Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Requested move 8 August 2022

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

---

result:
Not moved per consensus garnered below. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; good health to all! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 19:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

---

1948 Palestinian exodus → 1948 Palestinian expulsion – the current title represents a failure of NPOV - the descriptive terminology for this event fall across a wide spectrum, ranging from exodus to expulsion to forced expulsion and on to ethnic cleansing - with 'exodus' being the favoured terminology of those trying to minimize it, and 'ethnic cleansing' that of those trying to maximize it. "Expulsion" seems like a middle ground that acknowledges the non-voluntary nature of these population movements in a way that exodus (which is borderline euphemism) fails to do, but without heaping on the opprobrium. It also wins the numbers game. "1948 Palestinian expulsion" drums up 322,000 hits to the 260,000 hits of 1948 Palestinian exodus. On Google Scholar, expulsion wins by some 38,800 hits to exodus' 31,600 hits. While "1948 Palestinian exodus" superficially appears to pop up quite a lot on Google Scholar as a set phrase, almost every mention is in association with a single academic: Dr Nets‐Zehngut - if we remove these entries, it appear very little as a set phrase. Hits for the expulsion wording actually increase to 42,400 hits with Nets‐Zehngut removed - not sure how that works. Anyway, what is clear is that there is little numerical support in the literature for the POV use of "exodus" as favoured by Yoav Gelber, Benny Morris and others, over less euphemistic middle-ground alternatives. Expulsion, on the other hand, is favoured by the likes of Nur Masalha, but also draws in academics without a stake in the conflict, such as Rosemarie Esber, as well as mainstream media usage, see here in Haaretz (making it a far more inclusive and ecumenical umbrella term), while still falling a long way shy of the far-side-of-the-spectrum terminology used by the likes of Ilan Pappé in The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support. The article doesn't only describe the mass movement of population (exodus) but more broadly the causes, motivators, narratives, etc., so the suggested alternative seems more accurate and apt. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Also a fair point - yes, the article draws a lot of before and after material, and is not rightly limited to just population movement. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Forcing me to think about it now. The lead here says "fled or were expelled from their homes" and the lead at Jewish exodus from the Muslim world says "the departure, flight, expulsion, evacuation and migration of". Exodus sort of leaves the exact reasons to the article to explain, doesn't it? Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, a sensible question that I assumed would be asked. I would draw a line between this wholly wartime scenario, where the options were, by design, surrender and live in fear of facing the same fate as Deir Yassin or to vacate the area, and ... the Jewish exodus, which, as discussed here, took place over multiple decades, with varying circumstances across wildly different geographies and involved pull factors and voluntary migration in the mix - hence the more general terminology. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  As a further addendum to this, whether rightly or wrongly, the language used for the constituent Jewish exodus events is quite distinct. We have Migration of Moroccan Jews to Israel, Jewish migration from Lebanon post-1948, Exodus of Iran's Jews and then some operations: Operation Ezra and Nehemiah, Operation Mural, Operation Yachin. The only related article that seems to prioritize language apart from the terminology of exodus, migration and emigration is the 1956–1957 exodus and expulsions from Egypt, but on mass balance, you can see why the overarching terminology for this collection of events might reasonably arrive at "exodus". Iskandar323 (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. This would significantly change the scope of the article and exclude all cases in which Palestinians are documented to have fled without being expelled. This includes significant numbers in Jaffa, Jerusalem, and very notably Haifa (section in article). It would also put into question the inclusion of many localities in which the question of flight before conquest and expulsion after conquest is ambiguous. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  This seems highly semantic. I would imagine the many reliable sources that use this phraseology have thought about this and come to the conclusion that the advance of a hostile invading army, causing people to flee/evacuate before its path, or risk the various threats of capture, is a form of expulsion. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  My "usual" (bit legalistic) word for this is "displacement" or "forced displacement" if one wishes to emphasize the lack of choice, real or perceived, "as a result of persecution, conflict, generalized violence or human rights violations", the article for some reason gives 1949–1956 Palestinian exodus as an example of "forced displacement caused by political conflict". Still thinking about it. Selfstudier (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  So I suggested "expulsion", because, first and foremost, it is used in a great many sources - I imagine it is preferred over "forced expulsion" because it is a slightly broader umbrella that accommodates multiple interpretations as to agency. "Forced displacement", meanwhile, only really comes in the forced flavor, and "displacement" is, yes, a bit legalistic/clinical and not very natural language alone. I'm not yet intimately familiar with the scope of 1949–1956 Palestinian exodus, so I couldn't really comment on the appropriateness of the title there, but in the lead it outlays its scope as being a continuation of the events of 1948, characterised predominantly by forced expulsion as the first term used, while other words used include displaced and expelled - all of which seems consistent with "expulsion". Iskandar323 (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  At the same time, I'm not saying you're wrong - displacement and "forced displacement" both have plenty of mileage as terms in reliable sources. I just think the former would lead to a rather unnatural and abstract title, while the latter would be both a little forced and lacking in conciseness. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Haifa was not the target of a "hostile invading army". Haifa was allocated to the Jews in the partition plans, and Jewish forces defended themselves against Arab attacks, including by foreigners of the Syrian-Lebanese Fawzi al-Qawuqji Arab Liberation Army from other Arab countries. Most of the Arab population fled through the British controlled port before the outcomes of the battles in the city were decided. Some Arabs left Haifa as early as December 1947, five months before the battles in the city came to an end. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 06:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I invite you to read the article again, and earnestly conclude that civilians under siege are not fleeing conflict. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  (ec, reply to 1947 claim) Starting December 1947 continuing through April 1948, five months during which there was flight from Haifa. And, this article covers the end of 1947. " About 250,000–300,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled during the 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine" in lede. 1948 Palestinian exodus#December 1947 – March 1948. the UNRWA refugee definition includes people who fled in 1947 during the civil war phase. The majority of the exodus was in 1948, but the article currently covers all of the exodus. See The Palestinian Exodus of 1948 in Journal of Palestine Studies: "The exodus of Palestinian Arabs, both forced and voluntary, began with the publication of the UN partition Resolution on 29 November 1947".Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  There is a distinction between "fleeing conflict" and expulsion. Fleeing conflict occurs prior to conquest. Expulsion is a deliberate act after conquest. If you are going to limit this article ONLY to the verifiable events in which there was an uncontested expulsion, it will be significantly smaller. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Only according to some sources, notably POV sources, which is the raison d'être of this move request. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  All serious sources cover fleeing as well as forced movements. You can't reach the headline 700,000 number without including fleeing, and this also includes flight months before battles in the location.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  The fairly arbitrary distinction between those fleeing before violence and those fleeing after violence has washed over them is a single POV narrative. Expulsion is not the counter-narrative; ethnic cleansing is. "From the territory occupied by Israel in 1948–9, about 90 percent of the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed – many by psychological warfare and /or military pressure and a large number at gunpoint." This is from Nur Masalha [1]. Your opinion on whether fleeing the threat of death is a sufficiently psychologically coercive device to engender expulsion is frankly by the by, and I won't beggar the point any further. It is a spectrum: exodus - ethnic cleansing. Expulsion is the centre. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  "Psychological warfare" is not usually seen as an expulsion. And you are quoting a POV source. Nur Masalha writing in the journal they edit themselves reviewing a book published by "Arabicus Books & Media, LLC". Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I know, I provided it stating it was a counter-narrative to the POV you are presenting. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the best title, but it should be noted that "expelled" is not the same as "forced to leave". It can also refer to someone who left voluntarily but was prevented from returning. Despite the alleged (and mostly mythical) voluntary departure of the Palestinians, it is thoroughly documented that a decision was made to prevent their return. Zero^talk 14:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: there are about nine times as many GS results for the existing name as there are for the proposed one.[2][3] François Robere (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I dont think youre going to be able to establish a common name for either of these, these are descriptive names. As far as numbers, try "expulsion of Palestinians". Im with Zero rn, I dont know if I favor this or not. Expulsion does include those that were barred from returning (ie nearly all of them), so it does work for the most part. nableezy - 15:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Still about 73% as many sources[4][5] (added the year to filter out other events). François Robere (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah but I think that demonstrates that neither is a "common name". These are both descriptive titles. Youll note I havent supported the proposal fyi, im still considering it. I think whether exodus or expulsion is more commonly used to be very important in deciding which the title should use but thats a function of WP:DUE not WP:COMMONNAME, as with descriptive titles we are obliged to consider neutrality. But neither being a common name make the search with quotation marks less useful. Search for example 1948 Palestinian exodus and 1948 Palestinian expulsion without quotes and youll start to see that expulsion may be used more often within sources, if not in the exact sequence youre searching for. Add the sources using "expelled" and ... .nableezy - 17:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

As Nableezy notes, it's not a name, and certainly not a common name either way; both are descriptive titles. The principle point I have raised is about NPOV and that the terminology of "exodus" is far from NPOV - it is quite clearly, if you take the sources one by one, the framing of a single viewpoint. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. The exodus term is a euphemism posing as neutral. To our ears it cannot but evoke the Biblical myth, and in that sense, suggests a parallel between the Jewish myth of flight from Egypt (not constrained) and the Palestinian expulsion from many parts of Palestine (without a shadow of doubt, as a huge amount of detailed testimony shows, planned.) The obverse of this is the creation in Zionist historiography of a counter-narrative which narrates the Jewish efflux from Arab countries over two and a half decades as a 'flight, expulsion etc' comparable to what happened in two precise moments by direct design in 1948, 1967. Whatever there is one article where the use of exodus instead of the correct 'expulsion' is unquestionably improper. 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle.Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  The euphemism heaped upon these events is well expounded in Israel's Publications Agency and the 1948 Palestinian Refugees by none other than Rafi Nets-Zangut, who discusses the competing narratives in detail, and notes the highly intentional avoidance of the word 'expulsion' by Israel's Publications Agency, finding just three works by the agency, all by non-agency staff, that even indirectly referred to expulsion events, and then "their language was typically euphemistic" (p.67). Negev villages are spoken of being "evacuated", and examples of the phrases used for other events are things like "forcibly cleared" or "removal with consent". Iskandar323 (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  This work Israelis and Palestinians: Contested Narratives meanwhile examines the overarching narrative (p.64) and points to several prominent works that in contrast make titular use of the expulsion terminology, including Elias Sanbar's Palestine 1948 : L'Expulsion and the 1987 The Palestinian Catastrophe: The 1948 Expulsion of a People from Their Homeland. I also came across this rather good Le Monde piece that goes through the history of the contested narrative. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• I would support something like Expulsion and Flight of Palestinians (1947-56) (expulsion is much more easily applied to Lydda/Ramle and 49-56 as spinout articles) Selfstudier (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not convinced by google scholar counts in this case. No one argues that expulsions happened at least sometimes, but it's wrong to presume that whoever uses these two words thinks that all the Palestinians were expelled. As is rightly noted in the first post, this article describes a wide spectrum of events and the current title encompasses all of them satisfying WP:NPOV. I think that the argument should be based on the usage by historians describing these events, unless there exists some kind of quantitative data on how many people were expelled vs fled. Alaexis_¿question? 19:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose While I have some sympathy that the current title is a euphemism, the proposed title is probably worse in terms of NPOV. In the absence of a genuinely neutral single word (which I cannot think of), I would perhaps support a title like 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. Number 57 19:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think "1948 Palestinian expulsions and flights" makes a bit more sense if we want to emphasise that individual cases had different causes.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  "1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight" is a reasonable alternative: it is also more clear and less euphemistic, if less concise. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  "1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight" is definitely worth considering. Zero^talk 02:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think we could get a ready consensus on Number 57's reasonable compromise for this article. That expulsion was major practical aim is a given. But many took to their heels in flight to avoid what shocked them about Deir Yassin (whose monitory function to 'flee or perish' is well-known. That did not stem from an explicit expulsion order, was thought of as temporary to get out of the line of fire (something twisted by a Zionist propaganda myth for decades that Arab radio advised them to do so), though even there, as with Ben-Gurion's fascinated surprise, looking with Olympian gaze from his hotel window, at the mass of Palestinians fleeing Haifa adds that their exit was accompanied by Israeli mortar fire. A sensible compromise.Nishidani (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - As stated above, Palestinian families left for a variety of reasons that obviously aren't incompatible. Many were directly threatened, physically. Many were indirectly threatened. Many had the logical belief that they had to temporarily leave where they lived in order to avoid being present during mass violence. Many intentionally didn't want to remain where they were for 'pull' rather than 'push' factors. We all know this. It's lying by omission, in my view, to act as if every single case for every single person was solely motivated by Jewish militant activity. I understand that the reverse is also lying by omission (for a large number, what happened then would be today described by human rights groups as 'forced disappearances', for sure). Yet "exodus" appears the least bad of currently proposed terms. Unfortunately, what happened to these people factually was both involuntary and voluntarily at the same time as well as caused by both Jewish and non-Jewish militant activity alike. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  @CoffeeWithMarkets: Umm, which of any of the examples above was a pull factor, and where is a source citing pull factors? Iskandar323 (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose As others have said, both terms lack nuance. Some sources quoted in the article say "exodus", and some say "expulsion". So I think a compromise title would be best: maybe "1948 Palestinian exodus and expulsion", to reflect the divided scholarship. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I agree that this is a descriptive title and "exodus" is euphemistic and not NPOV. In every enforced population transfer in history there's someone who leaves "voluntarily" (if all my relatives and friends leave, why should I stay?). It's a consequence of the massive nature of the expulsion and it doesn't make the expulsion less enforced. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. This entire proposal is absurd to begin with, as it advocates for a POV held by a limited group of scholars and sources. There were numerous factors that led to the exodus of 1948. Although some Palestinians have been deported, the majority have fled for other causes, including "Voluntary self-removal of the wealthier classes, collapse in Palestinian leadership, Arab evacuation orders,[11][12] and an unwillingness to live under Jewish control", as our own article says. Some people kept their homes and became equal citizens of Israel. Given that the situation was considerably more complicated, we cannot let a select few cases dictate the the entire title, let alone contradict the complicated history as taught by mainstream scholarship. Tombah (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support Number 57's suggested 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. The sourcing definitely supports that over "exodus" and the POV claims above are silly in claiming that exodus, which largely refers to voluntary departure, is supposedly more neutral than expulsion, which as even a basic familiarity with sources like Morris will show is extremely well-supported. Thats actually the mainstream scholarship, not "exodus". nableezy - 14:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Who said anything about voluntary population movements? Most of the articles in the disambiguation page exodus concern people fleeing from danger (or perceived danger), or being evacuated by others. Dimadick (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Exodus is about departure, not removal. You dont discuss the exodus of the Native Americans from wide swaths of the United States either, it was removal, displacement, ethnic cleansing, and so on. nableezy - 21:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, there were various events that led to the Nakba. Not all Palestinian refugees were involuntarily deported or expelled. Andre🚐 02:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose the article should share the same terminology as the Jewish exodus from the Muslim World, many chose to leave because they expected to be forced out or oppressed, not every single one was expelled directly. Bill Williams 16:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

  There wasnt a single death march of Jews, no widespread and official "cleansing" campaign. The two situations are not comparable, and it is absurd to say one must follow the same terminology. nableezy - 15:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Taking the middle ground is as much a POV as taking either extreme. We go by reliable secondary sources. Andrewa (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Andrewa, Im a little confused by this vote, expulsion and flight is way more widely used in reliable sources than exodus. For example there are double the results on google books for 1948 expulsion Palestinians than 1948 exodus Palestinians. If we are going by reliable sources than exodus is minority, and euphemistic, term. nableezy - 15:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe. But the nomination is based on a POV. That is my main point. The popularity of one term or the other seems to depend on exactly which search is done and which sources are preferred. So I don't think a case to be moved has been made. Andrewa (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, so if Im reading this right your position is that the nomination is not a valid reason to move, but not opposed to the suggested (or any other) title on principle? I dont agree with that entirely, as descriptive titles also are required to abide by NPOV as opposed to common names, but are you opposed to a move based on Number57's suggested title above? We can make a new request and rehash this again, but if we can find a consensus per OTHEROPTIONS I think that would save a whole lot of headaches. nableezy - 16:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. And if we can sort through and discard the various attempts to cherry-pick sources above, and come to a view on a genuine common name argument, that would as you suggest be a good result. Not easy, and I'd suggest we should wait until the dust settles on this RM first. Andrewa (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Comment. zero sources to claim that every Palestinian who left was forced out, many chose to leave rather than live under Israeli control, the same way many Jews left Arab nations after the war rather than be oppressed by them. Bill Williams 12:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Love what you did there with Israeli rule being 'control', Arab rule being 'oppression' - I have full confidence that you thought through this evenhandedly. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

You already voted. nableezy - 13:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.