Talk:Jewish exodus from the Muslim world/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

forcibly inserting misleading text while removing correct text

@Oncenawhile: The discussion with you is deeply disappointing. You remove a well supported text, you do not reply to the questions , you downgrade a well respected source like Morris as superficial but avoid supporting your opposite view.

-Moreover, you inserted misleading sentences that pushes an agenda. The question "how many of the emigrating Jews were refugees" is misleadingly presented as pushed by an agenda rather than looking on it at face value. I am an Israeli but I do not agree to "view the Jewish exodus as equivalent to the 1948 Palestinian exodus" although it is still a major tragedy. How come that the lead carry a misleading statement (for those years) like: "good relations between the Jewish communities and their country's governments,"? How come that at the same time the Jews were persecuted and had good relations? You have been asked for but there was no response. How come that your source uses a mistaken definition of a "refugee" but you avoid replying to the point? Ykantor (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ykantor, with respect to the topics in the first sentence, let's continue to discuss these in the threads above - I have no more right than anyone to decide the outcomes to these points, so I am keen to continue to discuss until we reach a point we are all satisfied with.

With respect to the diff you linked to, this was arrived at after more than a month of discussion. The archived discussion is at Talk:Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries/Archive_3#Proposed_text_for_lead. I have promised to make the sources clearer as you request, and so I will do so. But could you explain why you deleted two existing references here? Your edit summaries said the "Times of Israel" source was "mistaken", and that the CSM source was not WP:RS - I don't understand your first point and I don't agree with your second. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I have added in some more sources to support the points you were questioning. It has taken some time as this paragraph was written a long time ago so needed to go back to read the original sources.

On the good relations point, you write "How come that at the same time the Jews were persecuted and had good relations". The word "government" is the key here. Of all the governments involved around the time of the exoduses, not a single one I am aware of is thought to have specifically persecuted their Jewish communities. Even in post-Suez Egypt, Nasser's government was targeting the Mutamassirun more broadly.

The persecutions you are referring to that took place in e.g. de-colonialising Morocco or WWII Iraq were NOT government-led, in fact they were always quelled by the respective governments. So yes, scholars have absolutely pointed out that in e.g. Morocco and Iraq the governments had good relations with their Jewish communities. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

- REFUGEE DEFINITION 1. You returned Alon lial words as a source, although I have already said that "How come that your source uses a mistaken definition of a "refugee" but you avoid replying to the point? ". It is amazing. If you just google for the term "refugee" , the first phrases in the search list (i.e. Wikipedia, U.N ) define what is a refugee, and see for yourself that Mr Lial mislead his listeners by re-defining what is a refugee. Please do not cite him here.

- REFUGEE DEFINITION 2. The Csmonitor is not a wp:rs either. Also, in my opinion, the article should deal with the question whether some of the emigrating Jews were refugees, which is not related to what both sides politicians are claiming nowadays. Besides, are you sure the it is an Israeli policy to "settle its account with the Palestinians by deducting the lost assets of its own citizens, "? . I guess that there no Israeli Knesset members who supports such a stupid idea. Please do not cite this non-wp:rs here.

-"How come that at the same time the Jews were persecuted and had good relations"?. Yours: "scholars have absolutely pointed out that in e.g. Morocco and Iraq the governments had good relations with their Jewish communities.". Are you sure that those scholar claims for good relations during those years? It is really amazing.

Yours:"Of all the governments involved around the time of the exoduses, not a single one I am aware of is thought to have specifically persecuted their Jewish communities.. Please have a look in this article for:

1. Nuri Said words and acts
2. Senior Arab officials threatened the Jews.
3. "Jewish bank accounts were confiscated and many Jews lost their jobs"

Also, Morris (2008, p. 412 ) says: "The war indirectly created a second, major refugee problem. Partly because of the clash of Jewish and Arab arms in Palestine, some five to six hundred thousand Jews who lived in the Arab world emigrated, were intimidated into flight, or were expelled from their native countries, most of them reaching Israel, with a minority resettling in France, Britain, and the other Western countries. The immediate propellants to flight were the popular Arab hostility, including pogroms, triggered by the war in Palestine and specific governmental measures, amounting to institutionalized discrimination' against and oppression of the Jewish minority communities. ". Ykantor (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Ykantor, the sentence we are discussing is written "Those who argue that the exodus does not equate to the Palestinian exodus... argue that most or all of those who left were not refugees." We are not therefore using Liel or others to prove that they were not refugees. We are simply saying that some people argue that they were not refugees. We have an entire section of the article or people making the same argument here. Are you disputing that people really make that argument?

An WP:RS judgement depends on the subject and specific text being supported. If this was an article on Christian Science, I would agree that CSM may not be WP:RS. But on this topic they have no obvious bias, and their analysis of this point appears credible. Please take this to WP:RSN if you disagree.

The same goes for your last point. We are not arguing that all the governments had good relations, only that scholars have made that argument. Having said that, on your three points above: 1. We have discussed Nuri before - the words and acts you refer to came after he had been convinced by external parties to allow an exodus, following which the "delay became a significant problem for the Iraqi government... as the large number of Jews "in limbo" created problems politically, economically and for domestic security"; 2. Were the "Senior Arab officials" you refer to responsible for the relevant government policies in their respective countries?; 3. This refers to post-Suez Egypt - see my comment from 15 Feb.

Oncenawhile (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: Again:The discussion with you is deeply disappointing. You remove a well supported text, you do not reply to the questions , you downgrade a well respected source like Morris as superficial but avoid supporting your opposite view.

- Concerning your wrong claim:"Of all the governments involved around the time of the exoduses, not a single one I am aware of is thought to have specifically persecuted their Jewish communities. You repeat claims that " scholars have made that argument" but you do not bother to provide those wp:rs although asked for few times. On the other hand, I provided Morris support and some of this specific article details, that proves the opposite: The establishment and the local population persecuted the Jews during those years.

- I repeat: " in my opinion, the article should deal with the question whether some of the emigrating Jews were refugees, which is not related to what both sides politicians are claiming nowadays.".You do not bother to refer to this point.

- There are more instances of your avoidance to deal with a questionable points. -So what is the consequence? Is it an attrition tactic? Ykantor (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This conversation would be easier if you would try to WP:AGF. This mistrust is clouding our discussion. I am keen to agree imporvements to the article with you - try working to "build" with me rather than constant negativity.

To comment on each of your comments:

- I am answering most of your questions. The only ones I have not answered immediately are where you have asked for details on sources for text written more than a year ago. This takes a bit of time, so let's be reasonable. Laskier is a good example - he definitely explained the good relationships between the Maghrebi governments and their Jewish populations; I just need to go back to look at the book again to find a quote. I find your aggression misplaced - you have answered less of my questions than I have of yours, so I sense the conversation has become uneven. On 17 Feb I asked two questions and made four points, which you have yet to respond to.

- I agree with your comment "the article should deal with the question whether some of the emigrating Jews were refugees". See the "Question 3" thread above from December - we were making good progress there until Asilah left.

- This article is hard work, as it covers a very broad and complex subject. If you are willing to work with me on this, and stop imagining things like "attrition tactic", I am sure we can achieve real improvements to the article. If I have missed answering any other questions, please just restate them clearly (preferably in a separate thread as we did in December with Questions 1-6). I will work with you on whatever topics you like, just please give me time to go back and get sources where they are less easily available.

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

-Yours:"I am keen to agree improvements to the article with you - try working to "build" with me". OK. Let's try to cooperate.

-mine:"which is not related to what both sides politicians are claiming nowadays". I propose not to mention nowadays politics in the lead. I myself would like to exclude it from the article all together, but if you wish, it may stay in the relevant section.

- mine: ""settle its account with the Palestinians by deducting the lost assets of its own citizens, "? . I guess that there are no Israeli Knesset members who supports such a stupid idea". One of your sources, Mr Shenhav in " Haaaretz, says : "It has yet to extract a single noteworthy declaration from any major Israeli politician", which is identical to my guess. So why should the article discuss the analogy that has no real support?

-My couple of sentences (that you deleted) deals with the years 1948 to 1951, which in my opinion are important since the Israeli immigration gates were suddenly opened, and the 1947-1949 war raised the animosity toward the Jews in the Arab / Moslim states, which resulted in oppression, driven by both the population and the governments. However, each Arab country behaved differently toward the Jews during those 3 years. Some Arab states blocked Jewish emigration or the oppression there was not very bad. The result was a doubling of Israel Jewish population from 700 thousand Jews on 1948 to 1400 thousand Jews on 1951, among them 260 thousands Jews from Arab/ Moslem states. The major contributors were Iraq (110,000 Jews), Yemen, Libya and Morocco and much less from other Arab/ Moslem states . ( I have yet to verify it). Hence, those lead sentences (years 1948-1951) should relate to those countries, and not to other countries. Ykantor (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ykantor,

• Re "settle its account...", see for example some of the sources at this thread. Also Fischbach's 2013 book discusses exactly this.
• Re verifying the immigration during 48-51, see One_Million_Plan#Initial_immigration.
• I am fine with your concept of treating 48-51 separately in the lead. But per my edit comment on my revert just now, we should ensure that we are not implying that one factor was more important than another. Perhaps we can work together to craft a couple of sentences that we both think are neutral?

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

- I'll happily cooperate with you. Your recent deletion is not appropriate, since the deleted text is important and fully supported, while You have not supported yet your claim concerning "cherry picking". Hence I return this text.

- I repeat my proposal to omit from the lead the nowadays politicians view. If at all, it should have a low weight in the article body. Ykantor (talk) 06:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ykantor, thanks for your post. Let's discuss the text specifically. Your proposal is:

"As the armed conflict in Palestine intensified, the Jews in Arab and Moslem states suffered persecutions.[11][12][13] Partly because of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, more than half a million Jews emigrated from Arab countries. The war created hostility against local Jews, resulting in pogroms, government-sponsored discrimination and other hostility that drove many Jews out of Arab states,[14] but Iraqi politicians candidly admitted that they wanted to expel their Jewish population for reasons of their own.[15][16]"

This wording implies that the most important factors in the 1948-51 exodus were (1) persecutions, hostility, pogroms, discrimination (2) the Arab-Israeli conflict, and (3) Iraqi politicians. Why are these the only factors you chose to highlight? We have a paragraph later on "push and pull factors", which covers the question of "why the exodus happened" in a much more neutral way.

This "why" question is undoubtedly the single most sensitive and difficult NPOV question we have on this article. Your text shows only one POV. I could write the other side of the story, supported by equally good sources as follows:

"Following the British withdrawl in May 1948, immigration restrictions were immediately lifted. Mossad Aliyah Bet, Jewish Agency officials and local Zionist groups began organising immigration to Israel from across the region, as well as from Romania, Poland and other Eastern European nations. Immigrants were attracted by promises of future economic success, nationalistic fervour stoked by local Zionist organizations, religious beliefs, and political instability in their countries of origin."

Don't forget also that for many of the persecutions that took place such as the riots in Libya or Morocco, there were also claims that these outbursts were sparked by Zionists looking to catalyze divisions between the local Jews and their neighbors. Also we shouldn't forget to mention that during this 1948-51 period, almost all of the governments involved were actively trying to prevent Jewish emigration.
All of this is sourced already in the article, and both sides have their place. I am not proposing replacing one side's version with another, but rather that we work together to produce a version that show both sides in a balanced manner.
How do you propose we progress? Oncenawhile (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

- I propose to differentiate between the years immediately after the 1948 war and the Later years. The lead says: "The first large-scale exoduses took place between 1948 and 1951, as two hundred sixty thousand Jews from Arab countries immigrated to Israel , among them up to 90% of the Jews in Iraq, Yemen and Libya,". The immigration from Iraq was the biggest one, by far. I have cited good wp:rs that the Iraqi government oppressed the Jews and wanted to get rid of them. Incidentally, the Israeli government did not wanted them to immigrate (temporarily) because of the Israeli limited absorbing capability. There are no sources (yet?) that claim otherwise. So, at least for Iraq, your balanced description does not reflect the emigration reasons. Ykantor (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Ykantor,

• We are agreed that we can differentiate the time periods as you suggest. In the 1948-53 period, per One_Million_Plan#Initial_immigration, 354,623 people from Asia and Africa immigrated to Israel. Of this 35% were from Iraq, 13% from Yemen, and 9-10% from each of Turkey, Tunisia, Iran and Libya.
• On Iraq, we have already discussed the "some politicians" reference at #Some_Iraqi_politicians... - unless you can prove any actual relevance, it is just anecdotal evidence which "may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases". We have discussed the complexity of the situation in Iraq at this thread, as well as others. We also have a large number of good sources in the article at #Iraq. If we are going to bring up Iraq specifically here, we must do so in an NPOV fashion. That means describing the (1) Zionist underground movement and Mossad agents there, (2) the Baghdad bombings, (3) the British influence on Nuri and the British involvement in the negotiations to open the gates, (4) the many Israeli politicians who identified value of the human capital in the Iraqi Jewish community as the most attractive group of potential immigrants in the region, (5) that many Iraqi Jews blame the Zionist movement for misleading them into leaving their homeland, (6) that many Iraqi Jews chose to stay, (7) that the challenges around the actual immigration were due to an Israeli u-turn at the last minute etc.

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Here it starts again. Although you do not bother to provide source that shows an allegedly cherry picking, you develop a parallel so called history. Is that what you call a cooperation?Ykantor (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I can point you to the sources - what information do you want sourced? It is all in the article already. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

1- You deleted this supported text: "As the armed conflict in Palestine intensified, the Jews in Arab and Moslem states suffered persecutions. Partly because of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, more than half a million Jews emigrated from Arab countries. The war created hostility against local Jews, resulting in pogroms, government-sponsored discrimination and other hostility that drove many Jews out of Arab states,[14] but Iraqi politicians candidly admitted that they wanted to expel their Jewish population for reasons of their own". In my opinion it is a good summarized description of the situation there. Your opinion is different and you call it a cherry picking. So why don't you provide a supported text for the alleged cherries that have not been picked yet.?

2- Concerning the bombing, it seems that it was not a Zionist plot. Initially the regime accused the Zionists in all of 5 cases of bombing, but in the trial they were indicted (and found guilty) in the later ones only, those who happened after the immigration registration expired. Hence the Zionists allegedly arranged the bombing in order to promote Jewish immigration by bombing after the last registration date. This is an absurd.

3- Technically the Jews were not expelled from Iraq, so there were 5% - 10% that decided to stay, but practically it was fairly close for most of the Jews. I am against equating the Jewish exodus with the Palestinian refugees, but let us have a look in the accumulation of reasons: "In examining the causes of the Arab exodus from Palestine over 1947–1949, accurate quantification is impossible. I have tried to show that the exodus occurred in stages and that causation was multi-layered: A Haifa merchant did not leave only because of the weeks or months of sniping and bombings; or because business was getting bad; or because of intimidation and extortion by irregulars; or because he feared the collapse of law and order when the British left; or because he feared for his prospects and livelihood under Jewish rule. He left because of the accumulation of all these factors. " (Morris, revisited, p. 598). Ykantor (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

1- My proposal: "Following the British withdrawl in May 1948, immigration restrictions were immediately lifted. Mossad Aliyah Bet, Jewish Agency officials and local Zionist groups began organising immigration to Israel from across the region, as well as from Romania, Poland and other Eastern European nations. The intensification of the armed conflict in Palestine, together with alleged agitation by local Zionist agents, resulted in growing hostility against the Jewish population in certain countries, including violent persecutions. Many governments in these countries, both colonial and independent, put up restrictions against Jewish emigration during this period, although these restrictions were dropped in Iraq and Yemen following negotiations with the Israeli government. These factors resulted in around 350,000 Jews emigrating from these countries to Israel from 1948-53, of which 35% were from Iraq, 13% from Yemen, and 9-10% from each of Turkey, Tunisia, Iran and Libya. Immigrants were attracted by promises of future economic success, nationalistic fervour stoked by local Zionist organizations, religious beliefs, and political instability in their countries of origin."

2- This has been discussed extensively at 1950–51 Baghdad bombings. If you read any of the sources at 1950–51_Baghdad_bombings#Bibliography, you will see from the context at the time that there is nothing absurd about it, although noone knows for sure.

3- Both were driven by multi-layered factors, and both populations (Palestinians and Mizrahi Jews) were victims. The difference is that, of all the factors, the only truly "strategic" or "planned" factor was on opposite sides in the two occasions. In the Palestinian exodus, the one factor which was clearly "strategic" was the Jewish leadership's desire to create a clear Jewish majority in Israel (some people think this was documented in Plan Dalet). In the Jewish exodus, the one factor which was clearly "strategic" was the Israeli leadership's desire to create an even stronger Jewish majority in Israel (i.e. the One Million Plan).

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ykantor, it's been two weeks since I proposed the draft in (1) above combining both our views. Please let me know if you have any comments. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

- your proposed text is somehow improved but not sufficiently. The article and the lead should reflect the sources, relatively to the weight of the opinions. There are plenty of sources that claim that Jews in Arab/ Moslem countries were oppressed and some were driven out. As I recall, there are hardly any source who claim that the Zionist cause was a major factor. (Please update me if I am wrong). Hence the text should give a proper weight for each claim.

- Countries were nearly all the Jews left (e.g. Iraq, Yemen, Libya) until 1952, Should be mentioned together. I am familiar in the case of Iraq, and they were de-facto expelled. (Adelman p. 179). In Egypt a big minority left at that time, but it does not make sense to claim that they were de-facto expelled since the majority remained. However, a lot of Jews were expelled or driven out after the 1956 Suez crisis.

- Concerning the Palestinians, their fate was worst. I am not sure why this article should deal the Palestinians refugees problem. The Jewish exodus from Arab countries was deleted from this article, and apparently is not mentioned in other articles of the Template:Nakba.

-Anyway, concerning an alleged plan to expel the Palestinians, I suggest to follow Benny Morris, who is one of the so called new historians. Please have a look at the article Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus where he is probably the most cited Historian. He says that there was no such a plan, and the poof is that if there was such a plan, why most of the Arab villages in central Galilee region stayed. He claims that other were expelled, but he considers the Israeli government responsible for the Palestinian Refugees problem, mainly because it did not allow them to return to there homes, when the war was over. It seems that all of the Arab sources support the version of an expulsion plan, so in that case both views should be mentioned. Ykantor (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

- @Oncenawhile: Will you please refer to those issues? thanks Ykantor (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ykantor, thanks for the prompt. To your first point, all of the quality research on this subject discusses Zionist agitation. The sources are all in the Further Reading section. I suggest you read Fischbach, Shenhav, Haoohen, Morris & Black, Parfitt, Roumani, Shohat, Chouraqui, Laskier, Beinin, Bashkina and Meir-Glitzenstein. It's critical to understand that the best scholars on this topic see the different regions as hardly comparable, and so avoid broad sweeping statements like those made by the propagandists, and thereby focus on just one country or sub-region.

On your second point, the reality was much more complex than you suggest. The "de facto expelled" in Iraq is wholly incorrect - the Iraqi government wanted to keep the borders closed to Jewish emigration, yet ultimately gave into pressure to allow Israel to arrange for transfer of what was the most attractive pool of human capital out of all the Jewish communities in the whole region. And in Egypt, the Jews were not singled out - the entire mutamassirun was encouraged to leave after Suez.

On the final paragraph, it is critical as it explains the only remaining ongoing relevance of the history. It explains why there is now a memorial day in Israel for this, why there have been bills in the US congress, and why this topic remains heated in the scholarly community. In fact, it explains why this topic exists at all, as without the modern agenda, the propagandistic construct of the "exodus from Arab and Muslim countries" would not have been created in the first place, but each country or sub-region would have been considered independently. The modern agenda is highly notable as a result.

Oncenawhile (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

You are very much mistaken about Iraq. The Jews there were very much persecuted for at least a decade before they left. From the Farhud to Shafiq Ades to being kicked out of all government office, not allowed to import/export, work in finance, bullied, arrested, not getting protection from the state in court, etc, etc, etc.

I find it somewhat amusing that you call scholars you agree with "the best scholars" (at least half of which are self-proclaimed activists) and those you don't "propagandists".

You are also very mistaken about what drives the people who care about this exodus, and the "modern agenda" as you call it. But apparently you have some kind of view into a parallel universe where the people who don't agree with you don't exist. Must be fun. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

To your final point, the "modern agenda" point is based on an overwhelming number of sources. Some of them have been discussed before, e.g. in this archived thread.

Since you are casting aspersions about my list of 13 scholars, please provide sources underpinning your "self-proclaimed activists" claim regarding the "at least half".

Your statements about Iraq suggest that you have a very confused understanding of the history there. The actual timing of events, including the periods of good relations between the government and the Jewish communities in Iraq is a critical detail which you overlook. As is Israel's well documented interest in the immigration of Iraqi Jews, and many Iraqi Jews later blaming Israel for misleading them. It is all in the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

- @Oncenawhile and No More Mr Nice Guy: Will you accept to move the lead's last paragraph (i.e politics) to the article body, perhaps to a new section called "retrospective"?

- Oncenawhile: It seems that you prefer Shiblak version as for what happened in Iraq. ( see Gat p. 2 ) . This version is contradicting the other historians version (see next paragraph). So will you accept to present both parallel versions in the lead and in the article body?

- yours:"all of the quality research on this subject discusses Zionist agitation". As for Iraq, Some of your suggested sources say clearly that the Iraqi government's oppression and the insecurity were the major factor for the exodus. e.g.

----"…fight against Zionism, the state engaged in a process of collective punishments…unjustly designated an entire community as second-rate citizens. These undemocratic measures …pushed the Jews to emigrate from Iraq" Bashkin2012p185

----"Any tension in the Middle east would impinge directly on the situation of the Jews. Their chances of having stability or equality in Iraq appeared slim, and therefore it is understandable that many members of the community… wished to leave Iraq…The timing was determined by the Iraqi government, Israel was the only available option, and the magnitude of the emigration was due to the growing insecurity of the Jewish community in 1950. … In a different, non catastrophic context, as occurred in other Muslim countries such as Iran and Egypt, one might have expected a much slower, drawn out exodus and a range of destinations, with Israel being only one of them, not necessarily the main one" Meir-Glitzenstein2004p216

----Nuri al-Said, the Iraqi prime minister, was determined to drive the Jews out of his country as quickly as possible, Gat2013p124 Bashkin2012p277, Ka cowiczLutomski2007

Hi Ykantor, to your points

• My concern is that most news articles on this topic mention the attempted connection to the Palestinian refugees. Another example is this one. So why should we hide the issue by expunging it from the lead?
• I agree we should show both scholarly versions of the Iraq narrative. This article is a good comparison of the two.
• None of those sources, and no truly scholarly sources I have ever seen, state that oppression and insecurity were THE major factor. Frankly, so sensible scholar could ever make that claim, as there were so many competing factors at play. The best we can do is explain all the major factors, and not giving into temptation to prioritise whichever one we choose to believe is THE major factor.
• Please don't continue to mislead people by using that Nuri quote out of context. You and I have discussed this many times before and you are fully aware by now that the statement referred to a situation where the Jewish community had been stuck in limbo for many months following the temporary breakdown / delay of the indirect transfer arrangement between Israel and Iraq.

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

- What is the relation between nowadays politics and news and between an encyclopedic article? Other articles concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict do not mention current politics, so why this one should mention politics? In my opinion it shouldn't. However, in order to compromise and to get a consensus, I propose to move it to the article body.

- Thank you for the interesting comparison article. I'll come back after I'll read it. In the meantime, will you accept to write a paragraph with Shiblak version and I'll write a paragraph with the other sources views.

- Yours: "None of those sources, and no truly scholarly sources I have ever seen, state that oppression and insecurity were THE major factor". I presented here (and plan to add more) quotes with the claim that the main reason for the exodus was the insecurity, government oppression, etc.

- If Nuri's quote is misleading, it is because it is only a sample of his other plans / quotes when he repeatedly wanted / proposed/ plans to expel/ oppress the Jews, already at 1947 and of course latter as well. from the article:

---- Before United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine vote, the Iraq's prime minister Nuri al-Said told British diplomats that if the United Nations solution was not "satisfactory", "severe measures should [would?] be taken against all Jews in Arab countries"

----In January 1949, the pro-British Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Said discussed the idea of deporting Iraqi Jews to Israel with British officials,

----On 14 October 1949 Nuri Al Said raised the exchange of population concept with the economic mission survey

----in September 1950, he summoned a representative of the Jewish community and warned the Jewish community of Baghdad to make haste; otherwise, he would take the Jews to the borders himself. (to be continued) Ykantor (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the political issue being mentioned in the lead along the lines of what I suggested in a section below (assuming there's something in the body of the article which is summarizes, of course). I don't think it needs the amount of detail it has now, though.

Here's is another comparison of the Iraq narratives, one by an academic rather than "a writer and book critic" [1]. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Telaviv1, your edit here needs further work:

Your source (Joan G. Roland. The Jewish Communities of India: Identity in a Colonial Era. Transaction Publishers. p. 349. ISBN 978-1-4128-3748-4.) does not say what you suggest it does. It says that Afghan Jews were expelled from certain towns, but were allowed to live in Kabul and Herat. So they were NOT expelled from Afghanistan.

Also the statement "During the 1930's the Nazis cultivated relations with Afghanistan (which was an independent monarchy) with a view to a possible invasion of British India" seems to be anachronous - the idea that the Nazis were planning an invasion of India in 1933 (as implied by the juxtaposition of the sentence with the subsequent one) seems highly unlikely. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen a source connecting this to the Afghan Jewish community, so its inclusion as you have juxtaposed it is synth. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I accepted the criticism and downgraded the emphasis on the Nazi connection. I think creating intolerable conditions amounts to expulsion, even if it is not physical deportation. They faced restrictions in KAbul and Herat. There is a book coming out in June about the Afgan JEws in NEw York which mayhave more information. Telaviv1 (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Right, but your edit is still not at all reflective of what the sources actually say.

• The source above is primarily talking about a specific set of Jews that were evacuated having been in transit in Afghanistan, trying to get to India, and were mostly Russian Jews (it says that even the Persian Jews were often of Russian origin). They were transported because the Indian government feared that they were Bolsheviks. It is these Jews that the source says went mostly to Palestine.
• Your JTA source does not sound scholarly to me, but note it was dated 1934 not 1948 per your edit.
• The story about the 1933 internal expulsions needs further context. Since you added the "Wings of Eagles" as a separate ref, I assume this means you have access to it - can you please add more detail. The key context required is the motive for these actions and who exactly carried them out.
• I have added a few citation needed.

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Another revert from NMMNG

This [2] revert is just another example of NMMNG's laziness or tendentiousness, or both. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You mad, bro? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Minor

NMMNG, please respond to this comment [3]. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

My response is: Please provide a source that supports your edit, per WP:V. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I have done so - sources have been discussed in great detail on these talk pages, which show that the ONLY expulsion was in Egypt, and that is was very small in scale. More details are at 1956–57 exodus and expulsions from Egypt.

Since you will likely ask for the exact wording to be sourced, let's do this the other way. I am going to remove the word "expulsions" altogether, as it is inaccurate and unsourced. There was only one expulsion, and so using the plural and including it in a paragraph of generalisations about the overall exodus is incorrect. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Rereading it, I went instead for "an episode of expulsion". Oncenawhile (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Greyshark, you have been adding "expulsions" in the plural. Please explain this in detail here per WP:BRD. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Opposition to large scale unrestricted immigration

HaCohen writes "Opponents in the Jewish Agency and the government of mass immigration argued". That is NOT the same as writing "the Jewish Agency opposed..." And in fact HaCohen explains the opposite is true, seeing as the leader of the Jewish Agency successfully supported the proposal. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean there. Maybe it should say "there were those within the Jewish Agency and government who opposed...". You could have fixed the problem with 4 words. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Good solution. Well done. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

OK.GreyShark (dibra) 10:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Farhud

Greyshark added into the lead "A change came in the 1940s, with the rise of antisemitism and the events of the Second World War. In April 1941, a pro-Nazi regime was formed in Iraq and following a widespread propaganda campaign, an anti-Jewish Farhud pogrom erupted in the final days of the regime in Baghdad, leading to deaths of 180 Jews. The Farhud pogrom was a shocking event to Iraqi Jewish community, as many displaced Iraqi Jews began fleeing for Israel reaching a rate of 1,000 per year."

Later in the article a more balanced paragraph states "In some accounts the Farhud marked the turning point for Iraq's Jews.[100][101][102] Other historians, however, see the pivotal moment for the Iraqi Jewish community much later, between 1948–51, since Jewish communities prospered along with the rest of the country throughout most of the 1940s,[103][104][105][105][106] and many Jews who left Iraq following the Farhud returned to the country shortly thereafter and permanent emigration did not accelerate significantly until 1950–51.[104][107]"

Can we please keep this article with a balanced point of view, not just one side. Thank you.

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

"Rise of antisemitism in the Middle East and North Africa"

Greyshark added a section break with the POV title "Rise of antisemitism in the Middle East and North Africa"

Please provide WP:RS supporting this title in relation to this article. This is a complex and sensitive topic. You may believe that anti-semitism drove the exodus, but that is only one point of view, and is a propagandistic oversimplification not held by serious scholars of the exodus in the various regions.

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the multiple sources previously removed from this article by POV editors, i would like to add for instance a review The Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries: An Examination of Legal Rights - A Case Study of the Human Rights Violations of Iraqi Jews by Prof. Carol Basri, who writes "This lengthy discussion is necessary due to the lack of general knowledge of who the Jewish refugees were, why they left Arab countries, and how their rights were violated. Further, the long exposition on the dhimmitude is critical to showing the history of religious tension and discriminatory treatment that laid the groundwork for later Nazi propaganda and religion-based discriminatory legislation." She clearly refers to the Dhimmi status and the Nazi propaganda as a background to the exodus of Jewish refugees.GreyShark (dibra) 10:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Carole Basri is certainly a little bit too much involved to be reliable. More, her use of the concept of dhimmitude, which is highly controversial, gives her even less credit.

I'd rather agree with Onceawhile here : "[The antisemitism in the Arab world and its relation with Nazis during WWII] is a complex and sensitive topic [whose treatment if often dealed with] a propagandistic oversimplification."

We should avoid this topic and if not, deal this with the highest care and with the best wp:rs sources. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD

Averysoda, perhaps you don't understand how WP:BRD works.

Since you have added back today's large and undiscussed edits, the WP:ONUS is now on you to support what you have added. Please answer all the issues and concerns on the edit raised above. If you are unwilling or unable, your blind support for these additions will be reverted.

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

You reverted good content about the Iraqi farhud and the fact that "of the 900,000 Jews who left Arab and other Muslim countries, 600,000 settled in the new state of Israel, and 300,000 in France and the United States." Try not to destroy everything when you revert, specially when it is supported by reliable sources.--Averysoda (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

No, the Farhud comment was one-sided - read the thread opened just above this. If you don't know what you are reverting, join the discussion. We are not in a rush here.

What is worse that reverting an 80% bad and 20% good edit? Re-reverting an 80% bad and 20% good edit.

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Then stop reverting and start gaining consensus. Greyshark09 is an experienced, neutral and honest editor who doesn't have a political position about this subject like you and me (or many other users). I'm sure most of his content is very well sourced and precise. Lower your speed.--Averysoda (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you have read WP:ONUS have you. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Or WP:BRD for that matter. It is not called WP:BRRD. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Note also that your comment "I'm sure most of his content is very well sourced and precise" is proof of the "blind" nature of your revert. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

You made a blind revert. I'm satisfied if the uncontroversial points stay in the article. The rest is up to Greyshark09 and you. I'm sure he can explain his edits better than me.--Averysoda (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope. I made a detailed analysis and concluded that the vast majority of the edits made by Greyshark need discussion. Proof of this is in the threads above. You are apparently unable to contribute to a single one. If you are not willing to enter into discussion to support your edits, then don't edit the article at all. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, make sure you don't remove any uncontroversial information. Try to make constructive edits and fix problems instead of destroying everything.--Averysoda (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Another blind revert, this time from Plot Spoiler.

Plot Spoiler, since you have added back these large and undiscussed edits, the WP:ONUS is now on you to support what you have added. Please answer all the issues and concerns on the edit raised above. If you are unwilling or unable, your blind support for these additions will be reverted.

Oncenawhile (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC) user:Oncenawhile - when you are editing against the community consensus (multiple examples above) - this is the true violation of WP:BRD. I remind you that you are warned for ARBPIA sanctions, so edit-warring (even if slow) might get you into trouble, no matter how much wikilawyering you are trying to utilize to insert your edits or removing entire sections for POV reasons.GreyShark (dibra) 10:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain your edits, two weeks after you made them. Unfortunately, a number of your positions remain factually incorrect. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Lost property estimates

In the article published by Ynet, [4] Dr. Adam Reuter cites an estimate according to which "the lost property of Palestinians who became refugees following the War of 1948 amounts to about 60 percent of the property lost by Jews expelled from Arab states." If there is no policy based arguemnts I want to add this claim to the property estimates section of this article.Tritomex (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not know much about this, but who is Adam Reuter and why is this comparison to Palestinian refugees being made? One can simply talk about the property claims of Jews who left. A scholarly source is preferred, since this is almost 70 years old, someone must have discussed property claims. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Adam Reuter is some businessman who wrote an article, not a recognised expert. He writes "according to one estimate" without saying who made the estimate, at which time, whether it refers to original value or value today, etc etc. In other words it is essentially useless and doesn't belong here. Michael Fischbach's detailed published studies would be a far far better source. Zero^talk 22:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the Adam Reuter source for now. There are other estimates in the "Property Claims" section which are suspect as well, but I don't have time to touch them for now. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Adam Retuter was the the chief dealer of the Bank of Israel at the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE); chairman of the investment committee of the study funds of the employees of the Bank of Israel; chairman of the investment committee of the Edmund de Rothschild Bank in Israel ; deputy chairman of the investment committee of Menorah Insurance; external director for various banks' provident funds and mutual funds. Founder of the first Israeli hedge fund, "Livlov Hasigalon". Holds an MBA and a PhD in business administration with a concentration on financing, and an undergraduate degree in economics. Licensed by the Israel Securities Authority to manage investment portfolios. Author of "The Bonds Book" and "Financial Risks Management" - both used as textbooks in their respective fields. Ynetnews is per WP:RS reliable secondary source. His claim regarding the value of property was properly sourced to him and he clearly has expertise from property value estimation. His articles regarding different economic estimates are widely cited by Globes, Ynetnews, Jpost etc. Tritomex (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Not a historian or expert on Arab economies then. Glad you cleared that up. Besides, it doesn't matter: he writes "according to one estimate" without saying who made the estimate, at which time, whether it refers to original value or value today, etc etc. There is nothing at all in the article about Reuter having estimated anything, it is just commentary about things that aren't identified. Zero^talk 05:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tritomex: What is the point of asking on the talk page, if you are going to ignore it and add it anyway? As discussed above, the author is not an expert in the area (which would be history). Being a dealer on the Israeli stock exchange is not a qualification for making historical estimates, and he does not make estimates, just states some estimates (he doesn't say from where). With a historical event 70 years old, surely one can find better sources than a newspaper article written by a stock exchange dealer. Kindly remove this and get consensus. I can't remove this right now because of WP:1RR. Kingsindian ♝♚ 07:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: The subject I asked on talk page was not the sentence you removed. This are not historical estimates as this property value has been estimated in modern currency at current time and I am not sure that an academic historian would be better source, than a widely cited economist on this matter. Beside this, his claim was attributed to him, not presented as a kind of conclusion. I can agree with Zeero regarding the second part, namely that the comparison made between Palestinian property loss and Jewish property loss needs identification of source before/if it can be added. This was my question and not whether Reuter has qualifications to make estimates regarding property value or whether Ynet is reliable source, as the answer on both question is obvious. Tritomex (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tritomex: Perhaps you only asked about part of the material you added (which still remains by the way), but I and Zero0000 are objecting to the whole material. Reuter is not published for his estimates of the Jewish property losses, he wrote a book on something else entirely. He is not even referring to his own research on this matter, but quoting some estimates (not mentioned exactly which). You may have your own opinion about whether he is qualified or not, but as seen above, you do not have consensus to add this. Kindly get consensus first, per WP:ONUS, perhaps by using an WP:RFC or some other method. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:No it has not remained. I did not revert that part. What is your policy based argument to withhold an opinion of widely cited Israeli economic expert who holds an MBA and a PhD from economic sciences? He is maybe biased or Pro-Israeli, yet his views/estimates are just his views, not less reliable than the estimates made by others in that section and are properly attributed to him. He is one of the most prominent Israeli economist who regularly wrrites regarding economic aspects of Israeli-Palestinian conflict in numerous journals. Also, his estimates are published by reliable secondary source.--Tritomex (talk) 10:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tritomex: Sorry about my mistake about the claim about the part remaining. Regarding the rest, the policy based reason for not including this is given above: WP:ONUS. It is incumbent on the person adding material to find consensus for adding material. Just because someone states something in a reliable source does not mean it should be included in a WP article. I have given my reasons as to why I don't think it should be included and won't repeat them. I suggest you get wider consensus, if you wish to add this. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is not based on the numbers of those pro/contra nor on being just against adding WP:RS on the subject stated here. This is WP:JDLI. There are no plicy based argeuments against adding Reuter views on the subject which this articles cover.--Tritomex (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes there are policy based arguments. You need to show that Reuter (not Ynet) is a reliable source for information about the exodus. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile:Ynetnews is widely used as WP:RS in hundreds of Wikipedia articles. So is Haaretz, New York Times and many other similar secondary sources. Reuter views are not presented as "universal truth" or "facts" but are representing his estimates and in this way WP:RSOPINION applies. Also he does not make historic evaluation of exodus. However as you have policy based argument I can eventfully ask uninvolved editors about the reliability of sources used.--Tritomex (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You are making a common error regarding reliability of sources. The reliability of Ynet means that we can assume Reuter really wrote what Ynet published. It says nothing at all about the reliability of Reuter. In general newspapers are treated as reliable for the news they report and as a reliable conduit for opinion columns. Zero^talk 03:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Another user and I appear to have clicked simultaneously. The article fails to cover widely-publicized disappearances/killings of Jews attempting to emigrate from Iran. as here: [5]E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

In an article about the better part of a million people, there has to be a damn good reason to devote a large paragraph to a handful of people whose fate is unclear. And unclear it is. All that happened is that an Israeli agency not known for dedication to the truth claimed to have information from an unnamed source, and even the claim is vague : "The statement did not detail when or where the eight were killed or by whom." As the NYT article makes clear, it is very dangerous to illegally cross those borders "The frontier with Pakistan, in particular, is treacherous territory for a stranger, with tourists and others -- including many Bahais from Iran -- disappearing in kidnappings." And "If they were behind bars, the men would be in the company of thousands of Muslims and other Iranians who have also been apprehended while fleeing the country." Actually the groups who smuggle people across the border for money are the same groups that supply Iran's enormous drug problem. Of course it is very dangerous and there is no indication that the fate of these people was related to the fact that they were Jews or that they wanted to go to Israel. As well as that, statements about Iran made by the Israeli government without external collaboration are highly suspect. The significance of this incident to this article is negligible. Zero^talk 03:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the issue is not so much these 10-11 people, in particular (and agree that the specific individuals need not be named in the article), but about current Iranian polices towards Jewish emmigration, and these people are just one an illustrative example. The general policies of Iran are certainly notable and relevant to this article, and have been covered by mainstream reliable sources. Accordingly, I am inserting a revised version of the material, sourced to the New York Times. Brad Dyer (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because it was almost entirely copied and pasted from the New York Times article in violation of WP:COPYVIO. And the little bit of original content was unsupported and vague ("currently"). — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Your statement above (" it was almost entirely copied and pasted") is false , as is your edit summary. However, to stop this kind of wiki-lawyering , I will rewrite this sentence completely. Your editing here, both with this revert and your previous WP:POINTY addition of the ludicrous "not in English" tag is disruptive. Brad Dyer (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh really? You wrote "Currently, emigration from Iran is restricted, and in order to prevent circumventing the restrictions, the Iranian government does not permit all members of a Jewish family to travel abroad at once." In 2000 in the Times, Deborah Sontag wrote "Emigration from Iran is restricted" and "the Iranian government did not permit all members of a Jewish family to travel abroad at once." If you believe that 15-year-old news is "current", and that copying the meat of your sentence from the source isn't copyright violation, you're sick in the head. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I have slightly rewrote the sentence, and kept it in for now, though I have some of the doubts as above. The article is talking about an event in 1996. Does Iran have the same policy about Jewish emigration now? What exactly is Iran's migration policy? Does this "all members of family can't travel at once" only apply to Jews, or is it more general (the NYT article says something about general restrictions on emigration, but not exactly what). Preferably a better source than a newspaper article should be used. This WP article is not exactly breaking news, this is about a historical event. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

JCPA

Greyshark added in this source. This is not WP:RS.

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain, why someone {{who}} regards this Shmuel Trigano's article as "not wp:RS" ? --Igorp_lj (talk) 08:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It was published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, which is an advocacy organisation. He is a professor of sociology, which explains why he can't get an article on history published anywhere credible. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Look at the concluding paragraphs of his article:

"The Palestinians’ fate is mainly the result of the policy of their leadership, who have always rejected the further division of Mandatory Palestine (as proposed in 1937 and 1947). The creation of Transjordan in 1922 apparently was not sufficient. Arabs from Palestine were the allies of the five Arab states that attacked the newly created state of Israel: Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and Lebanon, as well as the Arab League. Even today, both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas reject the division of the land, denying Israel its natural right to a national existence while defining Palestine as exclusively Arab and Islamic. The Jewish people are a people with a long history – contrary to the Palestinians – and have the right of sovereignty in a land that has been the seat of three Jewish states since earliest antiquity. Zionism is the culmination of a process of self-determination, from a dominated nation in the Arab-Muslim world to an emancipated one within this world – that is, in the Middle East. There has been a population exchange. Israel’s “original sin” is a fiction. These are the historical and political facts on which Jewish discourse must be founded. It is time to take back the initiative and restore the Jewish narrative."

This kind of political vitriol has no place in wikipedia

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• "It was published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs"

- "an Israeli research institute and public policy think tank devoted to research and analysis of critical issues facing the Middle East..." - so ?

• "He is a professor of sociology..."

According to "his" article - " a sociologist, philosopher, professor of religious and political sociology...",

and author of the following books, cited more than enough in scholar.google (English only).

Regarding to your claims: we may like or no what such author writes & proves, but our role isn't a censorship, but only a mirror one. :::: --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I love the way people start crying "censorship" when somebody explains why their favored site isn't a reliable source. It's not censorship, so get over it. It's also probably not a reliable source for facts. See WP:BIASED. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@MShabazz: "I love" too your way to choose what's wp:RS.

What about pro-islamist, etc. Middle East Monitor or Jonathan Cook in The National (Abu Dhabi) in the Gaza Strip Lede?

It's OK for you, and again, you call as not-RS just other sourses, not them. If this is not double standards, what is it?

BTW, do you consider Richard Falk as biased source too? :)

Any way, I do not see any info about Trigano's biasing. So you need any RS what made such claim, not our own POV only.

--Igorp_lj (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

What is it, Igorp lj? Are you jealous of my ability to read, understand, and follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? If you have a policy-based reason to question a source's reliability, you can use the same template I do. (And no, you don't need a reliable source to call into question another source's reliability. That's just plain silly.) — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Me, jealous? Of what? :) I have no doubt in your ability to read+ I have doubts about your equal approach to different sources, which contradicts NPOV. That's all .

And it is not only in the topic. Here is only the latest example for Gaza strip. As I remember, there are other such examples. --Igorp_lj (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

This is an NGO article by an Academic. This might be POV, but this is certainly reliable. We have the same issue with the Institute for Palestine Studies as with JCPA.GreyShark (dibra) 10:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

He is not a historian, and he was published by an advocacy website. If you genuinely believe this is reliable, open a thread at WP:RSN. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

"The plan, however, failed to attract a significant number of Middle Eastern or North African Jews within the designated period."

Does anyone have a source for this? I think it is almost certainly incorrect - the article later says that "The immigration restrictions of the British White Paper of 1939 meant that such a plan could not be put into effect."

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Once, the entire section on One Million Plan is barely relevant to this article. Go up to the original discussion on the issue.GreyShark (dibra) 13:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I will be deleting this sentence since no support has been provided. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

one million plan

I removed the following text from the article:

From 1944, the One Million Plan, which became the top priority of Jewish leadership in Mandatory Palestine, encouraged the immigration of the Jews of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa into what became the State of Israel.

First of all, the lead is supposed to summarize the article. This information does not appear in the body of the article and thus is not a summary.

Second none of the sources here actually tie it to the Jews leaving their countries. There was a plan, who said it had an effect on the topic of this article? Someone bring some sources.

Third, the The One Million Plan appears in the article 3 times. Twice in the lead and once in the body (and that not related to the lead). If that's not UNDUE I don't know what is.

So, if someone can bring some sources to connect this to the article, and develop a section in the body, we could possibly restore it with some changes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Great, then put it in the main body of the article.

Yes of course the sources connect it to this topic. Read Shenhav for example. And HaCohen goes through and explains exactly how the various agencies implemented the Plan. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly. WP:LEAD is an editing guideline. You can't put stuff in the lead that's not in the body, although I know some editors like to do that because it's easy and most people just read the lead. But alas, it's not allowed. I don't have the sources to write a section in the body to be summarized in the lead, nor do I have the time. Nor do I want you to think it's my job to do your homework.

On top of that, you violated WP:V (that's policy) buy restoring unsourced information.

Also, if you have a source that directly ties the plan into the topic of this article, kindly provide it here. "Read Shenhav" is not a source.

I'd like to remind you that you often remove large chunks of text and ask other editors not to restore them pending a discussion. Perhaps you should do as you preach. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy, you deleted seven sources, many with detailed quotes, and you call that unsourced? The sources that you removed explain in plain quotes that the OMP was the first time the topic of this article was ever even conceptualised by anyone. Your claim that that is not connected closely enough to the topic of this article is patently absurd.

Thank you for encouraging me to add extra detail on this topic into the article. I will be glad to do so. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all I didn't delete anything, I moved stuff here for discussion. Second, the unsourced stuff was where you added the plan for a second time in the lead. Twice in the lead, once in the article. Way to UNDUE. Third, the source says it was the first time this whole group was treated as one. That's not the topic of this article. I will note that if what you claim was true, it would conflict with your "modern agenda" theory, but that's besides the point.

By all means, develop a section in the article then we can assess both the relevance and the DUE weight to give it in the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I have made a start. There are a lot of high quality sources out there on this topic, so please feel free to add as you see fit. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I see some problems already. I can't fix anything because of 1rr, so I'll edit tomorrow. But to begin with, both in the lead and in the body it quotes Ben Gurion's diary for wanting to bring all the Jews from MENA, but that's his thoughts, not what they voted on as far as I can tell. Meir-Glitzenstein 2004 says on page 39 that the Planning Committee was thinking 150,000 and that number increased later, but doesn't say to how much. She also notes (p.38) that when voted on, the plan was not presented as an operative plan, but in a political context. On p.44 she says the plan had no operative significance. Yet our article not only notes none of this, you keep restoring contested and unsourced language into the last paragraph of the lead stating that agents were working towards the plan. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Another thing I noticed: The source (Hachohen 1991, currently source #7) says the plan "enabled" Jewish immigration while our article says it "encouraged" such immigration. No bueno.

I also see that Oncenawhile once again slipped the "minor" before expulsions back into the lead despite it not being in any source and it being contested. Who says it's minor? Stop edit warring and explain why you think it belongs in the article. You may not restore unsourced information without consensus, as I'm sure you're aware. It's called WP:V. It's Wikipedia policy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

On the "minor", yes I see I did do that. I don't know when it came back out - all I did was go back to this version. I believe the word was originally added following this thread. In summary, there was only one known expulsion, which was in Egypt following Suez and the Jews were one of many groups forced out. Per 1956–57 exodus and expulsions from Egypt it is not known exactly how many were actually expelled, and some sources suggest that they "only expelled a small minority". Oncenawhile (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

This plan was shelved and is therefore of only minor significance: not worth more than one paragraph and should not be mentioned in the lede. Telaviv1 (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The plan wasn't shelved per se, parts of the planning were used later in the absorption process of the immigrants that arrived after the state was established, but after making both the main article and the section here actually reflect what the sources say rather than the complete fantasy that was there before, it's pretty obvious that this is way UNDUE. As far as I'm concerned you can cut it down to size. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Correct, it was not shelved, and occupies a seminal role in the history here as the beginning of Jewish Agency's / Israeli government's policy to encourage immigration from the region. NMMNG ignores the most important part of the plan that "was later used" which is that agents were sent to every country to "agitate". NMMNG, I would also note that a number of your edits need fixing - you have misunderstood some of the points that you have clearly only read about in the last couple of days. I suggest you read the sources more fully next time. I will fix this as soon as I have the available time. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

No. If you had actually read the sources you yourself used (and I strongly suspect you were in violation of SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT), you'd see that after the end of WWII the focus on MENA dwindled and was no longer funded even to the small extent it was earlier in the 40s. The plan was mainly an economic plan for absorption, as you clearly completely failed to comprehend.

The article about the plan and the section here were so off base, if this was a paid job and they were something you needed to prepare for management or a client, you'd probably be fired. Tendentious doesn't being to describe it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Great. Please excuse me for ignoring your attempted insults. I will focus my energy on amending your numerous mistakes in the edits you have made. Such as this "dwindling" point, which shows a lack of understanding of the importance of this plan as the predecessor of subsequent operational plans such as Magic Carpet, Ezra and Nehemiah, and Yachin. That you are surprised that the focus shifted almost exclusively to Europe for the short period after the end of Holocaust makes we worry that you have a limited understanding of or empathy with the scale of that tragedy.

However, one point I would appreciate you clarifying in your comment above is the word "mainly". On what scale are you defining that it was "mainly" about absorption logistics?

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not my job to define what scale or whatever, I'm just relating what the leading Zionists figures said at the time, and Hacohen says repeatedly in her 1994 book, which is considered the seminal work on this plan. You've read this book, yes? You quoted from it a few times.

I will add the relevant information to the One Million Plan article as time permits. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I've just had a look in Hacohen 1994 and the first paragraph of chapter 9 says explicitly that the goal of the plan was to prepare for the rapid absorption of millions of immigrants. Could you perhaps show a source that says otherwise? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - the entire section on the Million Plan and its relation to the exodus is a complete synthesis of Oncenawhile. Maybe he believes this, but the link between this plan (which neither in time nor in place is corrlating with the exodus) to the exodus is not sourced. Unless there is a some WP:RS claim that one million plan was directly relevant to the beginning of the Jewish exodus, i'm removing it.GreyShark (dibra) 10:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The article does not say it is "directly relevant to the beginning". The article says it is the first time immigration of Arab Jews became policy in what became Israel. That is well sourced (see examples below) and is deemed relevant to works on the subject of the exodus by scholars such as Meir-Glitzenstein, Shenhav and Eyal.

• Meir-Glitzenstein, p47, "As we have seen the inclusion of the Jews of Islamic countries in the One Million Plan was the start of a reversal in immigration policy and in the overall attitude of the Zionist leadership toward these Jews. The reversal was manifested both in the conceptual switch from an ideal of selective immigration lo the reality of bringing masses of people to Palestine.... the One Million Plan augured a demographic reversal with ramifications for all areas of life. including a change in the Ashkenazic Mizrahi demographic balance in the country"
• Shenhav, p22, "The Abadan case was the first systematic encounter between Zionist emissaries and Arab Jews following the formulation of the so-called million-person plan (which should be read as the "million Jews plan") providing for the massive immigration of these Jews to Palestine. Even if the plan was not implemented immediately, and even if some of its provisions were unfeasible, it marked the start of a discourse and the initial spotlighting of the Arab Jews as potential candidates for immigration to Palestine."
• Eyal, p86, See section: "The "One Million Plan" and the Development of a Discourse about the Absorption of the Jews from Arab Countries"

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

user:Oncenawhile This is clear case of minority position on your behalf, trying to push your WP:SYNTH position without community consensus. The One Million Plan is a somewhat sidelined issue, related to the absorption policy of the Yishuv. It has never been executed and certainly cannot compose a full topic of this article, but rather some mention in the background section. It is especially evident that you are trying to put this here as a somewhat major issues instead of anti-Jewish violence topics and relations between some of the Arab leadership and the Axis countries, which you unilaterally erased. I'm asking for an administrative closure for this discussion.GreyShark (dibra) 08:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Since the British rulers severely limited the Jewish immigration, the one million plan was hardly relevant until 1948. At the beginning of the huge immigration wave after the establishment of Israel, the one million plan was replaced with another Israeli plan. It seems that it is better to mention the new Israeli plan rather then the hardly relevant one million plan. Ykantor (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we are in broad agreement actually. The Israeli policies, plans and actions relating to immigration from Arab countries are relevant across this article. The One Million Plan was just one part of it. Its particular relevance is that it was the first, marking a seminal moment, as described in the quotes above. BUT, we need to get the balance right, and I have no problem with trimming the section down, particularly if we can build further description of the various plans and policies that descended from it. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Once, per WP:BRD, you fail to gain consensus to add the one million plan issue. It should be removed at once.GreyShark (dibra) 12:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read this thread, and the archives more carefully. The relevance of this topic to this article has been discussed at great length. If you disagree, I suggest you read the sources and then let's discuss. I would be pleased if you could find the time to read about and contribute to this article properly. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Split section on Iran

Until one year ago there was an article on the Exodus of Iran's Jews, which was merged here by Oncenawhile in June 2014. The Iranian Jewish exodus is clearly notable as a topic (for example From Babylonia To Beverly Hills: The Exodus of Iran's Jews, Iranian Jews in U.S. recall their own difficult exodus as they cling to heritage, building new community) and should exist as a standalone article. Most of all because the circumstances and timing of the Iranian Jewish exodus were different from the Jewish exodus from Arab countries. The exodus first took place during the early instability in the 1950s, but during the late 1970s and early 1980s, 90% of Iranian Jews left/fled the country, due to the Islamic Revolution, with roughly 100,000 relocating to US, Europe and Israel.GreyShark (dibra) 11:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; had I been aware of that merge at the time, I would have objected. They were two separate and distinct events. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Greyshark, can you show that the Iranian exodus is any more different that the Egyptian exodus is from the Iraqi exodus or from the Maghrebi exodus or from the Turkish exodus. They are all barely related in practice. And 30,000 Iranian Jews emigrated to Israel during the first years of statehood per this table. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You removed the split tag from the article. This is a violation of Wikipedia policy.GreyShark (dibra) 10:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

No this is not a policy question at all. Answer my question above (from 23:50, 9 July 2015). Otherwise your statement that "the circumstances and timing of the Iranian Jewish exodus were different from the Jewish exodus from Arab countries" will continue to be ignored as WP:OR. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

This is disruptive editing. Be careful Once. You are already warned for this.GreyShark (dibra) 15:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Vacuous threats will not help you avoid answering the questions raised. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Greyshark, as the proposer here, can you show that the Iranian exodus is any more different that the Egyptian exodus is from the Iraqi exodus or from the Maghrebi exodus or from the Turkish exodus? They are all barely related in practice. So should we split all the countries out and make their own sub articles? Don't forget that 30,000 Iranian Jews emigrated to Israel during the first years of statehood per this table. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Telaviv1, using 80 year old JTA articles to build a story is WP:OR. Without a source bringing the narrative together, this could easily be a series of cherry-picked articles presented as a WP:SYNTH. I am certain these edits were done in good faith, and this is good quality research on your part, but the problem is exactly that - it is original research. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Its hard to find any information and I think this is a rare opportunity to get the story out there. As it is very little of the section relies on the JTA material, only the details of the persecutions faced by Afghan Jews. No cherry picking was required. When there are no sources you have to use newspapers. Happy Jews don't have stories written about them and mostly (like the Chinese Jews) just fade into the general population.Telaviv1 (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

In general, I feel that it is WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. However, I do not know whether there exists good research on the topic, so perhaps some of this might be usable. The statements such as "there are only two Jews left and they don't talk to each other" don't belong. This is a article talking about historical forces, which affect thousands or millions of people. Such kind of trivia doesn't belong here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

'Table of Jewish population since 1948' inconsistent

In the last, bolded row of sums titled 'Non-Arab Muslim Countries Total' the sum in the first, 1948 column is not actually the sum of the values above, but much larger. The sums in the second and third columns appear to be summed from the maximum values in the ranges tabulated above them, more or less. Please someone make these numbers consistent, or explain at the table location the rationale why they are not (i.e., which numbers are missing?). 93.106.78.134 (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130103080353/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5juj_KhuuT0v7aaT3PPDmJFbQYrtw?docId=CNG.174be06ad8ee4755308494817ef96f0e.781 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5juj_KhuuT0v7aaT3PPDmJFbQYrtw?docId=CNG.174be06ad8ee4755308494817ef96f0e.781
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131109190044/http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/119744 to http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/119744

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

One million plan revisited.

I think the One Million Plan section is waaaaaaaaaay too big. This is a classic case of UNDUE. The plan is hardly mentioned in sources that discuss the exodus and should not have such a large or prominent section. I don't think it should be in the sidebar either. Thoughts? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

It is clearly a critical part of the background here, is the beginning of Israeli policy on the topic, and is mentioned in a large number of scholarly works of the highest quality, all of which are focused on the exodus that is the subject of this article. Do you genuinely think it's not important in the context of this article?

Also, I am still awaiting a couple of clarifications from you to support some previous edits (see my comments on 15 August at Talk:One_Million_Plan#Recent_edits). Oncenawhile (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you give some examples of scholarly works that deal with the exodus where the One Million Plan gets this much attention? Sure, it's mentioned in (not so many) places, but here it's practically 3/4 of the background section. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

One_Million_Plan#Bibliography. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

None of those sources spend much attention to the One Million plan, except the books that are specific to the plan as far as I can see. For example, Meir-Glitzenstein 2004, spends about 5 pages on the plan out of 200+ in the book. I'll take your answer as a "no, I can't give some examples of scholarly works that deal with the exodus where the One Million Plan gets this much attention". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, M-G is just one of many examples - you are not looking at the list properly.

And as for weighting, I ran a character count of the article excluding the refs, biblio and films sections. It is about 85 thousand characters. The OMP section is about 2 thousand. That's 2.4%. You quoted M-G devotes 5 out of 200 pages. That's 2.5%. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Please be specific as to which part of the list you want me to look at and what the proper way is. Hand waving at the general direction of a list and saying it's in there won't cut it you know. Particularly since we know you don't have access to all those books. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

In addition to Meir-Glitzenstein, look at for example Shenhav (2006), Eyal (2006) and HaCohen (2003). All sources of the highest quality, and all relating the OMP in the context of the wider topic of this article. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should be removed completely from the article. I'm saying it has way too much weight. I think one paragraph focusing on the actual importance of the plan (that it was the first time all the Jews from the MENA were treated as a single group - Mizrahim) would do. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - this is an obvious synthesis by Once, never mentioned by sources as related to ther exodus. Should be removed, since the plan's execution has never taken place, while clearly Once wants it to be presented as if the Zionists "planned" the exodus from Arab countries. One sentence at most is enough on this topic in background and Once's aggressive editing to keep it as "section' here for the past year is sufficient to ask for administrative intervention.GreyShark (dibra) 07:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read where we got to at Talk:Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries/Archive_5#one_million_plan. I don't think our views are particularly far apart. This is worth discussing further, but you will need to read the sources first. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I read the previous discussion. Seems like you're alone in wanting to include this, against 4 other editors (Greyshark, Telaviv1, Ykantor and myself). In that spirit I will be removing it unless someone speaks up soon, then we can discuss here a short paragraph with DUE weight we can add to the article later.

Also, I've read the sources, and I mean whole books not just fishing for stuff on google like you do, and that's including the whole of HaCohen's seminal work on the topic which you have not, indeed can not, read. So, again, what do you want exactly? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

That is not what the previous discussion concluded. If you want to cut it down, let's do an RFC. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me of that discussion. I see that you were alone there in wanting this in the article, other than myself and I have now reversed my position. I'm going to remove the text now per that discussion (and myself and Greyshark here) and you can have an RFC about including it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

RFC below. I have advertised it at all the wikiprojects linked at the top of this page. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Targeting or focusing on

The word targeting was used in the introductory paragraph. That word is very strong and carries a specific meaning and is non neutral. I've used the phrase "focusing on" instead. Feel free to opine if there are any reasons why targeting would be more accurate. Drsmoo (talk) 07:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think targeting is POV in the context of a declared target of 1 million people. See

The Disenchantment of the Orient: Expertise in Arab Affairs and the Israeli ...

By Gil Eya pg 86    Ben Gurion 'zeroed in' on Arab Jews. 

Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora: Origins, Experiences, and Culture, Volume 1
By Mark Avrum Ehrlich pg 772 the Zionist 'mission' to Iraq.  

The Disenchantment of the Orient: Expertise in Arab Affairs and the Israeli ...

By Gil Eyal pg 86 who speaks of the invention of mizrahi Jews as a group for immigration.

and this from the main article on the one million plan Ben-Gurion described his intentions to a meeting of experts and Jewish leaders:

Our Zionist policy must now pay special attention to the Jewish population groups in the Arab countries. If there are diasporas that it is our obligation to eliminate with the greatest possible urgency by bringing those Jews to the homeland, it is the Arab diasporas: Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and North Africa, as well as the Jews of Persia and Turkey. What European Jewry is now experiencing obliges us to be especially anxious about the fate of the diasporas in the Middle East. Those Jewish groups are the hostages of Zionism... Our first move with a view toward coming events is immigration. But the paths of immigration from Europe are desolate now. The [doors] are shut tight, and there are very few countries that have a land link to the Land of Israel – the neighboring countries. All these considerations are cause for anxiety and for special activity to move the Jews in the Arab countries to the land of Israel speedily. It is a mark of great failure by Zionism that we have not yet eliminated the Yemen exile [diaspora]. If we do not eliminate the Iraq exile by Zionist means, there is a danger that it will be eliminated by Hitlerite means.[10]

On 30 July 1945, Ben-Gurion stated in his diary:

We have to bring over all of Bloc 5 [the Jews of Islamic countries], most of Bloc 4 [Western Europe], everything possible from Bloc 3 [Eastern Europe], and pioneers from Bloc 2 [the Jews of English-speaking countries] as soon as possible.[18][19]

"The initial candidates for immigration under Ben-Gurion's plan were the 500,000 Jewish refugees in Europe. who would be dependent on the victors anyway He insisted that they should be brought to Palestine and supported until they were absorbed, or, as he put it, 'a soup kitchen [should be] opened for them in Palestine'. Next. all the Jews in Arab and North African countries – those 800,000 people who were at 'risk of annihilation and of human and cultural degeneration as well should be brought to Palestine." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmcintyre1959 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, none of your links use the word target and don't seem to carry any relevance towards your claim that Target is more accurate, though it is possible that there is a link somewhere that would use that word, it would still be non-neutral. "Focusing on" conveys the same information in a more accurate tone. Drsmoo (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any RS that use the word focusing, as that will be required to justify a change? You have not provided any evidence that targeting is POV, and non neutral, just your opinion.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The word "target" has inherently violent connotations that are not appropriate when used to describe bringing in refugees. Though the word is sometimes used in other contexts, it is not ideal, and there is no reason why it should be preferred to "focusing on". Your claim that one would need to find a source to use the neutral term is incorrect. In my post starting this talk discussion, I invited anyone to opine as to why "targeted" would be more accurate. You linked to several sources that don't use the term and have not yet responded in any material sense. Drsmoo (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

In the modern project management target is a very commonly understood word, with wholly neutral connotations. This was, ultimately, a professional project. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Targeting has no violent connotations in this context. The one million plan was targeted at various Jewish communities. I.e. it was concentrated on certain Jewish communities, that is exactly what sources say. You have not explained why focusing on would be more accurate.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I've stated my opinion, will wait to see what consensus, if any, forms. Drsmoo (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Drsmoo. "targeting" is unwarranted here. It wouldn't even be correct to say they were "focusing". "Including" would probably be the correct term. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Turns out that Shenhav explicitly refer to the plan as "focusing on" Jews from Islamic countries. See NMMNG's reluctance to accept this crystal clear description at Talk:One_Million_Plan#focus_of_the_plan. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

one million plan text for discussion

Here's the One Million Plan text for discussion:

One Million Plan

Main article: One Million Plan

Eliyahu Dobkin, the head of the Jewish Agency's immigration department, and David Ben-Gurion, the architect of the One Million Plan, in 1947.

The One Million Plan was a plan for immigration and absorption of one million Jews from Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa into Mandatory Palestine within a timeframe of 18 months, in order to establish a state in the territory. After being voted on by the Jewish Agency for Israel Executive in 1944, it became the official policy of the Zionist leadership.

The immigration restrictions of the British White Paper of 1939 meant that such a plan could not be put into effect. After Israel was established, Ben Gurion's government presented the Knesset with a new plan - to double the population of 600,000 within 4 years. This immigration policy had some opposition within the new Israeli government, however, the force of Ben-Gurion's influence and insistence ensured that unrestricted immigration continued.

The first organizational measure of the Plan was the late 1943 general plan of action entitled 'The Uniform Pioneer to the Eastern Lands’, which would offer a course for emissaries from the Jewish Agency Immigration Department to later be sent to Islamic countries. These activities in Islamic countries lost their urgency and attraction after WWII, and the boost in resources they received dwindled. The number of activists in these countries was minuscule compared to Europe, and there were not even enough of them to maintain what was already established.

One of the issues that came up during discussions of the One Million Plan, particularly after the Baghdad pogrom and reports of antisemitic manifestations in Arab countries, was the security of Jewish communities in Islamic countries. In a 1943 Mapai central committee speech, Eliyahu Dobkin, the head of the Jewish Agency's immigration department, said: "The very same day that brings redemption and salvation to European Jewry will be the most dangerous day of all for the exiles in Arab lands... these Jews will face great danger, danger of terrible slaughter... Our first task is therefor to save these Jews." and Ben-Gurion wrote at a similar time of "the catastrophe that the Jews in eastern lands are expected to face as a result of Zionism", although these gloomy forecasts proved false.

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Relevant RFM proposal

The article One Million Plan was proposed to be merged into Aliyah Bet, please discuss it at talk:Aliyah Bet#Merger.GreyShark (dibra) 07:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)