been forced to be that there's virtually not a single crack in his logic and fact-finding. Which makes it even more extraordinary that there are still people trying to stop us quoting from him. Even while quoting Katz and Schechtman, both of them extremely sloppy in comparison (and in Schechtman's case, published hate-speech and easily disproved lies). PR^talk 10:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, how about we simply be accepting of other people's sources? there's no quid pro quo here. Let's simply start accepting others' sources, and they'll accept ours.

Is there any doubt that there are many Palestians who condemn everything which Israel does? And are fullly convinced that all logic, all facts, and all history is one their side? then why do you act surprised when they say so? I don't get mad when palestinians use sources which completely negate any Israeli justifications. I expect them to do so. Then i find my own sources which add the pro-Israel viewpoint. --Steve, Sm8900 13:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

OMG is Finkelstein a charleton? I hope not. That would be terrible. --Nickhh 22:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It sounds to me like Sm8900 accepts my proposal that we use all authors including Finkelstein and including any other relevant sources that anybody might come across. I am perfectly happy with this course of action. Is that what we all agree upon? --GHcool 23:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, I agree with that. --Steve, Sm8900 13:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Do not agree. WP:RS is not a bazar where authors merits can be bartered on. pedro gonnet - talk - 12.10.2007 07:14

Pedro Gonnet, that's exactly what we are not suggesting. We are suggesting creating a more accpeting atmospehre for all authors and sources, not bartering over this one and that one. --Steve, Sm8900 13:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

We should apply Wikipedia policy to every referenced text to be included in the article. In that sense I agree with GHCool that we should treat every author the same way, i.e. with the same standards. The evaluation must be made for every individual case, so I don't want to connect GHCools admittance of Finkelstein to my admittance of whatever source GHCool want's to use. But GHCool, you can rely on me to apply the same standards to all sources. --JaapBoBo 20:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As to GHCool arguments:

To comment on the text JaapBoBo wants to include, it looks vague at best and just plain parroting of propoganda at worst. I would say that for all intents and purposes, Finkelstein is not much more than a glorified layman who read a lot of books and deliberately misinterpreted and misrepresented them. His credentials do not meet the standards of any of the other scholars cited in this article (including Khalidi, who I respect even if I don't agree with his conclusions). He is basically a writer of a polemic book; nothing more, nothing less.

It's not a vague text, but instead it's quite clear. Finkelstein is also not a layman on this subject. He wrote his PhD thesis, 'From the Jewish Question to the Jewish State', on it, which was endorsed by Princeton University. So actually he is an expert on this matter! He also has excellent credentials. DePaul has acknowledged that he is a good teacher and a productive scientist. GHCool has brought accusations by the Zionist lobby, but nothing against his reliability. If Finkelstein were unreliable I would expect the Zionist lobby to have shown it to us by now, but they haven't. In Wikipedia policy I can find nothing against him that would prohibit him from being included as a source. --JaapBoBo 20:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo, when you speak of a Zionist lobby, who or what exactly are you speaking about? If by "Zionist lobby" you are referring to Jews worldwide, your arguments sound like those of a mad man. If by "Zionist lobby" you are referring to legitimate political action committees who lobby Congress in support of Israel, your arguments still sound mad because it presupposes that these groups care about the tenure or denial of tenure of one insignificant professor. These political action committees have much bigger fish to fry and do so on a daily basis. --GHcool 23:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The Zionist lobby has enough money to start something against Finkelstein too. And for them Finkelstein is not insignificant. In fact on the long term he is very dangerous for them because he is exposing their schemes and the way they want the American public to view Israel and the Palestinians. In the matter of Iraq the American public now realises they've been had by the Bush administration and public opinion has reverted almost 180 degrees. Something similar might happen with the American policy with regard to Israel and the Palestinians.

If you really think he is insignificant why do you want to block him? --JaapBoBo 16:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed a failure to define "the Zionist lobby" even when asked directly. It makes me wonder if JaapBoBo truly knows what he is referring to. Such is the case with many conspiracy theorists. They know some evil, all-powerful entity is trying to get them, but if you ask them who it is or what their tactics are, the logic of the argument gets fuzzy and the stupidity of the argument gets magnified. This appears to be such a case.

To answer JaapBoBo's direct question at me (something JaapBoBo seems too cowardly to do with my direct questions), I have been saying all along that I want to block NF because he is insignificant. The question reveals the answer. I would never be so stupid as to ask JaapBoBo the opposite question, "If you really think that NF is signinificant, then why do you want to include him?" because it would reveal more about myself and my ability to construct arguments and have a meaningful dialogue than it does about NF's significance or JaapBoBo's answer. --GHcool 17:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The truth is that you are trying not to answer my direct questions. You are trying to avoid a meaningful dialogue, because you know you cannot win with the arguments you have. I ask you again and again to give me reasons why I shouldn't use Finkelstein as a source according to Wikipedia policy. Yet you fail to give a reason. Even if Finkelstein is insignificant (which he is not) that doesn't make the text I want to include based on him as a source insignificant.

So, since we agreed to follow Wikipedia policy I will include the Finkelstein quote. --JaapBoBo 15:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I just picked up a copy of Image and Reality at my local library. I started reading the relevant chapter ("'Born of War, Not by Design:' Benny Morris's 'Happy Median' Myth") last night. I promised myself before beginning the chapter that I would try my hardest to keep an open mind. I will reserve my comments on the chapter until after I finish it. I urge JaapBoBo not to push NF's inclusion in this article because I can guarantee that my answer will be the same at least until the time I finish the chapter. Who knows? Maybe I'll fall in love with NF by the time I finish it. --GHcool 17:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The quote is from page 12-16. chapter 1. --JaapBoBo 19:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

GHcool's opinion on the relevant passages from Image and Reality

I just read chapter 1, pages 12-16 and Chapter 3, pages 51-68 of Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict by Norman G. Finkelstein (1995 edition). The first thing I noticed was that it was published by Verso Books, a far left publishing house not known for the academic standards that one would expect from Osprey Publishing (Karsh's publisher), Cambridge University Press (Morris's publisher), or even John Wiley & Sons (Alan Dershowitz's publisher). Just as I expected, all of the arguments that Norman Finkelstein (hereby abbreviated to "NF") brings up are from selected secondary sources. He never quotes primary sources unless they are the same quoted in a secondary source. This leads me to think that NF has never examined any primary sources for himself and perhaps does not know how to read or speak Arabic or Hebrew (the "Acknowledgements" page supports this hypothesis).

NF takes the illogical stance that anything that a Zionist leader or publication has ever said "cannot be trusted" unless, of course, that Zionist leader or publication is saying something damning to the pro-Israel argument. NF is correct in saying that official Zionist documents must be evaluated with a critical eye, but it is downright arrogant to say that Morris doesn't know or didn't practice this basic tenent of the historical method. Other things I found were instances of creating false dichotomies (pg. 58), putting words into Morris's mouth (59-60, 62), comparisons of the Palestinian exodus to the Holocaust (59), conclusions that do not follow from NF's stated premises (60), oddly placing events that happened in the 1920s and 1930s in the context of the 1948 Palestinian exodus (12-16), treating the Zionists (and especially Ben-Gurion) as though they were a homogeneous group of fascists (15), and what seems to me to be purely inventing things out of thin air or at least talking about something he doesn't really understand (176, footnote 18).

Anyway, my opinion of NF has not changed. Everything I've read by him begs the question. His scholarship amounts to, "I know Israel is bad, now let's see if I can prove it," when the correct attitude, the attitude Morris and other serious historians have taken, is publish whatever conclusion all of the evidence lead to. To me, NF's criticism of Morris is like a D student in algebra class telling a calculus professor that he doesn't do derivatives correctly. He doesn't walk the walk and, in the opinion of most experts in the field and the tenure committee at DePaul University, he doesn't talk the talk. I do not recommend him to be in this article unless we allow any other "questionable" sources such as Alan Dershowitz and Joan Peters. --GHcool 06:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you reading finkelstein to get a better basis for your opinion. Of course I don't agree with you on most things you say, and the relevance you attribute to them. Let me give you some of my arguments:

As to Finkelstein's sources for chapter 1, you might want to read note 2 on page 173. Chapter 1 is based on finkelstein's PhD-thesis, endorsed by Princeton University. As to his source for chapter 3, he clearly says that he wants to criticise the work of Morris based primarily on weaknesses inside his work (primarily Birth, 1948 and an article in Tikkun). And he did read the primary sources for that, these two books and the article, very attentively. Besides that he is referring to other primary sources like Palumbo and Flapan.

As to Finkelstein not being able to read or speak Arabic or Hebrew, I don't think that is relevant. And by the way Morris doesn't read or speak Arabic either.

As to some of your allegations against Finkelstein (he's arrogant, he compares the exodus to the Holocaust, he treats Zionists as fascists) I don;t think they are relevant. And by the way, comparisons with fascism are not that strange, because there are some similarities, e.g. both fascism and zionism spring from 19th century European romanticism, both base themselves on strong group (national or religious) feelings and both claim a certain piece of land for this group.

As to your accusations on Finkelsteins inadequate scholarship:

• DePaul University has acknowledged Finkelstein's prolific scholarship.
• Probably the things in chapter 1 are really well understood by Finkelstein, because he spend four years researching them. You only spend one evening, and you think you know it better.

As to your allegations of 'creating false dichotomies (pg. 58), putting words into Morris's mouth' etc. I'd rather not go into that right now, but you can be assured that if I want to incorporate a text with Finkelstein as a source and you can show that the text I want to insert is not reliable because of one of these reasons, I will not insert the text.

Right now I'd prefer to focus on the text I want to insert:

Furthermore Finkelstein argues that transferist thinking is close to the core of Zionist thinking. According to Finkelstein Zionism claims for the Jews a prevalent right to Israel, their historical homeland, and accedes the Arabs only rights as incidental residents.. He writes: 'the mainstream Zionist movement never doubted its 'historical right' to impose a Jewish state through the 'Right of Return' on the indigenous Arab population of Palestine.' and 'Zionism's claim to the whole of Palestine ... called into question any Arab presence in Palestine.'

I think it describes Finkelsteins position in chapter 1 well and it comes from a reliable source.

--JaapBoBo 07:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess none of this Finkelstein back-and-forth matters much anymore now that there's a whole section on Pappe. Although I disagree with Pappe's conclusions and his politics, I don't plan on taking a hard line on his research because I understand and accept that he is generally respected even though he isn't neutral (much like Karsh on the other end of the spectrum). I will not put up much of a fight to exclude Pappe from this article. In my opinion, Pappe's analysis and reputation is much more powerful and much more relevant to this discussion than Finkelstein's. Finkelstein seems very fond of Pappe's research and echoes it numerous times in Image and Reality, so more echoing might just be redundant. Perhaps the fight for one Finkelstein paragraph can be dropped now that Pappe is so well represented. --GHcool 19:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying you agree to have Finkelstein in? --JaapBoBo 07:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not. I don't know, nor do I care, how you could have arrived at that conclusion. I am saying that Finkelstein's stuff is now redundant and unnecessary when Pappe's research is presented in the article. --GHcool 17:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the quote is highly relevant. --JaapBoBo 18:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

sterling qualities for which Finkelstein has become famous: erudition, originality, spark, meticulous attention to detail, intellectual integrity, courage, and formidable forensic skills."–Avi Shlaim, Professor of International Relations, Oxford University [[3]] --JaapBoBo 19:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope you're not trying to start a war of endoresements. This tactic will work against your argument and is futile anyway because nothing will change my mind about Finkelstein's reliability in comparison to the other sources quoted. You have Pappe, who says more or less the same thing. Finkelstein is redundant and unnecessary. --GHcool 19:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein says something completely different from Pappe, and something highly relevant. Now please don't revert again untill you have given a good argument in line with wikipedia policy. --JaapBoBo 20:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I want to ask mediation: [[4]], [[5]]. Are you willing to try this? --JaapBoBo 20:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to try this on condition that you do not add Finkelstein again at least until the mediation process is complete. If anybody else adds Finkelstein into the article during the mediation, I will revert it and I will expect you to respect such a revert. --GHcool 21:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Finkelstein's commentary here merits inclusion I'm not sure, since it would depend on whether or not he has something unique to say in regards to this particular issue, and I'm not sure he does. In regards to F.'s status as a reliable source however, there should be no argument about that. F. most certainly qualifies. He is one of the most high-profile scholars on the Arab-Israeli question, he has received plaudits from other greatly respected experts in the field (see Schlaim's endorsement above, or that of Raul Hilberg who supported his work and said he would be "vindicated" by history), and he has written best selling books on the conflict that have been praised both inside and outside academia and translated into multiple languages. His book A Nation on Trial was named a notable book for 1998 by the New York Times. His latest book "Beyond Chutzpah" was published by the University of California Press after perhaps the most thorough peer review of any book on the conflict ever. These achievements demonstrate that he is unquestionably a reliable source in Wikipedia terms.

In spite of this however, some pro-Israeli editors have seized upon his recent denial of tenure as a rationale for trying to exclude him as a source on the grounds that this failure has somehow discredited his scholarship. This is simply not the case. DePaul did not question the quality of his scholarship. In fact, it endorsed him as "a prolific writer and outstanding teacher". F. was denied tenure only because someone didn't like his attitude. But there is nothing in Wiki policies that disqualify sources on the basis of some alleged flaws of personality. It's only the reliability of their scholarship that matters, and F. has no shortage of endorsements in that regard. Gatoclass 03:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

@GHCool: of course I promise that. --JaapBoBo 17:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Gatoclass - Finkelstein, son of two real Holocaust survivors, delivers scholarship even when his words are commentary ... "there is something wrong when the United States has a museum devoted to what Germany did to the Jews, but it does not have a museum devoted to what America did to its native population - the expulsion and extermination of the Native Americans. It does not have a museum devoted to what was done to Africans brought over here as slaves, yet it has a museum about what happened in Europe. What would Americans think if Germany, in its capital, were to create a museum commemorating slavery in the United States, commemorating the extermination of Native Americans, but no museum devoted to the Nazi Holocaust? Of course, Americans would say that's pure hypocrisy. Well, we are now guilty of the same hypocrisy."[6] PR^talk 21:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 2

I suggest that instead of stating  : I agree and arguing or I don't agree and arguing, we should deal with proposals in stating : I see the following advances and the following disadvantages to your proposal. We should modify this that way bla bla bla.
Because with wp process, a "I don't agree" just block everything, whatever the arguments that follow that mind... Alithien 10:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Schechtman quote

This Schechtman quote has really led to a controversy. In my view we should consider the text to be included and it's reliability. The text is given here ([[7]]), together with comments from contemporary neutral historians who say this book of Schechtman, on which the quote is based, is more or less a work of propaganda. Childers found the reported facts in the book unreliable. Furthermore, the claims in the text are also quite extreme (as I pointed out here: [[8]]) and clearly bogus.

We should not include such extreme claims from a source that is considered unreliable. If somebody wants to include these claims he or she should find a more reliable source. --JaapBoBo 21:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I direct this question to JaapBoBo and nobody else: would you be satisfied if we cut out the "no quarter whatsoever" sentence from the article while keeping the rest of the block quotation from The Arab Refugee Problem? --GHcool 23:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry, that would take away only one of my three objections articulated here: [[9]]. It would take away the worst part though. --JaapBoBo 16:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I won't put it on the table for negotiation. Thank you for your honesty, if not for your willingness to compromise. --GHcool 17:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason for this to be a subject of 'negotiation' - GHcool's source is unacceptable (for the kind of very easily understood reasons we know that he accepts) - and also because there's some evidence Schecthman has falsified his sources. PR^talk 23:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, Schechtman isn't my source. I didn't put Schechtman in this article. I don't know who did. Furthermore, I don't know of any evidence that Schechtman "falsified his sources." --GHcool 03:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If a remember well, Childers (maybe Glazer) wrote an article stating that Schechtman changed the meaning of some quotes in moving them out of their context. Alithien 09:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but I notice you have reinserted Schechtman's diatribe back into the article on several occasions, while at the same time you have been removing references to Finkelstein (which, as it happens, misrepresented his position, but that's another issue).

If Schechtman qualifies as a reliable source, then Finkelstein certainly does. But this quote from Schechtman is inappropriate in any case. As WP:RS states, exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Schechtman's claim that "no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands" is not merely an exceptional claim, it is demonstrably untrue. During the 1929 Hebron riots, for example, Israeli historian Tom Segev states that two thirds of the Jewish community were hidden from Arab marauders from the countryside by their Arab neighbours. There is no excuse for inserting demonstrable falsehoods into Wikipedia articles. Gatoclass 04:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein is not a source here because he "only" analysed other's works.

So you should better discuss if Finkelstein's pov is relevant or not.

(and I think it is)

Alithien 09:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a little ambiguous, but it is extremely likely that Schechtman is referring to the period between 1947 and May 15, 1948 in Palestine that he refers to in the sentence preceding the "no quarter whatsoever" sentence. Recent scholarship has found several cases of North African Arabs who helped to save Jews during the Holocaust. Arabs clearly have helped Jews in the past, but in the case of the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, I think its safe to say that each side did not treat the other with very much respect. As for Gatoclass's assertion that "no quarter whatsoever" was given to Jews during the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine is an exceptional claim, I would argue that it is no more exceptional than a hypothetical claim the no quarter whatsoever was given to any Republicans by Nationalists during the 1936-1939 Spanish Civil War. --GHcool 06:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's ambiguous, it shouldn't be in the article. We are not in the business of misleading readers through ambiguity.

As for Gatoclass's assertion that "no quarter whatsoever" was given to Jews during the 1947–1948 Civil War - Are you confusing me with someone else? I have never made such an assertion. You have just made the assertion that the quote only pertains to the '47-'48 period, but since that isn't at all clear from the quote itself, it should be removed. Gatoclass 07:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

GHcool - please stop trying to defend a hate-source. Schechtman's claim would be a total falsehood even if it only applied to 1948, the Kafr Etzion settlements were over-run then. Some defenders were massacred on that occasion, but otheres were taken prisoner and released 9 months later. PR^talk 21:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This quotation is not ambiguous. I do not have the rest of it with me because I have returned Schechtman's book to the library, but he makes it quite clear that he is referring to the conflict circa 1948. If you need any proof of this, consult the fact that it was only true for this conflict.

Also, let's make sure we get the fact straight about Kfar Etzion. Saying that "some defenders were massacred on that occasion," doesn't really capture the fact that 129 of the 133 defenders who surrendered were killed. One escaped, and three were mistreated before being taken as PoWs. Just because three people lucked out of being killed, and instead were mistreated as PoWs, that doesn't mean that the Arab irregulars gave quarter to the Jews. Screen stalker 16:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

May I suggest we ask an admin to block the article in the current version and that editors collaborate on the redaction of a better article. This is to respect everybody sensitivity on this matter and not to be distracted in the work by "controversed" or "non-consensual" edits.
THEN, we archive all these discussions and we build here, step by step, the article.
I will see the following phases.
1. Discussion of the structure
2. Agreement on the main arguments to be added in each section of the structure with the source where we can find the material referring to this and also the relative approximate weight to be given to each of them.
3. Writing
Alithien 07:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• agree pedro gonnet - talk - 23.10.2007 07:38
• Neutral - I'm just as happy blocking the article and discussing things here as I am not blocking the article and discussing things here. --GHcool 19:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• agree. Any further edits just add Pelion on Ossa, over a tumulus of litter. Nishidani 19:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Don't agree - If we all agree then there is no need to block the article. I think an informal agreement between editors is better. I'd agree to that. --JaapBoBo 20:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - good editors cannot switch between too many articles, they've invested too much in each one they work on - if we protect this one, some of our most studious colleagues will almost certainly never come back. Meanwhile, POV drive-by reverters, with nowhere near the same invested, sneak back on this article un-noticed, and damage it. If there are editors who cannot be trusted to act in collaborative ways, or are not bringing scholarship here, then we should carry on exposing them until we get administrative support for producing better articles. Asking for this article to be protected only proves we've not got enough grit and bottle to arrive at a good solution. Secondly, there are really, really, really serious issues concerning sources in this article (probably more than most). When we've eventually hammered out this article and got it to FA standard we need to take the lessons we've learned here and apply them elsewhere. PR^talk 20:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose — This article is constantly getting better (with an exception of a short string of edits whose purpose was clearly to smear Israel, not to make the subject at hand any clearer). We've got a long way to go before the article is what I would consider presentable, but we'll get there. Locking it in its current state will hardly help. Screen stalker 18:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"Discredited by ..."

Pedro just added the following to the article: "Schechtman, a historian discredited by Childers [footnote 169] and Glazer [footnote 170] for misquoting his sources, argues in his book ..."

Can't we all agree that pretty much every historian in this article has been discredited for some form of misconduct or another by pretty much every other historian quoted in this article? Is the mud slinging really necessary? I always assumed that this article was meant to publicize the research of the historians and if one wants to see the information on the reputations of any given historian, they would have to click their Wikipedia link and read their article. I assumed most people here woula agree with this view, but Pedro reverted me when I deleted his mud slinging. I propose we keep on topic and delete things like "X discredited Y and Y discredited Z, etc, etc." Or, alternatively, we can apply the mud slinging to all of the historians cited here, but that would just make the article much less pleasant to read. --GHcool 17:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really, and mudslinging has nothing to do with the problem. I think every contributor here, rather than the historians cited, has probably been discredited for some form of misconduct, myself included. The article, to repeat, is compact of incompetence drafting, based on am exiguous understanding of how to structure an analytical historical narrative. Too much space is given to historians who, if not discredited, have been superceded. It is a little like writing the history of Augustus by citing everyone from Suetonius to Edmund Gibbon, and then adding a late series of notes on the work of Ronald Syme, who revolutionized the field. You appear to want to keep the article in its crippled shape. Others think it's time to forget the POV wars, and try to winch the mess out of the cesspit of its incompetence back into the light of commonsense.Nishidani 19:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

GHcool - the allegations against Schechtman are much, much more serious than that (compare with Finkelstein, against whom there is nothing but bitching, no real allegations whatsoever). It's reasonable to describe Schechtman as carrying out "extreme historical fabrication" - at least David Irving only misquoted things, he didn't invent the very sources themselves. And of course, we've seen simple lies from him as well, as over the "no quarter given" claim. PR^talk 20:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break. Even a Middle School student wouldn't introduce a source as "Author X, who has been thoroughly discredited." This kind of editing is really dragging down the quality of this article. Pedro, I'm surprised at you. I expected better from you. Screen stalker 20:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "discredited by" is POV. In regards to the general question however, the real issue is whether a writer who has no credentials in the field, whose work is recognized as unqualifiedly partisan, whose research has been attacked as fraudulent, and whose works are all 30 or 40 years old and never reprinted, should be quoted at all in this article. I submit that there is no reason whatever why we should be quoting such a source, particularly when we have an abundance of recent scholarship from much better credentialed writers to draw from. We are supposed to use quality sources wherever possible, Schechtman fails the bar on practically every count. Gatoclass 00:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There are really only two alternatives: (1) the "everybody is discredited by everybody" alternative in which we sling mud at all the historians quoted in this article, or (2) the "let the research speak for itself" alternative in which everybody is presented as a reliable source for their own specific point of view and let our readers choose what to believe based on their own intelligence and experience. I had originally thought we would all agree that Choice #2 was the better choice, but maybe I'm wrong. Shall we start applying Choice #1 to all the historians or shouldn't we? --GHcool 00:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a false dichotomy. That is not the choice we have at all. The choice here is between quality sources and poor ones. WP:RS specifically states that an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources. Most reliable means just that - we don't just use any old source, but the best sources where available. The fact that Schechtman is 40 years out of date should alone be enough reason to ignore him, but especially so when we have so many other quality reliable sources to choose from. Gatoclass 05:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am currently reading A history of Zionism from Walter Laqueur to try to get an academic rather pro-Israeli and traditionnal point of view on the matter.

All I can say is that Laqueur refers to Schechtman 5 or 6 times.

I am still confident the debate about this guy should be moved from the personal attack about him (racist, pov, discredited) to the academic level. I think the facts should talk by themselves and we should work that way :

1. After Schechtman analysis is "fairly" introduced (as if we would believe in this !!), we should just introduce what Childers explain concerning this (as if we would believe in this!!).

Just to draw a parallel, writing sentences such as : "Pappé, an historian member of an extremist communist party in Israel (and that would not be false) and who publishes on the electronicintifada website (and that would not be false) considers there was an ethnic cleansing in Palestine" would be exactly the same.

And let's not enter in a game such as : Schechtman, an historian discredited by Childers but still quoted by Morris and Laqueur, develop a theory stating that...

If working that way would be PoV, this is *not* because NPoV is a "morale" rule. It is because it is not *practically* possible in wikipedia to qualify with 1 sentence a consensual judgement on somebody.

Correct or not, fair or not, unbelievalbe or not, all pov's deserve a room in wikipedia and they must be introduced with conviction they are true; else, that can only lead to an edit war.

And that is also true for Finkelstein, whoever he is.

Without such a policy, we will drive right to the wall.

Once again, I ask we block this "stuff" in the state it is (or in any others state) and we work another way to correc this.

Alithien 14:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

'Finkelstein, whoever he is.'Alithien Come now my friend! don't tell me you are unfamiliar with the groundbreaking work of Finkelstein?

I side with Gatoclass on this. Quality uptodate research is what must inform the page. The best way to start the page, in my view, would be to note Childers calling the dual versions to account. Saying that Morris qualified these two versions as 'pro-Zionist', 'pro-Arab'. Listing the historians of the 1948-1960 period who supported the pro-Zionist take, and 'pro-Arab' take respectively. A short passage on 1961-1980 historians (who began to be pro-Arab), then rounding off that introductory note, with Morris's attempt at a middle way.(2) Use the standard Morris analysis to provide the skeletal narrative of events, in the four waves, annotating his breakdown thematically with whatever material from the two earlier schools seems pertinent. (3) Criticisms of the Morris model, from the first version to its recent reedition. (4) Summation of the state of the art among historians today. p.s.There are POVs and POVs, usually distinguishable by the quality of research, and sophistication of analysis. Both Schechtman and Morris have POVs, but the former's work is qualitatively inferior to the latter's, his POV brandished in defiance of uncomfortable facts, compared to what is the quiet empirically grounded POV we find in a responsible historian of Morris's temper, who faces difficult facts, and indeed digs them out where no one, even those to the left of him, noticed them Nishidani 15:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nishidani,

I know Finkelstein's work

I meant, whatever the way he is considered. Some sees in him a somebody who published a "groundbreaking work". Others sees in him a guys who is highly controversed and with a political agenda. I talked about him because there is a request for mediation that has been started by JaapBoBo vs GHcool about him.

Concerning the remaining, I share your mind. Alithien 17:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has a political agenda. Finkelstein has drawn extra flak not because he has a political agenda, but because he personalizes the debate by setting out to expose other scholars for fraudulent or flawed research. Thus he has made enemies. But not one of his detractors has ever been able to point to a single example of bad scholarship on his part, in spite of all their accusations.

As for Walter Laqueur, I think you're kidding yourself Alithien if you're reading him to get a non-partisan view. He's about as pro-Israeli as they come. So it doesn't suprise me at all to hear of him quoting generously from a partisan like Schechtman. Gatoclass 17:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I don't read Walter Laqueur to have a non partisan point of view. I read Laqueur to have the pro-israeli point of view and their arguments.

When I write : "Whoever is Finkelstein, he deserves to be quoted", I am answered : "Finkelstein is a genius", "Laqueur is pov" and "everybody has an agenda".

I completely don't mind if Finkelstein or Laqueur have an agenda or not. They are scholar and they are part of the debate and they are recognised by their pairs as part of it. We just have to write a "fair" summary of the different pov's and giving their arguments as fairly as possible but to do so we have to read them.

If Schechtman is quoted by Laqueur, than Schechtman pov is relevant and deserve to be quoted because he becomes part of the debate. And if Bill Gate, for any good reason, would comment these events AND if he would be quoted by Morris, Pappé and Karsh, then Bill Gate would become relevant for this topic too.

More, as somebody writes here below, Schechtman pov is more harmful for the pro-israeli view than anything else.

But that is not of course the reason why his mind must be introduced in the article. It must be introduced because it has been the relevant and widely agreed analysis and reference during many years. And it must be introduced with that philosophy.

Alithien 06:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Schechtman is an "old" source does not make him any less reliable. All else being equal, I would take a source that wrote at the time of the exodus over one who wrote about it 50 years later any day. Screen stalker 16:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for restructuring

Some restructuring seems necesarry. On the one hand the article is becoming quite long, on the other hand its structure right now is not satisfactory. Let me give some thoughts:

• splitting is necesarry. Some argue that we can delete a lot of repetitions, but I really doubt that. Maybe we could reduce the length with 25%, but it would be a controversial and very time-consuming process. Given the length splitting is necesarry.
• I think we should include the '1948 Palestinian exodus' in the restructuring. This article describes the events of the exodus according to the four waves structure. Here there is a lot of overlap between the articles. Also the 'causes' article is already a subsidiary of the 'exodus' article, if we split the 'causes' article we get three layers (exodus -> causes -> specifics of the causes). I'd prefer a two layer approach: one main article and various subsidiary articles.
• I propose a new structure with '1948 Palestinian exodus' as the main article, which contains adequate summaries of and links to subsidiary articles. All the content we have right now should go to subsidiary articles. I propose the following subsidiary articles

• 'Events of the 1948 Palestinina exodus' (history section of '1948 Palestinian exodus' article combined with all sections of 'causes' article except EoF, Transfer idea and master plan); If this subsidiary article becomes too long we might split it according to the waves, but I don't think that's necesarry
• 'Role of Arab leaders in the 1948 Palestinian exodus' (EoF section)
• 'Role of Yishuv leaders in the 1948 Palestinian exodus' (transfer idea and master plan); although we could also make two subsidiary articles here
• 'Results of the 1948 Palestinian exodus' (remaining sections of '1948 Palestinina exodus' article)

An additional advantage is that the 'Role of ... leaders ...' articles will have very well defined subjects, as the 'Result ...' article already has.

I'm not really sure about the 'events ...' article. Maybe there are better ways to structure this. Maybe we should also include an article on 'the war as a cause of the 1948 Palestinian exodus' or an article 'points of view of historians on the causes of the 1948' with a list of historians with a summary of each's pov.

• regarding the presentation I propose using the Isaac Newton article as an example. This uses a template that we can also use: [[10]]. See also: WP:SPINOUT.

--JaapBoBo 21:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've already expressed my objection to the "role of...leaders" proposals. Didn't you read my post on the matter above? For your benefit, I'll reproduce it here:

What I find more concerning is JaapBoBo's proposal for a "role of Arab leaders in the exodus" article. An article with a name like that is screaming "POV fork" to me. Also, having a pair of articles on "role of Arab leaders" and "role of Zionist leaders" suggests some sort of equivalence in credibility, when in fact the former has been either largely discounted or heavily qualified by more recent research. Additionally, an article like that is just begging to have all sorts of discredited nonsense shovelled into it in order to fill it out.

I also find the "role of Zionist leaders" proposal to be vague and unfocussed. Such a topic could easily end up as a rehash of the entire history of Zionism, so neither of these proposals for articles strike me as viable or useful. Gatoclass 00:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Gatoclass, for not reacting to your arguments previously. I'll do that now.

• 'Role of Arab leaders in the 1948 Palestinian exodus' is not a pov-fork. as I said before The title is neutral (Role of ...). In case according to a pov e.g. Palestinian leaders' role was primarily lack of leadership this can be included. Inclusion of all pov's is possible, e.g. both pov's stating that Arab leaders encouraged and pov's stating Arab leaders tried to stop the exodus.
• I don't agree with your statement: Also, having a pair of articles on "role of Arab leaders" and "role of Zionist leaders" suggests some sort of equivalence in credibility. The main article will contain adequate summaries pointing out your point. Also in each subsidiary article there will be room for both pov's.
• I don't agree with your statement: an article like that is just begging to have all sorts of discredited nonsense shovelled into it in order to fill it out. I assume you refer to the 'Role of Arab leaders'. This nonsense is already there! And if people add more, then there's always you and others to remove the nonsense again.
• I don't agree with this: "role of Zionist leaders" proposal to be vague and unfocussed. Such a topic could easily end up as a rehash of the entire history of Zionism. The proposed title is 'Role of Yishuv leaders in the 1948 Palestinian exodus', So the title focusses on the exodus. Also if this would happen other editors can remove it.

--JaapBoBo 06:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

We explained you that "role of [...]" is pov. And this is even WP:PR : historians talk about a "transfer's idea" (analysing this differently) and a "master plan" but not about the role of yishuv leaders.

More this dichotomy cut the analysis between the "pro-israeli old fashionned" version and the "pappé analysis".

The current controversy, as described by some historians (in fact I just have one reference unfortunately but that sounds quite clear) distinguish -among the current analysis-, the intentionalists who see in the yishuv the intention of expelling Arab Palestinians and the circumstantialists who consider there was not intention but this was the result of the circumstances of war (consider the famous "made by war not by design").

Nishidani suggested that the article is based on Morris work for the factual description and argue about that. Could you please explain him why you don't agree as is reflected by the current structure you suggest ?

Alithien 06:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Alithien. The "role of leaders" is integral to the debate. How do you discuss their role without bringing up again the "master plan" theory, the "ethnic cleansing" theory, all the other theories? I don't think one can discuss these issues in isolation from one another. Nor can one adequately discuss immediate causes (Haganah expulsions) without reference to their ideological context. So what you will end up with effectively is three articles with much the same content, which is just the sort of thing we should be trying to avoid. Gatoclass 10:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The 'master plan' and 'transfer theory' should be in the 'role of Yishuv leaders' section.

However, I realise there is too much disagreement with my proposal. Let somebody else come up with a better proposal. --JaapBoBo 18:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for editing here before reading the whole section. It is very long, and I am quite pooped.

But, at any rate, this is my two cents: splitting the article is a terrible idea. "Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus" is already very specific. Getting as specific as the individual causes is more than the average reader can bear.

Try to recall back to when you first began reading Wikipedia. Didn't it drive you crazy how all you wanted was to find out something about, let's say, water desalination, and you had to read half of the water desalination article only to find out you had to follow a link to another article... and then another link to another article... and sometimes another link... and so on. I see this going as far as "Dispute over the validity of Karsh's criticism of the transfer theory."

What I'm trying to say is that the average reader wants to look something up and find it, not trek on an endless journey of searching for the answer. Screen stalker 18:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy in the "transfrer idea" section

The point that Morris believes that the Zionists considered the "transfer idea" as an available option is made way too many times. One paragraph (or blockquote) would drive the point home. Do we really need all of the following?

1. The made through summary:

   "According to Morris, while not discounting other reasons for the exodus, the 'transfer principle' theory suggests that this prevalent 'attitude of transfer' is what made it easy for the Jewish population to accept it and for local Haganah and IDF commanders to resort to various means of expelling the Arab population."

2. The point is made in The Birth ... Revisited:

   By 1948, transfer was in the air. The transfer thinking that preceded the war contributed to the denouement by conditioning the Jewish population, political parties, military organisations and military and civilian leadership for what transpired. Thinking about the possibilities of transfer in the 1930s and 1940s had prepared and conditioned hearts and minds for its implementation in the course of 1948 so that, as it occurred, few voiced protest or doubt; it was accepted as inevitable and natural by the bulk of the Jewish population."

3. The point is made in "Review of Fabricating ...:"

   "The nexus between thought and action was not so much a matter of 'predetermination' and preplanning as of a mind-set that accepted transfer as a legitimate solution. Once that 'transfer' got under way, of its own accord, in late 1947-early 1948 (Arabs fled mainly out of fear of bombs and bullets), the Zionist leadership, guided by Ben-Gurion, was predisposed to nudge the process along, occasionally with the help of expulsions."

Seriously, can't we agree on a general rule that every one point made by the same author deserves only one paragraph for the sake of WP:Undue weight, reducing redundancy, and making an already lengthy article just a little bit shorter? I propose we keep the first one because it is the most succinct and makes the point well and is NPOV and we remove the two ugly and redundant blockquotes. --GHcool 01:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be synthetised here but more widely developed in another article. That is also Gatoclass and JaapBoBo mind excpet there is no consensus nor on the title and the topic to deal with. Alithien 07:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a good idea to make it shorter. The summary (1) still misses In an article, Morris says the 'transfer idea' also influenced the Zionist leadership to propell the exodus:, but the quotes (2,3) are just illustrations to this pov of Morris. On the other hand this is the core of Morris' reasoning, so it does deserve some length. --JaapBoBo 11:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it deserves some length, but the same point rephrased 3 times is beating a dead horse. Would you prefer some sort of synthesis between the summary (#1) and quote #2? --GHcool 17:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If nobody disgrees, I will synthesize the summary (#1) and the blockquote from "Review of Fabricating ..." (#3) some time tomorrow and delete the blockquote from The Birth ... Revisited (#2) completely. --GHcool 21:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead. --JaapBoBo 09:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggested structure for an article that will merge both the exodus and the cause of the exodus article

Proposed structure 1

• 1. Events

• 1.1 Context
• 1.2 Waves of refugees

• 1.2.1 1st wave
• 1.2.2 2nd wave
• 1.2.3 3rd wave
• 1.2.4 4th wave

• 1.3 Blockading the return
• 1.4 Resolution 181194
• 1.5 Borders' cleaning

• 2. causes of the exodus

• 2.1 Traditionnal versions
• 2.2 First critics (I mean here Childers and Glazer)
• 2.3 Opening of Israeli and British archives
• 2.4 The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem

(the core bec. everybody refers to this nuancing more or less Morris analysis)

• 2.5 Historiographic debate on the causes

(30 lines introducing other new analysis with their nuances in comparison to Morris, only on the academic level -> another article should be develop dealing with this)

• 2.6 Political debate on the causes

(same but with the critics concerning the influence of politics in the debate on the cause)

• 3. consequences of the exodus

• 3.1 Palestinian Refugee situations
• 3.2 Absentee property law
• 3.3 Historiography debate on the right to return
• 3.4 Political debate on the right to return
• 3.5 Palestino-Israeli peace process

• 4. jewish exodus and emigration
• 5. commemoration
• ... other linked but more anecdotical topics with max. 1 paragraph and a reference to other article.

Please sign your post Alithien.

I'm not sure this is the best possible structure, but it looks at least viable. Gatoclass 09:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ditto Nishidani 10:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's find the *best* before starting.

What should we change ? :-) Alithien 10:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a good start, but to be completely frank, I think this is too broad. Some thoughts:

• The first section ("Events") is already dealt with in the article 1948 Palestinian exodus, and that should be kept there, since it is currently in good shape and not subject to POV-hacking.
• In section two I would just list the different causes, each with their effect (i.e. nr. of refugees), their locations and their times. Since numbers are scarce, this will mainly be Morris' analysis with a bit of Glazer, Karsh and a few others. In these section there can be contradictions, i.e. under a sub-section forced expulsions we can have Morris saying there were x while Schechtman says there were zero, etc... Yet each one with a valid reference. I would also suggest moving the "Blockading of the return" down to this section.
• The "Historiographic debate" -- in my wording "Theories" -- would deserve a separate section. As you suggested, 30 lines for each theory, whithout the "Citicism of..." sections, even for Schechtman's stuff. This would not be a problem (for me at least), since we then have a clear separation of numbers (section above) and theories (this section). Unsupported theories will stand out as such on their own. This section could be structured chronologically, as you suggest with your structure for section 2, which would well reflect the evolution of the arguments and of the availability of raw data.
• Section 4 already has its own article and I would be against adding any undue weight that is not reciprocal.
• Section 5 would best belong in the main article, as it already is (in some form).

So, that's my $0.02... Thank you, Alithien, for kicking-off this effort! pedro gonnet - talk - 26.10.2007 10:39

Hi Pedro,
Before making another proposal, don't you think that :

• merging both "the 1948 exodus" and the "causes of the 1948 exodus" would be worth ? (as suggested above - that is in that optic I made this proposal)
• allocating only 30 lines to all theories and not each and developing them in an appropriate article would have a better due weight ? (nb historiographic debate is more npov than theories per my undestanding of English but this is not important).
• 6 lines for section 4, just referring to this is not undue weight in a 1000 lines article ?

Alithien 10:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Salut Alithien! My replies point for point...

• I'm against merging the articles back. They were originally split because the article was too long and the subject of too may edit-wars. The main article, 1948 Palestinian exodus, is in good shape, NPOV and rarely contested. This article here just seems to attract POV-warriors and it would be a shame for that to spill over to the main article. Therefore, if we can make this article a) short and sweet and b) keep it from being a POV-battleground, then we probably could merge them at some later date.
• 30 lines is more like the absolute maximum. I'd keep it at a single paragraph (ca. 10 lines) explaining the main points and forking off somewhere else if anybody wanted to add more detail. The title "Historiographic debate" is fine with me, it even has a nice ring to it :)
• The Jewish exodus has nothing to do with the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. I would only feel comfortable if this were reciprocal, i.e. there being a section on the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus in the Jewish exodus article. Otherwise, it looks and feels like relativism.

Again, for emphasis, my main points are that

1. We should not re-merge the two articles. This will only mess-up the main article, which is currently in good shape.
2. We need to keep the numbers and the theories clearly separated. This will give the article structure and defuse most of the POV-warring.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 26.10.2007 11:24

With what you suggest, we have to think about a structure only concerning the "causes of the 1948 exodus".

I personnaly don't have a detailled proposal for this because there are too many controversies from my point of view : in the main points of the context ; in the main direct causes and (but that is easier) in the different analysis.

I just think I would cut the direct causes and the analysis (what I call the historiography debate and what you call theories) but that is not easy...

Alithien 11:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Alithien, could you please elaborate a bit more on what you envisage going into the "historiographic debate" and "political debate" sections? Because I'm a little confused over the distinction. Gatoclass 14:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gatoclass,

Under "historiographic debate" we would describe the current analysis/theories that followed Morris's work but not going too deep into details and only in focusing on the "historical argument".

Under "political debate" we would explain that politics highly influence the historiographic debate (as stated by Glazer, Shapira, Shlaim and I think Palumbo). And we could explain that the neutrality of different historians is questionned (Schechtman, Morris, Pappé, ...) and that they are even sometimes accused of bias due to political reasons. I think it is relevant that the article explained the controversy. Shapira eg stated that we will never know the "truth" about the exodus while the palestinian-israeli conflict is not solved. We could also explain the high importance of the "responsabilities" on the political point of view.

all this with references, of course. Alithien 15:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion with Gatoclass

Well, I don't know about the "political debate" bit. It sounds like it could turn into a farce, with all the various historians criticising each other. The reader would probably end up feeling either totally confused or distrustful of them all. Gatoclass 15:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the due:weight to this relatively to the remaining is rather small.

My initial idea is to prevent this to appear in the former section. This could be summarized not in giving precise exemples but in explaining the the topic is hot enough so the debate sometimes left the academic level. Alithien 16:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not excited about this one. It looks like more trouble than its worth and will create articles that are even longer than the current ones already are. It might even be impossible to make and create redundencies upon redundencies. --GHcool 17:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

OK Alithien, now I have a better idea of how you see this section. Still, I think I'd like to see some sort of summary of exactly what points you'd want to make, because this section could still quite easily end up looking like a bunfight.

Apart from that though, I much prefer your proposal over JaapBoBo's, his looks pretty much like what we've already got. Gatoclass 17:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A severe (I think fatal) drawback of 'proposed structure 1' is that apparently three new subsection (2.3, 2.4, 2.5) should be created (two of which should be only 30 lines), to replace almost the complete article we have now (except for EoF and a very small part of the Master Plan). This is not realistic. --JaapBoBo 00:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you give the pov's in the order in which they occured in the historians debate you lose a lot of clarity. For instance in 1960 Khalidi introduced the master plan, in 1987 Flapan said Ben-Gurion and the Haganah concocted the expulsion, and in 2006 Pappe wrote his book on ethnic cleansing. So this pov will pop up at least three times, mixed with other povs that will also pop up several times. This will end up in a mess and it will be very unclear for readers. --JaapBoBo 01:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is possible to summarize 2.3 -> 2.5 in 30 lines and if required, to write a "main" article developing this. For the reader, I think it should be easier to read a "synthesis" about this and then to go deeper into details if needed. It is better to than read[ing] quotes after quotes without a clear link.

Concerning the "master plan", it is indeed an issue that it was developed in 3 steps but when we described eg Pappé, we can simply writes : "Pappé comes back to Khalidi master's plan idea and adds that (...)". With a chronological development we have the evolution of the thougts of people and see on what new material the[y] base their thoughts and in reaction of what theory/analysis they developed their own. Alithien 09:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Unfortunately, JBB and GH seem to thnk JBB's approach is better. Personally, I think that even if this proposal of yours is not adopted, we should not adopt JBB's because it's a recipe for chaos. Structure is absolutely vital to the quality of an article, if one gets the structure right, the rest tends to fall into place. Without an appropriate structure it's only a matter of time before the article becomes an unreadable mess. So I think it's important we get this right. Gatoclass 10:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we all agree structure is fundamental. Alithien 10:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed structure 2

discussion with Pedro

If we keep the articles separated I'd propose three sections. The first being the second from Alithien, but with some changes. This seems to follow the historical development of the 'debate'. I'd say this should include only summaries of the pov's, because the events I are described in the 'exodus' article and I would describe 'direct causes' and policies in a second and third section. In the second section on 'direct causes' (i.e. event-related causes) we might combine the three sections ('Morris' four waves', 'two stage analysis' and 'Descriptions of the exodus as caused by ethnic cleansing'.) into e.g three subsections 'direct causes of 1st wave', 'direct causes of 2nd wave' and direct causes of 3rd and 4th waves. In a third section I would discuss the role of leaders and policies.

• 1. historical debate on causes of the exodus (should contain only summaries, mainly referring to the weight different pov's/historians attribute to certain causes, not elaboration of these causes; elaboration is done in sections 2 and 3)
  • 1.1 Traditional versions
  • 1.2 Opening of Israeli and British archives and the 'New historians' (New historians is not only Morris, but also Flapan and Pappé; furthermore I don't consider Flapan and Pappé 'nuances in comparison to Morris')
  • 1.3 Further historiographic debate on the causes (why should we add a political debate section?)
• 2. direct causes
  • 2.1 direct causes of 1st wave
  • 2.2 direct causes of 2nd wave
  • 2.3 direct causes of 3rd and 4th wave
• 3. role of Yishuv and Arab leaders
  • 3.1 Arab leaders' endorsement of flight
    • 3.1.1 Criticism
  • 3.3 Transfer idea
    • 3.3.1 criticism
  • 3.4 Master plan
    • 3.4.1 criticism

The remaining sections (i.e. Palestinian fears and psychological warfare) could be integrated into the 'direct causes' and/or the 'role of ... leaders' sections.
--JaapBoBo 12:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how sections 1 and 3 of your structure differ -- can you elaborate? Oh, and please, try to keep a consistent indenting, otherwise these discussions are Hell to follow... Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 26.10.2007 13:01

Okay, let me explain what I have in mind. In the first section we should put only summaries of the two initial pov's and later pov's of historians. These summaries should mainly refer to the relevance these pov's attribute to what is discussed in the 2nd and 3rd sections. E.g. a summary of EoF does not need 'claims that support [it]'; the 'transfer idea' icould be treated very short in a summary, and it certainly wouldn't need any of the four subsections of the 'transfer idea' (except maybe a referal to criticism). For the Master plan something similar holds. --JaapBoBo 13:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see why EoF, TI and MP are different than what you call POV's in the first section... Those can easily be weaved-in to the hisoriography. Furthermore, if you keep them somehow separated and as general themes, I'm kind of worried that they will incite the same type of POV-warring and overquoting we've got now.

Why do you want the historiographies before the direct causes? In most sciences, we usually state first the observations, and then the interpretations thereof...

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 26.10.2007 13:28

The problem with the structure is that there are several structures that are logical, i.e. (1) according to historians views, (2) according to a time-line and (3) according to subjects. The structure I propose uses all three of them. (1) in section 1, (2) in section 2, but only for the direct causes and (3) in section 3 for all subjects except the direct causes.

EoF, TI and MP are of course the same in sections 1 and 3, but they are described from a different perspective. In section 1 the weight given to them by historians is presented and they are only introduced very short. In section 3 their contents are discussed more elaborately along with the arguments pro and contra.

Regarding putting the historical debate first: I find it not elegant to put it between the other two sections because those both contain 'observations'. Also I'd like the interpretations before the observations in this case, because I think it is easier for readers when they are given a general framework first and specifics later. --JaapBoBo 13:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly I don't see much difference between this proposal and the article we have now, which is already seen as problematic. It looks to me like a recipe for the kind of repetitions that already bloat the current version, so I'm afraid I'm not too keen on this proposal. Gatoclass 15:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I like this proposal. --GHcool 17:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed my mind after reading Gatoclass's criticisms written on 18:18, 27 October 2007. I now prefer a third option (see below). --GHcool 22:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: with the kind of repetitions that already bloat the current version do you mean repetitions in the same section or repetitions in the way of 'the same thing being said in different sections'? In case of the first we should try to write more efficient and its not a matter of structure. In case of the second do you agree that merging the sections on the causal events (currently the last five sections) would help here or would you propose something different? --JaapBoBo 20:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

discussion with Alithien

To avoid misunderstanting. By historiographic debate on the cause of the 1948 exodus, I meant the current debate that followed Morris publications : between Finkelstein/Karsh/Gelber/Pappé etc.
JaapBoBo, I still don't see how you can justify to cut all current theories/analysis in two families : the one that concerns the role of the arab leaders (which is pov if we talked about traditionnal israeli one) and the one that concerns the role of the yishuv leaders (which is controversed).
I understand there are two debates :

• made by war (or caused by circumstances)
• made by design (or planned by yishuv leaders).

Could you clarify what you don't understand in what I mean or what I don't understand in what you mean ? Alithien 13:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your problem. Are you referring to earlier discussions, or to the proposal I just put up? Still, I'll give it a try. I think we don't have the same interpretation of my proposal of those two subjects 'role of ... leaders'. You assume 'Role of Arab leaders' would contain EoF. It does of course, but it should also contain criticism on that pov and other (more accurate) pov's (e.g. failure to provide effective leadership, divided leadership), making it NPOV. A similar argument holds for the 'Role of Yishuv leaders'. In my new proposal they are in the same section, so there should be no problem now.

Actually I'd say there are three positions in the debate:

• made by Arab leaders
• made by war
• made by Yishuv leaders

--JaapBoBo 14:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. the "Made by Arab leaders" should also contain the more relevant critics (Personaly I have only read these in Rogan, Shlaim "palestine 1948". Do you have other material concerning this ?

My main problem is that "made by war" was/is not in your proposed structure... It should be add, shouldn't it ?

My second problem is that "transfer idea" is not always seen as an argument for the proof of "a role of the yishuv leader". Morris analysis of this is different from Childers and Masalha.

Alithien 14:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

'Made by war' is Morris' pov. Certainly it's in. Morris' pov in EoF is that this is not a main cause. Morris pov in 'master plan' is that it didn't exist. So for Morris that leaves the war. Actually Morris' positive pov is in the 'trabsfer idea' and 'wave analysis' sections.

Your second point is in the first part of the 'transfer idea' section. GHcool finds the statement of Morris' pov there too long: [[11]]

--JaapBoBo 20:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

But where would "made by war" be in the structure you propose ?

Maybe transfer idea is currently too long because it just give quotes and quotes. All this can be said in 20 lines max. but that is another point : we discuss here a re-structuration.

Alithien 14:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. You edited your text.

Where is Gelber analysis (other circumstantialist with Morris) ? 81.244.162.22 18:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I propose to fuse Gelber's analysis with Morris' --JaapBoBo 00:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to JaapBoBo - who I'm sure has made a fine contribution to this page - this proposal of his is just not going to work. It's simply not logical, and it is just a recipe for duplicating the same material over and over in each section. In fact it looks pretty much what we've got now which everyone seems to agree is not satisfactory.

Let me just see if I can quickly outline some of the problems I see.

1. historical debate on causes of the exodus (should contain only summaries, mainly referring to the weight different pov's/historians attribute to certain causes, not elaboration of these causes; elaboration is done in sections 2 and 3)
1.1 Traditional versions
1.2 Opening of Israeli and British archives and the 'New historians' (New historians is not only Morris, but also Flapan and Pappé; furthermore I don't consider Flapan and Pappé 'nuances in comparison to Morris')
1.3 Further historiographic debate on the causes (why should we add a political debate section?)
2. direct causes
2.1 direct causes of 1st wave
2.2 direct causes of 2nd wave
2.3 direct causes of 3rd and 4th wave
3. role of Yishuv and Arab leaders
3.1 Arab leaders' endorsement of flight
3.1.1 Criticism
3.3 Transfer idea
3.3.1 criticism
3.4 Master plan
3.4.1 criticism

So in 1. we've got "debate on the causes". In 2. we've got causes again, but of each separate wave. This section is just begging for a repeat of the differences of opinion from 1. Then as if that weren't bad enough, we've then got 3. which discusses "role of leaders", when it's obvious that the role of leaders will already have been discussed in 1. and 2. The same goes for "transfer idea" and "master plan". We are basically going to end up with five different sections which all go over much the same ground. It's a recipe for a complete mess, much like the mess we have now.

Alithien's proposal is far more logical in my opinion. It clearly separates the events in themselves from discussion of the causes, and then it introduces the development of the debate over causes step by step in a chronological sequence, which is not only the most logical way to do it, but is also a method which avoids potential squabbles over undue weight. Then at the end we get consequences of the exodus. I mean, apart from my quibble about the political section I mentioned in a previous post, what's not to like about this structure? I can't see any good reason why we shouldn't adopt it. Gatoclass 18:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: I gave some criticism of Alithiens proposal in its subsection. I think it has fatal flaws.

Let me explain what I have in mind. In the first section we should put only summaries of the two initial pov's and later pov's of historians. These summaries should mainly refer to the relevance these pov's attribute to what is more elaborately discussed in the 2nd and 3rd sections. So of course there will be repetitions: first the existance of an opinion will be pointed out (in 1), and later it will be elaborated (in 2 and 3). This means that the repetition is functional: first we give the reader a general framework, and later we give details.

Also you seem to be afraid that certain repetitions will occur in sections 2 and 3, and you say that such is now already the case. Indeed if they exist now they will stay in the new structure and similarly if they don't exist now they will not be introduced. I don't see much of these repetitions you are referring to in the present article. Can you indicate them?

The events are separated also in my proposal, because they are in a separate article.

--JaapBoBo 01:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed structure 3

After reading Gatoclass's crticisms of "Proposed structure 2" written on 18:18, 27 October 2007, I've changed my mind about my support of that proposal. I remember a while ago JaapBoBo proposed something similar to "Proposed structure 2," but not exactly the same. I've made my own proposal based on JaapBoBo's earlier proposal with some of my own ideas mixed in ...

• Article #1: Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. [The lead would be more or less the same as in the current article.]
  • 1. The "Arab leaders' endorsement of flight" explanation - [2-3 paragraph summary of the section as it cuurently stands with a link to the new main article.]
  • 2. The Yishuv's motivation and policy regarding the Palestinian Arab population - [a link to the new main article]
    • 2.1. The "transfer idea" - [2-3 paragraph summary of the section as it currently stands]
    • 2.2. The "Master Plan" explanation [2-3 paragraph summary of the section as it currently stands]
    • 2.3. Yishuv use of psychological warfare - [2-3 paragraph summary of the section as it currently stands]
  • 3. Morris’s ‘Four Waves’ analysis - [the entire section as it currently stands]
    • 3.1 Causes of the first wave, December 1947 – March 1948
    • 3.2 Causes of the second wave, April – June 1948
    • 3.3 Causes of the third and fourth wave, July – October 1948 and October – November 1948
  • 4. Two-stage analysis - [the entire section as it currently stands]
    • 4.1 First Stage: The crumbling of Arab Palestinian social structure and justified Jewish military conduct
    • 4.2 Second Stage: Israeli army victories and expulsions
  • 5. Palestinian Arab fears - [the entire section as it currently stands]

• Article #2: Role of Arab leaders during the 1948 Palestinian exodus - [the entire EoF section as it currently appears in the "Causes of the ..." article]
  • 1. Claims that support that the flight was instigated by Arab leaders
  • 2. Claims by Arab sources that support that the flight was instigated by Arab leaders
  • 3. Criticisms of the "endorsement of flight" explanation
  • 4. Arab Evacuation Orders

• Article #3: Role of the Yishuv leaders during the 1948 Palestinian exodus - [the following sections]
  • 1. The "Transfer idea"
    • 1.1. Origins of the ‘Transfer Idea’
    • 1.2. The Peel Commission's plan and the Yishuv's reaction
    • 1.3. The ‘Transfer Idea’ during 1947 - 1949
    • 1.4. Criticisms of the ‘Transfer Idea’
  • 2. The "Master Plan" explanation - [note: "Preparation: Village files ..." section is not here because its relevance to the subject of the article is dubious]
    • 2.1. Yishuv aims
    • 2.2. Planning by Ben-Gurion and the ‘Consultancy’
    • 2.3. Role of the Yishuv's official decision-making bodies
    • 2.4. Descriptions of the exodus as caused by ethnic cleansing - [the section as it currently appears in the "Causes of the ..." article, but as a subsection under the "Master plan" heading]
    • 2.5. Criticisms of "Master Plan" explanation
  • 3. Yishuv use of psychological warfare
    • 3.1. Intimidation
    • 3.2. Whisper campaigns
    • 3.3. Broadcasts on radio and by loudspeaker vans
    • 3.4. Shelling of civilians
    • 3.5. Use of massacres

--GHcool 22:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty much my earlier proposal, but as in that I would prefer 'psychological warfare' to remain in the main article, as it refers to 'events as causes' similar to 4 waves, 2 stages and 'Arab fears'. Furthermore I think we should try to synthesize these four sections, or at least the 4 waves and 2 stages.

However, the other editors have rejected new 'Role of ... leaders' articles, so I don't think we should do this. --JaapBoBo 01:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to some of these ideas. --GHcool 07:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are the ( + ) and ( - ) I see

( -- ) They are today 2 main schools :

• "intentionalists" who see an intention in the events
• "circumstantialists" who see the events as a "normal" result of war given its context :::With this structure we would have an undue:weight concerning this issue (as in the current article). All the sections talk about intentions, nowhere the circumstantiatlis is explain.

( -- ) There is no context.

( -- ) The idea of having Morris's work as core of the article is not reflected in the structure. The direct causes should be gathered all together BEFORE the analysis because often people based their analysis on them (eg. Pappé also argue the use of psy warfare prove an intention...)

( - ) Morris analysis is cut at different place and is not introduced anawhere.

( - ) Gelber is given undue:weight

( - ) Arab fears is given even more undue:weight and is not at a proper place.

( - ) psych. warfare is given undue:weight. It should be summarized

( - ) structure doesn't reflect enough that arab leader is an "old fashioned" explanation and there is an *evolution*¨in the ideas. Everything seems set on the same level.

( ++ ) "intentionalist" thesis is not chronologically introduced but everything is gathered, which is "better" for its understanding.

( ++ ) Keep most of the current work as it is.

Alithien 10:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed structure #4

• Article #1: Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus.
  • 1. Context
    • 1.1 War
    • 1.2 Demographic outcome and transfer idea [only factual and short]
    • 1.3 Plan Daleth (with controversy around its contextual interpretation)
  • 2. Traditionnal explanation [old fashioned]
    • 2.1 Israeli historians
    • 2.2 Palestinian historians
  • 3. Direct causes (mainly based on Morris when he talks but all others if they are put forward by other historians
    • 3.1 1st wave
    • 3.2 2nd wave
    • 3.3 3rd and 4th waves
  • 4. Historiographic debate
    • 4.1 First critics of tradionnal versions [Childers - Flahan - Glazer]
    • 4.2 by design or by war ?
      • 4.2.1 Intentionalism [Demographic outcome + transfer idea + feeling of superiority + Plan Daleth + all I don't have in mind -> Master Plan + Ethnic cleansing]
      • 4.2.2 Critics of intentionalism [Demographic with immigration ; transfer = wish and not intention + ...]
      • 4.2.3 Circumstantialism [War conditions + long antagonism + difference in society strength + nationalism + mutual fears -> atrocities + exodus + expulsions]
      • 4.2.4 Critics of circumstantialism [...]
  • 5. Importance of the issue of the debate

What do you think about that ? Alithien 10:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

discussion with Gatoclass

Don't like it. Much prefer your original proposal, and I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what was wrong with it. Gatoclass 10:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

discussion with Nishidani

For my 2 cents'worth, I agree, with Gatoclass. I will admit I have great difficulty in following the thread that emerged from Alithien's first proposal, which has the virtues of Occam's razor.

(1) The page as it is will never meet quality standards, being utterly confused as a result of POV compromise-driven editing. (2) As a result of this history there is a good deal of natural uneasiness about radical changes which might upset the respective salients built up by opposing parties (3) The wariness over suggestions to restructure the article reflects diffidence built up by the earlier page's drafting (4) The probability is that the diffidence will translate into an endless discussion, equally futile, even if based on reciprocal good reasons, that will lead to the same stalemate evidenced by the page itself (5) Alithien's suggestion should be accepted in good faith: it is neutral, does not overdetermine what can be said, has the virtues of ordered clarity of exposition (6) When both sides are in more sh*t than Biggles, suspending mutual suspicions, and striking out on new ground, where the chances of confusion are reduced, as indicated by an experienced poster with a record (at least judging from my own experience, and we two disagree on fundamentals in some regard) for responsibility and an attentive ear to the judgements of others, constitutes an act of good faith, and builds up credit for all parties. (7) You will never get a perfect model. But testing one that is far superior to the existing one formally, will enable you to get out of the embarrassing impasse present at the moment, and may well provide editors with a bridge to a model superior to the first working one Alithien has provided. Nishidani 10:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

@Nashidani : thank you for your support. :-) Alithien 18:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

discussion with JaapBoBo

It's getting better, but still widely falling short. a) it requires a major rewriting of the article, b) two sections we have now (Transfer idea and master plan) would end up in one subsection (4.2). Besides I have some non-structure related criticism, c) only the initial Israely historians are old fashioned. The version of the Palestinians (Khalidi etc.) coincides with what you call 'intentionalism'; in line with this 4.1 should be '4.1 First critics of traditional Israeli version [Childers - Flapan - Glazer]', because they criticised this version, d) 'intentionalism' is not a good word. Morris supports intentionalism in various instances, for example he says the commanders during the fourth wave were clearly bent on expelling as many Palestinians as possible. Morris only denies an organised intention. --JaapBoBo 10:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you write

a) indeed

b) yes but not exactly -> transfer and plan daleth would be discussed in the context; only the "use of this as material" would be described in the unique section

c) yes but not exactly. The initial palestinian version has been also criticized : al little bit by Glazer, by Morris, by Gelber. More what distinguish Khalidi from Pappé is that Pappé give arguments where Khalidi had just his analysis of the Master plan. And Pappé doesn't say the same as Khalidi : in fact, his analysis is even more intentionalist than Khalidi's.

c') intentionalism is not from me. It is from fr:Henry Laurens who is the editor of the french version of Rogan, Shlaim "Palestine 1948, behind the myth, ..." and in fact, it is not from him either (see below)

c) first critics of israeli version indeed.

d) Intentionanlism has a precise meaning in historical studies : see : Functionalism versus intentionalism. With this definition, Morris is not intentionalist nor is he functionnalist in fact (but not far). There is a clear distinction between "major intentions" and "local acts"; between a decision of the authorities and between isolated acts... Pappé knows what he does when he introduces the (alleged - he will appreciate this word) consultancy. That is a pillar in his reasonning.

But I agree with you that Morris underlines the intention of local commanders (but names are not given by Morris only Yigal Yadin) to expel the palestinians. Gelber, eg, doesn't deny this but he goes less far than Morris in focusing more on "soldiers" expelling rather than commanders "expelling" where Pappé gives a precise list...

Does someone sees a structure that could fits all pov's ? Alithien 18:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

discussion with GHCool

I still like Proposed Structure #3 better than this one, but I would readily support this structure with a few reservations:

1. The "Context" sections looks POV. Plan Dalet and the transfer idea are given undue weight. I predict that the "War" section will become an overly POV fork which will include a blow by blow account of Arab-Jewish relations in 1947-1949. I know I would not be content with such a section if it didn't mention the genocidal intentions of the surrounding Arab countries against the Jews of Palestine and the Arab rejection of the UN plan. Although providing a context for the causes are important, I suggest we do away with this whole "Context" section and let readers read the relevant articles (namely United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, 1948 Arab-Israeli War, 1948 Palestinian exodus, and Plan Dalet) themselves.
2. I will not accept calling either of the traditional explanations "old fashioned." It is POV. Although we might not agree with them, many people and many historians accept these traditional explanations as the truth. Calling the traditional explanations "old fashioned" is like calling creationism "old fashioned" in the face of evolution. There are plenty of educated people who believe in creationism, and there are even plenty of people who believe in some kind of middle ground between strict creationism and strict evolution. The same can be said about the "traditional" and "new" views of the causes of the Palestinian exodus.
3. The "Importance of the issue of the debate" section seems redundant and would potentially fall under WP:Original research.

-GHcool 18:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi GHCool

1.

We cannot leave the reader without the context on such a topic !

Transfer idea is factual and Plan daleth also. These are major "factual" material used by Khalidi and Pappé. Of course, given Gelber states this clearly, it will be explained that Plan Daleth is considered not to be in the context by some.

Morris discuss much context issue in the Birth revisited.

WAR. here it must just be reminded that for some historians the context of war is important. Eg, in the Birth, Morris writes something such as "it cannot be reminded enough that these events took place during a war..."

Of course, this section is not there to remind all the events.

Concerning the genocidal intentions of arabs, this is not factual. It should appear in the "circumstantialist" thesis : the fears of jewish to be extermined hardened their heart and they acted hardly with Palestinians due to that. So thinks Gelber concerning the massacres that took place during operation Hiram where most soldiers where not sabras but survivors of the Holocaust and jewish "propaganda" had drew a link : "arab = nazi". True or not, they where indeed convinced of that. But this is not factual that arab were genocidars.

2.

I don't want to call them "old-fashined". That was just to underline that I only wanted to gather their the initial explanations no historian believes any more.

Even karsh doens't claim that schechtman was right of that arab are responsible. I am sorry but if we can talk about geocentrism by historical interest for the Galilee's trial, we consider today the earth turns around the sun.

3.

Issue is orignal research ? Well... If we don't have sourced material that underline the consequence of the issue of this debate, it will be original reasearch; if we have some, it will not be original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alithien (talk • contribs) 18:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

1. There is no doubt in my mind and in the mind of many, many serious historians that had the Arabs won the 1948 war, the result would have been the genocide of hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of Jews. The only reason it cannot be proven is because history didn't happen that way. The genocidal intentions of the Arabs is just as well documented as the transfer idea of the Zionists. I agree that context is important, but there are already plenty of other articles discussing the context. If there is a context section, I would insert the genocidal intentions of the Arabs, or at least the very real fear the Zionists felt of such intentions, into the section as well as the Arab rejection of the UN partitian plan.
2. Now that you've clarified what you meant about the traditional views, I suppose I agree.
3. I didn't say that "Importance of the issue of the debate" was original research. I said it could potentially be original research. Of course, if there were reliable sources cited that talked about the importance of the issue of the debate, that would be acceptable, but it seems like beating a dead horse. Clearly if people are debating this, it must be important, at least to some people, right? Other debates listed on Wikipedia (such as the creation-evolution debate) don't have a section talking about why the debate is important. I'm not so much against this section as I am skeptical that it will be valuable information to somebody reading it. --GHcool 22:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello GHcool,

1. I think the genocidar intentions are not so well documented. There were some declarations on the radio. But Indeed, it is often/sometimes put forward that Yishuv feared (legitimely or not, it doesn't matter) to be "eradicated" and that this explains the events. That would not be a direct but an indirect cause. I had in mind it could be discussed this in the circumstancialists analysis.

We could cut context into 2 parts : what is "widely admitted" (in the context section) and what is sometimes used as argument (in the intentionalist and circumstantialist analysis).

2. There are much material about that. To summarize this : the one who will be considered responsible of the events will have to pay the bill during the negociations that will end the palestinian-israeli conflict.

Alithien 07:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Laurens

I would like to synthesize LAurens analysis:

Globally he also considers that the 'intentionnalism' thesis is untenable in the global context of the events and lack historical methodology. He emphasizes that if the events the 'intentionnalists' put forward are true, they are mainly gathered because they have an a priori reading of the events. To comply with their analysis, the protagonists should have had a global consciouness of all the consequences of the project they promoted. Laurens considers that this "complot theory", on such a long period of time, could not have been planned, even by a Ben Gurion. In an 'intentionalist' approach, he claims, events must be read without a priori and each action must be considered without assuming it will lead to where we know a posteriori it lead but it must be considered in its context and in taking into account where the actor thought it would lead. With this appropriate approach, Laurens considers that the documentation gathered by Morris gives another picture to the events where the mutual fears of Arabs and Jewish in the other side intentions (Arabs feared to be expelled by Zionists and fought zionism because of that while zionists feared arab would prevent them by force to build their state and so make all they can to win the war, which produced the exodus) and in the fact that Palestine was not able to absorb both populations (he describes the situation as a Zero-sum conflict) lead to the exodus.

To:

Laurens also criticises the 'lack of historical methodology' in the analysis of the 'intentionalists'. Laurens says that this "complot theory", on such a long period of time, could not have been planned, even by a Ben Gurion. He also says that an appropriate analysis of the documentation gathered by Morris shows that the exodus was caused by Arabs fears of being expelled, by Zionist fears of being prevented by Arab use of force to build their state and by the fact that Palestine was not able to absorb both populations.

I think the first text is needlessly unclear. The second text is an accurate summary of the first. --JaapBoBo 09:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No. The second text is not an accurate summary of the 1st.

But what is unclear could be improved.

Alithien 09:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Lets split it into three :

(...)

Can you indicate what is not accurate and should be improved? --JaapBoBo 09:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the complaint. The paragaph is perfectly clear to me and would suffer a loss of clarity if it is summarized further. For this reason, I object to any abridgement. --GHcool 18:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

split 1

• Globally he also considers that the 'intentionnalism' thesis is untenable in the global context of the events and lack historical methodology. He emphasizes that if the events the 'intentionnalists' put forward are true, they are mainly gathered because they have an a priori reading of the events. To comply with their analysis, the protagonists should have had a global consciouness of all the consequences of the project they promoted. [...] In an 'intentionalist' approach, he claims, events must be read without a priori and each action must be considered without assuming it will lead to where we know a posteriori it lead but it must be considered in its context and in taking into account where the actor thought it would lead.

can be synthesised as

• Laurens also criticises the 'lack of historical methodology' in the analysis of the 'intentionalists', saying their conclusions follow from an 'a priori' reading of the events. (although textually I don't like the last part of this line)

This is not good because the text is already a synthesis of Laurens. In fact, it should be expended to be more clear.

What lacks in you summary of the synthesis is the arguments Laurens put forward ie : the fact that protagonists do not know by advance, on a 30 years period, what will happen and that they cannot guess the protagonists expected each of their action to lead to what occured.

Are you saying Laurens claims that 'intentionalists' say that the master plan was hatched 30 years in advance?? --JaapBoBo 10:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No. I will expand this to make it more clear. Alithien 11:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

split 2

• Laurens considers that this "complot theory", on such a long period of time, could not have been planned, even by a Ben Gurion.

can be synthesised as

• Laurens says that this "complot theory", on such a long period of time, could not have been planned, even by a Ben Gurion.

Because what you write is a synthesis ?

I will develop this to show why he considers this and not just "say" this.

This is in fact based on the way Pappé, Finkelstein and Morris picture Ben Gurion.

'consider' is also fine with me, if you insist. --JaapBoBo 10:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Why must this sentence be in the middle of Laurens critics on the 'lack of historical method'? --JaapBoBo 10:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Because he claims that in the middle of his cricts about the intentionalist analysis. Alithien 10:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

split 3

• Laurens considers that with an appropriate approach, the documentation gathered by Morris gives another picture to the events where the mutual fears of Arabs and Jewish in the other side intentions (Arabs feared to be expelled by Zionists and fought zionism because of that while zionists feared arab would prevent them by force to build their state and so make all they can to win the war, which produced the exodus) and in the fact that Palestine was not able to absorb both populations (he describes the situation as a Zero-sum conflict) lead to the exodus.

can be synthesised as

• He also says that an appropriate analysis of the documentation gathered by Morris shows that the exodus was caused by Arabs fears of being expelled, by Zionist fears of being prevented by Arab use of force to build their state and by the fact that Palestine was not able to absorb both populations.

He can write argue.

At the exception of a few words, that is already what is in the article, with the details put in note.

Alithien 10:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If these are essentially equal, why do you revert my version. It is shorter, without half of the argument in the 'ref' and it has less spelling and style errors. --JaapBoBo 11:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Because the difference is in a note that you systematically revert.

You already did it 2 times. You can do it 1 times again.

Regards, Alithien 11:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of traditionnal positions

This extra paragraph should not be where it is now.

In a 1958 publication, Don Peretz rejected both the Israeli and Palestinian explanations of the exodus. Peretz suggested that the exodus could be attributed to "deeper social causes of upheaval within the Palestine Arab community" such as the breakdown of all governing structures. According to him, "The community became easy prey to rumor and exaggerated atrocity stories. The psychological preparation for mass flight was complete. The hysteria fed upon the growing number of Jewish military victories. With most Arab leaders then outside the country, British officials no longer in evidence, and the disappearance of the Arab press, there remained no authoritative voice to inspire confidence among the Arab masses and to check their flight. As might be expected in such circumstances, the flight gathered momentum until it carried away nearly the whole of the Palestine Arab community"[6]

Reasons:

• in an ' outline of the historical debate' we should avoid giving the particular position of one observer. This should only be done if the position is typical for a 'school'.
• It is a pro-Israeli explanation, similar to Schechtman's fear psychosis.

It would be better placed in the 'fear' section. --JaapBoBo 10:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Don Peretz would give a position similar to Schechtman :-))))))

You have just dot the i on the fact you are unable to read scholar comments not being influenced by your own bias.

Note too that with your argumentation Glazer considerations must be removed (he just wrote a PhD on the topic) and then disapperead. So, he is not part of any school.

Alithien 10:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Alithien, please think before you put forward an argument.

• Don Peretz calls 'hysteria' the main reason of the exodus. Schechtman says a large part of the exodus was caused by a phenomenon which he calls The Fear Psychosis. I think it's your bias that makes you think the pov's are not similar. Schechtman did add though that the Palestinian fears stemmed from their imagination of Zionist cruelty.
• Glazer is the reliable source that summarises the positions. Note that I am not putting Glazers opinion on the 'schools' in, but just his description of them.

--JaapBoBo 10:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Given who is that man, that just proves this is your and Pedro interpretation of the word "hysteria" that is not correct. What else could be concluded ?

You are right Glazer is not a school but Glazer refers to Childers who is not a scholl and the critics of Schechtman are from Childers.

Alithien 11:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The way the paragraph is worded makes it less a proposal of or support for any one theory, but a denial of both traditional theories. Thus, it belongs in the "Criticism of traditionnal positions" section, but it could be mentioned in the "Palestinian Arab fears" section as well.

Also, I think JaapBoBo realizes now that Schechtman's words really isn't hate-mongering or anything else out of the ordinary in terms of scholarly analysis of the causes of the Palestinian exodus. I prefer Peretz's diction to Schechtman's (referring to mass "hysteria" rather than "psychosis"), but they're really saying the same verifiable, valid thing that cannot honestly be discredited as ignorance or "hate speech." This is what I've been saying all along. --GHcool 18:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

@GHcool: Like I said, there is a similarity, but there is also a difference: Schechtman villifies the Palestinians, Peretz does not. --JaapBoBo 08:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You deleted Glazer.

I reverted. Alithien 13:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I put it back in. However I don't think the remark adds much. Given the two opposite schools its rather logical.

Globally, in his paper of 1981, Glazer thinks that "both Palestinians and Israeli spokesmen and adherents have sought to link the events of 1948 with their claims to the land today". He claims that "[one] fundamental problem[] [of the subject] [is to deal] with historians who are overtly biased" and try to identify the factors that influence this.

--JaapBoBo 14:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Minor povs" in the "Initial positions and criticisms" subsection

JaapBoBo suggested in an edit summary, correctly in my view, to "keep the outline an outline, i.e. without complete descriptions of minor pov's."[12] The attitude is a noble one, but the implementation deserves more discussion. JaapBoBo's edit excludes Peretz's and Gabbay's critical analysis from the "Initial positions and criticisms" while keeping Glazer's. The edit is arbitrary at best and presents a double standard at worst. I did not revert JaapBoBo's edit, but I did follow the logic of JaapBoBo's edit summary to its conclusion with this edit. I hope everybody here can agree that this is fair. --GHcool 19:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

@GHcool: I did replace the Gabbay and Peretz position with an adequate summary, i.e. I did not remove it. GHcool however wants to remove the complete Childers research on the radio braodcasts. This seems to me unfair. It refutes a Zionist claim that is also in the outline. It is a very essential point in the pre-New Historians discussion. It should remain in. --JaapBoBo 22:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not understanding something. It seems to me that the paragraph belongs in the "Criticisms of the 'endorsement of flight' explanation" subsection under the main EoF section. Isn't this new "Criticism" section essentially inviting criticisms of the EoF? If not, what purpose does it serve? Shall I add a "Criticism" section within the "Palestinian and Arab position" section with information that could equally be used in the "Criticisms of "Master Plan" explanation" subsection? --GHcool 23:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I also think you're not understanding something. Childers' research is not criticism, he demonstrates that the whole radio broadcasts story is provably false. I think the more pertinent question is: Why do we have something in an encyclopedic article that was proven to be false? If it is only there only for the sake of historical record (i.e. listing historical arguments), then we should also clearly state that it has been proven false. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 06.11.2007 11:43

I accept your argument. Seeing that, as Pedro Gonnet says, Childers' research implies more than just criticism, and seeing that there already is a section devoted to criticism and refutations of the EoF theory, I've deleted the criticism section while keeping a reference to Childers' research in a footnote so as to not upstage the Israeli position in the Israeli position section. I feel that this is a fair compromise. --GHcool 18:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The refutation should be in, because it is important for the 'outline of the debate'. --JaapBoBo 20:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Its unfortunate that you feel this way. I see I'll have to add a "Criticism" section to the Palestinian historiography. I'll do it as soon as I get a chance. --GHcool 22:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

'I've deleted the criticism section while keeping a reference to Childers' research in a footnote so as to not upstage the Israeli position in the Israeli position section'. section.'GHcool

Which I translate as: 'If you're serious, don't work on this page'.

There is no such thing as a 'U.S.A.', 'U.S.S.R', 'German', 'Chinese', 'Japanese', 'Israeli', 'Patagonian' position, etc., in the writing of serious history. For the simple reason that history proper is the domain of scholars striving for objectivity, whereas 'national' perspectives invest the facts with a slant that favours a political pitch, and not the ascertainable truth, which is too complicated and devious to allow for the intellectual provincialism of party hacks intent on further a national cause. But of course, Wiki is about the politics of what facts can and can not be accepted, and therefore, prego Nishidani 22:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed User:Paul kuiper NL's edit. I approve of it. I consider the matter closed (unless Paul kuiper NL's version is reverted or otherwise tampered with). --GHcool 02:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I also like this solution.

@Nishidani: I agree with your criticism of the titles, I'd rather have 'pro-Israeli view' and 'pro-Palestinian view' (or 'position' instead of 'view'). --JaapBoBo 23:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is kind of funny

we have this(source is a clear anti-zionist): [13] to explain us about Zionism, and here: [14] (part of an on-going edit-war) the words of the arab countries to explain why they started a war against israel)

These edits are not encyclopedic, they are pure propaganda. People with strong views to one direction should be balanced by those with the opposing views (WP:NPOV)). Otherwise what is the difference between Wikipedia and a hate site?

Since we have a 5-6 anti-zionist editors and only 1-2 on the other side this is not going to change…. Zeq 10:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

the words of the arab countries to explain why they started a war against israel

That's because a casus belli is supplied by the country that started the war. A casus belli is always biased - but it isn't bias to report what it was, it's simply providing information. Go and have a look at the casus belli for Six Day War or any of the other wars started by Israel and you'll see what I mean.

a clear anti-zionist...pure propaganda

Being an "anti-Zionist" doesn't mean you are not a reliable source whose views merit consideration. Do you think we should remove all the pro-Zionist sources? I'm sure you don't. Our job is simply to balance the views of one group with the other, taking into account the usual policy caveats. Gatoclass 11:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely here with Gatoclass. --Steve, Sm8900 13:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree completely with Gatoclass, but I do criticize Zeq for deliberately stirring the pot without a clear goal for the improvement of the article. --GHcool 18:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Gatocalss and GH: Maybe I did not explain my self too well. I appologize. What I see here is a problem and let me explain (in order to improve the artice):

• I have nothing against anti-zionist sources, as long as they are not propeganda.
• I have nothing against pro-zionist sources, as long as they are not propeganda.

For, exmaple a pro-zionist source like mazada2000 is not a WP:RS source.

• So, what is my problem:

1. 1.When only one side is represnted: i.e. if a pro-zionist source remain and the anti-zionist removed this vioaltes WP:NPOV. In a smilar way if the anti-zionist source added and the pro-zionist removed - this too violates NPOV.
2. 2. Only sources which are non-propeganda, i.e. WP:RS should be used.

• What I see in this article is a drift toward using more sources from this type and not the other and this warries me. Thank you. Zeq 19:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere! This is a fair criticism. What changes would you propose in order to keep the article balanced, Zeq? --GHcool 01:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If it had been up to me, I don't think I would have structured the article this way. Although I think the article probably gives a reasonable overall view of the different theories, because most of the theories are tacitly critical of the Israelis, that "side" of the debate is arguably overrepresented. Another problem of course is that most of the more "pro-Israel" sources have simply chosen to sweep this whole issue under the carpet, so they don't have nearly as much to say about it. A third problem is that debate has moved on considerably from the old "the Arabs just ran away" theory, so we also need to be careful not to overemphasize that.

But from a pro-Israel POV, I can see how someone might feel the article is unbalanced. That could probably be improved by deleting or merging some of the "anti-" sections, and by expanding and consolidating the pro- to a degree, but at this stage it will be a fairly big job and I for one don't have the time or inclination to tackle it right now. I've got about a dozen Wiki projects I'm trying to put together already and quite frankly, I prefer to put my energies into less contentious areas of the encyclopedia where my hard work stands a better chance of survival. Gatoclass 02:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm less concerned about balancing "pro-Israel" and "anti-Israel" than I am with telling the whole truth about what is being said and written about. The truth is neither pro- nor anti-Israel just like the truth about the Jewish exodus from Arab lands is neither pro- nor anti-Arab. It is simply a fact that must be dealt with by scholars, politicians, and the general public and interpreted through the historical method. The "pro-Israel" historians often deliberately ignore or are unaware of evidence that makes the Yishuv look responsible and "anti-Israel" historians often deliberately ignore or are unaware of evidence that makes the Arabs look responsible. The methods and intentions are the same in both cases even though the conclusions they come to are different. It is also entirely possible for a historian to have an "agenda" while still being a reliable source of information. I put Khalidi and Schechtman as the most extreme examples of this category.

If I had my way, this article would be structured the same way as it is now, but be much shorter. It would include none of the "criticisms of" sections ("Criticisms of the 'endorsement of flight' explanation," "Criticisms of the 'Transfer Idea'," etc.). Each section would be roughly 10 paragraphs long (roughly 3 paragraphs for each section within a section) and would rely less on proving a point through quoting the work of the writers than on simply summarizing the narratives as the writers understand it. --GHcool 04:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The truth is neither pro- nor anti-Israel

Yes but that's just your POV. I hardly need to remind you that we are not here to promulgate our own opinions. The reliable sources on this issue have taken a range of different POVs, from "the Arabs were just as bad" or "the Arabs ran away" to "the Israelis conducted a deliberate campaign of ethnic cleansing", and several POVs in between. The solution is not to promote some sort of "intermediate" position as you seem to be suggesting here, but rather to ensure that all the different positions are adequately represented, in such a way as to represent fairly the terms of the debate as it currently exists.

It is also entirely possible for a historian to have an "agenda"'

Of course. Nobody but God is totally neutral, and sometimes I'm not even sure about him ;)

As for shortening the article, I can already see at least two redundant sections that should be thrown out (not including the Schechtman section I have already voiced concerns over). There's a fair bit of repetition in what remains, so yes a thorough copyedit would be useful, but I really don't know who would be a likely nominee for the job. Although now that I mention it, perhaps we could ask an editor with excellent copyedit skills who has no prior interest in the subject to take a look at it? Gatoclass 05:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

see [[15]] --JaapBoBo 16:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think JaapBoBo's splitting the article solution is the best option because it would satisfy most of my points. --GHcool 19:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Opposed. This article is already a split from "1947-48 Palestinian exodus" and we shouldn't need yet another split. Also, JaapBoBo's proposal sounds to me very much like a proposal for the creation of a couple of POV forks. Furthermore, I don't think it will be of any assistance to readers. Articles on contentious subjects have a tendency to just keep growing, we will end up with three overlong articles instead of just one.

This article already contains a lot of redundancy and what users should be aiming for is to eliminate that and make the article more readable and accessible, not to create even more text on the topic for readers to have to wade through. Gatoclass 05:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, Gatoclass. At first you say you oppose JaapBoBo's proposal and accept the fact that "we will end up with three overlong articles instead of just one" and then you criticize the page for containing "a lot of redundancy and what users should be aiming for is to eliminate that and make the article more readable and accessible, not to create even more text on the topic for readers to have to wade through." I'm not sure if you are recommending to keep this article at its current length or to do away with the redundancies. I'd support doing away with redundancies, but when I caught and deleted redundancies in the past, JaapBoBo and PalestineRemembered protested. --GHcool 05:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you were targeting the wrong redundancies :)

What I am talking about is reducing the size of this article to a more manageable size, by the elimination of redundancies. Effectively I'm saying we should be striving for less text overall, not more. There's a lot of repetition in this article.

Having reread a bit of the article though, I think perhaps there *is* a case for a second article, not along the lines suggested by JaapBoBo about "role of leaders", but an article specifically related to the role of the transfer idea in Zionism. This is a highly contentious subject, there are lots of sources that have had plenty to to say about it, and I think it would do very well as a standalone article. In my opinion though there's far too much about it at this page, why do we need such a long section on its development here, on the Peel Commission recommendations, and so on? I think most of that info is out of place here. Gatoclass 07:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gatocalss about the 'transfer idea'.

The role of the transfer idea in the 1948 palestinian exodus is a topic that has been widely discussed among historians and that is differently interpreted.

Morris has written a whole chapter on this, Nur Masalha a whole book and Shapira and Teveth criticized these analysis.

Alithien 10:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Alithien, but I think I should point out that I don't conceive of the article as relating only to the Palestinian exodus. The "transfer" idea goes right back as far as Theodor Herzl, and is still apparent today in for example the proposal of the Israeli Deputy PM Avigdor Lieberman to do a territorial swap with the Palestinians in order to effect a population transfer. Of course it wasn't just the Zionists, but also the British who proposed it at one stage. So this is an idea that has been proposed many times in many different ways, it has a long and varied history and I think it would make a very interesting article if dealt with appropriately. Gatoclass 11:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

ok.

But in that case be aware that the 1948 exodus is a very little transfer in comparison of others. And I doubt the 1948 Palestinian exodus would deserve more than a few lines in an article that deal globally with the transfer of population.

On the other way, an article titled population transfer in the Arab-Israeli conflict is immediately less interesting because it leaves the "historical ground" to the "political ground". And it would also have to deal with the Jews that emigrated from Arab land.

An article named idea of transfer in zionist policy from 1880 to 2007 would be nothing but a one-sided political original research of the level of Israeli Apartheid. Alithien 11:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the 1948 Palestinian exodus would deserve more than a few lines in an article that deal globally with the transfer of population

No, I'm not proposing an article on population transfer in a global sense. One could probably do such an article, but that's not what I was suggesting.

An article named idea of transfer in zionist policy from 1880 to 2007 would be nothing but a one-sided political original research of the level of Israeli Apartheid.

I certainly wouldn't be advocating that as a title. But you couldn't possibly call it "original research" when there has been so much written about it. It's a theme that occurs again and again in writing about the conflict.

As for it being "one-sided", I don't think it would have to inherently POV. As I said earlier, it's a contentious subject and I think we should be able to supply plenty of different POV's.

But in any case, the basis of the article already exists here, I'm just proposing an expansion of that and a placing of it in a wider context. Gatoclass 12:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we ought to include the '1948 Palestinian Exodus' article in our restructuring. This article takes the 'four stages' of Morris approach. There is a lot of overlap with some sections in the 'causes' article (Morris, two-stage, ethnic cleansing sections). Keeping this in separate articles it is almost impossible to prevent considerable overlap.

The new structure I would propose is:

• main article: '1948 Palestinina exodus' (history section of '1948 Palestinian exodus' article combined with all sections of 'causes' article except EoF, Transfer idea and master plan) including small but adequate summaries of these three new articles:

• 'Role of Arab leaders in the 1948 exodus' (EoF section)
• 'Role of Yishuv leaders in the 1948 exodus' (transfer idea and master plan)
• 'Results of the 1948 Palestinian exodus' (remaining sections of '1948 Palestinina exodus' article) (to keep the size of this article down)

Let me point out that these are not POV-forks. The titles are neutral (Role of ...). In case according to a pov e.g. Palestinian leaders' role was primarily lack of leadership this can be included. Inclusion of all pov's is possible, e.g. both pov's stating that Arab leaders encouraged and pov's stating Arab leaders tried to stop the exodus. The same is true for the 'Role of Yishuv leaders' article. Anyway, adequate summaries should be in the main article. This is according to Wikipedia policy. See WP:POVFORK and WP:SPINOUT. These point out that it is according to Wikipedia policy for e.g. Evolution and Creationism to have separate articles. --JaapBoBo 14:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I just don't agree with this approach at all. You are going to end up with an account that's in bits and pieces all over the place. None of this is necessary, and it's just going to make a maze for readers to try and negotiate. We should strive to keep things as simple and elegant as possible. There's no justification whatever for "roles of leaders" articles in my view, and splitting "Palestinian exodus" into "Causes of" and "Results of" is equally inappropriate. You could probably get rid of half of this article and not lose any vital information, that's the sort of approach we should be taking. Gatoclass 14:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, I would support JaapBoBo's proposal. --GHcool 17:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with Pedro when he considers these are pov-forked but his reasonning should be requested here.

But I am still opposed with the titles. The transfer idea and the master plan are not reflected a neutral way with a title such as the role of yishuv leaders in the 1948 exodus.

I also think that we should not make a parallelism between the alleded role of arabs and the alleged role of yishuv leaders. The first one is clearly not followed any more by historians. This concerns more historiography. But the second one is still a topic of controversy. Sending this out of the article could make believe it is as false as the other one.

The Transfer Idea and the 1948 palestinian exodus would more fit titles used by scholars and is more neutral.

Alithien 18:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

@Gatoclass : yes, a synthetic and not too long article explaining the matter and the controversies on the topic and not simply gathering quotes or trying to prove anything would be welcome. But this is too soon for that. Such a work require all the data has been gathered first. Alithien 18:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the approch Alithein is taking. Zeq 19:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The Transfer Idea and the 1948 palestinian exodus would more fit titles used by scholars and is more neutral. - Alithien

I don't think it *is* necessarily more neutral. And to my way of thinking, it's only natural to trace the idea right up to the present day. If the argument is that such would constitue "original research", my guess is that sources can be found which would make the connection for us.

BTW, I seem to recall that Tom Segev had something to say about the development of the "transfer" idea in One Palestine, Complete. I could be wrong about that as it's a while since I read it, but he might be an additional POV we could add to a "transfer" article. Segev is a pretty moderate voice in general.

a synthetic and not too long article explaining the matter and the controversies on the topic and not simply gathering quotes or trying to prove anything would be welcome. But this is too soon for that. - Alithien

As I think I said, it's a topic that would require sensitivity. I simply proposed it because I noticed there is already quite a bit on the topic here that in my opinion does not need such thorough treatment, and which could easily be lifted out and used as the basis for a new article. I'm talking about the following section:

2 The "Transfer idea"
2.1 Origins of the ‘Transfer Idea’
2.2 The Peel Commission's plan and the Yishuv's reaction
2.3 The ‘Transfer Idea’ during 1947 - 1949
2.4 Criticisms of the ‘Transfer Idea’

Do we really need all the above in this article? Seems to me it's a rather obvious candidate for splitting. But I'm not proposing it be done tomorrow, you are quite correct to say such an article would need to be carefully planned, we could hardly just shovel the above into a new page and call it an article. Gatoclass 05:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In addition, there's a very serious distortion here - the Peel Commission's suggestion (coming about because Palestinians refused to speak to it) were the only (and immediately overturned) proposal from "the British" that there should be a partition and "Transfer" (c. 225,000 natives vs 1,000? or so immigrants). Including it in the discussion in this fashion turns the article into pro-Israel propaganda. PR^talk 09:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Descriptions of the exodus as an ethnic cleansing

I think it is a "fair" title.
I would remove Flahan from this section. He doesn't precisely talk about 'Ethnic cleansing'. I think this description can be considered as Pappé's analysis.
NB: I wrote in the past that Gelber saw an ethnic cleansing in the events after july 1948 but this is not right. This is what I had deduced after reading him but he never uses the word. Alithien 19:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It might be "fair" but it's also clumsy. Surely we can come up with something more elegant? Might I suggest, simply The "ethnic cleansing" argument. Gatoclass 05:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose "The 'ethnic cleansing' argument" because it sounds to me like the Zionists themselves who were making the "argument" that "ethnic cleansing" was the solution to the population problem of a proposed Jewish state. It twists Pappe's words so that it sounds like the 1948 Zionists are speaking on behalf of Pappe. The title must be clear that it is a handful of modern historians that are making the "argument." That's why "Descriptions of the exodus as an ethnic cleansing campaign" is more accurate and NPOV. NPOV and accuracy in reporting always trump concerns about "clumsiness." --GHcool 07:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The Zionists themselves made the argument that ethnic cleansing was the solution to the otherwise insuperable population problem their new state would have. I can post you clips, or point you to "A Historical Survey of Proposals to Transfer Arabs from Palestine 1895 - 1947 by Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons"[16] PR^talk 18:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This kind of information could potentially be welcomed in the "Descriptions of the exodus as an ethnic cleansing campaign" section assuming a more reliable source can be found than a Geocities website. --GHcool 19:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The literature is stuffed with examples of the Zionists arguing for ethnic cleansing, I cannot understand how you could be so blissfully unaware of that fact. I've only pointed you to a personal web-site to underline the fact that other Zionists don't deny it but boast of it. PR^talk 11:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How many times do we have to go down this alley? This description has nothing to do with the article.

Sorry I haven't been editing much lately. Real life has been very busy. Screen stalker 12:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If we stuck to reporting what the sources actually say (and on this occasion, we can and perhaps should include those expressing hatred) we'd not have one tenth of the problems we seem to have in this article and others.

In the meantime, we know for sure that the Zionists argued for ethnic cleansing. In 1937 David Ben-Gurion was boasting to the Zionist Congress of having carried it out. The geocities site quotes people back to 1895 - and others (Morris has examples) were proposing it at least 13 years earlier again. PR^talk 09:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The text generally

This should be entitled. 'History of pre 1982 theories concerning the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus', since it is basically that, a confused narrative of various theories floated about before the relevant archives began to be opened up. All this old material is interesting historically, but has almost zero value nowadays, particularly in the wake of Morris's work. Nishidani 19:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. While no serious post-1982 historians claim that EoF is the "end of the story," few serious historians would say that EoF was not a part of the story at all. --GHcool 23:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you have a point Nishidami, the debate seems to have moved on well beyond the old theories, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be referenced here.

What I find more concerning is JaapBoBo's proposal for a "role of Arab leaders in the exodus" article. An article with a name like that is screaming "POV fork" to me. Also, having a pair of articles on "role of Arab leaders" and "role of Zionist leaders" suggests some sort of equivalence in credibility, when in fact the former has been either largely discounted or heavily qualified by more recent research. Additionally, an article like that is just begging to have all sorts of discredited nonsense shovelled into it in order to fill it out.

I also find the "role of Zionist leaders" proposal to be vague and unfocussed. Such a topic could easily end up as a rehash of the entire history of Zionism, so neither of these proposals for articles strike me as viable or useful. Gatoclass 05:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

GHcool. No, it is true. Schechtman, to cite but one example, is cited by Benny Morris briefly, twice, in his 600 odd pages, and isn't even in the index. Here he and his book are mentioned or sourced several times. In any historical book or article, the practice is to briefly outline the state-of-the-art scholarship on that problem, and footnote this excursus to much earlier work where those earlier, somewhat dated books, still have relevance. As Gatoclass noted, you have a very serious structural problem here, and proposals are being made to make it even more problematical. Go back, I suggest, to the basic problem, and rethink it.Nishidani 10:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've put that the causes were a source of great controversy for are. Great controversy no longer exists in the academic world, as opposed to the politicized world of public debates, on this issue, but disputes persist concerning specific issues.

'The causes for the exodus were for many decades a matter of great controversy among commentators on the Arab-Israeli conflict and historians.'

Like much of the text this initial sentence is problematical. For it means the commentators were commenting not only on the Arab-Israeli conflict, but on historians. (incidentally privileging commentators over historians, if this is the intention. And in fact, this text does give primacy of place to commentators over historians).Nishidani 19:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Historians comment on other's work and also other's credibility. And commentators (ie these people who are not historians or even not scholars but who comment the matters) also comment both the causes and both the historians credibility.

Given Gelber refuse to be published in a review that will publish Pappe after Tantura case, that Pappe claims Morris is influenced by his racism and that Morris wrote that Shlaim was biaised by his pro-Islamism while Shapira explains the real causes can not be exposed before the "arab israeli" conflict is finished because scholars are influenced by politics and not forgetting Karsh and Finkelstein critics of Morris work and the answer of Morris to Karsh, I doubt very much "were once" is accurate. There is a "great controversy" among historians and among commentators. I replaced by "are". Alithien 08:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

NB: I am quite sure Schetchman is cited in the Birth ... revisited bibliography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alithien (talk • contribs) 08:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Alithien. Academics love gossip and innuendo more than washerwomen, and most conferences consist of chatty trades in underhand rumour, intercalated by serious papers for relief. Wiki's problem here is that it forages in chat and commentary, and shows a remarkably otiose incuriosity towards the substance of scholarly works, for the simple reason that the latter are less accessible online, and take far more time to read and master. So academic backbiting as it filters through the net should be ignored, as a tabloidish distraction full of factoids and biased innuendo. Morris's work buried most of the confusion with a brilliant piece of archival research respected by 'left' and 'right' for its integrity. What critics differ over is simply his general synthetic judgement (and this of course is something that always comes in for criticism, whoever the academic may be), and details. As it stands his work dominates the field, and must be taken as standard. The pro-Arab/pro-Israeli positions were all worked out while archives were under lock and key. It is rather like writing a Qumran article giving huge WP:Undue Weight to Edmund Wilson and others, who wrote decades before the full documentary record was published and translated by Eisenman, Vermes and others, only to touch on the period 1992-2007 en passant, or as a late addendum.

I never said Schechtman wasn't in Morris's bibliography. I said Morris doesn't cite him in the index, and uses that source with great parsimony (i.e.p.61 n.11,p.63 n.37).Nishidani 09:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Do you mean that Morris 's Birth should be the core of this article ?
• What would be due weight of Morris's work on this topic ? This is indeed The Reference.
• Do you mean that we must question on any ahthor that is not in Morris's book index ?
• Do you mean we could measure other historians credibility on the topic in seeing how many times they are quoted by Morris or are in the index of the Birth ?

Alithien 11:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Q.1. Yes

Q.2. That is for all to decide.

Q.3. No.

Q.4. No.Nishidani 11:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That is what I would have answered if I had been asked.

Let's see what other think about this.

Alithien 11:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

ditto. pedro gonnet - talk - 22.10.2007 14:25

I disagree. many sources on this subject. no reason to prefer one on the others. Zeq 14:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine, name the sources that deal with the subject at the same level of archival research as that employed by Morris.Nishidani 14:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not a court of law and you are not interogating me. We will aplly WP:RS not some other criteria that you have just invented. if a relavent source fit the criteria set in WP:RS it can be used. Zeq 14:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani, I wouldn't bother getting too involved in such a discussion with User:Zeq. He has been indefinitely banned from editing the precursor to this article (and hence, I assume, from editing this article) due to repeated disruption and tendentious editing so I don't think any amount of arguments will really faze him... Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 22.10.2007 15:03

I am not banned from this article. Your suggestion, to avoid discussion on talk page - especially since all I wrote was that we should apply Wikipedia policy - seems to violate some basic codes of behaviour. I expect you and others to be polite and follow policy (not invent new ones - just because some has a POV different than yours. Zeq 15:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Unwillingness to engage in dialogue duly noted. It's like someone half way up a new coulisse on the Eiger, unable to crampon up any further, shouting to others who advise a return to base to try a different route, 'No! I've got this far. Somehow things will improve. I'm not coming back'.Nishidani 15:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am more than willing to engage in dialogue. This is the talk page isn't it ? The one sugested to ignore is user:Pedro Gonnet. If you want to ask your question in a way that makes it relevant - I suggest you first explain why you think other sources violate WP:RS and can not be used. We will apply policy - even if you don't think they matter. Zeq 15:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq: "I am not banned from this article.". I guess that's neither up to you, nor me to decide. pedro gonnet - talk - 22.10.2007 15:28

I've just made a few illustrative edits to show how so much of this debate is already present in Erskine Childers (1961), and that this author by author or theme by theme summary is just immensely tiresome repetition or reworking of points made in 1961, and then documented with intense focus by Morris. There seems a general acknowledgement here that something has gone deeply wrong, and before our friend Alithien beats us to it with the detailed Morris-based account he is now promising for the French page of Wikipedia, we should try and at least draw up possible designs for systematizing the disiecta membra of the pages as it stands into a coherent (a) narrative of events (for which Morris is fundamental) and (b) narrative of the history of how those events developed. Aux armes, mes wikiens!Nishidani 19:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I read what you added and I think that you have greatly improved this article and persented issues in a braoder and more NPOV light than it was before. Thank You. Zeq 21:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nishidani on Morris' importance for 'a narrative of events'. We should use Morris' four waves to structure the part of the article describing the events and lots of Morris' descriptions of events. On the other hand Morris conclusions are apologetic with respect to the role of the Zionist's leaders. We need lots of stuff from other sources there. --JaapBoBo 20:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus#Initial positions and criticisms

The text under this heading reads:

“ In the first decades after the exodus two diametrically opposed schools of analysis could be distinguished. In the words of Erskine Childers: ‘Israel claims that the Arabs left because they were ordered to, and deliberately incited into panic, by their own leaders who wanted the field cleared for the 1948 war’, while ‘The Arabs charge that their people were evicted at bayonet-point and by panic deliberately incited by the Zionists.’ ”

Isn't it a bit disingenuous to quote Childers on the "Israeli position" when he in fact demonstrated that it was all hock and bollocks? If nobody objects, I will rephrase the paragraph. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 07.11.2007 09:10

I don't think its disingenuous. Childers accurately summarized the "traditional" Israeli position. If Karsh accurately summaized the "traditional" Arab position, I wouldn't find it disengenuous to quote that either. I don't strongly disapprove rewording the sentence, but I don't see anything wrong with it as it currently stands. --GHcool 22:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree (for the second time today!) with GHcool. --JaapBoBo 23:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

@ Pedro Gonnet, please explain what exactly you find 'disingenuous' about it, and what alternative you propose. Thanks. Paul kuiper NL 23:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

@JaapBoBo, I'll bet we would probably agree on most things. You strike me as someone who is moderate and genuinely trying to make the article better. I'll bet that if I were the prime minister of Israel and you were the president of the PA in 2000-2001, there would already be an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel and the Intifada would have been avoided. --GHcool 01:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean you'd allow the residents of al-Faluja back to their homes? PR^talk 09:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus building: Finkelstein acceptable?

• • • Retrieved from archive, checking for consensus 1st Oct 2007. I have carried over some comments, leaving out none of signifcance that I can tell.
    • Question at 28th Dec - can someone explain why consensus wasn't considered fully reached 3 months ago?

Editor	Yes or No to Finkelstein	Comment
GHcool	No to NF, unless we allow any other author that does not meet the standards of Morris and Karsh to be cited in the article.	"Consider a hypothetical scholar, an assistant professor named Joe Shmoe who teaches political science at a university somewhere in the United States. Shmoe wrote a book with a hundred footnotes but never looked at any primary documents, was fired from several universities, and was recently denied tenure because his scholarship did not meet the standards of the university he worked at. Should Shmoe be included in this article? I suggest that he should not. If Finkelstein is accepted in this article, then so should Joe Shmoe. I just don't want to hear complaints later if Joe Shmoe's research is favorable to the Israeli historiography." 21:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC) I accuse Finkelstein of only one thing: not being as highly reguarded, nor have read the same primary sources in their original languages, as Morris and Karsh. 21:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
JaapBoBo	Yes to NF	"appears that Finkelstein is more reliable than either Schecht or Katz. ... nothing against the content of finkelstein's books!" 20:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Tiamut	Yes to NF	"I'm unfamiliar with the work of Schect and Katz, but Norman Finkelstein is certainly a reputable and well-known scholar with a specialty on Palestine-Israel" 21:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Pedro Gonnet	Yes to NF	Historian Pappé giving "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Confilct a positive review ("This book is a very important contribution to the ongoing debate about the writing of the conflict's history in Palestine and Israel"). 13:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
PR	Yes to NF
Alithien	Yes to NF	Let's not be naieve. We cannot put Finkelstein on the same level as other historians who studied the exodus. It is not a topic he studied deeply. He "only" gave his mind about other works." 14:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Screen stalker	Maybe to NF	Let's be consistent. If we include sources that aren't credible, then let's always include them. If we always exclude them, then let's always exclude them.

Since no attempt has even been made to undermine Finkelstein's scholarship/reliability I propose we act by consensus and use his work in this article as we see fit (but I'm happy to wait 4 days if that preferable). PR^talk 18:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I promised GHCool to wait, so I will do that. But if you can convince him in the mean time: be my guest. I must say your table looks quite convincing! With this table GHCool will have hardly a chance if third parties opinions are asked. --JaapBoBo 18:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I like this chart, but ammended it so that it reflects my and Alithien's true feelings. As you can see, my opinion is not the "either-or" scenerio the chart is set up to reflect. I hope this makes things more clear. Let us give this a rest as was already agreed upon above. Thank you. --GHcool 19:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

NF is a politician but given he is referenced by scholars, he can be used. user:Alithien 19:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC) ............ Hi user:Alithien - no problem with you presenting your own entry entirely as you see fit, but I've modified it to match the format of the other entries - trust that is alright by you. PR^talk 11:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I appologized if I misrepresented Alithien, but judging by his/her statement (quoted in the table), I assumed he/she was against including Finkelstein in this article. --GHcool 21:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

...

Did anybody change his or her opinion, or should third party advice be sought? 129.125.35.249 (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The consultation is effectively complete, we have better than 80% support for inclusion of the (brief, topical and uncontroversial) clip from Finkelstein. It is difficult to understand why it has been kept out for so long. It is also urgent that we get on, and remove some of the very prominent and controversial content coming from known race-haters and falsifiers. PR^talk

I certainly didn't change my mind. --JaapBoBo 17:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel a little sheepish for asking this, but we've been arguing so passionately that I forgot exactly what we were arguing about. Would somebody please write on this talk page in this section exactly what is being requested to be added? I'm not asking for a description of the information, but the exact disputed passage accurate to the letter. Thank you. --GHcool 18:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm cool with including Finklesein. But, like GHcool, I think that we should be consistent. If we include Finklestein, there should be no one questioning the reliability of pro-EoF, anti-transfer or other similar sources. You can't hold both sides of the same long stick: either we include questionable sources or we don't. Take your pick and stick to it. Either way is fine with me. Screen stalker 21:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

We should be consistent and we shouldn't include questionable sources. This means that we should give both sides equal standards. Right now the standards for pro-Israeli pov's seem to be much lower. E.g. Schechtman's book is not reliable and GHCool has no evidence at all that Finkelstein is unreliable. Yet Schechtman is in and Finkelstein is out. --JaapBoBo 22:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the disputed quote, Finkelstein's comments on the transfer principle: Furthermore Finkelstein argues that transferist thinking is close to the core of Zionist thinking. According to Finkelstein Zionism claims for the Jews a prevalent right to Israel, their historical homeland, and accedes the Arabs only rights as incidental residents.. He writes: 'the mainstream Zionist movement never doubted its 'historical right' to impose a Jewish state through the 'Right of Return' on the indigenous Arab population of Palestine.' and 'Zionism's claim to the whole of Palestine ... called into question any Arab presence in Palestine.' --JaapBoBo 22:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Since we all seem to agree to apply wikipedia policy I'd like GHCool's arguments as to why Finkelstein's quote should not be in the article according to this policy. Right now, as PR also asserted, GHCool has not given anywhere-near convincing arguments. --JaapBoBo 22:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Discredited authors/historians/sources

• • • Retrieved from archive, evidence presented 24th Sept 2007. I have carried over some comments, leaving out none of signifcance that I can tell.
    • Question as at 28th Dec - can someone explain why Katz and Schechtman are still in the article, but Finkelstein is not?

Three authors/historians/sources are in the frame to be rejected as "unfit" to be quoted in this article. I've attempted to rate the claims with a "+1", "0" or "-1" in the last column. This is a work in progress, if you have evidence against Finkelstein or in favour of Katz or Schechtman, or feel I've mis-marked some items, then please put it in/correct it.

Author	Accusation made against them	Reporting source(s)	Notes	+ or -
Finkelstein, Norman	Poor work	??	(No information - one sacking due to outside pressure).	0
	Making accusations	??	Alan Dershowitz accused of mis-using citations - Finkelstein must have part of a point since the Dershowitz practise would not meet our Wikipedia citation guideline.	+0.5
	Making accusations	??	Alan Dershowitz accused of plagiarism - withdrawn from print but not retracted (?).	0
	Making accusations	??	Alan Dershowitz accused of using very unreliable sources - Finkelstein likely proven correct.	+1
	Making accusations	??	Joan Peters - multiple flaws, Finkelstein likely proven correct.	+1
Schechtman, Joseph	Falsification		Book 'The Arab Refugee Problem' "Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands."	-1
	Falsification	??	Historians like Khalidi, Gelber and Morris have found that the "Arab evacuation orders" story is false and most probably constructed by Schechtman himself.	-1
	Incitement against ethnicities		Book 'The Arab Refugee Problem' "Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands." and labelling the entire Palestinian people as suffering from "Fear Psychosis" - disease of the mind.	-1
	Conflict of interest	??	Schechtman wrote a report arguing for compulsory transfer of the Arab population (which he doesn't mention in his books).	-1
	Conflict of interest	??	Schechtman is alleged to have invented the EoF with 2 pamphlets written in 1949.	-1
	Non-academic		No dispute	-1
Katz, Shmuel	Non-historical writing.		From 'Battleground' - "The economic interest of the individual Arab in the perpetuation of the refugee problem and of his free keep is backed by the accumulating vested interest of UNRWA itself to keep itself in being and to expand." "	-1
	Other unscholarly behaviour	Propagandist	From the the Shmuel Katz WP article - "he was one of the seven members of the high command of the Irgun, as well as a spokesman of the organization."	-1
	Non-academic		No dispute	-1

I see big differences between these guys as regards their credentials and credibility. Only one of them is an academic, and the "reliability/scholarship" accusations against the others are of significance and credibility. PR^talk) 19:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I refuse to play this game. Reliability cannot be measured and analyzed by statistics in the way that baseball can. PalestineRemembered is being childish. --GHcool 19:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I see multiple reasons for thinking that Schechtman and Katz are dubious historians, with personal records linked to violence (and/or ethnic cleansing), writing in totally non-RS fashion and (in Schechtmans case) guilty of cheating and outright incitement of racist hatred. Neither of them are academics.

Meanwhile, despite determined efforts (even in here) to peronally abuse Finkelstein, I see nothing like that about him, and as best I can tell comes out very well from each of his notable bust-ups. And is clearly "a scholar", as what we should be referencing in articles. Hence, I propose we quote from Finkelstein, but not from Schechtman or Katz. PR^talk 14:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yishuv Aims

Pappé's explanation of Yishuv aims is not neutral (not to mention the fact that he would hardly know what Yishuv aims were, because he was neither a member of the Yishuv nor a mind reader). It's not even presented neutrally:

"The Yishuv did make some kind of deal with king Abdullah of Jordan, the Yishuv acceding the West Bank to Jordan and Jordan promissing not to interfere when the Yishuv grabbed the rest of Palestine. Demographically the Yishuv aimed at a Jewish state with a large Jewish majority, to be achieved by the ethnic cleansing of a large part of the Palestinians from the Yishuv’s territory under the cover of a war."

"Grabbed" is not a neutral word to describe land acquisition. "Ethnic cleansing" is an exceptional claim. This would require exceptional evidence. The wording does not make it clear that this is all alleged by Pappé and not to be taken as fact. Even the deal between Israel and Abdullah is called "some kind of deal," a phrase which is intended to ridicule and minimize it, so as to imply that the Yishuv did not really arrive at an agreement with Abdullah. This whole section is a poster child of propaganda. I'm not even going to bother reading who put it in the article because, honestly, I don't want to know. Hmf...

But my biggest concern is that this is included not because it is constructive to the article, but because people want to bash Israel. Yishuv aims were not causes of the Palestinian exodus. The failure of Arab leadership, economic collapse, tribulations of war, expulsion by Arab leaders, expulsion by Jewish leaders, fear of attack, etc. can all be debated as causes of the exodus. The reasons why the Yishuv allegedly engaged in ethnic cleansing are not causes of the exodus. Screen stalker 19:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. --GHcool 20:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I would explain the problem differently referring to Nashidani here above. The problem of this article is that its core is Pappe's analysis and so the events are described behind his own glasses.

Here some yishuv aims are given (but there were many others) and those given here are certainly not the most relevant.

The great difficulty of the topic of the 1948 exodus is not to describe the facts (there are few controversies around this) but to put them in a -fair and neutral- context. That is a more difficult exercice to give a context that can comply with all scholar analysis without biaising the picture.

Try to convince JaapBoBo. Alithien 07:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with Screen Stalker that Pappe's analysis of aims is not relevant. Pappe says it was ethnic cleansing, so he should explain that, and he does; Yishuv's aims are the motivation for the cleansing. His book 'the ethnic cleansing of Palestine' handles the exodus and gives these arguments. Clearly Pappe finds it relevant.

Morris finds the 'transfer idea' relevant for the exodus. If Screen Stalker is consistent he should find the transfer idea also irrelevant for the article.

--JaapBoBo 20:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that the Transfer Theory and Master Plan theory are not relevant interpretations of what may have caused the Palestinian exodus. They belong in the article, and I would strongly object to their removal.

What I do not think belongs in the article are hypotheses about why transfer or master plan might have taken place. This article is about why Palestinians fled Palestine/Israel circa 1948, not about all of the events that took place in the region in 1948.

To draw an analogy to another situation, the article Causes of the Great Depression says the the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was a cause that contributed to the Great Depression. But the article doesn't say that Hoover's administration pushed for this tariff (nor should it say something to this effect). At most, the article should make a passing reference to this, certainly not devote a whole section to it. We should aspire to do the same, especially considering that this article is already much longer than Causes of the Great Depression. Actually, I think we could learn a lot from the way that that article is organized (although I am not endorsing its content). Screen stalker 20:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was not aimed at causing a depression, or was it? If it was it would certainly be discussed more elaborate. --87.208.1.240 22:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Smooth-Hawley Tariff was one of the foremost causes of the Great Depression. That is why it is in the article about the causes of the Great Depression. But what prompted the US government to pass the tariff is not mentioned in the article, nor should it be mentioned. How is that different from this article? Screen stalker 21:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am going to delete this section once more. If it is added again without significant revision for the better I will add every Yishuv aim relevant to the subject, and I won't want to hear anyone telling me that they are irrelevant unless they agree to remove this section altogether. Screen stalker 21:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

please tell what you find ' significant revision for the better'

As was commented earlier on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, it was not aimed at causing a depression, while the Yishuv did aim at expulsion (according to this pov), so the Yishuv's motives should certainly be discussed. --JaapBoBo 21:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was intended to economically isolate the US, and it succeeded in that regard. Even that notwithstanding, the aims of both the tariff and any questionable Yishuv actions are irrelevant because in both cases they are indirect causes. Screen stalker 14:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In this article, in some pov's they are not indirect. --JaapBoBo 23:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I don't understand what you mean. Could you rephrase? Screen stalker 13:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)