Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight

Archives
Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3

This is kind of funny

we have this(source is a clear anti-zionist): [1] to explain us about Zionism, and here: [2] (part of an on-going edit-war) the words of the arab countries to explain why they started a war against israel)

These edits are not encyclopedic, they are pure propaganda. People with strong views to one direction should be balanced by those with the opposing views (WP:NPOV)). Otherwise what is the difference between Wikipedia and a hate site?

Since we have a 5-6 anti-zionist editors and only 1-2 on the other side this is not going to change…. Zeq 10:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

the words of the arab countries to explain why they started a war against israel

That's because a casus belli is supplied by the country that started the war. A casus belli is always biased - but it isn't bias to report what it was, it's simply providing information. Go and have a look at the casus belli for Six Day War or any of the other wars started by Israel and you'll see what I mean.

a clear anti-zionist...pure propaganda

Being an "anti-Zionist" doesn't mean you are not a reliable source whose views merit consideration. Do you think we should remove all the pro-Zionist sources? I'm sure you don't. Our job is simply to balance the views of one group with the other, taking into account the usual policy caveats. Gatoclass 11:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely here with Gatoclass. --Steve, Sm8900 13:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree completely with Gatoclass, but I do criticize Zeq for deliberately stirring the pot without a clear goal for the improvement of the article. --GHcool 18:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Gatocalss and GH: Maybe I did not explain my self too well. I appologize. What I see here is a problem and let me explain (in order to improve the artice):

• I have nothing against anti-zionist sources, as long as they are not propeganda.
• I have nothing against pro-zionist sources, as long as they are not propeganda.

For, exmaple a pro-zionist source like mazada2000 is not a WP:RS source.

• So, what is my problem:

1. 1.When only one side is represnted: i.e. if a pro-zionist source remain and the anti-zionist removed this vioaltes WP:NPOV. In a smilar way if the anti-zionist source added and the pro-zionist removed - this too violates NPOV.
2. 2. Only sources which are non-propeganda, i.e. WP:RS should be used.

• What I see in this article is a drift toward using more sources from this type and not the other and this warries me. Thank you. Zeq 19:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere! This is a fair criticism. What changes would you propose in order to keep the article balanced, Zeq? --GHcool 01:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If it had been up to me, I don't think I would have structured the article this way. Although I think the article probably gives a reasonable overall view of the different theories, because most of the theories are tacitly critical of the Israelis, that "side" of the debate is arguably overrepresented. Another problem of course is that most of the more "pro-Israel" sources have simply chosen to sweep this whole issue under the carpet, so they don't have nearly as much to say about it. A third problem is that debate has moved on considerably from the old "the Arabs just ran away" theory, so we also need to be careful not to overemphasize that.

But from a pro-Israel POV, I can see how someone might feel the article is unbalanced. That could probably be improved by deleting or merging some of the "anti-" sections, and by expanding and consolidating the pro- to a degree, but at this stage it will be a fairly big job and I for one don't have the time or inclination to tackle it right now. I've got about a dozen Wiki projects I'm trying to put together already and quite frankly, I prefer to put my energies into less contentious areas of the encyclopedia where my hard work stands a better chance of survival. Gatoclass 02:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm less concerned about balancing "pro-Israel" and "anti-Israel" than I am with telling the whole truth about what is being said and written about. The truth is neither pro- nor anti-Israel just like the truth about the Jewish exodus from Arab lands is neither pro- nor anti-Arab. It is simply a fact that must be dealt with by scholars, politicians, and the general public and interpreted through the historical method. The "pro-Israel" historians often deliberately ignore or are unaware of evidence that makes the Yishuv look responsible and "anti-Israel" historians often deliberately ignore or are unaware of evidence that makes the Arabs look responsible. The methods and intentions are the same in both cases even though the conclusions they come to are different. It is also entirely possible for a historian to have an "agenda" while still being a reliable source of information. I put Khalidi and Schechtman as the most extreme examples of this category.

If I had my way, this article would be structured the same way as it is now, but be much shorter. It would include none of the "criticisms of" sections ("Criticisms of the 'endorsement of flight' explanation," "Criticisms of the 'Transfer Idea'," etc.). Each section would be roughly 10 paragraphs long (roughly 3 paragraphs for each section within a section) and would rely less on proving a point through quoting the work of the writers than on simply summarizing the narratives as the writers understand it. --GHcool 04:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The truth is neither pro- nor anti-Israel

Yes but that's just your POV. I hardly need to remind you that we are not here to promulgate our own opinions. The reliable sources on this issue have taken a range of different POVs, from "the Arabs were just as bad" or "the Arabs ran away" to "the Israelis conducted a deliberate campaign of ethnic cleansing", and several POVs in between. The solution is not to promote some sort of "intermediate" position as you seem to be suggesting here, but rather to ensure that all the different positions are adequately represented, in such a way as to represent fairly the terms of the debate as it currently exists.

It is also entirely possible for a historian to have an "agenda"'

Of course. Nobody but God is totally neutral, and sometimes I'm not even sure about him ;)

As for shortening the article, I can already see at least two redundant sections that should be thrown out (not including the Schechtman section I have already voiced concerns over). There's a fair bit of repetition in what remains, so yes a thorough copyedit would be useful, but I really don't know who would be a likely nominee for the job. Although now that I mention it, perhaps we could ask an editor with excellent copyedit skills who has no prior interest in the subject to take a look at it? Gatoclass 05:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

see [[3]] --JaapBoBo 16:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think JaapBoBo's splitting the article solution is the best option because it would satisfy most of my points. --GHcool 19:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Opposed. This article is already a split from "1947-48 Palestinian exodus" and we shouldn't need yet another split. Also, JaapBoBo's proposal sounds to me very much like a proposal for the creation of a couple of POV forks. Furthermore, I don't think it will be of any assistance to readers. Articles on contentious subjects have a tendency to just keep growing, we will end up with three overlong articles instead of just one.

This article already contains a lot of redundancy and what users should be aiming for is to eliminate that and make the article more readable and accessible, not to create even more text on the topic for readers to have to wade through. Gatoclass 05:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, Gatoclass. At first you say you oppose JaapBoBo's proposal and accept the fact that "we will end up with three overlong articles instead of just one" and then you criticize the page for containing "a lot of redundancy and what users should be aiming for is to eliminate that and make the article more readable and accessible, not to create even more text on the topic for readers to have to wade through." I'm not sure if you are recommending to keep this article at its current length or to do away with the redundancies. I'd support doing away with redundancies, but when I caught and deleted redundancies in the past, JaapBoBo and PalestineRemembered protested. --GHcool 05:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you were targeting the wrong redundancies :)

What I am talking about is reducing the size of this article to a more manageable size, by the elimination of redundancies. Effectively I'm saying we should be striving for less text overall, not more. There's a lot of repetition in this article.

Having reread a bit of the article though, I think perhaps there *is* a case for a second article, not along the lines suggested by JaapBoBo about "role of leaders", but an article specifically related to the role of the transfer idea in Zionism. This is a highly contentious subject, there are lots of sources that have had plenty to to say about it, and I think it would do very well as a standalone article. In my opinion though there's far too much about it at this page, why do we need such a long section on its development here, on the Peel Commission recommendations, and so on? I think most of that info is out of place here. Gatoclass 07:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gatocalss about the 'transfer idea'.

The role of the transfer idea in the 1948 palestinian exodus is a topic that has been widely discussed among historians and that is differently interpreted.

Morris has written a whole chapter on this, Nur Masalha a whole book and Shapira and Teveth criticized these analysis.

Alithien 10:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Alithien, but I think I should point out that I don't conceive of the article as relating only to the Palestinian exodus. The "transfer" idea goes right back as far as Theodor Herzl, and is still apparent today in for example the proposal of the Israeli Deputy PM Avigdor Lieberman to do a territorial swap with the Palestinians in order to effect a population transfer. Of course it wasn't just the Zionists, but also the British who proposed it at one stage. So this is an idea that has been proposed many times in many different ways, it has a long and varied history and I think it would make a very interesting article if dealt with appropriately. Gatoclass 11:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

ok.

But in that case be aware that the 1948 exodus is a very little transfer in comparison of others. And I doubt the 1948 Palestinian exodus would deserve more than a few lines in an article that deal globally with the transfer of population.

On the other way, an article titled population transfer in the Arab-Israeli conflict is immediately less interesting because it leaves the "historical ground" to the "political ground". And it would also have to deal with the Jews that emigrated from Arab land.

An article named idea of transfer in zionist policy from 1880 to 2007 would be nothing but a one-sided political original research of the level of Israeli Apartheid. Alithien 11:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the 1948 Palestinian exodus would deserve more than a few lines in an article that deal globally with the transfer of population

No, I'm not proposing an article on population transfer in a global sense. One could probably do such an article, but that's not what I was suggesting.

An article named idea of transfer in zionist policy from 1880 to 2007 would be nothing but a one-sided political original research of the level of Israeli Apartheid.

I certainly wouldn't be advocating that as a title. But you couldn't possibly call it "original research" when there has been so much written about it. It's a theme that occurs again and again in writing about the conflict.

As for it being "one-sided", I don't think it would have to inherently POV. As I said earlier, it's a contentious subject and I think we should be able to supply plenty of different POV's.

But in any case, the basis of the article already exists here, I'm just proposing an expansion of that and a placing of it in a wider context. Gatoclass 12:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we ought to include the '1948 Palestinian Exodus' article in our restructuring. This article takes the 'four stages' of Morris approach. There is a lot of overlap with some sections in the 'causes' article (Morris, two-stage, ethnic cleansing sections). Keeping this in separate articles it is almost impossible to prevent considerable overlap.

The new structure I would propose is:

• main article: '1948 Palestinina exodus' (history section of '1948 Palestinian exodus' article combined with all sections of 'causes' article except EoF, Transfer idea and master plan) including small but adequate summaries of these three new articles:

• 'Role of Arab leaders in the 1948 exodus' (EoF section)
• 'Role of Yishuv leaders in the 1948 exodus' (transfer idea and master plan)
• 'Results of the 1948 Palestinian exodus' (remaining sections of '1948 Palestinina exodus' article) (to keep the size of this article down)

Let me point out that these are not POV-forks. The titles are neutral (Role of ...). In case according to a pov e.g. Palestinian leaders' role was primarily lack of leadership this can be included. Inclusion of all pov's is possible, e.g. both pov's stating that Arab leaders encouraged and pov's stating Arab leaders tried to stop the exodus. The same is true for the 'Role of Yishuv leaders' article. Anyway, adequate summaries should be in the main article. This is according to Wikipedia policy. See WP:POVFORK and WP:SPINOUT. These point out that it is according to Wikipedia policy for e.g. Evolution and Creationism to have separate articles. --JaapBoBo 14:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I just don't agree with this approach at all. You are going to end up with an account that's in bits and pieces all over the place. None of this is necessary, and it's just going to make a maze for readers to try and negotiate. We should strive to keep things as simple and elegant as possible. There's no justification whatever for "roles of leaders" articles in my view, and splitting "Palestinian exodus" into "Causes of" and "Results of" is equally inappropriate. You could probably get rid of half of this article and not lose any vital information, that's the sort of approach we should be taking. Gatoclass 14:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, I would support JaapBoBo's proposal. --GHcool 17:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with Pedro when he considers these are pov-forked but his reasonning should be requested here.

But I am still opposed with the titles. The transfer idea and the master plan are not reflected a neutral way with a title such as the role of yishuv leaders in the 1948 exodus.

I also think that we should not make a parallelism between the alleded role of arabs and the alleged role of yishuv leaders. The first one is clearly not followed any more by historians. This concerns more historiography. But the second one is still a topic of controversy. Sending this out of the article could make believe it is as false as the other one.

The Transfer Idea and the 1948 palestinian exodus would more fit titles used by scholars and is more neutral.

Alithien 18:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

@Gatoclass : yes, a synthetic and not too long article explaining the matter and the controversies on the topic and not simply gathering quotes or trying to prove anything would be welcome. But this is too soon for that. Such a work require all the data has been gathered first. Alithien 18:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the approch Alithein is taking. Zeq 19:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The Transfer Idea and the 1948 palestinian exodus would more fit titles used by scholars and is more neutral. - Alithien

I don't think it *is* necessarily more neutral. And to my way of thinking, it's only natural to trace the idea right up to the present day. If the argument is that such would constitue "original research", my guess is that sources can be found which would make the connection for us.

BTW, I seem to recall that Tom Segev had something to say about the development of the "transfer" idea in One Palestine, Complete. I could be wrong about that as it's a while since I read it, but he might be an additional POV we could add to a "transfer" article. Segev is a pretty moderate voice in general.

a synthetic and not too long article explaining the matter and the controversies on the topic and not simply gathering quotes or trying to prove anything would be welcome. But this is too soon for that. - Alithien

As I think I said, it's a topic that would require sensitivity. I simply proposed it because I noticed there is already quite a bit on the topic here that in my opinion does not need such thorough treatment, and which could easily be lifted out and used as the basis for a new article. I'm talking about the following section:

2 The "Transfer idea"
2.1 Origins of the ‘Transfer Idea’
2.2 The Peel Commission's plan and the Yishuv's reaction
2.3 The ‘Transfer Idea’ during 1947 - 1949
2.4 Criticisms of the ‘Transfer Idea’

Do we really need all the above in this article? Seems to me it's a rather obvious candidate for splitting. But I'm not proposing it be done tomorrow, you are quite correct to say such an article would need to be carefully planned, we could hardly just shovel the above into a new page and call it an article. Gatoclass 05:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Descriptions of the exodus as an ethnic cleansing

I think it is a "fair" title.
I would remove Flahan from this section. He doesn't precisely talk about 'Ethnic cleansing'. I think this description can be considered as Pappé's analysis.
NB: I wrote in the past that Gelber saw an ethnic cleansing in the events after july 1948 but this is not right. This is what I had deduced after reading him but he never uses the word. Alithien 19:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It might be "fair" but it's also clumsy. Surely we can come up with something more elegant? Might I suggest, simply The "ethnic cleansing" argument. Gatoclass 05:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose "The 'ethnic cleansing' argument" because it sounds to me like the Zionists themselves who were making the "argument" that "ethnic cleansing" was the solution to the population problem of a proposed Jewish state. It twists Pappe's words so that it sounds like the 1948 Zionists are speaking on behalf of Pappe. The title must be clear that it is a handful of modern historians that are making the "argument." That's why "Descriptions of the exodus as an ethnic cleansing campaign" is more accurate and NPOV. NPOV and accuracy in reporting always trump concerns about "clumsiness." --GHcool 07:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The Zionists themselves made the argument that ethnic cleansing was the solution to the otherwise insuperable population problem their new state would have. I can post you clips, or point you to "A Historical Survey of Proposals to Transfer Arabs from Palestine 1895 - 1947 by Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons"[4] PR^talk 18:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This kind of information could potentially be welcomed in the "Descriptions of the exodus as an ethnic cleansing campaign" section assuming a more reliable source can be found than a Geocities website. --GHcool 19:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The literature is stuffed with examples of the Zionists arguing for ethnic cleansing, I cannot understand how you could be so blissfully unaware of that fact. I've only pointed you to a personal web-site to underline the fact that other Zionists don't deny it but boast of it. PR^talk 11:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How many times do we have to go down this alley? This description has nothing to do with the article.

Sorry I haven't been editing much lately. Real life has been very busy. Screen stalker 12:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The text generally

This should be entitled. 'History of pre 1982 theories concerning the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus', since it is basically that, a confused narrative of various theories floated about before the relevant archives began to be opened up. All this old material is interesting historically, but has almost zero value nowadays, particularly in the wake of Morris's work. Nishidani 19:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. While no serious post-1982 historians claim that EoF is the "end of the story," few serious historians would say that EoF was not a part of the story at all. --GHcool 23:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you have a point Nishidami, the debate seems to have moved on well beyond the old theories, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be referenced here.

What I find more concerning is JaapBoBo's proposal for a "role of Arab leaders in the exodus" article. An article with a name like that is screaming "POV fork" to me. Also, having a pair of articles on "role of Arab leaders" and "role of Zionist leaders" suggests some sort of equivalence in credibility, when in fact the former has been either largely discounted or heavily qualified by more recent research. Additionally, an article like that is just begging to have all sorts of discredited nonsense shovelled into it in order to fill it out.

I also find the "role of Zionist leaders" proposal to be vague and unfocussed. Such a topic could easily end up as a rehash of the entire history of Zionism, so neither of these proposals for articles strike me as viable or useful. Gatoclass 05:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

GHcool. No, it is true. Schechtman, to cite but one example, is cited by Benny Morris briefly, twice, in his 600 odd pages, and isn't even in the index. Here he and his book are mentioned or sourced several times. In any historical book or article, the practice is to briefly outline the state-of-the-art scholarship on that problem, and footnote this excursus to much earlier work where those earlier, somewhat dated books, still have relevance. As Gatoclass noted, you have a very serious structural problem here, and proposals are being made to make it even more problematical. Go back, I suggest, to the basic problem, and rethink it.Nishidani 10:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've put that the causes were a source of great controversy for are. Great controversy no longer exists in the academic world, as opposed to the politicized world of public debates, on this issue, but disputes persist concerning specific issues.

'The causes for the exodus were for many decades a matter of great controversy among commentators on the Arab-Israeli conflict and historians.'

Like much of the text this initial sentence is problematical. For it means the commentators were commenting not only on the Arab-Israeli conflict, but on historians. (incidentally privileging commentators over historians, if this is the intention. And in fact, this text does give primacy of place to commentators over historians).Nishidani 19:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Historians comment on other's work and also other's credibility. And commentators (ie these people who are not historians or even not scholars but who comment the matters) also comment both the causes and both the historians credibility.

Given Gelber refuse to be published in a review that will publish Pappe after Tantura case, that Pappe claims Morris is influenced by his racism and that Morris wrote that Shlaim was biaised by his pro-Islamism while Shapira explains the real causes can not be exposed before the "arab israeli" conflict is finished because scholars are influenced by politics and not forgetting Karsh and Finkelstein critics of Morris work and the answer of Morris to Karsh, I doubt very much "were once" is accurate. There is a "great controversy" among historians and among commentators. I replaced by "are". Alithien 08:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

NB: I am quite sure Schetchman is cited in the Birth ... revisited bibliography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alithien (talk • contribs) 08:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Alithien. Academics love gossip and innuendo more than washerwomen, and most conferences consist of chatty trades in underhand rumour, intercalated by serious papers for relief. Wiki's problem here is that it forages in chat and commentary, and shows a remarkably otiose incuriosity towards the substance of scholarly works, for the simple reason that the latter are less accessible online, and take far more time to read and master. So academic backbiting as it filters through the net should be ignored, as a tabloidish distraction full of factoids and biased innuendo. Morris's work buried most of the confusion with a brilliant piece of archival research respected by 'left' and 'right' for its integrity. What critics differ over is simply his general synthetic judgement (and this of course is something that always comes in for criticism, whoever the academic may be), and details. As it stands his work dominates the field, and must be taken as standard. The pro-Arab/pro-Israeli positions were all worked out while archives were under lock and key. It is rather like writing a Qumran article giving huge WP:Undue Weight to Edmund Wilson and others, who wrote decades before the full documentary record was published and translated by Eisenman, Vermes and others, only to touch on the period 1992-2007 en passant, or as a late addendum.

I never said Schechtman wasn't in Morris's bibliography. I said Morris doesn't cite him in the index, and uses that source with great parsimony (i.e.p.61 n.11,p.63 n.37).Nishidani 09:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Do you mean that Morris 's Birth should be the core of this article ?
• What would be due weight of Morris's work on this topic ? This is indeed The Reference.
• Do you mean that we must question on any ahthor that is not in Morris's book index ?
• Do you mean we could measure other historians credibility on the topic in seeing how many times they are quoted by Morris or are in the index of the Birth ?

Alithien 11:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Q.1. Yes

Q.2. That is for all to decide.

Q.3. No.

Q.4. No.Nishidani 11:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That is what I would have answered if I had been asked.

Let's see what other think about this.

Alithien 11:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

ditto. pedro gonnet - talk - 22.10.2007 14:25

I disagree. many sources on this subject. no reason to prefer one on the others. Zeq 14:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine, name the sources that deal with the subject at the same level of archival research as that employed by Morris.Nishidani 14:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not a court of law and you are not interogating me. We will aplly WP:RS not some other criteria that you have just invented. if a relavent source fit the criteria set in WP:RS it can be used. Zeq 14:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani, I wouldn't bother getting too involved in such a discussion with User:Zeq. He has been indefinitely banned from editing the precursor to this article (and hence, I assume, from editing this article) due to repeated disruption and tendentious editing so I don't think any amount of arguments will really faze him... Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 22.10.2007 15:03

I am not banned from this article. Your suggestion, to avoid discussion on talk page - especially since all I wrote was that we should apply Wikipedia policy - seems to violate some basic codes of behaviour. I expect you and others to be polite and follow policy (not invent new ones - just because some has a POV different than yours. Zeq 15:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Unwillingness to engage in dialogue duly noted. It's like someone half way up a new coulisse on the Eiger, unable to crampon up any further, shouting to others who advise a return to base to try a different route, 'No! I've got this far. Somehow things will improve. I'm not coming back'.Nishidani 15:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am more than willing to engage in dialogue. This is the talk page isn't it ? The one sugested to ignore is user:Pedro Gonnet. If you want to ask your question in a way that makes it relevant - I suggest you first explain why you think other sources violate WP:RS and can not be used. We will apply policy - even if you don't think they matter. Zeq 15:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq: "I am not banned from this article.". I guess that's neither up to you, nor me to decide. pedro gonnet - talk - 22.10.2007 15:28

I've just made a few illustrative edits to show how so much of this debate is already present in Erskine Childers (1961), and that this author by author or theme by theme summary is just immensely tiresome repetition or reworking of points made in 1961, and then documented with intense focus by Morris. There seems a general acknowledgement here that something has gone deeply wrong, and before our friend Alithien beats us to it with the detailed Morris-based account he is now promising for the French page of Wikipedia, we should try and at least draw up possible designs for systematizing the disiecta membra of the pages as it stands into a coherent (a) narrative of events (for which Morris is fundamental) and (b) narrative of the history of how those events developed. Aux armes, mes wikiens!Nishidani 19:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I read what you added and I think that you have greatly improved this article and persented issues in a braoder and more NPOV light than it was before. Thank You. Zeq 21:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nishidani on Morris' importance for 'a narrative of events'. We should use Morris' four waves to structure the part of the article describing the events and lots of Morris' descriptions of events. On the other hand Morris conclusions are apologetic with respect to the role of the Zionist's leaders. We need lots of stuff from other sources there. --JaapBoBo 20:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yishuv Aims

Pappé's explanation of Yishuv aims is not neutral (not to mention the fact that he would hardly know what Yishuv aims were, because he was neither a member of the Yishuv nor a mind reader). It's not even presented neutrally:

"The Yishuv did make some kind of deal with king Abdullah of Jordan, the Yishuv acceding the West Bank to Jordan and Jordan promissing not to interfere when the Yishuv grabbed the rest of Palestine. Demographically the Yishuv aimed at a Jewish state with a large Jewish majority, to be achieved by the ethnic cleansing of a large part of the Palestinians from the Yishuv’s territory under the cover of a war."

"Grabbed" is not a neutral word to describe land acquisition. "Ethnic cleansing" is an exceptional claim. This would require exceptional evidence. The wording does not make it clear that this is all alleged by Pappé and not to be taken as fact. Even the deal between Israel and Abdullah is called "some kind of deal," a phrase which is intended to ridicule and minimize it, so as to imply that the Yishuv did not really arrive at an agreement with Abdullah. This whole section is a poster child of propaganda. I'm not even going to bother reading who put it in the article because, honestly, I don't want to know. Hmf...

But my biggest concern is that this is included not because it is constructive to the article, but because people want to bash Israel. Yishuv aims were not causes of the Palestinian exodus. The failure of Arab leadership, economic collapse, tribulations of war, expulsion by Arab leaders, expulsion by Jewish leaders, fear of attack, etc. can all be debated as causes of the exodus. The reasons why the Yishuv allegedly engaged in ethnic cleansing are not causes of the exodus. Screen stalker 19:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. --GHcool 20:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I would explain the problem differently referring to Nashidani here above. The problem of this article is that its core is Pappe's analysis and so the events are described behind his own glasses.

Here some yishuv aims are given (but there were many others) and those given here are certainly not the most relevant.

The great difficulty of the topic of the 1948 exodus is not to describe the facts (there are few controversies around this) but to put them in a -fair and neutral- context. That is a more difficult exercice to give a context that can comply with all scholar analysis without biaising the picture.

Try to convince JaapBoBo. Alithien 07:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with Screen Stalker that Pappe's analysis of aims is not relevant. Pappe says it was ethnic cleansing, so he should explain that, and he does; Yishuv's aims are the motivation for the cleansing. His book 'the ethnic cleansing of Palestine' handles the exodus and gives these arguments. Clearly Pappe finds it relevant.

Morris finds the 'transfer idea' relevant for the exodus. If Screen Stalker is consistent he should find the transfer idea also irrelevant for the article.

--JaapBoBo 20:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that the Transfer Theory and Master Plan theory are not relevant interpretations of what may have caused the Palestinian exodus. They belong in the article, and I would strongly object to their removal.

What I do not think belongs in the article are hypotheses about why transfer or master plan might have taken place. This article is about why Palestinians fled Palestine/Israel circa 1948, not about all of the events that took place in the region in 1948.

To draw an analogy to another situation, the article Causes of the Great Depression says the the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was a cause that contributed to the Great Depression. But the article doesn't say that Hoover's administration pushed for this tariff (nor should it say something to this effect). At most, the article should make a passing reference to this, certainly not devote a whole section to it. We should aspire to do the same, especially considering that this article is already much longer than Causes of the Great Depression. Actually, I think we could learn a lot from the way that that article is organized (although I am not endorsing its content). Screen stalker 20:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was not aimed at causing a depression, or was it? If it was it would certainly be discussed more elaborate. --87.208.1.240 22:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Smooth-Hawley Tariff was one of the foremost causes of the Great Depression. That is why it is in the article about the causes of the Great Depression. But what prompted the US government to pass the tariff is not mentioned in the article, nor should it be mentioned. How is that different from this article? Screen stalker 21:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am going to delete this section once more. If it is added again without significant revision for the better I will add every Yishuv aim relevant to the subject, and I won't want to hear anyone telling me that they are irrelevant unless they agree to remove this section altogether. Screen stalker 21:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

please tell what you find ' significant revision for the better'

As was commented earlier on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, it was not aimed at causing a depression, while the Yishuv did aim at expulsion (according to this pov), so the Yishuv's motives should certainly be discussed. --JaapBoBo 21:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was intended to economically isolate the US, and it succeeded in that regard. Even that notwithstanding, the aims of both the tariff and any questionable Yishuv actions are irrelevant because in both cases they are indirect causes. Screen stalker 14:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In this article, in some pov's they are not indirect. --JaapBoBo 23:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggested structure for an article that will merge both the exodus and the cause of the exodus article

Proposed structure 1

• 1. Events

• 1.1 Context
• 1.2 Waves of refugees

• 1.2.1 1st wave
• 1.2.2 2nd wave
• 1.2.3 3rd wave
• 1.2.4 4th wave

• 1.3 Blockading the return
• 1.4 Resolution 181194
• 1.5 Borders' cleaning

• 2. causes of the exodus

• 2.1 Traditionnal versions
• 2.2 First critics (I mean here Childers and Glazer)
• 2.3 Opening of Israeli and British archives
• 2.4 The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem

(the core bec. everybody refers to this nuancing more or less Morris analysis)

• 2.5 Historiographic debate on the causes

(30 lines introducing other new analysis with their nuances in comparison to Morris, only on the academic level -> another article should be develop dealing with this)

• 2.6 Political debate on the causes

(same but with the critics concerning the influence of politics in the debate on the cause)

• 3. consequences of the exodus

• 3.1 Palestinian Refugee situations
• 3.2 Absentee property law
• 3.3 Historiography debate on the right to return
• 3.4 Political debate on the right to return
• 3.5 Palestino-Israeli peace process

• 4. jewish exodus and emigration
• 5. commemoration
• ... other linked but more anecdotical topics with max. 1 paragraph and a reference to other article.

Please sign your post Alithien.

I'm not sure this is the best possible structure, but it looks at least viable. Gatoclass 09:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ditto Nishidani 10:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's find the *best* before starting.

What should we change ? :-) Alithien 10:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a good start, but to be completely frank, I think this is too broad. Some thoughts:

• The first section ("Events") is already dealt with in the article 1948 Palestinian exodus, and that should be kept there, since it is currently in good shape and not subject to POV-hacking.
• In section two I would just list the different causes, each with their effect (i.e. nr. of refugees), their locations and their times. Since numbers are scarce, this will mainly be Morris' analysis with a bit of Glazer, Karsh and a few others. In these section there can be contradictions, i.e. under a sub-section forced expulsions we can have Morris saying there were x while Schechtman says there were zero, etc... Yet each one with a valid reference. I would also suggest moving the "Blockading of the return" down to this section.
• The "Historiographic debate" -- in my wording "Theories" -- would deserve a separate section. As you suggested, 30 lines for each theory, whithout the "Citicism of..." sections, even for Schechtman's stuff. This would not be a problem (for me at least), since we then have a clear separation of numbers (section above) and theories (this section). Unsupported theories will stand out as such on their own. This section could be structured chronologically, as you suggest with your structure for section 2, which would well reflect the evolution of the arguments and of the availability of raw data.
• Section 4 already has its own article and I would be against adding any undue weight that is not reciprocal.
• Section 5 would best belong in the main article, as it already is (in some form).

So, that's my $0.02... Thank you, Alithien, for kicking-off this effort! pedro gonnet - talk - 26.10.2007 10:39

Hi Pedro,
Before making another proposal, don't you think that :

• merging both "the 1948 exodus" and the "causes of the 1948 exodus" would be worth ? (as suggested above - that is in that optic I made this proposal)
• allocating only 30 lines to all theories and not each and developing them in an appropriate article would have a better due weight ? (nb historiographic debate is more npov than theories per my undestanding of English but this is not important).
• 6 lines for section 4, just referring to this is not undue weight in a 1000 lines article ?

Alithien 10:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Salut Alithien! My replies point for point...

• I'm against merging the articles back. They were originally split because the article was too long and the subject of too may edit-wars. The main article, 1948 Palestinian exodus, is in good shape, NPOV and rarely contested. This article here just seems to attract POV-warriors and it would be a shame for that to spill over to the main article. Therefore, if we can make this article a) short and sweet and b) keep it from being a POV-battleground, then we probably could merge them at some later date.
• 30 lines is more like the absolute maximum. I'd keep it at a single paragraph (ca. 10 lines) explaining the main points and forking off somewhere else if anybody wanted to add more detail. The title "Historiographic debate" is fine with me, it even has a nice ring to it :)
• The Jewish exodus has nothing to do with the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. I would only feel comfortable if this were reciprocal, i.e. there being a section on the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus in the Jewish exodus article. Otherwise, it looks and feels like relativism.

Again, for emphasis, my main points are that

1. We should not re-merge the two articles. This will only mess-up the main article, which is currently in good shape.
2. We need to keep the numbers and the theories clearly separated. This will give the article structure and defuse most of the POV-warring.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 26.10.2007 11:24

With what you suggest, we have to think about a structure only concerning the "causes of the 1948 exodus".

I personnaly don't have a detailled proposal for this because there are too many controversies from my point of view : in the main points of the context ; in the main direct causes and (but that is easier) in the different analysis.

I just think I would cut the direct causes and the analysis (what I call the historiography debate and what you call theories) but that is not easy...

Alithien 11:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Alithien, could you please elaborate a bit more on what you envisage going into the "historiographic debate" and "political debate" sections? Because I'm a little confused over the distinction. Gatoclass 14:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gatoclass,

Under "historiographic debate" we would describe the current analysis/theories that followed Morris's work but not going too deep into details and only in focusing on the "historical argument".

Under "political debate" we would explain that politics highly influence the historiographic debate (as stated by Glazer, Shapira, Shlaim and I think Palumbo). And we could explain that the neutrality of different historians is questionned (Schechtman, Morris, Pappé, ...) and that they are even sometimes accused of bias due to political reasons. I think it is relevant that the article explained the controversy. Shapira eg stated that we will never know the "truth" about the exodus while the palestinian-israeli conflict is not solved. We could also explain the high importance of the "responsabilities" on the political point of view.

all this with references, of course. Alithien 15:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion with Gatoclass

Well, I don't know about the "political debate" bit. It sounds like it could turn into a farce, with all the various historians criticising each other. The reader would probably end up feeling either totally confused or distrustful of them all. Gatoclass 15:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the due:weight to this relatively to the remaining is rather small.

My initial idea is to prevent this to appear in the former section. This could be summarized not in giving precise exemples but in explaining the the topic is hot enough so the debate sometimes left the academic level. Alithien 16:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not excited about this one. It looks like more trouble than its worth and will create articles that are even longer than the current ones already are. It might even be impossible to make and create redundencies upon redundencies. --GHcool 17:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

OK Alithien, now I have a better idea of how you see this section. Still, I think I'd like to see some sort of summary of exactly what points you'd want to make, because this section could still quite easily end up looking like a bunfight.

Apart from that though, I much prefer your proposal over JaapBoBo's, his looks pretty much like what we've already got. Gatoclass 17:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A severe (I think fatal) drawback of 'proposed structure 1' is that apparently three new subsection (2.3, 2.4, 2.5) should be created (two of which should be only 30 lines), to replace almost the complete article we have now (except for EoF and a very small part of the Master Plan). This is not realistic. --JaapBoBo 00:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you give the pov's in the order in which they occured in the historians debate you lose a lot of clarity. For instance in 1960 Khalidi introduced the master plan, in 1987 Flapan said Ben-Gurion and the Haganah concocted the expulsion, and in 2006 Pappe wrote his book on ethnic cleansing. So this pov will pop up at least three times, mixed with other povs that will also pop up several times. This will end up in a mess and it will be very unclear for readers. --JaapBoBo 01:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is possible to summarize 2.3 -> 2.5 in 30 lines and if required, to write a "main" article developing this. For the reader, I think it should be easier to read a "synthesis" about this and then to go deeper into details if needed. It is better to than read[ing] quotes after quotes without a clear link.

Concerning the "master plan", it is indeed an issue that it was developed in 3 steps but when we described eg Pappé, we can simply writes : "Pappé comes back to Khalidi master's plan idea and adds that (...)". With a chronological development we have the evolution of the thougts of people and see on what new material the[y] base their thoughts and in reaction of what theory/analysis they developed their own. Alithien 09:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Unfortunately, JBB and GH seem to thnk JBB's approach is better. Personally, I think that even if this proposal of yours is not adopted, we should not adopt JBB's because it's a recipe for chaos. Structure is absolutely vital to the quality of an article, if one gets the structure right, the rest tends to fall into place. Without an appropriate structure it's only a matter of time before the article becomes an unreadable mess. So I think it's important we get this right. Gatoclass 10:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we all agree structure is fundamental. Alithien 10:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed structure 2

discussion with Pedro

If we keep the articles separated I'd propose three sections. The first being the second from Alithien, but with some changes. This seems to follow the historical development of the 'debate'. I'd say this should include only summaries of the pov's, because the events I are described in the 'exodus' article and I would describe 'direct causes' and policies in a second and third section. In the second section on 'direct causes' (i.e. event-related causes) we might combine the three sections ('Morris' four waves', 'two stage analysis' and 'Descriptions of the exodus as caused by ethnic cleansing'.) into e.g three subsections 'direct causes of 1st wave', 'direct causes of 2nd wave' and direct causes of 3rd and 4th waves. In a third section I would discuss the role of leaders and policies.

• 1. historical debate on causes of the exodus (should contain only summaries, mainly referring to the weight different pov's/historians attribute to certain causes, not elaboration of these causes; elaboration is done in sections 2 and 3)
  • 1.1 Traditional versions
  • 1.2 Opening of Israeli and British archives and the 'New historians' (New historians is not only Morris, but also Flapan and Pappé; furthermore I don't consider Flapan and Pappé 'nuances in comparison to Morris')
  • 1.3 Further historiographic debate on the causes (why should we add a political debate section?)
• 2. direct causes
  • 2.1 direct causes of 1st wave
  • 2.2 direct causes of 2nd wave
  • 2.3 direct causes of 3rd and 4th wave
• 3. role of Yishuv and Arab leaders
  • 3.1 Arab leaders' endorsement of flight
    • 3.1.1 Criticism
  • 3.3 Transfer idea
    • 3.3.1 criticism
  • 3.4 Master plan
    • 3.4.1 criticism

The remaining sections (i.e. Palestinian fears and psychological warfare) could be integrated into the 'direct causes' and/or the 'role of ... leaders' sections.
--JaapBoBo 12:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how sections 1 and 3 of your structure differ -- can you elaborate? Oh, and please, try to keep a consistent indenting, otherwise these discussions are Hell to follow... Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 26.10.2007 13:01

Okay, let me explain what I have in mind. In the first section we should put only summaries of the two initial pov's and later pov's of historians. These summaries should mainly refer to the relevance these pov's attribute to what is discussed in the 2nd and 3rd sections. E.g. a summary of EoF does not need 'claims that support [it]'; the 'transfer idea' icould be treated very short in a summary, and it certainly wouldn't need any of the four subsections of the 'transfer idea' (except maybe a referal to criticism). For the Master plan something similar holds. --JaapBoBo 13:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see why EoF, TI and MP are different than what you call POV's in the first section... Those can easily be weaved-in to the hisoriography. Furthermore, if you keep them somehow separated and as general themes, I'm kind of worried that they will incite the same type of POV-warring and overquoting we've got now.

Why do you want the historiographies before the direct causes? In most sciences, we usually state first the observations, and then the interpretations thereof...

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 26.10.2007 13:28

The problem with the structure is that there are several structures that are logical, i.e. (1) according to historians views, (2) according to a time-line and (3) according to subjects. The structure I propose uses all three of them. (1) in section 1, (2) in section 2, but only for the direct causes and (3) in section 3 for all subjects except the direct causes.

EoF, TI and MP are of course the same in sections 1 and 3, but they are described from a different perspective. In section 1 the weight given to them by historians is presented and they are only introduced very short. In section 3 their contents are discussed more elaborately along with the arguments pro and contra.

Regarding putting the historical debate first: I find it not elegant to put it between the other two sections because those both contain 'observations'. Also I'd like the interpretations before the observations in this case, because I think it is easier for readers when they are given a general framework first and specifics later. --JaapBoBo 13:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly I don't see much difference between this proposal and the article we have now, which is already seen as problematic. It looks to me like a recipe for the kind of repetitions that already bloat the current version, so I'm afraid I'm not too keen on this proposal. Gatoclass 15:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I like this proposal. --GHcool 17:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed my mind after reading Gatoclass's criticisms written on 18:18, 27 October 2007. I now prefer a third option (see below). --GHcool 22:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: with the kind of repetitions that already bloat the current version do you mean repetitions in the same section or repetitions in the way of 'the same thing being said in different sections'? In case of the first we should try to write more efficient and its not a matter of structure. In case of the second do you agree that merging the sections on the causal events (currently the last five sections) would help here or would you propose something different? --JaapBoBo 20:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

discussion with Alithien

To avoid misunderstanting. By historiographic debate on the cause of the 1948 exodus, I meant the current debate that followed Morris publications : between Finkelstein/Karsh/Gelber/Pappé etc.
JaapBoBo, I still don't see how you can justify to cut all current theories/analysis in two families : the one that concerns the role of the arab leaders (which is pov if we talked about traditionnal israeli one) and the one that concerns the role of the yishuv leaders (which is controversed).
I understand there are two debates :

• made by war (or caused by circumstances)
• made by design (or planned by yishuv leaders).

Could you clarify what you don't understand in what I mean or what I don't understand in what you mean ? Alithien 13:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your problem. Are you referring to earlier discussions, or to the proposal I just put up? Still, I'll give it a try. I think we don't have the same interpretation of my proposal of those two subjects 'role of ... leaders'. You assume 'Role of Arab leaders' would contain EoF. It does of course, but it should also contain criticism on that pov and other (more accurate) pov's (e.g. failure to provide effective leadership, divided leadership), making it NPOV. A similar argument holds for the 'Role of Yishuv leaders'. In my new proposal they are in the same section, so there should be no problem now.

Actually I'd say there are three positions in the debate:

• made by Arab leaders
• made by war
• made by Yishuv leaders

--JaapBoBo 14:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. the "Made by Arab leaders" should also contain the more relevant critics (Personaly I have only read these in Rogan, Shlaim "palestine 1948". Do you have other material concerning this ?

My main problem is that "made by war" was/is not in your proposed structure... It should be add, shouldn't it ?

My second problem is that "transfer idea" is not always seen as an argument for the proof of "a role of the yishuv leader". Morris analysis of this is different from Childers and Masalha.

Alithien 14:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

'Made by war' is Morris' pov. Certainly it's in. Morris' pov in EoF is that this is not a main cause. Morris pov in 'master plan' is that it didn't exist. So for Morris that leaves the war. Actually Morris' positive pov is in the 'trabsfer idea' and 'wave analysis' sections.

Your second point is in the first part of the 'transfer idea' section. GHcool finds the statement of Morris' pov there too long: [[5]]

--JaapBoBo 20:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

But where would "made by war" be in the structure you propose ?

Maybe transfer idea is currently too long because it just give quotes and quotes. All this can be said in 20 lines max. but that is another point : we discuss here a re-structuration.

Alithien 14:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. You edited your text.

Where is Gelber analysis (other circumstantialist with Morris) ? 81.244.162.22 18:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I propose to fuse Gelber's analysis with Morris' --JaapBoBo 00:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to JaapBoBo - who I'm sure has made a fine contribution to this page - this proposal of his is just not going to work. It's simply not logical, and it is just a recipe for duplicating the same material over and over in each section. In fact it looks pretty much what we've got now which everyone seems to agree is not satisfactory.

Let me just see if I can quickly outline some of the problems I see.

1. historical debate on causes of the exodus (should contain only summaries, mainly referring to the weight different pov's/historians attribute to certain causes, not elaboration of these causes; elaboration is done in sections 2 and 3)
1.1 Traditional versions
1.2 Opening of Israeli and British archives and the 'New historians' (New historians is not only Morris, but also Flapan and Pappé; furthermore I don't consider Flapan and Pappé 'nuances in comparison to Morris')
1.3 Further historiographic debate on the causes (why should we add a political debate section?)
2. direct causes
2.1 direct causes of 1st wave
2.2 direct causes of 2nd wave
2.3 direct causes of 3rd and 4th wave
3. role of Yishuv and Arab leaders
3.1 Arab leaders' endorsement of flight
3.1.1 Criticism
3.3 Transfer idea
3.3.1 criticism
3.4 Master plan
3.4.1 criticism

So in 1. we've got "debate on the causes". In 2. we've got causes again, but of each separate wave. This section is just begging for a repeat of the differences of opinion from 1. Then as if that weren't bad enough, we've then got 3. which discusses "role of leaders", when it's obvious that the role of leaders will already have been discussed in 1. and 2. The same goes for "transfer idea" and "master plan". We are basically going to end up with five different sections which all go over much the same ground. It's a recipe for a complete mess, much like the mess we have now.

Alithien's proposal is far more logical in my opinion. It clearly separates the events in themselves from discussion of the causes, and then it introduces the development of the debate over causes step by step in a chronological sequence, which is not only the most logical way to do it, but is also a method which avoids potential squabbles over undue weight. Then at the end we get consequences of the exodus. I mean, apart from my quibble about the political section I mentioned in a previous post, what's not to like about this structure? I can't see any good reason why we shouldn't adopt it. Gatoclass 18:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: I gave some criticism of Alithiens proposal in its subsection. I think it has fatal flaws.

Let me explain what I have in mind. In the first section we should put only summaries of the two initial pov's and later pov's of historians. These summaries should mainly refer to the relevance these pov's attribute to what is more elaborately discussed in the 2nd and 3rd sections. So of course there will be repetitions: first the existance of an opinion will be pointed out (in 1), and later it will be elaborated (in 2 and 3). This means that the repetition is functional: first we give the reader a general framework, and later we give details.

Also you seem to be afraid that certain repetitions will occur in sections 2 and 3, and you say that such is now already the case. Indeed if they exist now they will stay in the new structure and similarly if they don't exist now they will not be introduced. I don't see much of these repetitions you are referring to in the present article. Can you indicate them?

The events are separated also in my proposal, because they are in a separate article.

--JaapBoBo 01:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed structure 3

After reading Gatoclass's crticisms of "Proposed structure 2" written on 18:18, 27 October 2007, I've changed my mind about my support of that proposal. I remember a while ago JaapBoBo proposed something similar to "Proposed structure 2," but not exactly the same. I've made my own proposal based on JaapBoBo's earlier proposal with some of my own ideas mixed in ...

• Article #1: Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. [The lead would be more or less the same as in the current article.]
  • 1. The "Arab leaders' endorsement of flight" explanation - [2-3 paragraph summary of the section as it cuurently stands with a link to the new main article.]
  • 2. The Yishuv's motivation and policy regarding the Palestinian Arab population - [a link to the new main article]
    • 2.1. The "transfer idea" - [2-3 paragraph summary of the section as it currently stands]
    • 2.2. The "Master Plan" explanation [2-3 paragraph summary of the section as it currently stands]
    • 2.3. Yishuv use of psychological warfare - [2-3 paragraph summary of the section as it currently stands]
  • 3. Morris’s ‘Four Waves’ analysis - [the entire section as it currently stands]
    • 3.1 Causes of the first wave, December 1947 – March 1948
    • 3.2 Causes of the second wave, April – June 1948
    • 3.3 Causes of the third and fourth wave, July – October 1948 and October – November 1948
  • 4. Two-stage analysis - [the entire section as it currently stands]
    • 4.1 First Stage: The crumbling of Arab Palestinian social structure and justified Jewish military conduct
    • 4.2 Second Stage: Israeli army victories and expulsions
  • 5. Palestinian Arab fears - [the entire section as it currently stands]

• Article #2: Role of Arab leaders during the 1948 Palestinian exodus - [the entire EoF section as it currently appears in the "Causes of the ..." article]
  • 1. Claims that support that the flight was instigated by Arab leaders
  • 2. Claims by Arab sources that support that the flight was instigated by Arab leaders
  • 3. Criticisms of the "endorsement of flight" explanation
  • 4. Arab Evacuation Orders

• Article #3: Role of the Yishuv leaders during the 1948 Palestinian exodus - [the following sections]
  • 1. The "Transfer idea"
    • 1.1. Origins of the ‘Transfer Idea’
    • 1.2. The Peel Commission's plan and the Yishuv's reaction
    • 1.3. The ‘Transfer Idea’ during 1947 - 1949
    • 1.4. Criticisms of the ‘Transfer Idea’
  • 2. The "Master Plan" explanation - [note: "Preparation: Village files ..." section is not here because its relevance to the subject of the article is dubious]
    • 2.1. Yishuv aims
    • 2.2. Planning by Ben-Gurion and the ‘Consultancy’
    • 2.3. Role of the Yishuv's official decision-making bodies
    • 2.4. Descriptions of the exodus as caused by ethnic cleansing - [the section as it currently appears in the "Causes of the ..." article, but as a subsection under the "Master plan" heading]
    • 2.5. Criticisms of "Master Plan" explanation
  • 3. Yishuv use of psychological warfare
    • 3.1. Intimidation
    • 3.2. Whisper campaigns
    • 3.3. Broadcasts on radio and by loudspeaker vans
    • 3.4. Shelling of civilians
    • 3.5. Use of massacres

--GHcool 22:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty much my earlier proposal, but as in that I would prefer 'psychological warfare' to remain in the main article, as it refers to 'events as causes' similar to 4 waves, 2 stages and 'Arab fears'. Furthermore I think we should try to synthesize these four sections, or at least the 4 waves and 2 stages.

However, the other editors have rejected new 'Role of ... leaders' articles, so I don't think we should do this. --JaapBoBo 01:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to some of these ideas. --GHcool 07:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are the ( + ) and ( - ) I see

( -- ) They are today 2 main schools :

• "intentionalists" who see an intention in the events
• "circumstantialists" who see the events as a "normal" result of war given its context :::With this structure we would have an undue:weight concerning this issue (as in the current article). All the sections talk about intentions, nowhere the circumstantiatlis is explain.

( -- ) There is no context.

( -- ) The idea of having Morris's work as core of the article is not reflected in the structure. The direct causes should be gathered all together BEFORE the analysis because often people based their analysis on them (eg. Pappé also argue the use of psy warfare prove an intention...)

( - ) Morris analysis is cut at different place and is not introduced anawhere.

( - ) Gelber is given undue:weight

( - ) Arab fears is given even more undue:weight and is not at a proper place.

( - ) psych. warfare is given undue:weight. It should be summarized

( - ) structure doesn't reflect enough that arab leader is an "old fashioned" explanation and there is an *evolution*¨in the ideas. Everything seems set on the same level.

( ++ ) "intentionalist" thesis is not chronologically introduced but everything is gathered, which is "better" for its understanding.

( ++ ) Keep most of the current work as it is.

Alithien 10:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed structure #4

• Article #1: Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus.
  • 1. Context
    • 1.1 War
    • 1.2 Demographic outcome and transfer idea [only factual and short]
    • 1.3 Plan Daleth (with controversy around its contextual interpretation)
  • 2. Traditionnal explanation [old fashioned]
    • 2.1 Israeli historians
    • 2.2 Palestinian historians
  • 3. Direct causes (mainly based on Morris when he talks but all others if they are put forward by other historians
    • 3.1 1st wave
    • 3.2 2nd wave
    • 3.3 3rd and 4th waves
  • 4. Historiographic debate
    • 4.1 First critics of tradionnal versions [Childers - Flahan - Glazer]
    • 4.2 by design or by war ?
      • 4.2.1 Intentionalism [Demographic outcome + transfer idea + feeling of superiority + Plan Daleth + all I don't have in mind -> Master Plan + Ethnic cleansing]
      • 4.2.2 Critics of intentionalism [Demographic with immigration ; transfer = wish and not intention + ...]
      • 4.2.3 Circumstantialism [War conditions + long antagonism + difference in society strength + nationalism + mutual fears -> atrocities + exodus + expulsions]
      • 4.2.4 Critics of circumstantialism [...]
  • 5. Importance of the issue of the debate

What do you think about that ? Alithien 10:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

discussion with Gatoclass

Don't like it. Much prefer your original proposal, and I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what was wrong with it. Gatoclass 10:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

discussion with Nishidani

For my 2 cents'worth, I agree, with Gatoclass. I will admit I have great difficulty in following the thread that emerged from Alithien's first proposal, which has the virtues of Occam's razor.

(1) The page as it is will never meet quality standards, being utterly confused as a result of POV compromise-driven editing. (2) As a result of this history there is a good deal of natural uneasiness about radical changes which might upset the respective salients built up by opposing parties (3) The wariness over suggestions to restructure the article reflects diffidence built up by the earlier page's drafting (4) The probability is that the diffidence will translate into an endless discussion, equally futile, even if based on reciprocal good reasons, that will lead to the same stalemate evidenced by the page itself (5) Alithien's suggestion should be accepted in good faith: it is neutral, does not overdetermine what can be said, has the virtues of ordered clarity of exposition (6) When both sides are in more sh*t than Biggles, suspending mutual suspicions, and striking out on new ground, where the chances of confusion are reduced, as indicated by an experienced poster with a record (at least judging from my own experience, and we two disagree on fundamentals in some regard) for responsibility and an attentive ear to the judgements of others, constitutes an act of good faith, and builds up credit for all parties. (7) You will never get a perfect model. But testing one that is far superior to the existing one formally, will enable you to get out of the embarrassing impasse present at the moment, and may well provide editors with a bridge to a model superior to the first working one Alithien has provided. Nishidani 10:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

@Nashidani : thank you for your support. :-) Alithien 18:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

discussion with JaapBoBo

It's getting better, but still widely falling short. a) it requires a major rewriting of the article, b) two sections we have now (Transfer idea and master plan) would end up in one subsection (4.2). Besides I have some non-structure related criticism, c) only the initial Israely historians are old fashioned. The version of the Palestinians (Khalidi etc.) coincides with what you call 'intentionalism'; in line with this 4.1 should be '4.1 First critics of traditional Israeli version [Childers - Flapan - Glazer]', because they criticised this version, d) 'intentionalism' is not a good word. Morris supports intentionalism in various instances, for example he says the commanders during the fourth wave were clearly bent on expelling as many Palestinians as possible. Morris only denies an organised intention. --JaapBoBo 10:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you write

a) indeed

b) yes but not exactly -> transfer and plan daleth would be discussed in the context; only the "use of this as material" would be described in the unique section

c) yes but not exactly. The initial palestinian version has been also criticized : al little bit by Glazer, by Morris, by Gelber. More what distinguish Khalidi from Pappé is that Pappé give arguments where Khalidi had just his analysis of the Master plan. And Pappé doesn't say the same as Khalidi : in fact, his analysis is even more intentionalist than Khalidi's.

c') intentionalism is not from me. It is from fr:Henry Laurens who is the editor of the french version of Rogan, Shlaim "Palestine 1948, behind the myth, ..." and in fact, it is not from him either (see below)

c) first critics of israeli version indeed.

d) Intentionanlism has a precise meaning in historical studies : see : Functionalism versus intentionalism. With this definition, Morris is not intentionalist nor is he functionnalist in fact (but not far). There is a clear distinction between "major intentions" and "local acts"; between a decision of the authorities and between isolated acts... Pappé knows what he does when he introduces the (alleged - he will appreciate this word) consultancy. That is a pillar in his reasonning.

But I agree with you that Morris underlines the intention of local commanders (but names are not given by Morris only Yigal Yadin) to expel the palestinians. Gelber, eg, doesn't deny this but he goes less far than Morris in focusing more on "soldiers" expelling rather than commanders "expelling" where Pappé gives a precise list...

Does someone sees a structure that could fits all pov's ? Alithien 18:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

discussion with GHCool

I still like Proposed Structure #3 better than this one, but I would readily support this structure with a few reservations:

1. The "Context" sections looks POV. Plan Dalet and the transfer idea are given undue weight. I predict that the "War" section will become an overly POV fork which will include a blow by blow account of Arab-Jewish relations in 1947-1949. I know I would not be content with such a section if it didn't mention the genocidal intentions of the surrounding Arab countries against the Jews of Palestine and the Arab rejection of the UN plan. Although providing a context for the causes are important, I suggest we do away with this whole "Context" section and let readers read the relevant articles (namely United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, 1948 Arab-Israeli War, 1948 Palestinian exodus, and Plan Dalet) themselves.
2. I will not accept calling either of the traditional explanations "old fashioned." It is POV. Although we might not agree with them, many people and many historians accept these traditional explanations as the truth. Calling the traditional explanations "old fashioned" is like calling creationism "old fashioned" in the face of evolution. There are plenty of educated people who believe in creationism, and there are even plenty of people who believe in some kind of middle ground between strict creationism and strict evolution. The same can be said about the "traditional" and "new" views of the causes of the Palestinian exodus.
3. The "Importance of the issue of the debate" section seems redundant and would potentially fall under WP:Original research.

-GHcool 18:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi GHCool

1.

We cannot leave the reader without the context on such a topic !

Transfer idea is factual and Plan daleth also. These are major "factual" material used by Khalidi and Pappé. Of course, given Gelber states this clearly, it will be explained that Plan Daleth is considered not to be in the context by some.

Morris discuss much context issue in the Birth revisited.

WAR. here it must just be reminded that for some historians the context of war is important. Eg, in the Birth, Morris writes something such as "it cannot be reminded enough that these events took place during a war..."

Of course, this section is not there to remind all the events.

Concerning the genocidal intentions of arabs, this is not factual. It should appear in the "circumstantialist" thesis : the fears of jewish to be extermined hardened their heart and they acted hardly with Palestinians due to that. So thinks Gelber concerning the massacres that took place during operation Hiram where most soldiers where not sabras but survivors of the Holocaust and jewish "propaganda" had drew a link : "arab = nazi". True or not, they where indeed convinced of that. But this is not factual that arab were genocidars.

2.

I don't want to call them "old-fashined". That was just to underline that I only wanted to gather their the initial explanations no historian believes any more.

Even karsh doens't claim that schechtman was right of that arab are responsible. I am sorry but if we can talk about geocentrism by historical interest for the Galilee's trial, we consider today the earth turns around the sun.

3.

Issue is orignal research ? Well... If we don't have sourced material that underline the consequence of the issue of this debate, it will be original reasearch; if we have some, it will not be original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alithien (talk • contribs) 18:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

1. There is no doubt in my mind and in the mind of many, many serious historians that had the Arabs won the 1948 war, the result would have been the genocide of hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of Jews. The only reason it cannot be proven is because history didn't happen that way. The genocidal intentions of the Arabs is just as well documented as the transfer idea of the Zionists. I agree that context is important, but there are already plenty of other articles discussing the context. If there is a context section, I would insert the genocidal intentions of the Arabs, or at least the very real fear the Zionists felt of such intentions, into the section as well as the Arab rejection of the UN partitian plan.
2. Now that you've clarified what you meant about the traditional views, I suppose I agree.
3. I didn't say that "Importance of the issue of the debate" was original research. I said it could potentially be original research. Of course, if there were reliable sources cited that talked about the importance of the issue of the debate, that would be acceptable, but it seems like beating a dead horse. Clearly if people are debating this, it must be important, at least to some people, right? Other debates listed on Wikipedia (such as the creation-evolution debate) don't have a section talking about why the debate is important. I'm not so much against this section as I am skeptical that it will be valuable information to somebody reading it. --GHcool 22:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello GHcool,

1. I think the genocidar intentions are not so well documented. There were some declarations on the radio. But Indeed, it is often/sometimes put forward that Yishuv feared (legitimely or not, it doesn't matter) to be "eradicated" and that this explains the events. That would not be a direct but an indirect cause. I had in mind it could be discussed this in the circumstancialists analysis.

We could cut context into 2 parts : what is "widely admitted" (in the context section) and what is sometimes used as argument (in the intentionalist and circumstantialist analysis).

2. There are much material about that. To summarize this : the one who will be considered responsible of the events will have to pay the bill during the negociations that will end the palestinian-israeli conflict.

Alithien 07:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Descriptions of the exodus as caused by ethnic cleansing"

This section is so clearly intended to smear the Yishuv that it's not even funny. Describing the exodus as ethnic cleansing does not clarify what caused it. What would one imply if one said that the Palestinian exodus was caused by ethnic cleansing? Note: I am not saying this is the case; I am merely giving a hypothetical. One would mean that its inhabitants were expelled, intimidated into flight, massacred, persecuted, uprooted and mistreated to the point of being compelled to flee. All of these explanations are already in the article as possibilities. This section offers absolutely no new explanation, only a conclusion of what all these explanations mean. This is synthesis of material and is intended to deduce a POV, rather than inform the reader.

That is why I have removed this section.

I will also note that since this section was not added with consensus, it will require a consensus to add it, not to remove it. Screen stalker 18:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure it is a good idea. :-(

Again, I suggest we stop editing this article and ask a administrator to block this during the time we work on its evolution.

Editing this and arguing with others'edits is just waste of time and energy and will upset everybody.

Alithien 19:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

While I probably wouldn't have removed the section wholesale, I agree with Screen stalker to the extent that there is a huge difference between a cause of an event and a description of an event. To put it in a less emotionally charged context, I can say that a hitting billiard ball with pool cue caused a chain reaction leading to a scattering of the other billiard balls on the pool table, but describing the scattering would be irrelevant to a discussion of what caused the scattering. --GHcool 22:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Screenstalker, you are right when you say One would mean that its inhabitants were expelled, intimidated into flight, massacred, persecuted, uprooted and mistreated to the point of being compelled to flee., because this is exactly what people like Khalidi and Pappe mean.

The section should remain, because it describes the events that caused the exodus in another way than they are described by Morris and Gelber. This pov is just as valid as that of Morris and Gelber.

If you don't agree with the title of the section you are welcome to suggest alternatives. But, as you formulated the meaning of the term 'ethnic cleansing' so well, it does say a lot about the causes as it reveals an intention on the side of the perpetrator.

Also the Ýishuv aims should stay. What is a 'Master Plan' without an aim? If Pappé finds this (part of) a valid argument to explain the causes of the exodus, who are you to remove it?

--JaapBoBo 23:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo, you are opening a Pandora's box. If every cause that may have led the Yishuv to allegedly foster an exodus is on the table, that the ethnic cleasing of Jews by Arabs must be allowed as well.

Also, JaapBoBo, please review my comment regarding the Causes of the Great Depression in the discussion about Yishuv aims.

GHcool, thank you for articulating this issue so well. I did not want to delete this section in wholesale. Last time, I simply moved it around, by my edit was reverted and so I didn't want to go through that trouble again just to be reverted again.

One more thing... It's not the title of the section that I object to, but inserting a description of the exodus (and a poor one at that) in an article that is about its causes. Screen stalker 12:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think you are discussing about an issue that will be automatically solved if we find the appropriate structure for this article ?

More, if I am right, the material you discuss (about description as ethnic cleansing) is in none of the structures suggested but will be apart "only" of a paragraph. Alithien 13:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Alithien, I must confess that I have not yet read the discussion regarding the redivision of the article. But no matter how this article will be divided, there will always be a dispute over its content. In this particular case, there will be a dispute between those who want to insert conclusions as to the nature of the exodus and those who want to keep the article topical to the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. Screen stalker 20:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, since we don't have consensus, let's continue discussion before adding in this section. Screen stalker 21:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The only real objection I can see to using "ethnic cleansing" as a description of this event is that the phrase was first used in the 1990s in reference to Bosnia. However, I'd personally prefer to carry on calling it "transfer" when refering to Israel, since it's a current topic and that's how modern day Israelis speak of it when they say they want more.

I see only the same, fairly minor, objection to calling the loss of nearly all ME Jews as "ethnic cleansing". But it hardly belongs in this article, and in places such as Morocco and Iraq it was largely carried out by supporters of Israel (or, I should say, lots of good evidence from Israeli or Israeli-supporting sources to say this). PR^talk 09:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't really buy that Israel's supporters caused Arab Jews to flee Arab lands, do you?

Also, I'm not really talking about that ethnic cleansing, but about the ethnic cleansing of Jews within Palestine/Israel. Surely this brutal butchering and carnage was a cause that explained certain cases of expulsion (for example, not wanting Lydda to remain behind your lines and capable of doing you a good deal of damage). All of this would have to be included if one decided to include allegations of Jewish ethnic cleansing against Palestinians. In fact, Schechtman's quotation that you so hate would have to be included as well. Screen stalker 23:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

PS - we don't have consensus on this yet, so I ask that whoever has been adding this section back please stop.

The section is long in, and you jave offered no arguments in the line of Wikipedia policy to remove it. --JaapBoBo 20:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that something strange is going on here indeed. It is certainly odd to remove well-documented sections and subsequently tell others not to put them back in before 'a consensus' is reached. Some give the impression here that they wish to remove anything which may be unpleasant for official Israel. It is understandable that fervent Israel supporters are inclined to do so, but let them please realize that many facts are given in Wikipedia which are not pleasant for fervent supporters of the Palestinian cause either. Facts are facts, and the thorough documentation given by Ilan Pappe certainly should have its place in this article. Paul kuiper NL 21:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This section wasn't long in by the time it was first removed. It is only long in if you ignore the arguments against it. You can't claim consensus for an addition when none was achieved, then require consensus for an item's removal. Add the information in some other section if you wish (as a temporary fix), but please don't add this back until we achieve consensus.

Paul, I appreciate your hypothesis, but let's talk about the real issue here: this is completely non-topical, even if it is sourced (regardless of the lack of quality of the source). Read the whole discussion, and you'll see why I object to its inclusion. Screen stalker 14:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Lets leave it as it was (i.e. in) during the discussion.

It seems that you are the only one wanting it out. What happened during the exodus falls well within the limits of ethnic cleansing, certainly according to the pov's of these sources. --JaapBoBo 23:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am a little disappointed that Screen stalker simply deleted it without suggesting a viable alternative that would be less problematic. The only section I believe should be deleted completely is the "Use of massacres" section since it is really just relaying two quotes from two relative unknowns talking about something out of context. --GHcool 05:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

These two quotes are from a reliable source (Journal of Palestine Studies) and I don't agree they are out of context. --JaapBoBo 21:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, allow me to explain why I deleted the section: the first time I edited it, I simply moved its content around. But after that was reverted, I figured that there are editors who want its content desperately enough that they will certainly figure out another place to put it.

As for the argument that this section was long in before I deleted it, consider the fact that it existed as the "Execution of Ethnic Cleansing" section for a grand total of one day before GHcool tagged it for relevance... which reminds me that I should do that before I delete it so that any revert will include that tag. From this I conclude that he does not believe it is relevant, which further strengthens my point that there is no consensus for this addition.

So, inkeeping with wikipedia policies, kindly do not add this section again until we have consensus. Screen stalker 21:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I am going to delete the "Use of Massacres" section until there is more credible evidence. I understand that people from the Center for Palestine Studies aren't just quacks, but there has to be some proof that this was the intent of the Yishuv in those instances in which it killed Palestinian civilians. Pape isn't really saying that that was the intent of the massacre at Deir Yassin. All he is saying is that it would make sense that that would have been the goal. That is hardly hard evidence.

Whether or not the Yishuv intended massacres as a way to persuade the Arabs of Israel to leave is irrelevant to the discussion as it is (because it is clear that these were a cause of fear which contributed to the flight). All the more so if there is no evidence from a source with insight into Yishuv goals which said that this was their objective. Screen stalker 21:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not only that the Yishuv (or at least the terrorist part of it) intended massacres as a way to persuade the Palestinians to leave, but also the exploitation of these massacres, by the Yishuv, in psychological warfare. Both are relevant and should be in the article.

Furthermore Flapan confirms this. --JaapBoBo 21:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

@Screen stalker, stop the vandalism, please! You are obviously removing all facts which are not welcome in your one-sided pro-Israeli view, and this amounts to political censorship. Completely at odds with Wikipedia's policies.

@JaapBoBo, I admire your well-documented work, but would it be possible for you to make more edits at the same time? Fifteen separate edits in two hours make the history of this article complicated and somewhat hard to follow. Thanks for your good work anyway! Paul kuiper NL 23:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll try next time, this time it went just this way. --JaapBoBo 23:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Laurens

I would like to synthesize LAurens analysis:

Globally he also considers that the 'intentionnalism' thesis is untenable in the global context of the events and lack historical methodology. He emphasizes that if the events the 'intentionnalists' put forward are true, they are mainly gathered because they have an a priori reading of the events. To comply with their analysis, the protagonists should have had a global consciouness of all the consequences of the project they promoted. Laurens considers that this "complot theory", on such a long period of time, could not have been planned, even by a Ben Gurion. In an 'intentionalist' approach, he claims, events must be read without a priori and each action must be considered without assuming it will lead to where we know a posteriori it lead but it must be considered in its context and in taking into account where the actor thought it would lead. With this appropriate approach, Laurens considers that the documentation gathered by Morris gives another picture to the events where the mutual fears of Arabs and Jewish in the other side intentions (Arabs feared to be expelled by Zionists and fought zionism because of that while zionists feared arab would prevent them by force to build their state and so make all they can to win the war, which produced the exodus) and in the fact that Palestine was not able to absorb both populations (he describes the situation as a Zero-sum conflict) lead to the exodus.

To:

Laurens also criticises the 'lack of historical methodology' in the analysis of the 'intentionalists'. Laurens says that this "complot theory", on such a long period of time, could not have been planned, even by a Ben Gurion. He also says that an appropriate analysis of the documentation gathered by Morris shows that the exodus was caused by Arabs fears of being expelled, by Zionist fears of being prevented by Arab use of force to build their state and by the fact that Palestine was not able to absorb both populations.

I think the first text is needlessly unclear. The second text is an accurate summary of the first. --JaapBoBo 09:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No. The second text is not an accurate summary of the 1st.

But what is unclear could be improved.

Alithien 09:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Lets split it into three :

(...)

Can you indicate what is not accurate and should be improved? --JaapBoBo 09:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the complaint. The paragaph is perfectly clear to me and would suffer a loss of clarity if it is summarized further. For this reason, I object to any abridgement. --GHcool 18:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

split 1

• Globally he also considers that the 'intentionnalism' thesis is untenable in the global context of the events and lack historical methodology. He emphasizes that if the events the 'intentionnalists' put forward are true, they are mainly gathered because they have an a priori reading of the events. To comply with their analysis, the protagonists should have had a global consciouness of all the consequences of the project they promoted. [...] In an 'intentionalist' approach, he claims, events must be read without a priori and each action must be considered without assuming it will lead to where we know a posteriori it lead but it must be considered in its context and in taking into account where the actor thought it would lead.

can be synthesised as

• Laurens also criticises the 'lack of historical methodology' in the analysis of the 'intentionalists', saying their conclusions follow from an 'a priori' reading of the events. (although textually I don't like the last part of this line)

This is not good because the text is already a synthesis of Laurens. In fact, it should be expended to be more clear.

What lacks in you summary of the synthesis is the arguments Laurens put forward ie : the fact that protagonists do not know by advance, on a 30 years period, what will happen and that they cannot guess the protagonists expected each of their action to lead to what occured.

Are you saying Laurens claims that 'intentionalists' say that the master plan was hatched 30 years in advance?? --JaapBoBo 10:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No. I will expand this to make it more clear. Alithien 11:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

split 2

• Laurens considers that this "complot theory", on such a long period of time, could not have been planned, even by a Ben Gurion.

can be synthesised as

• Laurens says that this "complot theory", on such a long period of time, could not have been planned, even by a Ben Gurion.

Because what you write is a synthesis ?

I will develop this to show why he considers this and not just "say" this.

This is in fact based on the way Pappé, Finkelstein and Morris picture Ben Gurion.

'consider' is also fine with me, if you insist. --JaapBoBo 10:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Why must this sentence be in the middle of Laurens critics on the 'lack of historical method'? --JaapBoBo 10:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Because he claims that in the middle of his cricts about the intentionalist analysis. Alithien 10:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

split 3

• Laurens considers that with an appropriate approach, the documentation gathered by Morris gives another picture to the events where the mutual fears of Arabs and Jewish in the other side intentions (Arabs feared to be expelled by Zionists and fought zionism because of that while zionists feared arab would prevent them by force to build their state and so make all they can to win the war, which produced the exodus) and in the fact that Palestine was not able to absorb both populations (he describes the situation as a Zero-sum conflict) lead to the exodus.

can be synthesised as

• He also says that an appropriate analysis of the documentation gathered by Morris shows that the exodus was caused by Arabs fears of being expelled, by Zionist fears of being prevented by Arab use of force to build their state and by the fact that Palestine was not able to absorb both populations.

He can write argue.

At the exception of a few words, that is already what is in the article, with the details put in note.

Alithien 10:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If these are essentially equal, why do you revert my version. It is shorter, without half of the argument in the 'ref' and it has less spelling and style errors. --JaapBoBo 11:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Because the difference is in a note that you systematically revert.

You already did it 2 times. You can do it 1 times again.

Regards, Alithien 11:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of traditionnal positions

This extra paragraph should not be where it is now.

In a 1958 publication, Don Peretz rejected both the Israeli and Palestinian explanations of the exodus. Peretz suggested that the exodus could be attributed to "deeper social causes of upheaval within the Palestine Arab community" such as the breakdown of all governing structures. According to him, "The community became easy prey to rumor and exaggerated atrocity stories. The psychological preparation for mass flight was complete. The hysteria fed upon the growing number of Jewish military victories. With most Arab leaders then outside the country, British officials no longer in evidence, and the disappearance of the Arab press, there remained no authoritative voice to inspire confidence among the Arab masses and to check their flight. As might be expected in such circumstances, the flight gathered momentum until it carried away nearly the whole of the Palestine Arab community"[6]

Reasons:

• in an ' outline of the historical debate' we should avoid giving the particular position of one observer. This should only be done if the position is typical for a 'school'.
• It is a pro-Israeli explanation, similar to Schechtman's fear psychosis.

It would be better placed in the 'fear' section. --JaapBoBo 10:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Don Peretz would give a position similar to Schechtman :-))))))

You have just dot the i on the fact you are unable to read scholar comments not being influenced by your own bias.

Note too that with your argumentation Glazer considerations must be removed (he just wrote a PhD on the topic) and then disapperead. So, he is not part of any school.

Alithien 10:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Alithien, please think before you put forward an argument.

• Don Peretz calls 'hysteria' the main reason of the exodus. Schechtman says a large part of the exodus was caused by a phenomenon which he calls The Fear Psychosis. I think it's your bias that makes you think the pov's are not similar. Schechtman did add though that the Palestinian fears stemmed from their imagination of Zionist cruelty.
• Glazer is the reliable source that summarises the positions. Note that I am not putting Glazers opinion on the 'schools' in, but just his description of them.

--JaapBoBo 10:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Given who is that man, that just proves this is your and Pedro interpretation of the word "hysteria" that is not correct. What else could be concluded ?

You are right Glazer is not a school but Glazer refers to Childers who is not a scholl and the critics of Schechtman are from Childers.

Alithien 11:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The way the paragraph is worded makes it less a proposal of or support for any one theory, but a denial of both traditional theories. Thus, it belongs in the "Criticism of traditionnal positions" section, but it could be mentioned in the "Palestinian Arab fears" section as well.

Also, I think JaapBoBo realizes now that Schechtman's words really isn't hate-mongering or anything else out of the ordinary in terms of scholarly analysis of the causes of the Palestinian exodus. I prefer Peretz's diction to Schechtman's (referring to mass "hysteria" rather than "psychosis"), but they're really saying the same verifiable, valid thing that cannot honestly be discredited as ignorance or "hate speech." This is what I've been saying all along. --GHcool 18:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

@GHcool: Like I said, there is a similarity, but there is also a difference: Schechtman villifies the Palestinians, Peretz does not. --JaapBoBo 08:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You deleted Glazer.

I reverted. Alithien 13:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I put it back in. However I don't think the remark adds much. Given the two opposite schools its rather logical.

Globally, in his paper of 1981, Glazer thinks that "both Palestinians and Israeli spokesmen and adherents have sought to link the events of 1948 with their claims to the land today". He claims that "[one] fundamental problem[] [of the subject] [is to deal] with historians who are overtly biased" and try to identify the factors that influence this.

--JaapBoBo 14:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Minor povs" in the "Initial positions and criticisms" subsection

JaapBoBo suggested in an edit summary, correctly in my view, to "keep the outline an outline, i.e. without complete descriptions of minor pov's."[6] The attitude is a noble one, but the implementation deserves more discussion. JaapBoBo's edit excludes Peretz's and Gabbay's critical analysis from the "Initial positions and criticisms" while keeping Glazer's. The edit is arbitrary at best and presents a double standard at worst. I did not revert JaapBoBo's edit, but I did follow the logic of JaapBoBo's edit summary to its conclusion with this edit. I hope everybody here can agree that this is fair. --GHcool 19:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

@GHcool: I did replace the Gabbay and Peretz position with an adequate summary, i.e. I did not remove it. GHcool however wants to remove the complete Childers research on the radio braodcasts. This seems to me unfair. It refutes a Zionist claim that is also in the outline. It is a very essential point in the pre-New Historians discussion. It should remain in. --JaapBoBo 22:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not understanding something. It seems to me that the paragraph belongs in the "Criticisms of the 'endorsement of flight' explanation" subsection under the main EoF section. Isn't this new "Criticism" section essentially inviting criticisms of the EoF? If not, what purpose does it serve? Shall I add a "Criticism" section within the "Palestinian and Arab position" section with information that could equally be used in the "Criticisms of "Master Plan" explanation" subsection? --GHcool 23:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I also think you're not understanding something. Childers' research is not criticism, he demonstrates that the whole radio broadcasts story is provably false. I think the more pertinent question is: Why do we have something in an encyclopedic article that was proven to be false? If it is only there only for the sake of historical record (i.e. listing historical arguments), then we should also clearly state that it has been proven false. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 06.11.2007 11:43

I accept your argument. Seeing that, as Pedro Gonnet says, Childers' research implies more than just criticism, and seeing that there already is a section devoted to criticism and refutations of the EoF theory, I've deleted the criticism section while keeping a reference to Childers' research in a footnote so as to not upstage the Israeli position in the Israeli position section. I feel that this is a fair compromise. --GHcool 18:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The refutation should be in, because it is important for the 'outline of the debate'. --JaapBoBo 20:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Its unfortunate that you feel this way. I see I'll have to add a "Criticism" section to the Palestinian historiography. I'll do it as soon as I get a chance. --GHcool 22:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

'I've deleted the criticism section while keeping a reference to Childers' research in a footnote so as to not upstage the Israeli position in the Israeli position section'. section.'GHcool

Which I translate as: 'If you're serious, don't work on this page'.

There is no such thing as a 'U.S.A.', 'U.S.S.R', 'German', 'Chinese', 'Japanese', 'Israeli', 'Patagonian' position, etc., in the writing of serious history. For the simple reason that history proper is the domain of scholars striving for objectivity, whereas 'national' perspectives invest the facts with a slant that favours a political pitch, and not the ascertainable truth, which is too complicated and devious to allow for the intellectual provincialism of party hacks intent on further a national cause. But of course, Wiki is about the politics of what facts can and can not be accepted, and therefore, prego Nishidani 22:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed User:Paul kuiper NL's edit. I approve of it. I consider the matter closed (unless Paul kuiper NL's version is reverted or otherwise tampered with). --GHcool 02:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I also like this solution.

@Nishidani: I agree with your criticism of the titles, I'd rather have 'pro-Israeli view' and 'pro-Palestinian view' (or 'position' instead of 'view'). --JaapBoBo 23:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus#Initial positions and criticisms

The text under this heading reads:

“ In the first decades after the exodus two diametrically opposed schools of analysis could be distinguished. In the words of Erskine Childers: ‘Israel claims that the Arabs left because they were ordered to, and deliberately incited into panic, by their own leaders who wanted the field cleared for the 1948 war’, while ‘The Arabs charge that their people were evicted at bayonet-point and by panic deliberately incited by the Zionists.’ ”

Isn't it a bit disingenuous to quote Childers on the "Israeli position" when he in fact demonstrated that it was all hock and bollocks? If nobody objects, I will rephrase the paragraph. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 07.11.2007 09:10

I don't think its disingenuous. Childers accurately summarized the "traditional" Israeli position. If Karsh accurately summaized the "traditional" Arab position, I wouldn't find it disengenuous to quote that either. I don't strongly disapprove rewording the sentence, but I don't see anything wrong with it as it currently stands. --GHcool 22:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree (for the second time today!) with GHcool. --JaapBoBo 23:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

@ Pedro Gonnet, please explain what exactly you find 'disingenuous' about it, and what alternative you propose. Thanks. Paul kuiper NL 23:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

@JaapBoBo, I'll bet we would probably agree on most things. You strike me as someone who is moderate and genuinely trying to make the article better. I'll bet that if I were the prime minister of Israel and you were the president of the PA in 2000-2001, there would already be an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel and the Intifada would have been avoided. --GHcool 01:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean you'd allow the residents of al-Faluja back to their homes? PR^talk 09:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Nur Masalha

I've never heard of Nur Masalha, the new source we have in the article. A quick Google search brings up propoganda pages from PalestineRemembered.com and ElectronicIntifada.net, links to buy his book, and a very mild review from the more established historian Avi Shlaim.[7] Could somebody provide an argument here that Masalha is a credible, reliable, and notable source on the Palestinian exodus? I am not saying he isn't credible, reliable, or notable. All I'm saying is that I have never heard of him and am interested to find out more. --GHcool 05:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Masalha is the currently most recognised Palestinian scholar. He wrote a book about the transfer idea after Morris Birth and he is quoted in Morris Birth revisited. He also wrote at least one paper criticising Morris's work. I wrote an email where Prof. Yoav Gelber, who doesn't share his mind recognized his scholarship and the interest in debatting with him. I think he is a "good" representative of the current palestinian scholars pov on the matter.

Alithien 16:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Alithien. Masalha is a conscientious academic. I think he is an Israeli Palestinian, judging by his mastery of Hebrew and his research in CZA etc... --JaapBoBo 23:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)