Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

another questionable passage

Can someone explain why the following belongs in the section "Claims that support that the flight was instigated by Arab leaders"? I don't see such an instigation claimed either in this passage or in the full article cited.

Morris[8][9] concludes that this support extended still farther:

"During the early 1940s, against the backdrop of the Holocaust and official British deliberations about a postwar solution to the Palestine problem based on partition, all understood (as had the Peel Commission) that any partition not accompanied by a transfer of Arabs out of the territory of the Jewish-state-to-be would be unstable or pointless, as the large Arab minority, if left in place, would be disloyal and rebellious, and would inevitably enjoy the support of the surrounding Arab world. ... British officials and Arab heads of state (who, of course, feared to state these views in public) shared this view. That is why the British Labour Party Executive in 1944 supported partition accompanied by transfer, and that is why Jordan's Emir Abdullah and Iraq's prime minister Nuri Said, among other Arab statesmen, supported such a population transfer if Palestine was to be partitioned.

Zero^talk 16:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe that would fit better in the transfer section? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, possibly. But it is difficult to place in historical context. Zero^talk 23:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Tangentially related. I would not be opposed to removing it. IMHO, Morris is far overused in the article as it is (and, of course, the article is too long). Saepe Fidelis (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Presumably we could find the sources Morris was using for this statement. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Why? What does this statement contribute? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That some sort of population transfer was expected by all sides? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing it for now as it clearly doesn't belong where it is. Zero^talk 10:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The section "Claims by Arab sources that support that the flight was instigated by Arab leaders"

Is there any reason this section should not be deleted? If not, shouldn't there be a "Claims by American sources that support that the flight was instigated by Arab leaders" or a "Claims by French sources that support that the flight was instigated by Arab leaders". Those section could then contain statements by various non-historians of varying credibility. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, we already have a section dealing with this in general, I think the idea is that Arab sources saying the flight was instigated by Arab leaders would carry more weight than other sources, particularly when these are high ranking officials. That said, I wouldn't oppose merging it into the section above it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think merging it with the section above is a good idea. The section above partially covers claims by Israeli sources that the flight was instigated by Arab leaders. That section is warranted as said claim (about the causes of flight) used to be the official Israeli explanation (even though that section in its current state is mess of various statements different POV-pushers has put there). This section on the other hand is just pure POV-pushing. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I merged the section with the section "Claims that support that the flight was instigated by Arab leaders". --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with NMMNG. Arab sources that support claims that the flight was instigated by Arabs carries more weight than other named sources. I think a separate section on these views is warranted.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

But NMMNG said that he "wouldn't oppose merging it into the section above it". That's why I went ahead and did it. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If it means that much to you, go ahead, I won't stop you but I think you're mistaken.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

My deletions and insertions

Since most of this has been discussed ad nauseam on this page and others (search the archives), and many of the protagonists have since been banned, I didn't want to go over the same again. So brief summaries only:

• Habab Issa is entirely unknown to history except for this one quote, in which he makes a claim not supported by any contemporary evidence in a venue known for its hostility to Palestinians. Fails WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, etc.
• Abbas's words are entirely consistent with the Palestinian narrative. He could be (potentially) cited as an example of a Palestinian who charges the Arab states with not doing enough to protect them from the evil Zionists and then mistreating them afterwards, but he cannot be cited as saying the Arab states were the cause of the flight. He didn't say that, not in this quote or anywhere else. The fact that the source of this "quotation" is Myths&Facts anyway (copied by Sundquist who is an expert on different subject) is further grounds for exclusion.
• Including Gaddafi seemed to be a joke. I mean, does anyone really think he is a reliable source for anything? Will we cite him at woman too?
• Since Schechtman is quoted extensively on this page, it would be a travesty to not note that he was being paid to write the official ZIonist/Israeli version under supervision. An alternative would be to delete him, but I think he belongs as he himself is a major player in the story.

Zero^talk 02:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I accept all of your arguments except the one where we have to qualify Schechtman. An alternative would be to qualify all of the historians. Anybody interested in any of the historians is welcome to click on their Wikipedia articles. Information irrelevant to the causes of the 1948 palestinian exodus do not belong here. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources stating that others of our sources were writing as employees of one of the main parties to the conflict, that should be added as well. Zero^talk 05:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree, if something emanates from one of the parties it should be presented as such. This doesn't just apply to Schechtman. --Dailycare (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Was Schechtman paid to write a book we're using as a source in this article? If he was, I think it would be OK to note that this specific book was commissioned. If he wasn't, noting he was paid to write some other book is indeed well poisoning (and kinda synthy). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That is a good question, to which I'll give two answers.

• The things we cite from Schechtman come from his 1952 book "The Arab Refugee Problem". In the introduction of that book, Schechtman called it the "third edition", of which the two pamphlets in 1949 were the first, and a revision of them in 1950 were the second. The things we quote are in the pamphlets, except the actual passage quoted from the 1952 book (which contains the outrageous lie about "no quarter"). I don't know if Schechtman was still on the payroll when his 1952 book was published.
• The text I inserted and GHcool deleted was certainly not well poisoning, but was an accurate report of a reliable source (a book by Israeli historian Rafael Medoff who could hardly be accused of being pro-Arab). It isn't about the reliability of Schechtman, it is about Schechtman's personal role in the story told by this article. Medoff writes about the two pamphlets: "Schechtman proceeded to author (anonymously) two lengthy pamphlets, [gives names], which were published by the Jewish Agency in NY and constituted the Israeli government's official position on the issue for many years afterward." This last part is why Medoff's information belongs, it is significant information that belongs in the article. The fact that we use Schechtman as a source is hardly an excuse for omitting it.

Zero^talk 16:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand from that quote that the Israeli government adopted his book, not that he was paid to write an official version.

As for well poisoning, I don't think wikipedia articles tend to note the political affiliation of an author in every article he's quoted in. Not that it would necessarily be a bad idea, but we can't just do it for some people in some articles. Either it's done for everyone everywhere, or it's not done at all. If we make a special note only about one specific author, that is indeed well poisoning. It gives the reader the impression that while others are fine, this author is so biased readers need to be warned about him. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well said, No More Mr Nice Guy. I consider the matter closed. --GHcool (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but it ain't closed. NMMNG, your reply did not address the issue and I already cited Medoff as documenting that Schechtman was employed to do this work. It isn't about political affiliation at all, that is a straw man (otherwise I'd put in Schechtman's Revisionist credentials as a close associate of Jabotinsky, which I didn't, did I?). It isn't about treating one source differently either, that is another straw man. Medoff showed that Schechtman was employed to write on the subject and the result became official Israeli policy. Nothing similar is true of any other source on the page (feel free to add exceptions). It is obviously relevant and is perfectly well sourced. For your information, here is most of the relevant stuff from Medoff, minus his citations:

"For Israeli government sponsorship of studies of other mass population resettlement, see Joseph Schechtman [ref to Israeli archives] which eventually resulted in a book by Schechtman that the Israeli government helped finance. Schechtman's previous book about European population transfers had been completed with assistance from the American Jewish Congress. ... Even after the committee's [Israeli committee on "transfer"] demise, Schechtman continued its work, and in March 1949, Shertok instructed the American section of the Jewish Agency to hire him to direct "research work pertaining to the problem of the Arab refugees and their resettlement in Arab countries," with Ambassador [to Washington] Epstein and the Israeli ambassador to the UN as his supervisors.[reference] Schechtman proceeded to author (anonymously) two lengthy pamphlets, "Resettlement Prospects for Arab Refugees" and "Arab Refugees: Facts and Figures," which were published by the Jewish Agency in NY and constituted the Israeli government's official position on the issue for many years afterward.[6 references]".

I'm inclined to put the whole lot in, it is clearly admissible and significant. Zero^talk 02:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't. It is well poisoning and irrelevant to this article, as has been explained before. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The origin of the official Israeli policy is irrelevant??? Truly amazing. I'm waiting for an extra source to arrive, then I'll add a section about the early history of the debate on this subject. Zero^talk 06:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I was addressing the specific quote you gave. Now you provided a longer quote. Before we go into that, I'd like to ask if I find a reliable source that says certain governments helped fund, say, the Edward Said Chair at Columbia, do you think we should put that information in every article that quotes Khalidi? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Where does the "every article" part of your question come from? Not from any action of mine. If some party pays Khalidi to prepare their case on some issue and his work became significant in the debate, that should definitely be mentioned on the article regarding that issue. Funding a chair is not similar at all. Firstly it is paid to the university and not the individual, and secondly it would get out of hand as many chairs (esp. in the USA private system) are funded by sponsors. Zero^talk 08:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You've deleted sources who state things you don't like. It is not your place to decide on sources. There is no "consensus". 109.127.86.112 (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It is the task of editors to make decisions about what to include in the article. Deciding which sources are reliable and which material is relevant and notable is a major part of that task. Zero^talk 09:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG, attributing Khalidi in other articles needs to be discussed on the talkpages of those articles. Attributing S here is clearly relevant as it relates to how the Israeli narrative was formed. Or are you proposing that we remove the Israeli narrative from this article? --Dailycare (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not clearly relevant. In fact, it is clearly irrelevant and well poisoning. The Khalidi counterexample is brilliant and true. There really isn't anything more to say. Its time to stop the argument sketch. --GHcool (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I'm waiting for a source to arrive. Then it will go into the article and you will be welcome to join the discussion on the some noticeboard or other if you persist in trying to suppress it. Zero^talk 00:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Your source says Schechtman was hired to do research, not to write a book or a pamphlet. Somehow this turned into "Schechtman had been hired by the American section of the Jewish Agency at the instigation of Moshe Sharett to write on the Arab refugees" in the encyclopedia's neutral voice. Also in the neutral voice we have "his work became the official Israeli position for years afterwards" which if I'm not mistaken is also sourced to the one source you used to SYNTH the previous sentence. That you put this right next to Khalidi's implication that Schechtman made it all up seems to be some kind of POV push.

As for chairs being funded by sponsors, that's was exactly my point. A lot of organizations, including governments, help fund all sorts of research. We don't usually note that in articles using sources by people who were sponsored in such a way. Even if the specific book used was directly sponsored, which we don't know was the case here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

(a) The source supports my text completely, it was almost an exact quotation. It could become pure quotation if you prefer. (b) I had to put it somewhere, and the place where the same two pamphlets are already mentioned was the obvious place. I plan to reword that whole section when the extra source arrives and meanwhile I don't necessarily support the text citing Khalidi. (c) It is you and not me who is making the connection between Schechtman's role and his claims. (d) If you can find a reliable source that Khalidi's work on the refugees was done for hire for an interested party, that would belong here. If you can't do that, you don't have an analogy. Zero^talk 09:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Your source does not say he wrote the book for hire. It says that he was hired to do research which "eventually resulted in a book by Schechtman that the Israeli government helped finance". The two are not the same.

Anyway, when you get the other source and reword the section, we can discuss that. I don't think the current source supports the text you wanted to put in the article. Also, as I mentioned before, I think a lot of governments "help finance" all kinds of academic work and I don't see that usually mentioned in articles, but we can discuss that once we have more than one source for the claim you want to put here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Now I see what you are looking at. The first part of what I quoted about "eventually resulted in a book" refers to a different book about mass population transfers that Schechtman wrote. We aren't citing it. The writing on the refugees that is relevant here is introduced by "Schechtman proceeded to author...". The passage indicates that he produced the two pamphlets as an output of the research he was paid to do. Zero^talk 01:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I thought both parts of the quote were referring to the same work. I'm not sure that "proceeded to author..." necessarily indicates he was paid to author the pamphlets. Is your other source more explicit? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It must be very obvious that Joseph Schetman was a hasbarist and nothing he said can be trusted. 109.144.236.85 (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The problems of using a source written in 1980 to describe how zionist historians view the topic.

Obviously the article was written prior to the release of the Israeli archives which led to a major revision in how the topic was viewed by zionist historians. There is no problem using the source - but it should be made clear that it is not commenting on the situation today, but only up to 1980, when it was written. Dlv999 (talk) 07:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Another misleading insertion

Removed: Furthermore, Palestinian Arab protesters in the West Bank took to the streets on the occasion of "the first anniversary of Israel's establishment" to place blame on "the Arab states for the creation of the refugee problem."[ref]Karsh, Efraim. Arafat's War: The Man and His Battle for Israeli Conquest. New York: Grove Press, 2003. pp. 33–34.[/ref]

Reason: Apart from the misuse of quotation marks (the quoted words are from Karsh and not from any original source), this sentence is misleading even according to Karsh's biased description. Just above this passage he states why the Palestinians blamed the Arab States: "The Palestinians considered the Arab world derelict for having issued wild promises of military support which they never made good". Without this part of it, the insertion cannot be understood. Zero^talk 10:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the solution is to just add the missing sentence? --Dailycare (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That would be better than having half the story, but it would be better still to find a source that explains the issue properly. The charge that the Arab states didn't really try to help the Palestinians was very common one made by Palestinians, and their statements about it are widely quoted out of context in order to give the false impression that the Palestinians didn't blame Israel. The most common target of the charges was Abdullah of Jordan, though Abdullah himself made the same charge against the other Arab states. Zero^talk 23:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If it's a commonly expressed viewpoint it should be in, naturally in the correct context. --Dailycare (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Abbas quote

The sources for this are:

• PhD dissertation that I can find no evidence of being cited by scholarly papers
• A book by former Consul General of Israel to the Midwest Yitschak Ben Gad published by SPI Publishers, a group I have never heard of and can find almost no information on. I fail to see how this is a reliable source.
• A book by Dore Gold, a former Israeli government official and current head of the JCPA. Again, I fail to see how this is a reliable source.
• A book published by readhowyouwant.com? I dont even have words for that.
• A book published by AuthorHouse, a self-publishing firm.

Can somebody explain to me which of these is an acceptable source to say that a living person said something? nableezy - 18:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like at least 3 reliable sources to me. I don't know how Abbas's living personhood has anything to do with this. --GHcool (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Which 3 and why? I asked specific questions, you gave something that resembles an answer but isnt. And if you dont see why it isnt acceptable to use a self-published work to claim a living person said something then Im not sure I can do anything to help you. At least not all 5 are reliable according to you, so maybe you could remove sources that you restored that you acknowledge are not reliable. nableezy - 20:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'll remove the two one source that actually are is controversial. --GHcool (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the readhowyouwant.com source. --GHcool (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The PhD dissertation is actually towards a doctorate of Philosophy. The cite note for the Abbas quote is (http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=121275) Myth and Fact Mitchell G. Bard, Jewish Virtual Library. Dlv999 (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yikes! Was that degree awarded? At the top of the same page we see "Habib Issa, The Secretary-General of the Arab League". Could Rutgers University actually accept a thesis which displays such profound ignorance? Zero^talk 06:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The dissertation isnt a reliable source unless you can show it being cited in scholarly works. WP:RS specifically says: if it is shown that they have entered mainstream academic discourse and therefore have been vetted by the scholarly community. This can be done by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indices. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indices, should be used only with caution, and only when other criteria, for example the reputation of the scholar, support their use. And how is Dore Gold a reliable source? You claim, in your edit summary, that the sources are removed because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wrong, they are being removed because they dont meet WP:RS, while they are ironically being restored, without an argument being offered that they do meet RS (only an assertion), because of WP:ILIKEIT (see what I did there). nableezy - 19:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Can somebody explain to me how Yitschak Ben Gad is a reliable source, or if SPI Books is a reputable academic publisher? nableezy - 20:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

What's the argument against Gold and Ben Gad? That they're Israeli? Is the argument that Israelis can't be trusted to quote Palestinians correctly? I'm not convinced. --GHcool (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a mountain of scholarly research on this topic, written by historians, published in peer reviewed journals and under academic imprint. What is the justification for using non-historians, published by non-academic imprints as sources for the article? Is there any evidence at all that the Gold and Ben Gad sources have been cited in any scholarly discussion of the topic? Dlv999 (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Ben Gad has been cited 4 times. Gold has been cited 26 times. I'll revert Gold and consider the matter closed. --GHcool (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The question was Is there any evidence at all that the Gold and Ben Gad sources have been cited in any scholarly discussion of the topic?," not how many random citations you can pluck out of a google search. Of the few scholarly sources among the 26, he is cited for his opinion of the UN, which would seem reasonable given he is an ex-ambassador of Israel. Which scholarly sources cite his book as a source for discussion of the 1948 Palestinian Exodus? Dlv999 (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Everyone knows that Gold is a professional propagandist. Besides that policy tells us to use third party sources, not leading members of the Likud establishment. This is someone who cannot possibly be cited without identifying him as the opinion giver. Zero^talk 04:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

So now we have it cited to a historian of African-Americans (Sundquist) who cites it in passing to Myths and Facts! It's about time these games stopped. The fact that Sunquist would consider M&F reliable for anything at all just underscores that he is not a reliable source for the Middle East. No reliable source for this claim has been brought; ergo, we can't have it. That's the clear reading of policy. Zero^talk 13:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me. Sundquist is not "a historian of African-Americans" .

Eric Sundquist, Andrew W. Mellon Professor of the Humanities, Department Chair

Eric J. Sundquist teaches courses in American literature and culture, with special interests in African American literature, Jewish American literature, and the literature of the Holocaust. Before returning to Johns Hopkins, where he received his Ph.D. in 1978, he taught at Berkeley, Vanderbilt, UCLA, and Northwestern, where he was also Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.

The publisher is Harvard University Press which is a publishing house established on January 13, 1913, as a division of Harvard University, and focused on academic publishing.

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

So he has also written on the literature of American Jews as well as on African American literature. It makes no difference. The fact remains that Sundquist has no Middle-East expertise and admits getting this information from Myths and Facts. Not reliable for this information. Zero^talk 01:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If its reliable enough for Harvard, its reliable enough for Wikipedia. It stays. --GHcool (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No publishers, including academic publishers, verifiy all the claims made by their authors. This is a myth. In this case the author of the book didn't verify it either, but openly admits copying it from a standard propaganda tract. This type of situation is why WP:RS says "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content." The real source of this is Myths&Facts. The reason sources like Myths&Facts like it (and the only reason why anyone quotes it at all) is that ignorant readers are likely to misunderstand it. We should have higher standards. Zero^talk 08:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

According to this article and relating RS/N discussion, Judith seems to be saying that being published by an academic press makes something prima facie RS. I just want to see Wikipedia rules applied evenly, whatever those rules are. The content should stay till a consensus to remove is established. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised you should misquote policy so badly. Consensus is required for inclusion, not for exclusion, see WP:BURDEN. Zero^talk 01:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The situation is not analogous. The definition of "Palestinian People" is not a purely a historical question so there is no need to cite only historians on that point, citing experts in diverse academic disciplines is appropriate. Conversely the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus is a historical question, on which copious academic experts have been published, so there is no justication for citing non-historians. Secondly, if something is "prima facie" RS, it does not mean that it necessarily meets RS requirements when we look closely at the source (for instance if we see that the source is a non-expert in the field citing a known propaganda source). Thirdly Sundquist has only just been added to the article, so the source should stay out until consensus is established. In any case, I get the impression that this will have to go to RSN, but I would like to at least whittle down the most ridiculous sources that have been adduced so that we can at least have a focused discussion. Dlv999 (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Dlv999 (talk) 10:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear why some people here think that Myths and Facts is not an RS. Is it because it has an admittedly partisan point of view? I've never read anything on Myths and Facts or by historian Mitchell Bard that wasn't reliable. --GHcool (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thats been discussed a few times in the past. And Myths & Facts actually has a number of basic errors of fact, Ill dig up some in a bit. nableezy - 19:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Heres a simple one. Contrast the supposed myth with I dont know lets go with United Nations Security Council Resolution 497. And then this, compared with, I dont know, Israel's own Supreme Court. nableezy - 19:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The idea that people can demand that sources that they added days ago remain is not founded in any policy. In fact it is against WP policy. If what you added is challenged it stays out until there is a consensus to restore it. The change is what requires consensus, not the reversal of it. Sundquist, by virtue of who published the work, is prima facie reliable, but if AU wanted to keep reading Judith's comment instead of stopping where it suited his argument he would see that there is still room for argument for a given source. If you want to restore it, get consensus at RS/N that it is reliable. nableezy - 19:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Things are rather sad if the reliability of Myths&Facts needs serious discussion. As (Zionist historian) Rafael Medoff wrote in "A to Z of Zionism", "AIPAC’s annual guidebook, Myths & Facts, was long considered the bible of pro-Israel activists" and yes indeed that is its nature and purpose. It was conceived as a manual for activists and is neither third-party nor reliable. It is hard to find comments on it by serious academics because they tend to ignore dross like this altogether, but the three reviews I managed to find are consistent: Wright (about 1984 edition) "Davis' work is that of a compiler who has gathered virtually every piece of Zionist propaganda produced since the mid-1940s. The reason this book is undocumented is because one cannot document lies." (JPS 16 p.165); Neff (about 1992 edition): "Bard and Himelfarb utterly fail to lay out anything approaching the truth" (JPS 22, p125); Neff (about 2001 edition): "The latest edition of Myths and Facts, however, is not one of the better efforts by the pro-Israel side, mainly because it is less adroit than usual at twisting the facts to the benefit of Israel." (JPS 31, p131). All three of these reviews give examples to justify their claims. I'm sure Daniel Pipes has written a glowingly positive review of it somewhere... Regarding Bard, of course this is part of his official work for the pro-Israeli lobby groups he has worked for. He has almost no personal presence in the academic literature on the Middle East. Zero^talk 02:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate Nableezy's links to what I can see are misleading, if not completely erroneous, portions of Myths and Facts. I had not been aware of those before this writing. I'll be less hasty about generalizing the book as completely reliable.

I must correct some of Zero's long paragraph though. The Myths and Facts book I'm thinking about was written by Bard (I do not own a copy but am familiar with it, especially the Jewish Virtual Library website). As far as I know, the book was published in the 1990s and has no sponsorship by AIPAC (its published by a different organization called the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise). As far as Bard's personal presence in the academic literature on the Middle East is concerned, he seems to have written rather a lot on the topic (judging by his Wikipedia page), though I admit, his books aren't as renowned as Benny Morris's and some of the other historians quoted in this article. --GHcool (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Myths&Facts has a long history with many editions. For several decades starting in 1964, it was produced by the Near East Report which was an AIPAC publication. At some point before 2001, it was transferred to AICE. Mitchell Bard, who is a former editor of Near East Report, was an author/editor of Myths&Facts both before and after it changed management. Zero^talk 07:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Myth and Facts is indeed a book dedicated to defend the interests of Israel in the USA in giving a "pro-Israeli" picture of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. That cannot be considered as a reliable source. In case of doubt, people can refer to the sources that are used in that book given it usually gives precise references to the information it provides.

I am not sure to understand what is discussed about Abbas but one think is sure : whatever Abbas may have said on the topic of the 1948 exodus that cannot be reliable and even worth quoting because he is a politician and not a scholar. Eventually his testimony given he was born at Safed could be used by a historian but his testimony doesn't seem to me less valuable than any other for the same reasons.

Pluto2012 (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record I don't doubt that something by Abbas was published which might be translated with words like those disseminated. What is bizarre is that people can be willing to believe that the PLO journal would exonerate Israel from the Nakhba. I mean, do they believe in the tooth fairy too? If it is read correctly, it fits perfectly within the standard Palestinian narrative. The basic idea is that the Arab states didn't try hard enough to defend the Palestinians against the Zionists, so the Palestinians had to flee. It doesn't imply that the Zionists weren't responsible. There are many statements like that. But in any case we don't have a reliable source for this statement, which eliminates its use here. Zero^talk 23:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The Dore Gold source has been in use here for months. I intend to restore that source as soon as enough time has gone by for Nableezy to take a chill pill. --GHcool (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no rule whatever that the length of time something has been present justifies keeping it. It has been challenged repeatedly over a long time too. Dore Gold is not a third-party source nor a reliable source, but just for fun I looked up where he got this "quote" from. He tells us that got it from a well-known third-party source of Truth, namely page 43 of "Who Stands Accused? Israel Answers its Critics" by "Israel's Ambassador to the UN, Chaim Herzog" (that's how it appears on the cover, apart from the wikilink). Herzog doesn't give a source (in fact nobody has give an original source, just a publication name and a month). I also noticed how Herzog (or Herzog's unnamed source) solved the problem that the words "Zionist tyranny" in the quotation might alert the reader that Abbas is not actually letting Israel off the hook. In true Joan Peters style, he replaced those words by an ellipsis! [OR starts now, please stop reading] I also noticed one reason Abbas might have been attacking the Arab states in March 1976. At that time there was open conflict between Syria and the PLO. Shortly before this article was published (assuming the month is correct), several offices of PLO newspapers in Beirut were trashed by As-Sa'iqa, though I didn't figure out if the Filastin al-Fawkra office was one of them. Zero^talk 08:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Zero's personal opinion aside, Gold meets all the criteria of WP:RS. The Tower of Babbel book is not a publication of the State of Israel. I'll revert it eventually. --GHcool (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You openly promise to edit-war? Is that in your own best interests? Zero^talk 02:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It his not his personal opinion. He is giving a very good reason why we should not regard Gold as an RS for this material in this situation. I just looked through the thread and i don't see anyone making a reasoned argument for using Gold as an RS here. Dlv999 (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It should be perfectly obvious that a polemic tract by "former Israeli Consul General to the U.S" Ben Gad is not a reliable source. Doesn't even come close. Zero^talk 22:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Two points must be discussed :

• What did Abbas say exactly because the reliability of the source does not fit standards
• What is the due:weight of what he said or would have said

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

If some current or former Palestinian politicians, together with Electronic Intifada, claimed that Netanyahu had written something in a Hebrew newspaper that seemed to contradict everything else he'd said, but couldn't provide even a date for it, would we accept it as a reliable fact? It's really that simple. The least we should expect around here is some consistency. Zero^talk 11:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you but the comparison is not perfect because Gold is more reliable than E.I.

That is the problem in any asymetric war and therefore also in this asymetric propaganda war. On one side, it is easy to reject I.E. On the other side, some people of good standing and even sometimes with some academical credits but out of the field of interest become dubious because they participate to the struggle. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of comparing E.I. with Myths and Facts, which is one of the sources being pushed here. Gold, who is a professional propagandist and not a scholar, got it from Herzog. We must not cite as fact unproven claims by any group of people against their enemies. (I don't even cite academic historians like Ilan Pappe, so I'm not embarrassed by the standards I'm trying to maintain here.) Zero^talk 14:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You've got the point. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

So we consider that Abu Mazen never wrote an article "Madha `Alamna wa-Madha Yajib An Na`mal" [What We Have Learned and What We Should Do] and published it in "Falastineth-Thawra" [Revolutionary Palestine], the official journal of the PLO, Beirut, March 1976, don't we? And BTW Gold is still alive, so maybe we should not embarrass WP:BLP standards we're trying to maintain here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This journal was published at least weekly, so "March 1976" is not even a proper citation. There is also the context (what else did Abbas write in the same article that helps to explain his words?) and the translation. Where is the the academic analysis? Zero^talk 10:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

According to the first source, up there in the beginning of this discussion, the Abbbas' article was published on March 26 1976. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the following discussion there was a strong consensus that it was not an RS for the material in question. (Several editors gave policy/evidence reasons why it should not be considered RS in this instance and there was not a single response defending its use). Dlv999 (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

So I guess this edit demonstrates a "strong consensus". Appears as tag team edit warring while the discussion is still ongoing. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

In the diff GHcool does not restore the dissertation source you brought up in your recent post, nor does he make any attempt to defend it here on talk, nor does any other editor. So yes I would say the diff is more evidence that there is a consensus regarding that source. You did not bother to defend it when its merits were being discussed, but now you bring it up again as if it is a serious source ignoring all the prior discussion. Dlv999 (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

According to sources Abbas published an article "Madha `Alamna wa-Madha Yajib An Na`mal" [What We Have Learned and What We Should Do] and published it in "Falastineth-Thawra" [Revolutionary Palestine], the official journal of the PLO, Beirut, March 26 1976. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

GHcool is correct, Yitschak Ben Gad appears reliable, cited by other reliable sources (see above) and includes a Xerox copy of original Abbas' article in Arabic with English translation, see Yitschak Ben Gad (1991). Politics, Lies, and Videotape: 3,000 Questions and Answers on the Mideast Crisis. SP Books. p. 305. ISBN 978-1-56171-015-7. Retrieved 18 March 2013.. Still in doubt whether or not the quote is attributed to Abbas properly? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The standard applied in WP:SPS is "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (emphasis in original). Being cited doesn't meet this standard so that argument doesn't sound persuasive. I didn't find his articles in scientific journals in a web search. Has someone else found any? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the copy of the original Abbas' article in Arabic make me feel pretty confident that we do not misattribute the quote. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Excellent work, AgadaUrbanit. --GHcool (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Ben-Gurion coverup

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/catastrophic-thinking-did-ben-gurion-try-to-rewrite-history.premium-1.524308

Anybody got a subscription or a better source on the coverup? Hcobb (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That seems very good work but :

• a PhD student, even published by Ha'aretz is not a wp:rs source
• the biography of this gentleman could make think he is biased

Is there an official publication in an peer-reviewed paper ?

Was file number GL-18/17028 review by another historian too ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I found the Haaretz article quite confusing. The interesting part was that most of the people involved in the 1960s "investigations" remember being more negative about Israel's role than they wrote at the time. Or maybe they are now embarrassed by what they wrote at the time. Hard to tell, and hard to know if and how to use that article here. Zero^talk 03:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course Morris' work in 'The Birth' has been debunked .. And ergo HE Has Recanted

So badly debunked in fact, his conclusion has changed. Should one be using this early discredited (by Karsh) 'stuff' such as inverted and partial quotes? No. ergo: The latest Morris declaration on the issue.

http://www.zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2008/02/israel-and-palestinians-according-to.html

Irish Times lettersed@irish-times.ie February 21, 2008

Israel and the Palestinians

Benny Morris

Madam, - Israel-Haters are fond of citing - and more often, Mis-citing - my work in support of their arguments. Let me offer some corrections.

The Palestinian Arabs were not responsible "in some bizarre way" (David Norris, January 31st) for what befell them in 1948. Their responsibility was very direct and simple.

In Defiance of the will of the International community, as embodied in the UN General Assembly Resolution of November 29th, 1947 (No. 181), They launched Hostilities against the Jewish community in Palestine in the hope of aborting the emergence of the Jewish state and perhaps Destroying that community. But they Lost; and one of the RESULTS was the displacement of 700,000 of them from their homes. [......] -

MOST of Palestine's 700,000 "refugees" fled their homes because of the flail of War (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of Victorious Arab invaders). But it is also true that there were several dozen sites, including Lydda and Ramla, from which Arab communities were expelled by Jewish troops.

The displacement of the 700,000 Arabs who became "refugees" - and I put the term in inverted commas, as 2/3's of them were displaced from one part of Palestine to another and not from their country (which is the usual definition of a refugee) - was not a "racist crime" (David Landy, January 24th) but the RESULT of a national conflict and a WAR, with religious overtones, from the Muslim perspective, launched by the Arabs themselves.

There was NO Zionist "plan" or blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of "ethnic cleansing". Plan Dalet ('Plan D'), of March 10th, 1948 (it is open and available for all to read in the IDF Archive and in various publications), was the master plan of the Haganah - the Jewish military force that became the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) - to counter the expected pan-Arab assault on the emergent Jewish state. That's what it explicitly states and that's what it was. And the invasion of the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq duly occurred, on May 15th. It is true that Plan D gave the regional commanders carte blanche to occupy and garrison or expel and destroy the Arab villages along and behind the front lines and the anticipated Arab armies' invasion routes. And it is also true that mid-way in the 1948 war the Israeli leaders decided to bar the return of the "refugees" (those "refugees" who had just assaulted the Jewish community), viewing them as a potential fifth column and threat to the Jewish state's existence. I for one cannot fault their fears or logic.

The Demonisation of Israel is largely based on Lies - much as the Demonisation of the Jews during the past 2,000 years has been based on Lies. And there is a Connection between the two.

I would recommend that the likes of Norris and Landy read some history books and become acquainted with the facts, not recycle shopworn Arab propaganda. They might then learn, for example, that the "Palestine War" of 1948 (the "War of Independence," as Israelis call it) began in November 1947, not in May 1948. By May 14th close to 2,000 Israelis had died - of the 5,800 dead suffered by Israel in the whole war (ie almost 1% of the Jewish population of Palestine/Israel, which was about 650,000).

Prof Benny Morris, Li-On, Israel. Feb 21, 2008

- - - - - 

'The Death' of 'The Birth', the New Historian Bible shattered by it's own author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.149.66 (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is a snippet from another interview Morris has given:

They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.

"There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide - the annihilation of your people - I prefer ethnic cleansing."

And that was the situation in 1948?

"That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them.

This was originally in Haaretz and reproduced here. --Dailycare (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Concerns about Conflict of Interest

Supposedly there are paid lobbies that are going to be editing Wikipedia to have a pro-israeli bias, or at least that is what this special report from RT claims:

(Relevant info is at 9:50 in the video)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GwApvroWkE

This is very troubling and should be taken seriously. Wikipedia is not a platform for propaganda. It is a neutral source of information that should look at all the evidence that is presented from unbiased, credible sources. If your sources are biased or unreliable, they will be removed. I don't care how much you're being paid, or what country you're from, this is a place of knowledge, not national interests. Spirit469 (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Woodhead commission

user:Zero0000 has undone my edit. I do not understand his reason. I asked him for his objeactions in my talkpage.

It is a pity that Zero removed the tag of "citation needed" too. Hence the article stay with the mistake. Ykantor (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

As he explained to you on your talk page, he removed this edit because you selected one particular sentence, taken out of its context and added it. The Woodhead commission contains what you report but reporting this in particular doesn't comply with WP:NPoV given it is not the most important in what the commission says.

More, it is a 1st source. The content of the commission report that we report on wp should be the result of what 2nd sources report about it.

More you copied/pasted this sentence on 17 articles, which is SPAM. Pluto2012 (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5j0sy4bPE?url=http%3A%2F%2Fjeffweintraub.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F02%2Fbenny-morris-on-fact-fiction-propaganda.html to http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2008/02/benny-morris-on-fact-fiction-propaganda.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5j0sy4bPE?url=http%3A%2F%2Fjeffweintraub.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F02%2Fbenny-morris-on-fact-fiction-propaganda.html to http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2008/02/benny-morris-on-fact-fiction-propaganda.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100605160815/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/AB14D4AAFC4E1BB985256204004F55FA to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/AB14D4AAFC4E1BB985256204004F55FA
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510031106/http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/exodus/Erskine%20Childers%2C%20Walid%20Khalidi%2C%20Jon%20Kimche%2C%20et%20al.pdf to http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/exodus/Erskine%20Childers%2C%20Walid%20Khalidi%2C%20Jon%20Kimche%2C%20et%20al.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091015133337/http://www.users.cloud9.net/~recross/israel-watch/ErskinChilders.html to http://www.users.cloud9.net/~recross/israel-watch/ErskinChilders.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Source of questionable veracity

Alright. I'm awful at wikipedia so someone will have to fix this for me, obviously... but why is citation 9 acceptable? It claims to be from a newspaper, but that newspaper itself doesn't cite any first hand sources. All it does is claim that no one else cites first hand sources. And it's not actually a newspaper citation, it's a free website citation that claims to be from a newspaper's editorial column. It contains obvious factual errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.151.68 (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The random website that the link goes to is not acceptable as a source, but the original article in the Spectator is. It is quite a famous article and the item it is cited for (that the argument at that time rarely used primary documents) is perfectly correct. I'm putting it back with a direct link to the original. Zero^talk 09:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

One may think that this article should by now be rock solid. I have decided to review it for the first time and to my surprise encountered irregularities unacceptable in Wiki. For instance, after having fixed a 'dead link' to the Philip Mendes article - 2000 (as uploaded by the author), I actually read his work. Nowhere does it even mention Peretz or Gabbay. I have placed a 'verification failed' tag. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060507081443/http://www.editriceilponte.org/_files/HaaretzInterviewEnglish.pdf to http://www.editriceilponte.org/_files/HaaretzInterviewEnglish.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Why are Chaim Simmons' opinions in the Israeli view section when he clearly supports the Arab view?

the paragraph "Rabbi Chaim Simons demonstrated in 1988 that Zionist leaders..." supports the arab side and obviously should go under their heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutoffyourjib (talk • contribs) 03:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

He is an Israeli. The Israeli view does not have to be pro-Israeli 2001:630:D0:5010:3939:1C1E:E1AD:10A3 (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe Section 1.1.2 Israeli view should be 1.1.2 Israeli views. Mcljlm (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with this. Not all Israelis view this complex historical issue the same way, just as not all Arabs do. --GHcool (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

You disagree that it should be renamed Israeli views? Mcljlm (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree that it should be renamed Israeli views. --GHcool (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Misleading automatic redirect from "Zionist Action Committee" - vandalism?

Has that article been erased? It's not available anymore. Please rectify. Thanks. Arminden (talk) 11:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

It was created as a redirect in 2009 and has no other history that I can tell. Zero^talk 11:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Redirecting "Zionist Action Committee" to "Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus" is at least a little bit... funny. Or rather, the very definition of sarcastic partiality. I suggest to remove it. The Zionist Action Committee seems to have been some department of the Zionist Executive; even if there's no article about it (yet), there is no reason to leave things as they are now = a bad joke. Arminden (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The very little I can find is unclear whether even whether it was a single body. I see "Inner Zionist Action Committee" and "Greater Zionist Action Committee" as well, which may or may not be the same thing. Zero^talk 22:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This article mentions the Zionist Actions Committee (once) in the text and the Zionist Action Committee (once) in a footnote. I don't think that's sufficient reason for Zionist Action Committee to redirect here. (The Zionist Action Committee appears to have been a committee of the World Zionist Organization during the 1930s. That may be a better target for the redirect.)

But as an experienced editor, Arminden, you should know better than to blank a ten-year-old article if you have a problem with a redirect to it. You're not a newbie here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The Committee was the body (actually 2 bodies: the Greater and the smaller Inner) which ran the Zionist Organisation between Zionist Congresses. I'd only heard it referred to in English as the Actions Committee until seeing Action here. Googling does show some instances of Action but Zionist Organisation documents and publications show the correct spelling is Actions:

https://www.archives.gov.il/archives/Archive/0b07170680031e2e/File/0b07170680c70c0a

https://ia800202.us.archive.org/9/items/guidetozionism00samprich/guidetozionism00samprich.pdf

https://archive.org/details/struggleforhebr00commgoog/page/n6/mode/2up

Mcljlm (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Judaica says "Actions Committee, early name of the Zionist General Council, the supreme institution of the World Zionist Organization in the interim between Congresses. The Zionist Executive’s name was then the 'Small Actions Committee.'" In the Protocols of the Zionist Congresses (the last I have is 1937), it is always called "Aktionskomitee". That can be translated either as Action or Actions, but the majority of good English sources I have use "Actions". Zero^talk 00:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

BTW Zero the EJ spells it's name with ae: Encyclopaedia Judaica. Mcljlm (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

See also Addresses; Debates, Resolutions of the January 1976 Session of the Zionist General Council https://www.bjpa.org/content/upload/bjpa/sess/SESSION%20OF%20THE%20ZIONIST%20GENERAL%20COUNCIL_ADDRESSES-DEBATES-RESOLUTIONS%204-8%20JANUARY,%201976.pdf. Mcljlm (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

move

In keeping with the consensus here, I moved this article to a similar title. Any objections I'll revert and open a move request. nableezy - 23:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy Why use 1948 expulsion and flight of Palestinians instead of Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight like the original article? :3 F4U (they/it) 20:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Idk, just felt more natural as a description? I wont really feel offended if somebody changes it to match that article exactly. nableezy - 21:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Source listed incorrectly

" "I gathered the Jewish mukhtars, who had ties with the different Arab villages, and I asked them to whisper in the ears of several Arabs that giant Jewish reinforcements had reached the Galilee and were about to clean out the villages of the Hula, [and] to advise them, as friends, to flee while they could. And the rumour spread throughout the Hula that the time had come to flee. The flight encompassed tens of thousands. The stratagem fully achieved its objective." is not within pages 252–258 of Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist–Arab conflict, 1881–2001 but I can find it on page 251 of The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited [2nd Edition]. Sam(A Horrible Person) (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

This article fails to articulate the Israeli view

Even under "Israeli view," there is only criticism of it, the actually view buried in an indented quotation in its 3rd paragraph. The criticism of the Israeli view is equally critical of the Arab view in that support for multicausality refutes both views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamoatlarge (talk • contribs) 18:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC) From the Jewish Virtual Library: Toward the end of the British Mandate, both the Jews and the Arabs attempted to gain control over the city. The hostilities which broke out at the end of 1947 reached a peak on April 21–22, 1948, when the British suddenly decided to evacuate the city. In a lightning military action, the Haganah captured the Arab quarters and took over the city. Only about 3,000 of Haifa’s 50,000 Arab residents chose to remain in the city; the rest, in response to the Arab High Command’s orders, refused to accept Jewish rule and abandoned their homes. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/history-and-overview-of-haifa All of this type of information needs to be presented without refutation in the first instance. The refutation needs to be reserved for the debate sections. Something I know to be the lore of Haifa: The 3,000 Muslim and Christian Palestinians who remained only stayed because the Jews of Haifa insisted they do so and prevented them from leaving. That remnant that stayed behind and that attitude of Haifa in the early days of Israel did allow a number of Christian and Muslim (Palestinian) Arabs to settle/resettle in the city in the 50s and 60s. By the late 1970s, the story of the blockade to stop the remnant from fleeing and the pluralism that ensued was told by Jews of Haifa with regret as much as with pride.Lamoatlarge (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm biased in favor of the Arabs, however, I have to agree. Our article is biased.

Part of it could be that reality itself is biased, but even if that is the case, you are still correct. It is not written from a neutral point of view and does not read as such.

In my oppinion, the article itself clearly violates our WP:NPOV policy.

Sober Reasoning (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Some improvements have been made but the article still violates the WP:NPOV policy, looking at the edit history many scholarly critiques of Palestinian sources get removed frequently on largely spurious groups. PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

This article misstates the "Israeli View"

Most notably in the first phrase: "Rabbi Chaim Simons demonstrated in 1988 that Zionist leaders in Mandatory Palestine viewed "transfer" (a euphemism for ethnic cleansing) of Arabs from the land as being crucial."

There is no indication that the Israelis would describe the process as "ethnic cleansing" and the citation noted at the end of the phrase doesn't make that claim. At the very least, this characterization really demands a citation, if not removal altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheariner (talk • contribs) 20:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)