Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Bias by zero

Removal of sourced, relevant data (which does not fit Zero's political agenda) continues:

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

This list is endless. The question is does any one care about this enecylopedia NPOV policy (which allows two conflictiting point of view to be heared) It seems that in article on the israeli-pal conflict one POV is allowed and the other is removed. Zeq 14:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If the data is appropriate for Wikipedia, argue your case. If it is not, then it should be removed. It isn't clear what's the purpose of this grumble.--Doron 15:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"appropriate for Wikipedia" - there is simple policy and Zero violate it. This policy is called WP:RS. I don't need to "argue the case" - We need Zero to adhir to policy. If he does not there are mechanisms to deal with that. he has been warned before. Zeq 18:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you help us verify those so-called reliable sources? Can you tell us where to find them?--Doron 02:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

ArbCom has already warned Ian (here: [8]) not to edit like this:

[9]

Zeq 20:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Too many quotes

There are far too many quotes in this article. This is a problem for two reasons:

• It makes the article very hard to read, as the reader has to wade through a large number of quotes that contribute little to the understanding of the subject.
• It is hard to distinguish between notable quotes and obscure ones. Some of these quotes are quoted by respectable authors while others are brought from propaganda sites.

We really don't need so many quotes. To make a point, one could copy a couple of books full of quotes into this article, this would hardly serves anyone's purpose. I propose to remove all (or almost all) of the quotes from this article. This article should contain a description of the historical events and the different points of view, we don't need all the quotes to prove it, all we need is a reference to a book or website from where we got those descriptions. If the readers want a bunch of quotes, they can look up those sources themselves.--Doron 09:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I see there's no objection. I'll proceed to remove all of those quotes shortly.--Doron 07:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If it is in another section than "2 stages theory section", that's ok for me. Alithien 13:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to have those longish quotes, wouldn't we be better off just summarizing them and letting the interested reader look up the source for more?--Doron 18:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Doron here.--Urthogie 05:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Because a quote is usually more fidel than a summary if not manipulated. Alithien 19:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

removed two sentences from lead

The sentence in the lead mentioning Ilan Pappe's book was removed by me. I removed it because mentioning a far left writer's thesis in the lead is contrary to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which requires equal weight to both sides of the story. And yes, we could create equal-weight to both sides by introducing someone from the far-right, but that is not how a good lead is written-- the lead is meant to summarize, not polarize.

I also removed a sentence representing the other POV from Benny Morris. I removed it because it quotes a thesis that Morris would go on to later deny in his follow-up book, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited.

I hope the editors of this page can recognize my removals were a result of Wikipedia policy, not my POV. As can be seen, I removed sentences that support both POV's. Thanks, --Urthogie 05:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

NPoV means introducings *all* point of views. :-)

Here is what was deleted :

Of the most quoted scholars and historians on the subject, Benny Morris writes: "The Palestinian refugee problem was born of war, not by design, Jewish or Arab." A more recent assessment, which is often in conflict with Morris', may be found in noted Israeli historian Ilan Pappé's The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, published in 2006 (see references below).

So Morris doesn't think any more in the Birth revisited that the Palestinian refugee probelm was born of war... I don't think we read the same version. And Ilan Pappé's piont of view would not be good for wikipedia any more...

I think you will be reverted before a few hours. Alithien 19:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean putting all points of view in the lead. The lead is meant to summarize, not show the most extreme left wing and right wing views.--Urthogie 20:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Even more because this is an article about history and not politics. Hopefully Morris is an historian, not a politician. And most of Pappé's work was published when he was still a fully recognized historians. And this is the same for Katz, Gelber, Shlaïm, Khalidi, ... So your remark is a little bit no sense.

Where did Morris write that he didn't think any more what you deleted in Birth revisited ? Alithien 16:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The whole thesis of Revisited is that the indirect effect of jewish extremist groups played the largest role in the Palestinian refugee problem-- this seems to run contradictory to his earlier view that the situation was not a result of any design on either side. If you think it's not contradictory, then why not replace the passage with something synonymous from Revisited?

Where did you read that in Morris's book ? Alithien 16:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Now as far as Pappe being in the lead, allow me to cite Wikipedia:NPOV: "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views". Pappe's far left historical bias is that of a minority view among historians. Most historians (reliable sources) are not far-left or far-right. Introducing a far-left historian to the lead gives the far-left view undue weight per Wikipedia:NPOV.--Urthogie 19:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Who are the historians of that period ? Alithien 16:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I told already that I have to study it... Here's a basic search on Amazon, though: [http://amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/105-5708870-7864457?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=1948+war&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go]--Urthogie 16:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have read 6 or 7 books dealing with that period. Others such as Zero and Ian Pitchford certainly 20ies of them. You read none. How can you argue concerning what they claim or not or concerning the minority or the majority of their analysis ? Alithien 09:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing what they claim, I'm just saying more of them should be represented.--Urthogie 14:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand what you mean.

This article is very bad but not because all point of views are not explained.

Maybe what lacks is the current official version of Israël but I think there is simply none. Some analysis are controversed but all facts are accepted. Alithien 12:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

three suggestions for the article

• It needs a more diverse array of sources. The real meaty bulk of the article is based almost solely on Morris's writings. If I knew more history, (I plan on studying now) I would add other sources. But it seems to be a bit biased towards Morris's summary of events.

• It could benefit from a chart which showed the estimates of how many Palestinians left on their own accord versus how many were expelled. Estimates from several historians would be supplied. What do you all think of this idea?

• The theories section only presents polarized views. Most "theories" are actually a mix between many of these. Why is it polarized like this? Perhaps the section requires radical reconstruction?

Thanks, --Urthogie 06:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree.--Doron 06:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Provided the "diverse sources" are reliable ones I don't see a problem. Morris' book is the most detailed scholarly source though, which makes it inevitable that it will be used extensively. A chart would probably be OR and wouldn't contribute much. After all none of the Palestinians left with the intention of abandoning their land and possessions permanently to the benefit of foreign colonialists. Theories either explain such facts or they don't and so they are polarized. ----

We could probably scan a chart from some book. I'm not against Morris being used as a source, but I'm point out that hes a "new historian", meaning he offers just one take on the events. We should include others as well. Also, I think you missed my point about the theories being polarized-- the theories ignore explanations that are a mix between the current theories.--Urthogie 20:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, others should be included. They are not ? Eg, Yoav Gelber is not a new historian. But historians are scientists and they do not, like politicians, give mind but report facts, or analysis based on these facts.

The mix between current theories is the theory of Gelber. Consequence of state of war followed by ethnic cleansing, which in fact sound much like Morris's but not at all like Pappé's. On what books do you base your comments ? Alithien 16:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Historians are indeed scientists, and scientists are prone to error and bias. This is why we reference many scientists, and do not except a single, popular scientist as representing the only truth.

It's also worth noting that history of the 1948 war is debated among historians.

In regards to Gelber, he appears to be only one of the many mixed theories. We should include other ones.--Urthogie 19:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Who are the other ones ? Alithien 16:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree a change is crucial. The article is written from Benny Morris' point of view only. This is not the only article in question, many articles dealing with the so called Palestinian refugee problem have been used basely on Morris alone and in worse cases on Pappe. That of course is a huge violation of the WP:NPOV rule. There's no reason why the article shouldn't be written from the research of Efraim Karsh or others. Ironically, the same users who want the article to be written solely from Morris' view try to minimize the non pleasant facts from his research (Arab endorsement of flight facts) and also to cut down even the existing "Theory" (that is what actually happened) of this section even though it's all sourced. Amoruso 04:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Amoruso, did you read Karsh ? Which of his books ? What researches did he perform ? Which ones of his points of view (please, give the page where it can be read) would you like to add to the article ? Alithien 09:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose there is also no reason why the Armenian Genocide (or should I say, the "so-called" Armenian Genocide) article shouldn't be written from the "research" of Sevket Temiz or Guenther Lewy. Wikipedia's NPOV policy describes the perils of "undue weight", and denial of another people's national tragedy is not on par with the tragedy itself. Speaking of Arab endorsement of flight, most of the quotations in this article have nothing to do with 'endorsement" and do not support an "endorsement" theory. There is a lot of "lamentation", but not much "endorsement". By the way, Benny Morris is no supporter of the Palestinians, as most know. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ramallite: This article is one of the worst in wikipedia and you know it. There is no NPOV here. On the other hand selective quotes from benny Morris are used to create a theory that even Morris himself argued is not true. Do you really want to keep this article this way or be honest to everyone involved: Israelis and palestinians have two very diffrent views of the issues and narrative of 1948 and this is what NPOV is for: Present two conflicting views.

You are pushing away one vierw and promoting the other. This is not NPOV. Zeq 17:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree there is no NPOV, there is a tremendous tilt towards endless suspect quotations from propaganda sites that unfortunately fool themselves into thinking that they are pro-Israeli. As for the views that you say I'm promoting, please be more specific. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• You are so engulfed in the Palestinian victim POV tyhat you can not see what I talk about.
• You are an honest man so try this: Try writing in the most deatched way you can a paragrpah sumerizing the Israeli view and the palestinian view.
• Next, try to understand how much this article took half quotes from Morris (who himself took half quotes from BG) in order to promote the view that it was all one delibare zionist consiparcy.

Understand this: I don't deny what took place, nor do I deny the suffesring it caused the Palestinian people. Tis pain is not an excuse to present history in one sided (and wrong way). There are two view on what took place and this is what this article should say. Instead it is divided on "stages" which actually is already a one sided view of history. 09:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I return to the point I was trying to make earlier -- there are far too many quotes in this article. An encyclopedic article should summarize the different theories and provide references to reliable sources for further discussion. All those superfuous quotes prove nothing and serve no purpose.--Doron 08:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If it is in another section than "2 stages theory section", that's ok for me. Alithien 13:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein's Book

I'm entering this discussion rather late and may be making suggestions that have been discussed long ago, but what the heck. Norman Finkelstein's book Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict is in the references for this article, it is, hoever, never quoted although it contains a lot of information, i.e. regarding the flight endorsement issue, which is, in my opinion, a bit more solid than what Morris or Katz have to say. It's been a while since I've read the book, but I could go over it again and recover the relevant data and add it to the article (i.e. not removing Morris and Katz as to not stoke a new conflict here). What are the chances of such an addition surviving? If the general sentiment is that it will be deleted microseconds after being posted, then I won't even bother... Looking forward to your thoughts, Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 08:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"paradoxily" ????

In the opening paragraph is non enclopedic. Also the words "there are documented cases" means we take position.. Wikipedia should just bring the two sides not take side. 09:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Photo of "Suba"

The photo show the remain of a crusador frtress and claim that this is the Palestinian village dstroyed in 1948....This is a joke and this show to what level wikipedia is a joke. Zeq 09:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Uhm... I checked the linked article on Suba and it says rather explicitly that it was a village built on the remains of the castle ("The village square, which was based on the castle's courtyard, with surviving medieval structures adapted and rebuilt as domestic buildings and a mosque.[1]" and "Settlement at the site continued, and was mentioned as "Suba" about 1225 by Arab geographers.[2][3] In 1596, there were 60 Muslim and 7 Christian families living there") and the references are serious sources. Do you have any sources stating that this was never a Palestinian village? --Pedro.Gonnet 10:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The Soba article is a complete fabrication. After I added that soba was mentioned in the bible someone changed it so that the Soba in the bible ( 1 Sam 14:47 and 2 Sam 23:36 ) is NOT the Soba in the article. They are deliberately confusing between Aram-Zoba (in Syria) to Soba in Israel (both written the same in Hebrew) In any case there is no indication that there was any Palestinian village at that location. The remains are 100% a style of crusaders castles and there are many in that area. The caption also claims that the Kibutz by the name of Zoba (Soba or Tzuba as it prounced in Hebrew) was built on the Palestinian village. I have been both at the Kibutz and the castle they are about 2K'm apart – maybe even more. The Kibutz is on one mountain top and the castle on another hill.

Here is more that the faked "soba" article is missing: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5724143/

The bottom line is that there are no proof of any Palestinian village at that site as the building is completely crusader style. If Arabs would have built there above the castle remains there was something to see and there is none.

Let me ask you this: How do you know that what you see in the photo is what claimed by the caption ? Zeq 23:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, it's a pity you didn't follow the discussion we had a couple of months ago (which you started). I'll give you a short reply:

• The Suba article is fully referenced. Read the cited books and articles and then we'll discuss.
• I live right next to Kibbutz Zova and I can assure you the Tel and the Kibbutz are not 2km apart. The kibbutz is certainly not on a mountain top, which makes me doubt you were ever even near it. Open a map.
• The identification of the structures in the photos is based on a sketch map and a very detailed description in Harper & Pringle, which they identify as the village square.--Doron 00:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll add: the Suba article does not say that the kibbutz was built on the Palestinian village. It says the kibbutz was built 1km to the south of the village. --Zero^talk 06:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody know the coordinates of the Kibbutz or the Ruins? A quick check with GoogleEarth or whatever could settle this rather quickly. I tried locating it 6km west of Jerusalem, but lucked-out. --Pedro.Gonnet 08:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

See [10], I marked the ruins, the kibbutz is right next to it on the left-hand side. Earlier Zero gave a quote from Khalidi that says the kibbutz was built on the village lands (see Talk:Palestinian exodus#Suba picture caption above).--Doron 09:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks :) Case closed? --Pedro.Gonnet 09:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Not it is not close because Doron is simply not telling the truth. The photo is of of ruins that are much futher away from the Kibutz than marked on the map. I was in both locations and Doron (by error I hope) is simply misleading. In any case this show the problem of using Original research. Zeq 10:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, read WP:FAITH and Wikipedia:Attribution#Original_images. Open a map and you'll see it right there. Open a book and you'll see it's all correct. There's no point discussing this any further if you can't make the slightest effort to confirm the details.

This raises a question. I think that the statement that the kibbutz was founded 1km to the south is from Pringle, but I don't remember. This map shows buildings much closer and to the west. It isn't necessarily a contradiction since a lot of building must have happened since 1948. --Zero^talk 10:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The core of the kibbutz -- the residential area -- is to the southwest, but the whole area is quite small, a few hundreds of meters in diameter, so obviously some of it is a bit further to the north, i.e., west of the ruins.--Doron 11:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, you might have a hard time substantiating your claim. If you take a close look at the photograph in question, you can clearly distinguish two rows of houses with red roofs, a soccer field and a swimming pool. These structures match the satellite images, about 500m west of the point given by Doron so I think we can safely assume the photo was taken from the hill, looking West.

Furthermore, many of the blocks in the ruins look less weathered than others, are hewn differently and are held together with mortar which would indicate at least some recent construction -- which would make little sense in a doorway to a second floor that no longer exists, unless, of course, there was a second floor there at some recent time when the construction was done, indicating again that the ruins were inhabited until not all too long ago. This is, of course, a whole lot of OR on my behalf, but I think its up to you to prove the pictures are fakes... Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 11:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue, the sole issue is : Is there a WP:RS source saying that these are ruins of a palestinian village ?

I don't have to claim anything. In this encylopedia those who write here should adhere to WP:RS and avoid OR. (the pointer to the google map is a perfcet OR) Zeq 18:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For the last time -- YES! Read the article. Read the cited sources. Open a map. After that, if you still have doubts, I'll be pleased to discuss them with you.--Doron 00:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, can you be a bit more specific? Which of the sources of the Suba article do you not consider to be reliable sources? And wouldn't the Suba Talk Page be a more adequate place to discuss this issue? As for the supposed OR-issue regarding the Google map, this was only brought up because you put the authenticity of the photograph into question. --Pedro.Gonnet 08:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Katz edit war

May I suggest a cease-fire? The dispute seems to be whether Katz is not a reliable source or not. I suggest that we keep Katz in there but that Zero and Ian (or whoever pleases) add references and quotes critical of Katz or that contradict his theory. I think most readers will be mature enough to make up their own minds. Comments? --Pedro.Gonnet 12:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Pedro,

That is more complex.

Zero and Ian claim that Katz is not a reliable source. In that sense, Katz's mind would not deserve to be reported. Alithien 22:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

So Zero and Ian claim that Katz is not a reliable source - what of it? Katz's book was published by a mainstream press, Zero has acknowledged in the past that he can be called a historian - there is absolutely no grounds to exclude this as a source, other than the fact that these 2 editors don't like him because he was an Irgun member 60 years ago. Isarig 23:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

All efforts to support the contention that Katz is a reliable source have failed. Even the Irgun web site and the Jewish Virtual Library call him a propagandist. As to the "mainstream press" argument, that just shows how nonexistent the case is. As noted elsewhere, the same publisher in the same time period was publishing all sorts of junk like Eric von Danniken, UFO abductions, power of crystals, etc.. --Zero^talk 23:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You are using dishonest argumentation, and it reflects badly on you and your case. The JVL and Irgun website describe Katz's role in the Irgun, 60 years ago. It is not disputed that over half a century ago, while part of a anti-colonialist struggle, he was a propagandist for his organization., That has zero relevance, I repeat, zero relevance, for the issue of whether or not 60 years later, his book published by a mainstream press is a reliable source or not. The man is an historian, as you have already acknowledged. His book was not self-published, but published by a mainstream press - it meets WP:RS. Please stop your persoanl crusade against him. Isarig 23:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The JVL and Irgun website describe Katz as an advisor to Begin on propaganda after the publication of his books. He has been a propagandist his whole life. And there is nothing whatever in the rules that publication of a book by the mainstream press makes it a reliable source. That criterion would make Mein Kampf a reliable source too. --Zero^talk 04:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You really should get around to reading WP:ATT one of these days. what WP:ATTtells us about reliable sources, which is relevant here is this: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. A journalist's description of a traffic accident he did not witness, or the analysis and commentary of a president's speech, are secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. " - Clearly , Katz's account of the reasons for the exodus are just such a secondary source. WP:ATT tells us what criteria these sources must meet: They must be published, not self-published, and not "questionable" - questionable being those without editorial oversight or with a poor reputation for fact checking. If you want o make a case that Katz's publisher is such a source - go ahead and do so. Until then, it's obvious that Katz meets the requirements set out by WP. (and you will also benefit from a quick perusal of Godwin's law) Isarig 04:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• A discussion about Kat's should go into his own article not here.
• Is there a proof that he is not a "reliable source" ?
• There are propoganists on all sides of this debate. If Zero is realying on what JVL said about Kat's - why instead of getting into a debate about kat's let's take what JVL sais about the exodus and include it in the article ? JVL is headed by a respected historian. Zeq 08:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is that complex. May I suggest the following? We keep the quotes from Katz but Zero can add a short paragraph detailing sources critical of Katz. These sources have to adhere to the same RS-criteria as Katz. These sources belong here and not just in the Katz article because they are criticisms of his statements on the issue of the Palestinian exodus and not criticisms in general. If both parties agree then we can stop this and get on to more useful pursuits and the article will also have profited. Cheers Pedro.Gonnet 10:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No deal. By that standard any lunatic can be quoted provided criticism of the lunatic is also added. This would be a terrible idea since it would move the focus of the article away from the topic of the article. It would also be unbalanced because serious historians do not spend their time writing critiques of unqualified nobodies. They just ignore them. That's why Katz gets almost no mention in real history books. --Zero^talk 00:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Katz is neither a lunatic, nor an "unqualified nobody" - he is someone you have described as an historian. He has relevant information, being a personal participant in the events being discussed. His work was published by a mainstream press. end of story. Please end you personal crusade against him. Isarig 04:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler also had relevant information, being a personal participant in the events being discussed in Mein Kampf. His work was published by a mainstream press. Your argument leaves you no choice but to consider Adolf Hitler to be a reliable source. --Zero^talk 04:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I will point you again to Godwin's Law. Please read WP:ATT and stop this crazy crusade. Isarig 04:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, second try at a compromise: I agree with Zero that it is improbable that there will be sources directly critical of Katz... There are, however, a number of sources very critical of his arguments -- in most cases contradicting them directly. Can we get those sources added to the text (Zero?) and take the discussion from there? The sources have to meet at least the same criteria as Katz, which should not be too difficult. Cheers, --Pedro.Gonnet 08:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Fuad Abu Higla and Kenneth Bilby quotes

The Higla quote is heavily parsed and therefore not too reliable (are "the armies of your predecessors" the Israelis or the Kings' predecessors?), especially since it is not in English and not in a readily available publication. As for Bilby, although he has a right to an opinion, I don't think his personal appreciation of the Arab leaders' (what a differentiated term, btw.) rationale is very relevant, compared to Katz or any academic source. In a bid for quality vs. quantity I would suggest these be removed. We can argue and even compromise on Katz, but these two quotes are definitely not reliable sources. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 15:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree ابو علي 15:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if nobody gives me a reason why these two quotes should be kept, I'm deleting them... Cheers, --Pedro.Gonnet 08:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Katz again

Anything sourced to Katz should be removed. His book Battleground is a non-scholarly trade book published 34 years ago and is a compilation of propaganda relevant to those times, e.g., there is much about the evil influence of the Soviet Union; as WP:ATT states clearly, reliaable sources "are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". Katz is not a credible source and the claims he makes are refuted by genuine experts such as Morris and Gelber. In addition, the 1986 version of the book was self-published through Shapolsky Publishers as well as being of questionable provenance; as WP:ATT states "A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking". Questionable and self-published sources must not be used in Wikipedia articles. Finally, this unreliable source makes exceptional claims that are not supported by experts in the field; exceptional claims "should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people." Case closed. --Ian Pitchford 08:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Every effort is being made [...]"

This quote appears twice and seems to originate only from Katz's book. I "googled" the quote and it is only attributed to Katz, if any source is given at all. Can anybody who has a copy of Katz's book at hand check what his source of the quote is? If there is no source, then the quote is far too unfounded to me mentioned twice in this article. --Pedro.Gonnet 10:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that this quotation is in the article twice. The other appearance is in the Other Claims section. As with many of these standard "quotations", it comes from the 1952 book "The Arab Refugee Problem" by the Revisionist-Zionist author Joseph Schechtman. The tragedy of this article is that the story of the exodus from Haifa is nearly completely absent from this article except for a few "quotations" with hardly any context. This is despite a huge amount of serious research having appeared on the subject written by real historians. The Jewish mayor of Haifa pleaded with the Arabs to stay, one of the very few instances where local Jewish leaders took this position. But what is the use of trying to add proper text with proper citations to this article when there are so many POV pushers who just want to copy-paste rubbish into it? --Zero^talk 12:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Does Schechtman offer a source for this quotation? Cheers and thanks, --Pedro.Gonnet 12:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Schechtman gives what he says is a photograph of the telegram. I have no reason to doubt its genuineness, but what use is it to us? It is just a tiny snapshot of a complex process. The Arabs were leaving Haifa, but why? The telegram doesn't say. Actually quoting a primary source like this as if it gives us a balanced picture all by itself is a fine example of Original Research. What we should be doing is quoting the conclusions of professional historians who have examined not only this single telegram but hundreds of relevant documents, including many that were not available until the 1980s or later. --Zero^talk 13:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I recently ordered Benny Morris' Birth revisited -- it should contain quite a bit of said material. As soon as I have it I'll try to make a good synthesis, especially regarding Haifa. If anybody wants to get ahead of me on this -- go ahead! Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 13:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

3 Objections to Katz fail

1. Katz' book is said to be the only source for some information. Maybe so. Maybe not. This does not make it an invalid source. Anyone who believes that it does, I would appreciate a quote from wikipedia policies that support that.
2. Katz' book is said to be not academically peer reviewed. Academic peer review is not required. All that is required is separate independent editorial review. Katz book meets that test.
3. It is claimed that consensus has declared the book invalid. I read the discussion and saw no consensus.

I have no personal views about Katz' book one way or the other. I will reveal this degree of possible bias toward the article: I previously lived in the middle east. While there, I had a room mate for 6 months who had been a fighter with the PLO in the Black September battles. (I have never met anyone who hated war more than this person. He literally would spit on the ground EVERY TIME it came up and say "War is bad"). His bed was next to mine in our room and we often spent hours talking about the Palestinian problems. When he recounted the history, he would explain that the Arabs in Israel left their lands because they felt afraid of what they expected to be a slaughter by all of the Arab nations around. They felt (and it seemed to me that they had been told by Arab Radio Stations) that if they did not leave the land they would be considered traiters and killed. So, they left for that reason. Then, after they left, Israel would not let them back in. That is the story I heard from a PLO fighter. I heard that same story several times, without variation. I would not put it in an article -- it is OR, but it does inform my understanding of things and perhaps that biases me. Otherwise I do not think I have any bias. I am quite at home with the idea that some left under threats by Jews, and that my refugee friend was simply not aware of any instances.--Blue Tie 13:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess whatever I write here will only count as my two cents, but here goes...

1. The originality of the quote (i.e. Katz being its sole source) is an interpretation of primary/secondary sourcing. Yes, Katz references it, but apparently the original source is either inexistent or excruciatingly difficult to find since nobody bothered looking beyond Katz' book and prefer to cite it through him.
2. Katz' book has been subject to academic review: after its publication it was severely trashed by a number of academics and I don't know of any academic that has defended Katz' claims beyond simply acknowledging the book. The whole academic peer review thing is only a device to distinguish between an academic publisher and a non-academic publisher -- i.e. a serious vs. a not-so-serious publisher.
3. I made the claim that the consensus declared the source invalid. There are a lot of people in this discussion who vouched for the book, yet when it came down to actually showing it wasn't trash, nobody really stood up for it.

As a general comment I think the whole discussion is rather odd. We're discussing a single quote out of a vastly criticized, non-academic book where there is, at the same time, a massive amount of genuine scholary work implying the opposite (Morris, Finkelstein, Said, etc...). Even if Katz' book can be considered a secondary source and if the lack of scholarship is irrelevant, it doesn't change the fact that Katz is both outnumbered and outgunned in his opinions and therefore should not be quoted prominently in this article. Pedro.Gonnet 14:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I try to stick to wikipedia policies and guidelines. But I agree that editor judgment is appropriate too. #1, if true, raises eyebrows. On the other hand, it does not mean that the contribution should be disallowed. #2, is also interesting if true and lends even more credence your way. I would not know if it is true though and I am not one to just accept it on face value. At the same time I would not insist that you prove a negative. #3 does not strike me as a strong argument at all though.

Your point about Katz being outmanned and outgunned is probably valid. Per NPOV then, the way to proceed is to express one view, and then the other. I would suggest presenting Katz and then marshaling the contra-arguments on the issue by other authors. This is "debate by proxy" and I hate it, but it is the way wikipedia guidelines set things up.

I am not an enemy. I want wikipedia to be its best. Thank you for the response. --Blue Tie 17:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Outnumbered and outgunned" does not seem a valid appraisal of any source in this isue, which is one of the most heavily-contested questions in all of Mideast history and politics. --Sm8900 17:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Heavily contested, but not by historians. There were no general "Arab evacuation orders" and in fact the Palestinian leaders and Arab governments were trying to get people to stay in their towns and villages. There were of course a few local evacuation orders to deal with local issues, and the existence of these just reinforces the conclusion that there were no general evacuation orders. Those who believe in the evacuation story should cite reliable sources and preferably provide examples of these orders. --Ian Pitchford 18:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there wasn't such an order, but according to my friend who was a Palestinian Refugee and lived through such times, they apparently thought that there was such instruction. Whether that was a false belief, I cannot say, but it motivated his family. I believe he told me it came both by radio or by word of mouth. The radio messages were not direct-- they were generally "Anyone left in the territories will be killed... get out now". The word of mouth was supposedly more direct -- if you stay you will be deemed a traitor. I know this is OR, and I particularly never believe that a sample of one is sufficient but he had no reason to mislead or lie to me and it enlightens my understanding. --Blue Tie 09:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"not contested by historians"? Are you saying pro-Israel historians do not disagree with that version of events? In other words, are you claiming (from your POV) that Israel does not have voiluminous "propaganda" on this issue? Let me repeat. This is one of the most heavily contested issues. there are clearly experts on both sides of this issue. i am not negating your side on this issue. please do not negate anyone on mine, whether it is 1 historian or 100. Thanks. --Sm8900 18:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The "pro-Israel" side does have tons of "propaganda". Unfortunately, it's only that: propaganda. If you can find a single historian (let me specify a bit here: an academic who's work has received real positive peer reviews, not just raves in the NYT or wherever else) that refutes the current academic narrative (as presented by Mr. Pitchford above), feel free to include it. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 07:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Your personal set of filters on who is a good reviewer and who is not, should not be applied to other editors. --Blue Tie 09:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for that slight flight of arrogance. Just give me any historian who published an opposite opinion in an academic publication (book, journal, etc...). Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 11:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As for the debate by proxy, I would then suggest we clearly gather such quotes in a special section, similar to the Holocaust denial section in the Holocaust article. This is meant neither as a joke nor a provocation, but as a comparison about how to treat information diametrically opposed to the accepted academic narrative. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 07:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that wikipedia NPOV guidelines give some suggestions about how such things should be presented. I will review them. As I recall, they make the point that presentation order can also be POV -- I do not know how to get past that, something has to come first -- and that separating them too much into their own section may also be POV. Also too much weight to a minority POV is bad, but that rule usually leads to arguments about how minority is the view, how much is too much and so on. It's been a while since I looked at that part of the guideline. I hate "debate by proxy". But it does not have to be that way. If editors feel in their hearts to give "reasonable" airing to both sides, it can be normal editing instead of debate by proxy. --Blue Tie 09:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You want an objective ref? Here's one: Jewish Virtual Library. please do not say that the pro-Israel side does not have any historians. obviously, we have the full gamut of professionals and scholars somewhere within our community, as does the pro-Palestinian side. So please do not continue this argument. There are two heavily-contested versions of history, with support on both sides; I think we can both agree on that. Thanks. --Sm8900 14:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, not quite. Go to Mitchell Bard's Wikipedia entry. He's the Director of the website you cited, which makes it a self-published source. Furthermore, his unsourced statement in the first paragraph of the page you linked "[...] thousands more responded to Arab leaders' calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies, [...]" is in direct contradiction to the well-founded, sourced and unchallenged findings of Erskine Childers, Benny Morris, Norman Finkelstein and many others. Try harder.

I agree that there are two sides to the debate, I do not, however, agree that there are two versions of history, with support for both sides. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 14:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. So, you think that there are two sides to this debate, but you think that your side is the only one based on objective historical facts, while the Israeli side is completely distorted and based only on fabrication, distorted views of history, and false propaganda. Got it. Thanks. --Sm8900 14:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. But as I said, try harder. My opinions are not set in stone, and if you can give me a good source that makes a better case than Morris or Finkelstein and the authors cited therein, I will stand corrected.

Before anybody takes all this personally -- it's not personal. I'm not trying to ridicule, belittle or make anybody look stupid. What bothers me with this article is the use of discredited sources and the lack of scholarship on one side of the argument. Everybody is entitled to an opinion, but this is an encyclopedia, and should therefore stick to the facts.

Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 07:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, please don't refer to the other side of the debate as "the Israeli side". The issue is, in Israel, far less contested than it is here and the most-cited historian against the endorsement of flight theory in this article (Benny Morris) is an Israeli. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 08:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible Additional Quotation in the Instigated Flight Section

I think the following quotation is highly relevant to this section of the article:

Arab leaders and their ministries in Arab capitals ... declared that they welcomed the immigration of Palestinian Arabs into the Arab countries until they saved Palestine.

Since another editor has reverted my addition of this quotation, I think talking about it would probably be the best thing for me to do now. Do people agree that this is relevant? Screen stalker 15:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is. There appear to be some editors who have already decided that any statements refuting criticism of Israel are automatically invalid. They claim all criticisms of Israel are objective fact, and everything else is not. --Sm8900 15:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Screen stalker, I'm the guy who removed the quote. First of all, it is parsed and I would be more comfortable having the complete quote, especially since I can't seem to find an un-parsed version anywhere online. Secondly, there is quite a stretch between welcoming temporary refugees and giving an order for them to flee ahead of advancing armies. Remeber that this section is about Arab leaders instigating the flight of Palestinians. I'm sure that if such orders were indeed given, you should be able to find much stronger material than this quote. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 15:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I just want to add that that seems fair enough. If we can focus the discussion on objective source, that seems a good context to have. I appreciate your constructive tone. thanks. --Sm8900 15:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This quotation comes from a textbook. Unfortunately, that textbook does not give the full quotation, either. I think the reason this is topical is because when a nation says "we will accept you as an immigrant until objective xyz is accomplished," that encourages you to immigrate into their country, and also to believe that objective xyz will be readily accomplished. In this case, the above quotation encouraged Palestinians to leave Israel, and also contributed to the general attitude that Israel would be quickly destroyed (which is the crux of the Instigated-Flight theory). Screen stalker 16:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have citation information? In other words, can you tell us which textbook, meaning title, author, publisher, and date ? thanks. --Sm8900 16:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The textbook is called "The Arab-Israeli Conflict" by Tessler (I forget his last name, but I can check in a few hours when I am home). I just had my library order Schechtman's book, so I can read something as close to the primary source as possible. It will take at least a week, though. Hopefully we'll have the entire quotation, with context and all, by then. Screen stalker 23:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sm8900, you're very welcome.

Screen stalker, interpreting the quote is what Wikipedia calls "original research". And there still is quite a span between encouraging people to leave and ordering them to do so, which is the premise of the "instigation of flight by Arab leaders" subsection. Again, if an order was given, you should be able to find much better, direct sources. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 07:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It is absolutely clear that there was no large-scale blanket order to incite Palestinians to leave, just as there was no large-scale blanket order by Israelis to deport Palestinians. But my point is that Arab leaders essentially encouraged emigration because they (a) tied it to a promise of the destruction of Israel, and (b) offered a viable alternative to living in Israel. This quotation alone does not establish Arab instigation of Palestinian flight. But it is part of a broader picture which clearly shows that Arab encouragement contributed strongly to the Palestinian Exodus.

A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict was written by Mark Tessler in 1999. Its ISBN is 0-243-35848-5. Screen stalker 11:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but then this subsection should be called "Claims that the Flight was encouraged by Arab Leaders", not instigated. If you can find material that confirms (a), i.e. that the encouragement to leave the country was tied to some supposed military advantage, feel free to include it. It may be somewhat difficult to show (b), since the states who accepted refugees from that period have been incredibly reluctant to integrate and assimilate them and have always insisted that they must return. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 12:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

While I absolutely agree that Arab states have not followed through on their promise to accept the Palestinians as immigrants, their declaration that they would do so unequivocally establishes a motive for Palestinians to flee Israel.

I think you are right. The section should be retitled "Claims that the Flight was encouraged by Arab Leaders." Your suggestions are excellent. :-)

At any rate, I will wait until Schechtman's book arrives at my library. Then I will quote the entire passage on the discussion page to show context. This will help our discussion greatly. Screen stalker 22:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree with one point though. The Arab states only promised to accept the Palestinians temporarily as refugees, not to integrate them permanently as citizens. I would be very surprised if you could find any such promise. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 07:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am currently sitting with The Refugee in the World on my lap. It quotes a Memorandum of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee from 1952, titled "The Problem of the Palestine Arab Refugees." Since it would be practically impossible to find the primary source, we may have to use the secondary. Here is how the memorandum reads (note: ellipses part of the text in the book):

Some of the Arab leaders and their Ministries in Arab capitals ... declared that they welcomed the immigration of Palestinian Arabs into the Arab countries until they saved Palestine. Many of the Palestinian Arabs were misled by their declarations and hence intended to leave the country. ... It was natural for those Palestinian Arabs who felt impelled to leave their country to take refuge in Arab lands near their own and to prefer to stay in such adjacent places in order to maintain contact with their country so that to return to it would be easy when, according to the promises of many of those responsible in the Arab countries (promises which were given wastefully), the time was ripe. Many were of the opinion that such an opportunity would come "in the hours between sunset and sunrise." Moreover, at that time, such declarations were a cause that led many to leave Palestine, even people with families that included many wives and children. These people preferred to leave with their families on the assumption that the solution of the Palestine problem would take a short time, as was understood from the dictates of Arab responsibilities.

This passage--written by a well respected Arab committee--says that Arab leaders offered Palestinians "immigration," not refugee status. The source explains the importance of this offer in catalyzing the Palestinian Exodus, and as such I think it is important to include this reference in the article. Screen stalker 16:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I strongly disagree that "welcomed the immigration [...] until" is the same as offering permanent residence. If I travel to the US I also have to pass "immigration", even if both I and the US authorities know I'm not staying for good. The second part of the quote is just the author's interpretation and does not match the textual quote. Again, if some kind of order was given, you should be able to find stronger, more reliable quotes than the above. This is, depending how you read it, circumstantial evidence at best. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 07:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Schechtman's source says that "some of the Arab leaders and their Ministries in Arab capitals" offered temporary refuge to the refugees, until the fighting was over and they could return to their homes. It says that very clearly. That is entirely different from offering residential status. There is also the question of timing: maybe these "offers" were made when a couple of hundred thousand Palestinians were already in refugee camps or destitute. Don't expect Schechtman to provide such details; his book was a work-for-hire on behalf of the Jewish Agency. --Zero^talk 08:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Zero, it is your POV to interpret this in such a way but what you wrote is not what the source say. Please limit yourself to what the source say and not your own OR explnation of it. Thanks. Zeq 11:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, is interpreting the quote to mean one thing more POV than interpreting it to mean another? We should only have quotes that do not require interpretation. The quote was added in the context of Arab leaders instigating the mass exodus of Palestinians. It neither proves or disproves it -- it doesn't contribute to that section at all -- therefore it doesn't belong there. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 11:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the section should be retitled to the effect of Arab leaders encouraging the exodus, because a lot of what Arab leaders did does not amount to incitement per se. As for arguments regarding Schechtman's interpretation, I have not quoted Schechtman at all. This entire passage is from the Memorandum. It's just that while I don't have access to the Memorandum because it is collecting dust in some archive, I do have access to Schechtman's book. Say what you will about him, this is a man who has published numerous books on the subject of refugees. If his book quotes this memorandum, I have good reason to suspect that it says what he quotes it as saying.

Allow me once more to clarify: everything I placed in the blockquote appears in the 1952 Memorandum of the Palestine Arab Higher Commission, quoted in Schechtman's book. None of it is actually Schechtman's writing. Screen stalker 00:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Claims by Arab leaders" Subsection

A lot of the material in this subsection to the section "The Arab leaders' endorsement of flight Theory" would actually be more at home in the "Criticisms of the endorsement of flight theory" subsection, since most of the quotes contradict what the section title implies. If nobody objects, I will start moving things around. Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 08:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Screen stalker 17:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Fabrications in the lead

The lead quote Pappe and link to a source in ZNET that susposedly papae use to justify his discription of "plan dalet". However nothing in the source is about paln dalet and there are no actual historical documents that suppors the calims made in the lead of this article. Zeq 07:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Which sentences are you talking about ? Alithien 08:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not supported by the source:

In his 2006 book, "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine", New Historian Ilan Pappe uses recently alleged declassified Israeli sources, including the Haganah's Plan Dalet, to support and extend this claim, stating that "In a matter of seven months, 531 villages were destroyed and 11 urban neighborhoods emptied." Pappe alleges the mass expulsion was accompanied by massacres, rape and imprisonment of men in labor camps for periods over a year.

Zeq 08:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Pappé bases his analysis on Plan Daleth.

But it is true that the source [5] doesn't claims that but only the use of declassified documents.

We can simply replace including by and and the source is the book itself. Alithien 09:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

please do it. how we verify it ? Zeq 10:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ilan Pappé consider Plan Daleth is a blueprint for "expulsion" (ref. Ilan Pappé, La guerre de 1948 en Palestine, La fabrique éditions, 2000, p.139. ISBN226404036X) or even for "ethnic cleansing" (ref. Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948, Sussex Academic Press, Brighton, 2006, p.139, ISBN1845190750).

Could you check the page in the english version of Pappé's book ? Alithien 10:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

not at right place

This while sourced is not at the appropriate place in the article. It is introduced in the second part of the 2 stage theory (after mai 1948) but concerns the first stage (before mai 1948) :

Howard Sachar differs slightly from Karsh in his interpretation of the second stage, as he names Israeli attacks as only a secondary reason for flight, with the meltdown of the Palestinian society as the primary:

The most obvious reason for the mass exodus was the collapse of Palestine Arab political institutions that ensued upon the flight of the Arab leadership. ... [O]nce this elite was gone, the Arab peasant was terrified by the likelyhood of remaining in an institutional and cultural void. Jewish victories obviously intensified the fear and accelerated departure. In many cases, too ... Jews captured Arab villages, expelled the inhabitants, and blew up houses to prevent them from being used as strongholds against them. In other instances, Qawukji's men used Arab villages for their bases, provoking immediate Jewish retaliation.

It should be moved somewhereelse. Any objection ? Alithien 08:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that this is in the stage immediately preceding May independence. I don't have the book with me right now, but I will check soon. Screen stalker 16:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I do agree. And so this is 1st stage in Gelber's 2 stage theory. I wait for you can check. No hurry :-) Alithien 18:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh... I see. Go ahead and move it and I'll let you know when I am at home whether that was the right call or not. The reason I put it in the second stage was because it deals with the effects of the flight of the social elite. Screen stalker 21:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If so, I am quite sure I am right.

The "elite" exodus concerned roughly 70,000 people and occured in dec47, jan48 mainly. Gelber consider this exodus participated to the collapse of the palestinian society that found itself without leaders ! (and doctors and sellers for food supplies, etc)

This has nothing to do with 2nd stage (in Gelber's sense <> 2 wave of Morris) that mainly started end of june and were jewish troops expulsed and chased palestinians.

I do the modification and we see later.

Best Regards, Alithien 07:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• the division into 4 stages or two stages are just a theory the article should not be constructed according to an unproven theory Zeq 18:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

All our explanations of hisotry are theory, and none of them can be proven. But if we consult published experts as to their opinions which they back with evidence and logic, and present all credible theories on a subject, then presenting theories might not be such a bad thing. Screen stalker 21:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeq. It is not a theory. It is a way to introduce facts.

And even Karsh doesn't contredict this division into 2 or 4 stages. (To be more precise, Morris talks about 4 waves and Gelber sees 2 stages.)

For your information, there is even no "controverse" around the causes of 3 of these 4 stages. Only the causes of the second one (between april 1 and june) is controversed.

Pappé and most new historians think it was a planned ethnic cleansing

Morris and Gelber think it was natural "result of war" (with some ponctual exceptions, like in Galilea) but never an ethnic cleansing and never due to arabs.

Karsh and official israeli historiography think arab leaders are responsible.

And 2nd stage concerns 250k-300k people out of 700k-750k.

Alithien 07:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The division into 4 stages is how Morris orders the events. This ordering has been quoted and used by numerous other authors. Maybe this should be mentioned at the top of the History section? Gelber's two-stage theory is mentioned later on (it even has its own subsection).

Zeq, the division into stages are a working concept and can therefore not bee proven. They in no way validate or invalidate the underlying data and using them helps structure the chronology of the exodus, so don't remove them.

Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 07:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Gelber

Do we have an actual quotation for how Gelber "explains why he believes that Israeli authorities did not prompt the Palestinian population to flee but on the contrary tried to stop it"? I don't have his book handy, but my recollection is that he did not make such a blanket statement. In fact I think that is what he wrote about the Arab leadership. Thanks. --Zero^talk 14:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you claim he wrote ? Do you have a quote ? Zeq 14:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

here is what Gelbar is saying:

מה שהביא ערבים רבים כל כך לברוח כבר בשלב הראשון של המערכה, ולא רק את העירונים והאמידים שביניהם אלא גם את הכפריים, הוא חולשת החברה הערבית, חוסר יכולתה להתמודד עם קשיי החיים בתנאי מלחמה, והפחד מפני כוחות ישראל, שהתעמולה הערבית הגזימה בתיאורי מעשי הזוועות ההמוניים שהם מעוללים לערבים כאשר נכבשים כפריהם ועריהם.

ח'אלד אל-עזם, ראש ממשלת סוריה בסוף 1948 וחורף 1949, הקובע בזיכרונותיו כי הממשלות הערביות אכן עודדו את הבריחה.

Zeq 15:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zero. I check in English in Palestine 1948 but I am quite sure he wrote that. The problem is the context. I am not sure it concerns the whole exodus but maybe some events in the exodus of some actions at a givent ime. He wrote many other things and the NPoV would require to weigh this view properly among other Gelber's claims. Alithien 15:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This quotation specifically discusses the "first stage" of the מערכה which can loosely be translated as a site, location, stage or duration (generally applied to conflicts). So this clearly does deal with a given time. Perhaps it should be used to talk about that time. If anyone needs a complete translation, let me know. But I don't want to write one if everyone has access to the English. Screen stalker 16:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)