Talk:Nakba/Archive 5

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 May 2024
In regards to the section "Terminology", the description of the origin of the term is presented in an exceedingly misleading manner, which causes such a souring of the orignal term that the entire article has become biased towards a narrative and not factual truth. A closer inspection of the same posted source (Qusṭanṭīn Zurayq) shows that the term was created here not to describe any kind of ethnic cleansing committed by the "Zionist enemy" (Israel) but an embarassment created by and caused by the Arab forces themselves: "Seven Arab countries declare war on Zionism in Palestine….Seven countries go to war to abolish the partition and to defeat Zionism, and quickly leave the battle after losing much of the land of Palestine – and even the part that was given to the Arabs in the Partition Plan". He goes on, "We must admit our mistakes…and recognize the extent of our responsibility for the disaster that is our lot."

It is important that Zyrayq is the originator of this term and not biased towards the Israeli state, making statements anti-Zionist statements in the same text. The true flavor of the origin of this term must be mentioned as it currently biasing the entire article towards factual error. 142.157.224.197 (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Please present the request in the form Change X to Y together with a reference. Argumentation is not necessary, EC editors will decide whether to implement it.Selfstudier (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Please add to the following paragraph:
 * The term Nakba was first applied to the events of 1948 by Constantin Zureiq, a professor of history at the American University of Beirut, in his 1948 book Macnā an-Nakba (The Meaning of the Disaster). Zureiq wrote that "the tragic aspect of the Nakba is related to the fact that it is not a regular misfortune or a temporal evil, but a Disaster in the very essence of the word, one of the most difficult that Arabs have ever known over their long history."
 * To:
 * The term Nakba was first applied to the events of 1948 by Constantin Zureiq, a professor of history at the American University of Beirut, in his 1948 book Macnā an-Nakba (The Meaning of the Disaster). Zureiq wrote that "the tragic aspect of the Nakba is related to the fact that it is not a regular misfortune or a temporal evil, but a Disaster in the very essence of the word, one of the most difficult that Arabs have ever known over their long history." Zureiq coined the term to describe an embarassment created by and caused by the Arab forces themselves: "Seven Arab countries declare war on Zionism in Palestine….Seven countries go to war to abolish the partition and to defeat Zionism, and quickly leave the battle after losing much of the land of Palestine – and even the part that was given to the Arabs in the Partition Plan". He goes on, "We must admit our mistakes…and recognize the extent of our responsibility for the disaster that is our lot."
 * The source is the exact same (Zureiq 1948) as it is for the remainder of the paragraph as I have just added additional quotes from the same source for context. 142.157.228.232 (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not done. The purpose of this edit appears to be to highlight Zureiq's view ("Zureiq coined the term to describe an embarassment created by and caused by the Arab forces themselves" this is not a quote but your prose) that the Arabs messed up. That's as may be but the purpose of the section is to investigate the origin and usage of the term and this addition brings nothing to that. Selfstudier (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2024
This entire article solely describes the Palestinian narrative which at best contains half truths and totally disregards many facts such as how the 1948 war started and by whom, the genocidal attack on Jews, why were the Arabs in Gaza labeled as refugees by Egypt, and much more. People read this as comprehensive truth when it clearly isn’t. This entire topic should be re-edited to reflect full facts. Otherwise you need to clarify that this whole article is based on Palestinian narrative. ZZ1960 (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ❌ This is a comment, not an edit request. Edit requests should ask for specific changes and provided sources. Zerotalk 09:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please change the opening paragraph from:
 * The Nakba (Arabic: النكبة an-Nakbah, lit. 'The Catastrophe') was the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Mandatory Palestine during the 1948 Palestine war through their violent displacement and dispossession of land, property, and belongings, along with the destruction of their society, culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations. The term is also used to describe the ongoing persecution and displacement of Palestinians by Israel. As a whole, it covers the shattering of Palestinian society and the long-running rejection of the right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants.
 * To:
 * The Nakba (Arabic: النكبة an-Nakbah, lit. 'The Catastrophe') is the Palestinian narrative that describes an ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Mandatory Palestine during the 1948 Palestine war through their violent displacement and dispossession of land, property, and belongings, along with the destruction of their society, culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations. The term is also used to describe the ongoing persecution and displacement of Palestinians by Israel. As a whole, it covers the shattering of Palestinian society and the long-running rejection of the right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants. It is important to note that the 1948 Nakba was not an offensive operation initiated by the State of Israel but rather a defensive Israeli military response to the Arab Invasion of Israel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War) as part of the Arab League's decision to reject the formation of both the State of Israel and a Palestinian State and initiate instead an attack on the State of Israel that led to a loss of the Palestinian State and the displacement of the Palestinian Arabs (Zureiq 1948). 142.157.228.232 (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not done. This would violate WP:V and WP:NPOV, and does not accurately summarize the body of the article. Levivich (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC on inclusion in Israel lede
There is an ongoing RfC on whether to include Nakba in the lede of Israel. You're very welcome to discuss but please refrain from polemical arguing and WP:Assume good faith. Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

wording in lede
@Makeandtoss Palestinian society is still there though? It hasn't been totally destroyed, so surely devastation works better. Devastation also implies tragedy and loss, reflecting the collective trauma, whilst destroy implies more about the perpetrator acting inhuman. Tone is important and I think devastation fits Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The words used to define/describe "Nakba" should come from sources and not from editors, IMO. FYI: Talk:Nakba/Archive 3, see the "word list" collapsed box in the discussion section towards the bottom for some words and sources. Levivich (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, for describing its effect on Palestinian society I see


 * ‘disintegration’ multiple times
 * ‘devastation’ a couple times
 * ‘destruction’ multiple times
 * ‘uprooting’
 * 'fracturing'
 * 'dismantlement'
 * 'shattering'


 * My issue with destruction is that Palestinian society still exists in some form, and it would be a disservice to their tenacity or resilience, so I like devastation or disintegration, disintegration might be too passive Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Going by the list, it's either disintegration or destruction, I prefer the first myself. Selfstudier (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * FWIW that list in the talk archive isn't complete; there are additional examples now in the article itself. CTRL+F "society" and you can see what's in the footnotes, including disintegrated, destroyed, devastated, dismantled, shattered, collapsed, fell apart. I don't have a preference between these terms. Levivich (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Even though I don't have a strong preference, let me not pass up an opportunity to pontificate, which is, as you all know, my favorite pastime. As I read and understand these words:
 * "Disintegration" implies spontaneous and sudden action, as if by magic or force of nature, leaving no recognizable/usable/significant parts behind; once something is disintegrated, it cannot be reconstituted
 * "Dismantlement" implies deliberate and systematic action by an outside force; but something that is dismantled can be reassembled
 * "Destruction" also implies an outside force (which is why we call the other kind of destruction "self-destruction"), but something that is destroyed can be rebuilt
 * "Devastation" implies significant, even grave harm, but not total elimination, nor breaking apart
 * "Fracturing" and "shattering" are like "dismantlement" but without the implication of an outside force; something can fracture or shatter on its own; and I agree as someone said in an edit summary recently that "fracture" implies large pieces and "shatter" implies small pieces
 * "Uprooting" implies picking something up and putting it somewhere else, but the thing itself remains whole or at least is not destroyed or devastated
 * So I don't really like disintegrate because it implied unintentionality, as if it were a surprising consequence of other actions. Dismantle goes too far in the other direction, implying more intentionality than I think the RS support. Devastation I don't like because it implies "not totally destroyed." So that leaves me with destruction, shattering, or fracturing, and I don't really have a strong preference among those three. Levivich (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But Palestinian society wasn’t completely destroyed? It continued and continues to exist though greatly reduced interconnectedness or unity, can’t find the right word Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That you have to clarify "destroyed" with "completely" actually demonstrates the point that destruction is not implicitly total and complete. For total destruction, one either adds an adjective or uses sth. explicit like "annihilate". Iskandar323 (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree, if you were to destroy something, it would be complete. ‘Completely’ is superfluous here Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the Palestinians should have the last word. Selfstudier (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's really important we avoid hyperbole like destruction as it delegitimatizes the rest of the article in the reader's view Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with the sentiment though, if any Palestinians wish to engage in this discussion I think their opinion should be given more weight than others Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I meant Palestinian sources specifically, but yes, OK. Selfstudier (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Lol my bad Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think Palestinian sources are more likely to use hyperbole so I don’t think it makes sense to prioritise them Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If scholarly sources are already, according to you, hyperbolic in their use of destruction, what words are you expecting from Palestinian scholars? Selfstudier (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So The Palestine Nakba Decolonising History, Narrating the Subaltern, Reclaiming Memory Nur Masalha
 * "..a project which resulted in the creation of a state in 1948 by the destruction of a country. 1948 saw not only the establishment of a settler-colonialist state on nearly 80 per cent of Mandatory Palestine, but also the destruction of historic Palestine and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians."
 * Destruction again. Dajani's "shattering" gets a mention too. Selfstudier (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I only take issue with the word destruction when it is used to refer to Palestinian society, its use there is not hyperbolic imo. Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Some Palestinian sources:
 * Sabbagh-Khoury 2023, p. 122, "collapse and disintegration of Palestinian society"
 * Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury 2017, pp. 393, "dismantlement of Palestine and Palestinian society"
 * Abu-Laban 2022, p. 511, "dramatic disintegration of a society"
 * Khalidi 2020, p. 60, "most of its society uprooted"
 * Masalha 2012, p. 12 "destruction of much of Palestinian society"
 * Abu-Lughod & Sa'di 2007, p. 3, "society disintegrated"
 * Sa'di 2007, pp. 3 ("devastation of Palestinian society ... society disintegrated") and 294 ("almost complete destruction of Palestinian society")
 * Sa'di 2002, p. 175, "disintegration of society"
 * Levivich (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In retrospect I like either disintegration, devastation, or dismantlement. Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Destruction is how it is referred to in RS. The expulsion of more than half of the population, and the majority Arab population in coastal cities of Jaffa and Haifa, the areas where Israel was established, was nothing short of destruction. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Destruction is how it is described in some RS, nearly a plurality next to disintegration. It is in reference to all of Palestinian society, not some/parts Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If we consider that the Nakba nowadays is considered as ongoing, then the "destruction" was not completed. It's a sort of slow moving cultural ethnocide. The problem I have with destruction is that I always associate that with real property but perhaps that's just me. Selfstudier (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no contradiction in "destroyed". What existed then was indeed destroyed. It doesn't mean that something different could not arise later. Zerotalk 09:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But what existed then continued to exist in a much reduced and fractured form, so it was not destroyed. Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably depends on what you are referring to specifically, a lot of property was destroyed (or there was destruction of a lot of property) (continuing), (Mandate) Palestine was (insert adjective) (continuing), Palestinians were (and continue to be) displaced. Selfstudier (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My issue is its use in this sentence to refer to society, culture, and identity.
 * "...along with the destruction of their society, culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations."
 * Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Destruction, disintegration, yadda yadda, both seem correct and I would add "ongoing" if it were just me. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think:
 * "...which caused the disintegration of their society, culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations."
 * Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Monkey wrench (or spanner if you're on the wrong side of the pond): "[destruction/disintegration/whatever we decide] of their society, and the suppression of their culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations." Levivich (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You’ve made that up there’s no way you call it a monkey wrench Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * monkey wrench :-) Levivich (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * you must have some strange looking monkeys over there Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Disintegration implies internal collapse, which is not the case here. Do we have any better synonyms? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Dismantling? Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to find the perfect word because what that sentence refers to was somewhat indirectly caused by the Israelis Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure how destroying 500 villages, half of Palestine's settlements, was indirectly caused by the Israelis.. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with the use of destruction done how @Levivich has done it Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm easy with whatever people want to do, Levivich formulation is fine too. Selfstudier (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Settler-colonialism as motive
Can settler-colonialism be described as an explicit motive of the Yishuv, as it is described in the infobox? My understanding was that the original Zionists would not characterize themselves as motivated by settler-colonialism. I think that a mention of settler-colonialism could be less controversially placed as a description of the events of the Nakba, rather than the motivations of the Yishuv. This text could be placed in the main text of the article. Thoughts? JohnR1Roberts (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I think the settler colonial paradigm is disputed and we should keep the infobox principally for facts. Selfstudier (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Jabotinsky, an original Zionist, was explicit in saying that Zionism is a colonizing adventure. As for the motives part of the infobox; I think there is no operation whose motives were explicitly stated in a written document or so. Thus, the motives section is intrinsically subject to dispute. But I think the motive, or motives, should still be mentioned at least. Herero and Nama genocide also mentions settler colonialism as motive for example. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * While I see what you are saying, I think that putting settler-colonialism as a stated motive in the infobox without addressing it later in the article implies that there is a consensus among scholars that Zionism is certainly settler-colonialism where no consensus exists. I think it would be best to remove the mention of settler-colonialism as a motive in the infobox, and somewhere in the article place a link to the Zionism as settler colonialism page. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * FYI see sources/quotes at Talk:Zionism as settler colonialism/Archive 2, including this one: Pappe 2020 (free): Of course there are other views (and maybe even a more recent one from Pappe, idk), but the complications are that: some RS say it's colonialism, some say it's settler-colonialism, some say neither, some say it was one of those things at some points in time and another one at other points in time, some say it's a mixture, etc. Idk, maybe list "colonialism (disputed); settler-colonialism (disputed)", maybe omit those, maybe omit the entire "motives" parameter. I'm not sure that the Nakba has a motive, or that any ethnic cleansing can be said to have a motive (other than the obvious ones). Frankly I feel like "motive" is just a weird infobox parameter, because motives are always complicated/complex. Levivich (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, but it seems that it may be a controversial change. Then again, I don't think the motive can be left as-is. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed it, if anyone wants to restore it, feel free. I think it is a bit too much to stipulate that as a motive. Selfstudier (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

NPOV
I think there needs to be a paragraph in the lede which summarises Nakba, Nakba, Nakba denial, and 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight in order to maintain a neutral POV. What is in the body is good and very satisfactory in my view, I'm only talking about the lede. Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, you are allowed to edit here, go ahead, if people object, you will soon know. Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not knowledgeable enough about Israeli society, the Nakba seems like it is the elephant in the room. Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is less denial these days but you can't complain about a lack of Israeli POV if you don't actually know what it is. Selfstudier (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I know there is less denial, but I wouldn't know what to write specifically. Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Other people much more familiar than me will find it very easy to write the section on international perspectives and summarise it. Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I also think it'd be good to have a section on international perspectives, including those of the Muslim world, the west, Africa etc. Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Nakba denial is already mentioned in the lead, and all of the content on Israeli narratives that you mention only have bearing on the Nakba as forms or expressions of denial. The content from other pages is not relevant. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that needs to be expanded a little and include perspectives from the Muslim world, European Union and US, African Union etc. Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there needs to be a sentence on the Nakba in the Israeli national narrative, and then one about Nakba denial. I’ll have a go at adding it Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I rearranged the lead a bit. As you can see, you have introduced some duplication with your edit, want to try and fix it? Selfstudier (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's good, I think the general Palestinian perspective now needs to be expanded a little Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Nakba definition
You wrote The Nakba (Arabic: النَّكْبَة an-Nakba, lit.  'the catastrophe') was the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Mandatory Palestine during the 1948 Palestine war through their violent displacement and dispossession of land, property, and belongings, along with the destruction of their society, and the suppression of their culture, identity

the real definition is “Seven states seek to abolition of partition and the subduing of Zionism, but they leave the battle having lost a not inconsiderable portion of the soil of Palestine.” Constantine Zurayk, He is credited with coining the term Nakba, or Catastrophe, to refer to the Arab defeat of the War of 1948 in his book Maʿna an-Nakba. 185.108.81.30 (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Treating the above as an edit request...not done. The description (it's not a definition) reflects scholarly consensus over time. There is no reason to just pick a part of one description and assert that as being all there is. Selfstudier (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Infobox dates and "is"/"was"
I don't think July 20, 1949 is the end date of the Nakba per the body of the article (or mainstream RS view). Maybe it should be "1947-present." Which also implicates whether the article says "The Nakba was" or "The Nakba is."

For that matter I'm not entirely sure about 1947 being the start date either. Maybe "early 20th c. to present." Maybe the infobox shouldn't have dates at all.

Thoughts? Levivich (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The infobox start date corresponds to the start date that is in the 1948 Palestine war article. I am not sure what the end date corresponds to. Nakba day is May 15, the same date of the Israeli Declaration of Independence. Maybe if they had picked a different date other than the same day as the Independence Day, there would be less of a Nakba denial and maybe the Israelis would be more receptive in acknowledging the Nakba and a Nakba day. In the U.S., there is the Indigenous Peoples' Day (United States) and the official day is not the same day as the U.S. Independence Day or Thanksgiving. Wafflefrites (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAFORUM: "Article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I came to this page to look at the infobox dates because I was wondering why Nakba day was May 15, but you are right about NOTAFORUM. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong but 'the Nakba' can refer to 'the Palestinian catastrophe' in general (from the beginning of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the present), and also very commonly to 'the Palestinian catastrophe' of the 1947-1949 Palestine war. So maybe we should present these varying definitions in the lead and infobox. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If WP:SOURCESDIFFER, we would represent “all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view... If there is a disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues X, while Paul Jones maintains Y," followed by an inline citation.” Wafflefrites (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say that initially the Nakba was identified with the Palestine war but that over time, it has become more of an Ongoing Nakba. Selfstudier (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The line "the ethnic cleansing of Palestine did not begin or end in 1948" (Shenhav 2019, p. 49) always stuck with me; I think it's an important point. Anyway, I removed the dates from the infobox (for now at least), and added quotes to the "ongoing Nakba" citation in the article. To my mind, it seems the sources are very clear that it is an ongoing process and not a historical event. Levivich (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd say sources are mixed but modern/recent sources lean towards your interpretation so support having it say ongoing, maybe including original usage of the term being conflated with the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Media and what I'll casually call Palestinian-sympathetic sources (eg. have currently been using the term Nakba (specifically "second Nakba") to describe current events. What level of media coverage (and general public terminology) is required for the page to mention this, and at what point would that warrant changing the infobox by removing an end date? Are the current news articles being published enough? Nyonyatwelve (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This Wikipedia article already mentions this, and the infobox's end date was removed a couple weeks ago. Not just newsmedia, but scholarship is now also publishing about it, see e.g. the Preface to the New Edition of After Zionism, or various articles in the Journal of Genocide Research like and, all published in 2024. Levivich (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

what are your thoughts on this infobox dates and is/was issue? Levivich (talk) 04:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Nakba specifically relates to 1947-1949, I don't think personally it could be tied to certain days. We have a separate article for Ongoing Nakba. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

If only one editor is in favor of "was" (the article treating the Nakba as an event that happened in 1947-1949 and not as ongoing), I'm inclined to put it back to "is." Any objections, please speak up. Levivich (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * OK hearing no objections, ✅. Levivich (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)