Talk:Palestinian return to Israel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Palestine (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic :Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Israel (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Infiltration is a POV word. It implies a devious intent. Why then don't Israelis refer to Illegal Jewish migration to Palestine in the mid-forties as 'Jewish Infiltration'. The casting of Palestinians as "devious" is inconsistent with NPOV. -Sv

Hey, Sv! While I agree with your sentiment that infiltration is a loaded term, I do not like immigration either. An immigrant is usually someone who comes from one country and resettles in another country. In the case of the Palestinians, this is not the case. They were from the country, either fled or were expelled from it, and tried to return or at least to rescue abandoned property there. Furthermore, they were still living in what to them was the same country, albeit in a different region and under a different occupying power. Finally, in practically all instances they did not settle in their old homes--rather they remained refugees. In brief, I agree that infiltration is not the right word, but I don't think immigration is. Danny 01:48 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

Man, if I had a suggestion, I woulda put it in. ;-) It is a tough call. In general, it should be part of the larger Palestinian-Israeli complex of articles, so (and I will regret this as soon as I click Save) how about something like "Palestinian relations with Israel in the 1950s" or "Palestinian refugees' attempts to return home in the 1950s". Danny 01:59 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

LOL, I uberunderstand. Lets leave it as is, then. The "infiltration" article will be a redirect to here, and this page will be pruned for POV, keeping infiltration as a "common" reference. - later it can be mapped to the main article. You know that reminds me - of whats missing here, are maps- that show a schematic of related articles, in a relative heirarchy, it would be burly sofware if someone wrote it to fit the wiki. Be well. --Stevert

I dont know which term is correct because I'm not good enough at English. But Avi Shlaim himself uses the word "infiltration" to describe the "intrusions" Palestinians made in the 1950's. --BL

This page is about immigration and is a redirect from infiltration. There was significant amount of infiltration for various illegal purposes: theft of farm animals, theft of crops, murder and terrorism. Should we expand this article to include both or remove the redirect has note these other activities there. Please note this is per Benny Morris Israel's Border Wars 1949-1956. Thanks to Zero0000 for directing me to this book. OneVoice 12:46, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The title of this page is simply not appropriate, since "immigration" is only a small part of the topic. Personally I would prefer "infiltration" despite its nuances. Can we do better? What about "Israeli border crossing by Palestinians, 1948-1956"? 02:55, 16 Feb 2004 . . User:Zero0000 (suggest new name) (signature omitted)

Zero0000, I would prefer an "infiltration" page as well. Its the term that Benny Morris uses. We could, should I believe, have two pages: one for immigration and one for infiltration....better than tarring all the people with the same brush, why should we associate those engaged in activities such as family reunions, etc with those engaged in acts of theft and violence? OneVoice 14:27, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Righteous Victims p. 279: "Following the operation more Arab Legion battalions were deployed along the Israeli-Jordanian line to block infiltration (and to deter further IDF assaults). There was a sharp decline in infiltration in the immediate area of Qibya and, briefly, an overall reduction in incursions all along that frontier. But the Legion presence inevitably increased the frequency of confrontations with Israeli troops - during 1954, there were 145 such clashes, where there had been only 47 in 1953." BL 19:24, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

It is also possible to delete an article? This one seems a clear candidate. Under international law refugees have a right to return to their country of origin. To speak of 'theft' seems absurd, a person cannot steal what is already her property. This whole article seems to reflect an Israeli point of view ('infiltrations' and 'immigration', contradictions as these people were simply returning). I suggest elements of this article is included under other articles. Tiller1 23:23, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Restoring & Reorienting[edit]

I moved to have this article undeleted b/c despite some of the problems raised, it is unique in covering two things: migration of Palestinians back to Israel and particularly the forms that took 1948-1956. I would propose that we extend it to include all Palestinian migration inwards to Green Line-demarcated Israel (1948-67 boundaries, but covering the period since 1948). New sections would cover Israeli immigration law, refer to the right of return, etc. The primary reason I restored it however is that Palestinian infiltration now redirects to Palestinian political violence, while the overwhelming majority of Palestinian border crossers were either peacefully returning to their homes or engaged in apolitical activities. They should be covered here..--Carwil 15:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is this article focused solely on "infiltrations"? I hadn't seen it until today and have been developing an article on Palestinian fedayeen, where much of this material may be useful actually. However, I agree with Carwil that the issue of migration should not be coupled with infiltration to the exclusion of real issues surrounding migration as cogently outlined by him above. Tiamut 02:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Are there any objections to moving the material related to infiltrations and fedayeen to the article Palestinian fedayeen? Tiamut 02:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


Having only 2 sources, one of whom is Benny Morris (a zionist historian) is insufficient. The article is written childishly and in a slipshod, unacademic manner. (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this artilcle is not very professionally written, and could use some cleaning up. Take for example the words "During the first years, the Israel and Jordan tried to stop the return. However neither were successful in stopping it entirely (see below). Eventually, the Egyptian (fedayeen) morphed into new constellations, while Jordan managed to contain the border areas."

Morphed into what? a new constelation? did the author mean a satalite office? And how does Jordan "contain" border areas?

The artilcle does however give an understanding of the conflict that has been (as it seems in my eyes) going on for hundreds of years. Perhaps in this new age there will be a change. Mpau0516 (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Calling Benny Moris "a zionist historian" is almost cynical. Morris is better described as "anti-zionist". It makes little difference unless someone is thinking along the line of "if even the zionists admit so and so it must be correct". Bbeehvh 10:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

reverts by Nableezy[edit]

There is no original research in Nasser speech. It is specifically related to infiltration to Israel. It is properly attributed with credible source and even the topic of the source is in parallel with this article--Tritomex (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC).

You don't have a proper source. "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Middle East Conflicts" is a junk source. It is also Original Research to equate fedayeen activity to the topic of the page. Zerotalk 22:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I used Jewish virtual library which is used hundreds of times as reliable source in numerous Wikipedia articles. I used this source in proper attribution in the section which specifically relates to the fedayeen activity namely "1948-56: Border wars and "infiltration" and which entirety deals with fedayeen activity. However I can use Alan Dowty book "Israel/Palestine" with same quote P:110 [1] or Jerry A Gunor book "Let myx People go" P:232

or Beyond Guns and Steel: "A War Termination Strategy" By Dominic J. Caraccilo p 110 or at least 30 other different sources. I will restore my editions with this sources after 24h due to 1RR.--Tritomex (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The 1RR is not an entitlement to 1 revert every 24 hours. Edit-warring to restore material without consensus is still edit-warring, regardless of if you wait 1 day or 1 week between reverts. nableezy - 15:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I've replaced it with proper sources. This article itself discusses fedayeen activity, so I don't think an extra statement regarding fedayeen activity would be original research... Nasser was discussing infiltration into Israel in order to "cleanse" the land, which fits into the article at hand. As the main issue in the edit summary (which I saw before here) was the use of sources, I've changed the refs used. --Jethro B 00:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Gilbert's cartoon maps of the Israel-Palestine conflict is not a "proper source". It was rejected for use in historical articles last time it was brought to RSN [2] as "Non scholarly tertiary source." You are welcome to try again if you are not happy with that answer. But I think the main problem with your edit is that it is classic WP:COATRACKing. Dlv999 (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please provide reliable secondary sources that explicitly relate the returned quote to the topic of this article. Absent those sources I will again remove this as a straightforward violation of WP:SYNTH. nableezy - 15:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Nableezy You have the best possible sources given above, from well respected historians, and fully in the context of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2012‎ (UTC)
No, I dont. I have a source that has already been rejected at RS/N, and I have a bunch of sources for the quote. What I do not have is a reliable source relating that quote to the topic of this article. That is what is required, and without it I will be, once again, removing the quote. nableezy - 19:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
If you would read those sources you would realize that all of them are specifically referring to the cross/border infiltration and Israeli/Egyptian/Jordanian border war from 1948 to 1956 and that is the topic of that section.

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The return of Palestinian refugees to take up permanent residence in their homes, or alternatively, if their homes had been destroyed or occupied by Jewish immigrants[edit]

The jewish settlements started from a scratch so i dont think it's true. the new immigrants lived in tents untill houses were built. for a comic informative source look at "Salah Shabati" --Dor25 (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

it could NEVER be "destoryed by the immigrants". maybe a very small amount of houses were settled.

I think you are misreading it, as it is ambiguous. Some of the houses were destroyed, and some were occupied by Jewish immigrants. These things are true. It isn't intending to say that the immigrants did the destroying. Zerotalk 23:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

POV lead[edit]

Adding tag to the ridiculous lead that presents Palestinians as aliens. The words "refugees" "returning" "home" are completely missing (except for the obligatory title of the article in bold). No context for how the refugees came about to be refugees. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

What's POV here is the article title - which seems hasn't been discussed on the talk page. Note that the present article doesn't only address alleged refugees but also migrant workers and marriage leading family reunification (not all of whom are refugees) in post 1967. A more neutral POV and factually accurate title, is Palestinian migration to Israel, which would cover both illegal infiltration by aliens as well as Palestinian aliens migrating to work or obtaining Israeli status via family reunification.Icewhiz (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
What is lacking from the lead is a description that there was a systematic policy that was planned and implemented to prevent the return of expelled Palestinian refugees. It seems to me that this article was initially centered on this topic, but over the years it has been purposefully diluted and polluted with propaganda about Israel's generosity to let those workers in. I suspect that this worker crap is WP:SYNTH in an article about refugees. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)