Jump to content

Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21

Requested move 6 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Let me first note that I've read through all three RMs on the page, since a lot of people commenting referenced the previous discussions and analysis in their arguments, but I didn’t find much there that would change the outcome.

There’s a consensus that "expulsion and flight" is a neutral description of the events that occurred. Those supporting that description brought many academic sources describing the events using those exact terms. They even showed that many of the sources those opposing brought up to support the term "exodus" also describe the events using those terms. Those opposing it often asserted that this description was non-neutral without sourcing or evidence. So weighing the arguments against WP:NPOV, along with the fact that those supporting the proposed description had a substantial majority, I find a clear consensus that this is a neutral description.

I down-weighted the arguments of those opposing simply on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME, since NPOV is non-negotiable. The only way the common name would be a factor if it was shown that the current title is a WP:NPOVNAME, which those opposing did not try to demonstrate. Otherwise, the provisions at WP:NDESC apply, which says the title "should reflect a neutral point of view". Some of those opposing did argue that "exodus" is used by many academic sources, is also a neutral way to describe the events, and is a better title for conciseness/preciseness reasons. That’s a reasonable argument for keeping the current title with a policy basis in WP:CRITERIA. Taking this argument into account, the consensus to move is less clear than the consensus that the proposed title is neutral. But after looking at the numbers while weighing the arguments with regards to policy as described, I do find a consensus to move. Galobtter (pingó mió) 22:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

1948 Palestinian exodus → 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight – The close for a prior move request for this title was vacated at move review on technical grounds even though the closer found a consensus to move (see the closed discussion immediately above). Subsequently a different closer found no consensus to move and a move review of that close found no consensus to overturn the close. In the circumstances, it is desirable to have a further discussion on the subject given that the proposed descriptive name is well sourced and the current name a euphemism. In this context, the recent renaming of 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle to 1948 Palestinian expulsion from Lydda and Ramle is of interest. Also relevant is 1949–1956 Palestinian exodus where it says in the second sentence "This period of the exodus was characterized predominantly by forced expulsion.."Selfstudier (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Close vacated at WP:MRV
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, with an additional moratorium on move requests for twelve months. This requested move has effectively been taking place for six months. If a consensus was forthcoming, it would be clear by now, and I would happily let that consensus develop and move – or not move – the article. As it is, there is still no consensus to move this article, and I honestly do not think that keeping it open will change that fact.

A "no consensus" closure is not a determination on the merits of either outcome, but it is not a dirty word in itself. Sometimes discussions don't, or won't, end with a consensus. It's in that spirit that I have to say it was incredibly disruptive to open this requested move less than half an hour after the move review closed. If more discussion was warranted, the move review would've had a different outcome.

Honestly, Wikipedia is not a host for games of one-upmanship nor a place to right great wrongs. This discussion did become somewhat nasty at points, which is why it's important that if you find yourself getting too involved, it might be best — if only for yourself — to take a step back to destress. Touch some grass, the encyclopedia will still be here tomorrow. Sceptre (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin closure)
Comment As I have said before, I think "1948 Palestinian expulsions and flights" works better as it makes it more clear that the article is about a group of closely related events rather than a single one.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: In addition to the material presented in the last two RM discussions, I would draw attention to an article which sheds some light on the way in which the current title fails WP:NPOV in its preference for the terminology of "exodus" over that of "expulsion". The article, Exodus, Nakba Denialism, and the Mobilization of Anti-Arab Racism', explores just that: 'Nakba denialism', which is defined as "a refusal to acknowledge the role that [...] violence played in the forced expulsions and dispossession of Palestinian Arabs in 1948" through the lens of an analysis of Leon Uris’ 1958 novel, Exodus - which "popularized key elements of Nakba denialism in US discourse by blaming the victims of settler colonial violence for the expulsions they faced." One spoke of this is the trope that the Palestinians were not attached to their land and willingly left to other Arab countries. "Exodus" is a term that tolerates the sense of meaning entailed in these prejudiced narratives, in a way that "expulsion and flight" does not. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Academic sources tend to have a POV, so I don't think this necessarily proves anything.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per before; there were various events that led to the Nakba. Not all Palestinian refugees were involuntarily deported or expelled. Andre🚐 17:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
    there were various events that led to the Nakba There were, the existing and proposed title have nothing to do with them, though.
    Not all Palestinian refugees were involuntarily deported or expelled That's why it says "and flight" Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
    I think "expulsion and flight" is still different from "exodus." "Exodus," implies a mass migration or mass movement, I do not believe it is necessary voluntary. After all, the Jewish exodus was a flight, as well. "Expulsion" is a very specific word that means forcible eviction and indeed, many Palestinians have been expelled from their land, that is not in dispute. However, "exodus" is the most general term because it encompasses expulsion, flight, diaspora, and mass migration or mass movement within its differential synonymity. By changing the title to "expulsion and flight" we create less simplicity, less conventionality and more of a cognitive load, and it puts the emphasis on "expulsion." Exodus also happens to be the most common description of this event although I think at this point the Nakba or Palestinian refugee crisis might be a better name for the same thing? Andre🚐 23:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not all Palestinian refugees were involuntarily deported or expelled. Dovidroth (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
    The proposed title doesn't say they were, so this is not a reason. Zerotalk 08:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
    The vast majority were not involuntarily deported or expelled. I maintain my opposition. Dovidroth (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
    The vast majority were not involuntarily deported or expelled Says who? Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
    Bit of a straw man: the proposed title doesn't use that phrase. There are two quotes just sitting there in the citations that say what happened to the 'majority': "By 1948, the majority of Palestinians, about 700,000 to 800,000 people from 500 to 600 villages, were displaced. They were either expelled or fled from their homes for fear of being killed..." and "...the overwhelming majority of Palestinian Arabs, perhaps 700,000 to 800,000 people, had either fled or been expelled..." - and these are the precise terms that the proposal uses. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - of course. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: an editor (now blocked) tried, via some email stealth canvassing, to solicit my participation in this discussion. I would be surprised to learn that I were the only one contacted. I urge editors who have been emailed to abstain from !voting here, and I wish the closer all the best in trying to determine consensus given the poison in the well. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 08:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose In less than six months, this is the third or fourth RFC on the subject to propose the same or a related rename. It appears that someone is trying to impose their viewpoint on a vote when the outcome will be determined by low turnout. There is no need to restart this entire discussion, as those who were opposed to the idea have already spoken their case numerous times. The suggested name is, as explained by many answers above, a sheer violation of WP:NPOV. Tombah (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
    The past discussion was 'no consensus' and bedeviled by procedural issues, so further discussion is clearly warranted, and there is no alternative procedure to a restart of the discussion. Your claims of POV are meanwhile just that without evidence /explanation. If a clear violation of WP:NPOV is at work here, it should be a simple matter for you to explain it. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support as in all previous discussions. The current title is a euphemism which does not accurately describe the content. The proposed title does not - as some oppose arguments have claimed - state or imply that all Palestinians were expelled, but allows for different explanations of unchallengeable facts, RolandR (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support per Roland and Zero. The present euphemism is, in addition, quite distasteful as newspapers around the world refer to joyous mass movements by people transiting to holiday homes or to be with family elsewhere as an 'exodus'.Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
    Honestly, as an American, I had to Google this to confirm that this is a common usage. You are of British sphere I assume, right? The entire construction, "transiting to holiday homes" sounds all very odd to my ear. I would say "go on vacation" or "take a vacation," or "take a trip," or "get out of town" and "get out of the city." Never heard such a casual usage of the exodus to describe a vacation. Comparative regional linguistics aside, to me, the most frequent usage of exodus or any kind of mass exodus is for large population movements, or the Book of Exodus. Andre🚐 23:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    This is indeed a common usage, with some 70,000 Google hits. Nor is it exclusively British, nor even recent - see this New York Times article from 6 July 1869, The Summer Exodus. As many of us have noted, the term is indeed a euphemism, conjuring up a vision of a comfortable family jaunt to the coast rather than the horrors of the Lydda Death March. RolandR (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
    The 1869 usage is clearly anachronistic. If you search for "mass exodus" you get more results like the [1] Dust Bowl, or waterfowl, [2], or the great resignation and layoffs. It's a general term with a lot of meanings, not all of them normative or positive or negative. Andre🚐 01:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
    The idea that exodus describes what happened in 1948 is not only anachronistic, it is simply not descriptive. I expect that's why so many historians use some variation of expelled/fled (including the minority that use exodus), current news sources as well. Just read the sources. Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As I said in the first discussion, sources currently cited in the article use the term "exodus", so that's clearly an established way to refer to this event. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
    Ignoring the large majority of sources currently cited in the article using expelled/fled? NPOV requires the title to reflect the balance of sources not a preferred set. Selfstudier (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - per the very first line of the article, In 1948 more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs – about half of prewar Palestine's Arab population – were expelled or fled from their homes and the sources cited there, as well as the sources in the prior request, especially, Slater, Jerome (2020). Mythologies Without End: The US, Israel, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1917-2020. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. ISBN 978-0-19-045908-6. There is no serious dispute among Israeli, Palestinian, or other historians about the central facts of the Nakba. All of the leading Israeli New Historians—particularly Morris, Shlaim, Pappé, and Flapan—extensively examined the issue and revealed the facts. Other accounts have reached the same conclusions. For example, see Ben-Ami, "A War to Start All Wars"; Rashid Khalidi, "The Palestinians and 1948"; Walid Khalidi, "Why Did the Palestinians Leave, Revisited"; Masalha, Expulsion of the Palestinians; Raz, Bride and the Dowry. Reviewing the evidence marshaled by Morris and others, Tom Segev concluded that "most of the Arabs in the country, approximately 400,000, were chased out and expelled during the first stage of the war. In other words, before the Arab armies invaded the country" (Haaretz, July 18, 2010). Other estimates have varied concerning the number of Palestinians who fled or were expelled before the May 1948 Arab state attack; Morris estimated the number to be 250,000–300,000 (The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, 262); Tessler puts it at 300,000 (A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 279); Pappé's estimate is 380,000 (The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 96). In another recent review of the evidence, the Israeli historian Daniel Blatman estimates the number to be about 500,000 (Blatman, "Netanyahu, This Is What Ethnic Cleansing Really Looks Like"). Whatever the exact number, even Israeli "Old Historians" now admit that during the 1948 war, the Israeli armed forces drove out many of the Palestinians, though they emphasized the action as a military "necessity." For example, see Anita Shapira, Israel: A History, 167–68. In July 2019, the Israeli government sought to cover up the extensive documentary evidence in its state archives that revealed detailed evidence about the extent of the Nakba—even the evidence that had already been published by newspapers and Israeli historians. There is no dispute about this among sources, the Palestinians were expelled or fled, mostly in the first phase of the war. The current descriptive title fails WP:NDESC, it could only be used if it was the common name and it is not, as a number of searches have demonstrated and not a single person has shown otherwise. The sources, the article itself, and our policies are all in alignment here, and only dishonest arguments that ignore the sources and the proposal have ever been used to argue against it. For example, the argument that [n]ot all Palestinian refugees were involuntarily deported or expelled is dishonest because the title includes fled, pretending like it does not to argue against it is a strawman and should be ignored. The argument that sources currently cited in the article use the term "exodus", so that's clearly an established way to refer to this event ignore the sources, including those same sources, also use expelled and fled, making it a dishonest portrayal of the sources. When sources are in consensus about what happened, Wikipedia editors who ignore them to argue for their own personal preference should be ignored. nableezy - 16:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
    While you have a very strong historical knowledge and I don't claim to be able to go toe to toe at all, I want to just point out that "expulsion" is also a loaded term, which kind of implies that the Israelis forced out all the Palestinians in much the same way as the Spanish Inquisition. Which is not the case. It's surely true that many Palestinians were indeed evicted from their homes. In some cases, by the military, in some cases, by Jewish terrorist groups like the Irgun. However, there are also Palestinian citizens of Israel who remained. Whereas, the Jewish expulsion left only conversos to Catholicism and crypto-Jews fleeing. There was never a "Palestinian expulsion" in the same way as an Edict of Expulsion from Spain. Many Palestinian refugees fled on their own, others remained in Israel as Palestinian citizens of Israel, some of the latter serve in the Knesset. So, it's not a strawman to say that not all Palestinians were expelled or even fled. There was a mass exodus, which I think it would be fair to say is the most common way that most sources describe the event. Many also do refer to it as an expulsion and/or flight and I'm not saying those are totally wrong, but we should choose the best, most neutral, most general term. Andre🚐 23:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    Andre, with all due respect, why do you keep ignoring that the proposed title includes flight? And yes, there very much were expulsions of Palestinians. Lydda and Ramla to name one example we cover. Yes, some Palestinians fled, either due to fear, or the fall of neighboring villages, or a whispering campaign. They were also not allowed to return to their homes, making them too expelled, but whatever, we include flight in the proposal anyway. As far as the idea that because not every single Palestinian was forced out makes it so there was no expulsion, well I dont know how to respond to that except to say that sources say, and this part is not in any real dispute, that a huge number of Palestinians were expelled, and that the concentration of Palestinians in the northern part of Israel that makes up the Triangle being a notable exception to the incredible efficiency of that expulsion campaign. Was there an edict? Well Ben Gurion did order the Palestinians of Haifa be refused re-entry, and even Israeli historians who are in favor of the expulsions recognize that the Palestinians were indeed expelled under the formal orders of the highest levels of Israeli government. Yes, we should pick the most neutral, most general term(s). And those are expulsion and flight. The term exodus carries the connotation of voluntary, escaping poor conditions for better ones. Not being forced to flee your homes with the possessions you could carry on your back, if that, and never allowed to return. Expulsion is only a loaded term if it is not as widely attested to as it is here. Like really, the sources on were the Palestinians largely expelled are so one-sided here to use any other term is to fail WP:NPOV. nableezy - 03:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, I wouldn't necessarily object to "1948 Palestinian flight" but, I imagine you would object because flight also in your mind implies voluntariness? Though, IMO, flight isn't necessarily voluntary or positive nor is exodus. I agree with you that there were terrible flights and terrible expulsions and I am not arguing the historical accuracy of the statement, simply which is the most widely attested, general, and neutral term. Andre🚐 03:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
    I dont believe that "exodus" is the most widely attested, general, and neutral term and there hasnt really ever been any evidence for it to be considered that. Id oppose just flight as that leaves out, or downplays, a huge proportion of the population transfers. Which were expulsions. nableezy - 06:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME the term is called exodus in most of literature it was already noted that exodus have greater usage [3] then any other terms [4],[5] --Shrike (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    That is not a common name, and palestinian "fled or were expelled" as a phrase has an additional 1010 results in scholar, and palestinian expelled 1948 has 31,900 results, palestinian flight 1948 has 39,100, as opposed to 32k for palestinian exodus 1948. Common name applies to names, and these are all descriptive titles, with no specific name commonly used. That is why there are 26k results for 1948 palestinian expulsion which do not include the word exodus. How pray tell would the majority of results for a phrase about the subject of this article not include the supposed common name? This policy for this title is WP:NDESC, and this euphemism fails that policy. nableezy - 19:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    Poppycock. Both titles are descriptive (and the existing a euphemism to boot), not commonname, so the Google searches are meaningless. See Nableezy comments above and previously , a complete refutation of this argument. Selfstudier (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't see any substantive reasoning to support this. Bearing in mind that this is the nth time such a change has been debated in the last few months, it's beginning to border on disruptive. As other users have noted here and in previous RMs, there is widespread usage of the term "exodus" in reference to this subject matter. Moreover, "exodus" more closely adheres to NPOV than the alternative proposed here. The resounding argument in favor of the move appears to be that "exodus" is a euphemism. I don't agree. The alternative proposed, "expulsion and flight" appears to be equally euphemistic (or the contrary thereof), carrying no advantage over the status quo. That leads me to oppose this as unhelpful. AlexEng(TALK) 03:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  • n≠2 when you consider the various appeals. "No consensus" doesn't necessarily mean "more discussion". Eventually, someone's going to have to drop the stick. In this case, it seems that enough discussion has occurred, and nobody is really changing their mind. If there was no consensus to move it before, why should there be consensus this time? Sure, consensus can change, but usually not without some new information. AlexEng(TALK) 01:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Given the fact that there was not even a consensus that no consensus was the correct close, no, no consensus definitely means more discussion. Given the fact that multiple experienced closers found the opposers arguments to be lacking in substance and that there was consensus for the move, that means more discussion. You can deal with the merits or ignore them, but your vote is a. lacking in any evidence whatsoever, and b. leaking a bit of that bad faith you are assuming of others. As far as dropping the stick, that has long been the go to phrase used by the "no consensus by filibuster" editors. Those who will make every attempt to stymie any discussion so that their favored version is maintained through inertia and getting people too fed up to deal with the NPOV violations. Sorry, but no consensus always means more discussion. It always means bring more people in, and not simply allow NPOV violations to remain due to the sustained effort of those waving away NPOV violations and complaining about how many discussions weve had. That said, I appreciate that we have new views in this discussion, including yours. nableezy - 02:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry, "expulsion and flight" is euphemistic? Euphemistic of what? It's purely descriptive, based on the terms used in every source (even the ones with 'exodus' in the title) that describes these events. This has been pointed out so many times it's beginning to become unclear whether people are simply not engaging with the material or being willfully ignorant of it. Exodus is actually worse than a euphemism in the context; it is a junk word. You cannot actually describe the events of 1948 by repeating the word 'exodus', because without further explanation it entirely lacks meaning in the context. However, you can very readily describe the events of 1948 without using the word 'exodus' - in fact, you will still get voluminous scholarly results even if you exclude the word exodus altogether. The search there included the word expulsion, and here's another using expelled that interestingly also flags a discourse on the portrayal of the conflict in the US education system entitled: Fled or expelled? Representation of the Israeli-Arab conflict in US High school history textbooks. - you see that dichotomy there: Fled. Or. expelled. Two possible descriptive verbs. No 'exodus' in sight because it's not a verb and is functionally useless in an education setting. By contrast, if you try to search for the subject with the key term of exodus, while excluding the actual words you need to describe it, you don't get so far. You get results like Agriculture in Gaza Villages, and 10 pages in you are down to tangential works about Nakba film festivals and other works that barely mention the subject at all. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
NB (for the closer): The phrase "appears to be equally euphemistic (or the contrary thereof)" is entirely nonsensical and suggests that the user here does not understand the meaning of the word 'euphemism' (and that is does not have an opposite, except for a lack of it). I can only imagine that they think it is a term that in some way equates to POV or bias. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
The word "euphemism" does indeed have an opposite - "dysphemism", which I presume is the word they were searching for.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Not a word you hear every day :) Dysphemism Selfstudier (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Ha! Ok, well I stand corrected. I suppose one can never be too careful given all the esoteric Greek out there. But it also applies equally little. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Exodus is a euphemism....for flight. The usage probably dates back to the days when the Israeli government used to insist that the Arab commanders had ordered the Palestinians to flee, a propaganda position totally discredited since. More recent scholarship reflects the reality despite the Israeli government's continuing efforts to bury everything in the archives: -see https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2019-07-05/ty-article-magazine/.premium/how-israel-systematically-hides-evidence-of-1948-expulsion-of-arabs/0000017f-f303-d487-abff-f3ff69de0000 Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure what NB means; I've never seen that abbreviation before in the context of an RfC, RM, or similar. I find it hard not to interpret your comment as needlessly condescending, but I'll do my best to assume good faith. The clause that I added, "or the contrary thereof", means simply that either both of the potential page titles are euphemisms or neither are euphemisms. Is that where your confusion stems from? I was not trying to imply an "opposite" for the word euphemism. Alternatively, do you disagree that "expulsion and flight" is a euphemism? Let's ask Wiktionary what wikt:euphemism means, then: The use of a word or phrase to replace another with one that is considered less offensive, blunt or vulgar than the word or phrase which it replaces. "Expulsion and flight" is as much a euphemism as "exodus". That is to say, they are either both euphemisms for "ethnic cleansing", which is what verifiably happened here, or neither of them are euphemisms, because they are suitably descriptive of what happened. I think you're making a subjective assessment of one as a euphemism, but ignoring the other. I don't see why this adds merit to the RM. AlexEng(TALK) 01:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok, then I stand by my original comment. Expulsion and flight are clearly not euphemisms as they are the precise descriptive language used in all of the reliable sources that actually discuss the events of 1948 in detail. They are not euphemisms for ethnic cleansing, which is not, AFAIK, widely circulated as a term, outside of Ilan Pappe's work. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
No, real emails were sent by multiple socks of User:יניב הורון to editors he thought would support his position, your position, just like the last several RFCs and move requests related to Israel. Substantive reasoning has been provided, however no evidence of "COMMONNAME is neutral writing is Exodus" has yet been offered. nableezy - 20:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Stay away from me, and stop bombarding this discussion with your long comments and claims. The "1948 Palestinian Exodus" term is commonly used in titles of writing by academis in English: The Passing of Time and the Collective Memory of Conflicts: The Case of Israel and the 1948 Palestinian Exodus, Transformation of the Official Memory of Conflict: A Tentative Model and the Israeli Memory of the 1948 Palestinian Exodus, The Palestinian Exodus in 1948 (Glazer), The Palestinian Exodus of 1948 (Flapan). ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 06:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Um youre the one that follows me, showing up after months to revert my edits (eg your fourth edit in 2 months is to come revert me without discussion). I guess we can see who needs to stay away from who if you really want. Congratulations, youve shown that some sources use exodus. And Ive shown more do not. Also, see RolandR's thorough dismantling of your google skillllz below. nableezy - 14:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Stay away from me (😯 ??) - What kind of request is this? - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
So that's two links to articles by Dr. Rafi Nets-Zehngut, not a professor or a particularly established academic, but the director of summer program recruitment at Bar-Ilan, one by Steven Glazer, a PhD student, and one by Simha Flapan, the only notable person among them, but not academic, and certainly not an established expert. I'm glad to see that you vigorously vet the sources that you imbibe to ensure that you are truly representing the best of scholarship on a subject and not just cherry-picking sources with titles that suit your POV. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
You don't get to decide who may take part in a discussion, or what sort of comment they may post. More pertinently, have you even read the texts you cite, or did you just Google for works with Palestinian Exodus in the title? For they certainly don't support your argument. The first two - which appear to be the same article rewritten - start by saying "Methodologically, it is based mostly on content analysis of publications of seven main Israeli–Jewish institutions: the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), the National Information Center, the Ministry of Education, newspapers, the research community, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and 1948 war veterans’ memoirs, as well as interviews with key people in these institutions" - ie, it is explicitly the view of the Israeli participants in the Nakba, and deliberately excludes Palestinian viewpoints. This seriously undermines their credibility as a relevant or unbiased source. The third reaches the conclusion that "In short, the overwhelmingly disastrous and horrifying nature of the war in Palestine, breeding numerous atrocities and massacres, giving rise to mass fear and panic, and aided by Zionist efforts to exploit to the fullest this growing fear and panic, created not an orderly exodus but a mass flight of civilians throughout the country", while the fourth concludes that "The myth of voluntary exodus became Israel's major argument against accepting even partial responsibility for the refugee problem, not to mention consideration of the refugees' right to repatriation". But what we see in this entire discussion is an attempt to bolster "this "myth of voluntary exodus". Outside the tendentious products of Israeli or Zionist propaganda, you will struggle to find a work using the term "Palestinian exodus" that does not describe this as indeed expulsion and flight. RolandR (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Testy. Looks like your editing break was no help. Did you receive an email? Selfstudier (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Of refs 1 through 8 in first line of lead, look particularly at the popup note for ref 4 (a 2020 source). Selfstudier (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
expelled or fled or fled or were expelled is by far the most common usage among academic sources. The sources that use "exodus" usually also use expelled and fled. nableezy - 22:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bernadotte quote

I have never seen a Wikipedia article that starts with a primary source quote. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Well poisoning - disease

When clicking on source 21 related to well poisoning, the text that comes up claims that the spread of typhus was a contributing factor, but the Wikipedia article says typhoid. These are two different diseases, typhus is mainly spread by lice, fleas, etc and typhoid by ingestion of contaminated food or water. Clarification requested Wikiuser0118999 (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Corrected; thanks for pointing this out. RolandR (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
The article of Morris and Kedar makes clear that the original archival documents are also confused about typhus vs typhoid. Zerotalk 06:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

X+Y=700,000

This article says 700,000 were expelled or took flight in 1948.

1) Does anyone know approximately how the 700,000 number breaks down into "expelled" versus "took flight"?

2) Likewise, does anyone know how the 700,000 number breaks down into people leaving the Jewish part of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine versus the Palestinian Arab part?

3) Similarly, do we know an approximate number of deaths due to well poisoning?

4) And, how many of the 700,000 people were expelled or took flight from the Jewish part of the UN Partition and resettled in the Arab part of the UN Partition?

In short, more numbers would be useful to readers (and to us). Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Recommend you familiarize yourself with Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight, including sources (it’s lots of very particular data), and come on back for further discussion regarding any edits on this page. Mistamystery (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I've looked at that article, but it deals primarily with causes rather than effects. Do you think it provides the numbers of affected persons that I asked about above? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Like I said, do a thorough reading of the article (of which more than half is dedicated to academic analysis of the nature and progress of the displacement). There are breakdowns of each type of displacement (which btw, its more than just two), and the sources provided and scholars highlighted may bring you to the numbers you’re looking for. Mistamystery (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I will thoroughly scour both articles, but I have already looked briefly at both articles and did not notice the specific numbers I requested. In any event, there should be a section or subsection in this article breaking down the 700,000 number of affected persons, and we should clearly label that section or subsection as such. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I don’t have full access to this link but it give some number.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0964663911425825?journalCode=slsa Gaviriel (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Water poisoning

While very disturbing, this action, according to the only major source, Morris & Kedar, had but a minor impact. In Acre there were several cases of disease and this became a factor among several, but elsewhere hardly so. The prominent role it takes now in the intro is IMO distracting from the actual major causes for displacement and a case of latest discoveries & publication gaining undue weight. It fully deserves its own paragraph, but the lead/intro should focus on the major factors: 500 depopulated villages is a very large number, plus mass urban flight - that's the topic, and the major causes take precedence over recent scoops covering actions with rather minor effect. Arminden (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

There's at least one other, but the lead mention is probably undue relative to the other material. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't negate the fact that poisoning the wells - among psychological warfare and other tactics - was intended to drive further exodus, regardless of whether or not that had a limited effect. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
There was no well poisoning, that's ridiculous. Typhoid (caused by Salmonella bacteria), along with myriad other enteric bacterial infections, was a very common disease prior to technological improvements in water sanitation. We are talking about 1948 Palestine. As a real-world example, my grandparents who lived there had dirt floors, a shared community well and an outhouse to shit in. That was how people lived back then.
More to the point, Morris was talking about TYPHUS, which is not at all related to Typhoid. Typhus is a bacteria spread through lice and fleas and causes and entirely different set of symptoms. SUPER common back then when sanitation was low. In fact, Jews suffered horribly from Typhus in concentration camps. 2607:FEA8:620:EF00:4DC6:8C9F:C727:5815 (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Here is a link so you can request edit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&action=edit Gaviriel (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Editing out context and motive

I disagree with this edit which removed from both the lead and the article body a brief description of context. The new nation of Israel was fighting for survival, Palestinian Arab leaders decided to fight a civil war against its existence, and so Israel wanted to remove enemy civilians from the land which the United Nations said would be partitioned for Israel. One need not agree that that was a valid motive to acknowledge it is critical context. Instead we give the impression that peaceful Arab citizens of Israel were deported because of racism and bigotry. Also, the lead should be concise, and it hardly matters what type of poison was used to poison wells, the key point for the lead is that wells were poisoned. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

That edit seems reasonable to me, since the supposed context is not only that and anyway, the link to the Palestine war is sufficient. Also note that this began before Israel was constituted following the partition plan, also linked in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Can you give an example of omitted context that is equally significant? Also keep in mind that we should not make readers chase links. Per WP:Link, “Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so.” Certainly the term “Palestine War” does not give readers the deleted information. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Palestine war is not a highly technical term and fills in the "context" far better than any cherry picked sentence does. A link to the partition plan in the lead might as well be good, I will have a think where to put it. Selfstudier (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
It most certainly is a technical term, only someone who has studied the Palestine War would know whether it refers to a civil war, or an international war, or both (much less what particular groups or nations constituted the opposing sides). Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Or they can click the link. nableezy - 13:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
"that peaceful Arab citizens of Israel" Were does the article claim that they were either granted or offered citizenship? Dimadick (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
By omitting that the Palestinian Arabs decided to be enemies of the UN partition (i.e. enemies of the incipient Israel), the lead paragraph gives the impression that they were peaceful citizens who must have been expelled because of racism or bigotry. A reasonable reader expects relevant context to be presented. Many readers will assume that the “Palestine War” simply refers to the well-known war launched by Arab countries against the incipient state, rather than a civil war. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Continuing to mischaracterize the situation. The partition plan (for Jewish and Arab states + J. enclave) required the agreement of both and didn't get it so was not implemented. Israel's subsequent creation was unilateral. The Palestine war article explains both parts, civil and post Israel and that is another reason for linking it. Time to drop this, I think. Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
There was nothing inaccurate or misleading about the removed material. The Palestinian Arabs decided to oppose the incipient nation of Israel. This is extremely relevant to explain why they (or many of them) were treated as enemies. I agree it’s time for me to drop it, better things to do. But I may reply if people make further comments about what I’ve said that are inaccurate. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Request Edit Link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&action=edit Gaviriel (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

vague and misleading

The reason for the expulsion of Palestinians from the region.

The most comprehensive land record of the time, the Survey of Palestine https://www.bjpa.org/content/upload/bjpa/a_su/A%20SURVEY%20OF%20PALESTINE%20DEC%201945-JAN%201946%20VOL%20I.pdf --Gaviriel (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


Dozens of massacres were conducted by Israeli military forces and between

“Arab rebels, joined by volunteers from neighbouring Arab countries, took to the hills, attacking Jewish settlements and British”

https://www.britannica.com/place/Palestine/The-Arab-Revolt

400 and 600 Palestinian villageswere destroyed. Village

“Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians either fled or were expelled, most of them becoming stateless refugees, while hundreds of thousands of Jews fled or were expelled from Arab countries and were resettled in Israel”


https://www.britannica.com/topic/two-state-solution

In 1947 there were 1.3m Arabs in Palestine, being 2/3 of the population of the Mandate. The Jews had 1/3 of the population and 6% of the land (20% of the productive land). According to a 1946 Census, just under 50% of the population in that area designated by UN 181 for the Jewish state was Jewish (although by 1948 it was over 55%). In the area designated for the Palestinian state but ultimately captured by Israel and incorporated into its state, the population was 97% Palestinian. By the end of the fighting there were 165,000 Palestinians left within Israel. 119,000 were Muslim, 35,000 Christian, 15,000 Druzes. 32,000 were urban/town dwellers, 120,000 villagers, 18,000 nomads. 30,000 were internal 1

refugees, "having fled from one part of the state to the other during the fighting." By May, 1949 there were nearly 800,000 refugees camped near Israeli's borders (Israel: A Country Study, p. 50). Changes in the urban Arab population figures (1947/1949) show the impact on the cities: Jerusalem: 75,000/3,500; Jaffa: 70,000/3,600; Haifa: 71,000/2,900; Lydda-Ramlah: 35,000/2,000; Acre 15,000 /3,500; Tiberias: 5,300/0; Safed: 9,500/0. (Figures from Ian Lustick, Arabs in the Jewish State, 1980).

When archives where opened here is the information that was found in the link below:

Israeli professor Yaron Ezrachi (Rubber Bullets, 1997) says Israel is in the midst of a ‘culture war” over Israeli history and the treatment of Palestinians. Israelis always believed in their “purity of arms,” that they used force only when necessary, only under limited circumstances, never against unarmed civilians, and only because of an implacable Arab enemy determined to exterminate the Jews.

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/110670/TheRefugeesOf1948.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaviriel (talk • contribs) 01:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC) Gaviriel (talk) 02:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC) Edit: Incorrect information. Deleted.


wells were poisoned in a biological warfareprogramme and properties were looted to prevent Palestinian refugees from returning.


Several of the statements above are incorrect. See References:


https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/64952/under-what-laws-did-israel-evict-palestinians-from-their-homes

https://www.britannica.com/place/Palestine/The-Arab-Revolt

https://www.britannica.com/place/Palestine/Palestine-and-the-Palestinians-1948-67

Incorrect or missing reference: “Village wells were poisoned in a biological warfare” The reference has no information on wells poisoning. in 1948 and to whom was poisoned.

Just states what biological warfare is. Gaviriel (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Gaviriel (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why you say that there is no reference in the material cited to well-poisoning. The claim, in both the lede and the body of the article, is backed by a link to the article ‘Cast thy bread’: Israeli biological warfare during the 1948 War, which refers repeatedly and explicitly to a programme of poisoning wells. RolandR (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
The article States RUMORS.
This article describes Israel's bacteriological warfare campaign during the first Arab-Israeli war of 1948. Over the decades following that war rumours circulated that Israel had used bacteria, alongside conventional weaponry, in its battle against Palestine's Arabs and the surrounding Arab states.
”Who ever wrote the synapses also spelled rumors incorrectly.”
The only information on well poisoning was with site sources is on the Japanese.
Japanese biological warfare project: ‘One of the expedition’s first objectives was to contaminate all water sources available to the enemy.
Paragraph 15 and 17.
The sited source other then this talks about WW2.
The only article within the link that is suggesting Typhoid in water is owned by Palestine Land Authority.
Palestine Land Authority This site is controlled by a single individual.
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04108560/persons-with-significant-control.
Confirmation Statements
Accounts
Next accounts made up to Last statement dated 15 November 2023'
Palestine Land Authority.
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04108560
See link below:
https://www.plands.org/en/articles-speeches/articles/2003/traces-of-poison%E2%80%93israels-dark-history-revealed
Typhoid is easily spread Via any water source.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/typhoid
The other links on the site do not work and the information list varies topics through history of the region NOT Well Poisoning in Palestine area done by IDF. Gaviriel (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The publisher of the site linked has ties to Muslim Brotherhood he/they are listed/linked terrorist organizations in multiple countries.
(i) Participants included academics, politicians and various organization activists.
They included Professor Salman Abu Sitta (PRC founder,) Dr. Mustafa
Barghouti (affiliated with the Palestinian left and head of the Palestinian National Initiative), Dr. Hussam Hafez (head of the political department of the Syrian embassy in Britain) and Dr. Paul Larudee (anti-Israeli activist from California, cofounder of the Free Gaza Movement (FGM) and the Free Palestine Movement (FPM), two organizations dispatching flotillas to the Gaza Strip) (PRC website). .
The Brotherhood has been designated as a terrorist organization by multiple countries including Eygpt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2021-003684_EN.html

https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/the-muslim-brotherhoods-global-threat/.
https://www.terrorism-info.org.il/Data/pdf/PDF_11_339_2.pdf
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/egypts-muslim-brotherhood Gaviriel (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Salmonella Typhi

Transmission. Typhoid fever and paratyphoid fever are transmitted commonly through the consumption of drinking water or food contaminated with the feces of people who have typhoid fever or paratyphoid fever or of people who are chronic carriers of the responsible bacteria.

Both ill persons and carriers shed Salmonella Typhi in their feces (poop). You can get typhoid fever if you eat food or drink beverages that have been handled by a person who is shedding Salmonella Typhi or if sewage contaminated with Salmonella Typhi bacteria gets into the water you use for drinking or washing food. Gaviriel (talk) 13:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica causes typhoid. It also causes Salmonellosis through use of contaminated food or water. How is this relevant to this article? Dimadick (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
This discusses how Typhoid is actually spread. It is referenced do to accusation of well poisoning from 1948. There has been no independent non bias record of well poisoning during the 1948 outbreak. Gaviriel (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
No original research take is valid here. The research of Benny Morris and Benjamin Kedar is, however. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The source is locked behind a pay wall. I’ll check out the two you referenced. Thank you. Gaviriel (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
There is nothing in either Benny Morris or Benjamin Kedar bios from Wikipedia where they discuss well poisoning from 1948.
The Haaretz article is locked behind a paywall. The only part that can be read by general public is the first paragraph not the entirety of the article. Gaviriel (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The Haaretz piece is just a commentary on this research paper. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The idea was canceled do to the Geneva convention.

There are how ever more recent dates that claim water poisoning. User:Gaviriel|Gaviriel]] (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I found a copy of the full article. If you read down to the bottom it tells you the plan was never implemented and the people involved were executed.
https://israelpalestinenews.org/water-weapon-israeli-hands-ethnic-cleansing/
The possibility of adding targets outside of Israel such as Cairo and Beirut was also proposed, but nothing came of it. The idea behind that was to hinder the Arab armies’ advance.
The two were David Mizrahi and Ezra Horin (Afgin), who set out for the mission in Gaza on May 22, 1948, but were caught and tried in an Egyptian military court for poisoning wells with bacteria, and later executed.
Guttman recounts that he vehemently opposed the operation on moral grounds and also warned that poisoning the water could harm Jews as well
But the plan was scrapped and, said Ben-Natan, “I was left with the poison capsule wich he dosposed in the end.

The operation drew scathing criticism within the system – both within the IDF and among the Yishuv leadership – in part because it violated the 1925 Geneva Protocol banning “the use of bacteriological methods of warfare.” Gaviriel (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Nakbah

Warum nicht "Nakbah"? Isn't that the most commonly known many for it? Or is this a different event to the Nakbah ? Or is this like the Taiwan pages… Irtapil (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

If this a stage of the other? Irtapil (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
exactly like the Taiwan pages. The English article on the Ben Gurion Canal Project was deleted, despite other languages being unaffected 2601:283:C100:2CF0:C064:A62F:8CB4:EB67 (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Self reference in Israeli Resettlement

The section about the Israeli Resettlement contains the phrase "inalienable right of return", in which "right of return" is wiki-linked to this article. Self reference, circular reference, or something else? I don't know if that is wrong, just that it's out of my depth. So I can only inform others here. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong here. —Alalch E. 09:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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 [7] 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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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" [8]
  • Even Benny Morris says here [9] that "The majority fled or were made to flee."
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
IOHANNVSVERVS is correct. إيان (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight/Archive_19&oldid=1231465017"