Talk:Population transfer

Zero: Please provide cites for the following claims

• 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 http://www.israelvotes.com/demo/platforms_unity.html )
   * Herut (see http://www.israelvotes.com/demo/platforms_herut.html for the present party of that name; I'm not sure about the original one)
   * Tkuma (I'll find a citation)
   * Tehiya (see http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Politics/Tehiya.html)
   * Tsomet (in 1996 at least, see http://www.jafi.org.il/education/actual/elections/elections1996/parties.html).
   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 http://www.knesset.gov.il/mk/eng/mkindex_current_eng.asp?view=1 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)

---

Name

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

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 69.138.236.221) 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 died....it 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 69.138.236.221)" 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 bargin....as 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. Passia.org 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)

"Palestinian" section

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 [209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1035898/posts].

Mikkalai 18:02, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity category removal

Crimes against humanity is a specific legal concept. In order to be included in the category, the event (s) must have been prosecuted as a crime against humanity, or at a bare minimum be described as such by most reliable sources. Most of the articles that were formerly in this category did not mention crimes against humanity at all, and the inclusion of the category was purely original research. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality of Palestine section

I flagged the section on Palestine because rather than discussing actual population transfer in Palestine and its causes, effects, etc. (either in the past or present), it only attempts to a) disprove the number of people displaced in the Nakba, which has some 20+ academic sources proving it on the Nakba page, and b) discuss the idea of population transfer in Zionist thought, which would be much better placed in an article about Zionism or 1948 specifically. This section needs significant work to include widely accepted scholarly facts about the history of population transfer in Israel/Palestine, because it is highly one sided and incredibly poorly cited as it stands. Walruswikiwizard (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing it out. I have attempted to fix the neutrality of the section by adding more context. Gamalny (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The user @Galamore keeps reverting my edits, and I would like to not be a participant in an "edit war". Gamalny (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Both of you are in breach of the 1R rule for IP related editing (regardless whether the appropriate notice is displayed).

@Galamore:, cut it out and join this conversation here. Selfstudier (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I removed this sentence for discussion: "The British plan was endorsed by the World Zionist Congress at the behest of senior leaders David Ben-Gurion and Chaim Weizmann". Although it is true that Ben-Gurion and Weizmann approved of the transfer part of the 1937 partition plan (provided the British did it), it is not true that the Congress endorsed the plan. The motion they passed explicitly rejected the plan, not because of the transfer provision but because most of the delegates thought that the Jews should hold out for a better deal. I don't think the given sources support the current text, for example the book by Louis doesn't even mention the World Zionist Congress. The sentence should be replaced by citations to the attitudes of the important Zionist leaders to the transfer provision. Zero^talk 03:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

References