Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:09, 25 October 2007

Palestine Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives
Archive 1

Gelber proposes 'three stage theory'

Reading ] I get the impression that Gelber proposed three stages. The familiar first and last (starting July '48). But there seems to be one in between:

In the last six weeks of the British mandate, the Jews occupied most of the area that the UN partition plan allotted to their State. They took over five towns and 200 villages; between 250,000 to 300,000 Palestinians and other Arabs ran away (so far, they were not driven out) to Palestine's Arab sectors and to neighboring countries.

This rapid and almost total collapse astonished all concerned.

(...)

Unlike the pre-invasion period, certain Israeli Defense Force (IDF) actions on the eve of and after the invasion aimed at driving out the Arab population from villages close to Jewish settlements or adjacent to main roads.

(...)

The Israelis held the Palestinians responsible for the distress that the invasion caused and believed they deserved severe punishment

The local deportations of May-June 1948 appeared both militarily vital and morally justified. Confident that their conduct was indispensable, the troops did not attempt to conceal harsh treatment of civilians in their after-action reports.

Instead of saving the Palestinians, the Arab armies' invasion doubled their territorial losses and the number of refugees. Later waves of mass flight were the result of the IDF's counter offensives against the invading forces.

(...)

This is different from The Palestinians' precarious social structure tumbled because of economic hardships and administrative disorganization. and collapse of Palestine Arab political institutions that ensued upon the flight of the Arab leadership So I think a second stage started in the beginning of April '48.

What do you think, should we change this?

I propose we do!

--JaapBoBo 21:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point - we cannot "invent" 3 stages, unless that's what the literature tells us.

Furthermore, Deir Yassin was April 9th, and it was in none of the "militarily justifiable" categories. It was miles outside the new Israeli state, it wasn't strategic (despite attempts to make it appear as such) - and it was friendly. In fact, Meir Pail's account suggests it was attacked "because it was friendly and unarmed". So the move to offensive operations is much earlier than what you're saying.

I can see the point of having 2 stages, and that's in some of the literature (though I don't believe the differences were very great). I cannot see the point of having 3 stages, and I don't believe that is in the literature. PR(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 21:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Does Gelber himself call his theory the 'Two stage theory' or was this name introduced by a Misplaced Pages editor? If it was introduced by a Misplaced Pages editor then there is no objection to changing it to 'Three stage theory'.

What about the names of the other theories, were they introduced by editors or were these names given by the historians who proposed tham?

Dear PR: Please realise that there is a difference between a theory and the truth. A theory is an attempt to describe the truth. We should aim at presenting Gelbers theory as sincere as possible. In my view the two stage theory as it is described now is not NPOV. As it is described it says the causes for the exodus in April-June '48 were 'collapse of Palestinian structures etc. etc.'. Gelber said what I cited above (you can also read the reference ('know your enemy!')).

The reference ] clearly distinguishes three stages. The first two correspond to Morris's first two waves/stages, the last stage of Gelber includes the remaining waves/stages of Morris. As to the causes of the waves/stages of the exodus, and the opinions of historians about them I think it is good to distinguish between the three stages proposed by Gelber.

--JaapBoBo 22:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The words theory have been introduced by a wikipedia editor and should be removed (as for all other so called theory)

You are right that one could find some contradictions in Gelber's words when he claims there was only 1 phase in the exodus before july but this is what he considers because his mind is that during dec47 and july48 palestinian society collaposed mainly because it was not ready to withstand the war and he considers everything that arose during this period is common to all wars.

In this period he doesn't distinguish 2 but 3 phases : (1) dec47-mar48 - (2) 6 last weeks of the mandate and the civil war - (3) 7 first weeks of arab-israeli war.

The fusion he made between first 2 phases can be found in the conclusions of ch.7 - Palestinian society collapse of his book "Palestine 1948". Alithien 10:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So then you do acknowledge that Gelber's first stage is not represented in a right way right now. Only the part up to the end of March '48 is included. --JaapBoBo 10:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly.

What is written about Gelber in the article today was based on a summary of his book he wrote himself. (I think the source of the synthesis is given - I check). There, he introduced his analysis that I basically synthetise as follows : according to him, what happens before july was the result of the war (like any war) and is due to the unability of the Palestinian society to withstand a war with offensives, atrocities, ...; what happend after july is an organised expulsion of palestinians with numerous massacres.

But it is clear in his book, he is more subtile and precise and he follows events chronologically and describe the 3 phases of his first stage.

Alithien 09:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thx for the info. I think all three phases of the first stage should be described on WP. --JaapBoBo 20:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if the "2 stage theory" wordings would not have been "invented" by wikipedia. Alithien 09:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

1st phase (of 1 stage)

n his book Palestine 1948, Yoav Gelber distinguishes several causes to the beginnings of the Palestinians' mass flight that occurred during the civil war period from December to beginning of April :

• the generally deteriorating conditions, the unstable economic situation and growing unemployement (p.75 ; p.78);
• the Haganah, Irgoun and Lehi retaliations that terrified the Arabs (p.76)
• the fear of a some purely palestinian conflict spread by rumours that Husseinis were planning to bring in bands of fallahin to take over the towns in a domestic terrorism like in 1936-9 (p.76) or due eg to Muslim Brethren enforcement of some strict code of behaviour (p.80)
• the bad exemples given by the flight of the leaders (p.76)
• the fear of repreasals to the Army of Liberation's attacks (p.77)
• the economical situation in the cities (p.78)
• the Haganah's campaign of propaganda (p.79)
• the gathering of population in main villages and towns (p.79)
• systematical evacuations of civil population near the borders and performed by the Army of Liberation (p. 79)
• some ponctual actions as the evacuation of 3,000 children from Haifa organized by local national comittee (p. 81).

He emphasizes 3 points :

• "The flight during this phase of the civil war still resembled previous reactions to anarchy in Palestine, as in the Middle East in general. No one expelled the escapees or occupied their homes and lands, excpt for their own quasi-administrations" and "no massacres or deliverate intimidation of any kind took place yet" (p.82).
• All arab authorities (local national comittees, Arab Higher Comittee and Arab Liberation Army) took many measures to prevent or stop the flight (p.81).
• "Until April 1948, Ben Gourion regarded the escape as a calculated withdrawal of non-combattant population upon the orders of Arab commanders and out of military considerations" (p.82).

Missing theories (II)

Various causes proposed by historians are not included in the theories as they are given now. I propose addition of three theories:

• 'attacks and fear of attack'-theory, the most common direct cause of Arabs leaving their home acoording to Morris
• expulsion theory, the most common direct cause according to Pappé
• 'zionists' psychological warfare'-theory, a theory on a subsidiary but according to many historians significant cause

These theories do not conflict with the 'transfer principle' and the 'master plan' theories (supported respectively by Morris and Pappé) because those theories are limited to indirect causes. This is also the reason to add the new theories: the direct causes according to Morris and Pappé are not included in them.

Jewish psychological warfare might be included into the 'fear psychosis' theory. However I think it should be presented seperately because it is opposed to Schechtman's view. Or should Schechtman defend Jewish psychological warfare?

According to the support of historians given to the various theories in the last 20 years I think these theories should be given equal or more weight than the endorsement-theory.

I'll start working on the expulsion theory myself. However I invite others to start their contributions.

--JaapBoBo 09:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You perform personnal research.

1. There is no "'attacks and fear of attack'-theory" of Morris. This one of the main points given by Morris as explained in the Birth revisited. More this only concerns 2nd phase.

2. Expulsion theory is the way Pappé and Khalidi described events but this is already in the article. After the transfer. I can be expanded.

3. There is no zionistes psychological warfare-theory. Once again this is a personal research.

I will revert your edits until you decide working properly and fairly on the topic. Alithien 10:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Alithien, I object to your I will revert your edits until you decide working properly and fairly on the topic. I am working fairly and properly and with respect for other editors. The problem is that you seem to think all my contributions should be in line with your pov.

I don't think any of the theories was presented as a theory by the original author. Most of them claim to describe the truth, and the word theory would weaken their point. However on WP we should give the pov's of historians. To call these pov's theories is just a usefull help in providing structure and clarity to the article.

Also I do not agree with either of your three points above. --JaapBoBo 11:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No. The problem is that you read 1 book and 15% of another one, critics of other books and authors on the internet and that you think you understand everything.

Concerning my problem with the word theory, it is more subtle. A theory is a thesis based on facts with analysis and arguments. Here some historians take care not to give analysis or a thesis but just give facts. More the word theory associated with an historians sounds as if we would refer to 1 ultimate cause (two stage - fear - transer - ...) which is not correct. There are few historians who give a theory about this unique and ultimate reason and there are few theories in this matter.

In fact, wikipedia could talk about the theory of the "ultimate cause" implied by the use of the word "theory" in this article.

Note finally I don' have POV about what happened. I just have POV's about the way it should be written and the way wikipedia.

Alithien 09:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the "missing theories" JaapBoBo is talking about above are already more or less presented in the article. --GHcool 20:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo, I think the points you make are good. But the expulsion theory basically is the Master Plan theory. The fear of attack basically is the fear psychosis. I would in no way be objected to expanding that section. That's why I created it. Also, it initially had a section on both Jewish and Arab propaganda which contributed to the fear psychosis, but someone removed all references to Arab propaganda, so I thought it would be only fair if we did the same to the Jewish propaganda section. However, if you're up to reconstructing both of those, I'm all up to it. Screen stalker 22:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It would have been fairer had you restored the references to Arab propaganda. --JaapBoBo 23:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I added 'Jewish psychological warfare' theory. I have several reasons for this:

• several causes of the exodus related to psychological warfare were not yet listed in the article
• the theory is clearly different from Schechtman's 'Fear Psychosis' theory; he considered that the atmosphere of fear which ensued in conflict-torn Palestine at the time contributed greatly to the flight, something that doesn't presuppose Jewish psychological warfare; surely Schechtman did not have that in mind...
• it's clearer to add this new theory, listing the content under the 'Fear Psychosis' theory would confuse readers
• surely the content of the new theory is different from the Fear Psychosis theory, it includes not only propaganda but also acts of violence aimed at demoralising Palestinians

--JaapBoBo 23:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I accept the new Jewish psychological warfare section because it is attributed to written by reliable scholars. I hope JaapBoBo doesn't mind that I took down the headings within the section because they demarked only one paragraph (and even one sentence). I'd suggest, however, that this be added as a section within the fear psychosis theory. I also question whether this is a "theory" or whether it is just a factor (like the "transfer principle"). Thoughts? --GHcool 00:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no a theory stating that was a "jewish psychological warfare" but it is clear that jewish soldiers used "psychological warfare". I removed a paragraph that biaised Pappé pov and I added the pov flag until is added the psychological warfare used by Arabs and explantions by historians on the reasons why palestinian arabs were more sensitive to this than jewish palestinens. Alithien 08:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

@Alithien: why don't you add some content yourself? You seem to know what is missing, and your English is not that bad. Anyway, other editors will correct linguistic errors. --JaapBoBo 20:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Discredited authors/historians/sources

Three authors/historians/sources are in the frame to be rejected as "unfit" to be quoted in this article. I've attempted to rate the claims with a "+1", "0" or "-1" in the last column. This is a work in progress, if you have evidence against Finkelstein or in favour of Katz or Schechtman, or feel I've mis-marked some items, then please put it in/correct it.

I see big differences between these guys as regards their credentials and credibility. Only one of them is an academic, and the "reliability/scholarship" accusations against the others are of significance and credibility. PR(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 19:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I refuse to play this game. Reliability cannot be measured and analyzed by statistics in the way that baseball can. PalestineRemembered is being childish. --GHcool 19:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I see multiple reasons for thinking that Schechtman and Katz are dubious historians, with personal records linked to violence (and/or ethnic cleansing), writing in totally non-RS fashion and (in Schechtmans case) guilty of cheating and outright incitement of racist hatred. Neither of them are academics.

Meanwhile, despite determined efforts (even in here) to peronally abuse Finkelstein, I see nothing like that about him, and as best I can tell comes out very well from each of his notable bust-ups. And is clearly "a scholar", as what we should be referencing in articles. Hence, I propose we quote from Finkelstein, but not from Schechtman or Katz. PR(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 14:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I reject PalestineRemembered proposal based on the comments I've already made and because he has (so far) failed to meet the challenges he set up for himself. --GHcool 16:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Finkelstein is more reliable than either Schecht or Katz. So far GHCool has come up with nothing against the content of finkelstein's books! --JaapBoBo 20:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the work of Schect and Katz, but Norman Finkelstein is certainly a reputable and well-known scholar with a specialty on Palestine-Israel related issues having debunked bogus scholarship like Joan Peters From Time Immemorial. I think PR's chart is helpful in pointing out a double-standard at play. What objective basis is there for including the work of these other two authors and disincluding Finkelstein? Tiamut 21:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No controverse ? He is respected withtout controversies : . ? Alithien 09:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussions on Shmuel Katz have taken place in TalkPages elsewhere, see this. Katz's credentials and reputation as a reliable source are poor. My checks above suggest that Schechtman is a lot worse again. PR 13:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that Finkelstein attracts a lot of criticism mainly because of his pov and not because of his alleged unreliability. The accusations are also mainly vague, abstract and indirect. Certainly his work is closely scrutinised by his opponents and little unreliable stuff has been found. --JaapBoBo 19:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, that's not true and JaapBoBo knows it. Secondly, even if it were true, JaapBoBo is unwittingly opening the doors to quoting ANYBODY AT ALL as long as the content is approved by at least one other reliable historian? In that case, I'll start quoting some of my university term papers all of which contain reliable information and had the approval of at least one historian. --GHcool 20:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If you wish people to take your argument seriously, then it is time you detailed the actual faults in Finkelstein's scholarship. Up to the present time, Finkelstein appears to have caused really serious damage to the arguments/presentation of two supporters of Israel, while nothing substantive has been presented against his scholarship. All the criticism of him that might be persuasive (from Dershowitz and from editors on this page) seems to be entirely personal. The chart created above doesn't actually show all the things that might be in favour of Finkelstein's scholarship, such as "The Holocaust Industry" getting 68 cites in Google Scholar, as against just 6 cites for Shmuel Katz's "Battleground".

More good evidence - I couldn't earlier find what Raul Hilberg, dean of Holocaust Studies, said about Finkelstein's book - here he is: "When I read Finkelstein's book, The Holocaust Industry, at the time of its appearance, I was in the middle of my own investigations of these matters, and I came to the conclusion that he was on the right track. I refer now to the part of the book that deals with the claims against the Swiss banks, and the other claims pertaining to forced labor. I would now say in retrospect that he was actually conservative, moderate and that his conclusions are trustworthy. He is a well-trained political scientist, has the ability to do the research, did it carefully, and has come up with the right results. I am by no means the only one who, in the coming months or years, will totally agree with Finkelstein's breakthrough."

Lastly, read this account of how Holocaust Survivors just last month were finally demanding that Israel stop cheating them. All of that is down to what Finkelstein has achieved with his scholarship! PR 21:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you what. I have given PalestineRemembered and JaapBoBo a clear challenge (that so far they have not met) to prove to me and to the world that Finkelstein's scholarship is at least as reliable and valuable to this encyclopedic article as Benny Morris's or Efraim Karsh. The following evidence would suffice:

1. Finkelstein currently holds a position as a full, tenured professor at a major university just like Morris and Karsh do.
2. He has done independent research on the 1948 Arab Palestinian exodus, looking at many of the same primary sources in Arabic, Hebrew, and English that Morris and Karsh did.

If you would be so kind as to give me clear guidelines for what I must do to prove to you that Finkelstein is not suitable for this article, I will try my best to meet those demands. --GHcool 00:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

May I? Here is Historian Pappé giving "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Confilct a positive review ("This book is a very important contribution to the ongoing debate about the writing of the conflict's history in Palestine and Israel"). Pedro Gonnet 13:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• GHcool - your "tests of reliability" are worthless, you know as well as I do that Finkelstein (like Pappe) has been hounded from his job (and likely his country) by non-academic pressure. Nobody disrespects Charlie Chaplain's talent for having suffered something similar - in fact, it's a little disturbing that you'd gloat over it.
• I see no reason to query what research Finkelstein has done on 1948, his speciality is Zionism and that's what we'd use him for. (Or his criticism of Morris? - which again has nothing to do with research on the Nakba).
• However, your tests are interesting in one sense, because you seem to suggest that being "an academic" is a significant element of writing reliable books. You've excluded Katz and Schechtman from the list of people we'd even consider worth using, before we get to their other serious faults! PR 15:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the criteria given by GHCool Schechtman should certainly be barred from this article. Earlier GHCool said: "I wish to block Finkelstein references solely because he has been publicly discredited as a reliable scholar. ". In that case Schechtman should be barred immediately.

What GHCool wants is absurd. He wants people who want to cite Finkelstein to prove that he is reliable. This is not how other authors that people want to cite or treated. In general academic sources are regarded as reliable unless the opposite is shown. So GHCool should show that Finkelstein is unreliable. So far he has been unable to meet this challenge. --JaapBoBo 22:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Since attacking and defending Finkelstein as a whole seems useless, I've already changed course. I'm no longer interested in "proving" that Finkelstein is "unreliable" or "reliable." I'm now interested in proving that he is as reliable as Morris and Karsh. I've given my criteria for this already, but I'll repeat it again here: (1) Finkelstein should be a full tenured professors at prestigious universities to be treated as with the same respect as Morris and Karsh and, more importantly, (2) Finkelstein should have done primary research using the same or better documents in Arabic, Hebrew, and English that Morris and Karsh used in their studies of the period. If the above two points are proven beyond a doubt, I will gladly change my mind and accept Finkelstein's conclusion in this article. I hope that PalestineRemembered or JaapBoBo will give me a similar list that, if satisfied, would change their mind. I imagine it will be very difficult for any of us to make any progress before we clearly establish where we stand. I'm sure everybody is as tired of performing The Argument Sketch as I am. --GHcool 05:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're no longer try to prove that Finkelstein is unreliable. But the standards you are proposing now would disqualify Schechter, 'The economist' and maybe more.

"(2) Finkelstein should have done primary research using the same or better documents in Arabic, Hebrew, and English that Morris and Karsh used in their studies of the period.". The text from Finkelstein I want to introduce is about 'the core of Zionism'. Finkelstein did primary research in this area. There is no problem.

You are inventing your own policy especially for blocking Finkelstein. Why can't you just comply with Misplaced Pages policy, which simply states that the source should be reliable?

--JaapBoBo 06:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw a nice example of Finkelsteins argument (that Zionism claims for the Jews a prevalent right to Israel): in the '1948 Arab-Israeli War'-article somebody changed 'the newly created state of Israel' into 'the newly recreated state of Israel' Precisely the sentiment indicated by Finkelstein. --JaapBoBo 06:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fully aware that Schechtman does not meet the standards I set for Finkelstein, but this is only because Schechtman has been dead for nearly 40 years and holding a full tenured position at a major university would be impossible! Also, Schechtman died before the Israeli archives studied by Karsh and Morris were available to scholars. Schechtman must be evaluated in relation to his contemporaries just as Finkelstein must be evaluated in relation to his own contemporaries.
It is true that the standards I set for Finkelstein are stronger than the standards Misplaced Pages sets for scholars, but I thought this would be welcome since the most of the scholarship found in this article is much more reliable than what a strict reading of Misplaced Pages's standards would allow. I don't have a problem adding Finkelstein if you want to allow citations from any other non-tenured author of research the author didn't do the primary research work for. By the way, I looked for "The Core of Zionism" by Norman Finkelstein in the Los Angeles Public Library catalog, Amazon.com, and Google. I didn't find anything with that title and that author. --GHcool 18:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• So you are saying that Schechtman is outdated? We are working on an encyclopedia here and this article is named 'causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus', and not 'everything anybody ever claimed to be a cause of the 1948 Palestinian exodus'. If Schechtman is outdated he should certainly be barred!
• Do you think the contents of an encyclopedic article should be the result of bargains like you propose? This is against Misplaced Pages standards. I think we should conform to Misplaced Pages standards. Like I stated earlier: the merits of every reference should be considered on its own. You don't seem to be willing to comply to wikipedia standards.

--JaapBoBo 19:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Look for 'Image and reality ...'.

Schechtman's death does not make him outdated any more than Josephus's death makes Josephus outdated in the study of his own era. JaapBoBo's attempt to change the subject will not work. If he is so inclined, we can save Schechtman another day, but right now we are discussing Finkelstein.

Again, I don't mind using Finkelstein if JaapBoBo and PalestineRemembered want to open the door to every other author whose credentials and research aren't as impressive as Morris's and Karsh, but still satisfy the low standards of WP:RS. If that's what JaapBoBo proposes (and if PalestineRemembered agrees), then this argument will be finished. I just hope JaapBobo and PalestineRemembered do not take back their request if it backfires later.

I've just placed a hold on Images and Reality at my local library to see for myself if Finkelstein actually does his own primary research as JaapBoBo claims. Unfortunately, it is currently checked out, so it might take 2 weeks for me to get a hold of it. I appologize for the long wait, but I will continue to revert Finkelstein from this article until I browse through Images and Reality. On a note of hope, if Finkelstein's scholarship is sound today, it will most likely be sound in a week or two from now. --GHcool 20:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me warn you that the chapter I quoted from uses mainly quotes from Y. Gorny, 'Zionism and the Arabs, 1882-1948: a study of ideology', Oxford 1987. Actually there are not many other references in this chapter, but Finkelstein says in a note that the arguments are more fully developed and documented in his doctoral dissertation, 'From the Jewish Question to the Jewish State', Princeton university, June 1987. No doubt you can find the primary sources there. Approval by Princeton University looks like a good quality stamp to me! --JaapBoBo 14:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

GHcool - the day we use authors who write "no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to an Arab who fell into Jewish hands." is the day we'll use an author like Schechtman who writes "no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands." And I don't have to plug this analogy very hard with you, since I know how very strongly you feel about the suspected racism and flawed scholarship of David Irving. PR 15:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Today I read an interview with Finkelstein in my own newspaper (NRC Handelsblad). Some quotes FYI:

• "In September 2003 I had a TV-debate with him . The notes in his book showed that he had worked on the manuscript until June 2003. However in September he had no idea of what was in the book. He didn't know names of people he cites. ... But it is true that I couldn't prove my thesis, I withdrew it."
• "I am not controversial. ... But one of the big problems of American culture is that people don't read. In my book I base myself on Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, an Isreali human rights organisation. I cite moderate historians who are cited worldwide"
• " one sentence by Dershowitz followed by pages of dull text in which I prove why it is not correct"

--JaapBoBo 15:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind JaapBoBo and PalestineRemembered that I am no longer interested in the content of Finkelstein's research nor am I interested in either of their opinion on Finkelstein's research. I don't even care if Finkelstein were to say that the Israelis came from outer space and invaded Independence Day-style as long as it can be proven that he did his own original research using the same Arabic, Hebrew, and English texts that Morris and Karsh used and that he holds as prominent a place in academia as Morris and Karsh. Otherwise, we must dismiss him unless we are prepared to include any other scholarship inferior to Karsh's and Morris's.

I'd also like to thank JaapBoBo for disclosing that Images and Reality is mainly argued from a 1987 secondary source and it cannot be used to prove that Finkelstein's research is not on the same level as Morris's and Karsh's. Unfortunately for all of us, I do not have the means of finding Finelstein's dissertation, "From the Jewish Question to the Jewish State," as it is not in the Los Angeles Public Library catelog and I do not expect to visit Princeton University any time soon. I've taken a glance here at Finkelstein's footnotes in Images and Reality. I'm sure there are more that aren't displayed on Google Books, but judging by the ones that do appear on that website, it looks like Finkelstein has read a lot of books and has done not a single shred of research on the primary sources in their original languages and most likely never even left the United States while writing the book. I'm not suggesting we start quoting Alan Dershowitz, but the footnotes and research done in his works on the region show more or less the same quality: the citation of better historians than himself to make a point, while doing none of the primary research and never leaving the comfort of the United States and never having to learn Hebrew nor Arabic.

I am not familiar with the work of Yosef Gorny, but his Misplaced Pages entry shows that he is a serious academic with excellent credentials. Unfortunately, Gorny's work on the Palestinian exodus is also unavailable at the Los Angeles Public Library, but if JaapBoBo can find it somehow and quote it accurately, I will accept his research no questions asked. --GHcool 17:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

GHcool - it's not a bit clear what you're talking about. Scholarship does not require original research nor does it require an academic/teaching career (though the latter is very, very helpful). Scholarship requires an ability to marshal your sources and the ability to treat your references according to merit. Katz and Schechtman fail (Schechtman very badly indeed), whereas, as best I can tell, Finkelstein is quite good. (Though he doesn't have a lot to contribute to this article).

If you have a problem with Finkelstein's scholarship then it's time you either presented it or dropped your objections. On grounds of output and respect from other scholars and originality he definitely belongs. Prove to us that he cheats or he's a racist, or else drop your objections and move on. PR 20:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I never said he was a racist and I never said that he cheats. I accuse Finkelstein of only one thing: not being as highly reguarded, nor have read the same primary sources in their original languages, as Morris and Karsh. Consider a hypothetical scholar, an assistant professor named Joe Shmoe who teaches political science at a university somewhere in the United States. Shmoe wrote a book with a hundred footnotes but never looked at any primary documents, was fired from several universities, and was recently denied tenure because his scholarship did not meet the standards of the university he worked at. Should Shmoe be included in this article? I suggest that he should not. If Finkelstein is accepted in this article, then so should Joe Shmoe. I just don't want to hear complaints later if Joe Shmoe's research is favorable to the Israeli historiography. --GHcool 21:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I should remind you that BLP applies to TalkPages too. Finkelstein was not denied tenure on the basis of his scholarship (it was exclusively because of McCarthyite outside interference as best we can tell). The disgraceful things that have happened to him don't impact on his reputation for scholarship, which is excellent. You've repeatedly failed to present anything that would undermine that, no evidence of cheating, no evidence of racism.

Furthermore, this concentration on Finkelstein as regards this article is irrelevant, the most we're thinking of using him for is on the subject of Zionism (his speciality) about which his conclusions are hardly surprising, I'd have thought they were universally accepted (though likely not expressed quite as succintly as Finkelstein manages).

And in the meantime, we're quoting from two other authors who are plainly far below Finkelstein's standard, and one of them has no place anywhere in the encyclopedia. For reasons you're in full agreement with, we know that because of what you said about David Irving.

I've easily proved that Schechtman is a serious cheat, a position based on violent intolerance to another ethnicity - this article is quoting him and it should not. PR 21:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, your accusation that the DePaul University bows to the whim of Alan Dershowitz is more of an insult to DePaul University more than it is an insult to Alan Dershowitz. I have no idea what was going on behind closed doors at DePaul University at the time, but I'm inclined to believe the school when it says that no McCarthyism was involved in their decision then to a Jewish conspiracy theory.

Secondly, I'm tired of having to hear Schetchman's name as evidence for Finkelstein's reliablity (or David Irving's for that matter). It is an attempt to change the subject that has never worked and will never work.

And lastly, I find it very dissapointing that PalestineRemembered will not accept the challenge I have given to him and JaapBoBo. If they only accepted the challenge, this argument could be finished in two more posts. --GHcool 22:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

DePaul University has stated that Finkelstein was not denied tenure for any kind of incompetence. I fully agree with PR on all points!. Furthermore I think you are being very unreasonable and you don't show the Misplaced Pages spirit at all. Everytime an argument is refuted you come up with another. Your present argument is very far from Misplaced Pages policy (you are trying to impose your own policy). Above that (without referring to Schechtman), it is ridiculous, considering Karsh's criticism of the level of Morris's academic work (Benny Morris's Reign of Error, Revisited). This article by Karsh shows that either Morris is bending academic standards or Karsh!

And you have given us no proof that Finkelstein has ever been shown to bend academic standards.

--JaapBoBo 22:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S, your 'secondary source' argument is not valid here because both sources are written by the same person.

I deny that anything has been refuted yet, only abandoned once it became clear that neither of us would agree on each other's stance. DePaul University's official stance on Finkelstein's deinal of tenure could be seen here. It does not mention Finkelstein's incompetence, but it does specifically rule out McCarthyism. I do not profess to know (nor do I profess to care) why Finkelstein was denied tenure. All I care about is the facts and the fact is that Finkelstein doesn't have tenure and Morris and Karsh do.

As for the allegation that I am inventing my own policy, I would say it is a fair criticism to some extent. Right now, this article seems to interpret Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources in the strictest possible way. In the spirit of compromise, I suggested we abandon the articles current standards, and opt for the looser reading of Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources that have been used in articles I've worked extensively on such as Psycho (1960 film). If JaapBoBo and PalestineRemembered agree, then I will not stop them from adding Finkelstein granted that they do not stop me from adding certain sources of my choice. Seeing that JaapBoBo and PalestineRemembered cannot prove that Finkelstein does primary research or holds a tenured position, I hope that the next response will not be more arguments, but instead, be either an acception of my proposal or a rejection of my proposal. --GHcool 23:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments are ridiculous. I just read in my newspaper that three weeks ago DePaul issued a statement calling Finkelstein an excellent teacher and a productive scientist. Did you ever hear of a scientist not conducting primary research? Of course Finkelstein does primary research. And regarding tenure: Finkelstein was denied it due to dirty play by a powerful Jewish lobby; it is in no way an indication of poor quality of his work, rather it shows that his work is very good, otherwise they would not have to resort to the tricks they used. Also you have not and cannot show that his work is not reliable. So there is nothing wrong with the man. --JaapBoBo 21:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a proposal: lets let this matter rest for a while, say till 5 October, and see if anyone has changed his (or her) opinion. If not, then we can ask for comment ] or a third opinion ]. Agree?

--JaapBoBo 22:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's let this matter rest. There are more important/interesting things with this article to take care of like your proposal below. --GHcool 00:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

More about Finkelstein

• By Jonathan Pearlman

(...) In Israel’s Holocaust and The Politics of Nationhood, Idith Zertal, a teacher at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, picks up on a similar theme to that addressed by Finkelstein in The Holocaust Industry and examines the use of the Holocaust by the early Zionist leadership. Implicitly, any such political use of the twentieth century’s most shameful tragedy is a misuse; and Zertal’s book provides a scathing portrait of the state’s founding fathers, particularly the first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, who, she argues, picked and chose symbols and events from the Holocaust to suit his plans for strengthening the state. But Zertal’s book makes no reference to Finkelstein and is in a different genre. Its rightful place is alongside works by the so-called ‘New Historians’, a group of Israeli historians who emerged, separately, in the 1980s and 1990s, with studies that re-examined some of the accepted foundations of Israeli history, particularly the role of the Israeli army in the expulsion of Palestinians during the 1948 War of Independence and the failure of the government to seek opportunities for peace with neighbouring Arab states. Unlike these historians, who based much of their work on newly declassified archival material, Zertal describes herself as a cultural historian and bases much of her work on speeches, newspapers, journals and previous historical accounts.

Unlike Finkelstein, Zertal is more obsessed with understanding and retelling history than scoring points in a broader debate. There are fascinating accounts of the trials of Jewish collaborators, who were dobbed in by survivors under an Israeli law that was initially intended to apply to Nazis. The trials raised difficult questions, pitted neighbours against each other, and forced Israeli courts to weigh up the morality of prosecuting barbaric acts by Jewish leaders in the concentration camps, who were themselves victims. This culminated in the indictment in 1953 of Dr Israel Kastner, who belonged to Ben-Gurion’s party and whose trial may have resulted in the party’s poor result in the third Israeli election. According to Zertal, Ben-Gurion used the Eichmann trial to expunge the shame of the Kastner trial and to highlight and exaggerate to the world the significance of the alliance between the Palestinian leader, Haj Amin El-Husseini, and the Nazis. The spectacular capture and trial of Eichmann, Zertal claims, was transformed by Israeli intellectuals and politicians into evidence of ‘a new kind of Israeli manliness, masculinity’. Alithien 13:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting though that is, I cannot understand the point of sending it to us. Zertal is *not* looking at the same thing as Finkelstein, far from it, she's looking at the political use of the Holocaust, he looked at the (much later) financial use of it.

Furthermore, the article you've clipped is by Pearlman, a polemicist, writing things such as "Beyond Chutzpah is a long, tedious and barely readable rant, known less for its content than for the childless controversy it succeeded in provoking". I can prove that what he says about the book is untrue, since I have it beside me right this moment, the back pages are filling with my pencilled in notes of findings that Finkelstein details thoroughly. It's only tedious if you don't like hearing Dershowitz and Israel's enthusiasm for torture exposed - or if you're allergic to scholarship, of course!

Amongst the many, many well researched points Finkelstein makes (aimed both at Israel and Dershowitz's defense of Israel) is this on p.163 "Regarding Israel's interrogation tactics, Dershowitz writes on, respectively, pages 135 and 186 of The Case for Israel: England employed tactics similar to those used by Israel ... B'Tselem, in a January 2000 report, systematically compared Israel's record on torture in the Occupied Territories with Great Britain's record in Northern Ireland. Its findings merit extensive quotation: "... During a short period in 1971, British security forces in Northern Ireland used coercive interrogation methods against fourteen IRA suspects. These methods, known as the "five techniques," were the subject of the action in Ireland v. United Kingdom .... he GSS used methods comparable to those used by the British in 1971, i.e., sleep deprivation, infliction of physical suffering, and sensory isolation. But the GSS used them for much longer periods ... In addition, the GSS used direct violence. ... GSS methods were substantially more severe than those used by the British in 1971. ... Israel in 1999 continued to rely on interrogation methods used in Great Britain in 1971, twenty-eight years ago, for an extremely short period against only fourteen persons, which ceased immediately afterwards and became absolutely prohibited." PR 15:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure it is the same Pearlman because this precise article sounds quite not controversed. But I would say that even if such a controversed guy considers Finkelstein as controversed, it would mean that Finkelstein is what... ;-)

It was just an external mind from somebody who likes Zertal and new historians and who seems not to have a high consideration of the non controversed Finkelstein ;-) Alithien 15:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is another article from a political Muslim French party (fr:Europalestine) that fights for rights of Palestinians : . It states "far from the simplification of Finkelstein, Zertal (...)"

Oh... And here, fr:Dominique Vidal, a virulent pro-palestinian French journalist and historians of the fr:Monde Diplomatique, who wrote "Le péché original d'Israël" (Israel original sin) and 3 other books about the arab-israeli conflict, who where quoted recently by Jordixei, whose books are published in arab by the Journal of Palestine studies and who criticizes (once again) simplification of Finkelstein. But the best is maybe simply his conclusion (about Finkelstein) :

Car à l’imposture des manipulateurs comme des négationnistes (3), il n’est en définitive qu’une réponse : l’histoire.

To the imposture of manipulators as the ones of negationnists, there is only one answer : history.

Alithien 16:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely the same Jonathan Pearlman, because the clip I pasted you above comes from the very same article as you quoted from. And statements even from the clip you produced make it sound distinctly un-scholarly. Re-read what it says - statements such as "Unlike Finkelstein, Zertal is more obsessed with understanding and retelling history than scoring points in a broader debate" are poisoning the well. For all Finkelstein's bitter denounciations of Dershowitz, I don't think you'll see Finkelstein doing the same. (You might succeed in proving me wrong, but remember that Dershowitz continues to scandalously feed the allegation that Finkelstein's dead mother was a collaborator with the Nazis, based on an outrageous mis-quote - so even if Finkelstein did do the same against him, reasonable people would forgive him in this case).

You could be right about the opinions of fr:Dominique Vidal, but you'll have to work a lot harder to indicate the substance of your claim, let alone to prove it. PR 10:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fear Psychosis Theory

It's no secret that I'm no fan of Schechtman, but I feel there are compelling reasons to remove the section Fear Psychosis Theory.

The word "Psychosis", according to Misplaced Pages itself, means

a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality". Stedman's Medical Dictionary defines psychosis as "a severe mental disorder, with or without organic damage, characterized by derangement of personality and loss of contact with reality and causing deterioration of normal social functioning."

Let me get this straight: what Schechman is saying is that Palestinians collectively suffered a "severe mental disorder" which caused a "derrangement of personality" and a "loss of contact with reality" and made them flee...

This may be a touch demeaning, but it fits well with Schechtman's general racist attitude towards Palestinians. In any case, this kind of language (i.e. attributing a mental disorder to an entire population as an explanation for some historical event) should not be acceptable in any Misplaced Pages article.

I would suggest removing this section. Sela's and Childers' quotes can be moved to the "Use of Psychologial warfare" section. Any comments?

Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 11:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This article has become a propaganda battleground.

The current last 2 sections should not be introduced or at least not that way.

Nevertheless, when during several months you leave in a country where 2 communities have hated each other for more than 20 years, when there are 100 deaths per week due to the snipers but also to bomb explosions (attentats), when you have heard at the village radio that it there will a terrible war soon, when you have strong difficulties in finding food, when most of your leaders have left the country and some advice you to leave this, when the jewish militias attack, when you know or think the jewish should take revenge, when they are rumors of massacres and rapes of 254 civils at Deir Yassin, when your charismatic leader has been killed and when you are an uneducated peasant, ... when all these factors are gathered, don't you think that you will panic at a level far above reason ?

And about Schetchman... When you know that your nation is partially responsible of the exodus of 700,000 arabs, when you know numerous massacres have been performed but when you know or think your survived an extermination war, when you are victorious on all front, don't you think you will find "excuses" to explain these events, no need to be a racist ?

Alithien 13:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I accept Pedro Gonnet's criticism of the term "psychosis" to refer to the state of mind the Palestinians had when they fled. I don't think it is racist, but I do think it is inaccurate. This means that we should change the term, not delete the section. Perhaps the term "hysteria" would be more approrpiate? --GHcool 19:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

From the Misplaced Pages page on Hysteria:

Hysteria, or somatization disorder, is a diagnostic label applied to a state of mind, one of unmanageable fear or emotional excesses. The fear is often centered on a body part, most often on an imagined problem with that body part (disease is a common complaint). People who are "hysterical" often lose self-control due to the overwhelming fear.

Not much better, is it? Changing the name doesn't change the fact that we are airing the theory that the Palestinians left because they were mentally ill.

As I've already said, I'm for removing the section and moving the quotes of Sela and Childers elsewhere. If the original authors don't want to do this, I will. Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 08:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Schechtman should not be used in this article, or anywhere else in the encyclopedia. He appears to have invented the EoF ( 2 pamphlets written in 1949?) and his writings mark him out as totally obnoxious. He appears to use the word "psychosis" about an entire people The Fear Psychosis, namely Arab fear of attack, reprisal and the other stresses of war. Schechtman himself attributes this to purely to the perspective of the refugees.

I can confirm that he makes other highly unpleasant (and in the particular case I'm quoting, provably untrue) generalisations about entire people eg "Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands". We'd only have to replace his use of "Arab" with "Jew" in these examples for everyone to immediately recognise how much we wish to distance ourselves from him. PR 20:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I modified the title. Kind Regards, Alithien 10:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I like Alithien's modified title better than "fear psychosis" or "hysteia." By the way, I was referring to mass hysteria, not individual hysteria, but its a moot point now. Good job, Alithien. --GHcool 20:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Morris p.591 talks about a 'psychosis of flight' refering to one IDF report of the time.

calling 'Jewish psychological warfare theory' a theory

Some remarks on this:

• Since we call all the other possible causes theories, I think we should be consistent and call this a theory too.
• using the concept of 'theories' gives this article a lot of clarity and structure
• its true that no reference explicitly proposed a theory for this, however this is also true for all the other theories. It's rather more likely that opponents of a pov call it a theoy, while the supporters/proposers of the pov don't call it a theory but the truth.

--JaapBoBo 21:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You admitt there is no source for the wordings 'jewish psychological warfare' or do you have a source for 'jewish psychological warfare theory'. The case is close.

Your third comment proves this article and this section is not neutral. I explained above why a "theory" is not just something we don't believe in and how this word should be used in a neutral article. Alithien 08:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Alithien, all editors except you agree to use the term 'theory' for pov's. Why can't you comply?

Why do you only remove the word theory in one case?

--JaapBoBo 18:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Who disagrees to remove this except you ? Alithien 19:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't necesarrily disagree with leaving the 'theory' concept. However I find that it makes the article clearer. Also by using it consistently it is used in a neutral way. --JaapBoBo 23:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Jewish psychological warfare theory

I just reversed a number of changes made to this theory. Let me explain some points here:

you revert the title while you admit there is no source for this wording.

I ask you to respect wikipedia policy and stop personal research.

• ' In many instances the declared aim was to demoralise the Palestinians or to accelerate their surrender.' was changed to 'The aim was to demoralise the Palestinians or to accelerate their surrender.'

I object to deleting 'in many instances' because in at least one instance the apparent aim was different:

according to Pappé ‘Jewish loudspeakers the Palestinian women and children to leave before it was too late’.

where is it written the aim is not to demoralize them ?

as to 'declared', I realise that it is a controversial word. However I think that some substantial pov's hold that the real aim was an exodus (as I suspect it was in many instances). Therefore I would like to keep it there.

what pov's hold that the real aim of the "psychological warfare" was an exodus and not a surrender ?

once more, you perform personnal reasearch.

• Somebody removed the titles (marked by '===' and appearing in the index). I think the titles give clarity and structure to the text, but they should not necessarrily appear in the index. Therefore I reintroduced them as a listing.

?

• 'According to Pappé in Haifa since December 1947 Jewish troops engaged in sniping, shelling, rolling barrels full of explusives and huge steel balls down into Palestionian neighborhoods and pouring oil mixed with fuel down the roads, which thay then ignited.' was removed.

Why? It has a respectable reference, Pappé.

Because this biaied Pappé point of view. Pappé describes a spiral of violence with mutual attacks. So, quoting this part of Pappé to push a point is not respectful of Pappé minds.

• as to calling it a theory i refer to the paragraph above

So do I. What is the source of these wordings ?

--JaapBoBo 21:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

alleged 'Arab Psychological warfare'

I've looked this up in the history and found that Alithien replaced (in 'fear psychosis'):

Contribution of Arab Propaganda

Morris and other historians agree that Arab radio-propaganda which inflated casualty figures and atrocities (real and alleged alike) contributed to this flight. Although intended to arouse hatred against the Jewish state, it caused a good deal of fear and flight on the part of Arabs during the war.

with (in 'fear psychosis'):

In his conclusions concerning the second wave of the flight, Morris also cites the atrocity factor as a one of the cause. What happened or allegdly happened and in a more general way the massacre of Deir Yassin and its exaggerated description broadcast on Arab radio stations undermined Arabs morale. Yoav Gelber also considers that the "Haganah, IZL and LHI's retaliations terrified the Arabs and hastened the flight [as "

I agree with this replacement because the first version is not neutral (e.g. 'intended to arouse hatred').

But the point I want to make is that this is not psychological warfare. Psychological warfare attempts to influence the mind of the enemy rather than to destroy him military. Arab broadcasts were directed at Arabs.

I also doubt whether any 'Arab psychological warfare' that contributed to the exodus exists.

--JaapBoBo 22:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the rumours of Deir Yassin is not psychological warfare and it is obvious Israeli used this more than Arabs and Palestinians.

But why do you claim the arabs *allegedly* used psychological warfare ?

The section you added is not neutral because it doesn't deal with their psychological warfare and because it doesn't explain the reasons why it was more used by some than by others (jewish <-> arabs) and why some withstood more than others (jewish, palestinians living on the coasts, palestinians of the interland).

Concerning the psychologicla warfare used by Arabs side, I have eg in mind the famous declaration of Azzam Pacha on May 14 broadcasted on radio : "(...). This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades".

On 6/2/48 al-Husseiny declared at the United Nations that : "the Palestinian Arabs make a grave declaration before the UN, before God and before history that they will never submit to any power that comes to Palestine to impose a partition. The only way to establish a partition is to get rid of them all: men, women, and children".

Alithien 09:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should be very, very careful of anything translated from the Arabic. There's been far too much cheating in that regard - and it continues today, look at the Ahmadinejad statement (though that was presumably in Farsi). PR 16:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

@Alithien: you're probably right about the Arab psychological warfare. But this is an article on the causes of the Palestinian exodus, And Arab psychological warfare was not a cause, so it shouldn't be included in the article. Or do you have examples of Arab psychological warfare that attributed to the exodus?

I also agree with you that more can be added, however that's not a reason to delete anything we have now. --JaapBoBo 18:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As stated before, in the causes of the Palestinian exodus, it should be explained why under the same circumstances, Palestininans fled and Jews didn't. This is linked to the causes. I gave exemples of psychological warfare that didn't generate to the jewish palestinian exodus.

Yes, of course, more can be added and there is no reason to delete what we have now. Only biaised information should be deleted. Alithien 19:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yishuv fear of extermination

I added this material with a pov flag. It could be easy to make it neutral but I don't have the material... Alithien 10:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think serious historians consider that the Yishuv was in much fear of extermination, otherwise it'd not have bombed the British out of the region, or celebrated the UN's partition. The immigrants had armed themselves very early (unlike the natives), they had a good understanding of fortifications (unlike the natives), ditto explosives, ditto manufacture of their own weapons. They had many experienced soldiers and a well-developed military organisation and culture (both quite unlike the natives). The Yishuv seem to have had some kind of agreement with Jordan, and their other "enemies" seemed incapable of organising or cooperating or fighting. Even outposts like Kfar Etzion were not abandoned, as they could very easily have been, thereby preserving their fighting strength for the important parts of the new homeland.

I have Morris's "Birth" open in front of me, I don't think you've properly got the flavor of his words on p.590, that paragraph in full reads as follows: "The creation of the Palestinian refugee problem was almost inevitable, given the geographical intermixing of the Arab and Jewish populations in what is a minute country (10,000 sq. miles), the history of Arab-Jewish hostility over 1881-1947, the overwhelming opposition on both sides to a binational state, the outbreak and prolongation of the war for Israel's birth and survival, the major structural weaknesses of Palestinian Arab society, the depth of Arab animosity towards the Yishuv and Arab fears of falling under Jewish rule, and the Yishuv's fears of what would happen should the Arabs win or of what would befall a Jewish State born with a very large and hostile Arab minority.".

Read the passage again - "The Yishuv's fears of what would happen" are half of the last reason in a list of 8! I think Morris (although he's back-pedalling desperately, terrified of being driven from Israel the way Pappe has been) isn't claiming that "fear of extermination" played much of a part. And Morris never uses the word "extermination", so you shouldn't be using it either. (I've taken the carriage return out of your post to make this page fit most people's screens better - I hope that is alright). PR 16:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with all you say.

At the beginning of the Birth, Morris is very explicit and there is no doubt that according to him, Yishuv faced a war of extermination. In the conclusions of the transfer, he also writes that in july they were aware they had won their "war for survival".

I fully agree with you for the remaining. It is ONE cause out of EIGHT but among the eight others, there is even not psychological warfare while he talks about this in his book. On the other way, it is a cause on which Morris emphasizes everytime he talks about the events (in the famous Ha'aretz article and I think also in the Righteous victims).

Alithien 16:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Finally, it is well done. I remove my flag. Alithien 17:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Alithien"it is a cause on which Morris emphasizes everytime he talks about the events"

Do you know why? Because Morris tries to proof that there was no 'master plan'. That's the reason he gives alternative explainations why Jews readily engaged in expulsion of Palestinians during the war. Read PR's citation. 'The Yishuvs fear' is given as a reason why 'The creation of the Palestinian refugee problem was almost inevitable', i.e. a reason for the Jews (in Morris's words on the previous page) to expel or compulsory displace 700.000 Palestinians.

I think Morris would not agree with the spirit in which you are citing him.

--JaapBoBo 00:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

How would you know, you never read Morris up to the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.192.63 (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I did, in the mean time. --JaapBoBo 07:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling this chapter is original research by Alithien. He uses Morris 'The Birth ... Revisited' to make his point that 'Yishuv fear' was important. However Morris has said:

this is not a history of the 1948 war or a history of what the Arabs did to the Jews but a history of how and why the Palestinian refugee problem came about. In this context, what Jews did to Arabs, including massacres, played a role; what Arabs did to Jews was barely relevant. (Morris, The Birth ... Revisited, p.7)

If nobody objects I will remove it (while copying the good parts to the transfer idea.) --JaapBoBo 21:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we have this section. This article is about the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, not Yishuv fears. Screen stalker 23:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Extermination

Morris writes yishuv faced and/or feared an "intention (...) to destroy the Jewish state" (p.7); "Middle Eastern version of the Holocaust" (p.7); the "outbreak and prolongation of the war for Israel's birht and survival" (p.590).
Azzam Pasha talks about a "war of extermination" but he is not Morris. What is the English word to summarize his point in a title ? Alithien 17:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

'Yishuv fear of extermination' and 'transfer idea' can be combined

Both theories are used by Morris to explain why Jews readily committed expulsions. --JaapBoBo 23:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Alithien keeps using the word extermination, but it doesn't appear that it's a word ever used in Morris's writings. If he's used it in his public appearances, I think it should come with a "health warning". One of his colleagues amongst the "New Historians" (Ilan Pappe) has been forced from his job and left the country, apparently as a result of defending "research" and criticism of Israel's past. PR 11:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Theories

I removed some "theories". If I forget some, don't hesitate to remove them. Alithien 14:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the 'theories'should be restored. They gave structure and clarity to the article. Now its a mess! Thx Alithien. --JaapBoBo 22:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Economist

I removed this quote from the Economist:

Specifically in the case of Haifa, The Economist asserted with that the 56,000-57,000 Palestinians who left the city did so mostly due to "the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit."

According to Childers the reporter got it second hand (see ]):

I decided to turn up the relevant (October 2) 1948 issue of the 'Economist.' The passage that as literally, gone around the world was certainly there, but I had already noticed one curious word in it. This was a description of the massacre at Deir Yassin as an "incident." No impartial observer of Palestine in 1948 calls what happened at this avowedly nonbelligerent, unarmed Arab village in April, 1948, an "incident"-any more than Lidice is called an "incident." Over 250 old men, women and children were deliberately butchered, stripped and mutilated or thrown into a well, by men of the Zionist Irgun Zvai Leumi.

Seen in its place in the full `Economist' article, it was at once clear that Dr. Kohn's quotation was a second-hand account, inserted as that of an eye-witness at Haifa, by the journal's own correspondent who had not been in that city at the time. And in the rest of the same article, written by the Economist correspondent himself, but never quoted by Israel, the second great wave of refugees were described as "all destitute, as the Jewish troops gave them an hour, in which to quit, but simultaneously requisitioned all transport."

Therefore it's not reliable. --JaapBoBo 20:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

While I myself have not read an actual copy of the 1948 edition of The Economist, I fail to see how Childers can be so sure that this is a second hand account or that the journalist had not been in Haifa at the time. He seems to infer this from the description of the Deir Yassin masacre as an "incident." It does not seem innaccurate or immoral to describe the Deir Yassin massacre as an "incedent" any more than describing the 1929 Hebron massacre (or Lidice for that matter) as as an "incendent" would be. Granted, I would have used the term "massacre" for Lidice, Hebron, and Deir Yassin, but calling it an incident doesn't prove anything about what part of the globe the writer was in at the time. Am I missing something? --GHcool 21:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Childers says: 'Seen in its place in the full `Economist' article, it was at once clear that Dr. Kohn's quotation was a second-hand account'. So Childers opinion on the quote is not derived from calling Deir Yassin an 'incident'. But calling Deir Yassin an 'incident' shows that the correspondent conformed to the Yishuv pov in that case. --JaapBoBo 22:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you (and Childers) lost me. As hard as I try, I cannot find anything more than speculation in Childers's claim. --GHcool 22:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The man says simply that if you read the whole article it is clear that the quotation is second hand! --JaapBoBo 22:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I got that, but even if Childers's hypothesis is correct, he does a pretty terrible job of proving it. The quotations and reasons he gives for his hypothesis are really reaching. I'd like to either see the article myself or see somebody who agrees with Childers's assessment who can do a better job of proving his point than Childers does before discounting the article as Zionist propoganda. --GHcool 00:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to see the whole article. --JaapBoBo 07:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Childers' view on this is pretty childish. Just because he thinks it was second-hand doesn't make it so. If I found a published source that though Morris' work was shoddy, could I just remove all the Morris quotations? Screen stalker 23:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

And one more thing. This is another example of the impossible burden of proof that is placed on pro-EoF sources. Childers says Schechtman is unreliable. Childers says The Economist is unreliable. Childers says Sada al-Janub is unreliable. The whole world is unreliable… except for Childers, of course. Oh, and Morris. They can do no wrong. Screen stalker 23:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Schechtman should never be used anywhere in the encyclopedia for the same reasons we don't use David Irving (except much, much, more so). Katz shouldn't either - his problems are serious (though nowhere near as bad as Schechtman, from what I can see).

As for Childers, we can quote him saying the "Economist" account is unreliable, we cannot make the OR that perhaps Childers is unreliable. The policy of the encyclopedia is not really very difficult to understand and operate. PR 09:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

New Section: Arab Orders to Evacuate

I created this new section not because I think Arab orders were one of the greater causes of the exodus, but because I felt the debate over the inclusion of sources in the EoF section got muddied by the question of whether they proved or did not prove there were explicit orders to evacuate (which was never the issue in EoF). I hope that no one objects to the creation of this section, and that everyone will help make it better.

Also, there were some quotations that were removed from this article because they didn't prove there were orders to evacuate, although they proved EoF. If you guys could help me find those again, and put them back in the article, I would be most obliged. Screen stalker 01:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I reversed ScreenStalkers new section. Reasons:

• orders are already included in EoF, i.e. read the first sentence of that section: that the Arab political and military leaders within Palestine and in surrounding countries actually told Arab civilians in Palestine to leave their homes
• Two sections for EoF would be giving undue weight to EoF; as Screenstalker himself admits EoF played only a small role.
• distinction between orders and endorsement is not only artificial, it is not supported by authors like e.g. Morris.

--JaapBoBo 12:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I said orders accounted for a small part of the exodus. Endorsement is another matter altogether. I think what you are saying is precisely the reason the two ought to be separated: they are two totally different reasons, but they are being presented together, which just makes them into one big salad.

"Orders are already included in EoF..." I know. That's precisely why I took the suff to do with orders out of EoF and put it in a new section. Of course, this also means we're not giving it undue weight, since we're not putting any more information in.

"Distinction between orders and endorsement is not only artificial..." Really, it's not artificial. It's genuine.

Tell you what I'm going to try: creating orders as a subsection of EoF. I hope you won't find it necessary to revert this edit. Screen stalker 01:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This is fine with me, provided you include a subsection 'criticism of Arab orders ..' or change the order of the subsections into:

• 1.1 Claims that support that the flight was instigated by Arab leaders
• 1.2 Claims by Arab sources that support that the flight was instigated by Arab leaders
• 1.3 Arab Evacuation Orders
• 1.4 Criticisms of the "endorsement of flight" explanation

--JaapBoBo 07:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Going to open an old wound...

I know I haven't talked about this issue in a while, but I really think it's worth looking into again. I believe that the following paragraph should be deleted from the article:

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." Erskine Childers investigated these claims, and wrote in the Spectator of May 12, 1961: "I wrote to His Grace, asking for his evidence of such orders. I hold signed letters from him, with permission to publish, in which he has categorically denied ever alleging Arab evacuation orders; he states that no such orders were ever given. He says that his name has been abused for years; and that the Arabs fled through panic and forcible eviction by Jewish troops." 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." (Childers, 197-198.)

It is extremely lengthy, and does not contribute much (if anything) to the article. It isn't actually criticism of EoF theory, but rather of some pro-EoF authors. This kind of critique has no place in an article such as this. We do not even quote Hakim at all, so why bring the issue up?

To draw an analogy (which I know a lot of people are fond of here), let's look to a book report done by a group of students. Suppose a teacher asks "What led the vagabonds to attack the Cathedral?" Their desire for the riches inside, their frustrations with the inequality of French society at the time, their opportunity to avenge themselves against the mainstream and their desire to save Esmeralda would all suffice as explanations. Now suppose there were a discussion between students as to the true cause of the attack. One student may, in support of the last, say "One of the vagabonds was Esmeralda's husband." This is, in fact, untrue, as she was married to Gringoire. But I couldn't imagine the group writing in support of an alternate theory by stating "Student ------ said that one of the vagabonds was Esmeralda's husband. This is entirely untrue."

In other words, just because someone said something in support of an argument that is untrue doesn't make the argument any less true, or for that matter any truer. I, personally, believe the first three reasons were each more powerful than the last. But that's just my literary interpretation. Screen stalker 01:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've seen this kind of discussion elsewhere - what should by done if there are widely disseminated falsehoods (or at least, very contested material) on certain topics? Answer - they must be mentioned, because otherwise, someone is bound to come along, quite innocently, and write the falsehoods back in. PR 09:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with PR --JaapBoBo 11:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if they do that, we can promptly remove it. I will ardently support anyone who seeks to do that. But I don't think an article should be written in such a way as to preempt a certain addition. I don't know if I'm making any sense. I suppose a better way to say it may be that it's our job as editors to make sure that unreliable material such as the Hakim quotation doesn't make it into the article, instead of placing material in the article to dissuade people from including in the first place. Screen stalker 01:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Talking of falsehoods, I've removed the copyvio that was here in Talk, but there was one passage in there that was interesting:

"Weitz's thesis concerning Arab responsibility for the Palestinian flight was soon adopted by Joseph Schechtman, a prominent American Jewish writer and former confidante of the right-wing Zionist leader, Vladimir Jabotinsky (Khalidi, 1959:22; Masalha, 1992:196-197). Schechtman drafted a pamphlet distributed by the Israeli Information Office in New York which claimed that the Palestinian exodus was promoted by the Arab leadership - "the Arab Higher Committee, municipal authorities, local commanders and, at a later stage, by the Arab Governments themselves" (Schechtman, 1952:6). In a later publication, Schechtman quoted a number of alleged statements by Arab leaders and newspapers which appeared to confirm the "Arab orders" thesis (Schechtman, 1963:195-198). These quotes were to become standard fare in Israeli propaganda over the next 30 years. Yet careful analysis would suggest that none of them qualify "as solid historical evidence or proof" of Arab responsibility for the exodus (Morris, 1988).

.Unfortunatelyi, if Morris said that, I don't think it's in his 1988 book, "Birth". (More problems, much as I would love to track down the following, I cannot make sense of it: "6. For another inadequate Israeli critique of Morris, see Katz (1986). For an effective refutation of Katz, See Arnold (1986).") PR 13:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the point remains that we shouldn't pre-empt bad material being put into the article. We should simply remove it if it ever makes its way in. Screen stalker 12:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Since I have seen no refutation of this point, I will remove the paragraph in question. If there is still resentment for this idea, feel free to revert my edit and continue discussion. Screen stalker 00:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Some more material

An IP inserted the entire text of the article Mendes, Philip. 1996 "An Historical Controversy: the Causes of the Palestinian Refugee Problem." Journal of Arabic, Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies 3(1):83-102." into Talk.

I'm removing it, I don't think there was much of value, and the references are cited so badly as to be near unuseuable. PR 12:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

adding Morris's 'Four waves' analysis

I added a summary of Morris's analysis of the direct causes of the Palestinian exodus during the four waves. Reasons:

• Morris wrote the most famous book on this topic, so his view should be in the article
• as opposed to an indirect cause (transfer idea) Morris's view was not yet in the article

--JaapBoBo 19:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

splitting the article

I have analysed the size of the content of the article and come up with the following sizes of readable content:

• total size: 70 kB
• endorsement section: 24 kB
• transfer idea and master plan sections: 22 kB
• remaining sections: 23 kB

Misplaced Pages advises a optimum size between 30 and 50 kB (see ]). So, I would propose to branch of two new articles called:

• 'Role of Arab leaders in the 1948 Palestinian exodus'

containing the endorsement section

a summary of this section should remain in the main article (so as to avoid non-npov), but in my view 35% of the article size in the endorsement theory is undue weight for a theory that according to Morris is responsible for only about 5% of the exodus.

Branching of an article with a name like 'Arab leaders endorsement of the 1948 Palestinian exodus' is not desirable. That would mean that only endorsement actions by the Arab leaders would be in this article, while Arab leaders in fact also tried to stop the exodus. This could of course be mentioned in a criticism section, but I think that would not be neutral.

• 'Jewish motivation and policy regarding the 1948 Palestinian exodus'

containing the transfer idea and master plan sections

these are both indirect causes, and it is quite natural to put them in a separate article; above that I think they should stay together because Jewish motivation (transfer idea) on the one hand naturally supports a master plan, but on the other hand makes a master plan obsolete (at least in my interpretation Morris brought up the transfer idea to support his thesis that there was no master plan).

A small summary should remain.

Maybe we can wait some time, but I think somewhere in the near future we have to do something.

Anyone wants to comment?

--JaapBoBo 21:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I would ask that you change the title of the proposed "Jewish motivation and policy ..." article to "Yishuv motivation and policy ...." Also, before I agree to this proposal, I'd like to know where the "Gelber's Two-Stage Theory" and "Palestinian Arabs' fear" sections go. --GHcool 21:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose the remaining sections stay in the present article. 'Yishuv' is okay with me. --JaapBoBo 21:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Great. I support your proposal. --GHcool 00:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

First, let's get something straight: Morris didn't say that EoF accounted for at most 5% of the exodus. He said Arab orders accounted for at most 5% of the exodus. The two are hardly alike, as you no doubt agree.

Secondly, the longest section by far of the EoF is the criticism section, so if you feel like summarizing EoF, you can just cut most of that off. Personally, I think that section is far too long as it is, but whatever.

As far as the second part of that proposal, I'm just going to stay out of that conversation for now. Screen stalker 01:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

@Screenstalker: if you ask me why the criticism section is so long i;d sat that's because the endorsement is claimed to be the main cause of the exodus. That claim is clearly bullshit, so the length of the criticism section seems justified to me. If the claim would only be Morris's pov the criticism section could be shorter. --JaapBoBo 08:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the article would not be allowed. See WP:POVFORK. We'll have to work out our issues here. Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 16:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this proposal would constitute a POV fork any more than Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus is a POV fork from 1948 Palestinian exodus. --GHcool 17:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Pedro, I am aware that the danger exists, but I have several reasons not to agree with you:

1) we don't fork of pov's but certain aspects of the subject of the article, i.e. the role of Arab leaders and the motivation of the Yishuv. Both, of themselves, or quite well-defined subjects, and can contain pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian pov's. The link you provided states:

There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article.

but my proposal isn't going halfway as far.

2) a summary of each article will remain in the present article.

--JaapBoBo 18:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If new articles should be created on these topics, I think the proposed title should be changed. Instead of yishuv (or jewish) motivation that are poved because they sound as if the yishuv had such intentions, which is -true or false- controversed.

I would simply suggest : Transfer Idea and Master Plan that seem available (they are red when I write this) and where context and all arguments pro and contra and the controverse could be detailled and explained. Alithien 11:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "Yishuv motivations" is probably not the best way to put it, but I wouldn't want an article titled "master plan" or "transfer policy" because that assumes them as indisputable facts, which would be even more pov than saying that the Yishuv had motivations during the Palestinian exodus. I propose Yishuv policy and the 1948 Palestinian exodus for that section and keep JaapBoBo's original suggestion, Role of Arab leaders in the 1948 Palestinian exodus, for the second article. --GHcool 18:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with GHCools arguments against Alithien. However I disagree with dropping the word 'motivation'. The transfer idea refers to a 'motivation', the master plan to a 'policy', so I think both words should be in the article title. Of course we can think about other words that cover the same substance. --JaapBoBo 21:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A fair point. Consider: Yishuv administration and the 1948 Palestinian exodus. --GHcool 22:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

yishuv motivations is pov just to talk about the transfer idea and the master plan. It is even more pov than both these are controversed when they are many others that are not. If you want to deal with yishuv motivations, then you will have to give all of them and not only to focus on those that you want to emphasize. That is not the purpose.

You take the direction of the usual alledged titles which degenerates in crazy discussions : alledged motivations and policies of the Yishuv in 1948.

You have material and data concerning the "master plan (theory)" and concering the "transfer idea" (theory)", so chose a title to discuss this but don't use a title stating you will discuss yishuv motivations or administrations when you don't have data about them.

NPoV once more and stop hiding behind the fact you don't have to discuss what you don't know. Alithien 06:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

NB: I would like to add that transfer idea and master plan are the current title of the sections that you would like to split... :-) Alithien 11:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The purpose is to give all relevant pov's. This is perfectly possible in an article titled 'Yishuv motivation and policy regarding the 1948 Palestinian exodus'. And by the way, the transfer idea is hardly controversed. After all, the only criticism (in the article) is from Karsh and Morris qualifies him as ignorant as to what really went on in the Middle East in 1948 and "Karsh employs his usual method of focusing on the one document that seems to uphold his argument - often while twisting its real purport - while simply ignoring the mass of documents that undercut it." (Morris, 1998, 'Review: Refabricating 1948', J. Palestine Studies 27(2), p. 81-95). The Mater plan is indeed really controversial. --JaapBoBo 19:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that the transfer idea is not controversed (except Karsh, Shapira and Tevet. Maybe Gelber but he doesn't comment this). The Master Plan is more controversed. But anyway the problem is not there.

That transfer idea was one of the motivations is already more controversed. I don't think we could find this eg even in Morris. Motivation of what exactly ?

And what where the motivations of the Yishuv in 1948 ? The ultimate motivations was to provoke the exodus of Palestinians ? This is the goal of the Yishuv and the Zionism since the beginning ? They don't have nationalist motivations, economical motivations, social motivations ? They didn't face a war and this didn't motivate their attitude ?

Once again, I add the current title in the article is "transfer idea" and "plan daleth" and not "motivations". Alithien 08:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Alithien: They don't have nationalist motivations, economical motivations, social motivations ? They didn't face a war and this didn't motivate their attitude ?

I think they did have those motivations. By creating an article 'Jewish (or Yishuv) motivation and policy regarding the 1948 Palestinian exodus', this type of content can be added. You seem to assume that after creating the article it will not be changed. If you find those two sections one-sided now, the new article is an opportunity to make it more npov. --JaapBoBo 18:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't fint the current sections particularly pov. Maybe not well organised and maybe the mind of Massalah lacks to the transfer idea article and the debate between him and Morris about that. There are too many people who discuss the transfer idea.

But they talk about the Transfer idea and the master plan. They don't talk about the yishuv intentions and I assume we will not use the expression jewish intention else we would have to discuss also about the intentions of the jewish all around the world in 1948...

I think we have plenty of material about the transfer idea but very few about the yishuv intention and so we would have difficulties in neutralizing this. Alithien 19:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me propose another possibility, branching of three articles with neutral names:

• 'Role of Arab leaders in the 1948 Palestinian exodus' (EoF section)
• 'The 'transfer idea' and its role in the 1948 Palestinian exodus' (transfer idea section)
• 'Role of Yishuv leaders in the 1948 Palestinian exodus' (master plan section)

I hope you all find these names neutral. With regard to the transfer idea I would like to add that it's existence seems undisputed (even Karh doesn't deny the transfer idea, but says it was forced upon the Yishuv by the Peel commission), and that I would like a referral to the 1948 exodus in the title of such an article. --JaapBoBo 09:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree because I predict that "Role of Yishuv ..." and "Transfer idea" articles will become POV forks. I would prefer to keep the transfer idea within the role of the Yishuv article. Thank you. --GHcool 17:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

splitting the article II

In another section of the discussion I saw people start talking about a restructuring of the article. The sturcture right now is indeed liable to improvement. However, I don't think we can save much space though, so we'd still end up with a long article. Therefore I think forking of is still a good idea (of course adequate summaries should stay in the article):

• 'Role of Arab leaders in the 1948 Palestinian exodus' (EoF section)
• 'Role of Yishuv leaders in the 1948 Palestinian exodus' (transfer idea section, master plan section)

What would be left in the article are the more direct causes and circumstances of the exodus. Morris' view and the two stage theory have a similar sturcture in common (e.g. Gelber divides the first stage also in phases similar to Morris). Probably also the 'ethnic cleansing' section could be combined with these. The remaining two sections ('Arab fears' and 'psychological warfare') could either remain, or be integrated into the 'waves'. --JaapBoBo 16:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, I would support this. --GHcool 19:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus building: Finkelstein acceptable?

I need to apologise for jumping the gun on this one, there was a proposal that this discussion be laid aside until 5th Oct, and I went and re-inserted the (quite uncontroversial) Finkelstein quote prematurely. However, the actual results of the discussion on Finkelstein here panned out as follows:

Since no attempt has even been made to undermine Finkelstein's scholarship/reliability I propose we act by consensus and use his work in this article as we see fit (but I'm happy to wait 4 days if that preferable). PR 18:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I promised GHCool to wait, so I will do that. But if you can convince him in the mean time: be my guest. I must say your table looks quite convincing! With this table GHCool will have hardly a chance if third parties opinions are asked. --JaapBoBo 18:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I like this chart, but ammended it so that it reflects my and Alithien's true feelings. As you can see, my opinion is not the "either-or" scenerio the chart is set up to reflect. I hope this makes things more clear. Let us give this a rest as was already agreed upon above. Thank you. --GHcool 19:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

NF is a politician but given he is referenced by scholars, he can be used. user:Alithien 19:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC) ............ Hi user:Alithien - no problem with you presenting your own entry entirely as you see fit, but I've modified it to match the format of the other entries - trust that is alright by you. PR 11:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I appologized if I misrepresented Alithien, but judging by his/her statement (quoted in the table), I assumed he/she was against including Finkelstein in this article. --GHcool 21:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Shmoe is not Finkelstein. Finkelstein was not denied tenure because his scholarship did not meet the standards of the university, but because of the work of a Jewish lobby. Above that Finkelstein looked at primary documents. And by the way, when he looked at the contradictions in 'The Birth ...' he did look at the primary document, i.e. 'The Birth ...'! --JaapBoBo 21:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a rebuttal to JaapBoBo's statement, but I am honoring the request not to discuss Finkelstein until October 5. Considering that JaapBoBo is arguing again, would I be correct in assuming that JaapBoBo does not take his/her own request seriously? --GHcool 21:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm (belatedly) abiding by JaapBoBo's suggestion over Finkelstein. However, I'm very concerned at the other things you seem to be saying - are you seriously suggesting this article quotes such a strident race-hater as Schechtman? Or unreformed alleged former terrorists such as Katz? Neither have any standing as "academics" and only minor standing as "historians" - even if their participation/close links to ethnically-based violence didn't exclude them. PR 12:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

GHCool, since you added your arguments, I wanted to add mine. No offense. --JaapBoBo 15:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why PalestineRemembered and JaapBoBo cannot control themselves. Both have continued arguing on behalf of NF while I have held my tongue except for amending PalestineRemembered's table. I could have answered their arguments with counter-arguments, but I felt it was not in the spirit of the agreement I made with JaapBoBo that we would take a break from this topic. I find it dissapointing that JaapBoBo and PalestineRemembered do seem to have the same respect for this agreement that I do. --GHcool 17:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Did anybody change his or her opinion, or should third party advice be sought? 129.125.35.249 (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The consultation is effectively complete, we have better than 80% support for inclusion of the (brief, topical and uncontroversial) clip from Finkelstein. It is difficult to understand why it has been kept out for so long. It is also urgent that we get on, and remove some of the very prominent and controversial content coming from known race-haters and falsifiers. PR

I certainly didn't change my mind. --JaapBoBo 17:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel a little sheepish for asking this, but we've been arguing so passionately that I forgot exactly what we were arguing about. Would somebody please write on this talk page in this section exactly what is being requested to be added? I'm not asking for a description of the information, but the exact disputed passage accurate to the letter. Thank you. --GHcool 18:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm cool with including Finklesein. But, like GHcool, I think that we should be consistent. If we include Finklestein, there should be no one questioning the reliability of pro-EoF, anti-transfer or other similar sources. You can't hold both sides of the same long stick: either we include questionable sources or we don't. Take your pick and stick to it. Either way is fine with me. Screen stalker 21:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

We should be consistent and we shouldn't include questionable sources. This means that we should give both sides equal standards. Right now the standards for pro-Israeli pov's seem to be much lower. E.g. Schechtman's book is not reliable and GHCool has no evidence at all that Finkelstein is unreliable. Yet Schechtman is in and Finkelstein is out. --JaapBoBo 22:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the disputed quote, Finkelstein's comments on the transfer principle:

Furthermore Finkelstein argues that transferist thinking is close to the core of Zionist thinking. According to Finkelstein Zionism claims for the Jews a prevalent right to Israel, their historical homeland, and accedes the Arabs only rights as incidental residents.. He writes: 'the mainstream Zionist movement never doubted its 'historical right' to impose a Jewish state through the 'Right of Return' on the indigenous Arab population of Palestine.' and 'Zionism's claim to the whole of Palestine ... called into question any Arab presence in Palestine.'

--JaapBoBo 22:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Since we all seem to agree to apply wikipedia policy I'd like GHCool's arguments as to why Finkelstein's quote should not be in the article according to this policy. Right now, as PR also asserted, GHCool has not given anywhere-near convincing arguments. --JaapBoBo 22:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"Sleeping villages" Khalidi quotation

Pedro Gonnet wants to add the following to the article under the "Jewish use of psychological warfare" heading: "Khalidi mentions ‘repeated and merciless raids against sleeping villages carried out in conformity with plan C’, i.e. in the period before April 1948."

While I do not dispute Khalidi's claim, I am confused as to why this information belongs under the "Jewish use of psychological warfare" heading or the "Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus" article at all. It seems more suitable to the main 1948 Palestinian exodus article. --GHcool 18:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It contributed to the exodus by creating an atmosphere of fear. --JaapBoBo 19:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

But Khalidi doesn't seem to be making the point that this was part of the Jewish psychological warfare campaign. It seems to be just an event in the narrative of the Palestinian exodus that he documented. Am I missing something? --GHcool 19:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Khalidi says it was done to keep the Arabs under continuous pressure. --JaapBoBo 21:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If that's what he says, would you mind quoting the part where he says that? Without it, the statement lacks the proper context necessary for inclusion in the article. Thank you. --GHcool 23:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

NB: GHcool has just deleted this edit (in the mean time corrected by Pedro). I don't mind this edit but I would like to underline that according to this, we could point out that : according to Khalidi, there was "nearly" no exodus before march 1948 (only 10 villages and an insignificant exodus from cities...). I think it can also be deduced that he considers the effect of "psychological warfare" was not effecient against palestinians.
NNB: I don't suggest we do that, I just point out we could. ;-)
Alithien 19:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Khalidi wrote: Zionist military planning was accordingly based upon a two-phased strategy fitted to the situation. In "Plan Gimmel" or Plan C the objectives were, through so-called "countermeasures" to maintain constant pressure everywhere against the Arabs of Palestine while maintaining contact with the Jewish setllements in the area of the proposed Arab state. and "The second phase of Zionist strategy was the al-out offensive to conquer and hold territory in the wake of the retreating British forces. So Khalidi saw the first phase (plan C, 'pressure') as a preparation for the second. Above that the first phase was not aimed at a military target, so it falls within the definition of psychological warfare. I'm not sure how much it contributed to the exodus, but I think it certainly was aimed at keeping the Palestinians under psychological pressure, i.e. to create an atmosphere of fear. --JaapBoBo 20:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Khalidi's statement does not clearly attribute Plan C to psychological warfare. We cannot attribute that for him. That would violate WP:NOR or perhaps WP:Synthesis. --GHcool 20:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The simple fact that Khalidi doesn't use the term psychological warfare is not enough to refute this addition. Khalidi wrote his article in 1961 (it was republished in 1988), when that term was hardly used as much as it is now. We should consider whether what Khalidi describes is properly described by that term and whether the way in which Khalidi described it would justify including it under psychological warfare. I think it does. --JaapBoBo 20:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Schechtman out!

I think we should take Schechtmans opinions out of the article. Particularly I am referrring to this part in the section 'Palestinian Arab fears':

Schechtman explains in his book The Arab Refugee Problem that a large part of the exodus was caused by a phenomenon which he calls The Fear Psychosis, namely Arab fear of attack, reprisal and the other stresses of war. Schechtman himself attributes this to purely to the perspective of the refugees, but other sources also place responsibility with propaganda put out by both the Jews and the Arabs. He expounds this theory as follows:

In the Western world fighting is carried on by the organized military; the civilian population, even when conquered, is comparatively safe. Arab warfare against the Jews in Palestine, however, had always been marked by indiscriminate killing, mutilating, raping, looting and pillaging. This 1947-48 attack on the Jewish community was more savage than ever. Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands. Wounded and dead alike were mutilated. Every member of the Jewish community was regarded as an enemy to be mercilessly destroyed.
he Arab population of Palestine anticipated nothing less than massacres in retaliation if the Jews were victorious. Measuring the Jewish reaction by their own standards, they simply could not imagine that the Jews would not reply in kind what they had suffered at Arab hands. And this fear played a significant role in the Arab flight.

Reasons:

• Two neutral contemporary reviewers find his book not objective:

• ‘’But if the publisher’s claim that this is an objective exposition cannot be justified and the book, though well produced, is expensive, it yet brings together information about the various UN attempts to find a solution which may be convenient for reference; in itself, however it is hard to believe that it will do much more than confirm an opinion that the continued misery of the refugees is the fault of nobody but the Arabs.’’ (Reviewed Work(s): The Arab Refugee Problem. by Joseph B. Schechtman, Author(s) of Review: S. G. Thicknesse, International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 29, No. 3 (Jul., 1953), p. 381)
• ‘’Despite its claim to objectivity, and the reputation of the author, the present volume will scarcely survive as the last word in the treatment of a great tragedy...’’ (Reviewed Work(s): The Arab Refugee Problem by Joseph B. Schechtman, Author(s) of Review: Linden A. Mander, The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Jun., 1953), p. 382)

• Childers finds that the book is unreliable, as it states in the article (referring to sources quoted by Schechtman and Khon):

Childers went back to these sources, checking them for the full meaning, and, he found that they were taken out of context. According to Childers, on closer examination, these statements were meant to indicate the opposite of what the Zionists tried to imply. According to him, what had in effect happened was that by carefully selecting those words which fit their story, these Zionist historians had edited history (Childers.The Wordless Wish.pp. 197-198.).

If there is any truth in the passage it shouldn't be hard to find a more objective and reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaapBoBo (talk • contribs) 19:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I say we remove the passage! --JaapBoBo 18:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree Schechtman is biaised and it is not difficult to show that all scholars(*) today agree with that.
(*) except Karsh.
I fully agree that any doubt that would make believe arabs exodus would have been due to "arab calls" is not welcome ! But I think we should not delete the material because I think it is important to point out what was the official israeli explanation - who developed this - why - how long it survived - what were its consequences - who first claimed it was not right - who still use this today...
Schechtman is quoted by Childers, Glazer, Flahan, Morris and Pappé (I assume others) and Glazer in 1980 summarized all the arguments why the Israeli versions was not reliable and he cites Schechtman, Kohn, Kimche and Syrkin as the israeli historians who developed the famous theory.
This is an important information.
nb: note that such section would be particularly not "pleasant" for pro-israeli-biaised readers. Alithien 19:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that Schechtman is biased, but I've heard similar claims made by other reliable historians in 2007 (although not as selective or polemical in their writing style as Schechtman). To me, Schechtman is the flipped side of Khalidi's coin. In fact, Khalidi seems to define himself in this way quite literally in his writings. Both are serious historians that emphasize their own historiography and largely ignore the historiography of the other side in order to make bold claims. Alithien makes a good point when he says that other scholars like Khalidi and Childers bring up Schechtman and so we are obligated to give the readers of this article the benefit of being familiar with Schechtman's work, if for no other reason than to make an informed decision to dismiss it. Schechtman's research is also important in understanding the Israeli historiography (indeed the entire world's historiography) before the work of the New Historians became popular. --GHcool 19:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad GHCool affirms Schechtmans unreliability. According to the second reviewer I mentioned above Schechtman did have a good reputation, but this book (or should we say this subject) was an exception.

Apparently other sources are also available. So in that respect there is no objection to remove the 'fear psychosis' paragraph.

Indeed in the article Khalidi and Childers bring up Schechtman, but only in connection to EoF arguments. So also in that respect there is no objection to remove the 'fear psychosis' paragraph.

As to GHCool's referral to 'understanding the Israeli historiography' I'd like to point out that this is not an article about that subject. If an opinion or conclusion is refuted it should not be in. It would of course be on its place in an article called 'Israeli historiography of the Palestinian exodus'.

--JaapBoBo 20:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I do not affirm Schechtman's "unreliability" any more than I affirm Khalidi's "unreliability." I only affirm that Schechtman unbiased towards Israel just like Khalidi is biased towards the Palestinian Arabs.

Secondly, JaapBoBo seems to think that Schechtman's research has been overturned or disproven or otherwise made null and void. This is an inadequate explanation of what the New Historians were all about. The way I understand it, Schechtman is less controversial for his actual research than for the proportion of blame he assigns to the Arabs for the Palestinian exodus. The same can be said for Khalidi, except he reverses the proportion of blame to the Zionists. That makes both Schechtman and Khalidi biased sources, but still reliable sources of biases that exists among prominent historians.

Thirdly, Misplaced Pages precedent dictates that controversial and "old" theories for why a phenomenon occurs deserves a place alongside new theories, if for no other reason than to refute it. For example, consider that the Sexual orientation article includes a variety of theories for the causes of homosexuality that are interesting from a historical point of view, but highly unlikely from a scientific/psychological point of view. --GHcool 22:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo,

Removing Schechtman would not mean removing the fear psychosis section.

Fear is given as a cause more often than psychological warfare. Alithien 07:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right, but it would remove Schechtman's twisted description of the fear and the term 'fear psychosis', which was already banned from the title of the section (see ]). --JaapBoBo 07:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, fear was probably more important than psychological warfare, because it was the main aim of psychological warfare, while psychological warfare was not the only reason for fear. --JaapBoBo 07:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

As JaapBoBo knows, Arab propoganda and the fleeing of their own leaders early in the war were as instrumental in stirring the Palestinian Arabs' fears as the Zionists' psychological warfare. While some historians place a greater blame on the Zionists for instilling these fears, some other historians (of which Schechtman is one) argues that it was the Arabs propoganda abroad and at home that stirred the most fears. Both views (and perhaps even a third "they were both to blame" option) deserve a place in this article. --GHcool 17:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

We've discussed this before. You can't just brand every source that doesn't agree with you. Schechtman is a historian, like it or not. Screen stalker 14:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If you don't agree, why don't you say so earlier?

I realise Schechtman is a historian, but the question is whether he is a reliable historian. On this subject he clearly is not!

--JaapBoBo 15:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear JaapBoBo,
Please do not remove Schechtman without consensus just because you don't like him. I sympathize with your plight because I don't like some of the other people quoted in this article. Instead of removing a notable scholar despite the prevailing opinion that he should not be removed, perhaps it would be more mature to simply accept that not everybody agrees with your point of view. Thank you. --GHcool 18:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

These words from you GHCool, considering your actions in the finkelstein debate, are really remarkable! --JaapBoBo 19:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As JaapBoBo knows (or should know), one must get consensus to change the status quo before it is changed, not after. In the case of Finkelstein, the status quo was his exclusion so the pro-Finkelstein people had to fight an uphill battle in order to get him included. Schechtman's case is the opposite: the status quo is his inclusion and so the anti-Schecthman people must fight an uphill battle in order to get him excluded. --GHcool 19:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There was concensus here because you and ScreenStalker raised no serious objections. So the status quo is now: Schechtman out. --JaapBoBo 19:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Schechtman 2

Besides the issue of Schechtmans reliability I have other problems with this citation of Schechtman.

• his use of the term The Fear Psychosis, which is quite an exceptional claim: a psychosis is something for psychiatric patienst, not for a mass of people. In that case you call it panic or mass panic.
• Arab warfare against the Jews in Palestine, however, had always been marked by indiscriminate killing, mutilating, raping, looting and pillaging. This 1947-48 attack on the Jewish community was more savage than ever. Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands. Wounded and dead alike were mutilated. Every member of the Jewish community was regarded as an enemy to be mercilessly destroyed. is an exceptional claim that needs evidence from a more reliable source.
• he Arab population of Palestine anticipated nothing less than massacres in retaliation if the Jews were victorious. Measuring the Jewish reaction by their own standards, they simply could not imagine that the Jews would not reply in kind what they had suffered at Arab hands. And this fear played a significant role in the Arab flight. I think this is or borders on a racist opinion: Arabs were to stupid to think out of their framework of thinking. It certainly is an exceptional claim

Combining the unreliability of Schechtman and the exceptionality of his claims I don't think this should be in the article. --JaapBoBo 20:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, you cannot invent a new status quo. Status quos exist objectively. You cannot remove something and then say that the status quo was its absense. That's called doublethink.

Secondly, as I and ScreenStalker illustrated above, Schechtman is relevant for the same reason the Khalidi is: he is a generally reliable historian with a more extreme view than other historians and is referred to in others' works. Perhaps we can form a compromise on this issue: no Schechtman, no Khalidi. Thoughts? --GHcool 21:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of deals like Schechtman for Khalidi. According to Misplaced Pages policy we should consider each's merits on it's own. --JaapBoBo 22:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree. --GHcool 06:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Schechtman is a disgrace, and each of these 3 clips demonstrate it, particularily User:JaapBoBo's #2. Under almost no circumstances should we be quoting anyone who has ever published something as nasty (and patently false) as "Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands."

Clp #3 is nasty racism, when more or less the same thing could have been expressed in far more moderate terms. It's the only one of these clips that (may) have needed to be said, may have an element of scholarship in it.

Clip #1 is nasty (though it might be an accident). "Psychosis" is a disease, Schechtman seems to be saying that Palestinians have diseased minds. PR 19:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

@ PR, Schechtman's statement that no quarter had been given to Jews is true (or at least has not yet been proven false). We've been over this: the two exceptions that you provide don't apply. Even if they did, they are two exceptions in a conflict that touched millions.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but I was always under the impression that psychosis simply implied a mental state which didn't view things as they truly are, not necessarily a mental disease.

I agree we shouldn't "trade" Schechtman for Khalidi, but we should use the same standards to judge all authors (see Morris "racism"). Screen stalker 12:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

of course even one exception would prove Schechtman false, as he surely is. --JaapBoBo 15:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

@Screenstalker: I'm a bit disappointed that you are actually asking for proof that the 'no quarter whatsoever ...' statement is not true. I mean, it's a ridiculous statement, even the Nazi's weren't that bad. --JaapBoBo 15:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

psychosis --JaapBoBo 16:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Standards for Including Sources

We've been having a lot of trouble with the question of what constitutes a reliable source which merits inclusion in the article. I think we need to come up with a set of criteria that we can establish and stick to. That way we can be objective.

Some criteria we may consider are criticism by other authors, criminal history (particularly as it pertains to crimes such as libel, slander, perjury, etc.), education, experience on the subject of inquiry, proximity to the actual event (in terms of both location and time period), concreteness of results, etc.

I don't know exactly how this would work (we could require all criteria be met, or no more than two failed, or whatever), but we really need some uniform standard. Because this whole policy of removing every source that doesn't agree with one's POV and not applying the same standards to sources that do agree with one's POV is not working out well. Screen stalker 01:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea and I hope it works. I'd like to add that we need to have different standards for authors that are now dead and for sources that were written circa 1948 than we do for sources and authors that are still active in the debate. Right now, the article seems to quote from 1948 newspaper articles, peer reviewed journals (mostly the JPS), encyclopedias (mostly The Continuum Political Encyclopedia), Arabs politicians who support the EoF, works by expert historians from all significant perspectives all of whom are respected in their fields (or were when they were alive) and have done primary research using Arabic, Hebrew, and English sources. I cannot currently think of any other sources I would accept as appropriate or reliable in this article. --GHcool 02:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a primary suggestions: three out of five must be met:

• Author has credible credentials. The author may be an historian, a politician, a researcher, a statistician, a journalist, an author or any figure who occupies a central public role, and earns great respect within their local community. One's credentials may also be established as an eye witness to an event, regardless of one's education of position within society.
• Author's work is respected by their contemporaries and post temporaries. This is to say one could not find many other scholars who criticize the work in question. Note: Scholar A quoting scholar B in their critique of scholar C only count as a single critique. Otherwise, we would have a thousand critiques on each author.
• Author does not have a well-established history of deliberate corruption of the facts. This history may include convictions for crimes to do with reliability (such as perjury, libel and slander), or a pattern of statements whose intent was to skirt the truth.
• Author must have had hands-on experience with the event. One cannot truly research the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus from a cushy office in New York in 2003. Authors should have written around the time of the exodus, spoken to eye witnesses, traveled to the region, or at least poured over archives (although the latter is the weakest form of faith... I mean experience).
• Results of author's work must be rooted in evidence and/or logic. The author cannot simply reason that something is true "because I said so". He/she must give numbers, reasons, empirical evidence, etc. to prove their point.

Suggestions? Screen stalker 13:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree that we try to sort this out first. Lets sort out our policy first and then take a look at the cases where we have disagreement and decide based on the concensus policy. I suggest we use the Misplaced Pages policy. Can all of you please fill in the table below and if necesarry add to the 'relevant parts of the wikipedia policy'? Thank you.

--JaapBoBo 13:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

ScreenStalker, your five point have their merits, but I prefer the wikipedia policy. I think there should be strong reasons not to apply Misplaced Pages policy, and if we would want to decide not to do so it's probably not allowed without consulting the wider community of editors (I read something like that somewhere on wikipedia).

Can you please indicate why you want to replace the wikipedia policy? --JaapBoBo 13:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think I don't want to conform to Misplaced Pages policy? I just want to set concrete guidelines within this particular article as to what we consider a reliable source. I don't think there's a contradiction. Screen stalker 14:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that would not be a good idea. Misplaced Pages policy has evolved and is well thought through. Some more concrete guidelines might seem attractive, but I suspect that if it were workable Misplaced Pages policy would contain some guidelines of this type. Furthermore, if we do this in addition to Wikipadia policy I fear we will end up debating these extra rules also. --JaapBoBo 15:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy is intentionally broad. Misplaced Pages articles don't only deal with historical events, thus this exact set of rules should not so much as be considered for general policy. But it is a specific application for a particular type of article. Screen stalker 15:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, User:Screen stalker, your "3 out of 5" criteria don't stack up. Scholarship depends on a) being well read b) treating sources with respect (and citing them properly). Scholarship is greatly assisted by working in higher-education, or working with primary sources, but neither factor is essential.

There are exceptions, good books have been written by people with limited education, only a single specialisation and working on their own, but these are the exception rather than the rule.

In cases where we're not sure, the best test is to offer the work to a person who doesn't really accept the thesis, and invite them to check it for a) hate and b) cheating by the author. If it passes both those tests it may still be "wrong", but it is a work of scholarship and deserves some reference in articles. This is basically the same system as "peer review", after all. PR 19:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

conform to Misplaced Pages policy

relevant parts of Misplaced Pages Policy (please include an accurate link)

I think WP:RS is the most important one.

WP:FRINGE seems also appropriate in a number of cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaapBoBo (talk • contribs) 20:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:V and from this especially WP:PROVEIT and WP:SOURCES

--JaapBoBo 14:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

All Misplaced Pages policies are relevant and must be followed in all Misplaced Pages articles including this one. If I understand ScreenStalker correctly, he isn't trying to overthrow Misplaced Pages policy for the sake of this article. Quite the opposite, in fact. He sees parties questioning sources that abide by the letter of the law of WP:RS, but not necessarily the spirit of the law. I think we can all agree that there is a lot of bogus information coming from what Misplaced Pages would call reliable sources about the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. Listen World, Listen Jew, a history of the Jewish people and the founding of the State of Israel by Meir Kahane (which I haven't read nor do I ever intend to), and The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, an argument against the U.S. support of Israel based in part on bogus historical analysis by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (which I have read and found that it is riddled with errors and falsities), both conform to WP:RS when interpreted loosely. I hope that none of us would ever use the work of Meir Kahane nor the work of Mearsheimer and Walt in this article and I would hope that if somebody did, it would be reverted. For that reason, I support a strict interpretation of WP:RS to be applied here. --GHcool 18:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That is nonsense, Kahane has no standing in reliable discourse whatsoever. And a hate-mongerer, which eliminates him straight away.

Whereas Mearsheimer and Walt work is scholarly (or I presume so, anyway). I challenge GHcool to provide evidence of these errors and falsities. PR 17:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Kahane has no place in Misplaced Pages. As for his challenge to me that I provide evidence for Mearsheimer and Walt's misconduct, I could easily meet the challenge, however I don't think that Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus is an appropriate or productive place for this discussion. Feel free to see the criticisms for yourself on this page. --GHcool 18:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for the sake of argument, it reminds me of the list of "notable" scholars and personalities that fell all over themselves lauding Joan Peters' From Time Immemorial and that somehow forgot to retract when she was outed as a downright fraud... pedro gonnet - talk - 16.10.2007 06:59

Seperate heading for "Crumbling of Arab Palestinian social structure"

Only about three eighths (by number of paragraphs) of Gelber's "First Stage" is actually attributed to Gelber. I propose we create a entirely new section called "The crumbling of Arab Palestinian social structure and justified Jewish military conduct" or even simply "The crumbling of Arab Palestinian social structure." This would include a summary of Gelber's research and then the entirety of the research of the other 8 scholars referenced in the section. We would keep the 2.5 paragraph long quotation from Gelber under the section currently dedicated to Gelber's "First Stage" but name it something shorter like "First Stage: Political disorder." Comments? --GHcool 02:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. 'Crumbling ...' is a pure Gelber term. Your proposal would give undue weight to Gelbers opinion by listing other historians under his banner. Besides that

• 'crumbling ...' refers mainly to Morris's first wave.
• Morris analysis already describes the same events
• if you want to split sections according to stages or waves I'd prefer to use Morris's division.

--JaapBoBo 12:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. How about a very big section called "Multi-staged theories" and place both Morris's, Gelber's, and others' multi-staged theories under that umbrella. --GHcool 18:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. In that case I'd prefer a section for each wave. --JaapBoBo 18:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Karsh out!?

I just removed some pieces from Karsh, added by GHCool. I didn't delete them all, but only the most flagrant untruths (e.g. huge numbers of Pelestinians were forced out of their homes by Arab soldiers and that kind of crap). Karsh is clearly in many cases not a reliable source. Maybe he is in general not a reliable source. Let me give some third opinions:

• This is a polemical book whose authors have extended the intemperate and unbalanced rhetoric customarily employed by dogmatic partisans of the Arab Israeli conflict to the normaly sedate and measured arena of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Ottoman history. and The book relies mainly on Western published sources and official British documents. But their use of even these sources is limited, since they actualy ignore most of nineteenth-century history. Instead, the authors emphasize those episodes they feel support their interpretations. (Anthony B. Toth, History as Ideology, a review of 'Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789-1923' by Efraim and Inari Karsh, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 31, No. 2. (Winter, 2002), pp. 85-86.)
• In an answer to Karsh in an article of four lines, Morris says that 'Efraim Karsh's article (...) is a mélange of distortions, half-truths, and plain lies that vividly demonstrates his profound ignorance of both the source material (...) and the history of the Zionist-Arab conflict. It does not deserve serious attention or reply.' (Morris, 1996, 'Undeserving of a Reply', The Middle East Quaterly )
• But this is Karsh's way, to belabor minor points while completely ignoring, and hiding from his readers, the main pieces of evidence. and It is a measure of Karsh's ignorance of what actually went on in the Middle East in1948 that he writes (p. 97) of "the Arab attack on the newly-established State of Israel, in which Transjordan's Arab Legion participated." Quite simply, it did not. and Karsh employs his usual method of focusing on the one document that seems to uphold his argument-often while twisting its real purport-while simply ignoring the mas of documents that undercut it. (Benny Moris, Refabricating 1948, review of ‘Fabricating Israeli History: The "New Historians."’ by Efraim Karsh, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 27, No. 2. (Winter, 1998), pp. 81-95.)

Maybe somebody can find some arguments supporting Karsh, but if I get my way I'd probably kick him out.

Anyway, I will delete extreme statements by Karsh from the article. --JaapBoBo 13:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

User:JaapBoBo - The clip you've provided from Karsh is pretty damaging, but the "criticism" you've provided is much less so. Unpopular scholars attract such criticism, it's useful for pointing us to real cases of fraud, it's not proof of it. Point us to more of Karsh's work. PR 21:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Adi Ophir says this about Morris: At some point in the interview, when the reader might think that Benny Morris has already said the most terrible things, he brings up, in passing, the extermination of the Native Americans. Morris contends that their annihilation was unavoidable. "The great American democracy could not have been achieved without the extermination of the Indians. There are cases in which the general and final good justifies difficult and cruel deeds that are carried out in the course of history." Morris seems to know what the general and final good is: the good of the Americans, of course. He knows that this good justifies partial evil. In other words, under specific conditions, specific circumstances, Morris believes that it is possible to justify genocide. In the case of the Indians, it is the existence of the American nation. In the case of the Palestinians, it is the existence of the Jewish state. For Morris, genocide is a matter of circumstances, that can be justified under certain conditions, all according to the perceived threat that the people to be annihilated represent to the people carrying out the genocide, or just to their form of government. The murderers of Rwanda or Serbia, that are standing trial today in international courts for their crimes against humanity, might like to retain Morris as an advisor.

Let's not forget how right MidEast Web (which you'll certainly denounce as a Zionist source) said in 2004: Morris surprised everyone not long ago in a lecture at Berkeley University, followed by interviews and articles in the Israeli and foreign press, in which he justified the expulsion of Palestinians in 1948, tried to show that "transfer ideology" was always a part of Zionism, and claimed that the current crisis between Israel and the Palestinians might ultimately prove to be solvable only by transfer. His latest pronouncement on this issue appeared in an interview given in Ha'aretz newspaper on January 9th. Reality is as absurd as humor. A small group of people invented an ideology that they attributed to Zionism and invented events that have not yet occurred, and some of them are now decrying both the imaginary events and the imaginary ideology that they themselves invented.

And, of course, Morris' defense of the context of his work, which has been so ardently corrupted throughout the years (three separate quotations, not one ongoing one):

Like many pro-Arab propagandists at work today, Mearsheimer and Walt often cite my own books, sometimes quoting directly from them, in apparent corroboration of their arguments. Yet their work is a travesty of the history that I have studied and written for the past two decades. Their work is riddled with shoddiness and defiled by mendacity.

In other words, the surge in thinking about transfer in the late 1930s among mainstream Zionist leaders was in part a response to the expulsionist mentality of the Palestinians, which was reinforced by ongoing Arab violence and terrorism.

From Mearsheimer and Walt, you would never suspect that the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem in 1948 occurred against the backdrop, and as the result, of a war–a war that for the Jews was a matter of survival, and which those same Palestinians and their Arab brothers had launched. To omit this historical background is bad history–and stark dishonesty. It is quite true, and quite understandable, that the Israeli government during the war decided to bar a return of the refugees to their homes–to bar the return of those who, before becoming refugees, had attempted to destroy the Jewish state and whose continued loyalty to the Jewish state, if they were readmitted, would have been more than questionable. There was nothing “innocent,” as Mearsheimer and Walt put it, about the Palestinians and their behavior before their eviction-evacuation in 1947-1948 (as there was nothing innocent about Haj Amin al Husseini’s work for the Nazis in Berlin from 1941 to 1945, broadcasting anti-Allied propaganda and recruiting Muslim troops for the Wehrmacht). And what befell the Palestinians was not “a moral crime,” whatever that might mean; it was something the Palestinians brought down upon themselves, with their own decisions and actions, their own historical agency. But they like to deny their historical agency, and many “sympathetic” outsiders like to abet them in this illusion, which is significantly responsible for their continued statelessness.

So, you see, if we go with the theory that any author whose work is criticized should be excluded from the article, Morris should be excluded.

What's even more disturbing is how much Morris' work has been taken out of context, because the quotations introduced by him appear to imply that there was ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians, which is clearly not his position (or reality).

Finally, I have a question for PalestineRemembered: you were so opposed to including Schechtman because he said that the Arab mentality in Israel circa 1948 was to destroy the Jews. Morris says the same thing. He even says that "the Palestinians" (notice, he generalizes) were no more innocent than Haj Amin al Husseini when he worked for the Nazis. He says the Palestinian exodus was something that the Palestinians brought upon themselves. He advocated transfer of the Palestinians in 1948, and advocates it at the present time. Don't you think that makes him a racist? Didn't you say you were in favor of excluding all racists from articles such as this? Tell me, why is Morris an exception? Screen stalker 14:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Screen stalker - I think there are serious problems with Morris, but they're all "in favour of" Israel. Initially because he's an Israeli, latterly because Israel is expelling those who dare to criticise it (eg Pappe). We'd not exclude his scholarship for this reason, only be wary of what he reports that might be used to "defend the position of Israel".

There's another possible reason to exclude commentators/historians - but it does not apply to Morris. He never, ever, seeks to ascribe general weaknesses to all individual Palestinians, he never speaks of "their psychosis", he never ascribes particular criminal actions to them all "as a group". This is dramatically different from what I see in Schechtman. The following statement is plainly false (likely sufficient to exclude him as a historian on it's own), but it's much worse than that. Schechtmman is quoted as saying "Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands". That's a slur on an entire ethnicity, and that makes Schechtman a hate-source. That's why we should never use him. PR 21:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Karsh is certainly not more reliable than Walid Khalidi.

1. In Plan Dalet: Master Plan for the Conquest of Palestine, he writes that "up to 1 March (...). the number of people leaving the mixed towns was insignificant". I doubt he thinks more than 50,000 people from the town is insignificant but of course, it is important for his "theory" nobody have left before the start of the Plan Dalet.

2. In the same article, he tries to make believe that 8 out of 13 operations of Yishuv forces were performed out of "yishuv territory". This to picture an agressive yishuv, which is important for this theory. He "forgets" that 7 out of these 8 were performed in the Jerusalem area where lived 100,000 Jews.

3. He also writes that had all the 13 operations been successfull that "whole of palestine in 1948" would have been left under Zionist occupation where somebody who is familiar with the map of Palestine can see these zone cover less than one third.

4. In the same article, he pictures operation Nachshon as an offensive to cut the Arab state into two. He forgets to remind that jewish population of Jerusalem population was out of supply and was at the limit of the famine. During operation nachshon (that succeeded !) 1700 tons of supply in 4 convoys were brought to the city. Same kind of comments can be made for the purposes of all the operaitons.

5. In The 1953 Qibya Raid Revisited: Excerpts from Moshe Sharett’s Diaries, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Summer, 2002), p. 77-98, Khalidi writes that before Qibya massacre, Moshe Dayan would have left Ariel Sharon chose between "occupying the village" or "killing a maximum of unhabitants" and that it is not difficult to find which option Ariel Sharon chose. A version not explained by any material and in opposition with all historians explanations (Benny Morris and Zeev Drori).

These 5 exemples show that every idea developed by Khalidi can be read having in mind he has a hidden agenda. This is even not a bias.

Alithien 17:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

@ScreenStalker: you are right that it's not primarily about criticism on a historian but about criticism on his work. But it's primarily about criticism of the reliability and quality of his work. And of course whether this criticism is justified, was uttered by reliable sources, etc. Criticism on a moral position is something quite different; I think its less relevant here.

ScreenStalker: What's even more disturbing is how much Morris' work has been taken out of context, because the quotations introduced by him appear to imply that there was ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians, which is clearly not his position

I too am sometimes surprised by the incriminating things (for the Israelis) that Morris says in his books. In my opinion Morris is most honest (and most incriminating) when he writes down details about what happened, but when he is drawing conclusions he has a pro-Israeli bias (although it's not large compared to that of some other Zionist writers), and is less incriminating. Let me give you an example:

On p. 65 of 'Birth ... revisited' Morris says in a generalisation: 'Strategically speaking Dec '47 to March '48 was marked by Arab initiatives and Jewish defensiveness', but on the next page he says: 'IZL and LHI started, already in early Dec '47 a strategy of placing bombs in crowded markets and bus-stops. The Arabs retaliated by placing bombs of their own in Jewisj population centers in Feb. and March.'. Shouldn't his generalisation have been the other way around????

By the way: Morris doesn't deny an ethnic cleansing (he doesn't use the term) nor that general idea. He does assert that the exodus occured mainly due to Israeli actions and that many Israeli leaders wanted it. He just denies that there was a policy to that end. I don't think Morris is quoted out of context.

--JaapBoBo 18:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

@Alithien: I agree that Khalidi is at least as reliable as Karsh. I even think Khalidi is much more reliable! But let me give you some responses to your point:

1. Khalidi wrote this in 1961, so he didn't have all the knowledge we have now. E.g Glazer talks of about 30.000 'refugees' in this period, and Khalidi may have had the same number in mind.

2. Jerusalem was international territory, so outside of Yishuv territory according to UNGA 181. The surroundings of Jerusalem were Arab territory. So Khalidi is probably right.

3. The Yishuv didn't stop after these operations, and had they sucseeded follow-up operations might have led to the conquering of the WestBank.

4. the one aim doesn't exclude the other

5. I don't know much about this, but I don't trust the Israeli version of events.

I don't see any pattern here of a secret agenda, or unreliability. --JaapBoBo 18:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Whenever JaapBoBo adds something that I consider crazy from Ilan Pappe or Childers, I wring my hands and say to myself, "I don't like it, but there isn't really anything I can do about it." Whenever somebody like Karsh is added to the article, the first reaction is censorship. Karsh is a distinguished academic with a long and honorable career. According to Misplaced Pages, he is currently the Head of Mediterranean Studies at King's College London. It is true that he is criticized by some of his colleagues, but all of the colleagues criticizing him are themselves criticized by others, often for the same reasons. That is the reality of academic debate on a controversial issue. There is nothing wrong with Karsh nor with anything I just added for the same reason that there is nothing wrong with Morris because they are appropriate for their sections. This kind of dishonorable behavior of reverting anything that JaapBoBo doesn't agree with must end. --GHcool 18:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

GHCool, why did you modify Alithiens edit from ::Karsh is certainly not more reliable than Walid Khalidi. to ::Karsh is certainly more reliable than Walid Khalidi.? Shame on you!!! --JaapBoBo 18:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I did it because Alithien made a typo. He wrote that Karsh is not more reliable than Khalidi and then goes on to write about how awful Khalidi is. I appologize to Alithien if I misrepresented him, but it looked to me like he was criticizing Khalidi and not Karsh. --GHcool 18:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly you should have notified Alithien that you suspected a typo and have left it to him to change it! --JaapBoBo 19:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Returning to the subject. GHCool, you are accusing me of boycotting Karsh, yet I leave the less extreme pieces of Karsh in. On the other hand you are blocking everything I'd like to add from Finkelstein.

Further you (GHCool and ScreenStalker) are talking about all criticism as if it is equal. It's not. The criticism on Karsh is certainly much more severe than that on Finkelstein. In fact in our argument on Finkelstein you haven't shown proof of his unreliability. Karsh work is very one-sided and simply aimed at driving through his point. Finkelstein is much more honest. --JaapBoBo 19:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I appologize unconditionally to Alithien. JaapBoBo is correct in saying that I should have first contacted Alithien before deleting the word "not."

JaapBoBo's comparison of Karsh's decades of research which include 14 historical books listed on Misplaced Pages, countless articles, a head position at an internationally renowned university, and primary research of the Arabic, Hebrew, and English sources to Finkelstein's 6 editorial-style books listed on Misplaced Pages (none of which are directly about the 1948 Palestinian exodus), his denial of tenure, and his probable never having glanced at a primary source in his life is a false comparsion that does not deserve to be taken seriously. --GHcool 19:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Like Schechman Karsh is probably quite reliable on other subjects. But on this subject he is in general unreliable. --JaapBoBo 19:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to leave the house in 5 minutes, but PalestineRemembered can be assured that a reality check on his accusation that "Israel is expelling those who dare to criticise it (eg Pappe)" is well on its way. --GHcool 21:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

@JaapBoBo: I am sorry that I have a life and just don't have time to look up criticism on Finkelstein, etc. I just don't think it's that important. GHcool is right. Criticism is common with such a controversial issue. But I am certain that if I spent hours upon hours looking for such criticism I would find it. I think you know that, too.

@PR: Here are a few things Morris had to say about the Palestinians (note, he didn't say some of the Palestinians, Palestinian elements, or even most Palestinians: "what befell the Palestinians was not “a moral crime,” whatever that might mean; it was something the Palestinians brought down upon themselves, with their own decisions and actions, their own historical agency.
It is quite true, and quite understandable, that the Israeli government during the war decided to bar a return of the refugees to their homes–to bar the return of those who, before becoming refugees, had attempted to destroy the Jewish state and whose continued loyalty to the Jewish state, if they were readmitted, would have been more than questionable. and In other words, the surge in thinking about transfer in the late 1930s among mainstream Zionist leaders was in part a response to the expulsionist mentality of the Palestinians, which was reinforced by ongoing Arab violence and terrorism."

Morris actually justifies Palestinian expulsion, and says it the Palestinian exodus was the fault of Palestinians. Screen stalker 00:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for that clip from Morris, I'd not seen it before. (I've re-formatted it to "thread" better and take up less space, I hope that is alright). It comes from an article Morris wrote to the New Republic in May 2006. I can only say "Morris is in big trouble and fighting to be allowed to stay in Israel", which is something that has been obvious for a while, and must be even more acute now Pappe has been forced out of Israel. I'm reasonably sure the racism you've correctly identified is brand new, does not appear in any of his books. (Start a new section if you want to discuss the change in Morris, because it's quite significant, and I'd be surprised if I'm the first one to notice!) PR 17:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

For criticism of Finkelstein, look no further than The Case for Peace: How the Arab-Israeli Conflict Can Be Resolved by Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz devotes nearly an entire chapter of the book to criticisms of Finkelstein's scholarship and conduct. I won't quote the whole chapter, but here's the first paragraph on Finkelstein:

"Finkelstein is a transient academic who describes himself as 'in exile' at DePaul University because he has been-by his own account-'thrown out of every school in New York.' The former chairman of the political science department at one such college told me that Finkelstein was fired for 'incompetence,' 'mental instability' and 'abuse' of students with politics different from his own."

The rest of the chapter is devoted to criticism of actual scholarly misconduct and intimidation that I'm happy to quote here, but fear that it wouldn't make much of a dent since I've brought up the same points in earlier arguments and they didn't change anybody's minds before. Dershowitz isn't the only critic of Finkelstein. Dershowitz cites criticisms by Peter Novik (author of The Holocaust in American Life) and Leon Wieseltier and others. Since The Case For Peace was published, there has been even more criticism of Finkelstein, which I would be happy to find upon request. --GHcool 06:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

My first point is that if Karsh is not reliable on this subject, Khalidi is not either.
My second point is that JaapBoBo have been caught two times is not quoting properly Khalidi and then Morris, each time picturing the matter worsely for Israeli.
My third point is that if any historian that is cought making mistakes on this subject and accused by his pairs to have done this on purpose must be removed, then we can remove 1. Pappé, 2. Morris, 3. Flahan, 4. Khalid, 5. Karsh. as far as I know.
JaapBoBo, wikipedia is not a battleground of the palestinian-israeli conflict.
Alithien 06:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• The Accusation: "Israel is expelling those who dare to criticise it (eg Pappe)." -- PalestineRemembered. Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. 21:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Second Accusation: "I can only say 'Morris is in big trouble and fighting to be allowed to stay in Israel', which is something that has been obvious for a while, and must be even more acute now Pappe has been forced out of Israel." -- PalestineRemembered. :52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• The Reality: Israel is a free country with laws concerning Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of thje press similar to the United States. Israeli politicians, editorialists, and reporters use this right every single day in their newspapers. Ha'Aretz is especially well known for its criticism of Israeli policies, but Israel's other two leading newspapers (Yedioth Ahronoth and The Jerusalem Post) also criticize Israel virtually daily. All three of these newspapers are translated into English and are readily available on the Internet. There is an organization in Israel called B'Tselem that is devoted to documenting and criticizing abuses by the Israeli government. Knesset ministers of the left and right wing regularly criticize Israel as strongly as Ilan Pappe ever did. None of the above have any fear of being deported or "expelled" from Israel. The standards for academic freedom are also similar to that of the United States as evidenced. The case of Ilan Pappe is a strange one, but it is a downright lie to say that he was "expelled" from Israel because of his controversial research. The truth is much less dramatic. Pappe supported a British academic boycott of Israeli academics in 2005. In response, the University of Haifa suggested (but did not force) that he apply the boycott to his own self since he is also an Israeli academic. Two full years after that, Pappe voluntarily left Israel and took a position at the University of Exeter. As far as I know, Pappe has never been arrested or tried for his views by Israeli authorities or the University of Haifa.

I presume this is User:GHcool who posted that soapbox. I trust you'll never accuse me of soapboxing! PR 19:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

@GHCool: can we discuss Finkelstein in a seperate section please? I created one and copied your comment there. --JaapBoBo 21:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of specific Karsh quotations

Karsh quote 1: This thinking ... proved to be disasterously misconceived. Far from ... freeing the men for fighting, the mass departure of women and children led to the total depopulation of towns and villages as the men preferred to join their familis rather than stay behind and fight.

Removed because it implies that the Palestinians abandoned their villages. Look at the table by Morris: 6 villages were abandoned. Indeed in quite some cases women children and the old were evacuated, but to assume that the men then joined them is farfetched. Morris certainly describes nothing of this kind.

You are right in saying that Morris and Karsh disagree. Maybe this means we should remove Morris...

I'm not being serious, of course. It's alright--even good--to have sources which disagree. Screen stalker 13:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Karsh quote 2: Efraim Karsh wrote:

"uge numbers of Palestinians were ... driven out of their homes by their own leaders and/or by Arab military forces, whether out of military considerations or, more actively, to prevent them from becoming citizens of the nascent Jewish State ]. In the largest and best-known example of such forced exodus, tens of thousands of Arabs were ordered or bullied into leaving the city of Haifa against their wishes on the insructions of the AHC, despite sustained Jewish efforts to convince them to stay. Only days earlier, thousands of Arabs in Tiberias had been similarly forced out by their own leaders. In Jaffa, the largest Arab community of Mandatory Palestine, the municipality organized a transfer of thousands of residents by land and sea, while in the town of Beisan in the Jordan valley, the women and children were ordered out as the Arab Legion dug in. And then there were tens of thousands of rural villagers who were likewise forced out of their homes by order of the AHC, local Arab militias or the armies of the Arab states.

Removed this because no other author writes that the Palestinians were forced by their leaders to flee, and certainly not huge numners. This is clear bullshit. --JaapBoBo 19:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope JaapBoBo doesn't mind that I reformatted his last post so it they can be responded to in a more organized way. I did it in good faith and did not change a single word or sentence of JaapBoBo's post.

I respect JaapBoBo's difference of opinion with Karsh's research. He is entitled to his opinion. I hope that JaapBoBo can understand that this is a controversial subject often with evidence and historical analysis that confirms one narrative and contradicts the other as well as other evidence that confirms the opposite and contradicts the opposite. All relevent sides must be included in this article, even ones that shake JaapBoBo's beliefs.

To respond specifically, Karsh Quote 1 seems to have been removed because Karsh's research is not echoed by Morris. I ask JaapBoBo the following question: Should all references that are not echoed by Morris be removed from this article? My feeling is that Morris is just one important historian out of many. Applying Morris as the gold standard of truth defeats the purpose of this article for two reasons: (1) the article will quickly become a catalog of views of Morris and his defenders which violates the Misplaced Pages guidelines and (2) it is arbitrary; one could just as easily use Karsh or Pappe or even Schechtman as the gold standard of truth in this article.

Karsh Quote 2 seems to have been removed due to an argument from ignorance. It is not Karsh's fault that JaapBoBo has never heard of the flight from Haifa which is echoed several times by historians and primary sources even in this very article (The Economist, The Near East Broadcasting Station in Cyprus, Time Magazine).

Quote 1: Instead of Morris I could have mentioned any other serious historian: Gelber, Pappe, etc.. Karsh's opinion is really different from what the others accept as what really happened.

Quote 2: I'm certainly not ignorant of the Haifa exodus, on the contrary I've read some articles on it. Like at quote 1, here Karsh's opinion is really different from what the others accept as what really happened.

see in WP:RS: 'exceptional claims require exceptional sources'

combining the exceptional claim with the unreliability of Karsh in other cases (as evidenced by my citations above) I think these two quotes should not be in the article.

--JaapBoBo 20:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo seems to have dropped the argument from ignorance in favor of his other argument which is to implement a policy of arbitrary trust of one historian over another. It will not work. It should be abandoned. --GHcool 20:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You are twisting my words (in an attempt to draw away the attention from the fact that you don't have good arguments).

It's not one historian against another, its exceptional claims of one against many others! --JaapBoBo 21:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Those clips from Karsh (particularily #2) appear to be very damaging to his claims to be a scholar (I understand he's an academic at King's College London, I wonder whether he really teaches and who pays to keep him there). In Haifa, it appears that many 1000s left because they were told to do so. But large numbers of Palestinians were most definitely ethnically cleansed from there too, and I'm pretty sure most people agree that the same happened in Tiberias and Jaffa. (It's also fundamentally dishonest to bring up EoF, such flight does not mean people lose rights to their property, otherwise much of Northern Israel would have been lost to Israelis in 2006). If Karsh were teaching this denial to students, I think he'd have a riot on his hands. PR 22:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sory, here at Misplaced Pages, no one can start trying to pass judgement on duly accredited academics, regardless of that academic's views. This is exactly how articles like this end up in serious trouble. the way to write an article like this is for each side to accept legitimate expert from the other side, and then to provide its own balancing views. this is a confllict which we are covering here, and it is pointless to try to find objectivity where there isn't any. i know, you'll tell me we are supposed to present the one objective view. then you'll continue to wrangle endlessly. what i am proposing is a real way to acheieve a balanced article, and to get real consensus. --Steve, Sm8900 18:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, I have something to ask you. It is very important that you give me a clear answer to this question because you have accused me of twisting your words in the past, and I don't want to be accused of that this time. I read your post above and it looks like you are saying the following: Karsh is not a scholar, he does not really teach at King's College London, and there is a Jewish conspiracy "who pays to keep him there," presumably through bribery. Is this what you are saying? I find it difficult to believe that you would say that since I'm sure you have heard of UCU boycott of Israel and know that such a thing would be highly improbable under the current circumstances in the UK academic world. You yourself even admit that if Karsh taught his students to deny the Palestinian exodus, "I think he'd have a riot on his hands." Again, I do not want to put words in your mouth. I am trying to assume good faith here and not jump to the conclusion that you said something profoundly ignorant and arguably racist.

As for your second claim that Karsh's research (specifically Karsh Quote 2) is a form of denial of the Palestinian exodus, nothing could be further from the truth. Obviously, Karsh Quote 2 is just one passage from Karsh's entire body of work. The very next sentence after Karsh Quote 2 reads, "None of this is to deny that Israeli forces did on occasion expel Palestinians." I am more than willing to include this final sentence if it would expediate the process of including the entire quotation in the article. --GHcool 06:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked, Morris said Haifa was evacuated partly due to Arab orders. So do numerous other sources we quote in this article. I suppose you are going to say they should all be removed because all the evidence disagrees with the scholarly interpretation of the event? That doesn't make sense, now does it? Screen stalker 13:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

GHcool - I don't have anything by Karsh, so I can only go by the clips provided. But Karsh Quote 2 is really pretty damaging to his credibility. The qualifier you've added is appreciated, but it's trivial (we know that the protected civilians of al-Fallujah were beaten from their homes, right in front of the eyes of international observers, so he has to admit some of it went on). We have Morris's listing of all the villages, we have several other detailed listings - where is the equivalent from the deniers, that Karsh is presumably quoting?

I'll take back what I said that "if Karsh taught this to students he'd have a riot on his hands", it would very much depend on what sort of students he teaches. London hosts lots of foreign students, some of them may arrive already wedded to denial for all I know. I can see no valid reason to object to Karsh being in the article and may never have such reason - the UK doesn't have Finkelstein, who's not yet been hounded from the US.

Now I've answered your questions so candidly, are you going to answer mine, starting with "Where does Karsh get the idea that most Palestinians fled under orders from their own?" PR 18:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

For GHcool to answer your question would violate WP:OR. We don't repeat reserach of valid sources, we simply report it. We've given you an established, credible source. this is simple edit-warring. --Steve, Sm8900 18:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I now realize that you did say "I know. I can see no valid reason to object to Karsh being in the article and may never have such reason." I appreciate your constructive approach and open manner in this regard. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 19:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, I think it's simpler than that. i think PR isa saying the following.

• Karsh is defending the pro-Israel viewpoint.
• The pro-Israel viewpoint is not credible or valid, and would not be defended by any legitimate professor.
• therefore Karsh is not a legitimate professor.

that's my opinion on this discussion. --Steve, Sm8900 18:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Sm8900 - I'm still waiting to discover Karsh's listing (or the listing he's working from) that shows which villages/towns were emptied by orders from Arab leaders. Morris gives 5 villages and part of Haifa so emptied - that's from 390 locations he has listed, of which he has details for something like 352. The actual numbers who fled Haifa ahead of it's ethnic cleansing mean that the number of refugees from this case may be 5% (or slightly more, according to Morris in interviews since). But there's no way it can match the sense of what Karsh is saying - so where did he get his information from? If he provides no references, and no evidence he did the work himself, that would make (some of) his published work most unscholarly. That last would be odd, when he's an academic, but these things can happen. (I've fixed your indenting again, I'm not sure why it's gone all over the place). PR 11:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Khalidi etc.

Just made a separate section for this. For clarity. --JaapBoBo 21:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Khalidi

JaapBoBo,
Given you go on, I will hard my discourses.
1. He reprinted his article in 1988 after reading Morris and again in 2005. He didn't correct this. He could have. He keeps manipulating events.
2. "probably" ? No, he is right but even you was trapped by his wordings. He just forget to mention 7 out of the 8 were around Jerusalem. And the 8th one, Ben'Ami aimed at reaching the lebanese border by the way the Lebanese army was expected to enter the territory, right to Haifa, the aim of the arab offensive, for what IDF thought.
3. He refers to his famous 13 operations of Plan Daleth. What happended after was not planned or foreseen. The Yishuv was not aware of the exact zone where the fights would arise between IDF and Arab armies.
4. An neutral historian gives all the aims and would not forget that very important one. Only propagandists
5. This is not an israeli version, this is the historical version. Sorry for that.
As a consequence,

• Given Khalidi is obvioulsy more biaised than Karsh
• Given JaapBoBo argue to remove Karsh comment due to bias,
• Given JaapBoBo deleted several Karsh analysis on a weaker base that this one,

I removed all Khalidi edits until we find an agreement on the talk page. Alithien 06:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Alithien, I find your arguments quite weak:

1. not changing it is the way scientific journals handle this. It has nothing to do with Khalidi's alleged bad intentions.

2. was there no attack on Jaffa, in the Palestinian territory? around Jerusalem?, when they wanted to make a corridor from Jerusalem in the direction of Tel Aviv?

3. That's true (i.e. that he didn't include the next phase, after May 15). But he is frank about that.

4. You can say that of all historians, depending on your pov.

5. I'm not behaving worse than you. I'm after the truth!!

But, in general, I prefer to discuss about specific texts and quotes in the article, rather than doing this exercise here.

--JaapBoBo 21:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

4. So Karsh is not more pov-ed than any other. Good.

5. If you take the "quote" in respecting this context, that is not bad. Alithien 13:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

4. Alithien: So Karsh is not more pov-ed than any other. Good. Not in my pov; of the historians who have recently published he is the most pov-ed! --JaapBoBo 19:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Flapan

In The debate about 1948, Journal of Palestine Studies (1995), Avi Shlaim considers that Flapan has a political agenda. We cannot leave the article be biaised by the mind of people having political agendas. We have to be honnest and remove any quote from them that is not corroborated by other sources. Alithien 06:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, let's conform to Misplaced Pages policy. --JaapBoBo 21:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to exclude all historians with a political agenda then we should start with Schechtman, Karsh, Katz. The New historians are in a lighter category, but it is possible that all of them have a political agenda. By the way, having a political agenda doesn't automatically mean that they are not reliable.

But political agenda is not the point. The reliability of the text/quotation should be considered. --JaapBoBo 21:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't mix things.

You want to exclude Karsh.

Alithien 13:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Pappé

Morris reported several mistakes reported by Pappé on this topic. Not even considered a "potential" bias, people could wonder if Pappé 'distraction' doesn't prevent him to be considered as a reliable source for this article. Will JaapBoBo be consistent with his methods ?

"So no reader should be surprised to discover that, according to Pappe, the Stern Gang and the Palmach existed "before the revolt" of 1936 (they were established in 1940-1941); that the Palmach "between 1946 and 1948" fought against the British (in 1947-1948 it did not); that Ben-Gurion in 1929 was chairman of the Jewish Agency Executive (he was chairman from 1935 to 1948); that the Arab Higher Committee was established "by 1934" (it was set up in 1936); that the Arab Legion did not withdraw from Palestine, along with the British, in May, 1948 (most of its units did); that the United Nations' partition proposal of November 29, 1947 had "an equal number of supporters and detractors" (the vote was thirty-three for, thirteen against, and ten abstentions); that the "Jewish forces better equipped" than the invading Arab armies in May, 1948 (they were not, by any stretch of the imagination); that the first truce was "signed" on June 10, 1948 (it was never "signed," and it began on June 11); that in August, 1948 "the successful Israeli campaigns continued, leading to their complete control of Palestine, apart from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip" (the Second Truce prevailed during August and September, and warfare was resumed only in mid-October); that the Grand Mufti fled Palestine in 1938 (he left in October, 1937); that the Hebrew University of Jerusalem was "built ... in 1920" (it was founded in 1925 and constructed during the following decades); that Tel Aviv was "founded ... on a Saturday morning in July 1907" (it was in 1909); that the late nineteenth-century Zionist pioneers known as the Biluim established "the first Zionist settlements in Palestine" (they did not), and that they "were led" by Moshe Lilienblum and Leon Pinsker (they were not); that "the Israeli Foreign Office ... translated into Hebrew in a way that implied that it did not have to withdraw from all the territories it had occupied " (the resolution, in the uthoritative English original, speaks of withdrawal "from territories," not "the territories" or "all the territories"); that in 1979 there were "1.8 million refugees" in Lebanon, and in 1982 "well beyond two million" (on both dates the number was around two hundred thousand); that Black September, the Jordanian crackdown against the PLO, took place in 1969 (it was in 1970); that the first settlements in the West Bank were established in 1968 (they were established in 1967); that there was an anti-Hashemite "uprising" in Jordan in 1956 (there were anti-Hashemite or anti-Baghdad Pact riots in Jordan in 1955, but not an uprising); that "the negotiations on alestine's future produced three documents: the Husayn-McMahon correspondence, the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration" (only the last focused on Palestine's future); that "in September 1918 the north of Palestine was taken quietly " (it was taken in battle, the Battle of Armaggedon or Meggido); that "300 Jews" and a similar number of Arabs were killed. the Arab rioting of 1929 (just over one hundred Jews and a similar number of Arabs died); and so on and on and on."

Benny Morris, Politics by other means, The New Republic, March 2004. So what JaapBoBo. These are details ? Not relevant ? In comparison with Karsh ? I suggest you be logical with yourself and immediately delete any material from such a bad reporter of facts. Alithien 06:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I've hesitated to say this before, because I spent good money on Illan Pappe's "Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" - but I'm disappointed with it. It is only borderline scholarly, less impressive than some websites (eg www.jewsagainstzionism.com). Morris's list of faults is pretty damaging (all we now need is User:GHcool doing the same to Finkelstein!). Everybody note, I've provided lots of quotes from different books in different TalkPages - but I've never used a single one from Pappe's book. I was waiting for someone to tell me it wasn't very good. (I've printed out the text above, I'll put the sheet inside the book for next time I pick it up!). PR 19:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Pappé is extremly hard to read with distance because he too =openly= lets his pov guides his writing.

This is sad for what the *historical* ideas he defends.

I am happy everybody agrees that all historians are poved. Alithien 13:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to make up my mind about Pappé. He may be wrong on some details, but I have no reason to doubt his reliability when he refers to primary documents. --JaapBoBo 20:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This response from Pappé to Morris (]) is quite convincing. My impression is that Pappé did make some mistakes, but that Morris 'invented' some more. Besides the quotation provided by Alithien don't indicate a pro-Palestinian bias. --JaapBoBo 21:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Benny Morris

In an interview of Benny Morris titled Survival of the fittest, this latter argues that :

• The 800 arab palestinian who were massacred during the 1948 events is pinuts in comparison of other massacres such as in Bosnia.
• Ben Gurion was right to expel the Palestinians but should have done more and conquer the West Bank at the time and expel all Palestinians from there.

More, the historian Ilan Pappé considers Benny Morris is biaised by his racism.
More, Prof Finkelstien in 2 long articles detailed all the bias of Benny Morris
JaapBoBo, please, proceed. Alithien 07:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

To add to Alithien's first point, 800 is the maximum estimate, and is peanuts compared to massacres against Jews in Palestine at the time. I'm not advocating an eye for an eye, but it's not ethnic cleansing either. Screen stalker 13:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Screen stalker,

I don't share 100% Morris mind here.

to answer you, this is extremely much in comparison of the massacre of jews during the war; I think it is an underestimation (he only counts the total of victims of major massacres) but should forget the small executations everywhere.

As Pappé state in the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (chap2 or 3?), the numbers do not have to be counted in absolute but relatively to the population. 800 / 2,000,000 that sounds already more much like Sebrenica 5000 / 10,000,000...

But whatever, Morris should explain to the familly of the victims they are "pin uts" and to his 4,000,000 neighbours who have lived in refugees camps for 50 years that they should have been expelled even more...

Alithien: My second point is that JaapBoBo have been caught two times is not quoting properly Khalidi and then Morris, each time picturing the matter worsely for Israeli.

This accusation is abit vague. --JaapBoBo 21:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

1. .

2.

From my point of view, the first one only indicate you should read more books with a pro-israli pov, just to understand their feelings. That help to read a neutral way all these historians. You see, for Khalidi, the 100,000 jewish of Jerusalem are "pin-ut".Alithien 07:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Alithien - you probably owe JaapBoBo an apology, it's likely that neither of your diffs show what you claim. On Khalidi, I'm pretty sure that 8 of the first 13 of these operations were outside the area set aside for the Yishuv. (though I can't find the clip now). That matches JaapBoBo's version (and presumably, Khalidi's intent), it does not match your version.

And you're quite wrong over the Benny Morris diff (7th Oct). JaapBoBo hasn't just edited in a distorted clip from the book, it was there already and had been since at least Dec 2006. Earlier that day you've made this edit to make the entry on "Birth Revisited" more specific and added the page number, you failed to correct the problem (in fact, it's almost you who has created a problem!). Earlier (1st Oct), I did quite a re-vamp of this section, but without changing that part. PR 18:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

PS - Morris has either had a change of brain-chemistry and changed dramatically from being a careful historian to being a rabid race-hater, or else he's under really heavy pressure to prove he's a good Israeli and try to undo some of the immense damage his books have done. My money is on the latter - but we won't know unless and until he is forced from his job and homeland and can speak freely again. PR 19:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

For Morris, that is correct he didn't create the problem.

But For Khalidi, I am 100% right.

Alithien 13:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thx PalestineRemembered, I fully agree with you. As for Khalidi: the 'goals' and 'results' in the table are his pov; but I wrote 'according to Khalidi' above the table. --JaapBoBo 20:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein revisited

JaapBoBo's last post on Finkelstein:

Returning to the subject. GHCool, you are accusing me of boycotting Karsh, yet I leave the less extreme pieces of Karsh in. On the other hand you are blocking everything I'd like to add from Finkelstein.

Further you (GHCool and ScreenStalker) are talking about all criticism as if it is equal. It's not. The criticism on Karsh is certainly much more severe than that on Finkelstein. In fact in our argument on Finkelstein you haven't shown proof of his unreliability. Karsh work is very one-sided and simply aimed at driving through his point. Finkelstein is much more honest. --JaapBoBo 19:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

GHCool's response to JaapBoBo's last post on Finkelstein:

For criticism of Finkelstein, look no further than The Case for Peace: How the Arab-Israeli Conflict Can Be Resolved by Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz devotes nearly an entire chapter of the book to criticisms of Finkelstein's scholarship and conduct. I won't quote the whole chapter, but here's the first paragraph on Finkelstein:

"Finkelstein is a transient academic who describes himself as 'in exile' at DePaul University because he has been-by his own account-'thrown out of every school in New York.' The former chairman of the political science department at one such college told me that Finkelstein was fired for 'incompetence,' 'mental instability' and 'abuse' of students with politics different from his own."

The rest of the chapter is devoted to criticism of actual scholarly misconduct and intimidation that I'm happy to quote here, but fear that it wouldn't make much of a dent since I've brought up the same points in earlier arguments and they didn't change anybody's minds before. Dershowitz isn't the only critic of Finkelstein. Dershowitz cites criticisms by Peter Novik (author of The Holocaust in American Life) and Leon Wieseltier and others. Since The Case For Peace was published, there has been even more criticism of Finkelstein, which I would be happy to find upon request. --GHcool 06:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein devastated the reputation of Joan Peters's (or her book "From Time Immemorial", anyway) with his analysis, later picked up and accepted by most (I think, prove me wrong). Finkelstein then caught Dershowitz copying whole-sale from the Peters book .... and Dershowitz has clearly cheated hideously over Finkelstein's mother (and lots of other stuff). However, Dershowitz has produced *nothing* like that on Finkelstein - which is why he comes out with this highly personalised abuse of him. I don't understand why GHcool chooses to repeat this personal abuse, as doesn't belong on these pages against anyone, let alone a victim of modern McCarthyism. PR 18:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets look at the text with Finkelstein reference that I want to include:

Furthermore Finkelstein argues that transferist thinking is close to the core of Zionist thinking. According to Finkelstein Zionism claims for the Jews a prevalent right to Israel, their historical homeland, and accedes the Arabs only rights as incidental residents.. He writes: 'the mainstream Zionist movement never doubted its 'historical right' to impose a Jewish state through the 'Right of Return' on the indigenous Arab population of Palestine.' and 'Zionism's claim to the whole of Palestine ... called into question any Arab presence in Palestine.'

Now I don't think the Dershovitz claims say anything at all about the reliability of this text (all kind of vague accusations, it makes me rather wonder what kind of chap Dershovitz is). So, in case you cannot offer anything better and conforming to wikipedia policy to exclude this text I will put it in. --JaapBoBo 21:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to thank JaapBoBo for starting a new section. I've taken the liberty of moving his post where he claims, "The criticism on Karsh is certainly much more severe than that on Finkelstein." This statement was probably made in ignornace, as can be seen by the above from Dershowitz, Novik, and Wieseltier. I'd rather not get into a pissing contest about which scholar is the most criticized. I don't feel its very productive to the article. I hope that JaapBoBo feels the same way.

To comment on the text JaapBoBo wants to include, it looks vague at best and just plain parroting of propoganda at worst. I would say that for all intents and purposes, Finkelstein is not much more than a glorified layman who read a lot of books and deliberately misinterpreted and misrepresented them. His credentials do not meet the standards of any of the other scholars cited in this article (including Khalidi, who I respect even if I don't agree with his conclusions). He is basically a writer of a polemic book; nothing more, nothing less. I proposed that we include all writers of all polemic books and include Finkelstein as well. This proposal has not yet been accepted, but it also has not yet been rejected. The proposal is still on the table. The other offer, to find the reliable historian that Finkelstein cites in his book (his name escapes me, but I remember it started with a "G") and quote him instead, was also neither accepted nor rejected. That offer is also still on the table. I feel like I am being more than reasonable here by giving not just one, but two options for compromise. All JaapBoBo has to do is pick one of the two and he will essentially get what he wants. --GHcool 05:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for GHcoolGHcool to provide *any* evidence that Finkelstein has been found to cheat or be unreliable in any way. In fact, this has gone on for so long, and so many requests have gone unanswered, that I'm coming to wonder if our colleague doesn't have any such evidence, and his persistent attacks on Finkelstein are entirely about "poisoning the well". (There's other nonsense in that post, but lets get the major bar to using an author out of the way first). PR 17:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel as though I've met PalestineRemembered's challenge several times already. People believe all kinds of illogical things and it is often difficult for them to let go of these beliefs despite the extreme unlikeliness of their validity. Therefore, I am no longer interested in proving that Finkelstein is a charleton since no amount of proof seems to satisfy PalestineRemembered. I am only interested in either compromise or keeping the status quo. I've given two options for compromise. We patiently await a response. --GHcool 20:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I favor keeping Finkelstein's material. We need some way to provide materials and viewpoints from acknowledged sources on both sides of this issue. --Steve, Sm8900 21:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sm8900, would you than be in favor of keeping all other materials and viewpoints from all other sources? That was the compromise I proposed. --GHcool 22:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It must be increasingly clear that there is nothing whatsoever on Finkelstein's scholarship - so careful has he been forced to be that there's virtually not a single crack in his logic and fact-finding. Which makes it even more extraordinary that there are still people trying to stop us quoting from him. Even while quoting Katz and Schechtman, both of them extremely sloppy in comparison (and in Schechtman's case, published hate-speech and easily disproved lies). PR 10:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, how about we simply be accepting of other people's sources? there's no quid pro quo here. Let's simply start accepting others' sources, and they'll accept ours.

Is there any doubt that there are many Palestians who condemn everything which Israel does? And are fullly convinced that all logic, all facts, and all history is one their side? then why do you act surprised when they say so? I don't get mad when palestinians use sources which completely negate any Israeli justifications. I expect them to do so. Then i find my own sources which add the pro-Israel viewpoint. --Steve, Sm8900 13:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

OMG is Finkelstein a charleton? I hope not. That would be terrible. --Nickhh 22:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It sounds to me like Sm8900 accepts my proposal that we use all authors including Finkelstein and including any other relevant sources that anybody might come across. I am perfectly happy with this course of action. Is that what we all agree upon? --GHcool 23:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, I agree with that. --Steve, Sm8900 13:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Do not agree. WP:RS is not a bazar where authors merits can be bartered on. pedro gonnet - talk - 12.10.2007 07:14

Pedro Gonnet, that's exactly what we are not suggesting. We are suggesting creating a more accpeting atmospehre for all authors and sources, not bartering over this one and that one. --Steve, Sm8900 13:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

We should apply Misplaced Pages policy to every referenced text to be included in the article. In that sense I agree with GHCool that we should treat every author the same way, i.e. with the same standards. The evaluation must be made for every individual case, so I don't want to connect GHCools admittance of Finkelstein to my admittance of whatever source GHCool want's to use. But GHCool, you can rely on me to apply the same standards to all sources. --JaapBoBo 20:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As to GHCool arguments:

To comment on the text JaapBoBo wants to include, it looks vague at best and just plain parroting of propoganda at worst. I would say that for all intents and purposes, Finkelstein is not much more than a glorified layman who read a lot of books and deliberately misinterpreted and misrepresented them. His credentials do not meet the standards of any of the other scholars cited in this article (including Khalidi, who I respect even if I don't agree with his conclusions). He is basically a writer of a polemic book; nothing more, nothing less.

It's not a vague text, but instead it's quite clear. Finkelstein is also not a layman on this subject. He wrote his PhD thesis, 'From the Jewish Question to the Jewish State', on it, which was endorsed by Princeton University. So actually he is an expert on this matter! He also has excellent credentials. DePaul has acknowledged that he is a good teacher and a productive scientist. GHCool has brought accusations by the Zionist lobby, but nothing against his reliability. If Finkelstein were unreliable I would expect the Zionist lobby to have shown it to us by now, but they haven't. In Misplaced Pages policy I can find nothing against him that would prohibit him from being included as a source. --JaapBoBo 20:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo, when you speak of a Zionist lobby, who or what exactly are you speaking about? If by "Zionist lobby" you are referring to Jews worldwide, your arguments sound like those of a mad man. If by "Zionist lobby" you are referring to legitimate political action committees who lobby Congress in support of Israel, your arguments still sound mad because it presupposes that these groups care about the tenure or denial of tenure of one insignificant professor. These political action committees have much bigger fish to fry and do so on a daily basis. --GHcool 23:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The Zionist lobby has enough money to start something against Finkelstein too. And for them Finkelstein is not insignificant. In fact on the long term he is very dangerous for them because he is exposing their schemes and the way they want the American public to view Israel and the Palestinians. In the matter of Iraq the American public now realises they've been had by the Bush administration and public opinion has reverted almost 180 degrees. Something similar might happen with the American policy with regard to Israel and the Palestinians.

If you really think he is insignificant why do you want to block him? --JaapBoBo 16:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed a failure to define "the Zionist lobby" even when asked directly. It makes me wonder if JaapBoBo truly knows what he is referring to. Such is the case with many conspiracy theorists. They know some evil, all-powerful entity is trying to get them, but if you ask them who it is or what their tactics are, the logic of the argument gets fuzzy and the stupidity of the argument gets magnified. This appears to be such a case.

To answer JaapBoBo's direct question at me (something JaapBoBo seems too cowardly to do with my direct questions), I have been saying all along that I want to block NF because he is insignificant. The question reveals the answer. I would never be so stupid as to ask JaapBoBo the opposite question, "If you really think that NF is signinificant, then why do you want to include him?" because it would reveal more about myself and my ability to construct arguments and have a meaningful dialogue than it does about NF's significance or JaapBoBo's answer. --GHcool 17:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The truth is that you are trying not to answer my direct questions. You are trying to avoid a meaningful dialogue, because you know you cannot win with the arguments you have. I ask you again and again to give me reasons why I shouldn't use Finkelstein as a source according to Misplaced Pages policy. Yet you fail to give a reason. Even if Finkelstein is insignificant (which he is not) that doesn't make the text I want to include based on him as a source insignificant.

So, since we agreed to follow Misplaced Pages policy I will include the Finkelstein quote. --JaapBoBo 15:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I just picked up a copy of Image and Reality at my local library. I started reading the relevant chapter ("'Born of War, Not by Design:' Benny Morris's 'Happy Median' Myth") last night. I promised myself before beginning the chapter that I would try my hardest to keep an open mind. I will reserve my comments on the chapter until after I finish it. I urge JaapBoBo not to push NF's inclusion in this article because I can guarantee that my answer will be the same at least until the time I finish the chapter. Who knows? Maybe I'll fall in love with NF by the time I finish it. --GHcool 17:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The quote is from page 12-16. chapter 1. --JaapBoBo 19:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

GHcool's opinion on the relevant passages from Image and Reality

I just read chapter 1, pages 12-16 and Chapter 3, pages 51-68 of Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict by Norman G. Finkelstein (1995 edition). The first thing I noticed was that it was published by Verso Books, a far left publishing house not known for the academic standards that one would expect from Osprey Publishing (Karsh's publisher), Cambridge University Press (Morris's publisher), or even John Wiley & Sons (Alan Dershowitz's publisher). Just as I expected, all of the arguments that Norman Finkelstein (hereby abbreviated to "NF") brings up are from selected secondary sources. He never quotes primary sources unless they are the same quoted in a secondary source. This leads me to think that NF has never examined any primary sources for himself and perhaps does not know how to read or speak Arabic or Hebrew (the "Acknowledgements" page supports this hypothesis).

NF takes the illogical stance that anything that a Zionist leader or publication has ever said "cannot be trusted" unless, of course, that Zionist leader or publication is saying something damning to the pro-Israel argument. NF is correct in saying that official Zionist documents must be evaluated with a critical eye, but it is downright arrogant to say that Morris doesn't know or didn't practice this basic tenent of the historical method. Other things I found were instances of creating false dichotomies (pg. 58), putting words into Morris's mouth (59-60, 62), comparisons of the Palestinian exodus to the Holocaust (59), conclusions that do not follow from NF's stated premises (60), oddly placing events that happened in the 1920s and 1930s in the context of the 1948 Palestinian exodus (12-16), treating the Zionists (and especially Ben-Gurion) as though they were a homogeneous group of fascists (15), and what seems to me to be purely inventing things out of thin air or at least talking about something he doesn't really understand (176, footnote 18).

Anyway, my opinion of NF has not changed. Everything I've read by him begs the question. His scholarship amounts to, "I know Israel is bad, now let's see if I can prove it," when the correct attitude, the attitude Morris and other serious historians have taken, is publish whatever conclusion all of the evidence lead to. To me, NF's criticism of Morris is like a D student in algebra class telling a calculus professor that he doesn't do derivatives correctly. He doesn't walk the walk and, in the opinion of most experts in the field and the tenure committee at DePaul University, he doesn't talk the talk. I do not recommend him to be in this article unless we allow any other "questionable" sources such as Alan Dershowitz and Joan Peters. --GHcool 06:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you reading finkelstein to get a better basis for your opinion. Of course I don't agree with you on most things you say, and the relevance you attribute to them. Let me give you some of my arguments:

As to Finkelstein's sources for chapter 1, you might want to read note 2 on page 173. Chapter 1 is based on finkelstein's PhD-thesis, endorsed by Princeton University. As to his source for chapter 3, he clearly says that he wants to criticise the work of Morris based primarily on weaknesses inside his work (primarily Birth, 1948 and an article in Tikkun). And he did read the primary sources for that, these two books and the article, very attentively. Besides that he is referring to other primary sources like Palumbo and Flapan.

As to Finkelstein not being able to read or speak Arabic or Hebrew, I don't think that is relevant. And by the way Morris doesn't read or speak Arabic either.

As to some of your allegations against Finkelstein (he's arrogant, he compares the exodus to the Holocaust, he treats Zionists as fascists) I don;t think they are relevant. And by the way, comparisons with fascism are not that strange, because there are some similarities, e.g. both fascism and zionism spring from 19th century European romanticism, both base themselves on strong group (national or religious) feelings and both claim a certain piece of land for this group.

As to your accusations on Finkelsteins inadequate scholarship:

• DePaul University has acknowledged Finkelstein's prolific scholarship.
• Probably the things in chapter 1 are really well understood by Finkelstein, because he spend four years researching them. You only spend one evening, and you think you know it better.

As to your allegations of 'creating false dichotomies (pg. 58), putting words into Morris's mouth' etc. I'd rather not go into that right now, but you can be assured that if I want to incorporate a text with Finkelstein as a source and you can show that the text I want to insert is not reliable because of one of these reasons, I will not insert the text.

Right now I'd prefer to focus on the text I want to insert:

Furthermore Finkelstein argues that transferist thinking is close to the core of Zionist thinking. According to Finkelstein Zionism claims for the Jews a prevalent right to Israel, their historical homeland, and accedes the Arabs only rights as incidental residents.. He writes: 'the mainstream Zionist movement never doubted its 'historical right' to impose a Jewish state through the 'Right of Return' on the indigenous Arab population of Palestine.' and 'Zionism's claim to the whole of Palestine ... called into question any Arab presence in Palestine.'

I think it describes Finkelsteins position in chapter 1 well and it comes from a reliable source.

--JaapBoBo 07:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess none of this Finkelstein back-and-forth matters much anymore now that there's a whole section on Pappe. Although I disagree with Pappe's conclusions and his politics, I don't plan on taking a hard line on his research because I understand and accept that he is generally respected even though he isn't neutral (much like Karsh on the other end of the spectrum). I will not put up much of a fight to exclude Pappe from this article. In my opinion, Pappe's analysis and reputation is much more powerful and much more relevant to this discussion than Finkelstein's. Finkelstein seems very fond of Pappe's research and echoes it numerous times in Image and Reality, so more echoing might just be redundant. Perhaps the fight for one Finkelstein paragraph can be dropped now that Pappe is so well represented. --GHcool 19:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying you agree to have Finkelstein in? --JaapBoBo 07:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not. I don't know, nor do I care, how you could have arrived at that conclusion. I am saying that Finkelstein's stuff is now redundant and unnecessary when Pappe's research is presented in the article. --GHcool 17:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the quote is highly relevant. --JaapBoBo 18:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

sterling qualities for which Finkelstein has become famous: erudition, originality, spark, meticulous attention to detail, intellectual integrity, courage, and formidable forensic skills."–Avi Shlaim, Professor of International Relations, Oxford University ] --JaapBoBo 19:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope you're not trying to start a war of endoresements. This tactic will work against your argument and is futile anyway because nothing will change my mind about Finkelstein's reliability in comparison to the other sources quoted. You have Pappe, who says more or less the same thing. Finkelstein is redundant and unnecessary. --GHcool 19:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein says something completely different from Pappe, and something highly relevant. Now please don't revert again untill you have given a good argument in line with wikipedia policy. --JaapBoBo 20:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I want to ask mediation: ], ]. Are you willing to try this? --JaapBoBo 20:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to try this on condition that you do not add Finkelstein again at least until the mediation process is complete. If anybody else adds Finkelstein into the article during the mediation, I will revert it and I will expect you to respect such a revert. --GHcool 21:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Finkelstein's commentary here merits inclusion I'm not sure, since it would depend on whether or not he has something unique to say in regards to this particular issue, and I'm not sure he does. In regards to F.'s status as a reliable source however, there should be no argument about that. F. most certainly qualifies. He is one of the most high-profile scholars on the Arab-Israeli question, he has received plaudits from other greatly respected experts in the field (see Schlaim's endorsement above, or that of Raul Hilberg who supported his work and said he would be "vindicated" by history), and he has written best selling books on the conflict that have been praised both inside and outside academia and translated into multiple languages. His book A Nation on Trial was named a notable book for 1998 by the New York Times. His latest book "Beyond Chutzpah" was published by the University of California Press after perhaps the most thorough peer review of any book on the conflict ever. These achievements demonstrate that he is unquestionably a reliable source in Misplaced Pages terms.

In spite of this however, some pro-Israeli editors have seized upon his recent denial of tenure as a rationale for trying to exclude him as a source on the grounds that this failure has somehow discredited his scholarship. This is simply not the case. DePaul did not question the quality of his scholarship. In fact, it endorsed him as "a prolific writer and outstanding teacher". F. was denied tenure only because someone didn't like his attitude. But there is nothing in Wiki policies that disqualify sources on the basis of some alleged flaws of personality. It's only the reliability of their scholarship that matters, and F. has no shortage of endorsements in that regard. Gatoclass 03:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

@GHCool: of course I promise that. --JaapBoBo 17:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Gatoclass - Finkelstein, son of two real Holocaust survivors, delivers scholarship even when his words are commentary ... "there is something wrong when the United States has a museum devoted to what Germany did to the Jews, but it does not have a museum devoted to what America did to its native population - the expulsion and extermination of the Native Americans. It does not have a museum devoted to what was done to Africans brought over here as slaves, yet it has a museum about what happened in Europe. What would Americans think if Germany, in its capital, were to create a museum commemorating slavery in the United States, commemorating the extermination of Native Americans, but no museum devoted to the Nazi Holocaust? Of course, Americans would say that's pure hypocrisy. Well, we are now guilty of the same hypocrisy." PR 21:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on handling authors and referenced texts

The discussion on this page is becomming a bit messy. I propose we discuss specific texts that editors want to add or delete, instead of authors. Of course the reputation of the author can also be discussed in such cases. But we should focus on the reliability of the content of the text. --JaapBoBo 22:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right.

Discussing the reputation or reliability of the authors cannot lead anywhere.

What is particular in this subject is that all authors are controversed and the way or the other blame by their pairs.

From Schechtman to Khalidi, passing through Gelber, Morris, Flapan or Pappé, all are more or less biaised because the subject cannot leave anybody indifferent. Alithien 07:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, 150%, with Alithien. I consider some Palestinian historians totally biased and unfounded, but I intend to respect them and accept them as representatives of one genuine side of this issue if they are legitimare. I would hope that legitimate academics of a pro-Israel viewpoint would be similary respected. That is the path to true compromise, balance and cooperation. i respect the Palestinian side, even in parts where I may totally disagree with it. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Object - but some wind-ups are so transparent that even I can recognise them. We're in no position to assess the reliability of particular claims - ArbCom and Jimbo would howl us out for doing that. Even they'll not look into "Content Disputes" as you're suggesting we do.

However, if we're fit to be editors here, we can and must assess the reliability of authors. And I don't mean "their controversies", I mean the general scholarship of their work, and (maybe) any claim they've cheated. There will still be mistakes in there (Karsh bizarrely accuses Morris of correcting one of those in a 2nd edition) - but the general reputation of an author is absolutely central to using them.

I do, of course, have the entire weight of academia behind me - and I even have User:GHcool, since he'd be outraged if any of us quoted David Irving, or the IHT or Garaudy (people thinking you've quoted the latter gets you instant accusations of being a Holocaust Denier and a perma-block). I'm not sure the latter's even been accused of cheating, he's "only* been fined for denial. (Sorry, I'm not prepared to sully my lily-white memory stacks by looking there, someone else will have to do it and tell me the results). PR 17:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You wrote:

However, if we're fit to be editors here, we can and must assess the reliability of authors. And I don't mean "their controversies", I mean the general scholarship of their work, and (maybe) any claim they've cheated. There will still be mistakes in there (Karsh bizarrely accuses Morris of correcting one of those in a 2nd edition) - but the general reputation of an author is absolutely central to using them.

Sorry, I'm not sure I agree. I do feel we can make sure thast an author is generally accepted and actually published. Is that what you also are saying? If so, I agree with you. I feel that if they are accepted by the academic community, the matter usually rests there. it's not our job to be a board of review, or to invalidate legitimately-published authors, or duly accredited researchers and academic professors. --Steve, Sm8900 18:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think what I've said is pretty clear (and some of it is the same as your paraphrasing). Can I please, please, ask you to indent in a regular fashion so I can follow what's going on? And never use blockquotes in Talk, they're bad enough in articles. Use italics instead and clip me back only the absolute minimum of what you need to be clear. PR 18:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. it sounds like we are in agreement on that. and if using some of those different formatting suggestions is a way for me to get closer to consensus on something here, then I am happy to do so. :-) thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 21:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

On the one hand, I agree that an author's work is what we should primarily be looking at. On the other hand, you cannot divorce an author's work from the author's credentials and reliability. Someone who, for example, makes a habit of denying historical facts (such as the Holocaust), should not be quoted. They discredit themselves as a reputable source. I'm open to changing the standards that I suggested, but I think it's unwise to altogether say we shouldn't have any standards for the author, and only for their work. Screen stalker 00:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you feel about Schechtman who has (apparently) written "Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands"?

I'd be very interested to discover if Morris ever used ethno-specific descriptions to apportion blame in his writings, I can't see him doing so. I'm pretty sure that the fact he now uses them in interviews is new and everything to do with what certain hate-spitting Israelis having belatedly woken up to what he's done. PR 11:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

PR, you want we establich a scale value of racism ?

Are you joking ?

Ask Pappé ! He is the one who claimed Morris is racist.

And if you think Morris is a good reference, let's remove Shlaim. Morris writes he is completely biaised. Alithien 12:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Screenstalker, your points are valid. i'm not saying to not have any standards. I'm saying that if someone did publish a book legitimately, we should be able to use material from it, and then simply find other sources to balance it with.

By the way, most palestinian sources will deny or somewhat revise the Holocaust. there are many of them who believe the Jewish Temple never stood in Jerusalem. Do you think Palestine Remembered's group feels there is a single ISraeli police or military action which was ever justified? Do you think PR considers Israel's action in any sphere justified? Then why do you feel surprised when Palestinians are so harsh on Israel, or Western society, or Jewish history? That is how their side feels. And they do not have much diversity of opinion. If we're going to reflect both sides here, we will need to use some sources which are rather harsh towards Israel, the West and tolerant approaches to history. --Steve, Sm8900 13:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Alithien - I'm not trying to establish a scale of racism - I'm saying that some examples of ethno-specific statements are so outrageous as to amount to hate-speech. At least one of Schechtman's statements in his books (and it was quoted here as if it was central to his argument) is so extreme as to amount to hate-speech. If this is the case, then we should remove him from any serious consideration in this article. Please tell me/us whether you agree with the first part or second parts of that thesis. (Note, Schechtman's statement also appears to me to be an outrageous falsehood, any documented pattern of that level of cheating should also perhaps be grounds for exclusion, but that's a different discussion).

User:Screen stalker - please consider and respond to the same thing I've put to Alithein immediately above.

I'm absolving Morris from discussion here - I don't really recognise his statements as being hate (correct me if I'm wrong), and I recognise the severe personal problems he now faces for what he's done to Israel. More than that, I'm not trying to say that simple racism (as often expressed by editors eg here) is grounds for automatic exclusion from the project. PR 09:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

>"I'm not trying to establish a scale of racism - I'm saying that some examples of ethno-specific statements are so outrageous as to amount to hate-speech"

In such discussions, the answer is alway the same : if this is so obvious, it should be easily sourced.

>"If this is the case, then we should remove him from any serious consideration in this article"

Well. If you can find a wikipedia policy that states that allegded racist historians cannot be quoted in wikipedia, let's removed this. You will apply this to all "alleged racist historians" on "all topcis" and we will see the result.

>"Please tell me/us whether you agree with the first part or second parts of that thesis"

You want me to tell you if I think Schechtman is racist and if he manipulated facts. All that I know is that Childers give arguments concerning this (and that I am quite convinced by what he said but we don't mind.). So let's report this, that is wikipedia policy.

And stop telling we cannot report lies. We report analysis. And when there are controversies, we report comments that these were lies and we report arguments of both sides, stating why this would be a lie, and why it would not be.

All this is just "censorship".

Alithien 11:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with Alithien, in the message above. --Steve, Sm8900 14:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Alithien - I agree that an allegation of "hate-speech" could and should be sourced (and I've not yet tried to do this). However, using other sources and allegations is not a system sufficient to control the use of dodgy sources of this kind - the only acceptable aim has to be the exclusion of hate-speech. We cannot allow a situation where (for instance) a Palestinian looks at a Misplaced Pages article and thinks "it's quoting as reliable a man who hates us and a man who believes (actually invented in Schechtman's case?) lies about us". (In this case we also have a problem because some sources, likely including Schechtman, studied their targets and took up the guns that ethnically cleansed the Palestinians, so they have a strong personal interest/CoI in denial on top of the other problems).

Furthermore, sourcing "allegations of hate-speech" is inadequate - how do we use that information? Use the clips, but add a rider that it comes from "notorious racist XXXXX"?

Answer, no, we cannot do that - we don't say - "notorious XXXX David Irving said that 300,000 were fire-bombed to death in Dresden" (from memory, the modern figure is something like 25,000). We exclude Irvings conclusions. I'm using Irving as an example because a) he's sued for defamation once, and lost, so he cannot do it again, b) because (more than anyone in this class) he's actually a fine researcher, and unearthed a lot of important material and c) because we all agree we'd not use him.

Furthermore, we already have a "controversial" category (people like Karsh, who seem to have no evidence for their claims, and maybe Pappe, because I don't see many references in "Ethnic Cleansing"). There's no way we can put those guys into the same box as real hate-sources, the only acceptable solution is to exclude the Irvings. (GHcool feels even more strongly on the last point than I do).

You mention policy - it would seem we don't have one on this, we just say "Thou shalt not do this". Remember, I was blocked indefinitely for supposedly quoting Garaudy, and everyone (including me) agreed that that was a crime against the project. Maybe we should document this policy, but you cannot claim we don't have one, we most certainly do. GHcool believes losing a court case renders someone beyond the pale - but David Ben Gurion (along with many other early top Israelis) served a prison term, so that doesn't work.

In the end, each of us is constantly making judgments about sources, and we're not going to agree about much in that respect. However, at some point we have to draw a line and say "No, this man is beyond the pale". We do it to Garaudy, and we should most definitely do it to Schechtman. He's more than "a racist", he's actually a practitioner of hate-speech (he effectively says "All Arabs hate Jews and will murder them if they get any chance"). He's lied to us, we know that Arabs didn't murder all Jews who fell into their hands (eg 1929 Hebron, 1948 Etzion Bloc). And lastly (something I've not previously mentioned), his (likely) personal participation in crimes against humanity means he has interests in denial. Our credibility is ruined by treating him as a historian.

I agree we sometimes end up treating lies as if they were true (or at least, we treat them as just a regular "point of view"). But we don't use sources we know to be so contaminated as to be worthless - I believe that the case against Schechtman is so overwhelming that we should reject him. Hatred, lies, and CoI - and not minor breaches either, serious breaches of all three. This is not censorship, this is consensus that we don't link ourselves to nastiness. PR 20:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem. WP:SOAPBOX. --GHcool 00:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Morris "Racism"

PR has often maintained that racist sources ought to be excluded from this article. He has further defined racist sources as ones who generalize an entire ethnicity, especially in such cases as they demonize it (correct me if I am wrong, PR).

In light of this standard, let us apply the same line of thinking to Morris, who said the following:

what befell the Palestinians was not “a moral crime,” whatever that might mean; it was something the Palestinians brought down upon themselves, with their own decisions and actions, their own historical agency.

It is quite true, and quite understandable, that the Israeli government during the war decided to bar a return of the refugees to their homes–to bar the return of those who, before becoming refugees, had attempted to destroy the Jewish state and whose continued loyalty to the Jewish state, if they were readmitted, would have been more than questionable. and In other words, the surge in thinking about transfer in the late 1930s among mainstream Zionist leaders was in part a response to the expulsionist mentality of the Palestinians, which was reinforced by ongoing Arab violence and terrorism.

Morris generalized Palestinians, and blamed them collectively for the 1948 exodus, even saying their innocence was no greater than Nazi collaborators. By PR's standards, that makes him a racist.

I don't think this merits his removal, but I want us to keep our standards for authors consistent: if PR calls for Schechtman to be removed for similar word choice, Morris should be removed as well for being a "hate author."

I want to make myself absolutely clear: I don't want to remove Morris. I just don't want this article to operate with double standards, one for anti-Israeli sources and another, much stricter for pro-Israeli sources. So which is it? Are hate sources in or out? Screen stalker 00:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

On a similar note, the term "racist" is used a little too often around here. A racist is somebody that believes that one race (usually their own) is superior to another race. I don't think any of the historians we quote in this article believe that their entire race is superior to any other race, rather their point of view on what caused the 1948 Palestinian exodus is superior than the point of view of other people. There is a major difference that really needs to be understood here. --GHcool 01:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It must be clear to all that any author who has written such outrageous and ethno-specific words as "Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands" should never be quoted in articles of the encyclopedia (except with a "health warning"). This is hate-speech fabrication several degrees worse than anything we can prove that David Irving was ever guilty of, and User:GHcool confirms we'd never, ever quote from Irving or his web-site.

Please note, I'm not using the words "racist" or "racism" I have not "often maintained that racist sources ought to be excluded from this article". but I also dispute the definition of it racism given above, and though I could have used those words to describe Schechtman (and Katz). Racism is all forms of racial and religious hatred, discrimination or incitement to the same - it's not necessarily linked to feelings of superiority. It is often associated with simple carelessness and may not amount to anything nasty.PR 11:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand NPoV.

If Schechtman wrote something, he should be quoted because it is important to understand the heart of the matter of the palestinian exodus. Not to know the truth (what truth ?) but to know what are the different explanations that were given and how they evolved.

Only pov-people *judge* comments.

Alithien 12:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

How irritating - I've just responded to you on the same topic at the end of the previous section! Please tell me what you think of the question/s I've put to you there. If, as I believe can be proved, Schechtman is a race-hater, then nothing he says about the Palestinian exodus is reliable. We're simply filling articles with propaganda and misleading our readers if we use him.

Please note, I am not on some useless crusade against racism. I've exclusively concerned myself with cases that I believe show race-hatred, prejudice/lies so extreme that they're either intended to, or liable to, incite violence, as I believe shows in Schechtman's case. PR 10:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

PR, if you are irritated by having to respond to Alithien's argument twice, just think how frustrating it is for me to have to fight the same battle with the same pro-expulsion, anti-EoF editors all the time... I just never hear any new arguments. My points remain unrefuted, whilst the same arguments and accusations rise up time and again. Case in point: conflict between sources doesn't mean one source needs to be removed from the article. Only someone who thinks in absolutes would be in favor of that.

Also, PR, wouldn't you agree that Morris' position in favor of transferring the Arabs out of Palestine, and his statements blaming them for their own exodus--event saying they were no less innocent than Nazi collaborators--make him a racist?

It's worth noting that Schechtman made a statement of fact. Statements of fact can be true (such as "no dogs have ten legs") or false (such as "all oranges are blue"). But they are not statements of opinion, such as what Morris said. Facts can't be racist; opinions can. BTW, I have found nothing to indicate that Schechtman was wrong. The two examples that you use over and over again don't apply because they weren't relevant to what he was writing about. Even if they were, you cannot seriously be implying that because two families gave shelter to a number of Jews that suddenly has some ramification on the entire conflict. Screen stalker 12:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

schectman...Morris...wait who are we arguing about here again? It's funny how everyone claims to be objective, and yet each has their favorite experts. Anyway, no, Morris is not a racist. he is an extremist. Plenty of commentators can be described that way. If that is how you feel, i suggest you qiote some of the many reputable Palestinian commentators who are wiling to take a stand against such commentators. And by the way, there are many Palestinians who appear to be race-haters to Israelis due to many of the views, including the belief that the Jewish State of Israel is an unfair imposition on Palestinians, and should be either erased or fundamentally changed. --Steve, Sm8900 13:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Screen stalker - as best I can tell, the reason you're facing "pro-expulsion, anti-EoF" editors all the time is that you're simply wrong. Various forms of expulsion account for between 90% and 95% of the Nakba. I've seen nothing substantive to undermine that - where are the lists of villages that self-emptied?

However, I'll leave that to others to argue at the moment. I'm more interested (as are many people here) in discussing how we decide who (from published sources) is reliable. David Irving wrote quite a number of books and started to make serious money from them (bought himself a house in a nice part of London and a Rolls Royce). But his peers in scholarship suspected him and increasingly, so did the public. Even more damaging, he was associated with hate. (After his reputation and earning power were already badly damaged, he sued Deborah Lipstad and lost, bankrupting himself).

I'm saying that Schechtman is in the same position - but a lot more so. Just a single line from his books (included in this article) is instant disqualification, hate-speech likely more extreme than we ever heard from Irving. (Also, I'm pretty sure, a falsehood more extreme than Irving, but I'll leave that aside).

If you or I were to quote David Irving in the encyclopedia, we'd face pretty much immediate exclusion. Not for the falsehoods, even though proved in court, but for hate-speech. I think the same thing applies to Schechtman.

Steve, Sm8900 - same goes to you. Morris couldn't possibly be in the same category as Schechtman. Morris could have made mistakes and he may (now) be expressing racism - but his dedication to scholarship comes and came first. (Actually, I think David Irving started with scholarship, he seems to have discovered how profitable it could be to pander to hatred). But Schechtman started in hatred and denial in 1949, while he still had his gun in his hand, writing pamphlets to justify dispossession and justify seizure of land. Using him contaminates the encyclopedia and his inclusion in this article renders it worthless. PR 15:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If that's how Schectman feels, why are you opposed to using a Zionist author who shows the full weight and scale of Zionist biased ideologies? you should be in favor of using him, as he is a much better indicator of the true historical roots of Zionism than any of these commentators here. (I'm not trying to be flippant or disingenuous here; i am areally asking.) --Steve, Sm8900 15:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Schechtman is not, and never was, a historian. He was either part of, or actually in, one of the violent gangs that robbed people. He was a propagandist first, and almost certainly never advanced atall, despite writing well-received books. We know that Schechtman promoted hatred. We should simply not quote such people, ever. By the sound of it, he's also been found cheating. Finkelstein never accuses Morris of that, Morris applied a biased reading to the documents in his hand, giving the Israelis the benefit of more doubt than a "neutral" observer would have done. (By comparison, Irving found documents and then seriously distorted what was in them - by the sound of it, Schechtman never had any documents or evidence in the first place, he simply invented them. PR 18:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The claim that "Schechtman is not, and never was, a historian" reflects ignorance at best and a willingness to lie at worst. One only needs to look at the Joseph Schechtman's wikipedia article for proof of the opposite. I urge all Misplaced Pages editors not to waste our time by making statements that are easily and embarrassingly falsifiable. Thank you. --GHcool 19:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

He was a polemicist and a some-time journalist, I'm more of a writer than he was: "In 1910 he published an article in the journal "Еврейский мир" (Jewish World)" - "In 1917, back in Odessa, he published pamphlets «Евреи и украинцы» (Jews and Ukrainians) and «Национальные движения в свободной России» (National Movements in the Free Russia)" - "From September 1922 he co-edited weekly Russian-language "Рассвет" (The Dawn) with Jabotinsky." - "In 1929-1931 he was the editor of Yiddish weekly "Der Noyer Veg" (The New Way) in Paris." - and that's about it.

From there he moved to planning the ethnic cleansing on which Zionism was based (as Finkelstein told us): "In 1943-1944 he was the director of Bureau for Study of Population Migration" - "1944-1945 he worked as a consultant on questions of the migration of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS)."

Quite unexpectedly, we know, just from seeing one tiny clip of his writings, that he was in the business of inciting hatred and nothing he says should be used in articles. Over and above that, it would appear he cheated for propaganda purposes. PR 20:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

PR, please don't use this discussion page as a soapbox. I've heard that you think there was ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians in 1948, and I don't buy it, so just leave it alone. You don't hear be talking day in and day out about all the ethnic cleansing that happened to Jews and Israelis at the hands of the Arab governments. I also restrict my discussion (or at least I try) to what is relevant to the article. So you don't see me filling up every post with all the details of why the exodus was caused by a failure of Palestinian leadership, collaboration of Palestinians with military forces, etc. Not to mention the fact that Jordan and Egypt treated the Palestinians more cruelly than Israel ever did. Where was the demand for Palestinian rights and a Palestinian state when Egypt and Jordan were ethnically cleansing the Palestinians?

Steve, you accusation that I do not want to include unreliable sources because I "know I'm wrong" is quite presumptuous. How do you know why I do what I do? Saying that 90-95% of the exodus was caused by some kind of expulsion all depends on your definition of expulsion. Should we consider it expulsion if a town was the site of a battle, and people fled in fear? Should we consider it expulsion if people flee because they hear of atrocities in nearby towns? A lot of people fled after hearing about the Deir Yassin Masscre without ever having actually seen an Israeli. Were they expelled. What? Did he call Dier Yassin a massacre? How can that be? He's pro-Israeli! Yes, but I'm also a human being, and I have compassion for those innocent lives who were lost that day. But you know what, that's what happens in war. In war people flee, because war sucks. It isn't ethnic cleansing. I am absolutely tired of all these baseless accusations. Why wasn't it ethnic cleansing when the Czechs kicked the Germans out, or when the Arabs kicked the Jews out, or when the Russians and the Ukrainians and Poles all kicked one another out? Why is everyone so selective in picking Israel out? The reason isn't that Israel did anything worse than any of these nations. It's that decades of propaganda have convinced people that Israel is some kind of monster, when really Israelis are just human beings who were suffering under the tribulations of war, and made the same mistakes that all people make in such times.

You know what, I know I just got on a soapbox, but I'm not even going to be apologetic about it. I am tired of all the personal attacks against me, and I am tired of the propaganda machine that keeps on spewing excuses for why only to include sources that support its POV.

Which leads me back to the subject at hand: Morris and Schechtman are on equal footing to be considered racists. PR, you never respond to my point regarding the difference between statements of fact and statements of opinion.

Also, I have got two yes or no questions for PR before I continue with the discussion. They really are yes or no questions, so please answer them with a "yes" or a "no." Feel free to elaborate, but I want an actual answer. (1) Do you think that Morris' remarks quoted above are racist? (2) Do you think that Morris' remarks quoted about are "hate-speech"? Screen stalker 01:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have criticized PalestineRemembered for soapboxing numerous times. It would be dishonest for me not to offer Screen stalker the same criticism for his/her remarks above. The Jewish expulsion from Arab lands, the occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt, the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank, and the unhealthy focus on the perceived flaws of the State of Israel are all wonderful points in a debate on the subject of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but they serve no purpose in the improvement of this article. PalestineRemembered has had difficulty in the past practicing the distinction between soapboxing for the benefit of his own ego and discussing the improvement of a given article for the benefit of all involved, but I hope his future posts will reform. I express the same sentiment towards Screen stalker's future posts, but with added faith that he/she will refrain from soapboxing as much as possible. --GHcool 05:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I try to avoid soapboxing, but Steve's personal attacks made that pretty much impossible, because he accused me of genuinely believing that ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians took place and of trying to cover it up. At any rate, I'll wait until PR answers my two questions before I re-enter this discussion. Screen stalker 22:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Screenstalker. I truthfully have no idea which comments of mine you're talking about. I don't think I ever have said that to you in any way. Is it possible that you have me mixed up with someone else? please let me know. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 03:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right, Steve. I misread your post. My apologies. Screen stalker 14:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

no problem at all. quite all right. thanks for your reply. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 14:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think PR is probably too busy defending himself from accusations of improper editing behavior to attend to this section and the questions I asked him. Really, my heart goes out to him because he is always the victim of these attacks, and many of them are fairly baseless.

At any rate, I think it is fair to say from the edits which he has already made that his answer to both of my questions above would have been "yes". So here is what troubles me: PR made the statement that hate authors ought to be excluded from the article not once but many times. This was an unqualified statement. He only added the restriction that the racism of the source must have been contemporary to its quotation once he found out that Morris was a hate source. In other words he set up a standard that the work of racists and those who use hate-speech should always be excluded and then modified this standard in order to allow for the inclusion of a source that he supports.

This sort of double standard is something that I see very often in the course of the edits of this article, and it's driving me crazy. We need to be consistent: either Schechtman and Morris are both in or they are both out. Screen stalker 23:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion we should follow Misplaced Pages standards. I'm not sure whether racism is explicitly in the standards, but I do think that a racist attitude makes a source less reliable. Morris's racism, if it exists, is much more subtle than that of Schechtman. Also the texts in the article, based on Morris don't show this racism. Schechtman's quote in the article on the contrary, shows it blatantly. But it is not primarily Schechtman's racism that makes him unacceptable to me. It's his unreliability. --JaapBoBo 07:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Screen stalker - excuse me, I'd not noticed your two questions to me, I will try to answer them. Yes, I believe Morris to be guilty of an ethno-specific discriminatory attitude (or perhaps more likely, has learnt to speak in racist ways in order to quieten the accusations of treason levelled at him by bitter Israelis). No, I do not believe he has ever expressed feelings of race-hatred, certainly not in his writings nor, I suspect, even in the increasingly blunt interviews he has given/been forced to give. Does that answer the question? PR 13:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is this article going?

Uhm, because this is the article Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus and not Zionist biased ideologies or true historical roots of Zionism, to quote you. This article should explain -- not discuss! -- the causes of the exodus and not be a platform for everybody's and anybody's unsubstantiated fringe theories on the topic. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 11.10.2007 15:31 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you kind of missed my point. If Schectman is the notable expert whom pro-Zionist editors wish to use, let them do so. From the pro-Palestinian point of view, this will only make it easier to make clear the true nature of Zionism. I am not trying to create a battlegroundl; i am pointing out that little is to be gained, by either side, in fighting over this or trying to block out another group's legitimate experts or credible sources. --Steve, Sm8900 15:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I think we're all forgetting what this article should be about... This should be a list of causes stating how many people left because of it and citing sources (which may be conflicting, mind you) to that effect, i.e. "Morris said that x₁ people left because of this and x₂ people left because of that, whereas Gelber states that y₁ people left because of this and y₂ left because of that". Not the current collection of half-arsed theories and pseudo-psychology regarding the Palestinian state of mind or illness thereof (regarding Schechtman).

Stick to the facts, the numbers (notice that the most controversial authors never actually cite numbers but prefer to float theories? It's because they have no numbers to back their theories...), source them, and the POVs disappear. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 11.10.2007 15:49

a good point, but sorry, i disagree. there are little or no hard numbers to use or quote here. the essence of this issue is differing historical views and realities, and conflicting approaches and viewpoints. --Steve, Sm8900 15:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, there are numbers. Morris' authoritative work is an excellent example of quantitative work in this area, and should be used as a main reference here. If anybody wants to push some wild theory, he/she should have to come forward with the numbers to back it up, and not with the collection of speculation, anecdotal evidence and hearsay which currently make up the better part of the article. pedro gonnet - talk - 11.10.2007 16:06

Statistics only measures effects, never causes (which everybody agrees this article should be about). Morris's statistics are an interesting and informative lens from which to view the 1948 Palestinian exodus, but they are hardly authoritative. It is also important to note that Morris comiled the statistics himself through documents and interviews written by humans, often with their own agenda. Morris's statistics do not exist somewhere in objective reality in the same way that statistics on the rates at which butterflies flap their wings exist in objective reality. Other researchers could and have looked at the same documents Morris used to compile his statistics and compiled their own differently. --GHcool 21:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's somewhat of an odd argument... First of all, Morris doesn't do statistics. He does tabulation, otherwise known as bean-counting, based on primary sources -- in the case of his 2004 book, he even uses official Israeli sources. Secondly, Morris stands almost alone in his work because a) he did it in a reliable way and nobody questions his numbers and b) because facts are the worst enemy of ludicrous theories.

On a lighter note, I suggest we divide the article into either two major sections or two separate articles: One called Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, citing sourced numbers, and another called Wild and unsubstantiated theories on the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. You can guess where I'd put the bulk of the current article.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 12.10.2007 07:12

Pedro, i enjoy exchanging ideas with you, but it sometimes seems like you are missing the whole point of this article and this debate. The whole point is that this is one of the most controversial issues in Mideast history. There is a huge narrative here, with two vastly different sides with hugely conflicting narratives. To tell both sides to simply focus on the numbers seems to me to miss the entire point. Each side is claiming a totally different meaning of what happened.

Neither side claims that a ___quantity of Palestinians were expelled by israeli soldiers, and another ___ quantity of Palestinians left because of Arab orders. Each side claims that its theory is the entire explanation for what happened. You are raising a hyopotheitcal solution which while well-intentioned, bears no relation to the allegations, evidence, or claims of either side, or to any aspect of this issue. If you do find numerical evidence, please feel free to share it. however, i would suggest that you not keep telling both sides to change the basis of the issue which has been the clear focus of the controversy for decades. --Steve, Sm8900 13:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thinking hard... Nope, sorry, it's you who are "missing the whole point". This article was branched of of 1948 Palestinian exodus to treat the causes, not the narratives. If you want to write about the narratives, I (seriously) suggest starting Narratives surrounding the 1948 Palestinian exodus. I will be the first to add a link to it here under "See also". Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 12.10.2007 14:04

If this is historical "causes" only, then why are you bringing up numbers here? Don't hard details like numbers belong especially in the "narratives" article the main article documenting the actual event, while more theoretical things like "causes" belong especially here? --Steve, Sm8900 14:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You've lost me... Or yourself? Causes are things like combat, evacuation, economic duress, hunger, etc... and not "theoretical things" such as innate mental deficiencies (Schechtman's "Fear Psychosis" theory) or magically disappearing exhortations to move along (Schechman's "Arab Evactuation Orders" theory).

Are you seriously insinuating that facts such as actual figures belong elsewhere and that this article is somehow here to discuss unproven theories? If you want to discuss "narrative", start an article on "narrative". Or rename this one to that effect. Don't try to somehow cast what you yourself called "narratives" as "causes". Seriously, I don't know what you're getting at... pedro gonnet - talk - 12.10.2007 14:45

No, I am only disputing your suggestion that the way to resolve the dispute here is to focus on specific numbers and nothing else. Historical debates and concepts belong here; that seems to me to be the purpose of a "causes" article. --Steve, Sm8900 15:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that isn't -- and never was -- the purpose. Have you had a look at other "Causes of ..." articles? How about Causes of the Indian Rebellion of 1857? Or Causes of the Polish-Soviet War? Maybe also Causes of insomnia? Or the pair Causes of World War I and Causes of World War II, both events definitely more traumatic than the Palestinian exodus? Or maybe Causes of the French Revolution? And why not List of causes of diarrhea while we're at it?

What I see in all these articles are specific causes and not an endless list of wild and unsubstantiated theories. This article should look more like those, not the speculation-Disneyland you are suggesting. pedro gonnet - talk - 12.10.2007 16:03

I would appreciate it if you would try not to be uncivil, or to use unkind remarks to characterize any of my ideas. My ideas in no way resemble Disneyland or anything else.

let me remind you in strong terms, I am literally not creating the problem here. i am simply trying to offer ways to address it. I did not add a single one of any of the article edits which are in question, or create any of these original conflicts at all . So i'm really not sure what you're referring to when you comment about the sort of article which I am trying to create. that does not seem entirely pertinent to this. So I would just like to note that.

anyway, I was looking for a graceful way to accept your ideas and to step aside to allow others to comment. So I'll simply pretend that you didn't throw in that last comment. let me simply say, thanks for your thoughts. I do truly appreciate your ideas and input. At this point, I would like to allow others a chance to discuss this, and to comment now. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 16:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

by the way, exactly whose theories are you needlessly attacking here? mine? i haven't added any. So whose do you mean? the pro-Israel ones? the pro-Palestinians ones? or some theories from each side? if so, which specific ones? you need to get more specific here, and take a stand if you actually wish to articulate some specifics on which items you are talking about. You need to stop making these general unspecified criticisms of someone who has barely made any edits to this article in the first place. yes, that's me. I don't know when i became the source for these theories which you think i am advocating, but i haven;'t actually advocated, edited or added a single one. So I'd aprpeciate it if you could please take note of that. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 16:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I must say that neither Pedro nor Sm8900 understand the purpose of the article. It is not to prove one theory of causes over another nor is it to list all the narratives. Proving one theory over another violates NPOV guidelines and listing narratives violates the title of this article. --GHcool 17:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, edit conflict. I was about to suggest that Pedro and Steve step back, maybe try to recapitulate, in neutral and balanced language, what they understand to be the other's view. In other words, reflective listening. At first glance, though, I'm inclined toward what GHcool just wrote, because our role isn't to adjudicate which theory of causes is valid or correct. (This is my intuition. I haven't had time to absorb the whole thread, sorry.) Hang in there guys, but chill. HG | Talk 17:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Pedro Gonnet's understanding of this article strikes me as sound. I've not checked all his "Causes of XXXX" articles, but when he says "What I see in all these articles are specific causes and not an endless list of wild and unsubstantiated theories" that's the same thing it looks to me. PR 19:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we canNOT determine which causes are "right" and which "ones" would not be.

Because histoirans doesn't agree dispute with vehemence about that.

They are maybe 20 direct and indirect causes that can be put forward fot the events. And 5-10 contextual elements.

I don't see how we could respect WP:UNDUE WEIGHT without referring to historians's analysis (what is still called -wrongly- theories except when the cause is not base on a fact but is a controversed analysis).

Concerning Schechtman and Katz :

I don't see who could claim he is not reliable to give the official Israeli version of the causes of the exodus... Note this is also the version of the western historiography during 30 years.

And I don't see who could claim this version is not relevant for an article dealing with the causes of the exodus.

And of course, all the arguments against that analysis of Schechtman should be given and the arguments detailled.

If somebody wants this article fits to the factual truth and not to give all pov's any more, why not ? We could do such exercice but in that case, I would like to be aware of the methodoly to use. Alithien 09:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I cannot see the point of an article that doesn't put some "narrative" to the elements included. It may be a time-line, it could be geographic or, in this case, it's bound to be some indication of the relative importance of the different elements. Otherwise, where do we draw the line - "causes" that are less than 10% of the problem, less than 1% of the problem, less than 0.1% of the problem? In any one year, it's entirely possible that some hamlets do become "ghosts". Heads of households are all widows, youngsters move and marry elsewhere, rooves fall in and village disappears. We don't have to include any such happenings because they're entirely trivial in the grand scheme of things. Other explanations are very, very relevant, however and our article has to indicate as much. PR 21:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Schechtman quote

This Schechtman quote has really led to a controversy. In my view we should consider the text to be included and it's reliability. The text is given here (]), together with comments from contemporary neutral historians who say this book of Schechtman, on which the quote is based, is more or less a work of propaganda. Childers found the reported facts in the book unreliable. Furthermore, the claims in the text are also quite extreme (as I pointed out here: ]) and clearly bogus.

We should not include such extreme claims from a source that is considered unreliable. If somebody wants to include these claims he or she should find a more reliable source. --JaapBoBo 21:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I direct this question to JaapBoBo and nobody else: would you be satisfied if we cut out the "no quarter whatsoever" sentence from the article while keeping the rest of the block quotation from The Arab Refugee Problem? --GHcool 23:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry, that would take away only one of my three objections articulated here: ]. It would take away the worst part though. --JaapBoBo 16:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I won't put it on the table for negotiation. Thank you for your honesty, if not for your willingness to compromise. --GHcool 17:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason for this to be a subject of 'negotiation' - GHcool's source is unacceptable (for the kind of very easily understood reasons we know that he accepts) - and also because there's some evidence Schecthman has falsified his sources. PR 23:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, Schechtman isn't my source. I didn't put Schechtman in this article. I don't know who did. Furthermore, I don't know of any evidence that Schechtman "falsified his sources." --GHcool 03:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If a remember well, Childers (maybe Glazer) wrote an article stating that Schechtman changed the meaning of some quotes in moving them out of their context. Alithien 09:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but I notice you have reinserted Schechtman's diatribe back into the article on several occasions, while at the same time you have been removing references to Finkelstein (which, as it happens, misrepresented his position, but that's another issue).

If Schechtman qualifies as a reliable source, then Finkelstein certainly does. But this quote from Schechtman is inappropriate in any case. As WP:RS states, exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Schechtman's claim that "no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands" is not merely an exceptional claim, it is demonstrably untrue. During the 1929 Hebron riots, for example, Israeli historian Tom Segev states that two thirds of the Jewish community were hidden from Arab marauders from the countryside by their Arab neighbours. There is no excuse for inserting demonstrable falsehoods into Misplaced Pages articles. Gatoclass 04:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein is not a source here because he "only" analysed other's works.

So you should better discuss if Finkelstein's pov is relevant or not.

(and I think it is)

Alithien 09:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a little ambiguous, but it is extremely likely that Schechtman is referring to the period between 1947 and May 15, 1948 in Palestine that he refers to in the sentence preceding the "no quarter whatsoever" sentence. Recent scholarship has found several cases of North African Arabs who helped to save Jews during the Holocaust. Arabs clearly have helped Jews in the past, but in the case of the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, I think its safe to say that each side did not treat the other with very much respect. As for Gatoclass's assertion that "no quarter whatsoever" was given to Jews during the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine is an exceptional claim, I would argue that it is no more exceptional than a hypothetical claim the no quarter whatsoever was given to any Republicans by Nationalists during the 1936-1939 Spanish Civil War. --GHcool 06:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's ambiguous, it shouldn't be in the article. We are not in the business of misleading readers through ambiguity.

As for Gatoclass's assertion that "no quarter whatsoever" was given to Jews during the 1947–1948 Civil War - Are you confusing me with someone else? I have never made such an assertion. You have just made the assertion that the quote only pertains to the '47-'48 period, but since that isn't at all clear from the quote itself, it should be removed. Gatoclass 07:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

GHcool - please stop trying to defend a hate-source. Schechtman's claim would be a total falsehood even if it only applied to 1948, the Kafr Etzion settlements were over-run then. Some defenders were massacred on that occasion, but otheres were taken prisoner and released 9 months later. PR 21:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Morris and transfer's idea

• The 'transfer idea' is invoked by authors like Khalidi to support their claim that the Yishuv followed an expulsion policy and by authors like Morris to support their claim that the Yishuv did not follow an expulsion policy

Where does Morris argues that Yishuv didn't follow an expulsion policy in referring to the existence of transfer's idea ? Alithien 08:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo answered that Morris p.60 says that.

I don't agree.

Morris says that the transfer's idea is not enough to conclude that there was an "expulsion policy" but he doens't state that the existence of the transfer idea support there was no "expulsion policy". Alithien 09:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Alithien:

In my opinion Morris uses the transfer idea to show that there was no master plan for expulsion. I have to admit that Morris's reasoning to this effect is a bit wierd, and that he doesn't say it really explicitly, but let me try to show you:

On page 60 of 'Birth ... revisited' Morris writes as a conclusion to his 'transfer idea' chapter:

1) 'My feeling is ... that the Yishuv ... did not enter the 1948 war ... with a policy or plan for expulsion'

2) 'But transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism ... ... a ... Arab majority or large minority could not remain in place if a Jewish state was to arise ... By 1948 transfer was in the air.'

In other words:

1) There was not an expulsion policy So how does Morris explain that despite the fact that there was no policy the Yishuv did cause the Palestinian exodus (largely by military action)?

2) Answer: The exodus had to occur because transfer was inbuilt in Zionism,

So Morris invokes the transfer idea to explain that the exodus occured despite there being no expulsion policy.

P.S. I know you will ask me why I left out the word 'hostile'. I did that because its part of the wierd reasoning by Morris, obscured by less relevant details in a long sentence. According to Morris:

1) the Yishuv aimed at transferring Arabs

2) the Arabs were hostile because (they didn't like the idea that) the Yishuv aimed at transferring them,

3) the Yishuv wanted to transfer the Arabs because they were hostile

It seems to me that the real reason for transfer was not the Arab hostility (which was provoked by the Yishuv's transfer thinking), but the Yishuv's transfer thinking

--JaapBoBo 09:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi JaapBoBo,

I think it would be very strange from Morris to argue that the existence of the transfer idea would prove there was no master plan... Stating so would make me believe Morris is a fool...

From my understanding :

In the introduction, Morris, p.6 writes : "As readers of the new chapter will see, the evidence for pre-1948 Zioniste support for 'Transfer' really is unambiguous; but the connection between taht support and what actually happened during the war is far more tenuous than Arab propagandists will allow.

And in the mentionned "new chapter", after describing the transfer idea but just before the quote you refer, he writes (p.60) :

"What then was the connection between Zionist transfer thinking before 1948 and what acutally happeded during the first arab-israeli war?"

-> It sounds clear to me he answers here p.60 to the comment he made p.6.

And given this comments, it is clear that Morris completely agrees that transfer idea is a major argument that could be used to justify the existence of an expulsion, or more precisely the "presumption" of the existence of an expulsion policy !

But -and Finkelstein criticizes him for what follows- he doens't dare/want/agree with good faith/whatever to jump the gap and states (p.60) :

"My feeling (...) is taht the transfer thinking (...) was not tantamount to preplanning (...) or master plan of expulsion."

and he then explains in what nevertheless the idea of transfer can be considered to have "influenced the transfer" (p.60).

To answer your other comments :

• concerning why the "transfer was inevitable", he emphasizes in the conclusions p.590.
• concerning why he considers there was no "plan for expulsion", he gives the reason p.591 for April-June wave : "During April-June, neither the politicalnor military leaderships took a decision to expel 'the Arabes". As far as the available evidence shows, the matter was never discussed in teh supreme decision-making bodies." (etc). I could not find back the quote but he wrote somewhere something such as "I could not find any clue in the documentation that would indicate that (...)"...

In summary : Morris's point of view is that indeed, the idea of transfer was in the air and that indeed Ben Gurion and all yishuv authorities hoped it will be implemented BUT the events arose by "themselves", without pre-planned expulsion.

According to Morris, the transfer is "born of war, not by design" (the famous sentence criticized by Finkelstein).

Alithien 10:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

more comments

1) There was not an expulsion policy So how does Morris explain that despite the fact that there was no policy the Yishuv did cause the Palestinian exodus (largely by military action)?
2) Answer: The exodus had to occur because transfer was inbuilt in Zionism,

No.

The answer is : if this is true that the transfer was inbuilt in zionism, there is no evidence that yishuv authorities planned to expel the palestinians. During a war, there are horrors, and the feelings in both communities were such that the transfer was inevitable due to (see p.590) : their intermixing, the past of violence, the opposition of both sides to a national state, the war of survival for israel, the weakness of arab society, the hostily of arab towards yishuv, the arab fears of yishuv and the fear of yishuv of what would happen should the arab win.

According to Morris, it was a "struggle for live" with the "survival of the fittest". The arabs fleed because of these reasons and when they didn't flee, the soldiers and the commanders expelled them because of these -same- reasons. And to increase this process, they sometimes (in 20-30 cases ?) performed massacres but, according to Morris, there was no pre-planned expulsion policy. Alithien 10:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

PS : once more : "largely by military action" should be detailled because, according to Morris, during 1 and 2 phase, they flee when the combat arrive but before the attacks and during 3 and 4 phases, all didn't flee and the one who stayed were expelled. Alithien 10:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

On p.60 Morris gives first the pov of Arabs and old-school Zionist:

1)Arabs: there was a master plan

2)old-school Zionists: there was no deliberation and pre-meditation at all

Morris takes a pov in the middle: there was deliberation and pre-meditation but no policy. So the 'transfer idea' explains the individual initiatives (e.g. of military commanders) that led to the exodus (and this explains why no policy was needed) --JaapBoBo 10:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi JaapBoBo,

1) Arabs:there was a master plan

2) old school Zionist : this debate shows a dream and nothing more, there was no delibaration and premeditation at all

Morris take a pov in the middle : there was deliberation about the transfer but there was NO delibaration about an expulsion policy and there was no expulsions policy.

Where would he says that "policy would not have been needed".

Alithien 12:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed Morris says there was no expulsion policy.

P.S. please note that 'transfer' or at least 'forced transfer' is a euphemism for expulsion. --JaapBoBo 13:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I see a major difference.

Expulsion here means by an ennemi army and without the participation or the agreement of the politician who govern people. That would not be far of ethnic cleansing.

Transfer and even forced transfer could mean like what happened between Greece and Turkey or between Pakistan and India.

Alithien 19:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussions about "transfer" generally assumed action being taken to provide alternative accomodation, property etc. However, there was no serious effort made to provide such alternatives in Palestine and no provision to fund it - so it might as well have been ethnic cleansing. You don't see emissaries from Israel travelling to Iraq and places to try and find space for the Palestinians in the spaces made vacant there. The Greek/Turks and India comparison only underlines how badly these movements work out even if arrangements are made. Greece/Turkey was straight after the well known Armenian genocide, so it was transfer or death - and pretty much the same thing in India. PR 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Start-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles