Talk:Palestinian refugees/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Moved jewish refugees to end of page. If I am writing an article about triangles, I don't add "and there are also quadrats" in the first sentence. I rather would welcome a separate article about the jewish refugees. Further: do such silly minority views as "there were no palestinians" belong really to the article? I recommend deleting the paragraph. --Elian 23:10 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)

This deceptively simple question might actually be the most difficult of all. What does the term "Palestinian" mean? The words Arab, Bedouin, Israeli, Jew and Muslim are fairly well defined. Why should the term Palestinian cause so much trouble? Perhaps it is a "loaded term". It doesn't seem to mean "of Palestine" in the sense that a Palestinian person is a resident of Palestine, because that would include Jewish Palestinians. --Ed Poor

Let's have a start? ;-) I found a quite good discussion of the statement "there are no palestinians" in History of Palestine. Maybe we could merge this or link to it. My personal view of the trouble with the word Palestinian: First, I regard as Palestinian the inhabitants of the geographical region of Palestine. In this sense Israelis are Palestinians as well, but an Israeli would consider himself, I suppose, first of all as Israeli. Same as I am German, but also Bavarian, since I live in the region Bavaria. If I had emigrated to the US, I would be still to some extent Bavarian, since I am born there and adopted its culture.

Second, the political sense. In the 20th century we had a development of the founding of nation states in regions of the world where this concept was relatively unknown. Country after country, people after people declared their independence. The Palestinians were, compared to all the surrounding states which had no interest in an independent palestinian state, too weak to establish a state of their own. They got no share of the nation cake. On the other hand, they conceive themselves as Palestinians with a own cultural and geographical identity and also a common history and struggle for a political form of organization which expresses this identity in a adequate way. Since Israel is defined as a Jewish state and not a religious neutral state, I suppose, they feel their identity would be lost in it. What would be your answer if I ask you, what's your primary identity? Are you primarily American? Or Jewish? Or inhabitant of your city? Would you agree if the US merged with Mexico and you would be ruled by a Mexican president? --Elian 18:30 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)

We might want to mention that the refugees still live in refugee camps because the countries where they're located refuse to integrate them into their society. -- Zoe

Do that, but please be specific. The situation is quite different in Jordan, Egypt, Libanon, or the occupied territories. There is a lot more to add to the article. For example the second refugee wave 1967 is missing also. --Elian

The introduction of millions of non-Jewish refugees would likely lead to considerable demographic change within Israel, changing that state's character from a Jewish sectarian quasi-democratic state to a non-denominational Western-style democratic state. Such a demographic change would violate the Law of Political Parties (1992) [1], specifically provision 7a(1), which states:

A candidates' list shall not participate in elections to the Knesset if its objects or actions, expressly or by implication, include one of the following:

(1) negation of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people

Israeli Palestinians note that this is used to silence legitimate Palestinian voices and makes a mockery of supposed freedom of speech. In practice almost any statement made by Palestinian politicians can be branded as being somehow against Israel as a Jewish state. When that happens, the politician faces severe consequences, thus effectively putting an end to meaningful debate.

This is something I don't understand. How can a demographic change violate a law? Until this is explained, I move this paragraph to the talk page.

Yes, this needs to stay on the talk page for a while. I don't understand it, either. It seems to be saying that if Israel granted citizenship to Palestinian Arabs from Gaza and West Bank, including the right to vote and hold office, they would be likely to use this political power to destroy Israel. Does anyone else think this is what the moved passage above means? --Ed Poor

moved from article to talk page

Doubts as to whether Palestinian refugees are in fact refugees.

The United Nations created a second definition of the term "refugee" in regards to Palestinian Arabs. For this group, an Arab is officially considered a Palestinian refugee even if that person had recently immigrated to the British mandate of Palestine in the last two years before 1948. By this definition, it is claimed, some of the Palestinians refugees actually were never Palestinians, but in fact were Arabs from outside Palestine. Many Israelis consider this redefinition of the term to be an act of anti-Zionism, aimed at weakening the legitimacy of the State of Israel.

Palestinians claim that the bulk of Palestinian refugees had been inhabitants of Palestine for many generations, and the decision to consider Palestinians as any inhabitants since 1946 is purely administrative.

I invite the writer of this part to provide numbers how many people are such doubted refugees. In this general formulation the statement is rather misleading. If there is really a substantial amount "wrongly" counted refugees (with which other nationality?) reformulate and put it back. --Elian 20:23 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)

Yes, this section is confused. It really needs to be clarified. --Ed Poor

Now what the hell is this page? Obviously presenting Herzl's opinion and saying it was about Palestinian refugees is an horrible anachronism (he died 44 years before 1948!). Most of this page is useless, and should be united with Palestinian exodus, in my opinion. --Uri

I almost agree. In the German wikipedia there is only one article named "Palestinian refugee problem" for all this. But I'd rather keep the title "Palestinian refugees" and merge the "exodus". --~~n

"The Palestinians were, compared to all the surrounding states which had no interest in an independent palestinian state, too weak to establish a state of their own. They got no share of the nation cake." --Elian

In the first place, the UN offered the Palestinians half of what was left of Palestine (the Jordanians having been given the largest piece of British Palestine in 1946) in 1947. The Arabs, including the Palestinians, declined. They wanted it all. They wanted no Israel. They said as much. They had been trying to prevent Jews from returning to their ancestral land since the late 1800s.

From 1948 until 1967, Arabs held all of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. There was no Intifada. There was no movement of liberation. There was occupation by Egypt of Gaza, and annexation of the West Bank (not recognized by the International community) by Jordan. The Palestinians could have declared statehood and had Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem as the capital. Why did they not take statehood then? Because they still believed the Arab countries could do what they said they could: "Drive the Zionists into the sea", leaving the Arabs with all the land (and not necessarily a state of Palestine).

The Palestinians never had a national movement until the Israeli occupation (beginning in 1967), in large part, because they never identified themselves as anything but Arabs. For centuries, "Palestine" was considered just a part of Greater Syria. The Palestinians speak the same language as all of the neighboring countries, i.e. Arabic. Especially now that so few Christian Palestinians are left, truly a sad developement, most Palestinians share the religion of Islam with the neighboring countries.

I have been researching the topic of Palestinian refugees and have read extensively at websites on both points of view. I have discussed the issue with Palestinians as well as Israelis.

It is understandable that so few people know about the Jewish refugees of the same era as the Palestinian refugees. Every time I see a "background" piece on the conflict in the Middle East, it always tells the story of the Palestinian refugees and it never points out that there was an even greater number of Jewish refugees created during the same time.

The story of the Jewish refugees is one with a happy end: they got saved and were welcomed in "their" land where they could live much better than they did before. The story of the Palestinian refugees is one of the many political tragedies. Never allowed to return, no compensation, no apologies, all they received was political oppression from one side and denial that they exist from the other side. --Elian

Well, relatively happy end. The Jewish refugees have never been compensated for their property losses. The trauma they suffered can never be fully compensated. Nor can the trauma suffered by the Palestinian refugees. The Jewish refugees have less likelihood of ever being compensated than the Palestinians. Have you checked this out? Please go to http://www.jimena-justice.org. The majority of Jews who fled Arab countries (and their descendents), now living in Israel, are threatened by terrorist bombs every day. The Intifada has wrecked the economies of Israel, the West Bank & Gaza. In any case, the Jews took care of their own people, a huge burden in terms of relative numbers and the land available. The Arabs preferred and still prefer to keep many of their people in refugee camps.

The Arab countries could create a happy ending for the Palestinians today or any other day. They have the resources in terms of land and money to take good care of every single Palestinian, whether they live in Gaza or the West Bank or somewhere else. It they wanted a safe and secure Israel, they would do it. They do not want a safe a secure Israel, so they do not. The Arab countries gained much property when they forced the Jews to leave.

There are Palestinian "refugees" living a "happy end" within the United States, because the US allows Palestinians to become US citizens. Why did Kuwait not allow the 300,000 Palestinians once living in Kuwait to obtain citizenship?

So, Elian, please ask yourself why the Arab countries prefer to keep the Palestinians in refugee camps and deny them citizenship? By the way, if you would like to work on a joint approach to the subject page, I would be glad to join forces with you in trying to come up with a page with as many facts and as few opinions as possible. If you want to contact me, send an email to wiki@hiosilver.com. --Hlhoffman

By the way, I do disagree with the current Israeli leadership. I think they would be better off withdrawing from Gaza and most, but not all, of the West Bank. It is difficult because Israel is such a small country, surrounded by not very friendly countries. I believe that Israel will get to the point where it will opt for unilateral solutions to end the conflict. How can you negotiate with people who teach their children in school that it is noble to become a suicide bomber? --Hlhoffman

wikipedia propaganda shows its effects? maybe you read the following links and start to think how you would react:

http://www.btselem.org/English/Testimonies/021002_Settlers_Attack_at_Yasuf.asp

http://www.btselem.org/English/Testimonies/020225_Huwwara_Roadblock2.asp

http://www.btselem.org/English/Testimonies/020430_Infant_Dies_in_Rafah_Home.asp

http://www.btselem.org/English/Houses_and_Fields_Destruction/Case3.asp

http://www.btselem.org/English/Testimonies/011113_Death_of_Kheiri_Zaban.asp

http://www.btselem.org/English/Publications/Summaries/Torture_of_Minors.asp

--Elian

Elian, do you actually excuse mass murder?

From where did you get this impression? I only wanted to show that there may be other causes for terrorism than propaganda in Arab schoolbooks as Hlhoffman seemed to believe.

There causes for support of terrorism, not for leading it. Note the difference (see my reply below)

Do two wrongs make a right? War and ethnic strifes aren't nice things anywhere in the world. Human blood is equally red no matter to whom it belongs.

I agree.

Most of the events described in the linked place took place months after the beginning of the Second Intifada - a war that was sponsored, rather than put down, by the Palestinian Authority. Who was it, but Arafat, who shouted: "With spirit and blood we shall redeem you Palestine"? So if you try to excuse terrorism, don't do it by events that were caused by terrorism.

Does the terrorism of some people justify the murder of innocent children, the humiliation of civilians, the violation of the essential human rights of a whole people? Don't try to excuse this as "caused by terrorism". Do you really view this as justifiable responses to the terror attacks of some Palestinians? Does your enemy's use of torture justify that you torture people as well?

Yes it does. the State of Israel has an obligation to its citizens. If anything can be done to stop foreigners from killing Israelis, it should be done. Now far off from here, in Germany, that may sound dubious. But here, with myself having a chance to get blown up, I'll do my best to stop the threat. Try to put yourself in the seat of Mr. Sharon. Invite a TV reporter and say "Israelis are going to get killed but I'll open that roadblock". It wouldn't pass in Germany, and it wouldn't pass here.

You should rather ask: Did the Palestinian complaints about Israel prior to 2000 justify the deaths of thousands? Do the deaths of thousands justify the death of one innocent child? (fill in nationalities as you like)

- - You mean the Shahade incident, do you not? Yes, it certainly does, if some of those thousands didn't die yet. Again, put yourself in Sharon's seat. You can kill Shahade and prevent about a hundred Israelis being blown up by an 1.5 tons of explosives (á la Bali). There's a risk of innocents getting killed as well (by the way, the strike against Shahade was called off several times for that exact reason). What's your choice? Just don't try to trivialize it.
  - The above-said should not be understood as if Israel is indifferent towards the lives Palestinian children. The death of any child - be it Palestinian or Israeli - is considered a loss by Israel. This is unlike the terrorists, for which every death is a gain. This is a dilemma, understood and debated in the Israeli society. Nevertheless, the consensus (and it is on a very wide basis, I may add), is for allowing IDF activities that may potentially hurt civilians.
Was Oslo so bad it had to be torn to pieces?
- No. So where is your resistance against Sharon's politics?
  - Sharon wasn't in a position of control during the years 1993-2000 (and it was Benjamin Netanyahu who set the tone in the cabinet while he was Foreign Minister). The one person who decided that thousands were to die was Arafat. Oslo is largely a dead horse now, was since Camp David.
Is peace possible unilaterally? What is the Arabic equivalent to the Israeli hit "I was born to peace, let it only arrive/I was born to peace, let it just come/I was born to peace, let is just show up/I want so much to be in it" [2] (heard a lot of it in my school back in 1994)

Sincerely yours,

--Uri

The song is nice, but it shows a lack of understanding. Peace isn't something which "will arrive" or "just show up". Peace is something you have to "make"! And you won't succeed in making peace without making adequate concessions. The statement I heard most often on the Arab side is: "the Israelis want peace, but without giving up anything. They want to have peace, but at the same time they are not willing to stop settlement politics. They only give something if they are forced to." I must say, the history of the last 50 years doesn't show much to convince me of the contrary (and the events here in Wikipedia neither: denial of a Palestinian identity, whitewashing and "justifying" Israeli crimes and so on). And it is very sad if the Israeli youth is now waiting for "peace to happen" instead of demonstrating in the streets for the stop of the settlements, and against the human right violations of the Israeli army. No one is born a terrorist, but actual Israeli politics has its share in the creation of more and more terrorists. You can't suppress a people for 30 years and then expect that they will be instantly nice, when you give them a "bantustan" (and continue to fight for each centimeter of the land). That's the impression of (some) Palestinians. --Elian

The song speaks from the perspective of an average Israeli, not a political leader. At the ground level, peace can only arrive. Now, what I was getting at: the Palestinian public culture (with the exceptions of several dozen Christian intellectuals, vide Sari Nusseibah) isn't really supportive of the peace effort. Can you actually disprove that statement?

You're upset with the Israeli side. Well, I cannot force you to think otherwise. But you cannot ignore the fact that the Israeli withdrawal from the Palestinian cities and the establishment of PA have been a very significant concession in its own right. Moreover, it established a certain relationship of trust that was shattered to pieces. The fact that the Palestinian Authority has maliciously neglected the need to restrain militants (which allowed them to easily return to their usual activities in October 2000) is by itself a blatant violation of Oslo. Did you see Israel dismantling the PA because of that in 1996? The Palestinians have an illegal building operation which matches in scale the growth of settlements. Does it mean Israel should bomb the PA back to stone age?

The great revelation of the recent Intifada is the fact that peace is not an end, but a means. Noone in this country needs a peace that would jeopardize the country's security. And with some leaderships it just doesn't work. Sustainable peace could not be reached with the Nazi Germany. Sustainable peace cannot be reached with the Palestinian Authority.

Israeli politics create terrorists? That is a funny thing to say. The gentlemen running the operation, are the same people who were doing it 5 or 10 years ago. It's just that nobody bothered to stop them since then. There were very few new faces around (until recently, at least). Sallah Shahade was one of the founders of Izz ad-Din el-Qasam in 1987; Muhammad Deif has been around for years; Marwan Barghouti has been running the Fatah Hawks since the First Intifada. Most of the less senior Palestinian terrorist leaders captured has a previous history. In fact, most of those men unleart how to live without killing Jews. So yes, true, they all feed upon the Palestinian distress. But that distress wasn't the reason why they came in the first place. --Uri

Palestine refugees are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict". This means that any Arasb that moved into this area and resided there for two years now counts as if they were indigenous residents of the land. Israelis complain that this definition of refugee wildly exagerrates the number of Palestinian refugees, as a huge number of Arabs had immigrated into Palestine during this time period.

I do not understand it. What does it mean? Massive Arab immigration 1946-1948? If so is there a source? Does Israel have a definition for "Palestinian refugee"? --BL

There are many sources, including UN documents, and suveys from Arab nations at the time. RK 14:53, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There is a myth popular amongst ignoramuses that there was massive Arab immigration into Palestine during the British Mandate. The main source of this story was a fictional work (thinly disguised as a history book) by a journalist named Joan Peters. No serious demographic study mentions Peters' thesis except to ridicule it. I replaced that section of the article by a plain statement of the facts. -- zero Aug 4, 2003.

Zero's claims are libel, plain and simple. Joan Peters's work is extremely well documented, and it merely quotes United Nations surveys, Egyptian government surveys, Jordanian government surveys, etc. Every serious demographic study of this topic supports her work. In fact, she claims to do no original research, but merely reports on the studies of the UN and many Arab governments. Unfortunately, a few radical pro-Arab voices have started a libelous hatespeech campaign about this book, and they ironically end up attacking Arab sources as "Zionist liars". It is funny how angry people can end up shooting themselves in the foot like this! My take on it is this: Zero is wrong; the entire United Nations, the UK and all Arab nations are not engaged in an anti-Arab conspiracy, and we can trust to some degree their own records, which show a large amount of Arab immigration into the British Mandate of Palestine in the decades and years before the establishment of the State of Israel. Of course, some people may prefer the conspiracy theories.... RK 14:53, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

See http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict&diff=793255&oldid=790456 for evidence for zero's (and mine) claim. Even some on the Israeli side are opposed to bringing up this book as an argument.

Uh, a book written by one man does not refute all the surveys and censuses taken by Arab governments, the United Kingdom, and all the United Nations documents which prove that a huge number of Arabs immigrated into the British Mandate of Palestine. One would have to be very susceptible to conspiracy theories to hold that the surveys and censuses by all these groups are false. Anyways, no one is claiming that all Arabs in Palestine were recent immigrants, so chill out. RK 23:08, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The last popular census was done in 1931. Between 1931 and 1948 only brief demographics studies were made. It seems very ignorant to lay to much weight on them because of the difficulties involved in trying to count a population in uproar which also contained a large amount of nomads. Besides, how did these demographic studies differentiate between Muslim Arabs and Jewish Arabs? Saying that between 1946-1948 the Arab immigration was EXTRA large is just silly. Yes there was a large Muslim immigration (and a smaller emmigration) in between 1918-1948, the population growth figures cannot be explained in any other way. BL 01:28, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Do you understand what you just admitted? You said that "there was a large Muslim immigration (and a smaller emmigration) in between 1918-1948, the population growth figures cannot be explained in any other way." This is precisely what I have been trying to tell you. This is precisely what many Palestinians, and other Arabs, call "Zionist lies". Well, they are not "Zionist lies", and moderate Arabs as well as Western historians, agree that there was a large Aeab immigration into this area. I am glad to see that you agree with me. This really shouldn't be controversial. I don't understand, therefore, what you were disagreeing with. RK 14:32, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I moved this page back from [Palestinian refugees] to keep it in complience with our naming conventions. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pluralization) for detials. - Efghij 02:33 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi folks, I am a new entry into this fray. I have corrected the language that suggests that refugees starting fleeing after 1948 war with Arab States and removed the language that suggested that they have brainwashed with anti-Israeli rhetoric. I think it is clearer and easier to just say that they would threaten Israel's Jewish majority if enough of them returned and not make blanket statements about their psychology. I have added information about the Israeli government response to the refugees, besides just not allowing them back. Otherwise looks torturous but good. Jesse

Since it is unlikely that removing the polemics from the article would be successful, I suggest that it be restructured so that there is a plain NPOV account first and then there is a section which presents some competing viewpoints, not as a debate but as a precise summary of ideas.

I was certainly wrong. If you calculate it you will see that the Muslim population growth did not exceed 3%. A growth that definitely can be explained by other factors than immigration. Add to the fact that no British records showing a substantial Muslim immigration. So thankfully I'm not agreeing with you. BL 21:59, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I removed this paragraph:

Israelis complain that this definition of refugee wildly exagerrates the number of Palestinian refugees, as they claim a large number of Arabs had immigrated into Palestine during this two-year period. Israelis hold that this unique definition of refugee for Palestinians alone is anti-Israeli and discriminatory. The UNRWA says that this definition is only for administrative conviniance, and has no significant impact on the total number of refugees.

because we have to have some standards here.

Would some kind sysop please copy the contents of this article to User:BL/blablabla so I can edit it offline? BL 14:20, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Done. -- Viajero 16:07, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This recent massive immigration is a racist myth perpertrated by a hysterical racist diatribe written by a racist journalist with no status as a historian. Contrary to what RK claims, her claims have no support at all amongst the academic historians of this time and period. -- zero

Please stop slandering all people you disagree with as racists. And although I agree with that some academics disagree with her, it is aa bald-faced lie to claim that she has no support among academic historians of this time and period. It seems to me that you have sort of personal animosity towards people who admit that many Arabs immigrated into Palestine, although UN, Jordanian and British documents prove this uncontestably. RK

If someone kept quoting the Protocols favourably in the Jews article you would be upset and so would I. Years ago I spent a long time on FTI and managed to find the majority of the documents she cites. I stand by my assessment. For people who want to learn the truth about FTI, the best article I know of appeared in Capitalism Magazine, perhaps surprisingly for a magazine that features writers like Daniel Pipes. The author investigated the claims of the critics right back to the sources and even disproved some of them, but more than enough remain. He also provided about 90 scans of the official documents he cites so you can check for yourself, but the links to the scans are broken at the moment. The author promised to try to get them fixed so keep trying; meanwhile I am willing to upload a (very limited) number of scans on request. Actually, the British administration and many official enquiries wrote about illegal Arab immigration in almost all their major reports and always concluded that it was very small. There's a whole section on it in the 1931 Census report (didn't notice that in FTI?). I'll give you just one quote because you like quotes so much. It is from one of Peters' favourite documents, the Anglo-American Survey of 1946: The conclusion is that Arab illegal immigration for the purpose of permanent settlement is insignificant. (p212, para 59). As to other historians, name some. Make sure they are academic historians of the late Ottoman or Mandate period (which gives you at least 50 to choose from, maybe 100). I read mid-east history books and academic journals endlessly and I have never seen a favorable mention of TFI.zero

Take the Israeli historian Yehoshua Porath, an authority on the Palestinians (and, incidentally, known in Israel for his right wing views): "I think it's a sheer forgery. In Israel, at least, the book was almost universally dismissed as sheer rubbish." Or Justin McCarthy, the most famous Ottoman demographer, author of the standard reference The Population of Palestine: "her work is demographically worthless". He gives some amazing examples of Peters' ignorance. I could go on... Besides, the allegation "Israelis complain..as they claim.." is an insult to the great majority of Israelis who don't believe crap like this. Unlike RK, I have actually read most of the official documents cited by Peters and I know as a fact that she misrepresents them. There are endless examples. --- zero UTC 10:30 Aug 7.

The following is a response to "zero" and BL. Both of you keep attacking Joan Peters' book, yet you are being inconsistent on the main point. A few days ago, BL admitted to me (and his remarks are still here on Wikipedia) that it is undenibale true that there was massive Arab immigration into Palestine, and that the rise in Arab population cannot be explained any other way. I agreed with him, as do most historians. However, in the last day BL seems to have totally reversed his position, and denies this fact altogether. For reasons I do not understand, BL keeps deleting references to significant amounts of Arab immigration, and is claiming that no mainstream historains believe such an immigration took place. Yet they do make this claim. So what the heck is goin on? Consider this sumamry from JSource, the Jewish Virtual Library: It contains no original research, and relies on original British, Arab and United Nations documents. I am uncertain of why zero and BL seem to be claiming that all these reports are lies. RK 16:45, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

By contrast, throughout the Mandatory period, Arab immigration was unrestricted. In 1930, the Hope Simpson Commission, sent from London to investigate the 1929 Arab riots, said the British practice of ignoring the uncontrolled illegal Arab immigration from Egypt, Transjordan and Syria had the effect of displacing the prospective Jewish immigrants. (John Hope Simpson, Palestine: Report on Immigration, Land Settlement and Development, (London, 1930), p. 126.)

You can find a rather poor scan of the Hope Simpson report at the UNISPAL site. The above claim does not appear in the report as far as I can tell but you are welcome to look for it. The closest I can find is The Chief Immigration Officer has brought to notice that illicit immigration through Syria and across the northern frontier of Palestine is material. This question has already been discussed. It may be a difficult matter to ensure against this illicit immigration, but steps to this end must be taken if the suggested policy is adopted, as also to prevent unemployment lists being swollen by immigrants from Trans-Jordania. but it does not tie this to "prospective Jewish immigrants". On the contrary, it implies the opposite by reporting the success of the Histadrut in banning the employment of Arabs. It is more concerned about the effect of Arab immigration on Arab unemployment. Also the sentence "Arab immigration was unrestricted" is disingenuous. There was no upper quota but there was also no demand. You can see from the tables at the end that the legal Arab emigration exceeded the legal Arab immigration in every year since 1920. -- zero 04:25, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

RK, the report you cite doesn't say what you says it does. The main thrust of Chapter X. on unemployment says that Arabs in Palestine could't find work because Zionists were bringing in capital-intensive methods (e.g. cars vs. donkeys) that were displacing them, then refusing to hire Arabs in Zionist enterprises. It says in passing that there had been a much smaller increase in Jewish unemployment because lower prices for oranges meant growers were unwilling to pay the higher wages Jews commanded. It suggested Arab unemployment, caused by displacement, should not be exacerbated by allowing use of non-indegenous Arab labor, but only says, again in passing, that "Egyptian labour is being employed in certain individual cases, and its ingress has been the subject of adverse comment in the Press." DanKeshet 05:14, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

The British Governor of the Sinai from 1922-36 observed: ?This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria, and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery." (Palestine Royal Commission Report, "The Peel Report, London: 1937) p. 291.

In fact, page 291 of the Peel Report does not contain the above statement and I can't find it at all. Don't take my word for it; I uploaded a scan. What it says on page 291 is "Arab illegal immigration is mostly casual temporary and seasonal." There is no dispute that there was some Arab immigration, but it is stated in many places that it was mostly seasonal and the permanent residual was far smaller than what Joan Peters claims. Here is the entire concluding paragraph of the section on Illegal Arab Immigration:

"The dimension of the volume of illegal immigration from neighbouring territories is unknown. There is evidence that many of these illegal immigrants have land in the neighbouring territories and leave their wives and families in those territories while seeking to augment their livelihood by labour in Palestine. There is evidence also that this form of illegal immigration is seasonal. It is probable that seasonal immigration leaves a residue in Palestine of people who have decided to settle permanently in the country. There is no evidence available to show that this residue is so considerable as seriously to disturb the general economy of Palestine." [p292]

-- zero 05:41, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Here for RK are a smattering of other things I noticed in the Peel Commission Report (stuff in brackets is mine).

"... unlike the Jewish, the rise [of Arab population] has been due in only a slight degree to immigration" [page 125]

"It has been estimated that the Arab population is increasing at the rate of 24,000 persons per annum. This is largely due to the fact that, since the War, conscription has ceased and health and sanitary conditions have greatly improved." [page 282]

-- zero 05:41, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Peel Commission reported in 1937 that the ?shortfall of land is...due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.? (Palestine Royal Commission Report, p. 242.

What does this have to do with immigration? The statistics prove that the great bulk of the increase was natural and there is no British document that says otherwise. -- zero 04:58, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

RK, you are claiming something that I and zero does not agree with. Unless your name is George W. Bush, it is your job to prove the existance of your claim because disproving it is impossible. At first I thought that the Muslim population of palestine doubled from 1921 to 1945 was remarkabe. It is not and can easily be explained by increased life expectancy and decreasted infant mortality rate. Additionaly the Palestinian Arab population left within Israel's border after 1948 continued to grow at a equally high rate even when there can be no question about that there was no Arab immigration. Also, these two sources [3], [4] have two nifty tables in the botton of their respective page showing clearly that the Arab immigration was nonexistant and that higher living standards was the reason for the high population growth. BL 20:27, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

BL is quite correct. In fact, the Israeli Statistical Yearbooks of the early 1960s give a rate of natural increase of Israeli Arabs that was considerably higher than the total rate of Arab population increase during the Mandate. The reasons are no secret: each Arab woman on average gave birth more than 7 times. -- zero 04:58, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Now let's turn to the Census of 1931 and its lengthy report (which I can't find on the UNISPAL site but I have on microfilm). You won't find it mentioned in FTI that pages 61-65 of volume I contain a section "Comparison of the census statistics with the annual records of migration". This compares the census counts against the records of births, deaths and immigration for the period 1922-1931 and analyses the discrepancy. It is the most detailed investigation of unrecorded immigration that appears in any British document as far as I know. While warning of the statistical difficulties of such a study, it concludes that there was a net total unrecorded migratory balance (inwards minus outwards) of 13,000 of which 9,000 were Jews. In other words, total Arab migration of 7,000 legal plus 4,000 illegal. (The figures for Jews were 50,000 legal plus 9,000 illegal.) You also won't find it mentioned in FTI that there was a direct count of people according to birth place. The percentages born outside Palestine were: Muslims, 2%; Christians, 20%; Jews, 58%. (Vol I, p59). By now it ought to be abundantly clear that RK is out of his league here. By relying on propagandists and second hand repeats of them, he has formed completely erroneous beliefs about the facts. I don't time to continue this debate much longer, especially as I don't believe RK will wake up and see the light. Most likely he will continue to make the same phoney claims. It wouldn't be a matter of concern except that he keeps inserting his mistaken POV into Wikipedia articles. It is really too much to ask that he assertain the truth of his beliefs before misleadig Wikipedia readers with them? -- zero 06:27, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Please don't make this academic discussion into a personal issue. I don't understand why you and BL imply that I would deliberately push claims that are phony. I was merely holding a position based on what I have read on this subject, based on the belief that my sources were accurate and unbiased. Don't all of us operate in this way? If it so happens that these sources are shown to be inaccurate and biased, then I simply will no longer support claims to accuracy on these issues. As I respect science and history as sacred domains, I try to keep an open mind. So please stop trying to read my mind. As it happens, I have been reading what you and Bl have uncovered and discussed, and have done so with an open mind. I thus am willing to change my mind on this subject, and I defer to your findings on this topic. So relax, I now agree with you. RK 23:47, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

RK (and everybody else), when we cite sources, we must cite the sources that we read, not the sources that they in turn cite. If you have not personally read something for yourself, please do not cite it. Otherwise, events like this occur. DanKeshet

I am removing BL's statements against Joan Peters' book. Her book, as a whole, was not proven to be fraudulent. Less than 1% of the claims and documents are claimed to be in error. I have read many harsh criticisms of this book, and they generally ignore the vast majority of the texts she cites, and the arguments she makes. And even though her data on the number of Palestinian immigrants is now questioned, that is only a small fraction of her book. More than 3/4 of her book is on other issues on this topic, and many of hger arguments are still accepted as valid by many historians. Frankly, the criticism's made against her book are not professional, and many border on hysteria. The fact that so many of these attacks on her appear on anti-Semitic websites only furthers the impression that people are quote-mining selected criticisms to demonize her, and by implication, Israelis. RK 01:15, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree with BL's assessment that the book is fraudulent, however the wording you restored (which was put there by me originally) is enough for the article I think. There is another problem which is harder to fix: the section speaks of "Israeli objections" but actually most Israelis never heard of From Time Immemorial. If they want to read racist Arab-bashing they have plenty of titles in Hebrew to choose from. By and large, FTI is only cited by ignorant Americans. --zero 01:40, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Zero, please such attacks on Ms. Peters. It is false to claim that she is spouting anti-Arab racist comments. I am surprised to see a person as well read as you make such unfounded comments. Just as it is possible for people to strongly disagree with Israel (and be mistaken about some of their beliefs) without being racists, it is also possible for people to stringly disagree with the Arab positions (and be mistaken about some of their beliefs) without being racists. In any case, while most people (both Americans and Israelis) have not read this particular book, some of the arguments she makes have often been used by many Israelis. And contrary to the claims made about her book, her book is not only about the specific subject you mention (The amount of Arab immigration into Western Palestine); others related topics are covered as well. RK 16:41, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

My remarks were carefully considered and I stand by them. They refer to FTI as a whole and not just to the fraudulent claims about immigration. However, since I did not try to put this opinion into the article and this is not supposed to be a chat group, I won't elaborate. -- zero 09:27, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Sigh* Seems like I've discovered a fatal flaw in Wikipedia. You know something is completely bullshit, can prove it yourself, have seen other prove it to, yet you are NOT allowed to say it is bullshit because saying that something is bullshit is "POV". Istead because of NPOV every statement someone has made about something must be given equal space and the only thing you can write about it is "it's possible"... The earth is flat. BL 22:48, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I removed Leumi's long paragraph because
1. It got the definition of Palestinian refugee wrong. See UNRWA for the correct definition. This is mentioned in the previous paragraph of this article already.
2. The precise definition of "normally resident in Palestine" used by UNRWA is more stringent than UNHCR, which exercises flexible discretion in such judgements.
3. The wording "regardless of their place of residence before June 1946" suggests the thoroughly discredited recent immigration myth. In fact most people who were included were born in Palestine.
4. It gets the chronology wrong. UNRWA was established before the UNHCR definition was written, so one cannot correctly say that the UNHCR definition is the "traditional" one.
5. Even though children of refugees are not refugees according to the definition in the Refugee Convention, the UNHCR does extend its protection to those children who it considers in need of protection. This is slightly different from UNRWA practice but not that much different.
6. Anyway most of the original Palestinian refugees did meet the UNHCR definition.
--Zero 12:44, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The definition of Palestinian Refugee is, according to the UNRWA web site, "Palestine refugees are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict." My paragraph includes the majority of that definition with some paraphrasing. The words "regardless of their place of residence before June 1946" is accurate, regardless of what it implies. By definition, if one says "normal place of residence was Palestine 'between June 1946 and May 1948'" one does not deal with before June 1946. Hence it is accurate. Furthermore, the chronology is irrevelevant as the term the UNHCR definition is the one dealing with all refugees, thereby making it the one used in typical use when using the term refugee, irregardless of when the organizations were created. Furthermore, UNRWA practice of extending refugee status to any descendants regardless of their position has led to individuals collecting refugee aid regardless of their position and continuing to be refugees as opposed to being resettled, as normal refugees are. To my mind, that constitutes a substantial difference. Some clarification is perhaps necessary but by no means should the paragraph be deleted. I will add in some of your concerns and clarifications, Zero, and then put the paragraph back.

I'm not entirely sure what this is about but could the two of you please discuss the differences on this talk page rather than reverting to your own versions. Thanks. Angela 23:55, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Why is this page now locked, with an obvious non-nuetral viewpoint? ("However, the book was demolished by scholars, most notably Norman Finkelstein, who demonstrated that Peters' data was fraudulent.") It does not seem to fit in the principles of debate, discussion and nuetrality.

It was just protected on whichever version it was at the time when someone requested the page be locked. This is not meant to express any bias towards one version or the other. It is only a temporary measure to ensure that people discuss the issues rather than getting into an edit. It will be unprotected later. Angela 00:24, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

As their was a recent change only minutes before the protection, can it be protected and debated from the previous version, of which was more neutral and long standing? The current version is biased and misleading to any passive user of the encyclopedia. At the very least, can we add a "This article is disputed" tagline?-Leumi

I had hoped Viajero and/ or Zero0000 might have discussed this once the page was protected, but that has not happened so it is now unprotected again. Hopefully the points Leumi has made above will be able to be the basis for futher discussions rather than reverts. Angela 01:46, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thankyou Angela, I appreciate your unprotecting of the page, and I would also like to apologize for the initially hostile tone of my words upon finding it protected. I had not as of yet experienced it, as I am new, and overreacted slightly. I look forward to debating on this topic and as you said, coming to a resolution instead of frequent reverts, which are quite pointless. -Leumi

No problem. Angela

I have moved this to the bottom as it's the most recent issue:

In the interests of speeding the process to when we may unlock this page, although I fully understand the reasons it was locked and agree that a resolution must be found other than constant reverting, I propose we clearly define the relevant issues. As I see it there are two. 1. Viajero's change of " However, Peters' book does not have the support of the majority of historians in this field." to "However, the book was demolished by scholars, most notably Norman Finkelstein, who demonstrated that Peters' data was fraudulent." I think this is quite obviously an example of a non-neutral point of view, as Ms. Peter's work is first a legitimate scholarly viewpoint held by a great many individuals, and second the language used, such as "demolished" "fraudulent" and otherwise, is by no means nuetral. The previous wording, that the majority of historians disagree, is a reasonable and respectable manner of putting things and in my opinion we should change this part back to it's previous form.

2. The issue of my paragraph addition on the unique differences between the terms "Palestinian Refugee" and "refugee". As this is an article on "Palestinian Refugees" and all my information is correct, and mostly from U.N. sources, I cannot see why this paragraph should not be legitimate. It reads as follows (I have already made some revisions in response to Zero's comments):

The status of Palestinian refugee is unique in the fact that, unlike the traditional term refugee which is applied only to those who have left a country by force or due to persecution, the term is defined by the U.N. as "persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948" and left the area for any reason connected to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, including voluntarily and regardless of their place of residence before June 1946. Hence, refugee status was also given to a minority of peoples who had only recently moved to the area, although the majority of refugees had been present since at least the 1920s. This differs from the normal definition of refugee which, according to the 1951 Geneva Convention (Article 1A(2)) is applied to a person who : ?owing to well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his[/her] nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself[/herself] of the protection of his country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his[/her] former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.? Also out of the ordinary involving Palestinian refugees is that the term applies to any offspring of the original refugees, who unlike normal refugees live in camps indefinitely without any attempt by surrounding governments to, as Article IV, Section D of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of Refugees states "to receive refugees in their territories and that they act in concert in a true spirit of international cooperation in order that these refugees may find asylum and the possibility of resettlement." This has created a large-scale humanitarian catastropher within these refugee camps, as the population continues to grow and conditions do not improve. It should be noted that the typical definition of refugee is sometimes awarded to children of original typical refugees, if no other alternative is found.

The UN says "who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict." not "left the area for any reason connected to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, including voluntarily". Clearly this is a deliberate misrepresentation of the UN definition, the purpose being to support the Zionist line that the Palestinians left "voluntarily".

Keith from Calgary 08:03, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is my opinion that we can come to a compromise here, perhaps by having someone write another perspective in another paragraph. For the moment, I am adding these, and will also add that this page is disputed, and propose we debate the issue here to come to a final resolution.

-Leumi

Just to clarify, I will not work on this page any more as it is a waste of time. The first three paragraphs contain some salvagable material but the rest is rubbish. Leumi's long paragraph is just standard right-wing "bash the victims" stuff. He didn't even bother to put in the key part of the UNRWA definition despite proving above that he knows about it. Then follow two standard junk "quotations" from people who are so important that that the internet never heard of them except for endless regurgitation of these "quotations". (I bet nobody here can even prove they existed.) After that, childish apologetics that even includes citation of the notorious racist forgery "From Time Immemorial". Having it there brings shame on Wikipedia, but with people around who think it is "scholarly" what is the point of trying to do anything about it? So, Bye Bye. --Zero 06:33, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Brilliant rebuttal Zero. Simply brilliant. "I don't like you, so I won't play!" Are we scholars or children? Your branding of anything not completely in line with the Arab position as "racist" is counterproductive and hypocritical. When you're ready to debate these matters realistically and with respect to other people's opinions, than come back. Until then, I applaud your honorable decision to remove yourself from this discussion.

-Leumi

P.S: Those quotations, by the way, are quite accurate, and a standard Yahoo! Net search will turn up many corroborations.

Should there be anyone who wishes to discuss this matter, detail what they believe should be changed and why, and perhaps engage in the purpose of this forum, that being debate to find something coming close to a mutually acceptable solution, could they possibly speak up now? Within say...the next 3 days, a more than reasonable time? Because without someone detailing their problems and taking the time to actually clearly dispute and discuss the article, we can't really keep it disputed, can we? :) I am eager to hear your views.

Look at this part: "Also out of the ordinary involving Palestinian refugees is that the term applies to any offspring of the original refugees, who unlike normal refugees live in camps indefinitely without any attempt by surrounding governments ... to receive refugees in their territories and that they act ... in order that these refugees may find asylum and the possibility of resettlement."

It's not true. That is, the assertion that it is out of the ordinary is not true. There have been many counterexamples. One recent one is the way the Algerians who helped the French became permanently/indefinitely non-assimilated refugees (I think they were called "Harka", if you want to do a search). Another is the US Indians who ended up on reservations after being driven off their lands. Or the former inhabitants of the Chagos Archipelago, deported to Mauritius for US/UK convenience and who still want to return.

Anyway, the point I wanted to bring out was that this is actually a fairly common thing, an uprooted group that still maintains a connection to its origins even down the generations. What is not so common is for it to last for literally centuries; the only example I know of that is, ironically, the Jewish Diaspora. PML.

That being true, the vast majority and the typical instance of refugees in modern times is that of being resettled. Furthermore, I fully agree that refugees continue to have a connection to their place of birth and a distinct social structure, however this is done usually in a new home where they can move on and live prosperous, healthy lives, New York showing an excellent example of rich and distinct immigrants, some refugees, with distinct cultures beginning to make a new life. Therefore I think that while you're absolutely right that refugees tend to have a distinct culture, what we are discussing is whether they are resettled or attempted to be resettled, and whether the refugee camp scenario is intended to be permanent. And in the vast majority of instances and international laws precedents that situation is not supposed to be permanent and they should be resettled, for the good of the refugees and the international community as whole. It is generally considered immoral and against precedent to allow these refugees to rot in these camps when vast expanses of open, habitable land and nations capable of absorbing them exist.Leumi

You're erring in the opposite direction here. No, that's not the majority or typical case - it's the majority or typical case when they don't get their situation normalised. The vast majority (since about 1945) actually find that they get to go back once things have settled, or else go on to whatever they would ordinarily have gone on to. One of the problems is that that post-1945 institutions and rules cater more for that. It is actually what happened to me when I was a refugee as a child, in the Congo. The refugees we mostly see around now are the ones who didn't get moved through, who didn't come out the other side. A large part of the Palestinian refugee problem is that the machinery for "displaced persons" didn't help their situation. A further downside, and why other countries have a reason not to resettle them elsewhere, is that it creates a moral hazard - it sets a bad example, encouraging ethnic cleansing (I'm talking more generally than just Israel, though obviously it would encourage a pro-cleansing policy there too, which would cause a further decline in the ethos). PML.

Well PML, first I'd like to thank you for your civil tone, as I would think this issue is very important and emotional for you, given your personal connection to refugee matters. I know that many people here, including at times myself, have let themself lose the civil attitude that helps debate when dealing with issues of personal importance to them, and I think it's really very commendable that you can speak on this while still remaining polite. Having said that, I disagree with you on some aspects here. First, I think the claim that Israel is or was involved in ethnic cleansing is incorrect. While there may have been a few isolated incidents of inappropriate behavior during the 1948 Israeli-Arab War, on the whole most Palestinians fled of their own volition, at the prompting of Arab leaders who told them that they would shortly return and claim the Jews property after the Jews had been expelled.

You misunderstand my approach. I have been trying to start from a general position, then give it particular application (to Palestine/Israel). The general position is that various countries have indeed done ethnic cleansing on occasion, and so have some groups. I didn't assert that Israel is one of those. Having said that, it only works because under my definitions Israel didn't come into existence until after the Zionist groups won the 1948 war and settled between them what Israel was going to be, any more than the USA came into existence before 1783. If you take the position that Israel came into existence and then fought that war (which seems unmeaningful to me because it involves many inconsistencies), then you have to accept that it was implicated in the ethnic cleansing that took place then - despite the fact that the ethnic cleansing was perpetrated by the groups that lost out in determining what Israel would be, the Hillel Kooks and such. (Though Israel is implicated in benefitting from the atrocities perpetrated by the groups that it nominally rejected.) And the incidents weren't isolated - while it's fairly clear that the perpetrators were a minority, they had no compunctions, and that therefore the incidents detected cannot be read as the only ones. For every proven Deir Yassin there is a plausible clutch of Tanturas. Tip of iceberg stuff. PML.

Furthermore, exxaggerated reports of supposed Israeli "atrocities", intended to gain support in the rest of the world, caused many Palestinians to fear for their lives and run when there was no actual danger. Israeli institutions and groups made every effort to stop the mass emigration of the palestinians, encouraging them to stay in many instances.

In my reading, there were no such institutions, only sundry Zionist groups working at cross purposes - and the locals couldn't afford to put their trust in one lot risking meeting the other lot. For a comparison, see how the American rebels treated loyalists a bit over two centuries ago, and how the loyalists reacted to British encouragement after that. But that idea of "no actual danger" is a red herring; what counts is "well founded fear". You might as well have advised German Jews to stick around after 1936 and not leave until it was clear what the Nazis were up to (it is documented that proportionally more German Jews survived than other Jews overrun by the Nazis, since they didn't have to wait until it was too late to get out). PML.

While I do admit that there were some isolated incidents by soldiers disobeying orders (remember that the new Israeli military was only very recently formed out of many pre-state groups! Some disobedience was bound to occur.) they were not common at all, and furthermore were not the intent of the new State of Israel. Furthermore, I would like to point out the fact that, in the 55 years of Israel's existence it's Arab citizens enjoy the same legal rights (rights that their brethren unfortunately do not enjoy in the Arab States) as Jews, and while there are cases of discrimination, that is true in any society, be it Israel, the U.S., Europe or Africa.

In my book this is as unhelpful as the guarantees in the constitution of the USSR. Arabs who are notionally citizens get the institutional discrimination of US blacks fifty years ago - which makes it more widespread than isolated. PML.

In addition, due to the military superiority of Israel, one might note that should their intent currently be (or had been in the past 30 or so years) ethnic cleansing, the Palestinian population would not be in a position at all close to what it is today.

That's rather the point I was getting at - that internal and external pressures had kept matters back from that level, but that the moral hazard of rewarding ethnic cleansing is that it encourages those that carry it out and see that they are less likely to have to live with the consequences since someone else will mop up what they spill. It's a statement about how the future could be different from the past, not about the past and present. You are looking at the past and present. PML.

However, although that clarification was quite long, the main issue I would like to mention is that of the uniqueness of the refugees. First, while it is true that there are some instances of refugees returning to their previous homes(and might I add that that occurs with the permission of the government in those cases), I would hardly call it the norm. In most cases (take the United States and Europe's high former refugee population) the refugees are resettled.

That is plain wrong. You are counting from the wrong end, looking at the ex-refugees in other places. Of course these aren't people in the same places they started from! But if you look at the vast majority of refugees, you will see that they were dislocated in the wake of war and most went back after the dust settled. These were Belgians and French in both world wars, as much as anything. The system was designed to cope with that sort of refugee, and because it did work, what you see when you look for people classified as refugees is the rest. That is still large, of course, but mostly the problem comes from the exceptions - the standard sort of refugee got dealt with. That's the sort of refugee that I was, so its personal significance is only that I pay attention, not that it fills my life. (E.g., I know that blacks can be prejudiced - which also makes me unwilling to assume any special virtue for any ethnic group, not even Jews.) PML.

Furthermore, in cases where them returning to their original homes is unreasonable, for a variety of reasons, in this case including the fact that it would cause another refugee problem by uprooting people currently there, Refugees are almost always resettled. Politics is the art of the possible, as they say, and such international precedent has always been to take realistic solutions and in refugee situations similar to the Palestinian one the possible action of resettlement has almost always been taken instead of the virtually impossible one of attempting to send them back to their former places of residence. In this instance, the Palestinian Refugee situation is definitely considered unique, regardless of whether one feels this uniqueness is deserved or not.

While I can see what drives your thinking, I can also tell you that there is nothing unique about that. It's just high profile. I have myself seen this sort of permanent refugee, the Ukrainians still working clearing munitions for the British Army in the 1970s because they couldn't go back to the Ukraine. It may even be that the Palestinians are the largest group in this predicament these days - but no, they are not unique. I should end by saying, I can only occasionally edit this long page when I can find another machine than my usual one. PML.

I eagerly await hearing your response. Your thoughts, as always, are appreciated.Leumi 00:37, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying here, Leumi, or what it has to do with fixing the article.

It sounds like you have some ideas about how the Palestinian refugee problem ought to be settled. Well, so do I. But neither my ideas nor your ideas are really relevant.

The only things that matter are things like:

how Arabs (or "Palestinians", if you will) became refugees
where they have lived, and under what conditions
what various governments have done, to try to settle or re-settle them
proposals by various prominent leaders, politicians, intellectuals, etc. about how to solve the problem

My own plan is that Bush spend the $85 billion intended for Iraqi reconstruction, to buy land in southern Israel and southwest Jordan, and GIVE it any Arabs who are tired of living in refugee camps -- but MY OPINION DOES NOT COUNT! This is an encyclopedia, and we have to leave out our own ideas (unless we're experts) and instead summarize the reports and views of bona fide scholars and important politicians etc.

Okay?

--Uncle Ed 14:47, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm aware, I wasn't dealing with solutions, simply pointing out the difference between the terms Palestinian Refugee and Refugee.

I pretty much agree with the changes you've made Ed and am willing to accept the article how it is, if 81 doesn't change it again. Just one matter of contention. The part where it states that "others were driven from their homes". This is a highly contended charge that I haven't seen verification for. I think it would be best to rephrase that as saying, "some claim they were driven from their homes" in order to make the matter more neutral as the claim is not proven in the majority of cases. I made the change, however if I see the majority of the people here disagree with it I will gladly change it back. It's just a suggestion. Thoughts?Leumi

To paraphrase the boy in Newsies -- I think that what Leumi thinks is what I think. That is, we should rephrase the claim so that it's clear that Wikipedia isn't supporting (or rejecting) the claim. Better still if we can say something like Ali Kazan of Refugees Incorporated documented thousands of cases, etc. --Uncle Ed 16:25, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Glad you agree, and should anyone happen to bring a more detailed version, I think it'd be great to add a link to that in External Links, and perhaps something in the article, as long as it's concise, relevant and accurate. Good idea.Leumi 16:32, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ed, you fell for it. What Leumi wrote as just a "claim" by the refugees themselves is in fact the majority opinion of specialist historians. It was even the opinion of the Israeli intelligence services of the time, as shown by Israeli archival documents. As I wrote above, with propagandists like Leumi around the prospect of making this into an accurate article is NIL, so I'm not going to try. --Zero 01:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If it's the majority opinion, then let's say so and describe other opinions as being in the 'minority'. I really don't know much about who became a refugee and why, when Israel was created. I only know that a lot of people would be happier if it never existed; and that a lot of people have tried their utmost to destroy it. Much of this opposition to Israel seems "anti-semitic" to me. --Uncle Ed 16:56, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

First, I don't appreciate being termed a "propagandist". By resorting to conspiracy theories and accusations instead of debating the issues, we bring down the quality of the article, instead of working together to provide a balanced perspective. I hadn't responded to this as I felt it was a dead issue, but if we're reopening the thread, I thought I should just get that out of the way. I'd appreciate you avoiding such accusations in the future Zero. Calling, as you did in your summary, others contributions "bull" that people "fall for" is not conducive to the encyclopedic process. Moving to the issues, however, I dispute your claim that this is the majority opinion on this issue. The matter is highly contentious, and furthermore the Israeli intelligence articles you refer to, I suspect, are in reference to the transfer of Arabs actively firing upon Israeli forces during the war, which makes them combatants pushed back, which in the process of a war might I add, makes for what one might call an impressively humanitarian solution. Usually the response to being fired upon is to shoot the people firing upon you. Furthermore, as your claim that Arabs of the area were expelled is not considered fact there is no reason to construe it as such in the articles. I fully welcome a paragraph detailing claims of population transfer during the war, but by no means should you portray it as fact or the majority position. Leumi 20:28, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have moved this text here:

Joan Peters argues in her book From Time Immemorial (1984) that a large portion of Palestine's 1948 non-Jewish population were recent immigrants from adjacent Arab states. Thus, many of the "refugees" from the 1948 Arab-Israeli war were not native Palestinians but Arabs returning to their former homes abroad. Norman Finkelstein strongly objects to Peters' views, and her book does not have the support of the majority of historians in this field.

This books has been thoroughly discredited and should on no account be included in an encyclopedia article as a reference. Here is an excerpt from a review in the The New York Review of Books [5]:

I am reluctant to bore the reader and myself with further examples of Mrs. Peters's highly tendentious use—or neglect—of the available source material. Much more important is her misunderstanding of basic historical processes and her failure to appreciate the central importance of natural population increase as compared to migratory movements. Readers of her book should be warned not to accept its factual claims without checking their sources. Judging by the interest that the book aroused and the prestige of some who have endorsed it, I thought it would present some new interpretation of the historical facts. I found none. Everyone familiar with the writing of the extreme nationalists of Zeev Jabotinsky's Revisionist party (the forerunner of the Herut party) would immediately recognize the tired and discredited arguments in Mrs. Peters's book. I had mistakenly thought them long forgotten. It is a pity that they have been given new life.

-- Viajero 21:13, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That's your opinion Viajero, and you have a right to it. But it is not, regardless of what you say, the only opinion around. Peter's book is a legitimate source and opinion that represents a perspective that is not limited to the extremist, or completely including the extremist perspective. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them frauds or extremists. As you said yourself, their is a good deal of prestigious individuals supporting this book. Why do you insist that it should not be included? The arguments represented are by now means discredited or tired. . We must keep an open mind. Yours is not the only view that is valid. Leumi 21:30, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No, it is NOT my opinion. That is an excerpt from a book review in a prominent NY literary journal for which I also provided the URL so you can read the review in its entirety. Don't lecture me about keeping an open mind. -- Viajero 22:47, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In which case it is that particular literary journal's opinion. But that does not make it fact. Please don't remove anything that doesn't fit your POV.Leumi 23:01, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Here is the way this game works: I have come up with a substantial review from a well-known, mainstream US periodical which is HIGHLY critical of this book and butresses my contention that it is not a credible source to refer to in an encyclopedia article. Ok, now the burden is now on you to PROVE otherwise; and the only way you can do that is to provide similar documentary evidence. Until you do, the reference to Peters remains on this Talk page and not in the article. No compromises. -- Viajero 23:21, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think that that's a bit of an antagonistic stance Viajero. Wikipedia is based on compromise and including all relevant points of view. However, as you ask for another source, here it is, of which I have already linked to the article (I hope you didn't revert it): http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1110 The article mentions that the book has some faults, but that it's premise is accurate and it's well within the constraints of legitimate opinion. Happy, I hope? Leumi 23:31, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No. An article from a Dutch newspaper on his own site' [6] from a Dutch newspaper makes it abundantly clear that he is an extremely controversial individual, anything but impartial about Israel. This article says for example:

Het Amerikaans-Arabisch Anti-Discriminatie Comité noemde hem zelfs 'de voornaamste islamofoob van de natie'.

--> The Arab-AmericanAnti Discrimination League says he is "the leading islamophone in the country

Daniel Pipes is een van de oprichters van de website campus-watch.org, dat de Midden-Oostenstudies 'kritisch wil evalueren met het doel ze te verbeteren'. Notoir onderdeel van de site is de afdeling 'Keep Us Informed', waarin studenten worden uitgenodigd, eventueel anoniem, verslag te doen van colleges, lezingen, artikelen in studentenbladen of demonstraties.

--> It further notes that he founded the McCarthyite campus-watch.org,

Het was de Washington Post die na verschillende moslimorganisaties gehoord te hebben, Pipes' benoeming door Bush een 'wrede grap' noemde.

--> and that even that the Washington Post found his apppointment by Bush to United States Institute of Peace, a middle east peace thinktank, a "cruel joke".

Leumi, you don't have the foggiest idea what neutrality is. What are you doing here in Wikipedia?-- Viajero 00:07, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Viajero, frankly speaking I am tired of this constant pattern of hostility and insults. You have failed to take into account the least respect for curteousy, Is it really necessary to accuse me of not "having the foggiest idea of what neutrality is"? Does it help the cause of a impartial article at all? I have been civil, reasonable and open to compromise, and you have failed to allow inclusion of anything that doesn't fit your narrow perspective. There is a limit to my patience, and you test it severely.

Furthermore, Mr. Pipes is by all means a mainstream source. He has been nominated to a prominent position on a federal think tank by the President of the United States of America. That president recieved approximately half of the votes of the US populace (the election controversy disputes whether it was a majority but half or almost half qualifies as more than mainstream) regardless of what you and I think on his policies (which may be closer than you think, I might add), thereby qualifying him and his appointments as mainstream. Just because someone is criticized does not disqualify them from all relevant matters. With respect, I ask you to recognize that other points of view have the same right to be included as your own. Leumi 00:42, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

World's most disputed sentence

Many fled of their own volition; others claim they were driven from their homes, prior to and during the war.

Okay, now, both Leumi and Viajero like dear old Uncle Ed, right? So, make me happy and work out a way of including this idea that you both can agree on! --Uncle Ed 23:23, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ed: Refugees don't leave their homes because they want a holiday; they leave because they are FORCED to go. Otherwise, they would stay home. It is not a claim, it is a fact. -- Viajero 23:25, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

On the contrary, refugees may also leave because of hysteria, fear or other matters. In many instances propaganda intended to work against the Israelis frightened the palestinians into running before seeing a single Israeli soldier. It is by no means a "fact" that refugees were forced out.

If Jewish citizens of a Muslim country were abroad on holidays, or for business or educational reasons and they were not allowed to return and their homes were confiscated, would you call them refugees? I can't think of any other term in common usage to describe their situation. A refugee is someone who is prevented from returning, the reason for leaving is irrelevant.

Keith from Calgary 05:54, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Here is some enlightening information : In an article "Deir Yassin a casualty of guns and propaganda", by Paul Holmes (Reuters) (http://www.metimes.com/issue98-16/reg/deir.html) he interviewing Mohammed Radwan, who was a resident of Deir Yassi in 1948, and fought for several hours before ruing out of bullets.

"I know when I speak that God is up there and God knows the truth and God will not forgive the liars", said Radwan, who puts the number of villagers killed at 93, listed in his own handwriting. "There were no rapes. It's all lies. There were no pregnant women who were slit open. It was propaganda that... Arabs put out so Arab the armies would invade" he said. "They ended up expelling people from all of Palestine on the rumor of Deir Yassin."

In the book "War Without End", by Anton La Guardia (Thomas Dunne Books, N.Y. 2000) we find the following: "Just before Israel's 50th anniversary celebration, I went to Deir Yassin with Ayish Zeidan, known as Haj Ayish, who had lived in the village as a teenager.

'We heard shooting. My mother did not want us to look out of the window. I fled with my sister, but my mother and my other sisters could not make it. They hid in the cellar for four days and then ran away.'

He said he never believed that more than 110 people had died at Deir Yassin, and accused Arab leaders of exaggerating the atrocities.

'There had been no rape', he said. 'The Arab radio at the time talked of women being killed and raped, but this is not true. I believe that most of those who were killed were among the fighters and the women and children who helped the fighters.' "

Leumi 23:39, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What does it matter whether one has a gun to one's head or one flees out of fear? Don't physical force and psychological fear amount to the same thing? Did all 750,000 Palestinian refugees flee because they had a gun to their heads. No. Did they leave because they were afraid of getting killed? Yes. Ergo, they were forced to go.

I would like to be able to read the article on METIMES but my browser opens a blank page. -- Viajero 23:46, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

However by saying they were "forced" we present that picture of a gun to the head, misleading the reader. Also the word "fled" implies leaving because of some sort of fear. Forced implies actual physical confrontation. We have to represent it in a manner not only semantically correct, but also practically so as well.Leumi 23:52, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Look, I've removed the following sentence: Many fled of their own volition; others were driven from their homes, prior to and during the war. out until we can come to a conclusion on it Viajero. If we're moving the Peters information out till then, then you can't have a double standard by keeping that in, alright? Leumi 23:39, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It is not a double standard because we are dealing with two different kinds of issues. Force is force, either physical or psychological. -- Viajero 00:56, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It is a double standard because both issues are under discussion. If you continue to remove it, I will apply your logic to the issue of Joan Peter's book, which I have already explained above is legitimate enough to include. Furthermore, leaving of their own free will and volitoin, for whatever reason does not qualify as force. Force implies physically forcing someone to leave. One is not "forced" to leave no matter what one is told. In addition, that "psychological pressure" you mention was applied not by Israel but by the Arab states. Saying they were "forced" represents a biased and inaccurate view of events. Leumi 01:04, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've protected the page so things can cool down for a while. Angela . 01:07, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This edit war seems to be a rehash of what has already been rehashed at Palestinian exodus which in my humble opinion is a better article to rehash the rehash. BL 12:18, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I like the idea of removing the disputed sentence, until an agreed-upon conclusion can be reached. Certainly, there is SOME common ground we can build on. --Uncle Ed 15:16, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

See Talk:Palestinian Exodus for the questions.

The Issues of Contention

I think there are two major issues of contention in this article. The first is this sentence:

Many fled of their own volition; others claim they were driven from their homes, prior to and during the war.

Now the addition of "claim they" seems to be the problem. This addition was supported, if I recall correctly, in principle by user User:Ed Poor and myself. The rationale was that the claim that they had been forcibly driven from their homes was by no means a fact, and as such should be mentioned as a claim, in order so that, in Ed's words, "Wikipedia isn't supporting (or rejecting) the claim". I agree wholeheartedly. (Ed, if I'm misrepresenting your position hear, or it's changed, just tell me please. It's definitely not my intent) Zero007 contends that he believes that the claim is true and that he thinks that that is the belief of the majority of historians. Viajero thinks that as fear causing someone to leave their home quantifies as psychological pressure, it should be considered "forced" even if it wasn't an issue of "forced at gunpoint".

In response to Zero007, it's not our business to decide the accuracy of a claim, and furthermore I heavily dispute the claim that the majority of historians believe that they were expelled. There is a substantial mainstream perpective that holds that they were not expelled, and by writing it as a fact, we introduce POV language. In response to Viajero, the term "fled" is sufficient to imply they were running from something. You claim that psychological pressure qualifies as force as well. While one could say that is semantically correct, it is by no means practically so and will leave the reader with a mistaken impression. "claim they" does not promote or reject the claim. That's the first major issue of contention. I'll post the second very shortly. I just want to get this down first. Leumi 04:38, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

no, this is a wish-thinking from right-wing Israelis. Benny Morris in his book "On the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem" provides plenty of sources (Israeli ones) that there were a) cases of flight and b) cases of expellation, particularly during the last period of the war. Do you can call him a liar and the quotes in his books a forgery? BTW, I find it very sad to see that some Israelis use the same tactics as current neonazis who try to deny the holocaust. Why can't you simply accept that bad things happened in this war, that people didn't behave like angels? Why do you want to close your eyes on this and pretend that it simply didn't happen? (sorry for my bad english) --anon.

Since there is no user Zero007, I guess these comments are in reference to me. However, I have never said that the Palestinians were all "expelled" or that most historians believe that. What they believe is that the Palestinians left for a mixture of reasons of which the main two were fear of the Israeli forces and direct expulsion. This was also the opinion of the Haganah intelligence branch at the time. Other alleged reasons, such as orders from Arab leaders, contributed only a small amount to the total. --Zero 05:31, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A "refugee" is someone who is unable to return, for whatever reason. The reason they left is irrelevant - maybe they were on holidays or on a business trip. If they could return they wouldn't be "refugees". The issue is, what is keeping them from returning. And we all know what that is.

Having just exposed an example of deliberate distortion of Morris's book by OneVoice, I come here to find another. Why can't we just ban this fanatic and be rid of him?

What the source says: (Morris, p39) During the period mid-1948-53 between 30,000 and 90,000 refugees made their way illegally from their countries of exile to resettle in their former villages or in other Israeli Arab villages.
What OneVoice reported: Of these 750,000 refugees, 12% or 90,000 refugees resettled within Israel by 1953. (Edit summary: "Of thes 750,000 refugees, 90,000 resettled within Israel by 1953. source is Benny Morris Israel's Border Wars")

So here we see that OneVoice has suppressed the fact that Morris gave a wide range of possible values. Why should we accept this sort of behaviour?
In addition to this crime, OneVoice also made another error which might not have been deliberate. The value of 750,000 refers to the total population movement up to the end of the 1948-9 war, since it is calculated from comparisons of the Arab population before and after and also from UN registration of refugees in 1949. Some (30,000 according to one source given by Morris) of the 30,000-90,000 were people who returned before the end of the war and so are not included in the 750,000. --Zero 04:06, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Let bring the full data. Benny Morris, Israel's Border Wars 1949-1956. Page 39, footnote 45. In this footnote to the number of refugees illegally settling in Israel, Benny Morris brings several numbers each one with its own time span. Only one number is attributed to more that one person. That numbers is 90,000 refugees. No additional information regarding the source is provided by Morris. "Some Israeli officials spoke of as many as 90,000 resettling infiltrators." 90,000/750,000 =~ 12%.
One person "said in late 1953 that some 30,000 refugees had illegally resettled in Israel in the second half of 1948 and early 1949 and another 20,000 had resettled since. (emphasis added. That totals to 50,000 by late 1953 per this source.
The third source "estimate, by mid-1951 between 28,500 and 41,500 Arabs had succeeded in infiltrating and resettling." By mid-1951 which is two years prior to the period end date cited in the article.
Which means we an intermediate data point of 28,500-41,500 no later than mid 1951, and we have between 50,000 and 90,000 over the period 1948-1953.
Morris provides another reason to believe these numbers are low. "when an Israeli Arab woman died, her relatives would refrain from informing the authorities and smuggle in a refugee woman to take her identity and place: 'This custom has resulted in a situation that, in some Arab villages, women have simply ceased to die.'"
It is unclear why Morris uses the 30,000 number at all. Only if infiltration allowed in no more than 1,500 over the course of two years is it possible to obtain a number as low as 30,000. OneVoice 10:44, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"A few years earlier, a Jordanian Baathist MP, Abdullah Nawas, had said in 1952 that "We shall be most insistent in perpetuating the Palestine problem as a life question ... The Palestine war continues by dint of the refugees only. Their existence leaves the problem open." What's the source of this quote? Google only gives [7] and [8], and I trust neither, especially given that they themselves give no source for the quote or the translation. - Mustafaa 08:11, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Who cares what a random Jordanian MP said anyway? This is a standard entry in junk quotation collections. I bet that nobody can identify the original source. Similarly with "Ralph Galloway". I was not able to find any reference to such a person from UNRWA except this "quotation". --Zero 09:13, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Unlike the Jordanian MP quote (which looks extremely suspiciously like a fake to me), the Ralph Galloway quote is at least sort of attributed online - to Terence Prittie in The Palestinians: People History, Politics, p 71. A quick online search definitely suggests that Terence Prittie's angle is pro-Israel; however, that doesn't necessarily imply the quote is false. If anyone finds that book, we need to see what attribution (if any) Terence Prittie gave for the quote. - Mustafaa 18:27, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Question about History

This is a really great article. I am interested in "During the period mid-1948-53 between 30,000 and 90,000 refugees made their way illegally from their countries of exile to resettle in their former villages or in other Israeli Arab villages", does anyone have more information on this? Colin Carr 21:04, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

See further up the page, where this is discussed. The figure is based on a footnote in Benny Morris' book which cites several different authors' figures. - Mustafaa 01:39, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks - I should have read, it was right in front of me. Colin Carr 05:10, 2 May 2004 (UTC)