Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 → Archive 19

'Exodus' unsourced & incorrect. 'Nakba' it is.

The word exodus for the fleeing of Palestinians before and during the 1948 war is an incorrect word. There are no sources for this usage, except from non RS. Expectedly so, since the word would be used in reverse of the Hebrew meaning (i.e. fleeing out of Egypt 'homeward'). The proper word is Nakba. -DePiep (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Do a search on google books for "Palestinian exodus". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not in principle against changing the title of this article, but any change would be controversial, so submit a move request and take it from there. PatGallacher (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

4000?

The article says "By mid-4 May 000 Arabs remained in Haifa." Could this be "By mid-May 4000 Arabs remained in Haifa"?VR talk 05:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I checked the source, and you're right. I fixed it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Request

Can somebody please mention (bullys keep the truth) that there were anti-Jewish riots or Exodus that can be just as exaggerated as yours if people wern't so scared of Muslims and Anti-Semites, in 1929 or is that POV, or as dishonest as the Palestinian comedy? You will not lie forever. Maryester (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please mention that I found three newspapers that reported that Jews were being shot for praying at their holy sites during the late 19 and early 20 Century, prior to Israel, in Hebron and Jerusalem? Maryester (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the 1948 Palestinian exodus? RolandR (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Changes after the advent of the 'New Historians'

regarding the recent addition, the section should cover the main changes after the advent of the 'New Historians' not discuss specific details where one or other of the New Historians may happen to agree with the official Israeli narrative.

For a more balanced appraisal of Morris' position on orders for evacuation by Arabs see Ben Ami p43 2006, "It is not at all clear, as maintained by a conventional Israeli myth, that the Palestinian exodus was encouraged by the Arab states and by local leaders. Benny Morris found no evidence to show ‘that either the leaders of the Arab states or the Mufti ordered or directly encouraged the mass exodus’. Indeed, Morris found evidence to the effect that the local Arab leadership and militia commanders discouraged flight, and Arab radio stations issued calls to the Palestinians to stay put, and even to return to their homes if they had already left. True, there were more than a few cases where local Arab commanders ordered the evacuation of villages. But these seemed to have been tactical decisions taken under very specific military conditions; they did not respond to an overall strategy either of the local Palestinian leaders or of the Arab states." Dlv999 (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

And even for an even more 'balanced' appraisal, we have the man himself:
The Palestinian Arabs were not responsible "in some bizarre way" (David Norris, January 31st) for what befell them in 1948. Their responsibility was very direct and simple.
In defiance of the will of the international community, as embodied in the UN General Assembly Resolution of November 29th, 1947 (No. 181), they launched hostilities against the Jewish community in Palestine in the hope of aborting the emergence of the Jewish state and perhaps destroying that community. But they lost; and one of the results was the displacement of 700,000 of them from their homes.
It is true, as Erskine Childers pointed out long ago, that there were no Arab radio broadcasts urging the Arabs to flee en masse; indeed, there were broadcasts by several Arab radio stations urging them to stay put. But, on the local level, in dozens of localities around Palestine, Arab leaders advised or ordered the evacuation of women and children or whole communities, as occurred in Haifa in late April, 1948. And Haifa's Jewish mayor, Shabtai Levy, did, on April 22nd, plead with them to stay, to no avail.
Most of Palestine's 700,000 "refugees" fled their homes because of the flail of war (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders). But it is also true that there were several dozen sites, including Lydda and Ramla, from which Arab communities were expelled by Jewish troops.
The displacement of the 700,000 Arabs who became "refugees" - and I put the term in inverted commas, as two-thirds of them were displaced from one part of Palestine to another and not from their country (which is the usual definition of a refugee) - was not a "racist crime" (David Landy, January 24th) but the result of a national conflict and a war, with religious overtones, from the Muslim perspective, launched by the Arabs themselves.
There was no Zionist "plan" or blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of "ethnic cleansing". Plan Dalet (Plan D), of March 10th, 1948 (it is open and available for all to read in the IDF Archive and in various publications), was the master plan of the Haganah - the Jewish military force that became the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) - to counter the expected pan-Arab assault on the emergent Jewish state. That's what it explicitly states and that's what it was. And the invasion of the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq duly occurred, on May 15th.
It is true that Plan D gave the regional commanders carte blanche to occupy and garrison or expel and destroy the Arab villages along and behind the front lines and the anticipated Arab armies' invasion routes. And it is also true that mid-way in the 1948 war the Israeli leaders decided to bar the return of the "refugees" (those "refugees" who had just assaulted the Jewish community), viewing them as a potential fifth column and threat to the Jewish state's existence. I for one cannot fault their fears or logic.

Morris prefaces this by noting a tendency of Israel-haters of "citing - and more often, mis-citing - my work in support of their arguments". This analysis appears to be particularly apt.Ankh.Morpork 14:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't find any of this in the article you cite[[1]. The article does include a letter from Morris to the Irish Times, but this is very different from the text you pasted above. Please check, and confirm the source of this text. RolandR (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
The article does cite the salient features of Morris' most recent comments but I thought providing the full version would be more accurate. If you would rather this is reduced to the specific conclusions cited, I will not object. (I am not sure what you mean when you state "I can't find any of this in the article" seeing as it smacks you in the face on first sight) Ankh.Morpork 15:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
So you saw fit to throw in an offensive remark about the how "particularly apt" BM's comments about "Israel-haters", "citing - and more often, mis-citing - my work" were, but you didn't even bother to accurately represent your own cited source. Dlv999 (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I thought it would be helpful to provide the full version of Morris' clarification of views seeing as it was located behind a paywall. Ankh.Morpork 15:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
In a 2010 Benny Morris interview (Middle East Quarterly;Summer2010, Vol. 17 Issue 3, p63) he explicitly stated that, "In general the Arabs fled; afterward we destroyed their villages and did not permit them to return. There were only cases of expulsion in a few places." I suggest we allow Morris to speak for himself.Ankh.Morpork 16:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Here is Morris speaking for himself. http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/3036.html how much of this would you like to add in. Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 21:41 Benny Morris: How His History of Israel Is at Odds with His New Role as a Hardliner.

In a long and explosive interview in Haaretz in January 2004, Benny Morris, the revisionist Israeli historian, explains how he reconciles his defense of Zionism with his research, which demonstrates that war atrocities were associated with the founding of Israel. His latest book is, Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001.

Benny Morris, in the month ahead the new version of your book on the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem is due to be published. Who will be less pleased with the book - the Israelis or the Palestinians?

"The revised book is a double-edged sword. It is based on many documents that were not available to me when I wrote the original book, most of them from the Israel Defense Forces Archives. What the new material shows is that there were far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought. To my surprise, there were also many cases of rape. In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah [the pre-state defense force that was the precursor of the IDF] were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves.

"At the same time, it turns out that there was a series of orders issued by the Arab Higher Committee and by the Palestinian intermediate levels to remove children, women and the elderly from the villages. So that on the one hand, the book reinforces the accusation against the Zionist side, but on the other hand it also proves that many of those who left the villages did so with the encouragement of the Palestinian leadership itself."...

Are you saying that Ben-Gurion was personally responsible for a deliberate and systematic policy of mass expulsion?

"From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer. There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population] transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is created."

Ben-Gurion was a"transferist"?

"Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist."

I don't hear you condemning him.

"Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here."

Benny Morris, for decades you have been researching the dark side of Zionism. You are an expert on the atrocities of 1948. In the end, do you in effect justify all this? Are you an advocate of the transfer of 1948?

"There is no justification for acts of rape. There is no justification for acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions, expulsion is not a war crime. I don't think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands."

We are talking about the killing of thousands of people, the destruction of an entire society.

"A society that aims to kill you forces you to destroy it. When the choice is between destroying or being destroyed, it's better to destroy." Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The sentence "Morris writes that in some areas..." is a good fit between the two on either side of it. With it we get Morris's conclusion that Jewish military attacks were the main cause, how that worked, and the influence of Morris' work. Without it, the last sentence might seem to contradict the first. Tom Harrison Talk 22:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Reporting Morris findings in "some areas...." but not the his main findings of "no evidence to show ‘that either the leaders of the Arab states or the Mufti ordered or directly encouraged the mass exodus’. Indeed, Morris found evidence to the effect that the local Arab leadership and militia commanders discouraged flight, and Arab radio stations issued calls to the Palestinians to stay put, and even to return to their homes if they had already left." is clearly cherry picking details to fit POV. Dlv999 (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
It's about good writing, not cherry-picking details to advance my POV. If you're going to impugn my motives, there's little point in further discussion. Tom Harrison Talk 23:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Morris' views appear to have changed over the years and this need to be reflected in the article. He stated when deliberately clarifying his views on the 1948 War and refugees because of "citing - and more often, mis-citing - my work":
Most of Palestine's 700,000 "refugees" fled their homes because of the flail of war (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders). There was no Zionist "plan" or blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of "ethnic cleansing". Plan Dalet of March 10, 1948, was the master plan of the Haganah - the Jewish military force that became the Israel Defence Forces - to counter the expected pan-Arab assault on the emergent Jewish state. And the invasion of the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq duly occurred, on May 15. It is true that Plan D gave the regional commanders carte blanche to occupy and garrison or expel and destroy the Arab villages along and behind the front lines and the anticipated Arab armies' invasion routes. And it is also true that midway in the 1948 war the Israeli leaders decided to bar the return of the "refugees" (those "refugees" who had just assaulted the Jewish community), viewing them as a potential fifth column and threat to the Jewish state's existence. I for one cannot fault their fears or logic.
Currently, the rigid interpretation of his views in the article does not represent the more recently expressed statements of clarification by Morris himelf. Ankh.Morpork 00:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Here is more material from Morris:
Q: They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.
Morris: "There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide - the annihilation of your people - I prefer ethnic cleansing."
Q: And that was the situation in 1948?
Morris: "That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population.
Source. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ian Black

Why is this journalist's views expressed in a book review notable? (I was mistaken when I stated in my edit that the source does not support the claim.)Ankh.Morpork 00:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

See the very lengthy talk page discussion about this. RolandR (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Someone felt at one point that attribution would be needed for that... --Dailycare (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
What is his notability and what has this to do with the New Historians?18:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Ankh.Morpork
The article is used to source the notion that the expulsions are often nowadays referred to as ethnic cleansing. In my opinion the newspaper, being one of note, is reliable for that notion also without attribution. Notability, by the way, relates to whether a topic gets its own article so that concept seems not to be relevant here (see WP:NOTABILITY). The ethnic cleansing terminology has become more common with the new historians coming on the stage. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I was not referring to a Wiki policy but to the common usage of this word: Worthy of attention or notice. The relevant policy would be WP:DUE. PLease substantiate this statement - "The ethnic cleansing terminology has become more common with the new historians coming on the stage" as well as explaining why this somehow means that Ian Black has become an honorary Israeli New Historian. Ankh.Morpork 18:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Pappé is a new historian, his book "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" has received lots of attention, therefore the ethnic cleansing terminology has become more common with the new historians. I'm open to having a new subsection in addition to "Initial views" and "new historians", which could be "Current views" that could contain the information from Black's piece. Black, as the Guardian's Mid-East editor, is reliable for the statement that the Nakhba is widely described as ethnic cleansing. I don't quite follow your reasoning that it would be WP:UNDUE to mention a view that is, per our source, widely held. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. Since you attribute the association of ethnic cleansing terminology with the new historians to Papppe's usage, this link should be made clear to avoid unintentional expansion of scope to the subscribers to this school of thoughts.
  2. Since Ian Black is describing how other people describe the exodus, the encyclopedic method would be to directly convey what those other people say.
  3. Your last point is illogical, that it is not WP:UNDUE to mention a view that is, per the source in question, widely held. You cannot use the source itself to justify its own inclusion. Please. Ankh.Morpork 10:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Aknh, frankly, I referred to the name of Pappé's book as an answer to your specific question. As we know, also e.g. Morris (another new historian) has said that there was ethnic cleansing. Concerning your last point, I think you need to check your notes. WP:DUE says that important viewpoints should be described, and since we're describing this viewpoint, I think we agree that it's relevant, important, and sufficiently widely held to warrant inclusion. That it's widely held is a relevant aspect of this viewpoint, especially so since this is a contentious situation. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Exodus?

The naming and association "Exodus" is not correct, and not good enough for a serious encyclopedia. -DePiep (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have suggestions for another name, something that might have a chance of baing agreed on? One option vould be, paraphrasing Morris, "Birth of the Palestinian refugee problem" or something similar. Obviously, "Genesis of the Palestinian refugee problem" would suffer the same association problem as the current name ;) "Origins" could be more original and contain no Biblical references. --Dailycare (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Nakba it is. -DePiep (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

lead

Per the discussion here the lead should be re-written to reflect the sources presented. That is, that Nakba means the same thing as "Milchemet Haatsmaut" (War of Independence), and refers to the war rather than the exodus. Nishidani was arguing there that the terms are synonymous and I expect him to be consistent and change the lead here accordingly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG -- The suggested opening paragraph for the 1948 Arab-Israeli War addresses the breech of NPOV policy. There is no NPOV issue identified here. You want Hebrew names for the 1948 Palestinian exodus? Because that is the name of this article!! talknic (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
It's either that or redirecting Nakba to 1948 Palestine War and de-bolding it in the lead here. But if this article describes the Nakba, then the sources Nishidani presented in the discussion I linked to above suggest it's synonymous with War of Independence. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG -- Go ahead, get the consensus you demand of others. For now the issue is in Talk and according to what you demand of others, it cannot be changed until you get consensus. BTW.. Do not consider my silence to be approval talknic (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Nakba.Article name

Nakba, as my recent addition of sources shows, has a wider extension than the exodus. It refers to all events affecting Palestinians over the period of November 1947 to Jan (and beyond but most (not Laurens) sources ignore that 1949.

  • Nakba has a general meaning referring to the overall war.
  • Nakba has a specific meaning referring to the exodus element.

The only way out of this mess is to change the article's title to Nakba, define it in both senses as referring to the 1947-9 war, civil and between states, and then specify the exodus. The general precedes the particular in logic, and semantics. All links elsewhere to the Exodus can link to Nakba, but with the specification in the link 1948 Palestinian exodus.Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

this is a good suggestion, and i agree.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad you now admit that saying the Nakba refers to the exodus is not "opinionizing", as you accused me in the other article.
How would you suggest structuring a Nakba article that talks both about the general and the particular?
I think maybe the simplest solution would be having two redirects, one Nakba (war) that goes to 1948 Palestine war and one Nakba (exodus) that redirects here. Then you wouldn't have to go into too much detail about the war that is not relevant to the exodus in this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Making it tortuous and fragmented for readers (and editors) should be avoided at all costs. One redirect will suffice. Article subheadings can describe the various aspects without readers having to go from one article to another only to find conflicting edits. One only has to look at the confusion created in carving up the League of Nations "Mandate for Palestine" to see divide and conquer at work in WikI/Pedia talknic (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the idea of NMMNG is worth considering.
  • Nakba can refer to both the war and the exodus.
  • "1948 Palestine war" and "1948 Palestinian exodus" are more neutral.
So creating 3 articles "Nakba (war)" and "Nakba (exodus)" redirecting to these articles and an article Nakba explaining (with sources) that it can refer to whether the war or the exodus could solve the issue.
Pluto2012 (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
We must presume readers know nothing of the topic. Sending them to THREE separate articles, all in a state of continual flux, will be confusing. For readers, one article, three subsections seems a far more logical way to go. talknic (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Describing Nakba should not use "Exodus". Exodus is the word & political view of the invader/colonialist. So, if Nakba is described all well in itself, there could be a line that says like: "In Israel this is named Exodus" -- if there is a RS for such a statement, which I still have not seen. -DePiep (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
So when Ghada Karmi wrote her book "The Palestinian Exodus: 1948-1998" [2], she was using "the word & political view of the invader/colonialist"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Why do you ask? -DePiep (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Because it's incorrect, and I thought showing you a Palestinian activist using the term would make you see that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Huh? A Palestinian so a RS? And how does "her" (quod non) book prove your point? -DePiep (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, as often, sources themselves, even strong discursive traditions in scholarship, often allow loose language. The 'Nakba' qua 'Exodus' equation links the Palestinian catastrophe to a germinal event in Jewish mythistory, and the rhetorical effect of the ostensible parallel is powerful. It is, as an analogy, not correct. Since the Exodus was, in Biblical myth, a choice made against the hegemon's wishes, whereas the nakba was mostly the consequence of the rising hegemon's wishes. What you gain in the leverage of rhetorical language, you loose in terms of narrative accuracy. Indeed, the intended effect is undercut by the unavoidable drift-over of overtone that arises from such a parallel. The implication in Exodus/nakba is that the Palestinian left their land in search of freedom. You are both right. Pro-Palestinian scholars use it, inattentive to the way, evoking the exodus, they shoot their cause in the foot, which they then place in their mouths. NMMGG is quite correct in noting this- Yet, in terms of precise descriptive language, it was not an 'exodus' as that term is defined in the OED (a)the Israelite setting forth from Egypt (b)'The departure or going out, usually of a body of persons from a country for the purposes of settling elsewhere. (OED 1989.vol.5 p.543 col.2-3),' so DePiep has a point. The term is misleading and inaccurate. The refugees has no such purpose of resettling elsewhere, as I think all sources admit.
The title for the article should definitely be reassessed according to what the majority usage of modern historical works on the nakba happens to be. This can be settled by consulting the relevant books, though we may have to keep in mind what distinct, if interrelated historical traditions (Palestinian, Western, Israeli) prefer. Nishidani (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
If anyone can show a majority of non Wikipedia definitions for the word "exodus" mentioning the Arabs, there might be some merit in the current article title talknic (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Any google books search will show it is used very frequently. Like much else, I think a lot of this 'crappy' terminology is sheer mental laziness by authors, historians, or activists. But the rule is we go by usage, not by our own personal POV. The only way this could be challenged would be to find some academic sources that are metacritiques, i.e., that discuss the use of the word 'exodus' in the literature, and argue that it is improper, inexact or misleading. Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Nishidani - Three points. 1) The title of this article as it stands is "1948 Palestinian exodus" not 'Exodus'
2) "the rule is we go by usage" An overwhelming majority of books use the expression "Nakba". A minority use Palestinian exodus. Even less use both "Palestinian exodus" and "Nakba". One would have to vet the results to give a precise figure, however odds are 79 : 17
3) This discussion is about the title of the article, not pro con arguments which ought be confined to the body of the article talknic (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Good. If that's the proportion (2), then the case is strong for changing this. But changing it will require quite a bit of work. In any case, let's not rush things, and wait for contrary arguments.Nishidani (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
That's not the proportion. That's selection bias. talknic neglected to search for obvious synonyms like "exodus from Palestine", Palestine and "Arab exodus", etc. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG -- The title of the page is neither "exodus from Palestine" or "Arab exodus". I gave the results per the discussion. BTW What are the results via your obvious synonyms? Anything overwhelming? talknic (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is there a call for a "Israeli narrative" and a section on the "Jewish Nakba"?

These ought be dealt with in an appropriate place like Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries where, oddly enough there's no section for the "Arab Narrative" or section for "Palestinian Nakba"/"Palestinian exodus". Perhaps we should add them .. Yes?
Furthermore the section, Claims that the Nakba is equivalent to the Jewish exodus from Arab countries, is full of claims that the Jewish exodus from Arab countries is equivalent to the Nakba!! I.e., the complete opposite of the section title
Suggest both these insidious appropriations of Palestinian wikispace be removed. talknic (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"insidious appropriations of Palestinian wikispace"? That's a keeper. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG -- :-) What would you call it if the same was done here?. I notice you haven't addressed the issue in any meaningful way? talknic (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived 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: not moved. This is too controversial a topic to move when there is a clear majority who have expressed valid reasons for opposing it. DrKiernan (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

1948 Palestinian exodus → Nakba –

One question would be what do English language sources call this? In the case of Thanksgiving it is clear but it may not be the case here especially since the article calls Nakba as the known in Arabic. Since this is an English language wiki we should use the name best know in the English language whatever that may be.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
"Nakba" does not pertain to the "1948 war". It also pertains the preceding period, as this article already says in the lead. Together it is the civil war (in British Mandate Palestine) and the 1948 war (after Israel became a state, it went "international" formally), and the expulsion of about 750.000 Palestinians. The link you point to is about how to describe the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. That discussion was not about the word "nakba", it is only there as a sideway thing. Of course a discussion about "nakba" (or "exodus" for that matter) cannot be decided on that talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The discussion was precisely about using the term Nakba and it includes a whole bunch of sources. I suggest you read it again. It doesn't "decide" anything for here, it explains my position and links to further information for those interested. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd be interested to see Nishidani's position on this since he was the one arguing on the other page that the war and nakba are synonymous. He's posted on this page so I assume it's on his watchlist. I guess he's busy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per NMMNG, plus the term Nakba is an Arabic term and not universally used, while 1948 Palestinian exodus is a neutral term. --Jethro B 23:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
As for your "per NMMNG", follow there then. -DePiep (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "Nakba" is a POV-pushing term that refers to three things: the 1948 Palestinian exodus, the defeat of the 5 Arab armies and the Palestinian Arabs in the 1948 war, and the establishment of the State of Israel. Therefore, the term is both too broad and not advances a controversial POV. --GHcool (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
No, it does not refer to the establishment of Israel in itself. It is about turning 750,0000 Palestinians into refugees (which started way before May 15, 1948), and what caused that (namely: terror and war). Also, the defeat you mention is not part of the essence. "exodus" does not express that. -DePiep (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
If that's the case, why is the day mourning the establishment of the State of Israel called Nakba Day? This commemoration occurs every year during the same week as Israel's Independence Day.[3][4] --GHcool (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It has not been established that this is the most common name. Nor has it been demonstrated that Nakba is a synonym for the exodus per se, as opposed to the period of conflict during Israel's creation. Finally, it a non-neutral term. Ankh.Morpork 19:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nakba ("disaster" in Arabic) is a POV term used by one side of the continuing conflict for a much wider subject than the article topic, see Nakba Day. Nothing to recommend this move, frankly. Andrewa (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support blah blah "Exodus" blah blah. Are you kidding me? Are you listening to yourselves? You are implying that some Palestinian holy man went to Menachim Begin and pleaded with him to let his people go. I'm a Jewish atheist. If you want to use some kind of Jewy term I can sink my teeth into, "diaspora" is alright, it is an outwardly-moving term lightly suggesting an involuntary movement. But it is far more educational, when you're learning about a subject not-often discussed, to grab a nifty term that gives the subject life. That term is "Nakba". Succinct. Defined by the culture who experienced it. Just the right organic term. ClaudeReigns (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2012 (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.

Edit request on 18 April 2013

there is currently a citation error due to the use of a wikilink inside of a URL link. to fix the error, please change 

<ref name = UNGA194>{{cite web | url = http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/C758572B78D1CD0085256BCF0077E51A | title = [[United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194]] | publisher = [[United Nations General Assembly]] | date = 11 December 1948 | accessdate =6 June 2011}}</ref>

to 

<ref name = UNGA194>{{cite web | url = http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/C758572B78D1CD0085256BCF0077E51A | title = United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 | publisher = [[United Nations General Assembly]] | date = 11 December 1948 | accessdate =6 June 2011}}</ref>

or alternatively, introduce a |series= or |type= or other parameter to hang the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 link. it just can't be in the title. 198.102.153.1 (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for catching this. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing POV dispute

The term 'exodus' is clearly wrong for describing an impact to the condition of the people who were living in Palestine in 1948. Not just inaccurate, but offensively wrong, because it 1) places a distorting frame rooted in the language of the people who caused the displacement of said Palestinians, i.e. Israel 2) The inaccuracies of that distortion politically favor Israel. One thing which can be learned on both sides of this conflict, is that comparisons to other displacements and expulsions throughout history are not constructive to dialogue. They create a breakdown in the very participation which is necessary for the formation of consensus. Message me on my talk page if examples are needed.

Furthermore, since this event occurred directly after the formation of the state of Israel, there is an Israeli point of view with regard to the subject, both historically and presently. The event mainly impacts the Palestinian people, and should be given priority weight. Scholarly works which originate from Ivy league schools, for example, are very helpful to understanding the condition of the Palestinian people and the Israeli stance, but cannot be considered the central voice in the dialogue. Too much of a voice distanced in culture, language, status, and class from the original experience distorts expression of that experience from bias, however unintended. Further, I opine that a broad discussion of Israeli policy historically is better suited in namespace that focuses on the decision to expel Palestinians from their homes. I currently do not see any reason that such namespace cannot be here, but the crux of the article should be focused on the human impact of that decision. The relevance of this article also demands that a present-day view of the historical event from both sides of the conflict be represented with distance in this namespace, as well as reliable current viewpoints expressing clearly how the event has influenced the current situation.

Finally, as I continue to read more about the current dialogue about the event, I find Nakba to be the clearest term to describe it, however, as older outside sources have previously referred to the war as well as the expulsion as Nakba, some disambiguation may be necessary to create a sense of clarity for people who understand this topic through that frame of reference. Therefore, Nakba (expulsion) seems more accurate and still currently far more widely used than any reference to a Palestinian exodus. I hope there may be some agreement about this, and that editors continue to take me to task in any error in my thinking. It's part of the process. Thanks. ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to accept the argument that the term is offensive when Palestinian activists use it. For example Ghada Karmi's The Palestinian Exodus: 1948-1998 [5]. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The work cited is an anthology published by Ithaca Press in 1998, was co-edited by a Palestinian, Ghada Karmi, but there is no warrant to the precise contributions of Ghada Karmi as opposed to Eugene Cotran.
The references to the event within the book as an "exodus" are overwhelmingly made by Ilan Pappé, a Jewish Israeli historian. Still Pappé states clearly:

"Moving from historography to politics, we would say that the political implication of the consensus described above is an Israeli recognition of the Palestinian historical interpretation of the 1948 War as al-Nakba, the catastrophe. It also implies acknowledging that the main component of this catastrophe is the making of the refugee problem - a problem which is at the root of the Arab-Israeli conflict."

"Exodus" mentioned in references to the work of Nur-eldeen Masalha. He has not used the term since 1991, but has referred to the event exclusively as Nakba beginning in 2002. Consensus and publishing requirements change. It appears no longer necessary to use the term "Palestinian exodus" in order to appear in print, which would explain why the term has fallen into disuse by authors of nearly every persuasion. I do, however, appreciate your citation of the source. It does appear to be a salient discussion of the topic itself. Do you have more to share? ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
You'll notice Pappe says Nakba is the term for the war, and that the exodus is a component of that war. The topic of this article is that component.
Anyway, I really don't see a need to speculate what part of the book Karmi wrote, or if people needed to use the term "exodus" to get published. The term is neutral, used commonly and describes the subject of this article precisely. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Not a writer, a co-editor. Having been a co-editor of an anthology myself, I assume this means most likely her main contribution was to help select writings for inclusion. It is erroneous to conclude that Karmi used the term "exodus" in any way, nor to conclude her endorsement of the term. I maintain that the term is not neutral, is no longer commonly used as a direct result of this, and further, distorts discussion of the topic by creating the appearance (intended or not) that the majority of Palestinians left Palestine willfully instead of as a result of coercion. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Pappé does indeed apply the term to both. That the term is sometimes used broadly for the overall catastrophe which Palestinians describe, it is still largely applied to the specific 1948 catastrophe when noted today. But the ambiguity is addressed by providing the Nakba (expulsion) disambiguation. Contemporary examples below. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
ClaudeReigns There is no historical consensus regarding the events which you try to present as established fact. To rename this article "Palestinian catastrophe" is a POV attitude. Wikipedia should not be used to present only one view and only some historic interpretation.--Tritomex (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I merely stated by way of translation that the Palestinians describe a catastrophe. Nakba fits WP:POVNAME as being non-neutral but commonly used. "Exodus" is non-neutral and not commonly used. The contemporary examples below demonstrate this preponderance from a variety of sources, including Israeli ones. I agree that Wikipedia should present all sides, but also recognizes that in the case of article titles, when a proper noun has become the usual term for an event, this generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. I'm just quoting the guideline here. As far as I'm seeing in my research, no contemporary reliable source names this event without using the term Nakba, either with or without scare quotes. What I'm gathering is that it's been leading to this since the turn of the century. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this still an "ongoing dispute"?

The article still has "factual accuracy" and "neutrality" dispute warning tags from 2011. At least as I read this talk page, there isn't any substantive argument over the article itself at this point. Is there anything other that the appropriateness of the word "exodus" currently in dispute? That's a legitimate question, but it doesn't seem to me to be the sort of thing that warrants tagging the article as a whole. Opinions? KLuwak (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the argument has gone stale, I don't even recall what it was about, exactly. --Dailycare (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

A certain indicator that the term Nakba has achieved cachet

from the article itself used to compare the experience of Israeli settlers to the specific experience of Palestinian expulsion.

Have you ever heard that "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"? ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing list of contemporary sources

These sources refer directly to the event. They are categorized by their reference to the event and subcategorized by the type of source. Feel free to add to the list and comment on items. Please keep this contemporary. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Contemporary support for Nakba (expulsion):

News

Religion

Authors

Contemporary support for Nakba:

News

Contemporary support for "Palestinian exodus":

News

Some of the above are obviously not RS, and most of those that are, are pretty weak. Just do a google book search for "Arab exodus" or "Palestinian exodus" and you'll find quite a few high quality contemporary RS using the term (some to the extent of having it in the names of chapters). Those include, but are not limited to:

  • Image and Reality of the Israel Palestine Conflict New and Revised, Norman G. Finkelstein
  • The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, Benny Morris
  • The Case For Palestine: An International Law Perspective, John B. Quigley
  • Tackling the Intractable: Palestinian Refugees and the Search for Middle East Peace, Michael Chiller-Glaus

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

this article was started by a bloke called Ed Poor - i recognise his name becasue he wrote some asinine rubbish on the talk page of George Orwell conservapedia - he is a right wing pov pusher by self definition. the title suggests voluntary -ness - which is why it is being pushed i suppose, - to disguise the dispossession - i'm reading my way through Ilan Pappe's 'Ethnic cleansing of Palestine' at the moment and near the start he says the 'new history' in Israel has succeeded in showing how false and absurd was the Israeli cliam that the Palestinians had left of their own accord - and detailed the massive expulsions, 'and revealed that the Jewish forces had committed a considerable number of atrocities including massacres.' the title should be changed imo. I agree with Claude Reigns. current title is non-neutral, not commonly used , started here with a pov pusher Ed Poor(who writes rubbish about Orwell).Sayerslle (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, if someone you don't like named this article and you personally don't agree with the title, we must change it immediately. By the way, Pappe also uses the term "exodus" [6]. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
That link is to a book edited by Ilan Pappe and - who wrote the essay you are linking to? - looks like someone called avi schlaim to me - look on amazon - maybe i'm wrong - the point is not just that i dont like that bloke Ed Poor- its that hes is an idiot pov pusher - are you neutral? i doubt it. everyone is partisan - orwell said that. did pappe use the word in the link you're giving? -check it - pappe writes of 'the dispossession of the Palestinians in 1948 by israel' p.xiii, - theres a title . -Sayerslle (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually that chapter was written by Morris (also a prominent historian and a reliable source). Have a look at the introduction by Pappe on page 169 though - "Palestinian exodus in 1948". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
you told me it was by Pappe a minute ago, - Yes, Benny Morris is a respected historian, - Pappe says here though p.xv ' as he exclusively relied on documents from Israeli military archives, Morris ended up with a very partial picture of what happened on the ground'. so what anyhow if pappe uses the word exodus once in his intro , and i havent checked, its not the way i'm finding so far reading his book that he talks about events - (i havent finished it yet) - the words i'm finding him using are forced expulsions, 'dispossession', 'ethnic cleansing' - his entire book is called, 'the ethnic cleansing of palestine- but what a yawp you'd set up if the article were called 'Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, 1948' - are you neutral? or a pusher of the israeli point of view. everyone is partisan.Sayerslle (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
While I will surely give your reading of Pappe the weight it deserves, the point is that Pappe is a pro-Palestinian historian, writing in a contemporary book, using the term several editors have claimed is not neutral. Same goes for Finkelstein I noted above. Same for Quigley, although he's not a historian. Now that we can put that unsupported claim to rest, we can move on to other arguments, if there are any.
And yes, I got it the first time. Everyone is partisan. Including you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
the robert fisk article [7] cited above doesnt talk about 'exodus', maybe its an age-related thing and ways of speaking about the reality of that past will emerge as older ways of speaking about it die out. Ilan Pappe actually says the term 'Nakba' is an elusive term and 'by leaving out the actor, it may in a sense have contributed to the continuing denial by the world of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 and after'. - he wants to destroy the euphemisms, to set out the reality of the 'job of uprooting half of Palestines native population'. Glad you admit you are partisan but don't vouchsafe for which party . but should it be so obvious ? Sayerslle (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
That Fisk doesn't use it proves nothing. That Maan (see link above) uses it, does.
Your obsession with partisanship is getting a little boring. It has no relevance here. We go by what RS say, and in this case it's pretty obvious this term is used by high quality RS, from both sides. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Fisk uses it too [8] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Some time ago, NMMNG suggested to create the article : Nakba (war) and Nakba (exodus) and redirect these to 1948 Palestine War and 1948 Palestinian exodus.
I added that the article Nakba explaining shortly and redirecting to both the Nakba article could be used to say some words specifically about this expression.
This would solve all the issues :
  • 1948 Palestinian Exodus is obviously more neutral and sounds less emotional than 'Nakba' (even if Nakba is more used than Palestinian Exodus in common media). In the adamic world, NMMNG provided sources from historians from all sides that show this expression is widely used and accepted.
  • These redirect would generate some reference to the expression and the disambiguation article could explain why Palestinians talk about Nakba. Take care that to avoid POV-FORK, this must absolutely be small and only focusing on the expression itself. All facts should be dealed under a neutral banner as it is done currently.
Pluto2012 (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
By the way, forget Nakba (expulsion). There were numerous expulsions but that was not 'one' expulsion or a plan of expulsions or whatever. That is much more complex. And whatever, historians (ie our references) disagree on this issue and therefore, npov requires we don't explain the topic as if that thesis was the truth. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for participating. I am now sure that agree or disagree, editors have heard my point of view. I am inclined to back Sayerslle and Pluto2012 as consensus about this and other topics continues to form. I will continue to add sources to the list as they come up and I can verify their relevance. Thanks for listening to me and for reviewing my sources and for evaluating my understanding of wiki policy. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Contemporary books

the word "exodus" appears 22 times in the first book listed here. I didn't bother checking the rest. I will note that once again not all of these are RS. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Vast majority of those "exodus" occurrences are in very long lists or in references to previous works. Overall google books lists 29,000 titles for "Nakba" and 5,770 for "Palestinian exodus" ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
First of all, as I mentioned before, Nakba means more than just the exodus. Second, as you can see from your own sources exodus is used quite often (I just checked Achar's book, exodus appears 18 times. It also appears in Remembering Palestine in 1948: Beyond National Narratives and Palestinians Born In Exile. Some of the rest are not searchable in google. Some are obviously not RS so I didn't bother. Out of curiosity, did you actually read any of those refs to check they support your claims, or did you just go on a google fishing expedition?). Third, as, again, you can see in the books you yourself posted, when described as an exodus it doesn't necessarily appear as "Palestinian exodus", so your google search proves nothing except selection bias.
So in summary, "Nakba" would not be a precise title for this article. "Exodus" is. "Exodus" is used extensively by contemporary scholars to describe the subject of this article. It is neutral and common. I'm getting tired of repeating myself so I think I'll bow out now, barring new information or another move request. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
@ ClaudeReigns :
  • You wrote in the former section that you agreed with the reasonning that was proposed to you. It seems that you was ironical and that you changed your mind. Could you now answer to what was told you about the 'neutrality' issue ?
  • Is your point that "1948 Exodus" is an old way to refer to the events and that "Nakba" is the current way historians refer to it. Do I understand you well : is this your argument ? Pluto2012 (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for asking, Pluto2012. You are correct that I assert that "Nakba" is the current way this event is referenced, although my assertion is broader: both within and outside of the context of academic discourse among historians. In general, writers are constrained by relevance to make their topic accessible to their audience. It is an event with some political weight, and it is discussed within political and cultural contexts, which is what makes the topic relevant to people today. How this event was discussed in all three contexts at the time of the Oslo Accords, for example, differs from how it may be discussed today, and with regard to the discourse of historians, it is because of the clearly changed political and cultural discourse that the term "Nakba" is more commonly used. In other words, political and cultural discourse has been the leading trend; the discourse of historians has been the lagging trend, but has adjusted nonetheless. I have seen nothing that makes me believe that "1948 exodus" is now the current prevailing terminology at all, even among historians.
I think the other editors have been very helpful in either supporting that particular assertion or in pointing out ways in which that assertion could be more strongly supported in accordance with our policies. I apologize if it seemed in any way that my remarks were an attempt at humor. I continue to interpret whatever you and Sayerslle may agree upon as the actual consensus apart from what I think the consensus should be; I would not bring the move to a poll again unless either I were sure that I had convinced you both or unless participation were dramatically different. I aim to continue to add sources surrounding this assertion. I hope this clarifies where I'm coming from. ClaudeReigns (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sentence 2 of section April 1948 - June 1948

Was amended from "depopulations" to "ethnic cleansing" - so I balanced, based on the edit summary to "forced evictions" as I felt that "ethnic cleansing" could be controversial and I have not seen the evidence. Here is the passage as it stands:

The fighting in these months was concentrated in the Jerusalem–Tel Aviv area and most forced evictions took place in Jewish controlled areas, such as Tiberias, Haifa, Jaffa and the coastal region.

I feel it is fair to require documentation that the forced evictions in Tiberias, Haifa, and Jaffa were based on ethnicity before amending to "ethnic cleansing". The contrivance of the word "depopulations" - in shifting a non-specific verb to a plural noun - is unencyclopedic as we should be able to clearly better describe the actual action without a jargony euphemism. Where is the original source? This source and others should be able to tell us the specifics of the original action and better speak to motive. Do we have historical documentation that the soldiers' orders were to remove Arabs specifically? If so, "ethnic cleansing" is justified in this particular sentence construction. If the evidence does not demonstrate it, one cannot make the leap that this constitutes "ethnic cleansing", for it would be original research. ClaudeReigns (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, it seems like the legality of the evictions should be a distinguishing factor. Whatever actions were taken in accordance with the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine should not serve as comparisons to other historical and commonly described examples of ethnic cleansing which were clearly illegal under international law. This is not to say that no actions ever took place which exceeded the international agreement. We are describing a particular set of evictions in a particular timeframe with a particular sentence. ClaudeReigns (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
It is difficult to follow you. What you write is rationale but it doesn't fit what historians on the topic say. Eg : 'ethnic cleansing' is (hopefully) illegal today but that was not "illegal under international law" in 1948. Even the controversial Pappé in his book explains this.
Same regarding the cases on which you focus : Tiberias, Haifa, Jaffa and the coastal region are all different and controversial. There is a total disagreement about the event that occured in April and May.
It is not possible to talk about "forced evication" at Jaffa given the city was under siege and the high majority of the Arab population left before the city was captured. Remnant population was transferred inside the city.In the coastal region, it may fit better what happens. Haifa is impossible to describe just with "one expression" : it is an accumulation of events that generated the exodus. Cases of pure evictions occured later in the war : at Lydda and Ramle or in Galilea during Yoav.
You should read some books on this topic before trying to bring neutrality into the articles. Because neutrality means reporting what historians says; not reporting what looks "fair".
Pluto2012 (talk) 07:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Do we consider the film "AL Nakba: The Palestinian Catastrophe 1948" to be a reliable source on the matter? It is cited in the article. ClaudeReigns (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
A film, even a documentary, is in no way a source a high enough standard for this article.
If you don't answer and discuss the other point, I will consider once for all the issue is solved.
Pluto2012 (talk) 07:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
You have stated, "You should read some books on this topic before trying to bring neutrality into the articles. Because neutrality means reporting what historians says; not reporting what looks 'fair'." I reply that I am an eventualist and that I in no ways considered my edit to be the final say, rather a toning down of an edit that seemed to overreach until sources could be brought to bear. Rather than criticize my process in a personal fashion, I implore you to correct whatever knowledge deficits you may perceive in me with positive suggestions for reliable sourcing. I assure you that I delight in looking at information.
With regard to the film, it is based on The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949 by Benny Morris, which is cited in the article. Having watched the film in its entirety, I found the process of using multiple accounts across perspectives from people alive at the time to be an authentic one, and the historian Morris' statement of purpose to be assuring. While I acknowledge we might find sources in the future which better support the points made in the film, or even refute them, an encyclopedic article must state clearly what is known, not flounder in euphemism. You stated there was a difference between events at Tiberias, Haifa, and Jaffa, so I revised my edit with the information I had on hand to contrast these. I hope that revealing my process is in some way welcoming and persuades you that I can be influenced to make more informed edits. ClaudeReigns (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


50.136.54.23 (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)new article: http://mondoweiss.net/2013/05/kennedys-insistence-prompted.html http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/catastrophic-thinking-did-ben-gurion-try-to-rewrite-history.premium-1.524308 


   Ben-Gurion appeared to have known the facts well. Even though much material about the Palestinian refugees in Israeli archives is still classified, what has been uncovered provides enough information to establish that in many cases senior commanders of the Israel Defense Forces ordered Palestinians to be expelled and their homes blown up. The Israeli military not only updated Ben-Gurion about these events but also apparently received his prior authorization, in written or oral form, notably in Lod and Ramle, and in several villages in the north. Documents available for perusal on the Israeli side do not provide an unequivocal answer to the question of whether an orderly plan to expel Palestinians existed. In fact, fierce debate on the issue continues to this day. For example, in an interview with Haaretz the historian Benny Morris argued that Ben-Gurion delineated a plan to transfer the Palestinians forcibly out of Israel, though there is no documentation that proves this incontrovertibly.

   Even before the war of 1948 ended, Israeli public diplomacy sought to hide the cases in which Palestinians were expelled from their villages. In his study of the early historiography of the 1948 war, “Memory in a Book” (Hebrew), Mordechai Bar-On quotes Aharon Zisling, who would become an MK on behalf of Ahdut Ha’avoda and was the agriculture minister in Ben-Gurion’s provisional government in 1948. At the height of the expulsion of the Arabs from Lod and Ramle, Zisling wrote in the left-wing newspaper Al Hamishmar, “We did not expel Arabs from the Land of Israel ... After they remained in our area of control, not one Arab was expelled by us.” In Davar, the newspaper of the ruling Mapai party, the journalist A. Ophir went one step further, explaining, “In vain did we cry out to the Arabs who were streaming across the borders: Stay here with us!”

   Contemporaries who had ties to the government or the armed forces obviously knew that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians had been expelled and their return was blocked already during the war. They understood that this must be kept a closely guarded secret. In 1961, after John F. Kennedy assumed office as president of the United States, calls for the return of some of the Palestinian refugees increased. Under the guidance of the new president, the U.S. State Department tried to force Israel to allow several hundred thousand refugees to return. In 1949, Israel had agreed to consider allowing about 100,000 refugees to return, in exchange for a comprehensive peace agreement with the Arab states, but by the early 1960s that was no longer on the agenda as far as Israel was concerned. Israel was willing to discuss the return of some 20,000-30,000 refugees at most.

   Under increasing pressure from Kennedy and amid preparations at the United Nations General Assembly to address the Palestinian refugee issue, Ben-Gurion convened a special meeting on the subject. Held in his office in the Kirya, the defense establishment compound in Tel Aviv, the meeting was attended by the top ranks of Mapai, including Foreign Minister Golda Meir, Agriculture Minister Moshe Dayan and Jewish Agency Chairman Moshe Sharett. Ben-Gurion was convinced that the refugee problem was primarily one of public image (hasbara). Israel, he believed, would be able to persuade the international community that the refugees had not been expelled, but had fled. “First of all, we need to tell facts, how they escaped,” he said in the meeting. “As far as I know, most of them fled before the state’s establishment, of their own free will, and contrary to what the Haganah [the pre-independence army of Palestine’s Jews] told them when it defeated them, that they could stay. After the state’s establishment [on May 15, 1948], as far as I know, only the Arabs of Ramle and Lod left their places, or were pressured to leave.”

   Ben-Gurion thereby set the frame of reference for the discussion, even though some of the participants knew that his presentation was inaccurate, to say the least...

   Ben-Gurion went on to explain what Israel must tell the world: "...[T]his was of their own free will, because they were told the country would soon be conquered and you will return to be its lord and masters and not just return to your homes.” In 1961, against the backdrop of what Ben-Gurion described as the need for “a serious operation, both in written form and in oral hasbara,” the Shiloah Institute was asked to collect material for the government about “the flight of the Arabs from the Land of Israel in 1948.”


http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/catastrophic-thinking-did-ben-gurion-try-to-rewrite-history.premium-1.524308

Mass graves of Palestinians killed in 1948 Nakba discovered in Jaffa

This discovery might be worth mentioning in the article. --Emesik (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Won't happen. -DePiep (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
It *absolutely should* be discussed. This is supposed to be an objective, encyclopedic entry - not Zionist revisionism. As itm is the article seems artlessly edited to present what amounts to a Zionist POV, which isn't supposed to happen. This article has been *compromised* by a biased POV. Indeed, recent articles have discussed the deliberate Zionist attempt to promulgate absolute fictions in order to cover the well-documented, indeed, obvious Zionist plan to ethically cleanse the native inhabitants of the Mandate.

http://mondoweiss.net/2013/05/kennedys-insistence-prompted.html http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/catastrophic-thinking-did-ben-gurion-try-to-rewrite-history.premium-1.524308

I know it's tough to satisfy everyone when it comes to this topic, but the whitewashing of history in this article is reprehensible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.54.23 (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

mondoweiss.net doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for a reliable source, but Haaretz does. The story has also been reported in numerous other sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements. This article is currently semi-protected because of extensive disruption by sockpuppets of banned users. Unregistered users can suggest updates using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template (see WP:SILVERLOCK). Sean.hoyland - talk 11:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Tag

Is there an opposition to the removal of the tags ? They are more than 2 years old and there is no open topic about them in the talk page. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Transfer policy

In the last sentence of the introduction to this section, the point is made regarding 'transfer' being a Zionist policy that "... this was not an organized policy" and two references by Benny Morris are provided in support. I have two problems with this short phrase: 1) The point that should be illuminated is not whether the policy was "organized", but whether it was "agreed" or "official" Zionist policy, and 2) Morris flip-flopped on this topic during his career. In fact, reference [10] to Morris' best-known work concludes (page 5) exactly the opposite to what is stated in the Wiki text - "Over the intervening years, I have concluded (!) that pre-1948 'Transfer' thinking had a greater effect on what happened in 1948 that I had allowed for. ... the evidence for pre-1948 Zionist support really is unambiguous". Morris makes a different point, however (page 6); was this policy in fact implemented?

So unless there is objection, I plan to remove the doubts in that final part of the introduction that 'Transfer' was indeed policy. Erictheenquirer (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Erictheenquirer,
(I permitted myself to change the title of this section.)
I agree with what you write regarding Morris but I could not find to which sentences precisely you refer in the introduction. Could you please copy/paste it here ?
Pluto2012 (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Ben Dror Yemini

Ben Dror Yemini. That quote, aside from being profoundly question begging and misleading if not false, might represent a point of view, but a journalist is not the best source for this. I doubt whether his eccentric view (1940s prelude of Jewish nakba to the later Palestinian nakba) deserves showcasing as it is WP:Fringe. The so called Jewish exodus occurred later, and extended over decades.Nishidani (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Fully agree. Since when do we quote journalist opinion columns in historical articles? Dlv999 (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Definition of Miri land

The mention of Miri land is made without reference to what it is, which I found very unhelpful. Ami Isseroff and Zionism and Israel Information Center have a page on this at http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Miri.htm but they have claimed copyright on their page.

From the WP article, it is not evident that this land was leased from the Ottoman government, and the land was not dealt with by the British authorities during the mandate period. Ricgal (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You are right that the term can be mysterious for someone who never met it before. A suitable wikilink should be added. However, that webpage is the last place I'd expect an unbiased account to appear and indeed it is highly propagandistic. Zerotalk 02:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

NPoV issues

This article is really discouraging. Instead of having a clear structure and to make undestand the events, their consequences at the time and still today, and the topics of controversies, this article had been filled by different "small pieces" of argument pro- and contra- some thesis that are even not fairly described in the text.
Could we try -at least- to make something acceptable from the lead ?
Pluto2012 (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Trying to get NPOV

Reading this page, I was surprised by the clear pro-Palestinian bias. In the lede, it says in a factual tone, "Factors involved in the exodus include Jewish military advances, attacks against Arab villages and fears of massacre after Deir Yassin, which caused many to leave out of panic; expulsion orders by Zionist authorities; the voluntary self-removal of the wealthier classes, the collapse in Palestinian leadership, and an unwillingness to live under Jewish control." First, all of these "factors" are completely disputed on both sides. It is telling that the author listed all the ones faulting Israel first and listed the others as afterthoughts or smaller factors. I think this page could use with some amending. As this is a hotly debated subject, I think a lot less (on both sides) needs to be presented as fact. There needs to be a lot more "While some think ...., others think ...." and similar grammatical constructions.

Last, I wanted to bring in a few more pieces of evidence. I didn't cross-check every one of these with the reference list at the bottom of the page, so there may be some overlap. Note, these are Arabic sources -- not Zionist/Jewish/Israeli ones. Some of this is found in "Battleground" by Shmuel Katz, which is in fact cited in the page's bibliography, though not the Notes.

1. "The Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade... Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes, and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down." Al-Hoda, June 8, 1951. Cited in Katz, Battleground, p. 17. Note: Al-Hoda is a Lebanese daily paper publishing in New York at the time of this claim.

2. "May 15th arrived... [O]n that very day the Mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead." Akhbar al-Yom (Cairo), Oct. 12, 1963.

3. I found this one on the following website: http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=121275 "The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live.” — Palestinian Authority (then) Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) (Falastin a-Thaura, (March 1976) (note: I tried to look this one up, but the page is no longer there. Ricgal (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC))

Also, unrelated to the dispute of the causes of the exodus, I found a bunch of interesting quotes in Bibi Netanyahu's 1993 book "A Place Among the Nations." If someone were very committed to amending this page, I would look through his sources and quote the ones that are legit. Here is about half a page I have copied word-for-word from "A Place Among Nations," though I list Netanyahu's sources in brackets. You can find this in the chapter "The Reversal of Causality."

Dr. Elfan Rees, the advisor on refugees to the World Council of Churches, noted: "The Arab refugee problem is by far the easiest post-war refugee problem. By faith, by language, by race, and by social organization, they are indistinguishable from their fellows of the host countries." [Speech by Dr. Elfan Rees, reprinted in "Newsletter of the Anglo-Israel Association" 47 (Oct. 1957).] Indeed, after 1948 foreigners seeking to resolve the refugee problem were singularly impressed by the desirability of the refugees' absorption into the Arab states. Thus, a U.S. congressional study mission sent to investigate the situation of the refugees in 1953 reported: "The status of the refugees as a special group of people who are wards of the United Nations should be terminated as soon as possible. The objective should be for refugees to become citizens of the Arab states." [Atkinson, "Security," p.102.] And a Chatham House study in 1949 concluded that, given international financial support, the great majority of the Arab refugees could be absorbed by Iraq and Syria, both of which boasted millions of acres of undeveloped land suitable for agriculture. [Ibid., pp.102-103.] Similarly, a 1951 study by the International Development Advisory Board found that the entire Arab refugee population could be absorbed by Iraq alone. [Ibid., p.102.]

Hope I have helped. :)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobjohnson111980 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but your pro-Israel arguments have utterly failed to refute any of the assertions whose inclusion you dispute. The behavior of neighboring Arab states, for example, does not make the Haganah or other Israeli forces any less responsible for expelling the Palestinians.68.191.148.45 (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Jewish Nakba

This wiki page is about a specific issue, the Palestinian exodus, and the wiki is the ground to "recognize the multitude of viewpoints and provides an epistemic stance in which they all can be recognized as instances of human knowledge – right or wrong" (Reagle, the Epistemic Stance of Wiki section; ≤http://reagle.org/joseph/2004/agree/wikip-agree.html≥) regarding with that specific subject that is the Palestinian al Nakba. Therefore, this last part -- Jewish Nakba-- has nothing to do with the subject but divert the discussion, as it is not complementary with the wiki norms.

We know that Jewish people has had exodus in their history, starting early before 13th century BC, with different specific reasons and yes they are a people having suffered all through history but i don't think that should be included in the 'Palestinian Exodus' page. It per se is different subject and shall be discussed in another wiki page, as it is already available (≤https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries≥) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tunchsyn (talk • contribs) 00:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. An obvious attempt to downplay wrongdoing by means of comparison to a similar "suffering" endured by the perpetrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.148.45 (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I also agree. It has no place in this article. JDiala (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. Not only these two events go hand in hand, but they are two events that are mutual to each other, have a similar name and circumstances with both resulting from violence erupting across the middle-east between Arabs/Muslims and Jews following the implementation of the partition plan. In fact, I think that the Jewish Nakba being such an integral parallel part of the Palestinian Nakba, it stands to reason to devote a section in this article to discuss a comparison between the two and their effects, meaningfulness and importance in the Israeli-Palestinians peace negotiations, right of return and compensations to those who had to flee. The fact logic dictates it should be expanded upon while you call to remove it completely from the article comes off as clear POV-Pushing.
Agree with JDiala and Tunchsyn. The "Jewish exodus" was a real event but it was actively encouraged by Israel in service of the same racial purposes as the Palestinian Nakhba. Using it to "balance" the Palestinian Nakhba is a known disinformation tactic that we shouldn't entertain. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Also agree - it feels very strange in the article as the connection is unclear. It was added a few years ago in this edit [9] by Marokwitz. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, particularly considering the whole aim of the section is to deligimitize the Jewish refugee crisis or deny the actions which led to it ever happened or convince readers that the million of jewish refugees were not refugees at all and happy with the massacres, expropriations etc...(conveniently not allowed to be mentioned even in passing) and jumping straight to how it was all a zionist plot. Better get rid of this section altogether since it gives a bad name to wikipedia. For sake of consistency, references to the Palestinian Nakba should also be eliminated from the article on the Jewish exodus. There is currently a whole section (until recently in the introduction) also focusing on pushing the view that it is zionist propaganda and that its an insult to Palestinians to even insinuate these people were refugees (Actually the term "refugee" has been thoroughly eliminated from that article because it is "controversial"). Just hope whoever approves eliminating this section, is as forceful on the other article. Its hilarious, back in the real world, a Palestinian colleague of mine was trying to convince me this morning that Wikipedia was controlled by Israel.Asilah1981 (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there consensus to remove the section altogether? JDiala (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Probably, (except by Asilah1981). I have at least changed the name, from "Jewish Nakba" to "Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries", To use the title "Jewish Nakba" is outrageous. Huldra (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

There is evidently and strong connexion between both events, both groups of refugees were displaced as a result of Israel's declaration of independence. In theory it should remain and getting rid of it would looks a lot like censorship... but in it's current form it is so bad that it makes the rest of the article look suspect. So its a bit of a dilemma in my opinion.Asilah1981 (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Huldra, perhaps no one im your family was murdered or tortured during the "outrageous" jewish nakba. Be careful what you say so lightly. In any case, I was the one who changed the subtitle "Jewish Nakba", since it doesn't seem NPOV and kind of smacks of sarcasm. "Comparison with jewish exodus from arab lands" sounds like the most logical title, since that (and it's validity) is the best description of what the subsection is discussing.Asilah1981 (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that the Jewish exodus from Arab lands has no place here. 1) The issue of timing: The Jewish exodus occurred after the Palestinian nakba; in the case of the two main source countries - Iraq and Egypt - the height of the exodus occurred years afterwards. That places the issue of possible 'cause-and-effect' in an appropriate temporal context; the Palestinian nakba could have affected the Jewish exodus, but not the other way around. 2) The biggest Jewish exodus of all was from Iraq in 1950. It was facilitated by a change in Iraqi law permitting emigration; by an active program of encouragement by Iraqi and other Zionists; by the registration by Jews to take advantage of the change in law; by the agreement of the Iraqi government to an airlift; and by the voluntary participation of well over 100 000 Iraqi Jews in Operation Ezra and Nehemiah. This is not even remotely comparable with the Palestinian nakba. 3) The paucity of both evidence for, and the very low numbers where these are actually quoted, for physical expulsions from the Arab countries compared to that which occurred in Palestine/Israel. The two events most certainly do not "go hand in hand" as claimed above, and for the second largest Jewish migration - from Egypt - the evidence is clear that the invasions by Israel of Egypt in 1956 and 1967 had a far greater cumulative effect that that of 1948. 4) The "pull" factor occasioned by Israel's May 1948 independence in almost all of the Arab countries finds no counterpart in the case of the Palestinians. Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Why "Exodus" as a title?

Given the article material, the overwhelming evidence of Israeli aggression and forced armed clearances, including psychological warfare, why debase the events that took place with such a title?

I know there will be overwhelming opposition to terms such as "ethnic cleansing", but exodus (noun) doesn't seem to capture the true humanitarian crisis that occurred, people didn't just leave, they were actively and forcefully removed.

CreateSomethingAmazing (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Exodus just means mass departure of people. The article gives the reasons for the departure. Kingsindian (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The Israeli side often claims most or all fled, there has to be some mention of that position. Anyway, even if they did flee out of fear for their lives, that hardly justifies Israel in exploiting the opportunity to deny them return and seize their property without compensation.Watermark10 (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The word "exodus" in the title is ludicrous considering the article states the Palestinians themselves refer to this period as the Nakba, meaning "castrophe", in the very first line. 90.244.31.31 (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Jewish "reprisals"

It seems odd to me that Palestinians and Arabs "attack" and the Zionists "reprise". Are we to believe that the Palestinian or Arab justification for an attack was never reprisal, just out of the blue unprovoked aggression? Or that the Zionists never attacked first? Or that the Zionists didn't merely offer that as a justification after the fact for a mission that had actually been conducted with other motivations? Both were conducted with against innocent civilians, both sides I imagine had their reasons for conducting them, but one gets one name, the other gets another.Watermark10 (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Watermark10. In addition I would say the whole article has a very pro-Jewish/anti-Arab bias and needs a lot of work to get to a NPOV. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight/Archive_15&oldid=1145228702"