Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Importance tags

I reverted the removal of the importance tags. I was the person to add them originally. While I accept that the Yishuv's pre-1948 goals and planning for a future autonomous Jewish state are important topics for historical analysis, I (and other here) found this topic to be highly tangential to the topic of the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. This article should be reserved for discussions of the direct and immediate causes for the exodus, not for things that may have happened decades prior to it.
This is not just an anti-Israel/pro-Israel issue of neutrality. This is an issue of does this even belong here or not. It certainly belongs somewhere, but not here. Perhaps the time has come for us all to work out what from these sections do and do not belong in the "causes of ..." article. My first suggestion would be to throw out everything that took place prior to 1947. --GHcool (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well said, GHcool. Allow me to add that I am not opposed to adding causes that are not immediate, provided that they are causes of the exodus (as opposed to explanations, discussions, analyses, articulations, descriptions, etc.) Screen stalker (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Pappe has written a book about the causes of the exodus, and he finds these elements important. Thus the inclusion is warrented by a reliable source.

We already discussed this earlier: [1]. --JaapBoBo (talk) 07:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue wasn't resolved then. Now is as good a time as any to resolve the issue, I suppose.

I have read neither "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" nor "The Palestinian Exodus of 1948," but if the titles are representative of the articles Pappe wrote, then JaapBoBo's claim that "Pappe has written a book about the causes of the exodus" is a false premise. Pappe wrote an article about the entire exodus, not just the causes of the exodus. The bits quoted from "Ethnic Cleansing" and "Palestinian Exodus" may be unrelated to the immediate causes, and in fact, they are.

Furthermore, Pappe is not the only scholar quoted in these sections. Morris and Flapan are cited with quotes tangential to the immediate causes of the exodus wrenched out of their research. --GHcool (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why we need to shove square pegs into round holes. These sections don't explain the causes of the exodus, so why do we need them in the article? Surely no one thinks this article is too short. Screen stalker (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Pappe gives the master plan as the cause of the ethnic cleansing. The "master plan" did not emerge out of a vacuum, but was related to certain Zionist aims. Also it's implementation was made easier by certain preparations the Zionists had taken. Pappe describes these as integral parts of the causes. --JaapBoBo (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

We discussed before that the whole article should be re-structured.

I felt quite lonely for that discussion.

Yishuv's aims is only part of the 1948 palestinian exodus in Pappe's theory given for the other historians, there was no aim of expulsion before July or even no aim of expulsion at all.

Ceedjee (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

@ JaapBoBo, it is one thing to make a passing reference to the fact that the Yishuv had made preparations for war, which made alleged expulsion easier. It is another thing altogether to create multiple sections devoted to this issue and to pack them full of different pieces of evidence. I would be in favor of making a short reference explaining the argument that you just made. But, as you'll notice, it only took you one paragraph to make that argument.

@ Ceedjee, I am increasingly inclined to agree with you that the article simply needs to be entirely rewritten. Unfortunately, I feel that it will be years before we get consensus for any particular format. Screen stalker (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Unfortunately. Ceedjee (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

@Ceedjee: Pappe certainly does not think that the master plan existed only in July 1948. That's your opinion.

JaapBoBo. This is not what I wrote here above.

Pappe claims the ethnic cleansing started as soos as Dec'47. It is written in chap.2.

(and I hope Pappe is proud of his students here and there)

The hypothesis of Pappe IS JUST ONE and so the article should not be structured too much around this. Yishuv's aims are only relevant in Pappe's picture.

Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

@ScreenStalker, GHcool: I don't see anything irrelevant in these section, nor something from sources that don't support the 'master plan' (except for Morris, but if I remember well that part was added by Screeenstalker). Pappe, Flapan and Walid Khalidi support the master plan. --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You forgot Finkelstein, Masalha and Vidal. But Karsh, Teveth, Gelber, Tal and Laurens, doesn't support this.

Why do you systematically forget this. You are tiring.

Ceedjee (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

@ScreenStalker: I have no experience with archiving talk pages, but could you take a look at the archive of this talk page? I believe something went wrong the last time because I don't see a fourth archive page. Thx! --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

JaapBoBo, we are aware that you think the master plan is relevant to the "causes of" article. I believe I speak for all of us here when I say that we agree with you on this point. Furthermore, I think I speak for all of us when I say that a discussion of the causes of the Palestinian exodus no longer has enough relevance for this Wikipedia article beyond a certain point in history. For most of us here, that point would be roughly around November 1947, when the UN Partition Plan was accepted and the 1948 Palestinian exodus was in the genesis of being caused. For you, JaapBoBo, that point seems to exist some time in the 1930s or even beyond, before the Palestinian exodus was even a military or political possibility.

The difference between Pappe's book and our Wikipedia article is that Pappe's book is the length of a book and our Wikipedia article is 134 kb (and should be shorter). Pappe not only has all the space he wants, he also has the liberty and obligation to give his readers his view on the entire background of the Arab-Israeli conflict. We don't have that kind of open ended liberty over space and content in this article and so we're going to have to resort to only writing about the specific topic denoted by the article's title. Thank you. --GHcool (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The main point concerning Pappe's last book in wikipedia context is that it is self-published. Ceedjee (talk) 08:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Implementation

OK. The case for trimming the tangental parts of the "Yishuv aims" and "Preparation" subsections has been firmly established. I've decided to take a crack at the implementation. Feel free to discuss here.
I deleted everything that occurred prior to 1947 and shortened some of the quotations for redundancy. I still don't think its all relevant. The unstated major premise is that the the Yishuv had the means to bring about the exodus, therefore the exodus was planned the whole time. This is an argument from final consequences and a logical fallacy, but this is a problem I have with all the "master plan" advocates and I suppose we are obligated to include all significant points of view, even if some of those points of view are severely flawed in their application of the historical method. --GHcool (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

GHcool, you never fail to impress. Screen stalker (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

@GHcool: Pappe describes the village files and the military preparation as part of the Master Plan. Your argument that everything before November 1947 is irrelevant and should be deleted is ridiculous. In the 'transfer idea' section there is also a lot of reference made to the 1930's. The war did not occur in a vacuum, and the ethnic cleansing, certainly in Pappe's pov, did not arise out of a vacuum. Your deletion of these arguments by Pappe is original research WP:OR.

The right way to improve the article and to add more of your pov is by looking for criticism in the literature and adding that. --JaapBoBo (talk) 10:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

One might add that if in speaking about 'causes' of historical events, a rule is made up that eliminates everything outside of the temporal range of a year within which the historical incident occurred, then one must just as well blank the page. Causality in historiography does not have such stringent limits, and most Wiki articles, in dealing not with causes alone, but 'background' have a much longer time scale. Nishidani (talk) 10:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone is arguing that what happened before November, 1947 is totally irrelevant, just that it plays a more minor role in understanding the events of the exodus, and thus deserves a smaller portion of the article. Screen stalker (talk) 14:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, historians divide causes into 'immediate' and 'long-term'. If I am evicted from my house for failure to pay a bank loan, the immediate cause is the failure to pay a bank loan, which says all and nothing, since perhaps the real cause for the eviction was a concatenation of events, i.e., the impact of sub-prime loan failures on general credit, the banking crisis this caused, which in turn raised the cost of loans with floating rates, the failure of Mr.Greenspan to intervene when this problem was drawn to his attention in 2000, eight years ago, and many other contingent elements, such as a divorce and alimony payments which reduced the evicted person's capital base. It depends on whether you like thumbnail or thick reportage. Thumbnail reportage tells you the facts, but leaves the causes hanging in the air, out of parsinomy, or, as here, from a generral dislike of too great a contextualization, of the kind which gives the historic background, (and it goes back to the 1890s) behind transfer thinking, which influenced two generations of Zionists profoundly. They were, after all, realists.Nishidani (talk) 14:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani makes a good point about historical analysis, but a poor point with respect to this specific issue. JaapBoBo's framing of my argument ("everything before November 1947 is irrelevant and should be deleted") is a straw man. I never said that facts occurring before a certain time are irrelevant nor have I discouraged detailed reporting of the facts.

The way I proposed we write this section and this article is to limit the discussion to what Nishidani referred to as the "immediate" causes. The "long-term" causes are dealt with in articles such as Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nishidani's example of the eviction is a good analogy. If we were writing an article on that event, we should include all the immediate causes Nishidani said, but we should not include long term causes such as the evictee's upbringing, his interpersonal relationships, and other factors that shaped his life up to the moment that he was evicted. Those events place decades before the eviction and while they have some bearing on the final result, they are in a large way tangental to it. --GHcool (talk) 17:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Then why 'causes' and not 'immediate causes'?Nishidani (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I would support such a change in the article's name if it were put on the table. --GHcool (talk) 19:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think "Immediate Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus" is a title too specific even for Wikipedia.

I am all for explaining that someone's divorce may have led to his eviction, but how many details do we really need about why his marriage failed? Screen stalker (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only details about the failed marriage, but also details about the events prior to the failed marriage to explain the eviction. We can go on and on forever explaining the cause for every effect until the Big Bang! Its much more sensible to keep this article on the topic of the causes of the Palestinian exodus than on all the causes of all the effects which together caused in the Palestinian exodus. --GHcool (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(Outdenting) According to Pappe, e.g. the village files, are an important element that enabled the Zionists to implement the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. This is the opinion of a reliable source, and therefore it should be in the article. It has nothing to do with reasons for the 'failure of the marriage'; it indicates how one of the spouses secretly prepared to kick out the other.

If anything is given undue weigth in this section its Morris' pov. It is not only long compared to the few points it makes, it is also from rather tendentious sources in which Morris describes events even more apologetic then he describes it in scholarly sources like his book 'Birth ...revisited'. --JaapBoBo (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

For Pappé, this is not just an element that enabled the Zionists to implement the alleged ethnic cleansing, that is also a proof of this because ethnic cleansing requires the intent and the existence of a file that would give the names of all villages (their weakness, their leader names, who to arrest, who is opposed to Zionism, ...) would be such (other elements put forward by Pappé are the numerous meetings between Ben Gurion and some Zionist leaders and the (well-known) Plan Daleth). So, from Pappé's point of view, this is one important argument for his analysis.

But that should not be in the context. Because this is controversed : he is the only one to consider these files as such. And so, that should be only in Pappé's analysis. Else, it is WP:PR.

The major difference between Morris and Pappé, from wikipedia point of view, is that Morris is not controversed for most of his work in the academic field while Pappé is controversed, has been banned and his last book is self-published and not peer-reviewed. Morris is accused by Finkelstein to be apologetic but next to this, he also recognizes the quality of Morris work and Morris answered him concerning this. (I point out F. comments concerns the Birth, not the Birth... revisited).

Ceedjee (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

@Ceedjee: the only thing I agree with here is that the 'village files' are an important part of Pappe's analysis.

As far as we can know these files did exist, because there is no reliable source disputing this and because Pappe gives a lot of details about them. Therefore these files are not controverial. (and I don't see what WP:PR has to do with any of this)

Pappe has not been banned, he has moved to England himself because of Israeli hostility. This has nothing to do with the quality of his work.

Furthermore Pappe's book is not 'self-published', but published by OneWorld publications. Also these books ('Birth' by Morris and 'Ethnic cleansing' by Pappe) are not "peer-reviewed" in the normal sense of that word (in the scientific literature peer review refers to a review process by peers that are selected by an independent editor and not by the author; and these peers have the power to reject an article). Pappe had his book reviewed by Masalha, C.D. Smith and others though. Morris hasn't done such a thing.

If Pappe's work really were as controversial in scholarly circles as you suggest, there surely would be more criticism of his work in the criticism of the master plan subsection. There is only one reference to him now (Gelber interprets Plan D different), which tells me that his work is not really controversial in scholarly circles, while that of Morris is. --JaapBoBo (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

These files are not part of Pappé analysis. This is Personnal Research to add them in the context. They can be explained in a Pappe's chapter.

"If Pappe's work really were as controversial in scholarly circles as you suggest, there surely would be more criticism of his work in the criticism of the master plan subsection"

LOL LOL LOL. He has been banned. He is not in the academic circle. That is why he is not answered. His book is not published in a peer-reviewed or an university publication (such as Morris or the others). If you want to change this vision for wikipedia, just find scholars who quote Pappé's last book and in that case that will be ok.

Pappe had his book reviewed by Masalha, C.D. Smith and others though.

LOL LOL LOL. reviewed by Masalha while Morris not. It seems you don't understand how a book is published in the academic world.  :-).

I am tired by your bad faith. taht is even more stupid that what wikipedia says about these event is completely irrelevant. Only Pappe and his friends believe the contrary. Ceedjee (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JaapBoBo, and dissent with my friend Ceedjee on this. The distinction he makes ignores two types of historian, the one archival, the other synthetic. Morris is a pro-Zionist, Pappe a communist, and these positions inflect their interpretations. Pappe furthermore is grounded in Arabic, Morris rarely uses those sources. To disqualify the former because of the Haifa University controversy is neither here nor there. If I recall that related to Pappe's support for a boycott of Israeli academics, based on things like the support Bar Ilan University gives to academic structures in the Occupied Territories. He left Israel of his own choice, and found a suitable academic posting in England. One naturally has one's preferences, I find both historians of great interest, as complementary. One thing Pappe has is a very deep capacity for reimagining the historical contexts, hitherto dominated within his own historiographical tradition by a Zionist outlook, from an 'Arabic' perspective, witness his long essays on al-Husayni's world. Morris has far more 'facts', as he predominantly culls them from Israeli sources, but far less a feel for the second party in the dispute. Both are 'controversial' but, at this level, controversy is more often than not, a testimony to incisive thinking or analysis, which upsets the applecarts, of respectively Zionist and Arab preconceptions. One should be neutral here and give each the reading due according to their specific work on the area under review.Nishidani (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You never wondered where Pappé found the money to publish his last book ? Look at the page quality : 15$. :-) 81.244.49.182 (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither Ceedjee nor JaapBoBo address the major problem: that this information is tangential to the topic of the causes of the exodus. Even if we all were to concede that Pappe's opinions are reliable and that his historical analysis is sound, that in and of itself would not lead us to the conclusion that the village files and other tangential topics belong in this article.

Consider this: a hypothetical reliable historian writes a book about the Palestinian exodus. In his book, he mentions that the Haganah was established to protect Jews from Palestinian Arab violence in 1920. Should we include this fact in the "causes of" article because if the Haganah's wasn't established there wouldn't have been an exodus? I say that we shouldn't include this fact because it is tangential to the topic. --GHcool (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This is tangential in the context, of course.

But that must be explained (in 2 lines) in the section relative to Pappe's analysis. Just decide where to put it yourself. From my point of view, in a trash but we don't mind my point of view. The villages files is part of Pappe's analysis and must be explained (but not detailled, of course).

Ceedjee (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In a day or two, I intend to amend this section by merging the "Yishuv aims" and "Preparation" subsections and deleting stuff that is tangental to the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. The village files are not a cause or explanation for the Palestinian exodus, and thus, they are tangental to this article. Nobody denies that the master plan hypothesis is an explanation for the exodus in some circles, but the village files are not a cause of the exodus any more than the publication of Theodore Herzl's The Jewish State is a cause of the exodus. --GHcool (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I edited the article, but decided not to merge the two subsections before gaining a consensus to do so. I kept a short statement on the "village files" with a definition of what they were and how they were used. I think this is a reasonable compromise; rather than 2 paragraphs on a tangental item to the causes of the Palestinian exodus, we have one short statement about their existence and their having been used as part of the Yishuv's military intelligence. Even this is tangental to the topic, but I understand that Pappe depends on them. --GHcool (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

GHcool: it is your opinion that this is only tangential. According to a reliable source they are central though. --JaapBoBo (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And that is why I kept a reference to the village files in the article. --GHcool (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Style

Ceedjee. I have only had time to glance at sections of this article. A considerble number of stylstic improvements are possible, and I have attempted some (none, I hiope, involving personal judgements on my part as to the narrative). However half wayt through revising the para below, I had difficulties in understanding precisely the point being made, and had to stop the edit (as it is it thus remains, at that point, clumsy). This is the relevant section.

'Globally Laurens also considers that the 'intentionnalism' thesis is untenable in the global context of the events and lack historical methodology. 'He emphasizes that if the events the 'intentionnalists' put forward are true, their analysis is based on a a priori reading of the events. To comply with such an analysis, the protagonists should have had a global consciousness of all the consequences of the project they promoted. Laurens considers that a "complot theory", on such a long time period, could not have been planned, even by a Ben Gurion. In an 'intentionalist' approach, he claims, events must be read without a priori and each action must be considered without assuming it will lead to where we know a posteriori it lead but it must be considered in its context and in taking into account where the actors thought it would lead.'

I would suggest to begin with.
(a)'Overall Laurens also regards the 'intentionnalism' thesis as untenable both when viewed in the regional framework of events and when examined for methodology, for which he faults it.

This is difficult_

(b)He insists that if the events the 'intentionnalists' put forward are true, their analysis is based on a a priori reading of the events. (could you provide me perhaps with the French original on which this is based, so that we can rephrase it?) Thanks Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Sorry lack of time.

Please, feel free to do the way you think appropriate.

Kind Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Morris on the Master Plan

These texts about Morris' view on the master plan are in the article:

'My feeling is that the transfer thinking and near-consensus that emerged in the 1930s and early 1940s was not tantamount to pre-planning and did not issue in the production of a policy or master-plan of expulsion; the Yishuv and its military forces did not enter the 1948 War, which was initiated by the Arab side, with a policy or plan for expulsion.'

'[T]he fact […] that during 1948 Ben-Gurion and most of the Yishuv's leaders wished to see as few Arabs remaining as possible, does not mean that the Yishuv adopted and implemented a policy of expulsion.'

.

Morris also states that he could not find anything in the Israeli archives that would prove the existence of a Zionist plan to expel Palestinians in 1948. To develop this theory, he considers that the papers dating from 1937 to 1947 of the majors, the colonels and the generals of 1948 such as Yigal Allon, Yitzhak Sadeh and Moshe Carmel should be particularly interesting.

Somebody wrote in front of it: "Benny Morris, in particular, disagrees with the 'Master Plan' theory."

However, Morris doesn't say here that there was no master plan. He only says that he did not find proof of it.

• The first quote refers to 'transfer thinking' before the war started. On p. 68 of 'Birth ... Revisited' he repeats the statement and he writes clearer that the start of the war was in November 1947.
• In the second quote he disqualifies Ben-Gurions wishes as proofs
• In the third quote he says that he found no proof of a master plan

Relevant here is that Morris does not write that there was not a master plan made after November 1947. He says nowhere that he disagrees with the 'master plan' theory.

So I changed the first line to: "Benny Morris, writes that he has found no proof of a 'Master Plan'.", which is the correct way to describe Morris' position. --JaapBoBo (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I won't stand in the way of this change. --GHcool (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Works for me, too. Screen stalker (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Benny Morris considers there was no master plan.

I added a quote of him. There are others. Ceedjee (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny : "the Yishuv and its military forces did not enter the 1948 War, which was initiated by the Arab side, with a policy or plan for expulsion."

Ceedjee (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV UNDUE

[2] - violation of two key policies. Zeq (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

same here: [3] - this is contradicted by Karsh. He show it clearly in Chapter 2 of "fabrication of Israel's history". Zeq (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about #3. I've been trying to delete that passage under WP:Undue weight, WP:NPOV, and irrelevance to the topic for about a week or two now, but JaapBoBo keeps putting it back in. --GHcool (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

@Zeq: Your remarks are vague. I don't understand what you mean. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I am surprized that you don't understand. Your edit violated twi key policies. You give undue wight to a quote which is not charaterstic of Hertzel and you do not NPOV it with other quotes from him on the same subject. The best is to remove this paragraph all together as it creates atotaly false impression of Herzel plans. Also when you discuss Herzel in the context of 1948 using terms of 2008 you should keep in mind that he died in 1904.... they did not have terminilog we use today, nor the same set of values. Still he wanted nothing but to help both the jews and the locals. Zeq (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this quotation. One should not use a source from before the Balfour declaration--certainly not from before WWI--to discuss the issue of ethnic tensions in Palestine. Britain's conquest of Palestine, and its agreement to divide it into a Jewish and Arab land were two events so critical in defining the relations between Jews and Arabs in Palestine that any vague formulation Herzl may or may not have had about transfer had no real impacts on the ground that affected the Palestinian exodus of 1948. Screen stalker (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

@Zeq: Sure, Herzl wanted to help the locals, .... to get out of Palestine. These quotes from Herzl are not uncharacteristic. They reflect his opinion in his diaries. He said something different in public. I don't mind when you add that if you think its necessarry for NPOV.

@Screenstalker: the subsection is about the origins of the transfer idea, surely Herzl's view is important here. around 1900 he was the most important Zionist leader. --JaapBoBo (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this subsection needs to be removed if it reaches so far back that its content has no bearing on the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. Screen stalker (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It does have. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"Palestinian Nation"

I have just noticed the following sentence at the end of the "Origins of the 'Transfer Idea'" Section:

From the beginning Zionism ignored the Palestinians as a nation but chose to see the Palestinian Arabs as part of the larger Arab nation.

I take issue with this on a number of levels:

1. "ignored the Palestinians as a nation" implies that Palestinians are a nation. Arabs are a nationality. Palestinians are a group within that nationality. The idea of a Palestinian nationality was invented in order to counter Zionism.
2. Even if they were a nation, one would have to prove that Zionists considered them a nation and ignored that consideration. Otherwise, they would not be ignoring Palestinians as a "nation," but simply be in error.
3. Even if the first two are granted, this is completely irrelevant to this article. This statement does not explain the causes of the Palestinian exodus. Maybe I'm naive, but I thought that was what this article was about.

Well, I'm sure that this comment will bring a rain of editing upon me by people who are thoroughly convinced that Palestinians are a nationality. Well, I guess I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. Screen stalker (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I never thought about that before, but Screen stalker is absolutely right. I deleted it. Also, "from the beginning" violates WP:Avoid weasel words. --GHcool (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I reformulated. --JaapBoBo (talk) 11:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reformulating, JaapBoBo, but your reformulation is somewhat of a fig leaf solution. The third point is not addressed. This is still irrelevant to the article. Screen stalker (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is relevant. This way of thinking made Zionism liable to expulsionist policies. Zionists claimed that expulsion of Palestinians was not so bad, because it was not an expulsion from the home-land of the Arabs. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Manipulation in the table summarizing Morris analysis

I corrected some lies and manipulation in the table summarising Morris's view. If you don't agree, write him to see who is right. Ceedjee (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with your 'manipulations'.

For the first wave Morris says (bottom of p. 138): The Arab ... left largely because of Jewish ... attack or fear of imopending attack, and from a sense of vulnerability. So that gives: attack, fear of attack and sense of vulnerability.

For the second wave Morris says (p. 265, top): 'Undoubtedly ... the most important single factor in the exodus of April June was Jewish attack. ... each exodus occured during or in the wake of military assault' and then Morris says that in some villages fear of attack was important. So: attack and fear of attack. --JaapBoBo (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The division to "waves" is only a POV. it is bias to present the facts based on these "waves" Zeq (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

@Ceedjee: by the way: please respect WP:AGF

@Zeq: this is not bias because it is clearly presented as Morris view. --JaapBoBo (talk) 11:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• no. in the main article it is prsented as fact: Palestinian_exodus#History Zeq (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That should be discussed at that talk page then... --JaapBoBo (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I restored my corrections and removed by the way material that others had removed but you put back.

If you think this is not Morris's view, write him. Ceedjee (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I will not write Morris. He is a supporter of ethnic cleansing, and I don't think he's objective. Besides, anything that he would write back to me would be irrelevant, because it is not allowed as a source for wikipedia.

Please react to my arguments above. The table gives the 'Main causes according to Morris', and not the "backdrop" of these events. You are switching cause and context. Morrris doies not describe attacks as the context, but as the main factor. Morris describes "basic weaknesses of Palestinian society" as the context ("backdrop") and not as the cause. --JaapBoBo (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The table is not from Morris. So there is no reason to chose *your* title in this table rather than mine. But even better, a one that would reflect properly Morris's view.

You should agree with this, even if propagandists such as Pappé think that their lies will convince people just because they claim all Israeli are racists.

Ceedjee (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if you don't like context, we will modify the title of the articles. Cheers, Ceedjee (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Morris' view is reflected by the table as I made it, and not by your modifications. The table gives the causes and not the context. If you want you can add a table with the context, but I think it's better to describe the context in the subsections of this section.

Your modifications rather reflect your view and Gelber's view. Those are not the same as Morris'. --JaapBoBo (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

When Morris writes that they are numerous causes for each phase and when you make a table where you put *1* main cause, you make propaganda.

Quite strangely, summarizing Morris view with this alleged (only one) main cause for each phase fits Pappe's propaganda and not Morris's view.

And for your information, Gelber and Morris view are... the same. Just write them.

I will revert your propaganda tomorrow. Cheers Ceedjee (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Morris' pov is not the same as Gelbers. Please stop distorting Morris' pov.

I notice that you are avoiding a discussion on content here. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Yoav Gelber, his pov is the same as Morris. According to JaapBoBo, Gelber and Morris pov are different and Morris is an racist. Who do you think I will believe. Write them.

You have no argument to discuss. only propaganda and personnal analysis as proven by your presentation page -> user:JaapBoBo. Ceedjee (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If Gelber says that he and Morris have the same pov then we can read Gelber's pov in Morris' book and not the other way around. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. We can read this in Morris's book. Ceedjee (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

References to Pappé's ethnic cleansing book

I suggest we remove Pappe's allegation from the article because his book (Ethnic cleansing of Palestine) doesn't fit wikipedia standard.
We already discussed this.
To move forward, I suggest we vote to decide on a version to keep (with or without Pappe's propaganda theories material) and after this vote we discuss for a compromise how to find some place for this in the article due to his fabricated but existing reknown.

• remove - Last Pappé's book is not published in a acadameic publishing house and is not quoted by his peers even if some of his friends agreed to write some words in the preface. Ceedjee (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• remove - What does his writing really prove as to the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus? Nothing. Screen stalker (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• keep This is ridiculous. I will not accept a remove result. If there is any source that should not be used in the article its Karsh. He is an acknowledged liar and distorter. Pappe is not. He is a reliable source. The arguments put forward here are also ridiculous: the book 'doesn't fit wikipedia standard'. What standard? Which wikipedia policy? Why does e.g Karsh's book fit this standard. Or e.g. a statement by Morris on MEForum. MEForum is not a relaible source. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Book must be published in an academic editing house, which owl publishing is not. Pappé is known to be propagandists. He has no more support in the purely academic field (only friends or politicians). Particularly since his last book. And next coming one proves this. Rgds, Ceedjee (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Tu quoque, ad hominem, and a red herring fallacy (also a false premise, but that's neither here nor there). --GHcool (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• remove because it simeply does not meet WP:RS and WP:V. as for JaapBoBo claims about Karsh. Karsh is not a liar, he simply exposed in his book the mis use of false quotes - among them all those quotes which supposdly lead creadence to the "pre meditated" argument. Wikipedia is once again showing it's ability to lead the sceince of history to new ideas with the help of people like JaapBoBo who discredit an established proffesor like Karsh Zeq (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• remove the irrelevant stuff - there is a difference between a description of the Palestinian exodus and a cause of the Palestinian exodus. "The Palestinian exodus was an ethnic cleansing," "The Palestinian exodus was necessary for the creation of a secure State of Israel," "The Palestinian exodus was really really bad," and all other post hoc descriptions of the Palestinian exodus are not relevant to the causes of the exodus. Information in this article should answer the question "What caused the Palestinian exodus?" Ethnic cleansing is not a response to that question; it is a response to another question such as "How would Pappe describe the Palestinian exodus?" Pappe's opinions about the causes are welcome in this article, but his opinions about the entire topic are beyond the scope of this article. --GHcool (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely firm keep This is a ridiculous, even outrageous, suggestion. Pappé is an acknowledged expert on this issue, a professor of history with several books published, reviewed by his peers, and used on university courses around the world. This is quite emphatically not an issue for consensus voting; Pappé is a reliable source, and will remain one regardless of what any straw poll on this talk page comes up with. I for one will continue to cite him in Wikipedia articles; I suggest that those who dislike or disagree with his conclusions or interpretations of the facts cite other reliable historians who interpret them differently. RolandR (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with GHcool. According to Pappe the ethnic cleansing was premeditated. He describes how it was executed. It seems to me that this is a description of the cause. Actually quite simple. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, proof by assertion, and begging the question. That's three logical fallacies in only one post. Usually its only one or two at a time. --GHcool (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Jaapbobo (above comment) and RolandR. These debates get really ridiculous sometimes. You can't just ban a a reliable source because a group of people disagree with him. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Straw man. --GHcool (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Owl Publishing is not an academic source. No argument, no reliable mind. Ceedjee (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Pappe is an internationally recognised scholar on Palestinian/Israeli history. Delad (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Owl Publishing is not an academic source. No argument, no reliable mind. Pappé is not an internationalily recognised scholar. He was an internationally recognised scholar and now is a political activist and prof of history in the UK due his eviction from the israeli acadmic circle. Ceedjee (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, Ceedjee is wrong. Pappe left the Israeli academic circle voluntarily.[4]
      • Ok. He was asked to resign and agreed to do so. Ceedjee (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I am puzzled by some of the removers' (e.g. Ceedjee, GHCool) arguments, which don't seem to me to be up their usual standards. There is just no doubt that Pappé and his book is an acceptable source, in fact of higher quality by Wikipedia standards than most (I am saying nothing about truth or scholarship, just Wikipedia guidelines). What Ceedjee states to be Wikipedia standards - it must be an academic publishing house, or facts - he is "no longer in the academic circle" are just not correct. Pappé is associated now with a British university, and having neglected to rape the Dean's daughter on the steps of the University library (the proverbial method for a tenured professor being ejected from academe) he remains a member of academia. If Ceedjee remains unconvinced, there's a reliable sources noticeboard, but it is very unlikely he will receive a different answer from people there, nor would a parallel move to eliminate Karsh. It's not a close case. (I don't understand the phrase "No argument, no reliable mind." at all ) GHCool makes some good logical observations, but for a few seconds I thought he was arguing to keep. Pappé says the exodus was an ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing means intentional, forced exodus. So use of the phrase alone is an assertion that Israel caused the exodus, and that alone demonstrates relevance to this article. Such a bare assertion is not a logical proof, but coming from a "reliable source" it is perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia articles; clearly his book grounds his assertions more. I strongly agree with him that we should guard against the tendency to go too far afield, and that books like Pappé's will have a lot of background inappropriate here, but at present his book seems to be used appropriately for Pappé's facts, opinions and point of view about causation.John Z (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines ask for reliable source. This book is not published by an academic editor (Owl Publishing is not) or is not quoted by scholars (else who ?). So, follow wikipedia guidelines. Ceedjee (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Which guideline says this? Please quote and link... --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It is currently 4/4. So other minds would be welcome before we can move forward and delete or keep and then discuss how to take that stuff into acocunt. Ceedjee (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals". Is this vetted by the scholarly community as reliable ? Is this published at a peer-reviewed publishing house (ie academic one ?) what are the academic journals ?

"Self-published sources may be used only in very limited circumstances" (...) Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as: 1. it is relevant to their notability; 2. it is not contentious; 3. it is not unduly self-serving; 4. it does not involve claims about third parties; 5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it; 7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Points 2 - 3 are not respected. Point 7 is similar to due:weight and weight given to Pappe is not normal. that is why I suggest to remove everything and then to discuss what to add.

You refused to discuss the structure of this article some months ago. Ceedjee (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. You are simply misunderstanding the English. Your first paragraph refers to a sufficient, not a necessary condition. The second paragraph is irrelevant. Pappe's book is not a self-published work. You misunderstand the word "self-published". The relevant phrases from this guideline are "Many Wikipedia articles rely upon source material created by scientists, scholars, and researchers. This is usually considered reliable ... Wikipedia articles should strive to cover all major and significant- minority scholarly interpretations ..." Pappe is a well-known scholar with an interpretation that is not from left field; it has significant support; that is all that is necessary.John Z (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem of the 'removers' is really that the arguments are false. The first argument is that the book is published by a non-academic publishing house. Even if this were true ("Oneworld Publications is an independent publisher of bold, intelligent non-fiction for both the trade and academic markets." [5]), according to wikipedia policy this is not a reason to brand Pappe unreliable. Furthermore an article with excerpts has appeared in an academic journal, the Journal of Palestine Studies The ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Finally this argument does require 'the economist' and 'MEforum' to be removed as sources. The second argument, that Pappe is not quoted by his peers is a) unproven and b) according to wikipedia policy not a reason to brand Pappe unreliable. Summarising: these arguments are no arguments. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

JaapBoBo does not resolve the problem that much of the Pappe stuff in the article are post hoc descriptions of the exodus itself and not explanations of the causes. However, his argument that each source must be evaluated on its own terms has a certain amount of merit. The Journal of Palestine Studies is a reliable source (certainly as reliable as The Economist). The Ethnic Cleansing book falls in a little more of a grey area. --GHcool (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Really. What scholars quote JPS ? In the academic world, not on wp... Ceedjee (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

A look at the article on Journal of Palestine Studies might be of interest. Again, there is no existent standard, guideline or policy that Pappé and his book would a priori fail. All are welcome to edit the reliable source guidelines, but I doubt that the one Ceedjee seems to be proposing would survive more than a few minutes or seconds.John Z (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

First. I gave them above but maybe you don't want to read. Easier to insult. I am sorry that you adopt that agressive attitude.

If a source does not need to be quoted by peers to be a reliable source, then we can take all books from PhD or scholars...

Good. Then there is material to add in the article. I am sure that you will be the first one to delete this but you will not be able to justify...

Ceedjee (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I simply did not see it. I just responded to it above. Yes, pretty much the accepted standard is all (relevant, reasonable, significant POV) books and statements from PHD's or scholars. I would defend any such from any POV. The last time I defended such a thing I was defending Jaakobou against Nishidani and PR. I apologize for any hurt feelings, I did not intend to be aggressive, merely factual about what the guidelines are. The idea that a source should be quoted is a good one - this is a circular statement, but the respect with which something is accorded by peers is what scholarly work means in academia ( evidence would be reviews etc.) - but it is not too workable here as it is too subjective and would eliminate everything that simply hasn't had time to be reviewed and is a great deal harder to judge. It should usually be used to include not exclude (e.g. selfpublished stuff that Nobel prizewinners recommend is an RS). If everybody here and/or in academia agreed that what Pappe wrote is garbage after examining it, then by all means exclude it. There can be many reasons aside from the RS guideline to exclude things. John Z (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The result is keep. Therefore, we will have to discuss case by case about keeping/removing references to Pappé. Ceedjee (talk) 07:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Gelber's first stage

Gelbers first stage is not only "The crumbling of Arab Palestinian social structure", but also "justified Jewish military conduct". Gelbers first stage comprises Morris first and second wave. Gelber gives "The crumbling of Arab Palestinian social structure" as the reason for the first wave, and "justified Jewish military conduct" as the reason for the second. Please do not distort Gebers pov. --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Gelber doens't try nowhere to justify a conduct. What is this stuff ? As if he had to be apologetic for a crime ?

For Gelber, the Palestinian society collapsed when confrontated to state of war. There are many reasons why it collapsed and there are many reasons why there was a state of war.

There is no more.

See his book's table on contents on google books if you don't agree with this but that's it. He doens't try to justify anything. He just explains events.

Cheers, Ceedjee (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and he says the the second part of the first stage of the exodus was caused by 'justified Jewish military conduct'. Please don't deny the obvious: "The local deportations of May-June 1948 appeared both militarily vital and morally justified." [6]. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Anecdotically. proof : his book. You just emphasize one detail in his analysis. Ceedjee (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll study it again. Maybe this Gelber is even more extreme than I already thought. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh. According to Pappé, he is a racist... So, just believe him and all his stories. :-) Ceedjee (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is Morris's analysis :

Most of Palestine's 700,000 "refugees" fled their homes because of the flail of war (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders). But it is also true that there were several dozen sites, including Lydda and Ramla, from which Arab communities were expelled by Jewish troops.

Gelber says the same that is why the right title is the one I suggest.

I added also what Morris thinks about a master Plan.

So, concerning the exodus and the master plan : Shlaim, Morris and Gelber share exactly the same mind. This should be emphasized. That is clearly the majority point of view (these 3 historians disagree on some point but all agree here) at the difference of historian Masalha and Dr Pappé who agree on everything.

Ceedjee (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Benny Morris is a fine historian, even though his Zionist bias shows through in places. For 15 years, until the Al-Aqsa Intifada and the expulsions of Pappe and Azmi Bishara, nobody seemed to notice or care what he'd researched and published. But his work quietly did an immense amount of damage to Israel's case and in 2004, Morris suddenly changed his tune and is now trying to deny his own work. It's a bit late, when he listed 344 villages that were virtually ethnically cleansed, by C = "Influence of nearby town's fall", E = "Expulsion by Jewish Forces", F = "Fear of being caught up in fighting", M = "Military assault on settlement" or W = "Whispering campaign - psychological warfare by Haganah/IDF". Only 5 villages (plus half of Haifa) could be said to have been evacuated on Arab orders (and there are 38 unknown). Despite the bluster, he's not now claiming any of it was incorrect, and of course it's all confirmed by others who came to the same conclusions with less publicity. PR^talk 21:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear PalestineRemembered,
Please review WP:SOAPBOX. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Glazer

Glazer is a nice guy but he is only a PhD student and I don't think he was published somewhere else than in the JPS. More he did so in 1980 : ie before the new historians. So, we should remove most of his stuff. I will proceed. This is wp:policy. Ceedjee (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You know what I love about you, Ceedjee? You are so remarkably neutral that it pleases the soul to see. Even though Glazer supports the position that I often see you support, you are in favor of removing him, and I give you points for that.

Having said that, I am in favor of phasing Glazer out. Here is what I mean: in some sections removing him would essentially constitute removing an argument from the article, or even an entire section. In those cases, we should try to find another source that says the same thing to replace him before we remove him. In other cases, we can go ahead and remove him right away. Screen stalker (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

@Ceedjee: Glazer is a reliable source. He wrote an academic piece. A lot of sources used are even older, and less reliable, e.g. 'the economist' --JaapBoBo (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he is.

But he doens't bring anything to the article in comparison of Benny Morris or even Ilan Pappé.

In fact, Pappé is not a wp:rs but at least, he is notorious and that would be a good reason to keep some of his stuff. On the contrary Glazer is a good guy, quite clever and neutral, with good points but he is not notorious.

Ceedjee (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Too long

Koafv just labeled this article as too long and I'm sure many of us will agree that he/she was probably right to do so. The following is a list of trims I suggest. If there is no significant disagreement on a specific suggestion, I will make the trim within the next few days ...

1. The redundant third paragraph in the lead ("The first section below ..."). Y
2. The first paragraph of the "Palestinian and Arab positions" subsection, which does seems to be merely a criticism of the Israeli position and not a unique Palestinian/Arab position ("The criticism the above ..."). Y
3. The "Changes after the advent of the New historians" section ought to be two paragraphs long, without a detailing or favoring of certain new historians. The first paragraph ("In the 1980s ...") definitely should stay as well as the first sentence of the second paragraph ("Since the emergence ..."). The sentence that begins the third paragraph ("The Arab version hardly ...") could follow. Then I would just list a few of the names of the New Historians without going into detail on their theories since the article goes into great detail on each of these men's theories later in the article. Something like, "These New Historians include Benny Morris, Simha Flapan, etc etc." Y
4. Flapan is overly represented in the "Criticisms of the 'endorsement of flight' explanation" section; the section is roughly 10 paragraphs long and Flapan has 3 of them all to himself, with one of those three being a rather lengthy passage from his book. I suggest ending the subsection with the first paragraph ("According to Flapan ..."). Y
5. The second paragraph in the "Criticisms of the ‘Transfer Idea’" section ("The arguments made by Karsh") is not even a criticism of the transfer idea, but, in fact, a criticism of the criticisms of the transfer idea! It doesn't belong here. Y
6. The entire "Yishuv aims" section. All that is necessary is the paragraph before it ("According to Pappe ..."), which summarizes it pretty well. Y
7. The entire "Yishuv military preparations" section. The fact that the Yishuv prepared for a war does not have anything to do with the causes of the Palestinian exodus. The article would be significantly improved without this kind of post hoc ergo propter hoc sloppiness. Y
8. The entire "Descriptions of the exodus as caused by ethnic cleansing" section. The topic of the article is the causes of the exodus, not the descriptions of the exodus. Y
9. One sentence in the "Criticisms of the 'Master Plan' explanation" lacks context, seems out of place, and doesn't add anything to the article ("But he considers ..."). Y
10. The first two sentences of the Gelber blockquote in the "Second stage: Israeli army victories and expulsions" section ("The position of ... against the Jews."). The blockquote would be better if it began with "The Arab expeditions ..." Y --GHcool (talk) 06:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok for me. Also Glazer's analysis from my point of view. Ceedjee (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree! --JaapBoBo (talk) 08:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

But why ? Glazer's name doesn't bring anything to the article. On the contrary.

I think the information he brings is not controversed so we should at least remove his name.

Ceedjee (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not enough for somebody to say "I disagree!" Somebody who disagrees must make legitimate arguments in favor of the status quo in order to keep things the way they are. --GHcool (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, one must specify which of the suggestions above he or she disagrees with. I think its safe to say that not all of the suggestions are controversial. --GHcool (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly agree that this article is way too long, and I don't think that splitting it down into smaller articles is a possibility. This article is a breakdown of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, which is a breakdown of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. There is a limit as to how specific we can get. Screen stalker (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Screen Stalker,

And what about village files that is a breakdown of this one :-)

To be accurate, in the current structure : 1948 Palestine War -> 1948 Palestinian exodus -> Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus -> Village files...

I suggest here below we merge #2 et #3... Ceedjee (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, all of the above has been done. Before it was 131 kb, now it is 111 kb. I think that's more appropriate. I'm taking the too long tag off. --GHcool (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Shaving off 20 kb is a good start. We should try to bring it down to about 30 to 50 kb as recommended by WP:Article size. We have a ways to go. Screen stalker (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That's probably too short for an article as controversial as this one. I think 90-100 kb is a more realistic goal. --GHcool (talk) 04:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should keep working until we have made this article as short as it can possibly be without sacrificing too much content. That is why I propose removing this text as another step in the right direction towards trimming this article down. I don't think it adds anything new to the paragraph. Screen stalker (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I have another idea on how to make this more compact: remove all the text from the "The "Arab leaders' endorsement of flight" explanation" section, except for this:

Although historians agree that explicit Arab orders to evacuate did not cause a major portion of the exodus, they do not agree as to whether or not they played a role altogether.

Morris estimates that Arab orders account for at most 5% of the total exodus.

The "evacuation orders" and their non-existance are mentioned now already in the beginning of the article, and removing this redundant text would shorten the text quite a bit. --Dailycare (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No thanks. --GHcool (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have reasoned opinions on removing or not this material? Discussing evidence "for" and "against" the "Arab evacuation orders" doesn't help the user understand the reasons behind the exodus, if we later anyway state that no such orders existed and local arab orders could have accounted for only 5% of the exodus? I don't see the point of including material that we know to be untrue or misleading. The material could be moved to a page titled, for example, "History of research into the Nakba" --Dailycare (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

While the Arab evacuation orders aren't the only or even the best way of understanding the causes for the Palestinian exodus, they are a significant way in which the exodus is understood by a great many people and scholars for years. You are entitled to your opinion that the section is filled with misleading information just as I, Benny Morris, Efraim Karsh, and others are entitled to our opinion that the bulk of the "master plan" section is riddled with post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking and bogus historical method. I would not remove the "Master plan" section for the same reason that I would not remove the "Arab evacuation orders" section: they are cited by reliable sources and subscribed to by a great number of scholars (for better or for worse). --GHcool (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I think that if there are problems in the "master plan" section, they need to be addressed. Morris states that any Arab orders may account for only 5% of the exodus, which sort of hints that roughly 5% of the article should discuss them. In any case, I strongly feel that we shouldn't present information in the article that we know to be false. This applies to all sections of the article. There exist documents where the Haganah/IDF were given orders to expel Arab villages, there exist no documents of the "arab broadcasts". Comparing the two doesn't make sense, and linking the two in editing doesn't, in my opinion, make sense either. I do further not agree that a "great number" (or any number, for that matter) of scholars would today subscribe to the "arab broadcasts" theory. We say as much in the article already. --Dailycare (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like what you're advocating is deleting any information that Benny Morris has issues with. I don't think that's a good idea. --GHcool (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Um no, that's not what I'm advocating at all. What I'm advocating is that we shouldn't mislead readers by discussing the arab broadcasts since we know they didn't occur. --Dailycare (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should ever mislead readers, but I also don't think that we should censor scholarship, even if the scholarship is considered outdated by some. That is why there is a section called "Criticisms of the 'endorsement of flight' explanation." --GHcool (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

GH, I understand and support your idea about trimming, but could you please hold on for a while. What I suggest that you quote exactly the text that you suggesting to delete.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

GH, do you have an opinion on moving the material about Arab evacuation orders to the end of the article, taking into account that scholars no longer believe the material is relevant to the topic? Would you object to addition of further outdated material, such as evidence for and against the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"? There are sources that link it to the Nakba that could be discussed in the article. (I'm not suggesting that we do, just making my point that discussing the non-existent Arab evacuation orders is harmful) --Dailycare (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

To Jim, please see the section below for exactly the texts I suggest deleting. --GHcool (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

To Dailycare, I have no opinion on material about Arab evacuation orders to the end of the article. The Protocols counterexample is a false analogy as no RS I have ever heard of has ever used the Protocols as an example of anything but a forgery. The Arab evacuation orders are controversial, but nowhere near as debunked as the Protocols are. Furthermore, whether they are true or not the Arab evacuation orders are directly related to the Palestinian exodus while the Protocols are not. --GHcool (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I can move the material. The claims of evacuation orders are debunked, and the Protocols are debunked - anyway as noted I was just using them to make a point, not suggesting that we include them in the article. --Dailycare (talk) 10:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone think that the section titled "Political and sociological influences on the historical debate" adds something of substance to the article, or could/should it be excised? --Dailycare (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I would not mind if this section was removed. --GHcool (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

More trims that can be made

This article has grown considerably since I made the above trims. Therefore, if there is no significant disagreement on a specific suggestion, I will make the trim within the next few days ...

1. The paragraph that begins, "He adds that 'when this happens ..." Y
2. The paragraph that begins, "He concludes that 'the future of the past in Israel thus depends on ..." Y
3. The long, redundant quote by Glazer that begins "I am inclined to prefer Childers ..." Y
4. The first paragraph in the "The 'Concept of Transfer in Zionism'" section (its redundant with the second paragraph of that section). [EDIT: There was resistance to this edit. --GHcool (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)]
5. The first paragraph in the "Origins of the Transfer Idea" section. [EDIT: There was resistance to this edit. --GHcool (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)]
6. The long blockquote by Shlomo Ben-Ami in the "Origins of the Transfer Idea" section [EDIT: There was resistance to this edit. --GHcool (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)]
7. The long blockquote by Ben-Gurion in the Peel commission section [EDIT: There was resistance to this edit. --GHcool (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
8. The quote by Ben-Guriou in the Peel Commission section which begins "on the basis of the assumption that after ..." [EDIT: There was resistance to this edit. --GHcool (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
9. The paragraph on the twentieth Zionist Congress. [EDIT: There was resistance to this edit. --GHcool (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
10. The paragraph beginning, "According to Ben-Gurion's biographer ..." [EDIT: There was resistance to this edit. --GHcool (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)]
11. The paragraph beginning, "Glazer considers that "it is clear that by the 1930s and into the ..." [EDIT: There was resistance to this edit. --GHcool (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)]
12. The sentence in the "Master plan" section that begins, "He describes the aims the Yishuv had ..." Y
13. The naked quote in the "Master plan" section that begins, "‘[W]hen crucial decisions ..." Y
14. Trim the next paragraph so that only "At a meeting on 10 March ... coordination and direction'" remains. Y
15. The blockquote by Morris in the "Criticism of the Master plan" section beginning, "There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing" Y --GHcool (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on resistance to the above

The following trims were met with resistance:

1. The first paragraph in the "The 'Concept of Transfer in Zionism'" section (its redundant with the second paragraph of that section). [EDIT: This edit was met with resistance again. --GHcool (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)] Y
2. The first paragraph in the "Origins of the Transfer Idea" section. [EDIT: This edit was met with resistance again. --GHcool (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)]
3. The long blockquote by Shlomo Ben-Ami in the "Origins of the Transfer Idea" section Y
4. The long blockquote by Ben-Gurion in the Peel commission section [EDIT: This edit was met with resistance again. --GHcool (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)]
5. The quote by Ben-Guriou in the Peel Commission section which begins "on the basis of the assumption that after ..." [EDIT: This edit was met with resistance again. --GHcool (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)]
6. The paragraph on the twentieth Zionist Congress. [EDIT: This edit was met with resistance again. --GHcool (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)]
7. The paragraph beginning, "According to Ben-Gurion's biographer ..." [EDIT: This edit was met with resistance again. --GHcool (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)]
8. The paragraph beginning, "Glazer considers that "it is clear that by the 1930s and into the ..." [EDIT: This edit was met with resistance again. --GHcool (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)]

I invite those editors who resisted the above to explain why they chose to do this. If no legitimate reason is given, then I will make the above trims within the next couple of days. --GHcool (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

GHcool, would you mind explaining why it is you are removing "fat" from one perspective on the cause and inflating it on the other? It seems that nearly everything you are removing is supporting the viewpoint that the expulsion was planned and by the higher levels of the Zionist leadership and you are adding to the viewpoint that this was largely the result of the Arabs, either by telling the residents to leave or by "facilitating their escape". Can you explain why one set of quotes to support a viewpoint should be removed while adding another set that support an opposite viewpoint? Based on your reasoning to "trim the fat" of supporting quotations I will be removing one as well. nableezy - 19:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You make a fair point. I'll take the liberty of restoring the paragraph you arbitrarily removed and trimming the actual fat from that section. --GHcool (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

GHcool, what you are continuing to remove is not "fat". Your continued removal of quotes that back a narrative you do not agree with is improper. Why is it that you are removing the Ussishkin quote? Why are you removing this Morris quote: "Many if not most of Zionism's mainstream leaders expressed at least passing support for the idea of transfer"? There is plenty of fat in the "The "Arab leaders' endorsement of flight" explanation" section, but you only seem interested in cutting from sections that disagree with that. You want to remove "fat"? Do it in a balanced way so as not to further skew this encyclopedia to a rehashing of traditional Zionist accounts. nableezy - 18:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the Ussishkin because it represented the minority opinion and the blockquote violated WP:Undue weight. I removed the Morris quote because it was somewhat redundant with the Morris quote in the very next sentence. Why use 2 Morris quotes when 1 will suffice? Your suggestion to trim some fat from the Arab leaders endorsement section is sound. I actually did trim some fat from this section already, so there is no need in implying that I am not open to these suggestions. --GHcool (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the Masalha piece should stay, though it could be trimmed a bit, and I also think the Ussishkin quote should stay. This was the head of the JNF, not some random person. nableezy - 18:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if your invitation above is still valid but maybe it is, since you made excised the text. Anyway, I explained in the revert why I made it. I think that we've made progress in shortening the article, and we can make further progress by compactifying material without changing the substance, for example by replacing literal quoted with paraphrasing. As you know, I feel we could also remove some text from the article that's known to be false. In some of your recent edits, you've presented changes to substance as "trimming fat". --Dailycare (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

3rd discussion

The following trims were met with resistance:

1. The first paragraph in the "Origins of the Transfer Idea" section. Y
2. The long blockquote by Ben-Gurion in the Peel commission section Y
3. The quote by Ben-Guriou in the Peel Commission section which begins "on the basis of the assumption that after ..." Y
4. The paragraph beginning, "According to Ben-Gurion's biographer ..." Y
5. The paragraph beginning, "Glazer considers that "it is clear that by the 1930s and into the ..." [EDIT: This edit was met with resistance. --GHcool (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)]

I invite those editors who resisted the above to explain why they chose to do this. If no legitimate reason is given, then I will make the above trims within the next couple of days. --GHcool (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Here too I believe the reasons have been given in the edit summaries. --Dailycare (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's discuss them here on the talk page. Humor me a little.  ;) --GHcool (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I have no problem with that. --Dailycare (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

NPoV - Benny Morris

On the subject of the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, Benny Morris is certainly the most quoted scholar and the one whose work is considered as fundamental (even if there are some controversies around the interpretation).
Except from Efraim Karsh, I think I have a quote from all other people (who published after 1990) and quoted in this article to state that his job is major. The article, as currently organized, give more rooms to the controversies and/or analyses annexed to his work than to the issues itself.
So, once more, I claim NPoV requires a reorganisation.
Ceedjee (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal of reorganisatoin

• 1. Events

• 1.1 Context
• 1.2 Waves of refugees

• 1.2.1 1st wave
• 1.2.2 2nd wave
• 1.2.3 3rd wave
• 1.2.4 4th wave

• 1.3 Blockading the return
• 1.4 Resolution 181194
• 1.5 Borders' cleaning

• 2. Causes of the exodus

• 2.1 Traditionnal versions
• 2.2 First critics
• 2.3 Opening of Israeli, British and US archives
• 2.4 The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem
• 2.5 Historiographic debate on the causes

(30 lines introducing other new analysis with their nuances in comparison to Morris, only on the academic level -> another article should be develop dealing with this)

• 2.6 Political debate on the causes

(In Making Israel, Benny Morris explains the political reasons why the debate is influenced by politics. Other scholars point out this too.

• 3. Consequences of the exodus

• 3.1 Palestinian Refugee situation
• 3.2 Absentee property law
• 3.3 Right of Return

• 4. Jewish exodus and emigration
• 5. Commemoration

Ceedjee (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute… why is there a "Causes" section in the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus article? Shouldn't the whole article be about the causes? Screen stalker (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to merge both articles. Ceedjee (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to merge both articles (which would be a good idea if we can pull this off), we need to cut the combined total of their sizes to about one-third of what it is now. I'm down with that, but we really should start cutting. Screen stalker (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that is the way I see this.

Ceedjee (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I oppose merging the articles. The resulting article would be way too long, necessitating the removing of much relevant information. Qworty (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Article remains POV.

This article was fought to a standstill at a mammoth "mediation" which drove out valuable commentary from Norman Finkelstein (who admittedly is not a historian) and left included discredited propaganda by Joseph Schechtman (if he's a historian then he's much worse than David Irving).
Before the mediation there was a 4.5 to 1.5 agreement on this part of the sources to be used - some 6 months later they'd all been driven off in frustration. This article remains in a dreadfully POV condition and must be tagged until vital improvements are made. PR^talk 16:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

David Irving is the notorious English Holocaust denier and pseudo-historian who was exposed as a fraud and a racist in a court of law. He associates with neo-Nazis and served a prison sentence in Austria. Not a single reasonable person takes Irving seriously as an academic, historian, or even as a responsible human being. Comparing Israeli historians to this racists is embarrassingly falsifiable at best and offensive and disgusting at worst. Being a professional, habitual racist is worse than being a professional researcher. I would appreciate it if PalestineRemembered would stop using this ridiculous argument against Israeli historians and supporters of the State of Israel. It does nothing to help Wikipedia and it hasn't worked for PalestineRemembered in the past.[7][8][9][10] Also, I would recommend that PalestineRemembered familiarize himself with WP:Soapbox. Thank you. --GHcool (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Then please explain why this article is still quoting the outrageous falsifier, Joseph Schechtman, with hate and falsification such as "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."

Compared with Schechtman, David Irving looks relatively sober. PR^talk 18:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

David Irving is of the opinion that the Holocaust never happened. Joseph Schechtman is of the opinion that Arabs and Jews did not get along in Mandatory Palestine. Big difference. Please stop. --GHcool (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

On top of the falsification and the hatred, Schechtman boasts that the Palestinians of 1948 had a disease of the brain, a psychosis, and that's why they fled. If it wasn't so unpleasant, it would almost be funny to find it in this article. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The "psychosis" thing has been discussed before here. I'm not fond of Schechtman's diction here and would support summarizing what he meant by "fear psychosis" rather than labeling it as he did with a psychological term. --GHcool (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Psychosis is not a brain disease but a mental state.

Assuming the Palestinians in march-june '48 fled because they were victims of a "panic fear which was unrationale" is not a racist theory. This is still given by historians in the numerous potential causes of the events of that period.

And anyway, even if it would be racist, there is no reason to censor Schetchman analysis. We can report this but in taking into account his works on the issue is quite old and is not followed today by his peers (even if he is still quoted in their work).

Ceedjee (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

about Morris claims

this article says Morris claims that only 5% of the refugees left because of Arab commanders, even when tons of the quotes of Arabs themselves would lead one otherwise. What exactly is Morris' quote to 5%, what is his basis, and what is the rebuttal?Tallicfan20 (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposition to remove quotations from the Israeli Position section

Habib Issa

I am deleting Habib Issa from the "Israeli position" section. Feel free to replace him by a statement of the Israeli position from a reliable source. The reasons are:

1. Nobody ever identified who Habib Issa was. However we know what al-Hoda was (and still is, I believe): a Maronite newspaper known for its Lebanese nationalism and Phalangist sympathies. In other words, it was the newspaper of a group known for its extreme anti-Palestinian views. Obviously we need to be very careful about quoting such a source, especially when we don't know who the author was.
2. The way this material got into the English debate was that Joseph Schechtman put it into his book "The Arab Refugee Problem" (1952) that he wrote on commission for the US branch of the Jewish Agency. We can see the genealogy by noting the identical English (al-Hoda is in Arabic). From the original version in Schechtman's book, we can see clearly that Azzam Pasha is not being quoted at all. In fact Issa is giving his paraphrase of what he claims to remember Azzam saying. So it is a claim of Issa, not a quote of Azzam. Moreover, the part "Brotherly advice..." was not attributed to Azzam at all, not even by Issa.
3. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever found contemporary evidence of Issa's claim.
4. No source has been given that this quotation represents the "Israeli position". Since the source of the material is not Israeli, such a connection must be established.
5. We don't need it. There are so many reliable sources that make clear statements of the Israeli position that relying on something so dubious is quite unnecessary.

Zero^talk 02:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Near East Broadcasting Station

I am removing the hoary old claim attributed to the "Near East Broadcasting Station". Reasons:

1. The Near East Broadcasting Station was not a genuine news outlet but a propaganda organization of the British government. See the wiki article on it.
2. The intermediate source (Shmuel Katz) was the Irgun's chief propagandist.

Zero^talk 02:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I restored the above quotes. My reasoning is that even if the quotes are fabricated and unreliable (and I am not saying that they are), this was the original Israeli position for many years. The arguments above to remove the quotes do not sway me because they amount to "These sources might be unreliable and/or modern historians might not agree with their analysis, therefore we should delete them." This might hold water if this wasn't a presentation of the evolution of the historical debate. The fact that modern historians might have different analysis of the events of 1948 is fine because this information is about the pre-New Historian conclusions and they are cited to pre-New Historian thinkers. --GHcool (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In that case, the views would have to be presented in context, acknowledging that they might be fabricated, or at least that they no longer represent the Israeli position. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea. To my great regret, however, I do not own sources that challenge those specific quotes. I am certain such sources are in the literature (sounds like it could be found in Khalidi or something). I am restoring the quotes and trust that either SlimVirgin or Zero will add something to the effect of "Scholar X has challenged the historical accuracy of this quotation" and then cite the source appropriately. Thanks in advance. --GHcool (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to see the material in the article, you need to provide the context, and make clear that the quotes may be fabrications. Until someone's able and willing to do that, the material should not be restored. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I do not think that they are fabrications. I have just as much faith in these quotes as I do in controversial quotes of Palestinian scholars. I do not challenge them and I do not think they are fabrications. Do you (or anyone else) have any proof that they have been challenged or fabricated? If not, I must insist on keeping them in the article without any warnings that they are fabrications. What you are doing is, in effect, censoring information until it can be proven that the information is "worth censoring." This is a form of begging the question. --GHcool (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Zero has shown above that the material is of uncertain provenance. Therefore, if it's to be restored, that will have to be explained or in some way resolved. Otherwise, we risk spreading nonsense. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Zero a reliable source? If you accept, as I do, that Zero does not qualify under the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source, then I will have to ask you to rescind your last post and find a real RS to quote in the article along with the information above cited to reliable sources on the topic of the original Israeli position. The "risk of spreading nonsense" must be counteracted by RS's, not by random Wikipedia users in their spare time. --GHcool (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You need to address the issues he's raised if you want to restore the material. For example, who is Habib Issa, the person you want to quote? Which sources say this is or was the "Israeli position," and what does it even mean to call something the "Israeli position"? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Habib Issa was Azzam Pasha's successor to the position of secretary-general of the Arab League.[11] I think its pretty clear that the term "Israeli position" is the opposite of the term "Palestinian and Arab position" used further down the page. If you are advocating that we rid the article of both the Israeli and the Palestinian positions, I might be open to that suggestion (as Zero says, they are better explained further down the page anyway). --GHcool (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Kindly go to Arab League, scroll down to the list of Secretaries-General, and look in vain for Habib Issa. All you are doing is proving why we need to be more careful about sources. These "quotations" are like Chinese whispers; all the pseudo-scholars out there copy them from each other and never care about checking the originals. So they get better over time. We don't need them. If you want a refutation in print, Erskine Childers did that decades ago (in the Spectator). These days you won't see them in real history books because real historians on both sides of the debate would consider it beneath their dignity. By the way, Schechtman calls Issa the "acting-editor" of al-Hoda, that's the most information I've ever seen about him (and I've been watching this point for several decades). Zero^talk 00:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And back to the real point. There are thousands and thousands of high quality sources out there which explain "the Israeli position" in gory detail. Go and find a few and quote them! Why do we need dubious trash in the article at all when we can do so much better? Zero^talk 00:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for naming a scholar. I do not own a copy of Childers, but if you would add a sentence cited to him saying that the quotes are nonsense, I'd be glad to accept both the "nonsense" and the Childers criticism of the "nonsense" (provided its cited, etc.). --GHcool (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Zero has cast doubt on its authenticity, so it's up to you, GHC, to show that it's authentic if you want to retain it. The more important point is why we would want this kind of material in the article in the first place. We should really try to stick to academic and other clearly reliable sorces. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The topic is complete junk and doesn't belong in the article at all. The only context in which I can imagine these old "quotations" belong in Wikipedia would be in an article like Propaganda in the Arab-Israeli conflict. On the other hand, I apologise for my bad memory regarding Childers. First it wasn't his Spectator correspondence but an article "The Wordless Wish" that appeared in the compilation "The Transformation of Palestine" (I. Abu-Lughod, ed. 1987). Worse, I can't find the Habib Issa example in there. He refutes the standard stuff from Archbishop Hakim, Emile Ghoury, Filastin, al-Khatib, Edward Atiyah, and the Bulletin of the Research Group for European Migration. He also says "an exhaustive analysis, back to source, where source exists, of all the "evidence"...reveals only more of this methodology." But no Issa. Efraim Karsh doesn't mention Issa either in his two revelant books, I wonder why. Zero^talk 02:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I found an article hosted by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs claiming that Habib Issa was secretary-general of the Arab League. [12] I quite enjoy high quality propaganda (Schechtman was a master) but easily refuted lies like this are simply nauseating. Zero^talk 02:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Not that I support inclusion, but I was surprised to find here a 1951, earlier than Schechtman, reference to the mysterious Issa and the quotation. Hobson Dewey Anderson seems to tantalizingly explain who Issa was in the line just after the snippet, I can't find anything other than acting editor of Al-Hoda (likely true) or Secretary-General of the Arab League (harrummph) about him.John Z (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That is probably it. A look at the citation formerly on this page here and you notice that as a more reputable site than that site which GHero cited (as while yes it IS JPost, it obviously looks old, the bottom of the page its copyright page is 1995-2009 and also considering the primtive layout, its probably just old and hasn't been updating in parts for a while doing as the internet does, mixes things up) I notice that on other information sites too (well, with a clear POV but nonetheless) like this don't even call Issa secretary general. Even this site doesn't refer to him as SG of the AL. What this shows is that the SG of AL is just a mix up. But there is still no reason to doubt the quote is real given that you've shown a good source which like the 3 sites I gave you don't say he's SG. I also looked up the quote trying to see if it indeed was a "false quote" and I couldn't even find such an allegation. It fits in the page, as the actions described is what Israelis point to as part of the refugee problemLakrosse (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote above, Schechtman doesn't even claim it is a quote of Azzam. Why do you, or anyone, care what an editorial in a Maronite newspaper said? Zero^talk 06:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Those snippets are torture, but if you search for "acting-editor" you will see the tops of the next two words light up. So this source also calls him acting editor. The date is interesting. I am going to look at this book today or tomorrow. It seems this book contains several of the standard quotations; maybe it is the real source of them. Zero^talk 04:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The gbooks search preview gives the next couple lines after the snippet: Written by the acting editor of the publication, Habib Issa, it declared: "As soon as the British had publicly announced the time for their relinquishment... "John Z (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll report the whole section in a couple of hours. A local library has it. Zero^talk 06:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Ooops, my library only has a 1953 typewritten followup of the same name, without the quotations. I ordered the 1951 book. Zero^talk 10:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

From John's discovery and a look in Schechtman's 1952 Introduction, we can see the sequence. Schechtman says there were 1949 and 1950 editions of his work (with different names), and that Anderson (1951) was largely based on them. Anderson (1951) added Habib Issa as well, then Schechtman repaid the complement by copying it in 1952. Here we can see the last step:
Anderson (1951): Mediterranean Sea. "As the time for the British withdrawal grew nearer, the zeal of the Arab League was redoubled. Meetings and conferences took place almost daily and burning calls were issued. Brotherly advice was
Schechtman (1952): Mediterranean. "As the time for the British withdrawal grew nearer, the zeal of the Arab League redoubled. ... Brotherly advice was (ellipsis in Schechtman)
GB will also reveal an earlier 5 lines of Anderson (search for "promenade"). Schechtman copied that verbatim as well, except for changing "Azzam Pasha's statements point out" to "He pointed out" and removing "(the virtual Jewish capital)" after "Tel Aviv". (This incidentally verifies that it was never supposed to be a verbatim quotation of Azzam.) From this it is easy to see that Schechtman got his text by deleting a few things from Anderson's text. Not by translating al-Hoda himself. To get the most original version (other than the Arabic) we need Anderson's version. Zero^talk 10:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see the quote being used a lot by RS's (perhaps propaganda, perhaps not), but I have not yet seen an WP:RS refute or question the quote. All I have seen is Zero questioning the quote. SlimVirgin and Zero have failed to prove that Zero himself is an RS. Therefore, unless somebody finds an RS questioning the quote, I must insist that the quote remain in the article. --GHcool (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

So you admit that the Israeli position is so pathetically weak that the best support for it is a claim made by a person nobody heard of that supposedly (nobody has checked) appeared in a 1951 Maronite newspaper? It looks completely ridiculous, but I'm starting to understand. Really you are a Palestinian agent and you want everyone to think "if that's the best evidence they have, it must be a lie". Come on, admit it. Zero^talk 01:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair point. It's often the case on Wikipedia (but not only here) that supposed "pro-Israel" edits end up making the Israeli position look silly. Our job should be to use the best sources for each "side," the best and most interesting arguments, so that we fairly represent the essence of each case. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering that, until this point, Zero has been courteous and has refrained from ad hominem arguments, I trust that the comment above was a momentary lapse in civility. Zero is welcome to think that the Israeli position is weak. In certain respects, I might even agree with him. I hope that I have proven that I am not shy to disagreements on Wikipedia just as I hope that I have proven that try to limit my criticisms to the arguments and not to the individuals making the arguments. --GHcool (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)