Talk:History of Israel/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Neutral language

This article isn't on my watchlist and don't intend to become an editor, but...as an outsider without an ax to grind, it does seem to me that there's a lot of emotive adjectives floating around. I just removed a few - "brutal", brazen", for example. Adjectives should be avoided if you want to produce neutral prose. Good luck, and remember there's a whole world out there away from the computer screen. PiCo 11:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool ;) I am currently rewriting this and hopefully these are things that predate my rewrite... take it easy.Telaviv1 11:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss changes

The Palestinian-Arabs were granted the right of self-determinaiton, they were supposed to have a state in Palestine. What they rejected was that part of the territory was given to a Jewish state. The publicly given reason for the Arab invasion was to "restore peace". The Jews accepted the partition and the world agreed that it was the Arab states who initiated the conflict in contravention of UN decisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Telaviv1 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

the Arab League interpreted the 'right of self determination' different, and that is what is says in the article. So there is no need to reverse that text. Indeed 'the world', i.e. Western media, were influenced by Jewish opinion much more than by Arab. However there is nothing in the text I want in that contradicts this.

Your arguments are beside the point, and there is nothing wrong with the text I want, so it should be in. --JaapBoBo 14:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Figure of 250,000 is supported by various sources, e.g. Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian refugee problem

'Zionist agression' is pov, but it says 'according to the Arab League due to Zionist aggression', which is not pov, because even Ben-Gurion would have to agree to this.

--JaapBoBo 14:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would Ben-Gurion have to agree to this? Screen stalker (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

pov text in 'War of Independence'

This section contains a lot of pov statements. It gives the impression that the Yishuv had a problem with getting arms and that the Palestinians had no problem at all. In reality the Yishuv was very well prepared for the war and the Palestinians were not. They had lost most of their 'military' power in the '36-'39 revolt. I am trying to make this a bit better, but some people are vandalising my edits. If my edit is relevant and has a reliable source, nobody should remove it! If you don't like it you should look for a reliable source with a pov you like better and add this pov. Please see WP:NPOV and [[1]], which says The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it. --JaapBoBo 20:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

For instance this text of mine was deleted a few times:

In this stage about 7000 Palestinian irregulars and 3000 foreign Arab volunteers fought against 30,000 better equiped, trained and organised Jews.

But if you look at the main article you will find it with other sources confirming it:

In this stage, Arab forces were composed of around 10,000 men among which between 3,000 and 5,000 foreign volunteers while Haganah and Palmach aligned 30,000 to 36,000 men who were better equipped, trained and organized.

So the initial statement is reliable, and as shown by Alithien (who made the edit in the main article) supported by Israeli historians Morris and Gelber. --JaapBoBo 20:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore I don't understand why this accurate statement:

On the northern front, the Syrian army was blocked in Deganya. The Jordanian 'Arab Legion', commanded by British officers, refrained from invading Israeli territory and focussed on occupying the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The Iraqis crossed the Jordan River and settled in the West Bank. They were not very succesfull. On the Southern front, Haganah forces managed to block the invading Egyptian armies in the Ashdod area, and Irgun forces halted the Egyptians at Ramat Rachel.

should be replaced by an inaccurate statement: Arab forces were initially successful in entering Palestine, and the Jewish population of Jerusalem was placed under siege., which a) doesn't mention the relevant fact that the Yishuv stopped the invaders very soon, and b) is inaccurate because Jerusalem did not come under siege. The Arab Legion of Transjordan never attacked the Yishuv except in East-Jerusalem. Certainly West-Jerusalem was not placed under siege by it. If you think it was, try to find a reliable source supporting this, but don't put this in the article just like that. --JaapBoBo 20:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Finally this text (although the partition decision called for formation of a Palestinian state) should not be in. It's the opinion of some editor on the Arab Leugue's arguments. But Wikipedia articles are not a place for your personal opinion. Articles should give facts, or points of view of reliable sources on facts. --JaapBoBo 20:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Pappe is not a reliable source. He's a political activist, with extreme views, not accepted by most historians. Since that statement is backed by other sources, we can just use them, and there'll be no problem.

"(although the partition decision called for formation of a Palestinian state)" - are you claiming this is untrue? Are you claiming the partition plan did not call for an Arab State in Palestine, or that this is somehow open to interpretation? Because - it's not. It's crystal clear.

Since many of the readers are not well informed on this point, this is an important comment, that needs to be there. It also fits well with your first claim - "The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it"... okedem 21:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Pappe is a reliable source and his results are accepted. If you think they are not accepted you should come up with reliable sources who seriously dispute Pappe's findings.

the text (although the partition decision called for formation of a Palestinian state) is true of course, but it is placed here as a comment on the Arab Leagues arguments. This is criticism of an editor on Arab League arguments, very POV, and not allowed according to wikipedia policy. This text can be placed somewhere at the start of the subsection where the UN decision is mentioned, e.g. 'the UN decided to partition Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab part...' or something like that. --JaapBoBo 21:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Being a political activist, Pappe fails to answer the criteria for RS. This is a man who called for a boycott of Israel, and who supports Hamas. He can not possibly be close to objective. If the text is true, we can use other sources to support it. It is up to you to prove this extremely controversial person is an RS, despite his actions. It might be a bit difficult. See this for example. okedem 05:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What JaapBoBo writes concerning arab armies attacks is correct, except that Pappé is not a reliable source for everything. Let's say he is a reliable source for wikipedia.

But what was written before is also correct and quite relevant.

Jerusalem was under siege as soon as the Arab Legion took Latrun on May 17th. No more convoy could supply the city.

Until the first truce in July Haganah and Palmach launched 3 attacks to take the position but without success and with heavy losses.

It is only because an alternative road was found (Birma road) that the siege of Jerusalem was relieved. Without that, the jewish community would/could have fallen out of supply during the month of the truce and the war would/could have taken another direction.

This was a war for survival from the yishuv point of view and that is why Pappé (let's not even talk about Khalidi) is not reliable because "forgetting" to take into account such situation is not acceptable.

Alithien 21:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"reliable sources who seriously dispute Pappe's findings"

He didn't find anything JaapBoBo, he analyses the same material as all other scholars but differently !

And I am not sure that you should criticize some orientations of other's writings.

This text is poved, other are even more.

Alithien 21:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

@Alithien: You say This was a war for survival from the yishuv point of view and that is why Pappé (let's not even talk about Khalidi) is not reliable, so in fact you say, because their pov is different from yours, they are not reliable.

@Okedem: camera is not a reliable source. You should look for academic criticism on Pappe.

Furthermore you say: This is a man who called for a boycott of Israel, and who supports Hamas. He can not possibly be close to objective. So you are also saying that he is not reliable because you don't agree with him. ---- JaapBoBo (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Being a political activist, he is not an RS. It's that simple. He's not objective, and doesn't even pertain to be. There are also other reasons to disqualify him from being used as an RS - for example, he cares little for facts (as he himself said). His books contain an inordinate amount of errors, amounting to full blown lies. If something is true, you can use real sources for it, not this guy. okedem (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Pappe is a serious historian.

Morris critique on Pappe is not seriuos because: a) if it were serious it would have been published in a scientific journal, not in The new republic b) the examples of (alleged) errors that Morris gives are about details that do not affect the arguments used by Pappe, nor the purport of his story, and c) Pappe has shown that Morris used factual distortions to find these (alleged) errors. See: [[2]] and [[3]].

You are calling Pappe an extremist, but that is your personal pov. Maybe it is supported by CAMERA, but CAMERA is not objective. Besides, if he were an extremist, why did he get a job as a professor at the history department of the university of Exeter?

Also Pappe's (alleged) disregard for facts is a distortion of his views by critics. In Pappe's views academic writing on history, by all historians, is not objective. Pappe says that history does affect the current debate in society, and that the role of historians is not only to collect facts and perform analysis, but also to inform society. The fact that Pappe finds other things important, next to facts, in no way means that he disregards facts or that he would be prepared to lie. If you think Pappe is lying, you should come with proof that he does. Otherwise your allegations are pure speculation. --JaapBoBo (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A political activist != an objective source. End of story. okedem (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A political activist != an objective source Can you look this up in Wikipedia policy for me? --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to. It's obvious. He's an extremist in huge controversy. He cannot possibly be used as an RS. Find real sources. okedem (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

inserting political agenda of a discredited person with an agenda against Israel putting words like "ethnic cleansing" everywhere in this article is ridiculous. refrain from doing so. Amoruso (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

@Okedem: You call him an extremist, but that's your pov. Is there a reliable source calling him an extremist?

@Amoruso: Pappe might have a political agenda and might be discredited (e.g. by Zionist lobbyists), but this is not the issue. The issue is reliability. Wikipedia policy doesn't say that a discredited person is not a reliable source. Above that, besides Pappe also Morris and Finkelstein have called the exodus an ethnic cleansing. --JaapBoBo (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

When even Morris, perhaps the historian closest to Pappe in his claims, says Pappe is wrong - he's an extremist, and obviously not objective. I'm done with this particular argument. If you actually want to make the claim that a political activist can be used as an RS, knock yourself out. If you actually want to claim Pappe is not in the extreme of his field, go ahead. But we're not gonna use his propaganda as sources. If you have a claim that was made by Morris, we can use him - just write "Morris writes...so and so" and there'll be no problem. okedem (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If your definition of extremist is the extreme of his field than you admit that he is a historian. What Wikipedia RS means with an extremist is something completely different.

@Okedem: if you are using a bot to always revert me, please stop it, or I'll report you. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Very clever, but not quite enough. He acts in the field of history, but that doesn't make him a historian. Actual historian deal with facts - he deals with his interpretations, and publishes them as facts.

Bot? Although I appreciate the threat, I have no idea what you base that on. okedem (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Okedem you need to provide some evidence from RS saying Pappe is an extremist.Bless sins (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The articles New Historians, and Ilan Pappé provide ample evidence for that. A person who advocates a boycott of his own country, his own university, who supports an organization which sends suicide bombers to kill kids, and who is under constant controversy - cannot be considered an RS. Reliable sources need for be considered objective, have their views accepted by a majority of their peers, publish findings in peer-reviewed journals and work to answer their critics. Pappe answers none of these simple criteria. okedem (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

@Okedem: I'm referring to your revert at 18:32, 18 November 2007; it says that a bot was used: TW.

Pappé certainly doesn't support suicide bombing. He probably does support the goals of Hamas though. Pappé supported a boycot as the only means to end the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. Certainly his aim is not extremist, rather the Israeli occupation policy is extremely persistent and calling for more extreme action. But this doesn't make Pappe an extremist. An extremist would send suicide bombers and Pappe is against that.

It is not true that a reliable source should be objective. If only objective sources were allowed we might as well erase all wikipedia content and close it down. Certainly Morris and especially Karsh are not objective.

It's also not true that reliable sources should have their views accepted by a majority of their peers. This would mean that only one view can be presented in Wikipedia. In controversial subjects its Wikipedia policy to present all views to achieve NPOV. And by the way, the ethnic cleansing view is a majority view among serious historians.

Finally Pappe does publish his findings in peer-reviewed journals and works to answer his critics.

--JaapBoBo (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to know the facts about Pappe, or the rules here. First, go read WP:V and WP:RS. By the way, I don't really care who says it's "ethnic cleansing". It's a judgment that has no place here, and adds nothing to the reader. We should write the facts about history, and let the reader decide for himself what to call it.

And if Pappe publishes in peer-reviewed journals - why don't you cite some of those here, so we can see? So far you're only using books - which are not peer-reviewed in any way.

Oh, and what Amoruso said, obviously. Someone who willfully ignores facts, and admits his beliefs (as a marxist, by the way - is that very common?) are intertwined in his writings - cannot be and RS. okedem (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

it's quite simple really. Pappe has admitted that he doesn't care for facts, and therefore he's unfitting for an encyclopedia. He shouldn't have admitted it perhaps, but since he was candid, we can respect him for that, and exclude him from the encyclopedia. It's really quite simple. Amoruso (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

CAMERA might say so, but that doesn't make it true. He's a historian and people take him seriously as a historian. He doesn't ignore facts. He just thinks that a historians job is to do more than tell facts.

Furthermore he's not an extremist. He advocates justice for the Palestinians and wants to use a boycot to reach that aim. That's not a extremist aim, nor an extremist method. In fact this method is used by the UN against all countries (except Israel) that consistently violate UN-resolutions. He might be on an extreme side of the Jewish Israeli political spectrum, but than your reference frame is a bit limited. For wikipedia it should be broader. E.g. when you consider all people in Israel and the occupied territories he has a very moderate opinion, just slightly pro-Palestinian. Wikipedia editors should respect this. --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What Pappe actually said is "the struggle is about ideology, not about facts" since "facts" are open to interpretation. CAMERA distorted the purport of this.

Also he publishes books and articles in peer reviewed journals. His book 'the ethnic cleansing of Palestine was proof-read by many colleagues and he published an article with a similar title in the Journal of Palestine Studies (Pappé, 'THE 1948 ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINE', Journal of Palestine Studies 2006 36(1): 6-20.).

The critisism of Morris was refuted and/or rejected by Pappe. I don't know whether he ever heard of Karsh's criticism, but I'm sure he can reject it easily, because even Morris squashed Karsh. Karsh has a bias from about London to Tokyo!

From a non-Zionist pov Pappe is not an extremist at all, not even extreme. He's a moderate pro-Palestinian. In fact he's also pro-Israeli in a sense: he's pro 'moral Israel'.

I conclude that there is nothing that disqualifies him as a reliable source. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of that conclusion, Pappe is an extremist biased person who has been caught trying to support a thesis which way a lie and a blood libel. He is an extremely controversial person, attacked by people that never have been refuted like Karsh Morris and Plaut, in this sense. On the contrary, he admitted what Morris revealed about his many mistakes. A person that doesn't know basic dates of when events happened and plainly hates Israel and wants it to vanish, is not an RS, especially not for this article. Amoruso (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop your thetoric, which I already refuted, and accept the truth.

Calling Pappe an extremist shows that your reference frame is Zionist. You are disregarding the opinion of e.g. Palestinians. In the real world Pappe is a moderate. --JaapBoBo (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Saying an opinion is Zionist is not a meaningful argument. Zionism covers a wide range of opinions. If Pappe is a moderate, then who do YOU define as an extremist? Where is the real world you refer to?

Zayinbayin (talk) 09:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This argument is utterly farcical and most of the points being put forward here are absurd, and wholly related to the contributors' own bias. Pappe is a published historian and University academic, who has written extensively on Israeli-Palestinian issues and he is therefore clearly a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. The fact that one or two editors hold the highly subjective viewpoint that he is an "extremist" is completely irrelevant - all that means is that you happen to disagree with him. Yes he is controversial - are you seriously saying that people like Efraim Karsh, Steven Plaut, Daniel Pipes et al aren't? --Nickhh (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a solution might be putting in a paragrpah about the deliberate expulsion of Arab villages, particularly in the zone between Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem. Pappe could be given as a reference for this. However I don't think it shoud be more then a paragraph and I don't think Pappe should be quoted. I think Benny Morriss is an acceptable source and we could add some reference to him as well. Is that an acceptable compromise?

Telaviv1 (talk) 12:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why there's a need for "compromise". Pappe is a notable historian and academic, and is as much of a reliable source on Israeli (or Palestinian) history as Benny Morris, Michael Oren or Avi Shlaim for example - and should be cited and quoted as frequently or as infrequently as any of them. Or we could go for equivalence with the truly liberal rules that appear to apply to quoting Steven Plaut as a reliable source, as defined in this edit summary by one of the editors here, who by contrast appears to insist on erasing all trace of Pappe's work from Wikipedia.--Nickhh (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So make a counter proposal... Telaviv1 (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Pappe is a controversial source - there is no question about that in the minds of anyone in Israel or knowledgeable about Israel. He has been disowned by universities here and even by his "new Historian" buddies. He has been involved in shady mentoring of fake research and he is cited with glee by Palestinian extremists and foes of Israel everywhere. His statements are deliberately provocative and use rhetoric that no self-respecting "academic" would use. I can't believe this is even an issue. He is not a reliable source, period. --Gilabrand (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, yes, as I and others have pointed out he is indeed "controversial", although I have no idea what this is supposed to prove in terms of his reliability in the context of Israeli-Palestinian issues. And in addition to that, yes, "Israeli extremists" and "foes of Palestinians" [sic, for both] disagree with him and don't like him. He is however, absolutely incontrovertibly, a noted academic and published expert on Israeli-Palestinian matters. And that in fact is where this debate ends for WP:RS purposes, not with your personal views on the content of his work or his alleged "shady mentoring". --Nickhh (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If you don't know the meaning of the word controversial, then maybe you should look it up. It has everything to do with not being a reliable source - or let's say a neutral source. Ahmadinejad is also a noted academic. He has even appeared at Columbia University. Maybe we should cite him, too.--Gilabrand (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, read WP:RS - an RS is one with widely accepted view. Second - you claim he's "a noted academic and published expert on Israeli-Palestinian matters" - prove it.

His claims and statements show he's not reliable as a source. His claims have been refuted. He's been caught making so many false statements, it's absurd. When confronted, he resorts to the post-modernistic crap of "no objective truth" - how convenient. okedem (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Pappe is controversed.

So, if an information must be referenced, it is better than it is done if possible from another source; else reader will wonder if this is credible or not.

Except that there was an ethnic cleansing in Palestine in 1948, which is a minority and controversed pov that doesn't deserve room in this article (it is more factual to talk about the exodus of 750,000 palestiniens and to refer to this article), I don't see what could not be sourced from somewhere else.

As a conclusion, there is nothing in that article that requires Pappe. Ceedjee (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If the editors above are now descending to accusing me of not knowing what "controversial" means or to not having read WP:RS (which, incidentally, makes no mention of the phrase "widely accepted", or anything remotely like it), and to asking me to "prove" that Ilan Pappe is an academic or has published books; while at the same time saying things like "his claims have been refuted" [what, all of them?!] then I think we've kind of lost any rational point here. You might care by the way to take a closer look at the point he is actually making in respect of facts and interpretation - he's not saying "I ignore the truth", he is merely acknowledging the truism that no-one, himself included, is as objective as they like to think they are. --Nickhh (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I want you to prove he's a notable expert. Show me the articles he published in peer-reviewed journals. Show me where he published his books (by the way, his book, "The Ethnic Cleansing..." was published by a general publishing house, making it just as reliable as any claims I make). Show me what other historians say of him - and then tell me he's not extremely controversial.

If you actually want to claim that it's okay to use extremist sources, and cite the claims of a small minority, then we really have nothing more to discuss. okedem (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Pappe's book, 'The ethnic cleansing ..' was checked by Nur Masalha and Walid Khalidi, both distinguished historians. As you know he published an article titled 'The 1948 Ethnic cleansing of Palestine' in J. Palestine Studies in 2006. He may be controversial among Jews in Israel, but he is not so among Palestinians, who are also relevant. Considering that wikipedia should have a NPOV, we should accept sources supporting Zionists and ones supporting Palestinians. For a pro-Palestinian Pappe is quite moderate. For Okedem and Amoruso to continue ignoring the view of Palestinians is showing contempt for Palestinians.

The attack by Morris was refuted by Pappe. Karsh is a notorious biased historian, who focusses on small details that confirm his pov, but ignores the main pieces of evidence. We shouldn't take an attck by Karsh serious. Morris is now a professor in England, so apparently in England they acknowledge his professional work as a historian. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo, stop with your dreams and childish badfaith.

Whatever he thinks, right or not, Pappe is controversial and not respected.

What Morris said was not "refuted". He said that the 50 mistakes Morris found were details. So he agreed with the mistakes and just conclude Morris was racist.

As far as I know, Khalidi is not a respected historian.

Masalha is a respected historian but this is not enough. The normal process for such books is to be published by peer-reviewed *neutral* comittees...

NB: What is the difference between Masalha and Pappe when both talk about ethnic cleansing ? Simply that Masalha makes a differences between what he thinks and what is thought, and between facts and suspected events. Pappe decided to transfrom potential events in facts... That is not an acceptable attitude. And for this reason, among others, he has been rejected by his pairs. Ceedjee (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither

I'll ignore the bolded sentence.

Can you cite any more articles he published? How many did he publish? Where? Can you show opinions of real historians about his work?

Pappe is a political activist. That immediately disqualifies him from being used as a source here. The end. okedem (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Masalha and Khalidi are real historians, as is Pappe. --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't avoid. Cite and source. okedem (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing about unreliability here: [[4]]

Pappe thx them both in his foreword. Khilidi also said this: ‘This is an extraordinary book - a dazzling feat of scholarly synthesis and Biblical moral clarity and humaneness.’ - Walid Khalidi [[5]]

--JaapBoBo (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Did I ask only one question?

And why was this book published by a general publishing house, and not by a university press?

Actually, forget it. The point of political activism, support of Hamas, and support of academic boycott remains. He cannot be close to objective, and is not an RS. okedem (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(Reset) So we remain at the same point - YOU disagree with him, YOU think he is an extremist (with reference, as has been pointed out to you, to a limited Israeli pov), therefore he is not a reliable source. Fantastic logic. However, the real situation - he is, as Chair of History at Exeter University and a published author in this field, a prima facie reliable source. The onus is on those who want his work censored here to show that he has been officially "discredited" or "proven wrong" on any significant aspect of his work, eg found guilty of libel in a court of law or had his books or other work pulped or withdrawn. Spats with other historians, writers or academics, especially those known to have strong political views of their own (eg Karsh, Plaut etc) are irrelevant as they happen all the time in the academic world and prove as much about those making the criticism as they do about Pappe. I'm quite sure you wouldn't want Alan Dershowitz (who of course is just as much a "political activist" as Pappe, but not even a historian) banned from being cited on Wikipedia because Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein have laid into him and accused his work of inaccuracy. And if you think your views are as valid as his, then feel free to write a book, get it published and ensure it gets positive reviews of it from other professional historians from around the world. Please let me know when it becomes available. --Nickhh (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly...

• Pappe is heavily criticized by Yoav Gelber since the Tantura Affair. And Gelber had never been criticised by anybody before he criticized Pappé... In summary, Gelber considers that Pappé doesn't deserve to be called an historian any more.
• Morris also attacked Pappé, considering he was making politics [and not history any more] [6]. But here, I still don't know who "opened fire" first and why...

Whatever, Pappe chose to leave the academic ground to enter on the political battleground. That is his choice but doing so, he lost credibility as historian.

So, when there is another source instead of him, it is better to chose that other source.

Note that his last book is "self published" and not peer-reviewed. A synthesis has been published in the Journal of Palestine studies but this unfortunately is not enough to get credit. The editorial line of this journal is not neutral either. It could therefore be argued that it is not a acceptable source for wikipedia, which I don't write.

Ceedjee (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI United Kingdom does not mention the one million Kikuyu ethnically cleansed during the Mau Mau revolt 1952-1960 (+100,000 held in concentraiton camps). Nor does it mention the 500,000 Malaysians forcibly moved to "model villages" during the 50's communist uprising (see Briggs Plan), though there is a reference to slavery. Poland does not mention the 1,000,000 Germans(?) driven out (sorry ethnically cleansed) from Silesia in 1945-1951. Iraqdoes not refer to the 130,000 ethnically cleansed Jews. Czechoslaviakia - Sudeten Germans (see Expulsion of Germans after World War II) Pakistan (and India) - 10 million ethnically cleansed + two million dead in 1948. Lahore was once a mixed city. There are no Hindus in Pakistan. you might want to check if Belgium mentions the estimated 800,000 Africans murdered 1900-1945 in Belgian congo. The article on Netherlands describes how the Dutch saved their Jews when in reality they helped the Nazis murder 95% of Dutch Jews (the French put up far more resistance and "only" 30% died).

None of these articles use the emotive words "ethnic cleansing" or even "Genocide" (appropriate to Belgian Congo). I feel very strongly that, while the term may have some applicability to Palestine in 1948, its use is misleading and inappropriate. In this context I would note that whatever you think of Pappes historical research, he does seem to hate Israel and this is evident in his interviews and lectures (I heard him lecture at Tel-Aviv university). I think that a paragraph devoted to the expulsion of Arab Palestinians is acceptable and justifiable, but not if it dominates the whole period - there are other articles that go into it in more detail - or use the anachronistic term "ethnic-cleansing". This article provides an overview of Israeli history and the whole discussion surrounding the issue is complex and belongs somewhere else. Excessive focus is POV. Telaviv1 (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ceedjee - Sorry but your point about him losing "credibility as a historian" by virtue of being politically opinionated or active, is I'm afraid absolute nonsense. It is possible to be both, see for example E.P.Thompson and Eric Hobsbawm. Nor do I see a rush to remove references to assertively pro-Israeli sources here. This whole debate appears to be about little more than selective censorship, in the context of an article that is currently little more than a self-serving collection of nationalist myths and fables. The problem is that some editors here seem to assume that any historian who agrees with their pov is by definition neutral, whereas by contrast any historian who doesn't is an "extremist" and therefore an unreliable source. --Nickhh (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Telaviv1 - our comments crossed. I'd qualify my reference above to this article being "self-serving ..." to say "like most similar articles". All national articles should include references to the not-so-savoury aspects of their history; nor do I accept that historians, activists and others who are critical of their own countries should be discredited by the cheap insults "anti-American", "anti-Israeli", "anti-Soviet" or their equivalent. I personally wouldn't have a problem with the references from Pappe being re-written in some way, but I don't think they should be excised altogether --Nickhh (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As you might expect,we get a lot of abuse on Wikipedia about Israel, including vandalism which I don't suppose they get in Britain or Holland and which is why we have to be very protective and prevent ignoramuses from turning it into a hate fest.

I suggest somehting like "During the conflict many Palestinian-Arab communities, particularly along the 'corridor' connecting Tel-Aviv with Jerusalem (where there was heavy fighting), were forcibly expelled, mostly becoming refugees. The fate of these refugees remains a source of conflict to this day."

Although it is obviosuly much less significant in importance, the residents of the Jewish quarter in Jerusalem were also expelled. The largest Synagogue in the old city was subsequently destroyed. I guess that war does not bring out the best in people.

I have a policy of not editing the Palestine articles, I figure we all deserve our own space here. Telaviv1 (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

@Nickhh. Any rule has its exceptions but there is definetely too much controversies around Pappe to consider him as a reference, even for what is true. Historian is a job that requires the highest neutrality. Good ones keep their distances with activism. And in the case of Pappe, he has been attacked by nearly all other historians. Only activists and some Palestinian historians still "collaborate" with him. That's life.

@TelAviv1. I don't agree with your suggestion. This is too biaised. There have been massacres and massive deportation during the 1948 war. Reducing this to the Jerusalem corridor would not be fair.

If exodus must really be detailled to satisfy people, I suggest : "Around 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or where expelled from the territories that will become the state of Israel".

Ceedjee (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm probably time to leave this as I'm not really going to get involved in editing this one. But just two things really - 1) Telaviv1 I think actually articles benefit from having an outside and sometimes sceptical perspective, rather than each group just editing their "own", plus as I guess you know it's not so easy to unlock the Israeli and the Palestinian narrative; and 2) Ceedjee, I still disagree that we should exclude a respected academic just because he is not universally respected - especially in this area, where semi-professional campaigns to vilify opponents are whipped up, and where pretty much everything is contested (and I would point out again that Plaut, Dershowitz and others are also fairly extreme activists in my view, without even having the advantage of being professional historians, but the same people who want Pappe excluded will happily shovel in cites to their work in various articles). --Nickhh (talk) 09:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

But I didn't talk about Plaut...

I talked about *all* his colleagues from Haifa University, among which Yoav Gelber who wrote terrible attacks against him and I talked about Benny Morris...

And again, his book about ethnic cleansing was not peer-reviewed.

I just say that if we have somebody else for the same informatin, it is better.

I didn't say we must delete his article from wikipedia and that his thesis are not welcome in some articles.

But here, certainly not. Ceedjee (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't waste time explaining why the politically motivated fantasy text was removed. JaapBoBo actually was caught above saying: "The attack by Morris was refuted by Pappe (which is not true, it was never refuted, but actually admitted). and: "Karsh is a notorious biased historian (ah, suddendly there ARE "biased historians" because "they" say so...") , who focusses on small details that confirm his pov, but ignores the main pieces of evidence. We shouldn't take an attck by Karsh serious. Morris is now a professor in England (which doesn't even make sense, we talked about Pappe), so apparently in England they acknowledge his professional work as a historian". In other words, we can't treat such arguments seriously. We don't need to explain why political refuted anti semitic statements should not appear in factual encyclopedias. Amoruso (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I meant Pappe of course.

Pappe refuted part of the attack by Morris (Morris was distorting things), admitted a few mistakes of the type Morris also makes, and rejected the rest.

And suddenly Amoruso is admitting Pappe is a historian? You didn't even recognize Pappe as a historian. I do recognise Karsh as a historian, but a very biased one. I'm not blocking Karsh if he's not lying, so why should you block Pappe? --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Refrain from edit warring. Ceedjee (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

@Ceedjee: do you think it's funny to call your reversal: rv. edit warring .... --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

@JaapBoBo.

If your behaviour on the talk pages is acceptable, your behaviour on the article pages is agressive and equivalent to edit warring.

Refrain from edit warring. There is no consensus on the matter currently discussed.Ceedjee (talk) 09:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I do recognise Pappe as a historian. Obviously he is. There's no problem with nor are there any required qualifications for being one. The only problem is that he's an historian who was totally discredited on the Israel Palestinian issue of 1948, completely refuted and ridiciuled by Morris, Karsh and others, with no adequate response from Pappe except admission of the mistakes, and then was also involved controversially in backing a thesis with lies surrounding a non existing massacre. It's not that he's not an RS, he is an RS, but not a relevant source to this article. But perhaps to controversial refuted discredited historians article. Amoruso (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

@Ceedjee: like your behavior is any better, ... or Amoruso's or Okedem's. --JaapBoBo (talk) 11:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted you once more. What you add is not neutral.

You still consider wikipedia as a place of "negociation" (I still wonder what is to be negociated ???) where you use "force". This is a place where we write an encyclopadia.

refrain from edit warring. Ceedjee (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

@Ceedjee: your statements show your subjectivity: you edit war by reverting me and tell me to stop edit warring. Certainly, if you don't agree with a text for good reasons you can give that as a reason for reverting, but to give edit warring as a reason is like saying you have no other reason for the revert.

@Amoruso: Morris criticism was neutralised by Pappe. Karsh is too biased to take his criticism of Pappe serious. Besides, for both criticisms even if there were some truth in the allegations of factual mistakes, these mistakes didn't affect the purport of Pappe's story, and as to the criticism on the general conclusions of Pappe, those allegations were not well founded.

The Tanture massacre is disputed, I know that. It hasn't been proved conclusively, nor disproved conclusively yet.

Pappe's statement, that the 1948 Palestinian exodus is an ethnic cleansing, hasn't been refuted. In fact, all serious scholars now concede this. --JaapBoBo (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo. It is you who have started to revert and re-vert this article for 15 days now. People have written here why all you added was not acceptable. You just keep on adding them.

Not me.

Discuss here BEFORE and convince others or it will be reverted.

You will note you are alone versus 4 other editors.

Ceedjee (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, JaapBoBo. I think it is not total coincidence that my Wikisurfing has led us both the same article. I hope that we can work together on this one as well.

Allow me to say that I believe your argument regarding Karsh as being "too biased" shows a bias on your part. Every author and historian collects evidence, and this evidence leads to some conclusion (more often than not). This doesn't make the author biased (or, rather, it makes all authors biased). One cannot simply say that an author is "too biased" because that author does not agree with his/her POV. Why don't you call Pappe biased for saying that there was ethnic cleansing in Palestine in 1948? After all, that is a conclusion that strongly favors one side above the other.

As per the idea that all serious historians say that there was ethnic cleansing in Palestine, that is simply because you dismiss any historian who refutes this point as being biased, or inaccurate, or whatever. Your reasoning is that anyone who denies that this alleged ethnic cleansing took place is denying historical "fact," and is therefore biased. To digress a little bit, you are saying "argument 'x' is true, and therefore anyone who opposes it is unreliable." Then you say that "everyone who opposes argument 'x' is unreliable because they are denying a historical fact, and are therefore biased." Does that not seem circular to you? Screen stalker (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A fair compromise here seems to be to note both historians that consider ethnic cleansing to have taken place, and those who disagree.Bless sins (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Pappe is not an RS, and cannot be used as such.

Besides, I find it completely worthless to say what some historians call the events. Semantics is quite irrelevant. Detail the facts (as far as can be determined), and let the readers judge for themselves. Saying "X and Y say it's ethnic cleansing" is effectively leading the readers minds toward some conclusion not necessarily supported by the facts, a sort of "appeal to authority". okedem (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bless Sins,

That would be a good compromise if doing so would no take half of the section dedicated to the 1948 war. I am still convinced that just stating there is a controversy and referring to the main articles about this : 1948 Palestinian exodus and causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. Ceedjee (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

@Screenstalker: I'm not saying Karsh is biased because I disagree with him, but because of what others say about him, e.g. Morris: Efraim Karsh's article (...) is a mélange of distortions, half-truths, and plain lies that vividly demonstrates his profound ignorance of both the source material (...) and the history of the Zionist-Arab conflict. It does not deserve serious attention or reply. or But this is Karsh's way, to belabor minor points while completely ignoring, and hiding from his readers, the main pieces of evidence. and It is a measure of Karsh's ignorance of what actually went on in the Middle East in1948 that he writes (p. 97) of "the Arab attack on the newly-established State of Israel, in which Transjordan's Arab Legion participated." Quite simply, it did not. and Karsh employs his usual method of focusing on the one document that seems to uphold his argument-often while twisting its real purport-while simply ignoring the mas of documents that undercut it.. And Morris is fiercely pro-Zionist, so I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of his criticism of Karsh. --JaapBoBo (talk) 12:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

@Okedem: isn't wikipedia policy founded on an 'appeal to authority'? How else can we decide what is reliable enough to put in Wikipedia, and what not? ]

@Okedem: Saying "X and Y say it's ethnic cleansing" is effectively leading the readers minds toward some conclusion not necessarily supported by the facts. I don't agree. Saying "X and Y say it's ethnic cleansing" is effectively telling the reader that other sources may hold a different opinion. --JaapBoBo (talk) 12:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

@Ceedjee: you are pushing your pov that nobody is to blame (not the Zionists, not the Palestinians, but 'the War' is to blame). Limiting what is written in the article to saying that all about the causes of the exodus is controversial is just that. In fact a RS doesn't agree with your pov. So in that case we actually should remove your pov. I'm not doing that, but I ask you kindly to also respect the other pov. --JaapBoBo (talk) 12:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo,

You are trying to manipulate what scholars says and trying to

I am a very well known editors reknowned for his neutrality. Your personal page show you have an agenda.

I respect scholars pov but your own pov is not welcome.

In this article, stating taht historian do not agree and sending readers to the main artile is far than enough.

I explained [7] here why your stuff with Finkelstein is not acceptable here. Ceedjee (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

@ Ceedjee, I am not aware of any place where JaapBoBo says "I am not neutral." So, insofar as I am aware, you are the one concluding that he is not neutral. Please refrain from using your own observations to call yourself neutral and others biased, because that borders on personal attack. Bear in mind, also, that neutrality does not lay in portraying both sides as equally good or equally bad, but in portraying both sides as they are.

@ JaapBoBo, I see a recurring pattern with editors who try to remove sources such as Karsh in that they quote other sources who seek to discredit them. I am not as educated as you in this matter, and so must admit that I have not found many sources that bash Morris in the same way that Morris bashes Karsh, but I'm sure they exist. The point is that there is a lot of scholarly disagreement on the issue of the Zionist-Arab conflict, and one cannot simply say that because all sources think that opposing opinions are wrong, one side must be accepted above the other. Surely we can agree that there are scholarly sources that think that Morris' work is shoddy? Screen stalker (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Screen stalker, I know what NPoV means. And I also know how to reach this because I know the different pov's on the matter because I have read them and I have their books and publication under hand. Without taking into account the different pov I don't see how NPoV could be reached.

But that is not the matter here. The matter is about to say if yes or not Morris considers that the 1948 Palestinian exodus was an ethnic cleansing. And he has not that point of view.

nb: I somebody writes that I "push my own pov", I answer, particularly when on his page he gives 9 exemples of why Morris would be biased when on the other side I have written 3 articles on the topic which are featured article on wp:fr among which one has been translated here.

Ceedjee (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If the only issue of contention between us is whether or not Morris considered the 1948 war an ethnic cleansing, then there is no disagreement between us. We agree perfectly that he did not. Screen stalker (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case, see the last paragraph added by JaapBoBo here : [8]. Ceedjee (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Army sizes in 1948

Telaviv put this in: In March 1948 the Haganah had about 15,000, but by June this was up to some 30,000 men., quoting Birth revisited, p. 16. Well, p16 and 17 say actually: By May 1948, the Haganah had mobilised and deployed 35,780 troops (and this doesn't include Irgun and Lehi) and by July the IDF had 63,000 men under arms

It seems to me a distortion of what the source actually says! --JaapBoBo (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Check again, you looked at it before I had added the references.

Telaviv1 (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to the Haganah numbers.

First, its not proper to delete old references and replace them by new ones that state things differently. In that case you should say: 'According to ..., but according to ...'. Wikipedia policy says if you find a different or different numbers it's better to add than to substitute.

Second, please take a look at the table here: [[9]]. It also gives higher numbers.

Third, you're giving Morris and Gelber as references, not Tal. --JaapBoBo (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

While I imagine we all rely on stuff written elsewhere in wikipedia occasionally, it shouldn't really be done, that is to say Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If you use other wikipedia pages as a source you risk repeating someone elses error and spreading it round wikipedia.

I added the references for Tal. I can repeat them if you like. Tal says there were 15,000 Haganah fighters in March 48' and by Agust they had 63,000 (or something like that its not in front of me rigt now). It makes sense that the numbers were not static, some Arabs entered the country and then left, many in the Haganah and the Arab forces were part times. Also I read somewhere that 1,000 Druze fighters changed sides in the course of the war (when they realized the Jews were going to win). The figures you quote sound too low. Incidentally this section is getting too long. It shouldn't be more then a summary of events and a statement of the main points. Telaviv1 (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually Morris says 35,780 by May and Tal 15,000 by March. I think we can agree on that.

I appreciate your work. --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Unreliable material

Gilabrand put this in:

UN figures also show that 856,000 Jews living in Arab countries were expelled from their homes in 1948. A draft law proposed by the Arab League in 1947 called for various measures to be taken against the Jews in these countries, ranging from confiscation of assets, imprisonment, forced induction into Arab armies and officially-sanctioned violence. (Group seeks justice for forgotten Jews, International Herald Tribune http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/04/america/nations.php)

The source actually says: The group cites UN figures showing that 856,000 Jewish residents left Arab countries in 1948. Its clearly a bogus figure. See Aliyah. This source is unreliable! Besides, if it were reliable, it should be in the 'Ben-Gurion and mass immigration' paragraph. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• This is an article from a respected NY Times reporter based on UN statistical reports. Who are you to challenge that???--Gilabrand (talk) 20:56, 26 November *2007 (UTC)

The reporter may be perfectly reliable. He writes: 'the group cites ...'. That may be true. But that doesn't say what they cite is true. If the reporter found the citation reliable he could have written 'UN-documents show that ...'. I don't think the reporter thought this was reliable. Besides, the Aliyah page clearly gives different numbers. --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Your attempts to understand the psychology of the reporter are, what shall I say, amusing....not to mention OR. Here's another article published in a scholarly journal that says a million Jews were expelled, if you don't think 850,000 is high enough:

[[10]] Improving Wikipedia is an important objective and there is plenty to do besides argue over these matters. We could do a lot more by working together rather than at cross purposes.--Gilabrand (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't comment on the reliability or otherwise of the IHT reference to the UN figures, but one thing I or anyone else can do is make the fairly simple observation that the text inserted by Gilabrand is a blatant misrepresentation of the source - according to the IHT article, the UN figures say that many LEFT Arab countries. It is the campaigning group "Justice for Jews from Arab Countries" that makes the claim they were (all) expelled. The attempt to back this conclusion up with the cite to an article on the Middle East Forum site, whose mission statement proudly declares "The Middle East Forum, a think tank, seeks to define and promote American interests in the Middle East. It defines U.S. interests to include fighting radical Islam, whether terroristic or lawful; working for Palestinian acceptance of Israel etc etc", doesn't really add that much. I'm sorry but this article can't have it both ways - using the weaselly "some say this, some say that" device in a bid to deny that Palestinian Arabs were expelled, while using the definitive "were expelled" in respect of Jewish movements, based purely on the say-so of two marginal and partisan sources. And the fact that the Middle East Forum is deemed fit to be quoted as a reliable source, given the exclusion of the professional historian Ilan Pappe, only adds to my sense of confusion about what is going on here. --Nickhh (talk) 08:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The really interesting thing is how all you people read the sources selectively. UN figures are UN figures, and the NY Times is a reputable newspaper. Funny, how you love to cite UN figures for Arabs, but if there are any that seem to bear out Israel's claims, they automatically set off an outcry. As for the second reference, The Middle East Forum is not the publisher. It is reprinting an article, "Why Jews Fled the Arab Countries" by Ya'akov Meron that appeared in the Middle East Quarterly, September 1995. If you had looked further than the top of the page you would see that Meron holds a doctorate in law from the Faculté de Droit de Paris, an authority on Islamic law and the law of Arab countries, and he was a member of the Israeli delegation to negotiate the peace treaty with Egypt and to solve the Taba issue. His reliability as a source is not in question, which is not the case for Pappe, Finkelstein & their ilk, who are self-hating Jews bending over backwards to get attention and the naive world (to which many of you seem to belong) just laps it up.--Gilabrand (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, you are having difficulty reading and are also leaping to conclusions a little. I did not doubt the UN figures nor did I doubt that the NYT or IHT are reputable publications, nor did I remove either point from the article itself. I merely set out more accurately what the UN figures supposedly said - and they emphatically did NOT say all those Jews were expelled, which was what you had incorrectly inserted into the article. In addition I did look further than the top of the page of the MEF article, and did note where Meron is from. He appears to be an academic, like Pappe. He also appears to have a strong POV about issues, like Pappe, and his work is reproduced on partisan websites. The difference? "You people" [sic, copied from your generalising terminology] disagree with him, and insult him with offensive terms like "self-hating Jew". --Nickhh (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

ps: and I will admit I was momentarily naive enough to take at face value your attempt to suggest that there is some kind of difference between the Middle East Forum and the Middle East Quarterly, as if the latter were some neutral and unrelated scholarly journal which just happened to have published something that the former then picked up on and posted on their website. --Nickhh (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree the 856,000 figure is wrong and no link was provided to any UN site giving those figures. I'm sure (wihtout verifying) that its 856,000 over 20 odd years. I think its better to use academcis who do not arouse such anger. Pappe and Finkestein are liable to ignore info that refutes their POV (can't comment on Meron) and use inflmmatory language. At the very least they do not contribute to peace and understanding which is surely what we should aspire to. Moriss and Shlaim seem OK to me.

I saw the original IHT article and went to http://www.justiceforjews.com/ website but could find nothing about the claims. The article itself is not sufficient. If they are using UN sources then which UN sources? Are they available? There was not enough information.

Jews were persecuted in the Arab world (and Palestine) before 1948 and long before Zionism existed. There is plenty about it on wikpedia, they had many reasons for leaving.

I also think one should avoid expressions like "you people" which are insulting. I imagine we are all naive in our own way. We should try not to assume we "know" what someone else thinks or why.

The 1948 war is not an area I have explored in depth, and perhaps I will do so at some point. I am still reading about Balfour..., however think it is fair to say the causes of the Palestinian exodus are the subject of dispute - they certainly seem to be.

Telaviv1 (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable. This is the board of editors of this publication that is worthless in your eyes:

• Dr. Fouad Ajami, Johns Hopkins University
• Dr. Anthony Cordesman, Center for Strategic and International Studies
• Dr. Khalid Duran, TransState Islam
• Dr. David Fromkin, Boston University
• Dr. Paul Henze, RAND Corporation
• Dr. Eliyahu Kanovsky, Bar-Ilan University[3]
• Dr. Geoffrey Kemp, The Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom[4]
• Dr. Martin Kramer, The Shalem Center
• Dr. Habib C. Malik, Foundation for Human and Humanitarian Rights in Lebanon[5]
• James Phillips, the Heritage Foundation
• Dr. Steven Plaut, University of Haifa
• Amb. Dennis Ross, Washington Institute for Near East Policy
• Dr. Barry Rubin, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya, Israel.
• Dr. Saliba Sarsar, Monmouth University[6]
• Dr. Robert B. Satloff, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
• Dr. Sabri Sayari, Georgetown University[7]
• Dr. Haim Shaked, University of Miami[8]
• Dr. Steven L. Spiegel, University of California, Los Angeles[9]
• Dr. Kenneth Stein, Emory University
• Dr. Marvin Zonis, University of Chicago[10]

"You" (yes) and others like "you" are so hung up on Pappe that you can't think straight. I guess I should forget about this whole project of disseminating correct information and leave Wikipedia up to people like "you" who know best.--Gilabrand (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep cool Gila. ;-)

It is not worth being upset even if this understandable. Ceedjee (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not understandable - all I did was to correct a simple and clear misquote about some UN figures and explained why on the talk page. Then I get some daft angry response about alleged selective quoting, "people like me", how I supposedly hadn't read something and, with reference to other people, "self-hating Jews". Gilabrand also tried to mislead about the nature of a second source, by suggesting that the website cited was somehow separate from the publication the piece was originally printed in. And now I'm accused of not "thinking straight" and of being "hung up" on Ilan Pappe. Actually I do not believe that Pappe or his "ilk" are necessarily right about everything, nor have I ever suggested that. Equally, nor have I ever suggested that MEF is "worthless". So please stop flinging around these silly accusations. I have merely pointed out its self-professed partisan nature, and compared that to the arguments being made about Pappe. The list of editors you've oddly posted merely reinforces that point - do you not realise that there is a wide spectrum of opinion that thinks Steven Plaut and Fouad Ajami et al are just as much partisan propagandists as you seem to believe Ilan Pappe and Norman Finkelstein are?

Finally Gilabrand: you are the one who wants one side of a debate barred and another quoted, and you have edited this article far more than I have. So your rather self-regarding claim that you are disseminating "correct" information, and your equally unfounded one that I somehow want to own Wikipedia and think I "know best", doesn't quite add up.--Nickhh (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly understandable -when you know a topic bec. you studied this- that it is tiring to have always to fight with people who don't know much about this topic, who discuss and who challenge you about this topic because they are "interested" by the political consequences of the issues debated.

It is maybe not perfectly WP:CIVIL to be fed up but this is understandable. Ceedjee (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you're saying here, because the English is a bit garbled. If you're saying that I "don't know much about this [issue]" then you're leaping to conclusions, and being as uncivil as Gilabrand (I know quite a lot as it happens, although would never claim to be an expert). And if you're saying that I'm challenging someone for the sake of it, that's wrong and unnecessary as well.

In fact of course at no point have I claimed to know in detail specific facts about Israeli history. All I have done on this talk page is three things - 1) remarked that Ilan Pappe is a published historian, albeit a controversial one, in the face of attempted censorship; 2) quoted verbatim from a campaign group's website to explain that they are just as partisan as he is; 3) pointed out that one editor misquoted one, significant, word from a UN report. In the article itself I have made two or three edits - 1) replaced the Pappe book in the bibliography; 2) corrected the UN misquote. I'm not quite sure this merits the bilious accusations of ignorance and naivete that are being thrown at me.--Nickhh (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I try to correct the English. That is true that major improvements should be done in my English.

But Gila Brand's fed up is understandable and -I think- not limited to this article. Ceedjee (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ceedjee (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ceedjee's reversals

Ceedjee has been reverting several of my edits. This is not warranted by wikipedia policy.

Dear Ceedjee, my edits are all relevant and from reliable sources. Therefore they should be in the article and there's no excuse for deleting them. Of course I understand that they don't coincide with your pov, but then either:

• your pov cannot be found in reliable sources (since I tend not to read Zionist historians (except Morris) I don't know whether these sources support your pov), in which case my edits are NPOV, i.e. neutral, or
• your pov can be found in reliable sources, in which case you are free to find them and add them to the article, but not to remove my edits. Wikipedia policy states: An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it. [[11]].

I am putting my edits back in and are willing to discuss each of them with you. --JaapBoBo (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Next to Ceedjee, Okedem is now also engaging in vandalism. --JaapBoBo (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

edits on 1948 war

yishuv firepower

I added:

However according to Walid Khalidi ‘the arms at the disposal of these [Yishuv] forces were plentiful and much in excess of what may be superficially gathered from Zionist sources’, and Morris says that between October 1947 and July 1948 'the Haganah's arms factories poured out 3 million 9mm bullets, 150,000 mills grenades, 16,000 submachine guns ('Sten Guns') and 210 three-inch mortars'

After:

In April 1948, Britain initiated UN Security Council resolution 46 which banned entry of arms or fighters into Palestine. Palestinian Arab forces were armed and supplied by volunteers from neighbouring Arab states. With the Mandatory authorities blocking all ports of entry, the import of arms and ammunition was not possible for the Jews.

The original text gives the impression that the Yishuv had an arms shortage. There is no reliable source that confirms this. Rather RS's indicate the opposite (like W. Khalidi, Morris and R. Khalidi in 'The iron cage'). Therefore I added the extra text to make the article neutral again.

Of course the Yishuv didn't have much heavy weapons, but the same was true for their Palestinian opponents in the civil war. --JaapBoBo (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

to reduce the length of the text, as TelAviv suggested, I have now deleted this whole paragraph. Both parts of it are pov, so they should both be in, or both be out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaapBoBo (talk • contribs) 23:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

manpower

I removed:

the Jews initially were at a disadvantage in terms of manpower but, following the departure of the British, massive Jewish immigration into Israel tilted the balance in their favour

because this is not supported by reliable sources. None of these sources mentions a Jewish disadvantige in manpower at the start and none says the increase in manpower was due to immigration. Instead I put in some realistic numbers supported by the sources:

The number of Palestinian fighters is hard to estimate, but is estimated at around 10,000. By May 1948 the number of Yishuv fighters was around 30,000.

--JaapBoBo (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

'Zionist agression'

The Arab League explicitly gave 'Zionist agression' and not 'the fighting' as the cause of the exodus of 250,000 Palestinians by half May. Why should we not state it like that then? I even put 'Zionist agression' between quotation marks, to make it extra clear that it was the pov of the Arab League. --JaapBoBo (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Draft law

I removed:

A draft law proposed by the Arab League in 1947 called for various measures to be taken against the Jews in these countries, ranging from confiscation of assets, imprisonment, forced induction into Arab armies and officially-sanctioned violence.

Because:

• it's not relevant
• it's only a draft law and was never implemented
• it's pov; If we were too add Yishuv motivations we could write a whole article on that (prevalent right to Land of Israel etc.)

--JaapBoBo (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Causes of the exodus

The old version is not accurate:

The causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus are a matter of dispute: Some historians say that the Palestinians were forcibly expelled, while others maintain that they fled in fear before the arrival of Israeli forces, or were urged to leave by their own leaders, on the assurance that they would soon return.

This version is more accurate:

In his books about the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus Morris concludes that Jewish military attacks were the main direct cause of the exodus. According to Finkelstein this is now accepted by all serious scholars. Whether there was an official or unofficial policy behind this is still a matter of dispute. Scholars like Finkelstein, Pappé and R. Khalidi call the exodus an ethnic cleansing.

The endorsement of the flight by Arab leaders is long rejected by serious scholars. It should not be in this article. Instead there really is a consencus on the conclusion by Morris. I don't know of any serious scholar who still disputes this.

For Finkelstein Morris's conclusion that Jewish military attacks were the main direct cause of the exodus is already reason enough to call the exodus an ethnic cleansing (whether there was a policy behind it or not). However, since some may understand ethnic cleansing necesarrily to be associated with a policy I refrained from calling the consensus an ethnic cleansing (even though Morris did not object to the term). --JaapBoBo (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming these guys represent the whole spectrum of opinions in the matter? And what Finkelstein claims most historians think is completely irrelevant. okedem (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Okedem, certainly Morris conclusion (that the main cause of the exodus was Jewish military attacks) is now accepted by all serious historians. Not only because Finkelstein says so, but because it is true. I don't know of a single serious scholar who still disputes this.

Not all historians call it an ethnic cleansing, that's why I'm specificly stating who I know do. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Please look here to read about Morris' conclusion. Note that this section has no criticism subsection. Indeed Morris conclusions about the direct causes are widely accepted by scholars now. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The existence or lack thereof of a "Criticism" section is meaningless. Someone just hasn't written it. There's always criticism in History. okedem (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Original research???

However Soviet-controlled Czechoslovakia violated it. This was critical [citation needed] in allowing the Jewish state to acquire military hardware to match that available to the invading Arab states.

In early June, the UN declared a month-long truce. Large numbers of Jewish immigrants, many of them World War II veterans and Holocaust survivors began arriving, and many joined [citation needed] the newly-created Israel Defense Forces (IDF).

I'd like reliable sources for these texts, because I doubt whether the Czech weapons were critical and whether a significant number of fresh immigranst joined the IDF. Can anybody supply these? --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source saying the Czech arms delivery was critical? From these sources: (according to Walid Khalidi ‘the arms at the disposal of these [Yishuv] forces were plentiful and much in excess of what may be superficially gathered from Zionist sources’, and Morris says that between October 1947 and July 1948 'the Haganah's arms factories poured out 3 million 9mm bullets, 150,000 mills grenades, 16,000 submachine guns ('Sten Guns') and 210 three-inch mortars') it looks like the Yishuv had enough weapons anyway. The Arms shipments from Czechoslovakia to Israel 1947-1949 article doesn't say it was critical, it says: [it] proved important for the defense of Israeli indenpendence., which is by the way also not sourced. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

First, that article is sourced, but forget that now. Read up on the subject, and you'll learn the importance of the Czech weapons shipments. The weapons the Yishuv had may seem impressive when you consider them in the context of a civil war, but they pale in comparison to the weapons held by the regular armies of the invading Arab states; Those armies were being trained as such and supplied with significant amounts of weapons for years before 1948.

A simple search string, such as "czech weapons israel 1948" or similar, will yield plenty of results. I don't have much time now, but here are a few links - [12] ("Israel got through the 1948 War of Independence with Czech weapons") [13], [14] ("Israeli defenders using Czech-built weapons throw back the invaders"), [15] ("It was Soviet and East European help, especially Czech weapons sales, that helped create the all important facts on the ground"), [16] (Shlomo Zand: "Without the Czech weapons we received in a time of dire need it is entirely plausible to believe that the War of Independence would have ended differently"), [17].

The importance of Czech arms is extremely well known. Small underground factories can only produce so much, lacking the knowledge, machinery or supplies needed to build larger arms, in greater quantities. okedem (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a source for the Jewish immigrants issue. I apologize for it being in Hebrew, but that's what I can find right now.

It speaks of "גיוס חוץ לארץ" (roughly translated - "overseas draft"), what they called the new immigrants who came during the war with the purpose of immediately fighting for Israel. Some were WW2 veterans, some were from the displaced camps (erected after the war). The site (the official site of the Hagana) says that by the end of 1948, they numbered 19,000, a full fifth of the IDF's size at the time, with an even larger proportion in the fighter brigades. They mention in particular the importance of the veterans, mainly of East European armies (the Jewish organizations lacked knowledge of military tactics and organization, being essentially guerrilla movements). okedem (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thx Okedem, for providing these sources, and thx for explaining about the 'overseas draft', which for me is convincing enough (the English Haganah site doesn't mention it as the Haganah ceased to exist on 1 June 1948). Regarding the critical I still have doubts. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the Ynet source is specifically useful for this, as Shlomo Zand is an historian from Tel Aviv University.

Seriously, do some searches, and you'll become convinced of this. The importance is evident. okedem (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• IDF's gravest weakness during the first round of fighting in May-June was in firepower. The Arab armies were much better equipped, especially with heavy arms. But during the first truce,in violation of the UN arms embargo, Israel imported from all over Europe, and especially from Czechoslovakia, rifles, machine-guns, armoured cars, field guns, tanks, airplanes and all kinds of ammunition in large quantities. These illicit arms acquisitions enabled IDF to tip the scales decisively in its own favour. In the second round of fighting IDF moved on to the offensive and in the third round it picked off the Arab armies and defeated them one by one. The final outcome of the war was thus not a miracle but a faithful reflection of the underlying Arab-Israeli military balance. In this war, as in most wars, the stronger side ultimately prevailed. (Avi Shlaim - The debate about 1948).

Except the last sentence, I never read any scholar disagreeing with this. Ceedjee (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Useless discredit

I have some concern with this sentence :

According to Finkelstein this is now accepted by all serious scholars.[24]

It was first used to source that all scholars considered that the exodus was ethnic cleansing. Now it is used to source that "according to Morris, the main direct cause of the exodus are the military attacks of Haganah". So what does Finkelstein state precisely ?
I think something accepted by all historians should not be quoted from Finkelstein because given there is a huge controversy (or lobbying) against him, it would be better to quote the same from a less controversed man and if possible an historian.
More, I think a most appropriate and fair synthesis of Morris conclusions would be :

"according to Morris, the main direct cause of the exodus are the military attacks of Haganah but he concludes it was « made by war, not by design ». Morris also confirms former revelations that Haganah proceeded to massive expulsions of Arabs during operations Dani and Hiram and after the war.

Ceedjee (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please make the changes you suggest.

Telaviv1 (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done. Ceedjee (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The changes are good. Thx Ceedjee!

Actually, to answer your question, Finkelstein says scholars agree that there was an ethnic cleansing, but that there is no agreement yet as to whether there was a policy behind it. Finkelstein's definition of ethnic cleansing doesn't require a policy behind it, it only requires (Morris conclusion) that the main direct cause of the exodus were military attacks. Some of the scholars that agree with Morris might still argue that a policy is required in order to call it an ethnic cleansing, so maybe it's better not to use that word here.

See also my edit: According to Finkelstein 'it [is] now conceded by all serious scholars [...] that the Palestinians [were] ethnically cleansed in 1948, and the scholarly debate now [focusses on the ...] question whether this cleansing was the intentional consequence of Zionist policy or the unintentional by-product of war.'

--JaapBoBo (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I understand what he means.

There is a risk of misunderstanding around the expression ethnic cleansing so I think so it should be used carefully and when possible avoided (except for Pappe who is extremely clear on that matter). Ceedjee (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Tholly's reversals - German =/= Nazi

Hi tholly I thought I would bring up your reversals here after pointing out my perspective on my talk page. They were only minor edits to remove from my perspective obviously loaded terms, where an editor had used 'Nazi' instead of 'German', even though the sources cited did not indicate they were Nazi's at all. I thought this was much fairer, many countries such as the US etc. all employed German rocket scientists after WW2, nobody calls all them Nazi's just because they served under a fascist and evil regime. Lets call a spade a spade, a german scientist is a German, Nazis are those who subscribe to a political ideology. You said on my talk page they had been reverted not because they were bad, but because simply they were non-constructive. Could you define what you believe to be constructive then? I had comprehensive reasoning behind why I made the minor edits. By this reckoning, isn't an article tidy up non-constructive as well?(144.32.155.188 (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC))

I have now registered an account Dreaming11 so will use this (but same user as above) (Dreaming11 (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC))

Hi again, I thought I would quote the relevent text to show that someone has just used the word 'Nazi' for seemingly obvious political spin.

Reference [38] -

Egypt develops rockets with the assistance of German scientists. Egypt begins three missile programs based on the German V-2 missile with plans to build 900 missiles of the three models by 1970.

Reference [41] -

Indirectly, it was the Eichmann affair that led to Harel's downfall. He became obsessed with the Holocaust. When the Mossad learned in 1962 that a team of German scientists were building rockets for the Egyptians to use against Israel, he launched a campaign of murderous intimidation against them and their families.

So based on these links that do not indicate that it was actually specifically Nazis who were working on the missiles for Egypt, whoever wrote that bit is obviously conjecturing, because it does seem to paint a convenient picture. I'll re-revert later if there's no opposition as I think it's a much fairer representation based on the sources provided. Again, it was just a small change I thought was necessary, but the way it was changed back to Nazi without a good reason (it was 'unconstructive') made me defend my corner. Take it easy (Dreaming11 (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC))

Yet again someone has changed 'German' to 'Nazi', it's just not sourced in the links, and to me it does smack of political bias. It seems futile continuously fixing it though because people just change it back. Here's another example: a Russian scientist starts working for Iran, should the Wikipedia entry say 'Russian' or 'Communist'? Obviously, if you use communist, you can draw parallels between communism and Iran. But it's simple logic, not all Russians were communists, and not all Germans were Nazi's, without evidence that they were you must assume they were just Germans (taking the simplest description, occam's razor). And here in this article, people seem to want to associate Eygpt with Nazis, because it's an enemy of Israel. I'm just going to change the one word again, and reference it back here, if people can justify it then fair enough but to just keep changing it... (Dreaming11 (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC))

The scientists had worked on the V-1 and V-2 rockets, hence they were former Nazi scientists. That is sourced in the links. The Nazi association of Nasser were one of the things that inspired Anthony Eden in 1956. The intention of creating the rockets for delivery of poison gas has a clear association with the Nazi extermination program. It certinaly would have been udnerstood like that in Israel in the fifties. Read the references. Telaviv1 (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue is the context in which it is written including the way you justified it there is interpolating the information and implying a motive of genocide (i.e. collaboration with Nazis) which is -not- sourced. Weasel words, if you will. I think it's important to stick to facts and was just reading through the article and it popped out at me. A Nazi is someone who is a member of a political party, many if not most (I have no idea personally) of the scientists were just scientists going to their day job to make rockets and after WW2 went onto to develop rocketry technology in the US and Russia to fuel the ballistic arms race. But the point is that none of the links with the exception of Eichmann there is no direct evidence that the scientists were members of the Nazi party. Sometimes its better to let it go though, wikipedia has it's own set of victors justice depending on the editors. Impossible to impartial (Dreaming11 (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

Subjective Ingress

How is the history of israel being preceded by the heading the 'Before the Arab Conquest' not biased. israel stopped being a country 700 years before any 'arab conquest'. this is a very misleading headline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.103.38.79 (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The section relates to Jewish history in the country/region before the state came into existence and prvodies a summary of the various empires that conquered. The Arab conquest was a signficant turning point and plays a role in defining the loyalties, religion and culture of the Arabs. The arabs arrival was as conquerers who formed one of the largest Empire in human history and the term is relevant.Telaviv1 (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Despite this I rearranged the article to leave out the arab arrival. Telaviv1 (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It's hilarious how the 1956 attack by israel/uk/france on egypt first mentions nazis living in egypt?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.103.38.79 (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I only read the ingress and that simply demotivated me from reading more. It is highly subjective. These comments will only apply to the ingress:

Why have "Arab neighbours [...] been in constant conflict with Israel and fought a number of wars". This is as subjective as to say that Israel has been in constant conflict with its Arab neighbors and fought a number of wars. It should be rephrased that Israel and its Arab neighbors have been ...

The next sentence starts with "However", and continues "Israel has also engaged in many negotiations and attempts to reach peace". Similarly, it is as subjective as "its Arab neighbors have also engaged...". It should be that Israel and its Arab neighbors have...

Next sentence talks about how democracy has survived and the country has prospered despite the above.

To summarize, one gets the impression that Israel was founded, the Arabs started a bunch of wars, Israel tried to achieve peace, despite all this, Israel remains a prosperous democracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.231.85 (talk) 12:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with this. The article gives the impression of being crafted to show Israsel in a favourable light, and its enemies as generally unscrupulous and nasty, whilst appearing at first glance to be neutral. If I knew nothing about the subject and read this article, I'd probably think all Arabs are bastards, and Israelis are incapable of doing wrong. As an example of how information has been used to reinforce a particular POV, look at how the ALA is described:

"a force of Arab volunteers from across the Middle-East and European mercenaries including British deserters, German Nazis and veterans of the Bosnian Waffen SS"

Basically, Arabs and scum. As I understand it, the number of non-Arabs in the ALA was not high, and did not just consist of Nazis and British deserters, but the description does not convey this.

The section on the Lebanon war does not mention the fact that the assassination was not carried out by the PLO, or that the PLO had been observing a ceasefire. It even gives a positive spin on the invasion, claiming that some Lebanese were pleased with it, without giving any supporting evidence.

I could go on. It would be nice to see this article rewritten from a non-partisan perspective. Melaena (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I reject this criticism. The criticism is related to minor textual issues. I will stress that most of the volunteers were Arabs and stress that both sides have pursued peace as suggested.

The criticism these folks are trying to relay to you is that if you present the light of Israel's greatness despite the opposition, you should take some time to explain WHY some people continue til this day to believe Israel has no right to exist. The criticisms are valid.§ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.19.151 (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll recheck the Lebanon war stuff. Telaviv1 (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In the article the following parts concerning the "History of Israel" (debatable in its entire idea, before the Balfour declaration) need to be referenced, preferably more than once because of the diversity of scholarly opinion on the topic:

1. "Evidence of Jewish presence in Israel dates back 3,400 years, to the formation of the religion. The name "Jews" derives from their origin in Judah. Over the course of this long history, the Jews have several times been dispersed and then returned from exile."

2. "The Israelites are thought to have come into existence between 1400 and 1100 BCE in Canaan, developing an independent kingdom around 1050 BCE. Around 950 BCE, the kingdom split into the Kingdom of Judah and the Kingdom of Israel."

3. "The Israelites were exiled by Assyria around 720 BCE, becoming the Lost Tribes of Israel." Cite it! Does a religious legend count as a source? Have we yet established that a "Jew" is anything more than someone who was from Judea? Maybe a bit on how this word came about would enlighten the reader about Israel...

4. "In 586 BCE King Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon conquered the Kingdom of Judah and exiled the population to Babylon."

5. "The Bible recounts how, in 538 BCE Cyrus the Great of Persia conquered Babylon and issued a proclamation granting the people of Judah their freedom. 50,000 Judeans, led by Zerubabel returned. A second group of 5000, led by Ezra and Nehemiah, returned to Judea in 456 BCE." Why is this relevant? Can we cite Adam and Eve's situation as condoning incest?

6. "In 333 BCE Alexander the Great conquered Judea and sometime thereafter, the first translation of the Hebrew Bible (the Septuagint) was begun in Alexandria." Facts like this first half of the sentence are easily referenced. Why isn't it? As for the second half and the "Septuagint" what is the source?

7. "The restoration of Jewish rule 174 BCE - 64 BCE

In the second century, Antiochus IV Epiphanes tried to eradicate Judaism in favor of Hellenism leading to the 174 - 135 BCE Maccabean Revolt. The success of this revolt is celebrated in the Jewish festival of Hanukka. The Books of the Maccabees documented the uprising. " Unsourced. Also, problems of relationship and fact. WHEN, up until this time, was there an "Israel". By "Jewish" rule, do you mean "Judean" rule" In any case, you need to give sources for the view you present. Understand that for many historians there was no such earthly place as Israel until Churchill and the Balfour Declaration, which many historians say was a gift of England to America (imagine that...as if Palestinian and Lebanese land was theirs to give away...). Anyway the title of the section presumes the Jews once ruled this region. This has yet to be proven, especially in this article. Cite the Antiochus.

8. "In 64 BCE the Roman General, Pompey conquered Judea. The Jewish Temple in Jerusalem became the only religious structure in the Roman Empire which did not contain an effigy of the emperor and was one of the largest religious structures in the world." Cite Pompey. Cite the proof for the temple story/myth.

9. "From 37 BCE - 92 the Herodian dynasty, Jewish-Roman client kings ruled Judea." What you mean to say is Judeans under Roman rule. Cite the references you use here.

10. "In 66 CE the Jews broke free of Rome, naming their short-lived kingdom variously "Israel" and "Zion"[3] (see also First Jewish Revolt coinage). Israel's unsuccessful revolt against Roman domination and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by Titus in the year 70 were described by the Roman-Jewish historian Josephus, including the famous last stand at Massada. The Jewish revolt led the Christians, at this time a sub-sect of Judaism, to completely disassociate themselves from Judaism. This was reflected in the Gospels." That book by Goodman is HARDLY unbiased. You will find very few sources agreeing that Judea was so renamed, I'd like to see them other than Goodman and his parrots. The coins mean nothing in this case and their inclusion in fact looks like an attempt at real evidence.

nb: All in all, this is a badly written, unsourced, biased, incomplete, and pathetic excuse for an encyclopedia article as written. That it remains as it is despite the numerous suggestions made here is to me...let's say, a puzzle.70.109.12.10 (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)§

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.19.151 (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)