Talk:Population transfer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Article Title ??[edit]

This title is an example of Political correctness and I don't think that's either necessary or appropriate for a topic as important as the forced and violent relocation of a population. At the least, the title should be Forced relocation. An item it the article titled Crimes against humanity lists this as "Deportation or forcible transfer of population", which is an often used phrase at the UN and ICC. (I linked that phrase to this article as the best internal reference I could find.) If their are no objections I would most content in this article to be moved to a new article title "Forced relocation and deportation" The few Population transfers that are not atrocious could then remain in this article. Abject Normality (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


See also: talk:transfer


"Population Gayness" Someone sabotaged it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Zero: here's a good reference[edit]

I just stubmled accross this page, and I have no knowledge of Wiki etiquette, so please forgive me if I am breaking some rules here. I just wanted to note that Tom Segev's book named "1949 the first Israelis" is a good source for transfer related discussions in the first Israeli Knesset. Oh, and just now I noticed that the discussion below is from 2003. Well, perhaps my remark will spark a new thrust for it..

15 April, 2006

Zero: Please provide cites for the following claims[edit]

  • Theodor Herzl supported some version of transfer.
  • Many individual members of the Knesset have supported transfer.
  • Statements by Moledet members have made it clear that involuntary transfer would be required if voluntary transfer could not be arranged.

Why use the complicated sentence "In recent years, explicit calls for transfer have rarely been an official part of the policies of Israeli political parties" (which implies that in previous years these calls were often made, or that in recent years they are often an unofficial policy of Israeli parties - both are false). Why not simply say that Transfer is advocated by (exactly) one Israeli political party - namely Moledet (as the article said before)?

Also, did you delete the sentence about transfer of Jewish population from Arab countries? It is central to understanding the argument of symmetry given by supporters of transfer of Arabs from Eretz Yisrael.

uriber 12:16, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'll answer all your questions here. A few will take a little time as I'll have to look in my books.

  1. I did not intend to remove the opinion on the transfer of Jews from Arab countries so I just put it back (but in a different place in the article).

  1. Herzl.
    The most well-known example appears in Herzl's diary (June 12 1895; see The complete diaries of Theodor Herzl, ed. R Patai, pp88-90). Extract: We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country. The property-owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.
  2. MK's supporting transfer.
    As well as members of the parties mentioned below, some have been Yosef Shapira, Mikhael Dekel (see [1]. I don't think it is possible to make a complete list. One I'd like to add is Ariel Sharon, but so far I don't have an explicit citation.
  3. Molodet statement.
    You can see a glimpse of what I mean on the Molodet web site. Although it speaks of "voluntary transfer", it sets conditions on those who remain and says "If the Arabs of Judea, Samaria & Gaza breach the terms of this plan, they will be expelled to their state on the other side of the Jordan River." This is in fact the standard formulation of "voluntary transfer" that Meir Kahane also advocated. Molodet leaders made stronger statements to the press from time to time; I'll try to find some.
  4. Here are some (historical or current) political parties who have advocated transfer in some form:
    * Fighter's Party
    * Kahane's party.
    * National Union (see )
    * Herut (see for the present party of that name; I'm not sure about the original one)
    * Tkuma (I'll find a citation)
    * Tehiya (see
    * Tsomet (in 1996 at least, see
    I think that is enough to prove the point, but I'll change the wording to make it more clear since I did not intend many of the implications you read into it.

-- zero 13:32, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the resources and the corrections you made.

  • MKs supporting transfer: Your source (from the late 80's, seemingly) does not really say that all the mentioned MKs supported transfer - it says that they were "joined in a lively and sustained debate over" it. In any event, I don't think this amounts to "many". Perhaps "some" would be a better word.
  • Political parties:
    • The "National Union" is a bloc containing Moledet. It cannot be counted as a separate "party".
    • Herut's site says "Encourage Palestinians and Israeli Arabs to immigrate to Arabic nations". I don't think this amounts to transfer.
    • Tehia did not support transfer - in spite of what the page you linked to says. That was the main differentiating factor between them an Moledet, as far as I can remember.
    • Tsomet, according to the page you gave, supported re-location of refugees in Arab countries. This is not the same as transfer.

Of all parties mentioned, only Moledet (as part of the National Union) is currently represented in the Knesset.

uriber 16:21, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

  • I can live with some MKs.
  • Of course you are right about National Union. I should have written Yisrael Beitenu, which is another part of National Union, along with Tkuma. Are all the current National Union MKs from Molodet? This doesn't appear to be so from the list at since many of the 7 National Union MKs are listed as members of previous Knessets under Tkuma or Yisrael Beitenu. If that is right, the article is not completely correct. I'll await your reply before changing it.
  • Concerning Herut, probably you know that the most recent candidate Marzel is about as extreme as they come, so I wouldn't put too much weight on the Herut website compared to the near-unanimous reporting about the party in the press. (Anyway, this party is not mentioned in the article so we don't need to agree on this.)
--zero 09:22, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)


I would like to move the concept of transfer (the first definition here) to the page population transfer. I would also like to move the discussion of population transfer in Israel/Palestine to a seperate page, though I am loathe to be the first to suggest what the title could be. DanKeshet

Moved as suggested. Good call. Martin 20:55, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There may be a difference which I cannot grasp between "population transfer" and "deportation". Anyone eager to tell me? Pfortuny 12:02, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You deport people, you transfer a people. Morwen 12:11, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)
population transfer is bi-directional. Hindus to one side, Muslims to the other. Greeks to one side, Turks to the other. ethnic cleansing and deportation are uni-directional. Hindus out! Juden raus! OneVoice 12:13, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Yeah, then I misread the article. Thanks for the promptness. Pfortuny 12:15, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Presumably, we can express opinions on the Talk page. If not, please tell me so Talk:OneVoice and delete this material. Population transfer is a acceptably horrible solution to an unacceptably horrible situation. It does not solve the underlying problems of hatred. It removes or lessens the opportunity to convert that hatred into action by removing the object of the hatred (typically an ethnic grouping) from the reach of the violent segment of a population. Once the violence/murders etc stop, the two sides can over time (perhaps generations) let go of the vengence mentality that often takes hold in these situations. How do we express this kind of idea in the Wikipedia? I dont know. OneVoice 12:46, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Greek-Turkish Population Transfer[edit]

I don't think the current discussion is entirely accurate. Many of the Greek refugees were not part of an orchestrated population transfer, but driven out as part of a violent campaign. Many were driven out from 1914-1922, and many more fled immediately following the Greek defeat at Smyrna in 1922. It is true that there was an orchestrated population transfer after this, but by that time there were already nearly a million Greek refugees who had been violently driven out: Smyrna was sacked, after all, not merely occupied. --Delirium 11:09, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)

This is merely one POV strongly influenced by Pan-Hellenist propaganda. First of all, referring to the liberation of Izmir four years after Greek occupation as "occupation" disrespects international law, by disregarding Treaty of Lausanne. Second, while the Greeks keenly believe that the famous fire in Izmir is caused by the Turks, there is no evidence on that and the facts are totally unclear. Moreover, there exist lots of news and commentaries in European media, particularly French, about the involvement of withdrawing Greek army in the fire. Such sources should also be read with care, since it is very well known that the Greek nationalism, despite being no less arrogant and violent than its Turkish counterpart, has a tradition of successfully showing their own provocations/crimes as that of Turks, which is voluntarily accepted as mere truth by most of western media and goverments (See for example a study that is independent/critical of Turkish official ideology, Taner Akcam, ""From Empire to Republic: Turkish Nationalism and the Armenian Genocide", [2]). This continues till this day. Here is the other side of the coin:
Prior to population transfer in 1922, after Greece won independence from Ottoman Empire, ethnic cleansing of Turks, muslims and other minorities had been carried out by Greece, as was the case in all of the Balkans. Paticularly, most of the predominantly muslim and jewish population of Selanik had to fled the country due to systematic provocations against themselves, including the burning of entire jewish quarter in 1917, which left 70000 people homeless. (Andrew Apostolou, review of Mark Mazower, "Salonica, City of Ghosts: Christians, Muslims, and Jews, 1430-1950", [3])
Several times during the century following the Greek War of Independence, Greece attacked Turkey - in 1877, 1897, 1912, and 1919, and each time a wholesale slaughter of the Muslim population took place. For example, when Greece invaded Crete in February 1897, the 80 Muslim villages in the centre of the island were entirely destroyed, and when Aydin was occupied by the Greeks in June 1919, nearly ten thousand Muslims were killed in one day alone.
But Muslims were not the only victims of Greek nationalism. Jews were too. Under Ottoman rule, the important seaport of Salonica had become a largely Jewish city. When it was occupied by Greece in 1912, its character rapidly changed, for the Greeks' policy of forced Hellenization caused an exodus of Jews from the city. As the article "Salonika" in the Encyclopedia Judaica informs us, this anti-Semitic attitude reached its peak in the so-called "Campbell Riots," in which an entire Jewish neighbourhood was burned to the ground. (Pierre Oberling (1997): [4])
I would like to point out that most of the above is a falsification of what these sources ar sayign or a compelte removal from context. Apostolou for example, in his review of Mazawer certainly avoids claiming the Greeks burned their own city in 1917, and Mazower himself says did a huge amount of research and came to the conclusion they did not.
mazower also shed light on how complex the cambell riots were,a dn how no one side can be blamed.
As far as Oberling, who as one recalls has had ethical problems with funding from the Goverment of Turkey for his "scholarship", and who is ot respected by any scholar in the field, he is qwuoting the verymistruth that Mazanower debunks

Let me explain it to you. OneVoice (aka is here to promote a plan to "solve" the Israeli-Palestinian problem by (choose a gentle word...) coaxing the Palestinians to the far side of the Jordan River. This idea is always called transfer in Mid-East terminology. As part of the propaganda campaign to support this plan, one needs to find historical "transfers" to report favorably on. Most historical examples were drenched in blood and suffering, so this takes talent. OneVoice went to a lot of trouble to create Population transfers to white-wash the Greek-Turkish example, so it is very rude of you to mention the facts. Another little trick is to pretend that "transfer" and "exchange" mean the same thing, and that all dictionaries ever published are wrong on this point. The need for this device is because "transfers" (one-way movements of people) have bad press and associated nasty names like ethnic cleansing, whereas "exchanges" (two-way symmetrical movements, consisting of a transfer in each direction) at least sound like the misery is shared around in a fair manner. If you press him/her on this point, OneVoice will tell you that he really is referring to an "exchange" because of the large number of Jews who emigrated to Israel from Arab countries in the 1950s. The phoneyness of this device is easily seen by noting that the transfer idea existed (and was called that) from long before the 1950s, and anyway we know perfectly well that OneVoice would be an advocate of transfer even if the Arab Jews still lived in their former homes. Hope that clears it up. --Zero 14:39, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Lets leave the personal attacks out of this and all other discussions.

  1. Transfer is bi-direction. Ethnic cleansing is not.
  2. Transfer has been used historically to solve ethnic conflicts that are otherwise untractable to any solution.
  3. "can't we all just get along" as Rodney King asked does not work. If it did no discussion would be needed.
  4. The population transfers listed, happened and were successful in that they lowered the level of violence experienced by the two communities once the transfer was completed.
  5. The transfers have always been accompanied by some level of violence, unjust actions, lack of sufficient restitution (some have received too much).
  6. The transfers are never completely, voluntary. Various methods of persuasion have been used from economic to out right physical coercion.
  7. Like all human endeavors, it is not a perfect method. It if not even a preferable method when other methods are successful or have a reasonable chance of success.
  8. When other methods have failed, transfer should be considered as a option.
  9. Above it is stated that "Jews emigrated". This is true only in so far as one can say that a murder victim cites a fact while missing the most important element.
  10. If it is better to use the term "population exchange" in place of "population transfer", fine. the cost is the loss of continuity of language. the procedure is known in the wider world outside the Wikipedia as "population transfer". Perhaps a redirect page would answer this issue.
  11. Organized population transfers often build on movements of population that have been started in horrible ways as in the Greek case cited above, and as in the case of Arabic speaking Jews living in Moslems lands for centuries, if not millenia, perhaps before the land's other inhabitants were Muslim.
  12. Population transfer is an horrible, last-resort measure to prevent a more horrific feature of two populations involved in unending conflict resulting in the killing and maining of civilians on both sides.
  13. Once population transfer has be accomplished, any remaining conflict is relagated to open warfare between two states. The burnt of the killing of borne by and inflicted upon those in uniform, rather than families. This is demostrably a better situation.

It is not my place or desire to advocate one solution or another here. It is my desire to have the full range of possible solutions to this conflict, which has been in progress for many decades, available for consideration.

My IP address is dynamic, it "belongs" to Comcast. I expect that I will have another one before too long. The "(aka" is most likely inappropriate, but neither bothers or offends me. Today, it is correct. In time it will prove to be inaccurate. OneVoice 00:10, 28 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Re: the population transfer during the Partition of India: my edit removed the unsubstantiated claim that said that population transfer reduced the overall amount of violence, on the grounds that the claim is debatable. The claim is, of course, absolutely unknowable, but to show that it's debated, at random, here's a History Today article Partition: the human cost. I suggest any further discussion of ts be moved to the Talk:Partition of India. DanKeshet

Further legal references (I think the article has enough already). In my search of the recent legal literature I did not find any other opinion. I also did not find any support for the absurd claim that "transfer" is inherently bi-directional.

Extensive population exchanges between states are one method that, under some circumstances, has led to relative peace and stability. But it causes a drastic upheaval that no longer falls within the ethical repertory of the international community, not least on grounds of individual human rights.
--Samuel H. Barnes, American Journal of International Law. January, 2001, p97.
In the final decade of this century, however, the world now condemns such population transfers, which, along with mass expulsions, are deemed to violate important principles of international law.
--Eric Rosand, Michigan Journal of International Law, Summer 1998, p1930.
on several occasions the attempt to lessen interethnic tensions led states to agree on population exchanges in which entire communities were moved across borders. Such transfers were deemed perfectly legitimate at the time. Yet two decades later, with the advent of the international human rights program, these practices came to be regarded as illegal.
--Eyal Benvenisti & Eyal Zamir, American Journal of International Law, April, 1995, p328.

Zero0000, thank you for finding and citing these recent articles. Wikipedia could use a significantly larger number of citations. OneVoice 15:56, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If you go back far enough, you find colonia type settlements to secure areas for strategic reasons, where the population was the means and not the end. With the passage of time the two sorts blur into each other, like the English western half of Pembrokeshire, and the way the Pale of Calais went from being French settled to English settled and back, with forcible deportations to do it.

Mainly I want to draw people's attentions to the "Optant" system, that was a way of achieving change on a grandfathering basis. People in an area that was transferred were given individual and non-inheritable options to see out their time without having to take out a new citizenship. After generations either they got assimilated or they left. Done right this was a good idea - it worked like that in Schleswig-Holstein - but it could also be used as a cover for ethnic cleansing, jump or lose even the little privilege on offer (as in Transylvania). But even the clean kind can be used to achieve transfer, though I don't know of any examples; all that takes is to encourage children of optants to leave, for further education say, maybe under threat of conscription (no exemption without education). PML.

I'm not sure this is true. The safe areas were intended to be temporary displaced person areas, and I don't think that the UN intended them to be permanent resettlement areas.

Nonetheless, the United Nations supported the transfer of populations with the boundaries of Yugoslavia during the 1990's. Safe areas were established for Muslim populations of Serbia and other successor states. Unfortunately, the United Nations peacekeeping troops failed to protect the safe areas resulting the in the massacre of number of Muslims.

--Roadrunner (signature added by Zero0000)

Roadrunner is quite correct. Temporary evacuations during conflict or disaster do not count as population transfer. --Zero 00:57, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We dont know what would have happened. The UN had no capability to return the population to its former location. This is often the case in population transfer; it is often a process that encompasses several movements of people(s) over the span of some years. The plan certainly was temporary at first. The UN admitted that it failed to protect these people [5]. The UN abdicated further responsbility to a European force [6]. The Dayton accords solidified the result [7]

Final paragraph of [8] states Bosnia remains the only former Yugoslav republic with a Muslim plurality, about 44 percent, while 31 percent are Serbs and 17 percent are Croats.

The result is a population transfer. It was a forseeable result of the UN action. Given the relative strengths and the willing to place foreign troops in the area, it MAY, maybe not, have been the only solution to a horrible situation. OneVoice 01:55, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

On the subject of transfer thinking in Zionist history, I mentioned only Herzl and Ben-Gurion in the article. Some of the evidence in the case of Herzl is given at the top of this page. I copied it directly from the source quoted. As for Ben-Gurion, the most clear-cut support of transfer was in 1937 when the British proposed to create a small Jewish state and remove the Arabs from it. The Zionist executive discussed this heatedly but in the end practically everyone from Ben-Gurion down supported it. This is documented in many places; one is in the book Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985 (pp 180-182) written by Shabtai Teveth (a right-wing opponent of the "new historians"). Other leading Zionists who supported transfer at some time include Zangwill, Jacobson, Weizmann, Sharett, Weitz. Proof for all of this could be added to the article but I think that the few very mild sentences there are enough. I'll mention one web source - a book written by a Rabbi from Kiryat Arba who is a supporter of transfer. It is here. I don't think it is suitable as a citation on the web page due to its evident bias, however most of the events it lists are genuine even if the presentation is a bit doubtful. I checked some of the more interesting quotations and found them correct. --Zero 01:17, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Some type of citation should be added. One might think that the acceptance of the British proposal of 1937 was a devil's in accept this or get nothing. Worth looking into.

For NPOV we should have the Arab proposals for deportation/expulsion of Jews from the area elsewhere. The Arab support for deportation/expulsion is missing from the page. The result is a skewed presentation that leads one to believe that the Arabs have never advocated such a step. Lets balance the page. OneVoice 01:40, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I added about an equal amount of text, equally vague, on this subject. As for the present situation, there is no symmetry at all and pretending there is would be a deception. Israel is the only party with the power to transfer a lot of people and so the prevalence of such thinking in Israel is of importance in the understanding of recent history. Trying to claim that expelling Palestinians across the Jordan would be analogous to removing settlements is a joke. I don't think anyone really believes that (whatever they say) and certainly no international authority would ever accept it. --Zero 02:25, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Power to implement is not currently in the hands of the Palestinians. That may change. I would expect that the Palestinians hope to acquire additional military force. The level of that force is a currently a difficult point of negotiation between the parties. Expelling Palestinians from west of the Jordan and expelling Jews from ancient communities, such as Hebron, or communities founded before 1948, such as Gush Etzion, is not a joke. In both cases, it is a horrible step. International authorities will accept whatever is easy. It is rare that they take any tangible moves to change a status quo. This is an ugly but true fact. The massacres of Muslims in Bosnia and of various ethnic groups in Africa attest to the fact. Some war crime trials are taking place. The expulsions are not being addressed in substance. OneVoice 02:36, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have added links to documents contained at the Yale Law School Avalon Project and others contained at the Simon Wiesenthal (sp?) Center.

Zero0000 has deleted this material several times.

Zero0000, please let us why these are "trash websites" (your term)  ?

OneVoice 14:48, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Zero0000, there are certain statements on this page indicating some support for population transfer by Israelis. Why do you remove statements by Arab leaders calling for the expulsion of Jews to Europe (by Ahmed Yassin) or the liberation of all historical Palestine from the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea as called for in 2001 in the Arabic press by a Faisel Husseini, a Minister of the Palestinian Authority. Simple NPOV would indicate that Wikipedia report the statements of creditable (gov't ministers, leaders of significant factions) leaders that are party to the conflict. OneVoice 13:04, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This is not a page for arguing about the Israel-Palestinian conflict. There are some relevant issues but your additions are childish propaganda. I am reverting them because I am not willing to play the same game by putting in quotations from Zionist leaders (past and present) about the "cleansing" of Palestine of Arabs, etc etc. Because my knowledge of the subject of the page is much deeper than yours I could easily outdo you in the number and quality of sources. I won't do that because I'm not here as a political activist like you are. You are a curse on Wikipedia and as soon as I am back in town in a few days I am going to petition for your banning. In my opinion a large fraction of what you write is racist. --Zero 14:00, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Zero0000, the statements by Palestinian Arab leaders are their own words, actual quotes. The page contains statements by Zionist leaders. Under your edits it contains statements by Zionist leaders only, as if those by Arab leaders did not exist. The is not NPOV. Perhaps, the page should not contain a Middle East section at all. Nonetheless you have insisted that it contain a Middle East section that highlights the statements of one side of the conflict only. This is not NPOV. Please do not resort to ad hominem statements regarding myself or anyone else at Wikipedia. They are not professional or polite. Lets keep the discourse civil. OneVoice 15:08, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Zero0000 said: "I could easily outdo you in the number"

Zero0000, we are not engaged in a contest. One does not win by have 7 quotes vs 4 quotes. I assume that we both want a resolution to the Middle East conflict, we both want the region and the people in the region to develop, that each person should have the opportunity to fulfill their God given potentials, that the peace should be a real peace with each side respecting the other, with each side accepting of the state of peace and the boundaries established, with each side working to better the lives of their people. Do you not wish that this may be the future for both sides in the conflict?

Zero0000, I seek to improve Wikipedia. To add citation so that folks can confirm for themselves what is recorded here and so folks can have pointers to continue looking into the matter. When there are more than one side to an issue, to present both sides in their own words, rather than trying to interpret those words. These are worthy goals. Please work with me to reach them. If you object to material I have added, then please edit the material, let me what you object to and why. Wholesale deletion is not cooperation. Let us improve the content of Wikipedia together. OneVoice 15:38, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Zero0000, lets keep the 2001 Yasser Arafat quote as well the 1988 PNC quote. Each one answers an objection that will be raised. The PNC quote indicates that it is policy. The Arafat quote indicates that as of 2001 it was still policy. Arafat should also be a source of policy, but some may want to see a PNC "official statement". OneVoice 19:06, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Zero0000, regarding the Amin Al-Husseini quote, you say you have it from a good source that its false. Please bring a citation to be considered vs The Simon Weisenthal Center. Anonymous claims have certain undersirable characteristics. OneVoice 19:06, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Zero0000, Feisal Husseini was a Minister in the PA. Ministers are responsible for their statements and due to their position with the organization can commit that organization to a position. There are several more individuals that said much the same thing. We can add those sources to the page if you would like. OneVoice 19:06, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We need to be accurate and cite sources so that others can go look them up themselves. People should not be asked to "take our word for it". We are not creditable or citable sources in and of ourselves. Well, as long as we hid behind psuedonyms are not creditable citable sources. OneVoice 19:06, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have read several books and many articles in academic journals about Amin Al-Husseini. Most of what is on the Wiesenthal page is quite correct, however there is no evidence for the particular claim you make here. It derives from three sources. One is a collection of documents (some genuine, some doubtful) submitted to the UN in 1947 by an Israeli front organization called "Nation Associates"; it was part of the propaganda war leading up to the 1947 partition resolution. Another is a doubtful claim about Al-Husseini made by a leading Nazi, but it became clear at the Eichmann trial that the Nazi had confused him with another Arab. A third source is a "report" on a speech that Al-Husseini was supposed to have made in Berlin. I traced this to a magazine article which gave a citation to the US National Archives collection of Nazi documents but when I wrote to the National Archives asking for a copy they told me that it doesn't exist. Speaking of Eichmann: in preparation for his trial a considerable effort was made to collect dirt on Al-Husseini by a committee established for that purpose. Historians who have studied the report say that it does not support the claim you made here. I could provide citations for all of this, but it would take at least a day of work and I would much prefer to write articles on things that exist than waste my time on the difficult task of proving negatives. Anyway, even if your claim was correct, genocide is not a type of population transfer either in law or in common sense so the claim is irrelevant to this page. --Zero 13:56, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This web page seems to support your statements. Looking at the top level page of the web site is informative. I have not been able to find support for your claims at web sites that I personally would wish to cite due to their content and mode of presentation. OneVoice 01:17, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

OneVoice wrote: Feisal Husseini was a Minister in the PA. Ministers are responsible for their statements and due to their position with the organization can commit that organization to a position. That is simply a nonsense. PA ministers cannot make policy by themselves except on the very restricted subjects of their portfolios and even that is limited. Strategic policy like this can only be made by the PNC (in principle) or by Arafat (in practice). --Zero 14:04, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Zero0000, thank you very much for responding. It appears to me, I may be wrong, that there are three distinct paragraphs we are discussing: 1. Amin Al-Husseini, 2. Feisal (Al-)Husseini, and Yasser Arafat (interestingly also Al-Husseini: Abd al-Rahman abd al-Bauf Arafat al-Qud al-Husseini).

1. Regarding Amin Al-Husseini his work for the Nazis is documented in a number of sources found easily with a few minutes work. His activities during WWII included helping in the creation of a number of Waffen SS associated units comprised of Muslims from the Balkans. Sources include AllRefer Palestine Remembered Includes picture of Al-Husseini and Hitler [9] Columbia Encyclopdia [10]. It appears that there can be no doubt of al-Husseini's active cooperation and support for the Nazis. So the question revolves around 1. whether or not al-Husseini supported the Final Solution which was designed to deal with all Jews, clearly starting with those within the areas controlled by the Axis powers (specifically Germany and Italy, Japan did not take part in implementing the Final Solution.) and 2. calling for the massacre of Jews in Mandatory Palestine. The second is documented "He directed squads of hit men to attack Jewish settlements and assassinate moderate Arabs who urged compromise, men increasingly marginalized by the recrudescence of Islamic fundamentalism" by the US Navy Postgraduate School. One source of al-Husseini's role in the Final Solution is a deputy of Adolf Eichmann's, Dieter Wisliceny said Husseini

played a role in the decision to exterminate the European Jews. The importance of this role must not be disregarded...the Mufti repeatedly suggested to the various authorities with whom he was maintianing contac [sic], above all to Hitler, Ribbentrop, and Himmler, the extermination of European Jewiry. He considered this an appropriate solution to the Palestinian problem. (The Mufti and the Fuherer: The Rise and Fall of Haj Amin el-Husseini, by J.B. Schechtman pp. 159-160) [11]
Haj Amin Al-Husseini, the Palestinian leader in 1948, drafted a proposal during WW2 (1940), requesting that Germany and Italy acknowledge the Arab right "to settle the question of the Jewish elements in Palestine, and other Arab countries, in accordance with national and racial interests of the Arabs, and along lines, similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy." (Fritz Grobba, Peoples and Powers in the East, pp. 194-7, 207-8, Berlin, 1967; Joan Peters, From Time Immemorial, p.37, Harper, 1988). [12]

Perhaps you are correct that this does not belong here.

So why did you put it back? And you reduced the Zionist section (which was very minimal already) to Kahane. Hardly more than a lie. I am going to keep reverting you. Btw, Wisliceny may or may not have said what was claimed about al Hussieni but he was almost certainly talking about a different Arab. This is explained in Mattar's biography of al Husseini. In any case it is absurd to its face. Schechtman was a propagandist of the Revisionist Zionist movement anyway. It doesn't belong on this page anyway. --Zero 23:50, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I did not restore the statement regarding Amin al-Husseini by Wisliceny (that Husseini suggested extermination of the Jews to the Germans). I did restore "before World War II repeated advocated the massacre" not during, through that is also the case and certainly not the claim regarding "al-Husseini's role in the (formulation of the) Final Solution".
Are you saying that the Joan Peters statement immediately above is also untrue?
Regarding the Zionist section (labelled Israeli), I have added (Kahane) to it, not reduced it. Please check this in the page history.
Husseini was considered the leader of the Palestinians in his time. comfirms this. His view is material to the page. Perhaps the page is over concentrated in Middle East material. If so should all material be moved to another page and a pointer left here?
Let us be careful in out terms and language using Zionist when we mean Zionist and Israeli for the government, state, citizens and actions of that state. OneVoice 00:10, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

2. Regarding Feisal Husseini, we can remove his comments from this page if you feel that they are not relevant. We should also remove the paragraph regarding The National Union Block, as that political party does not make policy for the Government of Israel. Similarly the poll information is not policy.

3. Regarding Yasser Arafat's statements. This is a statement by the leader of the Palestinians. We are not at liberty to disregard it or to censor it. Just as George Bush's statements are US policy, so the statements of Yasser Arafat are the policy of the PA. Chairman President Arafat's comments are all the more important for their being made to an annual meeting of an international organization after the signing of the [Oslo Accords].

I will restore Arafat's statements and those of the PNC. Delete the National Union Block and poll paragraphs. I will also move the history paragraph that i s currently misplaced (its in the Israeli section) to the Middle East section, since that paragraph covers movements of both Jewish and Arab populations. OneVoice 00:53, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As stated immediately above, I have restored the deleted material. OneVoice 23:32, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If we are going to include population transfers from the more distant past, there were a vast number. Many involved far more people than the rather minor example that was just added. (I expect that at least a few hundred could be found as nearly every ancient war involved one or more expulsions). Justify the inclusion of this one or it will go. Maybe a separate page is needed for pre-20th century transfers. --Zero 02:01, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Zero0000, this is the only one carried exclusively on a religious basis. all the rest have an admixture of nationalism or racism. in this case, the populations transferred differed from the populations left in place by religion only. both were Arab, etc. hence the section is labelled "muslim" (the religion) in place of "arabia" (the location), or "arab" (the ethnicity). indeed, i have heard/read not verified for myself, that to its credit Islam and Muslims do not distinguish between Muslims of different ethnic origin. i have heard/read not verified myself that non-Muslims are barred from certain areas of the Arabian penisula. can you clarify these two points for me. being as this is the only example we have of purely religious population transfer, it uniquely demostrates a class of population transfer. OneVoice 10:43, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

One Voice:

The 1988 PNC document that you're citing predates Oslo and the Wye River Memorandum. Since it's arguably irrelevant, an encyclopedic entry ought to refrain from citing pre-Wye PNC documents. I also removed quotations by individual PLO members, as they are speaking on behalf of themselves, and not officially announcing organization decisions changes. 172 04:45, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

When President Bush speaks he speaks for the government of the United States unless he specifically states otherwise same for Colin Powell, a minister. The same standard should apply to Palestinian leaders. This is particularly true once those leaders have either tacitly (through lack of opposition) or openly endorsed a quasi-war that their "militias" are engaged in waging. Indeed, such an action may be seen as abrogating earlier concilitory statements. OneVoice 10:40, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Come on, that's a façade for POV - and prehaps the correct POV. It's patently obvious, after all, that the PLO Charter was only touched very grudgingly. It was carried out in a very nondescript fashion, and only after a good deal of US arm-twisting. The PLO was giving up nothing more than a couple of bargaining chips, not making a sincere statement. However, when Arafat mouths off with his senile ramblings in front of a popular audience, this does not indicate PLO official policy. It's merely hot air meant to mobilize popular support, which has been certainly abating, given the inroads made by the radicals. However, for the sake of neutrality and encyclopedic standards, at least add a disclaimer stating that these statements do not bare any relationship with policy (regardless of whether or not it's meaningless). This is just a matter of keeping the article concise and relevant. Your revisions, however, could risk turning this into a grab-bag of off-the-cuff remarks. 172 12:27, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Quote from 172: "when Arafat mouths off with his senile ramblings". WOW! I would NEVER say such a thing about a Nobel prize winner and respected world leader received in numerous capitals and now visited regularly by a stream of dignitaries given his inability to travel freely. You might think that I am being saracastic, I am not. These statements reflect commonly held views. National leadership bears certain responsibilities. One of those is that of speaking carefully and with due consideration to the content. Its part of the job.

With regard to the 1988 pre-Wye River documents, we can chose to delete material before that event, if you wish. We should delete material from both sides before a date of event deemed to significant enough to outweigh previous statements. OneVoice 13:48, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Section names[edit]

I haven't yet checked the entire text, but I think more consistency is required the in section naming. The section "Muslim" talks about muslim-perpetrated xfers, while the section "Palestinian" is about xfer where the Palestinians were victims. List it either by victim, or by perpetrator, or by originally inhabited territory, just let's do it uniformally. --Humus sapiens Talk 03:12, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Palestinian" section[edit]

The whole following section is removed from the article, since it has no single word about the article topic: population transfer.

-== Palestinian ===

Before the Oslo Accords, Palestinian groups customarily denied the right of Israel to exist in their formal charters, which has often been regarded as a stance in favor of the expulsion or extermination of Jews in Israel.

The Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO) Palestinian National Charter, passed in July 1968, rejected the existence of the State of Israel. Article 19, for example, stated: "The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination."

However, the September 1993 Olso negotiations between delegates of the PLO and the Israeli government led to a process of mutual recognition. According to post facto claims by PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, mutual recognition effectively invalidated articles in the Palestinian National Charter that denied Israel's right to exist.

On April 26, 1996, a special session of the Palestine National Council (PNC) considered the issue of formally amending clauses of the charter that deny Israel's right to exist. The PNC adopted the following ruling: "The Palestinian National Charter is hereby amended by canceling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged the P.L.O. and the Government of Israel 9-10 September 1993." [13] [14] [15] To comply with the Wye River Memorandum, the Palestine Central Council convened in Gaza on December 14, 1998 and voted by 81 to 7 to reaffirm the PNC's 1996 decision to revoke clauses in the Palestinian National Charter that deny Israel's right to exist.

Palestinian radical groups, however, opposed revision of the PLO Charter. Hamas 1988 covenant is the obliteration of the state of Israel. Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin continued to call for the expulsion of all Jews from Israel to Europe until his death [].

Mikkalai 18:02, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

population transfer vs. ethnic cleansing[edit]

Is there a reason to have this article separate from the ethnic cleansing article?

I think those terms overlap somewhat, but transfer implies a more orderly movement/exchange following a political treaty. Cleansing sounds more like a systematic tactic of warfare with no prior agreement. //Big Adamsky 22:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


I did big time cleanup on this page, and I hope to make everybody angry. In particular I removed all references to a possible future transfer by Israel. All the rest of the examples relate to actual transfers, and comparing them to a putative transfer makes no sense. Gadykozma 15:59, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Recent reverts[edit]

I've just reverted a long addition by Cezveci (talk · contribs). I did this, not because the material was all unacceptable (some of it might well find a place in the article), but because as it stood it was essentially a personal essay, in desperate need of copy-editing, and expressing a strong PoV. Could Cezveci post a version to this page, so that it could be discussed and edited before a decision as to its inclusion? That would avoid any possibility of revert-warring, and would allow us to reach consensus. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the constructive approach of Μελ Ετητης. I agree that my addition reflects one POV, but the old (and after your revert, current) version displays the other side's POV. I don't think those claims are any more objective or relevant than mine. Actually, the use of the term "genocide" for every single event in the region is totally inappropriate, and the irrelevant mentioning of Armenian genocide shows that the intention is merely propaganda. So I suggest we start with deleting that paragraph, and then working on a new more relevant paragraph that will briefly mention about claims on ethnic cleansing attempts by both sides (I think details should be avoided), state interesting notes such as the Turkish-speaking Greek orthodox people of Karaman being sent to Greece, and the situation of the minorities that were allowed to stay. We could also note attempts on the descendants of these people to come together and acknowledge their roots (such as, [16]). Cezveci 15:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree with your view that the article is rather one-sided at the moment. My own feeling is that the solution is mainly to delete some of the irrelevant material (the Armenian geocide isn't completely irrelevant here, though, because much of it was carried out via population transfer). What do other editors think? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I didn't mean Armenian genocide is not relevant to the article, it certainly is, but it is irrelevant in the context of Greek-Turkish population exchange treaty. Cezveci 19:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how copypasting Turkish ministry publication on the Armenian section could be one-sided to the "other side,"("pro"-Armenian genocide) when the term Tehcir, which BTW is Arabic and not Turkish could be entirly used in different way, depending on the different adjectives.(which in this cases is said that Armenians were made "Tehcir," that means being expulsed) To be more precise, the Ottoman used term for the Armenians was "forced evacuation" which was used by another adjective carateristic, which was as well was translated as "deportation" by the Turkish foreign ministry, because it could not have been translated otherwise. So claiming that the translation is a misuses is as well rejecting the Turkish official translation of the old Ottoman Turkish language, which is different then, modern Turkish, I don't even know if the word is still in use in modern Turkish. Any Arab speaking middle eastern counld confirm what I just wrote here. For this reason, until that section is not worked on to make it NPOV by presenting the other position, which no one could deny is the majority position, I will be placing a POV banner to that section. Fadix 03:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
May I learn the relevance of these with the population exchange between Greece and Turkey? Well, actually no, I don't want to learn anything, I honestly don't want to discuss anything wiith Fadix, he can go and add more hateful propaganda stuff in the article of his interest, I just want to reach a consensus on the population exchange section here. Μελ Ετητης shall I propose a draft for the section so that we can build on it? Thank you. Cezveci 17:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Fadix, can you please move your concerns about "tehcir" in a different section and allow us resolve our concerns about Lausanne treaty exchange here? Thank you. Cezveci 18:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
First of, there was no title in this section, second of, the Armenian "question" was brought by both of you, and not me, which means that the discussion did not entirly excluded what I brought, which as a matter of fact is relevant. On second order, I do really not appreciate you comming in my talk page and making charges which I have no idea what they really are about(regarding Taner Akcam), and since you do have a history of innapropriate edition which I would call POV-pushing, I would be easy of accusing others of "propagandizing." If you think my answer is harsh, you should examine your answer to me more carefully, perhaps then, you'll realise that my answer was appopriate due to the circomstances. Regards. Fadix 19:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Scope of this article[edit]

Sometimes, fairly large population transfers are conducted for reasons that are not directly related to ethnicity. For example, the construction of a dam often forces the relocation of large numbers of people. Is this considered a "population transfer"? If not, why not? --Richard 06:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about this usage of the term in the literature, but from the introduction of the article it would appear that it is indeed within the scope of the article.--Doron 13:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Link to immigration[edit]

The intro here should make it more clear that this refers to forced population transfers, rather than voluntary. A link should also be offered to migration for those expecting that topic. 05:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

'Balkan population exchanges, 1913'[edit]

"Balkan population exchanges, 1913 For more details on this topic, see Balkan Wars. After the exchanges in the Balkans, forced population transfer was used by the Great Powers and later the League of Nations as a mechanism for increasing homogeneity in post-Ottoman Balkan states. A Norwegian diplomat working with the League of Nations as a High Commissioner for Refugees beginning 1919, proposed the idea of a forced population transfer modeled on the earlier post Balkan-war Greek-Bulgarian mandatory population transfer of Greeks in Bulgaria to Greece, and Bulgarians in Greece to Bulgaria."

If someone knows more about this, it would be nice if this section could be elaborated and clarified. This section is ambiguous in many places:

>'After the exchanges in the Balkans' 1. The title of 'Balkan population exchanges, 1913' would suggest that a population exchange happened in 1913. But when I read the section, I didnt get the impression there was an exchange, but a proposed exchange... 2. Does 'After' refer to te 1912 Balkan Wars?? 3. 'Exchanges' as in population exchanges? or 'exchanges' in war or conflct?? I know its an article about population transfers..but we should always be as explicit and clear as poosible in Wikipedia to avoid not sure. 4. Exactly what populations were exchanged?...Greeks and Bulgarians? Greeks and Turkish?

>'forced population transfer was used by the Great Powers and later the League of Nations as a mechanism for increasing homogeneity in post-Ottoman Balkan states." 1. This seems to sugggest that a population exchange did occur between some of the Balkan would be nice to find out who were exchanged and when using cited sources of course (no cites on this section).

>'A Norwegian diplomat working with the League of Nations as a High Commissioner for Refugees beginning 1919, proposed the idea of a forced population transfer modeled on the earlier post Balkan-war Greek-Bulgarian mandatory population transfer of Greeks in Bulgaria to Greece, and Bulgarians in Greece to Bulgaria." 1. 'beginning 1919'? How is this relevant to the "Balkan population exchanges, 1913" section in the "Population transfer" article?? 2. I still dont know if population exchanges occured in the Balkans given the information (whether its refugees fleeing home from their foreign lands or organized population exchanges by formal agreement), or which nations were involved.

This section needs to be clarified and hopefully if we do some research, we can get a source in there too. (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a post Balkan War population exchange between Greece and Bulgaria. It later became the model for the big exchange between Greece and Turkey. Dating it is complex since most of Greek population of Bulgaria, and Bulgarian population of Greece were expelled during the Balkan wars, but the subsequent treaty legalized the expulsions through involuntary denationalization from "birth country" and new naturalization in "homeland country" of the persons involved. This eas later repeated on a larger scale in the Greek Turkish exchanges in 1923. (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Central Europe[edit]

The expulsion of Germans was one of many in that area. Either a list of maybe ten or none. The inclusion of the German one only is POV.Xx236 (talk) 06:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

  • You might add a full sentence, you might say, it's not the "main article" - but you deleted the whole link. Seems nobody should know about it, as you don't like it, that's ( quiet blatant) POV. (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The text of the Central Europe subparagraph contradicts the list of Main articles. It may be a result of poor knowledge or POV, but should be corrected.Xx236 (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your denial of facts by leaving out any Poland-related information. That's pushing POV and anything but neutral. (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Stop your agreesion, please.Xx236 (talk) 06:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


The two articles should be integrated or the contets should be divided. WHat is the current logic?Xx236 (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


This article seems to deal with forced population transfers. Maybe we should accordingly rename it forced population transfer to be more clear that this is usually not something the ethnic group does willingly.--Sonjaaa (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should rethink what goes in here, what goes in deportation and what goes in ethnic cleansing. There is a lot of overlap, so maybe we need to merge some of the articles using an umbrella term, or similar?--Sonjaaa (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree this should be renamed. Most of the transfers included here have either been part of ethnic cleansing, forced deportations, genocides or at least are controversial. This article provides a superficial approach. Also the term trasnfer in the title is usually used conjointly with exchange and these two have certainly not the same meaning. --Yparjis (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that some of these examples have advocates who claim they were not forced. Will adding an extra criterion to argue about be an overall gain? Zerotalk 23:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No section on South Africa?[edit]

I'm surprised to find no reference to South Africa in the article. Forced relocations has affected millions in that country and is a large part of it's history. I'm adding this article to Wikiproject South Africa in hopes that we can rectify that in the future. --NJR_ZA (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Rome[edit]

Those interested in the forcible removal or deportation of peoples in ancient times (2000-ish years ago) can find numerous instances of this practice in Tacitus' Annals and Histories of Imperial Rome (both books are easily found online). (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Deportation of Azerbaijanis 1.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Deportation of Azerbaijanis 1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 30 December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


I think Resettlement and Population transfer cover the same ground. Since Wikipedia articles are about things, not words, having two separate articles is a form of content forkery. The merge shouldn't be too hard, since the Resettlement article is so short.— Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 23:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Uncontested merge. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 00:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


From 1948 until the early 1970s between 800,000 to 1,000,000 Mizrachi and Sephardic Jews either fled from their homes or were expelled from Arab and Islamic countries; 260,000 reached Israel between 1948–1951, and 600,000 by 1972.[1][2][3] A small migration started in the late 19th century, but the vast majority occurred after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The Jews of Egypt and Libya were forcibly expelled while those of Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and North Africa left as a result of a hostile atmosphere (including pogroms and public executions) and growing political insecurity. Most were forced to abandon their property.[2] By 2002, these Jews and their descendants constituted about 40% of Israel's population.[3] Kurdish Jews forced to leave Iraq after a history there of nearly 2,000 years. Most eventually migrated to Israel in the early 1950s. The Jews of Kurdistan were forced to leave and migrate as a result of the Arab-Israeli war. At the end, the Jews of Kurdistan had to leave their Kurdish habitat en masse and migrate into Israel.[4]

The Palestinian exodus (also known as the Nakbah) of approximately 711,000 to 725,000 from the British mandate of Palestine occurred during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. The bulk of the Arab refugees from the former British Mandate of Palestine ended up in the Gaza strip (under Egyptian rule between 1949 and 1967) and the West Bank (under Jordanian rule between 1949 and 1967), Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. The cause of this population movement is hotly debated and disputed by each side.[citation needed][5]

Although the population exchange of the Arabs of Palestine with Jews from across the Arab world took place around the period of the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, the idea of the transfer of Arabs from Palestine, usually to Iraq (where there was a sizable Iraqi Jewish population), had been considered about half a century beforehand. One of the recommendations in the Report of the British Peel Commission in 1937 was for a transfer of Arabs from the area of the proposed Jewish state, and this even included a compulsory transfer from the plains of Palestine. This recommendation was not initially objected to by the British Government.[6]

  1. ^ Schwartz, Adi. "All I wanted was justice" Haaretz, 10 January 2008.
  2. ^ a b Malka Hillel Shulewitz, The Forgotten Millions: The Modern Jewish Exodus from Arab Lands, Continuum 2001, pp. 139 and 155.
  3. ^ a b Ada Aharoni "The Forced Migration of Jews from Arab Countries, Historical Society of Jews from Egypt website. Accessed February 1, 2009.
  4. ^ Mordechai Zaken, Jewish Subjects and Their Tribal Chieftains in Kurdistan: A Study in Survival, Brill: Leiden and Boston, 2007. Based on his 2004 PHD Thesis, Tribal Chieftains and Their Jewish Subjects: A Comparative Study in Survival, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2004.
  5. ^ Ilan Pappe (2006), The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Oxford: Oneworld
  6. ^ Morris (2003), The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, chapter: The Idea of Transfer in Zionist Thinking

I have moved the above propaganda here from the article. As explained at Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries, this is a highly politicized topic, and the suggestion that a "population exchange of the Arabs of Palestine with Jews from across the Arab world took place around the period of the establishment of the State of Israel" is highly POV.

If we are going to have this topic in here it needs to be MUCH more carefully worded than this drivel.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I have just looked through the history of this article. Of all the sections in this article, this is the section which appears to have attracted the most editors. But oddly there has been almost no talk discussion of it since 2004. I suggest we quarantine it here pending a proper discussion. For reference the key articles are:
The key problems I see in the previous text in the article (above) are:
(1) The Jewish exodus summary is an unbalanced "neo-lacrymose" version, primarily used in propaganda. Scholarly research sets the exodus in its proper (much broader) context.
(2) The Palestinian exodus should include all three of the main exoduses
(3) Choosing to put these side-by-side as a "population exchange" represents a well known propaganda theme (as explained in numerous sources at Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries, and as discussed here.) If we consciously choose to put them alongside each other in this article, the public argument around this needs to be made very clear.
Oncenawhile (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
It is actually quite terrible, lopsided and naive. Zerotalk 14:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
The source below is quite interesting - it describes the work and conclusions of the Jewish Agency's "Committee for Population Transfer" in 1937-8. Interestingly it seems they used the Population exchange between Greece and Turkey as the archetype for the proposals.
Oncenawhile (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This topic should include coverage of the original political plans such as (1) Plan Dalet, and (2) the One Million Plan, as the introduction to this article partly defines the concept as "imposed by state policy". Oncenawhile (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That section had been in the article for quite a long time and the fact of the planned transfer is well and reliably attested by the fully sourced book by Ilan Pappe. If there are issues with recent edits, then correct those. Removing the whole section is high handed and over the top, and unless you Oncenawhile or Zero0000 supply a revised version I shall restore the previous one in its entirety. --Axel Berger (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. I have added Palestine back in, with additional sourcing. I have not yet added the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries and the One Million Plan, because I can't find evidence of any "imposed by state policy" other than the One Million Plan, and Israel were not able to "impose" on the relevant host state governments - only agitate and finance. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Transfer was never a part of Zionist ideology, and Zionist leaders never endorsed British proposals for transfer. Here is the complete text of the passage from Herzl's diary:

When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly...It goes without saying that we shall respectfully tolerate persons of other faiths and protect their property, their owner, and their freedom with the harshest means of coercion. This is another area in which we shall set the entire world a wonderful example...Should there be many such immovable owners in individual areas, we shall simply leave them there and develop our commerce in the direction of other areas which belong to us.

Far from advocating the mass expulsion of an entire population, Herzl was discussing expropriation of private property only in "the estates assigned to us". There is no allusion to "transfer" in Herzl's writings, private correspondence, books, or speeches--there is only this misquoted passage, which has nothing to do with Arabs or Palestine. ("I am assuming we will go to Argentina," Herzl wrote on June 13, 1895.) "The idea of transfer was forced on the Zionist agenda by the British (in the recommendations of the 1937 Peel Royal Commission on Palestine) rather than being self-generated", and Ben-Gurion went out of his way to reject it. "The idea of transfer was never official Zionist policy. Ben-Gurion emphatically rejected it, saying that even if the Jews were given the right to evict the Arabs, they would not make use of it." (Walter Laquer, A History of Zionism, page 232).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
The Herzl quote is extremely well known and the suggestion that it doesn't imply transfer is fringe. See e.g. [17], [18], [19], [20], and [21]. There are many more sources commenting on this and connecting it to transfer of Palestinians. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Herzl was writing about the colonisation enterprise in general terms, so even though he didn't know where it would take place it is perfectly valid to connect it with Palestine as one of the possibilities. Incidentally, here is more of Herzl's diary entry from that day:
The voluntary expropriation will be accomplished through our secret agents. The Company will pay excessive prices. We shall then sell only to Jews, and all real estate will be traded only amongst Jews. ... For the voluntary expropriation we shall have to use local sub-agents who must not know that their employer is himself a secret agent who takes instructions from the centralized "Commission for Property Purchases". These secret purchases must be carried out simultaneously, as upon the pressing of an electric button. Our secret agents, who will appear over there as purchasers on their own account, will receive the signal: Marchez [go ahead]! Within a week all sales must have been completed. Otherwise the prices will increase exorbitantly. Zerotalk 13:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
That's right. Herzl advocated paying "excessive prices" for the purpose of the strictly "voluntary" resettlement of squatters living on land purchased by Jews. That is hardly a program for ethnic cleansing.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Your first sentence does not seem to match the diary entry at all. Your second sentence doesn't match the discussion as nobody brought up "ethnic cleansing" here before. Herzl is discussing how to organise a population transfer by means of land purchases carried out by trickery. It is obviously relevant to the page. Zerotalk 12:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Your reading comprehension is no concern of mine. I did not say the quote was irrelevant to this page. I was making a general comment about the use of selective scare quotes to smear Herzl as an advocate of ethnic cleansing. Good day.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Ancient Assyria and Israel[edit]

That entry by has been removed by Zero0000. Assyrian forced resettlement of conquered peoples is a well attested historical fact. I'm not totally sure, but I believe the Israel case is also corroborated from Assyrian sources. I therefore suggest putting it back in. --Axel Berger (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not aware of any Assyrian sources that attest this, and I have read many contemporary Assyrian sources which may relate to the Bible. The most important ones are on wiki at List of artifacts in biblical archaeology.
So unless someone can show otherwise, this is Biblical only, and probably does not belong here. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries[edit]

All of this thing is missing here. I don't have the time but someone should add this subject... --Setareh1990 (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

"Those who arrived to Israel ...". Usually one would say "went to Israel", unless the writer is located in Israel. Keith McClary (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Population transfer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


Corrected disputed reference to "population exchange agreement". Replaced it with a more objective reference to the actual provision of the agreement. Also replaced the erroneous title of the UN document cited as an external link, to the actual title of the document.