Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight/Archive 3

message: Some editors consider this article to be biased towards the Arab point of view because:
* The fact that many Jews fled Arab countries during establishment of Israel is not mentioned.
* Proposed compensation for the Palestinian refugees is not mentioned.
* Israel's own argumentation for not allowing refugees to return is not mentioned.
* Opinions (as opposed to facts) of pro-Arab historians and politicians such as Hanan Ashrawi are given undue weight, while persons with pro-Israeli views such as David Ben Gurion are presented unfairly.
A majority of people contributing to this article consider it to be neutral, and oppose changing the article.
: FWIW, it seems to me that contributors to this article try so hard not to be (or appear to be) biased that information value of the article suffers. --bonzi 09:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of this article is disputed 

message: Please note WP:CITE#Intermediate sources: State where you got it.  You are not supposed to copy material from hidden places that cites sources you have not looked at.  You have to identify your source for the material.  --Zerotalk 12:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  that's my source. I have papers in the library, looked it up in arabic. and do not delete Shmuel Katz who is a reliable source. Amoruso 13:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing sources 

message: this whole section should be removed and deleted. Khalidi is not a credible source, since he's a propogandist of palestinian agenda and his lies have been exposed throughout the years by established scholars. Ilan Pape has also been condemned by its own university, not received the proffessor status, and he's discredited. This theory therefore has no reliable references. Amoruso 13:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have have a credible source that has discredited Khalidi? I don't know, I'm just wondering.... Ramallite (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Walid Khalidi is an eminent spokesman for the PLO. I don't see why it's ok to quote Morris and Khalidi and such and suddently it becomes POV and wrong to quote scholars that support different views. I find it strange. Yes, Khalidi is cited as very credible in Palestinian sites or Jews against Occupation sites. And Katz is cited as very credibe in Jewish sites or Pro-Jewish Christian sites and so on. That's how things are. Everyone should learn to respect both sides and for this reason there are different theories in the article for everyone to read and discuss. I see no reason and it it highly offensive that certain parts of the article are being attacked fervently simply because people don't agree with them politically. Amoruso 20:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  master plan theory 

message: This is garbage. That is not to mean that the actual content is garbage (that is another debate), but its bulk inclusion (with pretty much one freerepublic.com source) into an encyclopedia so offensively and preposterously is garbage, and for the following reasons:
* If people insist on taking one extreme right-wing (and not very reputable) source and adding a disproportionate amount of information from it into a WP article just to help propagate one specific (and perhaps absurd) point of view, that is against WP:NPOV. There are many pieces on the internet of equal or even greater verifiability that would similarly bash and dehumanize the Israeli side. Should we include that as well and end up having one huge bullshit-fest of an article? The point trying to be made DOES NOT NEED such a huge disgraceful insertion. If you want to do that, there are many hate blogs that exist for that purpose.
* Much of the section is verbatim lifted and inserted from copyrighted material, which is against policy. These will be removed if not addressed.
* According to WP:V, at least as I understand it, the ORIGINAL source must be verifiable. All the sources are taken from the reference list at the bottom of this freerepublic.com article, with no way to verify authenticity. 
* Most of these series of quotations are NOT from Palestinian or Israeli sources, but from other 'Arabs' of no notability who happen to have an opinion. If they are not Palestinian or Israeli, they should have no business in an article on the Palestinian exodus.
* One last musing: Since some appear to really want to push this absurd theory that 'Arabs left at their own free will' or even 'at the behest of their leaders (hint: neighbouring Arab state kings were NOT the leaders of the Palestinians), I guess the overflowing Arabs of Nazareth, or perhaps even the lebanese refugees, should flood into Kiryat Shmona's empty houses right now because, hey, after all, the occupants "left at their own free will". They were sitting on their couches watching TV and clipping their toenails and then thought, hey, wouldn't it be great to get up and leave the city? Or maybe, wait, didn't the Israeli government provide funds and transportation for them to leave? There we have it then, even their 'leaders' encouraged them to leave. I say finders keepers in Kiryat Shmona. Apparently, according to the freerepublic.com and to Katz, that's kosher. Ramallite (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a quote from Bilby, verified and documented. Nothing to do with copyright (what does it mean in this context). Bilby is a very credible and know journalist who wrote books about the middle east conflicts. Amoruso 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you know how many journalists reported on and wrote books about these events?  Why does Bilby have a special right to appear here? --Zerotalk 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  how many - please tell us ? maybe you have no idea what you're talking about ? this is legitimate quote.
The claim that Arab leaders endorsed the refugee flight has been rejected by modern Palestinian writers. But Emil Ghoury, a member of the Palestinian Arabs' national leadership, admitted: "I don't want to impugn anybody, but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. "The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously, and they must share in the solution of the problem." (Daily Telegraph", September 6, 1948)
*What does this EDITORIAL (not a historian or politician) have to do with The "Arab leaders' endorsement of flight" Theory? It seems to be criticizing Arab actions blaming them for going to war, but is certainly not evidence of an 'endorsement of flight'. Ramallite (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  it might be a little leap for some, but I think it's quite obvious for the common reader. This is another backup for the theory. It shows the Arab motive. Amoruso 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your understanding of The Arab Mind is very impressive.  --Zerotalk 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  thank-you. yours isn't. Amoruso 11:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Yes, it is. You need to understand that in research, one shows what fits his theories. This is the point of these theories. Of course you can open it to interpretation. If you do, you will be supporting another theory. I think this is the point of the article. Amoruso 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who would say "safe places" when they meant "out of the country"?  This one falls on its face all by itself.  Incidentally, since you have certified that this book is a reliable source, make sure you don't complain when I quote this book's account of the "Tantura massacre". --Zerotalk 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  you're proving you have no idea what you're talking about.... Amoruso 11:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  An opinion by an Arab newspaper during or right after a war. This shows the public opinion at the time of the flight. Isn't it surprising that at the time of the war nobody was talking about a refugee problem caused by Israel ? This is very helpful for the theory and credible as such. Amoruso 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Try to stick to things you know to be true.  Actually you can read contemporary newspapers and find plenty of examples.  Here's one: "They have been mortaring Jaffa heavily most of to-day, wounding a large number of Arabs, and causing an exodus which had already begun during the last few days to be accelerated by sea and by road." (Times, April 26, 1948)  As for Arab spokepeople, they were very reluctant to admit the massive defeat they were suffering.  Of course some of them claimed that they planned it, just like Hezbollah is claiming that they had all along planned to move their launchers to the north.  No reason to believe either without evidence, and there isn't any.  --Zerotalk 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  this TIMES quote of yours is fake. you probably just made it up. the evidence that I put here is huge. Amoruso 11:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Good. Amoruso 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So prove it is genuine, determine whether it is a report, editorial, letter to the editor, or what.  --Zerotalk 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did. Amoruso 11:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  See comment above. Nothing is necessariy per se. This is why everything is in a theory section, even though it should be stated as fact. Be happy about that. Amoruso 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Again, this requires some leap to understand the propaganda issue. I'm willing for you to delete this one, if you want. Amoruso 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Take it to Arab bashing.  --Zerotalk 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  It says that the "refugees" were pawns. It doesn't take an Einstein to figure this one out. Amoruso 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The citation is insufficient; where was the interview published?  If genuine, it might fit in Palestinian refugee but it has nothing to do with the causes of the exodus. This is from Joan Peters, did you know that?  --Zerotalk 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  the citation is more than sufficent. all the evidence is there. Joan peters maybe also used it. btw, Joan peters is discredited is she ? One sided bias again.
Monsignor George Hakim, then Greek Catholic bishop of Galilee, the leading Christian personality in Palestine for many years, told a Beirut newspaper in the summer of 1948, before the flight of the Arabs had ended: "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." (Sada al Janub," August 16, 1948).
*If this is true, okay..... This Hakim guy must be a big shot to find himself so notable.... Ramallite (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Ok then. Amoruso 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I proved this quotation is misleading.  It's a good example of how propaganda works. --Zerotalk 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I proved the quotation isn't misleading. It's a good example of the truth. Amoruso 11:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  ok then. Amoruso 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, delete it if you must, though I saw this in several publications, and I'm sure it's true. Amoruso 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This radio station was run by the British Secret Services.  Spreading the truth was probably not their primary mission.  --Zerotalk 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  this comment of yours is original research (and wrong) and it has nothing to do with anything of wikipedia. Amoruso 12:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I found quotes from this paper in the Mount Campus archives. It is true. They actually reported it. Amoruso 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Quotes from this paper" doesn't cut it. Prove it is geniune and in context. One refugee's opinion is not notable anyway.  You don't even name this refugee.  Also, you claim you are not copying stuff from the web but you even copied the introduction "Most pointed of all was the comment of one of the refugees" which is not part of the quotation.  --Zerotalk 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I used Katz and verified the sources. I will add in the Katz reference. Amoruso 12:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The disputed section (including the collection of 'quotes') 

message: This was refuted by many historians like explained, and still it is included. on the other hand, the truth, that is, the theory of the arabs wanting the palestinians to leave and encouraging it, is widely spread and known and has been researched . I really don't understand what's the problem here.  This is a long article and most of it is concentrated on the palestinian fantasy of refugees. It's very strange that with millions of refugees of every war in history, the only refugees people keep discussing about are the palestinian refugees. Some of them still receive money from the U.N even though they are millionaires. It is quite disturbing. This article lists many theories, some of them are obviously non sensible. I don't see what's the problem with writing more in the section provided for this theory. If you don't agree with the theory, move on, but respect it. 
The quotes I've cross-checked. The arab papers quotes are available in computers in the Hebrew University in Mount Campus. Those that I didn't find I didn't include , from the source you said which indeed provided me the initial database to search for. 
There are no grounds for deletion of this section and I will not agree to it. You can take it to arbitration and then we'll see if Wikipedia advocates propaganda of palestinians over facts. Of course Arab, not palestinian, quotes of what happened are very important to support this theory, so I don't see any problem of it either.
As to your claim of wanting to move to Kiryat Shmona : a) be my guest b) it's not relevant c) does that mean Jews can move to southern lebanon now too ? d) this theory doesn't talk about any moral aspects, simply what happened e) the palestinians left at the request of SOMEONE's else army, not themselves which is the point here f) they moved so that the arabs can come in and perform mass genocide on the Jews, which is not the case here g) it didn't happen. so one needs to live with the reality.
Amoruso 17:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They moved so that someone else can come in and perform mass genocide of the Jews? Funny, I thought it was the rockets and the shells and fighting going on around them, but I guess that doesn't matter. If you really think that a foreign army can simply come and request that people leave their own homes, and that the Palestinians would simply acquiesce like that, with no other factors (like their lives are already in danger or they are being forcibly expelled on trucks, read Rabin's diaries), you have serious misconceptions about our history. But I will admit that every party always chooses to believe what they choose to believe in order to justify their (or their ancestor's) actions. If it makes you feel better to believe what you believe, nobody can stop you. Ramallite (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: p.s. if "Jews" moving to south Lebanon, and "Muslims and Christians" moving to northern Israel would bring peace, I'd be all for it. But you'd have to take this debate up with a Lebanese fellow, I'm not involved in this. Ramallite (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  very well said. After Nasralla said this, some Arabs in Israel in papers mentioned the similarity and that it sounded really bad and reminded of past times. Maybe this Narallah example can be included too. At the very least this quote from Katz should be brought too :
Equally specifically brought to public notice was the part played by the chief spokesman for the combined Arab states, the Secretary General of the Arab League himself. Habib Issa wrote in the New York Lebanese daily newspaper At Hoda on June 8, 1951,
The Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade... He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean. -- Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes, and property and to stay temporarily in neighbouring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down.
Amoruso 02:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  So why don't you identify "Habib Issa" for us. I bet you can't.  While you are at it, explain to us why Katz didn't identify this as a Maronite newspaper. --Zerotalk 03:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  No reliable source, inadmissible.  Explain how Katz came into possession of a secret memorandum that contradicted the position stated dozens of times.  --Zerotalk 03:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the garbage here is the whole master plan theory