Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Strange quotation marks

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

> whereby the "designation "Jewish" would carry

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

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

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

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

"Issues in Dispute"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I also think it should be restored.

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

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

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

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

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

Additions to Peace Process section

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

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

Ridiculous claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a quote from ben ami

From Prophets without honor:

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

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

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

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

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

Inside a cinematic universe...

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2024

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

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

Recent changes

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

Unsourced claim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example, from ben-ami:

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

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

Masalha:

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

Slater:

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

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

Flapan:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed compromise version

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

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

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

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

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

Karsh is pretty fringe, to the extent that he accuses all of the New Historians (including Benny Morris) of having "championed the Arab cause".[1] He apparently can't see the difference between A) a historian updating the understanding of history based on fresh information, and B) being some sort of propagandist just because the narrative that emerges isn't quite so amenable to a given ideology. It's hard to know what to make of that level of skew. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plenty of room in the lead

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

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

The fourth paragraph here is really very low quality.

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

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

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

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