Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight

Archives
Archive 1

Overview/synthesis is needed

This article is nice and clear with all its theories, but it misses a conclusion. Theories only offer explanations and calling them theories underlines that they might just as well be true as false. In the scientific debate there is however a consensus about some parts of the subject.

At the end of the article I added a paragraph with a small consensus. --JaapBoBo 00:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Criticism of the endorsement ..." section is WAY too long

OK guys, we all know the new hisorians provided new incide into the historiography of the endoresment of flight theory, but I think we can all agree that the criticism section of that theory is in gross violation of WP:Undue weight. --GHcool 06:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Too many quotes. It should be synthetised. Alithien 11:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Why not including the different arguments made by the New Historians and the different evidence in which is based? If you think it is not neutral then I invite you and others to include other sources by authors that agree on the fact that arab leaders claims' were the main cause of the exodus. Otherwise by supressing this evidence we would violate another rule: WP:NOT#PAPER. I find it hard to think that those claims have undue weight when a simple search shows clearly that there is a clear majority of scholar work showing that the claim is not true. Cheers.--Jorditxei 11:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight means it is too much developed. Nothing more...

About sources, there is more intersting topic discuss here below. ;-) Alithien 13:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Jorditxei. Let's find more references for the other sections, rather than removing those in the criticism section. If that doesn't work, we'll take it from there. Screen stalker 13:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

ok :-) Alithien 14:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I am going to remove the neutrality tag. If you still dispute it, feel free to revert. Screen stalker 22:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't avoid the issue. This article is the poster child of WP:Undue weight. More than 20% of the entire article is devoted to criticising a famous and widely accepted theory. The criticism section should be a summary of the criticisms, but it does not necessarily have to summarize and have several long quotations from entire books unless equal coverage is given to other criticisms or to the subject being criticized. --GHcool 22:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It is famous, widely accepted? Rather not, at least not by academics and not in the sense of considering that it was the major cause of flight. That said, I accept that you introduce the NPOV tag but you should explain your reasons specifically and by that I mean that a simple link to the policy will just not do it. If you want equal coverage to other criticisms than you should provide those sources. Screen stalker has provide citations which he wanted to introduce in the text and nobody has opposed that. I suggest that you do the same because the problem here is that we have been looking for those other sources and don't know about Screen stalker but I can tell you that in my case I found rather few (the ones I introduced) and the others were just accusations ad hominem to historians or simply political arguments like saying that if the arabs had not started the war then all the exodus would not have happened. Quotations like that I am rather against, don't know about your opinion. In any case, give us at least which are those sources lacking in the text. Cheers.--Jorditxei 23:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, Jorditxei. You're opening Pandora's box. The moment I have some time, I'm going to quote entire passages and summarize entire books in whichever sections of this article I deem relevant. I expect no complaints from you or Screen stalker no matter how long I make these other sections because my sources will be cited impeccably. --GHcool 03:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please make sure to use reliable sources. Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 07:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to do so, that is what we are arguing here GHcool. Nevertheless, as Pedro says above, we would like those sources to be reliable, by this I think we both mean that scholar sources from reputable scholar journals are preferable. Opinions by israeli officials or ex-officials, I would rather not like to see them here if possible. You know, I find it hard to believe they will be neutral... But in any case bring those sources and then lets discuss. Cheers.--Jorditxei 11:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding Schechtman Quotation

Here is a quotation from Schechtman which does not have (at the moment) an appropriate place in this article. It deals with a fifth theory of flight:

The Arab masses in Palestine were psychologically conditioned to expect from the Jews the same treatment they had been inflicting on the Jews during the years of communal warfare. Previous onslaughts on the Jews had always been marked by indiscriminate killings, mutilation, rape, looting, and pillage. The 1947-1948 attack on the Jewish community was more savage than ever. Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands. Wounded and dead alike were mutilated. Every member of the Jewish community was regarded as an enemy to be mercilessly destroyed. A medical convoy of the Hadassah Women Organization, heading towards the Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus, was ambushed on April 13, and seventy-seven physicians, nurses, patients, professors, and technicians of the Hebrew University were killed. A Jerusalem street was blown up on February 22 and fifty-two young men, women and children perished. A group of young Hebrew University students was massacred on the road from Jerusalem to Hebron. The Jewish Agency building in Jerusalem was bombed, with heavy casualties. Violence, arson and murder were daily occurrences.
With this background in mind, the Arab population of Palestine anticipated nothing less than massacres in retaliation if the Jews were victorious. Measuring the Jewish reaction by their own standards, they simply could not imagine that the Jews would not repay in kind what they had suffered at Arab hands. This foreboding largely motivated the mass flight.(sic)

Any ideas as to where to place it? Should we create a fifth explanation section for it? If so, what should it be titled? Screen stalker 22:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I already suggested renaming the "Arab leaders' endorsement of flight" section to "Voluntary flight" or something of that nature. This idea was shot down unfairly and without reason, in my view, because facts like the one cited above would belong under such a heading. --GHcool 05:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That would not fit in the supposed "voluntary flight" section. We already gave you the reasons why that section was unacceptable (maybe it is you that does not remember, I suggest you check the history: here). Moreover, it does not say that flight was "voluntary" but rather that flight was due to "fear of reprisals from the IDF". I just cannot understand how after reading the text, and in particular: the Arab population of Palestine anticipated nothing less than massacres in retaliation if the Jews were victorious (...) This foreboding largely motivated the mass flight. You conclude that this is indication that the flight was voluntary (!?) --Jorditxei 14:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, don't think that the "Arab Leaders" section should be named "voluntary flight." If we accept the argument that Arab leaders told Palestinians that they must leave, then the flight would still not be voluntary. That just means it would not have been instigated by Israel or Jewish militias.

Jorditxei, on an unrelated issue, I have to apologize to you for not having had time to sit down and review anti-expulsion authors. My personal life has been a mess, and wikipedia has taken a back seat (as well it should). Screen stalker 01:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

And that's exactly the reason that "voluntary flight" should be the title. It would be unfair to lump the facts that support the "voluntary flight" theory under a heading called with the "Arab leaders endorsement." It would be equally unfair to censor these facts altogether just because it doesn't fit the artificial "Arab leaders endorsement" heading. --GHcool 03:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but what does "voluntary flight" means in your opinion GHcool? That they packed and left 'voluntarily'? Because according to you the above proposal of Screen stalker based on Schechtman shows, in your opinion, that flight was 'voluntary' but it does not at all. Exodus are caused by fear (Schechtman point above), by expulsion, by poverty or whatever but people do not leave their houses voluntarily. I will oppose any section with that title because it just does not make sense at all and is an insult to intelligence. By the way, the other day I also read some declarations from a former serbian commander in Kosovo who (surprisingly) also said that albano-kosovars fled voluntarily or because the UCK had told them to flee. Apparently is a usual argument of those who expel people from their country: blame them or say the left by their own will. Cheers.--Jorditxei 03:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, please don't shoot the messenger. I am not a historian and I was not yet born in 1948. We may disagree on what exactly caused the Palestinian exodus, but I am sure we can agree that there are multiple theories of the causes. I do not intend on raising any one theory higher than any other (unlike some other users).

Secondly, I said above that "voluntary flight" need not be the title. You might have a point when you say that it is misleading. I considered the phrase "voluntary flight" as the opposite of a Nazi-style forced deportation of a population. There are theories and historians who profess that the Arab population of Mandate Palestine made a conscious decision to leave. Obviously, historical/political factors were at work in their (completely understandable) motivation to leave, but many historians understand at least parts of the Palestinian exodus to be a risk that the Arabs took upon themselves (and I am not discounting that there was also a risk to stay put). The Yishuv was not Andrew Jackson and the Palestinian exodus was not the Trail of Tears. If "voluntary flight" is misleading, then I ask for your help in coming up with a better title that says what I said above: that there are theories that state that the Palestinian exodus was a risk taken in the face of other (perhaps equally risky) choices. --GHcool 08:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, the title should be the one that is already in the text: "Arab leaders endorsement...". Why? Because those who say that the flight was voluntary argue that palestinians left bcs they thought that the arab invasion would last for a short period and that therefore they could return soon. As you can see there is a reason here and the flight is not voluntary in the sense that there is a motivation and is not a decision taken out of context. Hope you understand the difference. Cheers. --Jorditxei 12:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Jorditxei, while I agree with you that the "Voluntary Flight" section should not exist, I have to say that I disagree as to the reason. I don't think you can say "no exodus could possibly be voluntary, therefore we should not create this section." If ample evidence were presented that this flight might have been voluntary, I would be in favor of including it. But right now all the evidence indicates that there was immense pressure on Palestinians to leave. The one notable exception would be the 30,000 members of the Palestinian elite, who left Palestine before hostilities even broke out (i.e. two-stage theory).

As for the accusation that this "is a usual argument of those who expel people from their country: blame them or say the left by their own will", I find this to be quite indicative of POV. Basically you are saying that Israel and/or Jewish militias expelled Palestinians from Israel in 1948. Not only is the evidence behind this shaky at best, but you have adopted the Transfer Theory of this article above any other. NPOV is of critical importance, and if you find it difficult to maintain, perhaps you should take a break from editing for a while. If you feel that you can maintain NPOV, I would be glad to continue editing with you. You have been an asset to this article, and have found many great sources. Screen stalker 13:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well show me that any exodus in history has been voluntary and I will believe you. Until that, let me think that people don't flee without reason. I agree with you on the 30000, but even those did not flee voluntarily, they fleed bcs they had the money to do so, and bcs they wanted to avoid the conflict that would start in Palestine: had the conflict not been in sight, they wouldn't have been flight. Then, how can this flight be voluntary? Cheers. --Jorditxei 14:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Jorditxei, if I showed you an exodus that was voluntary you would say "That exodus could not have been voluntary, since an exodus by definition is involuntary. Show me one that is voluntary, and then I will believe you." This argument is circular, since you refuse to even recognize the possibility of voluntary flight, and define any cause of flight as compulsion. Screen stalker 18:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've already said that I'm willing and able to find a better title than the word "voluntary" because of the unwanted ideas it implies. Its unfortunate that Jorditxei is unwilling or unable to think of a better title. I propose the following titles for reviews (some are better than others):

• "flight based on discretion"
• "flight caused by perceived threats"
• "unforced flight"
• "deliberate flight"
• "nonobligatory flight"
• "theories that the flight was not compulsory" --GHcool 16:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I really like the first two titles. Right now I think all the information we have to support the first one really deals with perceived threats, be they through propaganda or otherwise. If such a section is created (which I think would be a good idea), I would be in favor of the more specific title "Perceived Threats' Contribution to the Exodus." We are in agreement, after all, that perceived threats only contributed to the exodus, and did not account for the bulk of it. Screen stalker 18:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, we may consider creating both a "Flight Based on Discretion" section and a "Perceived Threats' Contribution to the Exodus" section. I have increasingly warmed up the former after reviewing a few pages in the book "The Case for Israel", which quotes Morris as writing the following:

A constant, growing shift of poulation from the countryside to urban shantytowns and slums [...] led to both physical and psychological divorce from the land. [They also] lost their means of livelyhood. For some, exile may have become an attractive option, at least until Palestine calmed down.

I need to find the whole quotation, just as I need to find the complete quotation for the following from the Arab Higher Committee (April 27, 1950):

The removal of the Arab inhabitants [...] was voluntary and was carried out at our request [...] The Arab delegation proudly asked for the evacuation of the Arabs and their removal to the neighboring Arab countries. [...] We are very glad to state that the Arabs guarded their honour and traditions with pride and greatness.

I am currently chasing down sources as fast as I can for a particular statistic which I posted in this article and was removed because of credibility concerns. Every book seems to reference another. So I would appreciate if someone else played source-tag on these quotations. If not, I will eventually find the original sources. It will just be a while. Screen stalker 19:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Screen stalker's suggestion is a good one. Thank you, Screen stalker. --GHcool 23:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

International reports show large scale beatings

I don't know this article well enough to know where the following material should go but I'm offering it as something that belongs:

There were few international observers to see what happened, but one exception was in the "Faluja pocket" containing two villages.

Eyewitness accounts, Al-Faluja

Al-Faluja and al Manshiya are unique in Israel, because they were meant to be protected by International Agreement - an exchange of letters with the United Nations and an annex to the Israel/Egypt armistice agreement of February 1949.

Under this agreement, the safety and property of the 3,140 Arab civilians (over 2000 locals, plus refugees from other villages) in the area was guaranteed. The agreement made was that "those of the civilian population who may wish to remain in Al-Faluja and Iraq al Manshiya (the two villages within the enclave covered by the letters) are to be permitted to do so. ... All of these civilians shall be fully secure in their persons, abodes, property and personal effects."

The enclave was handed over to Israel as part of the Israeli-Egyptian armistice agreement, but few civilians left when the Egyptian brigade withdrew on 26th Feb 1949. Israel promptly violated the armistice agreement and began to intimidate the populace into flight. United Nations observers reported to UN mediator Ralph Bunche that the intimidation included beatings, robberies, and attempted rape. Moshe Sharret (Israeli Foreign Minister) protested, and Quaker observers bore witness to the beatings. Israeli historian Benny Morris writes that the decision to cleanse the "Faluja pocket" population was probably approved by Israeli prime minister David Ben-Gurion . The last civilians left on the 22nd April and the order to demolish these (and a string of other) villages was made 5 days later by Rabin.

The modern Israeli city of Kiryat Gat was established in 1954 on the land of the village of 'Iraq al-Manshiyya and it has expanded from there to reach al-Faluja. Shahar, Noga, Nir Chen and Nehora were established in 1955 and 1956 on the lands of al-Faluja.

In 1996, all that remained of al-Faluja were the foundations of the village mosque and fragments of its walls, along with a dilapidated well and a cistern. Israeli government offices and an airport have been built on the surrounding land. PalestineRemembered 10:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Although this information in the first three paragraphs above is interesting, I don't think it belongs in the section on the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus article. This seems more like an Effect of or Process of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. The claims in the fourth and fifth paragraphs are highly debatable and certainly unrelated to the causes of the Palestinan exodus. --GHcool 17:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be a serious injustice to this article and the victims of the Nakba to try and suggest that the Palestinians were not faced with eviction by sustained brutality. And provide examples, that's exactly what we do in other articles. Even with international observers present, a specific promise from the Israeli government and the support of the Israeli Foreign Minister, almost the only people we were specifically watching were beaten from their homes. Moshe Dayan said: "Nahal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibat; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kfar Yehushu'a in the place of Tal al Shuman. There is not one single place that did not have a former Arab population." PalestineRemembered 17:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No argument here. We are in complete agreement. However, the information you are requesting belongs in the Palestinian exodus article and not in the Causes of the Palestinian exodus article. --GHcool 01:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the information is relevant. However, it deals with such a tiny fragment of the Palestinian refugee population (less than half a percent) that, in my opinion, it deserves a short reference at most. These four paragraphs are way too much. I would be in favor of including the following reference:

In the case of the towns of Al-Faluja and Iraq al Manshiya, UN mediator Ralph Bunche reported intimidation of 3,140 Arab civilians (over 2000 locals, plus refugees from other villages), including beatings, robberies, and attempted rape, perhaps designed to cause their flight.

You can use whatever source you find most appropriate to site (or multiple source, if it pleases you). That is my suggestion. Screen stalker 14:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

How about:

• With the British withdrawing from Palestine and the UN only recently created there is little independent testimony of the circumstances of the exodus. But two of the villages were unique and did contain observers, since they were meant to be protected by International Agreement - an exchange of letters with the United Nations and an annex to the Israel/Egypt armistice agreement of February 1949.
• Under this agreement, the safety and property of the 3,140 Arab civilians (over 2000 locals, plus refugees from other villages) in the area was guaranteed. The agreement made was that "those of the civilian population who may wish to remain in Al-Faluja and Iraq al Manshiya (the two villages within the enclave covered by the letters) are to be permitted to do so. ... All of these civilians shall be fully secure in their persons, abodes, property and personal effects."
• The enclave was handed over to Israel as part of the Israeli-Egyptian armistice agreement, but few civilians left when the Egyptian brigade withdrew on 26th Feb 1949. Israel promptly violated the armistice agreement and began to intimidate the populace into flight. United Nations observers reported to UN mediator Ralph Bunche that the intimidation included beatings, robberies, and attempted rape. Moshe Sharret (Israeli Foreign Minister) protested, and Quaker observers bore witness to the beatings. Israeli historian Benny Morris writes that the decision to cleanse the "Faluja pocket" population was probably approved by Israeli prime minister David Ben-Gurion . The last civilians left on the 22nd April and the order to demolish these villages (and a string of others) was made 5 days later by Rabin.
• The modern Israeli city of Kiryat Gat was established in 1954 on the land of the village of 'Iraq al-Manshiyya and it has expanded from there to reach al-Faluja. Shahar, Noga, Nir Chen and Nehora were established in 1955 and 1956 on the lands of al-Faluja.
• In 1996, all that remained of al-Faluja were the foundations of the village mosque and fragments of its walls, along with a dilapidated well and a cistern. Israeli government offices and an airport have been built on the surrounding land.

PalestineRemembered 18:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of information here is irrelevant to the causes of the Palestinian exodus. The only part of it that is relevant is allegations that Israel intimidated Arab residents of these two towns. Whether or not this was in violation of an agreement between Israel and Egypt, or Ben-Gurion was behind the order, or what not is irrelevant to this article. If these events involved 100,000 Palestinians, I would be all in favor of going into detail (although probably not as much detail as you would like). But we are only dealing with 3,140 refugees. If we devoted 363 words for every 3,140 refugees (which is what you're proposing), the article would be 81,000 words long. That's nine times longer than it is right now, and let's face it: no reader wants to read an article that is that long. I think the article is a little too long as it is (although right now it's tolerable). We need a short reference to Al-Faluja and Iraq al Manshiyah. Screen stalker 19:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Screen stalker's anaylsis. --GHcool 23:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I also agree. Palestine Remembered, I think the best is that you include those eye-witness in List of villages depopulated during the Arab-Israeli conflict. Pedro spoke about introducing the causes of depopulation of each village and then bring or make a table with the causes geographically in User:Pedro Gonnet/Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. I think it is the best idea for the moment, otherwise we might be increasing too far the size of the article here, as Screen stalker and GHcool say. Cheers. --Jorditxei 01:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

International Development Advisory Board Report

I found the following reference in in From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine:

Some Arab leaders demanded the "return" of the "expelled" refugees to former homes despite the evidence that Arab leaders had called upon Arabs to flee [...] such as President Truman's International Development Advisory Board Report, March 7, 1951: "Arab leaders summoned Arabs of Palestine to mass evacuation ... as the documented facts reveal. ..."

I was unable to find any uncut version of this report on the internet. Any help in finding the full version would be appreciated. This would help the article out a lot. Screen stalker 18:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Joan Peters book was very thoroughly discredited. Even her supporters (this is Daniel Pipes) say things such as: "From Time Immemorial quotes carelessly, uses statistics sloppily, and ignores inconvenient facts. Much of the book is irrelevant to Miss Peters's central thesis. The author's linguistic and scholarly abilities are open to question. Excessive use of quotation marks, eccentric footnotes, and a polemical, somewhat hysterical undertone mar the book. In short, From Time Immemorial stands out as an appallingly crafted book." He goes on to state that the central thesis (basically that the Palestinians arrived at the same time as other immigrants) is genuine, but nobody seriously believes it. PalestineRemembered 18:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with PalestineRemembered and others who believe that From Time Immemorial is not a very good book. That doesn't necessarily mean that all of Peters's ideas are wrong or lies, and From Time Immemorial is still read and quoted by a variety of commentators to the extent that the ideas in it are still relevant. Of course, like all scholarly claims, it would be better to verify Peters's claims with her primary source or a 3rd party historian that agrees with her assessment of the facts, but I don't think quoting her in this article would be violate Wikipedia guidelines which state that all significant points of view should be presented. --GHcool 23:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would rather prefer that cites like those ones would be taken in the original version and in the context of that version, otherwise we just can't know whether it refers to the whole palestine, we don't know how did arab leaders summoned Arabs of Palestine nor which arabs are they referring to and so on and so forth. It's like the Falastin and the other Libanese newspaper (can't remember the name) cites', I have also tried to find the whole text but never have found it, only the two phrases repeated ad nauseam indicating that arabs endorsed the flight... I am not saying that they shouldn't be introduced, but to me (and this is an opinion as reader) they lack reliability. Cheers. --Jorditxei 01:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying we should use this quotation from From Time Immemorial. What I'm saying is that I would like to find the original Truman-era report somewhere. I think the one sentence that is quoted is not sufficient information, and heaven only knows what went between "mass evacuation" and "as the documentation reveals." Can anyone help out with finding the original source? I am trying to hunt down too many sources as is. Screen stalker 15:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't own a copy of From Time Immemorial, so I cannot easily check it for citation info, etc. If you have a copy, check the footnote. If it is a private letter or something of a similar archival source, then it probably will be virtually impossible (or very expensive) to get your hands on the original document. In that case, it would probably be ok to cite it by saying "Qtd. in Peters, Joan. From Time Immemorial: Blah Blah Blah." If the source is in a publically available book, then that would just require a trip to the library. --GHcool 18:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

All From Time Immemorial quotes is the one pathetic sentence herein quoted, and she cites it to the Truman-era report. That's all the information I have. I'm sure it's somewhere in the national archives, but I don't plan on traveling to DC to get it. Screen stalker 22:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It must be pretty clear to everyone by now that "evacuation under Arab orders" accounted for only a small percentage of those leaving (and from villages, not from towns). Morris (Birth re-visited, 2004, p.xiv) has a list of 391 villages with dates and causes of abandonment. Just 5 villages are marked "A" for "Abandonment on Arab orders", plus Haifa is M/A (being Military Assault/Abandonment). 3 are "re-settled". 38 (ie 10%) are "Not Known". PalestineRemembered 23:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Schechtman Quotes

I've been gone on vacation for two weeks, so hello again! I see that User:Screen stalker has introduced a number of quotations from Schechtman. Schechtman is not a historian and his own biography on disqualifies him as a neutral source. He has also been thouroughly discredited by many academic sources.

Please, if you're going to use sources that Schechtman quotes, then please try to find the unparsed quote somewhere or a reference by a real historian. If you can't find the original quote or a supporting historian, please delete the references, or I will.

Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 07:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Which ones are you talking about? Screen stalker 13:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Specifically references 21, 24, 25 and 26. It is rather odd to use Schechtman as the sole source of quotes while at the same time mentioning that Childers thoroughly discredited him for mis-parsing quotes:

Glazer (1980, p.102) acknowledges that Schectman offers quotes from the Lebanese weekly Kul Shay (in the section above), from al-Huda, a Maronite newspaper published in the United States, and several statements made by various Arab officials, among them Emil al-Ghoury, at the time Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, and Msgr. George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Haifa and Galilee. These quotes and statements all imply Arab complicity in, if not initiation of, the exodus[39]. Nevertheless, the author cites the fact that Childers went back to these sources, checking them for the full meaning, and, he found that they were taken out of context. According to Childers, on closer examination, these statements were meant to indicate the opposite of what the Zionists tried to imply. According to him, what had in effect happened was that by carefully selecting those words which fit their story, these Zionist historians had edited history[40].

Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 07:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pedro concerning Schetchman.

I think also there are too much quotes in these articles.

Nevertheless there could be room later for these quotes because the way israeli historiography introduced what happened is I think an information that is interesting and relevant. Alithien 10:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the Schechtman quotes in question. Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 10:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actual figures for "Causes of Exodus"

Benny Morris (Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem re-visited, 2004, p.xiv) lists 391 villages with dates and causes of abandonment. One of them (Walaja, al - M, 21 October 1948) is later transfered to Jordan and re-settled, (Two others, Kirad al Ghannama and Kirad al Baqqara are listed as "resettled", but are expelled again). This means the net number is 390.

Then Morris has 5 villages marked "A" for "Abandonment on Arab orders", plus Haifa is M/A (being Military Assault/Abandonment). Abandoned are Ma`dhar, 6 April, Hadatha, 6 April, 'Ulam, 6 April, Sirin, 6 April, (Arab) Haifa (M/A), 21 April - 1 May, Beit Nabala, 13 May (all in 1948). Then 38 are "Not Known".

This gives between 347 (89%) and 385 (98.5) villages cleared by C (Influence of nearby town's fall), E (Expulsion by Jewish forces), F (Fear of being caught up in fighting), M (Military assault on settlement), W (Whispering campaigns - psychological warfare by Haganah/IDF). At least 50% appear to be rated as "M - Military" or "E - Expulsion", though many are also "C - Influence" or "F - Fear". "W - Whispering campaign" accounts for 14, sometimes this effect alone or sometimes with other factors. (Elsewhere in his book, Morris speaks of "thousands of people" or "a few dozen villages" being ordered to evacuate, presumably they got back to their homes before they were finally expelled). Note, the figure of "90 to 98.5%" expelled is by number of villages, it's not by population.

Does anyone have different/better figures? Other sources list rather more villages than this, usually the low 400s. PalestineRemembered 23:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've waited 7 days to see what people think and not had any response, so I plan to enter the information into the article.

Unfortunately, none of the suggested causes include "Deliberate emptying", which is about what Benny Morris's work suggests. Hence, I'd need to create another section (presumably above the other 4). Anyone know what I should call it? PalestineRemembered 20:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't do anything so rash as putting content that has nothing to do with the causes of the Palestinian exodus into this article. --GHcool 04:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've provided an excellent RS to say that between 89% and 98.5% of the places were emptied due to some action by Israel, and less than 2% of places were evacuated due to "orders of Arab leaders". (The only caveat that has to be made is that this is %age of places, not %age of population). Non-Israeli options are almost certainly higher (unless you have better information to bring to the table).

On examining the options presented in the article, the nearest is the 'Transfer Principal' Theory, which needs to be moved to the top of the list and some reference made to "Israeli Military Action" being overwhelmingly the "Cause of the 1948 Palestinian exodus", with the other options making a pretty tiny contribution. PalestineRemembered 14:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As you know, adding such information to this article will immediately be reverted since this data has to do with the process of the Palestinian exodus and not the causes of the Palestinian exodus. I hope this clears up the confusion once and for all. --GHcool 18:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The article gives cause #1 as "The 'Arab leaders' endorsement of the refugee flight'".

That's clearly not the case, cause #1 (at least according to the RS I've presented), is Israeli/Yishuv military action.

If you have other information, then you should present it. I suspect you have no such information - if a top Israeli historian puts it at >90% the cause of the flight down to soldiers with guns, most other sources will put it higher, not lower. PalestineRemembered 19:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The causes listed in the lead are in order of how they are presented later in the article. They are in no way ranked in order of how prevalently believed each cause is in relation to the other causes. I hope this clears up any lasting confusion once and for all. --GHcool 05:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Then the whole article needs re-ordering. It's absurd for it have, at the top of it's list, a factor which appears to have only accounted for 1.5% of the exodus. (I take it you accept Morris's figures between 89% and 98.5% Yishuv military action). PalestineRemembered 19:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Statistics are not so full-proof that I would refer to them as fact. For example, a statistic that I have read in several books (and am in the process of chasing down the original) says that 68% of Palestinians left Israel without so much as seeing an Israeli soldier. So I don't buy this statistical game that says at once that they were and were not expelled. The truth is numbers can be manipulated and perverted. With regard to the statistic you mention, I believe it is already mentioned in the article. I just moved it here. If this is not the statistic to which you are referring, please tell me the source for your suggested addition, and I will review it as soon as I can.

On a more general note, I understand that you want to get right down to editing, but it is important to read relevant sections of the article before suggesting additions. A lot of what you suggest is either already included, or--while not included per se--is very similar to what is already in the article. Screen stalker 22:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Statistics are indeed a source of much misinformation. However, we don't have to worry too much about that, because we're in the business of writing an encyclopedia on the basis of "Verifiability not Truth". If one top Israeli historian finds just 5 villages were abandoned by the EoF (and there was a bit in Haifa) then we'd need some fairly good reason to ignore his claim and write the article as if EoF played a major (or even predominant part) as appears to have crept into this article.

I popped in here to say "Are Benny Morris's figures seriously disputed by anyone?". You don't appear to be disputing them atall - do I have that right? PalestineRemembered 18:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Before I answer that question, I need you to provide me with a citation to Morris' book so that I can read his explanation for myself. I do not wish to dispute something that I am not well-educated about.

Bear in mind also that even if we accept that estimate that EoF contributed to 5% of the flight, 5% is a pretty large amount. Also bear in mind, this is only what has been documented. Much of the rest has been lost to history. Bear in mind also that you are placing a percent number by villages, not by population. About 8-10% of the entire Palestinian refugee population came from Haifa, which the Economist said was mostly due to the EoF. So 12%-15%, which I consider a minimum figure, is not a negligable cause of flight.

Finally, notice that Morris does not include in this list of five-and-a-half villages/towns that were evacuated due to EoF the town of Ein Karem, which Justice Douglas records as being evacuated at least partly due to EoF. I doubt that I just coincidentally found testimony about Morris' only mistake. The odds of that are one in 384. I am certain there were other towns, evacuated at least partly due to EoF, which your citation of Morris neglected to mention. I don't know if this is because of bias or negligence, but either way, it bodes ill for this statistic. Screen stalker 22:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The reference is p xiv in the 2004 Second Edition of Benny Morris "Birth of". (The number of villages he gives has increased from 369 in Edition I to 391 in II, other sources have somewhat more).

I'm not sure on what basis you say "12 to 15%", that's not what the significant sources claim. Morris has 5% (I think his famous "I'm an expulsionist" interview has him saying "slightly more but in any case less than 10%").

Nor do we have any reason to disagree with him over Ein Karem - elders of the village took fright in fear of military attack and suggested moving off as a group - that's not "EoF". (Morris has "C = Influence of nearby town's fall" 10 and 21 April 1948; "M = Military assault on settlement" 16 July 1948). Another (undated) witness account using the word "leaders" is interesting but doesn't affect the conclusion of the historian. We risk taking part in a nasty piece of denial if we treat this source as changing anything. PalestineRemembered 07:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I consider a US Supreme Court justice just about as reliable a source as there is, and he quotes multiple eye witnesses who said that pressure by Arab leaders to leave was a key factor in causing the flight from Ein Karem. He also points out that there was no military assault on Ein Karem, further discrediting Morris' numbers.

Perhaps I am misrecalling, but didn't you yourself say that 5% was based on the number of villages, not on their population?

At any rate, I will review the source and get back to you with my opinion regarding the numbers. This may take a few weeks. For the record, I think that a discrepency of 22 villages (or roughly 5%) between the two editions shows something about the quality of Morris' research. Screen stalker 00:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• A Supreme Court Justice repeating what he's heard on a conducted tour of what we now know to have been a show village (one of the few not to be completely bulldozed) is an RS, but it cannot be given the same weight as the considered work of Israeli historians 40 and 60 years later.
• By number of villages, the EoF accounts for less than 2%. By population it apparently accounts for around 5% (Morris later did an interview claiming to be a hard-line Zionist after all and verbally increased that figure, but still less than 10%).
• What's this "discrepancy"? Morris had a figure of 369 villages in the first edition, becoming 390 (+ 1 to Jordan) in the second. Palestinian accounts put the number at over 400, however, they seem to count "tribes" as well. There are summer huts, there is winter lodging, there are two houses on either side of a stream, it's ridiculous even to expect a definitive count. Harping on about minor discrepancies like this is the same kind of thing the Holocaust Deniers do. (At least, I think it is, I scrupulously avoid looking at anything produced by racists and distorters). PalestineRemembered 14:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Pappé wrote this concerning Morris :

"I was fully aware — as he seemed to trust me — of his abominable racist views about the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular" [1]

So whether Morris is "racist" or Pappé is a "distorder".

Which one of these two historians will you not read any more ? ;-) Alithien 15:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of Morris making racist statements (though he is now in favour of transfer - which could be the same thing?). I don't believe his views are ever displayed in his historical writings. So he's much, much better than Schechtman on that score.

Morris has summararily raised the proportion of refugees leaving by EoF from 1.5% (by place names) to 5% (by population) in text to nearly 10% in interview, and he has been criticised by Finkelstein for distorting his views towards an Israeli-friendly point of view. However, none of those problems are anywhere near as serious as Schechtman, who appears to guilty of outright terminological inexactitudes.

Lastly, nobody at WP has suggested Morris is not an RS (unlike Schechtman). Is that explanation sufficient and satisfactory to you? PalestineRemembered 21:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No. --GHcool 01:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you may struggle to understand what is so objectionable about Schechtman's words, since I just saw you state "Palestinians actually do manipulate the media and we have objective proof of this.". However, we're both appalled by racism and distortion from historians so I'm sure we'll reach an agreement that Schechtman doesn't belong in here. PalestineRemembered 10:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that how I voted in an AfD relates to Schechtman's place in the article. It seems to me that PalestineRememberd is trying again to shift the argument from a dispute over facts into a personal dispute. --GHcool 19:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Mitchell Bard Quotes

Bard's own Wikipedia entry, along with his well-documented track record regarding miquotes, pretty much disqualifies him as a reliable source. If nobody can/wants to find more reliable sources for these quotes, I will remove them. Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 10:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe yes, maybe not. It depends what you mean.

Everything from Bard should not be deleted. He is a very good source to get the current "pro-israeli" point of view.

Bard is reliable when he gives comments. When he gives a reference, it is true. Where there are problems is that he "selects" what he writes. Typically, he was an editor he would respect WP:VERIFIABILITY but not WP:NPOV...

Do you understand what I mean ?

What do you want to remove precisely ? Alithien 10:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, quotes 20 and 27. Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 11:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether Bard is a reliable source or not because there are plenty of other scholars and commentators who reference the same quotations for footnotes 20[2] and 27[3][4]. These quotes are here to stay. --GHcool 19:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What?!? It does matter if he's a reliable source or not. That's what WP:ATT is all about. If you have a reliable source with the same quotes, please add them in place of Bard's. Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 09:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

From my point of view :

• the quote from Filastin is out of context. We should find it quoted in a secondary source from a scholar to use this or at least to have Bard's comments.
• Abbas's quote is irrelevant. Abbas is not an historian.

Alithien 07:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Alithien's opinion is noted. He/she reminded that, like Mahmoud Abbas, he/she isn't a historian either, but unlike Mahmoud Abbas, his/her opinion on the Palestinian exodus actually is irrelevant. --GHcool 04:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Flapan citations

There are two probelms with the Flapan citations:

1. Whoever incorporated the contemporary historical quotations from Flapan's research into the article cited the a source he/she hasn't ever laid eyes upon (i.e. Ben-Gurion's diaries, etc.). Obviously the Wikipedia editor found the quotes in Flapan's book (certainly Ben-Gurion did not discuss about Flapan's 1987 opinion of Ben-Gurion's 1948 actions in his diary dated in 1948). It is the editor's responsibility to write a footnote along the lines of "Ben-Gurion, David. 1948. Quoted in Simha Flapan. 1987." This happens several times in the article and I've put "citation needed" tags where necessary.
2. Simha Flapan published two works in 1987 that are cited in this article: The Birth of Israel and The Palestinian Exodus of 1948. It must be specified which work each of the quotes come from. An in-line citation such as "(1987, p.X)" is not specific enough since both works were published in 1987. I added "specify" tags where needed.

Thank you. --GHcool 06:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed the citations. Thanks for pointing out the problem GHcool. Cheers.--Jorditxei 21:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

George Hakim

The fourth/fifth paragraph (depending on how you count paragraphs) in the "Criticism of Endorsement of Flight Theory" (beginning with "An interview frequently cited in Zionist historiography...") to me seems unnecessary. The only part of the entire article in which Hakim is quoted is the "Criticism of EoF Theory" section. Yet this paragraph essentially says "Hakim never supported the EoF Theory". While this may be true, I see no point in saying that someone didn't come out in support of a theory. I bet there were at least a hundred million people at the time who didn't come out in support of EoF, but did not oppose it either. So as long as we don't quote them as saying they supported it, why should we quote them as saying they never said they did. Specifically, why do we need to quote Hakim as saying "I never said EoF was true" if we're not even quoting him as saying "EoF is false"?

I would delete this paragraph myself, but I was reverted last time I did that, and so would like to discuss it. Screen stalker 22:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I found interesting citing the "Hakim case" is that many sources had cited him in a misleading way, arguing he supported the idea that arab leaders had instigated the flight. This is one among several cases in which pro-israeli sources have quoted other authors/personalities' in a misleading way. The Hakim case in particular was quite sound because he himself said he had been misquoted. Introducing it just gives an example of what Glazer says about some of the "pro-israeli quotes": "Nevertheless, the author [Glazer] cites the fact that Childers went back to these sources, checking them for the full meaning, and, he found that they were taken out of context.". Cheers.--Jorditxei 22:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In the first place, it is entirely possible that Hakim did make the statement he is quoted as making and later denied them because he forgt and/or succumbed to pressure from other Arabs. But this is irrelevant. The important part is that you agree that this paragraph is not in the article in order to criticize the EoF theory. It is there in order to lash out against people who quoted Hakim in opposition thereof.

I must admit that I see your point regarding the question of credibility of sources therein quoted. But this article isn't the forum to do that. I'm not saying we should quote unreliable sources (which I don't think is the case), but if we decide to include a source we shouldn't quote alleged cases of libel/lying/whatever on the part of these source unless they pertain directly to a portion of the source which is quoted in the article. A perfect example of a proper critique of source reliability which appears in this article is the other paragraph where Hakim is mentioned, since Childers questions the context of pro-EoFT sources in general. Screen stalker 00:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There are two paragraphs in which Hakim is mentioned, one is Childers' the other Glazer. Both of them show the same thing: authors being misquoted by pro-israeli sources. The point is this: pro-israeli sources cite different sources to support the EoF theory but then Childers comes and considers that these quotes were "taken out of context to indicate the contrary of what they were really saying". In other words, the quotes offered by pro-israeli sources were not supporting the EoF (as they pretended) but to the contrary were indicating that there did not exist an EoF from the arab leaders. Personally, I clearly see the link with the "criticism of the EoF theory". As he did to dismiss the alleged arab calls for flight on the radio, Childers dismisses here (at least some) of the alleged calls to flee by the arabs. The pro-israeli misquoting of sources has been a constant and I think the article should say something about it, with examples where possible. Cheers. --Jorditxei 10:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the part about the radio broadcasts, because the article actually uses the broadcasts as evidence of EoF, so refuting that claim is legitimate criticism of EoF. That's why I said that I think they are a "perfect example of a proper critique of source reliability." But the paragraph that I would like to delete introduces Hakim's quotation, only to say that it isn't worth quoting. So it doesn't actually criticize EoF, it criticizes some people who support EoFT. Wouldn't you agree? Screen stalker 14:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the point of the paragraph is not to see who refutes EoF are who supports it. The point is to show the fact that pro-israeli sources have misquoted other authors/sources, this is something that has happened many times, and therefore deserves two paragraphs in the article. Example: user Screen Stalker introduced a quote from Schechtman of the Kul-Shay newspaper but Childers himself went back to that quote and found it was taken out of context. What the two paragraphs are saying is precisely: "this is something pro-israeli authors have done recurrently" and then give some examples. It does have something to do with the question of whether did arab leaders endorsed the flight or not because if pro-israeli authors give misquotes as proof of EoF and many times these are taken out of context then those authors are not reliable. I hope this clarifies it. Cheers. --Jorditxei 17:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You have made yourself perfectly clear, but we still disagree. As you said, the second paragraph is relevant, because the article quotes Kul-Shay. I am in favor of retaining the second paragraph! But the first paragraph is irrelevant, because it is intended to criticize pro-EoF authors, not the EoFT itself. I would like to get some other editors' opinions on this matter. Maybe I am being unreasonable (which I know I am capable of being), but I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that sources refuting the claims of pro-EoF authors should only be included if those claims are actually made in the article. Screen stalker 22:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think this paragraph is very useful and for that reason, I would support its removal from the article. I don't think it harms the article nor does it violate any Wikipedia guidelines as far as I can tell. I just think its fat that can easily be trimmed. --GHcool 05:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Jorditxei - it seems to me that if there are falsehoods (urban myths) floating around on certain topics, then it's very much the business of the encyclopedia to point out that they're either suspect or disproven. The article certainly shouldn't be re-publishing such dubious material without a health warning, even if it's still available in some respected and normally reliable sources. PalestineRemembered 19:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I don't think the odds are high that the average reader (or even one reader out of a hundred) has read reference to Hakim's quotation, and needs the issue to be dispelled. Anyone that well educated on the subject has no doubt read Childers' analysis. I still think the paragraph is there in order to criticize pro-EoF authors, not EoF theory. Screen stalker 22:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it takes a little while to bore down to what's actually written, and I see that Hakim's apparently invented quotation is not introduced "on its own merits", but in order to debunk it. My personal preference would still be to have Hakim in there, more or less in the current form - but checking Charles Darwin I see there is no reference to creationism, so maybe the encyclopedia doesn't work the way I thought it did! PalestineRemembered 07:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi,
Screen stalker asked me to comment this matter.
I think I see his point : the § is a criticism of israeli historiography more than of the theory itself. Jorditxei answers that the § is there to show pro-israli authors would have misquoted some people.
I think Screen stalker is right to say that this § is not at its right place and I think Jordixtei is right to defend the presence of this § in the article.
From my point of view, every scholar will agree there is a controversy about the fact/hypothesis that israeli authors/historiography would have mispresented facts to "fabricate" the call of flight theory. I think it would be good for the article to have an additional section, at the end, titled "controversies" where this controversy could be reported.
Alithien 06:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

EoF as first cited cause

What do you say to the figures at the earlier section in this Talk, which appear to show that the EoF is a trivial part of this event anyway? PalestineRemembered 19:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I say that I disagree, and that the facts support EoF as a factor of major importance in the exodus. I established my reasons for this in the discussion above, to which you link. Screen stalker 22:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi PalestineRemember,

For what I read from Gelber and Morris, EoF (Arab leader call to flee) is not a significant cause of the exodus. But EoF has been considered a significant part of the exodus since 1948 by israeli and western historiography.

Some israeli historians today still defend that thesis.

For these reasons, I think NPoV asks us to :

• introduce EoF in the cause
• explain the controversy about this PoV

Does someone disagree ?

Alithien 07:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this article introduces EoF as #1 "cause of the exodus", when the evidence certainly doesn't suggest that. It should be at the bottom of the list, not at the top.

In response to User:Screen stalker a few minutes ago I introduced the Charles Darwin WP article and the non-appearance of creationism in that article. In that case, my example proved me wrong and ScreenStalker right (ie George Hakim probably should not be quoted in the article or, not in the way he is, purely to debunk him, anyway). But over EoF, my example tends to back my "gut feeling" over the way the article should operate. Quite likely, EoF barely belongs in this article atall. It is true that many people will come to this article expecting to find it mentioned and bigged up (as many would go to Darwin and expect to find creationism given prominence), but it's a red-herring to any real discussion of the "Causes of the Palestinian Exodus". PalestineRemembered 07:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with PR: a "cause" that accounts for at most 5% of the refugees does not merit being mentioned first. Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 11:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi PM,

Of course it should not be listed as the first cause given it is not considered as a relevant cause any more.

But you interfered here in another discussion between ST and Jordixtei...

Alithien 14:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, many serious historians still do consider it a relevant and important cause. Secondly, it doesn't matter to me whether EoF is first or second on the list. If we are ordering the sections based on how "important" each cause is, my personal preference would be the following:

1. Fear psychosis theory
2. Two-stage theory
3. EoF
4. Transfer theory
5. Master plan theory

I look forward to others' opinions on this ordering and if this is unacceptable to most editors, I am more than happy to compromise. --GHcool 04:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi GHcool,

Karsh. Who else ?

There is no "transfer" theory. Morris transfer's idea (idea !) concerns the context. He nevers wrote anywhere it was a cause and never cited that as a cause.

Two-stage analysis is not a theory either. It is just a way to introduce matters. The one used by Gelber's. Nothing in Gelber's 2-stage introduction is contradictory eg to Morris and he also talks about "fear".

And what is the "fear psychosis theory". All scholars talk about the fear but who introduces this as an ultimate cause ?

Alithien 06:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

GHcool -> Which historians still consider the EoF "a relevant and important cause" of the Nakba? Do you mean a "Major Cause", or would you carry on calling it "a relevant and important cause" even if it only accounted for 5% (or maximum of 10%) of the refugee flight?

Can we even know which historians think what, when historians who don't accept the EoF are quoted as if they support it? PalestineRemembered 16:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fear Psychosis

I created a new section, to deal with the issue of fear psychosis. I placed those relevant paragraphs which I found under this section, but I am sure that I did not find them all. Please help out and place other appropriate paragraphs there. Screen stalker 16:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Justice Douglas on the Arab Exodus

Schechtman's book The Refugee in the World contains appendices, which include the following quotation from Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas in his book Strange Lands and Friendly People:

Ein Karem, an Arab village for hundreds of years, was the birthplace of John the Baptist. In the recent war it was never attacked by the Israeli army. It was indeed not on the path to Jerusalem. It had no apparent military value. Yet it was evacuated by the Arabs. Every man, woman, and child left—all except eight old women. The refugees put a few personal belongings and what food they had in their cupboards on the backs of donkeys. They walked out of their ancestral homes in Ein Karem, shut the doors, and turned to the east. They did this, though no shot was fired, though their village was neither encircled nor threatened …
I inquired why the exodus, and was taken to two of the old women in a mud hut on the edge of town. They were wrinkled, wizened, and shy, and hesitated to talk. But finally they gave the following explanation:
First, there was the massacre by an irresponsible, lawless element of the Stern Gang at Deir Yassin in 1948, when men, women and children—all but one in the village—were killed one night. The massacre struck terror in the hearts of villagers throughout the region.
"Some thought all of us in Ein Karem might also be killed some night," one old lady said as she twirled the ends of a black shawl.
Second, the villagers were told by the Arab leaders to leave. It apparently was a strategy of mass evacuation, whether or not necessary as a military or public safety measure.
"They all left during one week," said the other lady. "Every morning there were more who had gone. Finally only a few of us were left behind. We were too old and feeble to go." There were tears in her eyes and her face had a weary look.

I have ordered Douglas' book from my library, and will not place any of this into the article until I have had time to corroborate it with the original. But I wanted to open several things to discussion:

1. How do we break this up? I think the first paragraph (or a drastically cut version thereof) belongs in "Criticism of the Master Plan Theory", the second through fourth belong in "From an Observer's Perspective," and the next-to-last belongs in "Claims by scholars that support..." I don't think the last paragraph should be included at all.
2. How do we make transitions smooth, even though the quotation will be separated into multiple parts? For example, we will have to clarify at the top of the second paragraph that the exodus in question is just from Ein Karem, not from all of Palestine. That will involve the use of square brackets, which I know Pedro Gonnet hates. Pedro, would you be up to making an exception in this case?
3. How do we cut this quotation? True, Ein Karem was a sizable village which played a relatively important role in the exodus, but this is still a very long quotation. Any ideas on how to cut it without loosing content?

Thoughts? Screen stalker 21:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

These claims that "villagers left because they were told to by Arab leaders" are meaningless. These "leaders" and people were victims of what we'd now call ethnic cleansing. They abandoned their grandmothers in genuine and justified terror of a murderous war-machine that they could never match.

But it's highly likely that other passages of Douglas's book make that clear - please tell us what you find. It would be despicable to cherry pick passages and treat the suffering of these people as if it was something they brought on themselves. PalestineRemembered 22:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered is WP:SOAPBOXing again. He knows full well that nobody is accusing Palestinians felahin of bringing the exodus upon themselves. The EoF theory clearly refers to Arab leaders. PalestineRemembered is trying to avoid the facts and change the discussion into an unsolvable, personal argument. It hasn't worked in the past and won't work now. --GHcool 04:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll be interested to hear what Douglas really said, since Schechtman sounds like a hard-line denier, eg The Israeli government was not indifferent to the plight of the refugees; an ordinance was passed creating a Custodian of Abandoned Property “to prevent unlawful occupation of empty houses and business premises, to administer ownerless property, and also to secure tilling of deserted fields, and save the crops...” (Joseph Schechtman, The Refugee in the World). As in this article (where we seem to be making Morris appear a supporter of the EoF) it's often quite easy to cherry-pick accounts to make them appear to say one thing when they say something quite different. Sadly, this is a problem that gets worse the more careful and complete the source (eg Morris) - and is a feature that may well apply to the observations and writings of Supreme Court Justices such as William O. Douglas too. Might it be possible to photograph the relevant pages in order we can be confident that Douglas really believed these people were not ethnically cleansed (or "transfered" in the language of the time)? PalestineRemembered 09:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, time and again you strike me with just how in-line your rhetoric is with a propaganda machine. I am sure your heart is in the right place, but you are so blinded by your hate for Israel that you refuse to accept that sources like Schechtman may be reliable, or that even Morris can make mistakes. Don't get me wrong; I am not claiming that Schechtman is infallible and Morris is always wrong, but if there is a scholarly dispute, it must be considered as such. We cannot, in your words, "cherry pick" which sources we consider right in the dispute, and which wrong. This is true in particular if our criterion for analyzing this dispute is that we think all sources that support EoF are wrong, and all that oppose it are right. At any rate, I have received the book from Douglas, and will type it here.

As per the declaration that "These 'leaders' and people were victims of what we'd now call ethnic cleansing," I take issue with that. To a small extent, that probably is true. Of course, let's remember the historical context, where every nation was engaging in ethnic cleansing against whomever it had the will and power to oppress. This problem was not unique to Israel, and by comparison, I think Israel was downright spectacular (especially in comparison to the Arab population of Israel/Palestine at the time). Either way, the whole issue of who Arab leaders encouraged Arabs to flee is irrelevant. The question is why Arabs fled, and the answer here appears to be partly related to the exhortations of Arab leaders to do so. The passage:

We visited Ein Karem, a village of three thousand people about twenty miles from Jerusalem. It is a quiet, country village, built on a ridge at the head of a draw. The village is flanked by churches—a Franciscan church and school at one end; a Franciscan and a Greek Orthodox at the other. Olive orchards fill terraces that line the sides of the ravine. Tall, stately cypresses with their dark-green spires and pine of a lighter hue line the ridge. Father Carrol of the Terra Santa College (Franciscan) of Jerusalem, a bright-eyed, brilliant priest in his thirties, was our guide.

Ein Karem, an Arab village for hundreds of years, was the birthplace of John the Baptist. In the recent war it was never attacked by the Israeli army. It was indeed not on the path to Jerusalem. It had no apparent military value. Yet it was evacuated by the Arabs. Every man, woman, and child left—all except eight old women. The refugees put a few personal belongings and what food they had in their cupboards on the backs of donkeys. They walked out of their ancestral homes in Ein Karem, shut the doors, and turned to the east. They did this, though no shot was fired, though their village was neither encircled nor threatened. Some went through Jerusalem to Jericho down the corkscrew road on the east that drops off Judea. Most went around the Eternal City, seeking a path down the precipitous Judea Mountains, roding the Jordan, and climbing the hot and blistering ridge of Moab. We had met some of them in the refugee camp at Sukhneh.

I inquired why the exodus, and was taken to two of the old women in a mud hut on the edge of town. They were wrinkled, wizened, and shy, and hesitated to talk. But finally they gave the following explanation:

First, there was the massacre by an irresponsible, lawless element of the Stern Gang at Deir Yassin in 1948, when men, women and children—all but one in the village—were killed one night. The massacre struck terror in the hearts of villagers throughout the region.

"Some thought all of us in Ein Karem might also be killed some night," one old lady said as she twirled the ends of a black shawl.

Second, the villagers were told by the Arab leaders to leave. It apparently was a strategy of mass evacuation, whether or not necessary as a military or public safety measure.

"They all left during one week," said the other lady. "Every morning there were more who had gone. Finally only a few of us were left behind. We were too old and feeble to go." There were tears in her eyes and her face had a weary look.

I expected to see a ghost town. But as we started down the maim street of Ein Karem I heard singing.

"New arrivals from Europe," Father Carrol said.

In a few minutes we stod at the door of a large building transformed into a synagogue . A cantor was singing. A rabbi was bent over a lectern. Men and women bowed in worship.

We walked down the street. Another service was being held in another makeshift synagogue. We came upon yet another. The whole village had gone to church. An overflow of young people was in a class being conducted on the edge of an olive orchard near the center of town.

As we returned from a visit to the chapel of Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist, on the far side of the village, one of the synagogues was emptying. People were going back to their new homes; children were doing a hop, skip, and jump along the road; a rabbi, bent in meditation, walked slowly through the village. The men and women pouring out of the synagogues had faces that were happy and relaxed.

"Not many months ago these people were housed in awful camps in Europe," Father Carrol said. "Many barely escaped death at the hands of Hitler's henchmen."

For them this was, indeed the Promised Land. Here refugees from terror and agonizing death and found security, freedom, a peaceful valley, and opportunity to work and live and worship as they chose. Their new freedom was reflected in their eyes in the spring in their walk, in the laugher of their children.

To them this village was a haven, a refuge. It did not then matter that Arabs at Sukhneh, some forty miles away, sat in tents dwelling with anger on the evacuation of Ein Karem and on the occupation of their ancient village by newcomers from Europe. For ein Karem had been won in war. The victorious Israeli Army that swept the village within its lines would defend it to the death.

To the newcomers at Ein Karem the Holy Land was a sacred place where scatterings of this ancient people would regather and reunited for the preservation of the race. Here they would bring a new civilization. Here they would return to the soil and rebuild a devastated land into a rich and flourishing garden. Here they would destroy the feudalism that had held the peoples of the region in slavery from time out of mind. The region would become a new home of democracy.

Those who reclaimed the land in this way would establish their right to it, their worthiness to survive.

This was a Cause, a Crusade. It swept all before it, including innocent Ein Karem. It moved on to Jerusalem. Like the earlier Crusades it traveled on the wings of tremendous enthusiasm. Its call summoned men from all parts of the world. There was fervor in those who faced toward Jerusalem, a fervor that would neither brook delay nor allow defeat.

In 1949 the contest for Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and as seat of the Arab government of Palestine was raging. As I have said, the Arabs held the Old City; the Jews the New. The Jews had not only pushed their front lines into Jerusalem, they had also brough a part of their government there. The Supreme Court of Israel, created in 1948, sat in Jerusalem. And on July 22, 1949, the first anniversary of its creation, I sat with it at a special session.

I did not begin from the very beginning of the chapter, but only the part that discusses Ein Karem. The rest of the chapter is about the meeting of the Supreme Court and some stuff about the Knesset, but in all is almost as long as what I have already typed. I did not judge it to be relevant, but if you would like me to type it up all you have to do is ask.

It appears also in my judgment that Douglas feels compassion and understanding towards both Israelis and Palestinians. I assure you it is possible not to feel animosity towards either side, since that is where I stand on the issue.

I still have much reading to do in this book, but it seems to me that Schechtman quoted Douglas precisely in the context in which the passage was intended to be quoted (who would have thought it?). I will therefore edit the article to reflect this. Screen stalker 01:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for typing that in, you indeed have an RS there. (How the old women could have survived, other than by handouts from their oppressors to say what they were doing in a tourist spot, would of course be OR on my part - ditto to suggest Douglas was fed propaganda over the source of the immigrants). In justice, it should be presented side by side with Morris's quite precise claim for what happened to this village, "Jerusalem Corridor #360 'Ein Karim - "C = Influence of nearby towns fall", 10 and 21 April 1948; "M = Military Assault on settlement", 16 July 1948." Do we have a date for Douglas's visit (likely well after July 1948)?

Actually, I came to this section to quote race-hate words by Schechtman that I do not believe belong in the article "Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands". Not only is it race-hate, what he claims is nonsense. eg Jewish Virtual Library of the 1929 Hebron massacre - Nineteen local Arab families saved dozens, perhaps 100s of the Jews. Zmira Mani wrote of an Arab named Abu Id Zaitoun who brought his brother and son to rescue her and her family. The Arab family protected the Manis with their swords, hid them in a cellar along with other Jews who they had saved, and found a policeman to escort them safely to the police station at Beit Romano". PalestineRemembered 08:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, I must admit that I had never heard of those cases of Arabs sheltering Jews during the war. They move me deeply. They really do. They make me think that maybe there is hope that peace may yet come to Israel and Palestine.

Still (back to the doom and gloom) I don't think that's what Schechtman meant by quarter. I think what he was saying was that any time an Arab army or militia would capture a Jew, they would (at best) mistreat him/her, and often kill him/her. That isn't to say there weren't Arab heroes who prevented this (you clearly point out that there were).

Unfortunately, I don't have a date for Douglas' visit, although I will continue to look through the book for one. With regards to how the women survived, it is entirely possible that Israelis (or "their oppressors," if you are so inclined to call them) provided them with sustenance. I don't see anything wrong with providing for the needs of a needy civilian population conquered during war. Actually, I am quite impressed that Israel (which itself had little if any food to spare) found enough to share it with hungry Arabs. With regard to Douglas being fed propaganda, this is always possible. But he was a Supreme Court Justice, and I think his skills of questioning and seeing through facades were probably perfected by the time he traveled to Israel. Screen stalker 14:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a party that wishes us to believe that "the Arabs" were incurably anti-semitic and that that is the cause of all this trouble. We should re-publish as little as possible of that "material/evidence" because 1) it's nasty race-hatred and 2) it's broadly untrue. (I can provide you lots of evidence for that second statement, but I'll only be accused of soap-boxing - and I cannot put it into articles either, check out this diff and this link - note the summary under which my edit was reverted).

As regards Douglas's testimony I can't fault it as an RS - but Ein Karem was used as a show village. And we should not be using Schechtman (even if we think parts of his information is sound) for the same reason we'd not use quotes from the anti-semitic. Race-hatred is race-hatred - and Schechtman (at first glance) also appears to be an enthusiastic distorter. PalestineRemembered 16:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is it alright to use quotations from Morris and not from Schechtman? Does the fact that Morris is Israeli mean he can't have an anti-Israeli bias? Fact is, everyone is biased. But that is what NPOV is all about; realizing that all sources have a certain amount of bias, and including all the relevant theories/viewpoints on an issue, even the ones with which we don't agree (including racist ones). Personally, I haven't formulated an opinion as to whether or not Schechtman was racist. But the quotation that I advocate including is not racist; it is a fact that when a Jew fell into the hands of an Arab army he/she was mistreated and often killed. Schechtman (who I understand is not, in your eyes, a credible source, but has written SO many book on the matter that I think you can't deny his historical relevance) observed that fearing the same behavior on the part of the Jews catalyzed the exodus.

Notice that I am not making any statement whatsoever as to whether Jews did or did not give Arabs the same treatment. That question is irrelevant. The fact is that the fear that they would contributed to the Arab exodus.

Ein Karem was used as a show village? What? Not every example that disagrees with Morris is a piece of propaganda. Morris is not God, and he makes mistakes. I wouldn't put it past him to intentionally overlook some facts. But I am not in favor of excluding him from the article; I just think contradictory sources should be included in the article. Same for Schechtman; I don't think he should be removed from the article, but I think that if any reliable source claims that he is being untruthful in any statement in which he is quoted in this article, that source should be included. Screen stalker 02:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Screen stalker. What people don't seem to understand is that although the New Historians provided an interesting and important lens through which to view the Palestinian exodus, that everything that everything and everyone that has conflicting evidence lying, propoganda, untrue, or in the process of being disproven. It is agreed upon by honest historians on both sides of the conflict that the Palestinian exodus was caused by different factors in different places. Anyone who says that there was only one cause of the exodus shows that they are either dishonest or not very literate in the history of the region. --GHcool 05:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If I make any statements about anything, certain people will take them out of context and put them up on their UserPage in order to disparage my contribution.

And I've already made myself clear, so there's no excuse to apply what I've said about Schechtman to Morris.

There are "historians" found to have distorted history that we would never quote from - and Schechtman is (by what I can see) a great deal worse than any example I'm thinking of. We should not be using him. PalestineRemembered 22:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Shall we all follow PalestineRemembered's example and tell which historians we don't want to quote from in this article? Or should we just use whichever historians are necessary and proper like we have been doing? --GHcool 01:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The personalising carried on by some editors on their own UserPages puts a chill on actually putting information into TalkPages (and of course, the same applies to articles).

In the meantime, Schechtman (I think) is substantially worse, both on race-hatred and on distortion, than other "historians" who could never be quoted in Wikipedia. PalestineRemembered 10:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is open to people who want to quote sources discrediting Schechtman on any information quoted within this article. So the reader is at least aware of questions regarding Schechtman's credibility. An article should provide a reader with relevant historical information, and notify him/her of possible imperfections in this information. If the reader becomes convinced, as you are, that Schechtman was untruthful, that is their right as a critical reader. But they may not share your sentiment. Either way, you shouldn't censoring their access to Schechtman altogether is not the way to go.

The Trojan War article cites The Iliad, and the American Civil War article cites Abraham Lincoln as a source. No one in their right mind thinks that these sources are neutral and accurate depictions of this conflict. But they are cited anyways, because their writings have become an insperable part of the history of these conflict. Screen stalker 16:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a matter of neutrality or "accuracy". It's a matter that Schechtman (at least from the quick glance I've taken at his work) preaches race-hatred and practises pretty blatant distortion of the historical record. We do not quote people who behave in this fashion, even if some of their work meets all the usual standards of being "historical".

A determined attempt was made to perma-block me for quoting from Garaudy, an author who (I'm informed) is a Holocaust Denier. It was only by great good luck I was able to prove that I definitely had the information from a genuine source, and that it pre-dated any such use by Garaudy. (I've still never had any form of explanation, retraction or apology for this vicious personal accusation against me).

Now, if I have this much trouble for (perhaps) quoting from racists and deniers, you need to sharpen up and stop doing the very thing I would have been perma-blocked for if I had been doing it. PalestineRemembered 18:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that there were some editors who found it appropriate to try to block you for that. As you'll notice their attempt failed. As far as I am aware, there is no policy in Wikipedia against quoting racists. That would be taking a POV against racism. That being said, let's draw a few distinctions between Schechtman and Garaudy:

1. Garaudy was convicted of crimes including racial defamation, even in a country which is not known for its friendly feelings towards Jews (namely France). Schechtman insofar as I am aware has never been so much as tried for libel, slander, perjury, racial defamation or any other crime that would reduce his credibility. I don't think courts of law can alone determine the credibility of a source, but they are an indication.
2. Garaudy has a long track-record of attacking the Jewish lobby, Israel and other Jewish institutions. He also denied the Holocaust. So while this doesn't necessarily make him a racist, it certainly raises questions. The most I have seen to indicate that Schechtman was a racist was that he said no quarter was given to Jews in Arab hands. Within the context in which he used it, that is 100% true.
3. This is my most important reason: Garaudy denied the Holocaust, a well-documented event that no rational human being can deny. The evidence is simply too overwhelming for there to be any doubt. Anyone who can deny such an undeniable event does not deserve to be taken seriously, especially not as a figure of historical importance. Screen stalker 00:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Schechtman published in many academic journals and has been reviewed in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, The Public Opinion Quarterly, American Sociological Review, The Journal of Modern History, Political Science Quarterly, Geographical Review, The Western Political Quarterly and International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs) among others. FYI. HG | Talk 05:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Citing Morris in EoF

I personally think that citing Morris, an author that has stated that EoF contributed (at most) to a 5% of the flight, in the EoF theory as "supporting" it is equivalent to misquoting him. In the past I personally accepted Morris' quote if a § was added just afterwards signalling that Morris (as well as New Historians) research has "dismissed" the EoF. I understand that such a § would not fit in the EoF support but then, the § in the "Criticism of EoF" already states that New Historians accept that EoF played a minor role in the exodus so I would delete Morris' quote from the support of EoF section. Cheers.--Jorditxei 20:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Jorditxei is forgetting that EoF is just one of the causes of the Palestinian exodus. This article is not about giving all the causes and letting the reader decide which cause is the "correct" cause. Rather, the article is about all the causes which, combined, resulted in the Palestinian exodus. For this reason, all evidence for EoF or any other cause given by any reliable historian is acceptable without qualification. --GHcool 04:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It goes without saying that an encyclopedia article should not be distorting the views of its references. If Morris doesn't support the EoF (eg "it may fairly be said that all 700,000 or so who ended up as refugees were compulsorily displaced or 'expelled'.") then we should not allow a situation in which readers might think he was a supporter of EoF. PalestineRemembered 06:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I share Jordixtei and PalestineRemembered's mind here.

Citing Morris as supporting this is a "misquotation".

It also proves why we cannot use primary source. If quoting Morris could make believe he supports that theory, how easy it is to quote Ben Gourion or any other to prove whatever.

We can only quote scholars analysis. Alithien 06:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Jordixtei -- cut him or add a qualifying statement. This discussion, by the way, speaks for re-organizing the article by specific causes and not by theories, but I've been saying that for far too long now ;) Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 07:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

From my side, I underlined that there transfer idea is not a theory concerning the causes of flight but a context ;-). The weight to give to this context is controversed. It is the same for the "2-stages theory". This is "personal research" to introduce Gelber's way of presenting events that way. There are only 2 theories in this matter : the "Master Plan" theory and the "Call of flight" theory. Alithien 09:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The master plan theory implies a lot more than what most historians (including most new historians) agree occured. As far as I understand it, the two most widely accepted and widely publicized theories are EoF and transfer. --GHcool 19:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't say the contrary.

I just say what Gelber and Morris explains ie: there was a transfer idea and the things happened in 2-stages are not theories concerning the cause of the exodus.

And to close this debate : I don't agree seeing the word theory associated to anything if this is not sourced.

Concerning the relative importance what can be called theories according to me (ie master plan and EoF), I don't see how to decide which one would be more "famous" than the other one. Alithien 07:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section does make it clear that Morris, overall, does not support EoF theory:

• "Morris, too, did not find any blanket call for evacuation..."
• "Morris, as well as the rest of New Historians coincide on the fact that Arab instigation was not the cause of a large part of the refugees flight. They do acknowledge that Arab instigation during December 1947-June 1948 may have caused around 5 percent of total exodus. As regards the overall exodus, they clearly state that the major cause of Palestinian flight was not Arab instigation but rather military actions by the IDF and the fear from them. In their view, Arab instigation can only explain a small part of the exodus and not a large part of it. Moreover, Morris and Flapan have been among the authors whose research has disputed the official Israeli version claiming that the refugee flight was in large part instigated by Arab leaders."

But he clearly thinks that EoF contributed to some extent to the exodus (even if the extent was small). So I see nothing wrong with quoting his work in support of the EoF theory with the caveat that he does not support it to the extent that most other authors therein quoted do. Screen stalker 14:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

To the extent that most other authors therein quoted do

Do or did ? Alithien 14:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Order and logic of sections

After so much effort in researching and drafting this article, it's not surprising that folks are standing back and asking these overarching q's, such as (1) which explanations (theories, contexts, causes) are suitable for parallel-construction Article sections, (2) what's the due weight and order given to each explanation, (3) and how to interpret Morris etc who may be relevant for multiple sections. Glancing it over, I gather that the current order of sections 1-4 is based on their order of appearance in historiographic discourse. Personally, I would like that because it shows how the causal explanations have developed, plus it allows the later historians to critique earlier explanation (thereby explaining why they felt a need to come up with a new approach). (#5 seems to be an emerging contribution that hasn't yet been put into the historiographic narrative). If my hunch is correct, then it is vital to tell the reader about this flow of the article. Currently, it says the opposite! That is: "explanations of the exodus (in no particular order)." You do have an order, and I think it is viable and encyclopedic! But even if you change it, let the reader know what to expect. What do you think?

An idea: Maybe what you need at the end is a neutral wrap-up. What is the common ground and the key points of disagreement? Which factual disputes could be determinative? Which theories seem most popular and why? Currently, Bernard Lewis is used for this purpose in the lead paragraphs ("No one single explanation stands out ..."). (BTW, are you using other book reviews or literature reviews by relatively uninvolved scholars?) Perhaps this lead can be backed up with your concluding wrap-up. Maybe here you assume the reader is a 17 year old (USA high school), who wants to learn, but couldn't quite follow the detailed academic theories. Could you write a neutral synthesis that goes beyond what you've said in the lead? Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 15:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Both of HG's ideas are excellent. If I can find the time, I'll write a proposal for a "neutral synthesis." --GHcool 18:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:HG - I can't take the article in its current form very seriously. I agree with GHcool and Alithien that the two "causes of exodus" are Eof and/or Transfer. Transfer then breaks down into "Master Plan", 2 stage, 4 wave etc and the latter discussion is interesting (and probably more "live", "current", "historical" than the former). But rolling them all together makes sensible discussion impossible. PalestineRemembered 20:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, thanks! PR -- I was working off the current structure, which I find coherent and rather typical for the presentation of soc-sci/humanities theories. I now see that Pedro Gonnet has worked on another structure, based on key "reasons" for the exodus. (While I see some problems ahead for Pedro's approach that I needn't address here, again I can't help but admire you all for your hard and intellectual work here.) If you can devise another structural scheme for the content here, like Pedro maybe you could set up a skeleton draft on a user subpage for others to consider.

N.B. For my mind, one beauty of the current chronological unfolding is that the Outline itself doesn't raise verifiability concerns. Conversely, PR, an analytical structure (e.g., your focus on EoF and Transfer) is based on a claim regarding the explanatory structure (i.e., your proposed breakdown) that itself needs to be argued for, verified and shown to be the major view. Still, maybe you're up to the challenge, go for it! (HG)

Anyway, I briefly looked at a series of literature reviews of the historiography. I'm not vouching for them, they have certain intellectual biases, but they seem on the up and up. I can't quite tell if you all have read these and, if not, where I should put these citations. Please move them as you see fit.

• Blomeley, Kristen (2005) 'The 'new historians' and the origins of the Arab/Israeli conflict', Australian Journal of Political Science, 40:1, 125 - 139. //in JSTOR
• Avi Shlaim "The Debate about 1948" International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 27, No. 3. (Aug., 1995), pp. 287-304. //He seems able to look at his own biases. Peer reviewed, I think. in JSTOR
• Shapiro, A. 1995. 'Politics and Collective Memory: The Debate over the 'New Historians' in Israel.' History and Memory 7(1): 9–40. Shapiro, A. 1996. 'Introduction.' In Essential Papers on Zionism, eds J. Reinharz and A. Shapiro. New York and London: New York University Press.//I didn't look at her stuff but they're both solid academic publications.
• The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined, Dominique Vidal, in LeMonde diplomatique http://mondediplo.com/1997/12/palestine //This is not as academic, I think.
• Kaiyal, Robyn. Rethinking history: From traditional Zionism to a new post-Zionist curriculum: An examination of Israel's new historiography and its application in American Jewish education.Dissertation. The Union Institute, 2001. ProQuest AAT 3013589. //See review of early Zionists then New Historians p.55ff.

Perhaps these will be useful. BTW, mostly they tell the historiographic story like your article, starting with the Zionists' "traditional" account, the New Historians, and so on. Anyway, I am encouraged to read your cool-headed, serious and open-minded Talk page, which gives me more confidence in Wikipedia's potential here. HG | Talk 02:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Chanced upon another review of the historiography by Dr. Philip Mendes. Thanks, HG | Talk 05:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You have me at a disadvantage claiming this kind of setup is used for "soc-sci/humanities theories", I see no benefit or reason for that. And I see excellent reasons for not doing things chronologically - if we were to do that generally, creationism would have to come above evolution in any discussion. I think the "Major View" or largest proportion should be at the top. PalestineRemembered 15:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral synthesis work

I agree with HG that the chronological order of accepted historiography is probably the best choice, but I don't expect to put up much of a fight if there are people who prefer a different order. The order doesn't matter to me as much as the content does.

After a long day at work, I'm too tired to put together a neutral synthesis. However, I'd like to offer some points that I think everyone involved would probably agree upon for such a synthesis (in no particular order):

1. The Arab endorsement of the flight had some effect in some settings of the Palestinian exodus, though it is debated on to what extent and how far reaching this effect was exactly.
2. It was in the best interest of the Zionists to have as few Arabs in the new State of Israel as possible.
3. Forced expulsion from homes was had some effect in some settings of the Palestinian exodus, but to what extent in proportion to cases of voluntary flight (i.e. flight without ever seeing a single soldier) this occurred is debated.
4. The Arabs of Mandatory Palestine were largely illiterate and therefore relied heavily on rumors and word of mouth than on reliable news sources. They told each other stories about Zionist atrocities, and the Zionists (perhaps purposefully) did not dispel these rumors. --GHcool 06:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see you kick this off, GHcool! Here's my 2 cents as a casual reader...

For #1, is it fair to say that EoF is an early theory that has been deprecated since the New Historians?

For #2, you presumably mean that the Zionists believed it to be in their best interest...

For #3, you may want to mention other plausible factors, e.g. fear, social disorder (Gelber) (anything from Pedro's list ?). Might say that expulsion is a (the?) key pt of contention betw A, B, C vs X, Y, Z analysts

For #4, is this a new point? If not in article yet, then it's not ready for a concluding synthesis.

Generally, sounds like you are trying to synthesize into an overarching picture of why the exodus. That's ok. Still, you might emphasize a synthesis of the flow of explanatory approaches, as long as that's the structure and much of the article. E.g., early Zionists said X, initial New Historians said Y, reactions, etc. HG | Talk 07:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

For #1, no it isn't fair. There is still considerable debate about the new historians' findings and how they fit in with the historical narrative.

For #2, yes.

For #3, agreed.

For #4, fair enough. --GHcool 18:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• 1. No, I don't agree. There is no more debate on that since Morris and the New historians's work. What is controversed in Morris's work concerns the transfer idea, not his statistics concerning what cause flight in each village. And his statistics rejected the conclusion that the calls to flight was a major cause. This can be found in Morris books but this is also what the historian Yoav Gelber (who is not a new historian) writes in the conclusions of ch.7 of, Palestine 1948 (2006), p.116 : Similarly, the Israeli traditional argument, blaming the Arab leadership for encouraging the mass flight, has no basis in the documentary evidence.. I permit myself to remind Gelber is the historian who claimed he would never publish any more in a review that would publish Pappé. Alithien 10:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an analysis that I understand and respect, but I don't think represents a neutral POV by all concerned. Consider too that voluntary flight does not necessarily require Arab leaders' endorsement depending on your definition of who is an "Arab leader." Also, consider that the New Historians were working off recently declassified Israeli documents. To this day, there hasn't been similarly declassified documents from the Arab side. The "old" historians claim that if these documents were declassified, it would give the EoF theory much more weight. --GHcool 20:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

In other words there is no evidence at all to support EoF and the best that "old historians" can do is to say that they like to imagine there is evidence somewhere, even though, as Morris puts it "The Yishuv's intelligence agencies - HIS and its successor organisation, the IDF's Intelligence Service, and the Arab Division of the JA-PD, and its successor bodies, the Middle East Affairs, Research and Political departments of the Israel Foreign Ministry - as well as Western intelligence agencies all monitored Arab radio broadcasts and attended to the announcements of Arab leaders. But no Jewish or British or American intelligence or diplomatic report from the critical period, December 1947 to July 1948, quotes from or even refers to such orders." --Ian Pitchford 21:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I dislike Ian Pitchford's tone and question his skills at reading something and interpreting what he just read. --GHcool 21:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You have told us you have no RS for a different conclusion to that reached by the "New Historians". I really feel that this article would be improved if we operated to regular WP policies, and depended on "Verifiability not Truth". PalestineRemembered 10:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi,
We can proceed a different way.
What historians after 1990 and discovering Morris'work wrote the "EoF" theory was something else than the "israeli traditionnal explanation" and that it was not a credible one any more.
For what I know, none (but I may be wrong, a source is needed) :

• eg Karsh, in The Palestine War 1948 (p.90) writes that it is true that neither the AHC nor the Arab states envisaged a Palestinian dispersion of the extent that occurred, and that both sought to cointain it once it began snowballing.

Alithien 15:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

William O. Douglas, selective quoting

I must admit, I am a bit confused... User:Screen stalker introduces three quotes from William O. Douglas in three different places, from the same book regarding the same village, Ein Karem.

My problem is that the same quote is used to say three different things:

• "the villagers were told by the Arab leaders to leave it" i.e. evacuation on "Arab" orders in the section "Claims by scholars that support the theory that the flight was instigated by Arab leaders",
• "Yet it was evacuated by the Arabs. Every man, woman, and child left—all except eight old women. […] They did this, though no shot was fired, though their village was neither encircled nor threatened.", i.e. apparent causeless abandonment in the section "Criticisms of "Master Plan" theory",
• "The massacre struck terror in the hearts of villagers throughout the region. 'Some thought all of us in Ein Karem might also be killed some night,' one old lady said as she twirled the ends of a black shawl.", i.e. fear of attacks in the section "From an Observer's Perspective".

The same quote used in three different places to push three different theories? I think not... Especially irritating is the fact that the Ein Karem article itself states that the village was evacuated in two phases, the second one being after attack by Israeli forces!

User:Screen stalker, I have removed the three occurrences of this quote. Please refrain from this type of editing in the future.

Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 06:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pedro.

I would add that taking *1 village* as example in this article is not welcome. Douglas global analysis and conclusions could be interesting. His analysis for one village is not.

Alithien 09:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Pedro, in the first place I must say there are only two causes presented by Douglas: EoF and fear of attack. The lack of an actual military attack is not "causeless evacuation." It simply eliminates military action as a possible explanation. But can we not agree that there might have been two causes contributing to the exodus at the same time? Could not have fear of Israeli attack and exhortations by Arab leaders have both contributed to the flight? If not, we should edit our introduction, which says that "it is possible that all of the explanations are partially true of the exodus." I am aghast at the fact that you would be against including a source simply because its view of the world is not narrow-minded.

As for your statement asking me to "refrain from this type of editing in the future," I think that is a baseless and tasteless attack. I suggested adding this on the discussion board on September 3, and you did not voice your objections there. There is nothing wrong with "this type of editing," namely discussing, going back to the original source, and quoting a reliable person who was actually there at the time and place of the event. I don't even think it would have been wrong to add this source without discussing it. It is so bullet-proof, that I just could not have imagined that anyone would object to its inclusion.

I, too, find it "especially irritating" that the Ein Karem article says that military action was to blame for this event. I will change that article to reflect the facts at once. The wording that the Ein Karem article cites from Morris is quite vague about how many inhabitants fled in July, just saying "the rest" of them fled. As far as we know, that could be the eight old women that Douglas saw. So there is no contradiction between the sources. It may just be that ~3,000 people fled on the first wave of refugees, and another eight on the second.

Alithien, I understand your point regarding this being only one village. Frankly, I think it's the only solid point against including Douglas as a source. In light of that, I think it would be reasonable to cut the reference, but I think altogether excluding it would be a bad idea. My reasoning is that, while this source only applies directly to Ein Karem, it is unique in two ways: it gives us a glimpse of the local events from the perspective of a very credible and neutral individual who actually interviewed eyewitnesses in the area of the exodus, at the time of the exodus. Very few other sources give us that insight. Secondly, in the single village that Douglas examines he finds that the EoF by Arab Leaders was one of two factors that precipitated the exodus. Ein Karem is conspicuously absent from Morris' list of villages that left because of EoF. So Douglas here shows that Morris basically covered up the Arab leaders' involvement in the evacuation of Ein Karem. I don't find this surprising; I have not yet encountered a source on the matter which writes the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. One possible exception is Douglas, but I think I just haven't had the time to find what he's covering up.

Here is what I propose: including Ein Karem in Criticism of EoF and in Fear Psychosis. Unless I discover some need to include it in the "Criticism of the Master Plan" section, I will not place the relevant part of it there. Of course, I am not saying this in absolute terms. If I find that some source we quote in MP says that Ein Karem was emptied because of MP, I will think it necessary to reintroduce the quotation. Screen stalker 13:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Morris says (Revisited, p. 436):

The large village of 'Ein Karim, partially evacuated in April following the attack on Deir Yassin two kilometers to the north, was abandoned by its civilian inhabitants on 10-11 July and, on 14-16 July, by its militiamen after Jewish forces catured two dominating hilltops, Khirbet Beit Mazmil and Khirbet al Hamama, and shelled the village.

The village was evacuated, but there is not mention of it being forcefully evacuated under any orders. On page 177 he says:

Many of 'Ein Karim's Christian families also moved to the Old City, on 'the advice' of the local commander.

The source given in the book is an Israeli intelligence source. As can be read on pages 75 and 92, the village even had non-aggression agreements with the Israeli forces. They only evacuated women and chrildren after the Deir Yassin incident and the men only left after being shelled.

I am not against different causes at different times in different places, but I am against using the same quote on the same event, in the same place at the same time to justify three different exodus theories. This is also a bit annoying since, in an effort to keep the article short and sweet, many more notable quotes were cut with the argument of them being repetitious.

Lastly, Douglas may have been a very respectable person, but he is neither a historian or an expert on the Middle East. Does it say in his book if he even spoke Arabic? ISIKnowledge finds 14 citations of his book, none of which have anything to do with the middle east (one is a 1956 article in Science titled "Does Starvation Increase Sperm Count?") which doesn't make him much of a reliable source on the topic and thus a bad stick to beat Morris with.

Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 13:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

For starters, Douglas isn't supporting three theories of why the residents of Ein Karem left; he's supporting two, and saying that a third was not a cause of the exodus. Secondly, wouldn't you agree that it is possible that the Deir Yassin Massacre and Arab pressure to leave both contributed to the exodus of the residents of Ein Karem? I just don't see why you think there is a contradiction.

On the issue of when people left, notice that Morris doesn't say that the men left after being shelled, but that the militiamen left after being shelled. Those aren't necessarily residents of Ein Karem, and even those who were probably did not compose the entire male population of Ein Karem.

I understand your concerns with the fact that Douglas was not a historian. But first understand that there are about a thousand different William Douglases of historical significance, and it may be that it was not the US Supreme Court Justice who wrote the paper about sperm. Even if it was, being an authority on the nutritional impact on sperm count does not discount him as an authority on refugees. His book Strange Lands and Friendly People is all about refugees around the Middle East. He has a law degree, and taught law at Yale. He sat on the US Supreme Court for 36 years. I think he is credible enough of a source to write a historical account.

I am sorry for loosing my cool earlier today, but I'm sure you can see why I was unhappy with the last sentence of your first post. Screen stalker 13:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The sperm article was the article citing Douglas' book. There are only 14 publications in ISIKnowledge that cite his book and none of them are on the topic of Palestinians/Israel/the Exodus, which makes him a not-so-good source.

As for who exactly stayed or who left for exactly what reasons, the only statement that can be made is that there is -- apart from Douglas -- no record of orders to evacuate Ein Karem. Even Israeli archives use the weak language of "advice" to leave. His book doesn't prove anything and is certainly not evidence that Morris is biased or otherwise wilfully negligent.

Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 14:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Douglas does not discuss orders either. He simply says that villagers were told by Arab leaders to leave. That to me seems like a perfect example of endorsement of flight by Arab leaders. You are right in saying this doesn't prove that Morris is biased or willfully negligent (although I think the former is already proven). But it does prove he excluded at least one village from his list of villages that left because of Arab leaders' exhortations. So he is not telling the whole truth. If nothing else, this challenge to his credibility must be included for the sake of fairness, since you have found it not only appropriate but necessary to include every possible challenge to the credibility of Schechtman and other pro-EoF authors. Screen stalker 14:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, Morris went to the trouble of looking into Ein Karem and found no orders, but advice. He went looking for orders and found none. Doulglas doesn't provide proof either ("told" vs. "ordered"), so what's the point? Don't compare this to Schechtman or the Al-Azm story... Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 15:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldn't I compare this to Schechtman? Regardless of whether or not there were Arab orders to leave Ein Karem, Arab EoF was a key cause leading to the evacuation of the village. After all, isn't that what this article is about? Screen stalker 02:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Screen stalker,

You wrote : "So Douglas here shows that Morris basically covered up the Arab leaders' involvement in the evacuation of Ein Karem"

Does Douglas talk about Morris ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alithien (talk • contribs) 10:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You cannot write Morris is "biased" or "lied" because there is a disagreement between him and somebody else concerning what happened in 1 village. Particularly when Morris gives his sources in details.

About his alleged bias : in the Birth revisited, p.263 in the conclusion of the 2nd wave, he writes :

(...) The AHC and the Arab leaders often encouraged villagers (and in some place, townspeople) to send their women, children and old people out of harm's way. Local political and military leaders also orders some villages to evacuate in order to forestall their (treacherous) acceptance of Jewish rule. In certains case (around Jerusalem, and along the Syrian border), the Arab states ordered villages to uproot for strategic reasons.

So, it is not just one village or Ein Karem for which he found evidence of some evacuation orders BUT this doesn't prevent him to conclude anyway :

There is no evidence that the AHC and the Arab states wanted a mass exodus [as it arose] or issued blanket orders or appeals to flee.

What he says precisely is cristal clear.

Now, the only way for historians that would not agree with this Morris conclusion would be, like he did, to provide other statistics than his owns and that would prove the contrary of what he states. And as far as I know, he has never been accused of lies concerning his statistics and nobody never provided others with relevant differences up to now.

Alithien 10:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Alithien, I have no way of knowing whether or not Morris made this mistake willingly or unwillingly, and I am far from convinced that he is a liar (although I do think he is biased, like just about everyone who writes about this topic). I was merely writing that to prove a point: that sources have disagreement, and that doesn't mean that one of them is lying (or both). It can just be a disagreement of sources. Clearly you agree, as you came out in defense of this idea. By the same token that we should give Morris the benefit of the doubt, we should do the same for Schechtman and other authors. We should include conflicting sources without assuming one is right and the other is wrong.

What is your opinion regarding the inclusion of Douglas' writings? Screen stalker 14:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This article includes all of Schechtman's propaganda as though it's factual information, even though reliable historians like Khalidi, Gelber and Morris have found that the "Arab evacuation orders" story is false and most probably constructed by Schechtman himself. Curiously there is nothing at all about Schechtman's own role in promoting the idea of "transfer" to the Israeli government. Schechtman wrote a report arguing for compulsory transfer of the Arab population of Palestine to another country and concluded that "Palestine seems to offer a classic case for quick, decisive transfer action" and that "no constructive solution can be reached without large-scale [Arab] transfer." See Nur Masalha's Imperial Israel And The Palestinians: The Politics of Expansion. --Ian Pitchford 17:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ian, the article does not declare that anything that Schechtman says is true. It simply quotes him. You can't dismiss a scholar is propaganda simply because you don't like what he has to say. Also, you're overlooking the fact that the article does quote many scholars who challenge Schechtman's view of the exodus, including a reflection of your complaints. Besides, this is the wrong section to bring this up. Screen stalker 23:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

When leading historians identify a Revisionist politician as a propagandist and probably the source of a discredited explanation for the Palestinian exodus Wikipedia should not report that propaganda as if it is credible. Schechtman's own role should be explained in detail as it has a direct bearing on his credibility, or rather his lack of it. Do you understand Yoav Gelber's conclusion: "the Israeli traditional argument, blaming the Arab leadership for encouraging the mass flight, has no basis in the documentary evidence" or that of Morris "The Yishuv's intelligence agencies - HIS and its successor organisation, the IDF's Intelligence Service, and the Arab Division of the JA-PD, and its successor bodies, the Middle East Affairs, Research and Political departments of the Israel Foreign Ministry - as well as Western intelligence agencies all monitored Arab radio broadcasts and attended to the announcements of Arab leaders. But no Jewish or British or American intelligence or diplomatic report from the critical period, December 1947 to July 1948, quotes from or even refers to such orders." --Ian Pitchford 10:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Before answering, I would like to be sure no more historian (not politician, historian even if biaised) considered after 1990 that EoF was still credible. Alithien 15:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Alithien. I don't understand what you mean. Could you rephrase?

Ian, you are more than welcome to have a discussion on Schechtman's credibility. But please create a separate section to do that. This is a discussion on Douglas' work. Screen stalker 16:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

We should not be having this discussion - under no circumstances should we quote someone who writes "Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands." It's racist, and I've already produced one example of how untrue it was - 1929 Hebron. Ditto for Kfar Etzion March 1948 where, although there was a massacre there, other Jews were captured, held as POWs and returned some 9 months later. Schechtman should not be quoted for the same reason we don't quote David Irving. PalestineRemembered 13:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, I don't think what he's saying is racist: its a statement of fact. Don't get me wrong; statements of fact can be false (in fact they are, by definition, either true or false). But this comment isn't an assault on Arabs, simply a statement that new quarter was given to Jews by Arabs in 1948. As for your examples to the opposite, I think they are outside the context of what Schechtman intends. In the first place, the Hebron example predates the timeframe with regard to which Schechtman wrote his work. Secondly, the example deals with individual Arabs helping Jews. That is not "quarter" in the military sense of the word. What Schechtman is saying is that Arab militias did not give quarter to Jews whom they captured. After all, quarter, by definition, only applies to a defeated or captured enemy. Also, receiving something in exchange for taking POWs instead of killing them is not called quarter. It's called negotiation.

Finally allow me to note that your comparison to David Irving fits the situation loosely at best. Irving is a racist. Period. He denies an event which is so thoroughly documented that it is undeniable by any rational human being. Schechtman's declaration, though less than palatable in your eyes, may conflict with various interpretations of the situation, but it isn't an outright lie. Screen stalker 11:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Compliment

I'd just like to tell everyone that I think this article is about a million times better than it was only a two months ago. That's not to say that our job is complete, but I think we are on the right track. Thank you to everyone involved. --GHcool 17:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Je suis d'accord! Screen stalker 18:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's terrible, gravely distorting what historians say about this business. We seem to have quotations in there from "historians" even less credible than David Irvine. We have historians who believe one thing quoted as if they believed the opposite - and editors claiming that that is a perfectly proper thing to do. PalestineRemembered 18:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The Accusation: "We seem to have quotations in [the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus article] from 'historians' even less credible than David Irvine [sic]."

The Reality: David Irving is the notorious English Holocaust denier and pseudo-historian exposed as a fraud and a racist in a court of law. He associates with neo-Nazis and served a prison sentence in Austria. Not a single reasonable person takes him seriously as an academic and a historian. The research of the historians referenced in the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus (namely Joseph B. Schechtman and Shmuel Katz on the "traditional" side, and Benny Morris on the "revisionist" side) are controversial, but no reasonable person would claim that any of the above historians would be exposed as frauds and racists in a court of law, nor do they associate with underground groups dedicated to racism, race-supremacy, xenophobia, and violence. The comparison is embarrassingly falsifiable at best and offensive and disgusting at worst.

David Irving took out and lost a libel case attempting to protect his living and reputation as a "historian", which was in ruins because of his (known or alleged) racism and distortion. (He was later convicted and jailed for Holocaust Denial). We should not be quoting from Shechtman for the same reason that nobody on WP would have quoted from David Irving before his legal problems. (Well, unless you can demonstrate that the few clips I've seen from Schectman are not objectionable on the grounds I've given you, and there have been many chances to do that missed already).

It would seem strange indeed that you despise David Irving (and take vigorous exception to anyone even mentioning his disgrace), but seem to have learned none of the obvious lessons from his case.

Not only are we using "historians" we should not be using for very easy to understand reasons, we have historians who believe one thing being quoted as if they believe the opposite. Hence what I said, this article is terrible. PalestineRemembered 08:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Any reasonable person could differentiate between a controversial historian without a criminal record and a racist that denies the Holocaust, associates with neo-Nazis, and has been arrested. --GHcool 19:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Your "controversial historian without a criminal record" sounds to me as if he's very obviously a racist and very obviously a distorter of history. I could be wrong, of course, but when you despise Irving so much (quite properly) I expect you to be equally vehement in opposing the use of anything from Schechtman. The guy wrote "Israel Explores Deir Yassin Blood Libel, 1969", for goodness sake - that must be far worse than anything from Irving! PalestineRemembered 21:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I admit I have't read every book and every opinion by Schechtman. Nevertheless, the key phrase in PalestineRemembered's last post was "I could be wrong." I suppose this is as far as we should expect PalestineRemembered to go in retracting his ignorant statement. --GHcool 21:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Everything I see about Schechtman seems to confirm that my first impression was correct, he was racist and distorted history - I'll not be retracting anything until I see evidence or at least indication to the contrary. But I'm glad I compared him with Irving, since I now know that you despise such people at least as much as I do. PalestineRemembered 22:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I never read anything about him.

But I want to underline he is in Gelber's bibliography.

According to me, it is enough to "quote" him in wikipedia.

On the other hand, as I wrote before, I don't know any scholar who supported Schetchman point after 1990 (If I am wrong, who ?). So, what he wrote can be considered as a "former" or "traditionnal" old point of view and should be introduced in that sense.

The information is not Schetchman's theory.

The information is that -in the past- there was another theory : schetchman's one.

Alithien 06:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If by "Schetchman's theory" Alithien is referring to the "fear psychosis" theory has been supported, specifically by Avraham Sela and Moshe Efrat, although Sela and Efrat do not use the same language as Schetchman, nor do they rely as heavily on the EoF as Schetchman did. What recent studies have shown is that the Palestinian exodus occurred less within a context of violence than in a context of fear. I suppose this could be characterized as the place where the "new" and "old" historiography meets. Of the theories that are listed in the article, Sela and Efrat probably fall most comfortably into the two-stage theory, but consider fear psychosis (Schetchman's words, not Sela's nor Efrat's) to be the driving force of at least the first stage.

What I am trying to say is that Schetchman's theory (however one defines it) has not been replaced as much as it has been modified by more recent studies. --GHcool 07:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Good ! I understand and I agree.

More I underline both Morris and Gelber also talks about that "fear" factor in comparison with a "physical violence".

In that case, I would suggest a parallelism with Childers/Morris about transfer idea. The principle was first introduced by Childers but Morris developed this.

The fear psychosis was already introduced by Schetchman and Sela and Efrat still use this today.

What do you (all) think about this ? Alithien 08:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

@GHCool & Alithien

For the Bernard Lewis line, please see the bottom line of: [[5]] BTW: why change all to several?

@GHCool: 'at their own initiative' is not the same as 'without seeing an Israeli soldier'. They might be endorsed by Arab leaders, be fearfull of massacres or whatever, bombed by Israeli artillary etc.. None of the theories offers the 'own initiative' explanation.

--JaapBoBo 22:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone (I forgot who) correctly commented that the Lewis quote does not support that "all" of the causes were involved, so I changed it to "several."

To me, "without seeing an Israeli soldier" is a euphamism for "at their own initiative." I found the phrase "at their own initiative" in Sela and several other sources say more or less the same thing. Perhaps I should have attributed the phrase to him, but it didn't seem like a big deal to me. If you prefer "without seeing an Israeli," feel free to change it. --GHcool 22:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Close to 1 million people fled Kosovo in 1999. I'm not sure any of them saw a soldier (I don't think the Serbian army was involved). Few of them probably saw "Serbian militiamen" either, they fled when they saw columns of smoke on the skyline and heard from other fleeing refugees. However, claims that they'd not been ethnically cleansed would be greeted with disgust and derision by almost everyone, the claim would be described as "denial", and the motives of the deniers impugned. What is it about the much greater suffering of Palestinians that doesn't entitle them to the same dignity? PalestineRemembered 07:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Apples and oranges, PalestineRemembered. But, GHcool, I must say that leaving without seeing an Israeli soldier is not the same as leaving of their own accord. Screen stalker 11:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You deleted a correct version in the article(maybe not grammatically). They don't left "of their own accord" and "without seeing an israeli soldier" sounds strange... They left when the fightings approached. Alithien 13:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreement among modern historians

I modified this section. But I don't know how to deal with this... Alithien 11:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
NB: Screentalker removed my modifications... I can believe it was not grammatically very good. Alithien 12:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Looks like you and Pedro all are working on a neutral synopsis at the end. As GHcool did above, I'd suggest working on draft points and sentences here in Talk first. You might want to stay away from "majority of" historians language. Perhaps focus on the key points of each section, without trying to make new points. (Well, it's my sense that the traditionalist view has been strongly challenged by the New Historians, but you don't need to say that it's been refuted either.) Also, I think you're mostly giving an enclopedic summation to flesh out such sentences in the lead as "No one single explanation stands out and it is possible that all of the explanations for the exodus are partially true in general and perhaps even singularly "true of different places."[1]" Thanks! HG | Talk 15:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about this and the more I think that the traditionalist view is not followed any more... Even Karsh in his book about the war of 1948 doesn't consider this relevant.

If no scholar used this explanation any more after 1990 and if no scholar attacked current historians for writing this explanations was not satisfying, I think it can fairly be considered as refuted and clearly indicates it is a "former" theory.

Is there a scholar that wrote after 1990 that most Palestinians left because they were asked by their leaders ? Alithien 15:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As the article says, even new historians agree that EoF accounted for some percentage of the flight. However, I don't think anybody claims that the EoF accounted for the majority of the flight. On the other hand, some very serious historians claim that much of the flight was done by the Palestinian Arabs' own initiative (as opposed to an active "ethnic cleansing" campaign against them). --GHcool 19:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerning EoF : former historians claimed it was the main cause. After 1990, none dared to write this anymore (I think and would like confirmation).

Next, from a "main cause", it became "one of the numerous causes". This is important to specify this evolution of mind.

Concerning "voluntary flight" and "ethnic cleaning", that is also more nuanced.

Morris and Gelber say : before July, flight was Palestinian Arabs's own initiative (due to the war anyway and introducing the matter differently); after July, the main reason was expulsions (and massacres) by israeli forces and Gelber uses the words of "ethnic cleaning".

Palestinians historians and Pappé think that even before July, it was programmed and therefore claim the whole process was ethnic cleaning.

Karsh and some Israeli historians only consider what happens before July and claim they mainly left voluntary (due to the war) or due to arab calls...

Except concerning Plan Daleth, they all agree. Some just forget to talk about some periods of time and mix everything as a whole... Alithien 06:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to explain why I deleted this section. My primary complaint was not the grammatical incorrectness (although I think it indicative of the quality of this section). My main reason for deleting it was that it was just about a textbook definition of synthesis. If there really were concensus among historians as to the causes of the exodus, this article would not be quite this long. Even if it were true that most authors agree on this point, we cannot say that is true unless we are citing someone who specifically says it. This source has to be reliable, and above all, neutral. Every historian will say that the concensus of the expert community rests with them. Obviously, not all can be right (which shows there is no consensus). In the unlikely event such a source is found, I will consider supporting this addition (but no promises). Until then, let's stick to the theory that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Screen stalker 21:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

When this section was proposed, I admit I was in favor of it. Since then, I've taken a similar opinion to Screen stalker's. Oh well. It was worth a try. --GHcool 05:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not at ease with that section.

That is why I added the pov-flag and modified this content.

I think this must not be far from what historians think but this is a personal synthesis indeed. Alithien 14:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Removals by Screen Stalker

I don't like this comment by Screen Stalker: What the heck? Not only is this section grammatically incorrect and improperly capitalized, it also isn't true. Majority opinion? The intro should sound like an intro.)

If you find gramatical errors or improper capitalising you can correct it.

If some things are not true in your opinion, please specify them so we can discuss them!

Although apparently the intro does not conform to Screenstalkers idea of an intro that doesn't make it a worse intro than the previous one. Rather this on is better because it is shorter and it doesn't contain this really ugly sentence 'Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus are explanations offered ....

The first three lines of the present intro: The first and largest part of this article is devoted to theories that explain the causes of the expulsion or flight of Palestinian Arabs during the 1947-1948 Civil War in Palestine and during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. At the end of the article an attempt is made at offering an overview of what most modern historians do agree on. tell exactly what is in the article. What's wrong with that?

--JaapBoBo 13:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed the grammar was bad. I corrected most. --JaapBoBo 14:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your corrections ! :-) Alithien 14:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No POV in section "Majority Views"

I have considerably fixed the English in section "Majority Views and Controversies Nowadays" without (deliberately) changing the meaning of any of it.

I see no reason for this section to be labelled POV - before I remove the tag, please provide any objections you have to the following text, being what is there now:

• "The majority of modern historians (since about 1990) hold that: * There was no Zionist master plan for an expulsion prior to April 1948 and the second and main wave of the refugees. * The traditionnal Israeli explanations that Arab leaders were responsible for the flight is not relevant to what happened. * Before the first truce (July 1948) mass flights were mainly the result of the war, both offensives of the Israeli army and the action of irregulars. Around half of the total number of refugees left in this period. * After the second truce, there was very little or no spontaneous flight and those who became refugees were mainly expelled by the Israeli army. Quite a number of massacres were performed during this period. This is the second half of the creation of the refugees. There are several disagreements among historians: * Palestinian historians and Ilan Pappé still consider Plan Dalet to be proof of the existence of a master plan for expulsion of Palestinians. * The exact part played by the Yishuv authorities (and particularly its leader, David Ben-Gurion) is controversial. There are no written orders telling commanders to empty and destroy villages, though there are some indications that this was official policy. A decision was taken to prevent most of the refugees from returning, by demolition and other measures, but it is not agreed when this occurred."

PalestineRemembered 09:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I found plenty of things I would have changed had we not already agreed that this section is WP:SYN and doesn't belong in the article. I'm sorry. It was a bad idea that seemed like a good one at the time. --GHcool 18:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarify neutral synthesis idea. Hi. I respect your effort to try out my idea and I don't mind it getting deleted. Nevertheless, I do want to explain that it's a fine idea, consistent w/WP policy. WP:SYNTH is concerned with synthesizing original sources to favor a POV. My idea was to synthesize the preceding sections of our own encyclopedia article in a neutral manner. This could be accomplished in at least two ways. (1) Give a narrative summary of the key findings of the preceding sections, which are long and a bit hard to follow for less experienced readers. To do this, you all would have to make sure that each of the preceding sections somehow highlight their key points, which is always a good idea anyway. (2) Give a narrative summary of the historiography of the preceding sections, based on "literature reviews" (such as those I cited that cover the same ground in a neutral manner. I was not suggesting that Wikipedians independently adjudicate between the competing theories (which would be WP:SYN), but only recount the chronological development of the theories as detailed in the article and understand within the academy. Anyway, I'm fine w/dropping this idea for now (or later!).

Alternative idea. Maybe you all could focus on making sure that each section (e.g., EOF, Transfer, 2 stage) has a lucid intro and a clear wrap up, so the average reader knows what points to anticipate in the section and then ends knowing what points were made. Some sections end on quotes and/or criticisms, so it's hard for your novice reader to know what to take away from that section. In other words, you guys are enmeshed in the play by play of difficult theories, but the reader needs a simpler guide, ok? Hope you don't mind my input. HG | Talk 19:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the bottom synthesis idea didn't work. I'm willing to try the introductory statement idea. Thanks, HG. --GHcool 21:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am quite open to writing an introduction and conclusion to each section. I am also not a great fan of the style of article whereby one encounters nothing but "Such and such said such and such..." So I am completely with HG on his second suggestion. Thank you for keeping an open mind, HG. Screen stalker 00:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

NPoV

JaapBoBo edits should be neutralized. Alithien 06:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
NB: nobody shows whatever. Not neutral -> deleted. Alithien 07:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not-NPoV policy of Wikipedia: don't remove the pov, but neutralise it by adding the opposing pov yourself!!!!!! (BTW: this opposing pov is already there)

--JaapBoBo 21:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. When you write you don't give their pov, you write as if it were facts.

Learn to write a neutral way and learn to add all povs.

Alithien 06:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

start of Gelbers second phase

There were inconsistancies regarding this. According to [[6]]: 'Later waves of mass flight were the result of the IDF's counter offensives against the invading forces.' These counteroffensives started after the first truce, so I changed it according to that.

' Criticisms of Morris's 'transfer idea' '

@GHCool: okay, let's first discuss it here. I have some points:

Alithien removed the comments by Finkelstein on Morris because in his opinion it is not neutral. I agree with that, but criticism can never be neutral. What should be neutral is the overall article. That can be achieved by adding other pov's. So instead of deleting it Alithien should have added other pov's.

No. I removed them because you are untable to write a neutral way.

This has nothing to deal with pov to introduce or not.

I don't mind any mind when it is written properly.

I will delete anything you write until you undersand. Alithien 06:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I myself am having second thoughts: part of Finkelstein's critique is not on the transfer principle as such, but on the transfer principle as Morris sees it (according to Morris it excludes the masterplan theory). This is according to the current title: ' Criticisms of Morris's 'transfer idea' '. A better title would be: ' Criticisms of the 'Transfer Principle' '. In that case Finkelsteins critique is better placed as criticism on the criticism of Morris on the masterplan theory.

Furthermore I think part of Karsh's criticism is criticism on Morris and not on the 'transfer principle'. E.g.:

• Efraim Karsh claimed that 'Morris engages in five types of distortion: he misrepresents documents, resorts to partial quotes, withholds evidence, makes false assertions, and rewrites original documents" (Karsh, Efraim. Benny Morris and the Reign of Error. The Middle East Quarterly. Vol. 4 No. 2, 1999.[7])
• Karsh has criticised Morris accusing him to "seek to create an impression that Ben-Gurion endeavored to expel the Arabs out of Palestine when, what he discussed, was resettlement within Palestine". The author cites evidence ....

Better would be:

• Karsh cites evidence ....

• Karsh has also criticised the fact that while Morris concedes that "the Yishuv and its military forces did not enter the 1948 war, which was initiated by the Arab side, with a policy or plan of expulsion," he argues that lack of an official policy made little difference, since "thinking about the possibilities of transfer in the 1930s and 1940s had prepared and conditioned hearts and minds for its implementation in the course of 1948.[78]" In Karsh view, "Morris cites no evidence to support this claim nor could he, for there was never any Zionist attempt to inculcate the "transfer" idea in the hearts and minds of Jews.

The above does not have a start that is relevant for criticism on the transfer principle. Better would be:

• According to Karsh there was never any Zionist attempt to inculcate the "transfer" idea in the hearts and minds of Jews.

• Karsh considers that the "mass of documentation also proves beyond any reasonable doubt that, far from being an act of expulsion, the mass Arab flight was a direct result of the fragmentation and lack of cohesiveness of Palestinian society, which led to its collapse under the weight of the war it had initiated and whose enormity it had failed to predict"[82]. Further, the author considers[83] that a number of scholars have already done outstanding work showing the faults of the new history. In his opinion, Itamar Rabinovich (of Tel Aviv University, currently Israel's ambassador to the United States) has debunked the claim by Shlaim and Pappé that Israel's recalcitrance explains the failure to make peace at the end of the 1947-49 war[84]. Again, he claims that Avraham Sela (of the Hebrew University) has discredited Shlaim's allegation that Israel and Transjordan agreed in advance of that war to limit their war operations so as to avoid an all-out confrontation between their forces[85]. The author claims that Shabtai Teveth (David Ben-Gurion's foremost biographer) has challenged Morris's account of the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem[86]. In his opinion, Robert Satloff (of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy) has shown, on the basis of his own research in the Jordanian national archives in Amman, the existence of hundreds of relevant government files readily available to foreign scholars[87], thereby demolishing the new historians' claim that "the archives of the Arab Governments are closed to researchers, and that historians interested in writing about the Israeli-Arab conflict perforce must rely mainly on Israeli and Western archives"[88] and with it, the justification for their almost exclusive reliance on Israeli and Western sources.

I suggest these changes are made.

--JaapBoBo 23:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Upon an initial reading, I don't have any major problems with the above except for the Finkelstein material. However, I reserve the right to change my mind if somebody else makes a good counter-argument against the material above. --GHcool 04:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo can introduce any criticism that is sourced.

If an historian wrote that Karsh doesn't understand anything, then he can write "XXX considers Karsh doens't understand anything".

There is no room for his personal analysis.

The same for any other scholar or historians.

Concerning Finkelstein, the word SHOW is unappropriatte.

JaapBoBo can introduce the material if he likes, but a neutral way with the right terms. Alithien 06:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Missing Theory

It seems to me that the five theories are not covering all the opinions held by historians on the causes of the exodus. Of course that is inevitable, but there seems to be one especially large omission: the causes of the exodus in Gelber's first stage. According to Morris the main cause already before April '48 was attack by Jewish forces and fear of such attack. This is different from Gelber's theory of 'crumbling of social ... etc.'. How can we handle this?

Some suggestions:

• Split Gelbers theory into two (a theory for the first stage and one for the second)
• add one or two theories, e.g. 'attack and fear of attack theory', 'expulsion theory'
• add a chapter with alternative causes for the first and second wave

--JaapBoBo 00:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think things are about as good now as they'll ever be. No need to heavily rock. --GHcool 04:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Morris, the main cause of the 2nd wave was the "attack by Jewish forces and fear of such attack" due to the weakness of the palestinian society. And according to Gelber, the main cause was the "collapse of the palestinian society" that was not prepare to the war and the jewish offensives.

They have the same mind.

Nevertheless, this not before April 48 but after.

For the good ans simple reason there were no such attacks before april 48.

All historians (from Pappé to Karsh) explain between Dec'47 and Mar'48 ~ 100,000 palestinians left voluntary because of the degrading situation and increasing violence hoping to come back after the combats.

Alithien 06:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the first wave, could you explain from where you deduce what you write. Alithien 07:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

@Alithien:

• Deduced: Read the Birth ... Revisited, p.125 about Jerusalem: 'the major precipitant of the flight ... were Jewish military attacks and fear of attacks' and p. 138: 'the Arab evacuees ... left largely because of Jewish ... attacks or fear of impending attack, and from a sense of vulnerability.'. So Morris supports 'attack and fear of attack' as the main reason ('largely') already for the first wave.
• Expulsions in the first wave: Morris' Birth revisited, p125, about villages: 'Several communities were attacked or surrounded and expelled by Haganah units and several others were deliberately intimidated into flight by IZL operations'. Pappe (in 'the ethnic cleansing of Palestine') also mentions about five villages evicted in the first wave.

--JaapBoBo 20:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

JaapBobo,

p.125 : it is at Jerusalem, right ! Why do you write it is for all the 1st wave ?

p.125 : 5 villages is all Palestine ?

p.139 : I read "largely" and not "mainly" but

p.140 : why do you forget to quote the former paragraph ? : "The spiral of violence precipitated flight by the middle and upper classes from the big towns" and why do you forget the "only an extremely small, almost insignificant number of the rufugees during this early period left because of Haganah or IZL or LHI expulsion orders or feceful 'advie' to that effect."

but even more funny : p.140 given you have the source, why don't you mention "Many more, especially women, children and old people - left as a result of orders or advice from Arab military commanders and officials"...

If I were not respecting wikipedia policy I would say that you don't add because you are not a good editor for this article; you just want to push one pov. But I respect wikipedia policy and I just conclude you are not able to read a book.

Let me just learn you something basic : in a book, there are "conclusions" and in the conclusion chapter, the only thinkg Morris writes about the 1st wave period is (p.591) : "Daily, week in, week out, over December 1947, January, February and March 1948, there were clashes along the 'seams' between two communities in the mixted towns, ambushes in the fields and on the roads, sniping, machine-gun fire, bomb attacks and occasional mortaring. Problem of movements and communication, unemployement and food distrubtion intensified, especially in the towns as the hostilities drew out. There is probably no accounting for the mass exodus that followed without understanding the prevalence and depth of the general sense of collapse, or 'falling apart' and of a 'centre' that cannot hold, that permeated Arab Palestine, especially the towns, by April 1948. In many places, it would take very little to nudge the masses to pack up and flee.

So what ? If we pick up the sentence you decided to pick up, we can have this strange feeling Morris considers as soon as the first stage jewish militias terrorized Palestinians and attacked them. If, like Mitchell Bard, we would chose the one concerning the arab orders, we would have the feeling Morris say EoF theory is the right one. But quite strangely neither you nor pro-israeli propagandists thought it could have been a good idea to go and read Morris... conclusions :-).

I don't mind you consider Morris is not neutral (as you wrote -you- in front of an historian who spent 30 years studying the subject) but if you are not able to report his mind honnestly, I will revert you. Alithien 15:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight

• 2/3 of the material concerning the idea of transfer is from Flapan (based on an article of 1987 if I followed properly). As far as I know, the idea of transfer has been introduced by Childers and developed by Morris. Cerejota who introduced this material should summarize this. Flapan is one historian among many and more he is a small one. Or do we have to copy/paste the chapter of Morris book concerning this.
  

This article would earn a lot if people thinking they know what really happened must be revealed to the world should stop their game and start writing what all historians think about this (with some synthese). Alithien 10:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Karsh's criticism of Morris is also too developed. Alithien 10:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your statement that Flapan is used too heavily in comparison with other historians. It doesn't make sense that he has more space on the page than Morris. I don't have a problem with Karsh's criticism of Morris, but it would be nice to add a few other reliable (i.e., not Finkelstein) historians' criticisms as well. --GHcool 17:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that Flapan is overused. Alithien, if you would be so kind as to change that, I'm sure the other editors would be as obliged to you as I am. Screen stalker 03:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Gentlemen,

If you knew how much I would like to edit these articles !!!

But my level in English is crazy poor and I simply cannot formulate the nuances properly !

I understand the nuances and focalizes much on them but cannot translate this. That is why I had asked somebody to translate to English 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine.

Be sure my "comments" are not "critics" but rather the expression of my frustration.

Kind Regards, Alithien 08:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Alithien, you are doing a wonderful job. I didn't know until now that English isn't your first language. --GHcool 19:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Writing for the enemy

The guys who introduced material from Karsh against Morris transfer principle should have added the answers of Morris.
The guys who introduced material from Finkestein against Morris transfer principle should have added the answers of Morris.
Alithien 10:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As best I can see, Karsh's criticisms of Morris's books are fairly trivial. Morris likely made a few real blunders (Karsh criticises him for correcting one of them), but Karsh seeks to undermine him over various quotes he's used, as for instance the Herzl diary entries. I don't see any great contradiction, Herzl intended his new state to be exclusive and get rid of all the poor people (at least), along with everyone else who can be bought out, while hold-outs are (effectively) just economically isolated. That makes him a transferist - and Morris is one himself. So what if Herzl intended this on South American Indians and not on Palestinians? (I've not examined Finkelstein's criticisms of Morris, I expect disagreement there). PalestineRemembered 13:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered knows that the addition of this kind of information will be irrelevant to the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus and would constitute a violation of WP:NOR if added. The question now is why he feels the need to also violate WP:SOAPBOX here. --GHcool 18:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read what Alithien wrote properly. The Karsh criticism can't possibly be left to stand as it is, it's absurdly undue weight. And there's bound to be a secondary source somewhere that states it's false. Ben-Gurion said many soothing things about living at peace with his neighbours - but he was also careless enough to tell people, on the record, that he wanted transfer. Karsh is simply wrong, and it can't only be Morris who has recognised it. PalestineRemembered 18:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that we're writing an encyclopedic account, we needn't give every last blow by blow. There's the main argument by Morris et al., which has garnered attention (whether you agree or not), and some counter-arguments to Morris (e.g., Karsh). Karsh's counter should get less coverage from us. (However, if Karsh had fabulous points, his points might go into supporting another basic approach like EoF, or he would be seen as a refutation of Morris, who could then be scaled back. But, contra PR, Karsh hasn't been refuted, else he wouldn't show up in various literature reviews.) We might slightly mention Morris' rebuttals to Karsch. (However, if he has fabulous points, they can beef up the write-up of his main argument). So, lets not play ping-pong w/readers' heads. How about a rule of thumb for each section? 2/3+ on the main proponent(s), 1/3 or less on counter-arguments, and a sliver of rebuttals with recap/reminder to readers about the gist of this section. If counter-arguments grow, they likely need to be reflected in another approach. Make sense? HG | Talk 18:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of a 2:1 ratio of theories to criticisms of theories. --GHcool 19:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, HG, I like your 2:1 ratio, but I'm struggling to take this article in it's current form very seriously. Nobody really believes that the Palestinians were anything other than ethnically cleansed. If the "Encouragement to Flight" (EoF) had amounted to a large proportion (Morris thinks it was just 5%, or maybe a bit more when he's in his cups) then the whole concept of "having an article and a discussion about it" is blown out of the water. (It's also completely irrelevant to any current issues, of course). PalestineRemembered 20:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to seriously question PalestineRemebered's good faith. We have asked him countless times to stop WP:SOAPBOXing on talk pages and he constantly ignores them. Its really rather frustrating. --GHcool 21:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, I'm starting to get tired of your accusations of WP:SOAPBOXing against PM. You use this accusation pretty much every time PM says anything. If you really think this is such a serious issue, place a request for arbitration. If you don't think this warrants any administrative action, then please cut the accusations -- it is not helpful for the discussion here. Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 06:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I wrote a personal response to Pedro Gonnet on his talk page, which is where personal messages belong. --GHcool 07:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein

I have reverted the deletion (by GHCool) of Finkelstein's comments on the transfer principle:

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

My reasons:

• Finkelstein is a respected historian with an original pov
• Finkelsteins pov, though not neutral, is presented in a neutral way

Furthermore GHCool says it was deleted already once. However that was a completely different text, criticising Morris's view on the transfer principle. This concerns a support for the transfer principle. I would like to ask GHCool to respect Wikipedia policy of handling npov disputes [[8]]:

An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it.

--JaapBoBo 00:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to commend JaapBoBo for using the talk page rather than having a knee-jerk revert war. I wish more editors would follow his example.

That said, my reason for reverting the edit was exactly the opposite of one of JaapBoBo's reasons for adding it: Finkelstein is NOT a respected historian and he does NOT have an original POV. Norman Finkelstein's shameful academic career that includes: making repeated falacious charges of plagiarism and fraud on other academics, that he has been kicked out of every university he has ever worked at (including most recently DePaul University), is verbally abusive to students who do not share his warped politics, is despised by serious academics in the field such as Benny Morris, he never interviews people in his "research," he is an icon to neo-Nazi groups, etc, etc, etc. Finkelstein's "research" (really opinions) are not fit for quotation in a serious encyclopedic article. --GHcool 05:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, as opposed to some other sources cited here (we have an entire section dedicated to Schechtman's "Fear Psychosis Theory"), Norman Finkelstein is actually a professional historian. The quality of his work is probably best described by the failure of every attempt to discredit him, notably the most recent by Alan Dershowitz. The problem with Finkelstein is that he is outspoken -- his academic work, however, is beyond reproach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro Gonnet (talk • contribs) 07:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's not be naieve. We cannot put Finkelstein on the same level as other historians who studied the exodus.

It is not a topic he studied deeply. He "only" gave his mind about other works.

Nevertheless, he is known enough so that his "mind" is introduced in the article. Alithien 14:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

We can definitely quote Finkelstein as an expert on Zionism (which is what we're talking about here). Zionism is Finkelstein's speciality. His scholarship generally is top-notch, he gets into trouble exclusively because he takes aim at powerful figures, and such vast money-making machines. PR^talk(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 15:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi PR,

Thank you again for the material you sent me by email :-)

Don't you forget that he seems not be to in peace with holocaust industry and jewish matters in general ? If at least, once in his life he would have written something not to agressive about judaism jews or Zionism, maybe we could guess this guy is not ill... But I could be wrong... Did he ever write something not agressive concerning them ? Alithien 15:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein was the first to identify "The Holocaust Industry" (I think). He defines it as systematic blackmail of European nations and banks for the benefit of Israel, not for the benefit of survivors (did his mum get a measly $3,000?).

Amongst scholars of the Holocaust itself, I think he's quite well regarded. The top man Raul Hilberg (sp?) has just died, but stated that Finkelstein's thesis on the blackmail and mis-appropriation was, if anything, understated.

As to "Jewish matters", you're falling into the very trap that Finkelstein has avoided - linking the crimes of Israel to the Jews. Such a practise is custom made to inspire hatred of the Jews, something that Finkelstein doesn't want to happen.

I'm not sure whether Finkelstein ever wrote anything nice about Zionism, I'm not sure it matters. I don't think we'd expect him to be well-rounded and NPOV about the people he believes have behaved so badly, and who have turned their bile on him. PR^talk(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 17:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same Finkelstein? He wrote his PhD thesis on Zionism and he cannot have written his books without a deep knowledge of the incidents surrounding the exodus. He is very unpopular, yes, but he's an academic and a serious one at that. What stands out the most is that not one criticism of his work has stuck -- only personal attacks. Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 15:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Because writing a PhD thesis on Zionism makes you become a specialist on the palestinian exodus of 1948 ?

If I show you my PhD thesis, will I receive the right to give my own mind in the article ?

How could we compare Khalidi, Pappé, Morris and Gelber, who read archives or interviewrd people and Finkelstein whose only knowledge on the topic comes from reading these other historians work ? Even Schetchman, at least, lived the events.

Alithien 15:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Alithien - check out what's in the top line of this section "Furthermore Finkelstein argues that transferist thinking is close to the core of Zionist thinking." We've discovered that User:GHcool doesn't like Finkelstein's opinion on Zionism, but it has nothing directly to do with 1948. Personally, I think Finkelstein is just about the world leader on Zionism, and his clip should be in our article. I cannot understand why GHcool is so bitter about him. PR^talk(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 18:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

NB1: Pedro, about criticisms, did you read the recent material I added from Laurens on your talk page... Didn't you recognize Finkestein in the intentionalist that perform textual analysis. (nb: and Henry Laurens is an "arabist"). Alithien 15:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

NB2: Another argument enough to justify Finkelstein mind in the article is that one of his publication is in the bibliography of Morris (p.612 in Birth revisited). Note that Schetchman too (p.615)

Schmuel Katz's book needs a "health warning"

We have a passage at the bottom of Criticisms of "Master Plan" theory which says: "Opponents assert that Israel did not compel Arabs to leave. Shmuel Katz, wrote in his book 'Battleground' "that the Arab refugees were not driven from Palestine by anyone. The vast majority left, whether of their own free will or at the orders or exhortations of their leaders, always with the same reassurance-that their departure would help in the war against Israel." Katz, 1976, p. 13.

We are misleading our readers if we treat Katz as if he was a historian. He's not. He was the chief propagandist for one of the groups that practised terror in 1948, became an advisor to Prime Minister Menachem Begin and apparently fell out with him over making peace with Egypt. Katz wrote one well regarded book about Jabotinsky (of whom he'd been a great admirer and colleague), but the rest of his work is polemic and frankly nasty. eg Katz, Shmuel (1973) Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine , p.36 ISBN 0933503032 "....... The economic interest of the individual Arab in the perpetuation of the refugee problem and of his free keep is backed by the accumulating vested interest of UNRWA itself to keep itself in being and to expand. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency is thought of as some Olympian, philanthropic body directed and operated by a band of dedicated humanitarians, devoted exclusively to the task of helping suffering refugees. The fact is that the organisation consists of some 11,000 officials of whom all but a handful are Arabs who are themselves inscribed on the rolls as "refugees." They perform the field work; they, that is, hand out the relief. The remaining handful consists of some 120 Americans and Europeans who man the organisation’s central offices. Since UNRWA itself is thus a source of livelihood for some 50,000 people, no one connected with it has the slightest interest in seeing its task end or in protesting the fraud and deception it has perpetuated for over twenty years. The myth continues to live and to thrive, feeding on itself."

If we have to quote Katz (and it may be useful in this case), we need to make it clear that he's not a historian, he practised whitewash when he was mixing with the most thuggish of the participants, and he's been doing the same thing in all his writings since. PR^talk(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 18:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)