Misplaced Pages

Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:54, 17 August 2006 editSteve Hart (talk | contribs)1,288 edits Cleanup attempt - the link between words and events← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:32, 13 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,616 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight/Archive 21) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{tph}}
] |
{{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}
]
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B |vital=yes |collapsed=Yes |1=
{{WikiProject Palestine |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Israel |importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Human rights |importance= High}}
{{WikiProject International relations |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Discrimination |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Law |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject History |importance=Low}}
}}
{{Old moves
|Collapsed = Yes
|list =
* RM, 1948 Palestinian exodus → Nakba, '''Not moved''', 30 March 2022, ]
* RM, 1948 Palestinian exodus → 1948 Palestinian expulsion, '''Not moved''', ]
* RM, 1948 Palestinian exodus → 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight, '''Moved''', 8 September 2022, ]
** MRV1, '''Overturned''', October 2022, ]
*** MRV2, '''No consensus''', December 2022, ]
* RM, 1948 Palestinian exodus → 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight, '''No consensus''', 6 January 2023, ]
** MRV, '''Overturned and moved''', 16 March 2023, ]
| oldlist =
* RM, 1948 Palestinian exodus → Nakba, '''No consensus''', 30 October 2012, ]
* RM, 1948 Palestinian exodus → Nakba, '''No consensus''', 6 February 2018, ]
* RM, 1948 Palestinian exodus → The Palestinian Nakba, '''No consensus''', 14 April 2018, ]
* RM, 1948 Palestinian exodus → Nakba, '''Not moved''', 25 March 2021, ]
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 21
|minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus/Archive index
|mask=Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}


== RfC – In the article section about "Haifa", should the following paragraph be added? ==
== Neutrality of this article is disputed ==
{{Closed rfc top|result=There is, at best, '''no consensus''' for the proposed text. Many editors, both for and against, agree that there is room for improvement. Based on the discussion so far, it seems to me that editors should workshop something that begins by describing in our own voice what can be so described, then includes relevant interpretations and arguments from Morris and other authorities, as appropriate. <small>(])</small> <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 23:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)}}
Should Benny Morris' research on the evacuation orders from Haifa be included in ]:


{{Quote frame|Morris asserts that the initial order to evacuate came from local Arab leadership, and that the ] endorsed it ''post factum''. Among the evidence he cites are British and American intelligence reports, an assessment by the ], as well as statements by the Haifa Arab Emergency Committee on 22 April 1948. According to Morris, possible reasons included clearing the way for Transjordan's impending entry into the war and avoiding the population being used as hostages.<ref>Morris (2004), pp. 195-201</ref>}}
<!-- Do not archieve -->


] (]) 19:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Some editors consider this article to be biased towards the Arab point of view because:


{{reflist talk}}
* The fact that many Jews fled Arab countries during establishment of Israel is not mentioned.
===No===
* Proposed compensation for the Palestinian refugees is not mentioned.
#'''No''', the article is already overdependent on Morris. We should be seeking to reduce the amount of references and quotes to Morris, not increase the reliance. We should seek to utilise other sources more often. '']''<sup>]</sup> 07:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
* Israel's own argumentation for not allowing refugees to return is not mentioned.
#:Morris is attributed 20 times in the body of article. He's mentioned 3 times in notes, 27 times in the references and 3 times in the source list. Just the 23 times (20 inline and 3 via notes) he's mentioned by name attributing his viewpoint says that we have somewhat of a problem with an over-reliance on the POV of Benny Morris. Making this article more dependent on the POV of Benny Morris is undesirable. We need less Benny Morris, not more. '']''<sup>]</sup> 09:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
* Opinions (as opposed to facts) of pro-Arab historians and politicians such as Hanan Ashrawi are given undue weight, while persons with pro-Israeli views such as David Ben Gurion are presented unfairly.
#:My problem is with ]. While Morris is frequently cited, only selective parts of his work are considered, with other sections—arguable more significant in the source material—being entirely omitted, seemingly because their don't align with a particular narrative.
#:For instance, the section on Haganah’s use of psychological warfare occupies 70% of the article section by character count and largely relies on Morris, with much of it taken ''verbatim'' or heavily paraphrased. However, Morris’ 2004 work dedicates only two pages to psychological warfare, whereas at least nine pages focus on Arab evacuation orders, which are excluded. ] (]) 12:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
#::{{tq|My problem is with WP:CHERRYPICKING.}} Not what this RFC is about, tho. Your problem seems to be what the article says about Haifa? ] (]) 12:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
#:::I believe ] might counter the argument about over-reliance on Morris that @] is making above. The discussion is specifically about the inclusion of the paragraph in RFC. ] (]) 12:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
#::::No a misapplied essay doesn't counter anything. '']''<sup>]</sup> 12:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
#:::::The substantive issue is that you cannot cherry-pick an author's work (perhaps to support a particular narrative), while omitting the rest, even when the author himself devotes more attention to it. ] (]) 12:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
#::As I stated to you in the above conversation, we always draw from parts of sources. We do this in order to not be overly verbose and to not violate copyright. We cover the important parts. That does not mean that we are engaging in ] (an essay might I note). You've not provided any substantive reasoning for why we should further give Benny Morris's POV more airplay. '']''<sup>]</sup> 12:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
#:::{{tq|We cover the important parts.}} – the selection of content from Morris' POV is currently very disproportionate. ]: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, ''in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources''." ] (]) 12:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
#::::The fact that we cover Morris so heavily is very disproportionate. There should be less Morris, not more. '']''<sup>]</sup> 12:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
#:::::First, even if there's to be less Morris, he must be covered neutrally and ''in proportion to'' the prominence he gives to different sections in his work. Second, I don't think we should cut Morris, but we could certainly add more material from other authors. ] (]) 12:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
#::::::There is absolutely no policy that prescribes we cover authors in proportion to the prominence THEY give different sections of their works. Per ], {{tq|An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject}}. We should give weight proportional to the body of work on the subject as a whole, not be so heavily representative of the POV of one author. The amount Morris's views are represented in the article is completely out of balance. We need less Morris not more. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
#:::::::Nor is there any "too much Morris" policy. ] applies to individual topics and this is not a "minor aspect". Policies aside, it seems like a common sense principle to not represent sources in a manner which misleads the reader about their views. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 14:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
#::::::::Not covering every view put forth by an author is not equivalent to misleading readers about an author's view. ] isn't just about not giving undue weight to minor aspects. The section I quoted clearly states that we should treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. At present we are massively out of proportion, as compared to the body of work on the subject, due to the article's heavy reliance on Morris. '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
#:::::::::Out of proportion in the sense of "too much Morris"? Morris isn't really a viewpoint, or an aspect of the topic as BALASP calls it.
#:::::::::Stepping back, I'm a bit unclear on what you're advocating for. Similar statements could be attributed to other sources such as Karsh. Is that the sort of outcome you're looking for, or would you object to the content even with a different source? — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 04:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
#::::::::::Other editors have already made it clear that Morris's account is contested. So with that in mind any proposed addition here should be different. Broadly what I suggest is that the article not heavily rely on any particular author and the one that sticks out the most is Morris. '']''<sup>]</sup> 05:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
#:::::::::::We don't normally remove attributed statements because they're contested; rather we expand the content to include any other significant viewpoints. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 16:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
#::::::::::::Since this is history, there should exist a central viewpoint of the events and that's what we should be going with, if we are to include an attributed statement, that suggests a non significant alternative view rather than a significant one. It's a matter of weight, if Morris view is significant then it should be supported by others as well and if that's the case, then we can cite is as a significant minority view without direct attribution. Editors seem to be arguing that Morris view is the mainstream majority view, I don't see the evidence for that. ] (]) 16:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
#:::::::::::::So because a Misplaced Pages statement is attributed, it must therefore be an insignificant view on the matter? That seems backwards. If you want to establish that this is an fringe or insignificant view (which is a much higher bar than "contested"), you'll need evidence of that. Absent evidence to the contrary, views backed by multiple prominent scholars are normally presumed to be significant, not the opposite. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 00:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
#'''No''' Afaics, this "dispute" appears to be about the Haifa displacement and how much of it was due to Arab evacuation orders. There is contradictory historiography about that and I think that first the Causes article should be sorted out, perhaps a specific section dealing with Haifa and the sources for that and only then use that as a basis for here and for the Battle article. ] (]) 12:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
#:If there is contradictory historiography, then both viewpoints should be included, preferably with an outline how they relate to each other. We aren't here to settle historical disputes, but to accurately and neutrally reflect existing work. ] (]) 13:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
#::I didn't dispute that, I said to begin at the "Causes" article first. ] (]) 13:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
#:::I believe the two articles have different objectives. The "Causes" article should aggregate all relevant information and outline the factors behind the displacement, giving appropriate weight to each factor based on its treatment by reputable historians.
#:::This article, on the other hand, should describe the events of the displacement, in a more or less chronological manner. The fact that foreign intelligence and local officials documented evacuation orders, and that these have been referenced extensively by reputable historians, should be included. ] (]) 13:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
#::::This is just about Haifa, tho. ] (]) 13:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
#:::::Yes, this RFC is specifically about the Haifa section. ] (]) 13:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
#:::NPOV doesn't have any exceptions based on the state of a different article; why would that be relevant? — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 14:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
#'''No''' as per TarnishedPaths reasonings. ] (]) 15:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
#:Based on @]’s reasoning, would you be content with ''removing'' Morris’ research on Haganah’s use of psychological warfare, ''in favor of'' his findings regarding evacuation orders (i.e. the paragraph above)? I think that’s a terrible solution and would cut down the article significantly. But it would be a fairer representation of Morris’ work. As I said, he spends roughly 2-3 pages discussing the former and around ten – the latter. The ratio of his primary sources is similar. ] (]) 15:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
#::It's not our job to fairly represent Morris' work, we need to represent the balance of all sources, for the Haifa displacement in this case. ] (]) 16:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
#'''No''', the first two paragraphs of this section are messed up enough as is. Begins by citing Morris for what {{tq|Historian Efraim Karsh writes...}} and misrepresenting Morris in the process. Inserting {{tq|Walid Khalidi disputes...}} with a citation and text which are confusing concern a separate dispute, then {{tq|Benny Morris agrees with Karsh...}} which there is hardly support for.<!-- --><p>I don't know that there should be a separate "Causes" article, but if {{u|Selfstudier}} thinks first add content there, then import/merge back here to fix this mess, ok. If Morris is used for AHC "orders" the content should be faithful, "egging on the continuing evacuation" during a confusing time with events rapidly changing. And should certainly put in the context of his overall argument for outside blanket evacuation orders: "as with most rumours, there was a grain of truth in them".</p><!--
--><p>The suggested content is not even accurate in its {{tq|According to Morris...}}. He quotes but does not identify a ] document {{quote|Probable reason for Arab Higher Executive ordering Arabs to evacuate Haifa is to avoid possibility of Haifa Arabs being used as hostages in future operations after May 15. Arabs have also threatened to bomb Haifa from the air.}} but i do not see him making such an argument. ](]) 16:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
#:* This isn't relevant to the RfC. However, I agree that the start of the section is messy and needs work. Where is Morris misrepresented? E.g. ''There is no evidence that the commanders involved hoped or expected that it would lead to mass evacuation'' – Morris (2004), p.200.
#:* p.198: ''But if the weight of the evidence suggests that the initial order to evacuate had come from the local leadership, there is a surfeit of evidence that the AHC and its local supporters endorsed it ex post facto during the following days, egging on the continuing evacuation.'' Then he spends the next pages describing thsi evidence. I think this pretty much covers the paragraph in the RfC.
#:* Sure, Morris doesn't himself state the most likely reasons for the Arab evacuation orders. However, he sites several documents, among which are the ], ] and Lippincott (The American Consul at Haifa). He doesn't provide any evidence contradicting them.
#:@] How would you suggest rephrasing the paragraph to better reflect Morris' position? ] (]) 17:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC) </p>
#::I would not try and rephrase the paragraph at this time. I think the reader would best be served by first looking for ''agreement'' amongst the sources for what can be stated outright without in-text attribution. Leading from Morris I would first look at expanding the article's weak {{tq|...one of the most notable flights of this stage.}} with {{quote|The fall and exodus of Arab Haifa were among the major events of the war. The departure of the town’s Arabs, who before the war had numbered 65,000, by itself accounted for some 10 per cent of the Arab refugee total. The fall of, and flight from, Haifa, given the city’s pivotal political, administrative and economic role, was a major direct and indirect precipitant of the subsequent exodus from elsewhere in the North and other areas of the country, including Jaffa.}} This is important for the reader and where we should see wide agreement in the sources. Next {{quote|The mass exodus of 21 April – early May must be seen against the backdrop of the gradual evacuation of the city by some 20,000–30,000 of its inhabitants, including most of the middle and upper classes, over December 1947 – early April 1948...}} where it is likely there is some disagreement as to the importance ascribed, but some content could probably be worked out without resorting to the ugly {{tq|According to Morris...}} Proceeding this way would be doing what editors are supposed to be doing summarizing sources rather than cherry-picking to push a conclusion. Something about "orders" would probably eventually warrant inclusion, but as is i agree completely with {{u|Selfstudier}} that this is {{tq|pursued only to unduly emphasize the apparent fact of of Arab orders while ignoring the surrounding context and what exactly happened}}. And no, you can't take a quote from an unknown member of 6th Airborne or others and claim Morris agrees without him explicitly agreeing in his text. ](]) 15:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
#'''No.''' Levivich's suggestion that we "replace Morris's attributed views on this with something in Wikivoice sourced to multiple sources" is the correct solution. The historiographical dispute involving Morris, Karsh, Khalidi etc can be covered in the historiography section of this article or in a historiography section at the article ]. ] (]) 20:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
#:Historiography wouldn't be a good place for it. Historiography refers to the study of ''methods'' used by historians. It is not an appropriate section to describe historical disputes.
#:Describing disputes is a part of ]: ''Misplaced Pages aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them.'' Is what you and @] are suggesting basically including the RfC paragraph, but adding other researchers' PoV after those of Morris? So a 'YES' but with further info? ] (]) 20:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
#::@], there's no need to reply to each and every person who !votes No. You're appearing to be ]ing this discussion to within an inch of its life. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
#'''No''', I think, as a general rule, the opinions of ''Scholar X'' should not be sourced to a work by Scholar X. Rather, if ''the opinion of Scholar X'' is ], we'd be able to source that to Scholars Y and Z, etc. Here, there is no lack of scholarship that explicitly talks about the opinions of Morris. Rather than editors choosing which part of Morris's work to highlight (which is ]), we should rely on ], and summarize those portions of Morris's opinions that multiple high-quality RS summarize, cited to those RS (to Scholars Y and Z). (Of course we can also add a cite to the particular Morris book or whatever it is that the RSes are discussing.) ] (]) 02:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
#:What policy is this based on? ]<sub>]</sub> 11:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
#::], ]. ] (]) 14:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
#:::Morris is already a secondary source (in relation to the topic of the article), so your argument seems to be about a preference ] sources. While those are allowed, they're not that common and aren't really encouraged by any policy. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 14:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
#::::No that's not right on either count. An author's work is a primary source for the author's opinion given in that work, and of course articles should be based on secondary sources as our policies say. Aside from all of that, ] says an opinion or viewpoint is included based on its prominence in RSes. So Morris's viewpoints are only DUE if they're prominent in the entire body of RSes, which is why we should cite other RSes, and multiple RSes, for Morris's opinion (not just Morris directly). Citing Morris directly doesn't establish that Morris's opinion is DUE.
#::::That book we're citing is like 600+ pages. Who decides which of the paragraphs in that book are worth quoting/citing/mentioning? Not Misplaced Pages editors, it should be decided by other RSes. Morris should be quoted when he's quoted by other RSes, not when Misplaced Pages editors decide to quote him. His opinion should be summarized when it's summarized by other RSes, not by Misplaced Pages editors deciding which parts are worth summarizing, as that would be OR. ] (]) 14:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
#:::::Per ], {{tquote|primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved}}. Benny Morris's book about the topic of this article is not a primary source as it's not "original material that is close to an event" and he was not directly involved in these events. ]<sub>]</sub> 19:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
#::::::That's some selective quotation from the ] section of ]. The work where Morris says "X" is a secondary source for the claim "X", but a primary source for the claim "Morris said X". The way we know if "X" is ] for inclusion is by looking at its prominence in ]. If Morris and many others say "X", then "X" is WP:DUE. The way we know whether "Morris said X" is by looking at the prominence of "Morris said X" in RSes. If lots of RSes talk about "Morris said X", then "Morris said X" is WP:DUE for inclusion. And there are ''lots'' of examples of "Morris said X" that's WP:DUE for inclusion, because lots of RSes talk about what Morris said. So whether this particular instance of "Morris said X" is WP:DUE depends on whether ''RSes other than Morris'' cover this particular instance of "Morris said X". ] (]) 19:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
#:::::::While ] isn't very explicit about it, in practice we classify sources as primary or secondary in relation to a broader topic. Yes, in some trivial sense every source is a primary source in relation to itself, but practically PSTS isn't concerned with those trivial relations. If it was, the majority of attributed statements throughout Misplaced Pages would be in violation of ]. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 21:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
#:::::::Sorry, but this is very strange reasoning. I could understand it if we were writing an article about Morris himself and what views ''he personally'' held, but we aren’t. ] (]) 21:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
#:::::By the same logic, do you think that the sentence "According to Ilan Pappé, the Zionists organised a campaign of threats" should be removed because it's sourced to Pappe and not another historian? ]<sub>]</sub> 19:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
#::::::I think that can and should be changed from an attributed statement sourced to one source, to a statement in wikivoice sourced to multiple sources. ] (]) 19:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
#:::::::Can you clarify what you mean by that? Literally, most contentious points on Misplaced Pages are discussed as “Historian X claims ''x''. Y disagrees and writes ''y''.” Do you propose to make this a single sentence? ] (]) 21:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
{{ctop|Off-topic - ] (]) 17:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)}}
#::::::::@], You're continuing to have your two cents at multiple places throughout the discussion. I have asked you to desist from this previously. Please do not continue ]ing this RFC. '']''<sup>]</sup> 00:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
#:::::::::None of the comments I made in the last 24h are “repeating the same point” or “ignoring evidence”. Here, I’m constructive engaging to clarify a suggestion made by a fellow editor. In a different place, I reviewed two newly linked research articles by Khalidi. In another, I acknowledged that Morris doesn’t himself make an assertion as to the causes of the orders, but quotes from a primary source verbatim.
#:::::::::Your behaviour seems to be very ]. ] (]) 00:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
#::::::::::]ing isn't confined to "repeating the same point" or "ignoring evidence". Put simply it is "{{tq|where someone attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own}}". I've politely asked you to desist. Please give other editors airtime. '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
#:::::::::::The comment you're replying to was just asking for a clarification. If this is bludgeoning at all, it's minor compared to ]. Regardless of merit, repeated accusations of bludgeoning don't seem constructive. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 17:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
#::::::::::::Repeated opposition to every No !vote isn't constructive either. ] (]) 17:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
#:::::::::::::Yeah, you’re probably right. I will disengage from the discussion for the time being ] (]) 17:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
{{cob}}


===Yes===
A majority of people contributing to this article consider it to be neutral, and oppose changing the article.
#'''Yes.''' Benny Morris is the most referenced historian in this article. Some have complained that he is 'oversourced'. This might be true, but the main issue is ]. Currently, large sections of his research are omitted, seemingly due to them not fitting a particular view, while the rest forms the bulk of the article. Finer points are sometimes overblown. This is a clear violation of ]:<blockquote>Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, ''in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.''</blockquote>Another common argument against the paragraph's inclusion I've seen is that it "engages in Nakba denial". That is simply not a historical argument, especially given that most articles about the Nakba rely on Morris already. (see ]). Of course, any historian who disagrees with Morris' assessment should be included too. ] (]) 20:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
#Probably. I'm not totally clear on the context leading to this RfC, but NPOV generally means representing all non-fringe views on a matter, so purported evacuation orders should certainly be mentioned when covering Haifa. We don't necessarily have to quote Morris, but his work is more prominent and moderate than most of the alternatives we might consider, such as ]'s . — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 21:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
#'''Yes'''. Morris is one of the foremost experts. As far as I can see no RS have been provided that contradict his account. The circumstances of the flight of one of the largest urban communities of Palestinians is clearly relevant and should be included in the article. ]<sub>]</sub> 16:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
#: "Khalidi and Morris agree that 70,000 refugees in the first wave fled, and that about 250,000 were expelled in the final stages of war. However, this accounts only for half of the refugee population. The dispute between the two is about the 350,000 or so who exited Palestine in between March and June 1948. While Morris thinks this half has left by its own accord, Khalidi argues it was expelled as well (a particular acute argument has being going on about the refugees of Haifa - around 65,000 in number). Zionist historiography cited Haifa as an example for a Jewish effort to persuade Arabs to stay - Morris, in this case, accepts the official version. Khalidi does not - he describes, as does more elaborately Nur Masalha, the means by which the Haifa population was driven out. Haifa was evicted in the wake of plan D, as were the Palestinian population of the mixed towns of Jaffa, Safad and Tiberias" ] (]) 16:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
#::I agree that, if the RfC paragraph is to be included, Khalidi's PoV should be added too. I would also consider Karsh (some people describe him as "fringe", with which I disagree). ] (]) 17:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
#::So we should add Khalidi/Masalha's accounts. Why is it an argument not to include Morris' viewpoint? ]<sub>]</sub> 21:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
#::Isn't that a larger issue than AHC "orders"? Khalidi might sneer at him a bit, {{tq|In his more recent odyssey to the right...}}, but i don't see him actually countering the ''specific'' argument. Anyway in response to {{u|Alaexis}}, we should accurately summarize Morris if used which the suggested content does not. ](]) 16:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
#:::It is, but it seems to me that the debate over Haifa is being pursued only to unduly emphasize the apparent fact of of Arab orders while ignoring the surrounding context and what exactly happened in the run up to the British departure. ] (]) 16:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
#::::I don't see how the surrounding context is ignored, because it currently forms the bulk of the article, and would continue to do so after the addition. My point is that a significant part of the debate is omitted entirely. ] (]) 17:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
#'''Probably'''. At the very least, some attributed description seems merited. I generally err on the side of inclusion when it comes to this as long as we aren't dealing with FRINGE. "We already rely too much on this prominent historian," sounds like cherrypicking to me. And Levivich's "don't source a scholar unless they've been cited by another scholar" rule would result in a lot of removals across many articles if that were actually followed. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 10:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
#'''Probably''' per Amayorov and Andrevan. Morris is a prominent historian and I don't find the arguments against inclusion compelling. This is not ] and the passage is relevant and valuable. <span style="border: 1px solid red; padding: 2px;">]</span> 12:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
#'''Yes, with improved framing.''' After the 1st sentence, give the numbers before, in late April, and at the end. If these are facts with minimal disagreement, no scholar needs to be named those sentences (only in citations). Then framing such as: "The flight of the Arab population was influenced by Jewish, and possibly Arab actions, though historian debate the relevance of specific actions and their intent." Then Morris (RfC sentence) vs Khalidi on the Arab Higher Committee. Then a sentence to introduce the types of Jewish actions, e.g., broadcasts and military tactics, followed by the competing scholarly interpretations. Fwiw, I think the Morris blockquote can be replaced with a concise paraphrase, to avoid overuse (though he is a leading historian here). This is my sense of the section. ] (]) 01:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
#'''Yes''' per the arguments above. Morris is (one of) the preeminent historian(s) on the topic, and significant use in other areas of the article aren’t a policy-based reason to remove otherwise due content. The same, of course, applies to other significant scholars (on both sides) as well, but excluding what is arguably the best source because it was used to much is at best unwise. ] (]) 10:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
#:I haven’t looked into the literature in depth in a while, but unless I missed something significant, the suggestion by @] seems quite reasonable as well, if we’re looking for alternatives/a compromise ] (]) 10:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
#'''Yes''' While I’m also not deeply familiar with the literature, the case for inclusion appears stronger than that for exclusion. ] (]) 09:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
===Discussion===
*'''Comment''' I haven't been paying attention to this recently, is the RFCbefore ]? I am not clear as to whether this addition has been disputed or not? Is it The ] says


:"Historian Benny Morris asserts that the initial order to evacuate came from local Arab leadership, and that the Arab Higher Committee endorsed it post factum. Among the evidence he cites are British and American intelligence reports, and an assessment by the High Commissioner of Palestine. According to Morris, possible reasons included clearing the way for Transjordan's impending entry into the war and avoiding the population being used as hostages" cited to Morris 2004 pp195-200
: FWIW, it seems to me that contributors to this article try so hard not to be (or appear to be) biased that information value of the article suffers. --] 09:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
----


:which is the same as the RFC subject matter except that "as well as statements by the Haifa Arab Emergency Committee on 22 April 1948" has been added. ] (]) 09:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
==]==
::The initial discussion took place here: ]. Different opinions were voiced, so it would presumably be better to canvass more viewpoints and discuss them with more structure.
I would appreciate comments on whether a book written by the propaganda chief of one terrorist group (the ]) and distributed by another, the ] qualifies as a ]. That book is '']'' by ]. Ofira Seliktar writes:
::The edit over at ] wasn't disputed. ] (]) 12:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)


*'''Comment''' This is presumably also related to the "Causes..." article. In the historiography, is the discussion/dispute essentially between Khalidi/Masalha and Morris/Karsh? ] (]) 11:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:Operating under the slogan "Never again" JDL supported the Greater Land of Israel, a policy which, in its view, mandated the expulsion of the Palestinians from the territories. To bolster its claims, the JDL distributed a book, ''Battleground: Facts and Fantasy in Palestine'', penned by Shmuel Katz, the propaganda chief of the Irgun and a close friend of Begin. Katz contended that the Palestinians were recent arrivals in the land of Israel and did not deserve self-determination.


*'''Comment'''. The argument "this article relies too much on Morris" has no basis in Misplaced Pages policies. If there are other accounts that contradict Morris, they should be presented and an argument based on ] should be made. ]<sub>]</sub> 16:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:Katz, who became a leader in the Land of Israel Movement, a maximalist Israeli organization, helped to create in 1971 the ] (AFSI). AFSI's self-described goal was to persuade American Jews to reject the land-for-peace formula of Labour in favor of the peace-for-peace model favored by the Israeli right wing. AFSI, which initially functioned as a think tank, generated a large amount of material devoted to establishing Israel's legitimacy in the West Bank, Gaza, and the Sinai Desert... AFSI gained a higher profile in the Jewish community when a number of mainstream organizations such as ] and ] decided to distribute its pamphlets, along with Katz's ''Battleground''. (Seliktar, Ofira (2002). ''Divided We Stand: American Jews, Israel, and the Peace Process''. Praeger/Greenwood. ISBN 0275974081, p. 39).
*:Alaexis, I think of you as an experienced regular in this topic area. Do you really need to say "if"? :-) Cuz I think you already know the answer to whether or not Morris is contradicted by other accounts.<!-- --><p>Can all of us regulars in this topic area please stop pretending like we don't all know that Morris is widely cited for his facts (dates, places) and widely disputed for his characterizations/interpretations? ] (]) 16:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)</p>
*::"Morris is widely cited for his facts (dates, places) and widely disputed for his characterizations/interpretations."
*::This is correct. See ] for example: "There are two Benny Morrises," he says. "There is the first-rate archival historian whose work is of utmost importance in understanding the Israeli-Arab conflict. And there is the third-rate political analyst who has little understanding of what is driving the modern conflict." ] (]) 20:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*::I'm sorry but I'm not sure I understand. There is one factual statement attributed to Morris {{tquote|Morris asserts that the initial order to evacuate came from local Arab leadership, and that the Arab Higher Committee endorsed it post factum}} and one "interpretation", also attributed ({{tquote|According to Morris, possible reasons included clearing the way for Transjordan's impending entry into the war and avoiding the population being used as hostages}}).
*::If either of these is contradicted by other accounts, we should add those accounts to the article. It's not an argument to remove his viewpoint. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::Again, you say "if" as if it's a possibility, when I think you know it's a certainty. You know that his account is in fact contradicted by other accounts, correct? You know this for a certainty because we've all discussed Morris many times before at many pages. Right? So why do you say "if"?
*:::You also speak as if "all viewpoints should be included" when I think you know that's not what NPOV says. Because his accounts are contradicted by others, and that's a very good reason not to include it. That's what NPOV says. ] (]) 14:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::Speculation about Alaexis' knowledge or motivations isn't relevant here.
*::::NPOV tells us to {{tq|represent ''all'' significant viewpoints}}. Are you claiming this viewpoint is insignificant? There are several other historians who make similar assertions, though Morris is probably the most prominent and moderate of them. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 14:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Quote that sentence from NPOV '''in full''' and you'll answer your own question. ] (]) 14:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::All encyclopedic content on Wikipediamust be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant viewsthat have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
*::::::What is it you have an issue with? That quoting Morris on the causes would be disproportionate (despite the fact that Khalidi’s POV is already included)? That Morris isn’t a reliable source? ] (]) 21:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::It would be simpler if you articulate your point directly. Are you getting at {{tq|in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources}}? That's about the extent of coverage given to each viewpoint, not about whether they're covered at all. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 21:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::Can you answer directly which sources contradict the two assertions I mentioned in my previous comment? ]<sub>]</sub> 19:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::For the first assertion:
*::::::AHC orders {{cite journal|last=Khalidi|first=Walid|year=2005|title=Why did the Palestinians Leave, Revisited|work=Journal of Palestine Studies|volume=34|issue=2|url=https://www.palestine-studies.org/sites/default/files/attachments/jps-articles/why%20did%20the%20palestinians%20leave.pdf}}
*::::::local level {{cite journal|last=Khalidi|first=Walid|year=2008|title=The Fall of Haifa, Revisited|work=Journal of Palestine Studies|volume=37|issue=3|url=https://www.palestine-studies.org/sites/default/files/attachments/jps-articles/haifa.pdf}}
*:::::Both earlier articles republished in response to these points in ''The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited'' (see editors note in 2005 article). Morris does not make the second assertion, so no need to look for a source which contradicts. ](]) 20:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Morris doesn’t make the second assertion ''himself'' (i.e. doesn’t aggregate), but quotes it as a possible reason verbatim.
*::::::Regarding the first point, Khalidi doesn’t refute Morris’ evidence (intelligence and military reports and assessments by British top-officials). He studies a different type of primary evidence (radio broadcasts and newspaper clippings), and doesn’t find corroboration of Morris’ conclusions there.
*::::::
*::::::Now, Khalidi’s work should be included (in fact, it already is). But I cannot for the life of me understand why Morris’ research can’t be either, unless you consider the debate essentially settled. This is also some heavy ]. ] (]) 21:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::{{u|Amayorov}}, i'd ask that you strike the second sentence of the suggested content of the RfC on verifiablity concerns. You should probably also note p. 199 of Morris concerning local "orders": {{tq|The notables’ announcement of evacuation on the evening of 22 April was not a bolt from the blue...Tens of thousands of Arabs, including most of the city’s middle and upper classes, had departed during December 1947 – early April 1948. On 21–22 April, the notables had the fresh example of Arab Tiberias before their eyes. And by the evening of 22 April, thousands had already voted with their feet..., the evacuees had shown their leaders the way out of the strait bounded on the one side by continued – and hopeless – battle and on the other, by (treacherous) acceptance of Jewish rule.}} ](]) 01:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::Do you mean the third sentence: "According to Morris, possible reasons included clearing the way for Transjordan's impending entry into the war and avoiding the population being used as hostages."?
*::::::::Regarding the context of the local orders, sure — it's important. Do you wish to somehow integrate it in the RfC proposal? ] (]) 08:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Sure, after you directly answer my question. ] (]) 20:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*:You are defining the problem, that only Morris is being considered and that does have a basis in PAG, NPOV. ] (]) 16:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*::Shouldn't that be amended by adding other sources alongside Morris? That Morris' work is currently cherry-picked is a different problem. Both problems can be fixed together. ] (]) 17:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::You say that Morris work is cherrypicked but that is only the case if Morris is disputed besides Haifa, is it? ] (]) 17:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::Sorry, I'm not following. Yes, Morris' work on the flight ''from Haifa'' is currently cherry-picked and the parts to which he dedicates much (most?) attention are omitted. ] (]) 18:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::What I was asking is whether the other citations to Morris besides Haifa are also disputed. ] (]) 18:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Plenty. For example, Morris's assertion that '' an extremely small, almost insignificant number of the refugees during this early period left because of Haganah or IZL or LHI expulsion orders or forceful 'advice''' is disputed by Pappé. More often, his disputed claims are included alongside others (e.g. his count of the abandoned Palestinian localities). IMO this is what should be done with this RfC too. ] (]) 18:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Why do we write 'comment' in bold in a discussion section?''' I'm 100% sure I've read multiple sources make the statement that Haifa is well known as "the exception that proves the rule," the one time Zionists tried to get Palestinians to stay put. But now I can't remember where I read it, and it's a hard thing to search for. I think maybe I've posted some sources about this in a previous discussion about Haifa, but I can't remember where or if that happened. Anyway, anybody remember either any sources or previous discussion? I think maybe we can replace Morris's attributed views on this with something in Wikivoice sourced to multiple sources. ] (]) 17:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Yes, an aggregation of the research by Morris, Khalidi, Nur Masalha, and Karsh would be good. Can you write a proposal? ] (]) 17:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*::I'm curious under what objective test does Karsh belong in that group of names? E.g., what is Karsh's most widely-cited work, and when was it written? ] (]) 17:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::Specifically regarding Haifa, was discussed and referenced by other historians in this list, as well as more recent publications (e.g. ). The archival evidence he provides in it was later incorporated (independently or not) into Morris' 2004 new edition of his book. He's a professor at KCL and is respected enough to have held positions at top American universities, which published his books. Yes, his more recent works are criticised by many, but generated much discussion. I wouldn't consider him at the same level of respectability as Morris though. ] (]) 18:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::There are hundreds of university professors who have published in this field and whose work has been cited by other scholars. Your list of four are 3 of the best-known scholars in the field...and Karsh. Look at this list:
*::::* ], '']'' (2008):
*::::* ], '']'' (2020):
*::::* ], ''The Palestine Nakba: Decolonising History, Narrating the Subaltern, Reclaiming Memory'' (2018):
*::::* ], ''Nakba Haifa'' (2001):
*::::One of these is not like the others... ] (]) 18:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::To be a little more fair to Karsh, his 2014 book ''The Arab-Israeli Conflict: the Palestine War 1948'' has ... still nothing compared to the others' books about this subject. ] (]) 18:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Nakbat Haifa (2001) is an article, rather than a book, so of course it received fewer citations. A better comparison would be with something like ''Islamic Imperialism: A History'': . Much of the book discusses the Arab-Israeli conflict.
*:::::''Specifically'' regarding the Battle of Haifa of 1948, Karsh's and Morris's articles are on GS. ] (]) 18:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Karsh is ] and doesn't belong in this article anywhere except in the histroriography section. ] (]) 20:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Can you provide evidence? AFAIK his work is , his books are published by reputable journals and publishing houses (, ), he's a professor at one of England's best universities (KCL) and has taught at Harvard and Sorbonne. ] (]) 20:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::See ], , and . Also in Benny Morris' words: "Karsh resembles nothing so much as those Holocaust-denying historians who ignore all evidence and common sense in order to press an ideological point. One can only assume that, like them, his modest "contribution" to the Israeli historiographic debate will soon vanish."{{refn|Morris, B. (1998). Refabricating 1948 . Journal of Palestine Studies, 27(2), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.2307/2538286}} ] (]) 21:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::I don't think a number of negative reviews are sufficient to override ].
*::::::::Do you consider Ilan Pappé to be fringe too, because his work received similarly harsh criticism, such as , ? I personally would not. In Benny Morris' words, Pappé's "at best...one of the world's sloppiest historians; at worst, one of the most dishonest", or that "he believes that there is no such thing as historical truth." ] (]) 21:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::You complain about others "cherrypicking" Morris. Yet here you are seemingly selectively ignoring his criticism/denouncement of Karsh. ] (]) 21:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::My point isn't that Morris should be the only voice we should consider. Other voices, who criticise Morris and who are in turn criticised him, should be covered too (as long as they're reputable). My concern is that the coverage of ''all'' of them should be neutral and not cherry-picked.
*::::::::::In this particular instance, I believe Morris' denunciation of Karsh should be described at length in Karsh's bio, as it is now :) ] (]) 21:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*: {{re|Levivich}}, looking for on-wiki discussion i'd think someone would have quoted Pappe for this: {{tq|Interestingly, this city is singled out by mainstream Israeli historians and the revisionist historian Benny Morris as an example of genuine Zionist goodwill towards the local population. The reality was very different by the end of 1947.}} but can't find that anywhere. Should we look for where Morris and others have singled out Haifa for use? ](]) 17:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*::Yes--I think it would be helpful to gather some "best sources" for this to look at besides Morris and, as you suggest, summarize in wikivoice what the sources agree on. ] (]) 20:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::For {{tq|...tried to get Palestinians to stay put...}} (which is what i've been looking for, but i see you are collecting more general best sources below), Karsh in ''Nakbat Haifa'' pp. 49-54 is the most strident advocacy i've found. He points to the meeting on the evening of the 22nd, the armistice terms, Hagana Arabic broadcasts, pamphlets, distribution of bread, a statement by Meir, views and reports of the British and Lippincott, and a UP correspondent. What i see all the sources agreeing on here would be ] during the Town Hall meeting of the 22nd as a genuine plea to stay. For instance: {{quote|Let us begin with the Zionist claim&mdash;found in all official Zionist history and propaganda and all Israeli information publications&mdash;that Israel was not responsible for the exodus and in fact did everything in its power to stop it. The most solid evidence to support this contention comes from the efforts made in Haifa by Shabatai Levy, the mayor,and Abba Hashi, head of the Workers' Council, to stop the panic flight of the Arabs by persuading them to give up the struggle and surrender to the Hagana|source={{cite journal|last=Flapan|first=Simha|authorlink=Simha Flapan|year=1987|title=The Palestinian Exodus of 1948|work=Journal of Palestine Studies|url=https://www.palestine-studies.org/sites/default/files/attachments/jps-articles/exodus.pdf}} excerpt from ''Birth of Israel''}} but beyond that we quickly run to contrary views{{quote|A great deal is made by Israeli historians, including liberal revisionists,about the attitude during the crisis of the Jewish mayor of Haifa, Shabatai Levy. At the second of the two Town Hall meetings held on 22 April, Levy did make a poignant appeal asking his Arab colleagues to reconsider their request&mdash;made under the weight of the Haganah attack and mounting civilian casualties&mdash;to evacuate the Arab population with adequate protection.But Levy did not reflect Haganah policy, and the principal representative of the Jewish side was not Levy but "Motki" Maklef, operations officer of the Carmeli Brigade.|source={{cite journal|last=Khalidi|first=Walid|year=1998|title=Selected Documents on the 1948 Palestine War|work=Journal of Palestine Studies|url=https://www-tandfonline-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/pdf/10.2307/2537835}}}} {{quote|...the town’s Jewish mayor, Shabtai Levi, a decent person by all accounts, who beseeched the people to stay and promised no harm would befall them. But it was Mordechai Maklef, the operation officer of the Carmeli Brigade, not Levi who called the shots.|source={{cite book|last=Pappe|first=Ilan|year=2012|title=The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine}}}} Morris points to and expands on the documentation provide by Karsh, but also {{quote|Several municipal (and, apparently, Haganah) figures during 22–28 April tried to persuade Arabs to stay...But the Haganah was not averse to seeing the Arabs evacuate, as illustrated by Makleff’s ‘no comment’ response to Stockwell’s question about the evacuation announcement at the town hall meeting on 22 April. Illustration can also be found... Initial Jewish attitudes towards the Arab evacuation changed within days; and what Jewish liaison officers told their British contacts did not always conform with the realities on the ground or with those quickly changing attitudes. The local Jewish civilian leadership initially sincerely wanted the Arabs to stay (and made a point of letting the British see this). But the offensive of 21–22 April had delivered the Arab neighbourhoods into Haganah hands, relegating the civil leaders to the sidelines and for almost a fortnight rendering them relatively ineffectual...a temporary rupture between the local Jewish civil and military authorities, which reflected, and was part of, the similar, larger rupture between these authorities that characterised much of the Yishuv’s policy-making and actions through the war. In Haifa, for days, the civilian authorities were saying one thing and the Haganah was doing something quite different.|source=''The Birth'' pp. 200-4}} I think there is some common ground for content to be had here without the need for attribution, but no room for any sweeping judgments. ](]) 00:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)


* I can see the criticism of why it is risky to overrely too much on one scholar but is it not helpful that it is attributed to the scholar so readers can understand that it is just a singular perspective? I have not formed an opinion on this RFC yet but am trying to be of assistence. ] (]) 17:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
With reference to ]' use of ''Battleground'' in her discredited book '']'', Norman Finkelstein comments:


{{reflist-talk}}
:..twenty-one to Samuel Katz's ''Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine'', etc., etc., These 'sources' have the combined scholarly weight of a classic comic book. (Finkelstein, Norman (1995). ''Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict''. Verso,. ISBN 1859843395, p. 219).
{{Closed rfc bottom}}


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2024 ==
In view of the above I believe that anything 'sourced' to Battleground should be re-sourced to publications that satisfy ], ] and ]. Comments welcome. --] 09:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
{{atopy
| result = Asked and answered. '']''<sup>]</sup> 09:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
}}


{{Edit extended-protected|1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight|answered=yes}}
{{textdiff | Efraim Karsh is among the few historians who still consider | Efraim Karsh is one of the historians who consider}}


The current phrasing implies that Efraim Karsh's is a minority view among historians and that increasingly large majority reject this view - this claim needs to be supported by reliable sources or, if there are not sources to support it, the sentence should be rephrased in a more neutral and balanced way, as suggested. ] (]) 11:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Shmuel Katz is one of the most respected writers and historians and an expert on the Israeli Arab conflict.
:{{not done}}:<!-- Template:EEp --> the suggested edit is neither uncontroversial, nor one that has consensus. ] (]) 18:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2024 ==
The fact that Katz was in the Irgun, or the fact that he's on the right wing side of the map is of no consequence.
{{atopy
| result = Asked and answered. '']''<sup>]</sup> 09:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
}}


{{Edit extended-protected|1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight|answered=yes}}
If Katz is not a good source, then all Benny Morris quotes should be deleted from wikipedia as well. Benny Morris is a notorious left wing analyst, who is involved in politicfs, and his works were also ruled as lies in the court of law. Yet Benny Morris is cited in wikipedia all the time.
<!-- State UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes below this line, preferably in a "change X to Y" format. Other editors need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests will be declined. -->


{{textdiff |The Israeli government has systematically scoured Israeli archives to remove documents evidencing Israeli massacres of Palestinian villagers in 1947 and 1948 that led to the Palestinian exodus | Much of the information about the circumstances leading to the Palestinian expulsion became available thanks to the massive declassification of Israeli archival documentation in the 1980s (Morris, 2012). At the same time, there has been evidence of Defense Ministry officials scouring Israeli archives to remove previously declassified documents evidencing Israeli massacres of Palestinian villagers in 1947 and 1948 that led to the Palestinian exodus}
Shmuel Katz however is a known biographer and historian. You can find his references in "google scholar" or anywhere else. He's a source in universites and schools around the world. The fact you don't like his research for political reason, although he cites all his references, for example you can see the same quote in Al Urdun newspaper, is simply your POV problem. Do not try to instigate lies. ] 09:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite book |author1=Benny Morris |author1-link=Benny Morris |editor1-last=Rogan |editor1-first=Eugene L. |editor2-last=Shlaim |editor2-first=Avi |title=The War for Palestine |date=2012 |chapter=Revisiting the Palestinian exodus of 1948}}</ref>


:You would do well to at least try to mitigate your obvious bias, when appealing to comments. Katz's books are available on Amazon.com, and many other outlets. They were published by mainstream US publishers such as Bantam and Doubleday. To describe this as "distributed by a terrorist group" is not only POV, but dishonest poisoning the well. Finkelstein's assertions are just that- assertions by , to use your colorful language, a propagandist. I am all for using ] - the quotes from Battleground should be sourced directly to that book, which is clearly as much a ] as Finkelstein's screed. ] 09:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


<!-- Write your request ABOVE this line and do not remove the tildes and curly brackets below. -->
::Katz has no relevant qualifications at all. Seliktar and Finkesltein do. Perhaps you'd like to see the article on the history of Israel re-written according to the works of Yasser Arafat? --] 09:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
}} ] (]) 09:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{not done}}: the suggested edit is neither uncontroversial, nor one that has consensus. '']''<sup>]</sup> 09:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


{{U|Zlmark}}, it's true but you need to provide a source for that. ]<sub>]</sub> 23:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)


: Now a source has been added to support this assertion. It shouldn't be controversial, basically the New Historians based their work on newly available data from the Israeli archives. Subsequent efforts to remove such materials from public access are also notable but for NPOV we should mention both. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::It seems to me that an active member in the Irgun, writing based on his personal experience, who is also a prolific author and historian, is somewhat more qualified to comment on the events than a professor of poli-sci, who is mostly known as a propagandistic hate monger. I am not opposed to having Araft's views, properly cited, appear on various Israeli articles - that is the essence of NPOV. I wonder why you will not allow similar balance on this issue. ] 09:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::That's Morris's view, I don't think it's the mainstream view. Morris is well known for, among other things, relying exclusively on documentary evidence and not crediting oral histories. What Palestinian authors I've read (eg Masalha, Manna, Khalidi, etc) and New Historians (Pappe, Shlaim, etc), and I think even Western authors (Penslar, Slater, etc) say is that the documentary evidence that was declassified in the 80s did not make available new information so much as confirm what Palestinians had already been saying for 30+ years at that point. So {{tqq|Much of the information about the circumstances leading to the Palestinian expulsion became available thanks to the massive declassification}} is only true if, like Morris, one completely discounts the other evidence, eg oral histories, that was already available. An NPOV-compliant framing would be something like "declassified Israeli archives confirmed what Palestinian scholars had written and debunked Israeli government propaganda". ] (]) 01:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Indeed, opinion can be cited as such, but we don't use propaganda from terrorist organizations as the basis for factual claims. Why should we use dubious sources when there are plenty of good history books written by trained scholars? --] 10:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:::"Israeli government propaganda" is hardly a NPOV-compliant phrasing ] (]) 08:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::: Ian, you're grasping at straws and you're sounding quite ridicolous. There's nothing dubious about Katz's work like Isarig explained to you. ] 10:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:How about the following? {{tq|Following the large-scale declassification of Israeli archival material in the 1980s, additional information about the circumstances surrounding the expulsion and flight of Palestinians became available, contributing to modern understandings of these events. At the same time, there has been evidence of Defense Ministry officials searching Israeli archives to remove previously declassified documents evidencing Israeli massacres of Palestinian villagers in 1947 and 1948 that led to the Palestinian expulsion and flight.}} I feel this covers the concerns of everyone while retaining the key facts. ] (]) 19:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Please abide by ] and cite evidence in support of your claim that Katz is a reliable source. --] 10:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::sounds like a balanced framing ] (]) 19:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::Sounds good. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Great. I will add this text now. @], I haven't heard from you, but I think this addresses your point re: Palestinian scholars saying similar things prior to the declassification. ] (]) 20:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)


== Predominantly ==
:::::::: This has already been done. You have already been warned for your consistent POV hunts by
] in the past. Nobody will take your attempt to discredit Shmuel Katz any seriously. See Isirag above. Stop wasting everyone's time. ] 11:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


The word predominantly used in the first paragraph is difficult to interpret. There is no agreement on the precise definition of this word, and it sounds overly precise. (It is being used to describe a 69% part of the population. Would you describe American cities as "predominantly white"?)
:: here's a random editorial review on Shmuel Katz :


How about simply "majority Arab", instead of "predominantly Arab"? ] (]) 23:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Editorial Reviews
From Library Journal
Historian and journalist Katz has written a lengthy and detailed life of Jabotinsky (1880-1940), an outstanding and controversial figure in the Zionist movement of the 1920s and 1930s. He was a leader of Revisionism, which opposed the policies of the mainstream Zionist group led by Chaim Weitzman and David Ben-Gurion, later to become president and prime minister, respectively, of the state of Israel. Jabotinsky was also a prolific journalist, novelist, poet, and linguist, and Katz treats these aspects of Jabotinsky's work fully. This attempt at completeness often obscures the main thrust of Jabotinsky's efforts?the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. Although Katz avows a determination to be fair to Jabotinsky's contemporary critics and opponents, this is clearly the work of an ardent admirer. Recommended for academic libraries with large collections on Zionism and the state of Israel.?Harry Frumerman, formerly with Hunter Coll., CUNY
Copyright 1996 Reed Business Information, Inc.


:Predominantly seems fitting for 69%. Would you prefer "mostly"? ] (]) 08:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1569800421/002-4808670-4079245?v=glance&n=283155

100% Very legitimate.

] 09:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

== Citing sources ==

Please note ]. You are not supposed to copy material from hidden places that cites sources you have not looked at. You have to identify ''your'' source for the material. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:::: that's my source. I have papers in the library, looked it up in arabic. and do not delete Shmuel Katz who is a reliable source. ] 13:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

== master plan theory ==

this whole section should be removed and deleted. Khalidi is not a credible source, since he's a propogandist of palestinian agenda and his lies have been exposed throughout the years by established scholars. Ilan Pape has also been condemned by its own university, not received the proffessor status, and he's discredited. This theory therefore has no reliable references. ] 13:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:Do you have have a credible source that has discredited Khalidi? I don't know, I'm just wondering.... ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 16:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::: Walid Khalidi is an eminent spokesman for the PLO. I don't see why it's ok to quote Morris and Khalidi and such and suddently it becomes POV and wrong to quote scholars that support different views. I find it strange. Yes, Khalidi is cited as very credible in Palestinian sites or Jews against Occupation sites. And Katz is cited as very credibe in Jewish sites or Pro-Jewish Christian sites and so on. That's how things are. Everyone should learn to respect both sides and for this reason there are different theories in the article for everyone to read and discuss. I see no reason and it it highly offensive that certain parts of the article are being attacked fervently simply because people don't agree with them politically. ] 20:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

== The disputed section (including the collection of 'quotes') ==

This is garbage. That is not to mean that the actual content is garbage (that is another debate), but its bulk inclusion (with pretty much one freerepublic.com source) into an encyclopedia so offensively and preposterously is garbage, and for the following reasons:
* If people insist on taking one extreme right-wing (and not very reputable) source and adding a '''disproportionate''' amount of information from it into a WP article just to help propagate one specific (and perhaps absurd) point of view, that is against ]. There are many pieces on the internet of equal or even greater verifiability that would similarly bash and dehumanize the Israeli side. Should we include that as well and end up having one huge bullshit-fest of an article? The point trying to be made DOES NOT NEED such a huge disgraceful insertion. If you want to do that, there are many hate blogs that exist for that purpose.
* Much of the section is verbatim lifted and inserted from copyrighted material, which is against policy. These will be removed if not addressed.
* According to ], at least as I understand it, the ORIGINAL source must be verifiable. All the sources are taken from the reference list at the bottom of this freerepublic.com article, with no way to verify authenticity.
* Most of these series of quotations are NOT from Palestinian or Israeli sources, but from other 'Arabs' of no notability who happen to have an opinion. If they are not Palestinian or Israeli, they should have no business in an article on the '''Palestinian''' exodus.
* One last musing: Since some appear to really want to push this absurd theory that 'Arabs left at their own free will' or even 'at the behest of their leaders (hint: neighbouring Arab state kings were NOT the leaders of the Palestinians), I guess the overflowing Arabs of Nazareth, or perhaps even the lebanese refugees, should flood into Kiryat Shmona's empty houses right now because, hey, after all, the occupants "left at their own free will". They were sitting on their couches watching TV and clipping their toenails and then thought, hey, wouldn't it be great to get up and leave the city? Or maybe, wait, didn't the Israeli government provide funds and transportation for them to leave? There we have it then, even their 'leaders' encouraged them to leave. I say finders keepers in Kiryat Shmona. Apparently, according to the freerepublic.com and to Katz, that's kosher. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 16:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The American journalist Kenneth Bilby, who had covered Palestine for years, explained the Arab leaders' rationale for the flight :
"Let the Arabs flee into neighboring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab countries to greater effort, and when the Arab invasion struck the Palestinians could return to their homes and be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea." (New Star In The Near East, New York, 1950).
*''This is a verbatim cut and paste from a copyrighted article, is not neutral (says 'Bilby explained', as opposed to 'according to Bilby'). Who is this Bilby anyway? Credible source? '' ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 17:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::: This is a quote from Bilby, verified and documented. Nothing to do with copyright (what does it mean in this context). Bilby is a very credible and know journalist who wrote books about the middle east conflicts. ] 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::: Do you know how many journalists reported on and wrote books about these events? Why does Bilby have a special right to appear here? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::: how many - please tell us ? maybe you have no idea what you're talking about ? this is legitimate quote.

The claim that Arab leaders endorsed the refugee flight has been rejected by modern Palestinian writers. But Emil Ghoury, a member of the Palestinian Arabs' national leadership, admitted: "I don't want to impugn anybody, but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. "The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously, and they must share in the solution of the problem." (Daily Telegraph", September 6, 1948)
*''What does this EDITORIAL (not a historian or politician) have to do with The "Arab leaders' endorsement of flight" Theory? It seems to be criticizing Arab actions blaming them for going to war, but is certainly not evidence of an 'endorsement of flight'.'' ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 17:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:::: it might be a little leap for some, but I think it's quite obvious for the common reader. This is another backup for the theory. It shows the Arab motive. ] 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::::: Your understanding of The Arab Mind is very impressive. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::: thank-you. yours isn't. ] 11:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The prime minister of Iraq, Nuri Said, declared: "We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down." (Sir Am Nakbah”, Nazareth, 1952).
*''"Wives and children to safe places" is the same thing as "Arab endorsement of flight"? '' ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 17:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:::: Yes, it is. You need to understand that in research, one shows what fits his theories. This is the point of these theories. Of course you can open it to interpretation. If you do, you will be supporting another theory. I think this is the point of the article. ] 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::::: Who would say "safe places" when they meant "out of the country"? This one falls on its face all by itself. Incidentally, since you have certified that this book is a reliable source, make sure you don't complain when I quote this book's account of the "Tantura massacre". --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::: you're proving you have no idea what you're talking about.... ] 11:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Further quotations :
"Who brought the Palestinians to Lebanon as refugees, suffering now from the malign attitude of newspapers and communal leaders, who have neither honor nor conscience? Who brought them over in dire straits and penniless, after they lost their honor? The Arab states and Lebanon among them." (The Beirut Muslim weekly Kul-Shay, Aug. 19, 1951).
*''This is an editorial, which perhaps is criticizing the war in the first place and not any "endorsement of flight". But again, it is an editorial, which is not encyclopedic material per se because it is not the words of a historian or an official of the period, but merely an opinion piece.'' ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 17:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:::: An opinion by an Arab newspaper during or right after a war. This shows the public opinion at the time of the flight. Isn't it surprising that at the time of the war nobody was talking about a refugee problem caused by Israel ? This is very helpful for the theory and credible as such. ] 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::::: Try to stick to things you know to be true. Actually you can read contemporary newspapers and find plenty of examples. Here's one: "They have been mortaring Jaffa heavily most of to-day, wounding a large number of Arabs, and causing an exodus which had already begun during the last few days to be accelerated by sea and by road." (Times, April 26, 1948) As for Arab spokepeople, they were very reluctant to admit the massive defeat they were suffering. Of course some of them claimed that they planned it, just like Hezbollah is claiming that they had all along planned to move their launchers to the north. No reason to believe either without evidence, and there isn't any. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: this TIMES quote of yours is fake. you probably just made it up. the evidence that I put here is huge. ] 11:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"On that day the Mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead." (The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom. Oct. 12, 1963).
*''If this is true, okay.....'' ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 17:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: Good. ] 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::: So prove it is genuine, determine whether it is a report, editorial, letter to the editor, or what. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::: I did. ] 11:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"For the flight and fall of the other villages it is our leaders who are responsible because of their dissemination of rumors exaggerating Jewish crimes and describing them as atrocities, killing of women and children, etc., they instilled fear and terror in the hearts of the Arabs in Palestine, until they fled, leaving their homes and properties to the enemy." (The Jordanian daily newspaper Al Urdun, April 9, 1953).
* ''This is an editorial, which again does not necessarily address an "endorsement of flight". Yet again, it is an editorial, which is not encyclopedic material per se because it is not the words of a historian or an official of the period, but merely an opinion piece.'' ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 17:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: See comment above. Nothing is necessariy per se. This is why everything is in a theory section, even though it should be stated as fact. Be happy about that. ] 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"It was the Arab states who started and were responsible for starting the June (1967) War. They had duped themselves with their own fiery rhetoric and had become prisoners of their own propaganda." (Evan W. Williams, former US Minister Consul-General who served in Beirut, Tehran and Jerusalem, in his book "Jerusalem, Key to Peace", 1970).
*''Hello, 1967? This articles covers the exodus of 1948.'' ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 17:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: Again, this requires some leap to understand the propaganda issue. I'm willing for you to delete this one, if you want. ] 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Take it to ]. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"We said: "Let's resettle those people." The government of Egypt and so on, they all said: 'Wait a while' or 'No, we won't do it. The only place they are going to resettle is back in Israel, right or wrong. You must remember - well, these people are simply pawns. The Arab countries don't want to take Arabs." (John McCarthy, the United States Catholic Conference refugee expert, in a 1975 interview).
*''Yet again does not address "endorsement of flight" but address a non-Palestinian leader's unwillingness to grant citizenship to refugees. Has nothing to do with "endorsement of flight".'' ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 17:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: It says that the "refugees" were pawns. It doesn't take an Einstein to figure this one out. ] 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::: The citation is insufficient; where was the interview published? If genuine, it might fit in ] but it has nothing to do with the causes of the exodus. This is from Joan Peters, did you know that? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: the citation is more than sufficent. all the evidence is there. Joan peters maybe also used it. btw, Joan peters is discredited is she ? One sided bias again.

Monsignor George Hakim, then Greek Catholic bishop of Galilee, the leading Christian personality in Palestine for many years, told a Beirut newspaper in the summer of 1948, before the flight of the Arabs had ended: "The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the "Zionist gangs" very quickly, and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile." (Sada al Janub," August 16, 1948).
*''If this is true, okay..... This Hakim guy must be a big shot to find himself so notable....'' ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 17:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: Ok then. ] 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::: I proved this quotation is misleading. It's a good example of how propaganda works. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::: I proved the quotation isn't misleading. It's a good example of the truth. ] 11:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa, not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive urging the Arabs to quit.It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades." (The London weekly "Economist" October 2, 1948).
*''If this is true, okay..... although it still is a foreign paper's report but okay....'' ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 17:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:::: ok then. ] 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

On April 3, 1949, the Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station in Cyprus stated: "It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa and Jerusalem."
*''A broadcasting station in Cyprus? This most certainly is a relevant and verifiable source.. sigh'' ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 17:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: Ok, delete it if you must, though I saw this in several publications, and I'm sure it's true. ] 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::: This radio station was run by the British Secret Services. Spreading the truth was probably not their primary mission. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::: this comment of yours is original research (and wrong) and it has nothing to do with anything of wikipedia. ] 12:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
"The Arab States encouraged the Palestinian Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies." (The Jordanian newspaper "Filastin" wrote on February 19, 1949)
Most pointed of all was the comment of one of the refugees themselves: "The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in." (Jordan daily “Ad Difaa", September 6, 1954).
*''I find it hard to believe that a Jordanian daily would print something like this (not to mention I've never heard of this paper), but then again who am I to not believe what I don't believe? ''] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 17:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:::: I found quotes from this paper in the Mount Campus archives. It is true. They actually reported it. ] 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::::: "Quotes from this paper" doesn't cut it. Prove it is geniune and in context. One refugee's opinion is not notable anyway. You don't even name this refugee. Also, you claim you are not copying stuff from the web but you even copied the introduction "Most pointed of all was the comment of one of the refugees" which is not part of the quotation. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::: I used Katz and verified the sources. I will add in the Katz reference. ] 12:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== the garbage here is the whole master plan theory ==

This was refuted by many historians like explained, and still it is included. on the other hand, the truth, that is, the theory of the arabs wanting the palestinians to leave and encouraging it, is widely spread and known and has been researched . I really don't understand what's the problem here. This is a long article and most of it is concentrated on the palestinian fantasy of refugees. It's very strange that with millions of refugees of every war in history, the only refugees people keep discussing about are the palestinian refugees. Some of them still receive money from the U.N even though they are millionaires. It is quite disturbing. This article lists many theories, some of them are obviously non sensible. I don't see what's the problem with writing more in the section provided for this theory. If you don't agree with the theory, move on, but respect it.

The quotes I've cross-checked. The arab papers quotes are available in computers in the Hebrew University in Mount Campus. Those that I didn't find I didn't include , from the source you said which indeed provided me the initial database to search for.

There are no grounds for deletion of this section and I will not agree to it. You can take it to arbitration and then we'll see if Misplaced Pages advocates propaganda of palestinians over facts. Of course Arab, not palestinian, quotes of what happened are very important to support this theory, so I don't see any problem of it either.

As to your claim of wanting to move to Kiryat Shmona : a) be my guest b) it's not relevant c) does that mean Jews can move to southern lebanon now too ? d) this theory doesn't talk about any moral aspects, simply what happened e) the palestinians left at the request of SOMEONE's else army, not themselves which is the point here f) they moved so that the arabs can come in and perform mass genocide on the Jews, which is not the case here g) it didn't happen. so one needs to live with the reality.

] 17:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:They moved so that someone else can come in and perform mass genocide of the Jews? Funny, I thought it was the rockets and the shells and fighting going on around them, but I guess that doesn't matter. If you really think that a foreign army can simply come and request that people leave their own homes, and that the Palestinians would simply acquiesce like that, with no other factors (like their lives are already in danger or they are being forcibly expelled on trucks, read Rabin's diaries), you have serious misconceptions about our history. But I will admit that every party always chooses to believe what they choose to believe in order to justify their (or their ancestor's) actions. If it makes you feel better to believe what you believe, nobody can stop you. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 17:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:p.s. if "Jews" moving to south Lebanon, and "Muslims and Christians" moving to northern Israel would bring peace, I'd be all for it. But you'd have to take this debate up with a Lebanese fellow, I'm not involved in this. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 17:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Guys WP is not a soap box or newsgroup deabte club. As for History: There is no ] that show any "master plan" - it is completly OR that concluded that "theory" based on misunderstood words by Zionist leaders 10 and 15 years before the war.
If you want to see what took place in 48 you need only to look at nassrale call to the Arabs of Haifa: "get out so we can bomb the jews" - this is EXACTLY what Arab leaders did in 48. ] 17:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


== Cleanup attempt - the link between words and events ==

Several paragraphs currently in this article contains statements or editorial passages, but provides no explanation on how it played a part in the events which took place. Obviously, any person can say something but it doesn't follow there's a connection, that people are listening and acting based on what is said.

In an attempt to clean up ''some'' of the mess on this page, I have moved a number these paragraph here to talk, for rewording, cleanup and for proper context (link for cause) to be added:

(this page is still a mess though, for instance the subtitle "Claims by Israeli government sources" is way off; the section should either be refactored or renamed "Israeli claims" or something.


(Katz:)
<blockquote><blockquote>
For nearly a generation, those leaders have willfully kept as many people as they possibly could in degenerating squalor, preventing their rehabilitation, and holding out to all of them the hope of return and of "vengeance" on the Jews of Israel, to whom they have transferred the blame for their plight.

... at the time No Arab spokesman made such a charge. At the height of the flight, the Palestinian Arabs' chief representative at the United Nations, Jamal Husseini, made a long political statement (on April 27) that was not lacking in hostility toward the Zionists; he did not mention refugees. Three weeks later (while the flight was still in progress) the secretary-general of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, made a fiercely worded political statement on Palestine; it contained not a word about refugees.</blockquote></blockquote>

The American journalist ], who had covered Palestine for years, claimed that the Arab leaders' rationale for the flight was:
<blockquote><blockquote>
:"Let the Arabs flee into neighboring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab countries to greater effort, and when the Arab invasion struck the Palestinians could return to their homes and be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea." (''New Star In The Near East, New York, 1950''). </blockquote></blockquote>


* "Who brought the Palestinians to Lebanon as refugees, suffering now from the malign attitude of newspapers and communal leaders, who have neither honor nor conscience? Who brought them over in dire straits and penniless, after they lost their honor? The Arab states and Lebanon among them." (''The Beirut Muslim weekly Kul-Shay, Aug. 19, 1951'').

* "For the flight and fall of the other villages it is our leaders who are responsible because of their dissemination of rumors exaggerating Jewish crimes and describing them as atrocities, killing of women and children, etc., they instilled fear and terror in the hearts of the Arabs in Palestine, until they fled, leaving their homes and properties to the enemy." (''The Jordanian daily newspaper Al Urdun, April 9, 1953'').

* "Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa, not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive urging the Arabs to quit. It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades." (''The London weekly "Economist" October 2, 1948'').

* "The Arab States encouraged the Palestinian Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies." (''The Jordanian newspaper "Filastin" wrote on February 19, 1949'')

-- ] 00:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


But the leading Arab propagandist of the day, Edward Atiyah (then Secretary of the Arab League Office in London), reaffirmed the endorsement theory:

<blockquote><blockquote>
This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country. (The Arabs (London, 1955)), p. 1831 </blockquote></blockquote>
-- ] 01:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


The claim that Arab leaders endorsed the refugee flight has been rejected by modern Palestinian writers. But Emil Ghoury, a member of the Palestinian Arabs' national leadership, admitted:
<blockquote><blockquote>
"I don't want to impugn anybody, but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. "The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously, and they must share in the solution of the problem." (''Daily Telegraph", September 6, 1948'') </blockquote></blockquote>
:quote moved per discussion about accuracy -- ] 22:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

-----

=== Part two ===
Well, now I'm possibly disgusted. Running some of the text above through Google, most or all of them come up on the same webpages, e.g. and . If quotes and information indeed have been lifted from a web page and included here as book citations, that's a violation of ]: '''Intermediate sources: State where you ''got'' it'''. No wonder there was no context. Either a lot of resourcing must be done, or a purge. Based on this I've also removed another paragrap from the article (inserted above). -- ] 01:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


: I really don't know what you're talking about. And I think you don't know either. Making outrageous claims like are a violation of wikipedia policy. There is nothing wrong with the paragraphs you just vandalised and brought them here for no reason. There is no violation of ] policy with these paragraphs. Where it says they appear in a book, they do, and it's all been verified. I've been spending time in the Mount Scopus Library and verifying these sources , books and papers. The fact they also appear in personal sites, news sites and so on is utterly irrelevant. I asssure you kahlidi/pappe/benny morris quotes appear on various palestinian and hamas sites and so on.

: The only proposal made sense by you here is that claims not made by israel or arab leaders should be in a different section and say they're made but other sources or people present at the time. These are all important factors to understand the issue and are critical to the article. This vendetta of some people who don't agree with these facts on a political point of view is a violation of the ] policy of wikipedia. Please refrain from doing so. Restate the paragraphs in the article and allow a cleanup of categorizing if you wish. Anything else you shouldn't do. You're also in clear violation of ] , ] , and almost simply ] of this article and efforts of users to expand on a legitimate and based theory of the exodus. ] 01:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Did you verify the Attiyah quotation? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::: Page 183, penguin books. Check it yourself. This is an exact quotation. I'm simply left very annoyed and irritated from what I'm encountering here. One of the pillars of wikipedia is to discuss things in a civil way. My contribution to the theory section is legitimate. It's small, it's not even that outrageous and it's not anything controversial either. It's simply further information on something that already exists, all '''in accordance''' with ], ], ], but since the conflict is a sensitive issue, I am sorry to see that people '''abuse their power''' and try to enforce former edits which fit their ]. This is disappointing and damaging to the wikipedia cause. If any of you want to use wikipedia to enforce only your political agenda and '''ignore the theories/facts/debates from all sides''', do so, just let it be known at the wikipedia introduction page that wikipedia is no place for Jews supporting Israel or something like that, perhaps a haven for anyone who wants to promote theories that Israel is an apartheid state and any claims which may put Israel into a positive light are '''immediately discredited with lame excuses'''. ] 01:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::: Well, if you are the one who included these paragraphs (I haven't been following this article) and you have access to the books, then I'm sure you can provide the paragraph before and after these quotations so that we can see what context they appear in. I have not accused you of anything, not even mentioned your name (but since you replied it's strange that ''other'' people have quoted the exact same paragraphs from the same books and put them on a web page) Disclaimer: I've only noticed that several of the paragraphs are listed on other web pages, I don't know if they ''all'' are. Misplaced Pages policy is clear: if something comes from a webpage instead of a book, then we need to cite the web page and not the book. It's really not ''that'' big of a deal, we just need to recite according to WP:CITE. Anyway, until others have had an opportunity to comment I think we should leave the paragraphs here on Talk. And again, I didn't mean tgo accuse anybody (it's late, sorry) -- ] 01:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


::::::: yes, it's very "strange" that people use the same arguments and famous quotes. Unbelievable even. oh look, a random search for sykes's book brought me to here : - how strange is that ? it's a website called bint jbeil (hizballah outpost in lebanon) and it justifies attacks on israel which is a war crime country of course, how strange ? Could it be the same quote is used and was just copy pasted here ? How peculiar !!! But wait, that quote is still in the article. Evidently, you didn't try to see who is using those pro palestinian quotes ! I wonder why ! '''From all the asterix quotes in the section supposed to deal PRO ENDORSEMENT THEORY , the only ones left are these''' :

* "'Doesn't he have anything more important to do?' was Ben-Gurion's reaction when told, during his visit to Haifa on 1 May 1948, that a local Jewish leader was trying to convince the Arabs not to leave. 'Drive them out!' was Ben-Gurion's instruction to Yigal Allon, as recorded by Yitzhak Rabin in a censored passage of his memoris published in 1979, with regard to the Arabs of Lydda after the city had been taken over on 11 July 1948." (Ben-Ami, Shlomo (2006). Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy. Oxford University Press, p. 44.)

* An interview frequently cited in Zionist historiography was with Monsignor George Hakim, then Greek Catholic bishop of Galilee, in the Beirut newspaper Sada al Janub, August 16, 1948: "The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the "Zionist gangs" very quickly, and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile." Hakim later commented on this use of his words: "There is nothing in this statement to justify the construction which many propagandists had put on it... At no time did I state that the flight of the refugees was due to the orders, explicit or implicit, of their leaders, military or political, to leave the country... On the contrary, no such orders were ever made... Such allegations are sheer concoctions and falsifications. ...as soon as hostilities began between Israel and the Arab States, it became the settled policy of the Government to drive away the Arabs..." (quoted in E. B. Childers, The Wordless Wish, in I. Abu-Lughod (ed) Transformation of Palestine, Northwestern University Press (1971), 197-198.)

* The Jewish Haganah broadcast a warning to Arabs in Haifa on 21 April: "that unless they sent away 'infiltrated dissidents' they would be advised to evacuate all women and children, because they would be strongly attacked from now on" ('British Proclamation In Haifa Making Evacuation Secure', The Times, Thursday, April 22, 1948; pg. 4; Issue 51052; col D ).

:::: woah, what do you know... it seems you didn't dispute even one grain of sand , not even a word, a spelling mistake, of these different quotes. Of course all legitimate historians, verfied, ], ], ] what not... everything, perfect, right ? Yeah, sure... no problem, you want me to quote the entire book of Atiyah I'll go back to the library and do it , but I must say I'm assuming bad faith here from no on. If you want to make the articles any way you want, go ahead. I'm close to not giving a flying you know what anymore. wikipedia is simply losing any shred of credible dignity and I'm sorry I've wasted my time. I should have realised it when I saw the banning of anyone leftists disagree with like ] etc and I was warned to this effect by people. ] 02:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


::While I'm not for censoring or anything like that, I have to point out a couple of things here:
::# My previous note that many of these quotations do not really support, or are evidence of, "Arab leaders' endorsement of flight" which is what the section is about. A lot of these quotes have a lot of Israel-bashing, or Arabs bashing other Arabs or whatever, but most of these quotations actually do not specifically support the thesis of the section. Amoruso had argued on this talk page that one can somehow conclude that there was 'endorsement' that may be indirectly evident from reading these quotations, but I still don't see it. The explanations may actually border on ].
::# I agree with Steve that some of these quotations can be easily found on a multitude of anti-Palestinian sites, but almost always without context. For example, I found the Emil Ghoury quote on multiple websites, always quoting the ''Daily Telegraph'' as a source. But I could not find a single reference to the entire ''Telegraph'' article, only that specific sentence. As such, and without context, I really wish that those with access to archival material (HU ], which is what I assume Amoruso meant when mentioning "Mount Campus" above, may have them perhaps?) I myself am not allowed to enter Jerusalem or I would have been interested in going myself while I was still in Palestine last week. In any case, is there any way to remedy these concerns? ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::p.s. I can assure you that any problem Zeq had in the past was not due to his ideology but rather his manner of dealing with other Wikipedians. Most regulars and administrators on WP tend to be much more right wing vis-a-vis Israel than left wing. (Except for myself, I'm rather wingless). ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: all the other quotations can be found just as easily on anti-israel sites, like I showed above an example, and also out of context. That argument is quite void then. I do believe all the quotations support the theory and they don't approach ]. It's a deduction people can make, it's why it's a theory. If a palestinian says he blames the arabs for the whole refugee issue already from the beginning of the war when they entered and told them to leave, it means he knows who is to blame. And I don't see where the confusion is. As for your assurance, I will remain highly skeptical since I'm now assuming bad faith here after these one sided and violent edits. ] 11:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::: For the record, all the quotations I have added to this article were taken by me directly from the source given with the quotation. That includes the quotation from al-Azm's memoirs. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Ditto. --] 12:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::To clear up a couple of things:
::#Initially, I moved several quotations which appeared out of context to talk for discussion. Most of them also suggests ], a logical fallacy. As a comparison, if a newspaper criticizes Bush in an editorial it isn't evidence of anything, it's just an opinion.
::#I see four "quotations" left in that section, 2 pro and 2 con (which is largely irrelevant since WP isn't supposed to balance a debate 50-50. WP present viewpoints ''in proportion to the prominence they hold in the outside world'' (that could be 50:50, 90:10 or 10:90)). I kept Hakim Greek bishop , Haganah broadcast, and Katz II because those contained specific information, but I have not reviwed them. I kept Rabin because I read the whole passage myself years ago thus remembering it. I cut Katz 1 in half because the second part of the quotation (about someone failing to says something at a particular time and place) isn't proof of anything.

::::: It is proof of everything !!! If the Jews caused the exodus, don't you think arab leaders will mention it at the time ? They didn't, because the hoax wasn't invented yet. This is the most relelvant proof there is. It shows how the arguments changed to meet their political ends. ] 16:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::#What happened next was that I googled a sentence from one of the quotations, leading me to a page with several of the quotations from this article, complete with book citations (e.g. ''Edward Atiyah, The Arabs, London: Penguin Books, 1955, p. 183''). What struck me as strange wasn't the fact that the quotations could be found on the web, but that several of them appeared on the same page, identical to "our" quotations. Therefore I believe a second look is warranted.
::#Further: No, I ''did not'' continue to check every other quotation or cite in this article, I'm not a machine who do not need sleep. But my opinion applies equally to the rest.

::What should be done is to identify the context of these quotations, as demonstrated by ] below. Who - Why - Where. Which is why I suggested that if ] has access to the sources then s/he can post the text before and after the quotations here. That's a start. We're dealing with a subject with a high level of propaganda coming from both sides, which is why I believe editors here largely rely on books and journals from recognized authors in their work, instead of text from the web. And rightfully so. -- ] 17:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Quotations, a salutary lesson ==

For the record, many of these "quotations" brought by Amoruso first appeared in a 1952 book of the ] author Joseph Schechtman, long-time aide of ] and a strong advocate of ]. Schechtman had been hired by Rabbi ] to write on this subject for the American section of the Jewish Agency (Medoff, American Jewish History, 86.1, p125). Since then the same collection of "quotations" has been uncritically repeated ad-infinitum by a large number of authors. As far as I know, the only person to have actually checked Schechtman's claims was Erskine Childers, who found that most of them were misleading or out of context. (I've lost Childers' article but I'll report details from it tomorrow.) The whole matter of quotations is a crock anyway. There were hundreds of thousands of people involved in these events, holding a large number of different opinions as people do, so we can always find someone espousing an opinion against the stream. What does that prove? Nothing. Yet we are expected to accept even the supposed opinion of "a refugee" who is not even named, whose background is not revealed, allegedly reported in a newspaper article that none of us has looked at. This nonsense has to stop. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::::: all the quotations have been verified by the leading historians. like said, your attempt to discredit Schechtman is complete amateur behaviour of a disgruntled person who is faced with facts and wishes to distort them. All these quotes were brought by people, prominent people or editors of Arab papers, who have observed the events and commented on them. They are very important. If you have any genuine quotes of your own you can bring them, and it's better to do that than vandalise the page, invent fantasies, and tarnish the name of respected historians, just because you don't like the truth they're saying. ] 12:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Now to an example. Amoruso added this:

:::::: silly example which proves nothing, but the opposite. ] 12:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:But the leading Arab propagandist of the day, Edward Atiyah (then Secretary of the Arab League Office in London), reaffirmed the endorsement theory: "''This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country. (The Arabs (London, 1955)), p. 183''"
Since all of this can be copied off dozens of web-sites, I asked Amoruso if he had checked it. He said that he had and claimed to be offended. Well, now I'll ask Amoruso: if you looked at this sentence in Atiyah's book, why did you not report that the very next sentence, and the following paragraph, paint an entirely different picture of Atiyah's position? Here is the whole section:

: ''This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country. But it was also, and in many parts of the country, largely due to a policy of deliberate terrorism and eviction followed by the Jewish commanders in the areas they occupied, and reaching its peak of brutality in the massacre of Deir Yassin.<br>There were two good reasons why the Jews should follow such a policy. First, the problem of harbouring within the Jewish State a large and disaffected Arab population had always troubled them. They wanted an exclusively Jewish state, and the presence of such a population that could never be assimilated, that would always resent its inferior position under Jewish rule and stretch a hand across so many frontiers to its Arab cousins in the surrounding countries, would not only detract from the Jewishness of Israel, but also constitute a danger to its existence. Secondly, the Israelis wanted to open the doors of Palestine to unrestricted Jewish immigration. Obviously, the fewer Arabs there were in the country the more room there would be for Jewish immigrants. If the Arabs could be driven out of the land in the course of the fighting, the Jews would have their homes, their lands, whole villages and towns, without even having to purchase them. And this is exactly what happened.''

So, not only does Amoruso's single sentence not say anything at all about "the endorsement theory", but Atiyah's real opinion was that the Jews intentionally brought about the Arab exodus in order to achieve an Israel with as few Arabs as possible. It should be noted that Atiyah's book can be found in many libraries, and even bought at Amazon, yet this blatant lie about his opinion is copied over and over without a care. That's what this quotations business is like and that's why no quotations from these sources can be accepted without independent verification. Old Arabic newspapers available in only a few libraries in the world? Provide us with a scan or forget it. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, Atiyah has written about this quotation:
: ''I stand by what I said then today, if it is taken in its entirety. ... there is no suggestion whatever in what I wrote that the exodus of the Arab refugees was a result of a policy of evacuating the Arab population. What I said is something quite different from the Zionist allegation that the Arab refugees were ordered or even told by their leaders to evacuate'' (The Spectator, 1961; reprinted in JPS, 18, 1, 1988, p61) --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::: like said below, you have proved nothing but the endorsement theory. Of course Atiyah will use the modern propaganda blaming Israel, which is why showing that even he can't help but note the endorsement in his propaganda book is such a huge and monumental evidence.... I think this is fairly obvious and this is in fact the historians' point. ] 12:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Thank you for proving that I'm not a paranoid loony. I see there are libraries in my country who has "The Arabs", both the 1955 edition, as well as 1958 and a 1968 editions. I could (probably) easily get one of them on remote loan, if this is the wish of anyone here. Just let me know. I also have what I believe is a more complete passage for Ben-Gurion's instruction to Yigal Allon, as recorded by Yitzhak Rabin:
::* "What would they do with the 50,000 civilians in the two cities ... Not even Ben-Gurion could offer a solution, and during the discussion at operation headquarters, he remained silent, as was his habit in such situations. Clearly, we could not leave hostile and armed populace in our rear, where it could endanger the supply route advancing eastward. ... Allon repeated the question: What is to be done with the population? Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said: Drive them out! ... 'Driving out' is a term with a harsh ring ... Psychologically, this was one of the most difficult actions we undertook. The population of did not leave willingly. There was no way of avoiding the use of force and warning shots in order to make the inhabitants march the 10 to 15 miles to the point where they met up with the legion."
:: -- ] 17:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::: The story behind that passage appeared in NYT, October 23, 1979, page A3. People like Rabin who have worked for the government have to submit their work to two sets of censors. The military censors approved the passage but the political censors (a cabinet committee) rejected it. So Rabin's book appeared with this passage deleted. However, his translator then gave the passage to the NYT who published it. It seems that it was reinserted in later editions of the book. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::: this passage appears in anti israel sites, completely discredited and should be removed. ] 12:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Continuing''', we consider this old chestnut:
:''The claim that Arab leaders endorsed the refugee flight has been rejected by modern Palestinian writers. But Emil Ghoury, a member of the Palestinian Arabs' national leadership, admitted: "I don't want to impugn anybody, but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously, and they must share in the solution of the problem." (Daily Telegraph", September 6, 1948)''
Erskine Childers comments as follows.
:Another quotation used perennially by official Israeli spokesmen, and in virtually all official publications, is a statement attributed to Mr. Emile Ghoury. Again, the method of presenting this quotation as evidence, indeed Arab admission, of Arab evacuation orders has been to state that "an even more candid avowal came on 15 September 1948 from Mr. Emile Ghoury, who had been the Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee at the time of the invasion of Israel": The quotation not only appears-again, when suitably introduced-to confess Arab evacuation orders, it also appears to blame the Arab states in that they opposed partition at all, and it is consistently used by official Israeli spokesmen further to suggest that many Palestine Arab leaders want a "solution of the problem" in resettlement, in other Arab countries. Study of the full, original text of Mr. Ghoury's statement indicates diametrically opposite and plain meaning in his words. Nowhere in a long and very detailed statement did he so much as intimate that there had been official Arab evacuation orders. On the contrary, large parts of his statement which Israeli authorities do not choose to quote contain such descriptions as "the furnace of the Irgun, Stern, and Haganah" and, again, "their savage, bestial acts of which there are a thousand proofs." Specifically, the blunt intention of his statement was to lay responsibility upon the Arab states for failing to protect the Palestine Arabs from being dispossessed. (Childers, The Wordless Wish, in I. Abu-Lughod (ed.) Transformation of Palestine. Northwest Univ. Press, 2nd edition 1987.) --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


::::::::: totally irrelevant post from zero. And actually proves the contrary. Emile Ghoury is no zionist. He is very much against Jews. Katz writes :

"
The fraud developed. Its next feature was the inflation of the numbers of the refugees. Mr. Emil Ghoury, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee during the war, is a typical purveyor. In his 1960 speech at the United Nations, he set the number of "expelled"' Arabs at two million. The Arab spokesmen who succeeded him in the debate presumably considered this figure too high. On November 25, the Lebanese representative, Nadim Dimechkie, declared that "more than one million Arabs have been expelled." Four days. later, the spokesman for Sudan struck an average, speaking of the "expulsion of one and a half million Arabs." These speeches are characteristic; ever since the policy of falsification was adopted, the figure used by Arab spokesmen has never fallen below a million. '''The misrepresentation may be epitomised in a comparison of two, of Emil Ghoury's statements.'''

Emil Ghoury to the Beirut Daily Telegraph, September 6, 1948

I do not want to impugn anybody, but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab States in opposing partition and the Jewish State. The Arab States agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem.

Emil Ghoury in a speech at the United Nations Special Political Committee, November 17, 19609

It has been those acts of terror, accompanied by wholesale depredations, which caused the exodus of the Palestine Arabs. "

So in effect, it's not surprisng that many of the arab leaders who said certain things in 1948 say different things later on, or try to explain what they said in a differnet light. Of course they will try to deny what they said. But without noticing, they admitted the truth at the time,''' because at the time, the theory that Israel has anything to do with the refugees or that Israel is to blame for any plight of the palestinians - at the time nobody said it , so even from anti-zionists and extreme fanatics, they had no problem to admit the endorsement facts.''' This is what so monumental. ] 16:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Lastly I will say that Zero's deletion of the quotes from Katz's book prove his bad faith, and he should be banned for trying to politically influence this article ] 16:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC) .

:::: btw, the quotes of Erskine Childers are false (possible lies?). He did not blame the Jews for the exodus but only the arabs. ] 16:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Why would anyone read through this biased, one sided "analysis" of yours ? ==

Like I said, do whatever the **** you want (sorry, but it's too much already). Atiyah is a proclaimed propogandist of the arabs. It is for that reason that his claim that the arabs asked the palestinians to leave is so monumental. Same thing goes for all the newspapaer quotes - these are editorials of ARAB newspapers at the time, and therefore have the most relevance.

If you want to quote only books, no problem - i'll quote the same quotes from Katz's book.

If you want to leave the biased quotes (I don't believe ian or zero for a second here) which are also used only on propaganda and out of context (and Atiyah's quote is NOT out of context), go ahead too. This article is ridicilous already as it is. ] 11:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== finally, this attack on joan peters, shmuel katz, joseph shectman....==

these leftists biased one sided editors who try to control wikipedia (ian pitchford, zero etc) actually claim that any person who disagrees with them - journalist, writer and historian is discredited borders on complete insanity. All the quotes from Joseph B. Shectman are 100% accurate and verifiable and trust worthy. This is true on all accounts of other historians who happent to belong to a right wing side of a map. These users who attack these sources, simply for their political ends, and spread rubbish on them should all be banned. ] 12:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== political biased deletion of quotes ==

Much quotes and work was deleted from the article for political reasons. Zero claims he deleted part of Katz's quote because it did not talk about the endorsement but rather on the treatment of refugees by arab countries. if that's true, why did this section was removed ? For no reason other than political bias from zero and his allies.

'''at the time No Arab spokesman made such a charge. At the height of the flight, the Palestinian Arabs' chief representative at the United Nations, Jamal Husseini, made a long political statement (on April 27) that was not lacking in hostility toward the Zionists; he did not mention refugees. Three weeks later (while the flight was still in progress) the secretary-general of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, made a fiercely worded political statement on Palestine; it contained not a word about refugees.".(Katz, 1973, pp. 72)'''
] 16:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== in fact, I've yet to find explanations for deleting all parts originating from Katz's book, which are very relevant to the issue. Katz provides wide evidence to support his claim, and his claim should be written in full, just like claims by propogandists Khalidi and Morris. Zero is trying to discriminate the sources and choose only those that he likes . He would allow only a few lines from Katz but long articles and views from palestinian supporters. Weird no ?

Sections of Katz that much of the information inside should be included in the article :

<blockquote> <blockquote>

More interesting still, no Arab spokesman mentioned the subject. At the height of the flight, on April 27, Jamal Husseini, the Palestine Arabs' chief representative at the United Nations, made a long political statement, which was not lacking in hostility toward the Zionists; he did not mention refugees. Three weeks later (while the flight was still in progress), the Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, made a fiercely worded political statement on Palestine; it contained not a word about refugees.

The Arab refugees were not driven from Palestine by anyone. The vast majority left, whether of their own free will or at the orders or exhortations of their leaders, always with the same reassurance-that their departure would help in the war against Israel. Attacks by Palestinian Arabs on the Jews had began two days after the United Nations adopted its decision of November 29, 1947, to divide western Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state. The seven neighbouring Arab states-Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Egypt -- then prepared to invade the country as soon as the birth of the infant State of Israel was announced. Their victory, was certain, they claimed, but it would be speeded and made easier if the local Arab population got out of the way. The refugees would come back in the wake of the victorious Arab armies and not only recover their own property but also inherit the houses and farms of the vanquished and annihilated Jews. Between December 1, 1947, and May 15, 1948, the clash was largely between bands of local Arabs, aided in diverse ways by the disintegrating British authority and the Jewish fighting organisations.

The earliest voluntary refugees were understandably the wealthier Arabs of the towns, who made a comparatively leisurely departure in December 1947 and in early 1948. At that stage, departure had not yet been proclaimed as a policy or recognised as a potential propaganda weapon. The Jaffa newspaper Ash Sha'ab thus wrote on January 30, 1948:
The first group of our fifth column consists of those who abandon their houses and businesses and go to live elsewhere-- At the first sign of trouble they take to their heels to escape sharing the burden of struggle.
The weekly As Sarih of Jaffa used even more scathing terms on March 30, 1948, to accuse the inhabitants of Sheikh Munis and other villages in the neighbourhood of Tel Aviv of "bringing down disgrace on us all" by "abandoning their villages." On May 5, the Jerusalem correspondent of the London Times was reporting: "The Arab streets are curiously deserted and, evidently following the poor example of the more moneyed class there has been an exodus from Jerusalem too, though not to the same extent as in Jaffa and Haifa."

As the local Arab offensive spread during the late winter and early spring of 1948, the Palestinian Arabs were urged to take to the hills, so as to leave the invading Arab armies unencumbered by a civilian population. Before the State of Israel had been formally declared -- and while the British still ruled the country -- over 200,000 Arabs left their homes in the coastal plain of Palestine.

These exhortations came primarily from their own local leaders. Monsignor George Hakim, then Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, the leading Christian personality in Palestine for many years, told a Beirut newspaper in the summer of 1948, before the flight of Arabs had ended:
The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab Armies would crush the "Zionist gangs" very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile.
The exodus was indeed common knowledge. The London weekly Economist reported on October 2, 1948:
Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit. -- It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades.
And the Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station from Cyprus stated on April 3, 1949:
It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem.
Even in retrospect, in an effort to describe the deliberateness of the flight, the leading Arab propagandist of the day, Edward Atiyah (then Secretary of the Arab League Office in London), reaffirmed the facts:
This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country. [The Arabs (London, 1955), p. 1831
Kenneth Bilby, one of the American correspondents who covered Palestine for several years before and during the war of 1948, soon afterward wrote a book on his experience and observations. In it he reported:
The Arab exodus, initially at least, was encouraged by many Arab leaders, such as Haj Amin el Husseini, the exiled pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem, and by the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine. They viewed the first wave of Arab setbacks as merely transitory. Let the Palestine Arabs flee into neighbouring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab peoples to greater effort, and when the Arab invasion struck, the Palestinians could return to their homes and be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea.
After the war, the Palestine Arab leaders did try to help people -- including their own -- to forget that it was they who had called for the exodus in the early spring of 1948. They now blamed the leaders of the invading Arab states themselves. These had added their voices to the exodus call, though not until some weeks after the Palestine Arab Higher Committee had taken a stand.

The war was not yet over when Emil Ghoury, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, the official leadership of the Palestinian Arabs, stated in an interview with a Beirut newspaper:
I do not want to impugn anybody but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab States in opposing partition and the Jewish State. The Arab States agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem.
In retrospect, the Jordanian newspaper Falayfin wrote on February 19, 1949:
The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies.
Nimr el Hawari, the Commander of the Palestine Arab Youth Organisation, in his book Sir Am Nakbah (The Secret Behind the Disaster, published in Nazareth in 1952), more specifically quoted the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said. Nuri, he wrote, had thundered: "We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down."

Equally specifically brought to public notice was the part played by the chief spokesman for the combined Arab states, the Secretary General of the Arab League himself. Habib Issa wrote in the New York Lebanese daily newspaper At Hoda on June 8, 1951,
The Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade... He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean. -- Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes, and property and to stay temporarily in neighbouring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down.
As late as 1952, the charge had the official stamp of the Arab Higher Committee. In a memorandum to the Arab League states, the Committee wrote:
Some of the Arab leaders and their ministers in Arab capitals -- declared that they welcomed the immigration of Palestinian Arabs into the Arab countries until they saved Palestine. Many of the Palestinian Arabs were misled by their declarations... It was natural for those Palestinian Arabs who felt impelled to leave their country to take refuge in Arab lands -- and to stay in such adjacent places in order to maintain contact with their country so that to return to it would be easy when, according to the promises of many of those responsible in the Arab countries (promises which were given wastefully), the time was ripe. Many were of the opinion that such an opportunity would come in the hours between sunset and sunrise.1
Most pointed of all was the comment of one of the refugees: "The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in.

</blockquote>/</blockquote>

] 16:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:32, 13 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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!
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconPalestine Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconHuman rights High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternational relations Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDiscrimination Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconLaw Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHistory Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

  • RM, 1948 Palestinian exodus → Nakba, Not moved, 30 March 2022, discussion
  • RM, 1948 Palestinian exodus → 1948 Palestinian expulsion, Not moved, discussion
  • RM, 1948 Palestinian exodus → 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight, Moved, 8 September 2022, discussion
  • RM, 1948 Palestinian exodus → 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight, No consensus, 6 January 2023, discussion
    • MRV, Overturned and moved, 16 March 2023, discussion
Older discussions:
  • RM, 1948 Palestinian exodus → Nakba, No consensus, 30 October 2012, discussion
  • RM, 1948 Palestinian exodus → Nakba, No consensus, 6 February 2018, discussion
  • RM, 1948 Palestinian exodus → The Palestinian Nakba, No consensus, 14 April 2018, discussion
  • RM, 1948 Palestinian exodus → Nakba, Not moved, 25 March 2021, discussion


RfC – In the article section about "Haifa", should the following paragraph be added?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is, at best, no consensus for the proposed text. Many editors, both for and against, agree that there is room for improvement. Based on the discussion so far, it seems to me that editors should workshop something that begins by describing in our own voice what can be so described, then includes relevant interpretations and arguments from Morris and other authorities, as appropriate. (non-admin closure)Compassionate727  23:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Should Benny Morris' research on the evacuation orders from Haifa be included in 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight#Haifa:

Morris asserts that the initial order to evacuate came from local Arab leadership, and that the Arab Higher Committee endorsed it post factum. Among the evidence he cites are British and American intelligence reports, an assessment by the High Commissioner of Palestine, as well as statements by the Haifa Arab Emergency Committee on 22 April 1948. According to Morris, possible reasons included clearing the way for Transjordan's impending entry into the war and avoiding the population being used as hostages.

Amayorov (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. Morris (2004), pp. 195-201

No

  1. No, the article is already overdependent on Morris. We should be seeking to reduce the amount of references and quotes to Morris, not increase the reliance. We should seek to utilise other sources more often. TarnishedPath 07:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Morris is attributed 20 times in the body of article. He's mentioned 3 times in notes, 27 times in the references and 3 times in the source list. Just the 23 times (20 inline and 3 via notes) he's mentioned by name attributing his viewpoint says that we have somewhat of a problem with an over-reliance on the POV of Benny Morris. Making this article more dependent on the POV of Benny Morris is undesirable. We need less Benny Morris, not more. TarnishedPath 09:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    My problem is with WP:CHERRYPICKING. While Morris is frequently cited, only selective parts of his work are considered, with other sections—arguable more significant in the source material—being entirely omitted, seemingly because their don't align with a particular narrative.
    For instance, the section on Haganah’s use of psychological warfare occupies 70% of the article section by character count and largely relies on Morris, with much of it taken verbatim or heavily paraphrased. However, Morris’ 2004 work dedicates only two pages to psychological warfare, whereas at least nine pages focus on Arab evacuation orders, which are excluded. Amayorov (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    My problem is with WP:CHERRYPICKING. Not what this RFC is about, tho. Your problem seems to be what the article says about Haifa? Selfstudier (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    I believe WP:CHERRYPICKING might counter the argument about over-reliance on Morris that @TarnishedPath is making above. The discussion is specifically about the inclusion of the paragraph in RFC. Amayorov (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    No a misapplied essay doesn't counter anything. TarnishedPath 12:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    The substantive issue is that you cannot cherry-pick an author's work (perhaps to support a particular narrative), while omitting the rest, even when the author himself devotes more attention to it. Amayorov (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    As I stated to you in the above conversation, we always draw from parts of sources. We do this in order to not be overly verbose and to not violate copyright. We cover the important parts. That does not mean that we are engaging in WP:CHERRYPICKING (an essay might I note). You've not provided any substantive reasoning for why we should further give Benny Morris's POV more airplay. TarnishedPath 12:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    We cover the important parts. – the selection of content from Morris' POV is currently very disproportionate. WP:DUE: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." Amayorov (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    The fact that we cover Morris so heavily is very disproportionate. There should be less Morris, not more. TarnishedPath 12:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    First, even if there's to be less Morris, he must be covered neutrally and in proportion to the prominence he gives to different sections in his work. Second, I don't think we should cut Morris, but we could certainly add more material from other authors. Amayorov (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    There is absolutely no policy that prescribes we cover authors in proportion to the prominence THEY give different sections of their works. Per WP:BALASP, An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. We should give weight proportional to the body of work on the subject as a whole, not be so heavily representative of the POV of one author. The amount Morris's views are represented in the article is completely out of balance. We need less Morris not more. TarnishedPath 02:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    Nor is there any "too much Morris" policy. WP:BALASP applies to individual topics and this is not a "minor aspect". Policies aside, it seems like a common sense principle to not represent sources in a manner which misleads the reader about their views. — xDanielx /C\ 14:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    Not covering every view put forth by an author is not equivalent to misleading readers about an author's view. WP:BALASP isn't just about not giving undue weight to minor aspects. The section I quoted clearly states that we should treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. At present we are massively out of proportion, as compared to the body of work on the subject, due to the article's heavy reliance on Morris. TarnishedPath 03:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
    Out of proportion in the sense of "too much Morris"? Morris isn't really a viewpoint, or an aspect of the topic as BALASP calls it.
    Stepping back, I'm a bit unclear on what you're advocating for. Similar statements could be attributed to other sources such as Karsh. Is that the sort of outcome you're looking for, or would you object to the content even with a different source? — xDanielx /C\ 04:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
    Other editors have already made it clear that Morris's account is contested. So with that in mind any proposed addition here should be different. Broadly what I suggest is that the article not heavily rely on any particular author and the one that sticks out the most is Morris. TarnishedPath 05:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
    We don't normally remove attributed statements because they're contested; rather we expand the content to include any other significant viewpoints. — xDanielx /C\ 16:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
    Since this is history, there should exist a central viewpoint of the events and that's what we should be going with, if we are to include an attributed statement, that suggests a non significant alternative view rather than a significant one. It's a matter of weight, if Morris view is significant then it should be supported by others as well and if that's the case, then we can cite is as a significant minority view without direct attribution. Editors seem to be arguing that Morris view is the mainstream majority view, I don't see the evidence for that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
    So because a Misplaced Pages statement is attributed, it must therefore be an insignificant view on the matter? That seems backwards. If you want to establish that this is an fringe or insignificant view (which is a much higher bar than "contested"), you'll need evidence of that. Absent evidence to the contrary, views backed by multiple prominent scholars are normally presumed to be significant, not the opposite. — xDanielx /C\ 00:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  2. No Afaics, this "dispute" appears to be about the Haifa displacement and how much of it was due to Arab evacuation orders. There is contradictory historiography about that and I think that first the Causes article should be sorted out, perhaps a specific section dealing with Haifa and the sources for that and only then use that as a basis for here and for the Battle article. Selfstudier (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    If there is contradictory historiography, then both viewpoints should be included, preferably with an outline how they relate to each other. We aren't here to settle historical disputes, but to accurately and neutrally reflect existing work. Amayorov (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    I didn't dispute that, I said to begin at the "Causes" article first. Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    I believe the two articles have different objectives. The "Causes" article should aggregate all relevant information and outline the factors behind the displacement, giving appropriate weight to each factor based on its treatment by reputable historians.
    This article, on the other hand, should describe the events of the displacement, in a more or less chronological manner. The fact that foreign intelligence and local officials documented evacuation orders, and that these have been referenced extensively by reputable historians, should be included. Amayorov (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    This is just about Haifa, tho. Selfstudier (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, this RFC is specifically about the Haifa section. Amayorov (talk) 13:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    NPOV doesn't have any exceptions based on the state of a different article; why would that be relevant? — xDanielx /C\ 14:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  3. No as per TarnishedPaths reasonings. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Based on @TarnishedPath’s reasoning, would you be content with removing Morris’ research on Haganah’s use of psychological warfare, in favor of his findings regarding evacuation orders (i.e. the paragraph above)? I think that’s a terrible solution and would cut down the article significantly. But it would be a fairer representation of Morris’ work. As I said, he spends roughly 2-3 pages discussing the former and around ten – the latter. The ratio of his primary sources is similar. Amayorov (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    It's not our job to fairly represent Morris' work, we need to represent the balance of all sources, for the Haifa displacement in this case. Selfstudier (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  4. No, the first two paragraphs of this section are messed up enough as is. Begins by citing Morris for what Historian Efraim Karsh writes... and misrepresenting Morris in the process. Inserting Walid Khalidi disputes... with a citation and text which are confusing concern a separate dispute, then Benny Morris agrees with Karsh... which there is hardly support for.

    I don't know that there should be a separate "Causes" article, but if Selfstudier thinks first add content there, then import/merge back here to fix this mess, ok. If Morris is used for AHC "orders" the content should be faithful, "egging on the continuing evacuation" during a confusing time with events rapidly changing. And should certainly put in the context of his overall argument for outside blanket evacuation orders: "as with most rumours, there was a grain of truth in them".

    The suggested content is not even accurate in its According to Morris.... He quotes but does not identify a 6th Airborne Division document

    Probable reason for Arab Higher Executive ordering Arabs to evacuate Haifa is to avoid possibility of Haifa Arabs being used as hostages in future operations after May 15. Arabs have also threatened to bomb Haifa from the air.

    but i do not see him making such an argument. fiveby(zero) 16:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    • This isn't relevant to the RfC. However, I agree that the start of the section is messy and needs work. Where is Morris misrepresented? E.g. There is no evidence that the commanders involved hoped or expected that it would lead to mass evacuation – Morris (2004), p.200.
    • p.198: But if the weight of the evidence suggests that the initial order to evacuate had come from the local leadership, there is a surfeit of evidence that the AHC and its local supporters endorsed it ex post facto during the following days, egging on the continuing evacuation. Then he spends the next pages describing thsi evidence. I think this pretty much covers the paragraph in the RfC.
    • Sure, Morris doesn't himself state the most likely reasons for the Arab evacuation orders. However, he sites several documents, among which are the 6th Airborne Division, Alex Cunningham and Lippincott (The American Consul at Haifa). He doesn't provide any evidence contradicting them.
    @Fiveby How would you suggest rephrasing the paragraph to better reflect Morris' position? Amayorov (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

    I would not try and rephrase the paragraph at this time. I think the reader would best be served by first looking for agreement amongst the sources for what can be stated outright without in-text attribution. Leading from Morris I would first look at expanding the article's weak ...one of the most notable flights of this stage. with

    The fall and exodus of Arab Haifa were among the major events of the war. The departure of the town’s Arabs, who before the war had numbered 65,000, by itself accounted for some 10 per cent of the Arab refugee total. The fall of, and flight from, Haifa, given the city’s pivotal political, administrative and economic role, was a major direct and indirect precipitant of the subsequent exodus from elsewhere in the North and other areas of the country, including Jaffa.

    This is important for the reader and where we should see wide agreement in the sources. Next

    The mass exodus of 21 April – early May must be seen against the backdrop of the gradual evacuation of the city by some 20,000–30,000 of its inhabitants, including most of the middle and upper classes, over December 1947 – early April 1948...

    where it is likely there is some disagreement as to the importance ascribed, but some content could probably be worked out without resorting to the ugly According to Morris... Proceeding this way would be doing what editors are supposed to be doing summarizing sources rather than cherry-picking to push a conclusion. Something about "orders" would probably eventually warrant inclusion, but as is i agree completely with Selfstudier that this is pursued only to unduly emphasize the apparent fact of of Arab orders while ignoring the surrounding context and what exactly happened. And no, you can't take a quote from an unknown member of 6th Airborne or others and claim Morris agrees without him explicitly agreeing in his text. fiveby(zero) 15:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  5. No. Levivich's suggestion that we "replace Morris's attributed views on this with something in Wikivoice sourced to multiple sources" is the correct solution. The historiographical dispute involving Morris, Karsh, Khalidi etc can be covered in the historiography section of this article or in a historiography section at the article Battle of Haifa (1948). IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Historiography wouldn't be a good place for it. Historiography refers to the study of methods used by historians. It is not an appropriate section to describe historical disputes.
    Describing disputes is a part of WP:WIKIVOICE: Misplaced Pages aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Is what you and @Levivich are suggesting basically including the RfC paragraph, but adding other researchers' PoV after those of Morris? So a 'YES' but with further info? Amayorov (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    @Amayorov, there's no need to reply to each and every person who !votes No. You're appearing to be WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion to within an inch of its life. TarnishedPath 02:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  6. No, I think, as a general rule, the opinions of Scholar X should not be sourced to a work by Scholar X. Rather, if the opinion of Scholar X is WP:DUE, we'd be able to source that to Scholars Y and Z, etc. Here, there is no lack of scholarship that explicitly talks about the opinions of Morris. Rather than editors choosing which part of Morris's work to highlight (which is WP:OR), we should rely on WP:RS, and summarize those portions of Morris's opinions that multiple high-quality RS summarize, cited to those RS (to Scholars Y and Z). (Of course we can also add a cite to the particular Morris book or whatever it is that the RSes are discussing.) Levivich (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    What policy is this based on? Alaexis¿question? 11:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. Levivich (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    Morris is already a secondary source (in relation to the topic of the article), so your argument seems to be about a preference WP:TERTIARY sources. While those are allowed, they're not that common and aren't really encouraged by any policy. — xDanielx /C\ 14:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    No that's not right on either count. An author's work is a primary source for the author's opinion given in that work, and of course articles should be based on secondary sources as our policies say. Aside from all of that, WP:DUE says an opinion or viewpoint is included based on its prominence in RSes. So Morris's viewpoints are only DUE if they're prominent in the entire body of RSes, which is why we should cite other RSes, and multiple RSes, for Morris's opinion (not just Morris directly). Citing Morris directly doesn't establish that Morris's opinion is DUE.
    That book we're citing is like 600+ pages. Who decides which of the paragraphs in that book are worth quoting/citing/mentioning? Not Misplaced Pages editors, it should be decided by other RSes. Morris should be quoted when he's quoted by other RSes, not when Misplaced Pages editors decide to quote him. His opinion should be summarized when it's summarized by other RSes, not by Misplaced Pages editors deciding which parts are worth summarizing, as that would be OR. Levivich (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    Per WP:NOR, primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. Benny Morris's book about the topic of this article is not a primary source as it's not "original material that is close to an event" and he was not directly involved in these events. Alaexis¿question? 19:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    That's some selective quotation from the WP:PSTS section of WP:NOR. The work where Morris says "X" is a secondary source for the claim "X", but a primary source for the claim "Morris said X". The way we know if "X" is WP:DUE for inclusion is by looking at its prominence in WP:RS. If Morris and many others say "X", then "X" is WP:DUE. The way we know whether "Morris said X" is by looking at the prominence of "Morris said X" in RSes. If lots of RSes talk about "Morris said X", then "Morris said X" is WP:DUE for inclusion. And there are lots of examples of "Morris said X" that's WP:DUE for inclusion, because lots of RSes talk about what Morris said. So whether this particular instance of "Morris said X" is WP:DUE depends on whether RSes other than Morris cover this particular instance of "Morris said X". Levivich (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    While WP:PSTS isn't very explicit about it, in practice we classify sources as primary or secondary in relation to a broader topic. Yes, in some trivial sense every source is a primary source in relation to itself, but practically PSTS isn't concerned with those trivial relations. If it was, the majority of attributed statements throughout Misplaced Pages would be in violation of WP:PRIMARY. — xDanielx /C\ 21:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    Sorry, but this is very strange reasoning. I could understand it if we were writing an article about Morris himself and what views he personally held, but we aren’t. Amayorov (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    By the same logic, do you think that the sentence "According to Ilan Pappé, the Zionists organised a campaign of threats" should be removed because it's sourced to Pappe and not another historian? Alaexis¿question? 19:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    I think that can and should be changed from an attributed statement sourced to one source, to a statement in wikivoice sourced to multiple sources. Levivich (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    Can you clarify what you mean by that? Literally, most contentious points on Misplaced Pages are discussed as “Historian X claims x. Y disagrees and writes y.” Do you propose to make this a single sentence? Amayorov (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Off-topic - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  1. @Amayorov, You're continuing to have your two cents at multiple places throughout the discussion. I have asked you to desist from this previously. Please do not continue WP:BLUDGEONing this RFC. TarnishedPath 00:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
    None of the comments I made in the last 24h are “repeating the same point” or “ignoring evidence”. Here, I’m constructive engaging to clarify a suggestion made by a fellow editor. In a different place, I reviewed two newly linked research articles by Khalidi. In another, I acknowledged that Morris doesn’t himself make an assertion as to the causes of the orders, but quotes from a primary source verbatim.
    Your behaviour seems to be very WP:UNCIVIL. Amayorov (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
    WP:BLUDGEONing isn't confined to "repeating the same point" or "ignoring evidence". Put simply it is "where someone attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own". I've politely asked you to desist. Please give other editors airtime. TarnishedPath 03:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
    The comment you're replying to was just asking for a clarification. If this is bludgeoning at all, it's minor compared to other instances. Regardless of merit, repeated accusations of bludgeoning don't seem constructive. — xDanielx /C\ 17:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
    Repeated opposition to every No !vote isn't constructive either. Selfstudier (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, you’re probably right. I will disengage from the discussion for the time being Amayorov (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes

  1. Yes. Benny Morris is the most referenced historian in this article. Some have complained that he is 'oversourced'. This might be true, but the main issue is WP:CHERRYPICKING. Currently, large sections of his research are omitted, seemingly due to them not fitting a particular view, while the rest forms the bulk of the article. Finer points are sometimes overblown. This is a clear violation of WP:DUE:

    Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.

    Another common argument against the paragraph's inclusion I've seen is that it "engages in Nakba denial". That is simply not a historical argument, especially given that most articles about the Nakba rely on Morris already. (see Misplaced Pages:What FRINGE is not). Of course, any historian who disagrees with Morris' assessment should be included too. Amayorov (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  2. Probably. I'm not totally clear on the context leading to this RfC, but NPOV generally means representing all non-fringe views on a matter, so purported evacuation orders should certainly be mentioned when covering Haifa. We don't necessarily have to quote Morris, but his work is more prominent and moderate than most of the alternatives we might consider, such as Karsh's . — xDanielx /C\ 21:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  3. Yes. Morris is one of the foremost experts. As far as I can see no RS have been provided that contradict his account. The circumstances of the flight of one of the largest urban communities of Palestinians is clearly relevant and should be included in the article. Alaexis¿question? 16:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Were they expelled? "Khalidi and Morris agree that 70,000 refugees in the first wave fled, and that about 250,000 were expelled in the final stages of war. However, this accounts only for half of the refugee population. The dispute between the two is about the 350,000 or so who exited Palestine in between March and June 1948. While Morris thinks this half has left by its own accord, Khalidi argues it was expelled as well (a particular acute argument has being going on about the refugees of Haifa - around 65,000 in number). Zionist historiography cited Haifa as an example for a Jewish effort to persuade Arabs to stay - Morris, in this case, accepts the official version. Khalidi does not - he describes, as does more elaborately Nur Masalha, the means by which the Haifa population was driven out. Haifa was evicted in the wake of plan D, as were the Palestinian population of the mixed towns of Jaffa, Safad and Tiberias" Selfstudier (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    I agree that, if the RfC paragraph is to be included, Khalidi's PoV should be added too. I would also consider Karsh (some people describe him as "fringe", with which I disagree). Amayorov (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    So we should add Khalidi/Masalha's accounts. Why is it an argument not to include Morris' viewpoint? Alaexis¿question? 21:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Isn't that a larger issue than AHC "orders"? Khalidi might sneer at him a bit, In his more recent odyssey to the right..., but i don't see him actually countering the specific argument. Anyway in response to Alaexis, we should accurately summarize Morris if used which the suggested content does not. fiveby(zero) 16:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    It is, but it seems to me that the debate over Haifa is being pursued only to unduly emphasize the apparent fact of of Arab orders while ignoring the surrounding context and what exactly happened in the run up to the British departure. Selfstudier (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    I don't see how the surrounding context is ignored, because it currently forms the bulk of the article, and would continue to do so after the addition. My point is that a significant part of the debate is omitted entirely. Amayorov (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  4. Probably. At the very least, some attributed description seems merited. I generally err on the side of inclusion when it comes to this as long as we aren't dealing with FRINGE. "We already rely too much on this prominent historian," sounds like cherrypicking to me. And Levivich's "don't source a scholar unless they've been cited by another scholar" rule would result in a lot of removals across many articles if that were actually followed. Andre🚐 10:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  5. Probably per Amayorov and Andrevan. Morris is a prominent historian and I don't find the arguments against inclusion compelling. This is not WP:FRINGE and the passage is relevant and valuable. GhostOfNoMan 12:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  6. Yes, with improved framing. After the 1st sentence, give the numbers before, in late April, and at the end. If these are facts with minimal disagreement, no scholar needs to be named those sentences (only in citations). Then framing such as: "The flight of the Arab population was influenced by Jewish, and possibly Arab actions, though historian debate the relevance of specific actions and their intent." Then Morris (RfC sentence) vs Khalidi on the Arab Higher Committee. Then a sentence to introduce the types of Jewish actions, e.g., broadcasts and military tactics, followed by the competing scholarly interpretations. Fwiw, I think the Morris blockquote can be replaced with a concise paraphrase, to avoid overuse (though he is a leading historian here). This is my sense of the section. ProfGray (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  7. Yes per the arguments above. Morris is (one of) the preeminent historian(s) on the topic, and significant use in other areas of the article aren’t a policy-based reason to remove otherwise due content. The same, of course, applies to other significant scholars (on both sides) as well, but excluding what is arguably the best source because it was used to much is at best unwise. FortunateSons (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
    I haven’t looked into the literature in depth in a while, but unless I missed something significant, the suggestion by @ProfGray seems quite reasonable as well, if we’re looking for alternatives/a compromise FortunateSons (talk) 10:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
  8. Yes While I’m also not deeply familiar with the literature, the case for inclusion appears stronger than that for exclusion. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

"Historian Benny Morris asserts that the initial order to evacuate came from local Arab leadership, and that the Arab Higher Committee endorsed it post factum. Among the evidence he cites are British and American intelligence reports, and an assessment by the High Commissioner of Palestine. According to Morris, possible reasons included clearing the way for Transjordan's impending entry into the war and avoiding the population being used as hostages" cited to Morris 2004 pp195-200
which is the same as the RFC subject matter except that "as well as statements by the Haifa Arab Emergency Committee on 22 April 1948" has been added. Selfstudier (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
The initial discussion took place here: Talk:1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight#Haifa. Different opinions were voiced, so it would presumably be better to canvass more viewpoints and discuss them with more structure.
The edit over at Battle of Haifa (1948)#The battle wasn't disputed. Amayorov (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. The argument "this article relies too much on Morris" has no basis in Misplaced Pages policies. If there are other accounts that contradict Morris, they should be presented and an argument based on WP:WEIGHT should be made. Alaexis¿question? 16:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Alaexis, I think of you as an experienced regular in this topic area. Do you really need to say "if"? :-) Cuz I think you already know the answer to whether or not Morris is contradicted by other accounts.

    Can all of us regulars in this topic area please stop pretending like we don't all know that Morris is widely cited for his facts (dates, places) and widely disputed for his characterizations/interpretations? Levivich (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

    "Morris is widely cited for his facts (dates, places) and widely disputed for his characterizations/interpretations."
    This is correct. See Avi Shlaim for example: "There are two Benny Morrises," he says. "There is the first-rate archival historian whose work is of utmost importance in understanding the Israeli-Arab conflict. And there is the third-rate political analyst who has little understanding of what is driving the modern conflict." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    I'm sorry but I'm not sure I understand. There is one factual statement attributed to Morris Morris asserts that the initial order to evacuate came from local Arab leadership, and that the Arab Higher Committee endorsed it post factum and one "interpretation", also attributed (According to Morris, possible reasons included clearing the way for Transjordan's impending entry into the war and avoiding the population being used as hostages).
    If either of these is contradicted by other accounts, we should add those accounts to the article. It's not an argument to remove his viewpoint. Alaexis¿question? 21:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Again, you say "if" as if it's a possibility, when I think you know it's a certainty. You know that his account is in fact contradicted by other accounts, correct? You know this for a certainty because we've all discussed Morris many times before at many pages. Right? So why do you say "if"?
    You also speak as if "all viewpoints should be included" when I think you know that's not what NPOV says. Because his accounts are contradicted by others, and that's a very good reason not to include it. That's what NPOV says. Levivich (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    Speculation about Alaexis' knowledge or motivations isn't relevant here.
    NPOV tells us to represent all significant viewpoints. Are you claiming this viewpoint is insignificant? There are several other historians who make similar assertions, though Morris is probably the most prominent and moderate of them. — xDanielx /C\ 14:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    Quote that sentence from NPOV in full and you'll answer your own question. Levivich (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    All encyclopedic content on Wikipediamust be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant viewsthat have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
    What is it you have an issue with? That quoting Morris on the causes would be disproportionate (despite the fact that Khalidi’s POV is already included)? That Morris isn’t a reliable source? Amayorov (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    It would be simpler if you articulate your point directly. Are you getting at in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources? That's about the extent of coverage given to each viewpoint, not about whether they're covered at all. — xDanielx /C\ 21:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    Can you answer directly which sources contradict the two assertions I mentioned in my previous comment? Alaexis¿question? 19:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    For the first assertion:
    AHC orders Khalidi, Walid (2005). "Why did the Palestinians Leave, Revisited" (PDF). Journal of Palestine Studies. 34 (2).
    local level Khalidi, Walid (2008). "The Fall of Haifa, Revisited" (PDF). Journal of Palestine Studies. 37 (3).
    Both earlier articles republished in response to these points in The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (see editors note in 2005 article). Morris does not make the second assertion, so no need to look for a source which contradicts. fiveby(zero) 20:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    Morris doesn’t make the second assertion himself (i.e. doesn’t aggregate), but quotes it as a possible reason verbatim.
    Regarding the first point, Khalidi doesn’t refute Morris’ evidence (intelligence and military reports and assessments by British top-officials). He studies a different type of primary evidence (radio broadcasts and newspaper clippings), and doesn’t find corroboration of Morris’ conclusions there.
    Now, Khalidi’s work should be included (in fact, it already is). But I cannot for the life of me understand why Morris’ research can’t be either, unless you consider the debate essentially settled. This is also some heavy WP:OR. Amayorov (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    Amayorov, i'd ask that you strike the second sentence of the suggested content of the RfC on verifiablity concerns. You should probably also note p. 199 of Morris concerning local "orders": The notables’ announcement of evacuation on the evening of 22 April was not a bolt from the blue...Tens of thousands of Arabs, including most of the city’s middle and upper classes, had departed during December 1947 – early April 1948. On 21–22 April, the notables had the fresh example of Arab Tiberias before their eyes. And by the evening of 22 April, thousands had already voted with their feet..., the evacuees had shown their leaders the way out of the strait bounded on the one side by continued – and hopeless – battle and on the other, by (treacherous) acceptance of Jewish rule. fiveby(zero) 01:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
    Do you mean the third sentence: "According to Morris, possible reasons included clearing the way for Transjordan's impending entry into the war and avoiding the population being used as hostages."?
    Regarding the context of the local orders, sure — it's important. Do you wish to somehow integrate it in the RfC proposal? Amayorov (talk) 08:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
    Sure, after you directly answer my question. Levivich (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    You are defining the problem, that only Morris is being considered and that does have a basis in PAG, NPOV. Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Shouldn't that be amended by adding other sources alongside Morris? That Morris' work is currently cherry-picked is a different problem. Both problems can be fixed together. Amayorov (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    You say that Morris work is cherrypicked but that is only the case if Morris is disputed besides Haifa, is it? Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Sorry, I'm not following. Yes, Morris' work on the flight from Haifa is currently cherry-picked and the parts to which he dedicates much (most?) attention are omitted. Amayorov (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    What I was asking is whether the other citations to Morris besides Haifa are also disputed. Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Plenty. For example, Morris's assertion that an extremely small, almost insignificant number of the refugees during this early period left because of Haganah or IZL or LHI expulsion orders or forceful 'advice' is disputed by Pappé. More often, his disputed claims are included alongside others (e.g. his count of the abandoned Palestinian localities). IMO this is what should be done with this RfC too. Amayorov (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Why do we write 'comment' in bold in a discussion section? I'm 100% sure I've read multiple sources make the statement that Haifa is well known as "the exception that proves the rule," the one time Zionists tried to get Palestinians to stay put. But now I can't remember where I read it, and it's a hard thing to search for. I think maybe I've posted some sources about this in a previous discussion about Haifa, but I can't remember where or if that happened. Anyway, anybody remember either any sources or previous discussion? I think maybe we can replace Morris's attributed views on this with something in Wikivoice sourced to multiple sources. Levivich (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, an aggregation of the research by Morris, Khalidi, Nur Masalha, and Karsh would be good. Can you write a proposal? Amayorov (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    I'm curious under what objective test does Karsh belong in that group of names? E.g., what is Karsh's most widely-cited work, and when was it written? Levivich (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Specifically regarding Haifa, Nakbat Haifa (2001) was discussed and referenced by other historians in this list, as well as more recent publications (e.g. this). The archival evidence he provides in it was later incorporated (independently or not) into Morris' 2004 new edition of his book. He's a professor at KCL and is respected enough to have held positions at top American universities, which published his books. Yes, his more recent works are criticised by many, but generated much discussion. I wouldn't consider him at the same level of respectability as Morris though. Amayorov (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    There are hundreds of university professors who have published in this field and whose work has been cited by other scholars. Your list of four are 3 of the best-known scholars in the field...and Karsh. Look at this list:
    One of these is not like the others... Levivich (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    To be a little more fair to Karsh, his 2014 book The Arab-Israeli Conflict: the Palestine War 1948 has 83 GS cites... still nothing compared to the others' books about this subject. Levivich (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Nakbat Haifa (2001) is an article, rather than a book, so of course it received fewer citations. A better comparison would be with something like Islamic Imperialism: A History: 384 GS. Much of the book discusses the Arab-Israeli conflict.
    Specifically regarding the Battle of Haifa of 1948, Karsh's and Morris's articles are among the top on GS. Amayorov (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Karsh is WP:FRINGE and doesn't belong in this article anywhere except in the histroriography section. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Can you provide evidence? AFAIK his work is widely cited, his books are published by reputable journals and publishing houses (Harvard UP, Yale UP), he's a professor at one of England's best universities (KCL) and has taught at Harvard and Sorbonne. Amayorov (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    See Efraim Karsh#Reception, this review of a Karsh work, and this review. Also in Benny Morris' words: "Karsh resembles nothing so much as those Holocaust-denying historians who ignore all evidence and common sense in order to press an ideological point. One can only assume that, like them, his modest "contribution" to the Israeli historiographic debate will soon vanish." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think a number of negative reviews are sufficient to override WP:MAINSTREAM.
    Do you consider Ilan Pappé to be fringe too, because his work received similarly harsh criticism, such as this, this? I personally would not. In Benny Morris' words, Pappé's "at best...one of the world's sloppiest historians; at worst, one of the most dishonest", or that "he believes that there is no such thing as historical truth." Amayorov (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    You complain about others "cherrypicking" Morris. Yet here you are seemingly selectively ignoring his criticism/denouncement of Karsh. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    My point isn't that Morris should be the only voice we should consider. Other voices, who criticise Morris and who are in turn criticised him, should be covered too (as long as they're reputable). My concern is that the coverage of all of them should be neutral and not cherry-picked.
    In this particular instance, I believe Morris' denunciation of Karsh should be described at length in Karsh's bio, as it is now :) Amayorov (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    @Levivich:, looking for on-wiki discussion i'd think someone would have quoted Pappe for this: Interestingly, this city is singled out by mainstream Israeli historians and the revisionist historian Benny Morris as an example of genuine Zionist goodwill towards the local population. The reality was very different by the end of 1947. but can't find that anywhere. Should we look for where Morris and others have singled out Haifa for use? fiveby(zero) 17:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    Yes--I think it would be helpful to gather some "best sources" for this to look at besides Morris and, as you suggest, summarize in wikivoice what the sources agree on. Levivich (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    For ...tried to get Palestinians to stay put... (which is what i've been looking for, but i see you are collecting more general best sources below), Karsh in Nakbat Haifa pp. 49-54 is the most strident advocacy i've found. He points to the meeting on the evening of the 22nd, the armistice terms, Hagana Arabic broadcasts, pamphlets, distribution of bread, a statement by Meir, views and reports of the British and Lippincott, and a UP correspondent. What i see all the sources agreeing on here would be Sabatai Levy during the Town Hall meeting of the 22nd as a genuine plea to stay. For instance:

    Let us begin with the Zionist claim—found in all official Zionist history and propaganda and all Israeli information publications—that Israel was not responsible for the exodus and in fact did everything in its power to stop it. The most solid evidence to support this contention comes from the efforts made in Haifa by Shabatai Levy, the mayor,and Abba Hashi, head of the Workers' Council, to stop the panic flight of the Arabs by persuading them to give up the struggle and surrender to the Hagana

    — Flapan, Simha (1987). "The Palestinian Exodus of 1948" (PDF). Journal of Palestine Studies. excerpt from Birth of Israel
    but beyond that we quickly run to contrary views

    A great deal is made by Israeli historians, including liberal revisionists,about the attitude during the crisis of the Jewish mayor of Haifa, Shabatai Levy. At the second of the two Town Hall meetings held on 22 April, Levy did make a poignant appeal asking his Arab colleagues to reconsider their request—made under the weight of the Haganah attack and mounting civilian casualties—to evacuate the Arab population with adequate protection.But Levy did not reflect Haganah policy, and the principal representative of the Jewish side was not Levy but "Motki" Maklef, operations officer of the Carmeli Brigade.

    — Khalidi, Walid (1998). "Selected Documents on the 1948 Palestine War". Journal of Palestine Studies.

    ...the town’s Jewish mayor, Shabtai Levi, a decent person by all accounts, who beseeched the people to stay and promised no harm would befall them. But it was Mordechai Maklef, the operation officer of the Carmeli Brigade, not Levi who called the shots.

    — Pappe, Ilan (2012). The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.
    Morris points to and expands on the documentation provide by Karsh, but also

    Several municipal (and, apparently, Haganah) figures during 22–28 April tried to persuade Arabs to stay...But the Haganah was not averse to seeing the Arabs evacuate, as illustrated by Makleff’s ‘no comment’ response to Stockwell’s question about the evacuation announcement at the town hall meeting on 22 April. Illustration can also be found... Initial Jewish attitudes towards the Arab evacuation changed within days; and what Jewish liaison officers told their British contacts did not always conform with the realities on the ground or with those quickly changing attitudes. The local Jewish civilian leadership initially sincerely wanted the Arabs to stay (and made a point of letting the British see this). But the offensive of 21–22 April had delivered the Arab neighbourhoods into Haganah hands, relegating the civil leaders to the sidelines and for almost a fortnight rendering them relatively ineffectual...a temporary rupture between the local Jewish civil and military authorities, which reflected, and was part of, the similar, larger rupture between these authorities that characterised much of the Yishuv’s policy-making and actions through the war. In Haifa, for days, the civilian authorities were saying one thing and the Haganah was doing something quite different.

    — The Birth pp. 200-4
    I think there is some common ground for content to be had here without the need for attribution, but no room for any sweeping judgments. fiveby(zero) 00:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I can see the criticism of why it is risky to overrely too much on one scholar but is it not helpful that it is attributed to the scholar so readers can understand that it is just a singular perspective? I have not formed an opinion on this RFC yet but am trying to be of assistence. Jorahm (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. Morris, B. (1998). Refabricating 1948 . Journal of Palestine Studies, 27(2), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.2307/2538286
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2024

Asked and answered. TarnishedPath 09:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Efraim Karsh is among the few historians who still consider + Efraim Karsh is one of the historians who consider

The current phrasing implies that Efraim Karsh's is a minority view among historians and that increasingly large majority reject this view - this claim needs to be supported by reliable sources or, if there are not sources to support it, the sentence should be rephrased in a more neutral and balanced way, as suggested. Zlmark (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: the suggested edit is neither uncontroversial, nor one that has consensus. M.Bitton (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2024

Asked and answered. TarnishedPath 09:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The Israeli government has systematically scoured Israeli archives to remove documents evidencing Israeli massacres of Palestinian villagers in 1947 and 1948 that led to the Palestinian exodus + Much of the information about the circumstances leading to the Palestinian expulsion became available thanks to the massive declassification of Israeli archival documentation in the 1980s (Morris, 2012). At the same time, there has been evidence of Defense Ministry officials scouring Israeli archives to remove previously declassified documents evidencing Israeli massacres of Palestinian villagers in 1947 and 1948 that led to the Palestinian exodus}
Zlmark (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
 Not done: the suggested edit is neither uncontroversial, nor one that has consensus. TarnishedPath 09:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Zlmark, it's true but you need to provide a source for that. Alaexis¿question? 23:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Now a source has been added to support this assertion. It shouldn't be controversial, basically the New Historians based their work on newly available data from the Israeli archives. Subsequent efforts to remove such materials from public access are also notable but for NPOV we should mention both. Alaexis¿question? 20:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
That's Morris's view, I don't think it's the mainstream view. Morris is well known for, among other things, relying exclusively on documentary evidence and not crediting oral histories. What Palestinian authors I've read (eg Masalha, Manna, Khalidi, etc) and New Historians (Pappe, Shlaim, etc), and I think even Western authors (Penslar, Slater, etc) say is that the documentary evidence that was declassified in the 80s did not make available new information so much as confirm what Palestinians had already been saying for 30+ years at that point. So Much of the information about the circumstances leading to the Palestinian expulsion became available thanks to the massive declassification is only true if, like Morris, one completely discounts the other evidence, eg oral histories, that was already available. An NPOV-compliant framing would be something like "declassified Israeli archives confirmed what Palestinian scholars had written and debunked Israeli government propaganda". Levivich (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
"Israeli government propaganda" is hardly a NPOV-compliant phrasing DancingOwl (talk) 08:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
How about the following? Following the large-scale declassification of Israeli archival material in the 1980s, additional information about the circumstances surrounding the expulsion and flight of Palestinians became available, contributing to modern understandings of these events. At the same time, there has been evidence of Defense Ministry officials searching Israeli archives to remove previously declassified documents evidencing Israeli massacres of Palestinian villagers in 1947 and 1948 that led to the Palestinian expulsion and flight. I feel this covers the concerns of everyone while retaining the key facts. Lewisguile (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
sounds like a balanced framing DancingOwl (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good. Alaexis¿question? 20:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Great. I will add this text now. @Levivich, I haven't heard from you, but I think this addresses your point re: Palestinian scholars saying similar things prior to the declassification. Lewisguile (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Predominantly

The word predominantly used in the first paragraph is difficult to interpret. There is no agreement on the precise definition of this word, and it sounds overly precise. (It is being used to describe a 69% part of the population. Would you describe American cities as "predominantly white"?)

How about simply "majority Arab", instead of "predominantly Arab"? EGetzler (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Predominantly seems fitting for 69%. Would you prefer "mostly"? Lewisguile (talk) 08:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  1. Benny Morris (2012). "Revisiting the Palestinian exodus of 1948". In Rogan, Eugene L.; Shlaim, Avi (eds.). The War for Palestine.
Categories: