Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

"ethnic cleansing" in second sentence

Ian Black, of the Guardian UK writes in a book review, Abu Sitta is a leading expert on the nakbah and what is nowadays widely described as the "ethnic cleansing" it involved. This is verbatim. This article has incorporated this in footnote three:

The 1948 Palestinian exodus (Arabic: الهجرة الفلسطينية, al-Hijra al-Filasṭīnīya), also known as Nakba (Arabic: النكبة, an-Nakbah), meaning the "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm", occurred when approximately 725,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the Civil War that preceded it. The process is widely described as having involved ethnic cleansing. (my bolds)

I note that Black puts ethnic cleansing in quote marks. Why does he do this and does this have any significance as to his specific meaning? Does the sentence in this article say what the Black says? Snakeswithfeet (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking the very same thing. Why are those words in quotes and who is he quoting? The entire edit is very problematic indeed. Until there's clarification, the edit should be removed.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I read this that Black is referring to the people who he is talking about when he puts "ethnic cleansing it quotes" He goes on to say: "There can be no mistaking where his (Abu Sitta's) sympathies lie and where he stands in the febrile debate about Zionist intentions. " So people who consider the 1948 Exodus the "nabka" are the same people who consider this an "ethnic cleansing." This makes very good sense. And in that sense, "widely described." However, in a more general sense and outside of the a fairly small group which I believe it refers, I don't think this is "widely described" in the larger circle of the general public, and I am not convinced that that is what Black meant, though it is certainly a possible interpretation. Therefore I agree with the editor(s) who have been removing it. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. HarunAlRashid (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an odd thing for you all to be fighting to remove. Saying that the 1948 flight of the Palestinians has been "widely described" as ethnic cleansing is a tame statement. Here for example is an interview Ari Shavit conducted with Benny Morris in which Morris repeatedly says that what took place in 1948 was "cleansing". A portion is repeated here:

AS:[W]hen 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?

BM: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.

AS:You do not condemn them morally?

BM:No.

AS:They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.

BM: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.

AS:And that was the situation in 1948?

BM: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.

AS:The term “to cleanse” is terrible.

BM:I know it doesn’t sound nice but that’s the term they used at the time. I adopted it from all the 1948 documents in which I am immersed.

Morris's The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited cites numerous examples of the term "cleanse" being used by what would become the Israelis to refer to the act of expelling a civilian population from their homes. Even avowed Zionists who believe that ethnic cleansing was justified recognize that at least part of what happened in 1948 was ethnic cleansing. nableezy - 08:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

And the argument about why the term "ethnic cleansing" is in quotes lacks any merit. The author places quotes around the term "ethnic cleansing" to say that "ethnic cleansing" is the term now used to describe what happened to the Palestinians in 1948, much like how I place quotes around "ethnic cleansing" to say that I am talking about the term "ethnic cleansing". nableezy - 08:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Nableezy, I think "ethnic cleansing" is in quotes just to indicate this is a term. The author would hardly state the term is widely used if his intention was to convey that only people who use the term Nabka say that the 1947-9 events comprised ethnic cleansing. Pappe cites Hebrew documents from the period that use the term "cleansing", so it's what the Zionists themselves considered they were doing. --Dailycare (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I too agree with Nableezy. We are not stating in Wikipedia's voice that ethnic cleansing occurred (though in my view, that would be justified), but rather that the process is "widely described" as ethnic cleansing. This is a simple, and surely unchallengeable, statement of verifiable fact. RolandR (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"The Guardian" is not bound by Wikipedia "Words to avoid". Phrases such as "widely described" present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They are referred to as "weasel words" . I am tagging the words. Marokwitz (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Marokwitz. That someone wrote something in the Guardian is not enough of a reason to put it in the lead in the encyclopedia's neutral voice in violation of WP:Words_to_avoid#Unsupported_attributions. Also, there is obviously no consensus for this edit. I'm removing it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

A reliable source, The Guardian newspaper, carries an article which states as a matter of fact: "Abu Sitta is a leading expert on the nakbah and what is nowadays widely described as the 'ethnic cleansing' it involved." Do you have any sources which contradict that?     ←   ZScarpia   16:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You restored an edit for which there is no consensus and discussion is ongoing, in violation of WP:BRD. You have not addressed the fact this edit violates WP:Words to avoid. This information is in the lead, but is not supported by the body of the article in violation of WP:LEAD.

Your actions are disruptive and will be reported if you don't self-revert. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Plus, while reverting you also removed a "Weasel word" tag which I added and is being discussed here. Marokwitz (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Uhh no, you cannot simply say there is no consensus, you need to have policy based reasons for removing material. WP:WTA does not justify completely removing the content, if you have a problem with the word "widely" you could have removed that. I will be happy to expand on this material in the body, rendering moot your other wikilawyer-esque objection. A collection of users not liking the documented fact that this has been called "ethnic cleansing" does not allow those users to remove that fact from the article. Reliable sources have been given to support the content, do you have any that dispute that the events described in this article have been called "ethnic cleansing"? nableezy - 16:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have given several policy based reasons for removing the material. They are right above your post. Amusingly, you even threatened to improve the article to make my obviously valid policy based objection moot while at the same time claiming I have no policy based reasons. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You certainly did not. Your edit summary and one of your arguments here is WP:WTA. WP:WTA is a style guideline, not a policy, and even if it were you could have simply removed "widely". But that isnt even true, because when you made your edit "widely" was not even in the text. That is, you falsely claimed that you were removing "words to avoid" when the "word to avoid" had already been removed. Next, you claim BRD supports you. WP:BRD is not a policy, it is not even a guideline, it is an essay. Besides that, you need to have reasons for the R in BRD, you cannot simply say "per BRD" and then filibuster to avoid including the content you wrongly removed. Next, WP:LEAD. Again, not a policy, but rather a style guideline. The body does in fact discuss the fact that the expulsion of the natives from their homes in Palestine has been called ethnic cleansing, though it misleadingly attributes it to a single historian. So that doesnt apply either. What else? Any policies? Any sources? Or are we done with this charade? nableezy - 17:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I restored the article to the state it was before the contested edit. Anyway, "has been described" is also a violation of WTA. See my response to ZScarpia below. You accuse me of filibustering when this discussion can hardly be said to have run it's course. It has gone on for what, a day? The body describes one guy saying it. That hardly justifies "it has been described" in the lead, though I'm taking note of your opinion on how WP:LEAD should be applied, as you have made the exact opposite claims on other articles when it suited you. Can you show me where WP:BRD says "only when Nableezy approves"?

So what else? Any more non replies? WTA applies here. BRD applies here. LEAD applies here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

How about we try this again. BRD is an essay, it is not a policy or even a guideline. WTA is a style guideline, as is LEAD. I dont have to show where BRD does not apply, as there is nothing in it that has to be followed. NPOV on the other hand is a policy, one that says "all significant views" must be included. You and now your friend below have repeatedly violated NPOV, which, unlike the collection of letters you keep raising, is core Wikipedia policy. nableezy - 18:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

And now your WTA argument does not apply. I cited two historians saying that what took place is ethnic cleansing. And I said called by historians. Any more problems? nableezy - 18:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

[EC] NMMNG, you have interpreted policy incorrectly. The policy requires editors themselves to be specific about who says what. If an editor has a couple of sources stating something, it would be incorrect, for example, for that editor to write something to the effect that many people say ... or it is widely said that .... Here, though, we have a source that is stating as a fact that something is widely said and it is legitimate, unless there are contrary opinions, to express that statement in the article. Note that you removed a sourced statement and so, I suspect, that it is you who is in breach of the rules rather than me. Also, please justify your claims about what the consensus is.     ←   ZScarpia   17:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe my interpretation is correct. WTA says "Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proven should be clearly attributed". The edit I removed did not comply with that. Also, do you have other sources saying this is "widely described" as ethnic cleansing? I couldn't find any making that kind of generalization, which makes it REDFLAG as well. Some people may have said it, but for you to say it's a consensus opinion would require stronger sourcing than an article in the Guardian that mentions it in passing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious and legitimate problems and concerns noted by many editors on this thread, I still do not know why the author of the subject source placed the words "ethnic cleansing" in quotations. It seems very odd. Who is he quoting?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

He is quoting the people who use the term ethnic cleansing. You have now removed this well-sourced line 3 times in just over 3 days, with not one time providing a single policy based reason for removal. nableezy - 18:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think ZScarpia hit the nail on the head here, the term "widely" comes from the source, therefore it isn't objectionable and claiming otherwise in my opinion amounts to misrepresenting wiki policy. As a second point I feel we should reject an argument along the lines that we'd throw this perfectly good source away and ask for another one. However there are many ways to skin a cat, we might say e.g. that "Zionist leaders at the time described their actions as "cleansing" Palestine of Arabs", since we have sources for that, too. --Dailycare (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

While a number of people involved here have chosen to carry on with the discussion in another venue, does anybody actually have a problem with the current state? The statement is attributed to historians, cites Morris, Pappe, and this piece, and is expanded on in the body of the article. If there is a problem, what exactly is it? nableezy - 01:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Which other venue do you mean? Concerning the term "some", I'd presume that the same editors who opposed "widely" would oppose "some" on identical grounds, so the present form probably isn't OK. This is more so as the source says "widely", not "some". --Dailycare (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

An IP from Israel added "some". The other venue is AE. nableezy - 16:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with the editors here who say that this should not be in the lead of the article since it is not neutral. The Redflag argument looks applicable here. I believe the author was referring only to "widely" as within the context of the Palestinian-supporting community, such as the author Abu Sitta he was describing and others. Obviously, "widely referred to as ethnic cleansing" only refers to one side of this debate. By including it in the lead it gives far too much weight to the Palestinian view and is no longer neutral. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the current wording in the lead is in line with style requirements and is not WP:UNDUE. How the exodus is characterized is a major point of contention and deserves coverage. It's not using Wikipedia's tone to claim that it was ethnic cleansing only that it has been called thus as described in the body of the article. Sol (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It violates NPOV. Some historians have described it as having instances of ethnic cleansing and some haven't. Only one view is represented here. The way it's worded now gives the reader the impression this is a consensus view among historians and not a "major point of contention" as you say above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

"The expulsion of the Palestinians has since been described by historians as having included instances of ethnic cleansing." Could we just put a "some" in between by and historians, would that work for you? Sol (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The source says it's "widely" described as ethnic cleansing, not that "some" would consider it so or that only Palestininans would consider it so. My humble opinion is that editorial ideology shouldn't weigh more than a reliable source. As a way forward (and since WP:LEAD says that major controversies should be present in the lead) we could dig up a source denying that it was ethnic cleansing, and then say e.g. that it's widely considered to have been ethnic cleansing but that others dispute this. --Dailycare (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm suggesting we could use a new source for the "Called by some historians" segment which might be a more acceptable solution to the editors who want it removed or even "has been called". Perhaps the objectors would like to propose a different approach for keeping the material in? If not then we stick with what this source says. I'm happy to compromise if possible but I won't tie myself in knots when the material in question is strong. Sol (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Since many of those using the term are probably not historians, how about using "described, including by a number of historians"?     ←   ZScarpia   20:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Apropos editorial ideology, did you notice that the source you are using is an editorial? Also, I couldn't find any other sources claiming this is "widely described", so per REDFLAG (as discussed above, this is a point of contention) you're going to need a bit stronger sourcing for describing these widely studied historical events than one piece (editorial or not) in the Guardian that mentions it in passing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The sentence now reads "The expulsion of the Palestinians has since been described by historians as having included instances of ethnic cleansing.[8][9][10]" Questions & Concerns:

• 1) is logosjournal.com an acceptable source?
• 2)Benny Morris says the expulsion of the Palestinians is "ethnic cleansing" in his view. So there is one historian (of the revisionist school) *that does indeed call it that
• 3)Ian Black is not an historian. He uses "widely described" but does not say by historians.
• 4)Pappe clearly says in his book that it is ethnic cleansing, but Pappe is not an historian.

The sentence above gives the impression that all historians call it "ethnic cleansing" and that is clearly not the case. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe Pappe is indeed a historian. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Of course Ilan Pappé is a historian. He is a Professor of History at the University of Exeter.[1] The article by Ian Black is not an editorial, but a book review; and Black is a reliable source. Logos looks to me like a very reliable source, and its senior editor, Stephen Bronner, is a respected academic. In any case, the article cited to the journal was originally published in Haaretz; I will look for the original, and if appropriate replace the Logos link with one to Haaretz. And of course many other historians describe this event as "ethnic cleansing". For example, Nur Masalha, Benny Morris, Geoffrey Wawro. The term has also been used by academics in other disciplines, including sociologist Baruch Kimmerling, geographer Oren Yiftachel and philosopher Ted Honderich. There really is enough evidence to establish that the term is widely used, and not only by historians, in academic discussion of the events of 1948. RolandR (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems more like an editorial than a book review to me, but regardless, it's certainly not a news report. Do book reviews get fact checked? Anyway, How is Ian Black a reliable source for this?

If the term is "widely used" it should be a simple matter to find an actual scholar in the field stating that it is. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a look-what-I-just-found-in-the-newspaper-pedia. I'm fairly certain we all know that the term is "widely used" among people with a certain POV and not in general. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain we don't actually know that and suspicions of political agenda affecting scholarly work doesn't affect that the perspective exists. I'm also fairly certain that there's a source supporting it. If you would like to change the RS standards to give you veto power, best of luck. Here's an article from the nefarious NYT discussing how "much of this debate [the 1948 events as ethnic cleansing] has been resolved by respected scholars." Would you prefer that? There are many, many other possible sources. If you don't like this one, you can find one. I'm not going on a goose chase to find sources that are summarily rejected for equally weak reasons. If you don't want a compromise, that's fine. Sol (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you just point me to an NYT opinion piece by someone with a well known POV as proof that the term is widely used in general?

I didn't say the perspective doesn't exist. Quite the contrary, I acknowledge it exists but am saying that 1. it's not exclusive (you wouldn't be able to figure that out reading the article right now) and 2. someone saying so in a book review is not enough sourcing to claim it's the majority view.

I hope I'm being clear here because you don't seem to be addressing what I'm actually saying. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I was suggesting an alternative source since you didn't like the others. If you don't like how the information is included it's helpful if you tell us what you think would be the best way to say it. The article talks about ethnic cleansing allegations in the body and thus the subject can get a mention in the lead. The question is how to include it. I think the material is well supported, you don't. Taking it to the RS boards might be your best bet. Sol (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

What should I take to the RS board? Upon closer look, the current wording is not based on the Guardian piece anyway. The Guardian doesn't say who widely uses this term. What we have here is a bit of SYNTH between the Guardian ("widely used") and the article (example of a couple of historians using it) resulting in "historians describe" (as if this is the only opinion around). The problem, for the nth time, is NPOV. As you said, this term is a point of contention. Would you say a reader would understand that from reading the second paragraph of the lead or do you think he'd come away with the impression that this is something practically all historians agree about? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Please, just tell me how you think it should be worded. We can work from there but I can't guess what you want. Sol (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Well first of all I want editors not to add more stuff to something we're currently discussing (per the latest AE result), particularly not such flagrant violations of NPOV, like Dailycare did here.

Second, the text should reflect this is not a consensus. It can do that either by attributing the claim to whoever said it, noting that not all historians think this, noting that others disagree, or any combination thereof. I don't really care as long as the reader doesn't get the impression there is some sort of consensus among historians about this.

Third, I don't think it would hurt if we added some background, for example that the from the Peel Commission onwards, most/many/whatever suggestions for partition included the idea of voluntary or mandatory population transfer. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The second bit sounds perfectly reasonable. Could you suggest a wording for the sentence and we can work towards something we all agree on? Sol (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Being NPOV involves presenting all the significant viepoints outlined in reliable sources in a balanced manner. Therefore, to show that the article is not currently NPOV as far as describing the events of 1948 in terms of ethnic cleansing are concerned, it needs to be shown that there are viewpoints in reliable sources that haven't been presented. That would involve presenting such reliable sources which, as far as I can see, hasn't been done so far. As a start towards correcting that, here are the results of a Google search done on the Haaretz website using the search terms "1948" and "ehnic cleansing". Perhaps something can be made of articles such as this and this.     ←   ZScarpia   01:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, point of view pushing can involve suppression of disliked viewpoints as well as trying to promote favoured ones.     ←   ZScarpia   15:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Pappe's His advanced degree seems to be in social sciences, and he teaches political science. While it is true that he has written or rewritten some history, he is an acknowleged political activist, and has been accused by other historians of "factual misrepresentations" {see: Ilan Pappe}. Granting that he is considered an 'historian' by some, he is not a mainstream historian by any stretch; rather an advocacy historian, and as such cannot be said to be a neutral, reliable source for this information. The footnote refers only to his book, btw, without any page numbers. Using Pappe would illustrate Black's statement to my interpretation, ie that what Black was saying that among those sympathetic to the Palestinian position, "ethnic cleansing" is widely used to describe the expulsion of Palestinians from the area in 1948. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ian Black is an award-winning journalist specialising in the Middle East. His statement that a term is "widely used" should be sufficient evidence. According to the University of Exeter, Ilan Pappé is "Professor of History". I suggest that they are more qualified than Snakeswithfeet to determine who is indeed a historian. And of course the footnote refers to the entire book; its title is The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Every page is dedicated to establishing this definition. If you demand explicit examples, then for instance "The general definition of what ethnic cleansing consists of applies almost verbatim to the case of Palestine" (p xvii); "Israel's 1948 Plan D... contains a repertoire of cleansing methods that one by one fit the means thge UN describes in its definition of ethnic cleansing" (p 2); "From planning stage to final execution, what occurred in Palestine in 1948 forms a clear-cut case, according to these informed and scholarly definitions, of ethnic cleansing" (p 3); "This book is written with the deep conviction that the ethnic cleansing of Palestine must become rooted in our memory and consciousness as a crime against humanity and that it should be excluded from the list of alleged crimes" (p 5); and so n, on nearly every page until "But before these committed few will make a difference, the land of Palestine and its people, Jews and Arabs, will have to face the consequences of the 1948 ethnic cleansing. We end this book as we began: with the bewilderment that this crime was so utterly forgotten and erased from our minds and memories" (p 259). RolandR (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

And, as it happens, Pappé's BA from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and his PhD from Oxford University were both in history. I don't know where you get this bizarre notion that he is a "social scientist". RolandR (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

This line from the Wikipedia article that was formerly a senior lecturer in political science at the University of Haifa, led me to believe his specialty was political science not history. Also as "Director of the European Centre for Palestine Studies and Co-Director for the Exeter Centre for Ethno-Political Studies" But I see you are correct that he got his doctorate in history at Oxford; I did get confused, sorry about that, I must have been reading someone else's bio. With a doctorate from Oxford in history he is certainly credentialed. He is also one of a number of historians who claim that the nabka, ie the flight and the expulsion of Palestinians involved "ethnic cleansing." But my main point is that all historians do not make such a claim when writing about this event. Since not all, or even most, historians agree with this view, we cannot imply that they do. I am confident that I can find more historians that do not call it ethnic cleansing, than in fact you can find historians that do. But that would be a foolish and expensive waste of time, and we don't need to do it. Most mainstream and "non-revisionist" historians do not so term it. Really only a handful. Of course, if one reads only those historians that render this opinion, one may tend to believe that everyone thinks as he does, or at least, should think. A typical failing of youth.  ;) Snakeswithfeet (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

^{Thank you for considering me youthful. If only... RolandR (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)}

Snakeswithfeet, I don't think the text has at any point said that all historians say that, so I'd be inclined to label that a strawman argument. The source says that the view is widely held. Why not say that it's widely held, but that not all agree with it? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Dailycare, your turn to eat crow. ;) The latest incantation says this "The expulsion of the Palestinians has since been described by historians as having included instances of ethnic cleansing.[8][9][10]" Since there is no qualifier of "historians" the implication is that all historians describe it in this way. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I put in the word "some". That's more than "one" historian and less than "all" historians. Does this address everyone's concerns? Sol (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No, because as I note above the term has also been used by academics in other relevant disciplines, such as sociology (Baruch Kimmerling), geography (Oren Yiftachel) and philosophy (Ted Honderich). I still think that the original formulation ("is widely described") is the most appropriate. RolandR (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, "described by historians" doesn't mean or imply all historians. Is there opposition to the suggestion floated by myself and others to word the phrase "Is widely described (...) however not all historians agree with this characterization."? --Dailycare (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great to me.Sol (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't sound great to me. It still imples that this is the majority view. See my quote below, which is from someone I don't think anyone suspects of being a big Zionist. Doesn't look like she thinks it's "widely used". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

[ec] I agree with Roland. For the record, I'd also support removal of the text to the body of the article. And it surprises me that the editors who don't like the use of the label haven't tried to find sources which point out that, unlike the Nakba, "ethnic cleansing" usually involves attempts to totally remove a people.     ←   ZScarpia   12:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC) [redacted 12:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)]

"Some academics" then? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Many who have come to acknowledge this narrative, however, place it in the context of war, not ethnic cleansing". [2] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Is Yasmeen an expert who has been cited writing on the topic? Note also that she notes that the Zionist leaders themselves were calling their actions "cleansing". The sentence you're lifting from her book sounds like ethnic cleansing couldn't occur "in the context of war", whereas most occurrences of ethnic cleansing do occur "in the context of war" AFAIK. If I understand the issue you have with the proposed text, it's that you feel it gives an impression of majority view. However, the wording is from the source, so this point of yours is moot. --Dailycare (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's see if I'm following you correctly. I have to show you that Professor Samina Yassmin, who is Director of Centre for Muslim States and Societies and lectures in Political Science and International Relations in the School of Social and Cultural Studies at the University of Western Australia has been cited writing on the topic, while your editorial/book review is an unassailable source? And since the wording from the editorial/book review is "from the source" my point is moot, while your personal opinion on where and how ethnic cleansing occurs should be taken into consideration when assessing Yassmin's views on what context other people use for the Palestinian exodus?

Did I get that right? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Hi, you're on the right track but not quite there. You're wrong in claiming that the Guardian piece would be an "editorial/book review" as it's a regular article. Concerning Yasmeen as a recognized expert in the field, 1 states her specialty is "Professor Yasmeen is a specialist in political, and strategic developments in South Asia(particularly Pakistan), the role of Islam in world politics, and citizenship among immigrant women". In my view that doesn't make her an expert on ethnic cleansing or 1948, especially so since her views on it seem to differ from those described in the sources in ethnic cleansing. Could you write out your proposal for the entire text we're discussing? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You think something mentioned in passing is in a newspaper is more important than the views of a scholar. I get it. No wonder wikipedia has the reputation it has.

I can live with the text the way it is now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone actually read this book, or are we all relying on Google Books? Because there is something very odd about it. From the information on Google Books, Yasmeen is not the author, but the editor.[3] The actual author, according to the Preface, appears to be Dr Halim Rane, "a well-known personality and an active member in his local community in Brisbane, where he lives with his family".[4] I have no idea why his name does not appear on the book cover, but is hidden away; but surely it is his reliability, not Samina Yasmeen's, that is relevant here. The book is actually titled "Muslims in Australia"; again of apparently marginal relevance to the issue at hand. And if you look at the whole paragraph, from which NMNMG has quoted just the last line, you see that it is accepting the use of "ethnic cleansing" as normative, and merely offering this as a qualification. All in all, I think that this is a problematic source, which in any case does not really prove the case in support of which it is being cited. RolandR (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the profile section of the site you linked to above [5] you'll see that Rane "completed his PhD in 2008. His dissertation, entitled Reconstructing Jihad amid Competing International Norms: Implications for a Resolution of the Israel-Palestine Conflict..." and "His research interests include political Islam, the Israel-Palestine conflict...". The fact he accepts the use of "ethnic cleansing" but notes that many others do not just strengthens my point. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

NMMNG, do you have links to scholarly work of Rane, that has been "published by reliable third-party publications" in the field of ethnic cleansing/1948? (emphasis from WP:IRS). My proposal for the text is "The expulsion of the Palestinians has been widely described as having included instances of ethnic cleansing ((source:Guardian)), although this characterization is not universally accepted. ((source:Karsh))" --Dailycare (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could say I'm surprised you're trying to say that something an editor in the Guardian said in passing deserves more weight than a specific point a scholar in the area of the IP conflict made (against his personal opinion, no less), but I can't.

Again, I object to your proposed wording for reasons articulated repeatedly above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I take it that is a no, you don't have the links I inquired after (and they're unlikely to exist as Rane is a sociologist per your link). The Guardian source is WP:RS, and you haven't established that your book would be one. Concerning your objections, they amount to, correct me if I'm wrong, that you'd prefer to not see "widely" used (whereas it's from the source) and you'd like to have the sentence from your book included (whereas we haven't established the book as WP:RS and thus usable as a source here). By the way, if we decide on the language I proposed in my edit above (timestamp 21:45, Dec. 8) I'm OK with not including a mention of Ben Gurion's use of the term "cleansing" in the lead. --Dailycare (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You should take that as a no, I don't think I need to provide the links you inquired after.

You are wrong about my objections. Re-read the thread above.

The current wording is a summary of the information in the article. If you want to use "widely described" then take your editorial/book review to RSN and let's see what they say.

By the way, I'm not going to barter with you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that there's probably been enough discussion. Perhaps it's time to summarise the arguments, determine what the consensus is and move on?     ←   ZScarpia   00:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Summarizing, my proposal for the sentence in the lead is "The expulsion of the Palestinians has been widely described as having included instances of ethnic cleansing ((source:Guardian)), although this characterization is not universally accepted. ((source:Karsh))", and the arguments for it are that it provides good context to the "exodus", and both statements in the proposed sentence are sourced to texts that are WP:RS. Concerning the book NMMNG cites, I don't view a text written by a sociologist as WP:RS in this topic, and NMMNG has refused (his edit 23:33) to provide the information requested to establish it as WP:RS. The sentence he cites also seems to contradict sources on ethnic cleansing that place instances of ethnic cleansing in the context of war. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 10:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggested taking the sources to RSN but Dailycare refused. I have also told Dailycare that his personal opinion regarding what constitutes ethnic cleansing is irrelevant. I asked for more sources that support the phrase he wants to use, but none were provided.

Taking a phrase made in passing in an editorial (even if it's from the Guardian) and putting in the lead would give it UNDUE weight, not to mention the fact it violates WTA. I am fine with the wording that's in the article now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not an editorial, I haven't refused to take anything to RSN. --Dailycare (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

As this discussion has wound down, I've taken up NMMNG's idea to post this item in RSN. --Dailycare (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with NMMNG. The reliance on an op-ed to make a blanket yet very contentious statement like that is not good editing.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to remove the statement to the body of the article and attribute it. On whether the piece is an editorial or not, it looks like a news story to me.     ←   ZScarpia   11:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing the smallest bit contentious about calling some of the events of 1948 "ethnic cleansing", as some main-stream historians have plainly done. I'd expect mention to be in the lead. Templar98 (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Now the discussion in WP:RSN appears to have settled, and three out of four uninvolved editors there are OK with saying the idea is "widely" held, as long as the opposing viewpoint is also presented. The fourth editor offered better sources for the claim, however he neglected that the sources must discuss the events of 1948 to be relevant here. --Dailycare (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Where do you count four uninvolved editors there? Let's have someone uninvolved sum it up at RS/N. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I count Slatersteven, Nuujinn, FormerIP and Jrtayloriv which makes four. The discussion is in the latest archive at RSN where you can verify this. --Dailycare (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP is involved, Jrtayloriv didn't address the source at all (other than to say he agrees with the conclusion) and Nuujinn said the "articles written by professional historians would make better 2ndary sources for this kind of information". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty outrageous to dispute that what happened is widely regarded as "ethnic cleansing". I'm new round here, so it makes me wonder what else in the article is transparently bad and can't be fixed because of this one argument. However, one glaring ommission is the lack of reference to the fact that almost every known Zionist was intent on clearing Palestine of most or all of the natives. Templar98 (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG, FormerIP hasn't contributed to this discussion so he is an uninvolved editor. Nuujinn writes that whereas s/he would prefer other sources, if there are no other sources then "the Guardian seems fine". Frankly, you were the editor who originally proposed taking the case to WP:RSN so I suggest that you accept the outcome. --Dailycare (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP is very much involved in the topic area, and even if we take your reading of Nuujinn's statement, that's one uninvolved editor. That's hardly a consensus. Edit warring the SYNTH version that's in the article now is just ridiculous. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Being involved with the "topic area" doesn't make him involved in this discussion. FormerIP, Nuujinn and Slatersteven are three uninvolved editors. Jrtayloriv is a fourth one who also doesn't exactly support your view. I agree with you that the source doesn't say "by historians and commentators" which is why I've removed it and now it isn't in the article. --Dailycare (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Historiography

The sub-article 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle seems to be in much better shape than this article. In particular it has a much better and better sourced section on Historiography. Some of it could be copied here. Material in the Lydda and Ramle artice was recently trimmed and the excess material could be moved here, see this old version and the long quote by Benny Morris. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, except the other article claims "The military action occurred within the context of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, triggered when five Arab states invaded the area the day after Israel declared its independence on 14 May" when everyone knows that's untrue. That article, like this one, has been written to disguise the nature of what was actually going on. The discussion pages resonate with contempt for the views of the Palestinians and the one Palestinian author who was trying to write the story of her own people. Templar98 (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

struck comments of banned user.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ben Gurion and transfer

I'm removing the following line from the lead

David Ben-Gurion at the time made references to "transfering" Arabs from Israel, and a "cleansing" of the area.

While Ben Gurion did talk about transfer, he didn't do so only "at the time" as this sentence misleadingly states. According to Karsh, Shabtai Tevet and even Meron Benvenisti, following the Peel Comission's recommendation of partition that included population transfer, Ben Gurion supported population transfer under certain conditions which included international support and compensation for those transferred. Ben Gurion is also on record saying that he thinks there is enough room in the country for both Jews and Arabs (see for example Karsh's Fabricating Israeli History pages 45 and 51).

In short, this sentence is a violation of NPOV, intended to give the impression that Ben Gurion's plan was to "ethnically cleanse" "the area" (what area we are not told).

Also, one of the sources used here, namely "Summary of the Hagana Book" returns no hits on google. I'm not sure what is normally done when one source cites another which can't be found. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

All of the books in Pappé's footnotes are cited in this way; the full details are in the bibliography. In this case, he lists "Sluzki, Yehuda, The Hagana Book (Tel-Aviv: IDF Publications, 1964) (Hebrew)" and "Sluzki, Yehuda, Summary of the The Hagana Book (Tel-Aviv: Ministry of Defence Publications, 1978) (Hebrew)". I will see if I can trace this online; maybe someone in Israel has easier access than I do to relevant library catalogues. RolandR (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

And there you go. In the National Library of Israel Main Catalogue, I have found

סלוצקי, יהודה, 1915-1978. קיצור תולדות ההגנה / כתב יהודה סלוצקי ; בעריכת - שאול אביגור, יהודה סלוצקי, גרשון ריבלין. [תל אביב] : משרד הביטחון - ההוצאה לאור, (תשל"ט 1978).

(Yehuda Slutsky, 1915-1978, Abridged History of the Hagana, by Yehuda Slutsky; edited by Shaul Avigur, Yehuda Slutsky, Gershon Rivlin, Tel-Aviv: Ministry of Security Publishers, 1978). [6] That wasn't too hard (but it was a nightmare formatting this comment; if anyone can give me any tips on right-left indenting, please help!) So the source Pappé cites definitely exists; I see no reason not to reinstate the sentence. RolandR (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove the sentence because I couldn't find the source. That was a sidenote. The reasons I removed it are stated above.

Then I don't understand your logic. Are you arguing that, because B-G argued several times for ethnic cleansing, we shouldn't mention this one instance? Pappé is here noting a specific speech, on 11 May 1948. Why should this not be mentioned? RolandR (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should not be mentioned. I'm saying that:

• Ben Gurion used the term "transfer" to mean something specific in previous statements, putting it here without context or background while trying to imply he meant "ethnic cleansing" is a violation of NPOV. If Pappe is interpreting a specific speech (which you couldn't understand from the text I removed) in a certain way, then attribute it to Pappe.
• Whether what happened constitutes ethnic cleansing, and if it does whether it was planned or not is, as you probably know, a contested subject amongst scholars. If we want it in the lead I suggest developing it in the body first, and then summarize it in the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Dןiscussion on right-to-left formatting
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You really did something weird with the whole page formatting here. How did you insert the hebrew text? Copy/paste or typed it in? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC) I don't know how, but now the whole page seems formatted right-to-left. When I tried to type English, copy-paste the Hebrew, and then type more English, it went haywire. So I typed the English, inserted para breaks in the middle, and copy-pasted the Hebrew there. I don't see how to get out of this; what is the appropriate help page? RolandR (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC) With thanks to Nableezy, the problem is resolved. Now to learn how he did it! RolandR (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

In one of the books I have, it describes Ben-Gurion getting angry during one of the later wars when a particular IDF officer didn't take advantage of the situation to get rid of as many Arabs as he could have done. Everything else I've read tends to confirm that his intention was to reduce the Arab population of the area by as much as he could get away with. And, in carrying out his Jewish revolution, he wasn't very keen on admitting those he consisdered poor material to make "New Jews" into Israel.     ←   ZScarpia   18:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

NMMNG, if I read you correct here, you're effectively suggesting that we replace the sentence with "David Ben Gurion referred to a cleansing of Palestine as a primary goal" (as that avoids the transfer part and follows the source more closely concerning the rest). I'm OK with that, even though I don't quite follow what your problem is with the "transfer" bit. --Dailycare (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No, you didn't read me correct. If Pappe says that's what BG was saying, then attribute it to him. Then note that Karsh says there was no plan to remove the Arab population. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a need to use attribution since the source has ben Gurion in his own words. I think using Karsh would make sense in the snippet we're discussing above as a source for a modifier that not all agree ethnic cleansing was involved, but not here since Karsh doesn't discuss the text of ben Gurion's letter to the commanders of the Hagana brigades. --Dailycare (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Jews for Justice for Palestinians - Tom Segev reviews Benny Morris’s book on 1948, 19 July 2010:

Most of the Arabs in the country, approximately 400,000, were chased out and expelled during the first stage of the war. In other words, before the Arab armies invaded the country. According to Morris, the expulsion of the Arabs was meant to safeguard the homeland before the invasion of the armies of Arabia. This explanation is problematic, first because according to Morris himself, David Ben Gurion was not at all afraid of the Arabs of Israel, and for good cause: they were almost powerless. Ben Gurion was afraid of an invasion by the Arab armies. Moreover, Ben Gurion was not certain that they would invade Israel. ...

Naturally, the question arises: were the Arabs expelled in order to get rid of them. Morris states at as early as December 1947, at least, which is nearly half a year before the Arab armies invaded, two goals were at the forefront for the Jews of the land of Israel: expanding the territory designated by the United Nations resolution for the founding of a Jewish state; and reducing the number of Arabs living in that territory. And that was what they did. Historiographically, that is sufficient, but Morris brings his readers into an old dispute about a subject with which he is also well-familiar: the Zionist movement’s yearning to transfer the Arabs of the country, or at least some of them. ...

About six years ago Benny Morris said that Israel had not expelled enough Arabs. In an interview with Haaretz’ Ari Shavit, he stated that if Ben Gurion had carried out a full, rather than just a partial expulsion he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations. It would eventually transpire as his fatal error, warned Morris at the time. ...

He exhibits a great deal of understanding for a series of atrocities which went along with the expulsion. He describes some actions which were meant, among others, for the expulsion of residents – as cleansings, with no quotations. This is embarrassing and indeed, in the American original, quotations were added to this phrase in one case. At the same time, he carefully states again and again that Arabs, including prisoners of war and civilians, including women and children, were “executed”. Jews, on the other hand, were generally “murdered”, as he puts it. ...

The bottom line is this: the IDF won because it was stronger than the Arabs of the land of Israel and the Arab armies put together, it carried out more atrocities than the Arabs, some of which were perpetrated in order to cause the Arabs to escape and to expel them, but not to worry: “a total number” of approximately 800 Arab citizens and prisoners of war were murdered in the war, writes Morris; the war crimes in Yugoslavia and Sudan are worse.

    ←   ZScarpia   00:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You might want to tell us what exactly your point is. We know Morris' opinion. It's already in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Strange, I would have thought that anybody reading the article can see that it is not so much a statement of what Morris says; rather, it is a criticism, particularly of such things as Morris's contention that the expulsion of the Arabs was meant to safeguard the homeland before the invasion of the armies of Arabia. The book being covered is not one mentioned in the article and was written much later than the ones that are.

Do I have to have a point beyond providing a text which I think other editors might find relevant and interesting and, as such, allow others to make of it what they will? You in particular might like to note, though, that, as a counterpoint to what you say Karsh says, there was no plan to remove the Arab population, Morris supposedly states (an opinion of his which doesn't appear in the article at the moment): as early as December 1947, at least, which is nearly half a year before the Arab armies invaded, two goals were at the forefront for the Jews of the land of Israel: expanding the territory designated by the United Nations resolution for the founding of a Jewish state; and reducing the number of Arabs living in that territory.

    ←   ZScarpia   15:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Karsh specifically addresses Moriss' views in his book Fabricating Israeli History. As I have mentioned several times in this discussion, there are multiple POVs regarding this issue and NPOV requires us to give them due weight. Wasn't it you above who said trying to suppress certain views is a violation of NPOV? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Point 1: The second edition of Karsh's book Fabricating Israeli History: The New Historians (ISBN 0714650110), which I assume you are referring to, was published in 2000. The book of Morris's, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War (ISBN 0300151128), which Segev was reviewing, was published in 2009, a long time after Karsh's and at a time when Morris's opinions had largely shifted. The latter is not currently being used as a source in the article, nor are the opinions of Morris's stated.

Point 2: Nowhere have I objected to multiple points of view being outlined - in fact, quite the reverse. Particularly, I didn't object to Karsh being used as a source. Note that I presented an opinion of Morris's as a "counterpoint" (think about it) to what Karsh said.

    ←   ZScarpia   15:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This stuff is hard to follow, but going to try anyway. to the comment about BG and transfer referenced by page 63 of Pappe re the "Long Seminar." While Pappe does claim that the idea of transfer at this meeting was "accepted by all, " he contradicts himself when he says in the same breath "Indeed, there was hardly a dissenting voice...". "Hardly a dissenting voice" is not the same thing as "accepted by all." Also on page 62 we see that he idea of transfer was being brought by Weitz to BG for approval. "Weitz had prepared a memo, personally addressed to Ben-Gurion, in which he urged the leader to endose his plans for transferring the Palestinian population... " Since Pappe does not specifically say what BG said one way or the other or mentions whether BG does in fact endorse it, how can we use this sentence with pg 63 of Pappe as supporting reference? Snakeswithfeet (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'll have a go. Perhaps the confusion revolves around what Pappé means by the departure point of the meeting, that all agreed on, that ethnic cleansing was necessary. My interpretation is that this is the point from which discussion progressed. Therefore, the discussion started with the assumption, which all agreed on, that ethnic cleansing was necessary.
• Ben-Gurion was at the meeting and signalled his assent to the more aggressive policy discussed.
• Paraphrasing ....... the Long Seminar was a discussion session held at Ben-Gurion's house at which members of the Consultancy could make extended speeches and elaborate their ideas. It gave Jossef Weitz, who believed all Arabs should be transferred to neighbouring countries, an opportunity to display his ideas. Weitz had prepared a memo addressed directly to Ben-Gurion beforehand in which he urged the leader to to endorse Weitz's plans to transfer Arabs out of areas that Jews wanted to occupy and to make such actions "the cornerstone of Zionist policy". The departure point for the meeting, accepted by all, was that ethnic cleansing was necessary. During the meeting there was hardly a dissenting voice. Even the most liberal member of the Consultancy, Yaacov Tahon with the conclusions reached. Beforehand he had wanted to exploit the Arabs rather than expel them, but, in the Long Seminar he appeared taken by Weitz's notion that "without transfer there will be no Jewish State". The Long Seminar marked a consolidation in the shift from carrying out retaliatory attacks against identified individuals to a more aggressive policy. Ben-Gurion did not need persuading (page 64) and, by the end of the meeting, had signalled his assent to a whole series of provocative and lethal attacks on Arab villages, some as retaliation, some not, the intention of which was to cause optimal damage and kill as many villagers as possible.
•     ←   ZScarpia   05:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for marking my last change as minor, but sometimes it gets confusing when acting as reviewer. Although Benny Morris's opinion is not necessarily irrelevant, mentioning him in this way in a sentence which starts "Some historians" is giving his opinion undue weight (see WP:UNDUE) among all those historians and scholars who would regard the term "ethnic cleansing" as legitimate. PatGallacher (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

error, can someone please fix

From the lead -2nd para: "They and many of their descendants remain refugees.[9]" [9] - Kodmani-Darwish, p. 126; Féron, Féron, p. 94. None of these works are cited in the bibliography?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakeswithfeet (talk • contribs) 02:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This has arisen before; it seems that removal of these titles was collateral damage from another edit. I have salvaged them from an earlier edit. RolandR (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. However, these sources are in French. It doesn't seem necessary to include them, as there are plenty of English sources that can be used to support that "They and many of their descendants remain refugees." (How about this one? UNRWA)? Snakeswithfeet (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

New section on calls for transfer

Further to the discussion above, there is a major omission from the article, nothing on the fact that transfer (what we now call "ethnic cleansing") was the fully developed intention of the great majority of Zionist leaders.

Here's a new section I propose appear towards the end of this article:

==Historical calls for transfer==

While the exact sequence by which expulsion became the policy of the Yishuv is complex and debated, numerous Zionist leaders including such as Theodor Herzl, David Ben-Gurion, Chaim Weizman, Nachman Syrkin, Arthur Ruppin, Leo Motzkin, Israel Zangwill, Vladimir Jabotinsky, Menachem Ussishkin, Moshe Shertok (Sharett), Abraham Sharon (Schwadron), Edward Norman, Joseph Weitz, Ernest Frankenstein, Victor Gollancz made these suggestions. As detailed by Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons of Kiryat Arba, some early proposals assumed that land could be purchased in Jordan and Iraq to compensate the displaced Palestinians and in a few cases, suitable areas were proposed.

Most politicians (eg Herzl, whose aim of expulsion is only known from his diaries) were quite careful that the public not know their intentions. Calls such as "Palestine to become as Jewish as France is French" were only published openly in a few cases eg a letter to the Times in 1920 though some authors (Israel Zangwill from 1904) were vocal in specialists publications and some orators did the same in public meetings.

Even when there is written evidence that proposals had been made for the transfer of Arabs from Palestine, the record has often been concealed, sometimes with crossings out and deletions from minutes and letters. Tom Segev comments about one such deletion in the minutes of a meeting (fifth session of the Temporary Council of the Jews of Palestine held in Jaffa in 1919). The question of transfer of Arabs from Palestine had been raised by Yosef Sprinzak, a leader of Hapoel Hazair, who said that “we must receive Palestine without any reduction or restrictions. But there is a known quantum of Arabs who live in Palestine and they will receive their due. Anyone who wants to work will cultivate his plot. Anyone who does not want to work it, will receive compensation and he will seek his fortune in another country.” The words “he will seek his fortune in another country” have been heavily crossed out in these minutes. Chaim Simons identifies other quotes (eg the letters of David Ben Gurion) where deletions have been made and words added. Karsh and Morris disagree over who carried out the changes and when.

1 ^ Proposals to transfer the indigenous Arab people from Palestine Dr. Yvonne Schmidt "Foundations of civil and political rights in Israel and the occupied territories" Doctoral Thesis 2001, p.42 note 58.

2 ^ A Historical Survey of Proposals to Transfer Arabs from Palestine 1895 - 1947 Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons, revised 2004.

3 ^ Minutes of the fifth session of the Temporary Council of the Jews of Palestine, 11-13 Sivan 5679 (9-11 June 1919), p.134, (CZA J1/8777) cited Simons Ibid.

4 ^ Tom Segev. One Palestine Complete, (London, 2000), p.404 fn. cited Simons Ibid.

5 ^ Efraim Karsh, Fabricating Israeli History, The ‘New Historians’ , (London, 1997), p.50. cited Simons Ibid.

6 ^ Benny Morris, “Refabricating 1948”, Journal of Palestine Studies, (Berkeley), vol.XXVII no.2 (Winter 1998), p.84. cited Simons Ibid.

(Originally added by Templar98, a sockpuppet of the banned user PalestineRemembered, at 13:23 UTC on 16 January 2011. Deleted by Brewcrewer, then re-added by ZScarpia under his own name)

    ←   ZScarpia   06:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

So when re-adding this, you are taking responsibility for the content? Please explain then how the opinion of a Doctor of Philosophy in Chemistry meets wikipedia's RS policy for inclusion in an article that has nothing to do with Chemistry. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that the views of Dr Chaim Weizmann are quite relevant, despite his PhD in Chemistry. RolandR (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons who is apparently the source for the above paragraph, or at least most of it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)