Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight/Archive 2

message: I just reversed a number of changes made to this theory. Let me explain some points here:
:you revert the title while you admit there is no source for this wording.
:I ask you to respect wikipedia policy and stop personal research.
* ' In many instances the declared aim was to demoralise the Palestinians or to accelerate their surrender.' was changed to 'The aim was to demoralise the Palestinians or to accelerate their surrender.'
::I object to deleting 'in many instances' because in at least one instance the apparent aim was different:
:::according to Pappé Pappé, 2006, 'The ethnic cleansing of Palestine', p. 58 ‘Jewish loudspeakers [urged] the Palestinian women and children to leave before it was too late’.
:where is it written the aim is not to demoralize them ?
:: as to 'declared', I realise that it is a controversial word. However I think that some substantial pov's hold that the real aim was an exodus (as I suspect it was in many instances). Therefore I would like to keep it there.
:what pov's hold that the real aim of the "psychological warfare" was an exodus and not a surrender ?
:once more, you perform personnal reasearch.
* Somebody removed the titles (marked by '===' and appearing in the index). I think the titles give clarity and structure to the text, but they should not necessarrily appear in the index. Therefore I reintroduced them as a listing.
:?
* 'According to Pappé Pappé, 2006, 'The ethnic cleansing of Palestine', p. 58 in Haifa since December 1947 Jewish troops engaged in sniping, shelling, rolling barrels full of explusives and huge steel balls down into Palestionian neighborhoods and pouring oil mixed with fuel down the roads, which thay then ignited.' was removed.
::Why? It has a respectable reference, Pappé.
:Because this biaied Pappé point of view. Pappé describes a spiral of violence with mutual attacks. So, quoting this part of Pappé to push a point is not respectful of Pappé minds.
* as to calling it a theory i refer to the paragraph above
:So do I. What is the source of these wordings ?
--JaapBoBo 21:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish psychological warfare theory 

message: Morris writes yishuv faced and/or feared an "intention (...) to destroy the Jewish state" (p.7); "Middle Eastern version of the Holocaust" (p.7); the "outbreak and prolongation of the war for Israel's birht and survival" (p.590).
Azzam Pasha talks about a "war of extermination" but he is not Morris.
What is the English word to summarize his point in a title ? Alithien 17:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extermination 

message: Both theories are used by Morris to explain why Jews readily committed expulsions. --JaapBoBo 23:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alithien keeps using the word extermination, but it doesn't appear that it's a word ever used in Morris's writings. If he's used it in his public appearances, I think it should come with a "health warning". One of his colleagues amongst the "New Historians" (Ilan Pappe) has been forced from his job and left the country, apparently as a result of defending "research" and criticism of Israel's past. PRtalk 11:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Yishuv fear of extermination' and 'transfer idea' can be combined 

message: I removed some "theories". If I forget some, don't hesitate to remove them. Alithien 14:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the 'theories'should be restored. They gave structure and clarity to the article. Now its a mess! Thx Alithien. --JaapBoBo 22:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theories 

message: I know I haven't talked about this issue in a while, but I really think it's worth looking into again. I believe that the following paragraph should be deleted from the article:
An interview frequently cited in Zionist historiography was with Monsignor George Hakim, then Greek Catholic bishop of Galilee, in the Beirut newspaper Sada al Janub, August 16, 1948: "The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the 'Zionist gangs' very quickly, and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile." Erskine Childers investigated these claims, and wrote in the Spectator of May 12, 1961: "I wrote to His Grace, asking for his evidence of such orders. I hold signed letters from him, with permission to publish, in which he has categorically denied ever alleging Arab evacuation orders; he states that no such orders were ever given. He says that his name has been abused for years; and that the Arabs fled through panic and forcible eviction by Jewish troops."[28] Hakim later commented on this use of his words: "There is nothing in this statement to justify the construction which many propagandists had put on it [...] At no time did I state that the flight of the refugees was due to the orders, explicit or implicit, of their leaders, military or political, to leave the country [...] On the contrary, no such orders were ever made [...] Such allegations are sheer concoctions and falsifications. [...] as soon as hostilities began between Israel and the Arab States, it became the settled policy of the Government to drive away the Arabs." (Childers[29], 197-198.)
It is extremely lengthy, and does not contribute much (if anything) to the article. It isn't actually criticism of EoF theory, but rather of some pro-EoF authors. This kind of critique has no place in an article such as this. We do not even quote Hakim at all, so why bring the issue up?
To draw an analogy (which I know a lot of people are fond of here), let's look to a book report done by a group of students. Suppose a teacher asks "What led the vagabonds to attack the Cathedral?" Their desire for the riches inside, their frustrations with the inequality of French society at the time, their opportunity to avenge themselves against the mainstream and their desire to save Esmeralda would all suffice as explanations. Now suppose there were a discussion between students as to the true cause of the attack. One student may, in support of the last, say "One of the vagabonds was Esmeralda's husband." This is, in fact, untrue, as she was married to Gringoire. But I couldn't imagine the group writing in support of an alternate theory by stating "Student ------ said that one of the vagabonds was Esmeralda's husband. This is entirely untrue."
In other words, just because someone said something in support of an argument that is untrue doesn't make the argument any less true, or for that matter any truer. I, personally, believe the first three reasons were each more powerful than the last. But that's just my literary interpretation. Screen stalker 01:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen this kind of discussion elsewhere - what should by done if there are widely disseminated falsehoods (or at least, very contested material) on certain topics? Answer - they must be mentioned, because otherwise, someone is bound to come along, quite innocently, and write the falsehoods back in. PRtalk 09:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with PR --JaapBoBo 11:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if they do that, we can promptly remove it. I will ardently support anyone who seeks to do that. But I don't think an article should be written in such a way as to preempt a certain addition. I don't know if I'm making any sense. I suppose a better way to say it may be that it's our job as editors to make sure that unreliable material such as the Hakim quotation doesn't make it into the article, instead of placing material in the article to dissuade people from including in the first place. Screen stalker 01:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Nonetheless, the point remains that we shouldn't pre-empt bad material being put into the article. We should simply remove it if it ever makes its way in. Screen stalker 12:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I have seen no refutation of this point, I will remove the paragraph in question. If there is still resentment for this idea, feel free to revert my edit and continue discussion. Screen stalker 00:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going to open an old wound... 

message: An IP inserted the entire text of the article Mendes, Philip. 1996 "An Historical Controversy: the Causes of the Palestinian Refugee Problem." Journal of Arabic, Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies 3(1):83-102." into Talk.
I'm removing it, I don't think there was much of value, and the references are cited so badly as to be near unuseuable. PRtalk 12:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some more material 

message: I added a summary of Morris's analysis of the direct causes of the Palestinian exodus during the four waves. Reasons:
* Morris wrote the most famous book on this topic, so his view should be in the article
* as opposed to an indirect cause (transfer idea) Morris's view was not yet in the article
--JaapBoBo 19:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding Morris's 'Four waves' analysis 

message: Pedro Gonnet wants to add the following to the article under the "Jewish use of psychological warfare" heading: "Khalidi mentions ‘repeated and merciless raids against sleeping villages carried out in conformity with plan C’, i.e. in the period before April 1948.W. Khalidi, ‘Plan Dalet: master plan for the conquest of Palestine’, J. Palestine Studies 18 (1), 1988, p. 4-33"
While I do not dispute Khalidi's claim, I am confused as to why this information belongs under the "Jewish use of psychological warfare" heading or the "Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus" article at all.  It seems more suitable to the main 1948 Palestinian exodus article.  --GHcool 18:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It contributed to the exodus by creating an atmosphere of fear. --JaapBoBo 19:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Khalidi doesn't seem to be making the point that this was part of the Jewish psychological warfare campaign.  It seems to be just an event in the narrative of the Palestinian exodus that he documented.  Am I missing something? --GHcool 19:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Khalidi says it was done to keep the Arabs under continuous pressure. --JaapBoBo 21:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's what he says, would you mind quoting the part where he says that? Without it, the statement lacks the proper context necessary for inclusion in the article.  Thank you.  --GHcool 23:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Khalidi wrote: Zionist military planning was accordingly based upon a two-phased strategy fitted to the situation. In "Plan Gimmel" or Plan C the objectives were, through so-called "countermeasures" to maintain constant pressure everywhere against the Arabs of Palestine while maintaining contact with the Jewish setllements in the area of the proposed Arab state. and "The second phase of Zionist strategy was the al-out offensive to conquer and hold territory in the wake of the retreating British forces. So Khalidi saw the first phase (plan C, 'pressure') as a preparation for the second. Above that the first phase was not aimed at a military target, so it falls within the definition of psychological warfare. I'm not sure how much it contributed to the exodus, but I think it certainly was aimed at keeping the Palestinians under psychological pressure, i.e. to create an atmosphere of fear. --JaapBoBo 20:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Khalidi's statement does not clearly attribute Plan C to psychological warfare.  We cannot attribute that for him.  That would violate WP:NOR or perhaps WP:Synthesis.  --GHcool 20:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The simple fact that Khalidi doesn't use the term psychological warfare is not enough to refute this addition. Khalidi wrote his article in 1961 (it was republished in 1988), when that term was hardly used as much as it is now. We should consider whether what Khalidi describes is properly described by that term and whether the way in which Khalidi described it would justify including it under psychological warfare. I think it does. --JaapBoBo 20:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sleeping villages" Khalidi quotation 

message: The first two statements in this section still need references. If none are supplied, I will remove them. Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 25.10.2007 07:18
:You are right to remove this.
:I would like to point out that these unreferenced statements are anecdotical and if we would stop editing this article we could concentrate on the real issues and re-write this.
:Nevertheless this requires GHcool, JaapBoBo and PR agreement.
:Alithien 07:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote those two sentences when it was agreed upon that we should have a brief summary of all the sections.  The two statements are based on the books I've read and lectures I've attended.  I admit that I do not have a direct "source" for these statements and I suppose they could be considered original research or synthesis.  I'll understand if it is decided that they should be removed (and I won't revert such an edit), but I find it unlikely that anyone would disagree with these statements, especially based on the information presented in the rest of the article. --GHcool 17:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section [[Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus#Palestinian Arab fears|Palestinian Arab fears]]