Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from
Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus
)


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 February 2024

In reference to Israelis poisoning wells in the War of 1948, "this was based on false media reports saying Israeli rabbis were inciting the poisoning of water of Palestinians, led by a rabbi Shlomo Mlma or Mlmad from the Council of Rabbis in the West Bank settlements. A rabbi by that name could not be located, nor is such an organization listed."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well_poisoning Pianomanross (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a source and anyway that sentence refers to the current West Bank not the 48 war. Selfstudier (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I just added a line about this to both articles. Levivich (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typhus or typhoid?

Currently the article states that water was poisoned with both typhus and typhoid, both pretty clearly referring to the same incidents. These aren't the same disease and only one of them, typhoid, is waterborne. Unfortunately there are sources attesting to both with no recognition of the discrepancy, so I'm not sure how to go about correcting it. The reference here [1] is almost certainly incorrect, doesn't align with the other sources in the article and isn't the only source attesting to biological warfare, so I feel it should just be removed. XeCyranium (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see there's been a discussion of this already, my bad for overlooking. It seems the idea was to just adjust the mention of typhus to typhoid, so I'll do that for the article mention. XeCyranium (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing this.
Also, from the source you linked:
"The unsigned report, ‘Ittihad Hospital, Acre, 18 July 1948' [...] spoke of ‘a terrible typhoid epidemic’, spread chiefly through the water supply and affecting ‘mainly children and infants’. In fact, typhoid and typhus are different diseases, but the Jews/Israelis, Acre townspeople, and, often, foreigners (British and Red Cross personnel) referred to the Acre outbreak as ‘typhus’. The ‘water-borne’ epidemic generated by the Haganah was, of course, typhoid, but it is possible that the town suffered simultaneously also from cases of typhus, commonly transmitted by lice and fleas."
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh shoot I just reverted myself because I thought I had misread the previous discussion and that it supported the wording of "typhus". I don't have access to the source so that passage helps greatly. I'll revert my revert. XeCyranium (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23 March 2024

Alaexis, beyond no consensus, what is your problem with the changes that you reverted? إيان (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The new text reads were forcibly expelled from their homes or made to flee, at first by Zionist paramilitaries and after the establishment of the State of Israel, by the Israeli army. It doesn't make sense since "expelling" and "making to flee" is pretty much the same thing, so it's a duplication. The old version ("expelled or fled") is a better summary of the causes of the exodus, see Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight#Causes_of_the_first_wave,_December_1947_–_March_1948. Alaexis¿question? 14:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Wikipedia is not a source.
2. Surely if people were fleeing imminent violence then they were "made to flee", no?
Some sources to support this:
  • "The military commander interpreted Plan Dalet as calling for the expulsion of only the Muslims. To make sure this was done swiftly, he executed several Muslims on the village’s piazza in front of all the villagers, which effectively ‘persuaded’ the rest to flee." -The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine
  • "Ben-Gurion was unimpressed. His thoughts were already somewhere else. He was unhappy with the limited scope of the operations: ‘A small reaction [to Arab hostility] does not impress anyone. A destroyed house – nothing. Destroy a neighborhood, and you begin to make an impression!’ He liked the Sa‘sa operation for the way it had ‘caused the Arabs to flee’." -idem
  • "They were forcibly removed by the occupying army or were made to flee to neighboring villages or areas for refuge as a result of military operations" [2]
  • Even Benny Morris says here [3] that "The majority fled or were made to flee."
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regarding your statement that 'expelling' and 'making to flee' are "pretty much the same thing" - I agree, and it's reasonable to speak simply of the Palestinian expulsion, without having to always add "and flight". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IOHANNVSVERVS is correct. إيان (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a source, but the section I've linked contains a number of references to RS. Morris writes as follows about the first wave (December 1947 – March 1948), p. 139
Alaexis¿question? 15:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the early period, before Plan Dalet in April. Less than 10% of the 750,000 Palestinians who were expelled/fled, were expelled/fled during this period (70,000 is the common figure up to March 1948). Those were mostly rich Palestinians who could afford to leave the country in order to avoid the war (thinking that they'd be able to return after the fighting stopped).
While I'm here: "expulsion" and "made to flee" are not the same thing. According to the sources (like Morris's book 1948, or Ilan Pappe's ethnic cleansing book), the expulsions and flight included the following types of things:
  • Literal, physical expulsion, as in Israelis put Palestinians onto trucks/buses, drove them somewhere else (e.g., in the middle of the desert), kicked them out of the vehicles, and drove off
  • Expulsion under direct threat of violence, as in Israelis pointed guns at Palestinians and said "start walking or we shoot," so the Palestinians started walking
  • Expulsion under indirect threat of violence, as in Israelis drove around in loudspeaker vans and announced, "if you don't leave by dawn, we will kill you all," and then the Palestinians left
  • Violence to induce flight, as in the Israelis massacred Palestinians in one village, and then the Palestinians in neighboring villages ran away so they wouldn't be next; one thing that pretty much everyone I've read seems to agree on, including Morris, is that the purpose of the massacres was to induce flight
A tiny portion of "expelled or fled" involves voluntary flight (as mentioned, less than 10%, prior to Plan Dalet in April 1948), and every part of it involves violence. None of it was a voluntary emigration. These expulsions and flights started in December 1947 and continued well after the end of the war in 1949 (even until today). For sources and quotes, see Nakba#The 1948 Nakba (and subsequent sections for the "well after the end of the war" part). Levivich (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying that Palestinians just decided to emigrate, so it's a straw man argument. The point is that fleeing and being expelled are substantially different things, even if both were caused by the same conflict. To take a recent example, Karabakh Armenians fled their country fearing the occupation by Azerbaijan. We should try to be precise, and if both expulsions and flight took place, that's what we should write. Alaexis¿question? 12:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You, above on March 24: It doesn't make sense since "expelling" and "making to flee" is pretty much the same thing, so it's a duplication.
You just now: The point is that fleeing and being expelled are substantially different things, even if both were caused by the same conflict.
You seem to have been arguing that the flight was voluntary, sorry if I misunderstood you. The edit in the OP changed "forcibly expelled" to "expelled," and "made to flee" to "fled."
The point is that they did not flee voluntarily, they were made to flee by psychological warfare operations (in addition to the forced expulsions, eg at the point of a gun). Levivich (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Violently" and other recent edit issues.

...is clear NPOV. No citation provided, and for this to stand, and all expulsions would have had to be violent for this to be described as such. If there were a qualifier ("often violently" or "occasionally violently" backed by a citation, sure), but "violently expelled" is polemical and not remotely neutral or accurate.

As for the causes belli - the recent edit is tendentious and OR and will be reported if preserved without appropriate citation. The rephrasing is not the issue...it is leading and OR and is neither cited nor discussed later in the article. Mistamystery (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. "Not remotely neutral or accurate?" Really?
2. It's not OR just because there is no inline citation... And in what way is it "leading"? I don't know what you mean by that. If it's not discussed later in the article then that is something to be addressed.
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a citation for #2 (which I found in a few minutes...) from Benny Morris, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War, p. 180:

"As the months passed and the Palestinian Arabs, beefed up by contingents of foreign volunteers, proved incapable of defeating the Yishuv, the Arab leaders began more seriously to contemplate sending in their armies. The events of April 1948—Deir Yassin, Tiberias, Haifa, Jaffa—rattled and focused their minds, and the arrival of tens of thousands of refugees drove home the urgency of direct intervention. By the end of April, they decided to invade."

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Really? Yes. Insisting that the entirety of the expulsions were violent when A) they weren't and B) there is no citation provided is NPOV and agenda pushing. Be specific with citation or keep it general.
2. The citation you provided does not make your point, nor support the sentence you are trying to keep. The quote insists that the Arab league invaded because they Palestinians were failing to defeat the Jewish forces, as well as other factors (including refugees). It also points out that they (Arab countries) were already supporting the Palestinian military cause with soldiers and were failing to have an impact. Mistamystery (talk) 05:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding 2: You might want to familiarize yourself with what the reliable sources say about the history you're disputing here. Or you could check the primary source that is the cablegram sent to the UN Secretary General by the Arab League on May 15, which laid out their reasons for intervening in Palestine.
Additionally, it would be more appropriate to add a citation needed tag to content which you are unsure about; the removal of significant content without bringing it up on the talk page should only be done if you're very confident the information is wrong.
The fact that "about 250000–300000 Palestinians fled or were expelled during the 1947–1948 civil war [...] was named as a casus belli for the entry of the Arab League into the country", is a rather basic fact of this history, and I'll remind you that WP:Competence is required. I don't mean to be rude but I do think that removing basic facts first and asking for sources second, rather than the other way around, is disruptive editing.
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's your responsibility to provide a source if something is challenged. Also, even if something is indeed supported by a source it doesn't mean that it has to be in the lead. Alaexis¿question? 22:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've added a citation needed tag to the sentence here disputed. Not everything requires an inline citation so am I correct in assuming that you've added this tag because you dispute or doubt the accuracy of the information? As I said above, it's a rather basic fact of this history so I don't understand the challenge and demand for sources here. Have you read "the primary source that is the cablegram sent to the UN Secretary General by the Arab League on May 15, which laid out their reasons for intervening in Palestine", which I cited above?
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cablegram is a primary source and generally we prefer secondary ones, especially to determine whether certain information should be included in the lede. Alaexis¿question? 07:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's sufficient to address the citation needed tag and I'll be removing it. As I said before as well, there are many references cited here which undoubtedly support this basic fact already.
If you think some or all of this disputed sentence doesn't belong in the lead then you'll have to say so directly and explain why. Hard to believe it could be undue for the lead however given the subject of the article.
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I won't remove the cn tag unilaterally; I'll ask if you consider the sourcing concern resolved.
Note that I can easily provide secondary sources for this but that it would be a waste of time for me to do so. Have you made any effort to find secondary sources for this yourself? I'm not sure which RS you're going by which would lead you to doubt this information in the first place.
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understood your point. There are three issues here
  1. The source for this specific claim. Please feel free to add the cablegram and remove the tag.
  2. Should this claim be in the lede? Secondary sources should be provided that establish its importance for the topic.
  3. The information should be added to the article itself, as the lede generally should summarise the information that is already in the article per
    WP:MOSLEDE
    .
Alaexis¿question? 08:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. And you'll not do that yourself why? You're the one who is insisting on an inline citation for this.
2. Is there any doubt that the Palestinian expulsions — the subject of this article — being a casus belli of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war is due for the lead?
WP:SKYISBLUE
, no? Again, I'm not sure which reliable sources you're going by — you've not cited any here so far — which would make you doubt this.
3. Absolutely and adding this information to the body would be an extremely productive contribution you could make here. [Striking this per
WP:TONE
, although I'm feeling rather frustrated here.] 08:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material is a very basic tenet of
WP:V. Alaexis¿question? 21:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Which is why I've provided two sources to support the content.
Any response to my questions 1 or 2 above?
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re your first question, if you want to retain it, the burden is on you to demonstrate verifiability.
Re the second one, I think it definitely played a part, but there were other reasons as well (as far as I remember Abdullah of Jordan wanted to annex the Arab part of Palestine to his dominion). But again, if it's so obvious you should have no problems finding reliable secondary sources explicitly confirming it. Alaexis¿question? 12:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. You're going in circles. I've already demonstrated the verifiability of the content. Something which you refuse to acknowledge.
2. "I think it definitely played a part, but there were other reasons as well" — The content in question only states that the expulsions were "named as a casus belli for the entry of the Arab League into the country." An extremely basic and uncontroversial fact of this history. I've asked you which RS you're basing your knowledge of this history on that would lead you to doubt the truth of this basic fact but you've not answered that.
This clearly isn't going anywhere and I'll just add the inline citation myself. The reason I didn't do so earlier is that though it would have resolved the content dispute, the content aspect of this discussion is extremely trivial. It seems to me that there is such a thing as abuse of
WP:BURDEN, see Sealioning and WP:You can search, too
.
The non acknowledgment of the RS I provided by both @Mistamystery and Alaexis is also notable; especially regarding the cablegram which I cited earlier, wherein the Arab League formally notifies the UN of their casus belli. The cablegram is quite short and begins with "[...] to restore law and order and to prevent disturbances prevailing in Palestine from spreading into their territories and to check further bloodshed", and concludes with "For these reasons, and considering that the security of Palestine is a sacred trust for them [the Arab heads of state], and out of anxiousness to check the further deterioration of the prevailing conditions and to prevent the spread of disorder and lawlessness into the neighbouring Arab lands [...] the Arab Governments find themselves compelled to intervene for the sole purpose of restoring peace and security and establishing law and order in Palestine." The only acknowledgment of, or arguments against this source was Alaexis stating "we generally prefer secondary sources"; Mistamystery simply ignored it.
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the source. I've changed the text a bit to follow the source more closely, I think now we are good. Alaexis¿question? 18:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And for what reason have you omitted the part about "preventing the Palestinians' total ruin"? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any response to this, @Alaexis? Surely this is the kind of thing that raises concerns of POV pushing, as the source says "the Arab governments' primary goal was preventing the Palestinians’ total ruin and the flooding of their own countries by more refugees.", but you've said "The desire to avoid more refugees was one of the reasons for the entry of the Arab League [...]" For what reason have you omitted the part about "preventing the Palestinians’ total ruin", which if anything was given greater prominence being the first reason mentioned. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IOHANNVSVERVS sorry, this thread is really hard to keep track of. I didn't add it because it is not directly related to the expulsion. It would be relevant for the article about the war, obviously. Alaexis¿question? 19:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can you say that "preventing the Palestinians' total ruin" was not directly related to the expulsions? The expulsions were inflicting extraordinary death and destruction on the Arab population of Palestine as at Deir Yassin and in the "Battle" of Haifa, among similar cases, with entire villages being destroyed. That's not directly related the Palestinians' total ruin? I suggest we restore the original wording which stated simply that the expulsions were "named as a casus belli for the entry of the Arab League [...]". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not at all what I said. Gelber says nothing about casus belli so you can't use that source to support the text you proposed. Anyway, this is not that important in my view, so I've added "preventing collapse" to the article. Alaexis¿question? 18:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
👍 IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mistamystery, please tell us about these supposed nonviolent expulsions with RS, and how they are statistically significant out of the 700,000+ Palestinians to merit the due weight you suggest. إيان (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 – expulsion is implicitly violent, so indeed, it needs demonstrating if any instances are otherwise.
Iskandar323 (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree, but I'm a bit confused, is it an argument for or against retaining this characterisation? Alaexis¿question? 21:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thread appears to be about removing or mollifying the word, among other complaints.
Iskandar323 (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

What do you think @Mistamystery? Do you still think the content should be removed or do we have consensus that it should stay? Do you have any concerns about it being undue for the lead? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Items are included in articles because of clear citative basis and nothing more.
1. Violence and expulsion are separate matters. If incidences of violence or conduct in an explicitly violent manner happened, the use of the term "violent" need be in regard to citation that expounds of nature and extent of violence during expulsion. If those sources cannot be provided, the inclusion of the word is editorializing and leading.
2. And in regards to the causus belli - there are many factors that are cited by numerous sources well beyond this supposed single minded aim of responding to the refugee crisis. For instance, the abundance of Arab Leaders who stated their aim as plain elimination or expulsion of the Jewish population. And this is well before the refugee crisis began.
As it stands that sentence was there without any citation or further mention in the article to start with - which is plain editorializing and POV pushing. It should be withheld from the edit on those grounds alone.
Likewise, the Morris quote does not support the assertion. Mistamystery (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The abundance of Arab Leaders who stated their aim as plain elimination or expulsion of the Jewish population. And this is well before the refugee crisis began." RS for this? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless we're considering adding this information to this article, this question is irrelevant to the discussion. We simply need reliable secondary sources which support the added content. Alaexis¿question? 21:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an inline citation to Yoav Gelber's 'Palestine 1948: War, Escape and the Emergence of the Palestinian Refugee Problem', p. 137, and even included the relevant quotation which reads "Drawn into the war by the collapse of the Palestinians and the ALA, the Arab governments' primary goal was preventing the Palestinians' total ruin and the flooding of their own countries by more refugees." This was not hard to find and indeed this exact work is already cited in the list of references for this article. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's taking their official proclamations at the time at surface and good faith, uncritical value, when that is only the tip of the spear of exterminationist & expulsionist rhetoric that Arab leadership was waging toward the Jewish community for years at that point, well before there was active civil war or a threatening refugee problem.
I'm not going to argue that instability or the birth of a refugee problem was a factor, but to uncritically list it as a causus belli is entirely misleading and ignores a preponderance of contributing and pre-existing factors that drove the Arab armies to enter the conflict:
NY Daily News, April 5 1948: "The attack on Mishmar Haemek began at 5 P. M. yesterday when Fawzi Bey personally led a large force in his initial big scale action "to drive the Jews into the sea."
https://www.newspapers.com/image/445745506/?terms=%22Drive%20the%20jews%20into%20the%20sea%22&match=1
Benny Morris, A History of the First Arab-Israeli War: "What was the goal of the planned invasion? Arab spokesmen indulged in a variety of definitions. A week before the armies marched, 'Azzam told Kirkbride: "It does not matter how many [Jews] there are. We will sweep them into the sea." Syrian president Shukri al-Quwwatli spoke of the Crusades: "Overcoming the Crusaders took a long time, but the result was victory. There is no doubt that history is repeating itself."
As war loomed nearer, the belligerent rhetoric intensified. In 1946, a Baghdad newspaper called on Arabs to "annihilate all European Jews in Palestine." "We will sweep them into the sea," Arab League Secretary-General 'Abd al-Rahman Azzam announced just before the invasion. The mufti of Egypt proclaimed jihad in Palestine as the duty of all Muslims, and King Abdullah of Jordan pledged to rescue Islamic holy sites."
https://www.google.com/books/edition/1948/CC7381HrLqcC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22into%20the%20sea%22
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/in-the-beginning/
Youngstown Vindicator May 11, 1946: The whole Palestine question was discussed at length and Ibn Saud is reliably reported to have told Mr.Roosevelt that "if you decide to send too many Jews to Palestine I shall have to throw them into the sea." After the situation was examined in the light of a world rather than a local problen and all the potentials involved in it were discussed, Mr. Roosevelt decided to promise Ibn Saud that no action would be taken without the king's knowledge.
Ibn Saud and other Arab rulers are less sophisticated than the heads 1of the European countries. They take political pledges at their face value and don't go back on the given word."
https://books.google.com/books?id=wpVIAAAAIBAJ&q=into+the+sea#v=snippet&q=%22jews%20into%20the%20sea%22&f=false Mistamystery (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing references, Mistamystery.
1. First of all, your arguments here are not relevant since the content under dispute only states that the Palestinian expulsions were "named as a casus belli for the entry of the Arab League", a rather modest claim, and one well supported by countless RS.
2. The sources provided do not support your claim of there having been an "abundance of Arab Leaders who stated their aim as plain elimination or expulsion of the Jewish population", nor that these statements took place "well before the refugee crisis began." You've repeated these claims in your above comment describing "exterminationist & expulsionist rhetoric that Arab leadership was waging toward the Jewish community for years at that point, well before there was active civil war or a threatening refugee problem." In the sources you've provided only "a Baghdad newspaper" made explicit statements promoting exterminationism. Interpreting comments about "sweeping/throwing them into the sea" as being exterminationist is
WP:original research
.
But again, this is not relevant to this content dispute or even to this article, which is about the Palestinian expulsions. That the expulsions were cited as a casus belli by the Arab League remains both well sourced and due for inclusion.
(Also,
WP:BESTSOURCES
for this history)
-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to mince the sampling of sources provided, as there are an overabundance of sources that delve into the myriad of reasons as to why the Arab governments saw fit to join the conflict. It is a fundamental mischaracterization (and skewing of history) to place the CB squarely on the growing refugee crisis. Likewise, your quote refers to "disturbances" and does not mention refugees.
While it is entirely appropriate to say that the growing refugee situation was a factor, there are far too many sources indicating the full picture to allow a dangerous simplification to stand. Mistamystery (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're
not listening. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
No. I'm merely not ignoring the broader, well established historical context of the moment in question for the purpose of driving a non-neutral narrative - which I think is happening here in an overall pattern of editorial behavior that seems also incredibly non-collaborative and non-good faith. This is *days* of unnecessary back and forth just for a *single* citation to be added to a naked line, which is not remotely the spirit in which we are expect to conduct ourselves in these conversations.
Which all points me toward a larger vantage than litigating this line (which I am not doing, or if it seemed like I was, am no longer). Mistamystery (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1948 NY Daily News? 1946 Youngstown Vindicator? In a discussion about events in 1947-1948! You must be kidding?
I'm also not sure why you're citing a review of Morris's 1948 in addition to 1948 itself.
1948 is the only actual reliable source for this on your list. So, two yes or no questions since you're citing this book in support of your arguments: does 1948 say that the expulsions were violent? Does it say that the expulsion/flight was a cassus belli for Arab states? Levivich (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Causes

Is it appropriate to say "the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus are also a subject of fundamental disagreement among historians." As far as I'm aware there is no significant "fundamental disagreement among historians" about the expulsions, only some details remain disputed in the most recent and

best sources. See for example this article by Ilan Pappé. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight says in Line 2 "The causes for this mass displacement is a matter of great controversy among historians, journalists, and commentators." Might be better to fix it over there first. Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah and this is so complicated with so much nuance, that I'm not sure what the best way is to write it, but these are the points that I think Wikipedia should make across these articles:
  • There is broad general agreement about what the causes were -- which can be summed up as "the Israelis caused it" -- but there is still disagreement about various details of the causes, the exact who/when/how/why's, the relative importance of various causes, etc.
  • One thing right off the top is the now widely debunked Nakba denial myth that "they left because the Arab states told them to." I think it's important for Wikipedia to convey that scholars all say that did not happen, and in fact the opposite happened: the Arab leaders wanted Palestinians to stay, not leave.
  • Then there's the "they left voluntarily" myth, where Wikipedia should convey that scholars agree that a small portion (70k or less than 10%) of mostly wealthy and upper-middle-class Palestinians left early (between September 1947 and March 1948) to avoid the war, but they thought they were leaving temporarily and would be able to return afterwards (as was the norm in prior conflicts)
  • Scholars also agree broadly that the Israelis intentionally expelled Palestinians, and engaged in psychological warfare and other tactics (biological warfar, conventional warfare) in order to induce flight, and this was very successful... hence, broad agreement on "expelled or made to flee".
  • Where scholars disagree -- this is Pappe v. Morris -- is whether the expulsion was always the plan and the partition was the first opportunity (the viewpoint of Pappe, Masalha, Wolfe and others), or whether the expulsion was something that wasn't pre-planned but started more organically on the ground with low-level commanders, and then became official policy later in the war (after May 1948)
  • Scholars also disagree about whether the expulsions were militarily necessary or justifiable (Morris's view) or not (everyone else?)
There's probably other nuance but I gtg now :-) Levivich (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Levivich. Regarding that "there is broad general agreement about what the causes were -- which can be summed up as "the Israelis caused it" - I do find it odd to speak of the causes of something which was 'done', treating it as though it were something that 'happened' without agency. I suspect it would be better to rename/refocus the article 'Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight' to 'Historiography of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight'. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For sure there are disagreements, see for examples the works of Efraim Karsh. Alaexis¿question? 20:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neil Caplan's The Israel-Palestine Conflict (2nd ed., Yale 2020), pp. 119 and 120, discusses the views of Karsh, Morris, Masalha, and others, and summarizes (according to Caplan) the current mainstream view about causes of the refugee problem.
Another book, a bit older, is Mark Tessler's A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (2nd ed., Indiana Univ. 2009), which covers causes and historiography of causes on pp. 291-307. Levivich (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Efraim Karsh#Reception - "Prominent New Historian Benny Morris called Karsh's Fabricating Israeli History "a mélange of distortions, half-truths, and plain lies that vividly demonstrates his profound ignorance of both the source material... and the history of the Zionist-Arab conflict," titling his article "Undeserving of a Reply". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there exists
WP:BESTSOURCES for this history. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Mmm, I personally agree with that, but idk about Wikipedia NPOV policy agreeing with it. Karsh's 2010 book Palestine Betrayed was published by Yale and has 100+ Google scholar cites (one of which is Caplan). Even if he is cited for criticism, so is Morris. Here is where I get stuck: under objective parameters of reliability, Morris gets in despite his non-mainstream views... doesn't Karsh, and Finkelstein (2018 Gaza book published by NC Univ IIRC), also make the cut, despite their non-mainstream views? Personally I don't see how, if Morris is an RS (and he is), Finkelstein isn't an RS, and if Finkelstein is (I think so), then isn't Karsh also? (Even if I don't like it.) Levivich (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had the misfortune to read his missives on the question of the Jordan Israel secret agreement over splitting Palestine. He is off base imo but he's not alone so does have to be taken into account. Selfstudier (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per
WP:USEBYOTHERS: "How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
That's true. No evidence of "widespread doubts about reliability" has been presented so far. Morris criticising his other book is neither "widespread" not relevant. Alaexis¿question? 09:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Efraim Karsh#Reception. And more can be provided I'm sure. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An example here. -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And another. -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ehh, so what? Having critical reviews is normal. Here Benny Morris calls Ilan Pappe "one of the world’s sloppiest historians." This is not a grounds for disqualification from Wikipedia. Alaexis¿question? 12:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are sort of getting away from the main question, is the way the lead is phrased correct, it seems to me that too much or equal weight is being given to one side when in fact it should be a majority/minority type thing. Selfstudier (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2024

Please can the current line in the first paragraph "At least 15,000 Arabs were killed in these expulsions.[1][2]" be replaced with "Up to 13,000 Palestinian Arabs were killed during the war, mostly civilians."[3]

The sources for the 15,000 figure are among the very few non-academic sources used in the entire article. reliefweb.int is definitely not good enough. No academic/scholarly sources seem to support this as a credible estimate of Palestinians killed during expulsions. The highest academic estimate I could find for the total number of Palestinians killed during the 1947-49 war is the source I cited by Henry Laurens (scholar). 15,000 killed is also used on the Nakba page with the same non-academic sources. A dedicated section discussing the death toll is definitely needed on both articles.Tapu.Solre (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Tapu.Solre (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Consensus is required for this edit. Best left to EC editors for any discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this Henry Laurens source, it should be added to the article if someone can verify it. Also note that the ReliefWeb article is sourced to the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights. So we should likely (as of now) have the death at (13,000-15,000) with the three sources to support it. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a valid point, we should have a scholarly source for this and casualties should be discussed in the article itself before mentioning them in the lede. I've added a bettersourceneeded tag. Alaexis¿question? 12:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find the material in a copy of the source, can anyone please provide the Chapter and the exact French phrasing. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to confirm this Laurens source. Do you have the French quotation? Or could you send a screenshot or something of the part that says "Up to 13,000 Palestinian Arabs were killed during the war, mostly civilians"? Are you sure it's from volume three? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like great minds think alike eh @Selfstudier. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per "this figure is also mentioned in most scholarly works", could you please provide a good scholarly source then @Makeandtoss? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13,000 killed figure is by Aref al-Aref and is cited by Rashid Khalidi [4]. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly provide the full quote in French. "L'ordre de grandeur est de 13 000, soit un peu plus du double des pertes juives, ce qui fait une proportion grossièrement équivalente en fonction de la population totale. Mais il est clair que la plus grande partie des pertes palestiniennes concerne des non- combattants et correspond aux succès israéliens." It was possible to find the quote by searching the Google books url I provided. Laurens is also citing Aref al-Aref in his book.Tapu.Solre (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French and English (DeepL translation):
French:
“Pour l'ensemble du conflit, les pertes juives et israéliennes atteignent un peu plus de 6 000 morts et le double de blessés, essentiellement des combattants, soit 1 % de la population du Yichouv à cette date, mais il faut prendre en compte le fait que les nouveaux arrivants et combattants volontaires venus de l'extérieur ont fourni un contingent non précisé de ces pertes.
Du côté arabe, les indications chiffrées sont moins précises.
Selon le recensement opéré par ‚Arif al-‚Arif en 1958*, le nombre de « martyrs » des armées régulières arabes s'éléverait à :
Égypte : 961 plus 200 irréguliers
Jordanie : 362 plus 200 irréguliers
Irak : 199 plus 200 irréguliers
Arabie saoudite : 68 plus 105 irréguliers
Liban : 11 plus 150 irréguliers
Syrie : 307 plus 204 irréguliers
Armée de secours : 512
Autres Arabes (Yéménites, Soudanais, Nord-Africains) : 200
Non-Arabes (Arméniens, Grecs, Européens, Hindous) : 42.
L'ordre de grandeur serait de 3 700.
Les pertes palestiniennes :
Identifiés nominalement comme étant morts à l'occasion d'un combat : 1 953
Noms non connus mais nombre, lieux et dates connus : 4 004
Noms et dates non connus mais lieux connus : 7 043.
L'ordre de grandeur est de 13 000, soit un peu plus du double des pertes juives, ce qui fait une proportion grossièrement équivalente en fonction de la population totale. Mais il est clair que la plus grande partie des pertes palestiniennes concerne des non-combattants et correspond aux succès israéliens.”
English (Deep L translation*):
"For the conflict as a whole, Jewish and Israeli losses amounted to just over 6,000 dead and double that number wounded, mainly combatants, i.e. 1% of the Yishuv population at that date, but we must take into account the fact that new arrivals and volunteer combatants from outside provided an unspecified contingent of these losses.
On the Arab side, the figures are less precise.
According to a census carried out by 'Arif al-'Arif in 1958 [Footnote here: “Volume 6 of the Nakba is devoted to drawing up lists of victims and, as far as possible, identifying them by name.”] the number of "martyrs" in the regular Arab armies was as follows:
Egypt: 961 plus 200 irregulars
Jordan: 362 plus 200 irregulars
Iraq: 199 plus 200 irregulars
Saudi Arabia: 68 plus 105 irregulars
Lebanon: 11 plus 150 irregulars
Syria: 307 plus 204 irregulars
Relief Army: 512
Other Arabs (Yemenis, Sudanese, North Africans): 200
Non-Arabs (Armenians, Greeks, Europeans, Hindus): 42.
The order of magnitude would be 3,700.
Palestinian casualties:
Nominally identified as having died in combat: 1,953
Names unknown but number, places and dates known: 4,004
Names and dates unknown but places known: 7,043.
The order of magnitude is 13,000, slightly more than double the Jewish losses, making a roughly equivalent proportion based on total population. But it's clear that the greater part* (la plus grande partie) of Palestinian losses involve non-combatants and correspond to Israeli successes."
  • DeepL translation gave "the bulk of" but I've replaced that with "the greater part of" which is more accurate and more clear. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Morris 1948 p. 406: "In the 1948 war, the Yishuv suffered 5,700–5,800 dead — one quarter of them civilians ... Palestinian losses, in civilians and armed irregulars, are unclear: they may have been slightly higher, or much higher, than the Israeli losses. In the 1950s, Haj Amin al-Husseini claimed that 'about' twelve thousand Palestinians had died."
Caplan's Contested Histories (I don't know what page #, it's an e-book) [5]: "The war took the lives of some 6000 Israelis – a heavy proportion of the total population, 13 000–16 000 Palestinians, and 2000–2500 other Arabs, with many additional thousands of wounded."
However, these are war casualties, not specifically expulsion-and-flight casualties. On the other hand, they say "Palestinian," not "Arab," so I don't know if that includes the foreign Arab soldiers. And Morris says it includes civilians. Levivich (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we say something like >6,500 Arab civilian dead per Aref/Laurens? Since Laurens says 13,000 total Arab losses, of which "the greater part" were noncombatants? Or is that
WP:SYNTH? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Or maybe better to fully explain it as ~"Laurens gives the total Arab dead in the 1947-1949 Palestine war as 13,000, "the majority of which were noncombatants." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need for attribution; the original phrasing is fine. I am pretty sure there is at least one source talking about casualties in an elaborate way, and would definitely mention how Zionist militias killed adult males during their offensive campaigns on the villages, but I am not sure where. Thoughts? @
Oncenawhile: @Zero0000: Makeandtoss (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ "Nakba Day: What happened in Palestine in 1948?". Al Jazeera. 15 May 2022.
  2. ^ "Nakba survivors in Gaza mark 75 years of ongoing refugeehood, settler-colonialism and apartheid amid Israel's renewed military assault on the Strip". reliefweb.int. 15 May 2023.
  3. ^ Henry Laurens (2007). La Question de Palestine. Vol. 3. Fayard. p. 194.

Death toll

I removed from the article:

At least 15,000 Arabs were killed in these expulsions.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ "Nakba Day: What happened in Palestine in 1948?". Al Jazeera. 15 May 2022.
  2. ^ "Nakba survivors in Gaza mark 75 years of ongoing refugeehood, settler-colonialism and apartheid amid Israel's renewed military assault on the Strip". reliefweb.int. 15 May 2023.

It seems like the 15,000 number refers to total Arab dead in the 1948 Palestine war, including Arab League soldiers. See above discussion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&oldid=1218868266"