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)

In addition, there's a very serious distortion here - the Peel Commission's suggestion (coming about because Palestinians refused to speak to it) were the only (and immediately overturned) proposal from "the British" that there should be a partition and "Transfer" (c. 225,000 natives vs 1,000? or so immigrants). Including it in the discussion in this fashion turns the article into pro-Israel propaganda. PR^talk 09:27, 13 November 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)

If we stuck to reporting what the sources actually say (and on this occasion, we can and perhaps should include those expressing hatred) we'd not have one tenth of the problems we seem to have in this article and others.

In the meantime, we know for sure that the Zionists argued for ethnic cleansing. In 1937 David Ben-Gurion was boasting to the Zionist Congress of having carried it out. The geocities site quotes people back to 1895 - and others (Morris has examples) were proposing it at least 13 years earlier again. PR^talk 09:19, 13 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)

I'm sorry. I don't understand what you mean. Could you rephrase? Screen stalker 13:44, 15 November 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)

Paul, your string of personal attacks is not only unjustified; it is also untrue. It isn't vandalism to refuse to allow content without consensus into an article. As for your allegation that I am "obviously removing all facts which are not welcome in your one-sided pro-Israeli view," again, this is untrue. I've explained why I have removed them. Also, I'll have you know that I am not a dogmatic pro-Israeli thinker. Although, by and large, I support the idea of democracy and human rights, I am quite willing to criticize Israel. In fact, the Syrian ambassador to the US has even thanked me for my great compassion towards the Palestinians (and that is a true story).

Now I'll admit that I've been party to my fair share of negative talk on this discussion, but we really should be trying to keep negativity about other editors at a bare minimum.

I look forward to working with you in the future to make this article better and more neutral. Understand that I don't want to make this article a piece of pro-Israeli propaganda, but I cannot accept it in its current state as a paragon of Arab smear against the Yishuv. Screen stalker 13:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The argument that the 5,000 plus bytes of Pappe's scholarship which is being deleted by ScreenStalker is not relevant to this article is rather unconvincing. Is there any policy-based reason for the non-inclusion of this material? Tiamut 19:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course there isn't. Screen stalker is just deleting all facts which do not fit in with his biased political views, in obvious violation of Wikipedia policies. Thanks to Pedro Gonnet for reinstating this. Paul kuiper NL 00:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Screen stalker - while we appreciate your telling us why you want this section out, rather than simply baldly removing it, I'm afraid you've presented almost nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT for so doing. The Nakba is clearlyl treated as "ethnic cleansing" by some historians and it's effectively vandalism to take the whole lot out, regardless of the quality and relevance of writing. PR^talk 08:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Listen to yourself: the quality of the source and the relevance of the material to the article don't matter? The only thing that matters is that "some historians" treat the exodus as being "ABC". So if I created a section "descriptions of the exodus as being a divine mandate" you wouldn't remove it?

Paul, try to avoid personal assaults please. I'm very much for presenting all sides of the issue, but not every quack who said anything ever needs to be included in every article ever. This article doesn't deal with descriptions of the exodus, just with its causes. There's plenty of reasons I think this material doesn't belong here (and it isn't that I don't like it). Do you have any reason for its inclusion other than that you like what it has to say? I mean, can't we agree that it has nothing to do with the causes of the Palestinian exodus? Screen stalker (talk) 23:32, 17 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."[5] 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.[6] 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 read 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)

Nur Masalha is a pretty well known author (except on Wikipedia, where s/he doesn't have an article). His/her book "Expulsion of the Palestinians: the concept of "transfer" in Zionist political thought, 1882-1948" is cited 18 times according to Google Scholar. "Expulsion of the Palestinians" 7 times, "Imperial Israel and the Palestinians: The Politics of Expansion" 7 times, "A Land Without a People: Israel, Transfer and the Palestinians, 1949-96" 7 times.

H/she is far better recognised than, for comparison, Joseph Schechtman, who wrote at least 21 books, but whose histories of ethnic cleansing are the most recognised by other authors (except he uses the Israeli word "Transfer" - this being his area of professional study and interest). His top book ("European Population Transfers, 1939-1945") according to Google Scholar reaches 9 cites, and the Israel books are a long way back: "Fighter and Prophet: The Vladimir Jabotinsky Story, the Last Years." cited 3 times, "History of the Revisionist Movement" cited 2 times. It would appear his 1949 pamphlets are quoted everywhere, but his Israel-specific writings are hardly rated atall by other authors. PR^talk 14:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Checking further, I notice that Norman Finkelstein is far better regarded by fellow authors than either of them. "The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering" gets 69 cites, "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict" is cited 26 times, "A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth"is cited by 11. Even the French translation of one of his books "A indústria do Holocausto" gets cited by 6.

Under these circumstances, can someone explain to me why Schechtman is in our article, but Finkelstein is out? The extensive discussion we had only a few weeks ago makes it clear we have pretty much over-whelming consensus for including Finkelstein. I propose he be put back in forthwith. PR^talk 09:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There is currently a mediation going on about this issue. ---- GHcool (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The matter is not for mediation. With an MA from Hebrew University, Jerusalem and a doctorate from London's SOAS, Nur Masalha, now Director of the Centre for Religion and History at St. Mary's College, Surrey University, does not need arbitration by rank amateurs to obtain a warrant for inclusion here. He gets on on the strength of his international reputation and academic record, punto e basta -- Nishidani (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I meant the Finkelstein matter is currently going through mediation. I've accept Masalha as a credible source ever since Alithien's response to my question. ---- GHcool (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need for mediation on Finkelstein, since we have a big consensus in favour of including him. With 69 citations for one of his works, and much other scholarship, he's massively better respected than Schechtman - who seems to have cheated in both his research and his writing. And to be "an extremist" by the definition currently available to us in WP:RS. PR^talk 19:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Morris' material in 'Yishuv Aims'

I have a few problems with this material, Morris[15][16] disagrees and suggests that the Yishuv's actions can be explained as follows: ... ... ... would have been more than questionable. put there by Screenstalker.

1. It is much too long, giving it undue weight. I hope Screenstalker will make a synthesis.
2. Maybe part of it should be in the 'transfer idea' section, ... I think that should be considered
3. It's not from an academic source, but rather from a blog and a forum, which makes it less reliable because e.g. it is less well referenced. Probably still acceptable, I think, but with these kinds of sources one should be careful. Anyway, if this is acceptable to Screenstalker he should have no problem with the 'ethnic cleansing' quote of Morris in a Haaretz interview, which I inserted at another spot.

If Screenstalker or somebody else is not making a synthesis, I will do it at my leisure. --JaapBoBo (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Next to these I have some problems with certain specific quotes

1. In Such a haven required space in which to settle the Jewish masses and an environment free of murderous Arabs Morris is implying that all Palestinians were murderous, which is a racist statement. Furthermore this supports the fact that the Yishuv had geographic and demographic aims.
2. The Yishuv's belief that the Palestinian exodus was the only means to avert its annihilation: also supports that the Yishuv had demographic aims. It gives the Zionists an extra reason for wanting to get rid of the Palestinians.

--JaapBoBo (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo, allow me to address your points in order:

1. I agree that this section is too long. I will make it shorter, along with the "Criticisms of the "endorsement of flight" explanation" section, which is many times longer.
2. This shouldn't go in the transfer section because it isn't evidence for transfer. It is simply an explanation of why the Yishuv would have been in a position to have benefited from the exodus, not a smoking gun proving that it participated in it.
3. Unfortunately, the original report in Ha'aretz has been deleted from its internet source. We could still site it, but people wouldn't be able to verify it's existence. I have a proposal: what if we referenced the blog and the news article? That way, people could review the whole text, and also there would be a credible source.

The two specific passages:

1. I don't read this as implying that all Arabs are murderous, simply that the exodus removed murderous Arabs (i.e. those Arabs who were murderous). Even if Morris was implying what you say he was, that wouldn't merit his removal. The "Yishuv Aims" section should aspire to get down to the bottom of Yishuv aims. The Yishuv certainly recognized that it stood to benefit from the removal of "murderous Arabs," as some Yishuv leaders might have called them. So this gives us insight into the Yishuv mindset.
2. "also supports that the Yishuv had demographic aims"Wouldn't that be an example of a possible Yishuv aim? Screen stalker (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If "murderous Arabs" is not racist, may we take it that "murderous Jews" is not anti-semitic? PR^talk 18:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

@ PR, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. You can't say that Morris is a racist source but still advocate him as the most credible scholarly source for this article. Screen stalker (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what you come up with (if you don't wait too long), but be advised that these Morris quotes are a double-edged knive.

Also I really would like better sources for this pov of Morris. If this is really academic stuff he should have mentioned it in at least one of his books. I don't recall that 'Yishuv safety' was really a discussion point in the Yishuv's transfer debate, or that any Zionist leader took the Arab rhetoric he is referring to as a serious threat. My point is that if this really was a serious concern of the Yishuv at that time, than there should be evidence for this, and since Morris specialises in collecting evidence on the exodus, he should have mentioned it somewhere in one his books. On the other hand, if it merely is speculation of Morris on what might have motivated the Yishuv, then this shouldn't be in the article. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that Morris wrote about this in one of his books. I simply don't know because I haven't read them, and I don't intend to. No offense to his work or anything, but I have much better things to do. There is certainly evidence that the Yishuv leadership of the time was concerned with the possibility of being destroyed by Arab attack, as all societies fear in times of wars that threaten their exitance. If ever such a war existed, it would be Israel's war of independence. There is much evidence to this effect, but I don't see any reason why we should turn to someone other than Morris. After all, PR and Pedro have gone to great lengths to try to assert his role as the the number one source on the exodus. Whether they've succeeded or not is another question, but here I find agreement with them that he should be included. Screen stalker (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The Yishuv was seriously concerned for its own safety. The Arabs in Jerusalem (and elsewhere) were arming beginning on the day of the UN partition vote in November 1947. Shortly after, the Mufti Mohammad Amin al-Husayni and his brother Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni started organizing the Arabs in the shooks of Jerusalem and elsewhere to shoot Jews on the roads to and from Jerusalem with the intent to "strangle" the city's Jewish population. Several volunteers from other countries (notably Syria) walked hundreds of miles to join the fight. Several terrorist attacks committed by Arabs took place during this period, the most notable of which was the Ben Yehuda Street Bombing in which 52 civilians and injured 123. Obviously, there were violent actions committed by the Yishuv as well. My point is that Palestine was not a safe place for Jews or Arabs. It was a war zone and both sides had a perfectly understandable concern for their own safety. --GHcool (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

@Screenstalker: Morris is indeed an expert on the exodus. Especially on the facts, but his analysis is poor, because it has a severe pro-Israeli bias, and his 'opinion articles' are (in my view) a mess. You say There is certainly evidence that the Yishuv leadership of the time was concerned with the possibility of being destroyed by Arab attack. Well, then it should be easy for you to find a reliable source for this, e.g. Morris in a (scientific) text with references? Maybe Alithien can help you...

@GHcool: of course a war zone is not save, but were the Yishuv leaders really concerned about the extinction of the Yishuv?

--JaapBoBo (talk) 10:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo, I've explained to you why I am not going to look for this information in printed material: I just don't have the time. If someone finds printed material to this effect, they are more than welcome to add it. But, for now, I am content simply acknowledging that an author whose credentials every editor save GHcool and me (and perhaps a few more whom I cannot remember) has trumpeted as the most reliable source on the issue says they are true.

I don't like this cherry-picking of facts, where if Morris is used as a source to prove that the Yishuv did bad things then he is unbiased, but if he is used as a source defending the Yishuv then he is a biased source. How is it biased to present the facts? Every source that talks about the aims of the Yishuv is, by definition, biased. Isn't Pappe biased for saying that the Yishuv engaged in ethnic cleansing? I'll remind you that you were a big supporter of having the Yishuv Aims section. This section cannot be composed only of people looking in from the outside and hypothesizing about what the Yishuv aimed to do. There must also be sources who explain what the Yishuv may have stood to benefit from the Palestinian exodus. Screen stalker (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

@JaapBoBo: Yes. The rhetoric of the Arab leaders in Palestine and abroad was genocidal "throw the Jews into the sea" type stuff. The experience with Hitler and the Holocaust quite understandably made the Jews of the Yishuv extremely sensative to genocide speech and they took these words absolutely at face value. It has been argued that the Arab leaders did not actually mean for anyone to take their words literally. I personally don't buy this argument, but even if the argument is correct, the Zionists of 1947-1948 could not have known that the Arabs weren't serious about their self-propogated genocidal aspirations, and thus, a strong fear of a "second Holocaust" at the hands of the Arabs was present in the Yishuv. --GHcool (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

1. I have only expressed my doubts over this New Republic article as a reliable source. I haven't rejected it, but have said it should be used with caution.
2. What exactly is the point of Morris? Is he denying an ethnic cleansing, or is he justifying it? At least he seems to do the latter. About the former he says: the awful idea of transfer was resurrected and pressed by Zionist leaders [in some circumstances]
3. As it is now the relative weight given to the povs of Pappe:Flapan:Morris is 5:8:25. I think Morris pov could be shorter.

--JaapBoBo (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Okay.
2. Morris does not in this particular instance talk about ethnic cleansing, but rather about Yishuv aims. So this question is moot. I think the answer is that he does not directly say that ethnic cleansing took place, but says that it would have been justified if it had.
3. I've already cut a lot, and I'll try to cut more, but I need you to give me an estimate of how much you think needs to be cut. Also, I ran a word count in Microsoft Word: Pappe and Flapan together are given 283 words, and Morris is given 593, a little more than twice as much. Yes, this is significantly more, but it's on the same order of magnitude. Do you think this is very much off-balance? Screen stalker (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Updated Morris word count: 547. Screen stalker (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Reason for Revert

I have removed the following passage:

There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing. That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them.

I have also reinstated Morris' opposition to calling the exodus ethnic cleansing, in light of the fact that the objection to it was that this paragraph undercut it.

Here is my reasons for removal: in this paragraph, Morris does not explicitly say that the Yishuv was party to ethnic cleansing. He is very careful in his choice of words, and it is my impression that he deliberately says that if the Yishuv were engaged in ethnic cleansing, that would have been justified, without saying that the Yishuv was engaged in ethnic cleansing.

You'll notice that he says that there are circumstances that justify ethnic cleansing, and also that he prefers it to genocide. He also says it would have been necessary to uproot the 700,000 Arab of Israel, but he never says that the Yishuv uprooted them, or that uprooting them would constitute ethnic cleansing. At most, he leaves that implied for the reader to understand. So to draw from this that he is saying that ethnic cleansing took place in Palestine is synthesis. If you can find a quotation where he outright says "the 1948 exodus was ethnic cleansing," then post it, and we'll debate it. Otherwise, exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Screen stalker (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Horrible. There is hardly any other word than vandalism or political censorhip for the way you are damaging this article, and keep harassing those who are sincerely trying to give honest accounts of facts. If you have read Morris' interview with Ha'aretz quoted here, you have seen that he states bluntly that the zionists commited ethnic cleansing, uprooting 700,000 Palestinians just for the sake of establishing a Jewish state. And he does not only condone it, he says even that Ben Gurion should have gone much further and should have "carried out a full expulsion and cleansed the whole country - the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River." (I.e. he advocates robbing a people of their entire country!)

I deeply resent the disingenous way you are denying obvious facts and trying to force sincere editors to give the same sources time and again. I will not go on repeating everything time and again, but for once I will take the trouble now to quote parts of te relevant interview here:

- So when the commanders of Operation Dani are standing there and observing the long and terrible column of the 50,000 people expelled from Lod walking eastward, you stand there with them? You justify them?

M: I definitely understand them. I understand their motives. I don’t think they felt any pangs of conscience, and in their place I wouldn’t have felt pangs of conscience. Without that act, they would not have won the war and the state would not have come into being.

- You do not condemn them morally?

M: No.

- They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.

M: There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing.

- And that was the situation in 1948?

M: That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.

I will reinstate the important quote that you destroyed, and remove your completely untrue claim that Morris says that the exodus was NOT 'ethnic cleansing' (whereas he says the very opposite as you know quite well). I expect that this will be respected. Do not go on with your vandalism, and do not force us to make a request that you will be blocked! Paul kuiper NL (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Paul. --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

@ Paul, you can request that I be blocked if you want. Your threats really don't scare me. I am not engaged in vandalism, and I think you know that. If I were, I wouldn't post a "reason for revert" section. A single revert isn't even close to vandalism. When I read the interview as you post it here, I am slightly more inclined to believe that Morris implied the possibility of ethnic cleansing in Palestine. Nonetheless, he stops short of altogether acknowledging it. I will change the wording accordingly, and I hope that you will not find it too objectionable. But if you do, you can be sure we'll continue discussion.

Thank you, Paul, for working to make this article better. I certainly appreicate the contribution of all editors to an issue of such great importance.

@ JaapBoBo, I would like some clarification here: when you say that you agree with Paul, do you agree with him that this paragraph should be reinstated, or do you agree that its deletion was vandalism? Screen stalker (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, I explained my reason for changing the wording poorly last time, as Paul has changed it back. Here is the crux of what I am saying: one might very well deduce from what Morris is saying that the Yishuv ethnically cleansed Palestine in 1948, but he never explicitly says so. So to say that "Morris calls the Palestinian exodus of 1948 an 'ethnic cleansing'" draws a conclusion from his words that isn't exactly there, which is a perfect example of synthesis.

I will say again: if you find a quotation wherein Morris acknowledges that the 1948 Palestinian exodus was a case of ethnic cleansing in so many words, then we can go ahead and discuss it. Until then, all we have is the interviewer saying that the Yishuv engaged in ethnic cleansing, and Morris saying ethnic cleansing is sometimes justified. So he's responding to an accusation, not acknowledging it.

But maybe I'm overlooking something in here. Could someone please tell me specifically in what part of the interview Morris calls the exodus ethnic cleansing? Screen stalker (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried an interim solution whereby no preface to Morris' words is given, so that the reader may on his/her own decide what they mean. I agree with Pedro, who reverted this suggested solution, that compromise is not a valid way of writing articles (rather, the aim should always be to make the article the best we can make it). But I think this solution would be adequate at least during the course of this discussion, not because it is a compromise, but because it simply takes Morris' words at face value. We cannot agree as to what he means, so clearly this shows there is some room for discussion. If there is some room for discussion, perhaps we should not rush into concluding what he means, but rather talk it out.

Meantime, I will reiterate a question that I think is crucially important if this article is to say that Morris called the exodus "ethnic cleansing": where in this passage does he explicitly call it that? Throughout the paragraph he says that ethnic cleansing is sometimes justified and that it was necessary to uproot the Palestinians. He even says it was necessary to cleanse the Palestinians. But does he ever say that they were cleansed? There is a distinct difference between the two, and to conclude the latter from the former is clearly synthesis.

So I will say once more, because I have apparently not been sufficiently clear the first few times that I asked this. Maybe I am just careless in my reading of the passage, but I have found no part of the passage that explicitly calls the exodus "ethnic cleansing." So if someone who has found one could please help me find it as well, so that I can see why you believe Morris is herein calling the exodus ethnic cleansing, please point that portion out to me, along with a clarification (if necessary). If you need to find another quotation of his not from this interview, that's fine, too. We might consider quoting that in the article instead. And, just to clarify again (because I get the feeling that maybe I haven't made this clear enough) saying that ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians--or ethnic cleansing in general--would have been justified or necessary or anything else for that matter is not the same as saying it took place, just as saying "sometimes it is necessary to steal for your livelihood" is not an acknowledgment of theft.

So, one last time, just so I am crystal clear:

Where in the passage that appears earlier in the discussion does Morris explicitly say that the 1948 Palestinian exodus was ethnic cleansing?

I think it's fair to expect the other editors involved in this dispute to answer this question before they add the section in question back. Until the boxed question is answered to my satisfaction, I will be unconvinced that it indeed belongs in the article. Screen stalker (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You asked me this directly on my talk page here, and I answered here. I assume you didn't like my answer, so you just ignored it? I'm kind of offended that I took the time to answer and a day later you write here as if we've all been ignoring you. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 20.11.2007 13:38

Hallo Pedro, I will repeat here what I wrote on your talk page: Thanks for your constructive work. Please note that somewhat further in the above interview Morris says explicitly 'That was the situation in 1948'. And moreover he says that he has taken the word 'cleanse' from all the 1948 documents, and that it was the word that the Zionists used themselves. In other words, he is confirming 'ethnic cleansing' by the Zionist movement as explicitly as can be, it just could not be MORE explicit. It seems pointless to try to convince our stalker as he is obviously just trolling against better knowledge. But let us not permit ourselves to get confused.

Adding to this: I suspect that the strategy of the stalker is to ask the same questions over and over again in order to force us to waste our time in answering them time and again and thus to prevent us from doing useful work. Fortunately his falsehoods are obviously transparent. Therefore I suggest that we do not keep wasting our time by being drawn into pointless repetitions, but that we will just work together in removing his countless vandalist reverts, and furthermore concentrate on doing constructive work in giving honest and neutral accounts of facts. Thanks again. Paul kuiper NL (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Pedro Gonnet, Paul kuiper NL To underline the obvious, not that it will help in your battles, in discussing Tochnit Dalet (Plan D) governing the so-called Second Wave, Morris cites that plan's specific instruction, which contains the word 'cleanse' of clearing villages of their populations by expulsion, unless they (the villages) were to be destroyed.

In the conquest of villages in your area, you will determine - whether to cleanse or destroy them - in consultation with your Arab affairs advisers and HIS officers.'B Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited Cambridge UP, 2004 p.165

It is Morris' view that this was neither understood nor used by senior field officers as a blanket instruction for expulsion. In talking round evidence like this he often blows an argument in his general theory, since we have only his word for it, and the excessive repetition of the idea that no one understood the import of such orders, or realized the implications of what they were doing, or that strategy in the field was purely tactical and unrelated to political considerations (a naive distinction - war planning is never so neat) highlights the interpretative weaknesses of an otherwise brilliant piece of archival work.Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

@ Nishidani, I have edited the appearance of your post. I hope this is alright with you. Unless Morris says right after this quotation "this was ethnic cleansing" then the conclusion you are drawing is a textbook example of synthesis, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy.

@ Paul, please stop the personal attacks against me. I don't use that kind of talk against you, so please don't use it against me. There is room for civilized disagreement.

@ Paul & Pedro: the fact that Morris does not say "wait a minute, the exodus of 1948 wasn't ethnic cleansing" after the interviewer says that it was does not mean that he agrees. It simply means he is not refuting the interviewer's argument. That is a far cry from calling the exodus "ethnic cleansing."

"That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced." This could mean that Zionism faced the choice between ethnic cleansing and genocide. It could mean Zionism faced circumstances that justified ethnic cleansing. It could mean any number of things other than what you draw from it, so it isn't at all an acknowledgment of ethnic cleansing.

If you want to avoid "pointless repetitions," be my guest. But its your responsibility as an editor to address concerns regarding the article, and if you don't involve yourself in the debate, then your point rightly deserves to be left out of the discussion.

Two last things (for now, of course): (1) I don't see why you are objecting to the interim proposal that we can consider while we discuss. What is wrong with saying "According to Morris:"? Isn't that a true statement? (2) If the meaning of Morris' words is as clear-cut as you say it is, why not simply quote it as "According to Morris:"? If, as you say, there is no question as to what he means and only a propagandist would think otherwise, why do you fear to simply refer to it without extrapolating a conclusion from it? Screen stalker (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Screen stalker What you say is nonsense, but that won't deter you. If Jewish documents of the period refer in Hebrew to 'cleansing' of a people (Palestinians) that entitles later historians to employ the word 'ethnic cleansing'. For the contemporary phrase corresponds to the language of the original documents. This is especially true of the present instance, where Morris is on record as referring, and he is our authority, to those events as an example of 'ethnic cleansing'. The synthesis is by Morris, by no one else, and is based on original documents. Morris's synthesis affords us a RS of a secondary kind, backed by specific primary documents. All we are supposed to do here is record the state of the play, and not interfere with the historical record by using cunctatorial tactics to weary those who are familiar, unlike yourself, with it.Nishidani (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani, thank you very much for your valuable comments.

Just for the record: this stalker's vandalist revert of today 14:25 was the SEVENTH time he destroyed the obviously correct statement in this article that Morris confirms the ethnic cleansing that took place. He seems to enjoy it. Paul kuiper NL (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There are several editors around here who appear to take on the function of 'stirrers', i.e., people who know little of the subject, harass the pages, attempt to engage other editors in wars and abusive exchanges, so that arbitration disputes can be raised, sanctions for revert-warring imposed etc. Most of what they argue or say is pure jabberwocky, as one of them with an egregious record for this tactical fouling of wiki put it the other day. Some of them work in tag-team efforts, evidently organized via email. It's quite interesting to observe. One has to deal with them mechanically, and wait for serious

editors, with intelligent, and intelligible objections, to come along. It's rather like correcting undergraduate papers with high school illiterate knowalls kibitzing over one's shoulder and trying to red pencil the corrections. They may annoy at times, but, taken in a comic spirit, it can enliven the boredom of factual redress of topics. The one rule is not to take them seriously. Nishidani (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)