Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
3 May 2024[edit]
The list of causes is exhaustive but missing a key cause that has been validated by Benny Morris, a historian cited multiple times in this article.
Benny Morris states, "Birth Revisited describes many more atrocities and expulsions than were recorded in the original version of the book. But, at the same time, a far greater proportion of the 700,000 Arab refugees were ordered or advised by their fellow Arabs to abandon their homes than I had previously registered. It is clear from the new documentation that the Palestinian leadership in principle opposed the Arab flight from December 1947 to April 1948, while at the same time encouraging or ordering a great many villages to send away their women, children and old folk, to be out of harm's way. Whole villages, especially in the Jewish- dominated coastal plain, were also ordered to evacuate. There is no doubt that, throughout, the departure of dependents lowered the morale of the remaining males and paved the way for their eventual departure as well"[1] here.
Given that it is imperative we also add that Arabs also left because of the encouragement of their fellow Arabs. While the amount can be debated, leaving this out is missing an important element of historical accuracy. If Benny Morris can be cited for Israeli atrocities, he should also be cited for this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionbear10 (talk • contribs)
- I believe that's outdated and the current mainstream view is that the "Arab states encouraged Palestinians to flee" theory is now a debunked myth? Levivich (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2024[edit]
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
- Not done. Consensus is required for this edit. Best left to EC editors for any discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Looks like great minds think alike eh @Selfstudier. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 13,000 killed figure is by Aref al-Aref and is cited by Rashid Khalidi [2]. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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) [3]: "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
References
- ^ "Nakba Day: What happened in Palestine in 1948?". Al Jazeera. 15 May 2022.
- ^ "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.
- ^ Henry Laurens (2007). La Question de Palestine. Vol. 3. Fayard. p. 194.
Death toll[edit]
I removed from the article:
At least 15,000 Arabs were killed in these expulsions.[1][2]
References
- ^ "Nakba Day: What happened in Palestine in 1948?". Al Jazeera. 15 May 2022.
- ^ "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)
Change Title of Article to "1948 Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinians"[edit]
Since one ethnicity (european jews) ethnically cleansed another ethnicity (arab muslims) from their land.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2024[edit]
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change 700 000 to 700,000 MattFry7 (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- This change was made throughout the article with no edit summary. @ThurnerRupert, can you clarify the reason for this? It seems less clear to me, though both gaps and commas are apparently acceptable per MOS:DIGITS. Jamedeus (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
NPOV in lede[edit]
I think this article’s lede needs to have a paragraph on the Israeli perspective on this conflict and modern attitudes Alexanderkowal (talk) 06:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Alexanderkowal NPOV does not entail covering every side's perspective in the lead. Were we to do that we could end up with a false balance. TarnishedPathtalk 07:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe:
(after Nakba day) The expulsion is viewed by the Israeli narrative as necessary, unavoidable, and part of the wider war of independence, and whilst Nakba denial has been increasingly challenged in recent years, the official narrative remains unaffected.
- Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'd suggest you'd need some extremely strong sourcing for prose which makes excuses for displacing local inhabitants and which calls the establishment of Israel a "war of independence". TarnishedPathtalk 09:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I’m just summarising what’s in the lede of Nakba, there is a danger of false equivalence, the wording needs to be altered a bit Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think this should be part of the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Surely the content is entirely relevant and due but the wording is very tricky to get the right weight and framing. MOS:LEDE says that a topic with its own section deserves to be mentioned in the lede. Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Alexanderkowal can you please quote me the exact wording that says that. I just had a brief flyover of MOS:LEDE doing a ctrl-f on the word "section" and I couldn't find wording that says topics with their own section deserve mention in the lead. TarnishedPathtalk 13:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Surely the content is entirely relevant and due but the wording is very tricky to get the right weight and framing. MOS:LEDE says that a topic with its own section deserves to be mentioned in the lede. Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'd suggest you'd need some extremely strong sourcing for prose which makes excuses for displacing local inhabitants and which calls the establishment of Israel a "war of independence". TarnishedPathtalk 09:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe:
Grammar/naming convention[edit]
Intro paragraph says "...and after the establishment of the Israel, by its military." Should be "the State of Israel" or possibly "Israel" 24.19.44.221 (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Denialism present in article[edit]
It seems that there is some Nakba denial present in this article which does not belong.
Specifically:
1. At the beginning of a paragraph about depopulated Palestinian settlements, there is the sentence: "Yoav Gelber wrote that the Arab Liberation Army embarked on a systematic evacuation of non-combatants from several frontier villages in order to turn them into military strongholds." This is WP:FRINGE and undue for inclusion. Gelber is an Old Historian (in contrast with the New Historians and of the work cited, Palestine 1948: War, Escape, and the Emergence of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (2001/2006[2nd edition]), I looked for reviews and found one [here https://www-cambridge-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/16849DA444A9A17EF768C33919FE897C/stamped-S0020743802004075a.pdf/yoav-gelber-palestine-1948-war-escape-and-the-emergence-of-the-palestinian-refugee-problem-portland-ore-sussex-academic-press-2001-pp-410-dollar7950-cloth.pdf] which is quite critical of the work, stating that "Palestine 1948 is a book to be examined by scholars of the period with interest but to be used, if at all, by those who are unfamiliar with the subject with extreme caution." (emphasis mine), that it is "of use to scholars who can evaluate it against other materials. Still, the reader must beware. Gelber's approach to history does not usually allow for discussion of the revisionist views he rejects.", and that "Gelber argues the nationalist version of Israeli history of 1948". If there are no other reliable sources to support the statement that "Arab Liberation Army embarked on a systematic evacuation of non-combatants from several frontier villages in order to turn them into military strongholds." then we oughtn't include it, per WP:FRINGE.
2. In a paragraph describing that "the events of the Nakba were by that point [that is, by the year 2010] "widely described" as involving ethnic cleansing", there follows that "Not all historians accept this characterization. Efraim Karsh is among the few historians who still consider that most of the Arabs who fled left of their own accord or were pressured to leave by their fellow Arabs, despite Israeli attempts to convince them to stay." The ideas here cited to Karsh are plain denialism. We should be presenting these views only in the context of Nakba denial or not presenting them at all per WP:FRINGE: "A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. [...] If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight."
3. The lead paragraph beginning "The causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus are also a subject of fundamental disagreement among historians." needs to be altered significantly. For one, there only has been legitimate debate among historians, but today there no longer is. Second, the denialist factors listed should be removed, and indeed the inline citations supporting the dubious causes are quite weak here - "disinclination to live under Jewish control" is cited inline to two books which are not even about the 1948 war, and "Arab evacuation orders" is a known myth with its inline citation to Pittsburgh Press May 1948 (terrible source) and to a proper academic work which I can't access but which I can see includes as a footnote "In 1960–61 Walid Khalidi also investigated the BBC and FBIS radio transcripts recorded throughout the 1948 war to look for evidence of Arab evacuation orders but was unable to locate any at all.". This paragraph should be rewritten to state there is significant public and political debate, and should mention Nakba denial as that is cleary for for the lead anyway, but it should not give the impression that there isn't consensus in present day scholarship about the causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion. This lead paragraph also does not reflect the body as the dubious causes presented are (rightfully) not covered in the article. (Also note that the page causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight is itself very poorly written and replete with denialism and "Old History" and is not to be used as a source).
-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree with your assessment. Regarding your first point, the review criticised Gelber's book for omitting various important aspects of the conflict, but not for inaccuracies
“ | Gelber’s approach to history does not usually allow for discussion of the revisionist views he rejects... Gelber never mentions Golda Meyerson’s (Meir’s) visit to Abdullah and what was discussed. He simply relegates the matter to a footnote ... As for Dayr Yasin (p. 98 ff), Gelber never identifies the units that attacked the village and questions whether it contributed significantly to the panic that followed | ” |
- It's a normal scholarly discussion. The reviewer believes that the book provides an incomplete picture of the events and suggests that it shouldn't be the only book an uninformed reader should read about this topic. This is irrelevant for this article which uses multiple books by New Historians and others as sources.
- I'll respond to the other points later. Alaexis¿question? 21:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- "not for inaccuracies"? - "No work by an Arab scholar in Arabic is cited, because, as noted, Arab scholars have not been interested in the subject in a serious historical manner.[Summarising/describing Gelber's view] Anyone who peruses the bibliography of Eugene Rogan and Avi Shalim's edited volume The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948 (Cambridge, 2001) will see how false Gelber's assertion is." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- The assertion he deems false is "Arab scholars have not been interested in the subject in a serious historical manner". How is it related to the way Gelber's book is used here? Alaexis¿question? 14:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- I see you've restored [4] "Yoav Gelber wrote that the Arab Liberation Army embarked on a systematic evacuation of non-combatants from several frontier villages in order to turn them into military strongholds.[1]" stating only "no arguments have been presented why this statement is untrue".
- Since we have an RS which cautions against the use of this work of Gelber, stating it is "of use to scholars who can evaluate it against other materials", and since this material is given such prominence at the beginning of a paragraph about the depopulation of Palestinian villages, I think it is reasonable to ask for another RS that can corroborate this claim of Gelber's. Especially since the claim resembles (and may even be) the myth that Arab evacuation orders were a significant cause of the exodus. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, otherwise WP:ONUS (no consensus for usage, per discussions here) and WP:WEIGHT (single source, and Gelber as a primary source for his own views) apply – there are your arguments. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Gelber's claim has been corroborated by Benny Morris in "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited". On page 175, he points out how in April 1948,
- the ALA ordered the inhabitants of Fureidis, south of Haifa, to evacuate their women and children, ‘and make ready to evacuate [the village] completely’. A few kilometres to the north, the women and children of Tira were evacuated with the help of the Arab Legion to Neuherrdorf, near Haifa, and later to Jordan. Similarly, dependents had been evac- uated from Khirbet as Sarkas, near Hadera (to Baqa al Gharbiya and Jatt). The women and children of Qannir were evacuated starting 22 April on ‘orders from on high’. In early May, Umm al Zinat was reported empty of women and children. North of Haifa, Kabri was completely evacuated. A few days earlier, the Arab communities around Rosh Pina, in Eastern Galilee, were ordered to evacuate their women and children, the men staying to guard the sites.
- He continues to document the many examples of evacuations on Arab orders on p.176-178. Amayorov (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Assume this is all true, how many persons are we talking about? Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's hard to tell, but Morris says that "all villagers in the Nazareth area", "all the villages between Haifa and Tel Aviv", Coastal Plain villages, neighborhoods bordering the Jewish areas in Jerusalem, were depopulated on orders from the general Arab headquarters or ALA. There was also apparently an evacuation order to Arabs living along the Palestine-Syrian border.
- Here are some of the examples he gives: Shu'fat, Beit Hanina, al Jib, Judeira, Bir Nabala, Rafat, Dahi, Nein, Tampra, Kafr Misr, al Tira, Taiyiba, Na'ura, Nuqeib, ‘Arab al Satariyya, Beit Dajan, Kafr Manda, Majd al Kurum, Dimra, 'Illut, ‘Arab Mazarib, ‘Arab Sa‘ida, Ma’lul, Mujeidil, Beisan, Qastal, Qalandiya, some Jerusalem neighborhoods (Sheikh Jarrah, Wadi Joz, Musrara, Qatamon, Musara, Beit Hanina and others), Ma'dhar, Hadatha, 'Ulam, Sirin. Amayorov (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- So Morris only corroborates that some villages sent their women and children away (a sensible precaution in hindsight) and stayed on to watch over/guard their property. That is quite a different nuance from Gelber's "military strongholds" – without even asking how turning a rural village into a "stronghold" is even achieved. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oftentimes, such as in Ma'lul and Mujeidil, the ALA ordered evacuation "apparently to make room for incoming ALA contingents and in preparation for anticipated offensive operations." In other places, such as in Beit Dajan, the inhabitants left at the same time as armed irregulars moved in. Morris gives other examples too. So there is, indeed, evidence in support of Gelber's claims. Amayorov (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Be careful that you don't confuse assertions by Morris with "evidence" – even Morris uses caveats like "apparently" when he writes. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm simply responding to a above request for further corroboration:
- I think it is reasonable to ask for another RS that can corroborate this claim of Gelber's.
- Amayorov (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- And I'm merely cautioning on the use of the term "evidence", and the dangers of being loose-lipped with it. Corroborating statements are just those. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm simply responding to a above request for further corroboration:
- Be careful that you don't confuse assertions by Morris with "evidence" – even Morris uses caveats like "apparently" when he writes. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oftentimes, such as in Ma'lul and Mujeidil, the ALA ordered evacuation "apparently to make room for incoming ALA contingents and in preparation for anticipated offensive operations." In other places, such as in Beit Dajan, the inhabitants left at the same time as armed irregulars moved in. Morris gives other examples too. So there is, indeed, evidence in support of Gelber's claims. Amayorov (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Assume this is all true, how many persons are we talking about? Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- The assertion he deems false is "Arab scholars have not been interested in the subject in a serious historical manner". How is it related to the way Gelber's book is used here? Alaexis¿question? 14:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- "not for inaccuracies"? - "No work by an Arab scholar in Arabic is cited, because, as noted, Arab scholars have not been interested in the subject in a serious historical manner.[Summarising/describing Gelber's view] Anyone who peruses the bibliography of Eugene Rogan and Avi Shalim's edited volume The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948 (Cambridge, 2001) will see how false Gelber's assertion is." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- 1. Perhaps this could be modified based on Morris 2004? His gives a somewhat more balanced view on this.
There is no evidence that the Arab states and the AHC wanted a mass exodus or issued blanket orders or appeals to flee. At the same time, the AHC and the Arab states often encouraged villagers (and, in some places, townspeople) to send their women, children and old people out of harm’s way. Local political and military leaders also ordered some villages to evacuate in order to forestall their (treacherous) acceptance of Jewish rule. In certain areas (around Jerusalem, and along the Syrian border), the Arab states ordered villages to uproot for strategic reasons.
- 2. I agree that this view of Karsh is on the extreme side. He's still a notable historian and I think it's okay to mention his view with proper framing/attribution. In general I wouldn't be opposed to replacing more extreme sources like Karsh with more moderate ones like Anita Shapira, except that Shapira would be too moderate to be considered part of an "Israeli narrative". Maybe the article can be restructured, but the current "two opposing narratives" structure calls for including less moderate voices such as Karsh.
- 3. While there's no (serious) debate today that expulsions occurred and were substantial, there is plenty of debate about the role of local commanders vs Zionist leaders, as well as the extent of flight and the reasons for it.
- — xDanielx T/C\R 21:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "the role of local commanders vs Zionist leaders."? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Taking Ben-Gurion as an example (perhaps the most important one), there is some lack of clarity over whether he explicitly ordered any expulsions. Yitzhak Rabin signed an expulsion order for Lydda, but gave two conflicting accounts about whether it was based on an explicit order by Ben-Gurion. With that potential exception, Ben-Gurion didn't give any explicit expulsion orders, although Morris argues he was "projecting a message of transfer".
- Others have emphasized the role of local commanders acting based on military rather than political objectives:
At the local level, commanders wanted to remove from the war zone a population that might aid the enemy. Nor did they want to have to deal with the needs of an occupied civilian population, preferring to remove it.
(Shapira summarizing Kleiman). — xDanielx T/C\R 03:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)- Both versions of Rabin's account have BG ordering the expulsion of the inhabitants. The difference may only be due to Bar Zohar. Also, we should be aware of an issue around temporary evacuation of non-combatants, which is a normal feature of wars. Zionist propagandists claim that such evacuations are evidence of "they left at their leaders' orders", while failing to mention that the Jewish side also evacuated non-combatants from the front line. A large number of them, in fact. Zerotalk 04:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "the role of local commanders vs Zionist leaders."? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Re your lede changes, I think
expulsions and violence, and the fear thereof, were the primary causes
may be reasonable, since in a way everything stemmed from violence/war of fear thereof. That said, I still feel the sources you added don't back this very clearly or directly. They're just not making it very clear which particular analyses they're rejecting. Clearly they reject certain extreme views like Karsh's, but beyond that they seem unclear, e.g. doeschased out
include those who left in 1947 in anticipation of fighting? - Consider the bit you removed,
the demoralizing impact of wealthier classes fleeing
. The sources you added don't mention this (purported) factor, so it's not clear if they reject it in some way. According to Morris,No one [...] disputes the fact that much of the Arab middle and upper classes fled Palestine
. - I'm not sure this is the right place to mention Nakba denial, since the term is generally used for more fringe views (like the ahistorical view that the land was largely empty), not so much for more plausible analyses that are the focus of the article.
- Also, why unlink causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus? — xDanielx T/C\R 05:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Unlinked causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight since it is a terriblly written article. This article analyzes the causes much better than that article.
- "The demoralizing impact of wealthier classes fleeing" can probably be readded, although that's maybe more a part of the flight than a cause of it.
- Nakba denial seems pretty clear due for the lead.
- - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight is currently assessed as B-class. I'm aware of your views on it but not sure they're widely shared. Even if there was consensus that it's a terrible article, MOS:L doesn't mention that as a consideration for linking. — xDanielx T/C\R 21:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't feel strongly about it being linked or not. And I intend to fix that article in the near future anyway. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight is currently assessed as B-class. I'm aware of your views on it but not sure they're widely shared. Even if there was consensus that it's a terrible article, MOS:L doesn't mention that as a consideration for linking. — xDanielx T/C\R 21:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- This stuff might be less active denialism so much as just crappily dated. 2001 is very dated at this point, and 2010 is not exactly young. If there are later sources stating how consensus has changed, or abjectly contradicting these older sources, then we can obviate them. This isn't a historiography. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Changes[edit]
I made an edit implementing many changes here and was blanket reverted simply due to "there is a discussion in progress". I made many changes and it's not reasonable to simply revert them all. For instance I added sources and removed cleary bad sources. Please provide the actual reason why any changes are being disputed. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- If there's a proper discussion ongoing here, I haven't noticed it. I certainly haven't noticed any serious objections to tamping down the weight of a dated old historian source. I agree that the blanket revert was inappropriate, if not borderline disruptive. Very poor form. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- It also isn't ideal to make major controversial changes to the lede when there's an active discussion that hasn't had much time to develop yet, and with concerns that haven't been addressed. — xDanielx T/C\R 21:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's a little hard to assess your post above given its lack of supporting links, but if there's something that's off about an edit, common practice is to collegiately tweak it. Better for actual headway. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reverting many edits across distinct subjects is invariably POV in my experience, or more charitably, lazy. Selfstudier (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- It also isn't ideal to make major controversial changes to the lede when there's an active discussion that hasn't had much time to develop yet, and with concerns that haven't been addressed. — xDanielx T/C\R 21:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Ethnic cleansing[edit]
In the lead, there is an equivocating line that says: "The expulsion of the Palestinians has since been described by some historians as ethnic cleansing, while others dispute this charge."
The ethnic cleansing sources are newer; the denial sources are older. Somewhat ludicrously, Benny Morris sources are used to support both. However, his 2021 admission of the ethnic cleansing drastically supercedes his 2008 denial. The other two denial sources, from 2002 and 2005, obviously precede Pappé's The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine and the last two decades of scholarship. The question that begs is: are there any current sources that still deny the ethnic cleansing? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Good point, this should be rewritten to express that the ethnic cleansing view is the mainstream or majority view and that the denial thereof is a fringe or minority view. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- The Morris interview where he implicitly acknowledges ethnic cleansing was from 2004, no? Looks like the archive date was 2021.
- I don't think Morris has ever denied that ethnic cleansing occurred, so he should probably be removed from that list of references. That said, it's his view that there was no top-down Zionist plan for systematic ethnic cleansing. He also tends to use less loaded language like "expulsions". — xDanielx T/C\R 21:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ah yes. Archive date. Erk. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Lede[edit]
"The causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus remain a significantly controversial topic in public and political discourse, with a prominent amount of denialism regarding the responsibility of Israeli/Yishuv forces, although most scholarship today acknowledges that expulsions and violence, and the fear thereof, were the primary causes."
This should be rephrased, where the last part of the sentence, the scholarship is the focus of the paragraph, and not the (unfounded) controversy. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Recent changes[edit]
Made changes to lead here though I botched the edit summary.
@Iskandar323 this addresses your concerns per your talk page entry "Ethnic cleansing" and @Makeandtoss this addresses your concerns per your talk page entry "Lede".
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- 👍 Iskandar323 (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I meant to say that the paragraph should start with "Most scholarship today..."
- Anyway, the lede could be further improved: first paragraph with a general description, second with the main components and then the chronological details, third paragraph on the scholarship, fourth paragraph on the legacy.
- This is my suggestion:
In the 1948 Palestine war, more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs – about half of Mandatory Palestine's predominantly Arab population – were expelled or fled from their homes, at first by Zionist paramilitaries, and after the establishment of Israel, by its military. The expulsion and flight was a central component of the fracturing, dispossession, and displacement of Palestinian society, known as the Nakba.
About 250,000–300,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled during the 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine, before the termination of the British Mandate on 14 May 1948. By the end of the 1948 Palestine war, dozens of massacres targeting Arabs were conducted by Israeli military forces and between 400 and 600 Palestinian villages were destroyed. Village wells were poisoned in a biological warfare programme and properties were looted to prevent Palestinian refugees from returning. Other sites were subject to Hebraization of Palestinian place names. The precise number of Palestinian refugees, many of whom settled in Palestinian refugee camps in neighboring states, is uncertain, although the number is around 700,000, being approximately 80 percent of the Palestinian Arab inhabitants of what became Israel.
Most scholarship today agrees that expulsions and violence, and the fear thereof, were the primary causes for the displacement. Factors involved in the exodus include direct expulsions by Israeli forces, destruction of Arab villages, psychological warfare including terrorism, massacres such as the widely publicized Deir Yassin massacre which caused many to flee out of fear, typhoid epidemics in some areas caused by Israeli well-poisoning, and the collapse of Palestinian leadership including the demoralizing impact of wealthier classes fleeing. The expulsion of the Palestinians has been described by most historians as ethnic cleansing, while a minority disputes this characterization. Denialism regarding the responsibility of Israeli/Yishuv forces in the displacement of Palestinians, and discourse about the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus continue to generate controversy.
Makeandtoss (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)A series of land and property laws were later passed by the first Israeli government that prevented displaced Palestinians from returning to their homes or claiming their property. They and many of their descendants remain refugees. The existence of the so-called Law of Return allowing for immigration and naturalization of any Jewish person and their family to Israel, while a Palestinian right of return has been denied, has been cited as an evidence for the charge that Israel practices apartheid. The status of the refugees, and in particular whether Israel will allow them the right to return to their homes, or compensate them, are key issues in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
- Also I think moving the quotes to the body while keeping in-line refs will make the lede easier to edit and work with. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, is there even a reason why we have this article which seems to be covered by Nakba? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it's more in-depth on the expulsions specifically, as opposed to all of the other aspects of the Nakba page. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. And any thoughts on the proposed changes above? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's a little hard to inspect the proposed changes like that. If any small changes can be made incrementally in separately explained edits, and any bigger changes discussed more specifically, that might be better. I have no idea what past RFCs might inform the current form of the lead. Good idea to take a look. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. And any thoughts on the proposed changes above? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it's more in-depth on the expulsions specifically, as opposed to all of the other aspects of the Nakba page. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, is there even a reason why we have this article which seems to be covered by Nakba? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also I think moving the quotes to the body while keeping in-line refs will make the lede easier to edit and work with. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think the fact "orders from the Arab leadership" should be mentioned as a factor to the Arab exodus. In addition to Yoav Gelber, this is corroborated by Benny Morris as being a factor in Haifa (see the subsection below), as well as in a host of other settlements.
- Morris says that "all villagers in the Nazareth area", "all the villages between Haifa and Tel Aviv", Coastal Plain villages, neighborhoods bordering the Jewish areas in Jerusalem, were depopulated on orders from the general Arab headquarters or ALA. There was also apparently an evacuation order to Arabs living along the Palestine-Syrian border.
- Here are some of the examples he gives: Shu'fat, Beit Hanina, al Jib, Judeira, Bir Nabala, Rafat, Dahi, Nein, Tampra, Kafr Misr, al Tira, Taiyiba, Na'ura, Nuqeib, ‘Arab al Satariyya, Beit Dajan, Kafr Manda, Majd al Kurum, Dimra, 'Illut, ‘Arab Mazarib, ‘Arab Sa‘ida, Ma’lul, Mujeidil, Beisan, Qastal, Qalandiya, some Jerusalem neighborhoods (Sheikh Jarrah, Wadi Joz, Musrara, Qatamon, Musara, Beit Hanina and others), Ma'dhar, Hadatha, 'Ulam, Sirin.
- Therefore, while not the main factor as the Israeli scholarship originally claimed, it was definitely a factor, at least according to some (influential) scholars. Amayorov (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Are you planning to reference some historians that actually provide any opposing views and balance to Gelber and Morris at any point? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Do all the statements in the article provide references to 3+ influential scholars? Is that an official rule now? Amayorov (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not my point. You appreciate that Gelber and Morris are both on the same side of a wide scholarly divide, yes? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- First, most sentences in the lead section are sources from a single, Arab or pro-Palestinian, scholar, such as Pappé, Nur, Khalidi, Ghanim.
- Second, I don't agree that Morris and Gelber are "on the same side". Morris has revealed plenty of unsavoury information about Israel: e.g. the story about the Haganah's secret program of poisoning wells in 1948 was his discovery from a couple years ago. He is also the source of reference for many "pro-Palestinian" historians (e.g. Shlaim, Pappé). In contrast, Gelber is a more traditional Israeli historian.
- Finally, you can't really seek "concensus across the divide" on every statement. That's partly because all archives of the Arab states, including those of the armies, parties, and diplomats, are still classified. Amayorov (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- You're still not getting it. You are adding specific tracts of text without even looking to see what historians with a very different take on these events say about the same events. Yes, Morris is less blinkered than Gelber, but he is still a historian that resolutely produces historiography with a very discernable pitch, and the side that it favours—because it certainly does favour a side—is very clear. Now I'm sure that you can continue to beat around the bush if you like, but now is the point where you have to say, ok, I'll look up some of what I'm putting in in other sources, or you can keep putting in voices from only one side of a partisan divide and we will all have to chase you around the wiki adding POV tags to every page and section that you give the same treatment. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Frankly, I don't understand what you're suggesting I do.
- I'm quoting Morris on objective facts, rather than partisan conclusions. Morris references plenty of primary material. Would you want me to quote the primary material directly, bypassing Morris? I could certainly do that.
- This page already cites plenty Morris (e.g. regarding the Haganah's use of psychological warfare or the well-poisoning). At the same time, it often ignores him, whenever he discusses the Arabs' evacuation orders or that there was no centralised plan of expulsion ever promulgated by the IDF. Selective quoting could certainly be a concern.
- Besides, this page already includes plenty of "according to Morris' estimates," "according to Ilan Pappé," "in Flapan' opinion," etc. Sometimes, Pappé is quoted without a qualification. Do you have a problem with Morris specifically? Amayorov (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have a problem with the fact that you think you are getting "objective facts" from Morris, as opposed to his subjective opinions on the whatever any given piece of evidence may be, and in contrast to whatever subjective opinions also significant historians less aligned with his way of thinking have about the same given pieces of evidence. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't that the case with plenty of other claims on this page? For example, it includes "According to Pappé, this mortar barrage was deliberately aimed at civilians to precipitate their flight from Haifa," while omitting Morris' strong objecting this claim?
- Another problem is that, while Morris is already cited plenty of times, he's referenced selectively and often ignoring important context in his writing. Amayorov (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have a problem with the fact that you think you are getting "objective facts" from Morris, as opposed to his subjective opinions on the whatever any given piece of evidence may be, and in contrast to whatever subjective opinions also significant historians less aligned with his way of thinking have about the same given pieces of evidence. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- You're still not getting it. You are adding specific tracts of text without even looking to see what historians with a very different take on these events say about the same events. Yes, Morris is less blinkered than Gelber, but he is still a historian that resolutely produces historiography with a very discernable pitch, and the side that it favours—because it certainly does favour a side—is very clear. Now I'm sure that you can continue to beat around the bush if you like, but now is the point where you have to say, ok, I'll look up some of what I'm putting in in other sources, or you can keep putting in voices from only one side of a partisan divide and we will all have to chase you around the wiki adding POV tags to every page and section that you give the same treatment. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think this is really a fair criticism - Morris is about as mainstream as they come, with critics on both sides. He almost left Israel after Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem made it difficult for him to find a job there. — xDanielx T/C\R 22:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not my point. You appreciate that Gelber and Morris are both on the same side of a wide scholarly divide, yes? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Do all the statements in the article provide references to 3+ influential scholars? Is that an official rule now? Amayorov (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think you should all follow WP:SOURCESDIFFER and WP:BALANCE. Both Morris and the historians that disagree with him can be cited. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reviewing all this, I think we are at the point, we should review all WP:BESTSOURCES for what happened. It's a historical event, there is no shortage of such sources and so this should not be difficult, just needs a bit of time. And we need to avoid getting bogged down in the weeds, the broad strokes we want, for example, Makeandtoss "Most scholarship today agrees that expulsions and violence, and the fear thereof, were the primary causes for the displacement" above, is that what the balance of bestsources says, or not? Selfstudier (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would change it to
- Most scholarship today agrees that expulsions and violence, and the fear thereof, along with occasional orders from the Arab leadership, were the primary causes for the displacement.
- Amayorov (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would change it to
- Reviewing all this, I think we are at the point, we should review all WP:BESTSOURCES for what happened. It's a historical event, there is no shortage of such sources and so this should not be difficult, just needs a bit of time. And we need to avoid getting bogged down in the weeds, the broad strokes we want, for example, Makeandtoss "Most scholarship today agrees that expulsions and violence, and the fear thereof, were the primary causes for the displacement" above, is that what the balance of bestsources says, or not? Selfstudier (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Are you planning to reference some historians that actually provide any opposing views and balance to Gelber and Morris at any point? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Haifa[edit]
As it currently is, the article only describes Morris' description of the psychological warfare as a factor. However, the quote is taken out of context, and later on, Morris states that
- The Haganah mortar attacks of 21–22 April were primarily designed to break Arab morale in order to bring about a swift collapse of resistance and speedy surrender. There is no evidence that the commanders involved hoped or expected that it would lead to mass evacuation (though events in Tiberias four days before must have been prominent in their minds).
At the same time, the article ignores the Morris' description of the events of April 22, during which the Arab leaders decided to leave, despite being entreated by the Jews and British to stay. By the nightfall of April 22, there were still 30,000-40,000 Arabs remaining in the town. Therefore, I think adding this information is important. Amayorov (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Per my comment in previous section, review all sources and see what the balance of them says, we don't need to get into the weeds on everything. Selfstudier (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- My concrete proposals are:
- 1. Change "According to Pappé, this mortar barrage was deliberately aimed at civilians to precipitate their flight from Haifa." to "According to Pappé, this mortar barrage was deliberately aimed at civilians to precipitate their flight from Haifa, while Morris disputes this claim[2]: 300 "
- 2. Add the following paragraphs after "I am sending you posters in Arabic; disperse on route."
- Truce negotiations between Haganah and the Arab leaders took place on April 22.[2]: 195 . According to Morris, the Jewish representatives offered "freedom for each person in Haifa... to carry on with business and way of life" and that "Arabs will carry on their work as equal and free citizens of Haifa and will enjoy all services along with the other members of the community." Despite this, in the evening of April 22, the Arab representatives stated that "the Arab population wished to evacuate Haifa... man, woman and child."[2]: 195–200 [3]
- Morris describes the Jewish and British reaction as follows:
- The Jewish and British officials were surprised, even shocked. [Haganah's Major] Levy appealed ‘very passionately . . . and begged [the Arabs] to reconsider’. He said that they should not leave the city ‘where they had lived for hundreds of years, where their forefathers were buried and where, for so long, they had lived in peace and brotherhood with the Jews’. But the Arabs said they ‘had no choice’. [The British General] Stockwell ‘went pale’ when he heard the Arabs’ decision, and also appealed to them to reconsider and not make ‘such a grave mistake’. He urged them to accept the terms: ‘Don’t destroy your lives needlessly’, he said. [The Haganah liaison] Salomon, in his recollection of events, wrote that he also appealed to the Arabs to reconsider, but to no avail. [...As a result,] Israeli chroniclers of these events subsequently asserted that the Haifa Arab leadership on 22 April had been ordered by the AHC to evacuate the city.[2]: 195–196
- According to Morris, "there is a surfeit of evidence that the AHC and its local supporters endorsed it ex post facto during the following days, egging on the continuing evacuation."[2]: 198 His claim is supported by British intelligence reports that "the Jews have been making extensive efforts to prevent wholesale evacuation, but their propaganda appears to have had very little effect," among other sources.[4][5][6][7] According to the Sixth Airborn Division,
- Probable reason for Arab Higher Executive [i.e., AHC] ordering Arabs to evacuate Haifa is to avoid possibility of Haifa Arabs being used as hostages in future operations after May 15. Arabs have also threatened to bomb Haifa from the air.
- The Jewish officials at that time (incorrectly) believed that the "unexpected exodus from Haifa" was part of a comprehensive Arab plot to "villify Jews"[2]: 197
- (I'd happy to edit it. Obviously, the references would need to be formatted differently.) Amayorov (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- ^ (Gelber, p. 79)
- ^ a b c d e f Morris (2004)
- ^ ‘Stockwell Report’, SAMECA CP V\4\102, reproducing the original Haganah terms and the Stockwell-amended version.
- ^ Lippincott to Secretary of State, 25 Apr. 1948, and Lippincott to Secretary of State, 26 Apr. 1948, both in NA RG 84, Haifa Consulate, Classified Records 1948, 800 – Political Affairs.
- ^ Cunningham to Secretary of State, 25 Apr. 1948
- ^ The Times (London), report datelined 'Haifa, 25 April'
- ^ Yorkshire Evening Post, 24 April 1948, 'Arabs plan complete evacuation of Jewish controlled Haifa'
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in History
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in History
- B-Class vital articles in History
- B-Class Palestine-related articles
- Top-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- B-Class Israel-related articles
- High-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- B-Class Human rights articles
- Low-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- B-Class International relations articles
- Low-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- B-Class Discrimination articles
- Low-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles
- B-Class law articles
- Low-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- B-Class history articles
- Low-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles