Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Consensus building: Finkelstein acceptable?

• • • Retrieved from archive, checking for consensus 1st Oct 2007. I have carried over some comments, leaving out none of signifcance that I can tell.
    • Question at 28th Dec - can someone explain why consensus wasn't considered fully reached 3 months ago?

Editor	Yes or No to Finkelstein	Comment
GHcool	No to NF, unless we allow any other author that does not meet the standards of Morris and Karsh to be cited in the article.	"Consider a hypothetical scholar, an assistant professor named Joe Shmoe who teaches political science at a university somewhere in the United States. Shmoe wrote a book with a hundred footnotes but never looked at any primary documents, was fired from several universities, and was recently denied tenure because his scholarship did not meet the standards of the university he worked at. Should Shmoe be included in this article? I suggest that he should not. If Finkelstein is accepted in this article, then so should Joe Shmoe. I just don't want to hear complaints later if Joe Shmoe's research is favorable to the Israeli historiography." 21:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC) I accuse Finkelstein of only one thing: not being as highly reguarded, nor have read the same primary sources in their original languages, as Morris and Karsh. 21:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
JaapBoBo	Yes to NF	"appears that Finkelstein is more reliable than either Schecht or Katz. ... nothing against the content of finkelstein's books!" 20:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Tiamut	Yes to NF	"I'm unfamiliar with the work of Schect and Katz, but Norman Finkelstein is certainly a reputable and well-known scholar with a specialty on Palestine-Israel" 21:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Pedro Gonnet	Yes to NF	Historian Pappé giving "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Confilct a positive review ("This book is a very important contribution to the ongoing debate about the writing of the conflict's history in Palestine and Israel"). 13:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
PR	Yes to NF
Alithien	Yes to NF	Let's not be naieve. We cannot put Finkelstein on the same level as other historians who studied the exodus. It is not a topic he studied deeply. He "only" gave his mind about other works." 14:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Screen stalker	Maybe to NF	Let's be consistent. If we include sources that aren't credible, then let's always include them. If we always exclude them, then let's always exclude them.

Since no attempt has even been made to undermine Finkelstein's scholarship/reliability I propose we act by consensus and use his work in this article as we see fit (but I'm happy to wait 4 days if that preferable). PR^talk 18:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I promised GHCool to wait, so I will do that. But if you can convince him in the mean time: be my guest. I must say your table looks quite convincing! With this table GHCool will have hardly a chance if third parties opinions are asked. --JaapBoBo 18:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I like this chart, but ammended it so that it reflects my and Alithien's true feelings. As you can see, my opinion is not the "either-or" scenerio the chart is set up to reflect. I hope this makes things more clear. Let us give this a rest as was already agreed upon above. Thank you. --GHcool 19:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

NF is a politician but given he is referenced by scholars, he can be used. user:Alithien 19:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC) ............ Hi user:Alithien - no problem with you presenting your own entry entirely as you see fit, but I've modified it to match the format of the other entries - trust that is alright by you. PR^talk 11:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I appologized if I misrepresented Alithien, but judging by his/her statement (quoted in the table), I assumed he/she was against including Finkelstein in this article. --GHcool 21:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

...

Did anybody change his or her opinion, or should third party advice be sought? 129.125.35.249 (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The consultation is effectively complete, we have better than 80% support for inclusion of the (brief, topical and uncontroversial) clip from Finkelstein. It is difficult to understand why it has been kept out for so long. It is also urgent that we get on, and remove some of the very prominent and controversial content coming from known race-haters and falsifiers. PR^talk

I certainly didn't change my mind. --JaapBoBo 17:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel a little sheepish for asking this, but we've been arguing so passionately that I forgot exactly what we were arguing about. Would somebody please write on this talk page in this section exactly what is being requested to be added? I'm not asking for a description of the information, but the exact disputed passage accurate to the letter. Thank you. --GHcool 18:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm cool with including Finklesein. But, like GHcool, I think that we should be consistent. If we include Finklestein, there should be no one questioning the reliability of pro-EoF, anti-transfer or other similar sources. You can't hold both sides of the same long stick: either we include questionable sources or we don't. Take your pick and stick to it. Either way is fine with me. Screen stalker 21:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

We should be consistent and we shouldn't include questionable sources. This means that we should give both sides equal standards. Right now the standards for pro-Israeli pov's seem to be much lower. E.g. Schechtman's book is not reliable and GHCool has no evidence at all that Finkelstein is unreliable. Yet Schechtman is in and Finkelstein is out. --JaapBoBo 22:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the disputed quote, Finkelstein's comments on the transfer principle: Furthermore Finkelstein argues that transferist thinking is close to the core of Zionist thinking. According to Finkelstein Zionism claims for the Jews a prevalent right to Israel, their historical homeland, and accedes the Arabs only rights as incidental residents.. He writes: 'the mainstream Zionist movement never doubted its 'historical right' to impose a Jewish state through the 'Right of Return' on the indigenous Arab population of Palestine.' and 'Zionism's claim to the whole of Palestine ... called into question any Arab presence in Palestine.' --JaapBoBo 22:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Since we all seem to agree to apply wikipedia policy I'd like GHCool's arguments as to why Finkelstein's quote should not be in the article according to this policy. Right now, as PR also asserted, GHCool has not given anywhere-near convincing arguments. --JaapBoBo 22:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Discredited authors/historians/sources

• • • Retrieved from archive, evidence presented 24th Sept 2007. I have carried over some comments, leaving out none of signifcance that I can tell.
    • Question as at 28th Dec - can someone explain why Katz and Schechtman are still in the article, but Finkelstein is not?

Three authors/historians/sources are in the frame to be rejected as "unfit" to be quoted in this article. I've attempted to rate the claims with a "+1", "0" or "-1" in the last column. This is a work in progress, if you have evidence against Finkelstein or in favour of Katz or Schechtman, or feel I've mis-marked some items, then please put it in/correct it.

Author	Accusation made against them	Reporting source(s)	Notes	+ or -
Finkelstein, Norman	Poor work	??	(No information - one sacking due to outside pressure).	0
	Making accusations	??	Alan Dershowitz accused of mis-using citations - Finkelstein must have part of a point since the Dershowitz practise would not meet our Wikipedia citation guideline.	+0.5
	Making accusations	??	Alan Dershowitz accused of plagiarism - withdrawn from print but not retracted (?).	0
	Making accusations	??	Alan Dershowitz accused of using very unreliable sources - Finkelstein likely proven correct.	+1
	Making accusations	??	Joan Peters - multiple flaws, Finkelstein likely proven correct.	+1
Schechtman, Joseph	Falsification		Book 'The Arab Refugee Problem' "Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands."	-1
	Falsification	??	Historians like Khalidi, Gelber and Morris have found that the "Arab evacuation orders" story is false and most probably constructed by Schechtman himself.	-1
	Incitement against ethnicities		Book 'The Arab Refugee Problem' "Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands." and labelling the entire Palestinian people as suffering from "Fear Psychosis" - disease of the mind.	-1
	Conflict of interest	??	Schechtman wrote a report arguing for compulsory transfer of the Arab population (which he doesn't mention in his books).	-1
	Conflict of interest	??	Schechtman is alleged to have invented the EoF with 2 pamphlets written in 1949.	-1
	Non-academic		No dispute	-1
Katz, Shmuel	Non-historical writing.		From 'Battleground' - "The economic interest of the individual Arab in the perpetuation of the refugee problem and of his free keep is backed by the accumulating vested interest of UNRWA itself to keep itself in being and to expand." "	-1
	Other unscholarly behaviour	Propagandist	From the the Shmuel Katz WP article - "he was one of the seven members of the high command of the Irgun, as well as a spokesman of the organization."	-1
	Non-academic		No dispute	-1

I see big differences between these guys as regards their credentials and credibility. Only one of them is an academic, and the "reliability/scholarship" accusations against the others are of significance and credibility. PR^talk) 19:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I refuse to play this game. Reliability cannot be measured and analyzed by statistics in the way that baseball can. PalestineRemembered is being childish. --GHcool 19:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I see multiple reasons for thinking that Schechtman and Katz are dubious historians, with personal records linked to violence (and/or ethnic cleansing), writing in totally non-RS fashion and (in Schechtmans case) guilty of cheating and outright incitement of racist hatred. Neither of them are academics.

Meanwhile, despite determined efforts (even in here) to peronally abuse Finkelstein, I see nothing like that about him, and as best I can tell comes out very well from each of his notable bust-ups. And is clearly "a scholar", as what we should be referencing in articles. Hence, I propose we quote from Finkelstein, but not from Schechtman or Katz. PR^talk 14:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Descriptions of the exodus as caused by ethnic cleansing"

This section is so clearly intended to smear the Yishuv that it's not even funny. Describing the exodus as ethnic cleansing does not clarify what caused it. What would one imply if one said that the Palestinian exodus was caused by ethnic cleansing? Note: I am not saying this is the case; I am merely giving a hypothetical. One would mean that its inhabitants were expelled, intimidated into flight, massacred, persecuted, uprooted and mistreated to the point of being compelled to flee. All of these explanations are already in the article as possibilities. This section offers absolutely no new explanation, only a conclusion of what all these explanations mean. This is synthesis of material and is intended to deduce a POV, rather than inform the reader.

That is why I have removed this section.

I will also note that since this section was not added with consensus, it will require a consensus to add it, not to remove it. Screen stalker 18:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure it is a good idea. :-(

Again, I suggest we stop editing this article and ask a administrator to block this during the time we work on its evolution.

Editing this and arguing with others'edits is just waste of time and energy and will upset everybody.

Alithien 19:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

While I probably wouldn't have removed the section wholesale, I agree with Screen stalker to the extent that there is a huge difference between a cause of an event and a description of an event. To put it in a less emotionally charged context, I can say that a hitting billiard ball with pool cue caused a chain reaction leading to a scattering of the other billiard balls on the pool table, but describing the scattering would be irrelevant to a discussion of what caused the scattering. --GHcool 22:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Screenstalker, you are right when you say One would mean that its inhabitants were expelled, intimidated into flight, massacred, persecuted, uprooted and mistreated to the point of being compelled to flee., because this is exactly what people like Khalidi and Pappe mean.

The section should remain, because it describes the events that caused the exodus in another way than they are described by Morris and Gelber. This pov is just as valid as that of Morris and Gelber.

If you don't agree with the title of the section you are welcome to suggest alternatives. But, as you formulated the meaning of the term 'ethnic cleansing' so well, it does say a lot about the causes as it reveals an intention on the side of the perpetrator.

Also the Ýishuv aims should stay. What is a 'Master Plan' without an aim? If Pappé finds this (part of) a valid argument to explain the causes of the exodus, who are you to remove it?

--JaapBoBo 23:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo, you are opening a Pandora's box. If every cause that may have led the Yishuv to allegedly foster an exodus is on the table, that the ethnic cleasing of Jews by Arabs must be allowed as well.

Also, JaapBoBo, please review my comment regarding the Causes of the Great Depression in the discussion about Yishuv aims.

GHcool, thank you for articulating this issue so well. I did not want to delete this section in wholesale. Last time, I simply moved it around, by my edit was reverted and so I didn't want to go through that trouble again just to be reverted again.

One more thing... It's not the title of the section that I object to, but inserting a description of the exodus (and a poor one at that) in an article that is about its causes. Screen stalker 12:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think you are discussing about an issue that will be automatically solved if we find the appropriate structure for this article ?

More, if I am right, the material you discuss (about description as ethnic cleansing) is in none of the structures suggested but will be apart "only" of a paragraph. Alithien 13:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Alithien, I must confess that I have not yet read the discussion regarding the redivision of the article. But no matter how this article will be divided, there will always be a dispute over its content. In this particular case, there will be a dispute between those who want to insert conclusions as to the nature of the exodus and those who want to keep the article topical to the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. Screen stalker 20:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, since we don't have consensus, let's continue discussion before adding in this section. Screen stalker 21:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The only real objection I can see to using "ethnic cleansing" as a description of this event is that the phrase was first used in the 1990s in reference to Bosnia. However, I'd personally prefer to carry on calling it "transfer" when refering to Israel, since it's a current topic and that's how modern day Israelis speak of it when they say they want more.

I see only the same, fairly minor, objection to calling the loss of nearly all ME Jews as "ethnic cleansing". But it hardly belongs in this article, and in places such as Morocco and Iraq it was largely carried out by supporters of Israel (or, I should say, lots of good evidence from Israeli or Israeli-supporting sources to say this). PR^talk 09:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't really buy that Israel's supporters caused Arab Jews to flee Arab lands, do you?

Also, I'm not really talking about that ethnic cleansing, but about the ethnic cleansing of Jews within Palestine/Israel. Surely this brutal butchering and carnage was a cause that explained certain cases of expulsion (for example, not wanting Lydda to remain behind your lines and capable of doing you a good deal of damage). All of this would have to be included if one decided to include allegations of Jewish ethnic cleansing against Palestinians. In fact, Schechtman's quotation that you so hate would have to be included as well. Screen stalker 23:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

PS - we don't have consensus on this yet, so I ask that whoever has been adding this section back please stop.

The section is long in, and you jave offered no arguments in the line of Wikipedia policy to remove it. --JaapBoBo 20:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that something strange is going on here indeed. It is certainly odd to remove well-documented sections and subsequently tell others not to put them back in before 'a consensus' is reached. Some give the impression here that they wish to remove anything which may be unpleasant for official Israel. It is understandable that fervent Israel supporters are inclined to do so, but let them please realize that many facts are given in Wikipedia which are not pleasant for fervent supporters of the Palestinian cause either. Facts are facts, and the thorough documentation given by Ilan Pappe certainly should have its place in this article. Paul kuiper NL 21:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This section wasn't long in by the time it was first removed. It is only long in if you ignore the arguments against it. You can't claim consensus for an addition when none was achieved, then require consensus for an item's removal. Add the information in some other section if you wish (as a temporary fix), but please don't add this back until we achieve consensus.

Paul, I appreciate your hypothesis, but let's talk about the real issue here: this is completely non-topical, even if it is sourced (regardless of the lack of quality of the source). Read the whole discussion, and you'll see why I object to its inclusion. Screen stalker 14:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Lets leave it as it was (i.e. in) during the discussion.

It seems that you are the only one wanting it out. What happened during the exodus falls well within the limits of ethnic cleansing, certainly according to the pov's of these sources. --JaapBoBo 23:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am a little disappointed that Screen stalker simply deleted it without suggesting a viable alternative that would be less problematic. The only section I believe should be deleted completely is the "Use of massacres" section since it is really just relaying two quotes from two relative unknowns talking about something out of context. --GHcool 05:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

These two quotes are from a reliable source (Journal of Palestine Studies) and I don't agree they are out of context. --JaapBoBo 21:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, allow me to explain why I deleted the section: the first time I edited it, I simply moved its content around. But after that was reverted, I figured that there are editors who want its content desperately enough that they will certainly figure out another place to put it.

As for the argument that this section was long in before I deleted it, consider the fact that it existed as the "Execution of Ethnic Cleansing" section for a grand total of one day before GHcool tagged it for relevance... which reminds me that I should do that before I delete it so that any revert will include that tag. From this I conclude that he does not believe it is relevant, which further strengthens my point that there is no consensus for this addition.

So, inkeeping with wikipedia policies, kindly do not add this section again until we have consensus. Screen stalker 21:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I am going to delete the "Use of Massacres" section until there is more credible evidence. I understand that people from the Center for Palestine Studies aren't just quacks, but there has to be some proof that this was the intent of the Yishuv in those instances in which it killed Palestinian civilians. Pape isn't really saying that that was the intent of the massacre at Deir Yassin. All he is saying is that it would make sense that that would have been the goal. That is hardly hard evidence.

Whether or not the Yishuv intended massacres as a way to persuade the Arabs of Israel to leave is irrelevant to the discussion as it is (because it is clear that these were a cause of fear which contributed to the flight). All the more so if there is no evidence from a source with insight into Yishuv goals which said that this was their objective. Screen stalker 21:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not only that the Yishuv (or at least the terrorist part of it) intended massacres as a way to persuade the Palestinians to leave, but also the exploitation of these massacres, by the Yishuv, in psychological warfare. Both are relevant and should be in the article.

Furthermore Flapan confirms this. --JaapBoBo 21:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

@Screen stalker, stop the vandalism, please! You are obviously removing all facts which are not welcome in your one-sided pro-Israeli view, and this amounts to political censorship. Completely at odds with Wikipedia's policies.

@JaapBoBo, I admire your well-documented work, but would it be possible for you to make more edits at the same time? Fifteen separate edits in two hours make the history of this article complicated and somewhat hard to follow. Thanks for your good work anyway! Paul kuiper NL 23:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll try next time, this time it went just this way. --JaapBoBo 23:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Paul, your string of personal attacks is not only unjustified; it is also untrue. It isn't vandalism to refuse to allow content without consensus into an article. As for your allegation that I am "obviously removing all facts which are not welcome in your one-sided pro-Israeli view," again, this is untrue. I've explained why I have removed them. Also, I'll have you know that I am not a dogmatic pro-Israeli thinker. Although, by and large, I support the idea of democracy and human rights, I am quite willing to criticize Israel. In fact, the Syrian ambassador to the US has even thanked me for my great compassion towards the Palestinians (and that is a true story).

Now I'll admit that I've been party to my fair share of negative talk on this discussion, but we really should be trying to keep negativity about other editors at a bare minimum.

I look forward to working with you in the future to make this article better and more neutral. Understand that I don't want to make this article a piece of pro-Israeli propaganda, but I cannot accept it in its current state as a paragon of Arab smear against the Yishuv. Screen stalker 13:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The argument that the 5,000 plus bytes of Pappe's scholarship which is being deleted by ScreenStalker is not relevant to this article is rather unconvincing. Is there any policy-based reason for the non-inclusion of this material? Tiamut 19:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course there isn't. Screen stalker is just deleting all facts which do not fit in with his biased political views, in obvious violation of Wikipedia policies. Thanks to Pedro Gonnet for reinstating this. Paul kuiper NL 00:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Screen stalker - while we appreciate your telling us why you want this section out, rather than simply baldly removing it, I'm afraid you've presented almost nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT for so doing. The Nakba is clearlyl treated as "ethnic cleansing" by some historians and it's effectively vandalism to take the whole lot out, regardless of the quality and relevance of writing. PR^talk 08:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Listen to yourself: the quality of the source and the relevance of the material to the article don't matter? The only thing that matters is that "some historians" treat the exodus as being "ABC". So if I created a section "descriptions of the exodus as being a divine mandate" you wouldn't remove it?

Paul, try to avoid personal assaults please. I'm very much for presenting all sides of the issue, but not every quack who said anything ever needs to be included in every article ever. This article doesn't deal with descriptions of the exodus, just with its causes. There's plenty of reasons I think this material doesn't belong here (and it isn't that I don't like it). Do you have any reason for its inclusion other than that you like what it has to say? I mean, can't we agree that it has nothing to do with the causes of the Palestinian exodus? Screen stalker (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nur Masalha

I've never heard of Nur Masalha, the new source we have in the article. A quick Google search brings up propoganda pages from PalestineRemembered.com and ElectronicIntifada.net, links to buy his book, and a very mild review from the more established historian Avi Shlaim.[1] Could somebody provide an argument here that Masalha is a credible, reliable, and notable source on the Palestinian exodus? I am not saying he isn't credible, reliable, or notable. All I'm saying is that I have never heard of him and am interested to find out more. --GHcool 05:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Masalha is the currently most recognised Palestinian scholar. He wrote a book about the transfer idea after Morris Birth and he is quoted in Morris Birth revisited. He also wrote at least one paper criticising Morris's work. I wrote read an email where Prof. Yoav Gelber, who doesn't share his mind recognized his scholarship and the interest in debatting with him. I think he is a "good" representative of the current palestinian scholars pov on the matter.

Alithien 16:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Alithien. Masalha is a conscientious academic. I think he is an Israeli Palestinian, judging by his mastery of Hebrew and his research in CZA etc... --JaapBoBo 23:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Nur Masalha is a pretty well known author (except on Wikipedia, where s/he doesn't have an article). His/her book "Expulsion of the Palestinians: the concept of "transfer" in Zionist political thought, 1882-1948" is cited 18 times according to Google Scholar. "Expulsion of the Palestinians" 7 times, "Imperial Israel and the Palestinians: The Politics of Expansion" 7 times, "A Land Without a People: Israel, Transfer and the Palestinians, 1949-96" 7 times.

H/she is far better recognised than, for comparison, Joseph Schechtman, who wrote at least 21 books, but whose histories of ethnic cleansing are the most recognised by other authors (except he uses the Israeli word "Transfer" - this being his area of professional study and interest). His top book ("European Population Transfers, 1939-1945") according to Google Scholar reaches 9 cites, and the Israel books are a long way back: "Fighter and Prophet: The Vladimir Jabotinsky Story, the Last Years." cited 3 times, "History of the Revisionist Movement" cited 2 times. It would appear his 1949 pamphlets are quoted everywhere, but his Israel-specific writings are hardly rated atall by other authors. PR^talk 14:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Checking further, I notice that Norman Finkelstein is far better regarded by fellow authors than either of them. "The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering" gets 69 cites, "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict" is cited 26 times, "A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth"is cited by 11. Even the French translation of one of his books "A indústria do Holocausto" gets cited by 6.

Under these circumstances, can someone explain to me why Schechtman is in our article, but Finkelstein is out? The extensive discussion we had only a few weeks ago makes it clear we have pretty much over-whelming consensus for including Finkelstein. I propose he be put back in forthwith. PR^talk 09:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There is currently a mediation going on about this issue. ---- GHcool (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The matter is not for mediation. With an MA from Hebrew University, Jerusalem and a doctorate from London's SOAS, Nur Masalha, now Director of the Centre for Religion and History at St. Mary's College, Surrey University, does not need arbitration by rank amateurs to obtain a warrant for inclusion here. He gets on on the strength of his international reputation and academic record, punto e basta -- Nishidani (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I meant the Finkelstein matter is currently going through mediation. I've accept Masalha as a credible source ever since Alithien's response to my question. ---- GHcool (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need for mediation on Finkelstein, since we have a big consensus in favour of including him. With 69 citations for one of his works, and much other scholarship, he's massively better respected than Schechtman - who seems to have cheated in both his research and his writing. And to be "an extremist" by the definition currently available to us in WP:RS. PR^talk 19:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Morris' material in 'Yishuv Aims'

I have a few problems with this material, Morris[15][16] disagrees and suggests that the Yishuv's actions can be explained as follows: ... ... ... would have been more than questionable. put there by Screenstalker.

1. It is much too long, giving it undue weight. I hope Screenstalker will make a synthesis.
2. Maybe part of it should be in the 'transfer idea' section, ... I think that should be considered
3. It's not from an academic source, but rather from a blog and a forum, which makes it less reliable because e.g. it is less well referenced. Probably still acceptable, I think, but with these kinds of sources one should be careful. Anyway, if this is acceptable to Screenstalker he should have no problem with the 'ethnic cleansing' quote of Morris in a Haaretz interview, which I inserted at another spot.

If Screenstalker or somebody else is not making a synthesis, I will do it at my leisure. --JaapBoBo (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Next to these I have some problems with certain specific quotes

1. In Such a haven required space in which to settle the Jewish masses and an environment free of murderous Arabs Morris is implying that all Palestinians were murderous, which is a racist statement. Furthermore this supports the fact that the Yishuv had geographic and demographic aims.
2. The Yishuv's belief that the Palestinian exodus was the only means to avert its annihilation: also supports that the Yishuv had demographic aims. It gives the Zionists an extra reason for wanting to get rid of the Palestinians.

--JaapBoBo (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo, allow me to address your points in order:

1. I agree that this section is too long. I will make it shorter, along with the "Criticisms of the "endorsement of flight" explanation" section, which is many times longer.
2. This shouldn't go in the transfer section because it isn't evidence for transfer. It is simply an explanation of why the Yishuv would have been in a position to have benefited from the exodus, not a smoking gun proving that it participated in it.
3. Unfortunately, the original report in Ha'aretz has been deleted from its internet source. We could still site it, but people wouldn't be able to verify it's existence. I have a proposal: what if we referenced the blog and the news article? That way, people could review the whole text, and also there would be a credible source.

The two specific passages:

1. I don't read this as implying that all Arabs are murderous, simply that the exodus removed murderous Arabs (i.e. those Arabs who were murderous). Even if Morris was implying what you say he was, that wouldn't merit his removal. The "Yishuv Aims" section should aspire to get down to the bottom of Yishuv aims. The Yishuv certainly recognized that it stood to benefit from the removal of "murderous Arabs," as some Yishuv leaders might have called them. So this gives us insight into the Yishuv mindset.
2. "also supports that the Yishuv had demographic aims"Wouldn't that be an example of a possible Yishuv aim? Screen stalker (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If "murderous Arabs" is not racist, may we take it that "murderous Jews" is not anti-semitic? PR^talk 18:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

@ PR, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. You can't say that Morris is a racist source but still advocate him as the most credible scholarly source for this article. Screen stalker (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what you come up with (if you don't wait too long), but be advised that these Morris quotes are a double-edged knive.

Also I really would like better sources for this pov of Morris. If this is really academic stuff he should have mentioned it in at least one of his books. I don't recall that 'Yishuv safety' was really a discussion point in the Yishuv's transfer debate, or that any Zionist leader took the Arab rhetoric he is referring to as a serious threat. My point is that if this really was a serious concern of the Yishuv at that time, than there should be evidence for this, and since Morris specialises in collecting evidence on the exodus, he should have mentioned it somewhere in one his books. On the other hand, if it merely is speculation of Morris on what might have motivated the Yishuv, then this shouldn't be in the article. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that Morris wrote about this in one of his books. I simply don't know because I haven't read them, and I don't intend to. No offense to his work or anything, but I have much better things to do. There is certainly evidence that the Yishuv leadership of the time was concerned with the possibility of being destroyed by Arab attack, as all societies fear in times of wars that threaten their exitance. If ever such a war existed, it would be Israel's war of independence. There is much evidence to this effect, but I don't see any reason why we should turn to someone other than Morris. After all, PR and Pedro have gone to great lengths to try to assert his role as the the number one source on the exodus. Whether they've succeeded or not is another question, but here I find agreement with them that he should be included. Screen stalker (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The Yishuv was seriously concerned for its own safety. The Arabs in Jerusalem (and elsewhere) were arming beginning on the day of the UN partition vote in November 1947. Shortly after, the Mufti Mohammad Amin al-Husayni and his brother Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni started organizing the Arabs in the shooks of Jerusalem and elsewhere to shoot Jews on the roads to and from Jerusalem with the intent to "strangle" the city's Jewish population. Several volunteers from other countries (notably Syria) walked hundreds of miles to join the fight. Several terrorist attacks committed by Arabs took place during this period, the most notable of which was the Ben Yehuda Street Bombing in which 52 civilians and injured 123. Obviously, there were violent actions committed by the Yishuv as well. My point is that Palestine was not a safe place for Jews or Arabs. It was a war zone and both sides had a perfectly understandable concern for their own safety. --GHcool (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

@Screenstalker: Morris is indeed an expert on the exodus. Especially on the facts, but his analysis is poor, because it has a severe pro-Israeli bias, and his 'opinion articles' are (in my view) a mess. You say There is certainly evidence that the Yishuv leadership of the time was concerned with the possibility of being destroyed by Arab attack. Well, then it should be easy for you to find a reliable source for this, e.g. Morris in a (scientific) text with references? Maybe Alithien can help you...

@GHcool: of course a war zone is not save, but were the Yishuv leaders really concerned about the extinction of the Yishuv?

--JaapBoBo (talk) 10:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo, I've explained to you why I am not going to look for this information in printed material: I just don't have the time. If someone finds printed material to this effect, they are more than welcome to add it. But, for now, I am content simply acknowledging that an author whose credentials every editor save GHcool and me (and perhaps a few more whom I cannot remember) has trumpeted as the most reliable source on the issue says they are true.

I don't like this cherry-picking of facts, where if Morris is used as a source to prove that the Yishuv did bad things then he is unbiased, but if he is used as a source defending the Yishuv then he is a biased source. How is it biased to present the facts? Every source that talks about the aims of the Yishuv is, by definition, biased. Isn't Pappe biased for saying that the Yishuv engaged in ethnic cleansing? I'll remind you that you were a big supporter of having the Yishuv Aims section. This section cannot be composed only of people looking in from the outside and hypothesizing about what the Yishuv aimed to do. There must also be sources who explain what the Yishuv may have stood to benefit from the Palestinian exodus. Screen stalker (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

@JaapBoBo: Yes. The rhetoric of the Arab leaders in Palestine and abroad was genocidal "throw the Jews into the sea" type stuff. The experience with Hitler and the Holocaust quite understandably made the Jews of the Yishuv extremely sensative to genocide speech and they took these words absolutely at face value. It has been argued that the Arab leaders did not actually mean for anyone to take their words literally. I personally don't buy this argument, but even if the argument is correct, the Zionists of 1947-1948 could not have known that the Arabs weren't serious about their self-propogated genocidal aspirations, and thus, a strong fear of a "second Holocaust" at the hands of the Arabs was present in the Yishuv. --GHcool (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

1. I have only expressed my doubts over this New Republic article as a reliable source. I haven't rejected it, but have said it should be used with caution.
2. What exactly is the point of Morris? Is he denying an ethnic cleansing, or is he justifying it? At least he seems to do the latter. About the former he says: the awful idea of transfer was resurrected and pressed by Zionist leaders [in some circumstances]
3. As it is now the relative weight given to the povs of Pappe:Flapan:Morris is 5:8:25. I think Morris pov could be shorter.

--JaapBoBo (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Okay.
2. Morris does not in this particular instance talk about ethnic cleansing, but rather about Yishuv aims. So this question is moot. I think the answer is that he does not directly say that ethnic cleansing took place, but says that it would have been justified if it had.
3. I've already cut a lot, and I'll try to cut more, but I need you to give me an estimate of how much you think needs to be cut. Also, I ran a word count in Microsoft Word: Pappe and Flapan together are given 283 words, and Morris is given 593, a little more than twice as much. Yes, this is significantly more, but it's on the same order of magnitude. Do you think this is very much off-balance? Screen stalker (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Updated Morris word count: 547. Screen stalker (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about this synthesis?

According to Morris, although the Yishuv talked about transfer it did not adopt it as its policy. In fact the Yishuv's official policy was that a Jewish majority would be achieved by massive Jewish immigration and that this would also benefit the Palestinians. The Jewish Agency called on the Arabs to desist from violence, and promised a life of beneficial co-existence. According to Morris Haganah policy until April 1948 was to remain on the defensive, to avoid hitting civilians, and generally to refrain from spreading the conflagration to parts of Palestine still untouched by warfare.

Morris says that Zionist transfer thinking was in part brought about by Palestinian expulsion rhetoric, violence and terrorism, which also caused the British to curtail Jewish immigration. According to Morris the Yishuv believed that the Palestinian exodus was the only means to avert its annihilation. The invasion by the combined armies of the Arab states on May 15 only hardened Yishuv's hearts toward the Palestinians. For the Jews, the war that the Palestinians and their Arab brothers had launched, was a matter of survival. The creation of the Palestinian refugee problem in 1948 occurred against this backdrop. The 'awful idea of transfer', was resurrected and pressed by Zionist leaders, i.e. Ben Gurion and the military staff in 1948, at moments of acute crisis, in response to Arab waves of violence that seemed to vitiate the possibility of Arab-Jewish co-existence.

I think its quite accurate, although some of Morris rhetoric is not included (e.g. some irrelevant apologetics of Irgun terrorism).

In fact Morris seems to agree with Flapan that there was no official expulsion policy, but that it was concocted by Ben Gurion and the military staff (at least Morris leaves this possibility open, hints at it, and doesn't deny it). Morris is primarily giving more justifications. Of most of these justifications I doubt whether Morris would ever publish it in a serious journal.

It's also noteworthy that Morris talks about the awful idea of transfer. I suppose he isn't referring to voluntary transfer here, but to forced transfer, i.e. ethnic cleansing. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

One could add at the end of the synthesis: 'It was only at the start of April that the Haganah changed its strategy and went over to the offensive'. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I like it. I don't think the "awful idea" thing needs to be there. The point is already made and it confuses the issue.

On a related note, I'd like the Flapan material to be converted to prose similarly to how JaapBoBo treated the Morris material. I'd also support cutting the second sentence in the first paragraph ("Territorially it aimed ...") since its relevance to the causes of the Palestinian exodus is questionable. --GHcool (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Morris uses 'awful' himself.

Putting Flapan's pov in apologetic language wouldn't be quite true to his pov.

Territory is relevant, e.g. because the offensives of Oct/Nov '48, in territory assigned to the Palestinians, increased the number of refugees with 200,000. --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I generally like the synthesis. Allow me to propose a slightly different version which incorporates a few things that I think are important;

According to Morris, although the Yishuv talked about transfer it did not adopt it as its policy. In fact the Yishuv's official policy was that a Jewish majority would be achieved by massive Jewish immigration and that this would also benefit the Palestinians, which was mostly true. The Jewish Agency called on the Arabs to desist from violence, and promised a life of beneficial co-existence, and even issued orders to secure "the full rights, needs, and freedom of the Arabs in the Hebrew state without discrimination" and to strive for "co-existence with freedom and respect." According to Morris Haganah policy until April 1948 was to remain on the defensive, to avoid hitting civilians, and generally to refrain from spreading the conflagration to parts of Palestine still untouched by warfare.

Morris says that Zionist transfer thinking was in part brought about by Palestinian expulsion mentality, violence and terrorism, which also caused the British to curtail Jewish immigration. According to Morris the Yishuv believed that the Palestinian exodus was the only means to avert its annihilation. The invasion by the combined armies of the Arab states on May 15 only hardened Yishuv's hearts toward the Palestinians, who had "summoned the invaders." For the Jews, the war that the Palestinians and their Arab brothers had launched was a matter of survival. The creation of the Palestinian refugee problem in 1948 occurred against this backdrop. The "awful idea of transfer," was resurrected and pressed by Zionist leaders, i.e. Ben Gurion and the military staff in 1948, at moments of acute crisis, in response to Arab waves of violence that seemed to vitiate the possibility of Arab-Jewish co-existence. It is for this reason that the Yishuv decided "to bar the return of those who, before becoming refugees, had attempted to destroy the Jewish state and whose continued loyalty […] would have been more than questionable."

This is probably a little long for your taste, as yours is a little short for mine. But hopefully we can use this as a springboard. Screen stalker (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd propose this:

According to Morris, although the Yishuv talked about transfer it did not adopt it as its policy. In fact the Yishuv's official policy was that a Jewish majority would be achieved by massive Jewish immigration and that this would also benefit the Palestinians, as it generally did during the Mandate. The Jewish Agency called on the Arabs to desist from violence, and promised a life of beneficial co-existence, and even issued orders to secure "the full rights, needs, and freedom of the Arabs in the Hebrew state without discrimination" and to strive for "co-existence with freedom and respect." According to Morris Haganah policy until April 1948 was to remain on the defensive, to avoid hitting civilians, and generally to refrain from spreading the conflagration to parts of Palestine still untouched by warfare.

Morris says that Zionist transfer thinking was in part brought about by Palestinian expulsion mentality, violence and terrorism, which also caused the British to curtail Jewish immigration. According to Morris the Yishuv believed that the Palestinian exodus was the only means to avert its annihilation. The invasion by the combined armies of the Arab states on May 15 only hardened Yishuv's hearts toward the Palestinians, who had "summoned the invaders." For the Jews, the war that the Palestinians and their Arab brothers had launched was a matter of survival. The creation of the Palestinian refugee problem in 1948 occurred against this backdrop. The "awful idea of transfer," was resurrected and pressed by Zionist leaders, i.e. Ben Gurion and the military staff in 1948, at moments of acute crisis, in response to Arab waves of violence that seemed to vitiate the possibility of Arab-Jewish co-existence. It is for this reason that the Yishuv decided "to bar the return of those who, before becoming refugees, had attempted to destroy the Jewish state and whose continued loyalty […] would have been more than questionable."

Maybe there should be some more quote-marks in, because many qoutes are taken literally from Morris. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies to all editors. An event of gravity has happened in my life which has agitated me greatly. For the next few days, I will try to refrain from editing, because I fear my agitation will interfere with my better judgment. Screen stalker (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for you. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo, I find your proposal quite acceptable. As soon as the article is unprotected, one of us should add it. I also agree that precise quotations from Morris should be put in quotation marks. Screen stalker (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No. I do not agree for the reasons explained just below. Ceedjee (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ceedjee, I believe this information is very important in the "Yishuv Aims" section. Without it, the whole section paints the Yishuv as having racist aims, without consideration of its most important aim--self preservation. Morris is the only source in this section (so far) which brings the Yishuv side of the discussion into the matter, and so I think it is essential that we keep him and/or add another source to the same effect. Screen stalker (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Reason for Revert

I have removed the following passage:

There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing. That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them.

I have also reinstated Morris' opposition to calling the exodus ethnic cleansing, in light of the fact that the objection to it was that this paragraph undercut it.

Here is my reasons for removal: in this paragraph, Morris does not explicitly say that the Yishuv was party to ethnic cleansing. He is very careful in his choice of words, and it is my impression that he deliberately says that if the Yishuv were engaged in ethnic cleansing, that would have been justified, without saying that the Yishuv was engaged in ethnic cleansing.

You'll notice that he says that there are circumstances that justify ethnic cleansing, and also that he prefers it to genocide. He also says it would have been necessary to uproot the 700,000 Arab of Israel, but he never says that the Yishuv uprooted them, or that uprooting them would constitute ethnic cleansing. At most, he leaves that implied for the reader to understand. So to draw from this that he is saying that ethnic cleansing took place in Palestine is synthesis. If you can find a quotation where he outright says "the 1948 exodus was ethnic cleansing," then post it, and we'll debate it. Otherwise, exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Screen stalker (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Horrible. There is hardly any other word than vandalism or political censorhip for the way you are damaging this article, and keep harassing those who are sincerely trying to give honest accounts of facts. If you have read Morris' interview with Ha'aretz quoted here, you have seen that he states bluntly that the zionists commited ethnic cleansing, uprooting 700,000 Palestinians just for the sake of establishing a Jewish state. And he does not only condone it, he says even that Ben Gurion should have gone much further and should have "carried out a full expulsion and cleansed the whole country - the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River." (I.e. he advocates robbing a people of their entire country!)

I deeply resent the disingenous way you are denying obvious facts and trying to force sincere editors to give the same sources time and again. I will not go on repeating everything time and again, but for once I will take the trouble now to quote parts of te relevant interview here:

- So when the commanders of Operation Dani are standing there and observing the long and terrible column of the 50,000 people expelled from Lod walking eastward, you stand there with them? You justify them?

M: I definitely understand them. I understand their motives. I don’t think they felt any pangs of conscience, and in their place I wouldn’t have felt pangs of conscience. Without that act, they would not have won the war and the state would not have come into being.

- You do not condemn them morally?

M: No.

- They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.

M: There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing.

- And that was the situation in 1948?

M: That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.

I will reinstate the important quote that you destroyed, and remove your completely untrue claim that Morris says that the exodus was NOT 'ethnic cleansing' (whereas he says the very opposite as you know quite well). I expect that this will be respected. Do not go on with your vandalism, and do not force us to make a request that you will be blocked! Paul kuiper NL (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Paul. --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

@ Paul, you can request that I be blocked if you want. Your threats really don't scare me. I am not engaged in vandalism, and I think you know that. If I were, I wouldn't post a "reason for revert" section. A single revert isn't even close to vandalism. When I read the interview as you post it here, I am slightly more inclined to believe that Morris implied the possibility of ethnic cleansing in Palestine. Nonetheless, he stops short of altogether acknowledging it. I will change the wording accordingly, and I hope that you will not find it too objectionable. But if you do, you can be sure we'll continue discussion.

Thank you, Paul, for working to make this article better. I certainly appreicate the contribution of all editors to an issue of such great importance.

@ JaapBoBo, I would like some clarification here: when you say that you agree with Paul, do you agree with him that this paragraph should be reinstated, or do you agree that its deletion was vandalism? Screen stalker (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, I explained my reason for changing the wording poorly last time, as Paul has changed it back. Here is the crux of what I am saying: one might very well deduce from what Morris is saying that the Yishuv ethnically cleansed Palestine in 1948, but he never explicitly says so. So to say that "Morris calls the Palestinian exodus of 1948 an 'ethnic cleansing'" draws a conclusion from his words that isn't exactly there, which is a perfect example of synthesis.

I will say again: if you find a quotation wherein Morris acknowledges that the 1948 Palestinian exodus was a case of ethnic cleansing in so many words, then we can go ahead and discuss it. Until then, all we have is the interviewer saying that the Yishuv engaged in ethnic cleansing, and Morris saying ethnic cleansing is sometimes justified. So he's responding to an accusation, not acknowledging it.

But maybe I'm overlooking something in here. Could someone please tell me specifically in what part of the interview Morris calls the exodus ethnic cleansing? Screen stalker (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried an interim solution whereby no preface to Morris' words is given, so that the reader may on his/her own decide what they mean. I agree with Pedro, who reverted this suggested solution, that compromise is not a valid way of writing articles (rather, the aim should always be to make the article the best we can make it). But I think this solution would be adequate at least during the course of this discussion, not because it is a compromise, but because it simply takes Morris' words at face value. We cannot agree as to what he means, so clearly this shows there is some room for discussion. If there is some room for discussion, perhaps we should not rush into concluding what he means, but rather talk it out.

Meantime, I will reiterate a question that I think is crucially important if this article is to say that Morris called the exodus "ethnic cleansing": where in this passage does he explicitly call it that? Throughout the paragraph he says that ethnic cleansing is sometimes justified and that it was necessary to uproot the Palestinians. He even says it was necessary to cleanse the Palestinians. But does he ever say that they were cleansed? There is a distinct difference between the two, and to conclude the latter from the former is clearly synthesis.

So I will say once more, because I have apparently not been sufficiently clear the first few times that I asked this. Maybe I am just careless in my reading of the passage, but I have found no part of the passage that explicitly calls the exodus "ethnic cleansing." So if someone who has found one could please help me find it as well, so that I can see why you believe Morris is herein calling the exodus ethnic cleansing, please point that portion out to me, along with a clarification (if necessary). If you need to find another quotation of his not from this interview, that's fine, too. We might consider quoting that in the article instead. And, just to clarify again (because I get the feeling that maybe I haven't made this clear enough) saying that ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians--or ethnic cleansing in general--would have been justified or necessary or anything else for that matter is not the same as saying it took place, just as saying "sometimes it is necessary to steal for your livelihood" is not an acknowledgment of theft.

So, one last time, just so I am crystal clear:

Where in the passage that appears earlier in the discussion does Morris explicitly say that the 1948 Palestinian exodus was ethnic cleansing?

I think it's fair to expect the other editors involved in this dispute to answer this question before they add the section in question back. Until the boxed question is answered to my satisfaction, I will be unconvinced that it indeed belongs in the article. Screen stalker (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You asked me this directly on my talk page here, and I answered here. I assume you didn't like my answer, so you just ignored it? I'm kind of offended that I took the time to answer and a day later you write here as if we've all been ignoring you. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 20.11.2007 13:38

Hallo Pedro, I will repeat here what I wrote on your talk page: Thanks for your constructive work. Please note that somewhat further in the above interview Morris says explicitly 'That was the situation in 1948'. And moreover he says that he has taken the word 'cleanse' from all the 1948 documents, and that it was the word that the Zionists used themselves. In other words, he is confirming 'ethnic cleansing' by the Zionist movement as explicitly as can be, it just could not be MORE explicit. It seems pointless to try to convince our stalker as he is obviously just trolling against better knowledge. But let us not permit ourselves to get confused.

Adding to this: I suspect that the strategy of the stalker is to ask the same questions over and over again in order to force us to waste our time in answering them time and again and thus to prevent us from doing useful work. Fortunately his falsehoods are obviously transparent. Therefore I suggest that we do not keep wasting our time by being drawn into pointless repetitions, but that we will just work together in removing his countless vandalist reverts, and furthermore concentrate on doing constructive work in giving honest and neutral accounts of facts. Thanks again. Paul kuiper NL (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Pedro Gonnet, Paul kuiper NL To underline the obvious, not that it will help in your battles, in discussing Tochnit Dalet (Plan D) governing the so-called Second Wave, Morris cites that plan's specific instruction, which contains the word 'cleanse' of clearing villages of their populations by expulsion, unless they (the villages) were to be destroyed.

In the conquest of villages in your area, you will determine - whether to cleanse or destroy them - in consultation with your Arab affairs advisers and HIS officers.'B Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited Cambridge UP, 2004 p.165

It is Morris' view that this was neither understood nor used by senior field officers as a blanket instruction for expulsion. In talking round evidence like this he often blows an argument in his general theory, since we have only his word for it, and the excessive repetition of the idea that no one understood the import of such orders, or realized the implications of what they were doing, or that strategy in the field was purely tactical and unrelated to political considerations (a naive distinction - war planning is never so neat) highlights the interpretative weaknesses of an otherwise brilliant piece of archival work.Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

@ Nishidani, I have edited the appearance of your post. I hope this is alright with you. Unless Morris says right after this quotation "this was ethnic cleansing" then the conclusion you are drawing is a textbook example of synthesis, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy.

@ Paul, please stop the personal attacks against me. I don't use that kind of talk against you, so please don't use it against me. There is room for civilized disagreement.

@ Paul & Pedro: the fact that Morris does not say "wait a minute, the exodus of 1948 wasn't ethnic cleansing" after the interviewer says that it was does not mean that he agrees. It simply means he is not refuting the interviewer's argument. That is a far cry from calling the exodus "ethnic cleansing."

"That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced." This could mean that Zionism faced the choice between ethnic cleansing and genocide. It could mean Zionism faced circumstances that justified ethnic cleansing. It could mean any number of things other than what you draw from it, so it isn't at all an acknowledgment of ethnic cleansing.

If you want to avoid "pointless repetitions," be my guest. But its your responsibility as an editor to address concerns regarding the article, and if you don't involve yourself in the debate, then your point rightly deserves to be left out of the discussion.

Two last things (for now, of course): (1) I don't see why you are objecting to the interim proposal that we can consider while we discuss. What is wrong with saying "According to Morris:"? Isn't that a true statement? (2) If the meaning of Morris' words is as clear-cut as you say it is, why not simply quote it as "According to Morris:"? If, as you say, there is no question as to what he means and only a propagandist would think otherwise, why do you fear to simply refer to it without extrapolating a conclusion from it? Screen stalker (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Screen stalker What you say is nonsense, but that won't deter you. If Jewish documents of the period refer in Hebrew to 'cleansing' of a people (Palestinians) that entitles later historians to employ the word 'ethnic cleansing'. For the contemporary phrase corresponds to the language of the original documents. This is especially true of the present instance, where Morris is on record as referring, and he is our authority, to those events as an example of 'ethnic cleansing'. The synthesis is by Morris, by no one else, and is based on original documents. Morris's synthesis affords us a RS of a secondary kind, backed by specific primary documents. All we are supposed to do here is record the state of the play, and not interfere with the historical record by using cunctatorial tactics to weary those who are familiar, unlike yourself, with it.Nishidani (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani, thank you very much for your valuable comments.

Just for the record: this stalker's vandalist revert of today 14:25 was the SEVENTH time he destroyed the obviously correct statement in this article that Morris confirms the ethnic cleansing that took place. He seems to enjoy it. Paul kuiper NL (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There are several editors around here who appear to take on the function of 'stirrers', i.e., people who know little of the subject, harass the pages, attempt to engage other editors in wars and abusive exchanges, so that arbitration disputes can be raised, sanctions for revert-warring imposed etc. Most of what they argue or say is pure jabberwocky, as one of them with an egregious record for this tactical fouling of wiki put it the other day. Some of them work in tag-team efforts, evidently organized via email. It's quite interesting to observe. One has to deal with them mechanically, and wait for serious editors, with intelligent, and intelligible objections, to come along. It's rather like correcting undergraduate papers with high school illiterate knowalls kibitzing over one's shoulder and trying to red pencil the corrections. They may annoy at times, but, taken in a comic spirit, it can enliven the boredom of factual redress of topics. The one rule is not to take them seriously. Nishidani (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

@ Paul, first and foremost, allow me to clarify to you that my intentions in editing this article are anything but vandalistic. They are to make the article better. Now, you and I have a difference of opinion as to what makes an article better, but that's okay. We're allowed to disagree. I just ask that you respect the fact that I have a different opinion, rather than saying that my intent is to vandalize. I guess if you don't want to do that, that's fine, but I really don't find your tone even the slightest bit respectful.

There is nothing wrong with reverting an edit, even reverting it seven times. If you find anything in my behaviour objectionable, please feel free to report me for whatever violation of wikipedia policy you see fit. At that point, we will at least know for sure whether I have in fact violated any wikipedia policy.

At any rate, I am sure that you, like me, are just trying to make this article the best you can make it. So I hope to find a reasonable solution to this dispute in the near future.

@ Nishidani, please be so kind as to clarify: are you referring to me when you speak of "several editors around here"? As always, thank you for your contribution to wikipedia. You make it a richer place.

@ everyone, there are still three problems with including the text in question, at the very least while we discuss:

1. I have seen no quotation from Morris in which he calls the exodus "ethnic cleansing." There are a few things that other editors have tried to portray as such:
   1. He quotes another source which uses the word "cleansing," but there are a few problems with that:
      1. The term is probably used in translation, so we really can't deduce what it actually means.
      2. Morris is quoting someone else as saying this; Morris is not the one saying that the exodus was ethnic cleansing.
   2. He says "That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced." I've addressed this above, and have yet to have heard refutation of my argument.
   3. He does not argue with the interviewer when the latter says that the exodus was ethnic cleansing. Again, I responded to this above, and have not seen a response.
2. If the meaning of what Morris is saying is blatantly obvious in implying ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians--which you say it is--why do you need to spell that out for the reader?
3. Can't we agree that "According to Morris:" is a true and neutral statement? If we can agree to that, then surely we can at least agree that it is a good statement to use while we discuss? Screen stalker (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

We could write: Morris talked about the Palestinian exodus of 1948 as an 'ethnic cleansing' , instead of: Also Morris calls the Palestinian exodus of 1948 an 'ethnic cleansing' . --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

How about Morris discussed the term 'ethnic cleansing' in relation to the Palestinian exodus of 1948. --GHcool (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

► Completely unacceptable. Obviously, Morris is not just discussing ethnic cleansing, he says there was ethnic cleansing, it was called cleansing at that time already by the leading Zionists, the word was used in all 1948 documents, the cleansing was justified because it was necessary for establishing a Jewish state, and even: the one mistake Ben Gurion made was that he did not CLEANSE the whole country and expel all Palestinians from their country: "But my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleansed the whole country - the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If he had carried out a full expulsion - rather than a partial one - he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations."

This could not be MORE clear. Please, let us stop this nonsensical discussion, there is nothing wrong with the current version, and anyhing else would be plain falsification. I am glad that the page is protected now. We note the apologies by the stalker hereunder, let us hope that he is sincere and that he stops his harrassment. Paul kuiper NL (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies to all editors. An event of gravity has happened in my life which has agitated me greatly. For the next few days, I will try to refrain from editing, because I fear my agitation will interfere with my better judgment. Screen stalker (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Paul kuiper NL, I follow your argument, but I think you are overreacting and on the border of incivility. I am saddened by your tone which leads me to fear that my good faith attempts at a compromise is falling on deaf ears. My suggestion is not, "completely unacceptable." I did not distort Morris's words or take them out of context. I simply phrased it in a more neutral way. To my knowledge, Morris never said that the Palestinian exodus was a case of ethnic cleansing in the way that Pappe does. On the other hand, Morris does not deny that a meaningful discussion of the Palestinian exodus as an ethnic cleansing cannot take place as some of Morris's opponents (most notably Efraim Karsh) does. The way I read the quotation, Morris is neither affirming nor denying the "ethnic cleansing" theories of Pappe and Khalidi, but rather, discussing the "ethnic cleansing" idea from his own point of view consistent with his "transfer" theory. My phrasing is reflects this. --GHcool (talk) 06:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Overreactiong on the border of uncivility...

He should be blocked and we should stop answering him.

Ceedjee (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep our heads cool. Paul is only giving his opinion.

What's wrong with 'Morris talked about the Palestinian exodus of 1948 as an 'ethnic cleansing' '? I think its more accurate than GHcool's proposal. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There isn't really anything wrong with JaapBoBo's phrasing, but he is wrong when he says that my phrasing is less accurate. Mine is more accurate and more neutral. --GHcool (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo proposes: Morris talked about the Palestinian exodus of 1948 as an 'ethnic cleansing

GHCool proposes: Morris discussed the term 'ethnic cleansing' in relation to the Palestinian exodus of 1948

Actually both statements are true. But the first statement says more, it says what GHcool says, i.e. that Morris talked about ethnic cleansing in relation to the exodus, but it also says that Morris talked about the exodus as an ethnic cleansing. I prefer the statement which is accurate and says more. --JaapBoBo (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

@ GHcool: I appreciate your desire to bring about compromise between editors. It shows a good deal of maturity and neutrality on your part. But articles should not be written with compromises; all editors should unapologetically try to write the best article they can. This, of course, does not mean ignoring all the other editors, but it certainly doesn't mean compromise.

@ JaapBoBo, thank you for your sympathy for my absence. Fortunately, nothing extraordinarily awful happened. It was just very frustrating.

I think the discussion that has taken place here has shown that Morris' words are at the very least open to interpretation. It is not clear cut and obvious that he is calling the Palestinian exodus ethnic cleansing. If it were, this discussion would have long-since been over. That is why I suggest simply saying "According to Morris:" as a temporary solution, so that we can have the most neutral wording possible while we discuss his meaning of what he says. Screen stalker (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No. It is no subject to interpretation.

You just have to read his other works to realize this.

Particularly if it is to create such sentences as "According to Finkelstein, Pappé and Morris, the exodus was called an ethnic cleansing". Enough is enough. This is an encyclopaedia.

You can propose whatever you like.
Morris said in an interview that operation Dani and operation Hiram were ethnic cleansing.
No more, no less.
Ceedjee (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo and I agree that Morris discussed the term 'ethnic cleansing' in relation to the Palestinian exodus of 1948, and I can follow his argument that Morris talked about the Palestinian exodus of 1948 as an 'ethnic cleansing. We even agree that JaapBoBo's proposal "says more" than my proposal. Where we disagree is which is whether the more that is being said accurately and neutrally describes what Morris's statement. I say that mine is at least as accurate and much more neutral because although the statement is open to JaapBoBo's interpretation, it does not necessarily follow that discussing a discussion of a term in relation to an event is tantamount to applying the term to the event.

I agree with Screen stalker's assertion that "editors should unapologetically try to write the best article they can," but disagree with him that editors should not be open to compromise on a rather minor issue like this one. Speaking of Screen stalker, I fail to see why "According to Morris" is objectionable. Is the summary of the quotation really that necessary before the quotation is printed in full? --GHcool (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong because you didn't know the topic.

JaapBoBo writes this to pov-push Pappe's theory.

What Morris says in the interview of Ha'aretz concerns Dani and Hiram operations. Just read this.

Morris published in 2003 the Birth of the Palestinian refugee problem revisited where all this is explained.

Ceedjee (talk) 10:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

CeedjeeNow you are reading something in Morris words which isn't there. It might be that Gelber has said that those two operations were ethnic cleansing, but Morris didn't limit it to that. --JaapBoBo (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact, Gelber never used these words I think.

And as shown on different talk pages (and here below too) he limited this to both these operations.

You have read the Birth (...) revisited so you are aware of this.

Ceedjee (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo, I don't push anything. I am not used to this. On the contrary as you. I don't read anything particular; I just do not manipulate Morris words as you do. We are talking about Morris, not Gelber. In the interview, he refert very clearly to Dani and Hiram operations. Just give the complete quotes where he refers to ethnic cleansing. (in fact, it is not written by him but by the journalist who made the interview). In the Birth revisited he says the same but he is more carefull. In all his publications too. We don't have to mind about the truth or not of what he said but at least not manipulating what he said is the minimum. So, it is out of question to see any quote that would claim Morris thinks, says, considers that the 1948 exodus was an ethnic cleansing when his thesis is that it is a result of war and not design. Ceedjee (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ceejee, I changed the indentation on your last posting. I hope that is alright. I must confess that I am a little confused about your position on this matter. Do you believe that Morris should be altogether removed from the "Descriptions of the Exodus as Ethnic Cleansing" section, or do you only advocate removing certain references to him. If so, which ones?

Myself, I agree with you that Morris deliberately refrains from calling the exodus ethnic cleansing. But he is quite crafty in saying that ethnic cleansing would have been justified if it had taken place. I think this belongs in the section, because it shows that ethnic cleansing did not take place. Rather, this evidence indicated that the Yishuv acted in self defense. Screen stalker (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Screen stalker,

Maybe there are confusions between us but not with JaapBoBo.

I am sure that :

• Morris considers the exodus was [globally] made by war not by design
• in the interview of Ha'aretz Morris says that Operation Dani and operation Hiram (after July 1948) were acts of ethnic cleansing (see the interview in Ha'aretz)
• Morris considers that an ethnic cleansing is better than a genocide (which is relevant concerning Benny Morris but not for that article).

JaapBoBo claims that Morris says the [full] exodus can be called an ethnic cleansing.

I don't mind what Morris say but it is not acceptable to manipulate his writings. Enough has been done in this article up to now in that sense.

If somebody can find back the right of answer published by Morris after this interview, that could be interesting. I remind this is not Morris who writes but Shavit.

Ceedjee (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have found no mention of Operation Danny or Operation Hiram in the article. Could you please point me towards where they appear? Screen stalker (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Shavit : What you are telling me here, as though by the way, is that in Operation Hiram there was a comprehensive and explicit expulsion order. Is that right?

Morris : Yes. One of the revelations in the book is that on October 31, 1948, the commander of the Northern Front, Moshe Carmel, issued an order in writing to his units to expedite the removal of the Arab population. Carmel took this action immediately after a visit by Ben-Gurion to the Northern Command in Nazareth. There is no doubt in my mind that this order originated with Ben-Gurion. Just as the expulsion order for the city of Lod, which was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, was issued immediately after Ben-Gurion visited the headquarters of Operation Dani [July 1948].

(...)

Shavit : So when the commanders of Operation Dani are standing there and observing the long and terrible column of the 50,000 people expelled from Lod walking eastward, you stand there with them? You justify them?

Morris : I definitely understand them. I understand their motives. I don’t think they felt any pangs of conscience, and in their place I wouldn’t have felt pangs of conscience. Without that act, they would not have won the war and the state would not have come into being.

Shavit : You do not condemn them morally?

Morris : No.

Shavit : They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.

Morris : There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing.

And note he doesn't say that Operation Dani and Operation Hiram were ethnic cleansing. He said Ben Gurion issued order during the operation to expel Palestinians.

[2]

Ceedjee (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

See the last paragraph currently in the section ethnic cleansing of the article : [3]. Ceedjee (talk) 08:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Cedjee. I think I understand your position better now (although I might still be mistaken). I take it from your next-to-last post (he doesn't say that Operation Dani and Operation Hiram were ethnic cleansing) that we agree that Morris does not say that Operation Dani and Operation Hiram were ethnic cleansing.

As for the last paragraph in the "Descriptions of the Exodus as Ethnic Cleansing" section, Morris never therein refers to the exodus as ethnic cleansing. It is clear that his wording deliberately avoids saying that blatantly. The crux of what we have been discussing in this section is whether or not the article should introduce Morris' words as concluding that the exodus was ethnic cleansing. What do you think about the preface to the Morris quotation? Screen stalker (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This is what have been discussed. JaapBoBo copied pasted in different articles that Morris Finkelstein and Pappe called the whole exodus and ethnic cleansing.

I think we should not talk about this before we find the answer Morris published after this interview.

I didn't find it back and unfortunately after I wrote to Benny Morris (for different matters) he didn't answer to that question (he doesn't have time for such stuff).

But, with wp:policy, you can write what you like but only if this is true information and not fabricated as currently in the article concerning this matter of Morris and ethnic cleansing. Ceedjee (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think WP policy would allow you to write anything you want, provided that it is true. For example, you shouldn't enter "one plus one equals two" into this article. While a true statement, this isn't relevant.

Likewise, you shouldn't enter "Morris says that the Yishuv expelled Palestinians. According to Pappe's definition, this constitutes ethnic cleansing." This would be synthesis. One has to include information that is (a) true, (b) relevant, and (c) used in the precise content and spirit in which it was said. The way the article currently quotes Morris is none of the above.

I agree that we should try to find Morris' response. I think that, unless we find otherwise in the response, we should not say that Morris called the exodus ethnic cleansing. Screen stalker (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This looks very much like nit-picking, Morris either says, or agrees, that what happened was ethnic cleansing, and some straight-forward reference to this belongs in the article.

Actually, I'm still waiting for you to answer the question I asked you some while ago "If "murderous Arabs" is not racist, may we take it that "murderous Jews" is not anti-semitic?" PR^talk 22:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right; I forgot to answer that question. My answer is this: if you are talking about a group of murderous Jews, it is not anti-semitic to call them murderous. If you say that a Jew is murderous by virtue of the fact that s/he is a Jew, that is anti-semitic.

If this is, as you say, nit-picking, why do you object so strongly to using more neutral language?

How would you feel about replacing the sentence in question with "When an interviewer asserted that Jewish forces in Palestine engaged in ethnic cleasing, Morris responded that: ..."? Screen stalker (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Having seen no objections, I will post this in the article. If you object, feel free to revert, and we will continue discussion. Screen stalker (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation on Finkelstein is degenerating

As we all know, there is a mediation going on over this "Causes" article. I am very concerned that one of the two parties wishes the mediation to go into closed session - I find it difficult to understand how the rest of us are supposed to accept the result if we cannot see what's going on.

Furthermore, if the aim of the mediation is to improve the article, it must be right that others have the opportunity of some limited input. Not with "interference" at the mediation page (though there have been non-party edits there, which I've removed), but by drawing the mediators attention to factors that the parties may not have noticed, or potentially dubious tactics which parties to the mediation will be reluctant to refer to. After all - if we don't trust the mediator to process and/or ignore such uninvited input, then it's hard to see how we can have any confidence in him carrying out the process properly in the first place. Surely, the modest on-wiki contributions such as we've seen must be much better than alternative, secret, off-wiki contributions?

I don't know whether to contact the 6 other editors known to have an expressed an opinion one way or the other on this matter in the past, but I would invite all present now to consider what they think of secret mediation, and perhaps declare how they hoped and wished the matter to be resolved. PR^talk 19:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, you are making a mistake. Please immediately refrain from trying to influence the mediation. --GHcool (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think GHcoo, the mediator and me can handle this. Any suggestions can be done on my or GHcool's talk page. thx| --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the mediator and wp consider others cannot interfere.

That just means that if we don't agree with the result of the mediation, we can ask for another mediation just after this one.

Ceedjee (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I think it would be tragic indeed if this mediation didn't progress the discussion of what are "reliable sources" and what are not, and produce a decision that will guide us in future. However, in order for this to be the case, it is of the first importance that the current mediation be carried out in public. PR^talk 21:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Mediation between two individuals cannot decide what are "reliable sources" for all of Wikipedia. David Sher (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, mediation cannot provide a useful result if we treat this exercise as a medieval "dual between champions", from which further scholarly contributions are barred.

However, if we treat the two protagonists as our "barristers", presenting cases on behalf of all of us, then it becomes something much closer to a court of law, in which the decision reached is binding, both on the parties, and on subsequent examination of similar facts.

Despite the comments made about my "interference", the record shows that I posted nothing into the mediation, only acting to (apologetically) remove the intrusive edits of others. It would be bizarre indeed if allies of one party brought the mediation to a shuddering halt (or forced it into a secret hearing) by interfering - anyone might think that one party's case was being comprehensively demolished and partisans were making an attempt to cover up this fact. Mind you, anyone trying to follow the mediation so far would be astounded to discover that (if I have this right) the whole thing has been over-sighted, as if to conceal the very, very flimsy case that's been made so far by one of the parties. PR^talk 23:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a mediation between two people, run by a third person. We have no idea what the expertise of any of these individuals is. It doesn't make decisions for all of Wikipedia. Period. And must every comment you make be some sort of political speech, insulting anyone you disagree with? Do we all really need to read snide insinuations about people who have views that differ from your own? "anyone might think that one party's case was being comprehensively demolished and partisans were making an attempt to cover up this fact" - honestly, I think you have mistaken this page for some sort of blog, where anonymous partisans snipe at each other making ever more outrageous statements! There must be some rule against this. David Sher (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a some rule against it and it is called WP:Soapbox. I had the same feeling going into this mediation that PalestineRemembered had, namely, that we were the two "barristers" presenting our case and coming to some sort of agreement that would be binding on how to proceed in handling this specific issue in this specific article. I feel we can make, and have made in the past, certain clarifications in how we interpret the general Wikipedia guidelines due to the controversial nature of this article. The Finkelstein issue is unique enough and vague enough that it entitles some form of clarification that should be binding on all parties. This is the goal that JaapBoBo and I are trying to achieve through mediation. If the mediation is, in the words of PalestineRemembered, a "duel between champions" that has no bearing on how we will continue editing this article, then I will agree with PalestineRemembered and consider the mediation a colossal waste of everybody's time and energy. I invite criticisms and suggestions on my talk page and JaapBoBo already said he invited the same on his talk page, but trying to influence the impartial mediator is absolutely unacceptable to all involved in the mediation and to suggest that the mediation is non-binding makes me suspicious of what the purpose of the mediation truly is. --GHcool (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou. Having watched this article and this issue over many months, I have no doubt that we have the two best qualified individuals putting each side of the case, so there is no reason for non-party editors to contribute to the mediation page. Such contribution would be inadvisable (and likely improper) in almost any case.

However, I already had serious concerns at what happened (for an astonishing 3 months) before this mediation was started, and the extraordinarily slow progress it's made up until now. I fail to see any fundamental objection to contacting the mediator with these concerns - and I'm sure everyone here would prefer such contact be in public.

On top of these other concerns, it now appears that non-party members are threatening to reject/ignore the conclusions - and committed parties are trying to either withdraw from the mediation or render it null and void by concealing the deliberations! I trust these are not tactics to prevent this article ever being written to policy - and I trust you will publicly disavow these as legitimate objectives. PR^talk 10:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Relocation

The mediation is now relocated to private space. I'll try to get it back to public space, because many other editors are interested and because acceptance by third parties of any compromise reached by GHcool and me is gravely enhanced by discussing in it public. I hope GHcool won't object to that if PR promisses to abide by these rules (which I propose we put on the talk page of the mediation case):

To all interested parties:

• thank you for your interest
• if you have comments please don't post them on this the mediation page or on the talk page of the mediator,
• if you have comments please post them on the talk page of GHcool, JaapBoBo or the talk page 'Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus',

I hope you can all live with this. --JaapBoBo (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As to the acceptance by others of any compromise reached by GHcool and me:

• Formally nobody is bound by such a compromise
• Informally, if the mediation is going on in public, all interested parties that want to object to a proposed compromise can say so on GHcool's or my talk page. As far as I'm concerned we will take any arguments put forward by third parties into account and try to reach a more general consensus. --JaapBoBo (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The mediator in this case has requested no more direct contact by certain non-party editors to this mediation, and good-faith editors will naturally comply with this request.

However, this was a decision he could only make having seen the nature of what these individuals wanted to say - since clearly, there could be circumstances in which non-party editors had important things to be brought to his attention. Since I (and I believe all other non-party interested editors) have complete faith in the two "barristers" in this case, there should be no further need for such direct contact. PR^talk 10:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the first set of rules. The second set of rules leaves the question of the validity of the conclusion reached between the two mediators open to further discussion. I don't know how under general Wikipedia guidelines we can get everybody to comply with the compromise we two editors reach, but in order for this mediation to have any meaning at all, we cannot take the attitude that "You don't have to abide by a future compromise if you don't want to."

By analogy, imagine if the Israeli government made peace with the Palestinians, but said that the settlers of the West Bank did not have to abide by the peace plan if they didn't want to or if the PA said that the Hamas didn't have to abide by the peace plan if it didn't want to. The treaty would not be worth the paper it was written on. That seems obvious on the international scale and it should seem obvious to everybody on Wikipedia. The difference, of course, is that the Israelis and the Palestinians have police forces that would theoretically have the authority and power to enforce the decisions made by the peace treaty, whereas Wikipedia's nature is more laissez-faire. I am open to any suggestions from anybody who might know of a way to alleviate these concerns. --GHcool (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

the assumoption in any mediation is that such proceedings are of direct importance to the article; anyone who is a habitual editor should raise any objections they have while the mediation is still underway. If they do not, then of course, we cannot actually bar them from amking their own objections later; however, the response to any such objections would be expressed within the context of this mediation having already occurred. So any later objections would be of less impact proportionally, due to these arrangements and agreements already agreed upon here, it seems to me. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What you've stated is exceedingly sensible. Good faith editors will not only abide by the result of a properly concluded mediation, but will actively protect the agreement reached in future.

Good-faith editors will also, of course, not threaten to de-rail the mediation on trivial grounds outside the control of the main participants. In order to remove one such excuse that has been presented, I have agreed not to contact the mediator. I must emphasise that this is not a restriction I believe belongs in future mediations (and clearly did not apply earlier to this mediation). PR^talk 19:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Very well. I accept Sm8900's argument and appreciate PalestineRemembered's promise not to derail the mediation any further by contacting the mediator and to abide by whatever compromise I and JaapBoBo reach together. I will ask that the mediation be kept public, however, if I begin again to believe that the neutrality of the mediation is being undermined or if it appears futile because certain editors don't consider the compromise as being binding, then I will immediately discontinue my involvement in the mediation and it will fail. This is in nobody's interest and therefore I am optimistic that we can proceed without further interruptions. --GHcool (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the restriction imposed on myself (a non-party) is wholly unnecessary to the progress of the mediation, and must never be imposed on mediations in future cases. Under any normal circumstances it would be entirely proper for non-party editors to participate in existing sections on the TalkPage of the mediator - which is indeed the only thing I've ever done.

A far more important issue has been raised, however, whether or not everyone here agrees to support and defend the decision reached by this mediation. At the current time, allies of the "anti-Finkelstein" camp are threatening not to accept the result of our mediator. Their intrusive presence at this mediation (far worse than mine), all the time failing to provide any evidence for an "anti-Finkelstein" conclusion strongly suggests they've no evidence or meaningful argument to support their case. It suggests that their aim is entirely disruptive. I really feel that GHcool should be calling on his supporters to support the result of the mediation, rather than raise spurious reasons for it not to go ahead (or that it should go ahead in private, which would practically guarantee it's results to be disputed and worthless). PR^talk 20:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll say it once and I'll say it again: anybody that does not respect the mediation or its outcome for any reason no matter if you agree with my views on Finkelstein or not is condemned by me. I call on all Wikipedia editors to abide by whatever conclusion the mediation delivers even if the conclusion is unsatisfactory to you. I say this as strongly to people inside my "camp" as people outside of it. --GHcool (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

another sort of statement which might be worth adding, and which i will now add, just to provide a possible example, is this: I am a fairly habitual editor of articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I generally write from a pro-Israel perspective. Based on my experience, I consider GHcool to be a fairly credible and well-briefed editor, and I have no problem accepting any arrangements he may come to. therefore I am trying to give GHcool some consensus in advance. anyone here who feels the need to question his ability to come to some arrangement should express their concerns now, as this is a process which has some general community support.

the reason that the above statement is useful is that gradually we have been coming around to the idea of there being two communities here, each with their own legitimate concerns, and each of which should make valid efforts to accomodate the other. this differs slighly from other wikipedia articles where "objectivity" and "neutrality" is the goal. Here we have grown more accustomed to the idea that "neutrality" may be a difficult item to find or to acheieve, but we are ok with admitting that there may be two views here. Part of the reason we have done this is the fact that there is a real community of experienced editors here on both sides. So with that in mind, I would like to occasionally grant some credibility to whichever editor is speaking for my "side," and to add my support for reaching some reasonable, mutually beneficial arrangement. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No.

I don't have elected JaapBoBo or GHcool to represent me.

The fact this discussion is restricted to them means any consensus they could find only concern them.

Anyway, these consensus or compromise are not wikipedia matters. There is nowhere a question of negotiation between two communities. There is an encyclopaedia and there are facts and pov to give with due:weight. Nothing more. Ceedjee (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't feel they represent you, no problem. In that case, you may feel free to add your concerns to the mediation, and to add your own comments, either by contacting the mediator, or by expressing your concerns here, or to either party. the only point is that if we can reach some compromise in regard to the specific issues of this specific mediation, that ought to have some weight further down the road.

you are correct re NPOV. However, part of writing these entries has meant that sources which one "side" finds "fringe" may be considered entirely ok by an entire community within the other "side.". so it does not mean we are sacrificing NPOV ideas, merely that we are recognizing that there is a valid community behind each set of concerns. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I already contacted the mediator but he ignored me.

So unfortunately whatever the issue of this mediation, we don't have to feel concerned or linked to any result.

My Pov is that Finkelstein, Schechtman or Katz analysis deserve room in the article but maybe not with the same weight.

But whatever, the next work here is to finalize the structure of the article... Ceedjee (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be worth your while examining the mediation that is going on. It would appear that one party has made a whole series of statements about the scholarly Norman Finkelstein that they are wholly unable to defend, despite many opportunities and requests to do so. The mediation process is now being abused by dragging the discussion out "endlessly", while nothing worthwhile is brought to the table. This is 'wiki-lawyering' par excellence.

Note that this behaviour has being going on at least since September (and perhaps much earlier). At the beginning of October we were asked not to edit to the (overwhelming) consensus then in existence, from learned editors, for a period of 5 days. The reasons for this escaped me, but it seemed reasonable to think something new was in preparation. Needless to say, nothing was provided then.

It is now over 3 months later, a mediation has been opened, which is making no progress whatsoever, with nothing but time-wasting coming from the anti-Finkelstein camp - along with the arrival of uninvolved editors who are making it plain they'll not abide by any conclusions reached anyway.

This kind of damaging behaviour is not going un-noticed in the outside world - a comment that struck me was made at an IT based news-source: "I am not an expert - but my understanding of the Wikipedia project is that its strength comes from a vast number of people making small changes. However, the process self-selects to self-destruction - to wit, people who have lots of free time get the most power. But those people are usually the ones who are involved in order to gain personal prestige - the antithesis of Wikipedia in the first place. They're experts in the xpert-less community. So the community automatically becomes run by unstable people who care more about their personal power than the results. And this becomes impossible to stop, because reasonable people by definition will not be obsessed enough to fight the tendency. And therein lies the doom of a good idea." PR^talk 11:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)