Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

"Violently" and other recent edit issues.

...is clear NPOV. No citation provided, and for this to stand, and all expulsions would have had to be violent for this to be described as such. If there were a qualifier ("often violently" or "occasionally violently" backed by a citation, sure), but "violently expelled" is polemical and not remotely neutral or accurate.

As for the causes belli - the recent edit is tendentious and OR and will be reported if preserved without appropriate citation. The rephrasing is not the issue...it is leading and OR and is neither cited nor discussed later in the article. Mistamystery (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

1. "Not remotely neutral or accurate?" Really?

2. It's not OR just because there is no inline citation... And in what way is it "leading"? I don't know what you mean by that. If it's not discussed later in the article then that is something to be addressed.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Here's a citation for #2 (which I found in a few minutes...) from Benny Morris, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War, p. 180:

"As the months passed and the Palestinian Arabs, beefed up by contingents of foreign volunteers, proved incapable of defeating the Yishuv, the Arab leaders began more seriously to contemplate sending in their armies. The events of April 1948—Deir Yassin, Tiberias, Haifa, Jaffa—rattled and focused their minds, and the arrival of tens of thousands of refugees drove home the urgency of direct intervention. By the end of April, they decided to invade."

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

1. Really? Yes. Insisting that the entirety of the expulsions were violent when A) they weren't and B) there is no citation provided is NPOV and agenda pushing. Be specific with citation or keep it general.

2. The citation you provided does not make your point, nor support the sentence you are trying to keep. The quote insists that the Arab league invaded because they Palestinians were failing to defeat the Jewish forces, as well as other factors (including refugees). It also points out that they (Arab countries) were already supporting the Palestinian military cause with soldiers and were failing to have an impact. Mistamystery (talk) 05:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding 2: You might want to familiarize yourself with what the reliable sources say about the history you're disputing here. Or you could check the primary source that is the cablegram sent to the UN Secretary General by the Arab League on May 15, which laid out their reasons for intervening in Palestine.

Additionally, it would be more appropriate to add a citation needed tag to content which you are unsure about; the removal of significant content without bringing it up on the talk page should only be done if you're very confident the information is wrong.

The fact that "about 250000–300000 Palestinians fled or were expelled during the 1947–1948 civil war [...] was named as a casus belli for the entry of the Arab League into the country", is a rather basic fact of this history, and I'll remind you that WP:Competence is required. I don't mean to be rude but I do think that removing basic facts first and asking for sources second, rather than the other way around, is disruptive editing.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It's your responsibility to provide a source if something is challenged. Also, even if something is indeed supported by a source it doesn't mean that it has to be in the lead. Alaexis_¿question? 22:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I see you've added a citation needed tag to the sentence here disputed. Not everything requires an inline citation so am I correct in assuming that you've added this tag because you dispute or doubt the accuracy of the information? As I said above, it's a rather basic fact of this history so I don't understand the challenge and demand for sources here. Have you read "the primary source that is the cablegram sent to the UN Secretary General by the Arab League on May 15, which laid out their reasons for intervening in Palestine", which I cited above?

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The cablegram is a primary source and generally we prefer secondary ones, especially to determine whether certain information should be included in the lede. Alaexis_¿question? 07:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It's sufficient to address the citation needed tag and I'll be removing it. As I said before as well, there are many references cited here which undoubtedly support this basic fact already.

If you think some or all of this disputed sentence doesn't belong in the lead then you'll have to say so directly and explain why. Hard to believe it could be undue for the lead however given the subject of the article.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually I won't remove the cn tag unilaterally; I'll ask if you consider the sourcing concern resolved.

Note that I can easily provide secondary sources for this but that it would be a waste of time for me to do so. Have you made any effort to find secondary sources for this yourself? I'm not sure which RS you're going by which would lead you to doubt this information in the first place.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understood your point. There are three issues here

1. The source for this specific claim. Please feel free to add the cablegram and remove the tag.
2. Should this claim be in the lede? Secondary sources should be provided that establish its importance for the topic.
3. The information should be added to the article itself, as the lede generally should summarise the information that is already in the article per WP:MOSLEDE.

Alaexis_¿question? 08:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

1. And you'll not do that yourself why? You're the one who is insisting on an inline citation for this.

2. Is there any doubt that the Palestinian expulsions — the subject of this article — being a casus belli of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war is due for the lead? WP:SKYISBLUE, no? Again, I'm not sure which reliable sources you're going by — you've not cited any here so far — which would make you doubt this.

3. Absolutely and adding this information to the body would be an extremely productive contribution you could make here. [Striking this per WP:TONE, although I'm feeling rather frustrated here.] 08:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material is a very basic tenet of WP:V. Alaexis_¿question? 21:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Which is why I've provided two sources to support the content.

Any response to my questions 1 or 2 above?

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Re your first question, if you want to retain it, the burden is on you to demonstrate verifiability.

Re the second one, I think it definitely played a part, but there were other reasons as well (as far as I remember Abdullah of Jordan wanted to annex the Arab part of Palestine to his dominion). But again, if it's so obvious you should have no problems finding reliable secondary sources explicitly confirming it. Alaexis_¿question? 12:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

1. You're going in circles. I've already demonstrated the verifiability of the content. Something which you refuse to acknowledge.

2. "I think it definitely played a part, but there were other reasons as well" — The content in question only states that the expulsions were "named as a casus belli for the entry of the Arab League into the country." An extremely basic and uncontroversial fact of this history. I've asked you which RS you're basing your knowledge of this history on that would lead you to doubt the truth of this basic fact but you've not answered that.

This clearly isn't going anywhere and I'll just add the inline citation myself. The reason I didn't do so earlier is that though it would have resolved the content dispute, the content aspect of this discussion is extremely trivial. It seems to me that there is such a thing as abuse of WP:BURDEN, see Sealioning and WP:You can search, too.

The non acknowledgment of the RS I provided by both @Mistamystery and Alaexis is also notable; especially regarding the cablegram which I cited earlier, wherein the Arab League formally notifies the UN of their casus belli. The cablegram is quite short and begins with "[...] to restore law and order and to prevent disturbances prevailing in Palestine from spreading into their territories and to check further bloodshed", and concludes with "For these reasons, and considering that the security of Palestine is a sacred trust for them [the Arab heads of state], and out of anxiousness to check the further deterioration of the prevailing conditions and to prevent the spread of disorder and lawlessness into the neighbouring Arab lands [...] the Arab Governments find themselves compelled to intervene for the sole purpose of restoring peace and security and establishing law and order in Palestine." The only acknowledgment of, or arguments against this source was Alaexis stating "we generally prefer secondary sources"; Mistamystery simply ignored it.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the source. I've changed the text a bit to follow the source more closely, I think now we are good. Alaexis_¿question? 18:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

And for what reason have you omitted the part about "preventing the Palestinians' total ruin"? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Any response to this, @Alaexis? Surely this is the kind of thing that raises concerns of POV pushing, as the source says "the Arab governments' primary goal was preventing the Palestinians’ total ruin and the flooding of their own countries by more refugees.", but you've said "The desire to avoid more refugees was one of the reasons for the entry of the Arab League [...]" For what reason have you omitted the part about "preventing the Palestinians’ total ruin", which if anything was given greater prominence being the first reason mentioned. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS sorry, this thread is really hard to keep track of. I didn't add it because it is not directly related to the expulsion. It would be relevant for the article about the war, obviously. Alaexis_¿question? 19:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

How can you say that "preventing the Palestinians' total ruin" was not directly related to the expulsions? The expulsions were inflicting extraordinary death and destruction on the Arab population of Palestine as at Deir Yassin and in the "Battle" of Haifa, among similar cases, with entire villages being destroyed. That's not directly related the Palestinians' total ruin? I suggest we restore the original wording which stated simply that the expulsions were "named as a casus belli for the entry of the Arab League [...]". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not at all what I said. Gelber says nothing about casus belli so you can't use that source to support the text you proposed. Anyway, this is not that important in my view, so I've added "preventing collapse" to the article. Alaexis_¿question? 18:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

👍 IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Mistamystery, please tell us about these supposed nonviolent expulsions with RS, and how they are statistically significant out of the 700,000+ Palestinians to merit the due weight you suggest. إيان (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

+1 – expulsion is implicitly violent, so indeed, it needs demonstrating if any instances are otherwise. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm a bit confused, is it an argument for or against retaining this characterisation? Alaexis_¿question? 21:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The thread appears to be about removing or mollifying the word, among other complaints. Iskandar323 (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

What do you think @Mistamystery? Do you still think the content should be removed or do we have consensus that it should stay? Do you have any concerns about it being undue for the lead? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Items are included in articles because of clear citative basis and nothing more.

1. Violence and expulsion are separate matters. If incidences of violence or conduct in an explicitly violent manner happened, the use of the term "violent" need be in regard to citation that expounds of nature and extent of violence during expulsion. If those sources cannot be provided, the inclusion of the word is editorializing and leading.

2. And in regards to the causus belli - there are many factors that are cited by numerous sources well beyond this supposed single minded aim of responding to the refugee crisis. For instance, the abundance of Arab Leaders who stated their aim as plain elimination or expulsion of the Jewish population. And this is well before the refugee crisis began.

As it stands that sentence was there without any citation or further mention in the article to start with - which is plain editorializing and POV pushing. It should be withheld from the edit on those grounds alone.

Likewise, the Morris quote does not support the assertion. Mistamystery (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

"The abundance of Arab Leaders who stated their aim as plain elimination or expulsion of the Jewish population. And this is well before the refugee crisis began." RS for this? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Unless we're considering adding this information to this article, this question is irrelevant to the discussion. We simply need reliable secondary sources which support the added content. Alaexis_¿question? 21:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I've added an inline citation to Yoav Gelber's 'Palestine 1948: War, Escape and the Emergence of the Palestinian Refugee Problem', p. 137, and even included the relevant quotation which reads "Drawn into the war by the collapse of the Palestinians and the ALA, the Arab governments' primary goal was preventing the Palestinians' total ruin and the flooding of their own countries by more refugees." This was not hard to find and indeed this exact work is already cited in the list of references for this article. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

That's taking their official proclamations at the time at surface and good faith, uncritical value, when that is only the tip of the spear of exterminationist & expulsionist rhetoric that Arab leadership was waging toward the Jewish community for years at that point, well before there was active civil war or a threatening refugee problem.

I'm not going to argue that instability or the birth of a refugee problem was a factor, but to uncritically list it as a causus belli is entirely misleading and ignores a preponderance of contributing and pre-existing factors that drove the Arab armies to enter the conflict:

NY Daily News, April 5 1948: "The attack on Mishmar Haemek began at 5 P. M. yesterday when Fawzi Bey personally led a large force in his initial big scale action "to drive the Jews into the sea."

https://www.newspapers.com/image/445745506/?terms=%22Drive%20the%20jews%20into%20the%20sea%22&match=1

Benny Morris, A History of the First Arab-Israeli War: "What was the goal of the planned invasion? Arab spokesmen indulged in a variety of definitions. A week before the armies marched, 'Azzam told Kirkbride: "It does not matter how many [Jews] there are. We will sweep them into the sea." Syrian president Shukri al-Quwwatli spoke of the Crusades: "Overcoming the Crusaders took a long time, but the result was victory. There is no doubt that history is repeating itself."

As war loomed nearer, the belligerent rhetoric intensified. In 1946, a Baghdad newspaper called on Arabs to "annihilate all European Jews in Palestine." "We will sweep them into the sea," Arab League Secretary-General 'Abd al-Rahman Azzam announced just before the invasion. The mufti of Egypt proclaimed jihad in Palestine as the duty of all Muslims, and King Abdullah of Jordan pledged to rescue Islamic holy sites."

https://www.google.com/books/edition/1948/CC7381HrLqcC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22into%20the%20sea%22

https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/in-the-beginning/

Youngstown Vindicator May 11, 1946: The whole Palestine question was discussed at length and Ibn Saud is reliably reported to have told Mr.Roosevelt that "if you decide to send too many Jews to Palestine I shall have to throw them into the sea." After the situation was examined in the light of a world rather than a local problen and all the potentials involved in it were discussed, Mr. Roosevelt decided to promise Ibn Saud that no action would be taken without the king's knowledge.

Ibn Saud and other Arab rulers are less sophisticated than the heads 1of the European countries. They take political pledges at their face value and don't go back on the given word."

https://books.google.com/books?id=wpVIAAAAIBAJ&q=into+the+sea#v=snippet&q=%22jews%20into%20the%20sea%22&f=false Mistamystery (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for providing references, Mistamystery.

1. First of all, your arguments here are not relevant since the content under dispute only states that the Palestinian expulsions were "named as a casus belli for the entry of the Arab League", a rather modest claim, and one well supported by countless RS.

2. The sources provided do not support your claim of there having been an "abundance of Arab Leaders who stated their aim as plain elimination or expulsion of the Jewish population", nor that these statements took place "well before the refugee crisis began." You've repeated these claims in your above comment describing "exterminationist & expulsionist rhetoric that Arab leadership was waging toward the Jewish community for years at that point, well before there was active civil war or a threatening refugee problem." In the sources you've provided only "a Baghdad newspaper" made explicit statements promoting exterminationism. Interpreting comments about "sweeping/throwing them into the sea" as being exterminationist is WP:original research.

But again, this is not relevant to this content dispute or even to this article, which is about the Palestinian expulsions. That the expulsions were cited as a casus belli by the Arab League remains both well sourced and due for inclusion.

(Also, The New York Daily News and the Youngstown Vindicator are not exactly WP:BESTSOURCES for this history)

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no need to mince the sampling of sources provided, as there are an overabundance of sources that delve into the myriad of reasons as to why the Arab governments saw fit to join the conflict. It is a fundamental mischaracterization (and skewing of history) to place the CB squarely on the growing refugee crisis. Likewise, your quote refers to "disturbances" and does not mention refugees.

While it is entirely appropriate to say that the growing refugee situation was a factor, there are far too many sources indicating the full picture to allow a dangerous simplification to stand. Mistamystery (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

You're not listening. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

No. I'm merely not ignoring the broader, well established historical context of the moment in question for the purpose of driving a non-neutral narrative - which I think is happening here in an overall pattern of editorial behavior that seems also incredibly non-collaborative and non-good faith. This is *days* of unnecessary back and forth just for a *single* citation to be added to a naked line, which is not remotely the spirit in which we are expect to conduct ourselves in these conversations.

Which all points me toward a larger vantage than litigating this line (which I am not doing, or if it seemed like I was, am no longer). Mistamystery (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

1948 NY Daily News? 1946 Youngstown Vindicator? In a discussion about events in 1947-1948! You must be kidding?

I'm also not sure why you're citing a review of Morris's 1948 in addition to 1948 itself.

1948 is the only actual reliable source for this on your list. So, two yes or no questions since you're citing this book in support of your arguments: does 1948 say that the expulsions were violent? Does it say that the expulsion/flight was a cassus belli for Arab states? Levivich (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Causes

Is it appropriate to say "the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus are also a subject of fundamental disagreement among historians." As far as I'm aware there is no significant "fundamental disagreement among historians" about the expulsions, only some details remain disputed in the most recent and best sources. See for example this article by Ilan Pappé. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight says in Line 2 "The causes for this mass displacement is a matter of great controversy among historians, journalists, and commentators." Might be better to fix it over there first. Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah and this is so complicated with so much nuance, that I'm not sure what the best way is to write it, but these are the points that I think Wikipedia should make across these articles:

• There is broad general agreement about what the causes were -- which can be summed up as "the Israelis caused it" -- but there is still disagreement about various details of the causes, the exact who/when/how/why's, the relative importance of various causes, etc.
• One thing right off the top is the now widely debunked Nakba denial myth that "they left because the Arab states told them to." I think it's important for Wikipedia to convey that scholars all say that did not happen, and in fact the opposite happened: the Arab leaders wanted Palestinians to stay, not leave.
• Then there's the "they left voluntarily" myth, where Wikipedia should convey that scholars agree that a small portion (70k or less than 10%) of mostly wealthy and upper-middle-class Palestinians left early (between September 1947 and March 1948) to avoid the war, but they thought they were leaving temporarily and would be able to return afterwards (as was the norm in prior conflicts)
• Scholars also agree broadly that the Israelis intentionally expelled Palestinians, and engaged in psychological warfare and other tactics (biological warfar, conventional warfare) in order to induce flight, and this was very successful... hence, broad agreement on "expelled or made to flee".
• Where scholars disagree -- this is Pappe v. Morris -- is whether the expulsion was always the plan and the partition was the first opportunity (the viewpoint of Pappe, Masalha, Wolfe and others), or whether the expulsion was something that wasn't pre-planned but started more organically on the ground with low-level commanders, and then became official policy later in the war (after May 1948)
• Scholars also disagree about whether the expulsions were militarily necessary or justifiable (Morris's view) or not (everyone else?)

There's probably other nuance but I gtg now :-) Levivich (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Levivich. Regarding that "there is broad general agreement about what the causes were -- which can be summed up as "the Israelis caused it" - I do find it odd to speak of the causes of something which was 'done', treating it as though it were something that 'happened' without agency. I suspect it would be better to rename/refocus the article 'Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight' to 'Historiography of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight'. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

For sure there are disagreements, see for examples the works of Efraim Karsh. Alaexis_¿question? 20:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Neil Caplan's The Israel-Palestine Conflict (2nd ed., Yale 2020), pp. 119 and 120, discusses the views of Karsh, Morris, Masalha, and others, and summarizes (according to Caplan) the current mainstream view about causes of the refugee problem.

Another book, a bit older, is Mark Tessler's A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (2nd ed., Indiana Univ. 2009), which covers causes and historiography of causes on pp. 291-307. Levivich (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Efraim Karsh#Reception - "Prominent New Historian Benny Morris called Karsh's Fabricating Israeli History "a mélange of distortions, half-truths, and plain lies that vividly demonstrates his profound ignorance of both the source material... and the history of the Zionist-Arab conflict," titling his article "Undeserving of a Reply". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Just because there exists denialism of this history doesn't mean we need to legitimize it. We don't describe the number of victims of the Holocaust as "a subject of fundamental disagreement among historians" though there are denialists regarding that history as well. Karsh is an example of WP:FRINGE and is not one of the WP:BESTSOURCES for this history. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Mmm, I personally agree with that, but idk about Wikipedia NPOV policy agreeing with it. Karsh's 2010 book Palestine Betrayed was published by Yale and has 100+ Google scholar cites (one of which is Caplan). Even if he is cited for criticism, so is Morris. Here is where I get stuck: under objective parameters of reliability, Morris gets in despite his non-mainstream views... doesn't Karsh, and Finkelstein (2018 Gaza book published by NC Univ IIRC), also make the cut, despite their non-mainstream views? Personally I don't see how, if Morris is an RS (and he is), Finkelstein isn't an RS, and if Finkelstein is (I think so), then isn't Karsh also? (Even if I don't like it.) Levivich (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I had the misfortune to read his missives on the question of the Jordan Israel secret agreement over splitting Palestine. He is off base imo but he's not alone so does have to be taken into account. Selfstudier (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:USEBYOTHERS: "How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

That's true. No evidence of "widespread doubts about reliability" has been presented so far. Morris criticising his other book is neither "widespread" not relevant. Alaexis_¿question? 09:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

See Efraim Karsh#Reception. And more can be provided I'm sure. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

An example here. -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

And another. -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Ehh, so what? Having critical reviews is normal. Here Benny Morris calls Ilan Pappe "one of the world’s sloppiest historians." This is not a grounds for disqualification from Wikipedia. Alaexis_¿question? 12:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

We are sort of getting away from the main question, is the way the lead is phrased correct, it seems to me that too much or equal weight is being given to one side when in fact it should be a majority/minority type thing. Selfstudier (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Death toll

I removed from the article:

At least 15,000 Arabs were killed in these expulsions.

References

It seems like the 15,000 number refers to total Arab dead in the 1948 Palestine war, including Arab League soldiers. See above discussion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2024

Please can the current line in the first paragraph "At least 15,000 Arabs were killed in these expulsions." be replaced with "Up to 13,000 Palestinian Arabs were killed during the war, mostly civilians."

The sources for the 15,000 figure are among the very few non-academic sources used in the entire article. reliefweb.int is definitely not good enough. No academic/scholarly sources seem to support this as a credible estimate of Palestinians killed during expulsions. The highest academic estimate I could find for the total number of Palestinians killed during the 1947-49 war is the source I cited by Henry Laurens (scholar). 15,000 killed is also used on the Nakba page with the same non-academic sources. A dedicated section discussing the death toll is definitely needed on both articles.Tapu.Solre (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Tapu.Solre (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Not done. Consensus is required for this edit. Best left to EC editors for any discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this Henry Laurens source, it should be added to the article if someone can verify it. Also note that the ReliefWeb article is sourced to the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights. So we should likely (as of now) have the death at (13,000-15,000) with the three sources to support it. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a valid point, we should have a scholarly source for this and casualties should be discussed in the article itself before mentioning them in the lede. I've added a bettersourceneeded tag. Alaexis_¿question? 12:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I cannot find the material in a copy of the source, can anyone please provide the Chapter and the exact French phrasing. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm struggling to confirm this Laurens source. Do you have the French quotation? Or could you send a screenshot or something of the part that says "Up to 13,000 Palestinian Arabs were killed during the war, mostly civilians"? Are you sure it's from volume three? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks like great minds think alike eh @Selfstudier. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Per "this figure is also mentioned in most scholarly works", could you please provide a good scholarly source then @Makeandtoss? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

13,000 killed figure is by Aref al-Aref and is cited by Rashid Khalidi [1]. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I can certainly provide the full quote in French. "L'ordre de grandeur est de 13 000, soit un peu plus du double des pertes juives, ce qui fait une proportion grossièrement équivalente en fonction de la population totale. Mais il est clair que la plus grande partie des pertes palestiniennes concerne des non- combattants et correspond aux succès israéliens." It was possible to find the quote by searching the Google books url I provided. Laurens is also citing Aref al-Aref in his book.Tapu.Solre (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

French and English (DeepL translation):

French:

“Pour l'ensemble du conflit, les pertes juives et israéliennes atteignent un peu plus de 6 000 morts et le double de blessés, essentiellement des combattants, soit 1 % de la population du Yichouv à cette date, mais il faut prendre en compte le fait que les nouveaux arrivants et combattants volontaires venus de l'extérieur ont fourni un contingent non précisé de ces pertes.

Du côté arabe, les indications chiffrées sont moins précises.

Selon le recensement opéré par ‚Arif al-‚Arif en 1958*, le nombre de « martyrs » des armées régulières arabes s'éléverait à :

Égypte : 961 plus 200 irréguliers

Jordanie : 362 plus 200 irréguliers

Irak : 199 plus 200 irréguliers

Arabie saoudite : 68 plus 105 irréguliers

Liban : 11 plus 150 irréguliers

Syrie : 307 plus 204 irréguliers

Armée de secours : 512

Autres Arabes (Yéménites, Soudanais, Nord-Africains) : 200

Non-Arabes (Arméniens, Grecs, Européens, Hindous) : 42.

L'ordre de grandeur serait de 3 700.

Les pertes palestiniennes :

Identifiés nominalement comme étant morts à l'occasion d'un combat : 1 953

Noms non connus mais nombre, lieux et dates connus : 4 004

Noms et dates non connus mais lieux connus : 7 043.

L'ordre de grandeur est de 13 000, soit un peu plus du double des pertes juives, ce qui fait une proportion grossièrement équivalente en fonction de la population totale. Mais il est clair que la plus grande partie des pertes palestiniennes concerne des non-combattants et correspond aux succès israéliens.”

English (Deep L translation*):

"For the conflict as a whole, Jewish and Israeli losses amounted to just over 6,000 dead and double that number wounded, mainly combatants, i.e. 1% of the Yishuv population at that date, but we must take into account the fact that new arrivals and volunteer combatants from outside provided an unspecified contingent of these losses.

On the Arab side, the figures are less precise.

According to a census carried out by 'Arif al-'Arif in 1958 [Footnote here: “Volume 6 of the Nakba is devoted to drawing up lists of victims and, as far as possible, identifying them by name.”] the number of "martyrs" in the regular Arab armies was as follows:

Egypt: 961 plus 200 irregulars

Jordan: 362 plus 200 irregulars

Iraq: 199 plus 200 irregulars

Saudi Arabia: 68 plus 105 irregulars

Lebanon: 11 plus 150 irregulars

Syria: 307 plus 204 irregulars

Relief Army: 512

Other Arabs (Yemenis, Sudanese, North Africans): 200

Non-Arabs (Armenians, Greeks, Europeans, Hindus): 42.

The order of magnitude would be 3,700.

Palestinian casualties:

Nominally identified as having died in combat: 1,953

Names unknown but number, places and dates known: 4,004

Names and dates unknown but places known: 7,043.

The order of magnitude is 13,000, slightly more than double the Jewish losses, making a roughly equivalent proportion based on total population. But it's clear that the greater part* (la plus grande partie) of Palestinian losses involve non-combatants and correspond to Israeli successes."

• DeepL translation gave "the bulk of" but I've replaced that with "the greater part of" which is more accurate and more clear. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Morris 1948 p. 406: "In the 1948 war, the Yishuv suffered 5,700–5,800 dead — one quarter of them civilians ... Palestinian losses, in civilians and armed irregulars, are unclear: they may have been slightly higher, or much higher, than the Israeli losses. In the 1950s, Haj Amin al-Husseini claimed that 'about' twelve thousand Palestinians had died."

Caplan's Contested Histories (I don't know what page #, it's an e-book) [2]: "The war took the lives of some 6000 Israelis – a heavy proportion of the total population, 13 000–16 000 Palestinians, and 2000–2500 other Arabs, with many additional thousands of wounded."

However, these are war casualties, not specifically expulsion-and-flight casualties. On the other hand, they say "Palestinian," not "Arab," so I don't know if that includes the foreign Arab soldiers. And Morris says it includes civilians. Levivich (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Can we say something like >6,500 Arab civilian dead per Aref/Laurens? Since Laurens says 13,000 total Arab losses, of which "the greater part" were noncombatants? Or is that WP:SYNTH? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe better to fully explain it as ~"Laurens gives the total Arab dead in the 1947-1949 Palestine war as 13,000, "the majority of which were noncombatants." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

No need for attribution; the original phrasing is fine. I am pretty sure there is at least one source talking about casualties in an elaborate way, and would definitely mention how Zionist militias killed adult males during their offensive campaigns on the villages, but I am not sure where. Thoughts? @Oncenawhile: @Zero0000: Makeandtoss (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

References

3 May 2024

The list of causes is exhaustive but missing a key cause that has been validated by Benny Morris, a historian cited multiple times in this article.

Benny Morris states, "Birth Revisited describes many more atrocities and expulsions than were recorded in the original version of the book. But, at the same time, a far greater proportion of the 700,000 Arab refugees were ordered or advised by their fellow Arabs to abandon their homes than I had previously registered. It is clear from the new documentation that the Palestinian leadership in principle opposed the Arab flight from December 1947 to April 1948, while at the same time encouraging or ordering a great many villages to send away their women, children and old folk, to be out of harm's way. Whole villages, especially in the Jewish- dominated coastal plain, were also ordered to evacuate. There is no doubt that, throughout, the departure of dependents lowered the morale of the remaining males and paved the way for their eventual departure as well"[3] here.

Given that it is imperative we also add that Arabs also left because of the encouragement of their fellow Arabs. While the amount can be debated, leaving this out is missing an important element of historical accuracy. If Benny Morris can be cited for Israeli atrocities, he should also be cited for this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionbear10 (talk • contribs)

I believe that's outdated and the current mainstream view is that the "Arab states encouraged Palestinians to flee" theory is now a debunked myth? Levivich (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2024

change 700 000 to 700,000 MattFry7 (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

This change was made throughout the article with no edit summary. @ThurnerRupert, can you clarify the reason for this? It seems less clear to me, though both gaps and commas are apparently acceptable per MOS:DIGITS. Jamedeus (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Grammar/naming convention

Intro paragraph says "...and after the establishment of the Israel, by its military." Should be "the State of Israel" or possibly "Israel" 24.19.44.221 (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Change Title of Article to "1948 Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinians"

Since one ethnicity (european jews) ethnically cleansed another ethnicity (arab muslims) from their land.

NPOV in lede

I think this article’s lede needs to have a paragraph on the Israeli perspective on this conflict and modern attitudes Alexanderkowal (talk) 06:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alexanderkowal NPOV does not entail covering every side's perspective in the lead. Were we to do that we could end up with a false balance. TarnishedPath^talk 07:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe:

(after Nakba day) The expulsion is viewed by the Israeli narrative as necessary, unavoidable, and part of the wider war of independence, and whilst Nakba denial has been increasingly challenged in recent years, the official narrative remains unaffected.

Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest you'd need some extremely strong sourcing for prose which makes excuses for displacing local inhabitants and which calls the establishment of Israel a "war of independence". TarnishedPath^talk 09:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m just summarising what’s in the lede of Nakba, there is a danger of false equivalence, the wording needs to be altered a bit Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this should be part of the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Surely the content is entirely relevant and due but the wording is very tricky to get the right weight and framing. MOS:LEDE says that a topic with its own section deserves to be mentioned in the lede. Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Alexanderkowal can you please quote me the exact wording that says that. I just had a brief flyover of MOS:LEDE doing a ctrl-f on the word "section" and I couldn't find wording that says topics with their own section deserve mention in the lead. TarnishedPath^talk 13:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

My bad, it's at Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section#Rule of thumb Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing

In the lead, there is an equivocating line that says: "The expulsion of the Palestinians has since been described by some historians as ethnic cleansing, while others dispute this charge." The ethnic cleansing sources are newer; the denial sources are older. Somewhat ludicrously, Benny Morris sources are used to support both. However, his 2021 admission of the ethnic cleansing drastically supercedes his 2008 denial. The other two denial sources, from 2002 and 2005, obviously precede Pappé's The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine and the last two decades of scholarship. The question that begs is: are there any current sources that still deny the ethnic cleansing? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Good point, this should be rewritten to express that the ethnic cleansing view is the mainstream or majority view and that the denial thereof is a fringe or minority view. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The Morris interview where he implicitly acknowledges ethnic cleansing was from 2004, no? Looks like the archive date was 2021.

I don't think Morris has ever denied that ethnic cleansing occurred, so he should probably be removed from that list of references. That said, it's his view that there was no top-down Zionist plan for systematic ethnic cleansing. He also tends to use less loaded language like "expulsions". — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes. Archive date. Erk. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Lede

"The causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus remain a significantly controversial topic in public and political discourse, with a prominent amount of denialism regarding the responsibility of Israeli/Yishuv forces, although most scholarship today acknowledges that expulsions and violence, and the fear thereof, were the primary causes."

This should be rephrased, where the last part of the sentence, the scholarship is the focus of the paragraph, and not the (unfounded) controversy. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Denialism present in article

It seems that there is some Nakba denial present in this article which does not belong.

Specifically:

1. At the beginning of a paragraph about depopulated Palestinian settlements, there is the sentence: "Yoav Gelber wrote that the Arab Liberation Army embarked on a systematic evacuation of non-combatants from several frontier villages in order to turn them into military strongholds." This is WP:FRINGE and undue for inclusion. Gelber is an Old Historian (in contrast with the New Historians and of the work cited, Palestine 1948: War, Escape, and the Emergence of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (2001/2006[2nd edition]), I looked for reviews and found one [here https://www-cambridge-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/16849DA444A9A17EF768C33919FE897C/stamped-S0020743802004075a.pdf/yoav-gelber-palestine-1948-war-escape-and-the-emergence-of-the-palestinian-refugee-problem-portland-ore-sussex-academic-press-2001-pp-410-dollar7950-cloth.pdf] which is quite critical of the work, stating that "Palestine 1948 is a book to be examined by scholars of the period with interest but to be used, if at all, by those who are unfamiliar with the subject with extreme caution." (emphasis mine), that it is "of use to scholars who can evaluate it against other materials. Still, the reader must beware. Gelber's approach to history does not usually allow for discussion of the revisionist views he rejects.", and that "Gelber argues the nationalist version of Israeli history of 1948". If there are no other reliable sources to support the statement that "Arab Liberation Army embarked on a systematic evacuation of non-combatants from several frontier villages in order to turn them into military strongholds." then we oughtn't include it, per WP:FRINGE.

2. In a paragraph describing that "the events of the Nakba were by that point [that is, by the year 2010] "widely described" as involving ethnic cleansing", there follows that "Not all historians accept this characterization. Efraim Karsh is among the few historians who still consider that most of the Arabs who fled left of their own accord or were pressured to leave by their fellow Arabs, despite Israeli attempts to convince them to stay." The ideas here cited to Karsh are plain denialism. We should be presenting these views only in the context of Nakba denial or not presenting them at all per WP:FRINGE: "A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. [...] If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight."

3. The lead paragraph beginning "The causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus are also a subject of fundamental disagreement among historians." needs to be altered significantly. For one, there only has been legitimate debate among historians, but today there no longer is. Second, the denialist factors listed should be removed, and indeed the inline citations supporting the dubious causes are quite weak here - "disinclination to live under Jewish control" is cited inline to two books which are not even about the 1948 war, and "Arab evacuation orders" is a known myth with its inline citation to Pittsburgh Press May 1948 (terrible source) and to a proper academic work which I can't access but which I can see includes as a footnote "In 1960–61 Walid Khalidi also investigated the BBC and FBIS radio transcripts recorded throughout the 1948 war to look for evidence of Arab evacuation orders but was unable to locate any at all.". This paragraph should be rewritten to state there is significant public and political debate, and should mention Nakba denial as that is cleary for for the lead anyway, but it should not give the impression that there isn't consensus in present day scholarship about the causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion. This lead paragraph also does not reflect the body as the dubious causes presented are (rightfully) not covered in the article. (Also note that the page causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight is itself very poorly written and replete with denialism and "Old History" and is not to be used as a source).

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. Regarding your first point, the review criticised Gelber's book for omitting various important aspects of the conflict, but not for inaccuracies

“ Gelber’s approach to history does not usually allow for discussion of the revisionist views he rejects... Gelber never mentions Golda Meyerson’s (Meir’s) visit to Abdullah and what was discussed. He simply relegates the matter to a footnote ... As for Dayr Yasin (p. 98 ff), Gelber never identifies the units that attacked the village and questions whether it contributed significantly to the panic that followed ”

It's a normal scholarly discussion. The reviewer believes that the book provides an incomplete picture of the events and suggests that it shouldn't be the only book an uninformed reader should read about this topic. This is irrelevant for this article which uses multiple books by New Historians and others as sources.

I'll respond to the other points later. Alaexis_¿question? 21:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

"not for inaccuracies"? - "No work by an Arab scholar in Arabic is cited, because, as noted, Arab scholars have not been interested in the subject in a serious historical manner.[Summarising/describing Gelber's view] Anyone who peruses the bibliography of Eugene Rogan and Avi Shalim's edited volume The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948 (Cambridge, 2001) will see how false Gelber's assertion is." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The assertion he deems false is "Arab scholars have not been interested in the subject in a serious historical manner". How is it related to the way Gelber's book is used here? Alaexis_¿question? 14:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I see you've restored [4] "Yoav Gelber wrote that the Arab Liberation Army embarked on a systematic evacuation of non-combatants from several frontier villages in order to turn them into military strongholds." stating only "no arguments have been presented why this statement is untrue".

Since we have an RS which cautions against the use of this work of Gelber, stating it is "of use to scholars who can evaluate it against other materials", and since this material is given such prominence at the beginning of a paragraph about the depopulation of Palestinian villages, I think it is reasonable to ask for another RS that can corroborate this claim of Gelber's. Especially since the claim resembles (and may even be) the myth that Arab evacuation orders were a significant cause of the exodus. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, otherwise WP:ONUS (no consensus for usage, per discussions here) and WP:WEIGHT (single source, and Gelber as a primary source for his own views) apply – there are your arguments. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Gelber's claim has been corroborated by Benny Morris in "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited". On page 175, he points out how in April 1948,

the ALA ordered the inhabitants of Fureidis, south of Haifa, to evacuate their women and children, ‘and make ready to evacuate [the village] completely’. A few kilometres to the north, the women and children of Tira were evacuated with the help of the Arab Legion to Neuherrdorf, near Haifa, and later to Jordan. Similarly, dependents had been evac- uated from Khirbet as Sarkas, near Hadera (to Baqa al Gharbiya and Jatt). The women and children of Qannir were evacuated starting 22 April on ‘orders from on high’. In early May, Umm al Zinat was reported empty of women and children. North of Haifa, Kabri was completely evacuated. A few days earlier, the Arab communities around Rosh Pina, in Eastern Galilee, were ordered to evacuate their women and children, the men staying to guard the sites.

He continues to document the many examples of evacuations on Arab orders on p.176-178. Amayorov (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Assume this is all true, how many persons are we talking about? Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to tell, but Morris says that "all villagers in the Nazareth area", "all the villages between Haifa and Tel Aviv", Coastal Plain villages, neighborhoods bordering the Jewish areas in Jerusalem, were depopulated on orders from the general Arab headquarters or ALA. There was also apparently an evacuation order to Arabs living along the Palestine-Syrian border.

Here are some of the examples he gives: Shu'fat, Beit Hanina, al Jib, Judeira, Bir Nabala, Rafat, Dahi, Nein, Tampra, Kafr Misr, al Tira, Taiyiba, Na'ura, Nuqeib, ‘Arab al Satariyya, Beit Dajan, Kafr Manda, Majd al Kurum, Dimra, 'Illut, ‘Arab Mazarib, ‘Arab Sa‘ida, Ma’lul, Mujeidil, Beisan, Qastal, Qalandiya, some Jerusalem neighborhoods (Sheikh Jarrah, Wadi Joz, Musrara, Qatamon, Musara, Beit Hanina and others), Ma'dhar, Hadatha, 'Ulam, Sirin. Amayorov (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

So Morris only corroborates that some villages sent their women and children away (a sensible precaution in hindsight) and stayed on to watch over/guard their property. That is quite a different nuance from Gelber's "military strongholds" – without even asking how turning a rural village into a "stronghold" is even achieved. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Oftentimes, such as in Ma'lul and Mujeidil, the ALA ordered evacuation "apparently to make room for incoming ALA contingents and in preparation for anticipated offensive operations." In other places, such as in Beit Dajan, the inhabitants left at the same time as armed irregulars moved in. Morris gives other examples too. So there is, indeed, evidence in support of Gelber's claims. Amayorov (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Be careful that you don't confuse assertions by Morris with "evidence" – even Morris uses caveats like "apparently" when he writes. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm simply responding to a above request for further corroboration:

I think it is reasonable to ask for another RS that can corroborate this claim of Gelber's.

Amayorov (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

And I'm merely cautioning on the use of the term "evidence", and the dangers of being loose-lipped with it. Corroborating statements are just those. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Perhaps this could be modified based on Morris 2004? His gives a somewhat more balanced view on this. There is no evidence that the Arab states and the AHC wanted a mass exodus or issued blanket orders or appeals to flee. At the same time, the AHC and the Arab states often encouraged villagers (and, in some places, townspeople) to send their women, children and old people out of harm’s way. Local political and military leaders also ordered some villages to evacuate in order to forestall their (treacherous) acceptance of Jewish rule. In certain areas (around Jerusalem, and along the Syrian border), the Arab states ordered villages to uproot for strategic reasons.

2. I agree that this view of Karsh is on the extreme side. He's still a notable historian and I think it's okay to mention his view with proper framing/attribution. In general I wouldn't be opposed to replacing more extreme sources like Karsh with more moderate ones like Anita Shapira, except that Shapira would be too moderate to be considered part of an "Israeli narrative". Maybe the article can be restructured, but the current "two opposing narratives" structure calls for including less moderate voices such as Karsh.

3. While there's no (serious) debate today that expulsions occurred and were substantial, there is plenty of debate about the role of local commanders vs Zionist leaders, as well as the extent of flight and the reasons for it.

— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the role of local commanders vs Zionist leaders."? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Taking Ben-Gurion as an example (perhaps the most important one), there is some lack of clarity over whether he explicitly ordered any expulsions. Yitzhak Rabin signed an expulsion order for Lydda, but gave two conflicting accounts about whether it was based on an explicit order by Ben-Gurion. With that potential exception, Ben-Gurion didn't give any explicit expulsion orders, although Morris argues he was "projecting a message of transfer".

Others have emphasized the role of local commanders acting based on military rather than political objectives: At the local level, commanders wanted to remove from the war zone a population that might aid the enemy. Nor did they want to have to deal with the needs of an occupied civilian population, preferring to remove it. (Shapira summarizing Kleiman). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Both versions of Rabin's account have BG ordering the expulsion of the inhabitants. The difference may only be due to Bar Zohar. Also, we should be aware of an issue around temporary evacuation of non-combatants, which is a normal feature of wars. Zionist propagandists claim that such evacuations are evidence of "they left at their leaders' orders", while failing to mention that the Jewish side also evacuated non-combatants from the front line. A large number of them, in fact. Zero^talk 04:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Re your lede changes, I think expulsions and violence, and the fear thereof, were the primary causes may be reasonable, since in a way everything stemmed from violence/war of fear thereof. That said, I still feel the sources you added don't back this very clearly or directly. They're just not making it very clear which particular analyses they're rejecting. Clearly they reject certain extreme views like Karsh's, but beyond that they seem unclear, e.g. does chased out include those who left in 1947 in anticipation of fighting?

Consider the bit you removed, the demoralizing impact of wealthier classes fleeing. The sources you added don't mention this (purported) factor, so it's not clear if they reject it in some way. According to Morris, No one [...] disputes the fact that much of the Arab middle and upper classes fled Palestine.

I'm not sure this is the right place to mention Nakba denial, since the term is generally used for more fringe views (like the ahistorical view that the land was largely empty), not so much for more plausible analyses that are the focus of the article.

Also, why unlink causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Unlinked causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight since it is a terriblly written article. This article analyzes the causes much better than that article.

"The demoralizing impact of wealthier classes fleeing" can probably be readded, although that's maybe more a part of the flight than a cause of it.

Nakba denial seems pretty clear due for the lead.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight is currently assessed as B-class. I'm aware of your views on it but not sure they're widely shared. Even if there was consensus that it's a terrible article, MOS:L doesn't mention that as a consideration for linking. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it being linked or not. And I intend to fix that article in the near future anyway. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

This stuff might be less active denialism so much as just crappily dated. 2001 is very dated at this point, and 2010 is not exactly young. If there are later sources stating how consensus has changed, or abjectly contradicting these older sources, then we can obviate them. This isn't a historiography. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Changes

I made an edit implementing many changes here and was blanket reverted simply due to "there is a discussion in progress". I made many changes and it's not reasonable to simply revert them all. For instance I added sources and removed cleary bad sources. Please provide the actual reason why any changes are being disputed. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

If there's a proper discussion ongoing here, I haven't noticed it. I certainly haven't noticed any serious objections to tamping down the weight of a dated old historian source. I agree that the blanket revert was inappropriate, if not borderline disruptive. Very poor form. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It also isn't ideal to make major controversial changes to the lede when there's an active discussion that hasn't had much time to develop yet, and with concerns that haven't been addressed. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a little hard to assess your post above given its lack of supporting links, but if there's something that's off about an edit, common practice is to collegiately tweak it. Better for actual headway. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Reverting many edits across distinct subjects is invariably POV in my experience, or more charitably, lazy. Selfstudier (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Recent changes

Made changes to lead here though I botched the edit summary.

@Iskandar323 this addresses your concerns per your talk page entry "Ethnic cleansing" and @Makeandtoss this addresses your concerns per your talk page entry "Lede".

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

👍 Iskandar323 (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I meant to say that the paragraph should start with "Most scholarship today..."

Anyway, the lede could be further improved: first paragraph with a general description, second with the main components and then the chronological details, third paragraph on the scholarship, fourth paragraph on the legacy.

This is my suggestion:

In the 1948 Palestine war, more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs – about half of Mandatory Palestine's predominantly Arab population – were expelled or fled from their homes, at first by Zionist paramilitaries, and after the establishment of Israel, by its military. The expulsion and flight was a central component of the fracturing, dispossession, and displacement of Palestinian society, known as the Nakba.

About 250,000–300,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled during the 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine, before the termination of the British Mandate on 14 May 1948. By the end of the 1948 Palestine war, dozens of massacres targeting Arabs were conducted by Israeli military forces and between 400 and 600 Palestinian villages were destroyed. Village wells were poisoned in a biological warfare programme and properties were looted to prevent Palestinian refugees from returning. Other sites were subject to Hebraization of Palestinian place names. The precise number of Palestinian refugees, many of whom settled in Palestinian refugee camps in neighboring states, is uncertain, although the number is around 700,000, being approximately 80 percent of the Palestinian Arab inhabitants of what became Israel.

Most scholarship today agrees that expulsions and violence, and the fear thereof, were the primary causes for the displacement. Factors involved in the exodus include direct expulsions by Israeli forces, destruction of Arab villages, psychological warfare including terrorism, massacres such as the widely publicized Deir Yassin massacre which caused many to flee out of fear, typhoid epidemics in some areas caused by Israeli well-poisoning, and the collapse of Palestinian leadership including the demoralizing impact of wealthier classes fleeing. The expulsion of the Palestinians has been described by most historians as ethnic cleansing, while a minority disputes this characterization. Denialism regarding the responsibility of Israeli/Yishuv forces in the displacement of Palestinians, and discourse about the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus continue to generate controversy.

A series of land and property laws were later passed by the first Israeli government that prevented displaced Palestinians from returning to their homes or claiming their property. They and many of their descendants remain refugees. The existence of the so-called Law of Return allowing for immigration and naturalization of any Jewish person and their family to Israel, while a Palestinian right of return has been denied, has been cited as an evidence for the charge that Israel practices apartheid. The status of the refugees, and in particular whether Israel will allow them the right to return to their homes, or compensate them, are key issues in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

Makeandtoss (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Also I think moving the quotes to the body while keeping in-line refs will make the lede easier to edit and work with. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually, is there even a reason why we have this article which seems to be covered by Nakba? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's more in-depth on the expulsions specifically, as opposed to all of the other aspects of the Nakba page. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. And any thoughts on the proposed changes above? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a little hard to inspect the proposed changes like that. If any small changes can be made incrementally in separately explained edits, and any bigger changes discussed more specifically, that might be better. I have no idea what past RFCs might inform the current form of the lead. Good idea to take a look. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the fact "orders from the Arab leadership" should be mentioned as a factor to the Arab exodus. In addition to Yoav Gelber, this is corroborated by Benny Morris as being a factor in Haifa (see the subsection below), as well as in a host of other settlements.

Morris says that "all villagers in the Nazareth area", "all the villages between Haifa and Tel Aviv", Coastal Plain villages, neighborhoods bordering the Jewish areas in Jerusalem, were depopulated on orders from the general Arab headquarters or ALA. There was also apparently an evacuation order to Arabs living along the Palestine-Syrian border.

Here are some of the examples he gives: Shu'fat, Beit Hanina, al Jib, Judeira, Bir Nabala, Rafat, Dahi, Nein, Tampra, Kafr Misr, al Tira, Taiyiba, Na'ura, Nuqeib, ‘Arab al Satariyya, Beit Dajan, Kafr Manda, Majd al Kurum, Dimra, 'Illut, ‘Arab Mazarib, ‘Arab Sa‘ida, Ma’lul, Mujeidil, Beisan, Qastal, Qalandiya, some Jerusalem neighborhoods (Sheikh Jarrah, Wadi Joz, Musrara, Qatamon, Musara, Beit Hanina and others), Ma'dhar, Hadatha, 'Ulam, Sirin.

Therefore, while not the main factor as the Israeli scholarship originally claimed, it was definitely a factor, at least according to some (influential) scholars.

My suggestion is to change the sentence "Most scholarship today" to

Most scholarship today agrees that expulsions and violence, and the fear thereof, along with occasional orders from the Arab leadership, were the primary causes for the displacement.

Amayorov (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you planning to reference some historians that actually provide any opposing views and balance to Gelber and Morris at any point? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Do all the statements in the article provide references to 3+ influential scholars? Is that an official rule now? Amayorov (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Not my point. You appreciate that Gelber and Morris are both on the same side of a wide scholarly divide, yes? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

First, most sentences in the lead section are sources from a single, Arab or pro-Palestinian, scholar, such as Pappé, Nur, Khalidi, Ghanim.

Second, I don't agree that Morris and Gelber are "on the same side". Morris has revealed plenty of unsavoury information about Israel: e.g. the story about the Haganah's secret program of poisoning wells in 1948 was his discovery from a couple years ago. He is also the source of reference for many "pro-Palestinian" historians (e.g. Shlaim, Pappé). In contrast, Gelber is a more traditional Israeli historian.

Finally, you can't really seek "concensus across the divide" on every statement. That's partly because all archives of the Arab states, including those of the armies, parties, and diplomats, are still classified. Amayorov (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

You're still not getting it. You are adding specific tracts of text without even looking to see what historians with a very different take on these events say about the same events. Yes, Morris is less blinkered than Gelber, but he is still a historian that resolutely produces historiography with a very discernable pitch, and the side that it favours—because it certainly does favour a side—is very clear. Now I'm sure that you can continue to beat around the bush if you like, but now is the point where you have to say, ok, I'll look up some of what I'm putting in in other sources, or you can keep putting in voices from only one side of a partisan divide and we will all have to chase you around the wiki adding POV tags to every page and section that you give the same treatment. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't understand what you're suggesting I do.

I'm quoting Morris on objective facts, rather than partisan conclusions. Morris references plenty of primary material. Would you want me to quote the primary material directly, bypassing Morris? I could certainly do that.

This page already cites plenty Morris (e.g. regarding the Haganah's use of psychological warfare or the well-poisoning). At the same time, it often ignores him, whenever he discusses the Arabs' evacuation orders or that there was no centralised plan of expulsion ever promulgated by the IDF. Selective quoting could certainly be a concern.

Besides, this page already includes plenty of "according to Morris' estimates," "according to Ilan Pappé," "in Flapan' opinion," etc. Sometimes, Pappé is quoted without a qualification. Do you have a problem with Morris specifically? Amayorov (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I have a problem with the fact that you think you are getting "objective facts" from Morris, as opposed to his subjective opinions on the whatever any given piece of evidence may be, and in contrast to whatever subjective opinions also significant historians less aligned with his way of thinking have about the same given pieces of evidence. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Isn't that the case with plenty of other claims on this page? For example, it includes "According to Pappé, this mortar barrage was deliberately aimed at civilians to precipitate their flight from Haifa," while omitting Morris' strong objecting this claim?

Another problem is that, while Morris is already cited plenty of times, he's referenced selectively and often ignoring important context in his writing. Amayorov (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is really a fair criticism - Morris is about as mainstream as they come, with critics on both sides. He almost left Israel after Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem made it difficult for him to find a job there. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you should all follow WP:SOURCESDIFFER and WP:BALANCE. Both Morris and the historians that disagree with him can be cited. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing all this, I think we are at the point, we should review all WP:BESTSOURCES for what happened. It's a historical event, there is no shortage of such sources and so this should not be difficult, just needs a bit of time. And we need to avoid getting bogged down in the weeds, the broad strokes we want, for example, Makeandtoss "Most scholarship today agrees that expulsions and violence, and the fear thereof, were the primary causes for the displacement" above, is that what the balance of bestsources says, or not? Selfstudier (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I would change it to

Most scholarship today agrees that expulsions and violence, and the fear thereof, along with occasional orders from the Arab leadership, were the primary causes for the displacement.

Amayorov (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

edit request, use neutral languge

The following discussion 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.

---

change:

Scholars widely describe the event as ethnic cleansing, although some disagree.

to:

some Scholars describe the event as ethnic cleansing, although some disagree.

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. 109.64.55.154 (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. Please obtain consensus for your requested edit. TarnishedPath^talk 10:05, 15 September 2024 (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.

Well poisoning

Currently this article accuses Israeli soldiers of poisoning wells and the link to Well poisoning is mainly about antisemitic libels against Jews. How sure are we that Israel indeed poisoned wells during the 1948 war? Is the scholarship solid on this? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should link to well poisoning and propose that we don't. As for the scholarship, it is based on a research article by two Israeli historians who cite official archival records so, yes, it is solid. Zero^talk 04:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I think since Morris's 2023 paper, we are very sure. See the detailed discussion and quotes/sources in Operation Cast Thy Bread (for a condensed summary with cites/quotes, see the sentence about it in Nakba). Levivich (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Lausanne Conference - the claim that Israel agreed to allow the return of *all* Palestinian refugees

The opening statement of the section reads:

"At the start of the Lausanne Conference of 1949, on 12 May 1949, Israel agreed in principle to allow the return of all Palestinian refugees." (my emphasis).

No reference has been provided to support this claim, and the claim itself is inconsistent with Israel's official position stated 6 days earlier, during the 47th meeting of the Ad Hoc Political Committee, on May 6, at which Application of Israel for admission to membership in the UN was discussed:

"The Government of Israel considers and has made it clear that the return of Arab refugees was one of the methods of settling this problem. It considers, as the Conciliation Commission considers and as one of the Governments represented in the United Nations, the opinion of which I quoted this morning seems also to consider, that another method of settling the question would be resettlement of the refugees in neighboring countries. The balance of those resettled in neighboring countries, in comparison with the numbers resettled in Israel, is a matter to be settled by mutual consent after negotiations for which we are immediately prepared."

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-185978/

Unless there is a reliable source directly supporting this claim, I suggest this sentence is removed, and the remainder of the section is reformulated accordingly. Zlmark (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Done. Someone should review this change and surrounding content however. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I've added the source. Lewisguile (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

👍 IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The source doesn't support this claim.

In fact, the quote expressing the Israeli position that I mentioned above comes directly from this document (page 282)

Moreover, during the next session, the representative of Yemen said the following:

"Mr. Eban has further confirmed that his Government considered resettlement of the refugees in the neighboring Arab States the main basis of any solution."

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-189757/ (page 306)

In other words, during the meetings of the Ad Hoc Political Committee, Israel expressed its readiness to discuss the return of some of the refugees, but at no point agreed to allow return of all of them. Zlmark (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

That's what it now says, @Zlmark. "All" was changed to "some of the". Lewisguile (talk) 07:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Missed this change yesterday - only saw it now.

Thanks. Zlmark (talk) 07:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit request - outcome of biological warfare

In the paragraph on biological warfare, it states the poisoning of wells resulted in a typhoid epidemic. However the linked reference states “no epidemic and few casualties”. Therefore the paragraph is either incorrect or misleading. If the citations aren’t unanimous, paragraph should be edited accordingly with a line such as “whether the well poisonings had any significant effect remains unclear”. 2001:4958:2C86:9B01:818B:1657:B44B:167D (talk) 05:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done That same source says "except for Acre", meaning they agree there was an epidemic there. That's what the body text says, too. If you read all the sources listed for that paragraph, there are several other statements confirming epidemics. Lewisguile (talk) 08:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

• What I think should be changed

−

Israeli purge of documents

+

Israeli censorship of documents

• Why it should be changed:

The word "purge" implies physical destruction of the documents, whereas the cited sources talk about censoring the documents and sealing them in closed archives.

Zlmark (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Done. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done by IOHANNVSVERVS above, so changing the template to answered.

Lewisguile (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Plan Dalet

Shouldn't this be mentioned in the lede and expanded more about in the body? I definitely see it having a standalone section. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems it was -allegedly- implemented for an eight week period between April and May 1948, but the ethnic cleansing had already started since late 1947 and continued until at least 1949. So is this the main "responsible" document or is there something I am missing? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)