Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2015

Later, a series of land ownership, land settlement, and immigration laws passed by the first Israeli government prevented them from returning to their homes, or claiming their property. These laws indirectly targeted the Palestinian population by exclusively protecting Jewish rights to the land and placing most of Israel's land under ownership of the State. The Palestinians who fled and many of their descendants remain refugees.[10][11]

Christinaspringer (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Christina, do you have the source [10] and have you verified the change you're proposing is based on the source? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I donj't have, and have not read, the source included in footnote 10. But this information can be confirmed, and is extensively documented, in Sabri Jiryis's book The Arabs in Israel, which to my surprise is not cited in this article. RolandR (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree the proposed text is in-line with sources as I recall reading sources to that effect, although I can't off the cuff cite a specific one. If you have the Jiryis book at hand and it supports the content, I encourage you to make the edit and cite that book. --Dailycare (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Not done for now: Apparently there is no consensus to make the change as it stands or the request wasn't clear enough either in what needed to be replaced, what the replacement text should be, or why it is beneficial to the encyclopedia to make the change as requested. Feel free to reopen this request when all of the criteria have been met. Thank you, — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Exceptionalism

Why must these articles always be exceptions? I don't think controversy is enough of a reason to just stop aiming for neutrality. The question isn't whether or not the flight was a "nakba" or "catastrophe", it's what the flight was and is known as. Titles need to be precise and concise, as well as recognizable. Fact is that few of our Western sources even mention this flight (from our point of view), which is why I doubt the "exodus" title dominates. As an exodus is not necessarily a bad thing (see The Exodus), the title is POV as well as inaccurate up. I really wish POV pushers from either side would stick to following the rules. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Destination?

I see no mention of where there Palestinians went -- I was curious how many were displaced internally versus going to neighboring (or non-neighboring) countries. Kevink707 (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, around 50 % resettled in the territory of former Mandatory Palestine and around 50 % outside (Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Jordan). Pluto2012 (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Compensation

Resolution 181, available on the UN website http://research.un.org/en/docs/ga/quick/regular/2 http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/2/ares2.htm , says in Chapter 2 paragraph 8, that, "No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be paid previous to dispossession." Is there any evidence that there were plans to compensate those who were displaced? (*Also started a discussion at Talk:United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#Compensation as that article also doesn't mention this.) 2601:600:8500:B2D9:8D9F:2DE3:8AB4:356C (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not really aware of this specific topic, but they are talking about compensating those whose lands were expropriated in the case of implementation of resolution 181, which of course did not happen.--Makeandtoss (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
It seems like it should be mentioned, and it's interesting that it isn't. Resolution 194 did say that compensation should be paid, but it took place after the fighting, and could maybe be seen as less valid—perhaps that it was too late to determine who had lost their property as they were no longer around. I did not edit it into the article because I don't feel like checking to see whether someone reverted the change, but reverting is less likely if someone can point to a discussion taking place beforehand. 50.135.249.113 (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't have an official source, but it has always been my understanding that Israel's argument was that Jews were forced to leave real estate in Arab countries and that it was in essence a trade. For example, Jews leaving Iraq were forced to abandon their homes. - GalatzTalk 19:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I doubt Israel admits to violating the UN resolution, just ignores it, but it's a poor argument. From History_of_the_Jews_in_Iraq#The_great_emigration_to_Israel, "Additionally, like most Arab League states, Iraq forbade any legal emigration of its Jews on the grounds that they might go to Israel and could strengthen that state". There is a quote from someone who said that "almost all the property of departing Jews reverted to the state treasury", but it's clear that Jewish people who left Iraq were doing so by choice; they were not forced to leave. If they felt that leaving was worth abandoning their property, it showed they didn't value their property as the fact that it would probably be lost was known beforehand. They weren't being killed if they didn't leave like Palestinians were. (In a similar situation, Christians who left Mosul last year were forced to give up jewelry as they were passing through checkpoints.) 2601:600:8500:B2D9:8D9F:2DE3:8AB4:356C (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
"At first, the Iraqi emigration law allowed the Jews to sell their property and liquidate their businesses. However, later on the government would confiscate the property of Jews relinquishing their citizenship, including those who had already left. Departing Jews were permitted to take no more than $140 and 66 pounds of luggage out of the country, and were also prohibited from taking jewelry with them." Operation_Ezra_and_Nehemiah#Reversal:_permitting_Jewish_emigration. A much better deal than the Palestinians who were forced out of their homes, or the Present absentees. 2601:600:8500:B2D9:8D9F:2DE3:8AB4:356C (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention that encouraging the Iraqi exodus was Israeli government policy, albeit a poorly executed one: Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries#A_reversal:_Allowing_a_Jewish_immigration_to_Israel. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Cite errors

I removed the reference to http://www.unrwa.org/etemplate.php?id=87 as the webpage it points to is the same as http://www.unrwa.org/etemplate.php?id=85. This fixed one of the duplicate cite errors (ref name=UNRWA) on this page. Someone may wish to check whether the unrwa.org references are still valid as references or if archive versions are required. Poltair (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 1948 Palestinian exodus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 1948 Palestinian exodus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

This is incredibly biased, even for wikipedia, with its legions of hasbara/anti-Arab editors

Evidence regarding deliberate Zionist expulsion and ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population is enormous. Even many Israeli writers have commented on it - numerous early Zionists wrote of the need for ethnic cleansing to create a new ethnic state.

Yet wikipedia presents this absurd, watered down, sanitized, pro-Zionist slant to make it seem as if the Jews who wanted to create an ethno-state always "defended" themselves while Arab hordes attacked... the entire thing proceeds not objectively, butby ACTIVE DENIAL OF CLEAR AND OBVIOUS ETHNIC CLEANSING BY JEWS OF ARABS as part of Zionism itself.

I'm not advocating simply taking the Palestinian narrative as gospel either, but the effort here to whitewash Jewish terrorism, and deliberate expulsion, is nauseatingly obvious.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/06/17/top-ten-myths-about-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/view-all/

How is Wikipedia Pro-Zionist? It's clearly very anti-Zionist as this article attests. Does it mention the massacres by Arabs that started the friction? The fact that Israel asked the Arab citizens to stay? The fact that 5 Arab states attacked Israel to start all of this aggression? The fact that the Arab league warned the Arabs of Palestine to get out while they removed the jewish problem? the fact that Haj Amin Al-Hussaini (the Mufti) was complicit in Arab aggression towards Jews? No on all counts! It also accuses the Jews of retaliating much more aggressively that the initial Arab attacks. It's very one sided and it's on the side of the Arabs. It is clear that this article is anti Zionist. A person would have to be vary anti-Israel to come to the conclusion that this article is pro-Israel. Please re-read it with an un-biased state of mind. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a Palestinian propaganda piece and should remain so or else it's tainted. Oh and please sign your edits. Thank you. Free Englishman (talk) 08:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Reading sources from varying viewpoints can do wonders to broaden one's horizons. For example, not everyone agrees that "Arab massacres" started the "friction". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Correct. @Free Englishman: I suggest you read the 1920 Palin Commission report if you want to understand how things started.
Also, care is suggested re the other statements:
  • "The fact that Israel asked the Arab citizens to stay?" => This is a view held by a fringe of scholars, of which Efraim Karsh is the poster child. This is not mainstream opinion.
  • "The fact that 5 Arab states attacked Israel to start all of this aggression?" => You appear to have forgotten the first part of the war. When Israel declared independence, their soliders were already deep into Arab territory per the UN partition plan. And Israel had pre-agreed settlements with at least of the invading countries.
  • "The fact that the Arab league warned the Arabs of Palestine to get out while they removed the jewish problem?" => This is not true.

Which part of my comment are you claiming is not true? They Arabs were told by Arab leaders to leave. Ref: [1] (Referencing a Time magazine article from May 3rd 1948) Free Englishman (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.israellycool.com/2016/05/26/know-your-history-the-fleeing-arabs-may-1948/

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2017

Oncenawhile made an (unsourced) edit in lead about "250,000-300,000 displaced Palestinians" which contradicts the article's body where it says nearly 175,000 Palestinians fled before Israel was proclaimed (meaning during the 1947-48 civil war). Maybe it should be reverted or replaced by an accurate statistic.--190.138.72.223 (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The 175,000 is as at 1 May 1948. Independence was two weeks later. The article says: "According to Morris's estimates, 250,000 to 300,000 Palestinians left Israel during this stage.[7]:262 "Keesing's Contemporary Archives" in London place the total number of refugees before Israel's independence at 300,000.[53]". Oncenawhile (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Procedural close, as there's not really a request to action right now. 190.138.72.223, you are welcome to continue the conversation or reactivate the request as needed. Murph9000 (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 1948 Palestinian exodus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"Unwillingness to live under Jewish control"

Having consulted the cited reference, it appears to be an opinion by an Egyptian Foreign Minister on the question of refugee return. I don't see that as a cause. Besides, it does not appear to be cited in mainstream sources discussing the exodus. Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I added another source. I hope this solves the problem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

If what is written on the Battle of Haifa (1948) Wikipedia page is correct, then the primary cause of the evacuation of Haifa was a clever use of counter-propaganda by the Haganah.

Throughout the Haganah made effective use of Arabic language broadcasts and loudspeaker vans. Haganah Radio announced that 'the day of judgement had arrived' and called on inhabitants to 'kick out the foreign criminals' and to 'move away from every house and street, from every neighbourhood occupied by foreign criminals'. The Haganah broadcasts called on the populace to 'evacuate the women, the children and the old immediately, and send them to a safe haven'

So I think a better source is still warranted here. ImTheIP (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1948 Palestinian exodus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Casus Belli

not causus belli. You even confused elke weiss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.178.208.40 (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the misspelling. I've corrected it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2018

Request to add the painting "Fleeing from the massacre" which depicts the 1948 Palestinian exodos, by artist Abed Abdi, who has witnessed the exodus when he fled with his family at the age of six, and painted this painting later on in 1967.

The 1948 Palestinian exodus by Abed Abdi, 1967, Fleeing from the massacre, charcoal on paper, 49 X 62 cm

Czarek (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Per the Image use policy: The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people... described in the article. This is not a painting or a photograph but a charcoal sketch, and a rather abstract one at that, which does not directly depict the event or people. It's the artist's impressionistic recollection. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 6 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 17:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

1948 Palestinian exodus → Nakba – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. Archive discussions suggest consensus has existed for such a move, but it hasn’t been properly discussed in many years. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose According to the well-referenced first sentence and the last sentence of the introduction of the 1948 Palestine war article, that event (the war) is also known as the Nakba, so it would appear that the proposed rename is not WP:CONCISE, unlike the current name of the article. Number 57 11:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 14 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

1948 Palestinian exodus → The Palestinian Nakba – The last move discussion proposed Nakba which had one objection based on an ambiguity. This can be resolved by Palestinian Nakba. This is the most recognizable name used by the most prominent scholars like Yair Auron and Nur Masalha. Seraphim System (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment I am tentatively opposed to the proposed move. As a non-Palestinian and a non-Arabic speaker, it has never been clear to me whether the word nakba (catastrophe) refers to the establishment of the State of Israel or the related expulsion/"exodus" of the Palestinians from Israeli territory. It's a subtle distinction that makes a huge difference, and I don't believe it's appropriate to redirect The Palestinian Nakba (or any similar title) to the "exodus"-related article if that's not the catastrophe the word nakba refers to. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I think that what you are personally comfortable with or consider appropriate is not as important then recognizing the validity of the experience of an entire people. No offense. It's also more recognizable in terms of prominence in WP:RS - not really amused by the Orwellian runaround tracking this article down (There isn't even a redirect? I ended up at the wrong article entirely...)Seraphim System (talk) 05:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Nakba redirects here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Reviewing this I think you are right, there is a separate notable article here, it does not fit neatly into either one of these articles. There is too much extensive and voluminous sourcing - it would be like trying to make the Holocaust and World War II one article which wouldn't make sense...if you think about it...Seraphim System (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's a good analogy. Some people use "Holocaust" and "WWII" interchangeably, but they aren't really. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Most people outside the Muslim or Arabic-speaking world do not know the word "nabka". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The 800-pound gorilla in the room got ignored

No mentions in this article of the 800-pound gorilla, eh? Nothing about Nazis overrunning Europe and the resulting genocide and consequent stampede of the survivors to Levantine shores? All of those factors also influenced the Nakba, yet you treat the Nakba in isolation, as if it sprang out of thin air. The gorilla had been dead scarcely three years, and its cadaver's stink wafted all over everything, as a great many settlers were World War II veterans and Holocaust survivors. — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 01:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I recently wrote the Harrison Report article which begins to build the connection between the Holocaust and Palestine. The British couldn’t understand why Truman refused to let the DPs into the United States, and didn’t want to make a difficult situation worse by drawing a connection between the Holocaust and Palestine.
At least two things are wrong in your post above, one is the word “stampede” and the other is the suggestion that a “great many” of the Jews in Palestine were Holocaust survivors. The White Paper of 1939 policy meant there was comparatively little immigration from Europe between 1939 and the 1948 war (see Aliyah Bet)
I suspect the main connection to the Nakba is that emotions were still running high. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2019

This entire article is propaganda; lies masquerading as truth. There is no context of reality that stands the test of history; except revisionist history. There a few truths hidden among too many falsehoods. This exposes the weakness of Wikipedia to research its own articles; a fact that is the result of limited funding (I wonder why I donate anything at all?). Bill Josephs (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Roadguy2 (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: if you disagree with the contents of this article, please suggest changes rather than attack the content. Wikipedia intentionally does not conduct its own research per policy. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Replace broken link

Hello can someone with enough privilege replace the broken link to "Ruling Palestine, A History of the Legally Sanctioned Jewish-Israeli Seizure of Land and Housing in Palestine." Publishers: COHRE & BADIL, May 2005 from the cohre.org website to this one: http://www.badil.org/phocadownloadpap/Badil_docs/publications/Ruling%20Palestine.pdf

Thanks. It could also be nice to gather the different page citations to this only PDF. Faidherbard (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

"Economic damage": Ben-Gurion's attitude to looting.

I think that Ben-Gurion's position on the looting done by Israeli soldiers and citizens deserves examination.

Material in the "Economic damage" section cites the following article, which comments on a recent study completed by Adam Raz:

Haaretz - Ofer Aderet - Jewish soldiers and civilians looted Arab neighbors' property en masse in '48. The authorities turned a blind eye, 02 October 2020.

Adam Raz comments on Ben-Gurion's attitude: "The pillaging, he maintains, “was tolerated” by leaders in the political and the military arenas, and first and foremost by Ben-Gurion – despite his condemnations in official forums. ... The book shows that there were decision makers who were critical of what was happening in real time, both at the level of the events on the ground and at the political level. They thought that the fact that Ben-Gurion had permitted the looting was intended to create a particular political and social reality, and was a tool in Ben-Gurion’s hands to achieve his purposes. ... Ministers and decision makers, such as the minister of minority affairs, Bechor Shalom-Sheetrit, and Zisling and Kaplan, were critical of the plundering by individuals. In their view, one authority, effective and with concrete power, should have been created to aggregate all the property and see to its distribution and handling. Ben-Gurion objected to this idea and torpedoed it."

From previous reading (probably in books by Tom Segev or Benny Morris), I'd gained the impression that Ben-Gurion was genuinely critical of the looting, largely on the grounds that goods which would have otherwise been taken by the Israeli government (probably through the Custodian of Absentees’ Property) were being stolen. Therefore, it's curious to read a contrary verdict.

    ←   ZScarpia   12:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

That was standard behavior for Ben-Gurion. Call a spade a spade in private talk, and obstruct efforts to implement a remedy for what was privately deplored or branded as 'poor form'. It's the 'you can't make an omelette without breaking (Palestinian) eggs' approach to making big history. It's quite normal for politicians with a deep sense of history, skewed to their own prejudices, to exhibit such traits. In any case, I think every editor will have read of hundreds of passing mentions of the vast damage in property loss - it continu8es to this day in night raids, and land expropriations, and it is about time to try and write an article that puts the disiecta membra of such dispersed data in sources into one focused article. I'd be happy to do it, if I knew where to begin, but on this particular issue I've never stockpiled a consistent set of notes.Nishidani (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Old article: Looting, Looting, and More Looting ImTheIP (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I have Segev's book so I could cite it directly. Zerotalk 03:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 25 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The majority of editors who have weighed in do not support the move as the word "Nakba" often refers to the entire war, which is more broad than this article's scope. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


1948 Palestinian exodus → Nakba – 'Nakba' is more common and simpler than '1948 Palestinian exodus'

Maudslay II (talk) 10:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Unsure. I feel like this would create confusion between the war and the displacement of Palestinians, as both events seem to be referred to as the 'Nakba'. These events are quite obviously related, but still different in that you can be refering to the exodus without refering to the war, and you can refer to the war without specifically talking about the exodus. I'm also not sure about the connotations that might come with renaming the article. Is this term more used, or is it a term specifically used by a certain group as opposed to the majority? I feel like some people might look at it and think that the article will take a certain side because of the term that it uses. -Biglittlehugesmall65 (Look at me or Talk to me) 20:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Nakba is usually used to describe the exodus. It's way more common, and also used in scientific studies. The term 'exodus', if someone used it, comes secondary after 'Nakba'. I would compare it to saying 'Holocaust' and not '1941–1945 Nazi genocide of jews'. -- Maudslay II (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
But aside from a few other "sources", the overwhelming consensus is the term 'Holocaust'. Is 'Nakba' really on that same level in terms of consensus? -Biglittlehugesmall65 (Look at me or Talk to me) 14:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@Biglittlehugesmall65: Just compare these results:


@Maudslay II: I'm still not entirely convinced because other websites show different proportions that don't point to the overall dominance of the term 'Nakba' when refering to this event.
@Biglittlehugesmall65: No mate, when you are looking for this kind of results you put the word in quotation marks. When you don't, it gives wide results, not the ones you are looking for. We also add -wikipedia to exclude Wikipedia results. So for example, in scholar, if you put "1948 palestinian exodus" without quotation marks it will give you results of articles that two are three of the words are mentioned in the article, and not successively. When you add the quotation marks, the results drop to 300 only. The rest is shown in my previous comment, where I looked up 'Palestinian exodus' with 1948 to give more results, but still the term Nakba is miles ahead. -- Maudslay II (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I added above the 'find sources' templates which help in finding those results. -- Maudslay II (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@Biglittlehugesmall65: Another thing: In the titles of citations, 'exodus' is mentioned 5 times while 'Nakba' 12 times. -- Maudslay II (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@Maudslay II: I went back you were right that the numbers are smaller, but I feel like they would always be smaller with a phrase like '1948 Palestinian exodus' as opposed to just one word, 'Nakba'. Also, a 12 to 5 margin does not make it seem like the term 'Nakba' is as accepted in the same way that 'Holocaust' is. -Biglittlehugesmall65 (Look at me or Talk to me) 21:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@Biglittlehugesmall65: You can be sure that every article/book about this subjet would clearly mention the word 'Nakba'. 12 to 5 margin is more than double. I shortened '1948 Palestinian exodus' to 'Palestinian exodus' to reach the maximum results and look at this ratios; 33:1 in google serach, 8:1 in scholar and 91:1 in news. With this huge majority, why wouldn't use the common term used by everyone? -- Maudslay II (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@Biglittlehugesmall65: Also, it dosen't have to be 'as accepted' as the Holocaust. Based on what are we going to decide that? Regardless, I just gave it as an example. And please strikethrough the search results you posted above, so the reader don't get confused with the correct ones. -- Maudslay II (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@Maudslay II: I feel like it should be close to as accepted as the Holocaust is because this is a touchy issue for a lot of people. Something like an 8:1 ratio still shows that there might not always be consensus. In all honesty, I think it would be better if someone else were to get involved and give their two cents on this. I don't know if the name of an article can entirely be determined by search result statistsics. -Biglittlehugesmall65 (Look at me or Talk to me) 21:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose The term "Nakba" is often used to refer to the entire events of 1948, whereas this article is more narrow. But more to the point, I am not convinced the term is sufficiently recognizable. Keep in mind the Wikipedia audience are general readers, not specialists. So usage in works of general reference, rather than articles and books specialized on the topic, should be the main guides. Even just looking at many references which use it, it is still treated as a foreign word, usually italicized (nakba) and accompanied by clarification (e.g. "meaning 'Catastrophe'", "or 'Nakba' in Arabic", "called 'Nakba' by Palestinians", etc.). The equivalent comparison would be to using "Shoah", rather than Holocaust. This does not seem to be the WP:COMMONNAME in English to refer to the event. It might become so, but I don't think it as present. Walrasiad (talk) 08:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@Walrasiad: 'Nakba' is used in the common tone, not only by specialists. But based on the results above, 'Nakba' is way more recognizable than 'exodus'. Also, 'exodus' is confusing because it does not guarantee results about this subject, since it can mean a number of other things, see exodus. All of this exclude the arabic results, which use only 'Nakba' as well. In normal cases, if there was different results, we use the more common one, but here the ratios are 91:1 for 'Nakba'. -- Maudslay II (talk) 09:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Another example: it's like saying '1948 Palestinian exodus day' instead of 'Nakba day'. -- Maudslay II (talk) 09:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
It is a highly recognizable and widely used term, in English. There should be an article entitled Nakba. The only question is whether this is the best scope for it. I am going to do some reading to try to understand how the scope of Nakba is usually defined. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Not sure that I understand some of the arguments above, if WP can have a Nakba day then it can have a Nakba as well assuming that it is the common name, it's certainly more common than the descriptive title we have now (assume there is a discussion somewhere how that was arrived at).Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Not sure why. One is a festival unknown outside the Palestinian community. That doesn't implicate the title of the main topic. I'd like to urge once again that editors keep in mind that the Wikipedia readers are a general English-speaking audience, most are unfamiliar with Arabic, and most of them do not follow this topic with the same interest you might. So please try to put yourself in their position. The purpose of the article titles is to make it easier for the general public to recognize and access information. Replacing a clear and understandable title with an obscure foreign language term most people are not familiar with and would not recognize does not help access to the article. Walrasiad (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I was just pointing out that argument evidently did not wash when Nakba day was created and I am certain it won't wash now if indeed Nakba is the common name, search BBC + Nakba, they use it in their titles. I don't see the present title as clear and understandable to the average Joe at all and it is even misleading since it started in 1947 not 1948 (while some would posit that it continues to the present day).Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per our policies WP:POVTITLE we should use non neutral name if its far more prevalent then the neutral name but its not the case as it wrong to search descriptive name in quotation mark as any source that contain words 1948 palestinian exodus clearly talking about the event for example this source [1] calls it "1948 exodus" there are other variations.Google scholar[2] contains about 28k results --Shrike (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
You did not put it in quotations marks. I added the correct and direct links above, use them and see the results. -- Maudslay II (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Maudslay II, Did you read what I wrote? I explained why we shouldn't use quotation marks Shrike (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Shrike, I have just been through the scholar hits in your link without quotation marks. It includes thousands of unrelated content, where the three words are used separately in far flung parts of the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Onceinawhile, Could you please give a few examples Shrike (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I suggest you do your own reading as well. Otherwise this discussion will not be efficient. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Shrike, I have just been through the scholar hits in your link without quotation marks. It includes thousands of unrelated articles, where the three words are used separately in far flung parts of the articles and have no relation to the topic of this wikipedia page. Quotation marks are necessary to ensure meaningful results; you can add up a few related terms if you like, such as “1948 Palestinian exodus” and “1948 exodus in Palestine”. You will find even with all those added up, Nakba is still far more prevalent. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME.--Carwil (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • On the fence currently, my understanding is that Nakba refers to the entirety of the events of the 1948 Palestine war, not simply the mass expulsion/exodus that was one of its results. Zero0000, you have any sources that lay this out neatly? nableezy - 21:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nableezy: I didn't yet find a neat discussion of the range of meanings. However, I did find a range of meanings used, from the narrow (the expulsion/exodus of 1948 with its collapse of Palestinian society) to the broad (all events of the 1948 war) to the very broad (the Palestinian experience from 1948 to the present). The narrow meaning is the most common in my very unscientific survey but like you I'm unsure that "Nakba" is a drop-in replacement for the current title. Zerotalk 00:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
We also have 1949–56 Palestinian exodus and 1967 Palestinian exodus (Naksa) to consider.Selfstudier (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Some refs:-
The Evolution of a Founding Myth: The Nakba and Its Fluctuating Meaning
A recent dictionary definition
Aljazeera feature Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
al-naksa is the war there too, afaik, not the resulting displacement. nableezy - 20:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
What does everything think about a new article entitled Nakba, covering the range of meanings? Onceinawhile (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Also a good idea. Or maybe we move this to Nakba and expand it? There has to be an article about 'Nakba'. -- Maudslay II (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm not very good at trawling the history, it seems there was a Nakba article and it was merged and redirected in 2005. It was a stub claiming to be about the term and "not about the Nakba itself".Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Forgot 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and RamleSelfstudier (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Sigh -> Sigh some moreSelfstudier (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I guess the is the best solution. We create a new article 'Nakba' and we cover everything about it. -- Maudslay II (talk) 07:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Meaning the new article links out to other articles as discrete components of the Nakba while the new article is holistic (exodus(es) + war + other elements)? A repetition of 2005 with insufficient material for the new article wouldn't be good. We ought to be as clear as possible on the intent before proceeding.Selfstudier (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, are we agreeing that this RM is not going to proceed? ie Nakba ≠ 48 exodus.Selfstudier (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Maudslay II, Biglittlehugesmall65, Selfstudier, Nableezy, Zero0000, Carwil, and Walrasiad: please see new article Nakba. The more I have read the more clear it is that the term Nakba is used not just for the exodus or the war, but for the disappearance of "Palestine" and the destruction of Palestinian society. There are a huge number of good sources exploring the concept of the Nakba; I have only scratched the surface so far. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Article: Haaretz, Hagar Shezaf, "Burying the Nakba", 05 July 2019.

Haaretz - Hagar Shezaf - Burying the Nakba, How Israel systematically hides evidence of 1948 expulsion of Arabs, 05 July 2019.

The article links to a translation of a Shai (Shin Bet precursor), Arab Section report dated 30 June 1948: Migration of Eretz Yisrael Arabs between December 1, 1947 and June 1, 1948.

    ←   ZScarpia   15:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hagar Shezaf's Haaretz article has just been cited in this edit.     ←   ZScarpia   00:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@ZScarpia: In conjunction with the report in Haaretz, the report by Akevot is also citable. Actually we should have an article on Akevot and it should enjoy RS status, with or without attribution depending on the nature of the material. Zerotalk 08:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Excellent! I'm just wondering how the material should be used.     ←   ZScarpia   09:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there some way to access the entire Haaretz article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Does this work: [3]? Zerotalk 10:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


Apologies for below. I posted without reading the section above. I'll leave it in any case.

(a) Yehiel Horev launched a project named Malmab which scours archives to secure sensitive documents covering reports of massacres and expulsions of the Palestinian population in 1948. The purpose was,’to undermine the credibility of studies about the history of the refugee problem. In Horev’s view, an allegation made by a researcher that's backed up by an original document is not the same as an allegation that cannot be proved or refuted.’

(b) A contemporary Shai or Israeli intelligence report The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine, written at the time of the events, in June 1948, one since classified as secret, set forth an analysis of the basic reasons for the exodus of Palestinians, in descending order of importance.

The first reason: “Direct Jewish acts of hostility against Arab places of settlement.” The second reason was the impact of those actions on neighboring villages. Third in importance came “operations by the breakaways,” namely the Irgun and Lehi undergrounds. The fourth reason for the Arab exodus was orders issued by Arab institutions and “gangs” (as the document refers to all Arab fighting groups); fifth was “Jewish 'whispering operations' to induce the Arab inhabitants to flee”; and the sixth factor was “evacuation ultimatums.” cited Hagar Shezaf  'Burying the Nakba: How Israel Systematically Hides Evidence of 1948 Expulsion of Arabs,' Haaretz 5 July, 2019

- Nishidani (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Evidently, the whole article requires a rewrite, since we have strong evidence that it is an active policy to classify as secret much of the factual record in archives that might prove deleterious to Zionistr mythology, in order to invalidate any historical research that once had access to such key documentation about expulsion policy, massacres etc.

- Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

There's a nice Yehiel Horev quote at the top of the Akevot report linked to by Zero: "Even if somebody writes the horse is black, if the horse is not outside the stable, it cannot be proven it is actually black."     ←   ZScarpia   14:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

For fans of Mondoweiss, one article by Yossi Gurvitz and another by Jonathan Ofir which contain, I think, some additional details: [4][5].     ←   ZScarpia   12:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

And an editorial from Haaretz: [6].     ←   ZScarpia   12:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


Details about previous attempts to obscure the Israeli role in creating the exodus:

"The International Diplomacy of Israel's Founders, Deception at the United Nations in the Quest for Palestine" (2016) - John Quigley:

p222:

"In 1961, US President John Kennedy ramped up pressure on Israel to repatriate the displaced Palestine Arabs. Ben Gurion decided to shore up Israel’s story about the exodus in order to blunt this effort at forcing Israel to repatriate. Ben Gurion called a meeting of top officials in his Tel Aviv office.The result of the meeting was the organization of a coterie of researchers at an Israeli think tank to undertake what Ben Gurion called “a serious operation, both in written form and in oral hasbara,” to show that the Arabs were not forced out. One product of that effort was the publication in 1969 of a pamphlet, issued by the Foreign Ministry, then headed by Abba Eban as Foreign Minister. The pamphlet addressed the Deir Yassin incident. The pamphlet sought to justify the Irgun and LEHI."

p222-223:

"In 1979, the Government of Israel took another action to cover up its role in the 1948 Arab exodus. Second only to the Deir Yassin killings,the incident that gained the most notoriety from the 1948 events was the expulsion of theArab populations of Lydda and Ramleh.By 1979,Yitzhak Rabin had served a term as prime minister of Israel and was writing a memoir.In the memoir,Rabin described his activity during 1948,including what he did as a commander at Lydda and Ramleh in July 1948. In that description, Rabin explained how he had implemented Ben Gurion’s order to expel the Lydda and Ramleh Arabs. A Government censorship board vetted Rabin’s draft and made him delete his account of expelling the Lydda and Ramleh Arabs. The deleted sections were obtained by the media. The New York Times published a summary of them. ... The deleted sections gave, in sum, an accurate account of the expulsions from the two Arab towns. These sections did not appear in Rabin’s memoir as published."

p232:

"The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on its website in recent years, has repeated what Shertok and Eban told the United Nations in 1948. The website, as of 2015, stated with regard to the exodus of Palestine Arabs in 1948,'Many Palestinian Arabs who lived in areas where the fighting took place abandoned their homes, either at the request, of Arab leaders, or due to fear of the fighting and the uncertainty of living under Jewish rule.' 'Israel does not bear any culpability for the creation or the perpetuation of the Palestinian refugee problem,' the Foreign Ministry website stated."

    ←   ZScarpia   09:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Benny Morris has weighed in, citing documents on Deir Yassin as examples of things that were once accessible to him but later closed. Zerotalk 07:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

    • I wonder if we should have an article about this report? Its modern "rediscovery" was, as we know, published as an article by Morris in 1986, repackaged in the 1994 book: 1948 and After.
    • Then we have the modern Malmab involvement, trying to make it off-limits. Then the Haaretz June−19 article.
    • The appendix in the original June 30, 1948 report has lots of interesting nuggets: I would like to add them to the −48 villages which are mentioned. Huldra (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Time has passed, keep it here, I guess Anziska, S; (2019) The Erasure of the Nakba in Israel's Archives. Journal of Palestine Studies , 49 (1) pp. 64-76. 10.1525/jps.2019.49.1.64 https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10085594/9/Anziska_64.full.pdf Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2021

Grammar:

This sentence (paragraph 3 of intro) is incorrect:

The causes are also a subject of fundamental disagreement between historians.

("Between" implies "two." I'm sure there are more than two points of view here.)

It should read:

"The causes are also a subject of fundamental disagreement among historians." Laurence R. Hunt, Kenora, Canada 01:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Run n Fly (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect map

There are many inaccuracy in the map presented.I will just name few of dozens.

  1. ) Nazareth Ilit is presented as predominately Arab town with Jewish minority. Nof Hagalil has almost 80% non Arab population.
  2. Half of Ramle is coloured as being predominately Arab, only less than 10% of city territory and (23% of population) has Arab majority.
  3. Ajami is not fully Arab neighborhood as it was presented. The population is mixed.
  4. Eilat never had a depopulated Arab village in its territory. Umm Al-Rashrash was a police station, not a village
  5. Many Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem are left out, some Arab are duplicated like Beit Safafa.
  6. Many Jewish settlement's in Samaria are left out from map.
  7. Dozens of Jewish villages in Sharon are left out from map.
  8. Haifa map also does not reflect actual demographic situation.
  9. At least 30 Jewish towns and villages in Gaza envelope are left out.
  10. Beer Sheva has no Arab majority neighborhood, not even one with significant Arab population as presented. The extended Jewish population of old city is above 95%. The Arab population of the city is 2.6% and is not concentrated in particular area.
  11. Regba is colored as an Arab village. Al Shajk Danun lies to the east, not south of Nahariya and it is not connected to city.
  12. There is no Jewish settlement within the city of Nablus, as presented
  13. The city of Jenin has also no Jewish settlements within.
  14. There is no Bahai settlement or town in Israel. Bahai shrine in Akko is not a populated area.

Tritomex (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Map of the location of the depopulated locations, overlaid on today's demographic and political map

This map is uploaded by @BasilLeaf: based on the original work of @Bolter21: so I would like to have their input here before we remove this map. I find it odd that you would first tag it (fine) and then remove it (not so fine).Selfstudier (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

When inaccuracies are fixed, sourcing for the maps given and if there is consensus for its inclusion, I will myself if needed reinstall that.Tritomex (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I will wait for those other editors to respond to your unsourced assertions.Selfstudier (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The map itself should be sourced. A demographic map of Israel and Palestine is something that is needed long time for multiple purposes but until now I didnt find any with reliable sourcing Tritomex (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I am the creator of that map. Thank you for your comments, giving me a chance to discuss the process of creation of this map. Actually that map is part of a series. There's a version that's solely modern demographics, and another that's solely depopulated Palestinian localities.

  1. Nazareth Ilit is presented as predominately Arab town with Jewish minority. Nof Hagalil has almost 80% non Arab population.
    • Shaded green/blue indicates mixed, not "predominantly Arab".
    • My general rule of thumb was that any percentage between 25% and 75% warrants colouring a locality as mixed.
    • My source was Israel 2019 Census, Link Here for excel file of Town breakdown. According to this, Nof HaGalil's population is 29% Arab. So ... I coloured it as mixed.
  2. Half of Ramle is coloured as being predominately Arab, only less than 10% of city territory and (23% of population) has Arab majority.
  3. Ajami is not fully Arab neighborhood as it was presented. The population is mixed.
    • same source as above.
    • I applied the same general rule of thumb (Between 25% and 75% being "mixed") here as well.
  4. Eilat never had a depopulated Arab village in its territory. Umm Al-Rashrash was a police station, not a village
    • Fair, umm Rashrash, and most of Negeb places were dificult to make a decision for, as majority of pre-48 population was counted by clan and not by where they lived, and they were nomadic. Zochrot indicates that the population of Umm Rashrash in 1948 was 50. Zochrot Umm Al-Rashrash
  5. Many Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem are left out, some Arab are duplicated like Beit Safafa.
    • True, I did not include places like the Jewish Quarter or Shimeon Tzedek in E Jerusalem. These were not part of the scope of this map. The map is called "Map of Palestinian Nakba". This specific map is focused on 1948 and 1967 depopulation of Palestinian localities. It is also because of this, that I did not include Syrian villages depopulated in 1967 in the Golan on this map either. I could expand the scope as a new map that does indeed show East Jerusalem, Gaza Strip, Gush Etzion, Golan Heights, and so on and so forth, but it was not what this map is covering.
    • that dot is showing Al-Maliha/Malha, not Beit Safafa.
  6. Many Jewish settlement's in Samaria are left out from map.
    • If you're referring to the evacuated settlements in 2006, again was not part of the scope of this map. But I can create a new map. Not sure how we'd distinguish between localities whose population were forcibly expelled by a hostile belligerent, and localities whose population were evacuated in the 2006 "disengagement" process.
  7. Dozens of Jewish villages in Sharon are left out from map.
    • I'm sorry, I don't think I'm familiar with these specific localities, you do need to teach me.
  8. Haifa map also does not reflect actual demographic situation.
    • Same source as Ramla and Jaffa.
  9. At least 30 Jewish towns and villages in Gaza envelope are left out.
    • Not sure if referring to 1948 or 2006. Either way, again, not part of the scope of this map, but I can create a new map.
  10. Beer Sheva has no Arab majority neighborhood, not even one with significant Arab population as presented. The extended Jewish population of old city is above 95%. The Arab population of the city is 2.6% and is not concentrated in particular area.
    • Again, hatched indicates "mixed", and not "majority". And Beersheva was based on some personal research and such that I did, finding out that most of the Palestinian population of the city live in Gimel neighbourhood. Not as solid of a finding as Akka, Haifa, Jaffa, Ramla, etc.
  11. Regba is colored as an Arab village. Al Shajk Danun lies to the east, not south of Nahariya and it is not connected to city.
    • That's not Regba, that's village of Mazra'a, sandwiched between Moshav Regba and Kibbutz Evron.
  12. There is no Jewish settlement within the city of Nablus, as presented
    • I am not showing "Jewish Israeli settlement" within city of Nablus, those are purple lines indicating the boundaries around Palestinian refugee camp within the city.
  13. The city of Jenin has also no Jewish settlements within.
    • I am not showing "Jewish Israeli settlement" within city of Jenin, those are purple lines indicating the boundaries around Palestinian refugee camp within the city.
  14. There is no Bahai settlement or town in Israel. Bahai shrine in Akko is not a populated area.
    • I know, the Baha'i areas are a unique exception showing land use as opposed to population and demographic, since both the Akka and the Haifa sites are of global significance for the Baha'i community.

BasilLeaf (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the map is fine, and the answers by BasilLeaf to be fairly conclusive in answering the objections. nableezy - 21:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

It's been a while. Can someone else confirm that the issue has been resolved and questions have been addressed? BasilLeaf (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The original objector has had time to comment further and has not done so, appears resolved, no? How do we arrange it so that the query and response are kept as a record?Selfstudier (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I would say right here, but with a text and icon indicating that the issue has been resolved? BasilLeaf (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 30 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved - The low level of engagement in this discussion is surprising given the controversial nature of the subject matter. This is listed as an RM but is equally a proposed merge. After two relistings we have two !voters who have raised concerns (if not forthright opposition) regarding the move and no !votes in favour. Another has raised concerns but neither opposes nor supports. The opposition seems well-reasoned - essentially that the subject matter of each page is not identical so it is not a duplication, and that a separate page for the exodus is justified. For the avoidance of doubt my "not moved" here is basically "no consensus leaning towards consensus not to move". Given the relatively low engagement there does not seem much point in allowing this discussion to continue but please feel free to get in touch if you would like another re-list. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

1948 Palestinian exodus → Nakba – (+ a merger of content from Nakba to here) -- I'm re-proposing this move mainly on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME, but also for reasons of recognizability, naturalness, concision and consistency. I also don't believe that, in the span of 7 days, this really got a fair and sufficiently in-depth hearing in the the previous, 25 March 2021 discussion above (though that talk is well worth reading in advance for context).

First off, there is no doubt that 'Nakba' is an overwhelmingly dominant term relative to '1948 Palestinian exodus'. Ngrams shows it dwarfing the competition, as does Google Scholar, which shows 18,000 hits for Nakba relative to exactly 400 hits for "1948 Palestinian exodus" as an explicit term. One additional point that also appears to have been missed in the previous discussion is that a significant bulk of these "1948 Palestinian exodus" mentions also relate back to a single academic, one ‪Dr. Rafi Nets-Zehngut‬.

Next, even if there was to be a suitably neutral, descriptive title that was better than Nakba, "1948 Palestinian exodus" would be a poor fit. In terms of neutrality, "Exodus" is both quite euphemistic (WP:EUPHEMISM) and semantically loaded. It leans towards the notion of a voluntary mass departure, when both involuntary departure and departure in the face of psychological terror or under the duress of not wanting to be caught up in conflict played significant roles (hence Palestinian 'refugees', not 'emigrants') ... and that's without even touching on the religious undertones.

In terms of descriptiveness, you get more Google Scholar returns (29,000) for terminology such as '1948 Palestinian displacement -"exodus" ' than you do searching for '1948 Palestinian exodus -"displacement" ' (24,000 hits, again bloated by a lot of Dr. Nets-Zehngut‬ repeats), meaning that even based on descriptive merit alone, '1948 Palestinian exodus' is not exactly a winner.

And then finally we have the points that Nakba is more recognizable, natural, concise and consistent with, say, pages such as Nakba Day. The main argument AGAINST "Nakba" appears to be from the perspective of precision, in that the term has an evolving set of meanings, including, but not limited to, the metaphorical destruction of Palestinian society. Given how intertwined Palestinian identity is with the land, however, the physical displacement and this sense of societal erasure are not really separate phenomena. And this (along with the material currently on the modest, extant Nakba page) is exactly what should be folded into the 'Results of the Palestinian exodus" section on the current page. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 4#Category:Nakba and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 17#Category:Nakba are also relevant and Commons has their way of doing things. Selfstudier (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
@Selfstudier: Category:1948 Palestinian exodus has become a particularly odd creature, with the 1947-1949 war becoming embedded under the '1948 exodus'. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I would be quite interested to see the reaction in catland if this merge were to go through. I don't object to it as such although there is a not insignificant body of opinion that the Nakba continues, now that time and circumstance allows this to be said. That could be dealt with in the renamed article, I guess. Selfstudier (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Palestine has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Israel has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Human rights has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject International relations has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Per Selfstudier, my concern is that the word Nakba is frequently used to describe an ongoing event. The topic of this article was the foundational moment, but arguably it wasn’t the "exodus" (which I agree is the wrong word) which was the problem (as it is normal in times of war for civilians to move outside of a conflict zone – see Ukraine now), the real problem was the Israeli decision to ignore these people’s human rights and slam the door behind them. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Technical note: the Nakba article has substantial edit history that we need to keep. One way is to merge this article into the Nakba one. Another is to first move Nakba to a page with trivial history like Palestinian Catastrophe. Then, move this article to Nakba. Lastly, do the merge so the content is at Nakba. This second way results in this article's history under Nakba, and Nakba's history at Palestinian Catastrophe. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Mostly oppose, this is one aspect of the Nakba, but it is just a subtopic of it. Think this works fine as a child article to that. nableezy - 01:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I dispute the Neutrality of this section.

According to historian Benny Morris, the period was marked by Palestinian Arab attacks and Jewish defensiveness, increasingly punctuated by Jewish reprisals.[7]:65 Simha Flapan pointed out that attacks by the Irgun and Lehi resulted in Palestinian Arab retaliation and condemnation.[22] Jewish reprisal operations were directed against villages and neighborhoods from which attacks against Jews were believed to have originated.[7]:76

Totally agree. Turning point was [1929 Hebron massacre]. The Arabs tried to ethnically cleanse Jewish refugees. The Jews defended themselves. Every time they were attacked, they fought back and started taking ground off their attackers. The degree of bias in this article is just obscene. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Are you sure that you are not biased? Because historically 80% of the population of Arabs was ethnically cleansed. I am surprised that this is not called a the Palestinian Genocide like the Rohingya in Myanmar. Ahm1453 (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I suggest making a list of attacks on record. That may remove the author biases — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshaparvathi (talk • contribs) 13:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Benny Morris is a revisionist historian whose perspective is not shared by others. Ilan Pappe documents clearly that the attacks by zionist organisations were offensives with the declared objective of clearing land for Jewish settlement.

Boynamedsue (talk) 08:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Morris is one of most respected historians in the field - very well cited. Icewhiz (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Yet he pushes a particular point of view which minimises the planned aspect of the ethnic cleanising of Arabs from Palestine, often directly contradicted by the words of the participants. The destruction of villages and murders of civilians, were often completely unrelated to the Arab attacks, usually against military convoys, which they were "avenging". The use of the word "retaliation" by zionist groups to describe blowing up houses with children in them, or machine-gunning people at random as they left their houses, was euphemistic.

Boynamedsue (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


this article seems rife with anti-arab racism and pro-apartheid sentiment, wikipedia editors should try harder to eliminate this pernicious hate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:96A0:1DE0:ED79:3AF5:90D0:BA94 (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2022

Please mention in the first text that Nakba day is a day where the Jewish Melissa attachment around 600 Palestinian Arab villages and expelled 1 m and 200k were kicked from their lands and then the begging of Israel. 2A02:3035:816:7F9E:7515:6BC7:8D24:AE94 (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight/Archive_16&oldid=1154363785"