Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight/Archive 2

message: This article continue to suffer from the same problem it did 6 month ago. It serve no purpose to make minor corrections (an external link here, a minor twick there). It is impossible to get this article to be NPOV when a group of "owners" engage in gang revert to circumvent the 3RR rule.
My guess is that either there will eventually be enough  bold  editors who would like to tackle this issue or that the corrections will have to come from other directions. I can not do it alone but I am sure going to keep trying. 
Also, anybody who reads Benny Morris should also read Efraim Karsh. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/humanities/medstu/ek.html
Karsh analyzed both arabic and hebrew documents (Morris is not fluent in arabic unlike Karsh) from the time and Karsh shows where Morris has taken some of his points out of context. 
Excerpt: http://www.meforum.org/article/466
After reading at least one of Karsh's books, Morris himself stated:
"Karsh has a point. My treatment of transfer thinking before 1948 was, indeed, superficial".
Benny Morris, Times Literary Supplement
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/humanities/medstu/rev2bk.html
: Very nice of you to raise that example, which appears on Karsh's own web page.  It gives us an opportunity to learn something about Professor Karsh's honesty and integrity.  If this quotation is fairly presented, it would seem that Karsh scored a point against Morris, forcing Morris to back down.  At least, that is what Karsh wants us to think.  However, turning to the source (Times Literary Supplement, 28 November 1997) we find that in fact Morris wrote exactly the opposite.  Rather that conceding about "transfer" in the direction of Karsh's viewpoint, he wrote "Since writing my books on 1948 (The Birth and 1948 and after, 1990, revised 1994), I have begun to probe pre-1948 Zionist thinking on transfer, and the evidence so far unearthed and published, of which Karsh is well aware, has only strengthened my original conclusion - that the Zionist leadership devoted much time and thought to the subject and consensually accepted a transfer solution to the Arab problem (though it preferred, for good diplomatic and political reasons, not to publicize this)."  In other words, Karsh misrepresents this document.  If we can't trust Karsh to be honest about such easily obtained sources as TLS, why should we trust anything he writes about obscure documents in the archives?  --Zero 10:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Morris returned to this same point in his article in the Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol 27 (1998) pp81-95.  There we writes "Karsh has a point-but it is not the one he makes. It is true that my treatment in Birth of pre-1948 "transfer thinking" among the Zionist leaders was superficial and restrictive. ... Perhaps I erred in not attributing enough weight to the Zionists' 'transfer' predisposition in explaining what actually happened in Palestine in 1948."  Then, after giving some examples, Morris concludes "Karsh can shout until he is blue in the face that the Zionist leaders in the 1930s and 1940s rejected all thought of transfer: Mountains of evidence speak to the contrary." --Zero 10:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The issue is "cause and effect" not historical evidence of intention in the 1930s to an event took place in late 1948. You can not "proove" the cause and effect relation. No one can. That is why it needs to be on a seprate article. Zeq 05:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Its relevance is completely obvious.  Don't do that again.  --Zero 08:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No it is not relevent to this article and as such it should not be here. There is already an article about history of zionism. This article is about the exodus which was part of the war. Don't revert without PROPER explnation of your reverts. See slim mesasage on my talk page what is the standard for including material on this article. Zeq 10:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Its relevance is completely obvious.  Stop playing these games, Zeq.  You know better.  --Zero 10:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are the one "playing games" this whole section dos not belong here. You want to add it to zionism or start a new article about transfer intentions of zionist leaders be my guest. Zeq 10:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: One of the most frequently debated issues surrounding the Palestinian exodus is that of whether it was the product of a long-standing Zionist policy or attitude.  You can argue whether that debate is properly presented, but you can't suppress it.   Its relevance to this page is completely obvious.  --Zero 11:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is about the Palestinian esodus that took part during the war. This is not an article about Zionist transfer policy. You seem to forget that the exodus took part during a war. You can argue it was planned but zionist intentions 40 years or 4 years before have not a place on this article. In any case next time explian your reverts before reverting twice. Zeq 11:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundemantal problem with this article not addressed 

message: It seems there is great confusion what should or should not be on this article. There is a clear yardstick that you seem to fiollow but it must be followed all the way. There is no place for "transfer" in this article unless you adopt the POV that the exodus is part of a plan that was in the making for 40 or at least 5 years before 1948.
The way to address this is to write an article about the "Zionist transfer plan" - - describe it in NPOV terms. Provide evidence that there was such a plan etc....In this article you can say that some claim that the exodus was implemnatation of that plan and some think it was not (which is indeed the cvase among acdemics who investigated it - please bring sources to such) As it is now inclusions of this section is byitself a biased POV. Zeq 15:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeq, Zero has addressed just these issues in his contribution above. Please please please read and take on board other people's talk page contributions.Repeating your views ad nauseam while refusing to engage with the points made by others is not the way to reach agreement, Palmiro | Talk 16:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "It seems there is great confusion" - not for most editors. I strongly urge you to follow Palmiro's advice. Ramallite (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggested a way in which this info can be on Wikipedia. You can not overload this article with details that occured years before the vent only because you have POV about a theory. For that Theory you better start another article. This article is about the exodus don't confuse it with other subjects. Zeq 18:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The tragedy of this particular refugee problem (like a few others) wasn't the fleeing or expulsion; most people flee neighborhood battles (or hurricanes or tsunamis) planning to return, and many people have been expelled (like Kosovo Albanians), but here it was the inability to return. You should have understood this from the article. A key question is "Why were these refugees not allowed by Israel to return?" You cannot just say "Israel needed to guarantee a Jewish majority and Arabs would upset that balance so the refugees were blocked from returning' - that would be POV, not to mention the implications of how it sounds. Therefore, a history of Zionist plans is given to put the importance of not allowing the return of the Palestinian refugees (whom this article happens to be about) in context, and this was worked on and NPOVed as satisfactorily as possible before either of us came to Wikipedia. So if you want to argue against its inclusion, you need to recognize this angle first. I think Zero adequately demonstrated its relevancy above, and he probably knows more about the history of our country than either of us do. Ramallite (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The relevancy of this section is clear from the text -- the article is about the Palestinian exodus during the Zionist war of independence, and the section is about the idea of forcing a Palestinian exodus in Zionist thought.--Doron 12:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not the "zionism transfer" article 

message: I have decided to stop editing this article for a while. There is a desruptive behaviour by at least one editor that makes it impossible to edit this article without getting into editwars (which I want to avoid). I will wait for some time to see if this disruptive behaviour is stopped and there is a move by other editors to make this article more NPOV and less OR. Zeq 15:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am personally, a big believer in the two state solution. I would like to see the Palestinian state established on almost (98%-100%) of the area beyond the green line.
I also would like to see a solution to the Palestinian refugees that would include their right to emigrate to Palestine. (Similar to the right of Jews to immigrate to Israel). It is really not Israel's right to do what it does now (without any success) like trying to tell the Palestinians who can and who can't enter Gaza.
Given that i am not the only one who think this way and given that in 1947 the UN thought also about two state solution (albeit in slightly different bordrs but that is history now) and given that many Zionist leaders also wanted that solution and given that Herzel in his formal writings "the state of Jews" (where he also considered Argentine) did not suggest anything bad to the local population (which was very small anyhow) and only talked about the benefits Jews can bring to a country at the edge of the ottoman empire. And given that Even people Like Jabotinsky talked about how Jews, Christian and Arabs will be able to live together (but also talked in the famous "iron wall" how the Arabs must understand that the Jews will not be moved away) to make a long story short: There are many historical evidence that a Jewish state can (in the eyes of many) exist  side by side  to a Palestinian state. What I am saying here is that the Nakba was not "a necessary condition" in order to create a Jewish state in part of Palestine. The two states can coexist (I hope) and I am sure that therefore history of Zionism is not relevant to this article. (On the other hand events in the 1948 war, including massacres such as deir Yassin and also others are relevant)  On the other hand if you insist talking about the transfer idea I remind you about the peel commission and the idea about moving population from both sides. The current text that talks about "no ability to partition Palestine" is so wrong that I can not think of anyone who suggested it. (maybe Kahane)
The bottom line is that this article is in a need of serious work to make it NPOV. such work can not go on as long as there are people who feel such level of "ownership about this article that does not allow any dissenting voices. Zeq 14:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruptive behaviour 

message: : I am personally, a big believer in the two state solution. I would like to see the Palestinian state established on almost (98%-100%) of the area beyond the green line.
I also would like to see a solution to the Palestinian refugees that would include their right to emigrate to Palestine. (Similar to the right of Jews to immigrate to Israel). It is really not Israel's right to do what it does now (without any success) like trying to tell the Palestinians who can and who can't enter Gaza.
Given that i am not the only one who think this way and given that in 1947 the UN thought also about two state solution (albeit in slightly different bordrs but that is history now) and given that many Zionist leaders also wanted that solution and given that Herzel in his formal writings "the state of Jews" (where he also considered Argentine) did not suggest anything bad to the local population (which was very small anyhow) and only talked about the benefits Jews can bring to a country at the edge of the ottoman empire. And given that Even people Like Jabotinsky talked about how Jews, Christian and Arabs will be able to live together (but also talked in the famous "iron wall" how the Arabs must understand that the Jews will not be moved away) to make a long story short: There are many historical evidence that a Jewish state can (in the eyes of many) exist  side by side  to a Palestinian state. What I am saying here is that the Nakba was not "a necessary condition" in order to create a Jewish state in part of Palestine. The two states can coexist (I hope) and I am sure that therefore history of Zionism is not relevant to this article. (On the other hand events in the 1948 war, including massacres such as deir Yassin and also others are relevant)  On the other hand if you insist talking about the transfer idea I remind you about the peel commission and the idea about moving population from both sides. The current text that talks about "no ability to partition Palestine" is so wrong that I can not think of anyone who suggested it. (maybe Kahane)
The bottom line is that this article is in a need of serious work to make it NPOV. such work can not go on as long as there are people who feel such level of "ownership about this article that does not allow any dissenting voices. Zeq 14:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A note to everyone (including jayjg)

message: I have stated my objections many times. I am not the first nor the last. If you go back to comments made over 6 month ago they are all the same: This article takes the Palestinian view of things. I would actually chalange Ranallite to do what the NPOV policy actully ask you to do "wriote it from the enemey POV". Go over this article without my help. Search the web for how it is presented else where and decide for your self:
1. What is missing
2. What should not be included
and end up with a balancced article that can explain the Palestinian view and the Israeli view in an equal NPOV manner.
But first let us realize that there are two POV on this issue and let us read the NPOV policy again (especially as I pointed out the section about religion) because to the Arab side this article has a "religious" aspect: The Nakba is the core narrative of the Palestinian people. The snactum sanctury (if I still remeber my Latin)Zeq 17:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeq, I feel am one of the very few around here who, whenever I actually 'write' something, it is usually over 50% against my personal views. I think there is a lot to be said about that since some of my views are on my user page so I am sure you can see how difficult it is for me yet I do it. In fact, that is how I measure if what I am writing is NPOV, where I disagree with over 50% of the stuff I'm writing. You have never appeared to have attempted to edit anything that is less that 100% your own POV, and that is the main difference between you and me. Have you ever written anything you disagreed with? As for this article, as I said above, there are some stories that do not have two equal and opposing POV. I don't think I will find any research beyond what is here that will be strongly 'pro Israel' about expelling Palestinians as will be "pro-Palestinian" about expelling Palestinians. Some things in life are like that. And of course, I would not look at propaganda pages unless they are from an official body (such as the MFA website of the Israeli government). Now I many be wrong, and there is a strong Israeli POV (non racist, non propaganda, and reputable) that is missing here. If you have any, please list them, and I will attempt to incorporate them. Ramallite (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You don't have to stay out of my way, since I'm still not sure what else I can add. I have heard a lot about Morris and listened to him speak, but have not read his books. The German editor you quoted below was trying to make it more NPOV, I don't think he was shifting it to a Palestinian POV. He is saying that it is normal for civilians to get out of the way of gunfire and canons, and I have a feeling he is right. There is no single truth, and 'total systematic expulsion" and "left at their own free will" is indeed rubbish. Nobody just wandered out of their door whistling and left at their own free will, and there was no 'total systematic expulsion' otherwise there would be no Israeli Arabs. So I'm lost as to what else to do. Lastly, it's funny that you say that I am the one who can make this NPOV, since you made over ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY edits to my RfA (not counting other pages) trying to convince people that I cannot do this sort of thing. ;) Ramallite (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objections 

message: Here is what a German editor wrote about this article nearly two years ago:
"And as a basis for rewriting the article, I think we should adopt a view that it is totally normal human behaviour for civilians to move out of an area in a war. This is directed against extremist views and arguments on both sides "total systematic expulsion" vs. "but they left on their own free will!" which I consider both as rubbish and which should be clearly marked as views. In history there is no "one single truth". --Elian"
The same problems are here today and have been raised multiple times by myself and others. 
Take a week, two weeks. Edit this article to the best of your understanding of the NPOV policy. I will stay outof your way. (but read the talk first and the NPOV policy) after this week (or two weeks) I am sure we will have a beter article and who knows, maybe I will not have more objections. I actully think you can do it Ramallite and that it will be good for your understanding of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Zeq 17:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "it is totally normal human behaviour for civilians to move out of an area in a war" - that is true, but it does not imply that any particular circumstance should be described in that manner.  Actually we should try to describe the known facts.  --Zero 11:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I think you should read the talk page 

message: Is there any policy making the POV tag official? Any policy making POV-because undesired? As I see it, the POV-because is an expansion of the POV tag so that the reader could get a quick overview over what is disputed. Noone, probably exactly what the word means - not a singe person on or off the planet, is going to actually read the talk page to understand the dispute before reading the article.
Edit warring or not, there should be a short explanation of what is disputed in the POV-because tag, and an extensive, easy-to-find, explanation on the talk page.
-- Heptor 00:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the article itself should be as free from our opinions as possible.  Allowing an opinion to accompany a POV tag goes against that.  A suggestion: as well as placing an ordinary POV tag on the page, a POV-because tag can go on the Talk page.  The latter could have an even more expansive explanation of why someone thinks the tag is justified.  --Zero 10:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think Wikipedia policies should be followed in the same way on all articles. There is room to more than one POV. this is the essence of NPOV. Zeq 12:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  In a nutshell you have explained why you are a bad editor.  NPOV does not consist of multiple POVs!  You think you can push any POV rubbish you like into an article and that you are covered by pretending to invite opposing POV rubbish. Wrong! Mixing together different colored lumps of shit doesn't produce a flower; it produces a heap of multicolored shit. The NPOV policy requires you to edit in an NPOV fashion.  People have patiently tried to explain this to you, but you seem incapable of understanding.  Your edits are seriously damaging to the encyclopedia.  --Zero 13:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  In a nut shall this was an unprovoked Personall attack which is also wrong. Read what is NPOV then we will talk again. Zeq 16:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zero has hit the nail on the head. Zeq, part of why you have been engaged in edit wars in virtually every WP article you have touched is because you think NPOV only means "gathering different points of view". You seem to have not understood that each POV has to be itself presented in a NPOV fashion, and it is your responsibility to do so. Plus you frequently find hate blogs on the internet and use them as sources, when there are much more reputable sources you could use - but that's another story. In the future, I recommend that you present alternative POVs in a NPOV fashion (which means you will not always be able to cut and paste quotations as you are used to doing). Zero is absolutely right, and as an administrator, I'm sure he is quite familiar with original research and doesn't need to be reminded by you. Ramallite (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: No, you are wrong I am merely trying (in some articles) to correct the balnt POV that is in these articles. I present facts (usually as quotes) this is the recomended style. I never add any of my research like Zero tries to do. and you clearly can  not  blame me for Zero erevert wars (without even using talk). BTW, have you understood the articles about refugees I sent you on your talk page or you still think it has nothing to do with our sitaution ? I think we should strive for articles that advocate no single point of view, sometimes this requires multiple points of view without presenting one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view." Clearly, in this article this does not take place and I am glad you and Zero now confirm that (by misrepresnting what NPOV means) Zeq 18:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Zero, NPOV is actually presenting all (notable) POVs. Read Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#How_can_I_tell_if_my_article_has_a_POV.3F: "You should attempt to give proportionate space to opposing views". No reason to accuse people of being bad editors because they state Wikipedia policies, right? -- Heptor  talk 00:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  BTW, mixing many enough multicolored lamps produces the white color. I can hardly see it produce "shit", multicolored or otherwise. -- Heptor  talk 00:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, you know, analogies suck.  What I am getting at here is that the POV "Some people think X is a wonderful person." is not turned into a good article by adding "Some other people think X is a terrible person".  Expressing only the extremes like that conveys very little useful information to the reader.  Even though it is true that important POVs should be described in the article, they should be described in a detached manner (as if by a Martian student of human affairs) and not in the sort of manner you would find in a USENET flame war.  In other words, POVs should be presented in an NPOV manner.  --Zero 09:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Yes, this analogy does suck, and so does your attack on Zeq. I hope we now agree that there is room to more than one POV, of course presented in an as NPOV manner as possible. -- Heptor  talk 23:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV-because 

message: Here are a few quotations that can go in the article:
*Without doubt, the crystallization of the consensus in support of transfer among the Zionist leaders helped pave the way for the precipitation of the Palestinian exodus of 1948. Similarly, far more of that exodus was triggered by explicit acts and orders of expulsion by Jewish/Israeli troops than is indicated in The Birth (Morris, 2001).
*..the Druze experience provides evidence that undermines Benny Morris' claim, expressed in The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, that the expulsion of Palestinian Arabs is best characterized by randomness rather than design, and reinforces Morris' revised view, expressed in this volume [above] that the expulsion during Operation Hiram was purposeful. (Parsons, 2001)
*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. But transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism - because it sought to transform a land that was 'Arab' into a Jewish state and a Jewish state could not have arisen without a major displacement of Arab population; and because this aim automatically produced resistance among the Arabs which, in turn, convinced the Yishuv's leaders that a hostile Arab population could not remain in place if a Jewish state was to arise or safely endure. By 1948, transfer was in the air. The transfer thinking that preceded the war contributed to the denouement by conditioning the Jewish population, political parties, military organisations and military and civilian leaderships for what transpired... it was accepted as natural and inevitable by the bulk of the Jewish population (Morris, 2003, p. 60).
--Ian Pitchford 16:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Transfer thinking and expulsion

message: Since what we are now starting to deal with is Karsh creability Vs. Morris her are few quotes from Morris:
 And today? Do you advocate a transfer today?
: If you are asking me whether I support the transfer and expulsion of the Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza and perhaps even from Galilee and the Triangle, I say not at this moment. I am not willing to be a partner to that act. In the present circumstances it is neither moral nor realistic. The world would not allow it, the Arab world would not allow it, it would destroy the Jewish society from within. But I am ready to tell you that in other circumstances, apocalyptic ones, which are liable to be realized in five or ten years, I can see expulsions. If we find ourselves with atomic weapons around us, or if there is a general Arab attack on us and a situation of warfare on the front with Arabs in the rear shooting at convoys on their way to the front, acts of expulsion will be entirely reasonable. They may even be essential.
Including the expulsion of Israeli Arabs?
:The Israeli Arabs are a time bomb. Their slide into complete Palestinization has made them an emissary of the enemy that is among us. They are a potential fifth column. In both demographic and security terms they are liable to undermine the state. So that if Israel again finds itself in a situation of existential threat, as in 1948, it may be forced to act as it did then. If we are attacked by Egypt (after an Islamist revolution in Cairo) and by Syria, and chemical and biological missiles slam into our cities, and at the same time Israeli Palestinians attack us from behind, I can see an expulsion situation. It could happen. If the threat to Israel is existential, expulsion will be justified. 
Zeq 18:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  So who is benny Morris ? 

message: Hello. FYI : 
Pappé describes the "old" (my name for them in constrast to new) historians theory" as such (free traduction from French) :
"How to explain this phenomenon departure of a whole nation ? Israeli historians are talking about a domina effect, arguing that elites had given examples and then jewish successes in the battle pushed population to chose to leaver" He refers to Eliezer Beeri "Reschit Hasichsuch Israel Arav (Beginning of israeli-arab conflicts) Tel Aviv, 1985, pp 44-47.
More interesting I think is a quote from a speech of Ben Gourion at Knesset on 11 october 1961 (free translation from French) :
"Arab left areas assigned to Jewish state... immediately after the vote of the UN resolution. And we possess explicit document testifying that they left Palestine (sic) following instructions of Arab leaders, Mufti first, who claimed at the end of the Mandate, that invading arab armis would destroy jewish state and threw jewish to sea, dead or alive." (ibidem pp. 158-159).
Maybe this is propaganda from Ben Gourion. May not. Whatever this is what he told.
Christophe Greffe 23:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Israeli historians" and David Ben-Gurion (who issued expulsion orders) are/were pefectly well aware of what happened. It's instructive to compare Efraim Karsh's account of the situation in Haifa (linked in paragraph two of the article) to other accounts, e.g., the action to break Arab resistance in Haifa - which was called Operation Passover Cleansing - involved Haganah radio and loudspeaker vans making Arabic broadcasts saying that "the day of judgement has arrived" and calling on the Arab population to "evacuate the women, the children and the old immediately and send them to a safe haven". A British intelligence officer reported that "During the morning [the Jews] were continually shooting down on all Arabs who moved both in Wadi Nisnas and the Old City. This included completely indiscriminate and revolting machinegun fire, mortar fire and sniping on women and children sheltering in churches and attempting to get out... through the gates into the docks." Nimr al Khatib reported that "Suddenly a rumor spread that the British army in the port area had declared its readiness to safeguard the life of anyone who reached the port and left the city. A mad rush to the port gates began. Man trampled on fellow man and woman [trampled on] her children. The boats in the harbour quickly filled up and there is no doubt that that was the cause of the capsizing of many of them." Morris reports that the Carmeli Brigade's 22nd Battalion had orders "to kill every [adult male] Arab encountered" (The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, 2003, pp. 189-192). In the Wikipedia article this situation is described as "Some cases of expulsion are well-documented, such as in Lydda and Ramle. So is the attempt by some Jewish leaders in Haifa to stem flight". --Ian Pitchford 10:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  some material 

message: Zeq has repeatedly truncated this quote, deleting everything after "Nakba [catastrophe]".
:...a nation in captivity held hostage to an ongoing Nakba [catastrophe], as the most intricate and pervasive expression of persistent colonialism, apartheid, racism, and victimization. More than half a century ago [53 years], the Palestinians as a people were slated for national obliteration, cast outside the course of history, their identity denied, and their very human cultural and historical reality suppressed. We became victims of the myth of a land without a people for people without a land whereby the West sought to assuage its guilt over its horrendous anti-Semitism by the total victimization of a whole nation. [http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=1825&CategoryId=1
Zeq, why do keep truncating this quote?  It is made clear that it is the opinion of Hanan Ashwari, and is not presented as fact, but as an illustration of the Palestinian narrativie.  You are of course free to present the Israeli counter-narrative with quotes from prominent Israelis germane to the topic. Brian Tvedt 02:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We are an encyclopedia not a place to evoke tears. Zeq 08:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I have never heard of such a policy for Wikipedia.  What I do know is the WP:NPOV policy, which states that we should "present all significant, competing views sympathetically".  The view of the Palestinians on their own exodus is certainly significant.  Of course the Israeli view should be presented also; you are welcome to present quotations that illustrate how Israelis view the Palestinian exodus. Brian Tvedt 01:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was actually quoting what Zero have said about another article. If we are going for the most posssible tear evoking text we should do the same in other articles as well. Is wikipedia the place to give  relevant  facts or is it the placve for a POV-competio "who is the most victimized" ? I think it is a place for facts. We can bring, in a factual way what the Palestinians think of their own exodus and we also, in such case have to bring what other people think of it. Zeq 03:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Please tell me what article you are referring to, and what was the context when Zero said that. Brian Tvedt 11:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I said was that "the article should not be written emotively and should not sound as if it was written by the mothers of the victims. We are here to recount historical events, not to evoke tears or anger or any other emotion".  This is referring to our own text, not necessarily to direct quotations, though if evoking tears was the only reason for choosing a particular quotation I'd be doubtful about that too. --Zero 13:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hanan Ashwari quote 

message: Fully agree with Brian and I support him in his trial to solve the impasse.
I think material introduced by Ian is revelant and 'must' be added. Maybe other facts should added and documented anyway but nothing can be done in one day.
But I see more problems in the alleged master plan paragraph.
* I think this Ians's sentence is POV : 'From the aforementioned prevalent idea of transfer, and from the actual expulsions that took place in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, Walid Khalidy' 
There are many comments by Morris in the "aforementioned etc" and whether the events commented are events indeed taken into account by Khalidi and in that case Khalidi view is disproportionned or these events are not in Khalidi's thesis and then this sentence should be changed. 
I think the way it is written make the text sound too much like a defense of Khalidi's point of view. What Zeq added (underline khalidi is palestinian and give the name of historian that contest his view) is more than welcome and I think this would not be enough to equilibrate this paragraph (ie treat npov their pov).
* There lack "tradtionnal historian" point of view. I have some material of Prof. Yoav Gelber (high detractor of Pappe) to add.
Have a nice day :-) Christophe Greffe 07:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Zeq. I don't agree with you ;-). I think everybody has a pov and that nobody can fully make abstraction of his own. Unfortunately for wiki, hopefully for each of us. I think everybody can write but given the situation everybody should agree to discuss with the others and only make modifications *after* there is an *agreement* or consensus. [cfr my suggestion of compromis in the ArbCom]. I justify also this by the wiki policy that suggests to consider everybody is of good faith and therefore we should work in having in mind that if someone disagrees with what we write that indiscutably clearly means there is a problem... Maybe just a misunderstanding but at least a problem... What do you think about this ? Christophe Greffe 12:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments on 4 former points by christophe greffe 

message: For several months I (and now other editors) are trying to make changes to this article but not a shred of these changes remained. It seems that there is a group of editor (a clique) that "own" this article. This is a problem. A serious problem. One that ArbCom should pay attention too. Not a single Wikipedia policy or tool worked in this article. If Wikipedia is unable to create an NPOV article despite all the time and effort that went (over years) into this article Maybe it should just be delted ? written-off as a Wikipedia failure.... Or maybe those who insist on making this article into a ptropeganda tool wouild understnd that if they don't stop this article would be gone ? It seems that a new tool should be developed instead of "protecting" an araticle to induce discussion: That tool is the threat of deleting an article on which no consensus can be reached over such a long time. Zeq 20:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are incapable of getting your edits to articles accepted by other editors, yet other editors generally sympathetic to Israeli positions do not experience this problem, perhaps you should start thinking about your approach to editing (and to using talk pages). It is not really a very fruitful approach, either for you or for anyone else. I have said this to you umpteen times already but you seem disinclined to listen to me, or indeed to anyone else. Palmiro | Talk 23:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which other "pro Israeli editors" were able to contribute to this article  ? If Indeed this is the case I will rethink my aproach ? Please show me - Please be specific and site diffs that remained in this article unmodiofied. Zeq 04:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No reply. so I chaged the article to be a bit more NPOV. Zeq 16:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The transfer issue is a key component of every scholarly treatment of this matter. Please do not delete the material again. --Ian Pitchford 16:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not presented in an NPOV and create caustion where no shcolar argued. Better move to the transfer article. Zeq 16:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How could ideas about the reasons for the Palestinian exodus belong in an article other than that on the Palestinian exodus? The dispute over the "master plan" theory is discussed. If you want to expand it by covering more of what the historians and/or primary sources say please do so. --Ian Pitchford 17:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In your POV these are "the reasons" but that is just your POV. Nothing more. There are other POVs and wkipedia can not endorse just one. Zeq 19:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. --Ian Pitchford 20:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did. still waiting for ahred of proof that POV others than the "owners" can be found on this article. So far: None. Zeq 20:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ownership" of this article 

message: From what I have learned, Arab population centers from which Palestinian refugees originated have met with different fates: some were left in ruins, as in the photograph; others were demolished and replaced with new construction; others were inhabitated by Jewish and I assume also Arabs. The photograph tells a confusing story: did the buildings fall apart from neglect over the last nearly 60 years? Were they deliberately demolished? Why does the land around them seem so barren? To add more confusion, there are areas west of Hebron that are outside the 1949 armistice lines - was this place abandoned in 1948/49 or in 1967? --Leifern 17:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This location is inside the green line.  It was depopulated in 1948 and was demolished by the IDF except for a few larger buildings, some of which are still used by the Jewish town of Bayt Guivrin (established nearby in 1949).  The area in the photograph is not especially barren by local standards; the whole region looks more or less like this (at least in summer). The sabra cactus in the photo was used as a fence during the British Mandate and so often appears around the locations of former and current villages. --Zero 18:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This image can not be in Beit Jabrin (also called beit Gouvrin) which is west of Hebron. The area is a different type of land (ascan be seen in these photos:  http://www.trekker.co.il/israel-govrin.asp  http://www.boker.org.il/meida/negev/desert_biking/govrin/allpics.htmWhere was this image published as "beit Jabrin" ? Is the source crediable ?
Zeq 18:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a few minutes by car from the remarkable ancient underground city shown in the photos.  The source of the photo is a highly reliable one: me.  If you live in Israel then you know that similar sights can be seen all over the country. --Zero 16:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not going to argue with you about if the source of the photo is relaible or not (you being the source) but if you ARE the source then the caption for this photo is your original research which violate policy. Please remove this photo and you Original research caption . Zeq 20:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Photographs are not original research (see WP:NOR) - Zero is not adding to existing body of knowledge with this photograph. I question the extent to which the photograph adds much to the article, but that's another matter altogether and not worth having an argument about. --Leifern 20:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you Leifern.  We might also mention that  "Wikipedia encourages users to upload their own images". --Zero 21:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  But the misleading caption is. Hebron is far from the green-line. Zeq 21:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Inside the green line, west of Hebron" is a good description of where it is.  Looking at a map is not original research, dear fanatical Zeq. --Zero 21:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a subject that ArbCom decidd will use only scholarly sources. The caption (that this is a ruins etc...) is your OR. Please remove the caption. There is really no connection between any map to whare  YOU  claim to have taken the photo. Zeq 21:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, but my question really is whether this is a good illustration for the article. People on either side of the issue can interpret (and comment) this their own way. In other words, for someone to interpret the photograph the way you intended it, he/she would either have to assume or know that this was a) inside the 1949 armistice line; b) probably taken in the summer, when the grass turns brown; c) demolished rather than fallen apart; and who knows what else. Or someone else might arrive at simply assume that this is a) in the territories; b) indicative of agricultural neglect; c) decayed rather than demolished. If this weren't such a controversial issue, I wouldn't make a big deal about it, but I would imagine that a picture of a refugee camp might make the point more clearly. I used to have one that I took in 1976, but I can't seem to find it. I am not inclined to delete it, but I think we should try to find a better image sometime soon. --Leifern 18:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The refugee experience consists of what is left behind together with what replaced it.  Both the former village and the refugee camp are relevant.  Missing detail can be added, but this is not an article about one particular village. --Zero 16:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image/Zero 

message: Would not the following sentences be a POV ? Good arguments maybe but this sounds much like a response to Morris counter-argument to Khalidi... I think a reference should be interesting.
Supporters of the "Master Plan" theory argue that the missing central directives have not been found because they were deliberately omitted or because the understanding of the significance of explusion was so widespread that no directive was necessary. They claim that the Zionist leadership in general and Ben-Gurion in particular were well aware of how historiography worked. What would be written about the war and what light Israel would be presented in was so important that it was worth making an intentional effort to hide those of their actions that might seem reprehensible.
Christophe Greffe 15:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We must call these "supporters" by name. Pecher Talk 15:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least. Agreed. Christophe Greffe 15:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'alleged master plan' 

message: A couple of curious unsourced statements in the section:
*"Together with Naji al-Ali's Handala..., the Nakba is perhaps the most important symbol of Palestinian discourse." Symbol of discourse? The most important one? I have scratched my head for a while, but still failed to comprehend what is meant here.
*"Nakba Day (May 15th, the day Israel declared independence) is considered an important day in the Palestinian calendar..." I know Gregorian calendar, Julian calendar, Jewish calendar, Muslim calendar, Chinese calendar, but never heard of "Palestinian calendar".
Of course, tags have been added there. Pecher Talk 18:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Nakba and its role in the Palestinian narrative

message: No references at all in the whole section, e.g. the number of refugees is unreferenced.
:here is one from Pappé . He says 70,000. There is also his mind about master plan.Christophe Greffe 20:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have an account with Google, so I cannot search through Google books at the moment. Pecher Talk 21:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in Pappé, A history of modern Palestine, p. 131. Christophe Greffe 09:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't understand what you mean. Do you say this is false or a pov ??? Arab leaders had announced they would prevent by arms the partage of Palestine. Christophe Greffe 20:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unsourced; that's the problem. Pecher Talk 21:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I wrote elsewhere : can each sentence be source ? Particularly that "obvious" one. Or do you see a bias with this ? Christophe Greffe 09:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Who else ? What do you mean ? Christophe Greffe 20:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe no one? Still, no source for this claim. Pecher Talk 21:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After a night thinking about that I think that even if there was a source for this, this would remain controversial because some historians do not agree about that role. Simply eg Gelber quoted below in the article. As a consequence this should be moved elsewhere where the thesis that Irgun and Lehi would have played a role would be developed with sources. Eg in the section : "what generated the palestinian exodus". Christophe Greffe 09:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: In the just above reference, Pappé writes about the 70,000 that left the country : "belonging to the social and economic elite of the country". In this reference  Gelber writes : "Unaware of the difference between anti-colonial insurrection and a national war, the Palestinian leaders preferred to conduct the struggle from safe asylum abroad as they had done during their rebellion against the British in 1936/9.". I think this is enough to justify the sentence. Christophe Greffe 20:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite. There is nothing on "demoralization" in this reference. In addition, it's best to call the "Palestinian leaders" by name. Pecher Talk 21:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: could you suggest a more appropriate sentence ? Christophe Greffe 09:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that this is npov enough the way it is written. It would not be readable if it would only consist of quotes. Summurazing is a good way of working. If something is false it must be removed of course. I agree going deeper into details if you make constructive proposals ie : if you "write" your suggestions of what to add or change in fonction of the information we have. If your claim is "we delete everything". I just answer I don't agree. So what are your suggestion ? Christophe Greffe 21:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't want to "delete everything". I simply point out to unreferenced information in the article, that's it. Usually, when I see a good way of fixing a problem, I go and fix it. This time, I didn't see an easy way to fix the problem of lack of references, so I drew the attention of others to it. If you see good references, just put them in. Pecher Talk 21:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I think you made an very interesting and important work these last days ! From my side I added references and answer your comments. Let's go on. Christophe Greffe 09:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First stage of flight

message: Pecher, you removed "exaction" from the title I had chosen. I perfectly agree. My mother langage is French and I didn't find the appropriate word to "summarize" this. He wrote "terror campaign" then "actions" and "finally exactions" having in mind none was good...
:"IDF units terrorized them to hasten their flight, and isolated massacres — particularly during the liberation of Galilee and the Negev in October 1948 — expedited the flight"
What can we write in the title to summarise" reasons given by Gelber for 2nd phase of flight ?
Christophe Greffe 15:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exactions 

message: I agree. This section is not devoted to introduce the flight due to the israeli army. Christophe Greffe 19:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of the quote overmentionned from "arab leaders responsability for the refugee flight 

message: I don't agree. The reason is that I am sure that Khalidi didn't build his theory basing his point of view on Benny Morris abstracts... He wrote his thesis far before. I think the way information is introduced is a personnal research. This is even more obvious when we realized than Morris don't agree with the "master plan" theory.
It is me who wrote these 2 sections in the paragraph "what caused the palestinian exodus" but when I did, I didn't know if I had to push the transfer principle in it. "transfer principle" didn't cause the palestinian exodus.
I think the "alleged master plan" should be kept in that paragraph, maybe some more information about what khalidi think was the importance of the transfer principle in the master plan added but that "transfer principle" should be pushed elsewhere and in particular AFTER these paragraphs. The "transfer principle" is interesting and I think relevant for the understanding of the palestinian exodus but not only as argument to explain why jews would have organised this transfer. It also illustrates why exodus was seen "inevitable". Christophe Greffe 19:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "alleged master plan" subsection of "transfer principle" 

message: ===Moshe Dayan quote===
The quote from Moshe Dayan looks like an attempt to manipulate and mislead the reader. While the section is about absentee property, Dayan talks about purchased property: "We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs, and we are building a Hebrew, Jewish state. In a considerable portion of localities we purchased the land from the Arabs. Instead of Arab villages Jewish villages were established." Essentially, Moshe Dayan is saying: there were Arabs, we purchased land from them, and established Jewish villages in place of Arab villages on the purchased land. The section, though, uses the quote to buttress its point that Jewish villages were established on absentee property on which Moshe Dayan does not say a word. If anything, the quote contradicts the message of the section, not endorses it. Pecher Talk 19:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. 80.178.205.240 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Nonsense. Fisk is a highly respected journalist who is known for his trenchant commentary on all the regimes with which this region is saddled. The term "fisking" was coined by some barely-notable right-wing fanatic bloggers who objected to his writing, probably on account of its accuracy if anything. The first instance of this practice involved a political and ethical attack on an article of Fisk's, which did not appear to question his honesty in reporting facts. A journalist who writes for reputable newspapers and has published books of scholarly merit is in any case rather more entitled to be taken into consideration than some random collection of malcontents on the internet. However, a better source (i.e. an academic work or official source) would of course be preferable. Palmiro | Talk 19:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm ok with Fisk if you're ok with Joan Peters. --Leifern 19:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm OK with you equating Fisk and Joan Peters if you can point out where Fisk was unmasked writing a fraudulent and misleading book. Palmiro | Talk 20:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem here . Pecher Talk 20:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I searched this link above for the words "false" "falsification" "fraudulent" "incorrect" "exaggerate" "mislead" (but no others) and got zero results. Karsh is only accusing Fisk of extreme bias (which is a true assertion) but that is a far cry from fraudulent and misleading. Anyway, Karsh himself has been rebutted by Morris, a fellow Israeli. Ramallite (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "accuracy" turned up a segment that Fisk had gotten some historical dates wrong, like what year Sadat was assassinated and when Khomeini moved headquarters and stuff like that... what a fraud... ;) Ramallite (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't this argument somewhat redundant given that the figure reported by Fisk is the lower of the two given? --Ian Pitchford 20:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about this paragraph? "First there is the problem of simple accuracy. It is difficult to turn a page of The Great War for Civilisation without encountering some basic error. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not, as Fisk has it, in Jerusalem. The Caliph Ali, the Prophet Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, was murdered in the year 661, not in the 8th century. Emir Abdallah became king of Transjordan in 1946, not 1921, and both he and his younger brother, King Faisal I of Iraq, hailed not from a “Gulf tribe” but rather from the Hashemites on the other side of the Arabian peninsula. The Iraqi monarchy was overthrown in 1958, not 1962; Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem, was appointed by the British authorities, not elected; Ayatollah Khomeini transferred his exile from Turkey to the holy Shiite city of Najaf not during Saddam Hussein’s rule but fourteen years before Saddam seized power. Security Council resolution 242 was passed in November 1967, not 1968; Anwar Sadat of Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, not 1977, and was assassinated in October 1981, not 1979. Yitzhak Rabin was minister of defense, not prime minister, during the first Palestinian intifada, and al Qaeda was established not in 1998 but a decade earlier. And so on and so forth." Pecher Talk 20:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These would indeed to be errors of fact, but essentially matters of carelessness, poor proofreading or fact-checking. They indicate a sloppy book, not a fraudulent and misleading one such as Peters'. Palmiro | Talk 20:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not relevant whether his errors are a result of sloppiness, ignorance, or fraud. What matters is that he is not a reliable source. Pecher Talk 20:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression that you were citing this in response to my remarks to Leifern. That was how I interpreted your presentation of it with the comment "No problem here". Palmiro | Talk 20:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably not worth the while to split hairs on whether Fisk is trying to mislead his readers or just not particularly knowledgeable on the subjects he is covering; probably, everyone agrees that he is biased and not particulalry reliable. Pecher Talk 20:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't this argument somewhat redundant given that the figure reported by Fisk is the lower of the two given? --Ian Pitchford 20:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Christophe Greffe 09:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If the source is a propeganda web site we should add a link to that site. After all:  Wikipedia is about propeganda. Zeq 06:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of these I've checked the Fisk quotation in The Times, and found it to be accurate. I haven't seen the Lehn and Davis book, but I saw the same quotation in Fischbach, Michael R. (2003). Records of Dispossession: Palestinian Refugee Property and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Columbia University Press. , which seems a good enough source. The same book covers the Absentees Property Law of 1950, which was passed by the Knesset on 14 March (5710/1950). The figure of about 32,000 for present absentees looks about right as estimates are usually in the region of 30,000-35,000. --Ian Pitchford 20:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Absentee property" section

message: The quote from Moshe Dayan looks like an attempt to manipulate and mislead the reader. While the section is about absentee property, Dayan talks about purchased property: "We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs, and we are building a Hebrew, Jewish state. In a considerable portion of localities we purchased the land from the Arabs. Instead of Arab villages Jewish villages were established." Essentially, Moshe Dayan is saying: there were Arabs, we purchased land from them, and established Jewish villages in place of Arab villages on the purchased land. The section, though, uses the quote to buttress its point that Jewish villages were established on absentee property on which Moshe Dayan does not say a word. If anything, the quote contradicts the message of the section, not endorses it. Pecher Talk 19:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. 80.178.205.240 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moshe Dayan quote

message: The section says with reference to Robert Fisk that 70 percent of Israeli land might be absentee property. I strongly doubt that Robert Fisk can be a reliable source of information, especially on this issue. After all, Fisk is a strongly anti-Israeli journalist after whom the term fisking was coined for his numerous inaccuracies. Pecher Talk 19:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. Fisk is a highly respected journalist who is known for his trenchant commentary on all the regimes with which this region is saddled. The term "fisking" was coined by some barely-notable right-wing fanatic bloggers who objected to his writing, probably on account of its accuracy if anything. The first instance of this practice involved a political and ethical attack on an article of Fisk's, which did not appear to question his honesty in reporting facts. A journalist who writes for reputable newspapers and has published books of scholarly merit is in any case rather more entitled to be taken into consideration than some random collection of malcontents on the internet. However, a better source (i.e. an academic work or official source) would of course be preferable. Palmiro | Talk 19:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm ok with Fisk if you're ok with Joan Peters. --Leifern 19:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm OK with you equating Fisk and Joan Peters if you can point out where Fisk was unmasked writing a fraudulent and misleading book. Palmiro | Talk 20:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem here . Pecher Talk 20:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I searched this link above for the words "false" "falsification" "fraudulent" "incorrect" "exaggerate" "mislead" (but no others) and got zero results. Karsh is only accusing Fisk of extreme bias (which is a true assertion) but that is a far cry from fraudulent and misleading. Anyway, Karsh himself has been rebutted by Morris, a fellow Israeli. Ramallite (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "accuracy" turned up a segment that Fisk had gotten some historical dates wrong, like what year Sadat was assassinated and when Khomeini moved headquarters and stuff like that... what a fraud... ;) Ramallite (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't this argument somewhat redundant given that the figure reported by Fisk is the lower of the two given? --Ian Pitchford 20:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about this paragraph? "First there is the problem of simple accuracy. It is difficult to turn a page of The Great War for Civilisation without encountering some basic error. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not, as Fisk has it, in Jerusalem. The Caliph Ali, the Prophet Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, was murdered in the year 661, not in the 8th century. Emir Abdallah became king of Transjordan in 1946, not 1921, and both he and his younger brother, King Faisal I of Iraq, hailed not from a “Gulf tribe” but rather from the Hashemites on the other side of the Arabian peninsula. The Iraqi monarchy was overthrown in 1958, not 1962; Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem, was appointed by the British authorities, not elected; Ayatollah Khomeini transferred his exile from Turkey to the holy Shiite city of Najaf not during Saddam Hussein’s rule but fourteen years before Saddam seized power. Security Council resolution 242 was passed in November 1967, not 1968; Anwar Sadat of Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, not 1977, and was assassinated in October 1981, not 1979. Yitzhak Rabin was minister of defense, not prime minister, during the first Palestinian intifada, and al Qaeda was established not in 1998 but a decade earlier. And so on and so forth." Pecher Talk 20:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These would indeed to be errors of fact, but essentially matters of carelessness, poor proofreading or fact-checking. They indicate a sloppy book, not a fraudulent and misleading one such as Peters'. Palmiro | Talk 20:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not relevant whether his errors are a result of sloppiness, ignorance, or fraud. What matters is that he is not a reliable source. Pecher Talk 20:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression that you were citing this in response to my remarks to Leifern. That was how I interpreted your presentation of it with the comment "No problem here". Palmiro | Talk 20:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably not worth the while to split hairs on whether Fisk is trying to mislead his readers or just not particularly knowledgeable on the subjects he is covering; probably, everyone agrees that he is biased and not particulalry reliable. Pecher Talk 20:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't this argument somewhat redundant given that the figure reported by Fisk is the lower of the two given? --Ian Pitchford 20:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Christophe Greffe 09:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fisk quote

message: Looks like I have found the source for the entire section on absentee property http://www.missionislam.com/nwo/estewishstate.htm. The similarities are just striking. The quotes from Fisk, Jewish National Fund, and Moshe Dayan are exactly as on this page. I don't believe in numerous coincidences and it is more than unlikely that the author of the source in question chose to quote precisely the same paragraphs as did the editors of this section. Furthermore, the unreferenced claims like "Of 370 new Jewish settlements established between 1948 and 1953, 350 were on absentee property" or "In 1954 about one third of Israel's population lived on absentee property" can also be found on that page. Amusingly, the quote from the Jewish National Fund ostensibly comes from a work by Lehn and Davis, but the work itself is not listed among the references. Since when does http://www.missionislam.com qualify as a reliable source? And don't tell me that the editors quoted from Israel - An Apartheid State by Uri Davis from which the webpage has taken its content because this book is not listed among the references. Anyway, I don't think that the book in question would qualify as a reliable source either. Pecher Talk 20:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the source is a propeganda web site we should add a link to that site. After all:  Wikipedia is about propeganda. Zeq 06:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of these I've checked the Fisk quotation in The Times, and found it to be accurate. I haven't seen the Lehn and Davis book, but I saw the same quotation in Fischbach, Michael R. (2003). Records of Dispossession: Palestinian Refugee Property and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Columbia University Press. , which seems a good enough source. The same book covers the Absentees Property Law of 1950, which was passed by the Knesset on 14 March (5710/1950). The figure of about 32,000 for present absentees looks about right as estimates are usually in the region of 30,000-35,000. --Ian Pitchford 20:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source for the entire section?

message: This is from the 'History' section, stage four. It seems to me to be not NPOV (*)and unreferenced, but also not in the right section, because it takes a stand as to the causes. Regarding Palestinian Exodus in this stage, the section says:
:Most of it was due to a clear, direct cause: expulsion and deliberate harassment.
While the quote given in the section only includes orders to "purge the conquered territories of all hostile elements" (which does not necessariliy include civilains) and to helpthe residents "to leave the areas that have been conquered". Also, the quote refers to only one of the operations. Thus, coming to the conclusion that 'most' refugee flight during this stage was the result of delibarate expulsion and intimidation is quite an overstatement.
80.178.205.240 13:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Request for citation tag added. Pecher Talk 13:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all 4 sections should only deal with pure facts without analysis (numbers of refugees, from where they left or were expelled if there is no controversy about that precise expulsion). Reasons explaining these facts (eg orders, harashment, terrorism, etc) or historians' comments should then be written in the other paragraphs. There is much redundant informations everywhere. Christophe Greffe 13:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I couldn't have said it better. 80.178.205.240 14:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annoying statement 

message: Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II also look at previous versions which may be a bit more NPOV. Zeq 18:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of an NPOV article on a similar sensitive subject 

message: The intro of this article ia pretty good, though could be reworded to be more dynamic. One thing that don't belong in an intro, is the Lausanne conference (which has to go to the mediation section). [rudy wagner]
:I would only leave first 3 paragraphs and move or delete others because they are developed later. The intro should only fix the context. Christophe Greffe 11:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we could add that these events have important consequences today and are in the heart of the discussions between israeli and arabs even if this would be more appropriate for "palestinian refugee article rather than palestinian exodus. Christophe Greffe 11:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: As noted above, this actually does not belong here but in the Palestinian Refugee article. And in any case, should not be right at the beginning but rather in the Consequences.Rudy Wagner
: support. for clarity and quality of the article we must have in mind people that read may not have read anything about that. So order must be logical. Christophe Greffe 11:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics

message: This section could benefit from more scholarly sources reflecting on the Nakba's role in Palestinian circles; As it is now, it is not clear how the quotes in the end reflect on that role. However, if no such scholarly sources are available, I believ the section to be well enough as it is. Rudy Wagner
: support. I would also move somewhere else. After understand why "an event" is important I think people must have understood "what it talks about". Christophe Greffe 11:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Nakba and its role in the Palestinian narrative

message: As proposed above in the talk page, this section should resort to facts - how many refugees at each stage, from where, documented expulsions, documented flights etc. - and leave all comments and POVs to the next section. Specifically, I'm not sure that bringing Rabin's quote in the third stage is necessary, as it has to do with the way the decision is made rather than with what actually happened.Rudy Wagner
: Essential for both npov and clarity. Christophe Greffe 11:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most importantly, the section must be significantly expanded. The article is now lopsided in the sense that although the article is about an historic event, it talks little about history itself, while dwelling extensively on the likely causes of Palestinian exodus. We should make it balanced, so that the bulk of the article will be devoted to history, while a separate section will deal with the controversy between historians. Pecher Talk 11:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. I found in Palestine Post article about the refugee problem. "external world" started to realize the problem and discuss this around may 1948, after first massive run away. The history section could be expanded with materials showing world's reaction to the exodus. This is history. Resolution 194 could also be noted because it were voted during flights. The Lausanne could be left for the "palestinian refugee" article. Christophe Greffe 12:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: This is the section most in need of cleaning. In my opinion, it should start by introducing Morris, than introducing his views of the Peel commision and Zionist response, and then quoting the referred article in which Morris clearly states his point - that the prevalent 'atmosphere of transfer' played a part in the actions of the Israeli army in the war. the rest of this section is either irrelevant or original research... Rudy Wagner
:I don't know. I still doesn't understand Morris'theory precisely. Christophe Greffe 11:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transfer Principle 

message: Not many problems here, aside from having to find which supporters of the theory attacked Morris.
:support but still cannot agree that Khalidi used Morris theory as could be understood from the introduction of the section. Christophe Greffe 11:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Master Plan 

message: We should try to find a Historian who supports or has supported this theoery (there must be; i know a great debate happened in israel on the subject) and quote him rather than Weitz. 
Also, this section is clearly divided into arguments made by Jewish leaders and arguments made by Arab leaders. Since these arguments are completely different in structure and purpose, this section should be split into two sub-sections.Rudy Wagner
:Isupport. It would be very important to find some. I already looked at here in the past and was amazed none historians was quoted . Would Bard have missed this if there were some ? Christophe Greffe 11:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a name : Simha Flapan . He is quoted by Pappé as denying the plan D. He wrote a book : "Birth". I don't have more today. Christophe Greffe 23:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Flapan was one of the first Israeli authors to openly state that the Palestinians were expelled.  I doubt he matches the requirement here. --Zero 13:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arab leaders' endorsment=

message: Efraim Karsh is director of the Mediterranean Studies Programme at King's College, University of London, and editor of the quarterly journal Israel Affairs. 
His important article about Morris: 
Zeq 10:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Efraim Karsh  

message: http://www.meforum.org/article/466 Zeq 12:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An important article on the subject 

message: I removed the famous Dayan quotation:
:We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs, and we are building a Hebrew, Jewish state. In a considerable portion of localities we purchased the land from the Arabs. Instead of Arab villages Jewish villages were established. You even do not know the name of the villages and I do not blame you, because those geography books no longer exist. Not only the books, but the villages no longer exist. Nahalal was established in the place of Mahalul, Gevat in the place of Jibta, Sarid in the place of Hanifas and Kefar Yehoshu'a in the place of Tel Shaham. There is not a single settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab village. (Dayan, March 19, 1969; as quoted in Haaretz, April 4, 1969)
The problem is that it is out of place for a reason hardly anyone realises (and I did not realise until now).  All of the examples he gives are of moshavim established in the 1920s, not of settlements formed in place of Arab villages abandoned in 1948.  In each case the land was purchased, and in each case some eviction of Arab tenants was involved.  This is relevant to the history of Palestine, but not particularly relevant to the topic of this page.  Dayan was certainly not admitting (at least in these sentences) anything about what happened in 1948. --Zero 13:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dayan quotation 

message: Arab soldiers appeared in the village one day in late 1947 with dire news. 
"They asked people in Salameh to leave, because a war was going to happen there," he said. "They said, 'Go for a week, or a month -- then come back.' 
"So they left. And when they tried to come back, the Jews prevented them, " Saleh said he was told. "So they stayed in the West Bank, and the United Nations built Balata refugee camp." 
Zeq 17:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not just arab leaders 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_exodus&diff=40764219&oldid=40763982 - Is this the new Wikipedia style ? Zeq 09:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon edits ? 

message: The last comment made on this page is dated to Feb.27, while today is May 8. For almost 9 days, no serious effort has been made to resolve the issues.
I propose removing the red tag of disputed neutrality and factual accuracy from this article.
If there is more to be discussed, then lets start discussing, and remove this tag ASAP.
Bless sins 12:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is indeed a consensus that the article must be rewritten along the lines discussed above. It is moving slowly in that direction, but much more work still needs to be done. Pecher Talk 15:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote is about Transfer. Zeq 10:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Morris's opinion on Khalidi's theories was presented absolutely adequately. The rest of the quote, which has recently been added serves only to once reiterate Morris's transfer principle theory. However, that's clearly excessive: Morris is already given more than sufficient airtime in the "Transfer principle" section; discussing the transfer principle again in a different section amounts to pro-Morris propaganda. Pecher Talk 18:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Pecher... After pro palestinian and pro israelian propaganda we now have to face pro historian propaganda !!! We will never succeed in writing something decent :-(((((.  I officially complain about the fact that neither Pappé nor Laurens theory is developed in the article ! They are most famous French historians on the topic !!! Christophe Greffe 19:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NEutrality and factual accuracy disputed??? 

message: This  is clearly wrong as Morris has saidd the exact opposite:  
 "Benny Morris, in particular, disagrees with the "Master Plan"/"Transfer Theory" ideas. He writes:  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 miltary forces did not enter the 1948 War, which was initiated by the Arab side, with a policy or plan for expulsion. (Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, p. 60) "
Clearly this quote deserve to be in the article. Zeq 10:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote is about Transfer. Zeq 10:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Morris's opinion on Khalidi's theories was presented absolutely adequately. The rest of the quote, which has recently been added serves only to once reiterate Morris's transfer principle theory. However, that's clearly excessive: Morris is already given more than sufficient airtime in the "Transfer principle" section; discussing the transfer principle again in a different section amounts to pro-Morris propaganda. Pecher Talk 18:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Pecher... After pro palestinian and pro israelian propaganda we now have to face pro historian propaganda !!! We will never succeed in writing something decent :-(((((.  I officially complain about the fact that neither Pappé nor Laurens theory is developed in the article ! They are most famous French historians on the topic !!! Christophe Greffe 19:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misrepresnting Benny Morris

message: I find that Zero0000 removed the following material from the discussion of Israeli offers to resettle the refugees:
"Israeli offers to relocate the refugees were spurned" (Palmer, R.R. and Colton, Joel. 1971. A History of the Modern World, 4th ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, p. 957)
Colton and Palmer is a well-recognized history textbook and a NPOV source. Zero0000 (Talk | contribs) explains his/her reasoning for removing this insertion as, "There was no "Israeli offer to relocate the refugees"." I do not think Zero0000's say-so overrides a recognized history textbook and I have reinserted the material. User:Bill Levinson 17:30 9 March 2006 (UTC)
:Zero did and he was right because it was not the appropriate place for them. I put them back in the article at their right place.
::Here's Morris on the issue: 'The decision in principle, not to allow a return, taken in Tel Aviv in summer 1948, hardened into an iron resolve during the following months.' (p. 550); Moshe Shertok told Acheson in Washington on 22 March, 1949: 'it was out of the question to consider the repatriation of any substantial numbers of the refugees' (p. 553); 'Yadin and, implicitly, Ben-Gurion rejected compromise on repatriation.' Yadin's opinion was that "The refugee problem is no concern of the Land (sic) of Israel... We must say openly: If they [i.e., the Arabs] want war - let them continue pressing us on the refugee problem." (p. 556); 'Israel formally informed the PCC of its readiness to take back "100,000" refugees on 3 August making it conditional on 'retaining all present territory' and on the freedom to resettle the returnees where it saw fit.' (p. 577). --- It would be better to rely on contemporary scholarly works rather than old textbooks. --Ian Pitchford 18:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ian. This is what they claim... Point. Unless this sentence is out context and betrays their mind, it must be there. I don't know those guys but until someone checks, it cannot be deleted. Christophe Greffe 20:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand Christophe. You think a false statement made in an obscure textbook 35 years ago has to be included in an encyclopedia? --Ian Pitchford 22:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The references to Morris' book are given above Bill. --Ian Pitchford 15:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see any objection. Perfect. Christophe Greffe 11:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rudy, you've added a claim to the article sourced to this lobby group: CAMERA. It's essential that we rely on good quality sources in Wikipedia generally and in this article in particular. Also, if Safran is genuinely the source the link is not only superfluous but detracts from the credibility of the claim. Would you agree to remove the link? --Ian Pitchford 15:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Safran quote is accurate (I read it in the original). I see no problem in removing the link and leaving the quote. Rudy Wagner 10:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Mr. Quid: *quote* your sources. If your information is based on Pappe and Nuseibeh, quote their work, or at least add 'according to Pappe', or 'Pappe disagrees and claims that...'. Rudy Wagner 10:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of NPOV material; is this acceptable?

message: Wouldn't it be more neutral to talk about waves than stages ? In French, we are clearly talking about different stages in a conflict or an operation and waves of refugees... Talking about stages would mean there is some sort of progression... Christophe Greffe 11:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer "stages".  "Waves" is more colorful but I think we should prefer dry language.  --Zero 02:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stages or waves ? 

message: I have made some small factual repairs to the mention of the Lausanne Conference, which had an incredibly biased structure that omitted relevant facts, as well as removing the unnecessary quotation that was nothing but emotional appeal. Please discuss these on the talkpage before reverting.
: Your information is complete wrong, especially "Israel proposed allowing all Palestinian "refugees" who had left areas which Israel had taken over to return."  This is out by a factor of 7 or 8.  --Zero 07:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are completely misinformed. BlatherAndBlatherscite 20:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Zero is not completely misinformed, and he isn't even partially misinformed - he is probably more informed than most of us on these matters. There is already a discussion going on above regarding the Ashrawi quotation, and it is not good faith editing to just remove it outright during a discussion and then come here and say "discuss before reverting". First you discuss, reach an agreement, then edit the article. I'm restoring it until this happens. Ramallite (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be very clear that all but the first words of this quote have no encyclopedia value. Surly, as an informed person Zero knows that. He would describe it as "polemic not encyclopedic" Zeq 21:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Zeq, as I wrote above, the first few words, by themselves, make no sense, have no context, and make no point. It's not even POV - it's non-sensical. It's like saying "The people of Israel, who have suffered" by itself. Just like that. Nothing else. It needs context especially since it is in a section entitled 'narrative' Ramallite (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: BlatherAndBlatherscite, stop puting that totally false claim about the Laussanne conference into the article (and into Laussanne Conference, 1949).  And stop telling people to discuss it first when you have provided no sources and no discussion.  You can pick up any real history book that covers this topic and find that your "fact" is not a fact at all.  If Israel re-admitted all the refugees that had fled the region controlled by Israel at the time of the conference, Arabs would have become the majority population in Israel.  How many Zionists would have liked that, do you think?  --Zero 22:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong, Zero. The offer included all "Palestinians" who would have needed to come back inside the 1949 borders of Israel. The fact that the arab states called "Refugees" those people whose land THEY swallowed up is relevant. BlatherAndBlatherscite 23:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, but nevertheless, do you have anything to back up your claim that 'all' refugees were offered repatriation? Ramallite (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try reading the actual documents of the conference rather than Zero's biased distortions. BlatherAndBlatherscite 23:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you point me to a URL then? Ramallite (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: While I did not follow the debate and have absolutly no opinion about this user's behavior, I ask you to refrain from making personal attacks; this is still against the Wikipedia policy. -- Heptor  talk 21:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia has a policy for trolls: they die. If Blathers continues behaving the same way (not only here but in other parts of W/P too) I intend to take the necessary action to prevent it.  My question here was to give other people (such as yourself) the opportunity to argue that Blathers is not a troll.  Maybe I could have expressed it better, but I think that raising the issue before loading the shotgun was reasonable thing to do.  Another proof it is a troll is that it filed a compaint about being stalked against three people who had reverted it when there was no evidence of stalking at all.  This is classic troll behavior.  --Zero 22:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no interest in arguing with you on this, I just really dislike when people are called names on Wikipedia. But by all means, present your argument in orderly fashion and take whatever steps you deem necessary. -- Heptor  talk 23:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  PS: I will also note that BlatherAndBlatherscite does not provide any sources for his edits. BlatherAndBlatherscite, please find a credible source for your addition, and then come back. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for what is considered good sourses.  -- Heptor  talk 23:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual repair

message: I have moved around some of the images in this article, which were not in the appropriate sections. In my opinion, it is much more natural to have a picture of Khalidi in the section detailing his own theory, than in a section about the theory he opposed. I have left all the information in the article. Rudy Wagner 11:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This stamp should actually be moved to the Dier Yasin page. Rudy Wagner 10:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this image is fine for the article and in keeping with practice elsewhere in Wikipedia. Stamps are used quite often in Wikipedia because of the dearth of good non-copyright images. Additionally, historians are pretty much unanimous on the role of the massacre in the exodus. --Ian Pitchford 11:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is goverment issued propeganda and has no place to be anywhere in Wikipedia (excpet for the propeganda article. I think this should get to ArbCom. Zeq 13:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a relevant image for a key event in the war. --Ian Pitchford 19:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: : I think it is quite wrong to put the whole transfer theory on the shoulders of Morris.  He didn't originate the idea and he was by no means the only one to write about it.  Morris should appear in the section as a major actor but not as the only one.   For example, we could quote historian (and former Israeli diplomat) Shlomo Ben-Ami:
:The debate about whether or not the mass exodus of Palestinians was the result of a Zionist design or the inevitable concomitant of war should not ignore the ideological constructs that motivated the Zionist enterprise.  The philosophy of transfer was not a marginal, esoteric article in the mindset and thinking of the main leaders of the Yishuv.  These ideological constructs provided a legitimate environment for commanders in the field actively to encourage the eviction of the local population even when no precise orders to that effect were issued by the political leaders. (Lost name of book just now, maybe Scars of War, p44)
:It is also of interest to note that the transfer theory is supported by some in the extreme right (who want to complete the process).  One of the most detailed I've seen was written by a rabbi better known as a Baruch Goldstein apologist.  This point is not very important; maybe one sentence and a link is enough.  --Zero 11:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this can be solved in considering that Morris is indeed the most notorious representative of transfer's theory. We can in another section, criticism indicate who are all the other people who agree with him (Ben-Ami, etc) and what they criticize (Finkelstein, Karsh, ...) Christophe Greffe 12:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments by Zero : transfer's theory is not only Morris's theory but many's theory 

message: # If the theory is not only Morris', this hould be noted, and possibly a quotation from another scholar added, or a list of scholars supporting the theory.
# As Christopher Greffe noted, *there is no reason* to add what Ian calls 'the historical context'. This so-called 'context' is not needed in order to bring across the point of the 'transfer principle' theory (as I have shown in my draft), and definitely not need to explain this event. Maybe it should be referenced in the article, just like the entire war is referenced.
# As for the picture caption - if it is a good summary, it should be in the article text; a picture caption should refer to what is *in* the picture.
Rudy Wagner 18:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on Comments

message: The origin of the "transfer theory" depends on what you think it is.  If you just mean the idea that Zionists always had a plan (or at least a preference) for transferring Arabs out of Palestine, then of course that was the expressed fear of the Arabs of Palestine at least since the time of the Balfour Declaration.  They didn't have access to the Zionist's private communications, but the fear was based on their analysis of the situation, common sense (the obvious great difficulty of achieving a Jewish majority purely by immigration), and supported by the public utterances and writings of some on the Zionist right.  These fears were expressed to the various British enquiries.   As far as written history is concerned, there were authors who expressed this opinion from the time of the British mandate until now (I'll try to locate an example or two, this is difficult) but their sources were limited.  An important article was "The wordless wish" by Erskine Childers (1971); if I remember correctly it contains a clear statement of the transfer theory.  Much changed in the 1980s when British and Israeli archives started to be opened (and also some Zionist archives).  Morris did a lot of the seminal archival work, but I'm not sure his prominent perceived connection to the subject is because of that or because of the fame he achieved from the first edition of Birth. --Zero 13:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't follow. What we are talking about is *not* transferist ideas in zionist policy but rather the explanation of the Palestinian Exodus in terms of this 'transferist thinking'. If you are saying that this idea was not brought up by Morris but by others (Childers and others), I wellcome you to add pertinent information about them to my version (preferably at the beginning, something like 'the idea that transferist ideaology is responsible for the Exodus was first brought up by...' However, since these Historian are much less notable than Morris and his contemporaries, I don't think that much emphasis should be given to them. Rudy Wagner 18:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but that is *not* the subject of the article. The 1948 war is very relevant to the article, and many books on the subject include details of the war and its origins - but in this article, the war is (rightly) referenced as a link. This is an encyclopedia article about *the exodus* and nothing else; thus, transferist ideas interest us only insofar as their effects on the exodus. Rudy Wagner 13:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins

message: Hello Rudy. Thank you for your work. Personnally I found the former version more consistent and clear. But before to go deeper or to discuss this into details, I think we need to agree on the general structure. From my side there are 2 big questions :
* Which scholars will deserve a theory section ?
* How do we introduce the controversies about each other theory ?
I had in mind 4 stages and explanation of each stage by all. Here you don't follow this. The way we go currently, I would suggest the following :
1. Description of the exodus (only facts that do not "proove" any theory)
2. A "what caused" section
:2.1 Descritption of all the causes (in chronological order with the stages ?)
::2.1.1 ...
::2.1.2 ...
:2.2 Responsabilities
::2.2.1 The Tranfer Idea
:::2.2.1.1 Description by its main representative (Morris)
:::2.2.1.2 Nuances by some followers and list of them
:::2.2.1.3 Controverses
::2.2.2 The Daleth Master Plan
:::2.2.2.1 Description following its main representatives (Khalidi)
:::2.2.2.2 Nuances by some followers and list of them
:::2.2.2.3 Controverses
::2.2.3 Call for flight from
:::2.2.3.1 Description following its main representatives (Karsh)
:::2.2.3.2 Nuances by some followers and list of them
:::2.2.3.3 Controverses
My concern is that I foresee hard discussions around npov in the direction we take... Christophe Greffe 16:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't realy get your '2.1' section. What kind of information would go there? Also, I am not very fond of sub-sub-sub-headings, and believe that although this is a logical framework to follow, we should not have 'section headings' like 2.2.2.1, but only follow this outline in writing. Rudy Wagner 16:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. I agree about the 2.2.2.2.... This is just because I care much about structure. This is a bias from my engineering background to cut everything in pieces that way. (2.1) was intended to gather all causes ponctullay and detail to what, to where and to when they refer. (2.2) was intended to gather more synthetic conclusions (theories). Christophe Greffe 18:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments 

message: Just to make sure: after this shortening of the "transfer principle" section, we should go and do the same thing to the other theories, esp. Gelber's and the "Arab leaders endorsement". Btw, after having read some more, I must say that 'mainstream' Israeli historians (i. e. those who are not New Historians, have almost never argued for the arab leader's endorsement theory, and most of them support either an "it's natural for people to run away from war" view (Karsh), or Gelber's theory. Thus, I believe we should probably re-arrange 'arab leaders call for flight' section, and maybe even rename it. Rudy Wagner 16:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Rudy. I still don't know how you intend to organize. Here is a summary of Gelber's point concerning first phase of flight. Feel free to reorganise this and/or correct style.
=== First phase flight causes following Gelber ===
In his book Palestine 1948, Yoav Gelber distinguishes several causes to the beginnings of the Palestinians' mass flight that occurred during the civil war period from December to beginning of April :
* the generally deteriorating conditions, the unstable economic situation and growing unemployement (p.75 ; p.78);
* the Haganah, Irgoun and Lehi retaliations that terrified the Arabs (p.76)
* the fear of a some purely palestinian conflict spread by rumours that Husseinis were planning to bring in bands of fallahin to take over the towns in a domestic terrorism like in 1936-9 (p.76) or due eg to Muslim Brethren enforcement of some strict code of behaviour (p.80)
* the bad exemples given by the flight of the leaders (p.76)
* the fear of repreasals to the Army of Liberation's attacks (p.77)
* the economical situation in the cities (p.78)
* the Haganah's campaign of propaganda (p.79)
* the gathering of population in main villages and towns (p.79)
* systematical evacuations of civil population near the borders and performed by the Army of Liberation (p. 79)
* some ponctual actions as the evacuation of 3,000 children from Haifa organized by local national comittee (p. 81).
He emphasizes 3 points :
* "The flight during this phase of the civil war still resembled previous reactions to anarchy in Palestine, as in the Middle East in general. No one expelled the escapees or occupied their homes and lands, excpt for their own quasi-administrations" and "no massacres or deliverate intimidation of any kind took place yet" (p.82).
* All arab authorities (local national comittees, Arab Higher Comittee and Arab Liberation Army) took many measures to prevent or stop the flight (p.81).
* "Until April 1948, Ben Gourion regarded the escape as a calculated withdrawal of non-combattant population upon the orders of Arab commanders and out of military considerations" (p.82).
See you. Christophe Greffe 18:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More things to do 

message: In his book Palestine 1948, Yoav Gelber distinguishes several causes to the beginnings of the Palestinians' mass flight that occurred during the civil war period from December to beginning of April :
* the generally deteriorating conditions, the unstable economic situation and growing unemployement (p.75 ; p.78);
* the Haganah, Irgoun and Lehi retaliations that terrified the Arabs (p.76)
* the fear of a some purely palestinian conflict spread by rumours that Husseinis were planning to bring in bands of fallahin to take over the towns in a domestic terrorism like in 1936-9 (p.76) or due eg to Muslim Brethren enforcement of some strict code of behaviour (p.80)
* the bad exemples given by the flight of the leaders (p.76)
* the fear of repreasals to the Army of Liberation's attacks (p.77)
* the economical situation in the cities (p.78)
* the Haganah's campaign of propaganda (p.79)
* the gathering of population in main villages and towns (p.79)
* systematical evacuations of civil population near the borders and performed by the Army of Liberation (p. 79)
* some ponctual actions as the evacuation of 3,000 children from Haifa organized by local national comittee (p. 81).
He emphasizes 3 points :
* "The flight during this phase of the civil war still resembled previous reactions to anarchy in Palestine, as in the Middle East in general. No one expelled the escapees or occupied their homes and lands, excpt for their own quasi-administrations" and "no massacres or deliverate intimidation of any kind took place yet" (p.82).
* All arab authorities (local national comittees, Arab Higher Comittee and Arab Liberation Army) took many measures to prevent or stop the flight (p.81).
* "Until April 1948, Ben Gourion regarded the escape as a calculated withdrawal of non-combattant population upon the orders of Arab commanders and out of military considerations" (p.82).
See you. Christophe Greffe 18:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First phase flight causes following Gelber 

message: The following passage should either not be in the History section, or be balanced:
:Overall Morris concludes that the 'Arab evacuees from the towns and villages left largely because of Jewish - Haganah, IZL or LHI - attacks or fear of impending attack' but that only 'an extremely small, almost insignificant number of the refugees during this early period left because of Haganah or IZL or LHI expulsion orders or forceful "advice" to that effect' (Morris, 2003, pp. 138-139).
This is only Morris' view, and it is debated by others (such as Gelber) who attribute flight at this stage to inner Palestinian causes. <BR> Rudy Wagner 09:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Passage

message: http://www.ajds.org.au/mendes.htm
Zeq 16:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: interesting and at least well sourced. Christophe Greffe 10:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Describing the controversy 

message: It is very strange that the simpl fact that palestinian choose Israel independence day for Nakba day is not mentioned in this article:
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22independence+day%22+nakba&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=independence+day+nakba
Zeq 09:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nakba day  

message: Movin g to talk a paragraph added by : Another piece of supporting evidence on the Master Plan theory is from commander Ben Dunkelman, a Canadian Jew who led the Zionist attack on Nazareth. In his autobiography, he indicates that after the town surrendered, he received orders from General Chaim Laskahov to expel the civilian citizens but he refused the orders. Nazareth is the only city where mass exodus did not occur, creating a "natural experiment" where Nazareth serves as the "control group" to support the cause-and-effect theory of the Zionist orders. Yitzhak Rabin corroborated Dunkelman's assrtion, also claiming that he too received orders to "drive out" the Arab populations. - Even if some commander(s) in some place(s) gave such orders or others, I don't see how can this serve as "evidence on the Master Plan theory". ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. You are right. Alithien 18:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What would constitute evidence of a master plan? --Ian Pitchford 18:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Analysis made by historians referring to some facts as "evidence of a master plan". We could also expect from editors they introduce the full information they have on a topic, and not only some parts that go in one direction. Why did that IP forget to specify that Ben Gourion vetoed that order ? Alithien 21:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some historians do make that analysis, which is a good reason to include it as a topic in the article. Ben-Gurion did issue explicit expulsion orders. --Ian Pitchford 15:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All or some ? If some, please indicate which one and prove your fairness in the wikipedia project by adding (all) the ones who do not. Ben Gurion did issue explicit expulsion orders. Some historians like Morris and Gelber write exactly the contrary concerning this episode. Even if Morris add an interesting footnote on that topic. Alithien 15:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some means some, not all, and it doesn't need to be all, just a significant point of view to be worthy of inclusion. Morris and Gelber are discussed at length in the article and supporters of the expulsion thesis are already mentioned too. We've also discussed on this talk page previously Parsons' work on the differential expulsion of Christian/Muslim Arabs v. Druze Arabs, which indicates a systematic approach to expulsion and not just a case of people fleeing chaotically from invaders, but the information is not in the article yet. A relevant quotation or two from Ben-Gurion would be appropriate and it would be interesting to see how long they remain in the article. --Ian Pitchford 15:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Obviously, if all of the events in which commanders followed expulsion orders from the IDF general staff and the political leadership are not evidence of an expulsion plan then there was no expulsion plan by definition, but it doesn't alter the fact that Palestinians were expelled as a direct result of expulsion orders. In any case, there are other accounts of this specific event in which Dunkelman was challenged by Ben-Gurion for not carrying out the expulsion order and of course Dunkelman was subsequently dismissed from his position as military governor. --Ian Pitchford 17:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. Who is the historian ? Where are the quotes ? Did you chose a mediator ? I unfortunately lost all confidence in you :-(. See also next section. (nb: I will not be on wiki before the WE). Alithien 18:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can search Google Print just as easily as I can Christophe. --Ian Pitchford 18:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I do it better, Ilan. Alithien 18:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you should be able to find the evidence yourself in just a few minutes. --Ian Pitchford 18:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  evidence on the Master Plan theory  

message: Most of this article is about "plans" not on what acatually occured. Zeq 15:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree completely. It needs far more on the actual history. --Ian Pitchford 16:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You are welcome to state your opinion about the article here.  However, my opinion is that you are wrong on most counts.  For example, Palestine was not "basically uninhabited" and the Khartoum announcement is outside the scope of the article.  --Zerotalk 06:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  plans 

message: "Strategically, the period was marked by Arab initiatives and Jewish reprisals..."
Pro-Palestinian bias? Hardly...Smitty Mcgee 18:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation does not guarentee neutrality

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.handala.org
** In Palestinian exodus on Sun Jul 16 21:18:57 2006, 403 Forbidden
** In Palestinian exodus on Mon Jul 17 16:47:51 2006, 403 Forbidden
** In Palestinian exodus on Thu Jul 27 01:03:12 2006, 403 Forbidden
Broken external link removed, replaced with link to WP article --Dicconb 00:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link