Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 17:24, 28 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 6 months

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Palestine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Israel Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Biography / British / European / Middle East Start‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force British military history task force European military history task force Middle Eastern military history task force

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Change article to become about the historiography

This was discussed above with multiple users expressing support for the idea. So I propose it here: This article should be changed to focus on the historiography rather than on the causes. As the article stands now it would require less changes to make it about the historiography than to make it a good article about the causes. By that I mean most of the material in this article is from pre-1980s and is wildly out of date and inaccurate. It would require a massive overhaul with massive removals of content to improve this article, or if we make it about the historiography almost all of the current content can remain. I think it would be better to change the article to focus on the historiography and to make this page inclusive of all views and historians' opinions/analyses. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Make a new article about the historiography. Then start setting it up using newer material as well as material from here. At some point, the new article can be summarized in this one and then we will see whether this one should be deleted or kept. This will save arguments. Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Single-sourced sections

There seem to be several very large single-sourced sections here – notably the sections expounding single works by Morris and Gelber. If this are lone works on a certain framework without secondary substance then they do not, by definition, establish much weight for themselves – and they therefore do not deserve such prodigious sections for themselves. Either some secondary analysis of these theories needs to be produced, or the sections should be trimmed. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The situation is a bit unusual in that viewpoints like "Four Waves" are strongly tied to specific works which are secondary sources, so it seems we need to look to tertiary sources to gauge WP:BALANCE. Do you think things like citation counts can be reasonable proxies for coverage in tertiary sources? — xDanielx /_C\ 16:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

They are not secondary sources for their own exposition. A secondary source in the context would be sources other than Morris or Gelber discussing their perspectives. Sections should generally not be single sourced. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

We normally refer to sources as primary or secondary in relation to the topic of the article, not in relation to themselves. I can see how it gets a bit blurred though, since the topic is rather inseparable from a few particularly well-known works devoted to it, like The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (both versions). — xDanielx /_C\ 20:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

And the whole "master plan" section is based on Khalidi (Glazer doesn't say anything about the existence of the plan). By this logic it should be trimmed as well. Alaexis_¿question? 20:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

So could also do with some further literature introducing it ... Now you're getting the hang of it. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that this is way too vague. If there are good sources that can be used please propose them one-by-one. If we can find more relevant information in books by Morris or Khalidi, that's also fine, there are no rules against that. Alaexis_¿question? 20:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Present scholarship (2)

This recently-added section feels rather lacking in substance. Statements like serious scholarship has left little debate about what happened in 1948 (one of the sources) aren't useful without more context. If we look at the context and read between the lines, the message of these sources seems to be that there is a consensus among modern historians that expulsions occurred (in significant numbers, at least ~250k).

Language like violent expulsions were the main factor and violence and direct expulsions ... were the primary cause of the displacement doesn't seem to be backed by sources in a sufficiently clear or explicit way. Even if we could find one or two sources clearly asserting that, it seems very questionable to characterize this as a view that is mainstream or has a consensus behind it, given all the modern historians who examine other causes. — xDanielx /_C\ 16:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Do have a go at rewriting settled history, I will watch with interest. Selfstudier (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

If you don't have anything constructive to add, such as sources which support the content, there's no need to comment. — xDanielx /_C\ 20:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't that apply to what you just said too? Selfstudier (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This removal of sourced content is totally unjustified and disruptive. @XDanielx, you have only vaguely objected to this content, that doesn't mean you can remove it unilaterally saying "Per talk thread". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You have not addressed the concern here at all. It's poor form to revert without engaging the discussion in any meaningful sense.

I've combed over the four references repeatedly, and can't find anything similar to violent expulsions were the main factor or violence and direct expulsions ... were the primary cause of the displacement. Can you point out even a single source which clearly says that?

WP:V says A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source. We can't just take vague statements about the central facts of the Nakba or what happened in 1948 and treat them as sources for a more specific claim that isn't explicit in the source.

Taking Laban & Bakan as an example, their vague statement about what happened in 1948 is part of a rejection of several ideas, including plainly ahistorical ones like the land was empty or Palestinians did not exist. They also reject the idea that Arabs just up and left Palestine because their leaders told them to, but don't discuss other purported causes (fear of war, panic, upper class flight, etc), or say anything about a main factor or primary cause. They don't say much beyond that, but cite Blaming the Victims, a 1988 work which predates the analyses of Morris and Gelber.

So even after digging into the broader context around the source and reading between the lines (which WP:V told us not to do), it's still not clear that this supports the text in question. — xDanielx /_C\ 20:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This content was added after much discussion (Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight#Causes, Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight#Why is the first section on inaccurate historiography?, Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight#Changes to lead, Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight#Proposed change to lead, Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight#Present scholarship).

@XDanielx, you keep repeating your argument that the sources provided don't support the content. I've already refuted that in the above discussions and your claim simply doesn't make sense — the content is well sourced with inline citations including quotations that show how the source supports the content.

@Alaexis, you state that the 'Present Scholarship' section is one-sided. What sources do you think have been excluded? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Having four sources doesn't mean the content is well-sourced, when none of them actually say what the content says. You didn't really address these discrepancies in previous discussions; in #Present scholarship you copy/pasted some excerpts which still don't say what the texet says.

I just explained in some detail why the Laban & Bakan source doesn't match the text, at least not in the clear and explicit manner that WP:V requires. Can you point to just a single source where the information is present explicitly in the source? — xDanielx /_C\ 00:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The Abu-Laban and Bakan source very clearly supports the content. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That's the one I discussed above? It would be good to know why you disagree with those points; we won't get anywhere if you merely express disagreement and leave it at that. — xDanielx /_C\ 03:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Added another citation: Khalidi, R. R. (1988). Revisionist Views of the Modern History of Palestine: 1948. Arab Studies Quarterly, 10(4), 425–432. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41857981 — " mass expulsions of the Palestinians by the Zionist forces, before May 15, 1948, and in succeeding months by the Israeli army, were the main cause of their flight." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

While this is more relevant than the other sources, it's not claiming that there's some kind of consensus on the matter. It's also a 1988 article and it's summarizing a 1985 book, so while it could have a place somewhere in the article, it doesn't belong in "Present scholarship" and doesn't help justify the existence of that section. — xDanielx /_C\ 21:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS you need to establish consensus for the content you're adding. In this case quite clearly there is no consensus.

The Present Scholarship section you've added is one-sided with only authors espousing a certain opinion are deemed worthy of inclusion, with a partial exception of Morris. One article does not establish a scholarly consensus. Alaexis_¿question? 21:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx just removed this content again . IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Re "the sourcing issues raised on talk page haven't been addressed, and there was never a consensus for adding this" — I did address your concerns with sourcing issues and this content was added a month and a half ago after much discussion and revision. Please stop deleting sourced content. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

And you have reverted again, in clear violation of WP:ONUS, and without engaging the issues raised here at all. Content isn't "sourced" if the sources don't say what the content says. — xDanielx /_C\ 17:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't waste time arguing with the ONUS/noconsensus crowd, open an RFC and ask the question. Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding a section called Present Scholarship makes it seem like everything else is obsolete. Generally speaking, if the scholarly consensus changes we should simply update the article.

The added text (violence and direct expulsions perpetrated by Zionist forces the primary cause of the displacement of the Palestinians.) is not supported by the provided sources.

This is the quote from Slater

(bold is mine)

Indeed there is no doubt that the Israeli armed forces drove out many of the Palestinians, but how does it follow from this that "violence and direct expulsions perpetrated by Zionist forces the primary cause of the displacement of the Palestinians"? Slater uses the same formula (fled or were expelled) that we use in the article. u:xDanielx wrote about the problems with the second source. Alaexis_¿question? 20:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

No, he says chased out and expelled, and he is making a remark about how most of it happened in the first stage of the war. Not about how violent or non-violent it was. nableezy - 21:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Considering the broader context of his book review, Segev is arguing that Zionist expulsions during the civil war phase may have been motivated by demographic objectives rather than military ones. This isn't that relevant, since the content in question isn't about what motivated expulsions, but more about the significance (or insignificance) of other causes. Segev's book review doesn't focus on this - it doesn't elaborate on the meaning of "chased out", and doesn't discuss other purported causes. — xDanielx /_C\ 22:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I have Segev, and he is pretty explicit on the violent expulsions being carried out with the knowledge and sometimes direct order of the Yishuv leadership. nableezy - 22:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

And now @Alaexis has unilaterally removed all the content along with its sources. —IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I rewrote this with quotes from Slater and Segev. If anybody would like further quotations here lmk, happy to provide them. nableezy - 22:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort to improve this, but don't feel expanding a "Present scholarship" section is the right direction. IOHANNVSVERVS' original section was an attempt to establish that there's a consensus among modern scholars around a certain viewpoint.

The content you added uses modern sources, but doesn't seem like an attempt to establish a consensus. It seems like normal viewpoints of individual scholars, which would fit in the usual sections like "Master Plan" explanation.

The idea of elevating certain select viewpoints, by placing them near the top and asserting that there is a consensus behind them, seems unusual and misguided IMO. A sort of rough consensus about expulsions occurring emerged in the 80s and 90s, but claims of a consensus beyond that seem very questionable. — xDanielx /_C\ 23:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I really don't understand your objections nor what exactly you are disagreeing with. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS you are past one revert and should self-revert. nableezy - 00:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Slater is reviewing the work of modern scholars and coming to these conclusions on what the consensus is. And why wouldnt we be expanding such a section? If you feel there are some perspectives missing then add them. Thats how we include all significant views, not by removing obviously reliable sources. If some other source is disputing this then present it. Arguing against what is sourced to impeccable sources however is a non-starter. nableezy - 00:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have easy access to Slater's book, but the conventional Zionist-Israeli mythology sounds like the historical Israeli view, which isn't represented much beyond that historical section. The current "Present scholarship" section seems to imply that views like Four Waves are similarly outdated, which I don't think is accurate. (Revisited was 2004, Morris' views haven't changed much since, and they roughly align with the views of quite a few other mainstream historians, such as Shapira.)

I do think it's appropriate to point out that the historical Zionist view is outdated, I just think it should be somewhere in the historical section.

The inaccuracy of that historical Zionist view is well-established, but if we cover a broader "meta" debate about how much the overall literature supports certain facts or viewpoints, there will be various claims about this in relation to various viewpoints, such as this claim from Morris: No one disputes the fact that much of the Arab middle and upper classes fled Palestine - as they had done during 1936-39 - between December 1947 and early April 1948. Local leaders, bankers, doctors, lawyers, teachers, . It seems like a rabbit hole that we shouldn't get into (as most articles don't). — xDanielx /_C\ 01:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

A. that is going back to 1991, b. the rest of that sentence includes "perhaps 75,000 souls in all". But again, Im not opposed to adding additional viewpoints, but here we have Slater saying this is what modern scholarship says about the matter. If there are other source reviews on modern scholarship then of course we should include that. nableezy - 01:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying the Slater statement goes beyond the historical Israeli view and applies to more nuanced views like Four Waves (particularly Revisited)? If so, can you give an excerpt? If not, can we move this to the historical section? — xDanielx /_C\ 01:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

No, he does not really discuss Morris's four waves, but I dont even understand why that matters here. Morris himself has the large majority of Palestinian Arabs who somehow left as leaving as a result of expulsions and attacks on villages, and says, for that second wave, the orders for those attacks called for, "implicitly or explicitly", expulsion. Morris is part of the modern scholarship here, and Slater includes him in it. nableezy - 02:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

If the Slater source mainly pertains to the historical Zionist view, wouldn't it be most logical to include it in that section (or after it)?

It seemed like the original intention behind the "Present scholarship" section at the top was to undermine a broader swath of views, including those of Morris, which some editors seem to perceive as radical (e.g. one editor in the parent's talk called his work Nakba denialism).

It would be possible to have a more balanced "Present scholarship" section, without implying that Morris is radical or what not. But most of the article is about recent-enough scholarship (i.e. post-archival works whose authors' views haven't changed much since publication), so I don't think it would be useful. — xDanielx /_C\ 02:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean much of the understanding on what occurred to begin the Nakba comes from Morris so I don’t know why somebody would call him a denialist. Possible an apologist as his position was that this was a necessary thing to do, but not a denialist. I can add some more of morris there. But honestly I think this page needs a pretty thorough restructuring. We should be focused on what the best, and most recent is a factor in best, scholarship says, and only include what has been disproven as mythology as disproven mythology. This article, for much of it at least, contrasts different views from different eras as though they are all of equal weight, and they are not. So I’m not wed to any name or placement for this material, but I am of the view that stuff that has been basically accepted by everyone be given more weight than disproven propaganda. nableezy - 03:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

What kind of restructuring do you have in mind? We can brainstorm other organizations, but as long as there's a "historical debate" section containing the historical Israeli view, wouldn't the content you added be most fitting there? — xDanielx /_C\ 21:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Also while I cited Segev directly, Slater is citing that bit in the overview of modern scholarship and the dismantling of the Zionist-Israeli mythology that held the Palestinian Arabs responsible for their dispossession. nableezy - 00:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Merge, split, or re-scope?

I've long felt that this article exists to make it seem like the causes of the Nakba are in dispute, when they really aren't. I've also long felt that as written, this article is a WP:POVFORK of the many other articles on the topic (the conflict, the wars, the Nakba, the expulsion and flight, etc.). Anybody else think this should either be merged (probably to multiple articles), or else re-scoped as Historiography of the Nakba or Historiography of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Levivich (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with the first premise (that having an article about X means that there is a dispute about X). Alaexis_¿question? 22:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the way to avoid this article being a POVFORK would be if the sources are covering both the long-term and immediate causes, like you see at Causes of the Armenian genocide (which also discusses fringe views, but with accurate representation of their support). In the case of the Nakba, I imagine sources might say, for example, that long-term causes might include antisemitism in Europe, positive views on population transfer etc. I think the article focuses too much on the immediate cause, which it seems is not/no longer significantly disputed so there is less to say about it without going into fringe viewpoints. If sourcing on long term and root causes does not exist, then I would support re-scoping and/or merging the article as Levivich proposes. (t · c) buidhe 02:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that the causes are not in dispute. As I said above, the historical Israeli view is broadly considered inaccurate today, and there's a consensus that significant expulsions occurred, but that's about all that most scholars agree on. The quantity of expulsions, the motivations behind expulsions, and the significance of causes other than expulsions are very much still a topic of controversy. — xDanielx /_C\ 02:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

These seven sources, at least, say that there is not scholarly disagreement about the quantity, motivations, or (immediate) causes:

Misplaced Pages articles should convey the scholarly agreement reported in reliable sources. I agree with Buidhe's suggestion about expanding the scope from immediate causes to long-term/root causes. Levivich (talk) 04:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

This feels like a repeat of Talk:Nakba/Archive_5#Nakba, where you provided 32 sources, but very few of them (explicitly) backed the content in question. Similarly here, I'm not seeing anything that actually says there is not scholarly disagreement about the quantity, motivations, or (immediate) causes. Slater for example indicates disagreement about quantity, while Segev's book review in particular indicates disagreement about motives. Some of these were discussed in the previous section. — xDanielx /_C\ 06:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it also reminds me of that discussion, e.g. when you say that Slater 2020 ("It is no longer a matter of serious dispute that in the 1947–48 period—beginning well before the Arab invasion in May 1948—some 700,000 to 750,000 Palestinians were expelled from or fled ...") "indicates disagreement about quantity." Levivich (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not the Slater excerpt I referred to; it was Reviewing the evidence marshaled , which gives four different estimates ranging from 250k to 500k. He also seems to conflate some different things, but in any case, it's not evidence of a scholarly consensus about causes.

The 700-750k figure isn't a matter of much dispute, though that top-level number is irrelevant to the topic of causes. — xDanielx /_C\ 22:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

This article was created as a fork of 1948 Palestinian exodus, mostly in order to remove a lot of unsatisfactory material. There was years worth of argument over the standard set of Zionist "quotations", almost all of them fake or misleading. All very 2000s. It isn't clear that the article is needed now. Zero 12:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

If there is nowadays general agreement in sources as to the causes, then merge it to the main article.Selfstudier (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Look at the second paragraph of the lead:

Causes of the exodus include direct expulsions by Israeli forces, destruction of Arab villages, psychological warfare including terrorism, massacres ... crop burning, typhoid epidemics in some areas caused by Israeli well-poisoning, and the collapse of Palestinian leadership including the demoralizing impact of wealthier classes fleeing.

Those are not causes, those are methods, except the collapse of leadership, which is not a cause but an effect.

Look at the sections of the body:

• Modern scholarship
  • Modern scholarship generally considers that violence and direct expulsions perpetrated by Zionist forces throughout both phases of the 1947-1949 Palestine war (both during the civil war phase and during the 1948-1949 Arab-Israeli war) were the primary cause of the displacement of the Palestinians.
  • That's it, that's basically the whole topic. What are the causes of the expulsion and flight? Zionist forces. We don't really need an entire article to say that, that can be said in articles about the expulsion and flight (and the Nakba, the war, the conflict, etc.)
• Outline of the historical debate - This is historiography, belongs in a historiography article, or a historiography section of another article.
• Concept of transfer in Zionism - This should be its own article
• "Master Plan" explanation - This section is a fork of Plan Dalet, presenting it as if it's just one of several theories, when nobody disputes that Plan Dalet existed
• Morris's Four Waves analysis - Contra to WP:NPOV, we give more space to the minority viewpoint of Morris than to the mainstream view; also, this isn't about causes, this is about history -- the four waves aren't four causes, they're four time periods -- the whole thing should be in the article about the expulsion/flight, or an article about the book (which is certainly notable)
• Gelber's two-stage analysis - Gelber is an even more obscure minority than Morris; this is even more out of line with NPOV; anyway, the two stages, like Morris's four waves, aren't about causality, they're time periods; it's about how it happened, not why; this should be in an article about Gelber
• Psychological warfare is a method, not a cause, and should probably be its own article (along with biological warfare)
• "Arab leaders' endorsement of flight" explanation - This is not a cause; should be in Nakba denial or its own article (it's a notable myth)

Put it together and this article is presenting "transfer" and "Plan Dalet"--which are undisputed--as just one theory amongst several, and it gives too much prominence to minority views like Morris's and Gelber's (why no sections on Pappe, Masalha, Shlaim, Flapan, Khalidi, and many others?). All of these sections would be better in other articles or as their own articles. I agree with Buidhe about a long-term causes article, but I'd think that would be called Causes of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. It's kind of surprising that article doesn't exist, but this one does. Levivich (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The lede needs work, but direct expulsions, the collapse of Palestinian leadership and the demoralizing impact of wealthier classes fleeing are all causes, as well as the obvious fear of being the in the proximity of fighting, and various lesser causes. Expulsions also have causes or motives, which is a large part of this topic.

If your argument is based on that recently-warred-in sentence in Modern scholarship, please explain in the section above how any of the sources actually back that statement.

Right, Outline of the historical debate is historiography; I'd be fine with trimming it since it's not exactly in the scope of the article (although it's related background).

The existence of Plan Dalet does not imply anything about the motives for expulsions, or the existence of a master plan.

The Morris and Gelber sections are a bit long and I wouldn't be opposed to some moderate trimming, though they are particularly well-known works at the center of the controversy, especially Morris'.

Arab evacuation orders is a gray area, since there is evidence they did exist, but the narrative that they were a central part of the exodus is outdated and belongs in historiography. — xDanielx /_C\ 17:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Modern scholarship generally considers that violence and direct expulsions perpetrated by Zionist forces

This is not supported by your own source (Slater)

So what part of this quote supports the statement "violence and direct expulsions perpetrated by Zionist forces were the primary cause of the displacement of the Palestinians"? Only Segev's quote kinda sorta supports it but that one out of 6 sources mentioned here. Alaexis_¿question? 19:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

"were chased out or expelled during the first stages of the war" – what are you questioning here? Is it the word violence? ... As if people can be "chased out" by anything other than violence during a war? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Khalidi, R. R. (1988). Revisionist Views of the Modern History of Palestine: 1948. Arab Studies Quarterly, 10(4), 425–432. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41857981 — " mass expulsions of the Palestinians by the Zionist forces, before May 15, 1948, and in succeeding months by the Israeli army, were the main cause of their flight."

Abu-Laban, Yasmeen; Bakan, Abigail B. (July 2022). "Anti-Palestinian Racism and Racial Gaslighting". The Political Quarterly, Vol. 93, Issue 3, p. 511: "The work of the ‘new’ (or revisionist) Israeli historians from the late 1970s has established what Ilan Pappé has summarised as the ‘ethnic cleansing of Palestine’, a process involving massacres and expulsions at gunpoint. In light of the ever-growing historiography, serious scholarship has left little debate about what happened in 1948."

Slater 2020, p. 350, "It is no longer a matter of serious dispute that in the 1947–48 period—beginning well before the Arab invasion in May 1948—some 700,000 to 750,000 Palestinians were expelled from or fled their villages and homes in Israel in fear of their lives—an entirely justifiable fear, in light of massacres carried out by Zionist forces.". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Petersen-Overton, Kristofer J.; Schmidt, Johannes D.; Hersh, Jacques (27 September 2010). "3. Retooling Peace Philosophy: A Critical Look at Israel's Separation Strategy". In Carter, Candice C.; Kumar, Ravindra (eds.). Peace Philosophy in Action. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 49. doi:10.1057/9780230112995. ISBN 978-0-230-11299-5. "As scores of historical documentation has since revealed, the Yishuv encouraged the flight or directly forced 750000 Palestinians (more than 80 percent of the population at the time) from their homeland in 1948 and destroyed 531 Palestinian villages." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you doubt that "violence and direct expulsions perpetrated by Zionist forces were the primary cause of the displacement of the Palestinians"? Are there RS that say otherwise? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

The issue is with the phrase violence and direct expulsions perpetrated by Zionist forces were the primary cause of the displacement of the Palestinians. Out of all the sources cited above, only Khalidi says it in his 1988 article. We cannot say this is wikivoice based on this (rather dated) source alone. I can see how this can follow from Tom Segev's conclusion but it's still original research. Also, not all sources have equal weight. An article called Anti-Palestinian Racism and Racial Gaslighting is not a study of the 1948 war and should not have the same weight as Morris, Slater et al.

Slater is a fine source but it doesn't mean that whatever he wrote embodies the scholarly consensus. We can use his conclusion (some 700,000 to 750,000 Palestinians were expelled from or fled their villages and homes in Israel in fear of their lives but we shouldn't ignore other viewpoints, like Shapira's (from The War of Independence, 1947–1949 chapter: Even at this stage of the war, both the Palestinian leadership and the leaders of the Arab states tried to persuade the population to stay put and not flee the country. But the collapse of Palestinian society and its governance led to mass flight, which according to accepted estimates had reached about 300,000 before May 15, 1948.. Alaexis_¿question? 19:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that only one of the sources posted says this. Levivich (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, can you point out where another source says this (directly and explicitly as WP:V requires)? If it's one of the ones discussed above, can you reply there? — xDanielx /_C\ 19:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

This is one of the seven I posted above:

The realities of the nakba as an ethnic cleansing can no more be neglected or negated after the works of the Palestinian historian Walid Al Khalidy and the works of the Israeli New Historians. The ethnic cleansing as incarnated by Plan Dalet is no longer a matter of debate among historians, even when the new Zionist historians in Israel justify it as indispensable ... The facts about 1948 are no longer contested, but the meaning of what happened is still a big question.

* * *

We don’t need to prove what is now considered a historical fact. What two generations of Palestinian historians and their chronicles tried to prove became an accepted reality after the emergence of the Israeli new historians. There is no longer any point in negating the nuanced facts revealed by Morris in The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949 (1987). These nuanced facts became solid ones through the works of other historians, mainly Pappé’s master work, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006), in which he proves that there was a master plan of expulsion, takes us to the Red House, and reveals the details of Plan Dalet. No one will argue about names like Operation Dani or Operations Hiram and Dekel. Many stories of massacres, rape, and expulsion are known, and many other stories are still to be revealed: Tantura, Safsaf, Ein al-Zeitun, Sa’sa’, Sha’ab, Kabri, Abou Shousha, Ai’laboun, and so on.
— Khoury, Elias (January 2012). "Rethinking the Nakba". Critical Inquiry. 38 (2): 250–266. doi:10.1086/662741. S2CID 162316338.

Note: this one isn't just saying it's a historical fact that Zionists were the primary cause, this is saying "master plan" theory is a historical fact, which goes much further than Misplaced Pages does. Levivich (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I still don't see anything similar to violence and direct expulsions perpetrated by Zionist forces were the primary cause of the displacement of the Palestinians. The statements about ethnic cleansing and Plan Dalet both establish that expulsions occurred, which I think we all agree is uncontroversial (today), but don't say anything about flight.

It also doesn't say much about motives for expulsions. The master plan view does get at motives, but it still doesn't really say anything about flight, and in any case I don't think this source or any other is claiming a consensus around the master plan interpretation.

He also references Mossis' original BOTPRP, which is the sort of nuanced analysis of causes that the content in question tries to undermine. — xDanielx /_C\ 22:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on the above, Shapira doesn't really contradict the notion that violence was a cause so much as begs another question, i.e.: what caused "the collapse of Palestinian society and its governance"? That's more a vague handwave than a contradictory viewpoint. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The war, the end of the mandate, the failed rebellion in the late 1930s all contributed to the collapse.

Anyway, you may think that she's wrong or that she doesn't get to the root cause but it's WP:OR. I can also criticise pretty much any sourced mentioned above and it would also be WP:OR, so we need to follow what RS say. Alaexis_¿question? 18:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Did the source say that, or is that your explanation? And no, it's not OR to point out where a source stops short of an explanation. If a source is being presented as a contrasting narrative, that narrative has to lead somewhere. Shapira didn't say it "spontaneously collapsed"; she introduced a mysterious "collapse" while in the same breath failing to explain what that means here. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I just looked up that Shapira quote and I'm disappointed. Here's the full quote, from page 162:

Another explanation circulated among the Jews, which in time became part of the Israeli narrative: that the Palestinians were ordered to leave Palestine by their leaders in order to facilitate Arab military operations against the Jews. This explanation, based on isolated Arab sources, is baseless. Even at this stage of the war, both the Palestinian leadership and the leaders of the Arab states tried to persuade the population to stay put and not flee the country ...

Of course, the key words there are at this stage of the war. Shapira continues on pp. 174-175:

By the war's end about 700,000 Palestinians had been exiled from their homeland. In the first stage of the war, the Palestinian exodus from the areas assigned to the Jewish state was a consequence of the collapse of governmental systems in Palestinian society and the anarchy that reigned in their place. In the second stage, following the Arab invasion, there were numerous instances in which the IDF expelled the Arab population and destroyed its villages to prevent its return ... The conclusion was that the State of Israel could not allow the Arabs to return to their homes. Their flight had become refugeeism ... From the summer of 1948 on, the army's orders were to prevent the Arabs from returning to their villages, either by force of arms or by destroying the villages.

So, Zionists caused the exile. Yeah, it started as a voluntary flight expecting to return, but then Israel stopped them from returning. In addition, it expelled those who didn't flee.

BTW, this explanation of Plan Dalet was, um, interesting, from p. 161:

It was now possible to implement Plan Dalet (Plan D) in preparation for the expected invasion by the Arab states ... Pro-Palestinian researchers present Plan D as the draft of a preplanned, total population transfer of the Arabs of Palestine. But as the plan text shows, while it did order commanders to destroy villages and expel the inhabitants if they resisted, it also instructed commanders to leave them where they were if they did not resist, while ensuring Jewish control of the village. There is a great difference between an order for total expulsion nd a selective order, which assumes the Arab villages will be able to live in peace in the Jewish state.

LOL is all I can say about that. Levivich (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Please stop deleting sourced content @XDanielx as you have done again here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS: again please don't revert without addressing the issues raised. There are several unanswered threads above explaining in detail why the sources are deficient. — xDanielx /_C\ 04:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I have addressed the issues you've raised. The content is well sourced. If you think the paragraph needs improvement then improve it. I don't see how there is any justifying the wholesale removal of all this content and its sources. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Political and sociological influences on the historical debate

I removed the subsection titled "Political and sociological influences on the historical debate" along with its content. See diff here. Just making this talk page entry for visbility/review. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

That section jumped out at me on first read, too. Not least because of the overly long subheading and indirectness of the prose. If this content were to make its way back in, it should belong as contextual analysis alongside the relevant issues.

E.g., it could probably be summarised like this:

"Israeli sociologists such as Uri Ram and Steven Glazer have suggested that differences between Israeli and Palestinian accounts of 1948 should be understood in the context of competing nationalisms—both between and within those nations. Thus, for Ram, the traditional Israeli account might be understood as arising from the Israeli labor movement, in contrast with later post-Zionist and neo-Zionist understandings emerging in the 1980s and 1990s (respectively)."

This could then become the last paragraph in the intro to the Historiography section (just before Early Israeli historiography), serving as a bridge between the current view and historic views, and therefore putting them into context. Lewisguile (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

References

1. Ram, Uri, "The Future of the Past in Israel: A Sociology of Knowledge Approach", in Benny Morris, Making Israel, pp. 224–226.
2. Glazer, Steven (1980). "The Palestinian Exodus in 1948". Journal of Palestine Studies. 9 (4): 96–118. doi:10.2307/2536126. ISSN 0377-919X. JSTOR 2536126.

Replace 'Zionist' with 'Israeli'?

Zionist is a loaded term. These people referred to themselves as the state of Israel. I propose to replace 'Zionist' with 'Israeli' throughout this article. Thoughts? 14.201.1.125 (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Not done. There is pre state usage and quoted sources using the term. Feel free to specify usage that is "loaded". Selfstudier (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

either tolerated or implemented by the Yishuv leadership

IOHANNVSVERVS, can probably say more than tolerated for expulsion, for instance Morris here p. 48 (should probably cite The Birth tho), but doubtful for 'massacres'. Any objection to removing Philip Mendes altogether from both articles? It's just a speech. fiveby(zero) 22:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

No objection to removing or minimizing Mendes. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• Low-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class biography (military) articles
• Military biography work group articles
• Start-Class British military history articles
• British military history task force articles
• Start-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• Start-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles