Talk:Nakba/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

 Not done This is a comment, not an edit request. Edit requests should ask for specific changes and provided sources. Zero^talk 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#Nakba definition, 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. Zero^talk 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)

@Makeandtoss and Selfstudier: 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#Sources, including this one: Pappe 2020 (free): Still, despite a body of scholarship and research that frames the Zionist movement as a settler-colonial project—including the relatively new Settler Colonial Studies, a journal that, at this writing, has already devoted two special issues to Palestine—such a depiction is not accepted in mainstream academia (or the media generally). By and large, Israel/Palestine is still perceived as a conflict between two national movements that are equally responsible for violence—one of them a Western-style democracy that occasionally resorts to excessive power, and the other an Arab society endowed with a violent political culture. 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#Israeli national narrative, Nakba#Israeli legislative measures, Nakba denial, and 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight#Israeli narrative 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. [1] 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 [2] and [3], all published in 2024. Levivich (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: 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,  Done. Levivich (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2024

Under motives add "defense and security" 2A02:FE1:3018:2300:9CB:C015:D0C6:8405 (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Source? Selfstudier (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Nakba

I happen to be a Palestine sympathiser, but any fool can see the bias in the intro. Opinions etc are treated as indisputable facts. This article needs a good going over with a sledge hammer. Sardaka (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree. This article presents contested content as factual, such as labeling events as 'ethnic cleansing' in a biased manner, while ignoring the roles of Arab authorities during the war and solely blaming Israel. In reality, the causes were multiple, involving evacuation orders issued by local Palestinian and foreign Arab authorities, voluntary departures due to fear of living under Jewish rule, and other factors that are subjects of scholarly debate. I will add a POV template until these issues are addressed. ABHammad (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@ABHammad: Specify all the reasons for the template addition, with sources. Thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The ethnic cleansing term is referenced to at least 30 RS. What RS do you have opposing this view, noting that even Morris claims a "partial" ethnic cleansing? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems like the mainstream view that some ethnic cleansing occurred, but are these sources really defining the Nakba as ethnic cleansing? I don't have easy access to most of them, but that seems like an unusually narrow definition of the Nakba that I would be surprised to see in many RSs. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 14:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

If scholars are referring to it as an ethnic cleansing, then that is part of the Nakba description. That is not defining the Nakba as ethnic cleansing and the lead first sentence doesn't do th:at either. Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Sardaka, ABHammad and Danielx.   It should be noted that the title of this article appears as a link in a statement made in the Genocide of Indigenous peoples article, in the Israel section, and as such is presented as [one of the] primary basis for accusations of "genocide" of the Palestinian people. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The primary basis for such accusations is South Africa's genocide case against Israel and the matter will ultimately be decided in court. Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not correct. Israel has been accused of ‘genocide’ against the Palestinian Arabs for decades, as documented in the article Palestinian genocide accusation. KronosAlight (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

True, but now it is in court, which wasn't the case before. Selfstudier (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

That might be true, but you falsely claimed that the court case was the primary basis, which was false. It's been an ongoing accusation for many decades, even as the population of Palestinians has increased from 1 million to 5.5 million as of last year. KronosAlight (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The court case is currently the primary basis. The size of the Palestinian population has nothing to do with it, a common mistake. Selfstudier (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Retroactive history is not the purpose of Wikipedia. KronosAlight (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Be nice to know what you are agreeing with exactly. I'm still waiting for anyone to say. Selfstudier (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Related NPOV discussions are occurring on the Genocide of Indigenous peoples Talk page here. -- Gwillhickers (talk)

Unsigned nonsense nothing to with the Nakba. Probably canvassing. Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Added signature. As already explained, Nakba is listed as a primary reason behind accusations. Neutral notification to interested parties is appropriate and must only seem like "nonsense" to those who want to avoid the issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Also don't know why you are randomly altering other editor's comments. I'll add that to the list. Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

"randomly altering other editor's comments."?? "altering"? " editor's "? More than one?? ... Implying that the message has somehow been slanted? Please substantiate this slanderous assertion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

U are responsible for making a mess of poor ol xDanielx comment above. Selfstudier (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Please provide the diff of the so called "mess" I made of xDanielx's comment, and more importantly, show how I may have slanted the message, which would then warrant a complaint. Don't recall doing anything of the sort, and if my edit somehow effected the message, it was not intentional. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I never said it was intentional, definitely careless tho, and arguing about it instead of fixing it, well... Selfstudier (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx: I added quotes to the ethnic cleansing cites. That should answer your question. Levivich (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for adding those excerpts. As I mentioned I'm not really questioning the claim that the Nakba involved ethnic cleansing. The article seems to mention a few sources who do question that, but it's at least clear that that's a minority view.

Rather I was questioning whether the Nakba should be defined as or equated to ethnic cleansing, implying that that's the entire essence of the word. A few sources do seem to make such an equation - Rashed, Short & Docker 2014, Confino 2018, Lentin 2010, arguably a few others.

But for example Kimmerling 2008 says Palestinians refer to the 1948 war and their subsequent exile as a nakba. Isn't the Nakba also about the loss of the war as Kimmerling says, as well as flight, inability to return, etc?

There are also several excerpts here that either don't appear to mention Nakba at all (e.g. Manna 2022), or mention the Nakba and ethnic cleansing, but without directly stating anything about the relation between the two. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Kimmerling 2008 says at pp. 280-281:

Thus, a de facto ethnic cleansing was carried out. At the end of the 1948 war, the number of Palestinian refugees was estimated to be between 700,000 to 900,000. Most of their villages, towns, and neighborhoods were destroyed or repopulated by Jewish residents, some of whom were long-term residents and others of whom were recent immigrants. Since then, the Palestinians’ return to their homes and fields has become a central and irremovable political demand and a key component of the Palestinian identity and constitutive myth. Many Palestinians families hold keys to their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, Ramalla, and hundreds of other destroyed or Israelized villages, as if time froze one day in 1948. The majority of the Jews perceive a full right of return (al-awda) in its literal meaning as a certain prescription for the destruction of Israel. However, many Palestinian and Israeli politicians and intellectuals gave a softer meaning to the return, claiming that it would be implemented by repatriation to the newly established Palestinian state, along with compensation and rehabilitation programs carried out by Israel and the international community. Israel would also be required to accept its moral responsibility for creating the situation, which few Israeli Jew are ready to fulfill.

Palestinians refer to the 1948 war and their subsequent exile as a nakba, a catastrophe; Israeli Jews regard the same period as a war of independence that has become a fundamental component of their identity and a symbolic compensation for the Holocaust. Both peoples have their own cosmic catastrophes, and both have strong collective memories of being the victims of a colossal injustice—either the Jewish experience of Nazi genocide or the Palestinian experience of politicide and ethnic cleansing.

In this passage, it seems clear to me that Holocaust = the Jewish experience of Nazi genocide, and nakba = the Palestinian experience of politicide and ethnic cleansing. I'd say he equates nakba with ethnic cleansing. And yes, "loss of the war" is part of the 1948 war, and "flight, inability to return, etc" is their subsequent exile.

As for Manna 2022, I've added the last sentence of this passage from p. 98 to the citation; posting a bit more here for context:

The leaders of the Zionist movement took advantage of the special situation of the Druze in northern Palestine by making them a generous offer that guaranteed a successful policy of divide and conquer. The agreement assured the survival of all Druze villages and towns, and their inhabitants, in return for services by their leaders in that critical phase of the war, on the eve of the entry of the Arab armies. Most of the Galilee Druze tried to remain neutral until the spring of 1948, but the survival instinct and an awareness of imminent danger propelled them to accept the Israeli hand extended to them. The leaders of the Jewish state had their own regional motivations which prompted them to exclude members of that sect from the ethnic cleansing plan of the Nakba.

If Kimmerling and Manna were removed from consideration, that still leaves over 30 modern scholarly works describing the Nakba as an "ethnic cleansing." If you have concerns about other sources in that cite, I'd be happy to double check them. Levivich (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Of those 30+, I would only interpret the three I mentioned as very clearly equating the Nakba with ethnic cleansing. A few others come very close to saying that, but the majority of them don't seem to directly support the statement that the Nakba is (not involves) ethnic cleansing.

Re Kimmerling 2008, I don't think it's clear that he meant precisely the same thing by nakba and the Palestinian experience of politicide and ethnic cleansing. Shouldn't we focus on the sentence that explicitly mentions the Nakba, and essentially gives a definition which includes the war?

Thanks for the Manna 2022 excerpt, that's certainly relevant though the ethnic cleansing plan of the Nakba doesn't clarify if ethnic cleansing was a component of the Nakba or the entire thing.

Taking a step back, is it really your view that the loss of the war, the fleeing of some Palestinians without the ability to return, the changing of some Arabic place names, etc. is not a part of the Nakba? If this is controversial we can dig into the sources more, it was just my impression that a broader definition of Nakba was fairly standard. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The prevention of people from returning is simply an ongoing manifestation of the ethnic cleansing, while the erasure of place names is a step further: an act of cultural genocide. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's look at them again:

1. Saleh Abd al-Jawad: a denial of the Nakba, a negation of the breadth of ethnic cleansing perpetrated in Palestine
2. Beshara Doumani: the wave of ethnic cleansing that transformed Palestine in 1948 and that persists to this day
3. Rashid Khalidi: the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 ... the ethnic cleansing of Palestine began well before the state of Israel was proclaimed on May 15, 1948 ... The Nakba represented a watershed in the history of Palestine and the Middle East. It transformed most of Palestine ... This transformation was the result of two processes: the systematic ethnic cleansing of the Arab-inhabited areas of the country seized during the war; and the theft of Palestinian land and property left behind by the refugees as well as much of that owned by those Arabs who remained in Israel
4. Adel Manna: the ethnic cleansing plan of the Nakba
5. Nur Masalha: mourning sixty-three years of al-Nakba is not just about remembering the “ethnic cleansing” of 1948, it is also about marking the ongoing dispossession and dislocation
6. Nadim Rouhana: the history of the dismantlement of Palestine and the ethnic cleansing of the majority of Palestinians from their homeland – known in Palestinian historiography as the Nakba
7. Ahmad H. Sa'di: the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians during the Nakba and its aftermath ... his later statement on the ethnic cleansing he documented in his book ... he expresses the ultimate form of denial of moral responsibility for the Nakba: he deplores the fact that the job was not completed
8. Areej Sabbagh-Khoury: The 1948 mass displacement of Palestinians fundamentally transformed the Zionist project from colonization of land by purchase to colonization by warfare, ethnic cleansing, and mass dispossession. (p. 182; I will add this quote to the citation in the article)
9. Alon Confino: the ethnic cleansing that was the Nakba
10. Amos Goldberg: the Nakba, although a unique event in its own right, belongs to the same modern and global history of genocide and ethnic cleansing
11. Baruch Kimmerling: the Palestinian experience of politicide and ethnic cleansing
12. Ronit Lentin: Even though it is not the only act of ‘ethnic cleansing’ in modem history, the Nakba is unique in many ways ... the Nakba – not genocide but rather ‘ethnic cleansing’, or ‘spaciocide’
13. Ilan Pappe: The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine
14. Yehouda Shenhav: almost every household in Israel has become acquainted with the Arabic word: al-Nakba ... The ethnic cleansing of Palestine included the abolition of hundreds of Palestinian towns and villages ... the ethnic cleansing of Palestine did not begin or end in 1948 ... The ethnic cleansing continues in the present day
15. Abigail Bakan: what Ilan Pappé has summarised as the ‘ethnic cleansing of Palestine’, a process involving massacres and expulsions at gunpoint ... serious scholarship has left little debate about what happened in 1948 ... scholars are currently fruitfully addressing issues such as the intersection of the Holocaust with its roots in European racism, and the Nakba with its roots in European colonisation
16. Elias Khoury: The Nakba’s initial bloody chapters were written with the forceful ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948
17. Mark Levene: Proponents of the Nakba as ethnic cleansing largely frame the 1948 expulsions within a long-term, ongoing program of Zionist colonial settlement (p. 46, will add to cite)
18. Derek Penslar: It was ethnic cleansing.
19. Patrick Wolfe: In the absence of that context, the Nakba would make no sense. We might even agree with Benny Morris that ethnic cleansing was a spontaneous aberration that took place in the heat of warfare
20. Hannah Hever: ethnic cleansing by means of the Nakba
21. Honaida Ghanim: The relationship between the two events was formed on the basis of an exclusionist prototype, deadly for the Palestinian due to its contextualization within the Zionist national enterprise, whereby the State of Israel was established using measures of violence against and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians; this is especially evident when taking into account that, as some have noted, almost half of the participants in the war of 1948/Palestinian Nakba were Holocaust survivors.
22. Rashed, Short & Docker: ... whether or not the ‘ethnic cleansing’ of 1948 constituted a genocide and whether the massacres that took place during this time can be construed as genocidal. Yet it is apparent to Palestinians in different contexts experiencing discriminatory policies intended to drive them away from their land that the ‘Nakba’ of 1948 did not end in that era and is an ongoing process.
23. Jerome Slater: There were two other possible Israeli policies that would have met the need for a Jewish state but avoided the Nakba ... Even if one accepts those assumptions—shaky as they are—it hardly follows that the only way to have done so was by violent ethnic cleansing ... a heavily Jewish majority in the state of Israel was a historically justifiable goal, but it by no means follows that ethnic cleansing—as we would call it today—was the only way to bring that about.
24. Hania Nashef: ... the Nakba is unending. It was born in a red house in Tel Aviv, in which the architects of Plan Dalet (Plan D) finalized the strategy for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in March 1947.
25. Ghaleb Natour: The Nakba as the flight and expulsion is a disaster for the Palestinian people ... That the expulsion was planned and was one of the preconditions for the establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine has been described by several authors who provide convincing evidence from analysis of documents and testimonies that it was a systematic ethnic cleansing of the country.
26. Marcy Jane Knopf-Newman: In contemporary discourse the word transfer is better known as ethnic cleansing, a term I employ in this book to illustrate the reality of the nakba ... European Jews who participated in the initial and ongoing ethnic cleansing since the nakba in 1948 are settlers ... Jerusalem is the setting of heightened tension due to the ongoing nakba (continuing the process of ethnic cleansing that began before 1948) ...
27. Samera Esmeir: turn the trial into a case about the denial of the Nakba ... the story of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians
28. Helena Lindholm Schulz: [p. 24] the flight and the fighting are remembered as al-nakba ... [p. 32] there was expulsion on a grand scale, reminiscent of an ‘ethnic-cleansing’ project
29. Marouf Hasian Jr.: entire chapter solely about whether Nakba was genocide or ethnic cleansing
30. Uri Ram in an article titled "Ways of Forgetting: Israel and the Obliterated Memory of the Palestinian Nakba" says Baruch Kimmerling describes it as an "almost 'ethnic cleansing'" and notes other Israeli historians who do as well: [p. 388] The result amounts to an almost “ethnic cleansing” (Kimmerling 2003: 27; Benvenisti 2000: 147) ... Historian Ilan Pappe defines “ethnic cleansing” as “an effort to render an ethnically mixed country homogeneous by expelling a particular group of people and turning them into refugees while demolishing the homes they driven out from” ... He maintains that this describes the events in Palestine in 1948 ...
31. Michael Milshtein: According to the Palestinians, the Nakba was the result of a well-prepared plan for ethnic cleansing, going back to the end of the nineteenth century.
32. Avi Shlaim: [p. x] This outcome of the war constituted not merely an injustice but a profound national trauma, a catastrophe or al-Nakba, as it is called in Arabic. ... [p. 55] More recendy, a group of revisionist Israeli historians, using official documents released under the 30-year rule, have challenged the standard Zionist version of the 1948 war in general and the origins of the Palestinian refugee problem in particular. ... ‘Transfer’ is a euphemism for the expulsion or organised removal of the indigenous population of Palestine to the neighbouring Arab countries. In today’s world, the closest equivalent to ‘transfer’ is the ethnic cleansing practised by the Serbs

I think more than three equate the Nakba with ethnic cleansing. Levivich (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Appreciated as always Levivich. This is what Wikipedia discussions should be more like: focused on reliable sources.

Can I ask what is the source of the Bakan quotation?[Found in main article] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

A lot of these seem to support a broader definition.

1. This isn't a definition, and the language isn't very clear. This seems much closer to a definition by Abd al-Jawad: The Nakba was many things at once: the uprooting of people from their homeland, the destruction of the social fabric that bound them for so long, and the frustration of national aspirations. That sounds much broader than expulsion only.
2. Doesn't mention the Nakba.
3. Seems to suggest the Nakba includes the theft of Palestinian land, including of that owned by those Arabs who remained in Israel. Abd al-Jawad had also discussed the theft of land of Palestinians ... who remained behind in the context of the Nakba.
4. "of" doesn't generally denote an equation, e.g. the opening move of a chess game is not the chess game.
5. The author goes on to describe closures and invasions, de facto annexation facilitated by Israel's 730-kilometre ‘apartheid wall’ in the occupied West Bank, and the ongoing horrific siege of Gaza as part of the Nakba.
6. the dismantlement of Palestine and the ethnic cleansing, not only the latter.
7. "during" the Nakba, not "that was" the Nakba.
8. Doesn't mention the Nakba.
9. Yes, this is one of the three I mentioned.
10. A comparison of sorts (not an equation) to related instances of genocide and ethnic cleansing.

etc. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Idk what you mean by definition, if you are referring to the WP:SCOPE (title + the intro sentence(s) usually) then I think that is clear enough? Selfstudier (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

"the uprooting of people from their homeland, the destruction of the social fabric that bound them for so long, and the frustration of national aspirations" is ethnic cleansing.

2 is the foreward to a book all about the Nakba

3 arguably, yes, he's saying the Nakba was (i) ethnic cleansing, plus (ii) theft of land

4 Yeah but in context, Manna says the Nakba was genocide and the ethnic cleansing plan was a part of it

5 "closures and invasions, de facto annexation facilitated by Israel's 730-kilometre ‘apartheid wall’ in the occupied West Bank, and the ongoing horrific siege of Gaza" are all part of the ethnic cleansing

6 it's "and the ethnic cleansing of the majority of Palestinians from their homeland – known in Palestinian historiography as the Nakba" - the part after the dash, as I read it, applies to the "ethnic cleansing," but let's say OK, the Nakba is two things: ethnic cleansing, and the dismantlement of Palestine

7 "the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians during the Nakba" means, to me, that ethnic cleansing = Nakba. It's like, "the violence and bloodshed during the war" means the war = violence and bloodshed.

8 The entire book is about the Nakba; it's in the title; surely she's not referring to something other than the Nakba here

10 it's between genocide and ethnic cleansing, is what he's saying

I mean if your point is that the Nakba was not only ethnic cleansing, but also something else... OK. "The Nakba is the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and also [something else]..." is how we could start this article. Levivich (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to points 1 and 5: that is not an argument for the interpretation of those sources to say that the Nakba is an ethnic cleansing. Lots of things can be regarded as part of an ethnic cleansing—if a source discusses, for instance, the renaming of Arab villages without directly referring to ethnic cleansing, we cannot just say "that renaming is part of ethnic cleansing" to justify that source as supporting the ethnic cleansing label. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I think (2) and (8) are good examples of the sort of imprecision I'm getting at. Mentioning ethnic cleansing in a book about the Nakba is not an equation of the two things. Abd al-Jawad's Nakba also mentions broccoli and salmon, but he isn't equating broccoli and salmon to the Nakba.

Right, I would suggest including [something else] - I don't have a specific proposal right now but I think it should be something significantly broader. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Continue this discussion when you have an alternative to propose. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a useful discussion even before an alternative is proposed. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Please don't scoff with ad absurdum argumentation like this salmon and broccoli malarkey. If you have a serious point to make – because this is a serious subject (ethnic cleansing /genocide) – then make it. But lame humour when it comes to the subject of serious atrocities is not particularly amusing ... trivialization of the darker chapters of human history is not funny or appropriate. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't a joke, just seemed like the clearest way to make the point that we can't interpret every bit of content as being a statement about the Nakba. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, in the forward, when the series editor writes that the book, called Nakba and Survival, provides a unique insight into how, by managing to stay in their homes and on their land, they resisted the wave of ethnic cleansing that transformed Palestine in 1948 and that persists to this day, you can't seriously be suggesting that he is talking about something other than surviving the Nakba. You can read the whole book, including the forward, for free, via the link in the article bibliography. Levivich (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Most say it is ethnic cleansing, and a few say ethnic cleansing was a major part of it, and a few say it was worse than ethnic cleansing (genocide). I think "is an ethnic cleansing" is a faithful summary of these sources. Levivich (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Editors being surprised at what RS says is not a reason to place an NPOV tag. I've removed it. Someone can replace the NPOV tag if and when they post sources that provide a different POV than the one in the article. All those citations and quotes are there for a reason, folks: it's to educate you about what the Nakba is. If you're surprised to read it, well, I'm glad Wikipedia is doing its job. Levivich (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Levivich, ABHammad, KronosAlight — If someone posted a different POV there would not be any need for the NPOV tag in the first place. Neutrality can be slanted simply by the absence of sources that may offer a different POV. I've restored the tag. The issue is not resolved. Please review Help:Maintenance template removal, which is linked on every NPOV tag. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Post these alleged absent sources or remove the tag. Levivich (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, lack of neutrality can be effected with any number of RS. The neutrality issue itself has to be discussed, not whether there may be other sources.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Post sources showing a POV different from the one in the article or remove the tag. Just saying "nuh uh" won't get you anywhere. You have not yet identified a single NPOV problem. You need sources to do that. Not an assertion of non-neutrality, but quotes from sources showing an NPOV problem. Levivich (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Great, now you have reordered a talk page comment that was already replied to, seems you really do have no idea of talk page guidelines. Selfstudier (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I placed my own comment on the next paragraph down before other comments were made. Since this also has in no way slanted any message, this is obviously just an attempt to obscure the thread and shoot the messenger, rather than square off with an issue you have thus far not even challenged with viable points. . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up and restored the original/correct threading of comments. Please mind WP:TPG. With that out of the way, please either remove the NPOV tag or post an explanation of the NPOV problems with cites (and preferably quotes) from sources showing that this article isn't complying with WP:NPOV. Levivich (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Levivich — I've no issue with you returning the order. The attempt by another editor to imply that I was trying to skew the discussion somehow was baseless. Re:The NPOV tag. I simply restored this tag after it was inappropriately removed. Claiming there is no issue because no one has presented sources doesn't prove there isn't any issue. Again, there must be countless cases on WP where a slanted pov has been effected by using multiple RS. If the original poster of the NPOV tag opts to remove it, I'll not provoke an editwar and let it slide. On that note, thanks for not going there yourself. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Another editor has removed the NPOV tag. In any case, that issue needs to be discussed more thoroughly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to ABHammad -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The way {{npov}} works is that when an editor places the tag, they also post on the talk page pointing to WP:NPOV problems. This requires a showing that the content of the article doesn't match what WP:RS says. That requires quoting the article, and citing (and preferably quoting) contradictory RS. This has not been done. Merely asserting an NPOV problem is not enough.

BTW, ABHammad's comment above, "evacuation orders issued by local Palestinian and foreign Arab authorities" and "voluntary departures due to fear of living under Jewish rule" are long-debunked Nakba denial myths, and WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so linking to the causes of the expulsion/flight article doesn't cut it (also, as this article explains in great detail, the Nakba isn't the same thing as the expulsion/flight; that was just a part of it, albeit the main part).

There's really no questioning that the Nakba is an ethnic cleansing according to modern mainstream scholarship. Contra to the OP, that's not an opinion, it's a fact. Three dozen scholars being quoted for the proposition establishes that, unless someone can bring another three dozen scholars disagreeing with it.

Anyone who has read the modern scholarship on this issue knows that the only debates about this are whether the Nakba is an ethnic cleansing or a genocide, and whether it was planned from the late 19th century or if it was planned in the run-up to the 1948 war. Not whether it happened at all; that is no longer in dispute. Levivich (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Setting aside whether there's a significant viewpoint that does not equate Nakba to ethnic cleansing (which I'll comment on separately), that's only one aspect of the NPOV policy, which also deals with tone, attribution, and so on. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer not to full protect the article over multiple editors tag-warring. Please try and work this out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Per Template:POV: Editors adding the tag are required to "identify specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies", and are reminded that "An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant."

Is it not clear that the editors adding the tag are not presenting any "high-quality, reliable secondary sources" and are only giving "personal views of Wikipedia editors"? This despite being asked multiple times to provide RS which present the POV they claim is not being represented. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Problematic WP:VOICE definition as "Ethnic cleansing"

Thank you for the detailed quotes, @Levivich:. It was an interesting read. However, no one contests that at least some scholars believe the 1948 displacement was "ethnic cleansing". On the same time, many other disagree. One of the primary problems with this article is that the lead totally adopts one point of pov, stating it in WP:VOICE, while entirely ignoring other prominent views. I believe that two key sources presented so far (one by Levivich, the other by Zanahary) help clarify the issue further:

Michael Milshtein: According to the Palestinians, the Nakba was the result of a well-prepared plan for ethnic cleansing, going back to the end of the nineteenth century. This quote, posted here to support the ethnic cleansing definition, actually shows that this description is specific to the Palestinian perspective.

Oxford Reference definition of Nakba: A term meaning ‘catastrophe’, used to denote the expulsion of up to 700,000 Palestinians before, during, and after the Arab–Israeli War of 1948. The period of the Nakba refers to events that took place between December 1947 and January 1949 and is subject to fierce controversy and contestation in Israeli and Arab narratives.

All in all, the sources make it pretty clear that the "ethnic cleansing" description is one of several perspectives in relevant historiography, maybe something we can define as one school of thought, among several. This article (which I'm still not sure is really different from the more balanced 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight) should present a balanced description of the event, starting with the most common denominator, maybe something like "term for the mass displacement of Palestinians during the 1948 Palestine war, due to debated causes", followed a brief introduction of the differing scholarly views. ABHammad (talk) 07:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

All in all? Milshtein is one think tank chap, so was hardly a particularly authoritative voice in the first place, while the Oxford reference says Nakba refers to the expulsion, a.k.a. ethnic cleansing. "controversy and contestation" applies to everything in the topic area, but that is not a statement that the Nakba was not an ethnic cleansing. So that's one half-cocked source, and another that doesn't even support your point. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Milshtein isn't just a think tank chap (although he is at WINEP [4]): until 2018, Colonel Milshtein headed the Department of Palestinian Affairs at IDF Intelligence [5] [6]. CNN says he is "widely described as Israel's leading Hamas expert." The 2009 book chapter he wrote that's being quoted has 23 Google scholar cites, one of the lowest on the #Core sources list (and the reason why I didn't use him much in the article). Probably the only notable citation of those 23 is where the chapter is cited by Nur Masalha in his 2012 book, p. 252:

Contemporary Palestinian anxiety seems to be focusing on the need to prevent the final Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine. In particular, in the post-Second (al-Aqsa) Intifada period, marked by increased Israeli repression, both the fear of another Nakba and the yearning to return appear to be intensifying (Milshtein 2009: 64; Jamal 2005: 133–60).

A scholar, but I'd call this chapter a minor work in the field, not like on the level of Masalha, Pappe, Morris, etc. His work does support the proposition that Palestinians view the Nakba as an ethnic cleansing; this of course does not mean that only Palestinians view it as an ethnic cleansing. And even if Milshtein said that (which he hasn't), he would be an outlier compared to all the others. Even if we removed Milshtein, Manna, and Kimmerling from the list (which we shouldn't do), and added Benny Morris and Efraim Karsh, the count would still be 29-5 in favor of "is an ethnic cleansing." Levivich (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's problematic. If we have 30+ RS saying ethnic cleansing, then what happened was ethnic cleansing. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I am pretty sure one could find many sources that use other definitions, but I don't have the time to search for them right now. Perhaps another editor could take on this task? ABHammad (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no clue as to why this section is opened at all, this has been discussed already above, if you have 30+ sources to bring saying it is not ethnic cleansing, then bring them, else no case to answer here.Selfstudier (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Lead's uncomplicated presentation of the Nakba as ongoing

I notice that the lead of this article describes the Nakba as a phenomenon simply regarded as ongoing (The term is used to describe the events of the 1948 Palestine war in Mandatory Palestine as well as the ongoing persecution and displacement of Palestinians by Israel) without representing the "ongoing Nakba" viewpoint/concept as one in coexistence with the understanding of the Nakba as something that occurred in 1948 and finished sometime between then and now.

Some sources:

A term meaning ‘catastrophe’, used to denote the expulsion of up to 700,000 Palestinians before, during, and after the Arab–Israeli War of 1948. The period of the Nakba refers to events that took place between December 1947 and January 1949 and is subject to fierce controversy and contestation in Israeli and Arab narratives. https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191835278.001.0001/acref-9780191835278-e-200

Al-Nakba (in Arabic, disaster or catastrophe) refers to the flight and expulsion of the Palestinians during the 1947 to 1948 War, the confiscation of their property, massacres committed by Zionist (after 14 May 1948, Israeli) forces, the collapse of their society and, ultimately, the loss of their homeland. Mattar, Philip. "Nakba, al-." Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa, edited by Philip Mattar, 2nd ed., vol. 3, Macmillan Reference USA, 2004, pp. 1639-1640. Gale eBooks, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3424601958/GVRL?u=new64731&sid=bookmark-GVRL&xid=a8da4155. Accessed 24 June 2024.

(I will add some more soon)

Interested in thoughts ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, I think those quotes raise another important question: what's the difference between 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight and the Nakba article? I see the first was created in 2002, and this one in 2021. ABHammad (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Depends the scope (sorry if I sound like a broken record). The Ongoing Nakba is a narrative that arose after the return failed to materialize and lots of other bad things occurring. It seems logical because there was also 1949–1956 Palestinian expulsions and a 67 expulsion, settlements, illegal annex, etcetera. (not sure about the title of that one either). Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Pretty simple. There was much more to the ethnic cleansing than the mere expulsion: there was also killing, the destruction of villages, other forms of cultural erasure, and the refusal of the right of refugees to return ... so, in other words, lots is different. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

If the sources all describe it first as the expulsion and flight, and considering the fact that we already have Ongoing Nakba that explains the view that the 1948 event continues to our day, this article may be a WP:POVFORK, thoughts? HaOfa (talk) 08:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Once again, these articles have a different scope. Selfstudier (talk) 08:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree, from what I have seen many sources equate the Nakba with the Palestinian expulsion and flight of 1948, while the article Ongoing Nakba covers the notion that it still continues to these days. Seems like one of these articles is possibly redundant. ABHammad (talk) 08:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

This is more on the impact of the war on the Palestinian community, and the continuation of the perceived injustice, if I'm not mistaken Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The 'Nakba' was originally the 'catastrophe' of the defeat of the Arab armies and their failure to prevent the creation of a Jewish state after their declaration of war against Israel in 1948. The Palestinians who fled and were expelled at the time (and it was both) were nothing unusual or exceptional for either the region or the wider world in the post-WW2 world (e.g. see: Partition of India). The catastrophe was the military defeat and perceived humiliation at the hands of the Jews.

It was only later that the Nakba came to be interpreted as the catastrophe of Palestinian exile, but this is mostly a post-1960s phenomenon, because it's only really in that decade that national consciousness of the Palestinians more or less crystalised into a coherent nationalism. Prior to that, not just they but every other Arab nation regarded them as Arabs of Palestine, particularly because the zeitgeist at that time was Pan-Arabism. So the ‘nakba’ became revised and reinterpreted in the Palestinian national story as a catastrophe of dispersion rather than of military defeat. KronosAlight (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Selfstudier (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Think it's fairly obvious what I was adding to this topic given you seem to be reversing any edit to this page which attempts to clarify the way the term has changed over time. KronosAlight (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

That can be done, bring some sources instead of a speech and we'll take a look. Selfstudier (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The war is the war; the Nakba is the Nakba. The attempt to shoehorn the Nakba, which was a pre-planned ethnic cleansing that began in 1947, into the context of the war is purely a function of revisionist Zionist historiography, and at this point quite plain and simply constitutes Nakba denial. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Presenting highly contested views as mainstream is exactly the problem with this article, and I am afraid you're doing the same in this comment. The Nakba certainly was not a pre-planned ethnic cleansing. While cases of government-backed expulsions did occur, this doesn't mean it was a real policy throughout the war. You are underplaying lots of other causes. ABHammad (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The Nakba was not just ethnic cleansing, as has been repeated multiple times here in this discussion. However, the ethnic cleansing part did involve clearly planned crimes, not least in the form of Plan Dalet, with its permissive approach to burning and mining villages and expelling the inhabitants of any villages that in any way resisted. So scorched earth tactics and ethnic cleansing. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Same comment here as I made in a reply to KronosAlight, less speechifying and more sourcing please. Selfstudier (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:Tertiary sources like dictionaries and encyclopedias, especially 20-year-old ones, are not the WP:BESTSOURCES. "The Nakba continued after the end of the war in 1949" has cites and quotes in the body. Levivich (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)