Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight/Archive 7

biased statements in article
This statement from the article is biased.

However, at the Lausanne Conference, 1949 Apr-Sept of the same year, Israel's offer was to take back around 1/5th of the refugees in return for recognition by its neighbours, and this was rejected.

The statement is biased because Lausanne Conference, 1949 states why it was rejected: The Israelis insisted on discussing solutions to refugee problems only in the context of an overall settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. This agreed with the commission's stance that

The interrelation of all the aspects of the problem was too obvious to be overlooked." The Israeli government offered to repatriate 100,000 refugees, but only as part of a final settlement in which all other refugees were absorbed by Arab states. Compensation would be paid, but not to individual refugees or Arab states, only to a "common fund" and only for land that had been under cultivation prior to being abandoned; not for any movable property or uncultivated land. The common fund would be reduced by an amount of compensation to Israel for war reparations.

The Commission found this proposal to be unsatisfactory and declared that

the Government of Israel is not prepared to implement the part of paragraph 11 of the General Assembly resolution of 11 December 1948 which resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date.

To just state it was rejected is biased because it does not say who rejected or why it was rejected, leading one to believe the rejection was unfair and possibly done by the arabs. The arabs also rejected it since they wanted the issues discussed seperately.

A statement that the Lausanne Conference, 1949 was convened to resolve disputes and linking the that article would be appropriate, rather then giving an incomplete view of that issue. If they need further info they go to that article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wmb1957 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC).


 * There were also other conditions, such as Israel keeping all the territory it had conquered regardless of the partition plan. --Zerotalk 12:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

We would consider adding this material together with the sourced material which was deleted when the article gets unlocked. Amoruso 06:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

More Quotes
just examples. In contrast to Katz (who is an historian as proven, WP:RS as proven and all his quotes are WP:V and all should be included when it's unblocked), I haven't read these books in full yet but these quotes appear there, checked it:

Mark Tessler writes: "The wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of the unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of the Arab leaders that it would only be a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab states."

Efraim Karsh writes : On April 22, 1948 the AHC ordered Haifa's Arab population to leave, stating that it "is only a matter of days before the victorious Arab armies would return" Amoruso 04:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that a key issue here is whether Katz can be considered a historian. Since it is yet to be agreed upon, I suggest that until this dispute is resolved, no more quotes by Katz be added to the article when it is finally unlocked, and the issue of Katz's credentials be discussed on Talk:Shmuel Katz in the meanwhile. This dispute hardly justifies locking this article for such a long period of time, there's no reason why this dispute cannot be resolved without disrupting Wikipedia.--Doron 09:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There aren't any quotes from Katz maybe one in the picture or so, he's used as a secondary source for undisputed quotes. Amoruso 20:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This may help to solve the dispute
An article that locked all the time should be deleted.

http://pmw.org.il/bulletins_dec2006.htm#b171206

and: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/28/MNGNTDURFV1.DTL

Saleh recounts what he was told happened to the house, his family and the other villagers during the first Arab-Israeli war. Arab soldiers appeared in the village one day in late 1947 with dire news.

"They asked people in Salameh to leave, because a war was going to happen there," he said. "They said, 'Go for a week, or a month -- then come back.'

"So they left. And when they tried to come back, the Jews prevented them, " Saleh said he was told. "So they stayed in the West Bank, and the United Nations built Balata refugee camp."

Zeq 20:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not exactly a scholarly source, is it.--Doron 01:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * but WP:RS and seem truthfull. Academic can tell lies. Zeq 10:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The authors of these sources are not an authority on the subject, articles like there are a dozen a dime. There's plenty of scholarly work, why quote an editorial?--Doron 14:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Itamar Marcus and his gang are definitely not WP:RS. Start using them as sources, and we might as well turn Wikipedia into Arutz Sheva. Ramallite (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How are things in ramallah ? Marcus is accurate as far as I know. I disagree with his political views but that is no reason not to trust him as a reporter. The SF chronicle is also accurate. Keep in mind that what Marcus does most is to translate Arab media so you are more than welcome to check his translations and if not accurate point it out. In any case the original source to Marcus's articl;e would be the Arab media - are you suggesting we don't trust them ? ???? 89.0.221.41 15:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying these journalists are not reliable, I'm saying that what they are reporting is not particularly significant for this article. Their report of a single testimony is anecdotal, while there are several scholars who interviewed hundreds of witnesses and examined large piles of documents.--Doron 20:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and some of these scholars are Karsh and Shapira who agree fully with Schechtman and the quotes from Katz's book. Amoruso 20:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding yet another edit war
These edit wars are disrupting Wikipedia. After this article has been locked for over a month(!), User:Amoruso has restored his edits, which were at the heart of the edit war that preceded the lock. I suggest that rather than starting yet another edit war, we make a list of disputed bits of the article and discuss each and every one of them separately, and only revert if there's a consensus among the editors. Lack of cooperation of either side should not be rewarded by acceptance of that side's position. So I appeal to both sides -- please discuss before reverting.--Doron 20:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The article stood for a long time with these quotes. Then they were deleted. Many of them have nothing to do with Katz. No reason was provided for the mass deletion of many of the bits, pictures, editoralising etc. I agree that if someone wants to remove something, remove only 1 thing and discuss it - not the entire "thing". Btw, it's not Kibbutz Zova on the "lands", it's Tel Zova. Amoruso 20:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Very well, but please discuss and reach a consensus before reverting. Reverting is an effortless action that both sides can make infinitely, every side immediately reverting the other side's revert. This makes it futile and disruptive at the same time. A shouting match would only lead to yet another lock.--Doron 20:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I came to this place with the same attitude as yourself.
 * I repeatedly stated that I wished to operate consensually after discussion, and not get involved in edit-wars. Almost immediately I suffered a series of harsh accusations of WP principle-breaking on my talk-page (easily mistakeable for WP:BITE), then re-definitions of words I'd used, then attempts to make it appear I was blaming the Jews for crimes alleged against Israel, then allegations of targetting the biographies of Jews (the major two I tried to make were for Naeim Giladi and Norman Finkelstein, being defense of these people).
 * When I attempted to explain myself more fully on talk-pages (including attempting to finding out whether it was really ever acceptable to identify people as Jewish), a complaint was laid against me and I was barred for a month (!) as 3 administrators came together in 18 minutes. (I think my bar was made even quicker than that). Two "defenders" of mine who appeared over 24 hours later to say my conduct was less serious than others were told that they had content-disputes which rendered their comments ineligible.
 * Needless to say, much of this could have been avoided if my WP e-mail had enabled itself. Is this right, yours has not enabled itself either, in well over a year? PalestineRemembered 22:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the details of this conflict, I've been away from Wikipedia for a year or so actually. I'll be happy to discuss this on your talk page.--Doron 16:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Suba picture caption
Amoruso, do you seriously dispute that Kibbutz Zova was built on the lands of Suba? The ruins are about 200m away from the kibbutz and are surrounded by the kibbutz's fields, how could it be otherwise? Assuming you read Hebrew, I can only quote from "The New Israel Guide: Judean Mountains" (מדריך ישראל החדש: הרי יהודה): "קיבוץ בהרי ירושלים, בצד כביש הקסטל-רמת-רזיאל (מס' 395; נצ'מ 161.132). לידו, על פסגת הר חרוטית ברום 769 מ' (נצ'מ 1620.1325), יש חורבה. הפסגה מדורגת, ובוסתני השקדים הנטועים בה מעטרים את שרידי הכפר הערבי א-צובא. ... במלחמת העצמאות נודע לא-צובא תפקיד חשוב, בשל מיקומה, בעורף הקסטל, שעליו ניטשו קרבות קשים. בא-צובא נאחזו מתנדבים מצרים מחטיבת האחים המוסלמים. הכפר נכבש ב-12 ביולי 1948 במבצא 'דני', בידי חטיבת 'הראל'. באוקטובר 1948 הקימו יוצאי פלמ'ח סמוך לכפר את קיבוץ צובה, שאז נקרא משגב פלמ'ח"


 * It's not really that complicated. Near the Kibutz, there's Har Zuva, the mountain, and there Tel Zuba, which has historic sites and also some ruines of the Arab village. It's not part of the Kibbutz. The Hebrew you quoted above says it too, near the kibutz there's a "ruin" which includes that ruines of the Arab village, it's what it says there. It then says that near the village, the kibbutz was established. i highlighed these parts for you. Amoruso 21:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the kibbutz was built on the village ruins, I said it was built on its former lands. The whole area to the east and west along the ridge is good agricultural land, and the village had 4,082 dunums in 1945 (according to the Survey of Palestine), so it's inconceivable that the kibbutz's location was not within the village lands, given its proximity to the ruins. I don't understand why you insist. I suppose I could dig up in some archive a detailed official document stating what is quite obvious, do you really think it's necessary? Do you really think it is possible that the kibbutz's location is somehow excluded from the former lands of Suba?--Doron 22:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. I don't see how land near the village automatically belongs to the village ? If you do make such a claim, it needs a good citation. Does that mean that Kiryat Arba is not a settlement since it's near former Jewish land in Hebron. Amoruso 22:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, naturally, a village is surrounded by its lands, but of course it's possible that in the case of Suba, the village lands were actually somewhere else and the location where the kibbutz was built did not belong to the village immediately next to it. Yes, it's possible. Very unlikely, but possible. The information at palestineremembered.com supports the original caption, though I wouldn't cite them. Anyway, I don't understand why you have to be so fussy about this, and I hope you will be careful in your own edits not to say things that are not well-cited, even if they are obvious. I don't quite understand your comment about Kiryat Arba.--Doron 23:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's quite simple really. The lands of Ramat Gan don't belong to Tel Aviv even though it's near it. Things can be near each other without belonging to them. Canada doesn't belong to the United States. Amoruso 01:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There are no lands that belong to Ramat-Gan 200m from the center of Tel-Aviv, and there are no lands that belong to Canada 200m from the center of the United States, don't be silly.--Doron 09:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"A settlement called Ameilum was established in 1948, 1 km southwest of the site, on village lands; it was later renamed Kibbutz Tzova." - Khalidi, All that Remains, p319. There's your source. --Zerotalk 06:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Zero, I thought that's where I might find this information, didn't get a chance to check it yet.--Doron 12:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Doesn't seem to be a reliable source. As Zeq put it, it should be deleted altogether. Amoruso 19:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Khalidi is cited in pier-reviewed publications and is quoted several times in Wikipedia. You'll have to do more than just saying he doesn't seem to be a reliable source.--Doron 20:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Shmuel Katz is also cited in peer reviewd publications and is quoted several times in Wikipedia. You'll have to do more than just saying he doesn't seem to be a reliable source. Amoruso 21:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Does Shmuel Katz say anything about Suba to contradict the original caption? If not, how is this relevant?--Doron 21:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This discussion is obsolete per Zeq below. Amoruso 21:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Zeq's argument is yet to become accepted consensus.--Doron 21:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Jewish exodus from Arab lands
The article states that"'The exodus, along with the parallel Jewish exodus from Arab lands, and the resulting Palestinian refugee problem remain a central and controversial topic in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.'" Please explain the relation between the Jewish exodus and the Palestinian exodus which makes them "parallel", and how does the Jewish exodus remain "a central and controversial topic" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.


 * Perhaps you may want to read the article Jewish exodus from Arab lands if you don't know what it is. Cheers, Amoruso 01:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You did not answer any of my questions, so I'll repeat:
 * In what sense is the Jewish exodus "parallel" to the Palestinian exodus?
 * In what ways is the Jewish exodus a "central and controversial topic" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

--Doron 09:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read that article and understand it. It is very controversial and relevant in the conflict because Israel's opinion in whole or in part is that this became a population transfer and the fact Palestinian refugees are treated differnetly is only because the real motive behind it is the destruction of Israel, and one can see how refugees could and should have been handled. Amoruso 19:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I read the article and saw there no reference to the Palestinian exodus (except for it being mentioned in the introduction). Both this article and the other make this link in their respective introductions without further explanation and without citing a source to this linkage. And you didn't explain what's the controversy, and in what way it is a central topic in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- please explain in what way does it impact Israeli-Palestinian relations and cite your claims.--Doron 21:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I explained it quite well above. If you want this to be sourced, you can add a tag to it etc or do what you want. It is quite easy to find vast material on the subject .  It says: "The Israelis and their supporters have often argued that the experience of the Jewish refugees can be equated with that of the Palestinian refugees. Both left their countries due to violence or threats of violence. Unlike the Palestinians, however, who remained in refugee camps rather than being offered homes elsewhere, the Jewish refugees were welcomed and resettled in the Jewish State of Israel. Their settlement inside Israel constitutes (so the argument goes) a direct and legitimate exchange of populations." the particular article then argues that it's similar but far from same. Amoruso 21:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This author does not cite his claim. Who are those Israelis and supporters that are making this linkage? Even if we could trace this claim to a reliable source, at most you could say that "some draw a parallel between... [source]". And once again, where is the controversy? How does this issue affect Israeli-Palestinian relations?--Doron 21:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed only some draw the parallel like the Jewish exodus article says. It affects the Israeli Palestinian relations quite obviously since the Palestinan refugee claim is one of the most heated subjects in the negotiations and one of the Israeli replies is : a mutual transfer of population took place and therefore the refugeees shouldn't return. Cheers, Amoruso 22:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The two are not parallel for the following reasons: (or, here are two reasons that the two are not parallel):
 * The Jewish exodus did not actually occur "in parallel", the Palestinian exodus happened suddenly during the war (or wars), while the Jewish exodus occurred over decades and actually continues to this day from some places.
 * Saying the two were parallel suggests there is a 'mutual transfer of population' when it is hardly "mutual"; The Arab Jews were coming into a newly formed Jewish state, but the Palestinians were not going to a place where they belonged or identified with, they ended up in foreign lands that were not Palestine or Palestinian.
 * Ramallite (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, "Some" is a weasel word. Who is making this parallel? Who is giving this reply to the Palestinians? Has there been a point in the negotiations between Israel and the PLO in which the Israeli side brought up this argument?--Doron 22:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ramallite, you're right, it's not parallel. The Palestinians fought against Israel, killed many Jews, and left in the request of the Arab states so they can eradicate the Jewish state and commit genocide against its people while the Jews fled even though they meant no harm to the Arab states and they were persecuted only because of them being Jews. It's not parallel because the Jewish refugees never received any compensation and nobody cared about them, least of all the United Nations, while the Palestinian exodus, half in size, was exploited as another technique for the destruction of Israel. It's not parallel that much... Amoruso 23:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow - you've actually got yourself convinced of all of this? Well, whatever makes you sleep better at night... Ramallite (talk)  23:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So the bottom line of this rant is that they are not parallel, or am I taking you too literally?--Doron 23:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to mention they're not parallel because the Jewish exodus is worse you mean ? Amoruso 23:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Are they parallel or not? Who are those Israelis that are claiming they are parallel? Can you answer the relevant questions? "Some claim" is Weasel talk--Doron 06:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is parallel in the sense that it runs along the same lines but in an opposite direction. Time is not the issue, nor is "identifying" with blah blah blah. One concerns Jews from Arab countries into the Jewish state, while the other concerns Arabs from the Jewish state into Arab countries. Parallel. Of course it is not completely similar: Jewish refugees were relieved, were not used as political pawns, none were ever ever compensated by their countries of origin, none were ever awarded replacement land, and the major difference: population. There are more Israeli Arabs within the green line today than the amount Arabs in and outside of it in 1948. Today they have most rights and freedoms than the Arabs of any other country in the Middle East. Meanwhile, a mere six thousand Jews are living in Arab lands with few if any civil liberties. Despite these factors, it is because the simple concepts of both, as stated above, that they are parallel. --Shamir1 05:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I heard this stuff all before, repeating it doesn't make it more convincing. If you can provide a reference that would tell us who is making these claims, that would be helpful.--Doron 06:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

First Katz quote
I suggest removing the first Katz quote, starting with "the Arab refugees were not driven from Palestine by anyone". This is the opinion of someone that is not recognized as qualified to make such a judgement. Unless it is shown that the book he wrote is accepted as a historical reference, this quote should be removed, or replaced by a similar quote of a recognized authority on the subject.--Doron 10:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * you mean the one from the image ? I don't mind deleting both images of both books. Amoruso 19:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about an image. Do you mind deleting the quote I'm referring to?--Doron 21:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mind. The quote appears also in a caption of an image of a book, which is paralell to the image of Morris' book. One can delete both if he finds it necessary. The quote not in the caption I don't want to delete. The section talks about Israeli claims, so I don't see what's wrong with it, it's quite relevant. Amoruso 21:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Are we to understand that there is some sort of parallelism or equivalence between Morris and Katz which requires the latter to appear if the former does? Palmiro | Talk 21:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So what if it's a section about Israeli claims -- I'm an Israeli, how about putting my claims as well? This section should include Israeli claims by notable figures, until we establish Katz's notability as an authority on the subject this quote should be removed.--Doron 21:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * if you were notable we would cite you too. Congressman Jack Kemp: "Battleground is one of the best written and most informative histories of the Arab-Israeli conflict... I advise everyone to read it".

Writer Moshe Shamir: "Reaches the roots of the problem, the long memory to the past and the long vision to the future it brilliantly destroys one after one the Arab propaganda lies. The Chapters are full of inspiration about the connection between the People of Israel and the Land of Israel".

Former Prime Minister Menachem Begin: "To most people Battleground surely comes as an eye-opener. I know that even the most knowledgeable people have derived from this book new perceptions, not to mention knowledge, on Jewish history, on the history of Palestine, and on the Arabs"

Former US Ambassador to the United Nations, Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick: "Reading Battleground is an eye-opener. It is well written, informative, fast-paced and debunks some carefully cultivated myths concerning Israel and the Middle East". Amoruso 21:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Three politicians and a writer give it a good review, but what about academic acclaim?--Doron 21:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * These are examples of notability for Israeli claims. When the Prime Minister quotes your book, it will be relevant too for Israeli claims. Amoruso 21:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, those are just good words by Begin about the book. This is not the same as Begin making these claims. Either (i) we can prove this is Begin's view, in which case we should quote Begin, not Kats; or (ii) we cannot prove this is Begin's (or any other prominent Israeli's) view, in which case we have no reason to quote Katz. The fact that Begin said Katz wrote a good book doesn't make Katz prominent enough to make "an Israeli claim". There are dozens of good Israeli writers that can make all sorts of claims, the fact that someone prominent liked their book doesn't make their opinion notable.--Doron 22:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that this book is quoted by many writers concerning the conflict and is praised by Begin does prove it is notable. Sorry, I find myself repeating myself, so I'll end my part here because it was also discussed ad nauseam in the past and many links including scholary journals mentioning him were shown. You can also attack Bard, David meir Levi, Alyssa Lappen or Joan Peters for quoting him, you can think that the fact he's praised by prominent figures is meaningless, but it really isn't. Sorry. Amoruso 23:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Where does Bard quote him exactly?--Doron 00:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that none of these dust-cover citations are from scholars proves the point very well. How many history books from serious scholarly writers fail to get any support from other scholars? None, I think. As for Bard, I don't know of any place where he cited Katz in his own work. The only thing close to that is where Katz is cited by "Myths&Facts" in passages written long before Bard was the editor of it. But anyway a citation in a standard Zionist-advocacy handbook like "Myths&Facts" hardly counts as evidence of reliability. It would be similar to judging a Palestinian writer to be a reliable source because of a mention at Electronic Intifada. --Zerotalk 05:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The so-called "Suba Ruins"
The ruins in the photo are actually ruins of Crusader fortress. This fort, along with the walls of the Crusade fortress, were destroyed by the Egyptian General, Ibrahim Pasha, during the Egyptian campaign in Palestine in 1832. This again shows how some people use Wikipedia in order to re-write history) Zeq 08:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is the correct description of the photo caption: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:SubaRuins.jpg&oldid=3870547.

Arguing that this photo (or anyother photo on this page) is what the wikipedia editor who took the photo claim it to be is simply violation of WP:NOR - the caption of these photo have never been published and wikipedia should not be the first to make such publication. WE are only a secondary source. Zeq 08:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

btw, Tzoba - pronounced Soba is arrabic - is actaully an anciant Jewish vilage mentioned in the bible: http://king-james-bible.classic-literature.co.uk/the-second-book-of-samuel/ebook-page-23.asp look for: "23:36 Igal the son of Nathan of Zobah". But I guess OR of some politicaly motvated wikipedia editors is better than the bible or historic recprds of the Crusadors. later in history, just after the Egyptians did this: http://www.brainyhistory.com/events/1835/july_25_1835_50279.html - they destroyed the old fort in tZoba on their way to Syria. Zeq 10:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, Zeq, the photo is of the ruins of the village. Quoting from "The New Israel Guide: Judean Mountains" (מדריך ישראל החדש: הרי יהודה):

"כיום נותרו מן המצודה קטעי חומה בחלקה הצפוני ובחלקה המערבי, וכן מגדלי פינה מסיביים וחפיר חצוב בסלע. חלקים אחרים של המצודה משולבים בבתי הכפר ההרוס. המצודה נהרסה בידי צלח א-דין בשנת 1191, ועל הריסותיה הוקם לימים הכפר א-צובה"
 * My translation: Nowadays what remains of the fortress is parts of a wall in the northern and western sections, as well as massive towers and a moat. Other parts of the fortress are integrated into the houses of the ruined village. The fortress was destroyed by Saladin in 1191, and on its ruins the village of Suba was later built.
 * You would have had a point if it was a picture of a moat, a tower or a wall, but it's a picture of ruined houses. These houses are the houses of the ruined village that was built on the ruins of the fortress. It's not a picture of a ruined fortress, nor is it a picture of a ruined biblical place. The ancient history of the site could make an interesting article, but it is irrelevant to the caption.--Doron 12:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Zeq, It is completely obvious that this is not a Crusader ruin. I believe Doron 100% on this for five reasons:  (1) Doron's evidence is persuasive and you provided none at all.  (2) Crusader ruins don't look anything like that.  Arab village ruins look like that.  (3) I have several other pictures of the ruins of Suba and they look just like this.  One is here, one is in a book.  (4) The crusader fortress of Belmont was at the same site as the Arab village and remnants can be seen, but the Arab village was built around them and that's what most of the visible ruins are.  Or do you want us to believe there was no Arab village there at all?  (5) Your comments make it hard to take you seriously.  First you make a claim something about Ibrahim but your link says only "Ibrahim Pasha's army attacks Jewish settlers of Hebron Palestine".  Second you don't seem to realise that Zobah in the Bible is the name of a Aramean kingdom or its capital, not a village near Jerusalem. It was supposed to be in the north somewhere. --Zerotalk 12:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The connection of the Photo to the caption is comletly OR. Please remove this photo as well as the Zero Photo which is also OR. If you have a WP:RS about those photos please use it.
 * Zero you have been warned by arbCom to use WP:OR and more specifically scholarly sources for this article. I am not going to argue with  you  what this photo is - just use Zeq 14:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Zeq, please consult WP:NOR.--Doron 16:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Actually, Zero, Zeq is correct about the biblical place. You are referring to Aram-Zobah, which is indeed in Syria, but (as many other biblical place names, e.g., Hazor and Bethlehem) it is also a name of a place in Judaea. Not that it makes his point any more relevant – nobody in his right mind would claim that the ruins in the picture are 3000 years old...--Doron 14:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Aram-Zoba is in Haleb Syria and has nothing to to with this biblical Zoba. Zero is simply confusing the two. We are not gong to devate here how old are the ruins and who is more convincing - this is what WP:RS are for. If you have no WP:RS for your source remove it from the article. Zeq 14:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is evidence for a locality "Zobah" in Judea. No, it is not positively refered to by 2 Samuel 23:36.  Many commentators regard that as being a reference to Aram-Zobah.  The specific identification of Zobah with Suba is denied:  "attempts to equate it with Zobah (1 Sam 14,47; 2 Sam 23.36) would apear to be unfounded" (R.O. Harper and S. Pringle, Belmont Castle: A historical notice and preliminary report of excavations in 1986, Levant, Vol XX, 1988, p101.).  Harper and Pringle give citations to four previous studies giving this opinion.  --Zerotalk 10:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong and unpublished info
is still part of the caption of the photos, Claming the ruins in the photo are not what they really are. I am trying to resolve it here but if needed will go elsewhere to make sure only WP:RS info is in the article (per arbCom) Zeq 06:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Zeq, it's a pity you are ignoring the replies to your arguments. The caption is correct, as evident from the quote from Khalidi and from the New Israel Guide (by Sefi Ben-Yosef) above. As for original research, read the policy regarding original images: "[p]ictures have enjoyed a broad exception from [the no original research] policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles".--Doron 08:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You are ignoring that the info you provided is wrong and never was published anywhere. Show me one place claming that the ruins are of anything other than the Cursadors fortress ? Show me one prrof that the land of the photo belong to what you say it does - Zero, nada. You are wikilawyering and using the image policy to interduce your political viwes.. Zeq 23:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A source was given. Khalidi also has a photo which is very similar to the one Doron took, proving the identification is correct.  So all the requirements are met.  What's your problem, anyway?  Do you deny there were Arabs in Suba before 1948?  Did they live in tents?  What happened to their houses?  --Zerotalk 08:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Zero, I am in arguing with you about history. This is an issue of policy. Doron only source is Palestinian remebered  -  which is not a scholarly or wp:rs source. We need to make sure that the photo is what Doron claim it is. So far no such proof is given. Zeq 22:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The source is Khalidi, All that Remains, p319.  Both the land ownership and a photo are there.  Why do we need to repeat this so many times?  --Zerotalk 01:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And the ultimate proof. The archaeological paper of Harper and Pringle that I referenced above includes a detailed description of the site with photos and diagrams that identify what comes from the crusader period and what doesn't.  The region shown in Doron's photo is at the west of the inner courtyard.  On page 111 of the the paper, the structure at the right side of Doron's photo (also seen behind the woman at ) is explicitly called a "village house".  In this part of the site, the structures above ground are village houses though there are some pieces of crusader masonry at ground level that form a part of some of the houses.  --Zerotalk 11:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no proof as you keep refering to a web site called "palestine remebered". If you have a scholarly source showing the same object in Dorons photo and identifying it as the village - please do so. If not please remove the photo.
 * I claim that this photos is not the village and so far you have not offered any prrof.
 * We all agree that there was a fortress there called belmonte (destroyd by egptians in 1832 invasion) and the photo is of that structure. Zeq 15:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Childers
The statements from mideastweb (which isn't exactly a "joint Israeli-Palestinian" research center, as claimed, purported what is written at mideastweb to be some kind of rebuttal to Childers, it is not. Mideastweb doesn't criticize Childers for "only" monitoring Arab broadcasts. His research was find if something was said in Arab broadcasts, the Arab broadcasts were the only issue. If it is claimed orders were given by the Arabs, what relevance would non-Arab broadcasts (ie. Jewish or British) be in such a study? If someone wants to add some of the arguments from mideastweb, then that's obviously fine, but not under this section. A student of history 03:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Great imbalance of views here
Far too much attention is devoted to the volutary exodus / Arab calls for exodus theory. This section of the page dominates the other "theories". This view is also, I should point out, something of a minority view. This whole page really needs to be totally re-worked. It emphasizes the hell out of the voluntary exodus theory and marginalizes others, including the most mainstream ones (ie. Morris). Furthermore, it needs to be explained that these are not all "theories". There is concrete documentation of expulsion from certain villages, Arab and British propoganda, this page is a joke as it stands. Doesn't wiki have some policy about the balance of views and not over or under-representing ceratin ones? Because this page flaunts such policy.


 * A student of history, there is no "voluntary theory". There is the theory of the impact of Arab leaders or their encouragement, but that is different. For most sources, even Palestinian ones, it is said that the majority fled voluntarily. Most expected a quick return and an Arab victory and did not imagine becoming refugees, others fled because of the propagandized myth of Jewish atrocities on Arab people, and yes, undoubtably, some were expelled. This is all mentioned. The reason for each and responsibility is what is so debated, not whether anyone left voluntarily. --Shamir1 07:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I should perhaps rephrase what I mean by voluntary exodus. I meant the Peters, Katz, Bard points of view, that the majority of Arabs fled because of Arab orders and so forth. I think this page glosses over many documented cases, and gives greater weight to these points of view. But this page seems to reflect your post, giving significantly less consideration to those who were expelled (which Morris for example documents in hundreds of cases). My problem is that these points of view on this page appear arbitrary and don't correspond with really any of the research done. It seems to portray each as being a "theory", without consideration of real research done, or primary evidence. A student of history 14:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"Absentee" property section bad info
Ok here goes. I have been researching the Lehn and Davis quote of the book Jewish Villages in Israel, quoted in this section. The quote is introduced like this: >> "The Jewish National Fund's estimate was considerably higher at 88% including the Gaza Strip and the West Bank." BUT 1)This book- Jewish Villages was written in 1949, thus had nothing to do with Gaza Strip & West Bank lands. 2) Nowhere does the JNF make the claim of 88%, that claim was made in a parenthetical by Lehn& Davis' - 3)Lehn & Davis' book is very biased, very dense-- and where he gets the 88% number is by no means clear.  Furthermore, the JNF wrote clearly that they were taking "part" of the land .  Finally, I want to add the next paragraph to round out the context of this quote.  Here is the actual quote with context added,, ellipsed out material included, and Lehn & Davis' commentary left out:

Of the entire area of the State of Israel only about 300,000-400,000 dunums -- apart from the desolate rocky area of the southern Negev, at present quire unfit for cultivation -- are State Domain which the Israeli Government took over from the Mandatory regime. The J.N.F. and private Jewish owners possess under two million dunums. Almost all the rest belongs at law to Arab owners, many of whom have left the country. The fate of these Arabs will be settled when the terms of the peace treaties between Israel and her Arab neighbours are finally drawn up. The J.N.F., however, cannot wait until then to obtain the land it requires for its pressing needs. It is, therefore, acquiring part of the land abandoned by the Arab owners, through the Government of Israel, the sovereign authority in Israel.

Whatever the ultimate fate of the Arabs concerned, it is manifest that their legal right to their land and property in Israel, or to the monetary value of them, will not be waived, nor do the Jews wish to ignore them. Legal conquest of territory is a powerful factor in determining the frontiers and the sovereignty of a state. But conquest by force of arms cannot, in law or in ethics, abrogate the rights of the legal owner to his personal property. The J.N.F., therefore, will pay for the lands it takes over, at a fixed and fair price. The Government will receive the money and in due time will make compensation to the Arabs.

from Jewish Villages In Israel, by the Jewish National Fund, (Keren Kayemeth Leisrael) Summer 1949 Jerusalem pg XXI --Juanita 05:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Lehn and Davis make it very clear where they get "88%" from. You quoted it above. It is "almost all the rest" after "300,000-400,000 dunums" of state land, and "under two million dunums" of JNF and private Jewish land is subtracted. That comes to about 88% even if the upper bounds 400,000 and 2 million are used. However whoever added "including the Gaza Strip and the West Bank" was mistaken. --Zerotalk 10:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

First stage of the flight, December 1947 - March 1948
Before the existence of Israel as a modern day state, ie May 15, 1948 --a "Palestinian" meant on broad lines, "Jews" and "Arabs". Thus it is disengenuous(sp) to refer to "Palestinians" when one only means Arab residents of the area known as "Palestine". I may consider editing that so that it better reflects the realities of the time. Juanita 05:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable, "Arabs" or "Palestinian Arabs".--Doron 06:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Lydda, Ramle, Nazareth
I removed this commentary, which should have been put on the Talk page:
 * There seems to be some confusion over the "Drive them out!" quote. In this source the city is Nazareth, and a bit different:  Furthermore, the Bar-Zohar biography quotes one Israeli officer's description of the prime minister's first visit to Nazareth: He "looked around in astonishment, saying, 'Why are there so many Arabs? Why didn't you drive them out?'" (These accounts appear only in the Hebrew version of the Bar-Zohar biography, not in the condensed English version.)('Israel Talks of a New Exodus' -- Ellen Cantarow and Peretz Kidron) Considering this, it would be wise to hold this quote as suspect.

In fact Lydda+Ramle was a completely different incident from Nazareth. There is no cause to use a slight similarity between them to question one of them. Actually Bar Zohar gives both incidents in his book. The Lydda+Ramle incident was reported by Yitzhak Rabin on several occasions and supported by the fact the formal written orders for expulsion were immediately issued. --Zerotalk 10:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)