Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight/Archive 1

message: Shouldn't this page be combined with the one on Palestinian refugees? They seem to be precisely the same topic. Also, this article makes it seem as if all Israeli historians suddenly have decided that Israeli is almost totally at fault for the large Arab exodus However, these Israel "new historians", many of whom have a leftist political agenda, are not the sole voice of Israel academia, and some of them have been accused of bad scholarship on occasion as well. Let us be careful, and not fall for the standard Wikipedia bias - being politically left-wing doesn't make one automatically right, and being centrist or right-wing doesn't make on automatically wrong. I would like to look into this issue further. RK 22:56, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested merge with [[Palestinian refugees]]

message: The stuff just added (which I am going to revert when I complete these comments) is nothing other than a standard set of discredited propaganda distortions that has been going around for decades.  I am confident that this anon editor has never seen any of the sources he claims to be quoting.  Nor have any of the hundreds of web pages and assorted articles and books (just don't call them history books) that present them.
I'll illustrate the nature of these "quotations" using the example from Edward Atiyah.  The sentence in Roman text is what was quoted and the part in italics is what immediately follows in the same source.
:This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to reenter and retake possession of their country. But it was also, and in many parts of the country, largely due to a policy of deliberate terrorism and eviction followed by the Jewish commanders in the areas they occupied, and reaching its peak of brutality in the massacre of Deir Yassin.
:There were two good reasons why the Jews should follow such a policy.  First, the problem of harbouring within the Jewish State a large and disaffected Arab population had always troubled them.  They wanted an exclusively Jewish state, and the presence of such a population that could never be assimilated, that would always resent its inferior position under Jewish rule and stretch a hand across so many frontiers to its Arab cousins in the surrounding countries, would not only detract from the Jewishness of Israel, but also constitute a danger to its existence.  Secondly, the Israelis wanted to open the doors of Palestine to unrestricted Jewish immigration.  Obviously, the fewer Arabs there were in the country the more room there would be for Jewish immigrants.  If the Arabs could be driven out of the land in the course of the fighting, the Jews would have their homes, their lands, whole villages and towns, without even having to purchase them.  And this is exactly what happened.--Atiyah, The Arabs, p183.
Reading the whole passage makes it clear that Atiyah's opinion was actually close to the opposite of what we were intended to believe.  Whoever extracted the first sentence alone (not this anon editor who never thought to check the source) did so with the deliberate intention of deceiving his or her readers.
More of this comment to come later.  --Zero 03:12, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't suggest that we should trample on others' rights, but one must call a spade a spade: Zionism and rights don't always go hand-in-hand.  The very establishment of this state is an affront to the Arabs' rights.  Arabs lived in Jaffa.  They didn't leave; they were expelled.  We went into the villages and said 'Get out.' And they got out.  Yes, it's important for me and others that this state be a democratic one, but you still have to consider the difference between ourselves and the other countries and remember that democracy is not an end in itself but rather an instrument.  Zionism takes precedence over everything.-- Limor Livnat, member of the Likud Central Committee, quoted in Tikkun, Sep/Oct 1991, p14.
Sorry, couldn't resist;-).  But seriously, we should stomp on this idea that history can be reduced to a series of carefully selected quotations.  I want to record here what is wrong with these particular quotations so that the explanation can be referred to easily in the future. Incidentally, one of the quotations is going to stay with some modifications because it raises a serious issue that needs an answer; can you guess which one? --Zero 14:16, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

text: 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.The truth is that the flight was primarily due to the terror with which the Arab population of Palestine were struck in consequences of atrocities committed by the Jews... These brutalities were the cause of the flight of the inhabitants of Haifa, Jaffa and Jerusalem.But as soon as hostilities began between Israel and the Arab States, it became the settled policy of the Government to drive away the Arabs...- George Hakim, Archbishop of Galilee, quoted in E. B. Childers, The Wordless Wish, in I. Abu-Lughod (ed) Transformation of Palestine, Northwestern University Press (1971), 197-198.
In 1947, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri is quoted as having said, "We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down."-- That one is supposed to appear in a book published in Arabic in 1952.  I'm not going to try locating it, because it is perfectly likely that Nuri Said said something like that.  However, just suggesting to someone to move their families to a safe place is sensible advice and irrelevant to this issue.  I don't think he would have said "safe areas" if he meant "other countries" anyway. --Zero 14:56, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, this same 1952 book is the first printed source for the claim that there was a major massacre of Arabs at Tantura. --Zero 11:43, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "tantura massacre" was examined by israeli court. Teddy Katz (who came up with the story) was convicted of libel and his "records" of the issue have been proven false. He never apealed that verdict. Zeq 10:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Propaganda, contested quotations and myth debunking

message: In 1915, approximately 83,000 Jews lived in Palestine among 590,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs. According to the 1922 census, the Jewish population was 84,000, while the Arabs numbered 643,000. Thus, the Arab population continued to grow exponentially even while that of the Jews stagnated. However, throughout the British occupation, Arab immigration was unrestricted. In 1930, the Hope Simpson Commission, sent from London to investigate the 1929 Arab riots, said the British practice of ignoring the uncontrolled illegal Arab immigration from Egypt, Transjordan and Syria had the effect of displacing the prospective Jewish immigrants. The British Governor of the Sinai from 1922-36 observed: “This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria, and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery.” The Peel Commission reported in 1937 that the “shortfall of land is...due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.”  (unsigned by 67.130.2.26, Aug 9)
The figures for 1915 are incorrect.  See McCarthy "The Population of Palestine".  For 1914:  602,000 Muslims, 81,000 Christians, 38,700 Jewish Ottoman subjects and 20,000 or slightly more Jews who were not Ottoman subjects.   The claim attributed to the Hope Simpson report does not appear there.  In fact all the many British reports that considered Arab illegal immigration concluded that it was very small.  The last sentence is irrelevant to the immigration question. --Zero 02:13, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: How many were there in 1920

message: * lives of splendor and freedom - no one says THIS, right?
:Some has ofcourse. There was not only poor people in Palestine. Jordan's king's wife, for example, is a Palestinian refugee.
* ordinary lives, but they'd rather go back
:It seems that most does very much want to go back. See the guestbooks on www.allthatremains.com for examples.
* hard lives, but they have schools and jobs and property
:Depends on where they ended. Most of Gaza is a refugee camp and so is also southern Lebanon. The West Bank is a "real society", atleast it was 10 years ago.
* squalid tents, malnutrition, disease
:Yes. 
::(unsigned addition by 67.130.2.26, Aug 9, 2004): (They lived like that before, and they continue to live that way. This manner of living is not limited to Israel either. The living conditions of the arab populations in other arab states is the same.)
BL 15:45, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: How have they lived?

message: While this page is protected, a parallel page Nakba is being written up about the same subject. An initial attempt to turn it into a redirect was reverted. Can this be discussed?? JFW | T@lk 01:03, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Nakba

message: I've unprotected the page. I encourage everybody to discuss changes, avoid revert wars, be civil, and try to reach consensus so that the page does not need to be protected again. Snowspinner 14:12, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
===Arab Immigration===
According to the figures of the official Ottoman Turk census in 1882 there were only 141,000 Muslims, both Arab and non-Arab, in the entire land. By 1922, it skyrocketed to 650,000 Arabs—a 450% increase in only 40 years. By 1938, this shot up to over 900,000—an 800% increase in only 56 years! Where did all these Arabs come from? Clearly, it was not due to natural births; a natural growth rate such as this would be impossible. The historical answer is that the empirical evidence shows that they came from the neighboring states of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.
:: Any sort of nonsense can be proved by starting with phoney data.  Joan Peters' lies notwithstanding, the population of Palestine in 1880 was approximately 399,000 Muslims, 14,700 Jews, and 42,800 Christians.  This is from Ottoman statistical data with slight adjustments for undercounting according to standard methods. See J. McCarthy, The Population of Palestine. --Zero 13:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not taking an ideological stance at all.  I know that the book is crap from my own study of it.  Above I told you what the best available data is regarding 1882 population from the leading Ottoman demographer (with the possible exception of Kemal Karpat, who also gave similar figures).  Whether you like it or not is of no concern to me.  As for Pipes, his claim "have not been questioned" is nonsense.  In fact this "evidence" has been repeatedly examined and dismissed starting in 1931 (when the census report had a whole chapter on it that I challenge you to find a mention of in Peters' book).  --Zero 02:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  More Joan Peters lies, compounded by additional distortions.  Why didn't you quote the remainder of Churchill's sentence "...till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population" and then wonder how Churchill could be wrong by more than a factor of 10?  --Zero 13:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: That is all very nice, and I am aware of this theory about Arab immigration, but it is far from being an accepted one. As you can read in the link you have gracefully provided yourself, Ottoman figures are unreliable. The article you refer to cites several figures for 19th century population, all of which are sifnificantly higher than your figure. During the mandate years, the growth from 650,000 to 900,000 in 16 years corresponds to 2.1% per year, which is not high by Palestinian standards. And the various quotes you have provided are interesting impressions, but nevertheless provide no record of immigration. According to the 1945 Survey of Palestine estimate of illegal Arab immigration, it was insignificant compared to Jewish immigration, and so was the legal immigration as the figures your link cites show. This is an interesting debate, which may be worth an article in its own right, but since there is no record of significant Arab immigration and no widely-accepted estimate, to claim that Arab immigration was greater than Jewish immigration, or even that it was significant, is questionable at best, many would say false, and has no place in an encyclopedia.--Doron 18:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: And another thing - even with your (undoubtably false) figure of the 1882 population, the annual growth is only 4%, which may be very high for the period (it's higher than todays Gaza Strip growth rate), but still does not by any means provide proof of immigration. All the figures cited in the link you have provided give annual growth of less than 2%, which is perfectly plausible as (mainly) natural growth. And again, Wikipedia is no place for such debate, you can do your own research, have it published, have it gain universal acceptence and only then post it in Wikipedia.
It appears that no one here can provide any evidence since entire history is marred with ideological fog! Does anyone actually want to take a critical look into this, or are we just going to continue in our ignorance of the truth? 
This is similiar to the claim that from 700,000 thousand Palestinian Arabs, that left Israel, there are now 6 million refugees. Everyone just nods silently even though there is something wrong here. Sooner or later it passes into legitimacy no matter the logical wounds that such data leaves. 
Lets take a look into this please.
Guy Montag 23:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: The official UN estimate was 711,000.  A couple of years later, after an estimated 30,000 births a year, and a great deal of fraud, the estimated number of registered refugees was around 875,000. Jayjg (talk) 04:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know where did the 6 million number come from, but this is a different discussion. Going back to the immigration question, does anyone have actual proof of significant non-Jewish immigration to Palestine over the last 150 years? Anything besides controversial theories? --Doron 23:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: According to the figures of the official Ottoman Turk census in 1882 there were only 141,000 Muslims, both Arab and non-Arab, in the entire land. By 1922, it skyrocketed to 650,000 Arabs—a 450% increase in only 40 years. By 1938, this shot up to over 900,000—an 800% increase in only 56 years! Where did all these Arabs come from? Clearly, it was not due to natural births; a natural growth rate such as this would be impossible. The historical answer is that the empirical evidence shows that they came from the neighboring states of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.
:: Any sort of nonsense can be proved by starting with phoney data.  Joan Peters' lies notwithstanding, the population of Palestine in 1880 was approximately 399,000 Muslims, 14,700 Jews, and 42,800 Christians.  This is from Ottoman statistical data with slight adjustments for undercounting according to standard methods. See J. McCarthy, The Population of Palestine. --Zero 13:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not taking an ideological stance at all.  I know that the book is crap from my own study of it.  Above I told you what the best available data is regarding 1882 population from the leading Ottoman demographer (with the possible exception of Kemal Karpat, who also gave similar figures).  Whether you like it or not is of no concern to me.  As for Pipes, his claim "have not been questioned" is nonsense.  In fact this "evidence" has been repeatedly examined and dismissed starting in 1931 (when the census report had a whole chapter on it that I challenge you to find a mention of in Peters' book).  --Zero 02:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  More Joan Peters lies, compounded by additional distortions.  Why didn't you quote the remainder of Churchill's sentence "...till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population" and then wonder how Churchill could be wrong by more than a factor of 10?  --Zero 13:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: That is all very nice, and I am aware of this theory about Arab immigration, but it is far from being an accepted one. As you can read in the link you have gracefully provided yourself, Ottoman figures are unreliable. The article you refer to cites several figures for 19th century population, all of which are sifnificantly higher than your figure. During the mandate years, the growth from 650,000 to 900,000 in 16 years corresponds to 2.1% per year, which is not high by Palestinian standards. And the various quotes you have provided are interesting impressions, but nevertheless provide no record of immigration. According to the 1945 Survey of Palestine estimate of illegal Arab immigration, it was insignificant compared to Jewish immigration, and so was the legal immigration as the figures your link cites show. This is an interesting debate, which may be worth an article in its own right, but since there is no record of significant Arab immigration and no widely-accepted estimate, to claim that Arab immigration was greater than Jewish immigration, or even that it was significant, is questionable at best, many would say false, and has no place in an encyclopedia.--Doron 18:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: And another thing - even with your (undoubtably false) figure of the 1882 population, the annual growth is only 4%, which may be very high for the period (it's higher than todays Gaza Strip growth rate), but still does not by any means provide proof of immigration. All the figures cited in the link you have provided give annual growth of less than 2%, which is perfectly plausible as (mainly) natural growth. And again, Wikipedia is no place for such debate, you can do your own research, have it published, have it gain universal acceptence and only then post it in Wikipedia.
It appears that no one here can provide any evidence since entire history is marred with ideological fog! Does anyone actually want to take a critical look into this, or are we just going to continue in our ignorance of the truth? 
This is similiar to the claim that from 700,000 thousand Palestinian Arabs, that left Israel, there are now 6 million refugees. Everyone just nods silently even though there is something wrong here. Sooner or later it passes into legitimacy no matter the logical wounds that such data leaves. 
Lets take a look into this please.
Guy Montag 23:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: The official UN estimate was 711,000.  A couple of years later, after an estimated 30,000 births a year, and a great deal of fraud, the estimated number of registered refugees was around 875,000. Jayjg (talk) 04:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know where did the 6 million number come from, but this is a different discussion. Going back to the immigration question, does anyone have actual proof of significant non-Jewish immigration to Palestine over the last 150 years? Anything besides controversial theories? --Doron 23:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Arab Immigration

message: Leifern wants to change "actual expulsions" to "isolated expulsions" and wonders whether there were more than 3 examples.  Leifern might read a history book, such as that of Morris cited on the page, where there is an expulsion documented from Israeli archives every couple of pages.  --Zero 11:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expulsions 

message: Problems with the Finkelstein insertion include:
*He's not a historian, he's a polemicist expressing his opinion.
*His work is a derivative re-working of real historians, like Morris.
*The quotes themselves, even if relevant, are overlong, particularly as they are just expressing personal opinions, and should (at best) be briefly summarized.
*The quotes are not even relevant to the section into which they have been inserted.
I know it's sometimes very exciting for editors when they get hold of a particular narrative (in this case the anti-Zionist one of Chomsky, Finkelstein et al), and then try to slant articles to conform to that POV, but that's not really what Wikipedia is about.
--Jayjg (talk) 19:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with Finkelstein insertion 

message: * Finkelstein is an assistant professor of politics at DePaul in Chicago, but his work (inevitably) deals extensively with historical matters; he has served as an academic in history; his academic background is in history.
* All contributions draw on the work of others, but those making an original and publishable contribution to knowledge cannot be classed as derivative. 
* Assessments based on expert knowledge are not simply expressions of personal opinion; either the facts support the assessment or they don't.
* The quotations included are directly relevant, being an assessment of the nature of the expulsions of Arabs against both the background of the facts as established by Morris and others and the history and theory of Zionism of which Finkelstein is a scholar.
* Finkelstein is one of the most prominent of Morris's academic critics and there is no reason why the Wikipedia article should defer to Morris' position.
* I don't particularly object to Jayig's personal remarks, but they are quite inappropriate, some would perhaps use harsher terms.
--Ian Pitchford 19:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with Jayig's Problems

message: *Finkelstein is a political scientist notorious for having a particular agenda.
*Historical works which rely exclusively on the works of other authors are, by definition, derivative.
*Finkelstein is not a recognized historian of the 1948 War, so he clearly does not have "expert knowledge" in this area.
*The quotations have nothing to do with the section they were inserted in; please re-read the title of (and information covered in) the section.
*Finkelstein's "prominence" as a critic of Morris comes solely through his popularity among non-academics as an anti-Zionist Jew, not through critical approval of historians, and there is no evidence that this article is deferring to Morris's position.  Furthermore, editors attempting to seek "balance" should not be inserting one-sided and misleading narratives into Wikipedia articles, particularly of complex historical events (e.g. ).
*I don't particularly object to Ian Pitchford's personal remarks in describing my edits as "vandalism", but it was quite inappropriate, some would perhaps use harsher terms.
--Jayjg (talk) 20:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with Ian Pitchford's Problems with Jayjg's Problems

message: * Finkelstein is an academic with a reputation based on his scholarship and published works - something easily checked.
* Finkelstein's academic and PhD status can only be attained through original research, i.e, its non-derivative status is a fact.
* Finkelstein's expert knowledge is directly relevant to the assessment of the questions with which the article deals - indeed I don't see how expulsions of the Arabs could be understood without such knowledge.
* Finkelstein's reputation is based on his published research.
* Deleting an appropriate and properly-referenced contribution is not constructive and surely qualifies as "vandalism"; a claim of vandalism is not personal comment. As you're anonymous I have no idea who you are or what your motives are.
* Criticism and revision is appropriate; complete deletion is not - you've now deleted all reference from this and the article on the 1982 Invasion of Lebanon to stated policy goals accepted and adopted by a succession of Israeli leaders - precisely those goals discussed by Finkelstein and articulated by Ben-Gurion in the quotations provided.
--Ian Pitchford 20:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Final comment on Jayig's comments

message: * Finkelstein's popular and academic reputation are entirely different things.
* Finkelstein did not obtain his academic and PhD status because of the work in question, which is derivative.
* If Finkelstein's opinion is indeed relevant, it's certainly not relevant where it was placed, nor were the overlengthy quotes appropriate.
* I haven't deleted your references here, and in any event doing so would not qualify as "vandalism" in Wikipedia terms; see Wikipedia:Vandalism.
* A statement in a speech made by David ben Gurion in 1937 does not qualify as "stated policy goals accepted and adopted by a succession of Israeli leaders", and reference to it in an article discussing the 1982 Invasion of Lebanon is original research at best, POV-pushing at worst (which, by the way, was deleted by another editor).
--Jayjg (talk) 21:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply

message: Germen, there are a few problems with your additions:
1- "Amounts to a seven-fold increase" - whose numbers are you depending on? There are different numbers of refugees cited in the article depending on source, why did you choose a particular one without a citation/source? If it's the UN estimate of 711,000, this needs to be cited.
* I used the average of the cited number of 1948 refugees and the average number of contemporary Palestinians. This amounted to a sevenfold increase.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Israel grants citizenship to Jews regardless of whether they are refugees or not. Israel does not generally grant citizenship to non-Jewish refugees (with very few exceptions), and particularly not to returning Palestinian refugees. This is an article about the Palestinian exodus and comparison to Israel's nationalistic immigration policies is irrelevant.--Doron 15:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I've added sources for some fairly up-to-date statistics in a new section headed "demographics". --Ian Pitchford 16:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - you might also want to see this, I think Palestinians in Israel total over 1.1 million... Ramallite (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Extrapolating from 1997 the Israeli statistics look about right. Perhaps you'd like to add a ref to the article? --Ian Pitchford 17:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for not getting back earlier - I've tried to update the stats in the first sentence, but some other references (like the population of refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria) are way underestimated according to UNRWA, which puts the figure at 1.8 million. Do you know if the Bowker, 2003, p. 72 reference refers to only those living in refugee camps, because UNRWA numbers are all those "registered" as refugees regardless of living conditions. Thanks Ramallite (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germen's additions 

message: Firstly, this article is very, very one-sided. The "Transfer principle" section is greatly overstating the presence of transfer thinking in the Yishuv leadership, for which there is only very slim evidence. The argument, "For some of the Zionist leadership, the "transfer" of a large Arab population appeared to be the only solution" is deceptive, for there were few more than Yosef Weitz who felt this way. The point should be made unambiguously that the Peel Commission report suggested transfer, and that it was not placed on the agenda by the Yishuv. Obviously, it should also be noted that realizing the Zionist goal of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine may have necessitated extraordinary measures; on the other hand, these measures were not articulated or considered, as the article implies.
The "Alleged "Master Plan"" section is balanced, but unfortunately it's followed by a section that almost totally ignores the effect of the flight of Arab effendi and the prospect of British departure in bringing on an almost Apocalyptic mood. Public servants fled; businesses closed; schools shut as the teachers left: this phenomenon was enormously significant in giving the urban masses and the fellahin the sense that their society was collapsing. It both directly caused flight and encouraged it when prompted more immediately by the Jewish Plan Dalet offensives. Instead of detailing this, the "First stage" section places an unnatural emphasis on Jewish responsibility, when at that time it was insignificant.
Why do we have such a long quote for the "Third stage"? Is it perhaps because it contains the biggest expulsion of the war, at Lydda and Ramle? Other than to exaggerate the responsibility of expulsions for the flight, is there any reason why we are not devoting more space to the "Second stage"? By the way, the figure for the "Third stage" is wrong; 100,000 Palestinians fled during the Ten Days (according to Birth Revisited), not 300,000. In fact, the main stage of the exodus was the April-June period, which saw 250,000 more Arabs flee (not 250,000 in total, as the article erroneously states). It is also the most complex stage, and was caused by an intermingling of the general sense of collapse I mentioned, war itself, Arab (AHC and ALA) orders, the destructiveness of the Arab irregulars, Jewish psychological campaigns, Jewish expulsions and Jewish atrocities (namely by Lehi and Etzel at Deir Yassin).
Indeed, it is to this article's severe detriment that it makes no serious attempt to describe the impact of Arab evacuation orders (such as at Haifa and Tiberias) and the behaviour of the irregulars and the ALA (and their theft, violence and intimidation) in causing the Arab flight, as these were significant factors - for the April-June period, probably exceeding in effect that of direct Jewish expulsions. I can't stress this more heavily: they desperately need to be included, and without them the article is profoundly unbalanced.
What the article does include is an attempt to discredit it as a factor, and surprisingly quotes Benny Morris in support of that notion. For example, in Morris's Tikkun article, "Had such a blanket order (or series of orders) been given, it would have found an echo in the thousands of documents produced". Except virtually nobody is claiming that there were blanket orders by Arab leaders for Palestinians to leave. Rather, what is claimed is that there were in many specific instances orders to that end, particularly in the April-June period. This is a view Morris actually supports and details in both editions of Birth. I can only conclude that the misrepresentation of Morris's position and the extremely one-sided treatment of direct Arab responsibility for the Palestinian exodus is a product of a distorting POV.
The "fourth stage" of the exodus was caused primarily by Jewish pressure or direct expulsions, because, yes, the Arabs knew that their return would not be imminent if they fled, but also because they were not nearly as demoralized as the towns that fell in or near the November 29 Jewish state borders and because the IDF was demonstrating an increasing willingness to expell inhabitants (unfortunately, the article gives no sense of the evolution of Israeli policy in this area). Otherwise this section is acceptable.
Unfortunately, the next section, as I pointed out, is terribly one-sided once again and also resumes a totally inappropriate practice of quoting from everything, making for unpleasant reading - what happens is that in one instance, the article is very general, then all of a interrupted by extremely specific detail. This is not an encyclopedic approach; it's a propagandist's.
In short, this article fails to weigh all the factors of this complex phenomenon and rather spends a lot of words in a partisan argument in favour of a few of them. It needs a severe and sweeping revision.--Zaxios 05:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While it is hard to deny that this article needs more work, many of your criticisms are not justified.  (1) The "transfer" section is if anything understated.  Morris' whole chapter on it in Revisited proves beyond doubt that Weitz was far from alone and that the idea was articulated and was discussed.  And you know that Morris has since then moved even further in that direction.  (2) The article already states very clearly that the Peel Commision suggested transfer, and also, correctly, that the Zionists embraced the idea.  (3) The early flight of the upper-class and its effect on morale can be expounded on more, but it is not as absent as you claim.  (4) The second stage paragraph needs a significant expansion.  (5) The "Arab orders" explanation is indeed believed by many.  In fact it is still the official Israeli position.  A 1992 statement : "During the war, the Arab states called on the Palestinian Arabs to temporarily leave the country and to 'return with the victorious Arab armies.' Some 590,000 followed this directive and left the area..." Has that position changed?  I don't think so.  Actually a great many Israelis who aren't old enough, or not in Israel long enough, to know better believe this story (in my personal experience).  Despite what you claim, Morris in Tikkun was not refuting a strawman but refuting Shabtai Teveth who (unless he has changed since then) is a proponent of the Arab orders version.  The case against this version needs to be presented.  On the other hand, Morris' much weaker replacement needs an airing too. To put it into perspective, Morris' summary at the start of the book lists "Abandonment on Arab orders" as the "decisive cause of abandonment" for only 5 locations out of 377, and as a joint cause along with military assault only for Haifa.  (6) Mashala is not ignorant, he's only biased.  You damage your case for removing him by proposing to add the right-wing extremist Karsch. (Morris says his work resembles that of Holocaust deniers, btw.) We should include both. --Zero 12:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, I have a fat file of Teveth's writings on this subject including his MES article of Apr 1990 and I've read them all.  One thing I recall is that, as you correctly pointed out wrt Masalha, the bulk of Teveth's primary data comes directly out of Morris' work.  I believe that I've read all of Morris's and Teveth's journal articles and books that have appeared in English, including Teveth's article in Commentary that was the main target of Morris in Tikkun, and the section in Morris' "1948 and After" that replies to Teveth.  My opinion of that debate was that Teveth scored a few valid points but Morris's basic thesis was untouched.  Teveth can write good history but his polemics are terrible ("Ben Gurion and the Holocaust" is the worst). I can't say I've read all of Karsh, but I've read enough to know that he's not a historian I respect.  His penchant for presenting public pronouncements as proof of the real policy is transparent nonsense.  His treatment of Avi Shlaim I thought was shameful.  Btw, lots of right wing extremists claim to believe in a Palestinian state.  On transfer, I think Morris was right in his infamous interview that people like Ben Gurion knew that the establishment of the Jewish State he wanted was impossible without a major reduction of the Arab population.  When he saw the opportunity, he took it.  -- I know that isn't a complete reply but it's all I have time for right now.  Maybe I'll add to it later.  --Zero 12:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  In need of serious work 

message: I think we should drop the rape statement.  It isn't a great endorsement of us humans, but actually 12 cases of rape in a war of this magnitude is exceptionally few.  These few cases didn't play any significant role, either.  Most of them only came to light via modern research and they were not used for propaganda purposes at the time.  Claims that the other side were committing rape, yes, but claims that specific people were raped, no. --Zero 14:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be a way of putting both points into the article. Jayjg (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rape 

message: Aiden, you do not need to refer me to a Wikipedia policy page like WP:Point that is completely irrelevant to the reasons I reverted the page, because I did not disrupt Wikipedia to make any points. I merely reverted an entry for the reasons I stated in the edit summary at the time. There was also a discussion on this page about part of that entry regarding refugee numbers. I suggest you read my edit summary, this discussion page, as well as the Wikipedia policy against reproducing copyrighted materials without permission (which it looks to me like this entry was), and general guidelines about editing a page with text that is actually relevant to the article itself. Also note that the text itself is not written in an encyclopedic manner. The text about the number of refugees has been addressed in the discussion section above, and the text about Jewish refugees is absolutely irrelevant to this article; there is a separate article for Jewish refugees who fled or were expelled from Arab countries and who have nothing to do with Palestinian refugees. The quotation towards the end of the article is just dropped there without context or introduction. If you'd like to add it, please provide it as an encyclopedic entry. Ramallite (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aiden's revert 

message: OK, well I haven't read the whole dicussion page.  I will tomorrow.  However I did some editing by adding some Israeli position, a few extra facts and some documentation.  The quote from Herzl was taken out of context.  I added the complete quote.  There is much on here that is totally undocumented.  I commented out a few things that really require documentation.  There is much written that Morris and others have completely got wrong.  Read: http://www.meforum.org/article/711#_ftn16.  I made a few changes in facts.  The article is highly biased so I added the DISPUTE flag.  Juanita 04:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cleaned up some un-uncyclopedic language such as "of course" and restored some text for which there are sources. There were attacks on both sides during the 20s-40s. Again, thanks for pointing out some of the imbalance. Ramallite (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - unless I'm misreading it, this source that you linked to does not say anything about there being Zionists at the 1937 convention who were against the transfer plan. There was only a dispute about border. Are you sure you used the correct citation? Ramallite (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your response, and you have no idea how right you are about being "on the other side of the fence", quite literally as a matter of fact :) In any case, I didn't remove your actual sentence because I don't dispute it, just the relevance of the citation attached to it. Perhaps if you can attach the source where you got Weizmann's quotation above, that would make more sense. As for today's Israeli Arabs, I'm not sure that topic is relevant to the rest of the discussion here, but there apparently are some forms of official discrimination against them according to this article. Don't forget, Israel still has to ensure that a particular group of its citizens maintain a solid majority.  Ramallite (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ramallite -- does that mean you are from Ramallah, then?  I added my source above-- I was sort of rushing there for a bit...  I agree that there is no doubt some discrimination against Israeli Arabs!  Discrimination is a fact of life everywhere, and Israel is no different.  There is even probably some 'official' discrimination.  I will read the article more carefully later.  Further I agree with your point that Israel must maintain a solid majority of Jews in Israel.  That should be something that the Arabs/Muslims should understand though -- as without a doubt they are the majority in the rest of the middle east -- and Jews are discriminated against in Arab/Muslim countries as well...  Interestingly, the Iraqi constitution hung on just that same issue for awhile, where the Arabs wanted identification with Arabs and Muslims, while some of the other citizens, ie Kurds and the teensy minority of Christians did not want to opt for an all-Arab, all-Muslim identification in the constitution. Somehow I feel that that is part of the problem, ie that diversity must be accepted and actually encouraged and celebrated, rather than we should all be clones of one another.  Cheers!  Juanita 23:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dajudem's edits 

message: Removed:  Palestinian refugees confirm that in some cases it was Arab leaders who requested them to leave This is an outrageous summary.  What it actually says is: "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, ".  Apparently civilians have to stay in a war zone in order to not be deemed to have abandoned their homes.  --Zero 13:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link 

message: We now have a highly biased selection of highly biased external links. This hardly helps. However, as one of the owners of the article, I feel that it would be unfair were I to start pruning them. Perhaps someone else would like to try. Palmiro | Talk 13:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I see I got an edit conflict with no warning and Zero has also raised this point. However, that isn't the only problematic link and Zeq has kindly confirmed my point that I shouldn't get involved. Palmiro | Talk 13:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: The following editors seem to have the same POV: Ian P, Zero, Doron, Palmiro, Ramallite.
Why don't you nominate one person from your group to be the only one to do the reverts. Other wise the 3RR rule (where you have 15 reverts and I got only 3) prevents me from making progress here. Zeq 17:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeq, no one should revert anything that is well-sourced and relevant because that's against Wikipedia policy and not in the best interests of the project's declared intention to be "an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language." --Ian Pitchford 18:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ian, you of all people should not use this argument. Your work to make wikipedia articles propalestinian is clear. very Clear. You took part in making this article what it is now and you removed a well sourced relevant and accurate material (the only reason i did not reverted you is Ihave strike out on my 3 reverts for the day while you are pasrt of the orgenized revret comeette) Zeq 18:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: There Is No Cabal. Seriously, Zeq, the debate here seems to have become rather overheated. Perhaps it's best to cool down, stop revert warring, and continue the discussion to reach consensus. Jacoplane 19:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion 

message: I'm not sure the 3 external links zeq wants to add are being removed - can someone explain? Jayjg (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the reason given for deleting the links is that they were 3 articles all by the same author and were redundant in content, but there is no reason not to keep one of the three. Zeq, if you think Wikipedia has an anti-Israel bias, I'm afraid you haven't yet read (or understood) enough articles. Ramallite (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I read many so I must be dumb. Zeq 20:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I looked again - that one wasn't one of the three added by Zeq, it was there before - I think Zero objected to the summary of it as being inaccurate, but have no idea why the whole thing went. I'll add it back (along with one of the Karsh ones) when I get back online unless somebody else does it first. Ramallite (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is your point Jay ? that if it is pro-israel it can not be on a page "devoted" to the palestinian suffesring ands their vesrion of the events ? It is an article about the issue. Yet it wa sremoved and none of you the white knights of the NPOV and due process do anything to restore it. Use that revert button. Zeq 20:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeq - be civil.Ramallite (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rama: It is civil to expect people active on this page for months to make juist a tiny bitsy bit less POV. Zeq 04:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links again