Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus/Archive

Issue I: Finkelstein as a source

I'd like to begin the mediation by discussing the first issue: "the use of Finkelstein as a reliable source in this article". GHcool, as part of your reasoning for calling Finkelstein unreliable, you paraphrase criticism made by Benny Morris (who you term a "serious scholar"). However, I'm getting the impression that part of the antagonism Morris has toward Finkelstein is derived from the fact that the two people have drastically different views of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In a similar manner that Morris has denounced Finkelstein's works, I'm getting the impression Finkelstein has also denounced Morris's works. How does this fit into your position? -- tariqabjotu 16:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Your instincts are correct, Tariqabjotu. In fact, they are too correct. Most of Finkelstein's academic career has been devoted to smear campaigns against other scholars more renowned for himself whose research is at odds with Finkelstein's own personal ideology. The relevant passages of Image and Reality happen to be a prolonged smear campaign against Benny Morris. Finkelstein achieves this by quoting Morris out of context and putting words into Morris's mouth to make him look ignorant or illogical. The fact that they have "drastically different views of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is not the point. Morris has a drastically different view from his colleague Efraim Karsh, and the two publicly criticize each other often, but both historians have "walked the walk," i.e. they both use the historical method, have examined the Hebrew, English, and Arabic primary soruces, are tenured professors, etc. etc. Finkelstein's criticisms of Morris is like a D student in algebra class telling a calculus professor that he doesn't do derivatives correctly; even if the criticism prove to be true (which, in this case, it is not), the criticisms themselves are insignificant because the critic is nowhere near the status of the critiqued. --GHcool 02:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm still struggling to see some objective reasons for discrediting Finkelstein, while not discrediting Morris. You characterize Finkelstein's comments as a smear campaign... well, what leads you to believe that Finkelstein's criticism of Morris is a smear campaign, while Morris' criticism of Finkelstein is legitimate?

Aside from that, I notice you also say Finkelstein doesn't use primary sources in his book. JaapBoBo, in one of the discussions to which he linked, believes otherwise. JaapBoBo, can you point to times Finkelstein has used primary sources in his book? And GHcool, in the meantime, can you point to a Wikipedia policy or guideline that discourages the use of authors that don't use primary sources? -- tariqabjotu 15:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. The first chapter of 'Image and Reality' is based on Finkelsteins PhD work 'From the Jewish question to the Jewish state'. In note 2 Finkelstein refers to this work for a more extensive discussion. Undoubtedly in the 4 years of his PhD Finkelstein went through a lot of primary sources. In chapter 3 ('Born of war, not by design') he criticises Morris. His criticism is that the evidence that Morris gives in his work does not support his conclusions. For this chapter I argue that Morris' work (mainly 'Birth of the Palestinian refugee problem', '1948 an d after' and an article in 'Tikkun') is the primary source. For a new book 'Beyond Chutzpah', Finkelstein went through thousands of pages of human rights organisations documents (see page 4 of the book). He finds that the reports from various organisations are not contradictory, are made very carefull, etc. (i.e. they are reliable) and he also finds that the book 'the case for Israel' by Dershovitz is full of false claims.

Finkelstein also gets praise for his carefull work, for instance Raul Hilberg said this:

When I read Finkelstein's book, The Holocaust Industry, at the time of its appearance, I was in the middle of my own investigations of these matters, and I came to the conclusion that he was on the right track. I refer now to the part of the book that deals with the claims against the Swiss banks, and the other claims pertaining to forced labor. I would now say in retrospect that he was actually conservative, moderate and that his conclusions are trustworthy. He is a well-trained political scientist, has the ability to do the research, did it carefully, and has come up with the right results. I am by no means the only one who, in the coming months or years, will totally agree with Finkelstein's breakthrough.

--JaapBoBo 21:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken about what a primary source is. None of Morris' works can be considered primary sources in regards to the 1948 Palestinian exodus as none of them were created during the time of the exodus. -- tariqabjotu 21:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I know what a primary source is. What I mean is that Finkelstein's thesis is that Morris' conclusions are not supported by the evidence he gives, and for this thesis Morris' work is the primary source, because Finkelstein had to study these works (and only these works) to prove this theses.

This is an argument 'in general' (and not specific for the 'causes ...') that Finkelstein does use primary sources. --JaapBoBo 22:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. Is the dispute over whether to use Finkelstein as a source for causes of the Palestinian exodus or is it over whether to use Finkelstein as a source for criticizing Morris because of alleged non-sequiturs used in his book? If it's the former, Morris is definitely not a primary source. -- tariqabjotu 23:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't run across any Wikipedia guidelines that discourage the use of commentators that don't follow the historical method. I accept that Image and Reality would be accepted under a loose interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. All I am saying is that if we are going to interpret WP:RS loosely so that Finkelstein can be allowed in the article, I would insist upon interpreting WP:RS loosely so that other commentators with questionable historical integrity be allowed in the article. If this cannot be guaranteed, than I am against Finkelstein's inclusion in the article. --GHcool 06:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Our argument started with the text I wanted to include in the 'transfer idea' section:

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

As to Finkelsteins criticism on Morris, I'm not seeking to put that in the article because right now Morris' pov of the exodus ('caused by war, not by design') is not very prominent in the article.

As to GHcool's statement above: I think no editor should allow 'commentators with questionable historical integrity' to be used as a reliable source. --JaapBoBo 08:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Interest?

Are you both still interested in continuing this mediation? If not, I'm going to close it. -- tariqabjotu 01:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I am, but I was waiting for you or GHcool to react. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that I am advocating the status quo, my interest in this mediation only goes as far as JaapBoBo's interest in changing the status quo. --GHcool (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like a list with all of GHcool's arguments to keep my text out of the article. Then, I'd like to discuss (and hopefully disqualify) each argument. One of my problems in the discussion with GHcool on the talk page was that after some time he repeated arguments that I had already refuted. Hopefully we can avoid that here. --JaapBoBo (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If JaapBoBo would like such a list, he is welcome to make it himself, or discuss the issue in a regular way like two gentlemen instead of like one gentlemen arguing against himself. JaapBoBo wants to change the status quo, so the burden of proof is upon him to provide good reasons why. I urge JaapBoBo not to shift the burden of proof anymore. --GHcool (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What is "your text"? The issues raised in the mediation are very general, but I'd be happy to – and would prefer to – speak in specifics, if possible. -- tariqabjotu 20:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, are you addressing me? Which "text" are you referring to? I never used the word and I don't think JaapBoBo did either. --GHcool (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

If you propose to discuss this text first, I agree.

I've given arguments to show Finkelstein is a reliable source. But I think GHcools arguments to the opposite should also be considered. --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Text" is in the statement by JaapBoBo dated 14:00, 26 November -- the comment immediately untabbed prior to mine. -- tariqabjotu 00:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

nr.	GHcool's argument	JaapBoBo's refutations
1	I agree with most of the academics in the field of Middle Eastern history when I say that Norman Finkelstein is an unreliable source at best and a malicious one at worst. Other serious scholars such as Benny Morris express nothing but contempt for the man and his work.	GHcool has only shown criticism from one source, Morris, a rabid Zionists, not from 'most of the academics in the field of Middle Eastern history'. Finkelstein also criticizes Morris, and GHcool has not indicated why Finkelstein's criticism of Morris should be considered a smear campaign, while Morris' criticism of Finkelstein should be considered legitimate
2	The passages of Image and Reality relevant to this debate contains nothing that can be described as serious historical research. All of it is a denial of others' research by selectively using other secondary sources that agree with Finkelstein's point of view. No primary sources are used unless it was quoted in another's book	GHcool hasn't shown any proof of his allegations of selective use of sources, nor that Finkelstein hasn't done primary research. Finkelstein bases the first chapter of 'Image and Reality' on his PhD work. It's very unlikely that he hasn't examined primary sources for this.
3	The relevant passages of Image and Reality happen to be a prolonged smear campaign against Benny Morris. Finkelstein achieves this by quoting Morris out of context and putting words into Morris's mouth to make him look ignorant or illogical.	GHcool hasn't given any example of 'quoting Morris out of context' or 'putting words into Morris's mouth to make him look ignorant or illogical' Finkelstein is not smearing Morris. In fact he is very nuanced. He attacks Morris' conclusions, but he acknowledges Morris research of sources. Let me cite from 'Image and Reality' (p.86,87): 'Morris has indisputably produced landmark studies', '[Morris answer to Shabtai Teveth is] a virtuoso performance' and 'Morris's research will serve as a benchmark for all future scholarship on the topic'. As GHcool says himself below: As I understand it, Finkelstein's decency in comparison to Morris' isn't a major factor in this mediation., so: exit smear campaign
4	Morris and Efraim Karsh, both have "walked the walk," i.e. they both use the historical method, have examined the Hebrew, English, and Arabic primary soruces, are tenured professors, etc. etc.	Morris cannot read or speak Arabic, and the number of English sources he has examined is very limited Efraim Karsh is severely criticised by Morris: 'Efraim Karsh's article (...) is a mélange of distortions, half-truths, and plain lies that vividly demonstrates his profound ignorance of both the source material (...) and the history of the Zionist-Arab conflict. It does not deserve serious attention or reply.'. Also Ian Lustick severely criticises Karsh for distoring evidence and trying to resurrect old Zionist myths [[1]]. Finkelstein bases the first chapter of 'Image and Reality' on his PhD work. It's very unlikely that he hasn't examined primary sources for this. Furthermore Finkelsteins thesis in his criticism of Morris is that Morris' own evidence points to another comclusion than the one Morris draws. For this thesis Morris' work is the primary source. Wikipedia policy doesn't require reliable sources to have studied primary sources are be tenured professors.
5	All I am saying is that if we are going to interpret WP:RS loosely so that Finkelstein can be allowed in the article, I would insist upon interpreting WP:RS loosely so that other commentators with questionable historical integrity be allowed in the article.	For pro-Israeli povs WP:RS is already loosely interpreted. Karsh, who has been shown to be unreliable in many instances, is allowed in the article. 'The economist' is used as a source, while it is known that the journalist used a second-hand account [[2]]. Dodd and Barakat are said to criticise the master plan, while they don't [[3]]. Schechtman's racist statement: Arab warfare against the Jews in Palestine […] had always been marked by indiscriminate killing, mutilating, raping, looting and pillaging. is still in the article. If we're going to set equal standards these four examples should be removed from the article. This is not an argument in itself, since it is completely dependent on the validity of GHcool's other arguments that Finkelstein is not a reliable source.

I have summarised GHcool's arguments and my refutations of his arguments in the table above. It seems to me that none of GHcool's arguments is even remotely valid. In fact with the fifth argument GHcool admits that his other arguments are very weak. --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to start with the first point, particularly because we seemed to begin with this already. GHCool, can you verify that JaapBoBo's description of your position on this is accurate? And, if not, can you correct it (not in the table, but in your own comment)? -- tariqabjotu 15:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The first point ("I agree with most of the academics ...") is a direct quotation of my words on another talk page somewhere. I wish JaapBoBo had provided citations for my words, but it doesn't matter much. Yes, JaapBoBo quoted me fairly and accurately and I maintain this position to this day. --GHcool (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then, I'm not sure I can see your position. As JaapBoBo stated, you have so far only cited Morris as testimony to Finkelstein's unreliability. However, as I mentioned earlier, you have provided no reason why Morris' criticism of Finkelstein is decent, while Finkelstein's criticism of Morris is not. Can you speak to that, or do you have resources from other scholars that corroborate Morris' sentiment? -- tariqabjotu 19:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Your first question, why Morris' criticism of Finkelstein is decent while Finkelstein's criticism of Morris is not, is a strange one. As I understand it, Finkelstein's decency in comparison to Morris' isn't a major factor in this mediation.

As for your second question, whether I have resources from other scholars that corroborate Morris' sentiment toward Finkelstein, I admit that it is difficult to find other serious scholars discussing Finkelstein's work, largely because his work is not considered by other serious scholars. Morris happens to have written about Finkelstein, but every serious scholar cannot be expected to comment on every quack out there. I realize that this doesn't answer either of your questions, but it is a valid point.

To answer you more directly, Alan Dershowitz famously criticized Finkelstein in his book, The Case For Peace. I hope I won't have to copy Dershowitz's criticisms here. The book is widely available and there's virtually a whole chapter that criticizes Finkelstein and 2 of his buddies. I realize that Dershowitz might not be considered a "valid" source by JaapBoBo, but it would be hypocritical for JaapBoBo to take that position since Dershowitz also bases his conclusions largely from Morris' work and the work of other authors that agree with his own POV. Other sources critical of Finkelstein include Chuck Suchar, Finkelstein's Dean of DePaul’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, where Finkelstein used to teach before quitting in a huff because DePaul denied him a tenure position.[4] CAMERA has a couple of articles are critical of Finkelstein as well.[[5][6] I could probably find more, but its 5 to 12 midnight where I am now and I'm falling asleep at the keyboard. --GHcool (talk) 07:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Finkelstein's decency in comparison to Morris' plays a pivotal role in this issue. Morris is cited in the article, by my count, sixty times, while Finkelstein is not cited at all. You say Finkelstein is unreliable based mostly on Morris' criticism of him. What I am saying is perhaps Morris' criticism is born out of the fact that he and Finkelstein have drastically opposing views. You can observe, as I pointed out prior to the break in the mediation, that Finkelstein has made similar criticisms of Morris. So, what I am asking you is why you believe Finkelstein's criticism of Morris is not worth heeding (as Morris is cited in the article sixty times) while Morris' criticism is (since Finkelstein, as you would like, is not cited in the article at all).

You point to Alan Dershowitz as another critic. But, again, Finkelstein, along with others, have criticized him as well (see Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair). If it does help your position, please do copy (examples of) Dershowitz's criticism here. I'm not going to go search for the book, even if it is widely available.

I want to remind you that being controversial, and being criticized by other authors, does not make one's work unworthy of being put in an article (or worthy of being called a "quack"). On a controversial subject like this one, you are bound to find historians and scholars with vastly different conclusions about certain events. Finkelstein's position is wildly different from Morris' and Dershowitz's, as has shown, in part, by the fact they have criticized each other's side. So, it seems quite natural that you would simply present both perspectives and let the reader decide whose position he or she believes is more credible.

JaapBoBo is not requesting that Finkelstein be cited sixty times; he appears to settle with three. And, his paragraph (in the text he presented above) specifically notes that the positions that follow are Finkelstein's. That seems like a reasonable compromise, and I'd like to know why you do not think it is. You really have not demonstrated that Finkelstein is a quack, but rather that those historians whose positions are greatly different from his have termed him as one. -- tariqabjotu 11:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, I am in complete agreement with you on most of your points. However, your last post brings up the following concerns:

If we take the position that Finkelstein is controversial (as opposed to being a quack), then I fully understand why one might argue that he belongs in the article. Morris himself is considered controversial, and as you say, he is cited sixty times. There is a continuum:

1. Prevailing historical knowledge
2. Controversial, but generally accepted historical opinion by mainstream historians
3. Controversial, but generally unaccepted historical opinion by mainstream historians
4. Quackery

I believe that the causes of the Palestinian exodus article can and should cite information from Categories 1 and 2. It appears to me that Finkelstein fits no higher than Category 3. By comparison, Ilan Pappe, the historian Finkelstein seems to admire most, fits somewhere between Categories 2 and 3, but I'm willing to accept him as a Category 2 historian for the purposes of the article. I've already stated many, many times that I am more than happy to accept Finkelstein into this article as long as JaapBoBo (and other fans of Finkelstein's research) allow me to add Category 3 writers of my choosing into the article. --GHcool (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

nr.	GHcool's argument	JaapBoBo's refutations
6	I admit that it is difficult to find other serious scholars discussing Finkelstein's work, largely because his work is not considered by other serious scholars.	Finkelstein's work is considered extensively by other serious scholars. E.g. compare the numbers of quotations according to Google scholar for Finkelstein's works [82, 31, 15, ...] with those of Israeli historians Shapira [53, 17, 8, ...], Teveth [15, 11, 8, ...], and especially Gelber [5, 3, 3, ...], who has a whole section in the article. Finkelstein's specialty is criticising works of pro-Israeli writers. In 'Image and reality' he criticises Joan Peter's 'From time immemorial', Morris' 'Birth ...' and Anita Shapira's 'Land and Power', and in 'Beyond Chutzpah' he criticises Dershovits' claim that Israel's human rights record is 'generally superb'. Since Finkelstein's books are also bestsellers, I don't think a lack of criticism is due to a lack of attention. Rather Finkelstein's arguments are simply too strong and well founded.
7	It appears to me that Finkelstein fits no higher than Category 3 (Controversial, but generally unaccepted historical opinion by mainstream historians)	Maybe Finkelstein is a controversial person. However to my knowledge the arguments he uses are not controversial. He uses well-founded, carefully written arguments. For the purpose of an encyclopedia the reliability of the arguments is critical. GHcool says that Finkelstein's opinion is generally unaccepted, without giving any proof. A leading Holocaust expert accepts Finkelsteins opinion (a quote from the Finkelstein article): Raul Hilberg, widely regarded during his lifetime as a leading expert among Holocaust researchers, said ['The Holocaust Industry'] expressed views Hilberg himself subscribed to in substance, in that he too found the exploitation of the Holocaust, in the manner Finkelstein describes, 'detestable.' Asked on another occasion if Finkelstein's analysis might play into the hands of neo-Nazis for antisemitic purposes, Hilberg replied: 'Well, even if they do use it in that fashion, I'm afraid that when it comes to the truth, it has to be said openly, without regard to any consequences that would be undesirable, embarrassing.'
8	Dershovitz, DePaul's dean and CAMERA	What I have seen of Dershovitz's criticism is absolutely not serious, mainly unfounded and dirty ad hominem attacks, like 'Almost no one—except neo-Nazis—takes him seriously. He suspects his own mother of being a kapo and cooperating with the Nazis during the Holocaust.' [7], which was debunked by a camp survivor: 'By removing those words and replacing them with the ellipses, you have changed the meaning of Finkelstein's statements. Your quotation suggests that Finkelstein is saying that his mother had to have been a kapo in order to survive. But when the missing words are put back in, it's clear that what he was actually saying was that she had to have "fought Hobbe's war of all against all" in order to survive.' [8]. You might also like to read this discussion, on which Dershovitz promises 10,000 dollar to anyone who can show an error in a historical fact in 'The case for Israel', upon which Finkelstein shows him that he has reduced the number of 200 to 300 thousand Palestinian refugees in the second stage of the exodus to 2 to 3 thousand. If the subject were not so serious it would be hilarious! DePaul has acknowledged Finkelstein is "a prolific scholar and an outstanding teacher." [[9]] CAMERA is a Zionist lobby propaganda organisation. Totally unreliable. I won't read it. GHcool has only indicated some sources of criticism, but nothing of content. The real issue for Wikipedia is reliability.

More refutations.

The main issue is reliability. Up till now GHcool hasn't even scratched Finkelstein's reliability! --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add Laila Parsons [10] to my list of people who refute Finkelstein's research. I'd like to remind JaapBoBo that Google Scholar's 31 citations of Image and Reality include criticisms of Finkelstein as well as articles in which Finkelstein cites his own work. --GHcool (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, on the one hand, you might add them to your sources of serious criticism, on the other hand it shows that they are taking Finkelstein seriously. --JaapBoBo (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Two more critics:

• "Finkelstein burst onto the scene with an odd book that portrayed Israel as the little sister of Nazi Germany." - Tom Segev[11]
• "Is it surprising that Finkelstein’s books and essays are reproduced on neo-Nazi websites all over the Internet, or that Holocaust deniers celebrate him as 'the Jewish David Irving?'" - Paul Bogdanor[12]

--GHcool (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not the quantity of criticism that counts, its the quality: what do they say that undermines Finkelstein's reliability? What examples do they show of Finkelstein being wrong, distorting or lying?

Segev's and Bogdanor's statements say nothing to this effect. They are completely neutral as to Finkelstein's reliability, --JaapBoBo (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, if you want to quote criticism that says Finkelstein is biased, maybe you should first search wikipedia policy whether bias is relevant. If it's not extreme, bias is not an issue according to wikipedia policy. And rightly so, because it would invalidate a lot of sources. I would have no problem showing that e.g. Karsh is more biased than Finkelstein. Probably also Morris and Dershowitz.

I prefer that you focus on reliability. --JaapBoBo (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo is quite correct when he notes that bias is not an unusual trait among scholars. I am not sure what Raul Hilberg, and The Holocaust Industry have to do with the 1948 Palestinian exodus and Image and Reality. I will wait for a mediator to lead the discussion in a more productive direction before commenting further. --GHcool (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe Hilberg is a bit off-topic, but either way, I don't see us getting anywhere. The Palestinian exodus is a very complicated, and disputed, element of history. That's precisely why there is an entire article on its causes, instead of just a section in 1948 Palestinian exodus. GH, you can cite plenty of criticism of Finkelstein, but you're going to have a very hard time proving that what he says is so far out that it's not worthy of even a small mention. There are a great many unpopular theories (often framed as conspiracy theories) that you will find on Wikipedia -- in relation to 9/11, the assassination of JFK, etc -- and those events at least have one primary explanation. The 1948 exodus is different in that there really is no one generally accepted theory. Thus, of all articles, the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus would seem the most appropriate to have minority theories mentioned, unless they are extraordinarily improbable (along the lines of "the Earth is flat"). I'm not seeing that extraordinary improbability from JaapBoBo's text and he makes certain to attribute the opinion to Finkelstein rather than simply state that as fact. Response? -- tariqabjotu 00:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the Finkelstein material in question only mirrors the "Master Plan" explanation proposed by Walid Khalidi and Ilan Pappe. There is a very long section on this already in the article. Nobody is arguing that this section isn't vital to the overall structure of the article. Minor trims should probably still be made to the section for length and relevance, but overall nobody that I know of questions Khalidi's or Pappe's credentials nor their reliability as historical scholars. This is why I am confused as to why anybody would want to taint the article with a sub-par scholar that basically agrees with the "master plan" historians. It would be the equivalent of having a section on a theory proposed by Benny Morris followed by a brief paragraph reading, "Joe Shmoe agrees with Benny Morris." --GHcool (talk) 06:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein says something completely different. Pappe and Khalidi say things about the preparation and execution of a master plan. Finkelstein says something about Zionist beliefs that induced them to do such a thing. Zionists believed they had a preemptive right to the Land of Israel.

Do you, GHcool, doubt that this is the truth? You have never attacked the content of what I want to add from Finkelstein. You might even believe it yourself.

In fact I think Zionists still believe this today. How else can they justify the colonisation of the West Bank? --JaapBoBo (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo's last post grossly misrepresents Finkelstein. Nobody denies that Zionism, by definition, is the belief that Jews have a right to their own independent state in at least a part of the biblical Land of Israel. Finkelstein goes much further than that alleging that Zionism also entails calling "into question any Arab presence in Palestine" and "that transferist thinking is close to the core of Zionist thinking" even before 1947-8. These two points are highly debatable and rejected by virtually all mainstream historians. --GHcool (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not misrepresenting Finkelstein. On what point am I misrepresenting him?

Finkelstein is an expert on Zionism and Zionist ideology. Sternhell says approximately the same, e.g. he quotes Aaron David Gordon, whose teachings formed the main intellectual inspiration of the labor leaders after WWI, who wrote in 1921:

'For Eretz Israel, we have a charter that has been valid until now and that will always be valid, and that is the Bible [... including the Gospels and the New Testament ...] It all came from us; it was created among us. [...] And what did the Arabs produce in all the years they lived in the country? Such creations, or even the creation of the Bible alone, give us a perpetual right over the land in which we were so creative, especially since the people that came after us did not create such works in this country, or did not create anything at all.'

According to Sternhell 'The founders accepted this point of view. This was the ultimate Zionist argument'.

Furthermore Gorny cites a host of Zionists claiming a preemptive right. Gorny says the cultural Zionist Ahad Ha'am 'saw the historical rights of the Jews as outweighing the Arabs' residential rights in Palestine'. Gorny says Max Nordau declared that Palestine was the 'legal and historical inheritance' of the Jewish nation, and that the Palestinian Arabs had only 'possession rights'. Gorny says that Ben Gurion held that the Jewish people had a superior right to Palestine, that Palestine was important to the Jews as a nation and to the Arabs as individuals, and hence the right of the Jewish people to concentrate in Palestine, a right which was not due to the Arabs. A few Zionists thought different, e.g. Bergmann, a member of Brit-Shalom in 1929: 'our opponents [mainstream Zionism] hold different views. When they speak of Palestine, of our country, they mean "our country", that is to say "not their country" [... this belief is based on the concept that in a State] one people, among the people residing there, should be granted the majority right.'

This clearly shows that mainstream Zionism claimed a superior right over Palestine. Furthermore mainstream Zionism also aspired to all of Palestine.

--JaapBoBo (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... GHcool, JaapBoBo has been rather convincing so far. You may indeed be correct that Finkelstein's beliefs are highly debatable, but that still does not seem to be enough reason to exclude his points altogether. I'd like to ask that we move on, settling on allowing JaapBoBo's text, which attributes the controversial information to Finkelstein, to be put in the article, but I have a feeling you're not okay with that. -- tariqabjotu 04:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed interference from another party, David Sher and PR, and advised Sher to advice GHcool privatly. --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Break

JaapBoBo's argument, as I understand it, is:

• (1) Image and Reality is considered a reliable source in some circles, but considered unreliable in other circles.
• (2) The "Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus" article should include information from all sources considered reliable in some circles including (especially?) sources considered unreliable in other circles.
• Therefore, (3) the "Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus" should include information from Image and Reality.

The argument is sound and for that reason, I am willing to accept it as a good argument. However, I fear that the argument is disingenuous and will not be fairly applied to scholarship that paints Israel in a favorable light. Consider the following counter-argument:

• (1) From Time Immemorial is considered a reliable source in some circles, but considered unreliable in other circles.
• (2) The "Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus" article should include information from all sources considered reliable in some circles including (especially?) sources considered unreliable in other circles.
• Therefore, (3) the "Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus" article should include information from From Time Immemorial.

The day that JaapBoBo (and anyone else who wishes Finkelstein to be in the "Causes of ..." article) accepts the counter-argument in favor of From Time Immemorial as equally legitimate or equally illegitimate to the exact same argument in favor of Image and Reality is the day we can move forward.

One other way we can move forward is to agree to the status quo, which already says everything Finkelstein would ever say and more. Others on the talk page seem to have accepted this reality and have moved on to more important matters. I hope to be able to do the same. --GHcool (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The comparison with From Tome Immemorial is ridiculous. This book has been exposed as fraudulous by Finkelstein. Many other scholars have the same opinion. Like Yehoshua Porath, an Israeli expert on the subject of Palestinians, who wrote:

"Readers of her book should be warned not to accept its factual claims without checking their sources. Judging by the interest that the book aroused and the prestige of some who have endorsed it, I thought it would present some new interpretation of the historical facts. I found none. Everyone familiar with the writing of the extreme nationalists of Zeev Jabotinsky's Revisionist party (the forerunner of the Herut party) would immediately recognize the tired and discredited arguments in Mrs. Peters's book. I had mistakenly thought them long forgotten. It is a pity that they have been given new life."

If From Time Immemorial is considered a reliable source in some circles then those sure aren't academic circles!

Finkelstein on the other hand is considered a reliable source in academic circles. He has a difference of opinion with Morris about the interpretation of evidence in Morris' book, but this does not make him unreliable. --JaapBoBo (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a debate about From Time Immemorial. It was the first title I thought of that paints Israel in a positive light that has significant respect in certain circles (including academics), but not in others. I fear that I could replace From Time Immemorial with any book that shows Israel in a positive light and JaapBobo still would not accept it. JaapBoBo is an intelligent editor who has crafted an intelligent argument, but he is not so intelligent that he can outsmart me by convincing me to apply his argument only to books that show Israel in a negative light. I hope that JaapBoBo abandons this tactic. --GHcool (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, let's focus on Finkelstein.

What you portray as my argument ((1) "Image and Reality" is considered a reliable source in some circles, but considered unreliable in other circles. (2) The "Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus" article should include information from all sources considered reliable in some circles including (especially?) sources considered unreliable in other circles.) is a distortion of it. The first point is really pointless, e.g. Garaudy is considered reliable in neo-Nazi-circles, so by applying your logic (you wrote: The argument is sound and for that reason, I am willing to accept it as a good argument.) you effectively say we should allow a Holocaust-denier as a reliable source. The second point would in many cases contradict wikipedia policy and I want to stick to wikipedia policy.

Let's simply discuss whether Finkelstein is a reliable source according to wikipedia policy. I'm getting the impression you're trying to avoid this! --JaapBoBo (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I misspoke when I wrote that the argument is a good one, but I am still willing to accept that it is sound. The question is whether the argument is valid. I get the feeling that JaapBoBo and I agree that it is an invalid argument. --GHcool (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I will also join in by saying that there's no reason to talk about From Time Immemorial because it's not one of the issues to be mediation. GHcool, I'm confused by your latest comment (01:08, 23 December) in which you link to soundness (saying the argument is sound) while saying the question is whether the argument is valid (even though the article you link to says that for something to be considered sound it must automatically be valid). Can you clarify that? -- tariqabjotu 05:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. I accidentally confused the terms. What I meant was that the argument in favor of Image and Reality is valid, but not sound. --GHcool (talk) 07:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

GHcool's (1), (2), (3) argument that would accept Image and Reality is not mine. I don't appeal to arguments that would replace wikipedia policy. I appeal to wikipedia policy. Let's focus on that. --JaapBoBo (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

/On hold#Table (9-13)

The issue we are discussing is Use of Finkelstein as a reliable source in this article. Arguments 10-13 of GHcool don't address this issue. In fact the last three, when scrutinised, show an increasing absurdity.

Can we please address this issue? --JaapBoBo (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

GHCool, I'd like to ask you to further clarify your opinion on the acceptability of keeping Finkelstein's positions in the article. What element is preventing you from fully accepting the inclusion of Finkelstein's positions in the article? -- tariqabjotu 02:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My problem with Finkelstein in a nutshell is:

1. It is implicitly agreed upon that the "Causes of ..." article has higher standards for WP:RS than other articles. I once tried adding material from Mitchell Bard, but without luck because he was deemed to be an unreliable source for such a controversial article. His work was not at the level of Morris, etc. Most people consider Bard to be a reliable scholar with an agenda in favor of Israel, but others challenged this by saying he is a propagandist and got their way in the end. I wasn't happy about it, but I understood that Bard, like Finkelstein, was a borderline case and I moved forward. I hoped JaapBoBo to do the same with respect to Finkelstein whose reputation as a propagandist is at least as bad as Bard's and his reputation as an academic is considerably worse, but gets more press than Bard because his views are so controversial.
2. I don't find JaapBoBo's argument to be in good faith. It seems to me that he wants his argument in favor of Finkelstein to only be applied to Finkelstein. When I try to apply his argument to a pro-Israel author of my choice (I mentioned Joan Peters earlier, but I could have said Mitchell Bard or Alan Dershowitz or CAMERA or any number of intelligent, reliable sources), the answer is always, "No! Finkelstein is a acceptable and [pro-Israel writer] is a unacceptable" without regard that a good case can be made for the opposite.

As I said countless times, we can move forward if JaapBoBo gives up the idea that his argument only applies to anti-Israel sources or if JaapBoBo accepts that his argument opens up Pandora's box and isn't bothered by that. If JaapBoBo says, "I want a loose interpretation of WP:RS in the article so that Finkelstein, Mitchell Bard, and every other person on the pro-Israel and anti-Israel side of the divide who was published in a source that under normal circumstances would be considered under WP:RS to be included in the article," then I will have no choice but to accept the proposal as a compromise.

So the nutshell of my nutshell is: Finkelstein is currently inside Pandora's box. If JaapBoBo wants Finkelstein in the article, he must make a sacrifice and open Pandora's box to get it. JaapBoBo must weigh his options and ask himself whether Finkelstein's inclusion in the article is worth opening Pandora's box to get it or is it better to keep Pandora's box shut and accept the fact that Finkelstein won't be in the article? I cannot make the decision for JaapBoBo, but I am willing to accept either of them as a compromise. --GHcool (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point. JaapBoBo, are you willing to accept that the rationale used to support the inclusion of Finkelstein may be used to support the inclusion of sources that are frequently termed "pro-Israeli"? -- tariqabjotu 23:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

My position is that we should always follow wikipedia policy, regardless whether the source is pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian. So yes, I agree, and always have agreed, to apply equal criteria. But the criteria should be according to wikipedia policy.

Bard's rejection by other editors was before I started editing on the 'causes ...' article. A quick glance at the Bard discussion gives me the impression that he was rejected because he quoted scholars out of context. If GHcool interprets that as implicitly agreed upon that the "Causes of ..." article has higher standards for WP:RS than other articles, I think he is the only one who interprets it in that way. Apparently there were good reasons to reject Bard. There is no mention of 'higher standards' in that discussion.

This mediation is about Finkelstein and not about Bard. If GHcool wants to get Bard back in he should do that outside the context of the Finklestein mediation. The discussion should be separate.

GHcool's assertion about me answering "No! Finkelstein is a acceptable and [pro-Israel writer] is a unacceptable" without regard that a good case can be made for the opposite is ridiculous. Please show even one example! I have always supported equal standards for pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian sources.

In fact GHcool is arguing in bad faith himself. He says he wants to evaluate Finkelstein and Bard with the same criteria. In the case of Bard the content of Bard's quotes was attacked and found unfit for the article by most editors. In the case of Finkelstein GHcool has never attacked the content of what I want to add from Finkelstein. Even in this mediation I have asked GHcool several times to bring arguments bearing on the reliability of Finkelstein, but GHcool keeps insisting that Finkelstein is unreliable without giving good arguments. The best he has done is give some indications of sources that are critical of Finkelstein, but except for Morris he hasn't shown that this criticism is substantial or even relevant.

Despite my kind request GHcool has given a lot of arguments that turned out to be irrelevant (2,3,4,6,7,10,11,12,13 in the tables), and subsequently he dares to accuse me of using bad faith arguments. Its ridiculous.

Now I'd like to discuss arguments relevant to Finkelstein's reliability or the reliability of the quote I want to add. --JaapBoBo (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

To show that Bard was attacked on content, here is the refutation of one of Bards quotes: Now there is no way that Bard can quote Morris to conclude that it can be included among those authors who claim that: "the refugee flight was in large part instigated by Arab leaders." He claims quite the contrary, that arab instigation provoked only a small part of the exodus. Not only he says this in 'The Birth' but in many other articles. Hope this makes things clear. Cheers. (posted by Jorditxei, 10:23, 26 July 2007) --JaapBoBo (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Compromise(?)

Clearly this issue is more contentious than either of us had anticipated. Like most things related to the I-P conflict, there is evidence on both sides to support either claim. I don't think JaapBoBo and I will ever agree that Finkelstein is 100% reliable or 100% unreliable. Therefore, to get out of this deadlock we seem to be in, I've proposed the following text as a compromise:

Norman Finkelstein goes further than most proponents of the transfer theory by arguing that "Zionism's claim to the whole of Palestine ... called into question any Arab presence in Palestine."[Citation: Finkelstein, 1995, p.15] However, Benny Morris questions Finkelstein honesty in interpreting the facts.[13]

Its a little shorter than JaapBoBo would probably like, but I think it presents both sides on the Finkelstein issue fairly without giving it undue weight. --GHcool (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in this kind of compromise:

• You would give Finkelstein's pov without an explanation. Readers wouldn't understand.
• Then you would have that Morris accuses him of dishonesty, which is not stated in the reference you give.
• Furthermore Morris' criticism of Finkelstein refers to Finkelstein's criticism of Morris, but Morris does not criticise the chapter I want to use as a source. So Morris' criticism is irrelevant anyway.
• To summarise: I think you know the text you propose is bullshit.

Surely the criticism of Finkelstein's reliability that you have shown us up until now (easily summarised by: "Finkelstein and Morris don't agree on the interpretation of the evidence in Morris' book") does not warrent such a compromise.

So far, since September, you have been dragging this discussion into all kinds of irrelevant directions. Time after time I refute the arguments you give. Many of them are not even relevant, like the "status quo" argument. On the talk page you were alone in your rabiate rejection of Finkelstein, and it isn't getting any better. On this talk page I've requested time and again that you concentrate on the issue (Finkelstein as a reliable source), but you keep coming up with nonsense arguments. And why do you keep coming with that kind of arguments? .... Because you don't have any better!

Just look at some comment we got from non-involved editors (both, I think, are quite neutral):

G-Dett: It is not for Wikipedians to say that peer-reviewed scholarship published by eminent academic presses is "unreliable." [14]

CJCurrie: I'm afraid that I cannot take GHCool's assessment of this situation seriously. Norman Finkelstein is a very controversial scholar and there's every reason to believe that his political views have limited his career, but he is emphatically not a discredited or unworthy source. For every Alan Dershowitz or Benny Morris who has condemned him, there's a Noam Chomsky or Raul Hilberg to sing his praises. (And it might be worthwhile to remind everyone that Finkelstein's scholarship played a major role in discrediting Joan Peters' From Time Immemorial during the 1980s). (see the recent history of this talk page).

So can you please stop avoiding the real issue and concentrate on that?

If you don't I'm thinking of quitting this mediation. Then, if you still object I could go for arbitration. --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to propose an alternative compromise? Perhaps the mediation can be saved without dragging this further. --GHcool (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If you agree to have my proposed text in, I will refrain from adding the text below at the end of the 'Outline of the historical debate'-section:

According to Finkelstein all serious scholars now agree that the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1948, and the scholarly debate now focusses on whether or not this cleansing was the intentional consequence of Zionist policy or the unintentional by-product of war

A very adequete and accurate summary of the current status of the debate I think (or is there already a consensus emerging that there was an unofficial policy behind it?).

Instead I will add:

Serious scholars now agree that Jewish military attacks were the main cause of the exodus, and the scholarly debate now focusses on whether or not the exodus was the intentional consequence of Zionist policy or the unintentional by-product of war

These texts are based on Finkelstein in 'Beyond Chutzpah' p.3: “Beginning in the late 1980s, however, a steady stream of scholarly studies, mostly by Israelis, dispelled much of the Zionist mythology enveloping the origins of the conflict. Thus it was now conceded by all serious scholars that the ‘Arab radio broadcasts’ were a Zionist fabrication and that the Palestinians had been ethnically cleansed in 1948, and scholarly debate now focused on the much narrower, if still highly pertinent, question of whether this cleansing was the intentional consequence of Zionist policy or the unintentional by-product of war” --JaapBoBo (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a step in the right direction. Consider this rewording:

In his book, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, Norman Finkelstein wrote that the New Historians of the late 1980s agreed "that the Palestinians had been ethnically cleansed in 1948, and the scholarly debate now focused on ... whether this cleansing was the intentional consequence of Zionist policy or the unintentional by-product of war."[citation here]

I believe this quotes Finkelstein more directly and more accurately reflects the context of the original statement in Beyond Chutzpah. --GHcool (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Finkelstein refers to 'all serious scholars', not only to 'new historians'. Also on p.5 Finkelstein writes: the scholarly consensus is that Palestinians were ethnically cleansed. --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't own Beyond Chutzpah, but assuming you quoted him accurately above, Finkelstein states that, in his opinion, "all serious scholars" refers specifically to the (mostly Israeli) scholars of the late 1980s that "dispelled much of the Zionist mythology enveloping the origins of the conflict." The common title given to these historians are "the New Historians." However, if you prefer, I'll agree to the following:

In his book, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, Norman Finkelstein wrote that all of the historians he considers to be serious agreed "that the Palestinians had been ethnically cleansed in 1948, and the scholarly debate now focused on ... whether this cleansing was the intentional consequence of Zionist policy or the unintentional by-product of war."[citation here]

I am not open to the phrase "all serious scholars" without either defining Finkelstein's criteria for "seriousness" (which in this case is subscribing to the research of the New Historians) or qualifying it to show that the phrase is subjective. --GHcool (talk) 08:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right that Finkelstein refers primarily to the 'New Historians' as the ones who "dispelled the mythology". But after that he says: "Thus it was now conceded by all serious scholars ...". So he says the 'old' historians (and other serious scholars) conceded that the 'new' historians were right. And on p.5 he repeated that there is a consensus among serious scholars.

Ceedjee (who formerly edited under the name of Alithien) gave this summary of the scholars: By Israeli traditional and "new" historians such as Yoav Gelber, Tom Segev and Ilan Pappé, Palestinian historians such as Nur Masalha, and foreign historians and scholars such as Avi Shlaim in the UK, Henry Laurens in France and Norman Finkelstein in the USA [[15]]

What is wrong with: "Serious scholars now agree that Jewish military attacks were the main cause of the exodus, and the scholarly debate now focusses on whether or not the exodus was the intentional consequence of Zionist policy or the unintentional by-product of war" ? --JaapBoBo (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The only thing wrong with the above suggestion is that it contains two opinions ("serious scholars" and "the main cause") that should be attributed to Finkelstein instead of stated as a fact. The bulk of the Palestinian Arab refugees of 1947-8 left without witnessing or being involved in Jewish military attacks. It is true that some serious scholars agree with Finkelstein, but other serious scholars such as Efraim Karsh, Avraham Sela, Moshe Efrat, Ian J. Bickerton, Carla L. Klausner, and Howard Sachar say that the the main cause was the rapid collapse of the Palestinian Arab social structure and economy. Even Yoav Gelber seems to put this socio-economic cause as virtually equal to the Jewish military cause. The "ethnic cleansing" Finkelstein refers to is not the same as "military attacks," as you word it. And, as always, I prefer naming specific organizations rather than describing the Jewish population of Palestine as "Jewish" because it starts to blur the line between a "holy" or "religious" conflict and a socio-economic conflict.

Therefore, if we say, "The scholars that Norman Finkelstein considers serious now agree that military campaigns by the Haganah and the Irgun were the main cause of the exodus, and the scholarly debate now focuses on whether or not the exodus was the intentional consequence of Zionist policy or the unintentional by-product of war,[citation here]" I would accept it. --GHcool (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As you probably noticed, I have been missing in action over the past few days, as I settle back into school. However, it looks like you two are doing just fine on your own, coming closer to a compromise. So, I'll just stand on the sidelines for now, unless I see some complications. -- tariqabjotu 19:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

@GHcool: To react on your argument: I believe that Karsh would reject Morris' conclusion (that Jewish military attacks are the main direct cause of the exodus), but Karsh is a notorious distorter (please check the example given by Ian Lustick), so I don't think Finkelstein considers him a serious scholar (at least not on this subject). I don't know the work of the other authors you give. Can you indicate where I can find their rejection of Morris' conclusion? --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to evade the question, but we are so close to a compromise that I don't want to restart the debate on who is and who is not a "serious scholar." Can't we just say that the scholars that Finkelstein considers serious agree with Finkelstein? That's both neutral and accurate. --GHcool (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I won't agree to that because I think Finkelstein is right. However, I do think a discussion of this text is warrented, to establish how right he is. But this discussion should not only be between the two of us, because other editors, like Ceedjee, are probably very interested too. Besides, this discussion would focus on the accuracy of an assertion of Finkelstein, and would be completely different from the issue we discussed here.

My offer still stands --JaapBoBo (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand and recognize that you agree with Finkelstein's opinion on who is and who is not a serious scholar. In return, I ask that you recognize that many (most?) people also agree that Karsh, Sela, Efrat, Bickerton, Klausner, Sachar, and Gelber are also serious scholars who happen to disagree with Finkelstein's opinion. "I won't agree to that because I think Finkelstein is right" is not a very productive position to take to a good faith offer of a fair compromise.

Consider this analogy to a less controversial topic: A famous actor writes a book about acting in which he writes, "Serious actors now agree that the Meisner technique is the main acting theory in the theater, television, and film industries." A significant number of serious and notable actors disagree and say that the main acting theory is Stanislavski's 'system' or the Method or that they are all equally "main." On Wikipedia, we would have to say that the author of the book was either wrong, or alternatively, we could write that only actors the author considers to be serious agree with him about the Meisner technique.

I ask that you continue to keep this mediation between the two of us. We are so very close to compromise that it would be a shame to abandon the mediation now. If you have a better way of wording it, I am open to it, but if not, my offer still stands: "The scholars that Norman Finkelstein considers serious now agree that military campaigns by the Haganah and the Irgun were the main cause of the exodus. Scholarly debate now focuses on whether or not the exodus was the intentional consequence of Zionist policy or the unintentional by-product of war,[citation here]"

NOTE: I split the one sentence into two for better readability. I hope that's ok. --GHcool (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Q: How should your 'acting-example' be solved on wikipedia?

A: By consulting the reliable sources.

So in our case I think we should consult reliable sources to see if Finkelstein is right. The question to be considered is not whether these sources agree with Finkelstein, but whether they all have conceded the accuracy of Morris' conclusion that the main cause of the exodus was Jewish military attacks. Can you present evidence that the authors you mention disagree with Morris on this issue? --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Where did Morris come in? The authors I cite seem to disagree with Finkelstein. The problem is that Finkelstein says that all serious scholars believe that the main cause of the exodus was Jewish military attacks, but the serious scholars I cite do not agree that it was the main cause or that there even was one single cause that can be described as the main one. For the views of the serious scholars I mention that disagree with Finkelstein on the issue of "the main cause," see Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus#Two-stage_analysis. --GHcool (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) "I won't agree to that because I think Finkelstein is right" should not be at the center of the dispute here. "Serious scholars" is clearly a judgment on the part of Finkelstein, and it should be left up to the reader to decide whether he/she believes Finkelstein is correct (both about who the serious scholars are and about the truth of his statements). However, if the GHCool's proposal sounds a bit wieldly, perhaps it would be better to go with a formulation that keeps the words "serious" and "scholars" together, along the lines of Norman Finkelstein believes "serious scholars" now agree... or According to Norman Finkelstein, "serious scholars" now agree... (something that makes clear that serious did not come from wiki writers, but Finkelstein himself). I am also unsure why Morris re-entered the discussion. -- tariqabjotu 23:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking abouut Morris because we are discussing Finkelstein's assertion that all serious scholars agree that the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed. From Finkelstein's quote it is clear that he refers to Morris' work. To see whether Finkelstein is right we have to investigate whether scholars agree or disagree with Morris on this point. GHcool refers to the 'causes' article. What can we read there:

• Gelber says Before the first truce (11 June - 8 July 1948), it explains the exodus as a result of the crumbling Arab social structure that was not ready to withstand a civil war, and justified Jewish military conduct. After the truce the IDF launched counter offensives against the invading forces.. So before one of the two reasons was military actions, and after it was the only reason.
• Sachar's quote is from 1976, i.e. not relevant.
• Efrat doesn't dispute Morris' thesis. He says: most of the Palestinians who became refugees had left their homes on their own initiative, before they came face to face with Israeli forces, especially in the period between late 1947 and June 1948 Have you ever wondered how much use the Zionists made of mortars? Mortaring civilians! No wonder many refugees fled before they came face to face.
• Bickerton and Klausner say Palestinian leadership was absent. They talk about a completely different subject.
• For the second stage Karsh even confirms Morris: dictated predominantly by ad hoc military considerations, which can only refer to military actions.

So, to judge from these sources, there is no doubt that Finkelstein and Morris are right. --JaapBoBo (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody denies that Jewish military attacks were one of the reasons for the exodus, but it is a matter of opinion whether or not it was the main reason. Furthermore, "serious scholars" is also a matter of opinion. This has been explained numerous times by me and even by Tariqabjotu on one occasion. Please do not assert that Finkelstein's two opinions are facts anymore. It is a dead end. It would be far more productive to come to an agreement on how to handle Finkelstein's opinion fairly and accurately. We are so close to coming to an agreement. --GHcool (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that no serious scholar denies that Jewish military attacks were the main reason for the exodus. I cannot agree on a text that suggests that Finkelstein is biased in his judgement of which scholars are serious. This is not a neutral way to give Finkelstein's opinion. If you insist on adding more than simply Finkelstein's assertion, I suggest we start a new subsection in which pov's are given on whether or not the current scholarly consensus is that the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed. This is how a controversy should be handled according to WP:NPOV: provide more background and attribute opinions. --JaapBoBo (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

To Tariqabjotu, what JaapBoBo is asking is unreasonable. I'm trying to come to a compromise, but progress simply isn't going to be made if JaapBoBo keeps asserting that Finkelstein's statement of opinion is a statement of fact. To show my good faith, I changed my original position (to not have Finkelstein at in the article at all) to a new one (to have Finkelstein's opinions stated in the article as opinions). JaapBoBo seems to wish me to bend even further so that we state Finkelstein's opinions as facts in the article.

The current proposal on the table shows that Finkelstein is biased. This isn't true. All the wording shows is that Finkelstein agrees with the scholars he considers to be serious. To just say something along the lines of "Serious scholars agree with Finkelstein" with a citation to Finkelstein for that "fact" would truly be biased for the same reason that it would be biased to write "Ice cream lovers agree that Ben & Jerry's is great" and cite the Ben & Jerry's website.

I do not intend to respond to JaapBoBo in this mediation process if he continues with this "Finkelstein said so, therefore it is true" argument; instead I will wait for the mediator to jump start the mediation back into a meaningful discourse. If, however, JaapBoBo chooses a more productive course, than I am open to further direct conversation. And, as always, my offer still stands: "The scholars that Norman Finkelstein considers serious now agree that military campaigns by the Haganah and the Irgun were the main cause of the exodus. Scholarly debate now focuses on whether or not the exodus was the intentional consequence of Zionist policy or the unintentional by-product of war.[citation here]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by GHcool (talk • contribs) 06:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(from GHcool's comment) To Tariqabjotu, what JaapBoBo is asking is unreasonable. I'm trying to come to a compromise, but progress simply isn't going to be made if JaapBoBo keeps asserting that Finkelstein's statement of opinion is a statement of fact.

Indeed. JaapBoBo, the question isn't whether Finkelstein is biased in his judgment of which scholars are serious; the point is that "serious scholars" is inherently subjective. That Finkelstein is using the term is irrelevant; the same thing would have be said about anyone using that phrase: its one's opinion and not in any way a fact. Finkelstein makes no mention of who specifically he considers serious and so the best thing we can do is attribute the phrase to him.

(from JaapBoBo's comment) If you insist on adding more than simply Finkelstein's assertion, I suggest we start a new subsection

No, let's not do that. We seem to have been on the cusp of an agreement for awhile now, and GHcool's point -- that "serious scholars" is an opinion -- is entirely valid. There's no reason to divert attention from a route that has so far been working for the most part. -- tariqabjotu 18:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure I have to acknowledge that GHcool has given in a lot. But this is compared to what he wanted, not compared to what he was entitled to according to Wikipedia policy. Compared to that I'm the only one doing concessions. And I don't want to do more concesssions.

What do you think of this:

According to Finkelstein all serious scholars now agree that the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1948, and the scholarly debate now focusses on whether or not this cleansing was the intentional consequence of Zionist policy or the unintentional by-product of war

It says 'according to ...', so it should be acceptable. --JaapBoBo (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. We're getting closer to an agreement. I'd like the source to be explicitly mentioned and the quotations taken directly from it to be specified. Consider: According to Norman Finkelstein's book Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, "all serious scholars" now agree "that the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1948, and scholarly debate now [focuses] on ... whether this cleansing was the intentional consequence of Zionist policy or the unintentional by-product of war.”[citation here] --GHcool (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of: According to Norman Finkelstein in his book Beyond Chutzpah "all serious scholars [now concede] that the Palestinians [were] ethnically cleansed in 1948, and scholarly debate now [focuses on] whether this cleansing was the intentional consequence of Zionist policy or the unintentional by-product of war."[citation here] ? --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with it if the entire title of Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History were used. Also, on a minor technical note, you got some of the ellipses and bracketed words wrong when compared to the original text. I've correct them here: According to Norman Finkelstein in his book Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, "all serious scholars [now concede] that ... the Palestinians had been ethnically cleansed in 1948, and scholarly debate now [focuses] on ... whether this cleansing was the intentional consequence of Zionist policy or the unintentional by-product of war."[citation here] --GHcool (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I agree to that. But I think we should write [were] instead of had been, to make the tense right. --JaapBoBo (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I am proud of the work we've done together. I consider the matter closed and I intend to defend this text against anybody who tries to alter it. I expect you to do the same. Thank you. --GHcool (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Final text we agreed upon (please do not post here)

According to Norman Finkelstein in his book Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, "all serious scholars [now concede] that ... the Palestinians [were] ethnically cleansed in 1948, and scholarly debate now [focuses] on ... whether this cleansing was the intentional consequence of Zionist policy or the unintentional by-product of war."[citation here]

new compromise

This discussion on a new text from Finkelstein is actually outside our issue. This was not yet discussed on the talk page of the article. I think it should be, because other editors should also be able to participate in the discussion. Therefore I slightly modify my proposed compromise:

If you agree to have my proposed text (Furthermore Finkelstein argues that transferist thinking is close to the core of Zionist thinking. According to Finkelstein Zionism claims for the Jews a prevalent right to Israel, their historical homeland, and accedes the Arabs only rights as incidental residents.[2]. He writes: 'the mainstream Zionist movement never doubted its 'historical right' to impose a Jewish state through the 'Right of Return' on the indigenous Arab population of Palestine.'[3] and 'Zionism's claim to the whole of Palestine ... called into question any Arab presence in Palestine.') in, I will refrain from adding this text at the end of the 'Outline of the historical debate'-section:

• According to Finkelstein all serious scholars now agree that the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1948, and the scholarly debate now focusses on whether or not this cleansing was the intentional consequence of Zionist policy or the unintentional by-product of war

Furthermore we discuss the new text on the talk page of the article. To find a compromise on my alternative text and your proposal:

• Serious scholars now agree that Jewish military attacks were the main cause of the exodus, and the scholarly debate now focusses on whether or not the exodus was the intentional consequence of Zionist policy or the unintentional by-product of war
• In his book, 'Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History', Norman Finkelstein wrote that all of the historians he considers to be serious agreed "that the Palestinians had been ethnically cleansed in 1948, and the scholarly debate now focused on ... whether this cleansing was the intentional consequence of Zionist policy or the unintentional by-product of war."[citation here]

I propose we start a discussion, and additionaly I promise not to add my text against the wishes of a majority of the editors.

Is that acceptable for you? --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion?

Do you all agree the issues to be mediated have successfully been mediated and that I can close the mediation? -- tariqabjotu 21:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --GHcool (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear TariqAbjotu, you forgot to mention the other sentence, which is part of the compromise too. I added it.

If GHcool affirms his agreement to this, my answer is 'Yes' --JaapBoBo (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Um ... I don't know what JaapBoBo is talking about. The sentence JaapBoBo refers to looks an awful lot like the sentence I objected to originally. The compromise we've been working out for the past week or two was the compromise we both agreed to. Nothing more than that; nothing less than that. I thought this was clear. --GHcool (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you agreed to it. We discussed the 'ethnic cleansing'-text under the assumption that the 'historical right'-text was accepted. Just look at my post of 4 January, which starts with: If you agree to have my proposed text in, .... After that, you only wanted to change the 'ethnic cleansing'-text, so obviously you dropped your objections to the 'historical right'-text. This assumption was also included in my other proposal [16], so I find it really strange that you are not aware of this. --JaapBoBo (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I assumed this entire time that the "proposed text" you were referring to was to the text you proposed in that post. I guess I was wrong, but I that's not entirely my fault since you worded the sentence ambiguously (I'm sure you did not intend it to be ambiguous, so no hard feelings on that). Anyway, I am satisfied with the compromise we came to together and I hope you are as well. I consider the case closed and the mutually agreed upon compromise (not more, not less) to be binding on all parties. --GHcool (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

JaapBoBo, I don't see how GHcool's agreement to the compromise sentence is also an agreement to the other sentence you were talking about. I have seen little to no discussion of that sentence, even within in the comment on January 4 which you referenced. -- tariqabjotu 20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, acceptance of my original text was the assumption on which I agreed to the second text.

It seems that GHcool's interpretation is possible, but that was certainly not what I meant. I want my original proposed text also in and I never dropped that. As is shown here: [17], which was ignored by GHcool.

I still offer GHcool a way out by compromising on a second text in addition to the first. --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Very well. I'm open to further compromises on one condition: that the sentence we already compromised on remains set in stone. Not one word added or taken away.

Also, I'm being pretty cooperative by any reasonable standard. There's no need to insult me or make insinuations about my motives or competence and I would appreciate it if you refrain from doing so in the future. Thank you. --GHcool (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I accept our 'ethnic cleansing'-sentence. What do you propose? --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I specifically requested that you not insult my character or my competence in my last post. I find it difficult to make compromises with somebody whose tone is not in the spirit of mutual respect. From now on, I solemnly promise never to insult your character or your competence or make insinuations about your motivations. As a sign of good faith, it would mean a lot to me if you would make the same oath on my behalf. --GHcool (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, JaapBoBo, I removed part of your recent comments. I am willing to stay on this case if you all want to resolve another issue, but not if you're going to proceed with pointless, irrelevant insults. Your opinion of GHcool's level of cooperation holds no place here and has absolutely nothing to do with any of the issues at hand. -- tariqabjotu 01:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intend to insult GHcool.

Maybe my posts can be interpreted as 'not assuming good faith'. I will assume good faith in the furure. --JaapBoBo (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)