Talk:Nakba/Archive 3
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Nakba definition
Nakba definition short quotes
Short quotes from core sources describing Nakba
|
---|
|
Nakba definition full quotes
Full quotes from core sources describing Nakba
|
---|
|
Discussion (Nakba definition)
I went through most of the #Core sources (I don't have them all) and pulled quotes where they describe what "Nakba" is. (If anyone has sources to add to the core sources list, please do, and we can add quotes from those sources to this list.) The #Nakba definition short quotes list above has like just key words and phrases; #Nakba definition full quotes is there to provide context of the key words and phrases.
Currently, this Wikipedia article says in the first sentence that the Nakba was the loss of the Palestinian society and homeland in 1948, and the permanent displacement of a majority of the Palestinian Arabs
. I don't think that fully describes it, when looking at the quotes above. The "Components" section of this article says the Nakba encompasses the displacement, dispossession, statelessness, and fracturing of Palestinian society
. That strikes me as a fuller description, but I still don't think it really covers all of it. (Both sentences are sourced to Webman 2009 and Sa'di 2002, both quoted above.)
I don't have any better language to suggest right now, but I'm going to read over the short quotes list and let it marinate, and I'll post something if I think of something, and I invite you all to do the same. Levivich (talk) 03:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I did a sort of word cloud thing. Below is a list of the various words that #Core sources use to describe Nakba, grouped by concept, and which core sources use which words.
Word list
|
---|
For the full citations, see #Core sources. For a list of all the words used by a particular source, see #Nakba definition short quotes. For the context of the quotes that these are pulled from, see #Nakba definition full quotes. Displacement, etc.
Violence, etc.
Political loss
Dispossession, etc.
Loss of society: Sabbagh-Khoury 2023, Abu-Laban 2022, Wermenbol 2021, Khalidi 2020, Bashir 2018, Al-Hardan 2016, Masalha 2012, Milshtein 2009, Ram 2009, Sa'di 2007, Pappe 2006, Sa'di 2002 Loss of culture: Wermenbol 2021, Bashir 2018, Milshtein 2009, Sa'di 2002 Loss of homeland: Manna 2022, Wermenbol 2021, Bashir 2018, Nashef 2018, Sa'di 2002 Became refugees: Abu-Laban 2022, Khalidi 2020, Bashir 2018, Lentin 2013, Masalha 2012, Ram 2009, Shlaim 2009, Sa'di 2007, Schulz 2003, Sa'di 2002 From majority to minority: Khalidi 2020, Bashir 2018, Sa'di 2007 Occupation: Abu-Laban 2022, Bashir 2018, Sa'di 2007 1948 defeat: Gutman 2021, Bashir 2018, Nashef 2018, Milshtein 2009, Webman 2009 Loss of name/identity: Sayigh 2022, Wermenbol 2021, Masalha 2012, Shlaim 2009, Milshtein 2009 Built/strengthened Palestinian identity: Khalidi 2020, Lentin 2013, Masalha 2012, Milshtein 2009, Schulz 2003 Other
|
I still don't know how to sum that up in any kind of prose, but your thoughts on source selection, quote selection, organization, how to sum this up in a sentence or few, and any corrections, are all welcome. Levivich (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- What do we think of:
the violent displacement and dispossession of Palestinians, and the destruction of their society, culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations
? I'm not loving "political rights and national aspirations" but "statelessness" doesn't cover it all IMO either, and I'm not sure what words to use. Levivich (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)- That certainly seems like a more fulsome summary of the sources than the rather truncated statement that one currently finds at the top of the article. Hat tip, as always, to the methodical approach. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Done Thanks, updated the article. Levivich (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- +1 for acknowledging the value of Levivich’s methodical approach to complex questions like this. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Done Thanks, updated the article. Levivich (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Could "Palestinian Arabs" rather than "Palestinians" be a more appropriate wording? Jewish and Arab residents were both referred to as Palestinians, under British rule, before Israel's 1948 establishment. The modern Palestinian national identity, exclusively referring to Arabs, did not develop until after 1948 and the Nakba. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- That certainly seems like a more fulsome summary of the sources than the rather truncated statement that one currently finds at the top of the article. Hat tip, as always, to the methodical approach. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Questionable Wording
Under the "Nakba Denial" section the following can be found:
"In 2011, Israel enacted the Nakba Law which authorized the withdrawal of state funds from organizations that discuss the Nakba.[65] Israel also hosts grassroots movements, such as Zochrot, that have aimed to combat Nakba denial through direct memorial action.[65]"
The two sentences are attributed to the same source: [Kapshuk, Yoav; Strömbom, Lisa (November 2021). "Israeli Pre-Transitional Justice and the Nakba Law".]
Yet, the source does NOT support the implication (due to the wording: which may be innocently in error, or may be an attempt at propaganda/misrepresentation) in the 2nd sentence that the Israeli government encourages and supports the activities of Zochrot.
Rather, as the opening paragraphs of the Abstract, and Introduction, respectively, of the cited article say:
"Pre-transitional justice activities that expose past injustices during entrenched conflicts can incite strong reactions among actors who feel threatened by or dislike such activities, and who thus attempt to silence controversial truths."
AND
"In particular, we examine whether the Israeli so-called Nakba Law can be understood as a reaction to the pre-TJ actions of the non-governmental organisation (NGO) Zochrot, which works to expose Nakba narratives to the Jewish-Israeli public."
In short, without going too much deeper into this source, it is CLEARLY claiming the Nakba Law is an attempt to *suppress* the activities of Zochrot- NOT that the Israeli government is supportive of this NGO.
Thus, the wording of the section here must be changed- it (falsely) implies the Israeli government is both trying to suppress awareness of the Nakba narrative AND is supportive of ("hosting" in this sentence implies not just tolerance of, but actual support for) an NGO that is openly antagonistic towards the Israeli government's attempts to suppress the narrative.
The Israeli government, according to the only cited source for these sentences, is trying to suppress the Nakba narrative and is mutually antagonistic with Zochrot (which can be confirmed simply by viewing the web page for Zochrot: their articles repeatedly accuse Israel's current ruling coalition of an attempt at Ethnic Cleansing and of covering up what it repeatedly refers to as a 'settler-colonial' past). Thus, I suggest a wording that does not mislead:
"In 2011, Israel enacted the Nakba Law: which authorized the withdrawal of state funds from organizations that discuss the Nakba.[65] Some legal experts suggest Israel took this action in response to the activities of NGO's, such as Zochrot, that aimed to combat Nakba denial through direct memorial action.[65]"
Note the "have aimed" is also changed to "aimed" as the "have" is unnecessary and only makes the sentence harder to understand.
This wording is much clearer, and does not falsely create confusion by implying the unsubstantiated claim that the Israeli government has HELPED spread awareness of the Nakba narrative (aside from circuitous and disingenuous arguments that can be made about not banning the NGO from Israel entirely...)- a narrative it has consistently sought to suppress (as it accuses Israel of, essentially, being built on Ethnic Cleansing: a claim the current Israeli governing coalition denies). Supadubya (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Statelessness
According to the Mandatory Palestine article, residents of Palestine were not stateful. It is therefore incorrect to say Palestinians immediately became stateless. Moreover, are there additional references that Palestinians were not given citizenship in Egypt, Jordan, or Israel? Elminstersage (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- See Mandatory Palestine passport and Palestinian Citizenship Order 1925, among other related articles. Where in that article does it say "residents of Palestine were not stateful"? Please provide a quotation so it can be fixed if it is giving the wrong impression.
- On your second point, which I am not sure I fully understand, see Casablanca Protocol.
- Onceinawhile (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
According to Statelessness, "a stateless person is someone who is not considered as a national by any state under the operation of its law". According to Palestinian Citizenship Order 1925, "Palestinian citizens had the right of abode in Palestine, but were not British subjects, and were instead considered British protected persons.". Furthermore, in British Protected Person, "individuals who only hold BPP nationality are effectively stateless as they are not guaranteed the right to enter the country in which they are nationals." As such, Palestinians were always stateless. My original comment therefore stands in that the subject article should be changed to reflect that Palestinians did not immediately become stateless because they always were. It would, however, be accurate to add that they lost their British Protected Persons status and that the passports were deemed to be void (or some phrasing thereof). Elminstersage — Preceding undated comment added 21:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- This is original research and is therefore not valid for wikipedia. It is also nonsense. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
It is not nonsense. Extending beyond wikipedia articles though (from which all the above citations come), Immigration Advice Services says, "If you are a British protected person, you are effectively stateless." [1]. Furthermore, Palestinians with a mandatory palestine passport were british protected persons[2] Perhaps there is some minor amount of synthesis of these two ideas, but the logic is clear and the verifiable sources clearly indicate the Palestinians were British Protected Persons and therefore stateless. Elminstersage (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- You are confusing two concepts. One is about non-British people in Britain, the other is non-British people in Palestine. Both are not British citizens. That doesn’t mean the latter were not Palestinian citizens. For that you would need to understand how colonial and mandatory citizenships worked in practice. I strongly suggest you don’t waste your time and further though because I promise you this rabbit hole does not end where you currently think it does. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why any wikipedian would discourage someone from learning more. Therefore, I would love your citations. As I see it, there is a difference between being a citizen and having statelessness. As noted in Mandatory Palestine passport, Palestine citizens were citizens who had the right of abode but were also British Protected Persons [3]. In other words they were not "considered as a national by any state under the operation of its law" [4]. The definitions are clear to me, so I'm not understanding how the operation of how it worked would change this, but would like to. Elminstersage (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Elminstersage (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- The Palestine Citizenship Order in Council (1925) bestowed citizenship, not just right of residence, and it considered Palestine to be a state for that purpose. Palestine was a state for many other purposes too, for example it concluded treaties with other states independently of the UK. I've read a great deal about this issue and I have never seen Palestine citizens between 1925 and 1948 being considered stateless. Before 1924 things were less clear as the Ottoman Empire had not yet formally ceded sovereignty. Zerotalk 09:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why any wikipedian would discourage someone from learning more. Therefore, I would love your citations. As I see it, there is a difference between being a citizen and having statelessness. As noted in Mandatory Palestine passport, Palestine citizens were citizens who had the right of abode but were also British Protected Persons [3]. In other words they were not "considered as a national by any state under the operation of its law" [4]. The definitions are clear to me, so I'm not understanding how the operation of how it worked would change this, but would like to. Elminstersage (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Elminstersage (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://iasservices.org.uk/british-protected-person-what-rights-and-how/
- ^ Norman Bentwich (1939). "Palestine Nationality and the Mandate". Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law. 21: 230–232.
- ^ Bentwich, Norman (1939). "Palestine Nationality and the Mandate". Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law. 21 (4): 230–232. JSTOR 754593.
- ^ Refugees, United Nations High Commissioner for. "Refworld | The 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons: Implementation within the European Union Member States and Recommendations for Harmonisation". Refworld.
Edit request: url parameter for Manna (2022) reference
I request this because right now the URL for the reference points to a Google Books page with a limited preview, while the publisher offers free access to the ebook version here.
The markup:
{{Cite book |authorlink=Adel Manna |last=Manna |first=Adel |url=https://luminosoa.org/site/books/m/10.1525/luminos.129/ |title=Nakba and Survival: The Story of Palestinians Who Remained in Haifa and the Galilee, 1948-1956 |date=2022 |publisher=[[University of California Press]] |isbn=978-0-520-38936-6 }}
The above markup is identical to the current version except for the URL parameter, but I included in case it helps with convenience. – spida-tarbell ❀ (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Done, free access is awesome, thank you for bringing this up! Levivich (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oh wow, so fast -- thank you so much! – spida-tarbell ❀ (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 December 2023
This edit request to Nakba has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It is written that the Palestinians were displaced but the people who were displaced were Arabs and some of them became later Palestinians in the year 1989 when Palestine was formed, and the reason why it happened isn't in the text. נדב רשף (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Not done, Palestinians didnt magically become Palestinians in 1989. nableezy - 15:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
factual inaccuracy in the article.
The article states that Jews owned 7% of the land and Palestinians owned 90% of the land but that is untrue. private ownership by Palestinians was around the same as Jews, the rest was state land 147.235.214.184 (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. Also the cited article speaks about *privately owned land*, which is different than all the land. Most of the land in Israel was *publicly* owned. The wiki text should differ between private and public. Gelbard (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed, there are maps on Wikipedia itself right now that provide the correct data. The current wording is inaccurate and portrays a completely different situation before the Nakba occurred. Hopefully will be corrected!
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Palestine_Index_to_Villages_and_Settlements,_showing_Land_in_Jewish_Possession_as_at_31.12.44.jpg#/media/File:Palestine_Index_to_Villages_and_Settlements,_showing_Land_in_Jewish_Possession_as_at_31.12.44.jpg
- Taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine 70.27.128.229 (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- I fixed part of this, but there is a separate calculation issue. Please see below. Mistamystery (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Casualties / Total Deaths of Palestinians
Does anyone have any information about the total number of Palestinians killed during the Nakba?
Some info I found here (of uncertain reliability): "According to the data documentation of www.palestineremembered.com, Israelis controlled 774 towns and villages during the Nakba. They destroyed 531 Palestinian towns and villages. Israeli forces atrocities also include more than 70 massacres against Palestinians killing 15,000 Palestinians during Nakba time." -Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics https://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Portals/_pcbs/PressRelease/nakba%2060.pdf
IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Pre-1948 Private Land Ownership calculation issue
In the history section, it currently reads as follows:
"In 1947, in the wake of World War II and the Holocaust, the United Nations partitioned Mandatory Palestine, leading to the 1948 Palestine war and the creation of the State of Israel. At the expiration of the Mandate, privately held lands amounted to approximately 25% of the total territory. Palestinian Arabs, who made up about two-thirds of the population, and owned about 90% of privately held lands, while Jews, who made up between a quarter and a third of the population, owned about 7% of the total territory."
90% of 25% privately held lands equals 22.5% of total Mandatory territory. 7% of total mandatory territory is equal to 25% of privately held lands.
There is no way that Palestinian Arabs owned 90% of privately held lands, while Jews owned 25% of that same category. Need more sources to clear this up. Mistamystery (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- The 7% figure is definitely total land and widely reported. But those sources don't all explain who exactly owned/possessed the other 93%. I assume it's Arabs -- who else? -- and it certainly was Arabs before the Mandate, but it's not entirely clear. Did Britain take ownership of previously-Arab-owned/possessed lands from the Ottoman Empire, or did previously-Arab-owned/possessed lands remain under Arab ownership/possession during the Mandate? I don't know.
- As for the two sources cited for that phrase in the article, Abu-Laban and Bakan say "Arabs" (not Palestinian Arabs) "owned" 90% of "the land" (not "private"). But Manna says "Arabs of Palestine" "possessed" (not "owned") 90% of "privately-owned land" (so not total land). I'm not entirely sure if they are agreeing or disagreeing, or talking about the same thing. It's possible that Arabs (not just Palestinian Arabs) owned 90% of the total land, and also that Palestinian Arabs possessed 90% of the privately-owned land -- i.e., the two authors are talking about two different things. It's also possible that Abu-Laban and Bakan just meant that Palestinian Arabs owned or possessed 90% of privately-owned land, and they just weren't careful in their wording, i.e. the two authors are talking about the same thing and one of them is incorrect or inaccurate in their wording.
- Here's another source (not used in this article) that was easy to pull because it's pullquoted in Mandatory Palestine:
It is not hard to understand the Palestinian Arab position. By 1947 the Arabs of Palestine constituted a two-thirds majority with over 1.2 million people, compared to 600,000 Jews in Palestine. Many towns and cities with Palestinian Arab majorities, like Haifa, were allotted to the Jewish state. Jaffa, though nominally part of the Arab state, was an isolated enclave surrounded by the Jewish state. Moreover, Arabs owned 94 percent of the total land area of Palestine and some 80 percent of the arable farmland of the country. Based on these facts, Palestinian Arabs refused to confer on the United Nations the authority to split their country and give half away.
— Eugene Rogan (2012). The Arabs: A History – Third Edition. Penguin. p. 321. ISBN 978-0-7181-9683-7. - Another huge wrinkle is the complexities of land ownership in Ottoman Palestine post-tanzimat, which involved legal methods of ownership and possession of land that was rather different from what is used in the West, e.g. tenants rights and so forth. Much of the land was technically owned by foreign (as in non-Palestinian) absentee landlords but inhabited, worked, possessed and controlled by local Palestinians, often for a very long time. That's too much too explain in this Wikipeida article, though there are other articles. (Although, I think the "arable farmland" point, which I've seen made by multiple sources in addition to Rogan above, should be added.)
- More sources would certainly help resolve this. Alternatively, maybe it's better to just remove the 90% figure altogether, and just say the 7% figure. After all, for purposes of the Nakba, the "point" is that it went from 7% in 1947 to 78% by 1949. Levivich (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- There are plenty of counterfactuals or persistent misinterpretations that are considered by some to be the "point" of a public movement, message, or campaign. We don't need to give them the authority of unqualified restatement in wikpedia's voice.
- If around 75% of land was owned by Britain, and this was handed over to the newly-formed Israeli state, it's natural that the latter would be 78% in 1949. It would definitely be misinformation to suggest that anything "went from" 7% to 78%; the combination of ("land privately held by Jewish Palestinians" + "state-held land in Mandatory Palestine") was around 80% in 1947, and ("land privately held by Jewish Israelis" + "state-held land in the new state of Israel") was around 80% in 1949. To be any more precise calls for a non-pointy source that uses consistent methodology to trace land ownership across the transition. – SJ + 04:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of any source that says Britain handed over to Israel 75% of the land. I've seen many sources point out that the UN Partition plan allotted 55% to Israel and Israel took more than was allotted (taking half of the 45% that was allotted to Palestinians). I've seen almost every source I've read about Nakba point out that Jewish land ownership went from 7% or thereabouts before 1948 to 78% after 1948. Many of those sources are cited in the article. (The 90% figure, however, seems to be much more rare.) Levivich (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Culprits of massacres should be specified
In Nakba#1949–1966 the sentence "Some two thousand Palestinians were massacred at the Siege of Tel al-Zaatar in 1976, during the Lebanese Civil War." suggests that Israelis massacred them, as the massacre is listed in the context of smaller-scale Israeli massacres, while this one was committed without Israeli involvement.
I don't think mentioning Lebanese civil war is enough to not be weasel-wordy, and the culprit should be explicitly specified. The same with later Sabra and Shatila massacres (in the next section), though Israelis did support the Lebanese militia which committed those massacres, which could be mentioned. Alternative is to explicitly define Nakba as mistreatment of Palestinians by both Israel/Zionists and Arab countries/factions, but I don't think this is the common usage and the edits I'm suggesting are far less drastic. Polystratus (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- I made an edit addressing the Tel al-Zaatar massacre's responsibility. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Seemingly contradictory figures, more accurate to say around 80% than half population expelled or fled Israel proper.
The introduction states: 'In the initial Nakba of 1948, approximately 700,000 Palestinian Arabs (about half of the region's Arab population) were expelled or fled from their homes in what is now Israel proper'. The 'about half' proportion is not well referenced.
Later in the article, under the heading 1948, it states: 'Approximately 750,000 Palestinians--over 80% of the population in what would become Israel--were expelled or fled from their homes and became refugees in neighboring states.' - This is very well referenced.
Most respected sources agree that over 700,000 Arabs were expelled, or fled due to the risk of being killed, with many estimating substantially more, so it would be better to say 'over 700,000' than 'approximately 700,000'.
The Arab population of historic Palestine in 1947 was 1,181,000 according to Demographic history of Palestine (region), but that includes the West Bank and Gaza, which were not subject to the Nakba. The relevant territory is the territory from which Arabs were expelled, which was mostly the territory that became so-called "Israel proper" (historical Palestine minus Gaza and the West Bank), the Israeli side of the 1949 Armistice Agreement / Green Line, so about 80%, perhaps 'over 80%' would be right, and 'about half' would be a gross understatement of the proportion of Arabs who 'were expelled or fled from their homes in what is now Israel proper'.
MathewMunro (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 December 2023
This edit request to Nakba has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add in that Israel department systematically removes evidence of the Nakba from their own archives to hide the proof of the Nakba.
Add "Since the early 2010s, the Israeli Defense Ministry teams have been reported to have been systematically removing "troves of historical documents", with the purpose to hide away proof of the Nakba."
Supporting source, https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2019-07-05/ty-article-magazine/.premium/how-israel-systematically-hides-evidence-of-1948-expulsion-of-arabs/0000017f-f303-d487-abff-f3ff69de0000#!/ 49.186.88.211 (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{Edit extended-protected}}
template. Spintendo 04:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Quite arbitrary timeline sections.
The timeline sections are currently:
- Prior to 1948
- 1948
- 1949–1966
- 1967–present
Firstly, I think it needs to be acknowledged that there is a difference of opinion on the time-span that the Nakba covers, with some, such as the author of this (https://www.un.org/unispal/about-the-nakba/) UN article apparently seeing it as primarily a 1948 thing, calling it the 'tragic events of 1948', while and others, for example, an Al Jazeera writer here (https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2017/5/23/the-nakba-did-not-start-or-end-in-1948) referred to it as ongoing.
In elaborating the view that the Nakba is ongoing, I suggest the following timeline sections:
I think the first timeline section should cover the period before the 29 Nov 1947 UN partition vote. This should cover in outline depth the loss of Arab control over Palestine in WW1, the loss of control over Jewish migration, the brutal suppression of the Arab Revolt (see 'The Suppression of the Great Revolt and the Destruction of Everyday Life in Palestine', Charles W. Anderson, https://www.palestine-studies.org/en/node/1643031).
The second timeline section should cover the period from the partition vote up to the 14 May 1948 withdrawal of the British occupation forces, as there was a major increase in Israeli terrorist atrocities in that period, including indiscriminate murder, maiming, assault, robbery & arson (refer to The Encyclopaedia of the Palestine Problem, by Issa Nakhleh, chapter 6, quoting War Office file 275/109, Public Record Office, London, and Hansard, House of Commons Debates). Also please reference the British failure to effectively suppress Israeli terrorist gangs or the importation of weapons by Jewish terrorists or domestic weapons manufacturing (see https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-haganah), and even a report from 19 Jan 1948 of a $20,000,000 offer of UK military surplus to the Jewish Agency here (http://pdfs.jta.org/1948/1948-01-21_017.pdf, second page)
The third timeline section should cover the period of the Arab intervention from 14 May 1948 to 20 Jul 1949 when all parties had signed Armistice agreements.
A fourth section should cover the inter-war period, or this could be added to one of the adjacent sections. This section should mention that half to two-thirds of Arab land was seized, Arab animal herds were seized, Arab crops were sprayed with herbicide by Israel, and 'approximately 30% of the 150,000 Palestinians remaining in Israel were expelled from their homes becoming internally displaced refugees.' (https://web.archive.org/web/20220629182724/http://www.itisapartheid.org/facts01.html)
A fifth section should cover the 1967 war and the Israeli annexation, occupation and domination of the West Bank and Gaza.
A sixth section could cover the prelude to the first intifada, starting with the 1977 electoral victory of the right-wing Likud party, and mentioning the 'increasing Israeli repression in response to heightened Palestinian protests following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982' (https://www.britannica.com/topic/intifada). Alternatively, it could be prepended to a section on the first intifada.
A seventh section should cover the 1987-1993 first intifada and the signing of the Oslo Accords.
An eighth section should cover the second intifada, which went from Likud leader Ariel Sharon's 28 Sep 2000 domination tour of the al-Aqsa mosque to the 8 Feb 2005 Sharm El Sheikh Summit in which then PM Sharon agreed to release 900 Palestinian prisoners and withdraw from some West Bank towns that Israel had occupied during the uprising. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Intifada)
A ninth section should cover the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza commencing in force on 15 Aug 2005, and completed by 12 Sep 2005 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza). And the accompanying sabotage of the Gazan economy, including the destruction of greenhouses by settlers before they left, the 8 Dec 2005 threats/decisions to suspend planned approval of bus and truck convoys between Gaza and the West Bank, and the 15 Jan 2006 decision to close the Karni crossing – the sole point for exports of goods from Gaza. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip)
A tenth section, possibly appended to the previous section should cover the electoral victory of Hamas and the aftermath:
- 25 Jan 2006 electoral victory of Hamas.
- 29 Jan 2006 decision to stop transferring to the PA customs duties and taxes that Israel had collected on their behalf.
- 17 Feb 2006 Fatah, on its last day in office, returned $50 million of US aid that was intended for infrastructure projects in Gaza.
- 29 Mar 2006 decision of both the US and EU cut aid to the Palestinian Authority.
- 8 Jun 2006 Israel resumed its policy of the extrajudicial killing of key Hamas leaders, with the IDF assassination of Jamal Abu Samhadana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathewMunro (talk • contribs) 12:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- 25 Jun 2006 kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.
- 28 Jun 2006 Israeli airstrikes on Gazan civilian infrastructure.
- 29 Jun 2006 Israeli coup d'état in the West Bank, including the kidnapping of 49 senior Hamas officials, who were mostly 'moderate members [of the Palestinian Legislative Council] from the West Bank who had been calling on the Gaza leadership to recognise Israel'. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_election#Aftermath)
An eleventh section should cover the right to return marches, the thousands of Palestinians maimed or permanently disabled by Israeli snipers, and hundreds of Palestinians killed, and the intensification and increasingly overt nature of Israeli apartheid (for example, the Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People, and the flood of statements from human rights organisations calling Israel an apartheid state) and the increasing settler terrorism.
And a final section (for now) covering the Oct-7 revenge attacks and Israel's genocidal response.
MathewMunro (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)