Jump to content

Talk:Nakba: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Jetpower (talk | contribs)
67 edits
Tags: Reverted Reply
Reverting edit(s) by Jetpower (talk) to rev. 1224505943 by Lowercase sigmabot III: WP:ECR (UV 0.1.5)
Line 405: Line 405:
::The Nakba (Arabic: النكبة an-Nakbah, lit. 'The Catastrophe') is the Palestinian narrative that describes an ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Mandatory Palestine during the 1948 Palestine war through their violent displacement and dispossession of land, property, and belongings, along with the destruction of their society, culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations. The term is also used to describe the ongoing persecution and displacement of Palestinians by Israel. As a whole, it covers the shattering of Palestinian society and the long-running rejection of the right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants. It is important to note that the 1948 Nakba was not an offensive operation initiated by the State of Israel but rather a defensive Israeli military response to the Arab Invasion of Israel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War) as part of the Arab League's decision to reject the formation of both the State of Israel and a Palestinian State and initiate instead an attack on the State of Israel that led to a loss of the Palestinian State and the displacement of the Palestinian Arabs (Zureiq 1948). [[Special:Contributions/142.157.228.232|142.157.228.232]] ([[User talk:142.157.228.232|talk]]) 01:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
::The Nakba (Arabic: النكبة an-Nakbah, lit. 'The Catastrophe') is the Palestinian narrative that describes an ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Mandatory Palestine during the 1948 Palestine war through their violent displacement and dispossession of land, property, and belongings, along with the destruction of their society, culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations. The term is also used to describe the ongoing persecution and displacement of Palestinians by Israel. As a whole, it covers the shattering of Palestinian society and the long-running rejection of the right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants. It is important to note that the 1948 Nakba was not an offensive operation initiated by the State of Israel but rather a defensive Israeli military response to the Arab Invasion of Israel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War) as part of the Arab League's decision to reject the formation of both the State of Israel and a Palestinian State and initiate instead an attack on the State of Israel that led to a loss of the Palestinian State and the displacement of the Palestinian Arabs (Zureiq 1948). [[Special:Contributions/142.157.228.232|142.157.228.232]] ([[User talk:142.157.228.232|talk]]) 01:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
:::Not done. This would violate [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NPOV]], and does not accurately summarize the body of the article. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 12:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
:::Not done. This would violate [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NPOV]], and does not accurately summarize the body of the article. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 12:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
::::Question: The intro revision requested above appears to frame the subject with a better informed perspective than does the existing intro paragraph. Must revising that initial paragraph to reflect the broader perspective require that the article's body also reflect that broader perspective? Put another way: Does some rule prioritize publishing narratives that appear cohesive but aren't comprehensive? [[User:Jetpower|Jetpower]] ([[User talk:Jetpower|talk]]) 21:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


== Palestinian vs. Israeli scholars? ==
== Palestinian vs. Israeli scholars? ==

Revision as of 01:40, 19 May 2024

Core sources

Works marked with an asterisk (*) are already cited in this Wikipedia article.

21st-century "classics"

Highly-cited (100s of cites) 21st-century books by highly-cited authors (and more-recent works by those same authors):

General

21st-century academically-reviewed books:

21st-century well-cited academic papers/chapters:

Nakba in culture

21st-century academically-reviewed books:

21st-century well-cited academic papers/chapters:

Nakba and genocide studies

21st-century academically-reviewed books:

21st-century well-cited academic papers/chapters:

Nakba denial / Nakba memory

21st-century well-cited academic papers/chapters:

Discussion (core sources)

Additions/subtractions? Levivich (talk) 03:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Levivich, happy to add here - could you explain the objective? There are many more relevant books in the article bibliography, and in google books. Not to mention the various sources in Arabic (e.g. Ma'na an-Nakba). Onceinawhile (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The objective is to identify the major books about Nakba -- the "best" sources. I had missed two books already in the article, which I just added to this list, but I think at this point all the books in the article are on this list. Did I miss any others? In addition to those, there are, listed above, books that should be cited in the article, but aren't. Are there any others? The article relies too much on not-the-best sources: newspaper articles, kind-of-obscure journal papers, etc., which can and ought to be replaced with better sources, like the major books by major scholars in the field. No doubt there are foreign-language books about Nakba as well, but I've only looked at English books. Levivich (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, your list - prioritizing Pappe and Morris - is incorrectly weighted. They are absolutely core to the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight, which is the story of what the Israelis did to the Palestinians. But the Nakba is a wider topic, about the overall Palestinian collective trauma.
I can bring more sources, but we should iron this difference out first.
Onceinawhile (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't really intend this list to be weighted, except that the "classics" have like 10x or 100x the citations of other books on the list, so I separated them, and then I looked for any more-recent books by the same authors about Palestine, so we can see what if anything they changed or added in their writing about Nakba since they wrote their "classics." The classics, like all classics, are widely-cited, but relatively old. That's why I think it's important to look at newer sources and not just the classics.
I don't necessarily think classics should be given more weight than newer sources. In instances where newer sources say something different than the classics, we need to pay attention to that. We need to determine if the mainstream scholarly views have changed, or if new significant minority views have emerged, or what. One example: did Nakba start and end in 1948, or did it begin before 48, and/or continue after 48? My sense that scholarship has moved on those questions since Pappe 2006 and Masalha 2012, and I'd be keen on looking at how more recent sources describe the timeline of Nakba (and also what Pappe and Masalha have said in more recent writings on the topic, including papers and not just books).
I'm not entirely sure how to handle Morris. My gut instinct is that Morris represents a significant minority view on Nakba (or maybe more specifically, the causes of the Nakba). I see that other scholars discuss Morris's views, particularly in relation to Pappe's, and both Morris and Pappe discuss each other's views, and the Wikipedia article mentions them already. I was going to see how the most recent scholarship handled Morris. It may be one of those cases where Morris is talked about in the article more than used as a source for the article (and maybe same with Pappe).
For now, though, I'm just looking to collect the most in-depth, widely-cited, reputable works about Nakba... i.e., books by scholars reviewed in some academic journal, the more citations the better. That could obviously be expanded to book chapters and journal articles, but I think books is a good place to start because they will have the most depth. Levivich (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added some papers that had decent cite counts, reorganized the list by topic, and clarified inclusion criteria. Levivich (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outline

Outline

Full source citations at #Core sources

Discussion (outline)

A work in progress, but thoughts? Levivich (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Like nableezy - 23:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current structure is nothing to particularly write home about, so yeah, like. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hired. ) Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Levivich (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding to the outline links to other articles, and sub-topics (where I'm not aware of an article to link), that I think are WP:DUE per the sources listed in each outline section. Please speak up if you think anything should be added or removed. Also, as the outline will be changing, just note that folks' approval/disapproval at any given point in time may no longer apply to a later, changed version of the outline. Levivich (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this outline is missing coverage of notable opposing narratives, namely the Israeli national narrative which is currently covered in the section 'Opposition to the notion of Nakba'. Marokwitz (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I expect that'll be covered in historiography and memory section; I haven't gotten to expanding those parts of the outline yet (and probably won't for a while, still on the history section right now). Levivich (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added article links to the history section in the outline above. If anyone thinks there are other articles that should be linked in the history section of the Nakba article, or that we shouldn't be linking to something that is listed in the outline, please let me know. Levivich (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a very small bare-bones start to the History section of the article, and struck through the links on the outline that are now in the article. My plan is to expand the history section until all the links in the outline are in the article, then move on to the other sections. I may move some links to other parts of the outline and reorganize the outline a bit as I go. Levivich (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic cleansing (2)

There is ongoing debate among historians and analysts regarding how to characterize what happened during the Nakba. Labeling it 'ethnic cleansing' is a loaded term risking bias. We're better off depicting it as a displacement event while fully sourcing the range of perspectives - to avoid inflaming this controversial topic. Our role is capturing views accurately, not taking sides. OliveTree39 (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal opinions are irrelevant, in order to justify the tag, provide the sources disputing the characterization and sourcing given in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the NPOV tag applied to the entire article. If a tag is insisted on please use 'disputed inline'. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that this was discussed above [1]. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ethic cleansing is a straightforward description of events, as attested in scholarship. The debate is whether the characterization of "genocide" might also be readily applied. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"ethnic cleansing" = "capturing views accurately" per the sources cited. Levivich (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OliveTree39: with reference the added disputed tag, please explain why this has been added and with reference to reliable sources, as you were asked for previously. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term "ethnic cleansing" in regard to the Nakba is disputed by various scholars and commentators for several reasons. There is a Wikipedia article that discusses this exact controversy of the use of the term "ethnic cleansing" (see: Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight), including many relevant views.
It is a historical fact that in some cases Palestinians were expelled from the villages, but that's far from being the only reason for the events of 1948. Several historians, for example, say that the Palestinians were encouraged to remain and live as citizens within Israel. However, the Arab population decided to leave, motivated either by a reluctance to coexist with Jewish residents or by the anticipation of an Arab military triumph that would decisively defeat the Zionist forces.[1]
The article's intro, as it appears right now, gives undue weight to the views of scholars such as Nur Masalha and Walid Khalidi.[2] But, for example, Philip Mendes, an Australian professor, said that "... it was an absolute fact that the Palestinian Arabs departed in 1948 at the behest of their own leaders, and that Israel desperately attempted to persuade them to stay." [3] Historians Anita Shapira and Shabtai Teveth say that "the sporadic talk among Zionist leaders of ‘transfer’ was mere pipe-dreaming and was never undertaken systematically or seriously".[4]
To sum up, this controversy in versions is constantly discussed among among historians, journalists, and commentators, therefore making the term a disputed topic. OliveTree39 (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there is a lot of historical denialism regarding this topic doesn't mean there is a serious dispute among the WP:BESTSOURCES on this matter. A lot of what you've cited for example has been thoroughly debunked. For example the idea that "the sporadic talk among Zionist leaders of ‘transfer’ was mere pipe-dreaming and was never undertaken systematically or seriously" - see Transfer Committee. And the idea that "it was an absolute fact that the Palestinian Arabs departed in 1948 at the behest of their own leaders, and that Israel desperately attempted to persuade them to stay." is just nonsense. Levivich below gives a good explanation and I'd recommend you read this article by Ilan Pappé which goes into more detail over the various disputes and the state of recent scholarship. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I echo IOHANN's statement. It is just as likely to encounter Nakba revisionism and denialism as it is to encounter revisionisms of various historical tragedies. Regarding the Mendes claim: "The BBC monitored all Middle Eastern broadcasts throughout 1948. The records, and companion ones by a United States monitoring unit, can be seen at the British Museum. There was not a single order or appeal, or suggestion about evacuation from Palestine, from any Arab radio station, inside or outside Palestine, in 1948. There is a repeated monitored record of Arab appeals, even flat orders, to the civilians of Palestine to stay put" (Hadawi 1979, citing Childers). Abu-Sitta 2010 noted that only 5/530 communities were displaced due to precautions-- 0.9433962264150943% of Palestinian communities. Khalidi 2005 reviewed archival materials from the Arab League, and found that the AHC urged govts to deny entry to Palestinians, stop renewing residency to abroad Palestinians, and violently sending back refugees. Nakba denial is very easily debunked. GeraldWL 10:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Glazer, Steven (1980). "The Palestinian Exodus in 1948". Journal of Palestine Studies. 9 (4): 96–118. doi:10.2307/2536126. ISSN 0377-919X.
  2. ^ "Plan Dalet: Master Plan for the Conquest of Palestine". online.ucpress.edu. Retrieved 2024-04-04.
  3. ^ Mendes, Philip. "A HISTORICAL CONTROVERSY: THE CAUSES OF THE PALESTINIAN REFUGEE PROBLEM by Philip Mendes, address to Melbourne Jewish Museum, 20/10/2000". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  4. ^ Morris (2004) 60.
That's barely half a point and largely based on the single quotation from Mendes. Please don't just come to this topic half-cocked and cherrypick some obscure no-name scholars in the field, because that isn't going to be the start of a productive conversation. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me copy over to this page what the body of the article currently says about "ethnic cleansing":

The Nakba is described as ethnic cleansing by many scholars,[1] including Palestinian scholars such as Rashid Khalidi,[2] Adel Manna,[3] Nur Masalha,[4] Nadim Rouhana,[5] Ahmad H. Sa'di,[6] and Areej Sabbagh-Khoury,[7] Israeli scholars such as Alon Confino,[8] Amos Goldberg,[9] Baruch Kimmerling,[10] Ronit Lentin,[11] Ilan Pappé,[12] and Yehouda Shenhav,[13] and foreign scholars such as Abigail Bakan,[14] Elias Khoury,[15] Mark Levene,[16] Derek Penslar,[17] and Patrick Wolfe,[18] among other scholars.[19]

Other scholars, such as Yoav Gelber,[20] Benny Morris,[21] and Seth J. Frantzman,[22] disagree that the Nakba constitutes an ethnic cleansing.

Sources

  1. ^ Auron 2017, pp. xxxv-xxxvii and 1-12; Al-Hardan 2016, pp. 47–48; Rashed, Short & Docker 2014, pp. 3–4, 8–12, 13 ("The University of Oxford’s first professor of Israel Studies Derek Penslar recently stated that pro-Israelis needed to catch up with the past 30 years of academic scholarship that has accepted the ‘vast bulk of findings’ by the New Historians regarding the Nakba. He said: ‘what happened to the Palestinians, the Nakba, was not a genocide. It was horrible, but it was not a genocide. Genocide means that you wipe out a people. It wasn’t a genocide. It was ethnic cleansing.' That Penslar mistakenly interprets the concept of genocide is perhaps not surprising."), and 14-18; Lentin 2010, p. 111, "Non-Zionist scholars operate a different timescale and highlight the continuities between wartime policies and post-1948 ethnic cleansing. They treat the Nakba as the beginning of an ongoing policy of expulsion and expropriation, rather than a fait accompli which ended a long time ago (e.g., Karmi and Cotran 1999; Pappe 2004a; Abu Lughod and Sa’di 2007)."; Milshtein 2009, p. 50 ("The majority of Palestinian writers"); Ram 2009, pp. 387–388 (Israeli historians); Shlaim 2009, pp. 55, 288 (New Historians)
  2. ^ Khalidi 2020, pp. 12, 73, 76, 231.
  3. ^ Manna 2022.
  4. ^ Masalha 2018, pp. 44, 52–54, 64, 319, 324, 376, 383; Masalha 2012.
  5. ^ Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury 2017, p. 393.
  6. ^ Sa'di 2007, pp. 291–293, 298, and 308.
  7. ^ Sabbagh-Khoury 2023, pp. 5, 11, 30, 65, 71, 81, 182, 193–194.
  8. ^ Confino 2018, p. 138.
  9. ^ Bashir & Goldberg 2018, pp. 20 and 32 n.2.
  10. ^ Kimmerling 2008, p. 280.
  11. ^ Lentin 2010, pp. 8, 20–23, 69, 90, 110–111, 114, and 155.
  12. ^ Pappe 2022, pp. 33, 120–122, 126–132, 137, 239; Pappe 2006.
  13. ^ Shenhav 2019, pp. 49–50, 54, and 61.
  14. ^ Abu-Laban & Bakan 2022, p. 511.
  15. ^ Khoury 2018, pp. xii–xiii; Khoury 2012, pp. 258 and 263–265.
  16. ^ Levene 2018, pp. 45–65.
  17. ^ Rashed, Short & Docker 2014, p. 13.
  18. ^ Wolfe 2012, pp. 153–154, 160–161.
  19. ^ Hasian Jr. 2020, pp. 77–109; Slater 2020, pp. 81–85; Nashef 2018, pp. 5–6, 52, and 76; Natour 2016, p. 82; Knopf-Newman 2011, pp. 4–5, 25–32, 109, and 180–182; Esmeir 2007, pp. 232, 242, and 249-250; Schulz 2003, pp. 24, 31–32.
  20. ^ Auron 2017, pp. xxxv-xxxvii and 1-12.
  21. ^ Ram 2009, pp. 387–388.
  22. ^ Bashir & Goldberg 2018, p. 32 n.2.

For those counting along, that's 24 different bona-fide scholars (17 wiki-notable), all 21st century peer-reviewed academic works. On top of those 24, there are 7 other scholars (in 21st c. peer-reviewed academic works) that don't use the term in their own voice, but recognize that the term is widely used by scholars. A total of 31 21st-century peer-reviewed academic works saying it's ethnic cleansing. And they come from Palestinian, Israeli and non-Palestinian, non-Israeli scholars.

OliveTree, what you have posted so far to rebut this is:

  • Morris, already covered, he's a famous outlier
  • 1980 Steven Glazer paper was written before the Israeli archives were opened -- that's not just outdated, it's obsolete
  • 2000 speech by Phillip Mendes, a professor of social work, which is not peer reviewed, is old, and obscure

These sources do not demonstrate any significant modern dispute among scholars about this. You'd need to bring like dozens of 21st century peer reviewed academic works in order to show that the 31 works cited in the Wikipedia article right now do not represent the mainstream view. Levivich (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have an RFC on this to be thorough? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is an intractable dispute and no consensus, an RFC is a massive waste of community time. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I don't see enough disagreement amongst editors to justify an RfC. Maybe a FAQ but idk how effective those are (other than to be able to say "see FAQ #2" in response to "why does the article say..." questions). Levivich (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Thanks for your reply. But i still don't fully understand, even the UN refers to the Nakba as a mass displacement and dispossession of Palestinians (If fair or not) and not "ethnic cleansing", a very harsh and unequivocal claim.[1] Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral information platform, and to use the term "ethnic cleansing" as an opening line is un-neutral. I think it would respect Wikipedia viewers more if the opening line was neutral, representing all opinions and views, tell the story and the events and the term "ethnic cleansing" can be put in the articles body as a point of view, such as "some scholars view the events as....". OliveTree39 (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RS classify it as that and more than that is not needed, personal opinions notwithstanding. Challenge the consensus here via an RFC if desired. Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The UN is not an RS for this because it's not scholarship. Levivich (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth remembering that "ethnic cleansing" is a relatively modern term, becoming popular in English only in the 1990s. The archetypal event was the Ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian War. Perhaps OliveTree39 could explain what is it about the Bosnian case that they consider more "harsh" than the Nakba. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"mass displacement and dispossession" is ethnic cleansing, almost by definition. Look at the quoted definitions in the ethnic cleansing article and tell me Im' wrong. (t · c) buidhe 04:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: that's a blocked sock now, fyi. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox dates and "is"/"was"

I don't think July 20, 1949 is the end date of the Nakba per the body of the article (or mainstream RS view). Maybe it should be "1947-present." Which also implicates whether the article says "The Nakba was" or "The Nakba is."

For that matter I'm not entirely sure about 1947 being the start date either. Maybe "early 20th c. to present." Maybe the infobox shouldn't have dates at all.

Thoughts? Levivich (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox start date corresponds to the start date that is in the 1948 Palestine war article. I am not sure what the end date corresponds to. Nakba day is May 15, the same date of the Israeli Declaration of Independence. Maybe if they had picked a different date other than the same day as the Independence Day, there would be less of a Nakba denial and maybe the Israelis would be more receptive in acknowledging the Nakba and a Nakba day. In the U.S., there is the Indigenous Peoples' Day (United States) and the official day is not the same day as the U.S. Independence Day or Thanksgiving. Wafflefrites (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTAFORUM: "Article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I came to this page to look at the infobox dates because I was wondering why Nakba day was May 15, but you are right about NOTAFORUM. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong but 'the Nakba' can refer to 'the Palestinian catastrophe' in general (from the beginning of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the present), and also very commonly to 'the Palestinian catastrophe' of the 1947-1949 Palestine war. So maybe we should present these varying definitions in the lead and infobox. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:SOURCESDIFFER, we would represent “all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view... If there is a disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues X, while Paul Jones maintains Y," followed by an inline citation.” Wafflefrites (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that initially the Nakba was identified with the Palestine war but that over time, it has become more of an Ongoing Nakba. Selfstudier (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The line "the ethnic cleansing of Palestine did not begin or end in 1948" (Shenhav 2019, p. 49) always stuck with me; I think it's an important point. Anyway, I removed the dates from the infobox (for now at least), and added quotes to the "ongoing Nakba" citation in the article. To my mind, it seems the sources are very clear that it is an ongoing process and not a historical event. Levivich (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say sources are mixed but modern/recent sources lean towards your interpretation so support having it say ongoing, maybe including original usage of the term being conflated with the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Media and what I'll casually call Palestinian-sympathetic sources (eg. [2] have currently been using the term Nakba (specifically "second Nakba") to describe current events. What level of media coverage (and general public terminology) is required for the page to mention this, and at what point would that warrant changing the infobox by removing an end date? Are the current news articles being published enough? Nyonyatwelve (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia article already mentions this, and the infobox's end date was removed a couple weeks ago. Not just newsmedia, but scholarship is now also publishing about it, see e.g. the Preface to the New Edition of After Zionism, or various articles in the Journal of Genocide Research like [3] and [4], all published in 2024. Levivich (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Makeandtoss: what are your thoughts on this infobox dates and is/was issue? Levivich (talk) 04:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nakba specifically relates to 1947-1949, I don't think personally it could be tied to certain days. We have a separate article for Ongoing Nakba. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

“The term is also used to described” should be “The term is also used to describe” but I can’t change it cuz page is protected 129.22.21.195 (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thank you. Levivich (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2024

This entire article solely describes the Palestinian narrative which at best contains half truths and totally disregards many facts such as how the 1948 war started and by whom, the genocidal attack on Jews, why were the Arabs in Gaza labeled as refugees by Egypt, and much more. People read this as comprehensive truth when it clearly isn’t. This entire topic should be re-edited to reflect full facts. Otherwise you need to clarify that this whole article is based on Palestinian narrative. ZZ1960 (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This is a comment, not an edit request. Edit requests should ask for specific changes and provided sources. Zerotalk 09:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please change the opening paragraph from:
The Nakba (Arabic: النكبة an-Nakbah, lit. 'The Catastrophe') was the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Mandatory Palestine during the 1948 Palestine war through their violent displacement and dispossession of land, property, and belongings, along with the destruction of their society, culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations. The term is also used to describe the ongoing persecution and displacement of Palestinians by Israel. As a whole, it covers the shattering of Palestinian society and the long-running rejection of the right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants.
To:
The Nakba (Arabic: النكبة an-Nakbah, lit. 'The Catastrophe') is the Palestinian narrative that describes an ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Mandatory Palestine during the 1948 Palestine war through their violent displacement and dispossession of land, property, and belongings, along with the destruction of their society, culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations. The term is also used to describe the ongoing persecution and displacement of Palestinians by Israel. As a whole, it covers the shattering of Palestinian society and the long-running rejection of the right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants. It is important to note that the 1948 Nakba was not an offensive operation initiated by the State of Israel but rather a defensive Israeli military response to the Arab Invasion of Israel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War) as part of the Arab League's decision to reject the formation of both the State of Israel and a Palestinian State and initiate instead an attack on the State of Israel that led to a loss of the Palestinian State and the displacement of the Palestinian Arabs (Zureiq 1948). 142.157.228.232 (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. This would violate WP:V and WP:NPOV, and does not accurately summarize the body of the article. Levivich (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian vs. Israeli scholars?

The article says, "The Nakba is described as ethnic cleansing by many scholars, including Palestinian scholars .... Israeli scholars... " while I would agree to separate it based on citizenship status rather than by ethnicity (so we don't have Arab vs. Jewish scholars), by that standard some of the Palestinians are misclassified because they are Israeli citizens rather than citizens of Palestine. Perhaps this could be clarified by rewriting, such as separating Israeli-Jews from Palestinian or Palestinian descent—I think Khalidi is a US citizen for example. Or perhaps I'm just splitting hairs here. (t · c) buidhe 04:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those labels were arbitrarily chosen by me without a lot of thought or research. Basically, it's people whose Wikipedia pages identified them as "Palestinian" (including variations like Palestinian-American), people whose Wikipedia pages identified them as "Israeli," and "other". No objection from me to changing the organization or labeling, I'm sure it can be improved, except I'm not sure about assuming all the Israeli scholars are Jewish (maybe that's pedantic of me?). What I was going for was to take the long list of names and organize it by "one side," "the other side," and "neither side," so the reader would have an understanding that it's not all scholars from just one side or the other. Levivich (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand this approach but imo (especially when it comes to non-Zionist Jews—whether Israeli citizens or not—and Palestinian citizens of Israel) splitting it into different "sides" can be misleading or reductive. If someone supports equal rights for all people in Israel/Palestine under the framework of a one or two state solution which "side" are they on? (t · c) buidhe 05:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point about misleading or reductive, and reinforcing the stereotype that there are two sides. Maybe it would be better to put them in alphabetical order. Normally I don't like long list sentences like this, but I feel like in this particular instance do we need to spell out how many different scholars say the same thing? Note that when I added that list, the article didn't say in wikivoice that it was an ethnic cleansing. Now that it does, perhaps that list is no longer needed, or can be moved to a footnote or something? Levivich (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better to say that the list includes both Israelis and Palestinians, and I agree that it might be better as a footnote. (t · c) buidhe 08:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 May 2024

In regards to the section "Terminology", the description of the origin of the term is presented in an exceedingly misleading manner, which causes such a souring of the orignal term that the entire article has become biased towards a narrative and not factual truth. A closer inspection of the same posted source (Qusṭanṭīn Zurayq) shows that the term was created here not to describe any kind of ethnic cleansing committed by the "Zionist enemy" (Israel) but an embarassment created by and caused by the Arab forces themselves: "Seven Arab countries declare war on Zionism in Palestine….Seven countries go to war to abolish the partition and to defeat Zionism, and quickly leave the battle after losing much of the land of Palestine – and even the part that was given to the Arabs in the Partition Plan". He goes on, "We must admit our mistakes…and recognize the extent of our responsibility for the disaster that is our lot."

It is important that Zyrayq is the originator of this term and not biased towards the Israeli state, making statements anti-Zionist statements in the same text. The true flavor of the origin of this term must be mentioned as it currently biasing the entire article towards factual error. 142.157.224.197 (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please present the request in the form Change X to Y together with a reference. Argumentation is not necessary, EC editors will decide whether to implement it.Selfstudier (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please add to the following paragraph:
The term Nakba was first applied to the events of 1948 by Constantin Zureiq, a professor of history at the American University of Beirut, in his 1948 book Macnā an-Nakba (The Meaning of the Disaster). Zureiq wrote that "the tragic aspect of the Nakba is related to the fact that it is not a regular misfortune or a temporal evil, but a Disaster in the very essence of the word, one of the most difficult that Arabs have ever known over their long history."
To:
The term Nakba was first applied to the events of 1948 by Constantin Zureiq, a professor of history at the American University of Beirut, in his 1948 book Macnā an-Nakba (The Meaning of the Disaster). Zureiq wrote that "the tragic aspect of the Nakba is related to the fact that it is not a regular misfortune or a temporal evil, but a Disaster in the very essence of the word, one of the most difficult that Arabs have ever known over their long history." Zureiq coined the term to describe an embarassment created by and caused by the Arab forces themselves: "Seven Arab countries declare war on Zionism in Palestine….Seven countries go to war to abolish the partition and to defeat Zionism, and quickly leave the battle after losing much of the land of Palestine – and even the part that was given to the Arabs in the Partition Plan". He goes on, "We must admit our mistakes…and recognize the extent of our responsibility for the disaster that is our lot."
The source is the exact same (Zureiq 1948) as it is for the remainder of the paragraph as I have just added additional quotes from the same source for context. 142.157.228.232 (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. The purpose of this edit appears to be to highlight Zureiq's view ("Zureiq coined the term to describe an embarassment created by and caused by the Arab forces themselves" this is not a quote but your prose) that the Arabs messed up. That's as may be but the purpose of the section is to investigate the origin and usage of the term and this addition brings nothing to that. Selfstudier (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emptying of cities

Any sources elaborating on the emptying of coastal cities? This is also an integral part of the Nakba. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 8 and 66 have sources for Acre, Haifa, and Jaffa, and I'm sure there are others out there, probably some in the various sub-articles. Levivich (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on inclusion in Israel lede

There is an ongoing RfC on whether to include Nakba in the lede of Israel. You're very welcome to discuss but please refrain from polemical arguing and WP:Assume good faith. Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wording in lede

@Makeandtoss Palestinian society is still there though? It hasn't been totally destroyed, so surely devastation works better. Devastation also implies tragedy and loss, reflecting the collective trauma, whilst destroy implies more about the perpetrator acting inhuman. Tone is important and I think devastation fits Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The words used to define/describe "Nakba" should come from sources and not from editors, IMO. FYI: Talk:Nakba/Archive 3#Nakba definition, see the "word list" collapsed box in the discussion section towards the bottom for some words and sources. Levivich (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, for describing its effect on Palestinian society I see
  • ‘disintegration’ multiple times
  • ‘devastation’ a couple times
  • ‘destruction’ multiple times
  • ‘uprooting’
  • 'fracturing'
  • 'dismantlement'
  • 'shattering'
My issue with destruction is that Palestinian society still exists in some form, and it would be a disservice to their tenacity or resilience, so I like devastation or disintegration, disintegration might be too passive Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going by the list, it's either disintegration or destruction, I prefer the first myself. Selfstudier (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW that list in the talk archive isn't complete; there are additional examples now in the article itself. CTRL+F "society" and you can see what's in the footnotes, including disintegrated, destroyed, devastated, dismantled, shattered, collapsed, fell apart. I don't have a preference between these terms. Levivich (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I don't have a strong preference, let me not pass up an opportunity to pontificate, which is, as you all know, my favorite pastime. As I read and understand these words:
  • "Disintegration" implies spontaneous and sudden action, as if by magic or force of nature, leaving no recognizable/usable/significant parts behind; once something is disintegrated, it cannot be reconstituted
  • "Dismantlement" implies deliberate and systematic action by an outside force; but something that is dismantled can be reassembled
  • "Destruction" also implies an outside force (which is why we call the other kind of destruction "self-destruction"), but something that is destroyed can be rebuilt
  • "Devastation" implies significant, even grave harm, but not total elimination, nor breaking apart
  • "Fracturing" and "shattering" are like "dismantlement" but without the implication of an outside force; something can fracture or shatter on its own; and I agree as someone said in an edit summary recently that "fracture" implies large pieces and "shatter" implies small pieces
  • "Uprooting" implies picking something up and putting it somewhere else, but the thing itself remains whole or at least is not destroyed or devastated
So I don't really like disintegrate because it implied unintentionality, as if it were a surprising consequence of other actions. Dismantle goes too far in the other direction, implying more intentionality than I think the RS support. Devastation I don't like because it implies "not totally destroyed." So that leaves me with destruction, shattering, or fracturing, and I don't really have a strong preference among those three. Levivich (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But Palestinian society wasn’t completely destroyed? It continued and continues to exist though greatly reduced interconnectedness or unity, can’t find the right word Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That you have to clarify "destroyed" with "completely" actually demonstrates the point that destruction is not implicitly total and complete. For total destruction, one either adds an adjective or uses sth. explicit like "annihilate". Iskandar323 (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, if you were to destroy something, it would be complete. ‘Completely’ is superfluous here Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the Palestinians should have the last word. Selfstudier (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's really important we avoid hyperbole like destruction as it delegitimatizes the rest of the article in the reader's view Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the sentiment though, if any Palestinians wish to engage in this discussion I think their opinion should be given more weight than others Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I meant Palestinian sources specifically, but yes, OK. Selfstudier (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lol my bad Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Palestinian sources are more likely to use hyperbole so I don’t think it makes sense to prioritise them Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If scholarly sources are already, according to you, hyperbolic in their use of destruction, what words are you expecting from Palestinian scholars? Selfstudier (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So The Palestine Nakba Decolonising History, Narrating the Subaltern, Reclaiming Memory Nur Masalha
"..a project which resulted in the creation of a state in 1948 by the destruction of a country. 1948 saw not only the establishment of a settler-colonialist state on nearly 80 per cent of Mandatory Palestine, but also the destruction of historic Palestine and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians."
Destruction again. Dajani's "shattering" gets a mention too. Selfstudier (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only take issue with the word destruction when it is used to refer to Palestinian society, its use there is not hyperbolic imo. Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some Palestinian sources:
  • Sabbagh-Khoury 2023, p. 122, "collapse and disintegration of Palestinian society"
  • Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury 2017, pp. 393, "dismantlement of Palestine and Palestinian society"
  • Abu-Laban 2022, p. 511, "dramatic disintegration of a society"
  • Khalidi 2020, p. 60, "most of its society uprooted"
  • Masalha 2012, p. 12 "destruction of much of Palestinian society"
  • Abu-Lughod & Sa'di 2007, p. 3, "society disintegrated"
  • Sa'di 2007, pp. 3 ("devastation of Palestinian society ... society disintegrated") and 294 ("almost complete destruction of Palestinian society")
  • Sa'di 2002, p. 175, "disintegration of society"
Levivich (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect I like either disintegration, devastation, or dismantlement. Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Destruction is how it is referred to in RS. The expulsion of more than half of the population, and the majority Arab population in coastal cities of Jaffa and Haifa, the areas where Israel was established, was nothing short of destruction. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Destruction is how it is described in some RS, nearly a plurality next to disintegration. It is in reference to all of Palestinian society, not some/parts Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we consider that the Nakba nowadays is considered as ongoing, then the "destruction" was not completed. It's a sort of slow moving cultural ethnocide. The problem I have with destruction is that I always associate that with real property but perhaps that's just me. Selfstudier (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no contradiction in "destroyed". What existed then was indeed destroyed. It doesn't mean that something different could not arise later. Zerotalk 09:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what existed then continued to exist in a much reduced and fractured form, so it was not destroyed. Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably depends on what you are referring to specifically, a lot of property was destroyed (or there was destruction of a lot of property) (continuing), (Mandate) Palestine was (insert adjective) (continuing), Palestinians were (and continue to be) displaced. Selfstudier (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is its use in this sentence to refer to society, culture, and identity.
"...along with the destruction of their society, culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations."
Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Destruction, disintegration, yadda yadda, both seem correct and I would add "ongoing" if it were just me. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think:
"...which caused the disintegration of their society, culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations."
Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Monkey wrench (or spanner if you're on the wrong side of the pond): "[destruction/disintegration/whatever we decide] of their society, and the suppression of their culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations." Levivich (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve made that up there’s no way you call it a monkey wrench Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
monkey wrench :-) Levivich (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you must have some strange looking monkeys over there Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disintegration implies internal collapse, which is not the case here. Do we have any better synonyms? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dismantling? Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to find the perfect word because what that sentence refers to was somewhat indirectly caused by the Israelis Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how destroying 500 villages, half of Palestine's settlements, was indirectly caused by the Israelis.. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss and Selfstudier: I'd be fine with the use of destruction done how @Levivich has done it Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm easy with whatever people want to do, Levivich formulation is fine too. Selfstudier (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Settler-colonialism as motive

Can settler-colonialism be described as an explicit motive of the Yishuv, as it is described in the infobox? My understanding was that the original Zionists would not characterize themselves as motivated by settler-colonialism. I think that a mention of settler-colonialism could be less controversially placed as a description of the events of the Nakba, rather than the motivations of the Yishuv. This text could be placed in the main text of the article. Thoughts? JohnR1Roberts (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the settler colonial paradigm is disputed and we should keep the infobox principally for facts. Selfstudier (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jabotinsky, an original Zionist, was explicit in saying that Zionism is a colonizing adventure. As for the motives part of the infobox; I think there is no operation whose motives were explicitly stated in a written document or so. Thus, the motives section is intrinsically subject to dispute. But I think the motive, or motives, should still be mentioned at least. Herero and Nama genocide also mentions settler colonialism as motive for example. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I see what you are saying, I think that putting settler-colonialism as a stated motive in the infobox without addressing it later in the article implies that there is a consensus among scholars that Zionism is certainly settler-colonialism where no consensus exists. I think it would be best to remove the mention of settler-colonialism as a motive in the infobox, and somewhere in the article place a link to the Zionism as settler colonialism page. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI see sources/quotes at Talk:Zionism as settler colonialism#Sources, including this one: Pappe 2020 (free): Still, despite a body of scholarship and research that frames the Zionist movement as a settler-colonial project—including the relatively new Settler Colonial Studies, a journal that, at this writing, has already devoted two special issues to Palestine—such a depiction is not accepted in mainstream academia (or the media generally). By and large, Israel/Palestine is still perceived as a conflict between two national movements that are equally responsible for violence—one of them a Western-style democracy that occasionally resorts to excessive power, and the other an Arab society endowed with a violent political culture. Of course there are other views (and maybe even a more recent one from Pappe, idk), but the complications are that: some RS say it's colonialism, some say it's settler-colonialism, some say neither, some say it was one of those things at some points in time and another one at other points in time, some say it's a mixture, etc. Idk, maybe list "colonialism (disputed); settler-colonialism (disputed)", maybe omit those, maybe omit the entire "motives" parameter. I'm not sure that the Nakba has a motive, or that any ethnic cleansing can be said to have a motive (other than the obvious ones). Frankly I feel like "motive" is just a weird infobox parameter, because motives are always complicated/complex. Levivich (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this, but it seems that it may be a controversial change. Then again, I don't think the motive can be left as-is. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it, if anyone wants to restore it, feel free. I think it is a bit too much to stipulate that as a motive. Selfstudier (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ VS. "About the Nakba". Question of Palestine. Retrieved 2024-04-07.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nakba&oldid=1224554040"