Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Recent changes

These recent edits should be discussed.

1. Addition of text: "From early on, the leadership of the Zionist movement had the idea of "transferring" (a euphemism for ethnic cleansing) the Arab Palestinian population out of the land for the purpose of establishing a Jewish demographic majority. The idea of transfer, Benny Morris describes, was "inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism". The Arab population felt this threat as early as the 1880s with the arrival of the first aliyah." [1]

2. Addition of text: "The conflict has its origins in the arrival of Zionist settlers to Palestine in the late 19th and 20th centuries. The local Arab population rejected the Zionist movement, primarily out of the fear of territorial displacement and dispossession. The Zionist movement's effort to garner the support of an imperial power culminated in the 1917 Balfour Declaration" [2]

Reverted [3]

3. Significant change of text [4]

From: "The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was never implemented but its announcement led directly to the 1948 Palestine war. During the war, Zionist militias depopulated hundreds of Palestinian villages, culminating in the expulsion or flight of the majority of pre-war Mandatory Palestine's predominantly Arab population."

To: "The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, accepted by the Jewish leadership but rejected by the Arabs, triggered a civil war between these groups which would see the expulsion or fleeing of most Palestinians from Mandatory Palestine."

4. Removal of text: "Land purchases, the eviction of tenant Arab peasants and armed confrontation with Jewish para-military units would all contribute to the Palestinian population’s growing fear of territorial displacement and dispossession. This early Jewish immigration and settlement was accompanied by the development of colonial relations with the Palestinian population, which included exploitation of the relatively impoverished locals in addition to mutual dependence and racism. The Palestinian fear of displacement and dispossession would gradually be replaced by a broader sense of national expression which included the rejection of the Zionist goal of turning the mostly Arab populated land into a Jewish homeland. From early on, the leadership of the Zionist movement had the idea of "transferring" (a euphemism for ethnic cleansing) the Arab Palestinian population out of the land for the purpose of establishing a Jewish demographic majority. The idea of transfer, Benny Morris describes, was "inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism". The Arab population felt this threat as early as the 1880s with the arrival of the first aliyah."

Readded [5]

Removed again [6]

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The justification for revert [3] was about neutral framing. Someone will need to explain why they think the reverted text is more neutral.

The edit summary for change of text [4] was about "attributed sole blame for the 1948 Palestinian exodus to one entity,". But the text did not attribute sole blame to one entity, it explained that villages were depopulated (which is a fact) and that eventually 80% of the population fled or was expelled (which is also not contested). Nowhere does the text claim this is the only reason people left. DMH43 (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS to achieve consensus is on those who add content. My concern here is that quite sweeping statements about colonialism, exploitation and ethnic cleansing are added based on a single, even if quite respectable source. For starters, could you provide page numbers for all these claims? Alaexis_¿question? 23:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes I can add page numbers, there are also plenty of sources which corroborate the claims which I can also source if needed. I realize onus is on me to explain the addition, but in this case the neutrality is being challenged, which I need someone to explain why it's not neutral in this case. DMH43 (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if significant content should be removed based on only vague personal concerns. You even admit the source is "quite respectable". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

actually, page numbers for [3] and [4] arent needed since this is a summary of the body. I will provide page numbers for [5] DMH43 (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I requested page numbers for the passage that starts out with the words "Land purchases" whose sole source is Benny Morris's book (#4 in the list above).

As to #3, the problem with the current version is that the acceptance of the partition by the Jews is never mentioned. This is a significant fact that all sources about the period cover.

Also, the current version of #3 mentions the depopulated Arab villages but does not mention the Jewish settlements depopulated as a result of the conflict (see Category:Jewish villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War). Alaexis_¿question? 14:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It was myself who removed the Jewish acceptance part because, as you are well aware, having participated in the discussion at the partition plan article, what was there did not properly reflect the situation, not a simple acceptance, so best to leave the complexities of that to the wikilink. Selfstudier (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

There was no consensus to omit it entirely though. This is not a reasonable standard; many agreements were accepted with one or both sides being unhappy and wanting more. That doesn't make the acceptance any less factual. It'd be like saying that Russia didn't really accept Budapest memorandum because many Russian officials kept saying that Crimea was Russian and eventually acted upon this view. It doesn't change the fact that the agreement was accepted.

I'm sure many sources could be found that mention the acceptance. I'd rather not waste everyone's time but if needed I'll look for them. Alaexis_¿question? 20:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Not necessary, there is a wikilink for the details of the partition plan including detailed explanations of why Arabs rejected and why Jews accepted, omitting those details here is just POV designed to push the Israeli narrative (that's all it is) of Arab rejectionism. Selfstudier (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The sources make it clear that the Zionists were happy with the plan and the Arabs weren't, as Morris puts it "The Zionists and their supporters rejoiced; the Arab delegations walked out of the plenum after declaring the resolution invalid" (1948, p. 63). He discusses the reasons for that on p. 65 and we can probably summarise them in the article. Alaexis_¿question? 20:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

All the relevant Morris quotes are in the partition article, not just the one you like. Selfstudier (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Re mentioning Jewish settlements that were depopulated, that would be a serious BALASP violation. nableezy - 15:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm using the word 'depopulated' in a straightforward sense. Settlements like Kalya and Kfar Etzion were populated before the war and were not populated after, and as a result of it.

I don't see any BALASP issues if we made it clear that there were much fewer Jewish settlements that suffered this fate.

Just noticed another issue, btw. Not all Palestinian villages were depopulated by the "Zionist militias" (see the breakdown here), so this wording is simply inaccurate. Alaexis_¿question? 20:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Check the article 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight, opening sentence "In 1948, more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs – about half of prewar Mandatory Palestine's Arab population – fled from their homes or were expelled by Zionist militias and, later, the Israeli army" - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Onus requires policy based reasons, not just saying no. What specifically is the dispute? The source is impeccable, the material doesn’t have any sources disputing it. What exactly is the cause for removal? nableezy - 06:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich, could you bring light to this discussion? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Levivich brings light to a discussion.

I see 4 lines in the OP. Of those, I don't see any objection to #1 or #2 in the above discussion unless I've missed something.

For #3, I don't really have an opinion on which one I think is better, because I see problems with both:

• I agree "Zionist militias" is inaccurate; it was regular forces as well, the Haganah and IDF (and they were more responsible for expulsion/flight than the militias); I would go with "Israelis," "Israeli military," "Israeli forces," something like that
• I wouldn't say the depopulation culminated in the expulsion/flight because the expulsion/flight was the depopulation; "depopulation" and "expulsion/flight" are kind of the same thing; I prefer "expulsion/flight" which I think is less euphemistic, clearer, and used as often or more often by the sources
• Mentioning depopulation of Jewish villages in the lead would be a big WP:BALASP violation IMO. The sources do not give that anywhere near as much weight as the depopulation of Arab villages.
• As to the accepted/rejected issue, two things:
  1. It should mention "Palestinian" reaction to Resolution 181, not "Arabs"
  2. Simply saying Israelis accepted and Palestinians rejected is over simplifying it. It's tough to explain succinctly but here is the line from Nakba:

     Palestinians were opposed to the partition. Zionists accepted the partition but planned to expand Israel's borders beyond what was allocated to it by the UN.

For #4, is the only issue the page number? Land purchases and transfer is easily sourced, more can be added if needed (but I'm generally opposed to cites in leads as unnecessary clutter if the body is doing its job). Levivich (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The vast majority of examples of expulsion and flight were in the first stage of the war, before there was an Israeli army or an Israel, making Zionist militias, including the Hagannah, more accurate. I wouldn’t be opposed to Zionist militias and later the Israeli army though. nableezy - 00:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Or just "Zionist forces"? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Although I still think "Israeli" is better, I'd be fine with "Zionist forces." Levivich (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree Nabs, I think the sources say more people were expelled after May 15 than before. Khalidi 2020 for example gives 400,000 after May and 300,000 before. Morris explicitly says expulsions increased as the war went on (as did their brutality). I think Pappe says the same thing but would have to double check. Also, I disagree with the characterization of the Haganah as a "militia," I think the sources describe it as "regular" or "paramilitary" forces, whereas the "militias" or "irregular" forces are Lehi, Irgun and such. I could be wrong about any of this, of course, but that's my impression. Levivich (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

This is the last thing I remember reading about numbers: Slater, Jerome (2020). Mythologies Without End: The US, Israel, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1917-2020. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. ISBN 978-0-19-045908-6. There is no serious dispute among Israeli, Palestinian, or other historians about the central facts of the Nakba. All of the leading Israeli New Historians—particularly Morris, Shlaim, Pappé, and Flapan—extensively examined the issue and revealed the facts. Other accounts have reached the same conclusions. For example, see Ben-Ami, "A War to Start All Wars"; Rashid Khalidi, "The Palestinians and 1948"; Walid Khalidi, "Why Did the Palestinians Leave, Revisited"; Masalha, Expulsion of the Palestinians; Raz, Bride and the Dowry. Reviewing the evidence marshaled by Morris and others, Tom Segev concluded that "most of the Arabs in the country, approximately 400,000, were chased out and expelled during the first stage of the war. In other words, before the Arab armies invaded the country" (Haaretz, July 18, 2010). Other estimates have varied concerning the number of Palestinians who fled or were expelled before the May 1948 Arab state attack; Morris estimated the number to be 250,000–300,000 (The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, 262); Tessler puts it at 300,000 (A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 279); Pappé's estimate is 380,000 (The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 96). In another recent review of the evidence, the Israeli historian Daniel Blatman estimates the number to be about 500,000 (Blatman, "Netanyahu, This Is What Ethnic Cleansing Really Looks Like"). Whatever the exact number, even Israeli "Old Historians" now admit that during the 1948 war, the Israeli armed forces drove out many of the Palestinians, though they emphasized the action as a military "necessity." For example, see Anita Shapira, Israel: A History, 167–68. In July 2019, the Israeli government sought to cover up the extensive documentary evidence in its state archives that revealed detailed evidence about the extent of the Nakba—even the evidence that had already been published by newspapers and Israeli historians. A Haaretz investigation of the attempted cover-up concluded: "Since early last decade, Defense Ministry teams have scoured local archives and removed troves of historic documents to conceal proof of the Nakba, including Israeli eyewitness reports at the time" (Shezaf, "Burying the Nakba: How Israel Systematically Hides Evidence of 1948 Expulsion of Arabs"). nableezy - 02:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

That's a good literature review on the point. Slater sums that up as (p. 81) 300-400k in 1st half out of 750. I would summarize that as "half" expelled in the first half. But there's still the question of "by whom." Slater in that quote says "the Israeli armed forces drove out many of the Palestinians," but doesn't specify between (what I call) militia groups like Lehi and Irgun, Haganah, and IDF. Morris treats Lehi/Irgun as one thing, and Haganah/IDF as another thing. You can pin all the post-May expulsions on IDF, i.e. half of all expulsions; do we say that the first half was by "militias"? I feel like that's not as accurate or faithful to the sources. If Haganah=IDF="regular troops," then most of the expulsions were by Israeli regular troops. If Haganah=Lehi=Irgun="militias", then half by militias and half by regular troops. But I feel like "Zionist" implies pre-Israeli, and "militias" implies "not the regular army," whereas the sources say that the regular army was responsible for half or most of the expulsions. Levivich (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Come to think of it there's also the issue that it wasn't just military or militia forces that expelled Palestinians, the sources say that Zionist/Israeli civilians shared some responsibility, either (depending on the source/specific expulsion) directing it, being complicit in it, approving of it after the fact, etc. I'm still fine with the "Zionist forces" suggestion above (and there are other variations I'd be fine with too) but I still think "Israelis" is the best label for the lead of a high-level article like this. "Israelis" and "Palestinians" (and "Arab states"). Levivich (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Zionist, and later Israeli, forces? I don’t think we should be calling things Israeli before there was an Israel, the Hagannah was the closest thing to the regular army of the Yishuv but that wasn’t Israel. nableezy - 03:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm good with that, I've definitely read the construction "Zionist, and later Israeli," many times in various sources. I still don't like it tbh, it suggests on May 15th the Zionists left and the Israelis showed up, when in fact it was the same people on May 14 as on May 16, it's just a name change. In my mind it's different when you're talking about earlier periods of time, but -- again, my opinion here -- Israel became a "thing" when the UN voted, even if its independence was declared months later, and it's simpler to just talk about the entire generation of Zionists that fought in the War of Independence as "Israelis," and prior generations as "Zionists." But end rant, "Zionist, and later Israeli" works. Levivich (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that the addition "but planned to expand Israel's borders beyond what was allocated to it by the UN" satisfies NPOV. Out of the sources that you have provided, Morris (2008) and Pappe (2012) say that they planned to expand Israel's border if it was attacked by the Arabs (Morris: if the Arabs initiate war, Pappe: this could be achieved in the event of an overall war). The proposed text omits this. Alaexis_¿question? 20:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Once again, read Morris at the partition article "p.101 ... mainstream Zionist leaders, from the first, began to think of expanding the Jewish state beyond the 29 November partition resolution borders"</ref> There is no simple method, other than cherrypicking, for avoiding the wikilink (and IDHT of course). Selfstudier (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

"if the Arabs initiate war" is what Morris said Shertok said, not what Morris is saying: "Second, the mainstream Zionist leaders, from the first, began to think of expanding the Jewish state beyond the 29 November partition resolution borders. As Shertok told one interlocutor already in September 1947, if the Arabs initiate war, “we will get hold of as much of Palestine as we would think we can hold.”" And in that cite is Sa'di quoting Morris saying that Zionists only accepted it as a "stepping stone." I don't agree with your reading, "this could be achieved in the event of an overall war" doesn't mean "we will only do this if there is a war." Also, both Morris and Pappe say that everyone knew there would be a war. And even if you put Morris and Pappe aside altogether, there are still the other cites there. Cohen 2017 (quoted in that cite) is the only example I know of that says explicitly that Zionist acceptance of partition was genuine, and I think he acknowledges his as the minority view. Levivich (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I think there are two issues here.

• Was the Zionist acceptance genuine? Here we need to consult more sources, I will try to do it.
• Is the genuine-ness of the acceptance relevant for this article? Plenty of agreements made one or both sides unhappy and seeking to undo the perceived unfairness. We don't usually mention this when discussing other agreements, so why do it here?

In the meantime, let's use your proposed wording. Alaexis_¿question? 09:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the reason to mention it is, like anything else, because the sources mention it. Like a core conflict in the historiography is the one between New Historians Pappe and Morris, with Pappe saying, essentially, ethnic cleansing was always part of the plan, and Morris saying no, it was "fog of war" (and, later "should have finished it"). That debate is well covered in the sources, and I think is the evidence that the motivations of the parties is relevant to the conflict (and of course it would be). So if the Zionists accepted the partition but planned to take more than what was allocated to them, I think that's very relevant to this article. Just as relevant as the fact that they actually took more than what was allocated (and the how and why). Levivich (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

On the importance of the genuineness of the acceptance, Masalha 2012 p. 150, my emphasis: "Central to this revisionist historiography are debates on the 1948 Palestinian refugee exodus (expulsion versus flight), the impact of the British Mandate on Palestinian Arab and Jewish societies, the regional balance of power in 1948, the questionable nature of Zionist acceptance of the 1947 UN Partition Plan, and the revelations about early secret peace negotiations between Israeli and Arab leaders." Levivich (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

#4. Land purchases and everything else

Levivich, thanks for your comments. Let's keep the discussion of #3 in the thread above and here I'll answer your question about #4. Land purchases themselves are indeed easily sources and aren't contentious. My concerns are about the characterisation of these events as "colonialism" and "exploitation", as well as about the ethnic cleansing plans. In addition to page numbers in Morris's book, it would be good to check that other sources also describe it this way and consider it notable. Alaexis_¿question? 20:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes I agree about splitting the two; thanks, and also thanks for explaining the concerns about #4. I am reproducing the text of #4 to save everyone some scrolling:

Land purchases, the eviction of tenant Arab peasants and armed confrontation with Jewish para-military units would all contribute to the Palestinian population’s growing fear of territorial displacement and dispossession. This early Jewish immigration and settlement was accompanied by the development of colonial relations with the Palestinian population, which included exploitation of the relatively impoverished locals in addition to mutual dependence and racism. The Palestinian fear of displacement and dispossession would gradually be replaced by a broader sense of national expression which included the rejection of the Zionist goal of turning the mostly Arab populated land into a Jewish homeland. From early on, the leadership of the Zionist movement had the idea of "transferring" (a euphemism for ethnic cleansing) the Arab Palestinian population out of the land for the purpose of establishing a Jewish demographic majority. The idea of transfer, Benny Morris describes, was "inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism". The Arab population felt this threat as early as the 1880s with the arrival of the first aliyah.

• "Colonialism": This early Jewish immigration and settlement was accompanied by the development of colonial relations with the Palestinian population, ... It's actually not "colonialism," it's "colonial relations." I'm not really in love with that phrase, as it sounds like a euphemism for something. I've seen it used in sources on this subject but I don't think it's a widespread term of art, and even if it was, strikes me as WP:JARGON. In terms of what this article should say in the lead or body about Zionism and colonialism, I'm not sure. I posted some sources about settler colonialism at the bottom of Talk:Zionism as settler colonialism#Sources. I'm not sure what the sources say about non-settler colonialism. I feel like that's a bigger discussion that would require gathering and looking at more sources than what I posted in that other thread. I'd be fine with taking out "colonial relations" but would support including "colonial" something, just not sure what without ever having done a source review on that subject. There are of course plenty of sources like Colonizing Palestine (Stanford) so I'm sure it's a significant WP:ASPECT and leadworthy, I'm just not sure exactly what to say in wikivoice about it.
• "Exploitation": ... which included exploitation of the relatively impoverished locals in addition to mutual dependence and racism. This is another that's like easy to source but also requires a more in-depth source review. For one thing, I know the sources also say that Zionists froze out Palestinian labor, e.g. Patrick Wolfe's 2006 paper "Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native" (7,000 Google Scholar cites, the paper that launched the field) talked about the Zionist "conquest of labour," which Wolfe expanded on elsewhere (e.g. Wolfe 2012). Ilan Pappe also talks about Zionists pushing Palestinians out of the labor market (e.g. Pappe 2017 p. 48). Those are two I remember off the top of my head, I'm not sure exactly what is a balanced summary of the sources vis-a-vis Zionists and Palestinian labor; it requires looking at more sources than just Wolfe and Pappe.
• "Euphemism for ethnic cleansing": From early on, the leadership of the Zionist movement had the idea of "transferring" (a euphemism for ethnic cleansing) the Arab Palestinian population out of the land for the purpose of establishing a Jewish demographic majority. This I think is easily and widely sourced. Some examples:
  • The Wolfe 2012 paper linked above, p. 150: "‘transfer’ (the Zionist euphemism for removing the Natives from Palestine)."
  • Shlaim 2009 pp. 55-56: "‘Transfer’ is a euphemism for the expulsion or organised removal of the indigenous population of Palestine to the neighbouring Arab countries. In today’s world, the closest equivalent to ‘transfer’ is the ethnic cleansing practised by the Serbs in the former Yugoslavia."
  • In the Slater 2020 book Nableezy quoted in the previous section above, p. 47: "“transferred”—the preferred Zionist euphemism—out of the country, preferably voluntarily, but by force if necessary. The scholarship on transfer, especially by Israeli historians, leaves no doubt about its importance in the thinking of every major Zionist leader before and after Israel became a state.", this is in a six-page section called "'Transfer'"
  • Masalha 2012 p. 28: "In the 1930s and 1940s the Zionist leadership found it expedient to euphemise, using the term ‘transfer’ or ha‘avarah — the Hebrew euphemism for ethnic cleansing — one of the most enduring themes of Zionist colonisation of Palestine."
  • Pappe 2006 p. 250: "'voluntary transfer' - their euphemism for ethnic cleansing"

So basically I think all three are significant enough WP:ASPECTs to be included in the body and the lead. Levivich (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I will review the sources. Just to clarify, I see that they don't include Morris's Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict which was the source added with this passage. Does it mean that this information isn't found there, or are you simply providing additional sources? Alaexis_¿question? 09:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It just means I haven't looked at it because I've never really read any works from the 90s. I've read Morris 2004 and 2008 but nothing older (because I think 20th century is too old to represent current scholarship). Levivich (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! Alaexis_¿question? 21:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

On Zionism, colonialism, 'transfer' and labor, saw this at Masalha 2012 p. 59: "The Yishuv’s leadership was fully aware of the South African model of colonisation with its exploitation of cheap indigenous black labour by the European white settlers. Evidently its determination not to replicate the South African model, and its policy of employing exclusively Jewish ‘labour’ and excluding the indigenous inhabitants from the Jewish economy and land purchased by the Jewish National Fund, were linked in the minds of David Ben-Gurion and other Mapai leaders with the concept of ‘transfer’ as a key component of Zionist ideology and strategy (Masalha 1992: 22–3). Therefore it is precisely these distinct features of the Zionist colonisation of Palestine, the ‘exclusive’ nature of the European Yishuv and creation of a pure Zionist colony, which led to the destruction of Palestine and the Nakba; as we will see below, Zionist ‘ethnic cleansing’ and the premisses of ‘maximum land and minimum Arab’, and Arab ‘transfer’, led to the massive Zionist ‘territorial expansion’ in and conquest of Palestine (from 6.6 per cent in 1947 to 78 per cent by early 1949)." Levivich (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Since there are newer sources that you're using, I suppose that it's better to consider these topics on their own, rather than discussing the text from the change #4.

Regarding the refusal to employ Arabs practiced by some Jewish settlers for certain periods, the facts themselves are not in dispute. If there are sources that clearly link it to the conflict, they should be mentioned. Masalha treats it more as a symptom of the attitude rather than a cause of the conflict, so I'm not sure if it counts. I also think that it's a bit weird to call it exploitation, that is, taking unfair advantage of someone. The sources you've provided do not use this word, but even if some of them do, I think we should stick to the facts.

As to the transfer, Pappe's words are about the 21st century and so cannot support any claim about the Zionist movement in general "from early on." The quote from Shlaim comes from his discussion of Masalha, which he describes as an alternative view to that of Benny Morris. So per NPOV we shouldn't say it in wikivoice but rather attribute it, assuming it's not a fringe view.

The word colonization is already mentioned in the article.

Possibly it's worth opening a separate thread for each topic. Alaexis_¿question? 22:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

From Shlaim (Iron Wall): "...“transfer” or forced deportation of Palestinians.": https://archive.org/details/ironwallisraelar00shla/page/486/mode/2up?q=deportation DMH223344 (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

(It may be worth having separate threads to collect sources on each of these points.) Masalha 2018 p. 317: "Ahad Ha’Am (Asher Zvi Ginzberg), a liberal Russian Jewish thinker who visited Palestine in 1891, published a series of articles in the Hebrew periodical Hamelitz that were sharply critical of the ethnocentricity of political Zionism as well as the exploitation of Palestinian peasantry by Zionist settler-colonists", and p. 345 "In the 1920s the Zionist Labour leadership also began to develop a boycott strategy in Palestine. Thus, in 1929, Ben-Gurion wrote of the need for an ‘Iron Wall of [Zionist] workers’ settlements surrounding every Hebrew city and town, land and human bridge that would link isolated points’ and which would be capable of enforcing the doctrine of exclusive ‘Hebrew labour’ (‘avoda‘ivrit) and ‘Hebrew soil’ (adama ‘ivrit) (Masalha 1992: 24‒25)." So I think he covers both exploitation and exclusion. (Is 1929 "early on"?) Levivich (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. We can't say in wikivoice that there was exploitation of Palestinians based on Ahad Ha'Am's 1891 article. If we're discussing the first sub-section of the Background section, then the events of 1929 (which are related to the violence of that year) are out of scope.

The exclusion itself is notable, I just think that it should be tied to the topic of this article: how it caused or was caused by the conflict. Alaexis_¿question? 21:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

For "early on":

From Pappe (ethnic cleansing):

From the founder of the Zionist movement, Theodor Herzl, to the main leaders of the Zionist enterprise in Palestine, cleansing the land was a valid option. As one of the movement’s most liberal thinkers, Leo Motzkin, put it in 1917: Our thought is that the colonization of Palestine has to go in two directions: Jewish settlement in Eretz Israel and the resettlement of the Arabs of Eretz Israel in areas outside the country. The transfer of so many Arabs may seem at first unacceptable economically, but is nonetheless practical. It does not require too much money to resettle a Palestinian village on another land.

That should probably be enough to show that there is consensus on "early on". So I think the only point left to agree on is the use of "exploitation". I'd suggest to have a more detailed discussion than the brief comment in the original edit. So for now I would propose the following addition:

Land purchases, the eviction of tenant Arab peasants and armed confrontation with Jewish para-military units would all contribute to the Palestinian population’s growing fear of territorial displacement and dispossession. This fear would gradually be replaced by a broader sense of Palestinian national expression which included the rejection of the Zionist goal of turning the mostly Arab populated land into a Jewish homeland. From early on, the leadership of the Zionist movement had the idea of "transferring" (a euphemism for ethnic cleansing) the Arab Palestinian population out of the land for the purpose of establishing a Jewish demographic majority. The idea of transfer, Benny Morris describes, was "inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism". The Arab population felt this threat as early as the 1880s with the arrival of the first aliyah.

This could be followed by a description of the relationship with labor and the local population during the pre balfour period. DMH223344 (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@DMH223344, sorry for the delayed response. I've found the pages where Morris discusses the history of the idea of the "transfer" (139-144). I still couldn't find these exact words ("inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism"), so I would suggest to use Morris's wording from page 139 [The transfer idea] goes back to the fathers of modern Zionism... [it] was one of the main currents in Zionist ideology from the movement's inception. We could write as follows From early on, the idea of the transfer of the Arab Palestinian population out of the land was one of the main strands of the Zionist ideology. I think this is a fair summary: the transfer was indeed discussed by many of the founding fathers of Zionism but others, according to Morris, believed in coexistence until the late 1920s. Pappe also calls it an option in the quote by u:Levivich above.

As to the rest of your proposed text, it looks alright. Naturally, we need to make sure that each sentence is supported by sources. Alaexis_¿question? 21:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

For "inevitable and inbuilt" see "Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (Cambridge: 2004)." page 60 DMH223344 (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Also the conclusion starting at p. 588 ("But the displacement of Arabs from Palestine or from the areas of Palestine that would become the Jewish State was inherent in Zionist ideology and, in microcosm, in Zionist praxis from the start of the enterprise.") until 600. Levivich (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This change has now been made. DMH223344 (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Sources

This is a very unaccurate segmant

46.116.204.115 (talk) 07:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

This very very very unaccrate segmant the conflict start way before 1948 read a little

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Czello ^(music) 08:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

This being discussed above in "Scope of article / Beginning of conlict". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to add “ethno-nationalist” into first sentence

Mirroring the lede of The Troubles. I would just do this, per WP:BEBOLD, but the fact it’s not there already makes me wonder if this would be contested. The claim can, of course, be extensively sourced. Yr Enw (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

If there’s no objections, I’m just going to do this Yr Enw (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd object without more work being done because WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, so before "ethno-nationalist" can be in the lead, it should be in the body (with sources of course). And before we add it to the first sentence of the lead, I'd want to see that the vast majority of scholarship defines the entire conflict as an "ethnonationalist" one (and not about colonialism or religion, for example). I'm not sure it's as simple as The Troubles, where we can just say "the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an ethnonationalist conflict". From what I've read, people agree that this is part of the conflict but not all of it, but maybe my impression is incorrect. Basically, if you took three leading modern day history books about the conflict (say, one by a Palestinian, one by an Israeli, and one by neither), and all three described the conflict as an ethnonationalist conflict right away in the introduction, then I'd be convinced we should do the same. But my guess is you won't find three books like that (though I could be wrong as I've never checked). I think it might be due for the lead, but only after the body is developed on the point, and I'm not sure about the first sentence. Levivich (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting points to mull over, I’ll do some thinking and try to engage.

On the Troubles comparison, however, it may be worth saying I don’t think the majority of scholarship defines the entire conflict as ethno-nationalist, there was definitely also the element of colonialism too. Yr Enw (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure there's something to be said about ethnonationalism in the article, I'm just not sure exactly what. Thanks for taking this on! Levivich (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Yr Enw: I just stumbled upon Nadim Rouhana's 1998 paper with 547 Google Scholar cites called "Psychological dynamics of intractable ethnonational conflicts: The Israeli–Palestinian case" so there's one example on point :-) Levivich (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

A perusal of the sources has led me to a couple of findings. Firstly, not many papers I can find explicitly try to "define" the conflict, as such. Nobody has (yet) done a paper synthesising and assessing particular frames (as has been done for the NI conflict). And secondly, the term "national conflict" or "nationalist conflict" or identifying "nationalism" as the key theme of the conflict are much more abundant than "ethno-nationalist" specifically.

But some important findings, which will build into what I propose:

(a)

"The struggle for control over some or all of the territory of Palestine pits two nationalist movements against each other", Gelvin, J. L. (2021). The Israel-Palestine Conflict: A History (4th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

(b)

"It started around a century ago as an intercommunal conflict between Arabs and Zionist Jews living in the territory then known as Palestine. Fundamentally, it was a conflict between two communities whose dominant nationalist movements both claimed the right to exercise national self-determination and assume sovereignty over the same piece of land", Waxman, D. (2019). Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxford University Press.

(c)

"the conflict is a severe case of an ethno-nationalist conflict", Miller, B. (2016). Israel – Palestine: One State or Two: Why a Two-State Solution is Desirable, Necessary, and Feasible. Ethnopolitics. Vol. 15, No. 4. 438–45.

(d)

"The basic conflict in Palestine is a clash of two intense nationalisms," this is from the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine report, but is it arguably a primary source (and thus should be avoided)?

So, my thinking is we definitely need to say something about nationalism, probably just reflecting one of these above views. The article, at present, just sort of launches into the areas of contention without framing the conflict. But I am a bit unsure how to do this at present. Are we overreaching if we say "The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is an ongoing nationalist political and civil conflict in the Levant. Beginning in the mid-20th century, it is one of the world's longest-continuing conflicts" ? That it is political and civil is obvious (and therefore superfluous), in my view. But I do also agree with the need to also incorporate this into the body as well, so I'll have a think about that. Yr Enw (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

An alternative might be "The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is an ongoing political and civil conflict in the Levant over national self-determination in the territory of the former Mandatory Palestine. Beginning in the mid-20th century, it is one of the world's longest-continuing conflicts" Yr Enw (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Levivichdo you think there’s something useful in this we could say? Yr Enw (talk) 06:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes but unfortunately I'm not sure exactly what :-) I agree with your comments about political and civil being obvious and covering nationalism in the body and lead. Levivich (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, yes it would be useful to get other editors input as well on my proposed wording:

"The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is an ongoing political and civil conflict in the Levant over national self-determination in the territory of the former Mandatory Palestine. Beginning in the mid-20th century, it is one of the world's longest-continuing conflicts". It keeps the civil and political wording, though Yr Enw (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

This FP piece argues that it is increasingly a religious conflict in addition to nationalist. Selfstudier (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, though I'm a bit hesitant about that framing, personally. I know that academic scholarship tends to shy away from "religion" as an explainer. Dov Waxman is one name that comes to mind. Yr Enw (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I'd have no objection to the bolded part as an addition to the lead sentence. A minor tweak, I don't think we need the language "in the territory of"; "in former Mandatory Palestine" says the same thing just as clearly (IMO) with fewer words. The rest of this comment is about the rest of the lead sentence, but if you wanted to add the bolded part to the lead sentence, that'd be fine with me, my other objections notwithstanding.

As for the rest of the lead sentence, I don't think we need to keep "in the Levant" if we add "in the territory of the former Mandatory Palestine". As mentioned above, I don't like "political and civil" for a number of reasons: it omits other aspects, like "religious" as Self points out above, but it's also a violent conflict, an "actual shooting war" as they say, not just a political, civil, and religious conflict. It's also a colonial conflict, an imperial one, at least according to a large if not majority group of scholars. So maybe it's better to just say The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is an ongoing conflict over national self-determination in former Mandatory Palestine. But "political and civil" is a separate discussion probably from the bolded addition, which is what you're asking about.

While I'm on the subject though, I think it'd be even better to go with something like, The Israeli–Palestinian conflict over national self-determination in former Mandatory Palestine began ..., because saying that the I-P conflict is a conflict is redundant, as is saying that it's a conflict between I and P, so let's just get on with it in the lead sentence.

However, doing this gets us to another part of the lead where I have a big objection, which is what's after the "began ...". Saying (as the lead does now) that the conflict began in the mid 20th century as opposed to earlier (early 20th or late 19th c.), is, in my view, not an accurate summary of the scholarship. I'm in favor of something intentionally-vague like "around the turn of the 20th century". So to put it all together with some tweak for readability, my preferred lead sentence, including the bolded addition above, would be something like this:

Beginning around the turn of the 20th century, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict over national self-determination in former Mandatory Palestine is one of the world's longest-continuing conflicts.

Levivich (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with pretty much all of those points. I'll mull over that wording. My slight worry about my own proposed "self-determination" -- is it WP:OR to go from "nationalist" to "national self-determination" or are the sources clear enough that that's what we're talking about? Yr Enw (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

My take is that both sides want a nation for themselves (a fact widely supported by top RS, and probably the central issue in the conflict), and this is accurately described with the words "national self-determination". Levivich (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

So, it seems there are two broad aspects of a proposed change:

• The mentioning of national self-determination
• The historical timeframe

On the first point, I am happy with the way you've formulated it. I think saying "over/about national self-determination" is perhaps better than saying "nationalist conflict" because, like you and Self have pointed, we don't necessarily want to exclude other framings. I share your opinion that the word "conflict" is redundant, although - interestingly - this is how the Kashmir conflict article is worded. But am I correct in thinking the second aspect was recently (or perhaps still is?) debated at length here? I'm not sure whether the current second paragraph "has its origins in the arrival of Jewish immigrants and settlers to Palestine in the late 19th and 20th centuries and the advent of the Zionist movement" is a result of that? While I agree with your points, I wonder if maybe the solution is to eliminate any exact date in the first sentence, and just have the second paragraph the way it is? Which would leave us with:

The Israeli–Palestinian conflict, over national self-determination in former Mandatory Palestine, is one of the world's longest-continuing conflicts.

Key areas of the conflict include the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the status of Jerusalem, Israeli settlements, borders, security, water rights, Palestinian freedom of movement, and the Palestinian right of return.

The conflict has its origins in the arrival of Jewish immigrants and settlers to Palestine in the late 19th and 20th centuries... etc. etc.

I'm not hugely keen on the word "over", but I can't think of a better word. Yr Enw (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes I agree it's redundant to mention when it started twice (I hadn't looked below the infobox lol), your tweaks look good to me. I can't think of anything better than "over" either. Levivich (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Add mention of who performed the expulsions in lead

Right now the lead reads: "The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine triggered the 1948 Palestine war, which saw the expulsion and flight of most Palestinian Arabs, the establishment of Israel on most of the Mandate's territory, and the control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank by Egypt and Jordan, respectively."

Propose to update this to: "The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine triggered the 1947-1949 Palestine war, which saw the establishment of Israel on most of the Mandate's territory beyond what had been allotted to it in the UN partition plan, and the control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank by Egypt and Jordan, respectively. During this period, most Palestinians in the area of the Mandate would be driven from their towns and villages, primarily as a result of expulsions carried out by Zionist militias and para-military." DMH223344 (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

From Finkelstein 1995: Indeed, according to the former director of the Israel army archives, ‘in almost every Arab village occupied by us during the War of Independence, acts were committed which are defined as war crimes, such as murders, massacres, and rapes’. The number of large-scale massacres (more than 50 murdered) is put by the archivist at a minimum of 20 and small-scale massacres (an individual or a handful murdered) at about 100. Uri Milstein, the authoritative Israeli military historian of the 1948 war, goes one step further, maintaining that ‘every skirmish ended in a massacre of Arabs’

From Shlaim (iron wall): Although the wording of Plan D was vague, its objective was to clear the interior of the country of hostile and potentially hostile Arab elements, and in this sense it provided a warrant for expelling civilians. By implementing Plan D in April and May, the Haganah thus directly and decisively contributed to the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem.

Finkelstein 1995 quoting Morris: The attacks themselves were "the most important single factor in the exodus of April-June from both the cities and from the villages... This is demonstrated clearly by the fact that each exodus occurred during and in the immediate wake of each military assault. No town was abandoned by the bulk of its population before Jewish attack."

Masalha 2012: In 1948 more than half of the Palestinians were driven from their towns and villages, mainly by a deliberate Israeli policy of ‘transfer’ and ethnic cleansing.

Also Shlaim (iron wall): There were many reasons for the Palestinian exodus, including the early departure of the Palestinian leaders when the going got tough, but the most important reason was Jewish military pressure.

Ben-Ami (2005) describes "hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees who were evicted from their villages" DMH223344 (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's good except I'm not sure about the "by Zionist militias and para-military" part, as "the other half" of the expulsions (post-May 15) were carried out by the IDF, including, among others, Lydda and Ramle and Operation Hiram. I'm not even sure about saying "military" because Israeli civilian leaders also approved if not orchestrated the expulsions. "By Israel" encompasses all of it: militia, para-military, regular military, civilian leaders, ordinary Israeli Jews, etc. But I think saying the expulsions of Palestinians was committed "by Israel" is maybe redundant in the lead of the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict." I think readers will assume "Palestinians were expelled" means "Palestinians were expelled by Israelis." Levivich (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Good points. What about:

"... by Zionist militias, para-military and the IDF"

I was also considering:

"... initially by Zionist militias and para-military, and later by the IDF"

I'm not too concerned with including civilians and civilian leaders, since I'm guessing those weren't really a primary source of expulsions? DMH223344 (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it crucial? If a reader wants all the gory details they can just follow the wikilink. Selfstudier (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think Ben-Gurion was a primary source of expulsions (and Plan D), and I would count him as a "civilian" leader and not military, as his primary role even when giving orders to Haganah was as head of the Jewish Agency. The idea to convey is that the para-military/regular military weren't doing this "on their own" but in response to orders from political office holders like Ben-Gurion. (Or, at least, so say some scholars, the "it was planned all along" school... Morris says the opposite, it was "fog of war".) Levivich (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

"During this period, most Palestinians in the area of the Mandate would be driven from their towns and villages, primarily as a result of forceful expulsions." ? DMH223344 (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)