Talk:History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 1

Archived 8/1/06

Introduction
The undercored part of this sentence needs backing up: ''Simultaneously Palestine's neighbour states entered the war in support of the Palestininians. '' AFAIK, they invaded to destroy Israel and did not hide their genocidal intentions. If that was meant "support of the Palestininians", we should say so. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 20:44, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * "genocidal intentions"? The word genocide shouldn't be used needlessly. Have you got anything to back up this claim? There is a very, very big difference between "state" and its population. - pir 21:08, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"(Israel) in contravention of the Partition plan, began killing and ethnically cleansing Palestinian Arab population. Palestine's five neighbour states then attacked Israel."
User:HistoryBuffer insists on inserting: that Israel "in contravention of the Partition plan, began killing and ethnically cleansing Palestinian Arab population. Palestine's five neighbour states then attacked Israel."...When no-one but he says this, and refuses to accept anything else. IZAK 08:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

i like how HistoryBuffEr continually puts up highly POV edits that have no factual basis and then complains when other users call him an anti-semite. I am starting to think that IZAK was entirely justified calling HistoryBuffer such. Xtra 09:25, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. No kidding! IZAK 05:04, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dispute
I see that this has a "totally disputed" tag on it. I would very much appreciate if we could have a listing of the specific sentences (or omissions) in the article that are disputed, so that we have some chance of resolving the issues one by one. Most to the point, it appears that the note came from HistoryBuffEr, and he is threatening other people with disciplinary action for removing it, but he has not given the required notice here on the talk page of what he is disputing. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:48, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * It should be obvious why this article is diisputed: it largely copies text from already disputed articles and the article history shows that all attempts to NPOV it were quickly reverted by resident pro-Israel POV pushers.


 * However I'll briefly reiterate:
 * Omission of Jewish terrorism as the major cause of the British withdrawal.
 * False claim that Arabs started the "war for Palestine".
 * Omission of numerous Israeli terror and ethnics cleansing campaigns.
 * Claim that "war created" Palestinian refugees, when Israeli terror campaign was the actual cause.
 * Claim that Jews were "expelled from or voluntarily left" Arab countries, when most Jews actually left voluntarily.
 * False claim that there was "about the same number of Jewish refugees". Most Jews were voluntary immigrants.
 * Claim that Arabs attacked Israel after Declaration, without mentioning Israeli ethnic cleansing operations as the main cause of the Arab attack.
 * The PLO section has all kinds of POV claims about PLO, except that it was formed for Liberation of Palestine.
 * Another claim that "war created" Palestinian refugees in the "Six-day war."
 * Israeli Invasion of Lebanon is called "Lebanon War".
 * False claim that Israel was merely aware of the Lebanon massacres when it actually actively helped (and Sharon was indicted for these war crimes.)
 * HistoryBuffEr 17:38, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the list here. I don't doubt that I could have worked this out from a tedious examination of the article's history, but it really helps to have it in one place. And, frankly, edit wars are a hellish way to carry on a dialogue and try to build consensus.

I do want to say before starting: as far as I can see, it's not like you've been coming at this from a no-stake-in-the-matter, neutral point of view yourself. Clearly, you are exactly as much of a POV pusher as those with whom you are disputing.

So as not to interfere with your original list, I am replicating it to make an area for point-by-point discussion. Everyone should feel free to intersperse here, please sign every comment. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Area for point-by-point discussion

 * Omission of Jewish terrorism as the major cause of the British withdrawal. - (HistoryBuffEr)
 * Yes, I'd agree that there seems to be a bit of an omission here. I would think that, in particular, we should mention the bombing of the King David Hotel. - Jmabel | Talk 19:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. HistoryBuffEr
 * The King David Hotel was a British Military headquarters; it doesn't qualify under terrorism, though it does qualify as military resistance. Jayjg 14:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify (and I promise that this is not a rhetorical question): Do you then consider the Al-Qaeda attack on the Pentagon (as distinguished from the attack on the World Trade Center) not to have been an act of terrorism? I suppose there is the issue of those killed in the plane itself, so I'd also like your opinion on the hypothetical case that a suicide squad had performed this action after somehow having let the passengers off the plane &mdash; except, perhaps, any members of the U.S. military who happened to be on the plane &mdash? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:56, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * With or without the use of the word "terrorism", do we have consensus that the King David Hotel attack is both famous and important and belongs in the article? And, HistoryBuffEr, are there specific other incidents that you believe deserve mention in this respect? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:56, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's been three days, no one has replied, I have added this to the article, I believe in an NPOV manner. Is this part of the POV dispute now resolved?-- Jmabel | Talk 19:30, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't notice these questions. The Al Quaeda attack was a co-ordinated series of attacks on mostly civilian targets, and killed dozens of civilians on planes as well.  The King David attack is famous and important; should the warning calls be listed? Jayjg 20:35, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * There were many more terrorist attacks, the Brits wouldn't have cut and run just for the "King David". I'll post more in a new section below. HistoryBuffEr 03:42, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

--
 * False claim that Arabs started the "war for Palestine". - (HistoryBuffEr)
 * Can I assume that this is over the specific sentence "Following November 29, 1947, the Yishuv was attacked by Arab irregulars"? Or does this refer to more than this? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * The mention of one Arab attack, while omitting much more numerous Jewish attacks is laughably POV. We could mention either all incidences or just major ones. Neither of these neutral approaches would result in only Arab attacks mentioned. HistoryBuffEr 20:02, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
 * HistoryBuffEr, could you provide below, as a staged contribution, what you would write here? Or would it be in several distinct places in the article making that hard to do? And, if that is the case, how do you suggest we proceed on this? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:51, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * See below. HistoryBuffEr 03:42, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
 * Omission of numerous Israeli terror and ethnics cleansing campaigns.- (HistoryBuffEr)
 * Specifics of what you think should be included? A bullet list would be useful. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * I am just claiming that the complete omission is incredibly biased. I am open on exactly what to include. HistoryBuffEr 20:02, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
 * All actitities by all groups would need to be inserted, including terrorist activities by Arab groups, encouragement by Arab leaders for Arabs to leave, and encouragement by Israeli leaders for Arabs to stay. Jayjg 14:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Probably a chronology of major incidents would be useful. Question: does anyone think that in the period leading up to independence it would be misrepresentative to include a roughly equal number of incidents instigated by each side? Let's see if we can resolve that first, then move on to later times. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:51, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Is there any way of listing the most famous incidents? Or is that just grounds for another series of POV wars? Jayjg 20:35, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * A "roughly equal" number would not be NPOV, as there were many more Jewish attacks. Not all have to be listed, but a fair proportion should be maintained. HistoryBuffEr 03:42, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

-
 * Claim that "war created" Palestinian refugees, when Israeli terror campaign was the actual cause. - (HistoryBuffEr)
 * Causality is always controversial. I'd suggest that each side of the question here seek a good authority to quote on their view. It seems to me that a balanced article needs to avoid taking sides on this in the narrative voice of the article and should simply quote views on both sides. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * My point here is twofold: POV omission and lack of balance. That Israel ethnically cleansed Palestinian Arabs is an historical fact, admitted even by the staunchly pro-Israel historian Morris. And, at the same time, the para about Jewish refugees does not say "war created" but "expelled or left". HistoryBuffEr 20:02, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
 * You misrepresent the views of Morris, whose research in any event has been discredited. There were several causes for Arab refugees, and trying to pin it all an "Israeli terror campaign" is false and POV. Jayjg 14:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I would agree that there are several factors that came into play in various degrees, and they should all be mentioned, with citations (and, where relevant, with citations of those who discount them as well). Have at it. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:51, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Hehe, Morris was idolized in Israel as the greatest historian of the world while he was denying Israel's ethnic cleansing. He recently found additional documents (some were just unclassified) and he revised his account, listing numerous instances of ethnic cleansing. Even though he is still advocating in favor of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians (!?!), he has now apparently become yet another self-hating Jew for the ultra-ultra-Ortodox Jayjg. Thanks for the laugh. HistoryBuffEr 03:42, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

-
 * Claim that Jews were "expelled from or voluntarily left" Arab countries, when most Jews actually left voluntarily. - (HistoryBuffEr)
 * Again, all I can imagine doing with this is citing authorities. There's voluntarily and voluntarily. Unless someone actually physically removes you, your departure is in some sense voluntarily, but threat of force or perceived threat can be involved. To pick an (obviously loaded) analogy: I've had several Jewish friends -- only one of them still alive, to the best of my knowledge -- who "voluntarily" left Austria in '38, but that is a very subtle use of the word voluntary. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Under your critera the Arab all voluntarily left Israel as well. Jayjg 14:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * See "balance" above. Also, it is an historical fact that most Jews came on alyia, thus "voluntarily" should precede "expelled". Even better and more NPOV would be to simply state numbers or proportion. HistoryBuffEr 20:02, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
 * Again, by your definition, it is an historical fact that almost all Arabs left Israel voluntarily, as they were not trucked over the borders by Israeli troops. Jayjg 14:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * And again, cite, cite, cite. There is no neutral opinion on this, only the possibility of citing and quoting respectable views from various sources. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:51, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Jayjg is trying to obfuscate the obvious (again.) A refugee is a person fleeing persecution for what he is. Someone looking for a better life, a free house or land, to join his tribe or religious brethren, or to help drive out the "evil Ayrabs", etc, is not a refuge. Most Jewish "refugees" fall in the latter category. HistoryBuffEr 03:42, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

---
 * False claim that there was "about the same number of Jewish refugees". Most Jews were voluntary immigrants. - (HistoryBuffEr)
 * I've tried to reword for better balance; I think the use of the word "refugees" in the narrative voice of the article was a bit polemical. Using the numbers from Jewish refugees, I have changed "About the same number of Jewish refugees were expelled from or voluntarily left their Arab homelands in the Middle East and North Africa" to "About 900,000 Jews either were expelled from or voluntarily left their Arab homelands in the Middle East and North Africa. Roughly two thirds of these came to Israel. (See Jewish refugees.)" -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Most Jews who immigrated did so completely voluntarily. "Refugee" implies "involuntary", so numbers or proportion of true refugees should be stated to avoid the current false impression that ethnic cleansing was about equal one both sides. HistoryBuffEr 20:02, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
 * See above. And you're right, there is a false impression created, since the ethnic cleansing of Jews was greater. Jayjg 14:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * We could argue endlessly about "who suffered more" and it still wouldn't help us get a decent article written. This is an article on the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not the more general Arab-Israeli conflict, so the issue of how voluntary were Jewish departures from North Africa or Iraq is something of a sideshow, probably doesn't belong in this article at any length, and should be fought out elsewhere. Does anyone object to the current wording or can we consider this POV issue resolved? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:51, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * See above. HistoryBuffEr 03:42, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
 * Claim that Arabs attacked Israel after Declaration, without mentioning Israeli ethnic cleansing operations as the main cause of the Arab attack. - (HistoryBuffEr)
 * Again, this calls for citations on both sides. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. HistoryBuffEr
 * So go for it, both sides, please. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:51, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * The PLO section has all kinds of POV claims about PLO, except that it was formed for Liberation of Palestine. - (HistoryBuffEr)
 * Offhand, that seems simultaneously pleonastic and contentious. "Liberation" is always from the point of view of one party to a conflict. What exactly do you want this passage to say? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm pointing out that the PLO para states only negative things about PLO (not to mention the POV propaganda "destruction of Israel"). HistoryBuffEr 20:02, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
 * Which "positive" things did you want to state about the PLO, a terrorist group notorious for multiple attackes on civilicans? Jayjg 14:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Could we have a moratorium on the use of the word "terrorist"? Yes, we could slap that label on Lehi and the Irgun and the PLO and on the Lebanese Falangists and arguably on various state actors, but it seems more useful to me to focus on facts and leave out such loaded words. It is factual, and worth mentioning, when the U.S. State Department, or the European Union, or some such, officially classifies a group as "terrorist", but it's another matter to use this word in the narrative voice of the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:05, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * HistoryBuffEr, I believe the ball is in your court here: what do you want to see added? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:51, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll rewrite the section when I get the chance. HistoryBuffEr 03:42, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)


 * Another claim that "war created" Palestinian refugees in the "Six-day war." - (HistoryBuffEr)
 * And you would say what? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd state facts: who or what caused refugees. We are not talking about a handful, but 300,000 refuges. HistoryBuffEr 20:02, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
 * The "facts" of "who or what caused refugees" are generally POV claims, and almost always so when you make them. Jayjg 14:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Again, can we see citations from both sides? Or HistoryBuffEr, can you suggest what would strike you as more neutral wording? Because this one seems pretty neutral to me, it doesn't cast blame, it just says, in effect, there was a war, more people were left as refugees. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:51, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * The issue here is: When Jews are victims, that fact is sprinkled all over the article (and in dozens of articles all over Wikipedia.) There are photos, lists of victims, links galore, etc.
 * However, when Arabs are victims, that fact is barely mentioned, usually euphemized as "*hit happens".

-
 * Israeli Invasion of Lebanon is called "Lebanon War". - (HistoryBuffEr)
 * Our article on this conflict is called 1982 Lebanon War. I would say that this issue should be taken up there, and this article should use whatever is resolved there. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Using "war" in place of the more accurate and specific "invasion" is POV; no need to wait for some article to say so. HistoryBuffEr 20:02, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
 * I also think "war" in this case is something of a euphemism. Does anyone object to us recharacterizing this as an "invasion"?
 * Invasion is fine. Jayjg 20:35, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Given that it's been several days and nothing but agreement, I will make this edit. Can we consider this point resolved? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:16, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

-
 * False claim that Israel was merely aware of the Lebanon massacres when it actually actively helped (and Sharon was indicted for these war crimes.) - (HistoryBuffEr)
 * The article as it stands right now does not merely say that Israel was aware, it says that an Israeli Commission of Inquiry found this, which is to say this merely sets a minimum bound on Israeli culpability. Yes, more could be added. (Re: Sharon, indictment is not conviction.) As far as I'm concerned, specific citation of other relevant views would be welcome, but claims to omniscience are not. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * This passage does not accurately reflect what happened. See Sabra and Shatila Massacre. HistoryBuffEr 20:02, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
 * Which version, before or after you POVd the article? Jayjg 14:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * HistoryBuffEr, what exactly do you think this article should say on this point? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:51, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Here's my short and NPOV summary:
 * "On September 16, 1982, Israeli army troops, under the command of Ariel Sharon, encircled the refuge camps "Sabra" and "Shatilla" in Lebanon, and the Phalangist militia entered the camps. For the next 36 hours, the Phalangists massacred the inhabitants of the refugee camps, killing about 2,750 Palestinians with the knowledge and active assistance of the Israeli military. The United Nations General Assembly condemned the massacre on December 16, 1982, and declared it to be an act of genocide. Ariel Sharon resigned as defense minister, but later became Israeli Prime Minister."
 * HistoryBuffEr 03:42, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

Well, that's short. And while I don't disagree strongly, I have some issues and some questions :


 * 1) Why would you want to remove the statement that "Israel was heavily criticized, including from within. An Israeli Commission of Inquiry found that Israeli military personnel had several times become aware that a massacre was in progress without taking serious steps to stop it." I know you don't think the condemnation was strong enough, but leaving this out seems to me to ignore important disagreement within Israel. (In fact, I now see we have an article Kahan Commission, which should be linked from here.) And I do think we should add that it was criticized by some as a whitewash.
 * 2) I think "massacred" is an unnecessarily colorful verb (even though it's true enough, I'd like to get words like this out of the article entirely: as with "terrorism", every partisan wants to apply them to all of the other side's actions and none of their own). The facts speak for themselves, and we use "massacre" as a noun in the next paragraph.
 * 3) I don't particularly doubt that the number 2,750 is approximately correct, but what is your source on that? As I remember it, the numbers were the subject of some controversy, if there are a range of estimates, we should give the varying estimates with a citation for each. The relevant citation was in the article before, why on earth did you remove it? Anyway, I've now restored. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:21, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC) I see, I was right in recalling that the number was controversial. This is being fought over at Sabra and Shatilla Massacre. Which, in any event we should link to.
 * 4) Do you have the number for the U.N. General Assembly resolution? That would be an important citation, especially the explicit use of the word "genocide". I ask, because while I see a lot of mentions of this on the web, they are all without citation, mostly on partisan sites, and I can't find anything on the UN's own site, which is normally comprehensive for this sort of thing. I see a solid reference to a UNHCR resolution 1983/3, 15 February 1983 [1983/3, 15 February 1983] which says pretty much what you are saying, but the UNHCR is not the General Assembly. Have you followed this up yourself, or do you have a non-partisan source? I wouldn't want to see us say this in the article if it turns out to be one of those things web sites just endlessly copy from each other without checking. Found it, they use "Shatila", not "Shatilla".
 * 5) I believe Sharon didn't resign, he was dismissed. That's what we say at Kahan Commission.

So, I would end up with something like:

On September 16, 1982, Israeli army troops, under the command of Ariel Sharon, encircled the refuge camps "Sabra" and "Shatilla" in Lebanon, and the Phalangist militia entered the camps. For 36 hours, Phalangists massacred the generally unarmed Palestinian inhabitants of the refugee camps. Estimate of the number kill range widely, from "at least 800" (cited by the BBC ) to 3,500 (cited as a maximum by Al-Ahram ). (See Sabra and Shatilla Massacre.) On December 16, 1982, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 37/123 condemned the massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide. . An Israeli Commission of Inquiry, the Kahan Commission, found that Israeli military personnel had several times become aware that a massacre was in progress without taking serious steps to stop it. Their failure to hold the Israeli forces more directly responsible was widely seen as a whitewash. [citation needed for that last] At the commission's recommendation, Sharon was dismissed as defense minister; nonetheless, in 2001 he became Israeli Prime Minister.

Noting here, in case the web pages go away, that the Al-Ahram citation is Al-Ahram Weekly Online, 20–26 September 2001, Issue No.552 and the BBC citation is "Flashback: Sabra and Shatila massacres", Thursday, 24 January, 2002, 19:05 GMT.

If anyone has the relevant citations, feel free to just insert them in my text. For other edits, I'd appreciate if you either copy this somewhere or just comment and I will edit.

Jmabel | Talk 06:12, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * I've posted the link to the UN resolution at Talk:Sabra_and_Shatila_Massacre.
 * As for the massacre summary, summaries should be as short as possible (but not shorter than that) and readable. Expressing something in fewer words does require more time than simply rambling on and on, but these articles are supposed to be readable so the effort is worth it.
 * I think your additions would make the summary too wordy, thus less clear. I would use mine, with your correction ("Sharon dismised") and maybe add a sentence about the Israeli commission if you insist (to me the judgment of the UN is more noteworthy.)
 * Also note that the article linked uses "massacre" in title. I don't think it would be more NPOV to use the euphemism "attack" for something no one disputes was a massacre; "attack" is a (too) general term and sounds goofy in this context. HistoryBuffEr 06:59, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
 * I think the mention of the Kahan Commission is important, so I would hope that in the interest of consensus you will allow it.
 * I'll restore "massacre" (making it three uses of that word). The word is so associated with the events that my objection is slight.
 * Meanwhile, can you find citations to justify, "Their failure to hold the Israeli forces more directly responsible was widely seen as a whitewash"? I'd hope to find these from some generally neutral sources. The fact that the Palestians didn't like what an Israeli Commission said goes without saying. I found a citation from Chomsky, but he has such a long-standing antagonism to every Israeli government since at lease the mid-1960s that he's not a very interesting citation here. Can we find a relatively neutral source that says this? I think it's true, so we should be able to find something; when we do, the citations should also be on Kahan Commission; if someone had done their homework there, they'd have saved us some effort here. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:18, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll try to find something soon, but I think it's obvious from the factual description that Israel's was not just aware, but actively assisting the massacres. If turning back the fleeing refugees and arming and feeding the militia is not active assistance, then I need a new dictionary :)
 * BTW, thanks for your efforts in this area, I have pretty much given up on wasting my time on proving every obvious point to the extreme extremists here (who will never ever concur, no matter what you prove.) HistoryBuffEr 09:29, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
 * I have found that when people have decent citations -- and when they are honest enough to also provide citations potentially useful to the "other side" when they find them -- not very many editors are intransigent. The problem usually comes when two people are exchanging their own view of "the truth" with nothing but their own say-so.
 * Probably not the place to discuss this at length, but I've wondered whether in some of these articles where things get so adversarial what we need is less of a free-for-all and a bit more of an explicit advocate for each side and a mutually-agreed-upon mediator. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:10, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Israel didn't allow Arabs who fled to return
The article currently says "Israel didn't allow Arabs who fled to return". I object to this formulation as a vast over-simplification. In 1949, Israel offered to allow families that had been separated during the war to return, to release refugee accounts frozen in Israeli banks (eventually released in 1953), to pay compensation for abandoned lands and to repatriate 100,000 refugees. The Arabs rejected all the Israeli compromises. They were unwilling to take any action that might be construed as recognition of Israel. They made repatriation a precondition for negotiations, something Israel rejected. This impasse is an important causal factor, and is unmentioned. Jayjg 15:03, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, if you have clear documentation of that, I think it belongs in the article (along with a clear statement that 100,000 would have been &mdash; I believe, and someone correct me if I am wrong on this &mdash; slightly less than 20% of the refugees) -- Jmabel | Talk 20:08, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * The source is Terence Prittie, "Middle East Refugees," in Michael Curtis, et al., The Palestinians, (NJ: Transaction Books, 1975), pp. 66-67 as quoted here: . Jayjg 20:40, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I've added this accordingly in the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:30, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well. In a matter of days we seem to have consensus including you and Jayjg, who I assume sees you roughly as you see him, on at least a third of the previously disputed matters.


 * Jmabel, I would not consider as credible any citation from a site which disputes as "myth" for example ""Millions of Palestinians are confined to squalid refugee camps." Therefore, this preposterous claim that Israel nearly rolled out red carpet for Arabs should not be included until a credible proof is supplied. (Even if the citation is correct, one claim made by a biased person is not definitive evidence.) HistoryBuffEr 21:47, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)


 * I agree that the site itself is a poor reference; perhaps we should directly cite the Prittie article in the Curtis book? However it would be intellectually dishonest to citee that without someone actually seeing the book. Jayjg (or for that matter HistoryBuffEr): are you in a position to track down that book to see exactly what it says? And, Jayjg, would you agree to move this passage back to the talk page until a respectable citation is found (either Prittie/Curtis or some other respectable book)? For whatever it's worth, I believe the statement is essentially correct, but I no longer have a copy of the book where I believe I read it, but it was in a book generally critical of Israel. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:04, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * The site is as reliable as any book by Robert Fisk on the topic; HistoryBuffEr dismisses any site that is not rabidly anti-Israel as "unreliable". I haven't seen any false citations on that site, or evidence on any other wepages stating false citations there, have you? Jayjg 20:58, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Here's a reference from another (not pro-Israel) site; "As in 1948, the UN called for Israel to allow these refugees to return to their homes. In both cases, Israel allowed a few thousand refugees to return, but the vast majority are kept in exile. An Israeli offer in 1950 to take back 100,000 refugees was later withdrawn." That quote would indicate that some were even allowed to return in 1948.   A pro-Palestinian site which says much the same . This quote confirms that "In 1949, Israel offered to admit 100,000 Arab refugees, with the understanding that their repatriation would be linked to meaningful peace negotiations. Although 35,000 Arabs eventually returned under a family reunification plan, further implementation of the offer was suspended in the 1950's, after it became clear that the Arab states steadfastly refused to consider Israel's peace overtures, preferring instead to maintain a state of war with and economic boycott against Israel. In contrast, as a gesture of goodwill, Israel unilaterally released the frozen bank accounts and safe deposits of Arab refugees."  Jayjg 21:11, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Here's the official offer from the Palestine Conciliation Commission, Fourth Progress Report, A/922, 22 September 1949: "Subject to these conditions, the Government of Israel would be prepared to accept the return to Israel in its present limits of 100,000 refugees, in addition to the total Arab population existing at the end of the hostilities (including those who have already returned since then), thus increasing the total number of that Population to a maximum of 250,000. This repatriation would form part of a general plan for resettlement of refugees which would be established by a special organ to be created for the purpose by the United Nations."  Jayjg 21:11, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * That's a much better citation. I'll edit the article accordingly. HistoryBuffEr, do you have a problem with that citation? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:14, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Don't forget to note that some refugees actually were allowed back in; the source states 35,000. Jayjg 04:49, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Fine with me, assuming the presentation of facts is neutral, proportional and readable, meaning: briefly state relevant facts, let's not spend half a page on a largely failed proposal. HistoryBuffEr 04:22, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)


 * Take a look what I wrote, it's pretty concise. As for the 35,000, what source? I don't see any number in the "4th Progress Report". -- Jmabel | Talk 05:21, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * The source was this: . All the sources agree that some refugees were allowed to return, I guess you're just questioning the number? Jayjg 16:35, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Precisely, and that is a very partisan source, so I wouldn't trust them on a contentious number, at least not without following up their chain of citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:46, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Failing finding an explicit number from another source, what wording would you accept? Jayjg 19:12, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[back to left margin because this is indenting too deep]

If that's all we've got, I would suggest, "All sides seem to agree that several thousand refugees had already been allowed to return by the time this proposal was made and rejected, but reliable numbers are hard to come by. The number 35,000, given by the pro-Israel website Palestine Facts, can be reasonably assumed as an upper bound." But I'm open to other suggestions. I'd sure be happier if we had either something we could equally assume to be a lower bound or something relatively non-partisan (say, a UNHCR estimate). -- Jmabel | Talk 22:45, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Why the hyper-skepticism and wordiness? It's not Wikipedia standard to do so, and certainly not NPOV either; we don't subject other websites, which often have a POV, to this degree of caveats. Moreover, we're devoting dozens of words in a reasonably small article to what may not even be a contentious issue. This is better, and NPOV as well: "Several thousand (and perhaps as many as 35,000 ) Arab refugees had already been allowed to return by the time this proposal was made and rejected." Jayjg 02:13, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I can live with that. HistoryBuffEr, can you? If we get a lower number from elsewhere we'd have "...(perhaps as few as [other citation], perhaps as many as 35,000 )..."


 * The skepticism is mine. I think you've seen enough of my work to know I'm not singling this out, I'm pretty skeptical of anything sourced only from partisans in controversial matters. And I think we can all agree that this is an area in which a lot of mutually contradictory information is out there, even if we can't all agree which of it we trust. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:58, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Not a good idea to use 35,000 considering how awfully biased the source apparently is; I haven't seen one single claim there that's kosher. "(some claim more)" would be an acceptable compromise. HistoryBuffEr 06:33, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
 * Could you live with my more verbose wording above? Or do you have any source for a different number? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:25, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Your own source provided the 35,000 number. Jayjg 18:57, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am not a nitpicker -- if the big picture is accurate, what's included and what's not is less important. But this would paint a false picture that 1/3rd returned despite the disagreement. The one and only source cited is highly biased and the 35,000 figure is highly unlikely.

The claim actually misstates the fact that negotiations about 35,000 were completed previously and return of some was underway. Some returned, but as the agreement fell apart, that was stopped and it is higly unlikely that 100% of these returned before and despite talks breakdown. See This reference: "This number would have included some 35,000 refugees whose return had already been negotiated and was underway ". HistoryBuffEr 16:15, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)


 * How do you know it "misstates" any facts? Does the article indicate that the return of the 35,000, which was already underway, did not, in fact, complete? Jayjg 16:31, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The wording implies that the return of the 35,000 was negotiated, underway, and completed. The paper indicates that the 100,000 consisted of 35,000 who were already agreed to, and who did return, and another 65,000 who were offered, but the offer for those 65,000 was rescinded when negotiations fell apart. Jayjg 19:11, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * In any event, it's not 1/3 of the refugees at all. As the article clearly says, even 100,000 would only have been 15%, so 35,000 is about 5%. Again, HistoryBuffEr, I'd welcome a non-partisan or differently partisan source with a lower number, but if we only have one source, and we can reasonably say that it presents an upper bound, that's better than saying nothing. I believe my wording is extremely clear about why this is a less-than-reliable number. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:54, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what "1/3 of refugees" has to do with it. Your opinion about why this is a "less than reliable" number is pure POV bias.  I have found two sites which explicity state it, and HistoryBuffEr found one which states it by implication.  The simple language is the only NPOV way to go. Jayjg 17:04, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Jmabel: With all due respect, please reread my previous post. HistoryBuffEr 17:14, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)


 * I believe I've read it correctly. You, too, cite a reference that reinforces my inference that 35,000 would be an upper limit on the number that returned. It seems from what you've both presented that the return of 35,000 refugees had either been negotiated or unilaterally conceded (it's hard to tell which) and that some or all of those did actually return. So far I don't see a shred of evidence for any particular number in the range from the low thousands to 35,000. I stand by my original proposed text. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:54, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * The point, again, is that 35,000 is only the number negotiated, not the number of those returned (just like 100,000 is just the number negotiated.) There is no evidence and it is highly unlikely that anywhere near 35,000 returned, so this number should not be used. As we cannot guess even approximately, an NPOV statement worthy of encyclopedia would be several thousands returned (some claim more). If we were to include unsubstantiated claims by biased web pages, anyone can whip up a web page in minutes and post some numbers. HistoryBuffEr 00:50, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)


 * Again, I really feel like people here are trying to score political points rather than to write the best and most informative possible article, and I don't like it.


 * Can we at least all agree on "All sides seem to agree that several thousand refugees had already been allowed to return by the time this proposal was made and rejected, but reliable numbers are hard to come by."? I find that hideously vague, and I find it rather odd that HistoryBuffEr is rejecting the only upper-bound number we've got but won't go out and do some research and find a source he finds more acceptable, but I guess the ambiguous "several thousand" is better than saying nothing. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:21, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * It wasn't really politics, but since you mentioned it: why include a dubious claim by someone who insists that everyone else must provide a solid proof?
 * I'll try to find some solid numbers when I get a chance. In the meantime: It is more honest to be ambiguous than certain but wrong. HistoryBuffEr 02:21, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)


 * And that "someone" would be? If you are referring to me, yes, I do tend to want to see citations in controversial matters, but I think I have about as good a record of providing them myself as much anyone else on this project, and I don't think I've tended to apply any different standard to one side than another. Also, while I don't see what is "wrong" about saying that a clearly partisan number presents an upper bound, I also don't think it is worth further argument. In any case, though, I'll ask again: Can we at least all agree on adding "All sides seem to agree that several thousand refugees had already been allowed to return by the time this proposal was made and rejected, but reliable numbers are hard to come by."? If someone comes up with better evidence we can revise that. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:20, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

To Jmabel:
 * "All sides seem to agree that several thousand refugees had already been allowed to return by the time this proposal was made and rejected, but reliable numbers are hard to come by." sounds reasonable to me.
 * (P.S: No idea why you continue to feel offended by remarks not directed at you. In case it's not clear: Your efforts are much appreciated and your general approach is sound.) HistoryBuffEr 21:06, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)

Well, it's better than nothing. This seems like a topic moderately worthy of a survey of the literature, if someone is in a scholarly mood. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:05, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg has now changed this to use "(this number would have included some 35,000 refugees whose return had already been negotiated and was underway)". He says that comes from HistoryBuffEr's source; I will take him at his word, I've got a backlog right now, and I haven't known him to misquote sources. However, I find that wording in this context a bit misleading, because it could easily be misunderstood as asserting that 35,000 returned, and, as I understand it, when negotiations broke down the return stopped somewhere short of that number. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:19, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * Here are the sections in question from the May 1998 article titled "The Palestinian Refugee Problem and the Right of Return" by Joseph Alpher and Khalil Shikaki of the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University: "Notably, from the early 1950s until 1967, Israel maintained a family reunification program under which it claims that around 40–50,000 refugees returned to Israel; several additional thousands returned between 1967 and 1994. And since the beginning of the Oslo process, Israel has collaborated in the de facto “return” to the Palestinian authority of thousands of 1948 refugees: PLO political figures and security forces, and their families. If return is defined as applying to “mandatory Palestine,” this may enable both Palestinians and Israelis to take satisfaction in the exercise of a return to the eventual Palestinian state alone. But in general, Israel, in keeping with its narrative, has preferred to avoid taking political initiatives in the refugee issue." "The principal known Israeli initiative took place in the summer of 1949. Under pressure from the US, and in view of Arab refusal (at the Lausanne Conference) to discuss agreed borders until the refugee issue had been resolved, the Ben Gurion government agreed to absorb 100,000 refugees. This number would have included some 35,000 refugees whose return had already been negotiated and was underway. Israel’s decision was made conditional upon Arab agreement, at Lausanne, to a comprehensive peace, including resettlement of the remaining refugees in Arab countries. Discussion within the Israeli government at the time also touched upon the possibility of absorbing a larger number of refugees, on condition that the Gaza Strip (with some of its refugee population) would be transferred from Egyptian to Israeli control, thereby improving Israel’s military security situation vis-à-vis Egypt. Ultimately the Arabs rejected the Israeli offer, after which Israel retracted it."
 * I'm not sure why you have the impression that the return stopped before the full 35,000 was reached; as you can see, the Israeli claim is that the refugees returned is actually higher, at 40-50,000. Also I think you'll agree that the context in which it is quoted in the Wikipedia article is identical the context in which it is quoted in the paper.  Do you have any objection to the current formulation? Jayjg 16:02, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * As usual, Jayjg just ignored everything that was said and put in what he wanted without asking anyone. As this is creating a wrong impression, I'll revert to your version. Jayjg is stubborn, "his way or highway", and his gang is likely to join him, so you may have to join the revert battle if you want to maintain NPOV (yeah, I hate it too, but with some there is no other way, as you have just witnessed.) HistoryBuffEr 04:29, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)


 * Please restrict comments to article contents. Are there any objections to the formulation used by Joseph Alpher and Khalil Shikaki in their paper? Jayjg 16:02, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I had not seen this before. Jay, can you give us proper citation on this Alpher and Shikaki article (when it was published, in what journal or book, etc.).

HistoryBuffEr, do you have any objection to this as a source?

I'd propose the following edit; additions are indicated by bold, deletions by strikethrough:

"In 1949, as part of a proposed comprehensive peace settlement, Israel offered to allow families that had been separated during the war to return, to release refugee accounts frozen in Israeli banks (these were eventually released in 1953), to pay compensation for abandoned lands and to repatriate 100,000 refugees (this number would have included some 35,000 refugees whose return had already been negotiated and was underway), about 15% of those who had fled. The Arabs rejected this compromise, at least in part because they were unwilling to take any action that might be construed as recognition of Israel. They made repatriation a precondition for negotiations, which Israel rejected. [Palestine Reconciliation Commission, September 1949; Prittie, 1975]."

"In the face of this impasse, Israel halted the process of return; it resumed in the early 1950s with a family reunification program that Israel claims had returned around 40–50,000 refugees to Israel by 1967. Several additional thousands returned between 1967 and 1994. [Alpher and Shikaki. date?] didn't allow any of the Arabs who fled to return and, w With the exception of Transjordan..."

Comments? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:42, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * I have trouble with the word "abandoned". If you leave your home for any reason - holiday, business trip, hurricane warning, or concern about your family's safety due to political unrest - and then you are forcibly prevented from returning to your home, have you "abandoned" your home? When you park your car on the street do you "abandon" it, inviting theives to take it? This is not how "abandon" is commonly understood or defined in dictionaries. Imagine the police telling you "sorry, we can't help you" because you "abandoned" your car? So instead of "abandoned lands", we should say something like "property of people who were forcibly prevented from returning to their homes by the Zionist settlers".24.64.166.191 05:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that the above comment and the following response about a year after the discussion into which it is interspersed. 
 * 24.64.166.191: I agree with your reasonibg about the change from "abandoned", but not with the introduction of the far more loaded term "Zionist settlers". How about "&hellip;to pay compensation for homes and land whose owners had left in 1947 and were then prevented by the Israelis from returning&hellip;"? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is the link to begin with ; HistoryBuffEr provided it earlier. Why don't you have a look, then see what you think.  I'm still not sure why the wording used in the link HistoryBuffEr provided is not perfectly reasonable. Jayjg 01:09, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The passage is very misleading (as usual, Israel is painted in nearly saintly tones and Arabs as unreasonable):
 * Israel didn't offer anything, it merely agreed under pressure from the US and because Arabs would not talk about borders until the refugee issue had been resolved. (see quote above)
 * The explanation that Arabs rejected "at least in part because they were unwilling to take any action that might be construed as recognition of Israel" is equally misleading (and an unsubstantiated speculation). The main reason was that Arabs wanted to resolve the issue of all refugees, while Israel flatly rejected that and insisted that most refugees be resettled in Arab countries.
 * "They made repatriation a precondition for negotiations, which Israel rejected. [Palestine Reconciliation Commission" is redundant and out of place after the above facts are stated.
 * The Israel's claim of 40-50K returned needs to be substantiated or taken out.
 * In fact, Israel in general "didn't allow any of the Arabs who fled to return", whatever it allowed was in return for concessions (which would be funny if it was not tragic: Israel's expulsions were illegal.)
 * Again, details aside, the big picture must be clear and not take sides. HistoryBuffEr 01:24, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)

Gosh, I don't see anything the least bit unreasonable about the Arabs rejecting an offer that came down to "15% of you can come back and the rest are screwed. And you have to let go of this as a grievance." In an analogous situation, I believe I would have done the same (though I might have "stayed at the table").


 * I disagree with your rejection of the word "offer". Countries in negotiations like this are always under pressure from someone. At this time, the US and Israel were not yet so deeply connected that US pressure would have been all that compelling. Whatever brought Israel to make this particular offer, it was made.
 * Yes, unless someone has a citation "at least in part because they were unwilling to take any action that might be construed as recognition of Israel" should go. It sounds like conjecture. Depending on whose conjecture it was it just might be worth a mention, with clear indication of who said this.
 * "They made repatriation a precondition..." seemed to me to be an accurate reflection of the source it cites. If you think not, I'll try to take another look at that source, but I didn't see any problem with it.
 * Israel's claim is clearly stated to be just that: Israel's claim. I have no idea how one would substantiate that it is a true claim, and see no a priori reason either to believe it or to doubt it; if you question it, then please find some citable source that gives a different number or overtly challenges this one.
 * I don't know what to make of your last statement that begins, "In fact...". If the Israeli numbers are accurate, then they let back in about 5% of the refugees, which does not dramatically alter the big picture, and I think the way this is written makes that clear. Still, "didn't allow any" is almost certainly an overstatement. I assume you don't mean that literally; if so, it should not be hard to find at least a few documented cases of returnees, but I, for one, can't be bothered to prove the obvious. This has already eaten far too much of my effort. I'm just trying to get a decent article out of this; I don't feel an enormous stake in it. If you do, start coming up with solid sources and citing them. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:58, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * I have no stake beyond NPOV. I'd do it if I had time, but I do not have to disprove unsubstantiated claims made by Israel, whoever wants them in should roll up their sleeves.
 * The bottom line, as explained above: The big picture is needlessly (purposefully?) muddied by empty claims and POV phrasing. It is obvious which side produced this. It shouldn't be.
 * HistoryBuffEr 07:35, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)

Why?
So what i don't understand is why palistinians and jews can't just share, if it's about resources then pool them if it's about religeon the only way to find out whos right is to die, so why not live a calm, peaceful co-operativve life until then? and if it's all just dwelling on past events how do you expect anything to be resolved, ever? so please tell me why does this go on? to quote Ghandi 'An eye for an eye and we're all blind' (my Remix) 'A tooth for a tooth and we all eat soup' (anonymous question Nov 16, 2004)


 * My 2 cents: many people in the region favor either variants of a two-state solution or (usually on the Palestinian side) a unitary secular state. But there are plenty of individuals, especially the leaders and misleaders, who thrive on the current situation, and over half a century of conflict has now hardened feelings on both sides to the point where a lot of people are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face. Plus there are people on both sides for whom this is all about religion, or pride, and pragmatic considerations are simply seen as distractions. There is an old legend about a man who was told he could have anything he wanted, but whatever he asked for his enemy would get twice as much. He said, "Put out my eye. Painfully." -- Jmabel | Talk 23:07, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)