Misplaced Pages

Talk:History of Israel: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:16, 25 November 2007 editScreen stalker (talk | contribs)1,299 edits →pov text in 'War of Independence'← Previous edit Revision as of 08:25, 26 November 2007 edit undoCeedjee~enwiki (talk | contribs)5,870 edits →pov text in 'War of Independence'Next edit →
Line 261: Line 261:
:::::::] (]) 17:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC) :::::::] (]) 17:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::If the only issue of contention between us is whether or not Morris considered the 1948 war an ethnic cleansing, then there is no disagreement between us. We agree perfectly that he did not. ] (]) 23:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC) ::::::::If the only issue of contention between us is whether or not Morris considered the 1948 war an ethnic cleansing, then there is no disagreement between us. We agree perfectly that he did not. ] (]) 23:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::In that case, see the last paragraph added by JaapBoBo here : . ] (]) 08:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


== Army sizes in 1948 == == Army sizes in 1948 ==

Revision as of 08:25, 26 November 2007

WikiProject iconPalestine B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconJewish history B‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael B‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Archive

Archives

Archive 1

Neutral language

This article isn't on my watchlist and don't intend to become an editor, but...as an outsider without an ax to grind, it does seem to me that there's a lot of emotive adjectives floating around. I just removed a few - "brutal", brazen", for example. Adjectives should be avoided if you want to produce neutral prose. Good luck, and remember there's a whole world out there away from the computer screen. PiCo 11:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool ;) I am currently rewriting this and hopefully these are things that predatemy rewrite... 

take it easy.

Telaviv1 11:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss changes

The Palestinian-Arabs were granted the right of self-determinaiton, they were supposed to have a state in Palestine. What they rejected was that part of the territory was given to a Jewish state. The publicly given reason for the Arab invasion was to "restore peace". The Jews accepted the partition and the world agreed that it was the Arab states who initiated the conflict in contravention of UN decisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Telaviv1 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

the Arab League interpreted the 'right of self determination' different, and that is what is says in the article. So there is no need to reverse that text. Indeed 'the world', i.e. Western media, were influenced by Jewish opinion much more than by Arab. However there is nothing in the text I want in that contradicts this.
Your arguments are beside the point, and there is nothing wrong with the text I want, so it should be in. --JaapBoBo 14:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Figure of 250,000 is supported by various sources, e.g. Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian refugee problem
'Zionist agression' is pov, but it says 'according to the Arab League due to Zionist aggression', which is not pov, because even Ben-Gurion would have to agree to this.
--JaapBoBo 14:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Why would Ben-Gurion have to agree to this? Screen stalker (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

pov text in 'War of Independence'

This section contains a lot of pov statements. It gives the impression that the Yishuv had a problem with getting arms and that the Palestinians had no problem at all. In reality the Yishuv was very well prepared for the war and the Palestinians were not. They had lost most of their 'military' power in the '36-'39 revolt. I am trying to make this a bit better, but some people are vandalising my edits. If my edit is relevant and has a reliable source, nobody should remove it! If you don't like it you should look for a reliable source with a pov you like better and add this pov. Please see WP:NPOV and ], which says The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it. --JaapBoBo 20:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

For instance this text of mine was deleted a few times:
In this stage about 7000 Palestinian irregulars and 3000 foreign Arab volunteers fought against 30,000 better equiped, trained and organised Jews.
But if you look at the main article you will find it with other sources confirming it:
In this stage, Arab forces were composed of around 10,000 men among which between 3,000 and 5,000 foreign volunteers while Haganah and Palmach aligned 30,000 to 36,000 men who were better equipped, trained and organized.
So the initial statement is reliable, and as shown by Alithien (who made the edit in the main article) supported by Israeli historians Morris and Gelber. --JaapBoBo 20:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore I don't understand why this accurate statement:
On the northern front, the Syrian army was blocked in Deganya. The Jordanian 'Arab Legion', commanded by British officers, refrained from invading Israeli territory and focussed on occupying the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The Iraqis crossed the Jordan River and settled in the West Bank. They were not very succesfull. On the Southern front, Haganah forces managed to block the invading Egyptian armies in the Ashdod area, and Irgun forces halted the Egyptians at Ramat Rachel.
should be replaced by an inaccurate statement: Arab forces were initially successful in entering Palestine, and the Jewish population of Jerusalem was placed under siege., which a) doesn't mention the relevant fact that the Yishuv stopped the invaders very soon, and b) is inaccurate because Jerusalem did not come under siege. The Arab Legion of Transjordan never attacked the Yishuv except in East-Jerusalem. Certainly West-Jerusalem was not placed under siege by it. If you think it was, try to find a reliable source supporting this, but don't put this in the article just like that. --JaapBoBo 20:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Finally this text (although the partition decision called for formation of a Palestinian state) should not be in. It's the opinion of some editor on the Arab Leugue's arguments. But Misplaced Pages articles are not a place for your personal opinion. Articles should give facts, or points of view of reliable sources on facts. --JaapBoBo 20:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Pappe is not a reliable source. He's a political activist, with extreme views, not accepted by most historians. Since that statement is backed by other sources, we can just use them, and there'll be no problem.
"(although the partition decision called for formation of a Palestinian state)" - are you claiming this is untrue? Are you claiming the partition plan did not call for an Arab State in Palestine, or that this is somehow open to interpretation? Because - it's not. It's crystal clear.
Since many of the readers are not well informed on this point, this is an important comment, that needs to be there. It also fits well with your first claim - "The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it"... okedem 21:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Pappe is a reliable source and his results are accepted. If you think they are not accepted you should come up with reliable sources who seriously dispute Pappe's findings.
the text (although the partition decision called for formation of a Palestinian state) is true of course, but it is placed here as a comment on the Arab Leagues arguments. This is criticism of an editor on Arab League arguments, very POV, and not allowed according to wikipedia policy. This text can be placed somewhere at the start of the subsection where the UN decision is mentioned, e.g. 'the UN decided to partition Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab part...' or something like that. --JaapBoBo 21:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Being a political activist, Pappe fails to answer the criteria for RS. This is a man who called for a boycott of Israel, and who supports Hamas. He can not possibly be close to objective. If the text is true, we can use other sources to support it. It is up to you to prove this extremely controversial person is an RS, despite his actions. It might be a bit difficult. See this for example. okedem 05:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
What JaapBoBo writes concerning arab armies attacks is correct, except that Pappé is not a reliable source for everything. Let's say he is a reliable source for wikipedia.
But what was written before is also correct and quite relevant.
Jerusalem was under siege as soon as the Arab Legion took Latrun on May 17th. No more convoy could supply the city.
Until the first truce in July Haganah and Palmach launched 3 attacks to take the position but without success and with heavy losses.
It is only because an alternative road was found (Birma road) that the siege of Jerusalem was relieved. Without that, the jewish community would/could have fallen out of supply during the month of the truce and the war would/could have taken another direction.
This was a war for survival from the yishuv point of view and that is why Pappé (let's not even talk about Khalidi) is not reliable because "forgetting" to take into account such situation is not acceptable.
Alithien 21:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
"reliable sources who seriously dispute Pappe's findings"
He didn't find anything JaapBoBo, he analyses the same material as all other scholars but differently !
And I am not sure that you should criticize some orientations of other's writings.
This text is poved, other are even more.
Alithien 21:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
@Alithien: You say This was a war for survival from the yishuv point of view and that is why Pappé (let's not even talk about Khalidi) is not reliable, so in fact you say, because their pov is different from yours, they are not reliable.
@Okedem: camera is not a reliable source. You should look for academic criticism on Pappe.
Furthermore you say: This is a man who called for a boycott of Israel, and who supports Hamas. He can not possibly be close to objective. So you are also saying that he is not reliable because you don't agree with him. ---- JaapBoBo (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Being a political activist, he is not an RS. It's that simple. He's not objective, and doesn't even pertain to be. There are also other reasons to disqualify him from being used as an RS - for example, he cares little for facts (as he himself said). His books contain an inordinate amount of errors, amounting to full blown lies. If something is true, you can use real sources for it, not this guy. okedem (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Pappe is a serious historian.
Morris critique on Pappe is not seriuos because: a) if it were serious it would have been published in a scientific journal, not in The new republic b) the examples of (alleged) errors that Morris gives are about details that do not affect the arguments used by Pappe, nor the purport of his story, and c) Pappe has shown that Morris used factual distortions to find these (alleged) errors. See: ] and ].
You are calling Pappe an extremist, but that is your personal pov. Maybe it is supported by CAMERA, but CAMERA is not objective. Besides, if he were an extremist, why did he get a job as a professor at the history department of the university of Exeter?
Also Pappe's (alleged) disregard for facts is a distortion of his views by critics. In Pappe's views academic writing on history, by all historians, is not objective. Pappe says that history does affect the current debate in society, and that the role of historians is not only to collect facts and perform analysis, but also to inform society. The fact that Pappe finds other things important, next to facts, in no way means that he disregards facts or that he would be prepared to lie. If you think Pappe is lying, you should come with proof that he does. Otherwise your allegations are pure speculation. --JaapBoBo (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
A political activist != an objective source. End of story. okedem (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
A political activist != an objective source Can you look this up in Misplaced Pages policy for me? --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't have to. It's obvious. He's an extremist in huge controversy. He cannot possibly be used as an RS. Find real sources. okedem (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

inserting political agenda of a discredited person with an agenda against Israel putting words like "ethnic cleansing" everywhere in this article is ridiculous. refrain from doing so. Amoruso (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

@Okedem: You call him an extremist, but that's your pov. Is there a reliable source calling him an extremist?
@Amoruso: Pappe might have a political agenda and might be discredited (e.g. by Zionist lobbyists), but this is not the issue. The issue is reliability. Misplaced Pages policy doesn't say that a discredited person is not a reliable source. Above that, besides Pappe also Morris and Finkelstein have called the exodus an ethnic cleansing. --JaapBoBo (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
When even Morris, perhaps the historian closest to Pappe in his claims, says Pappe is wrong - he's an extremist, and obviously not objective. I'm done with this particular argument. If you actually want to make the claim that a political activist can be used as an RS, knock yourself out. If you actually want to claim Pappe is not in the extreme of his field, go ahead. But we're not gonna use his propaganda as sources. If you have a claim that was made by Morris, we can use him - just write "Morris writes...so and so" and there'll be no problem. okedem (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
If your definition of extremist is the extreme of his field than you admit that he is a historian. What Misplaced Pages RS means with an extremist is something completely different.
@Okedem: if you are using a bot to always revert me, please stop it, or I'll report you. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Very clever, but not quite enough. He acts in the field of history, but that doesn't make him a historian. Actual historian deal with facts - he deals with his interpretations, and publishes them as facts.
Bot? Although I appreciate the threat, I have no idea what you base that on. okedem (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Okedem you need to provide some evidence from RS saying Pappe is an extremist.Bless sins (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The articles New Historians, and Ilan Pappé provide ample evidence for that. A person who advocates a boycott of his own country, his own university, who supports an organization which sends suicide bombers to kill kids, and who is under constant controversy - cannot be considered an RS. Reliable sources need for be considered objective, have their views accepted by a majority of their peers, publish findings in peer-reviewed journals and work to answer their critics. Pappe answers none of these simple criteria. okedem (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
@Okedem: I'm referring to your revert at 18:32, 18 November 2007; it says that a bot was used: TW.
Pappé certainly doesn't support suicide bombing. He probably does support the goals of Hamas though. Pappé supported a boycot as the only means to end the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. Certainly his aim is not extremist, rather the Israeli occupation policy is extremely persistent and calling for more extreme action. But this doesn't make Pappe an extremist. An extremist would send suicide bombers and Pappe is against that.
It is not true that a reliable source should be objective. If only objective sources were allowed we might as well erase all wikipedia content and close it down. Certainly Morris and especially Karsh are not objective.
It's also not true that reliable sources should have their views accepted by a majority of their peers. This would mean that only one view can be presented in Misplaced Pages. In controversial subjects its Misplaced Pages policy to present all views to achieve NPOV. And by the way, the ethnic cleansing view is a majority view among serious historians.
Finally Pappe does publish his findings in peer-reviewed journals and works to answer his critics.
--JaapBoBo (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You don't seem to know the facts about Pappe, or the rules here. First, go read WP:V and WP:RS. By the way, I don't really care who says it's "ethnic cleansing". It's a judgment that has no place here, and adds nothing to the reader. We should write the facts about history, and let the reader decide for himself what to call it.
And if Pappe publishes in peer-reviewed journals - why don't you cite some of those here, so we can see? So far you're only using books - which are not peer-reviewed in any way.
Oh, and what Amoruso said, obviously. Someone who willfully ignores facts, and admits his beliefs (as a marxist, by the way - is that very common?) are intertwined in his writings - cannot be and RS. okedem (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

it's quite simple really. Pappe has admitted that he doesn't care for facts, and therefore he's unfitting for an encyclopedia. He shouldn't have admitted it perhaps, but since he was candid, we can respect him for that, and exclude him from the encyclopedia. It's really quite simple. Amoruso (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

CAMERA might say so, but that doesn't make it true. He's a historian and people take him seriously as a historian. He doesn't ignore facts. He just thinks that a historians job is to do more than tell facts.
Furthermore he's not an extremist. He advocates justice for the Palestinians and wants to use a boycot to reach that aim. That's not a extremist aim, nor an extremist method. In fact this method is used by the UN against all countries (except Israel) that consistently violate UN-resolutions. He might be on an extreme side of the Jewish Israeli political spectrum, but than your reference frame is a bit limited. For wikipedia it should be broader. E.g. when you consider all people in Israel and the occupied territories he has a very moderate opinion, just slightly pro-Palestinian. Misplaced Pages editors should respect this. --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
What Pappe actually said is "the struggle is about ideology, not about facts" since "facts" are open to interpretation. CAMERA distorted the purport of this.
Also he publishes books and articles in peer reviewed journals. His book 'the ethnic cleansing of Palestine was proof-read by many colleagues and he published an article with a similar title in the Journal of Palestine Studies (Pappé, 'THE 1948 ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINE', Journal of Palestine Studies 2006 36(1): 6-20.).
The critisism of Morris was refuted and/or rejected by Pappe. I don't know whether he ever heard of Karsh's criticism, but I'm sure he can reject it easily, because even Morris squashed Karsh. Karsh has a bias from about London to Tokyo!
From a non-Zionist pov Pappe is not an extremist at all, not even extreme. He's a moderate pro-Palestinian. In fact he's also pro-Israeli in a sense: he's pro 'moral Israel'.
I conclude that there is nothing that disqualifies him as a reliable source. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of that conclusion, Pappe is an extremist biased person who has been caught trying to support a thesis which way a lie and a blood libel. He is an extremely controversial person, attacked by people that never have been refuted like Karsh Morris and Plaut, in this sense. On the contrary, he admitted what Morris revealed about his many mistakes. A person that doesn't know basic dates of when events happened and plainly hates Israel and wants it to vanish, is not an RS, especially not for this article. Amoruso (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Please stop your thetoric, which I already refuted, and accept the truth.
Calling Pappe an extremist shows that your reference frame is Zionist. You are disregarding the opinion of e.g. Palestinians. In the real world Pappe is a moderate. --JaapBoBo (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Saying an opinion is Zionist is not a meaningful argument. Zionism covers a wide range of opinions. If Pappe is a moderate, then who do YOU define as an extremist? Where is the real world you refer to?

Zayinbayin (talk) 09:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This argument is utterly farcical and most of the points being put forward here are absurd, and wholly related to the contributors' own bias. Pappe is a published historian and University academic, who has written extensively on Israeli-Palestinian issues and he is therefore clearly a reliable source for Misplaced Pages articles. The fact that one or two editors hold the highly subjective viewpoint that he is an "extremist" is completely irrelevant - all that means is that you happen to disagree with him. Yes he is controversial - are you seriously saying that people like Efraim Karsh, Steven Plaut, Daniel Pipes et al aren't? --Nickhh (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a solution might be putting in a paragrpah about the deliberate expulsion of Arab villages, particularly in the zone between Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem. Pappe could be given as a reference for this. However I don't think it shoud be more then a paragraph and I don't think Pappe should be quoted. I think Benny Morriss is an acceptable source and we could add some reference to him as well. Is that an acceptable compromise?

Telaviv1 (talk) 12:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why there's a need for "compromise". Pappe is a notable historian and academic, and is as much of a reliable source on Israeli (or Palestinian) history as Benny Morris, Michael Oren or Avi Shlaim for example - and should be cited and quoted as frequently or as infrequently as any of them. Or we could go for equivalence with the truly liberal rules that appear to apply to quoting Steven Plaut as a reliable source, as defined in this edit summary by one of the editors here, who by contrast appears to insist on erasing all trace of Pappe's work from Misplaced Pages.--Nickhh (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So make a counter proposal... Telaviv1 (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Pappe is a controversial source - there is no question about that in the minds of anyone in Israel or knowledgeable about Israel. He has been disowned by universities here and even by his "new Historian" buddies. He has been involved in shady mentoring of fake research and he is cited with glee by Palestinian extremists and foes of Israel everywhere. His statements are deliberately provocative and use rhetoric that no self-respecting "academic" would use. I can't believe this is even an issue. He is not a reliable source, period. --Gilabrand (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Er, yes, as I and others have pointed out he is indeed "controversial", although I have no idea what this is supposed to prove in terms of his reliability in the context of Israeli-Palestinian issues. And in addition to that, yes, "Israeli extremists" and "foes of Palestinians" disagree with him and don't like him. He is however, absolutely incontrovertibly, a noted academic and published expert on Israeli-Palestinian matters. And that in fact is where this debate ends for WP:RS purposes, not with your personal views on the content of his work or his alleged "shady mentoring". --Nickhh (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
If you don't know the meaning of the word controversial, then maybe you should look it up. It has everything to do with not being a reliable source - or let's say a neutral source. Ahmadinejad is also a noted academic. He has even appeared at Columbia University. Maybe we should cite him, too.--Gilabrand (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
First of all, read WP:RS - an RS is one with widely accepted view. Second - you claim he's "a noted academic and published expert on Israeli-Palestinian matters" - prove it.
His claims and statements show he's not reliable as a source. His claims have been refuted. He's been caught making so many false statements, it's absurd. When confronted, he resorts to the post-modernistic crap of "no objective truth" - how convenient. okedem (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Pappe is controversed.
So, if an information must be referenced, it is better than it is done if possible from another source; else reader will wonder if this is credible or not.
Except that there was an ethnic cleansing in Palestine in 1948, which is a minority and controversed pov that doesn't deserve room in this article (it is more factual to talk about the exodus of 750,000 palestiniens and to refer to this article), I don't see what could not be sourced from somewhere else.
As a conclusion, there is nothing in that article that requires Pappe. Ceedjee (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
If the editors above are now descending to accusing me of not knowing what "controversial" means or to not having read WP:RS (which, incidentally, makes no mention of the phrase "widely accepted", or anything remotely like it), and to asking me to "prove" that Ilan Pappe is an academic or has published books; while at the same time saying things like "his claims have been refuted" then I think we've kind of lost any rational point here. You might care by the way to take a closer look at the point he is actually making in respect of facts and interpretation - he's not saying "I ignore the truth", he is merely acknowledging the truism that no-one, himself included, is as objective as they like to think they are. --Nickhh (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I want you to prove he's a notable expert. Show me the articles he published in peer-reviewed journals. Show me where he published his books (by the way, his book, "The Ethnic Cleansing..." was published by a general publishing house, making it just as reliable as any claims I make). Show me what other historians say of him - and then tell me he's not extremely controversial.
If you actually want to claim that it's okay to use extremist sources, and cite the claims of a small minority, then we really have nothing more to discuss. okedem (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Pappe's book, 'The ethnic cleansing ..' was checked by Nur Masalha and Walid Khalidi, both distinguished historians. As you know he published an article titled 'The 1948 Ethnic cleansing of Palestine' in J. Palestine Studies in 2006. He may be controversial among Jews in Israel, but he is not so among Palestinians, who are also relevant. Considering that wikipedia should have a NPOV, we should accept sources supporting Zionists and ones supporting Palestinians. For a pro-Palestinian Pappe is quite moderate. For Okedem and Amoruso to continue ignoring the view of Palestinians is showing contempt for Palestinians.
The attack by Morris was refuted by Pappe. Karsh is a notorious biased historian, who focusses on small details that confirm his pov, but ignores the main pieces of evidence. We shouldn't take an attck by Karsh serious. Morris is now a professor in England, so apparently in England they acknowledge his professional work as a historian. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
JaapBoBo, stop with your dreams and childish badfaith.
Whatever he thinks, right or not, Pappe is controversial and not respected.
What Morris said was not "refuted". He said that the 50 mistakes Morris found were details. So he agreed with the mistakes and just conclude Morris was racist.
As far as I know, Khalidi is not a respected historian.
Masalha is a respected historian but this is not enough. The normal process for such books is to be published by peer-reviewed *neutral* comittees...
NB: What is the difference between Masalha and Pappe when both talk about ethnic cleansing ? Simply that Masalha makes a differences between what he thinks and what is thought, and between facts and suspected events. Pappe decided to transfrom potential events in facts... That is not an acceptable attitude. And for this reason, among others, he has been rejected by his pairs. Ceedjee (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Neither

I'll ignore the bolded sentence.
Can you cite any more articles he published? How many did he publish? Where? Can you show opinions of real historians about his work?
Pappe is a political activist. That immediately disqualifies him from being used as a source here. The end. okedem (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Masalha and Khalidi are real historians, as is Pappe. --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't avoid. Cite and source. okedem (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Nothing about unreliability here: ]
Pappe thx them both in his foreword. Khilidi also said this: ‘This is an extraordinary book - a dazzling feat of scholarly synthesis and Biblical moral clarity and humaneness.’ - Walid Khalidi ]
--JaapBoBo (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Did I ask only one question?
And why was this book published by a general publishing house, and not by a university press?
Actually, forget it. The point of political activism, support of Hamas, and support of academic boycott remains. He cannot be close to objective, and is not an RS. okedem (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(Reset) So we remain at the same point - YOU disagree with him, YOU think he is an extremist (with reference, as has been pointed out to you, to a limited Israeli pov), therefore he is not a reliable source. Fantastic logic. However, the real situation - he is, as Chair of History at Exeter University and a published author in this field, a prima facie reliable source. The onus is on those who want his work censored here to show that he has been officially "discredited" or "proven wrong" on any significant aspect of his work, eg found guilty of libel in a court of law or had his books or other work pulped or withdrawn. Spats with other historians, writers or academics, especially those known to have strong political views of their own (eg Karsh, Plaut etc) are irrelevant as they happen all the time in the academic world and prove as much about those making the criticism as they do about Pappe. I'm quite sure you wouldn't want Alan Dershowitz (who of course is just as much a "political activist" as Pappe, but not even a historian) banned from being cited on Misplaced Pages because Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein have laid into him and accused his work of inaccuracy. And if you think your views are as valid as his, then feel free to write a book, get it published and ensure it gets positive reviews of it from other professional historians from around the world. Please let me know when it becomes available. --Nickhh (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly...
  • Pappe is heavily criticized by Yoav Gelber since the Tantura Affair. And Gelber had never been criticised by anybody before he criticized Pappé... In summary, Gelber considers that Pappé doesn't deserve to be called an historian any more.
  • Morris also attacked Pappé, considering he was making politics . But here, I still don't know who "opened fire" first and why...
Whatever, Pappe chose to leave the academic ground to enter on the political battleground. That is his choice but doing so, he lost credibility as historian.
So, when there is another source instead of him, it is better to chose that other source.
Note that his last book is "self published" and not peer-reviewed. A synthesis has been published in the Journal of Palestine studies but this unfortunately is not enough to get credit. The editorial line of this journal is not neutral either. It could therefore be argued that it is not a acceptable source for wikipedia, which I don't write.
Ceedjee (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI United Kingdom does not mention the one million Kikuyu ethnically cleansed during the Mau Mau revolt 1952-1960 (+100,000 held in concentraiton camps). Nor does it mention the 500,000 Malaysians forcibly moved to "model villages" during the 50's communist uprising (see Briggs Plan), though there is a reference to slavery. Poland does not mention the 1,000,000 Germans(?) driven out (sorry ethnically cleansed) from Silesia in 1945-1951. Iraqdoes not refer to the 130,000 ethnically cleansed Jews. Czechoslaviakia - Sudeten Germans (see Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII) Pakistan (and India) - 10 million ethnically cleansed + two million dead in 1948. Lahore was once a mixed city. There are no Hindus in Pakistan. you might want to check if Belgium mentions the estimated 800,000 Africans murdered 1900-1945 in Belgian congo. The article on Netherlands describes how the Dutch saved their Jews when in reality they helped the Nazis murder 95% of Dutch Jews (the French put up far more resistance and "only" 30% died).

None of these articles use the emotive words "ethnic cleansing" or even "Genocide" (appropriate to Belgian Congo). I feel very strongly that, while the term may have some applicability to Palestine in 1948, its use is misleading and inappropriate. In this context I would note that whatever you think of Pappes historical research, he does seem to hate Israel and this is evident in his interviews and lectures (I heard him lecture at Tel-Aviv university). I think that a paragraph devoted to the expulsion of Arab Palestinians is acceptable and justifiable, but not if it dominates the whole period - there are other articles that go into it in more detail - or use the anachronistic term "ethnic-cleansing". This article provides an overview of Israeli history and the whole discussion surrounding the issue is complex and belongs somewhere else. Excessive focus is POV. Telaviv1 (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ceedjee - Sorry but your point about him losing "credibility as a historian" by virtue of being politically opinionated or active, is I'm afraid absolute nonsense. It is possible to be both, see for example E.P.Thompson and Eric Hobsbawm. Nor do I see a rush to remove references to assertively pro-Israeli sources here. This whole debate appears to be about little more than selective censorship, in the context of an article that is currently little more than a self-serving collection of nationalist myths and fables. The problem is that some editors here seem to assume that any historian who agrees with their pov is by definition neutral, whereas by contrast any historian who doesn't is an "extremist" and therefore an unreliable source. --Nickhh (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Telaviv1 - our comments crossed. I'd qualify my reference above to this article being "self-serving ..." to say "like most similar articles". All national articles should include references to the not-so-savoury aspects of their history; nor do I accept that historians, activists and others who are critical of their own countries should be discredited by the cheap insults "anti-American", "anti-Israeli", "anti-Soviet" or their equivalent. I personally wouldn't have a problem with the references from Pappe being re-written in some way, but I don't think they should be excised altogether --Nickhh (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As you might expect,we get a lot of abuse on Misplaced Pages about Israel, including vandalism which I don't suppose they get in Britain or Holland and which is why we have to be very protective and prevent ignoramuses from turning it into a hate fest.

I suggest somehting like "During the conflict many Palestinian-Arab communities, particularly along the 'corridor' connecting Tel-Aviv with Jerusalem (where there was heavy fighting), were forcibly expelled, mostly becoming refugees. The fate of these refugees remains a source of conflict to this day."

Although it is obviosuly much less significant in importance, the residents of the Jewish quarter in Jerusalem were also expelled. The largest Synagogue in the old city was subsequently destroyed. I guess that war does not bring out the best in people.

I have a policy of not editing the Palestine articles, I figure we all deserve our own space here. Telaviv1 (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

@Nickhh. Any rule has its exceptions but there is definetely too much controversies around Pappe to consider him as a reference, even for what is true. Historian is a job that requires the highest neutrality. Good ones keep their distances with activism. And in the case of Pappe, he has been attacked by nearly all other historians. Only activists and some Palestinian historians still "collaborate" with him. That's life.
@TelAviv1. I don't agree with your suggestion. This is too biaised. There have been massacres and massive deportation during the 1948 war. Reducing this to the Jerusalem corridor would not be fair.
If exodus must really be detailled to satisfy people, I suggest : "Around 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or where expelled from the territories that will become the state of Israel".
Ceedjee (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm probably time to leave this as I'm not really going to get involved in editing this one. But just two things really - 1) Telaviv1 I think actually articles benefit from having an outside and sometimes sceptical perspective, rather than each group just editing their "own", plus as I guess you know it's not so easy to unlock the Israeli and the Palestinian narrative; and 2) Ceedjee, I still disagree that we should exclude a respected academic just because he is not universally respected - especially in this area, where semi-professional campaigns to vilify opponents are whipped up, and where pretty much everything is contested (and I would point out again that Plaut, Dershowitz and others are also fairly extreme activists in my view, without even having the advantage of being professional historians, but the same people who want Pappe excluded will happily shovel in cites to their work in various articles). --Nickhh (talk) 09:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
But I didn't talk about Plaut...
I talked about *all* his colleagues from Haifa University, among which Yoav Gelber who wrote terrible attacks against him and I talked about Benny Morris...
And again, his book about ethnic cleansing was not peer-reviewed.
I just say that if we have somebody else for the same informatin, it is better.
I didn't say we must delete his article from wikipedia and that his thesis are not welcome in some articles.
But here, certainly not. Ceedjee (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't waste time explaining why the politically motivated fantasy text was removed. JaapBoBo actually was caught above saying: "The attack by Morris was refuted by Pappe (which is not true, it was never refuted, but actually admitted). and: "Karsh is a notorious biased historian (ah, suddendly there ARE "biased historians" because "they" say so...") , who focusses on small details that confirm his pov, but ignores the main pieces of evidence. We shouldn't take an attck by Karsh serious. Morris is now a professor in England (which doesn't even make sense, we talked about Pappe), so apparently in England they acknowledge his professional work as a historian". In other words, we can't treat such arguments seriously. We don't need to explain why political refuted anti semitic statements should not appear in factual encyclopedias. Amoruso (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I meant Pappe of course.
Pappe refuted part of the attack by Morris (Morris was distorting things), admitted a few mistakes of the type Morris also makes, and rejected the rest.
And suddenly Amoruso is admitting Pappe is a historian? You didn't even recognize Pappe as a historian. I do recognise Karsh as a historian, but a very biased one. I'm not blocking Karsh if he's not lying, so why should you block Pappe? --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Refrain from edit warring. Ceedjee (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
@Ceedjee: do you think it's funny to call your reversal: rv. edit warring .... --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
@JaapBoBo.
If your behaviour on the talk pages is acceptable, your behaviour on the article pages is agressive and equivalent to edit warring.
Refrain from edit warring. There is no consensus on the matter currently discussed.Ceedjee (talk) 09:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I do recognise Pappe as a historian. Obviously he is. There's no problem with nor are there any required qualifications for being one. The only problem is that he's an historian who was totally discredited on the Israel Palestinian issue of 1948, completely refuted and ridiciuled by Morris, Karsh and others, with no adequate response from Pappe except admission of the mistakes, and then was also involved controversially in backing a thesis with lies surrounding a non existing massacre. It's not that he's not an RS, he is an RS, but not a relevant source to this article. But perhaps to controversial refuted discredited historians article. Amoruso (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

@Ceedjee: like your behavior is any better, ... or Amoruso's or Okedem's. --JaapBoBo (talk) 11:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I reverted you once more. What you add is not neutral.
You still consider wikipedia as a place of "negociation" (I still wonder what is to be negociated ???) where you use "force". This is a place where we write an encyclopadia.
refrain from edit warring. Ceedjee (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
@Ceedjee: your statements show your subjectivity: you edit war by reverting me and tell me to stop edit warring. Certainly, if you don't agree with a text for good reasons you can give that as a reason for reverting, but to give edit warring as a reason is like saying you have no other reason for the revert.
@Amoruso: Morris criticism was neutralised by Pappe. Karsh is too biased to take his criticism of Pappe serious. Besides, for both criticisms even if there were some truth in the allegations of factual mistakes, these mistakes didn't affect the purport of Pappe's story, and as to the criticism on the general conclusions of Pappe, those allegations were not well founded.
The Tanture massacre is disputed, I know that. It hasn't been proved conclusively, nor disproved conclusively yet.
Pappe's statement, that the 1948 Palestinian exodus is an ethnic cleansing, hasn't been refuted. In fact, all serious scholars now concede this. --JaapBoBo (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
JaapBoBo. It is you who have started to revert and re-vert this article for 15 days now. People have written here why all you added was not acceptable. You just keep on adding them.
Not me.
Discuss here BEFORE and convince others or it will be reverted.
You will note you are alone versus 4 other editors.
Ceedjee (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, JaapBoBo. I think it is not total coincidence that my Wikisurfing has led us both the same article. I hope that we can work together on this one as well.
Allow me to say that I believe your argument regarding Karsh as being "too biased" shows a bias on your part. Every author and historian collects evidence, and this evidence leads to some conclusion (more often than not). This doesn't make the author biased (or, rather, it makes all authors biased). One cannot simply say that an author is "too biased" because that author does not agree with his/her POV. Why don't you call Pappe biased for saying that there was ethnic cleansing in Palestine in 1948? After all, that is a conclusion that strongly favors one side above the other.
As per the idea that all serious historians say that there was ethnic cleansing in Palestine, that is simply because you dismiss any historian who refutes this point as being biased, or inaccurate, or whatever. Your reasoning is that anyone who denies that this alleged ethnic cleansing took place is denying historical "fact," and is therefore biased. To digress a little bit, you are saying "argument 'x' is true, and therefore anyone who opposes it is unreliable." Then you say that "everyone who opposes argument 'x' is unreliable because they are denying a historical fact, and are therefore biased." Does that not seem circular to you? Screen stalker (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A fair compromise here seems to be to note both historians that consider ethnic cleansing to have taken place, and those who disagree.Bless sins (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Pappe is not an RS, and cannot be used as such.
Besides, I find it completely worthless to say what some historians call the events. Semantics is quite irrelevant. Detail the facts (as far as can be determined), and let the readers judge for themselves. Saying "X and Y say it's ethnic cleansing" is effectively leading the readers minds toward some conclusion not necessarily supported by the facts, a sort of "appeal to authority". okedem (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bless Sins,
That would be a good compromise if doing so would no take half of the section dedicated to the 1948 war. I am still convinced that just stating there is a controversy and referring to the main articles about this : 1948 Palestinian exodus and causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. Ceedjee (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
@Screenstalker: I'm not saying Karsh is biased because I disagree with him, but because of what others say about him, e.g. Morris: Efraim Karsh's article (...) is a mélange of distortions, half-truths, and plain lies that vividly demonstrates his profound ignorance of both the source material (...) and the history of the Zionist-Arab conflict. It does not deserve serious attention or reply. or But this is Karsh's way, to belabor minor points while completely ignoring, and hiding from his readers, the main pieces of evidence. and It is a measure of Karsh's ignorance of what actually went on in the Middle East in1948 that he writes (p. 97) of "the Arab attack on the newly-established State of Israel, in which Transjordan's Arab Legion participated." Quite simply, it did not. and Karsh employs his usual method of focusing on the one document that seems to uphold his argument-often while twisting its real purport-while simply ignoring the mas of documents that undercut it.. And Morris is fiercely pro-Zionist, so I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of his criticism of Karsh. --JaapBoBo (talk) 12:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
@Okedem: isn't wikipedia policy founded on an 'appeal to authority'? How else can we decide what is reliable enough to put in Misplaced Pages, and what not? ]
@Okedem: Saying "X and Y say it's ethnic cleansing" is effectively leading the readers minds toward some conclusion not necessarily supported by the facts. I don't agree. Saying "X and Y say it's ethnic cleansing" is effectively telling the reader that other sources may hold a different opinion. --JaapBoBo (talk) 12:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
@Ceedjee: you are pushing your pov that nobody is to blame (not the Zionists, not the Palestinians, but 'the War' is to blame). Limiting what is written in the article to saying that all about the causes of the exodus is controversial is just that. In fact a RS doesn't agree with your pov. So in that case we actually should remove your pov. I'm not doing that, but I ask you kindly to also respect the other pov. --JaapBoBo (talk) 12:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
JaapBoBo,
You are trying to manipulate what scholars says and trying to
I am a very well known editors reknowned for his neutrality. Your personal page show you have an agenda.
I respect scholars pov but your own pov is not welcome.
In this article, stating taht historian do not agree and sending readers to the main artile is far than enough.
I explained here why your stuff with Finkelstein is not acceptable here. Ceedjee (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
@ Ceedjee, I am not aware of any place where JaapBoBo says "I am not neutral." So, insofar as I am aware, you are the one concluding that he is not neutral. Please refrain from using your own observations to call yourself neutral and others biased, because that borders on personal attack. Bear in mind, also, that neutrality does not lay in portraying both sides as equally good or equally bad, but in portraying both sides as they are.
@ JaapBoBo, I see a recurring pattern with editors who try to remove sources such as Karsh in that they quote other sources who seek to discredit them. I am not as educated as you in this matter, and so must admit that I have not found many sources that bash Morris in the same way that Morris bashes Karsh, but I'm sure they exist. The point is that there is a lot of scholarly disagreement on the issue of the Zionist-Arab conflict, and one cannot simply say that because all sources think that opposing opinions are wrong, one side must be accepted above the other. Surely we can agree that there are scholarly sources that think that Morris' work is shoddy? Screen stalker (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Screen stalker, I know what NPoV means. And I also know how to reach this because I know the different pov's on the matter because I have read them and I have their books and publication under hand. Without taking into account the different pov I don't see how NPoV could be reached.
But that is not the matter here. The matter is about to say if yes or not Morris considers that the 1948 Palestinian exodus was an ethnic cleansing. And he has not that point of view.
nb: I somebody writes that I "push my own pov", I answer, particularly when on his page he gives 9 exemples of why Morris would be biased when on the other side I have written 3 articles on the topic which are featured article on wp:fr among which one has been translated here.
Ceedjee (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
If the only issue of contention between us is whether or not Morris considered the 1948 war an ethnic cleansing, then there is no disagreement between us. We agree perfectly that he did not. Screen stalker (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
In that case, see the last paragraph added by JaapBoBo here : . Ceedjee (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Army sizes in 1948

Telaviv put this in: In March 1948 the Haganah had about 15,000, but by June this was up to some 30,000 men., quoting Birth revisited, p. 16. Well, p16 and 17 say actually: By May 1948, the Haganah had mobilised and deployed 35,780 troops (and this doesn't include Irgun and Lehi) and by July the IDF had 63,000 men under arms

It seems to me a distortion of what the source actually says! --JaapBoBo (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Check again, you looked at it before I had added the references.

Telaviv1 (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to the Haganah numbers.
First, its not proper to delete old references and replace them by new ones that state things differently. In that case you should say: 'According to ..., but according to ...'. Misplaced Pages policy says if you find a different or different numbers it's better to add than to substitute.
Second, please take a look at the table here: ]. It also gives higher numbers.
Third, you're giving Morris and Gelber as references, not Tal. --JaapBoBo (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. I. Pappé, 2006, ‘The ethnic cleansing of Palestine’, p. 44, 45
  2. Benny Morris, in the Birth revisited, 2003, p.34]].
  3. Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948, 2006, p.51.
  4. Ilan Pappe, The ethnic cleansing of Palestine, 2006, p.44.
  5. Benny Morris, in the Birth revisited, 2003, p.16.
  6. Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948, 2006, p.73.
  7. Ilan Pappe, The ethnic cleansing of Palestine, 2006, p.44 fix these numbers to 50,000 with 30,000 fighting forces.
Categories: