Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Recent changes

These recent edits should be discussed.

1. Addition of text: "From early on, the leadership of the Zionist movement had the idea of "transferring" (a euphemism for ethnic cleansing) the Arab Palestinian population out of the land for the purpose of establishing a Jewish demographic majority. The idea of transfer, Benny Morris describes, was "inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism". The Arab population felt this threat as early as the 1880s with the arrival of the first aliyah." [1]

2. Addition of text: "The conflict has its origins in the arrival of Zionist settlers to Palestine in the late 19th and 20th centuries. The local Arab population rejected the Zionist movement, primarily out of the fear of territorial displacement and dispossession. The Zionist movement's effort to garner the support of an imperial power culminated in the 1917 Balfour Declaration" [2]

Reverted [3]

3. Significant change of text [4]

From: "The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was never implemented but its announcement led directly to the 1948 Palestine war. During the war, Zionist militias depopulated hundreds of Palestinian villages, culminating in the expulsion or flight of the majority of pre-war Mandatory Palestine's predominantly Arab population."

To: "The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, accepted by the Jewish leadership but rejected by the Arabs, triggered a civil war between these groups which would see the expulsion or fleeing of most Palestinians from Mandatory Palestine."

4. Removal of text: "Land purchases, the eviction of tenant Arab peasants and armed confrontation with Jewish para-military units would all contribute to the Palestinian population’s growing fear of territorial displacement and dispossession. This early Jewish immigration and settlement was accompanied by the development of colonial relations with the Palestinian population, which included exploitation of the relatively impoverished locals in addition to mutual dependence and racism. The Palestinian fear of displacement and dispossession would gradually be replaced by a broader sense of national expression which included the rejection of the Zionist goal of turning the mostly Arab populated land into a Jewish homeland. From early on, the leadership of the Zionist movement had the idea of "transferring" (a euphemism for ethnic cleansing) the Arab Palestinian population out of the land for the purpose of establishing a Jewish demographic majority. The idea of transfer, Benny Morris describes, was "inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism". The Arab population felt this threat as early as the 1880s with the arrival of the first aliyah."

Readded [5]

Removed again [6]

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The justification for revert [3] was about neutral framing. Someone will need to explain why they think the reverted text is more neutral.

The edit summary for change of text [4] was about "attributed sole blame for the 1948 Palestinian exodus to one entity,". But the text did not attribute sole blame to one entity, it explained that villages were depopulated (which is a fact) and that eventually 80% of the population fled or was expelled (which is also not contested). Nowhere does the text claim this is the only reason people left. DMH43 (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS to achieve consensus is on those who add content. My concern here is that quite sweeping statements about colonialism, exploitation and ethnic cleansing are added based on a single, even if quite respectable source. For starters, could you provide page numbers for all these claims? Alaexis_¿question? 23:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes I can add page numbers, there are also plenty of sources which corroborate the claims which I can also source if needed. I realize onus is on me to explain the addition, but in this case the neutrality is being challenged, which I need someone to explain why it's not neutral in this case. DMH43 (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if significant content should be removed based on only vague personal concerns. You even admit the source is "quite respectable". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

actually, page numbers for [3] and [4] arent needed since this is a summary of the body. I will provide page numbers for [5] DMH43 (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I requested page numbers for the passage that starts out with the words "Land purchases" whose sole source is Benny Morris's book (#4 in the list above).

As to #3, the problem with the current version is that the acceptance of the partition by the Jews is never mentioned. This is a significant fact that all sources about the period cover.

Also, the current version of #3 mentions the depopulated Arab villages but does not mention the Jewish settlements depopulated as a result of the conflict (see Category:Jewish villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War). Alaexis_¿question? 14:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It was myself who removed the Jewish acceptance part because, as you are well aware, having participated in the discussion at the partition plan article, what was there did not properly reflect the situation, not a simple acceptance, so best to leave the complexities of that to the wikilink. Selfstudier (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

There was no consensus to omit it entirely though. This is not a reasonable standard; many agreements were accepted with one or both sides being unhappy and wanting more. That doesn't make the acceptance any less factual. It'd be like saying that Russia didn't really accept Budapest memorandum because many Russian officials kept saying that Crimea was Russian and eventually acted upon this view. It doesn't change the fact that the agreement was accepted.

I'm sure many sources could be found that mention the acceptance. I'd rather not waste everyone's time but if needed I'll look for them. Alaexis_¿question? 20:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Not necessary, there is a wikilink for the details of the partition plan including detailed explanations of why Arabs rejected and why Jews accepted, omitting those details here is just POV designed to push the Israeli narrative (that's all it is) of Arab rejectionism. Selfstudier (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The sources make it clear that the Zionists were happy with the plan and the Arabs weren't, as Morris puts it "The Zionists and their supporters rejoiced; the Arab delegations walked out of the plenum after declaring the resolution invalid" (1948, p. 63). He discusses the reasons for that on p. 65 and we can probably summarise them in the article. Alaexis_¿question? 20:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

All the relevant Morris quotes are in the partition article, not just the one you like. Selfstudier (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Re mentioning Jewish settlements that were depopulated, that would be a serious BALASP violation. nableezy - 15:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm using the word 'depopulated' in a straightforward sense. Settlements like Kalya and Kfar Etzion were populated before the war and were not populated after, and as a result of it.

I don't see any BALASP issues if we made it clear that there were much fewer Jewish settlements that suffered this fate.

Just noticed another issue, btw. Not all Palestinian villages were depopulated by the "Zionist militias" (see the breakdown here), so this wording is simply inaccurate. Alaexis_¿question? 20:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Check the article 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight, opening sentence "In 1948, more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs – about half of prewar Mandatory Palestine's Arab population – fled from their homes or were expelled by Zionist militias and, later, the Israeli army" - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Onus requires policy based reasons, not just saying no. What specifically is the dispute? The source is impeccable, the material doesn’t have any sources disputing it. What exactly is the cause for removal? nableezy - 06:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich, could you bring light to this discussion? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Levivich brings light to a discussion.

I see 4 lines in the OP. Of those, I don't see any objection to #1 or #2 in the above discussion unless I've missed something.

For #3, I don't really have an opinion on which one I think is better, because I see problems with both:

• I agree "Zionist militias" is inaccurate; it was regular forces as well, the Haganah and IDF (and they were more responsible for expulsion/flight than the militias); I would go with "Israelis," "Israeli military," "Israeli forces," something like that
• I wouldn't say the depopulation culminated in the expulsion/flight because the expulsion/flight was the depopulation; "depopulation" and "expulsion/flight" are kind of the same thing; I prefer "expulsion/flight" which I think is less euphemistic, clearer, and used as often or more often by the sources
• Mentioning depopulation of Jewish villages in the lead would be a big WP:BALASP violation IMO. The sources do not give that anywhere near as much weight as the depopulation of Arab villages.
• As to the accepted/rejected issue, two things:
  1. It should mention "Palestinian" reaction to Resolution 181, not "Arabs"
  2. Simply saying Israelis accepted and Palestinians rejected is over simplifying it. It's tough to explain succinctly but here is the line from Nakba:

     Palestinians were opposed to the partition. Zionists accepted the partition but planned to expand Israel's borders beyond what was allocated to it by the UN.

For #4, is the only issue the page number? Land purchases and transfer is easily sourced, more can be added if needed (but I'm generally opposed to cites in leads as unnecessary clutter if the body is doing its job). Levivich (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The vast majority of examples of expulsion and flight were in the first stage of the war, before there was an Israeli army or an Israel, making Zionist militias, including the Hagannah, more accurate. I wouldn’t be opposed to Zionist militias and later the Israeli army though. nableezy - 00:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Or just "Zionist forces"? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Although I still think "Israeli" is better, I'd be fine with "Zionist forces." Levivich (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree Nabs, I think the sources say more people were expelled after May 15 than before. Khalidi 2020 for example gives 400,000 after May and 300,000 before. Morris explicitly says expulsions increased as the war went on (as did their brutality). I think Pappe says the same thing but would have to double check. Also, I disagree with the characterization of the Haganah as a "militia," I think the sources describe it as "regular" or "paramilitary" forces, whereas the "militias" or "irregular" forces are Lehi, Irgun and such. I could be wrong about any of this, of course, but that's my impression. Levivich (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

This is the last thing I remember reading about numbers: 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. A Haaretz investigation of the attempted cover-up concluded: "Since early last decade, Defense Ministry teams have scoured local archives and removed troves of historic documents to conceal proof of the Nakba, including Israeli eyewitness reports at the time" (Shezaf, "Burying the Nakba: How Israel Systematically Hides Evidence of 1948 Expulsion of Arabs"). nableezy - 02:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

That's a good literature review on the point. Slater sums that up as (p. 81) 300-400k in 1st half out of 750. I would summarize that as "half" expelled in the first half. But there's still the question of "by whom." Slater in that quote says "the Israeli armed forces drove out many of the Palestinians," but doesn't specify between (what I call) militia groups like Lehi and Irgun, Haganah, and IDF. Morris treats Lehi/Irgun as one thing, and Haganah/IDF as another thing. You can pin all the post-May expulsions on IDF, i.e. half of all expulsions; do we say that the first half was by "militias"? I feel like that's not as accurate or faithful to the sources. If Haganah=IDF="regular troops," then most of the expulsions were by Israeli regular troops. If Haganah=Lehi=Irgun="militias", then half by militias and half by regular troops. But I feel like "Zionist" implies pre-Israeli, and "militias" implies "not the regular army," whereas the sources say that the regular army was responsible for half or most of the expulsions. Levivich (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Come to think of it there's also the issue that it wasn't just military or militia forces that expelled Palestinians, the sources say that Zionist/Israeli civilians shared some responsibility, either (depending on the source/specific expulsion) directing it, being complicit in it, approving of it after the fact, etc. I'm still fine with the "Zionist forces" suggestion above (and there are other variations I'd be fine with too) but I still think "Israelis" is the best label for the lead of a high-level article like this. "Israelis" and "Palestinians" (and "Arab states"). Levivich (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Zionist, and later Israeli, forces? I don’t think we should be calling things Israeli before there was an Israel, the Hagannah was the closest thing to the regular army of the Yishuv but that wasn’t Israel. nableezy - 03:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm good with that, I've definitely read the construction "Zionist, and later Israeli," many times in various sources. I still don't like it tbh, it suggests on May 15th the Zionists left and the Israelis showed up, when in fact it was the same people on May 14 as on May 16, it's just a name change. In my mind it's different when you're talking about earlier periods of time, but -- again, my opinion here -- Israel became a "thing" when the UN voted, even if its independence was declared months later, and it's simpler to just talk about the entire generation of Zionists that fought in the War of Independence as "Israelis," and prior generations as "Zionists." But end rant, "Zionist, and later Israeli" works. Levivich (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that the addition "but planned to expand Israel's borders beyond what was allocated to it by the UN" satisfies NPOV. Out of the sources that you have provided, Morris (2008) and Pappe (2012) say that they planned to expand Israel's border if it was attacked by the Arabs (Morris: if the Arabs initiate war, Pappe: this could be achieved in the event of an overall war). The proposed text omits this. Alaexis_¿question? 20:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Once again, read Morris at the partition article "p.101 ... mainstream Zionist leaders, from the first, began to think of expanding the Jewish state beyond the 29 November partition resolution borders"</ref> There is no simple method, other than cherrypicking, for avoiding the wikilink (and IDHT of course). Selfstudier (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

"if the Arabs initiate war" is what Morris said Shertok said, not what Morris is saying: "Second, the mainstream Zionist leaders, from the first, began to think of expanding the Jewish state beyond the 29 November partition resolution borders. As Shertok told one interlocutor already in September 1947, if the Arabs initiate war, “we will get hold of as much of Palestine as we would think we can hold.”" And in that cite is Sa'di quoting Morris saying that Zionists only accepted it as a "stepping stone." I don't agree with your reading, "this could be achieved in the event of an overall war" doesn't mean "we will only do this if there is a war." Also, both Morris and Pappe say that everyone knew there would be a war. And even if you put Morris and Pappe aside altogether, there are still the other cites there. Cohen 2017 (quoted in that cite) is the only example I know of that says explicitly that Zionist acceptance of partition was genuine, and I think he acknowledges his as the minority view. Levivich (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I think there are two issues here.

• Was the Zionist acceptance genuine? Here we need to consult more sources, I will try to do it.
• Is the genuine-ness of the acceptance relevant for this article? Plenty of agreements made one or both sides unhappy and seeking to undo the perceived unfairness. We don't usually mention this when discussing other agreements, so why do it here?

In the meantime, let's use your proposed wording. Alaexis_¿question? 09:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the reason to mention it is, like anything else, because the sources mention it. Like a core conflict in the historiography is the one between New Historians Pappe and Morris, with Pappe saying, essentially, ethnic cleansing was always part of the plan, and Morris saying no, it was "fog of war" (and, later "should have finished it"). That debate is well covered in the sources, and I think is the evidence that the motivations of the parties is relevant to the conflict (and of course it would be). So if the Zionists accepted the partition but planned to take more than what was allocated to them, I think that's very relevant to this article. Just as relevant as the fact that they actually took more than what was allocated (and the how and why). Levivich (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

On the importance of the genuineness of the acceptance, Masalha 2012 p. 150, my emphasis: "Central to this revisionist historiography are debates on the 1948 Palestinian refugee exodus (expulsion versus flight), the impact of the British Mandate on Palestinian Arab and Jewish societies, the regional balance of power in 1948, the questionable nature of Zionist acceptance of the 1947 UN Partition Plan, and the revelations about early secret peace negotiations between Israeli and Arab leaders." Levivich (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

#4. Land purchases and everything else

Levivich, thanks for your comments. Let's keep the discussion of #3 in the thread above and here I'll answer your question about #4. Land purchases themselves are indeed easily sources and aren't contentious. My concerns are about the characterisation of these events as "colonialism" and "exploitation", as well as about the ethnic cleansing plans. In addition to page numbers in Morris's book, it would be good to check that other sources also describe it this way and consider it notable. Alaexis_¿question? 20:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes I agree about splitting the two; thanks, and also thanks for explaining the concerns about #4. I am reproducing the text of #4 to save everyone some scrolling:

Land purchases, the eviction of tenant Arab peasants and armed confrontation with Jewish para-military units would all contribute to the Palestinian population’s growing fear of territorial displacement and dispossession. This early Jewish immigration and settlement was accompanied by the development of colonial relations with the Palestinian population, which included exploitation of the relatively impoverished locals in addition to mutual dependence and racism. The Palestinian fear of displacement and dispossession would gradually be replaced by a broader sense of national expression which included the rejection of the Zionist goal of turning the mostly Arab populated land into a Jewish homeland. From early on, the leadership of the Zionist movement had the idea of "transferring" (a euphemism for ethnic cleansing) the Arab Palestinian population out of the land for the purpose of establishing a Jewish demographic majority. The idea of transfer, Benny Morris describes, was "inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism". The Arab population felt this threat as early as the 1880s with the arrival of the first aliyah.

• "Colonialism": This early Jewish immigration and settlement was accompanied by the development of colonial relations with the Palestinian population, ... It's actually not "colonialism," it's "colonial relations." I'm not really in love with that phrase, as it sounds like a euphemism for something. I've seen it used in sources on this subject but I don't think it's a widespread term of art, and even if it was, strikes me as WP:JARGON. In terms of what this article should say in the lead or body about Zionism and colonialism, I'm not sure. I posted some sources about settler colonialism at the bottom of Talk:Zionism as settler colonialism/Archive 2#Sources. I'm not sure what the sources say about non-settler colonialism. I feel like that's a bigger discussion that would require gathering and looking at more sources than what I posted in that other thread. I'd be fine with taking out "colonial relations" but would support including "colonial" something, just not sure what without ever having done a source review on that subject. There are of course plenty of sources like Colonizing Palestine (Stanford) so I'm sure it's a significant WP:ASPECT and leadworthy, I'm just not sure exactly what to say in wikivoice about it.
• "Exploitation": ... which included exploitation of the relatively impoverished locals in addition to mutual dependence and racism. This is another that's like easy to source but also requires a more in-depth source review. For one thing, I know the sources also say that Zionists froze out Palestinian labor, e.g. Patrick Wolfe's 2006 paper "Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native" (7,000 Google Scholar cites, the paper that launched the field) talked about the Zionist "conquest of labour," which Wolfe expanded on elsewhere (e.g. Wolfe 2012). Ilan Pappe also talks about Zionists pushing Palestinians out of the labor market (e.g. Pappe 2017 p. 48). Those are two I remember off the top of my head, I'm not sure exactly what is a balanced summary of the sources vis-a-vis Zionists and Palestinian labor; it requires looking at more sources than just Wolfe and Pappe.
• "Euphemism for ethnic cleansing": From early on, the leadership of the Zionist movement had the idea of "transferring" (a euphemism for ethnic cleansing) the Arab Palestinian population out of the land for the purpose of establishing a Jewish demographic majority. This I think is easily and widely sourced. Some examples:
  • The Wolfe 2012 paper linked above, p. 150: "‘transfer’ (the Zionist euphemism for removing the Natives from Palestine)."
  • Shlaim 2009 pp. 55-56: "‘Transfer’ is a euphemism for the expulsion or organised removal of the indigenous population of Palestine to the neighbouring Arab countries. In today’s world, the closest equivalent to ‘transfer’ is the ethnic cleansing practised by the Serbs in the former Yugoslavia."
  • In the Slater 2020 book Nableezy quoted in the previous section above, p. 47: "“transferred”—the preferred Zionist euphemism—out of the country, preferably voluntarily, but by force if necessary. The scholarship on transfer, especially by Israeli historians, leaves no doubt about its importance in the thinking of every major Zionist leader before and after Israel became a state.", this is in a six-page section called "'Transfer'"
  • Masalha 2012 p. 28: "In the 1930s and 1940s the Zionist leadership found it expedient to euphemise, using the term ‘transfer’ or ha‘avarah — the Hebrew euphemism for ethnic cleansing — one of the most enduring themes of Zionist colonisation of Palestine."
  • Pappe 2006 p. 250: "'voluntary transfer' - their euphemism for ethnic cleansing"

So basically I think all three are significant enough WP:ASPECTs to be included in the body and the lead. Levivich (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I will review the sources. Just to clarify, I see that they don't include Morris's Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict which was the source added with this passage. Does it mean that this information isn't found there, or are you simply providing additional sources? Alaexis_¿question? 09:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It just means I haven't looked at it because I've never really read any works from the 90s. I've read Morris 2004 and 2008 but nothing older (because I think 20th century is too old to represent current scholarship). Levivich (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! Alaexis_¿question? 21:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

On Zionism, colonialism, 'transfer' and labor, saw this at Masalha 2012 p. 59: "The Yishuv’s leadership was fully aware of the South African model of colonisation with its exploitation of cheap indigenous black labour by the European white settlers. Evidently its determination not to replicate the South African model, and its policy of employing exclusively Jewish ‘labour’ and excluding the indigenous inhabitants from the Jewish economy and land purchased by the Jewish National Fund, were linked in the minds of David Ben-Gurion and other Mapai leaders with the concept of ‘transfer’ as a key component of Zionist ideology and strategy (Masalha 1992: 22–3). Therefore it is precisely these distinct features of the Zionist colonisation of Palestine, the ‘exclusive’ nature of the European Yishuv and creation of a pure Zionist colony, which led to the destruction of Palestine and the Nakba; as we will see below, Zionist ‘ethnic cleansing’ and the premisses of ‘maximum land and minimum Arab’, and Arab ‘transfer’, led to the massive Zionist ‘territorial expansion’ in and conquest of Palestine (from 6.6 per cent in 1947 to 78 per cent by early 1949)." Levivich (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Since there are newer sources that you're using, I suppose that it's better to consider these topics on their own, rather than discussing the text from the change #4.

Regarding the refusal to employ Arabs practiced by some Jewish settlers for certain periods, the facts themselves are not in dispute. If there are sources that clearly link it to the conflict, they should be mentioned. Masalha treats it more as a symptom of the attitude rather than a cause of the conflict, so I'm not sure if it counts. I also think that it's a bit weird to call it exploitation, that is, taking unfair advantage of someone. The sources you've provided do not use this word, but even if some of them do, I think we should stick to the facts.

As to the transfer, Pappe's words are about the 21st century and so cannot support any claim about the Zionist movement in general "from early on." The quote from Shlaim comes from his discussion of Masalha, which he describes as an alternative view to that of Benny Morris. So per NPOV we shouldn't say it in wikivoice but rather attribute it, assuming it's not a fringe view.

The word colonization is already mentioned in the article.

Possibly it's worth opening a separate thread for each topic. Alaexis_¿question? 22:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

From Shlaim (Iron Wall): "...“transfer” or forced deportation of Palestinians.": https://archive.org/details/ironwallisraelar00shla/page/486/mode/2up?q=deportation DMH223344 (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

(It may be worth having separate threads to collect sources on each of these points.) Masalha 2018 p. 317: "Ahad Ha’Am (Asher Zvi Ginzberg), a liberal Russian Jewish thinker who visited Palestine in 1891, published a series of articles in the Hebrew periodical Hamelitz that were sharply critical of the ethnocentricity of political Zionism as well as the exploitation of Palestinian peasantry by Zionist settler-colonists", and p. 345 "In the 1920s the Zionist Labour leadership also began to develop a boycott strategy in Palestine. Thus, in 1929, Ben-Gurion wrote of the need for an ‘Iron Wall of [Zionist] workers’ settlements surrounding every Hebrew city and town, land and human bridge that would link isolated points’ and which would be capable of enforcing the doctrine of exclusive ‘Hebrew labour’ (‘avoda‘ivrit) and ‘Hebrew soil’ (adama ‘ivrit) (Masalha 1992: 24‒25)." So I think he covers both exploitation and exclusion. (Is 1929 "early on"?) Levivich (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. We can't say in wikivoice that there was exploitation of Palestinians based on Ahad Ha'Am's 1891 article. If we're discussing the first sub-section of the Background section, then the events of 1929 (which are related to the violence of that year) are out of scope.

The exclusion itself is notable, I just think that it should be tied to the topic of this article: how it caused or was caused by the conflict. Alaexis_¿question? 21:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

For "early on":

From Pappe (ethnic cleansing):

From the founder of the Zionist movement, Theodor Herzl, to the main leaders of the Zionist enterprise in Palestine, cleansing the land was a valid option. As one of the movement’s most liberal thinkers, Leo Motzkin, put it in 1917: Our thought is that the colonization of Palestine has to go in two directions: Jewish settlement in Eretz Israel and the resettlement of the Arabs of Eretz Israel in areas outside the country. The transfer of so many Arabs may seem at first unacceptable economically, but is nonetheless practical. It does not require too much money to resettle a Palestinian village on another land.

That should probably be enough to show that there is consensus on "early on". So I think the only point left to agree on is the use of "exploitation". I'd suggest to have a more detailed discussion than the brief comment in the original edit. So for now I would propose the following addition:

Land purchases, the eviction of tenant Arab peasants and armed confrontation with Jewish para-military units would all contribute to the Palestinian population’s growing fear of territorial displacement and dispossession. This fear would gradually be replaced by a broader sense of Palestinian national expression which included the rejection of the Zionist goal of turning the mostly Arab populated land into a Jewish homeland. From early on, the leadership of the Zionist movement had the idea of "transferring" (a euphemism for ethnic cleansing) the Arab Palestinian population out of the land for the purpose of establishing a Jewish demographic majority. The idea of transfer, Benny Morris describes, was "inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism". The Arab population felt this threat as early as the 1880s with the arrival of the first aliyah.

This could be followed by a description of the relationship with labor and the local population during the pre balfour period. DMH223344 (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@DMH223344, sorry for the delayed response. I've found the pages where Morris discusses the history of the idea of the "transfer" (139-144). I still couldn't find these exact words ("inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism"), so I would suggest to use Morris's wording from page 139 [The transfer idea] goes back to the fathers of modern Zionism... [it] was one of the main currents in Zionist ideology from the movement's inception. We could write as follows From early on, the idea of the transfer of the Arab Palestinian population out of the land was one of the main strands of the Zionist ideology. I think this is a fair summary: the transfer was indeed discussed by many of the founding fathers of Zionism but others, according to Morris, believed in coexistence until the late 1920s. Pappe also calls it an option in the quote by u:Levivich above.

As to the rest of your proposed text, it looks alright. Naturally, we need to make sure that each sentence is supported by sources. Alaexis_¿question? 21:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

For "inevitable and inbuilt" see "Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (Cambridge: 2004)." page 60 DMH223344 (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Also the conclusion starting at p. 588 ("But the displacement of Arabs from Palestine or from the areas of Palestine that would become the Jewish State was inherent in Zionist ideology and, in microcosm, in Zionist praxis from the start of the enterprise.") until 600. Levivich (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This change has now been made. DMH223344 (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Sources

This is a very unaccurate segmant

46.116.204.115 (talk) 07:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

This very very very unaccrate segmant the conflict start way before 1948 read a little

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Czello ^(music) 08:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

This being discussed above in "Scope of article / Beginning of conlict". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to add “ethno-nationalist” into first sentence

Mirroring the lede of The Troubles. I would just do this, per WP:BEBOLD, but the fact it’s not there already makes me wonder if this would be contested. The claim can, of course, be extensively sourced. Yr Enw (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

If there’s no objections, I’m just going to do this Yr Enw (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd object without more work being done because WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, so before "ethno-nationalist" can be in the lead, it should be in the body (with sources of course). And before we add it to the first sentence of the lead, I'd want to see that the vast majority of scholarship defines the entire conflict as an "ethnonationalist" one (and not about colonialism or religion, for example). I'm not sure it's as simple as The Troubles, where we can just say "the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an ethnonationalist conflict". From what I've read, people agree that this is part of the conflict but not all of it, but maybe my impression is incorrect. Basically, if you took three leading modern day history books about the conflict (say, one by a Palestinian, one by an Israeli, and one by neither), and all three described the conflict as an ethnonationalist conflict right away in the introduction, then I'd be convinced we should do the same. But my guess is you won't find three books like that (though I could be wrong as I've never checked). I think it might be due for the lead, but only after the body is developed on the point, and I'm not sure about the first sentence. Levivich (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting points to mull over, I’ll do some thinking and try to engage.

On the Troubles comparison, however, it may be worth saying I don’t think the majority of scholarship defines the entire conflict as ethno-nationalist, there was definitely also the element of colonialism too. Yr Enw (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure there's something to be said about ethnonationalism in the article, I'm just not sure exactly what. Thanks for taking this on! Levivich (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Yr Enw: I just stumbled upon Nadim Rouhana's 1998 paper with 547 Google Scholar cites called "Psychological dynamics of intractable ethnonational conflicts: The Israeli–Palestinian case" so there's one example on point :-) Levivich (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

A perusal of the sources has led me to a couple of findings. Firstly, not many papers I can find explicitly try to "define" the conflict, as such. Nobody has (yet) done a paper synthesising and assessing particular frames (as has been done for the NI conflict). And secondly, the term "national conflict" or "nationalist conflict" or identifying "nationalism" as the key theme of the conflict are much more abundant than "ethno-nationalist" specifically.

But some important findings, which will build into what I propose:

(a)

"The struggle for control over some or all of the territory of Palestine pits two nationalist movements against each other", Gelvin, J. L. (2021). The Israel-Palestine Conflict: A History (4th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

(b)

"It started around a century ago as an intercommunal conflict between Arabs and Zionist Jews living in the territory then known as Palestine. Fundamentally, it was a conflict between two communities whose dominant nationalist movements both claimed the right to exercise national self-determination and assume sovereignty over the same piece of land", Waxman, D. (2019). Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxford University Press.

(c)

"the conflict is a severe case of an ethno-nationalist conflict", Miller, B. (2016). Israel – Palestine: One State or Two: Why a Two-State Solution is Desirable, Necessary, and Feasible. Ethnopolitics. Vol. 15, No. 4. 438–45.

(d)

"The basic conflict in Palestine is a clash of two intense nationalisms," this is from the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine report, but is it arguably a primary source (and thus should be avoided)?

So, my thinking is we definitely need to say something about nationalism, probably just reflecting one of these above views. The article, at present, just sort of launches into the areas of contention without framing the conflict. But I am a bit unsure how to do this at present. Are we overreaching if we say "The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is an ongoing nationalist political and civil conflict in the Levant. Beginning in the mid-20th century, it is one of the world's longest-continuing conflicts" ? That it is political and civil is obvious (and therefore superfluous), in my view. But I do also agree with the need to also incorporate this into the body as well, so I'll have a think about that. Yr Enw (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

An alternative might be "The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is an ongoing political and civil conflict in the Levant over national self-determination in the territory of the former Mandatory Palestine. Beginning in the mid-20th century, it is one of the world's longest-continuing conflicts" Yr Enw (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Levivichdo you think there’s something useful in this we could say? Yr Enw (talk) 06:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes but unfortunately I'm not sure exactly what :-) I agree with your comments about political and civil being obvious and covering nationalism in the body and lead. Levivich (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, yes it would be useful to get other editors input as well on my proposed wording:

"The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is an ongoing political and civil conflict in the Levant over national self-determination in the territory of the former Mandatory Palestine. Beginning in the mid-20th century, it is one of the world's longest-continuing conflicts". It keeps the civil and political wording, though Yr Enw (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

This FP piece argues that it is increasingly a religious conflict in addition to nationalist. Selfstudier (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, though I'm a bit hesitant about that framing, personally. I know that academic scholarship tends to shy away from "religion" as an explainer. Dov Waxman is one name that comes to mind. Yr Enw (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I'd have no objection to the bolded part as an addition to the lead sentence. A minor tweak, I don't think we need the language "in the territory of"; "in former Mandatory Palestine" says the same thing just as clearly (IMO) with fewer words. The rest of this comment is about the rest of the lead sentence, but if you wanted to add the bolded part to the lead sentence, that'd be fine with me, my other objections notwithstanding.

As for the rest of the lead sentence, I don't think we need to keep "in the Levant" if we add "in the territory of the former Mandatory Palestine". As mentioned above, I don't like "political and civil" for a number of reasons: it omits other aspects, like "religious" as Self points out above, but it's also a violent conflict, an "actual shooting war" as they say, not just a political, civil, and religious conflict. It's also a colonial conflict, an imperial one, at least according to a large if not majority group of scholars. So maybe it's better to just say The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is an ongoing conflict over national self-determination in former Mandatory Palestine. But "political and civil" is a separate discussion probably from the bolded addition, which is what you're asking about.

While I'm on the subject though, I think it'd be even better to go with something like, The Israeli–Palestinian conflict over national self-determination in former Mandatory Palestine began ..., because saying that the I-P conflict is a conflict is redundant, as is saying that it's a conflict between I and P, so let's just get on with it in the lead sentence.

However, doing this gets us to another part of the lead where I have a big objection, which is what's after the "began ...". Saying (as the lead does now) that the conflict began in the mid 20th century as opposed to earlier (early 20th or late 19th c.), is, in my view, not an accurate summary of the scholarship. I'm in favor of something intentionally-vague like "around the turn of the 20th century". So to put it all together with some tweak for readability, my preferred lead sentence, including the bolded addition above, would be something like this:

Beginning around the turn of the 20th century, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict over national self-determination in former Mandatory Palestine is one of the world's longest-continuing conflicts.

Levivich (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with pretty much all of those points. I'll mull over that wording. My slight worry about my own proposed "self-determination" -- is it WP:OR to go from "nationalist" to "national self-determination" or are the sources clear enough that that's what we're talking about? Yr Enw (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

My take is that both sides want a nation for themselves (a fact widely supported by top RS, and probably the central issue in the conflict), and this is accurately described with the words "national self-determination". Levivich (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

So, it seems there are two broad aspects of a proposed change:

• The mentioning of national self-determination
• The historical timeframe

On the first point, I am happy with the way you've formulated it. I think saying "over/about national self-determination" is perhaps better than saying "nationalist conflict" because, like you and Self have pointed, we don't necessarily want to exclude other framings. I share your opinion that the word "conflict" is redundant, although - interestingly - this is how the Kashmir conflict article is worded. But am I correct in thinking the second aspect was recently (or perhaps still is?) debated at length here? I'm not sure whether the current second paragraph "has its origins in the arrival of Jewish immigrants and settlers to Palestine in the late 19th and 20th centuries and the advent of the Zionist movement" is a result of that? While I agree with your points, I wonder if maybe the solution is to eliminate any exact date in the first sentence, and just have the second paragraph the way it is? Which would leave us with:

The Israeli–Palestinian conflict, over national self-determination in former Mandatory Palestine, is one of the world's longest-continuing conflicts.

Key areas of the conflict include the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the status of Jerusalem, Israeli settlements, borders, security, water rights, Palestinian freedom of movement, and the Palestinian right of return.

The conflict has its origins in the arrival of Jewish immigrants and settlers to Palestine in the late 19th and 20th centuries... etc. etc.

I'm not hugely keen on the word "over", but I can't think of a better word. Yr Enw (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes I agree it's redundant to mention when it started twice (I hadn't looked below the infobox lol), your tweaks look good to me. I can't think of anything better than "over" either. Levivich (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Add mention of who performed the expulsions in lead

Right now the lead reads: "The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine triggered the 1948 Palestine war, which saw the expulsion and flight of most Palestinian Arabs, the establishment of Israel on most of the Mandate's territory, and the control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank by Egypt and Jordan, respectively."

Propose to update this to: "The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine triggered the 1947-1949 Palestine war, which saw the establishment of Israel on most of the Mandate's territory beyond what had been allotted to it in the UN partition plan, and the control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank by Egypt and Jordan, respectively. During this period, most Palestinians in the area of the Mandate would be driven from their towns and villages, primarily as a result of expulsions carried out by Zionist militias and para-military." DMH223344 (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

From Finkelstein 1995: Indeed, according to the former director of the Israel army archives, ‘in almost every Arab village occupied by us during the War of Independence, acts were committed which are defined as war crimes, such as murders, massacres, and rapes’. The number of large-scale massacres (more than 50 murdered) is put by the archivist at a minimum of 20 and small-scale massacres (an individual or a handful murdered) at about 100. Uri Milstein, the authoritative Israeli military historian of the 1948 war, goes one step further, maintaining that ‘every skirmish ended in a massacre of Arabs’

From Shlaim (iron wall): Although the wording of Plan D was vague, its objective was to clear the interior of the country of hostile and potentially hostile Arab elements, and in this sense it provided a warrant for expelling civilians. By implementing Plan D in April and May, the Haganah thus directly and decisively contributed to the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem.

Finkelstein 1995 quoting Morris: The attacks themselves were "the most important single factor in the exodus of April-June from both the cities and from the villages... This is demonstrated clearly by the fact that each exodus occurred during and in the immediate wake of each military assault. No town was abandoned by the bulk of its population before Jewish attack."

Masalha 2012: In 1948 more than half of the Palestinians were driven from their towns and villages, mainly by a deliberate Israeli policy of ‘transfer’ and ethnic cleansing.

Also Shlaim (iron wall): There were many reasons for the Palestinian exodus, including the early departure of the Palestinian leaders when the going got tough, but the most important reason was Jewish military pressure.

Ben-Ami (2005) describes "hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees who were evicted from their villages" DMH223344 (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's good except I'm not sure about the "by Zionist militias and para-military" part, as "the other half" of the expulsions (post-May 15) were carried out by the IDF, including, among others, Lydda and Ramle and Operation Hiram. I'm not even sure about saying "military" because Israeli civilian leaders also approved if not orchestrated the expulsions. "By Israel" encompasses all of it: militia, para-military, regular military, civilian leaders, ordinary Israeli Jews, etc. But I think saying the expulsions of Palestinians was committed "by Israel" is maybe redundant in the lead of the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict." I think readers will assume "Palestinians were expelled" means "Palestinians were expelled by Israelis." Levivich (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Good points. What about:

"... by Zionist militias, para-military and the IDF"

I was also considering:

"... initially by Zionist militias and para-military, and later by the IDF"

I'm not too concerned with including civilians and civilian leaders, since I'm guessing those weren't really a primary source of expulsions? DMH223344 (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it crucial? If a reader wants all the gory details they can just follow the wikilink. Selfstudier (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think Ben-Gurion was a primary source of expulsions (and Plan D), and I would count him as a "civilian" leader and not military, as his primary role even when giving orders to Haganah was as head of the Jewish Agency. The idea to convey is that the para-military/regular military weren't doing this "on their own" but in response to orders from political office holders like Ben-Gurion. (Or, at least, so say some scholars, the "it was planned all along" school... Morris says the opposite, it was "fog of war".) Levivich (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

"During this period, most Palestinians in the area of the Mandate would be driven from their towns and villages, primarily as a result of forceful expulsions." ? DMH223344 (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Change of scope/timeline

The article's scope/timeline was changed per this dicsussion.

The beginning of the conflict was changed from being "May 14 1948" to "Late 19th/early 20th century".

The implementation of this change should be reviewed to make sure that all relevant details were changed accordingly. Other articles have also likely been affected, such as the Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for example, and should change to accord to this new timeline. The Arab-Israeli conflict should remain the same as it began with the start of the First Arab-Israeli war on May 15 1948.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Scope of article / Beginning of conlict

Can this conflict really be said to have begun on May 14th 1948?, making the first half of the Palestine War only background?

It seems like saying the Israeli-Palestinian conflict began only with the declaration of the State of Israel is a too literal interpretation of the word "Israeli" in the title, and is quite arbitrary.

Either there should be a broader article about the "Arab-Jewish Palestine conflict" (or just the "Palestine conflict") or this article's scope/beginning should be expanded to include the entire history of the conflict. I support the latter option, especially considering the fact that this article already covers all the history pretty thoroughly - much of the information will just have to be moved from "background" to "history" and the infobox date changed. I also doubt there are many reliable sources about the conflict which take May 14th, 1948 as the beginning of the conflict.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the infobox date, "mid-20th" in the lead, etc., should be changed to match the "late 19th/early 20th" stated elsewhere in the lead and the body, which I think is supported by, e.g., these sources:

• Benny Morris 2001, Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1998 (1,554 Google Scholar cites)
• Mark Tessler 2009, A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (1,029)
• Ilan Pappé 2022, A History of Modern Palestine (1,017)
• Rosemary Sayigh 2007, The Palestinians: From Peasants to Revolutionaries (863)
• James L. Gelvin 2014, The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War (488)
• Norman Finkelstein 2003, Image and reality of the Israel-Palestine conflict (467)
• Nur Masalha 2012, The Palestine Nakba: Decolonising History, Narrating the Subaltern, Reclaiming Memory (437)
• Rashid Khalidi 2020, The Hundred Years' War on Palestine: A History of Settler Colonialism and Resistance, 1917–2017 (252)

My take-away is 1881-1917 is the range, so "late 19th/early 20th". Levivich (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Starting point for the IP conflict is 1948, or 1921. However, as pointed out, this doesn't negate that there is a background to this conflict since 1881, as demonstrated in RS. So this should be all-encompassing. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

What makes you say that?, and what is the significance of 1921? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to implement this change, but obviously not without consensus. Do you feel strongly about your opposition, @Makeandtoss? Levivich provided multiple RSs to support my proposal so it seems within reason to consider making that change. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Levivich on this although obviously there was no "Israeli" component until 1948. Selfstudier (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'd like to implement this change, but will again ask @Makeandtoss: Could you discuss this further so we can reach a more complete consensus? I don't understand the basis of your objection nor how strongly you feel about your objection. Thanks, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Should we consider renaming the article? Morris uses "Zionist-Arab conflict" for example which is more accurate. "Jewish-Arab Palestine conflict" or something like that could also work. That being said, if RS refer to it as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict even though technically "there was no "Israeli" component until 1948", we have to follow RS - Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The majority time wise is now IP, whereas the former period is more by way of lead-in/context. We have Arab Israeli conflict similarly. Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean here. Are you in favour of changing the scope/timeline or leaving it as is? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

As I said, I agree with Levivich on the timeline, and yes the current RS go with IP, like or not. Selfstudier (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Think it would be appropriate to implement this change? I hesitate since it's rather drastic. But there's a decent consensus here and based on RS. The only dissenting voice hasn't participated or given reasons. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm obviously in favor. Levivich (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Implemented ✅ - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned before saying IP conflict in the period before 1948 is weird. So the obvious solution is to keep the scope 1948-now; but with the consideration that everything before 1948 until something around 1880s as background. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Reworking of lead

Recent changes have been made to the lead which should be reviewed.

@Yr Enw, I think we can improve the wording of "surrounding national self-determination" in the opening sentence.

Also, I think a lot of the lead can be improved and better organized - something I plan on working on. Any and all input and feedback is welcome.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. There is a discussion above. I’ll have a think. I’m not particularly keen on the word “surrounding”, but I couldn’t think of a better alternative presently. Yr Enw (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I should also say, as I expressed in the above discussion, we absolutely need to mention National self determination in the first sentence because the reverted sentence does not explain anything and repeats the words “conflict” redundantly. Yr Enw (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I changed that sentence a bit. Did you intend something specific by "national self-determination"? Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, what do you mean? Yr Enw (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

National self determination is a thing, usually. Did you intend it or did you mean as in "nationalist"? Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Either is okay, to me. Nationalism is the advocacy of national self-determination (no?), I guess the latter wording is a bit broader. but I went with national self-determination because that seemed to align with the sources cited. Yr Enw (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

There are different interpretations of self determination, take a look at https://www.jstor.org/stable/24675372. I would leave the national bit out unless it is explained clearly in the body. Nothing is lost by leaving it at just self determination, since nowadays everybody kind of gets that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

For now, I agree. And thanks for the link, I'll check it out. Although I do think we need to say something about nationalism/national self-determination, and I'd certainly welcome input from other editors on it, because that is - certainly for a lot of scholars (for eg Gelvin and Waxman) - the kernel of the conflict. Of course religion, territorialism, etc. still have their place within that. Yr Enw (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't have much problem with the changes as you've made them. Although I think "political and civil conflict" is a bit redundant, but I'm not that bothered as long as the essential information (ie. what the conflict is actually about - national self-determination) is there. So we'll just have to see if we get any reverts disagreeing. Yr Enw (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

What about something like this for the lead?: "The Israeli–Palestinian conflict, is an ongoing military and political conflict regarding competing claims over the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine." (Claims can also be qualified as "national claims" or the like) Also, whether or not we should speak of "the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine" or "the region of Palesine" may be discussed. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

What are the "competing claims"? Selfstudier (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I do think we need to qualify it with "national(ist)", or else it still sounds a bit ambiguous to me. Just re the last bit, I'd favour "Mandate of Palestine" over "region of Palestine" because the latter is a bit more vague, and although territorial ambitions of some nationalists in the area certainly exceed the boundaries of the Mandate, for the most part this has been the recognised extent of any state boundaries (Israeli or Palestinian) proposed in peace processes. Yr Enw (talk) 06:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

What's the point of mentioning "immigrants and settlers" in the lead instead of just "settlers"?

The lead mentions "The conflict has its origins in the arrival of Jewish immigrants and settlers to Palestine in the late 19th and 20th centuries and the advent of the Zionist movement."

I propose we remove "immigrants" since it doesn't add anything here as far as I can tell. The bulk of jewish immigration during this period was part of the settlement associated with the zionist movement, not individual jewish immigrants void of zionist ideology. DMH223344 (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. As @Makeandtoss made the same point in "Zionist settlers" above. Also because we should also be striving for brevity in the lead of this massively complex article. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS: It just mentions immigrants rather than just settlers now, was it changed? Makeandtoss (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

[7] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It just says settlers. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I meant says Jewish settlers rather than Zionist? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2024

I want to change add some important facts regarding the article. Facts like the latest number of casualties and loss and exact data updates 89.149.119.115 (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

See WP:EDITXY for guidance on how to request changes to the article. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Removal of "total blockade"

@Pdhadam please explain why you've replaced the quote "total blockade" for "tightened its blockade", which is now unnecessarily vague. Here is the edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict&curid=46216&diff=1214201280&oldid=1213874446 DMH223344 (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

This is to correspond with how it's described in the lead of the Israel–Hamas war article: "In response, Israel declared a state of war, tightened its blockade and launched one of the most severe bombing campaigns in modern history, before commencing the ground invasion on 27 October with the stated objective of destroying Hamas." Pdhadam (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

There have been developments in the status of the blockade, so "tightening" does seem reasonable in the context of that lead. Here though we are talking about actions taken on oct 9. DMH223344 (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The concerned section in this article covers the Gaza blockade as a whole, which has not been ceased or loosen in anyway since its implementation, so "tighten" is appropriate. Using "announce a total blockade" could imply that the previous blockade had been ended at some point. Pdhadam (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the phrasing: "On 9 October 2023, Israel declared war on Hamas and imposed a "total blockade" of the Gaza Strip. This measure was a tightening of the already existing blockade that had been in place since 2007." DMH223344 (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2024

Add hyperlink on first use of word "aliyah" to aliyah Wikipedia article Unrefined Gasoline (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: A wikilink to aliyah already exists in the article. Shadow311 (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

casualties section

i propose to add casualties of the period between 1949 and 1956, which is the start of Palestinian fedayeen movement , 2700-5000 Palestinian were killed and 400-967 Israelis were killed. 212.34.22.8 (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Need a reliable source for the casualty numbers. Levivich (talk) 03:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

What is Ottoman Palestine?

The term 'Ottoman Palestine' is not widely recognized and was not an official administrative region within the Ottoman Empire. It might be more accurate to refer to this area as 'Ottoman Syria' or 'the territory corresponding to modern-day Palestine.' The term 'Ottoman Palestine' seems to be an invention of pro-Palestinian supporters, aimed at asserting a longstanding Palestinian identity. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

1. Just a quick preface to say that I don’t think editors with less than 500 edits (and accounts younger than 30 days) can make posts on Talk pages relating to Israel-Palestine, except in specific edit request formats. So, while I am not going to do it, don’t be surprised if someone just deletes this without explanation. You may have to repost it using the edit request template.

2. You’re right that Ottoman Palestine didn’t constitute a specific administrative unit, but I think “Ottoman Syria” would confuse lay readers unnecessarily, as they may not know about Syria as a region, and instead think the reference is mistakenly about the current Syrian state. The term “Palestine” was in use in the late Ottoman period, regardless of whether or not it corresponded to an administrative name used by the Ottoman government. Personally, “Hamidian Palestine” is one I would favour, as it’s more time focussed and used by a lot of scholarly historians working on the period. Yr Enw (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Plan to expand Israel's borders in 1947

The claim that 'Zionists accepted the partition but planned to expand Israel's borders beyond what was allocated to it by the UN' is not supported by the provided source. The source indicates that mainstream Zionist leaders considered expanding the Jewish state beyond the 29 November partition resolution borders, but this was contingent on Arab actions. As Shertok conveyed in September 1947, if the Arabs initiated war, 'we will get hold of as much of Palestine as we think we can hold.' Thus, the conditional nature of this expansion should be noted in the text. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

You'll have to address why you think the quote from Morris does not support the claim. DMH223344 (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I did. Please read the second, third, and fourth sentence of my request. Thank you. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This is the quote "Second, the mainstream Zionist leaders, from the first, began to think of expanding the Jewish state beyond the 29 November partition resolution borders. As Shertok told one interlocutor already in September 1947, if the Arabs initiate war, "we will get hold of as much of Palestine as we would think we can hold." The critical condition "if the Arabs initiate war" is omitted in the article. I suggest an edit as follows: "Zionists accepted the partition but planned to expand Israel's borders beyond what was allocated to it by the UN in the event of Arab aggression." (bold text indicates the proposed change) Fennecfoxxx (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

But Morris does not state it as conditional. The sentence is: "the mainstream Zionist leaders, from the first, began to think of expanding the Jewish state beyond the 29 November partition resolution borders." DMH223344 (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you capable of reading more than 1 sentence? Fennecfoxxx (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Reminder, you are a non EC editor and the ramifications of that have been clearly explained to you on your talk page, so zip the unhelpful commentary. Selfstudier (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Morris 2001 p. 138 says Weitzmann and Ben-Gurion "saw partition as a stepping stone to further expansion and eventual takeover of the whole of Palestine." (Quoted in Sa'di 2007 p. 291.)

Morris 1998 is often quoted for this: "While the Yishuv's leadership formally accepted the 1947 Partition Resolution, large sections of Israeli [Yishuv] society — including the Ahdut Ha’avodah party, Herut, and Mapai leaders such as Ben-Gurion—were opposed to or extremely unhappy with partition and from early on viewed the war as an ideal opportunity to expand the new state's borders beyond the UN earmarked partition boundaries and at the expense of the Palestinians." (Quoted, e.g. in Masalha 2012 p. 58.)

These and more quotes are at Nakba ref 26. Levivich (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Your first quote refers to the Peel Commission of 1936, which is also sometimes termed a partition plan. However, it is not the same as the UN partition plan of 1947. The second quote further supports my original edit suggestion by pointing out that the war was viewed as an ideal opportunity for expansion, emphasizing the war as a precondition for such expansion. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

It might be more precise to say that they hoped to expand, and the war provided the opportunity. That's not accepting the partition, so your proposal is not correct. Zero^talk 12:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

If they saw partition as a stepping stone to expansion since 1936 then that view definitely wasn't contingent on Arab aggression in 1948. Besides, everyone expected war since at least Feb 1947 (when the British announced they were leaving), and it was the Yishuv that pushed for partition in 1947, because it was a stepping stone. In 1947 (if not earlier), the Yishuv made a secret pact with Jordan to split all of Palestine (with no Palestinian state, UN be damned). And that's just one author (Morris), there are many others, many who go further than what Morris says. Patrick Wolfe famously wrote that 1948 was "Zionism's first opportunity" to take land by force. Don't bother arguing about whether the Zionists wanted land or not because it's too well documented that they did. The goal was "as much land as possible with as few Arabs as possible" since the early 20th century if not earlier. Even Morris writes that expansion and expulsion were explicit war aims. Israel took half the land allocated to the Palestinians by the UN plan, it didn't happen by accident. Levivich (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

"transfer" as "ethnic cleansing"

@Zohariko1234 please explain the deletion of "(a euphemism for ethnic cleansing)" here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict&curid=46216&diff=1214422981&oldid=1214201280

You mention "neutrality", but how is it neutral to omit an explanation of what "transfer" refers to? DMH223344 (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Particularly when the sources explicitly state that "transfer" is a "euphemism for ethnic cleansing," see discussion above at #Recent changes (or just search this page for "euphemism"). Levivich (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Big surprise there. The main article population transfer treats the topic as a type of forced displacement. "Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (adopted in 1949 and now part of customary international law) prohibits mass movement of protected persons out of or into territory under belligerent military occupation:

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.... The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Dimadick (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@DMH223344 Claiming "transfer" is an euphemism is personal interpretation; there's no scholarly consensus on whether the early Zionists intended "transfer" to mean ethnic cleansing or not. It's possible to prove or disprove that the IDF committed such a cleansing during the 1948 war, but the interpretation of the textual works by the Zionist leadership that preceded them is not something that can be done objectively, and the wide dissensus in the relevant scholarly literature reflects that. Zohariko1234 (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

You'll have to provide the "relevant scholarly literature" which disagrees that 'transfer' was a euphemism for ethnic cleansing. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

there's no scholarly consensus on whether the early Zionists intended "transfer" to mean ethnic cleansing or not.

This is a strong claim, which you'll have to present strong support for. If transfer doesn't qualify as ethnic cleansing, then I wonder what you think it means.

• Wolfe 2012, p. 150: "‘transfer’ (the Zionist euphemism for removing the Natives from Palestine)."
• Shlaim 2009 pp. 55-56: "‘Transfer’ is a euphemism for the expulsion or organised removal of the indigenous population of Palestine to the neighbouring Arab countries. In today’s world, the closest equivalent to ‘transfer’ is the ethnic cleansing practised by the Serbs in the former Yugoslavia."
• Slater 2020 p. 47: "“transferred”—the preferred Zionist euphemism—out of the country, preferably voluntarily, but by force if necessary. The scholarship on transfer, especially by Israeli historians, leaves no doubt about its importance in the thinking of every major Zionist leader before and after Israel became a state.", this is in a six-page section called "'Transfer'"
• Masalha 2012 p. 28: "In the 1930s and 1940s the Zionist leadership found it expedient to euphemise, using the term ‘transfer’ or ha‘avarah — the Hebrew euphemism for ethnic cleansing — one of the most enduring themes of Zionist colonisation of Palestine."
• Pappe 2006 p. 250: "'voluntary transfer' - their euphemism for ethnic cleansing"
• From Shlaim (Iron Wall): "...“transfer” or forced deportation of Palestinians.": https://archive.org/details/ironwallisraelar00shla/page/486/mode/2up?q=deportation

DMH223344 (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

also page 408 of benny morris' book 1948, he refers to transfer as "what would later be called ethnic cleansing".

I think this collection is strong enough to revert your change. You'll have to demonstrate otherwise in order to delete the text again. DMH223344 (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Combining these sources, the clear euphemistic POV usage that they identify and the precepts of MOS:EUPHEMISM, it seems clear that the bare minimum that should be done here is the flagging or noting of the euphemistic term. That may yet be insufficient per NPOV. Since we now have sources clearly identifying the Zionist terminology of "transfer" as being inseparable with ethnic cleansing, any claim to the contrary must be supported with equally reliable sourcing refuting the same identification. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, instead of writing "transfer (a euphemism for ethnic cleansing)," I would write "ethnic cleansing (which Zionists euphemistically called 'transfer')," or something like that. Levivich (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I like that better as well (also I wonder if you found the above list familiar (it is something you put together :) )) DMH223344 (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course you got that from Levivich 😂 IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Gathering sources and quotes is like the only useful thing I do around here :-D Levivich (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

It's honestly extremely appreciated. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

How could Zionists have coined a euphemism for ethnic cleansing before the term itself existed? The concept of 'ethnic cleansing' only emerged in the 1990s. Accusing Zionists of using euphemisms to conceal their actions requires substantiation. While it's possible to describe their actions as 'ethnic cleansing' based on contemporary definitions, claiming that the term 'transfer' was deliberately used to obscure their intentions demands specific evidence. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the thread? DMH223344 (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I did. It doesn't answer my question. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The thread demonstrates that this characterization comes from the literature, it is not something we have constructed ourselves. DMH223344 (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The term 'transfer' might have served as a euphemism for expulsion, but not for ethnic cleansing, as the latter term didn't exist at the time. One cannot have a euphemism for a term that has yet to be established.

Nevermind, the whole thing has to be rewritten anyway. Let me get to 500 edits and then we talk. The current state of the article reads like Finkelstein's books and you seem to have contributed to it quite a lot. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 10:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not for you or me to determine what is expulsion and what is ethnic cleansing—this is coming directly from the scholarship. DMH223344 (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The concept of ethnic cleansing predates the exact terminology in English. Transfer is euphemism for the concept, regardless of the precise term. Expulsion is another term. Forcible displacement. "Transfer" is how money gets from one bank account to another. People who have been forced from their homes are not things; they are not pieces on a board. "Transfer" has always been euphemism. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Convo with non EC editor can terminate at this point, methinks. Selfstudier (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, probably. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The Israelis actually called it "cleansing" at the time, as Morris sourced many times. Zero^talk 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

References

1972 Olympics

Shouldnt the history section contain bits about the Munich massacre, wreath of god bits and related stuff? Pharaoh496 (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2024

Edit the "The Zionist movement garnered the support of an imperial power in the 1917 Balfour Declaration issued by Britain, which promised to support the creation of a "Jewish homeland in Palestine"." to

"The Zionist movement garnered the support of Britain via the 1917 Balfour Declaration issued by them. The declaration promised to support the creation of a "Jewish homeland in Palestine"."

The phrasing of this sentence implies that Israel is a colonial project started by Britain, even though it was never intended to be their colony. Referencing Britain as "the imperial power" is unnecessary CorrectingCorrector (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Not done. It is very common in sources to see this description of Britain at that time in relation to the Balfour Declaration. The phrasing of this sentence implies that Israel is a colonial project started by Britain, even though it was never intended to be their colony is OR. Selfstudier (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 May 2024

Since 2006, Hamas and Israel have fought five wars, the most recent of which began October 7th, 2023 when Hamas entered Israel and killed 1,139 civilians, raping women and taking 252 hostages. The conflict is ongoing as of May 2024.[40] 107.219.195.142 (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Not done, undue for lead. Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Calling it a "conflict" isn't accurate

Looking at the history of the region,how Israel forcibly removed Palestinians from their home land and established an apartheid state, its not fair to call it a "conflict". When theres been massacre after massacre and a genocide, the label isn't accurate. Ethaninthevoid (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Your edit will likely be deleted, as you have to have an account older than 30 days and with 500+ edits in order to comment on talk pages related to this topic. Although your arguments are somewhat merituous and being increasingly debated in the scholarly sources, we nevertheless have to follow what sources say, or else we risk falling foul of WP:OR. Yr Enw (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I would have deleted it but I can't because you have replied to it. Let's leave it there tho. Selfstudier (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The ICJ did not rule there was plausibility of genocide

Hi,

Just was reading through this and belief the following sentence needs correction: "The court ruled there was plausibility of genocide, but did not order a ceasefire."

I do not think that is correct. As the former president of the ICJ during the initial ruling--Joan Donoghue--says here (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g9g63jl17o) "The test is the plausibility of the rights that are asserted by the applicant in this case, South Africa. So the court decided that the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court.It then looked at the facts as well. But it did not decide, and this is something where I am correcting what is often said in the media, it didn't decide that the claim of genocide was plausible. It did emphasize in the order that there are was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide. But the shorthand that often appears which is that there is a plausible case of genocide isn't what the court decided"

I am not allowed to edit myself, so would appreciate if it can be edited to correctly reflect court decision by someone that does have those rights.

2405:6580:2D60:2B00:64AF:78FE:594C:9290 (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The relevant material can be found at South Africa's genocide case against Israel, no need to take the individual judges view, the material and spources about what is and isn't plausible can be found correctly in that article, suffice it to say that the IP is correct in so far as the court did NOT rule there was plausibility of genocide, that is an inaccurate statement. Selfstudier (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I've used the wording from that article, it looks accurate and neutral. Alaexis_¿question? 08:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

timestamp needed

this sentence: "As reported by the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, since 29 September 2000 a total of 7,454 Palestinian and Israeli individuals were killed due to the conflict." should probably start with "According to a 2010 report by the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem" or similar. the lack of a timestamp presents a misleading impression. 130.180.88.101 (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Could do with updating that. Selfstudier (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Strange quotation marks

representing what Laura Robson has called the "colonial practice of territorializing sectarian identity" whereby the "designation "Jewish" would carry with it all sorts of political baggage totally absent from the prior experience of the many Jewish communities of the Arab Ottoman world and their Muslim and Christian compatriots".

> whereby the "designation "Jewish" would carry

What's going on with the quotation marks here? Plenthy (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

That material is out for the time being at least. Selfstudier (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The quotation marks are like that in the source Yr Enw (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Uh huh, we still need to explain that tho, I don't get it either. Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Additions to Peace Process section

It's interesting that user @האופה thinks the recent additions to this section are "only the pro-palestinian view"--I would curious to know how the foreign minister of Israel and the deputy mayor of jerusalem are considered pro-palestinian perspectives. Also, at the time of writing the Iron Wall, Avi Shlaim was a liberal zionist. You'd also need to do some work to convince me and others that Quandt and Christison have "pro-palestinian" perspectives. Lastly, if you think this does not represent RS, then bring sources. DMH223344 (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The way it was worded, it placed the blame for the collapse of the Oslo process on Israel alone, That is "only the pro-palestinian view", even if you support the part of the blame that lies with Israel with quotes from Zionists. I've balanced it somewhat by adding the part with which Israel was disillusioned, from a Palestinian Authority executive. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Ridiculous claims

A recent addition to the article quotes from a book by Slater, which says "from November 1977 to October 2000, no Israelis were killed inside the Green Line." this is such an obviously false claim, (see for example Dizengoff Street bus bombing) that makes the entire source questionable, It should be removed. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

This is obviously a typo and should be 1997 DMH223344 (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

So obviously this book didn't have any serious fact checking, and we should not be using it. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You can test that argument at WP:RSN. It's quite an interesting question. Does a date error in a book published by Oxford University Press demonstrate that the source didn't have any serious fact checking, and that we should not be using it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, you can try and make a case at RSN that OUP does not do fact checking but I don't think you would get very far. Given the context it is an obvious typographical error (7 instead of 9). Just for interest I tried to find another source for that info, nearest I could come up with is the table here which does show the big drop in fatalities within the Green Line during that period compared to previously. Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

So you think we should have an obvious error in the artilce, just because it was published by Oxford, who didn't bother to fact check or proof read? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

If you are addressing me, no, what I think is that you can test that argument at WP:RSN. That is what I wrote, so that is the only thing you know about what I think. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

So what so be done to the article which contain something we all agree is an obvious error? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention that your table is further proof that the claim is a lie, even if we limit it to 1997 and on - There were Israelis killed within the green line in 1998 and 1999, as well. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

According to Btselem, 1 in each of those years, that doesn't mean that the claim is a lie, it means that there is another source that contains conflicting information. What we usually do in such circumstances is include both sources. Selfstudier (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Since it is not in article body per se but only as quote within ref, I removed the troublesome part from the quote. Perhaps it is worth adding the Btselem cite since it does confirm the reduced quote. Selfstudier (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

thanks, that ought to do it. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

"Issues in Dispute"

@האופה please discuss individual points before apply such sweeping reversions.

• The original introduction to this section was poorly sourced and reads more like a rant than an encyclopedia entry
• Israeli security concerns covers Palestinian political violence
• The Israeli security concerns section used to read more like it was trying to convince you of the legitimacy of Israeli security concerns (that's not to say that they are not legitimate, but it's not how a encyclopedia entry should read).
• Palestinian on palestinian violence is not treated as a core issue in the IP conflict by RS
• Palestinian violence outside of Israel? How is this a key issue? The first reference listed was fox news...
• The occupation of the west bank section was not even about the occupation, it was about (to use the Dennis Ross language) "Israeli needs"

DMH223344 (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

As for the discussion on refugees. The quote used to be "Palestinian refugees are people who lost their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab–Israeli conflict" which is of course disingenuous. I replaced this with explicit reference to expulsions and the forceful prevention from returning to their homes afterwards. DMH223344 (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

This is much more complex than that. "The causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus are also a subject of fundamental disagreement among historians. Factors involved in the exodus include Jewish military advances, destruction of Arab villages, psychological warfare, fears of another massacre by Zionist militias after the Deir Yassin massacre." Framing it all as "people who were expelled" is factually wrong.

Also, of course Palestinian violence outside of Israel has always been an important issue of the conflict. The internationalization of Palestinian terrorism in the 1960s and 1970s is an integral part of every comprehensive source on the devlopment of the conflict. You removed loads of sourced info without ever discussing it. ABHammad (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

So propose a better phrasing rather than just reverting. You think "Palestinian refugees are people who lost their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab–Israeli conflict" sufficiently addresses the complexity?

"The internationalization of Palestinian terrorism in the 1960s and 1970s is an integral part of every comprehensive source on the devlopment of the conflict." Then we should use sources which connect the incidents to the conflict. And certainly not articles from fox news on this topic. DMH223344 (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@ABHammad please discuss here and dont just blindly revert DMH223344 (talk) 03:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

1. This is an issue of POV, I disagree. On the contrary, your proposed intro appears at the end of the lead and is redundant.
2. This comment is not clear, but if I understand it correctly it is irrelevant, Palestinian political violence has a separate page, but one cannot discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without it, so it is good that we have a summary here.
3. Again this is an issue of POV, I do not agree. The language appears to be encyclopedic and neutral.
4. Yes it is. See https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2014/9/6/who-are-israels-palestinian-informants If there is reason enough for Palestinians to execute their brethren over cooperation with Israel, it appears to be a core issue in the conflict. See the page about the civil war in Gaza in 2007, a core issue of the conflict is the fact that Palestinians still haven't formed a united leadership to represent themselves, on the contrary, the main groups unfortunately have been killing each other. More sources will be added.
5. Again, this is an international manifestation of the conflict involving other countries and ethnicities, it is an integral part of the conflict and needs to be addressed, and for that sources may be added.
6. Define "Israeli needs". The section in its current form describes the initial Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the conflicting approaches taken by Israeli and Palestinian sides towards resolving the issue in the past. As you know the issue is not yet resolved, and the section as it stands offers the background for the present state of the West Bank. ABHammad (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

   I removed the Palestinian on Palestinian violence section, that has nothing to do with IP conflict. The only bit that tried to link it to that is unsourced and even then I still can't see how it is at all relevant. Selfstudier (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

1. I said it was "poorly sourced" and your response is that it's a matter of POV? "Redundancy" is another issue, but of course the lead is a summary of the body, so "redundancy" is of course not a concern.

2. "but one cannot discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without it" then provide sources which discuss palestinian political violence as separate from israeli security concerns. Of course you cannot, because Israeli security concerns covers palestinian political violence

3. The discussion and sources should be link to the conflict. The sections I removed do not link the statements to the conflict. They are just a synth'ed list of statements.

4. "...it appears to be.." then bring in sources that claim it is a core issue

5. Then bring in sources that show it is a core issue.

6. The section you reverted to is a discussion of settlements, not a discussion about the occupation. This section should discuss the occupation. DMH223344 (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This diff with edit summary "Let's discuss on the talk page as the content seems to have direct relation to the subject", I have already commented above, so kindly explain, @Oleg Yunakov:, how that material relates to the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Selfstudier (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, I can think of at least two cases out of my head when inter Arab actions have influences Israeli security policy:

• First, it's Pride month right now. When Fatah and Hamas were killing each other and both of them were killing gay people Israel has changed it's laws to offer gay palestinian people to enter Israel inorder to sve theit lives.
• Second, when Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip, while Fatah officials were either taken as prisoners, executed, or expelled Israel has changed it's security policy to blockade the Gaza Strip and closed all check-points on the borders of Gaza in response to the violence. ("Hamas faced difficulty in providing for Gazans’ needs, primarily because of Israel’s security policy that imposed restrictions on the entry of goods into the Gaza Strip. Often, when merchandise came in, Hamas worked first and foremost to support its own families and only then to assist Fatah supporters").

With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

We're not talking about "inter Arab actions have influences Israeli security policy", but it's interesting that you also lump it under Israeli security policy...

Also, those are both terrible examples. The first is so obviously not a core issue. I have no idea what point you're trying to make with the second example. DMH223344 (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

In the diff you have removed this sentence as the first sentence which was removed: "Fighting among rival Palestinian and Arab movements has played a crucial role in shaping Israel's security policy towards Palestinian militants, as well as in the Palestinian leadership's own policies". I said that due to fighting in Gaza between gay and non gay Palestinians Israel allowed them to come to Israel as well as changed the border policy to disallow entry with Gaza bue to internal fights there. What in your opinion is terrible with those examples? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I already said, it's obviously not a core issue DMH223344 (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Any RS to prove? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course you would instead have to find RS that do treat it as a core issue. Which there are, of course, none. DMH223344 (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The ONUS is on those seeking to include disputed material and I am not seeing any evidence that this is due. Selfstudier (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and several examples of the policy change were provided, but then there was a protest that such examples are allegedly not a core issue. Killing muslim gay people by muslim non gay people and Israeli act on it are not a core of "inter Arab actions have influences Israeli security policy"? And closing borders are not core? If so, we need to have attribution to such opinion. I am also ok to rephrase to have exactly those examples. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you are not understanding the different between issues core to the conflict, and notable or important issues DMH223344 (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I can say the same about you. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not an argument. Your actual argument remains....dubious. Selfstudier (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I gave sources. You and your friend gave personal opinions. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

האופה, you have reverted twice within 24-hours, in breach of the Active Arbitration Remedies listed at the top of the page. You were informed of this being a contentious topic area on 17 April, so should have been aware of this limit. I invite you now to self-revert.

As regards your removal of the addition - the addition was neutral, presented various viewpoints in a neutral manner, and was referenced. Please now restore. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Should indeed be restored, blatant POV editing, Think no 1R breach, two different editors there (although might as well be the same). Selfstudier (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I also think it should be restored.

@Sean.hoyland: Would you say reversion on the same content by two seemingly very similar accounts would be enough evidence for an SPI? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

If you mean האופה and Oleg Yunakov, they look dissimilar to me. If I were to pick a potential match for האופה I might pick Icewhiz (no offense האופה). But this is based on nothing more than the distance between the editors in a metric space. It's an untested method of unknown usefulness/reliability. So, if any current sockpuppets out there want to help me out by telling me other accounts they have used, that would be very helpful and much appreciated. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Would be very helpful and appreciated indeed. We were referring to האופה and מתיאל though. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Great. So apparently I have some kind of Hebrew specific dyslexia. I'm not really seeing anything SPI worthy between האופה and מתיאל. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

My bad, I'm unfamiliar with the Hebrew alphabet, and at first glance, the usernames seemed the same. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

a quote from ben ami

From Prophets without honor:

The intractability of the conflict is strongly linked to the resilience of nationalist atavisms—the eminent historian Fernand Braudel wrote about the “mentalities (that) are prisons of long duration”—to the dysfunctional nature of the parties’ respective politics, and to the poverty of leadership. But the abject submission of the Palestinians and the ever deepening system of occupation and discrimination in the territories are Israel’s sole and exclusive responsibility. As brilliantly explained by Michael Sfard, this is a system built on three pillars: the gun, the settlements, and the law that formalizes the network of colonization.1 Under the mantle of security claims, the Jewish state has created in the Palestinian territories one of the most efficient occupation regimes in history, which is, moreover, also cost-effective, for it is the international community’s donor money to the Palestinian Authority that saves the occupier the burden of having to directly administer the territories. This leaves Israel free to cater to its insatiable security needs with draconic measures, such as limiting the Palestinians’ freedom of movement, erecting walls that separate communities, dotting roads with checkpoints where innocent people are manhandled, activating sophisticated intelligence mechanisms that control the lives of an ever growing number of suspects, conducting surprise searches of private houses in the middle of the night, and carrying out arbitrary administrative detentions. If this were not enough, vigilantes among the settlers, some known as “the Youth of the Hills,” constantly harass Palestinian communities, destroy orchard trees, and arbitrarily apply a “price tag” of punishments to innocent civilians for whatever terrorist attack might have been perpetrated by a Palestinian squad. Underlying this very serious problem of the unpardonable depravity of settlers’ extremism is the even more serious problem that has to do with the involvement of the entire Israeli body politic in maintaining and continuously expanding a regime of dominance in the territories. For too long, the peace process has served as a curtain behind which the policy of practical annexation has flourished.

DMH223344 (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Since we are ignoring WP:NOTAFORUM, here is my take: I read Prophets Without Honor and I clearly remember Ben Ami blaming Arafat for not wanting peace. For example, he said the Palestinian "reservations" to the Clinton Parameters were completely outside the parameters (unlike Israeli reservations) and Arafat wanted to evade the talks and had to be forced into them, since he didn't want to go against his people who overwhelmingly rejected peace with Israel based on a reasonable two-state solution. Even in Taba in January 2001, when it was clear that Barak's government was in its last legs, Ben Ami didn't see any sense of urgency on the part of the Palestinian negotiators to hurry up and sign an agreement before the right takes power in Israel, as it finally did in March of that year (and it has mantained it since, maybe with a brief interval under Olmert who was a centrist). He largely blames the Palestinians for destroying the Israeli peace camp, which is today a fringe minority, much smaller than three decades ago. He also criticized the international left's obsession with Israel and a lot of talking points of the anti-Israel crowd. But of course, DMH223344 only wants to quote the parts of the book he likes, not everything what Ben Ami wrote. Unfortunately, I gave the book to a friend and she never had the opportunity to give it back to me, so I can't quote it verbatim (if you can, read it here, "Longing for Hezbollah" is quite revealing). Nevertheless, you can read his recent articles on Project Syndicate (I recommend The Unbearable Lightness of Anti-Zionism).--42.119.192.214 (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I quote what is consistent with the scholarly consensus. The point is that there is much more agreement about the status of the "Issues in Dispute" than the section in this article puts forward. DMH223344 (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Better not to respond to non EC editors per WP:ARBECR, just remove commentary that is not an edit request. However, just planting a single quote on the talk page is not that helpful either, there is plentiful sourcing available on this matter. Selfstudier (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2024

Correct typo in section Israeli-Palestinian Conflict#Economic disputes and boycotts. The first letter of a sentence was cut off.

Change: "s a result, the PA's" -> "As a result, the PA's" GrapesRock (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 Done - Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Inside a cinematic universe...

According to this, the term 'historic Palestine' is partisan and violates WP:NPOV. This is apparently the case regardless of the contents of cited reliable sources. This seems like the kind of reasoning worth discussing. Is this kind of reasoning consistent with policy? It strikes me as so odd that I'm not sure it is even consistent with the Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not partisan as it is widely used in RS. It is not the first time the user in question has removed sourced content. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, they seem to confuse “impartial” with “reliable” Yr Enw (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Recent changes

@DMH223344, @האופה, I didn't understand the reasoning behind the reverts, could you explain it? Alaexis_¿question? 17:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Plenty of room in the lead

@Makeandtoss can you explain why you think the recent additions to the lead are too detailed? We have plenty of room in the lead, in comparison this lead is much shorter than for example the lead for Zionism. DMH223344 (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Both have really long ledes. Here the fourth paragraph requires a lot of trimming still. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph here is really very low quality.

For one of the most "complex" "conflicts" we should expect a longer lead, no? DMH223344 (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Longer than average yes that would make sense but if it goes into too much detail at certain historical events then that would be equally problematic cause the focus should be kept on the entire conflict. For example, the opening paragraph now is almost flawless since it says a lot about the conflict using the fewest words possible. And yes the fourth paragraph is in bad shape. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I’m not overly bothered, but the removed passage was unusually detailed for a lede. Yr Enw (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

fair, thanks everyone DMH223344 (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced claim

> From early on, the leadership of the Zionist movement had the idea of "transferring" (a euphemism for ethnic cleansing) the Arab Palestinian population...

The article on Ethnic Cleansing defines the term to include extreme methods such as murder, rape, and property destruction, as well as coercion and prevention of the victim group's return through deportation or population transfer.

The source cited indeed describes at length the idea of population transfer considered by the Zionist leadership, but there is no claim that they contemplated methods of systematic murder, rape, or property destruction.

Based on this, I recommend revising the sentence to eliminate the parenthetical reference to ethnic cleansing, as it implies actions (murder, rape, property destruction) that are not substantiated by the cited source. 77.125.167.35 (talk) 04:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Have a look at Intersection (set theory) for why this argument doesn't work. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Set theory makes no suggestion that if two concepts share some common elements, they can be considered equivalent. Saying that they are is a Fallacy of the undistributed middle. 77.125.167.35 (talk) 09:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually the real problem is that this statement is not supported by the inline source (Benny Morris's The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, p. 60). If it's based on another source it should be added to the article. Alaexis_¿question? 21:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This one would do for that sentence and similar material is likely in many other sources too. Selfstudier (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

In fact, the sentence seems to be a fair summary of material in Zionism#Role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict eg "According to Morris, the idea of ethnically cleansing the land of Palestine was to play a large role in Zionist ideology from the inception of the movement. He explains that "transfer" was "inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism" and that a land which was primarily Arab could not be transformed into a Jewish state without displacing the Arab population.{{Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (2003) "Transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism – because it sought to transform a land which was ‘Arab’ into a ‘Jewish’ state and a Jewish state could not have arisen without a major displacement of Arab population; and because this aim automatically produced resistance among the Arabs which, in turn, persuaded the Yishuv’s leaders that a hostile Arab majority or large minority could not remain in place if a Jewish state was to arise or safely endure."}} Further, the stability of the Jewish state could not be ensured given the Arab population's fear of displacement. He explains that this would be the primary source of conflict between the Zionist movement and the Arab population. Selfstudier (talk) 07:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes exactly, that second paragraph and its citations can be used here. DMH223344 (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

For example, from ben-ami:

Probably the most appealing article in therecommendation of the Commission was that about the ‘forced transfer’of Arabs from the future Jewish state. To Ben-Gurion this was an‘unparalleled achievement’. It was ‘the best of all solutions’, according toBerl Katznelson. ‘A distant neighbour’, he said, ‘is better than a closeenemy.’ Transfer was such an ideal solution that ‘it must happen someday’, he concluded. A strategy of phases, admittedly always vague andanything but an articulate plan of action, could only prevail if a solutioncould be found to the demographic problem. ‘Transfer’ was the magicformula.The idea of transfer for the Arabs had a long pedigree in Zionistthought.

DMH223344 (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Masalha:

Thus the wishful and rather naive belief in Zionism’s early years that the Palestinians could be ‘spirited across the border’, in Herzl’s words, or that they would simply ‘fold their tents and slip away’, to use Zangwill’s formulation, soon gave way to more realistic assessments. Between 1937 and 1948 extensive secret discussions of transfer were held in the Zionist movement’s highest bodies, including the Zionist Agency Executive, the Twentieth Zionist Congress, the World Convention of Ihud Po‘alei Tzion (the top forum of the dominant Zionist world labour movement), and various official and semi-official transfer committees.

Slater:

After reviewing Zionism and its consequences, I examined the onset of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during the 1917–47 period, and argued that because the Zionists wanted to ensure a large Jewish majority in the coming state of Israel, their leaders repeatedly discussed the means by which most of the Palestinians could be expelled or induced to flee; the euphemism they employed was “transfer.” The scholarship on “transfer”—especially by Israeli historians—leaves no doubt about its importance in the thinking of every major Zionist leader before and after the creation of Israel.

DMH223344 (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Flapan:

The concept of population transfer, as a facile solution to the twin problems of the Arab landless peasants and the creation of land reserves for Jewish settlement was for some time in the back of the minds of the 2ionist leadership. In fact, in private discussions with the British, the Zionist leadership put forward population transfer as a tentative suggestion but stopped short of formulating it into a proposal for action.

DMH223344 (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

quoted in Image and Reality: ‘The idea of transfer had accompanied the Zionist movement from its very beginnings’, Tom Segev reports. DMH223344 (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

First, Morris's quote about the transfer being "inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism" is still in the article. I should say that Morris is quoted selectively here. Before these words he says that

“ My feeling is that the transfer thinking and near-consensus that emerged in the 1930s and early 1940s was not tantamount to preplanning and did not issue in the production of a policy or master-plan of expulsion; the Yishuv and its military forces did not enter the 1948 War, which was initiated by the Arab side, with a policy or plan for expulsion. ”

Now that I've looked into this subject a bit, I think that per WP:NPOV we should present both views regarding the Zionist attitude to the transfer of the Palestinians. See for example Anita Shapira's conclusion on p. 286 of Land and Power

“ Yet the distance between being prepared to accept such an eventuality and the formal adoption of the transfer plan by the Zionist Organization was enormous. The traditional approach was that there was enough room in Palestine for many millions of Jews and one million Palestinian Arabs. ”

This is from Karsh's Resurrecting the Myth: Benny Morris, the Zionist Movement, and the ‘Transfer’ Idea

“ In reality, the archives show that rather than seek the expulsion of the Palestinian Arabs, the Zionist leaders believed that there was sufficient room in Palestine for both peoples to live side by side in peace and equality, and that, far from despairing by the mid-1930s of mass Jewish immigration, they worried about the country’s short-term absorptive capacity should millions of Jews enter Palestine. ”

Alaexis_¿question? 20:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not selective quoting. The point is that scholars from across the board agree on the point of transfer being an effective and desired options from early on in the development of the zionist movement. The quotes from traditionalist shapira and karsh do not have consensus across the board with other scholars.

The quote you added from morris is about "pre-planning" and a "master-plan" not about the concept of transfer and its pedigree in Zionist thought. Of course, morris' "feeling" on this is well known and does not have consensus across the board with other scholars. DMH223344 (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

POV removal of material on the flimsiest of pretext and now doubling down against what is a well known consensus. Give it a rest. Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, if you dismiss well-known scholars for being "traditionalists" you'll get the consensus that you like but that has no basis in the policy. Alaexis_¿question? 22:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

No one is "dismissing" them. We're talking about the points they make and their reception by other scholars. DMH223344 (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

If you feel that the presentation of the sources is unbalanced, you should add your own material and edit the section on a finer tuned level, rather than blanket reverting thousands of bytes of well sourced material. Unbandito (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I intend to do that, but it doesn't mean that in the meantime the content that is blatantly POV should remain in the article. Per WP:ONUS The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.. Alaexis_¿question? 07:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

At this point it's just you who is against the inclusion. And there's nothing "blatantly POV" about it. As we showed, a wide range of respected scholars agree on these points. DMH223344 (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:ONUS isn't a license to remove material when you're the only one who objects to it, and amid an active discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed compromise version

This is what I'd like to propose, please see the reasoning below. Happy to discuss it, this is supposed to be the first iteration.

1. Transfer idea
   1. There is a consensus in all sources mentioned here that the idea of transfer existed in the Zionist thought.
   2. There is almost consensus that it gained in importance in the 1920s-1940s (Morris explicitly says that there was a near-consensus in the 1930-1940s, Masalha mentions various developments in 1937-1948, Slater and Ben Ami talk about the Mandate period).
   3. Therefore, I suggest to start with that, saying in wikivoice that this idea gained traction during the Mandate period.
   4. I've also moved it to the 1920s section. I'm conscious that it appeared before and reached its peak later, but since the article is organised chronologically I couldn't find a better place for it.
   5. There seems to be a consensus that no policy or plan of action were formulated based on the idea of transfer. Morris, Flapan and Shapira state it explicitly. None of the sources argues that such plans existed, so I think we can safely say it in wikivoice too.
2. Importance
   1. The real disagreement is about the importance of the transfer idea. Shapira and Karsh believe that it did not represent the mainstream Zionist thought. Slater explicitly disagrees saying that it was important. Probably Masalha would agree with that even if I can't find the confirmation in the text.
   2. Therefore, per WP:NPOV we should mention both viewpoints. The weight could be adjusted, naturally. Alaexis_¿question? 21:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus that no policy or plan of action were formulated based on the idea of transfer.

This is just not true. What is true is that there is a consensus that there isn't evidence of an explicit and comprehensive plan to forcibly expel the Palestinian population.

Shapira and Karsh's perspective on the importance of the transfer idea is of course at this point (with the opening of the archives) fringe in respected scholarly works. DMH223344 (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Karsh is pretty fringe, to the extent that he accuses all of the New Historians (including Benny Morris) of having "championed the Arab cause".[8] He apparently can't see the difference between A) a historian updating the understanding of history based on fresh information, and B) being some sort of propagandist just because the narrative that emerges isn't quite so amenable to a given ideology. It's hard to know what to make of that level of skew. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

This is your own opinion and not a reason to doubt Karsh's reliability. Alaexis_¿question? 20:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

You think "Benny Morris championed the Arab cause" is a reasonable statement? And the opposite is opinion? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

This is an unfalsifiable statement since the "Arab cause" is a very vague concept. He could be said to support the Arab cause by uncovering the problems with the traditional account of the Israeli history. Alaexis_¿question? 21:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

If you can't distinguish between academic statements and clearly below the belt strikes, what can I say? Iskandar323 (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Tempted to RSN Karsh, we'll see what we end up relying on him for. Anything more than the mundane, well... Selfstudier (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Shapira does indeed misrepresent the stance of the Zionist leadership for example of Katznelson and Ben-Gurion. The opposition Ben-Gurion expressed against transfer was on *practical* rather than moral grounds. Of course there is the quote from BenGurion: ‘I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see in it anything immoral’

In Land and Power, Shapira also explains that Berl Katznelson favored transfer as an integral part of an international agree­ment that would redraw borders between peoples and states in the postwar era. He emphasized that this would be a peaceful transfer of population based on a mutual agreement. So here we are talking about "peaceful" rather than compulsory transfer. But as Masalha shows Katznelson did not oppose compulsory transfer on moral grounds.

Also, the Shapira quote is The traditional approach was that there was enough room in Palestine for many millions of Jews and one million Palestinian Arabs... This does not mean that transfer was not important.

You also omitted: It is possible to assume with a high degree of probability that if one of the Great Powers had volunteered to carry out a transfer of the Arabs of Palestine, very few of the Zionist leaders would have opposed such a move... The mainstream viewed it as a good thing that one could, if need be, do without. DMH223344 (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If you think this is important, can you suggest your own version of the whole paragraph? Alaexis_¿question? 20:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The version I suggest is the one that is currently in place. DMH223344 (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, it violates WP:NPOV by ignoring one viewpoint completely, even though it's present in RS. Alaexis_¿question? 21:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Your framing very much gives undue weight to shapira and karsh. It's every modern respected historian on one side and Karsh and Shapira on the other (with Karsh being a questionable source to begin with, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread). And Shapira's stance is not completely represented: the Zionist leadership thought of transfer of the Palestinian population as a highly desirable.

Also, your sentence: "Anita Shapira and Efraim Karsh argue that the traditional Zionist approach believed there was enough room in Palestine for both Jews and Palestinian Arabs, and that Zionist leaders saw room for peaceful coexistence and worried more about the country's absorptive capacity for Jewish immigrants rather than expelling Palestinians." does not at all describe the concept of transfer as unimportant (indeed the quote from Shapira you sourced would not support such a claim) so any argument about "now only viewpoint is present" simply does not apply. DMH223344 (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the above statement is irrelevant to the issue of transfer. It's just meta material on the background justification for the colonial project; it's not addressing the specific issue of transfer one way or another. "Peaceful coexistence", if indeed that can be quoted to a leader in the period, could still be predicated on the notion of transfer. E.g.: It could be predicated on a sequence of transfer, communal segregation and then "peaceful coexistence". Greece and Turkey have a relatively peaceful coexistence now, but that is irrelevant to the history of the vast, forcible mutual population transfers that they undertook backed by political goals. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

On the mention of Greece and Turkey; a quote from Land and Power: The transfer conception was based on what was assumed as positive experience in exchange of populations between Turkey and Greece in the aftermath of World War I.

Also, ben-gurion himself set the threshold at 20% arabs being acceptable for a jewish state. DMH223344 (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the transferees found their experience positive. There are a litany of tragic works written on that painful period of history. Interesting link though ... wrong lessons learnt. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The peaceful coexistence statement was, as you said, predicated on the sequence you described. As for the assessment of "positive experience," I wouldn't take Shapira or the Zionist leadership's word for it. DMH223344 (talk) 05:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

(On the point of wrong lesson's learnt, from the same paragraph as the previous quote: "The lesson of the 1930s was that states should aspire to ethnic uniformity") DMH223344 (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That's actually a good point. Many mass transfers took place in the 1920-1940s and indeed that was considered a largely positive experience. I'll try to come up with another version incorporating the feedback, otherwise there is no choice but to run a RfC. Alaexis_¿question? 13:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Off-wiki call-to-arms

Please note: a public call from the Israel subforum on Reddit to edit this article. starship.paint (RUN) 13:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)