Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Quotations, a salutary lesson

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

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

How exactly Amoruso knows the "truth"? Is it convincing? It is interesting that when we look at the userpages of editors, we see that they tend to be interested parties, at least in the Israeli/Palestinian issues. But for outsider, it is quite disgusting to see how such revisionism can be tolerated (nakba denial? [[1]]). Now I can imagine what would happen if such standards would be applied to articles concerning other ethnic cleansing projects. I think that the article should be renamed "Nakba", as this is most used term. --Magabund 00:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

When you invent things, it's only natural for people to "deny" them. Bringing WP:RS and verifiable sources towards that end is justified. It seems that this fantasy proves the theoerm that the more you tell the lie often the more it sticks. This technique was used by Goebles. Amoruso 00:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Now to an example. Amoruso added this:

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

But the leading Arab propagandist of the day, Edward Atiyah (then Secretary of the Arab League Office in London), reaffirmed the endorsement theory: "This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country. (The Arabs (London, 1955)), p. 183"

Since all of this can be copied off dozens of web-sites, I asked Amoruso if he had checked it. He said that he had and claimed to be offended. Well, now I'll ask Amoruso: if you looked at this sentence in Atiyah's book, why did you not report that the very next sentence, and the following paragraph, paint an entirely different picture of Atiyah's position? Here is the whole section:

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

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

Incidentally, Atiyah has written about this quotation:

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

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

Thank you for proving that I'm not a paranoid loony. I see there are libraries in my country who has "The Arabs", both the 1955 edition, as well as 1958 and a 1968 editions. I could (probably) easily get one of them on remote loan, if this is the wish of anyone here. Just let me know. I also have what I believe is a more complete passage for Ben-Gurion's instruction to Yigal Allon, as recorded by Yitzhak Rabin:

"What would they do with the 50,000 civilians in the two cities ... Not even Ben-Gurion could offer a solution, and during the discussion at operation headquarters, he remained silent, as was his habit in such situations. Clearly, we could not leave [Lydda's] hostile and armed populace in our rear, where it could endanger the supply route [to the troops who were] advancing eastward. ... Allon repeated the question: What is to be done with the population? Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said: Drive them out! ... 'Driving out' is a term with a harsh ring ... Psychologically, this was one of the most difficult actions we undertook. The population of [Lydda] did not leave willingly. There was no way of avoiding the use of force and warning shots in order to make the inhabitants march the 10 to 15 miles to the point where they met up with the legion."

-- Steve Hart 17:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Again very convincing. How, where and by whom exactly was it discredited? --Magabund 00:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

this line was used as a cynical response to the allegations that when a citaiton is used in a personal website it ceases to be a reliable source. Follow up on the context. Amoruso 00:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Continuing, we consider this old chestnut:

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

Erskine Childers comments as follows.

Another quotation used perennially by official Israeli spokesmen, and in virtually all official publications, is a statement attributed to Mr. Emile Ghoury. Again, the method of presenting this quotation as evidence, indeed Arab admission, of Arab evacuation orders has been to state that "an even more candid avowal came on 15 September 1948 from Mr. Emile Ghoury, who had been the Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee at the time of the invasion of Israel": [alleged quote as above] The quotation not only appears-again, when suitably introduced-to confess Arab evacuation orders, it also appears to blame the Arab states in that they opposed partition at all, and it is consistently used by official Israeli spokesmen further to suggest that many Palestine Arab leaders want a "solution of the problem" in resettlement, in other Arab countries. Study of the full, original text of Mr. Ghoury's statement [footnote: in the Beirut newspaper Telegraph, Aug 6, 1948] indicates diametrically opposite and plain meaning in his words. Nowhere in a long and very detailed statement did he so much as intimate that there had been official Arab evacuation orders. On the contrary, large parts of his statement which Israeli authorities do not choose to quote contain such descriptions as "the furnace of the Irgun, Stern, and Haganah" and, again, "their savage, bestial acts of which there are a thousand proofs." Specifically, the blunt intention of his statement was to lay responsibility upon the Arab states for failing to protect the Palestine Arabs from being dispossessed. (Childers, The Wordless Wish, in I. Abu-Lughod (ed.) Transformation of Palestine. Northwest Univ. Press, 2nd edition 1987.) --Zero^talk 14:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

political biased deletion of quotes

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

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

On the contrary, even the Jewish press carried these statements that Katz claims didn't exist. "Palestinian Arabs fled because they did not have sufficient arms to defend themselves." - Mayor of Nablus, quoted in Palestine Post, June 16, 1948. It is a clear example of an Arab spokesman blaming the exodus on Jewish attacks. --Zero^talk 07:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

no it isn't. In fact you're only proving the opposite. They fled because they didn't have sufficent arms, so they wanted the Arab states to attack instead. That line isn't a clear example of anything. Amoruso 13:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Other examples from 1948: Egyptian UN rep, "a whole nation of people had been driven from their homes" [2];

thank you for another example supporting the endorsement theory. Driven by their home ? Is that the best... in December 1948. You have so many arab delegates there (iraqi, syria, lebanon etc) and none blame the Jews for the exodus. Driven from their home is ambiguous. Amoruso 13:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Syrian UN rep: "Furthermore, they have expelled the Arab population, massacred the people, looted their property and oppressed them to such an extent that they have been compelled to leave their own country." [3]

One line from one representive in December 1948. That's more than a year after the war started. During the war nobody noticed this "massacre" and "expulsion" but everybody did notice the Arab leaders' mass calls for eviction. Everynbody did notice Jewish efforts to stop the exodus too. Funny isn't it... Amoruso 13:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

More interesting still, no Arab spokesman mentioned the subject. At the height of the flight, on April 27, Jamal Husseini, the Palestine Arabs' chief representative at the United Nations, made a long political statement, which was not lacking in hostility toward the Zionists; he did not mention refugees. Three weeks later (while the flight was still in progress), the Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, made a fiercely worded political statement on Palestine; it contained not a word about refugees.
The Arab refugees were not driven from Palestine by anyone. The vast majority left, whether of their own free will or at the orders or exhortations of their leaders, always with the same reassurance-that their departure would help in the war against Israel. Attacks by Palestinian Arabs on the Jews had began two days after the United Nations adopted its decision of November 29, 1947, to divide western Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state. The seven neighbouring Arab states-Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Egypt -- then prepared to invade the country as soon as the birth of the infant State of Israel was announced. Their victory, was certain, they claimed, but it would be speeded and made easier if the local Arab population got out of the way. The refugees would come back in the wake of the victorious Arab armies and not only recover their own property but also inherit the houses and farms of the vanquished and annihilated Jews. Between December 1, 1947, and May 15, 1948, the clash was largely between bands of local Arabs, aided in diverse ways by the disintegrating British authority and the Jewish fighting organisations.

The rest of the text here is removed due to possible copyright violation: "Copyright © 1973, 1977, 1978, 1985 by Samuel Katz. All rights reserved. Reprinted by Permission. Portions Copyright © 2001 Joseph Katz". The rest of the text is available at: [4] -- Steve Hart 00:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso 16:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you that you can bring the citations back, there's no copyright violation. but thanks anyway, it doesn't matter. Amoruso 01:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm positive on the permission from author to post it here which is why I did it. But it's ok linked, no problem. Amoruso 02:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Emil Ghoury & Childers

The Emil Ghoury quote from the Daily Telegraph is correct as it appears in the article. Childers claims the quote is misleading and/or out of context, but contrary to what User:Steve Hart claims, he does not provide the "full text" of the quote, nor any convincing arguments as to why it is misleading. We have an unsubstantiated assertion that "Study of the full, original text of Mr. Ghoury's statement indicates diametrically opposite and plain meaning in his words". Even if this is true (and nowhere in the section quoted from him on Talk does Childers present evidence that it is true), at best this can be used as an interpretation by Childers ( a partisn critic) to "balance" the Israeli POV in the section "2.1.2 Claims by Arab leaders ". But as it stands, the only reference he makes to the extended text of Ghoury is to assert that it "contain[s] such descriptions as "the furnace of the Irgun, Stern, and Haganah" and, again, "their savage, bestial acts of which there are a thousand proofs." - none of this is relevant in the slightest to the argument being advanced. So, I am putting this quote back in. Isarig 21:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

On one hand we have a quote, a rather a sentence, suggesting something. On the other hand we have a description of the full text (which was the word I used) suggesting the opposite. Until that is sorted out, the quote is not reliable. I think you can see that, but if you oppose, please go ahead and have the context/origin of the quote verified per WP:V yourself. If you read the discusion here on talk, you'll notice there is no consensus for including the quote, on the contrary, there's currently a majority against it. Please abide by that and join the discussion. -- Steve Hart 22:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

We have a description of some writer who wrote a biased discredited book attacking Israel on the refugee issue (btw, google scholar gives 1 citation on the book which isn't a book itself, a notion by zero&ian suggeting that the scholar shouldn't be quoted with regard to this book). See Childers' attempt to refute other quotes above... there is a one sided pattern here. that description is wrong like Isarig explained. Isarig showed you very convincingly that by Childers' words themselves, there's nothing to suggest that Ghoury did not mean what he meant. There's no connection whatsoever like Isarig mentioned between descriptions of Jewish militant groups and between the question of blame for the exodus. Amoruso 22:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You provide no source for your interpretation, you just disagree. Currently we have 1 source describing the origin of the quote. If you want to object to the description, please find sources discussing the origin and the full text to support your argument. -- Steve Hart 23:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. We have scholars like Shmuel Katz who use the source and believe it's in context. There's apparently a scholar, Childers, who think the source is quoted out of context. Childers' interpretation of the source can therefore, if one deems necessary, be used in the article, like Isarig suggested (even though common sense suggests Childers' interpretation does not refute the quote - see Isarig's comments). One is not supposed to drop scholary and researched material simply because there's criticism to it. That's how it works. You do whatever you want. Amoruso 23:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"You do whatever you want" is not a healthy comment. During the last few weeks several editors have tried to explain to you the process of how wikipedia works, about your disruptions, and about discussing and coming to conclusions before making controversial changes. I understand you don't agree with it and prefer to unilaterally inject material you deem "right" into articles, but wikipedia is guarded by policies and guidelines. Sadly, I don't think saying it one more time will make a difference. But I can repeat something else: There's no consensus for including this quote. -- Steve Hart 01:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid this cuts both ways: there's no consensus for excluding this quote, either. There is no disputing that the quote, as quoted by Amoruso is in fact, correct. Contrary to what you wrote in your misleading edit summary, nowhere on this talk page has the "correctness of quote disproven". There is an unsubstantiated allegation, by a baised critic (Childers), that claims the full text shows a different meaning - but does not quote the full text to support that allegation. Thus, there is no reasonable grounds to exclude a relevant, correctly quoted statement, from a reputable source from this article. Please make a case on Talk before removing it again, thanks. 02:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't, controversial material is moved to talk, not the other way around. I know you have read policy often enough to remember that. In any case, this quote was unilaterally included over the subsequent objections of several other editors, it should never have been there in the first place. And I know that if you pause to think about it, you understand that in this case we have a sentence presented without any description from the source about the context or the background. It's questionable by itself. Then we get a description from a different source giving one explaination of the the context, and so far not one single editor have given a cite suggesting this source is wrong. So why don't you provide sources? -- Steve Hart 02:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That's an innovative interpretation of WP policies. It is nowhere stated in any of the guidelines that I am familiar with. Perhaps you can point to a relevant page that says this. You are welcome to your POV that "it should never have been there in the first place", but other editors disagree. Perhaps if you make a convincing case for not including it, you'll be able to convince these other editors to exclude it, but blanking it as part of a sweeping mass deletion is vandalism, and removing it repeatedly with misleading edit summaries is an indication of bad faith. As to the meat of your arguments here (or rather, lack thereof): There is absolutely nothing questionable about this quote. This can not be emphasized enough: it is sourced to a WP:RS - the Daily Telegraph, with a publication date. Go to your library and check it out. What we have is an unsubstantiated claim, from a biased critic, who alleges that the full context of the quote bears out a different meaning. That allegation is not supported by anything from that critic; specifically, that critic does not quote the full text for us to judge if he is correct in his interpretation. I repeat: There is absolutely no reason to exclude a relevant, sourced quote from a WP:RS, so the Ghoury quote stays. If you want to add context, and quote the differing interpretation of Childers, go right ahead and do this, in the appropriate section - but do NOT remove sourced material to push a POV. Isarig 03:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No, this isn't sourced to the Beirut Daily Telegraph, the quote comes from Katz, and if I remember correctly he again cites someone else. Childers is the only one cited as actually having looked at the material. And as for my POV, it might surprise you that I don't care at all about the conflict, what I dislike is unilateral POV warriors (I'm speaking in general terms here) who wants information included into articles no matter what. That's the reason for my engagement. -- Steve Hart 03:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if this was true, it makes no difference, as Katz is also a WP:RS. But it is in fact not true. The Childers quote, for example, does not cite Katz. Again, I know of no-one who disputes that this quote appears, verbatim, in the Daily Telegraph, so there is no basis to exclude it. If you truly dislike POV warriors, your anger here is misplaced: Amoruso made what I consider to be a good faith edit, which meets the requirements of both WP:V and WP:RS. This edit was removed by a notorious POV warrior, Zero, as part of a sweeping mass deletion made with a misleading, uncivil edit summary. Portions of that mass deletions have by now made their way back into the article, some restored even by yourself (the Bilby quote), indicating the POV nature of the original deletion. I have not seen you so much as meekly point out to Zero that you disapprove of his edit war. Isarig 03:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Katz himself cites others (once again, AFAIK) Childers in his discussion of the context cites the original newspaper, something Katz doesn't. Katz obviously included the quote to support his POV. If we present the quote we give an impression that is contradicted by the only source we have so far citing the original. We're not the David Letterman show. I restored the Bilby quote not because I believe it adds anything to the article (I don't) but because the article needed better POV balance. -- Steve Hart 04:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea that Katz cites others. In any case, the quote you are repeatedly removing is not sourced to Katz, but to the Daily Telegraph. Even if it was sourced to Katz who in turn cited others, it is irrelvant - as Katz is a WP:RS, and there's no problem with citing a WP:RS who in turn is a secondary source. Your repeated suggestion (based on what?) that only Childers looked at the original requires some substantiation, which is notably missing from both the Childers quote and from anything that's been presented in the article. Presenting quotes, verbatim, is not an "impression", whereas an interpretation, such as the one by Childers, is. I find the last sentence ("I restored the Bilby quote not because I believe it adds anything to the article (I don't) but because the article needed better POV balance") to be bizzare. If the quote is incorrect - it has no place in the article. if it is correct, and adds balance to boot, then it's obvious that it's original deletion was POV vandalism - yet for some reason you have not chided the vandal, but rather the editors who want the material restored. Isarig 04:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The quote is erroneously cited to the Beirut Daily Telegraph. Remember that nobody here has looked at that paper, so we need to cite those who cite the paper, not the paper itself (if you have read the previous discussion it's not the only cite drawn into question in this regard). [on edit:] Childers is the only one that we know of who explicitly claims to have reviewed the original and is explaining the context. Should we just disregard that? Now, you might question Childers, but Katz isn't exactly uncontroversial. As for the Bilby quote, I restored it because this subject needs balance. I don't now if it's correct, it doesn't add anything besides POV, but hopefully someone will have a better reference later on. And I don't have a habit of calling other people's edits vandalism, it just stir things up. -- Steve Hart 05:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

another bizarre claim. Katz has reviewed the Beirut Daily Telegraph and explained the context as well. Anyone can claim that any quote is out of context but Childers did not prove his claim. We shouldn't just disregrard that, we can use his dubious claim after the quote. Isarig is correct. Amoruso 12:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

your allegations don't make sense. Katz writes clearly :

The war was not yet over when Emil Ghoury, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, the official leadership of the Palestinian Arabs, stated in an interview with a Beirut newspaper: I do not want to impugn anybody but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab States in opposing partition and the Jewish State. The Arab States agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem. [Daily Telegraph, September 6, 1948]

That should be the end of story there. Any comments on this by Childers should be added after Katz's claim, which he stands behind it, and I'm positive that he did read the entire source over and over again in full and in more than one langauge probably. Amoruso 02:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

As you can see Steve Hart during the last few weeks several editors have tried to explain to you the process of how wikipedia works, about your disruptions, and about discussing and coming to conclusions before making controversial changes. I understand you don't agree with it and prefer to unilaterally throw out material you deem "wrong" out of articles, but wikipedia is guarded by policies and guidelines. Sadly, I don't think saying it one more time will make a difference. But I can repeat something else: do not try to patronize over others and realise your own logical fallacies. Amoruso 02:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I would have to ask you to provide some diffs to back up your statement, because with the exception of my welcome message I'm not aware of any editors explaining to me how wikipedia works. -- Steve Hart 02:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny. Amoruso 02:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The most amazing thing about this Ghoury interview is that even the tiny fragment repeatedly quoted does not say what we are told it says. Here it is again: "I don't want to impugn anybody, but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously, and they must share in the solution of the problem." It does not mention a plan or orders of Arab leaders to induce flight at all. That's why it is necessary to first create a phoney context by introducing it with words like "Even Arab leaders admitted that they ordered the flight, for example...". The sad fact is that the propagandists like Katz are correct in believing that most of his readers will simply take his word for what it means and not read it carefully themselves. Suppose my house falls down in an earthquake and I tell the reporters, "The loss of my house is directly due to the builders who gave it a weak foundation". Now Katz/Amoruso writes the "history" book: "Even Zero himself admitted that his house was not destroyed by an earthquake." It's pathetic. --Zero^talk 06:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

On another quotation: seems Shmuel Katz did not even know what Sada al-Janub was when he "quoted" from it. It was not a Beirut newspaper like Katz claimed. --Zero^talk 06:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The quote is from the Beirut newspaper that Katz quoted. I think nobody here has any idea what you're talking about or referring to. I also think the quote speaks for itself. Katz has reviewd all his sources and is maintaining it's in context, and justly so. I don't see how any sensible reasonable person can interpret this differently. Your example is also very strane, since earthquake is a natural phenomenon, but if the only people you will blame are the builders and not the inspectors for instance, then yes the builders are to blame in your eyes. Amoruso 12:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Question (purely out of ignorance): was Katz the first to use the Ghoury quotation that later became an obligatory component of any anti-Palestinian refugee website? Or did he use it because everybody else was? I am very intrigued by this quotation, especially since I did a Google search for "Beirut Daily Telegraph" with "-ghoury" and "-ghory" and I got absolutely no hits of this newspaper in any context other than this quote. In other words, the only mention on Google of "Beirut Daily Telegraph" is as a source for this quote. Was this newspaper so puny that it never printed any other article that was quotable, even on Google? Did this paper even actually exist? Did it only print one edition? Curious... Ramallite ^(talk) 13:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It was used by Abba-Eban before a UN committee in 1955 and again in 1958. [5] [6]. Childers lists 1957 too. Now here is something interesting: Eban says that Ghouri made these remarks on September 15, but Katz claims that the "Daily Telegraph" reported it on September 6. Apparently the Lebanese had invented time travel. --Zero^talk 14:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Abba-Evn got the date wrong. Wow. Astonishing. But thank you, this is another possible source especially for Israeli leaders claims section. As to your question Ramallite I believe the Daily Telegraph in Beirut is simply the branch of The Daily Telegraph, it's not an altogether different paper. And if you search google, you'll find it exists.

So you won't mind telling us where your Google search found the proof of this? The real solution to this puzzle is that Katz copied some earlier propaganda tract without knowing what he was doing, just like he didn't know where "Sada al-Janub" was published. --Zero^talk 12:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Katz didn't copy any propaganda. He performed historical resesrch and found the truth, which is overwhelming in support of the Endorsement theory. The existance of the Daily Telegraph branch in Beirut is of course a known fact. [7]Amoruso 13:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That's actually very funny. I invite everyone to click on that link to see Amoruso's proof that the Daily Telegraph had a branch in Beirut. --Zero^talk 13:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

very funny ? You have a book of one of the reporters who was stationed there, not good enough for you ? Weird. Amoruso 13:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

He worked for the London Daily Telegraph and was stationed in Beirut. Lots of newspapers have reporters stationed in Beirut. It doesn't mean they can be cited as Beirut newspapers. That requires them to at least have a Beirut edition. --Zero^talk 14:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Katz's original quote is that in an interview to the Daily Telegraph, Beirut... I think it fits in. i don't really understand your position though. Are you saying Childers lied ? Amoruso 14:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You are no good at spin; you should look for a different job. Go on, quote Katz's exact words for us. --Zero^talk 14:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Alas, nobody seems to understand what you're trying to say. <sigh> Amoruso 15:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Your evasive reply proves that you know you have been caught in a deception. As you know perfectly well, Katz did not refer to "an interview to the Daily Telegraph, Beirut" but to "an interview with a Beirut newspaper". You copied Katz's text onto this page yourself: [8]. --Zero^talk 02:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have Katz's book right here with me. Looking at original hebrew version he cites the paper twice... once "Daily Telegraph, Beirut" and another one "Beiruti Daily Telegraph" . I'm not being evasive in any way. And it doesn't matter, whatever Katz wrote about the nature of the paper he was correct. I still don't understand why you're trying to say Childers is a liar. Childers quoted Ghoury himself confirming he said this. Your new argument that the paper doesn't exist makes as much sense as saying that the moon doesn't exist. Amoruso 02:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Both "Daily Telegraph, Beirut" and "Beiruti Daily Telegraph" are incorrect. As for Childers, he gives a different newspaper name and a different date. I guess you also think your idol must also be right that Sada al-Janub is a Beirut newspaper. --Zero^talk 02:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well as far as we know Katz was right with all the quotes. I don't know why you are lying or what purpose you think it serves. You quoted Childers as saying " in the Beirut newspaper Telegraph, Aug 6, 1948 ". So Childers says "august", Katz says "september". Childers ommited the word "daily" (is there any difference ? why are we discussing this ? ). You're being pointless. Also Katz was right about other quotes of papers. Amoruso 02:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

ROFTL, the differnet name is telegraph instead of the word daily. Was it a daily paper ? LOL, now this is funny. Telegraph gives a million hits as well with the quote : [9] oh yeah very discredited. What a waste of time this was. Should have told you "childers" right in the beginning to show how ridicilous your claims were. Amoruso 03:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

and oh yeah, CHILDERS IS WRONG about the date, Katz was right SO much for the off context theory. Possibly Childers never even had a look at the right interview LOL. I'm glad that's finally settled. Talk about who's discredited. Amoruso 03:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as we know, nobody would use Katz as a reference for anything. He's a lifelong propagandist and a violent militant. However, nobody is going to challenge anyone who claims that other editors in the encyclopedia are liars.

PalestineRemembered 14:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as who knows ? Palestineremembered.com. ? Amoruso 22:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Bishop Hakim quotes

There is the quote of Hakim in support of endorsement theory, and then the editor brought a quote in a later date which was supposed to refute it. I would like to add this further quote brought by Katz, quoted from the Herland Tribune : " Bishop Hakim of Galilee confirmed to the Rev. Karl Baehr, Executive Secretary of the American Christian Palestine Committee, that the Arabs of Haifa "fled in spite of the fact that the Jewish authorities guaranteed their safety and rights as citizens of Israel " (I think it's clear enough...) and also explain his view why Arab leaders have systematically started transferring the blame for Israel, and how it fits in. Amoruso 02:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

..and somehow I don´t feel convinced by whatever the American Christian Palestine Committee stated: it was set up on the Zionist "command", secretly funded by the Zionist. "How completely they were controlled by the Zionists became clear when the Christians felt it necessary to complain that [the Zionist] was making statements in their names without prior consultation."[10]. LOL! Regards, Huldra 15:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Katz is not a reliable source and gives quotations out of context, as you have adequately proved to us. You have to provide a real source and then you have to argue relevance and encyclopedicness. This article is not a repository for everything you can find in your favorite book. There are plenty of pro-Arab books that are full of "quotations" of Zionist figures that could be copied into the article just as easily. This is not a competition about who can get the most of their favorite things into the article. Look what I can find in a few minutes, these are far more explicit than anything you have posted:

"I don't suggest that we should trample on others' rights, but one must call a spade a spade: Zionism and rights don't always go hand-in-hand. The very establishment of this state is an affront to the Arabs' rights. Arabs lived in Jaffa. They didn't leave; they were expelled. We went into the villages and said 'Get out.' And they got out. Yes, it's important for me and others that this state be a democratic one, but you still have to consider the difference between ourselves and the other countries and remember that democracy is not an end in itself but rather an instrument. Zionism takes precedence over everything." -- Limor Livnat, member of the Likud Central Committee, Tikkun, Sep/Oct 1991, p14.

"In the month preceding the end of the Mandate, the Jewish Agency decided to undertake a difficult mission as a prelude to taking over the Arab cities before the evacuation of British forces and the dispersal of their Arab population. The Jewish Agency came to an agreement with us that we should execute these arrangements, while they would repudiate everything we did and pretend that we were dissident elements, as they used to do when we fought the British. So we struck hard and put terror into the hearts of the Arabs. Thus we accomplished the expulsion of the Arab population from the areas assigned to the Jewish state." Menachem Begin - The Middle East Journal, Vol 3, No. 4 (1949) pp381-382.

Note how both of these refer explicitly to explusion and don't require any Katz-like coaching to tell us how to interpret them. If I was a pov-pusher like you, I'd insist that both these go into the article and I could easily find another dozen just as good and a hundred as good as most of yours. The fact that I am not even proposing to insert them proves that I am not like you. The real problem here is that you see Wikipedia as a forum where you can fight your little battle on behalf of Israel. It isn't; you should go looking for a suitable web forum and stop harassing us encyclopedia writers. --Zero^talk 04:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Are there any other objections rather than saying the already disproven claim that Katz is an unreliable source ? As proven times and again, Katz is the most reliable source there is and is with policy : WP:RS compltely. He is cited in google scholar and his books are widely referenced and have prestige of reliablity and verifiablity. He has an extensive bibliography, footnotes, references and has done considerable research. Zero's further comments are irrelevant. If he wants to include more quotes (like Livnat's quote who we all know was alive during the conflict) he may do so if he wishes and if they're reliable like Katz's source. I'll keep this discussion here for a few days, and if there are no real serious objections (except this ludricous POV claim) then it will be added to the Hakim section. It is very relevant since one is using notorious Childers to try to refute Hakim's original quote, and that is not the case, so it's important to add Katz's analysis on this. Amoruso 12:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't see in what way Katz is more reliable a source than Menachem Begin. As far as I am concerned Zero's quotes above are very relevant and belong in the main article. Dianelos 16:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the logic may appear to lack, these quotes support a basic Israeli contention, and thus should be included in that context; no one is saying that the quotes are the broadest representation of the discussion, but those points are also discussed at length here. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 02:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely: it should be discussed...but in the correct article, which is Maximos V Hakim. Note that the official Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs web-site calls him "George Hakini"(!) If the claims were true, then Maximos V Hakim must have been a complete scitzofrenic ---how else could he lobby for the two depopulated Christian villages of Kafr Bir'im and Iqrit at the same time? Regards, Huldra 15:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ghoury is quoted but not Schetchman ?

Hello. It is strange given Ghoury ruled the Jihad al-Muqadas just after Abd-al Kader's death. On the other hand, I just point out than Gelbert refers on Schetchman work. So I deduce Schetchman whatever partisan he is, should not be censored from wp:en. The NPoV in that case means editors should write : "According to Schetchman, bla bla bla". Good job. Alithien 06:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Disingenuous logic and respect for our readers

I push you and you fall over a chair. You say, "If that chair was not there I might not have fallen". I say "Hah!, you admit it wasn't my fault." This is the logic that readers are insultingly expected to take from this "Ghouri quotation".
Amoruso attacks my house with a gun. I call the cops and they say "no problem we'll come and take care of it". I wait with my neighbors. Amoruso takes my house and declares "Zero abandoned his house on the orders of his leaders. Therefore his house is mine, mine, all mine." This is the logic that readers are insultingly expected to take from the "Hakim quotation" and the "Atiyah quotation".

The bottom line is that we should be writing for people with brains, not treating our readers like morons. --Zero^talk 06:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

so you moved from the earthquake metaphor to the gun metaphor now ? I think you made your point. You're wrong. Ghoury is only one of dozens of quotes we're supposed to include and everybody understand the context (but you). Sorry. If you think it's just insulting the reader, then you have no case, since "don't insult the reader" falls under your WP:POV hence irrelevant, but there is WP:RS and WP:CITE and it fits it perfectly. Amoruso 06:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, Zero0000's position is much more logical, and would immediately be adopted if Wikipedia were a genuine, scholarly encyclopaedia, rather than an internet honeypot for people with more opinions than information. Palmiro | Talk 12:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

absentee property law

How does the timing of this law compare with the seizure of property of Iraqi Jews? I can't find the exact dates but was wondering whether either was considered to be in retaliation for the other? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.146.65.19 (talk • contribs).

The absentee property law came almost exactly one year ahead of the Iraqi action. --McKay 00:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Absentee law started to be discuss during the second phase of the war, ie april-may 1948. Alithien 11:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)