Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight

Neutrality issues with this page

The majority of Palestinians who left during the 1948 war and the surrounding years did not do so due to expulsions, but fled for a variety of reasons.[1] Indeed, of all the 369 Palestinian towns and villages surveyed in Morris 2004, residents were expelled from 41 (11%). Yet, virtually all the first paragraph of the lede discusses expulsions, who did them, massacres, and so on. It is only at paragraph three that there is discussion about this. Nonetheless, discussions of well poisonings, and other factors that played a relatively negligible role in the flight of Palestinians is mentioned in the first paragraph. Likewise, "Hebraization of Palestinian place names" has nothing to do with Palestinians fleeing or being expelled, but it is right up there.

Some of the reasons for flight include rumours of massacres, unwillingness to live under Jewish rule, fear of violence, and so on. On the other hand, the fledgling state of Israel didn't want to accept Palestinians back to their homes, in large part, because they were historically hostile and could form a large Fifth Column[2] in the country. Yet, in the infobox, the "motives" (I'm not sure that that actually means in this context) are provided: Anti-Arab racism, Zionism, and Settler colonialism.

I could pull other examples, but I these these exemplify some of the established issues with this page. The article, as it stands, is extremely problematic from a WP:NPOV (and particularly a WP:DUE) perspective. אקעגן (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with most of your objections. I'll also note that you're only citing one source, Benny Morris 2004. I beieve Morris' assessment as to the cause of the flight/expulsion is considered fringe today.
See for example: Laila Parsons, McGill University, 2009, Review of Ilan Pappé's 'The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine':
"Ilan Pappe has added another work to the many that have already been written in English on the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the expulsion of more than 750,000 Palestinians from their homes. These include works by Walid Khalidi, Simha Flapan, Nafez Nazzal, Benny Morris, Nur Masalha, and Norman Finkelstein, among others. All but one of these authors (Morris) would probably agree with Pappe’s position that what happened to the Palestinians in 1948 fits the definition of ethnic cleansing, and it certainly is not news to Palestinians themselves, who have always known what happened to them." [2]
Also, Saleh Abdul Jawad says of Morris that "although he ferociously denied a master plan of ethnic cleansing in 2001, he now admits that the events during 1948 constitute a “justifiable” ethnic cleansing.", citing Morris' somewhat infamous interview with Ari Shavit.
An excerpt of that interview:
Interviewer: They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.
Morris: There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide - the annihilation of your people - I prefer ethnic cleansing.
Interviewer: And that was the situation in 1948?
Morris: That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.
Interviewer: The term `to cleanse' is terrible.
Morris: I know it doesn't sound nice but that's the term they used at the time. I adopted it from all the 1948 documents in which I am immersed.
-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find this line of thinking especially compelling. Morris has critics (many of whom continue to cite him extensively, as she notes!), but certainly Pappe and other authors do as well. Would a negative review of his work be enough to invalidate Pappe's work in your eyes?
Morris denies that there was a policy of expulsion by Israeli forces. This has no bearing on his views of expulsions in 1948 constituted ethnic cleansing. In the same interview he says this explicitly: "From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer. There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population] transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is created."
At any rate, you are attacking Morris as a person, but not his factual statements. The statements I cited are also factual ones. Do you think that some aspect of those citations is factually wrong? אקעגן (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a logical response to what I've said or to the sources I've cited. I find your editing to be disruptive and I ask that you self revert your latest edit. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'd ask that you self revert and discuss changes you'd like to make here first rather than continuing to make them unilaterally. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said Morris' views on the reasons for flight/expulsion of the Palestinians are fringe because 1) Laila Parsons said Morris stands alone in arguing that 1948 wasn't an ethnic cleansing (of course, within her selected list of historians; she just totally leaves out ones she rejects from the gate, like Efraim Karsh) and because 2) you cited an interview where Morris says ethnic cleansing took place in 1948. The logical thread does not come together. אקעגן (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Morris's assessment is definitely not fringe. How are Abdul Jawad's words and the interview that you quoted relevant to the due weight and reliability of Morris?
Even if it were true that most historians disagree with Morris about the right term for the 1947-1948 events, it doesn't mean that all of Morris's scholarship is contested.
However, it's actually not true. There are also historians like Karsh who criticised new historians "from the right" and Anita Shapira. Disputes and disagreements are normal amongst historians. Alaexis¿question? 20:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Surely its relevant to his reliability that Morris has contradicted himself, both denying the expulsions were ethnic cleaning but then admitting that they were.
You mention Karsh (as has אקעגוץן), yet he is even more fringe and less reliable than Morris.
Howard Sachar described Karsh as "the preeminent scholar-spokesman of the Revisionist (politically-rightist) Movement in Zionism."[3]
Benny Morris called Karsh's Fabricating Israeli History "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," titling his article "Undeserving of a Reply".[4][better source needed] Morris adds that Karsh belabors minor points while ignoring the main pieces of evidence.[5]
Morris: "Karsh resembles nothing so much as those Holocaust-denying historians who ignore all evidence and common sense in order to press an ideological point. One can only assume that, like them, his modest "contribution" to the Israeli historiographic debate will soon vanish." Morris, B. (1998). Refabricating 1948 [Review of Fabricating Israeli History: The “New Historians.,” by E. Karsh]. Journal of Palestine Studies, 27(2), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.2307/2538286
Ian Lustick: "But however impressed readers are likely to be by the intensity of Karsh's pristine faith in Zionism, they are sure to be stunned by the malevolence of his writing and confused by the erratic, sloppy nature of his analysis. Errors, inconsistencies, and over-interpretation there may be in some of the new Israeli histories, but nothing in them can match the howlers, the contradictions, and the distortions contained in this volume." [6][7]
Avi Shlaim has written that Karsh gives "a selective and tendentious account designed to exonerate the Jewish side of any responsibility" for some of the events that took place in 1948 and that he engages in "distort[ion] and misrepresent[ation of] the work of his opponents"
Shlaim, Avi (September 1996). "A Totalitarian Concept of History". Middle East Quarterly. 3 (3): 52–55. Archived from the original on 24 September 2021.
Ilan Pappé in 'Were they expelled?': "The call from the Arab leaders on the one hand and the "domino effect" on the other appear in Ephraim Karsh's book, the most recent attempt to defend the Israeli official version of the war."
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be interested in seeing an earlier statement by Morris himself in which he says that it was not an ethnic cleansing, because I don't see an actual citation for it in the source you cited. But even if you do find such a source, this does not show anything negative about his scholarship. Dcholars opinions can change, and this issue you bring up even just seems like a terminological point, not a factual one (he talks quite a bit about expulsions). This was never a fundamental part of his book (in fact, he talks quite a bit about expulsions), which instead argued that there was no top-down plan for expulsions by the Israelis.
By the way, if I could find negative statements or reviews of Pappe, would you concede that he is a "fringe" scholar? אקעגן (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Morris in the 80s is not Morris after 2000. There is broad consensus that Morris underwent an ideological shift during the Second Intifada in which his views became more extreme and that this ideological shift colors his work. On this point, see:
إيان (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is relevant to the point. He still is a widely-cited and widely respected source. אקעגן (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Historians such as Ilan Pappè and Avi Shlaim have been described as fabricating aspects of their work and writing with personal bias, yet their work is extensively cited on Wikipedia. That Benny Morris experienced an "ideological shift" is not discrediting. Plantbaseddiet (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that article has neutrality issues and that the tags are not controversial edits. Also agree that it does not make sense for us to redefine the word 'expulsion'.
Example of pov overuse of the word:
first sentence of 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight#Results of the Palestinian exodus, "The expulsion of Palestinians in 1947–49 resulted in the significant depopulation of territory occupied by Israel"
Might it be more expected for that to say, "The exodus of Palestinians in 1947–49 resulted in[…]"? Seeing as how the section claims to be about the results of the exodus? Mikewem (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was going to make a topic but realised this one already existed – want to add that it's WP:OR to say that the link to Hebraization of Palestinian place names is a non-sequitur, since it's obviously related to the expulsion and settling of the places in question, as discussed in RS and cited on the page. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@אקעגן you have argued this here but you have not obtained consensus for that position. I only see three references to this topic on this talk page, one from your unsourced topic intro saying that it's not relevant, another from another editor suggesting we move it to the "See also" section and a third from my own post above. Mentioning that you have issues with a piece of information does not give you the right to remove it at will, please revert your revert until we genuinely obtain consensus on the matter. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have criticized adding this in the lede was a non-sequitur, since this is something that took place securely after Palestinians had left, and really has nothing to do with the exodus. You have taken it upon yourself not only to unilaterally remove my tag, but to expand this into a whole new section. You yourself have not gained consensus that adding this section is really WP:DUE or a sufficiently WP:MAJORASPECT to merit a section. אקעגן (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I created a new section specifically to address the tag, since it's not a non-sequitur, but was not included in the body text. I'll make a new topic about this. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would direct both Alaexis and אקעגן to our article Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight, which says "Scholarship today generally considers that violence and direct expulsions perpetrated by Zionist forces throughout both phases of the 1947-1949 Palestine war (both during the civil war phase and during the 1948-1949 Arab-Israeli war) were the primary cause of the displacement of the Palestinians.[8][9][10][11][12] Many historians consider that the events of 1948 fit the definition of ethnic cleansing.[13] -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

אקעגן wrote: "of all the 369 Palestinian towns and villages surveyed in Morris 2004, residents were expelled from 41 (11%)". This is a false statement, and not just because the number of localities giving "E" as one of the causes is actually 54. The main reason is that the claim misunderstands Morris' key. He only uses "E" for cases where the Jewish forces captured a village with its inhabitants and then expelled the inhabitants. If the villagers fled ahead of the Jewish military assault and then weren't allowed back, Morris gives it the "M" classification even though this is also an example of expulsion in its ordinary meaning. The same is true of "C" (influence of nearby Jewish attack) and "F" (fear of the fighting) if the villagers wished to return but could not. The essence of "expulsion" is not the departure but the inability to return. (If I go abroad on a holiday but am refused reentry to my country, that's expulsion despite the fact that I left voluntarily.) By contrast, the number of localities with "A" (abandonment on Arab orders) is 6, I think. Another problem, which Morris obfuscated after his "conversion", is to count temporary evacuation of non-combatants as voluntary abandonment. Of course it is nothing of the sort and the Jewish side did the same thing extensively. Zerotalk 06:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The essence of "expulsion" is not the departure but the inability to return.

This has never been the usual understanding of the term. This is precisely the reason that "E" is "expulsion by the Jews," which would in fact cover virtually all the categories if your understanding were that of Morris—neither before his so-called "conversion," nor after. Likewise, "temporary evacuation of non-combatants" is not expulsion.
Anyways, here he is essentially defining the term:

The obvious, logical solution lay in Arab emigration or ‘transfer’. Such a transfer could be carried out by force, i.e., expulsion, or it could be engineered voluntarily, with the transferees leaving on their own steam and by agreement, or by some amalgam of the two methods

אקעגן (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the cases I called expulsion were "by agreement". All of them were achieved by force, so in fact my definition agrees with Morris. Zerotalk 06:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to explain to me how, throughout all his books, and throughout this entire article, a distinction is made between expulsion and flight, when, by your lights, they are virtually the same thing. Again, this has never been the understanding of the term. If it had been, why did Morris only make the "E" category entitled expulsion, when all of it was expulsion? How do you understand a quote like "Those who had remained behind were expelled" in regards to Abu Shusha, when those who left were also expelled, by your lights? This is real semantic blurring. אקעגן (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's an easy question. Morris is a stickler for detail and makes fine distinction between events according to what he believes happened in each case. Getting driven out with a gun to the head is not the same experience as fleeing an incoming army and being forcibly prevented from returning, so he classifies them differently. Reading his text on each case will uncover additional details that differ between them. It is open to us to also make such fine distinctions. What is not open to us is to leverage his word choices to make claims that don't follow from his work. In both these cases, people lost their homes by the use of force and it would be wrong to describe it in a way that hides that fact. Zerotalk 14:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit @אקעגן. There is no NPOV issue with this article. The exclusion/minimizing of the views of Anita Shapira, Yoav Gelber, Efraim Karsh and aspects of Benny Morris' work is not a violation of NPOV but is following WP:FRINGE. These authors all engage in some degree of Nakba denial, but that is still a fringe position. For example we say rightly that the Tantura massacre was a real event, even though Gelber denies it and calls it a "blood libel.

In the lede of this article we rightly say:

"Although the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus remain a significantly controversial topic in public and political discourse, with a prominent amount of denialism regarding the responsibility of Israeli/Yishuv forces, most scholarship today agrees that expulsions and violence, and the fear thereof, were the primary causes.[13][14][15] Scholars widely describe the event as ethnic cleansing,[16][6][17] although some disagree.[18][19][20]"

We can discuss details of this further - especially if you have better (and more recent) sources - but please refrain from making further large edits without at least attempting to get consensus first. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion, which again has not been demonstrated. You found some sources that are against Morris, and Karsh, that is true. I could find sources that argue against the positions and books of Pappe, Finkelstein, Khalidi, Masalha and the like, who are, in the views of some, maximalists and ideologues. Do not revert the edit until this matter has been resolved. אקעגן (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've already asked you to provide more sources if you can.
And actually it is the user who is seeking to make significant changes who needs to seek consensus for their edit per WP:ONUS, and so I'll once again ask you to self-revert. You're likely to ignite a multi-party edit war here if you do not self-revert and seek consensus for your changes. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at WP:TEMPREMOVE. This is not a controversial addition.
The change that you are trying to remove only added tags, and one sentence that is not a controversial one (unless you doubt that there were any instances of Arab commanders instructing locals to flee; if so, you have never articulated that).
More to the point, if Benny Morris is so fringe, why is he cited approvingly in some cases by the likes of Pappe[14], by Khalidi[15], Masalha[16]. אקעגן (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never said Morris was fringe in entirety. All three of those writers you cite as praising Morris are also highly critical of his work in certain aspects. Which only supports my point that Morris is not entirely reliable / has fringe elements.
Could you please share the additional references you've said you have and that I've now repeatedly requested. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not totally sure what you want these "additional references" to say, but here are some that corroborate Morris or his approach, regarding the reasons for Palestinians leaving and reasons for their non-acceptance into Israel. These are modern and critical of Israel:
  • Israel/Palestine (2023), by Alan Dowty: "Who was responsible for creating the refugee problem? Did the refugees flee on their own, or did Israeli forces expel them? The most complete answer to this question has been provided by Benny Morris [...] In some cases refugees fleg before enemy forces arrived, as often occurs in war; in some cases they were expelled by Israeli forces; and there are murky cases with elements of both situations. [...] For a critique of Morris from a pro-Palestinian perspective see Masalha 1991 and Finkelstein 1991; for a pro-Israeli critique, see Karsh 2003. [...]
    "As for the refugee question, "
  • Atlas of Palestine (2004), by Salman Abu Sitta (a former PNC member(!)), creates his own enumeration of the Palestinian towns that were depopulated, and follows Morris' schema. Here, he increases the percent of villages that were subject to expulsion to 24.6%, the percent who fled on military assault at 54.4%, psychological warfare accounted for 2.4%, fear of attack 7.7%, influence/fall of nearby towns 9.9% and abandonment on Arab orders at 1%. Even from an ideological source like this, expulsions are still not the dominant of reason for leaving.
  • William L. Cleveland, Martin Bunton, A History of the Modern Middle East (2024): "The Arab flight from Palestine began during the intercommunal war and was at firs the normal reaction of a civilian population to nearby fighting - a temporary evacuation from the zone of combat with plans to return once hostilities ceased. However, during spring and early summer 1948, the flight of the Palestinian Arabs was transformed into a permanent mass exodus, as villagers abandoned their ancestral soil and city dwellers left behind their homes and businesses. Once the Arab flight had started, the Haganah encouraged it. "
  • Ibrahim Al-Marashi, Arthur Goldschmidt Jr., A Concise History of the Middle East (2018): "At the end of 1948, Palestinian refugees numbered around 725,000. Some had voluntarily left their homes even before the war started, while most had to flee during the fighting. [...] Israel, busy absorbing European Jewish survivors and unwilling to take in a 'fifth-column' of implacable foes, would not readmit the Palestinian refugees."
  • Alexander B. Downes, Targeting Civilians in War (2011): "In short, if expulsion was not Zionist policy at the outset, it became such over time, and at the heart of this strategy was the fear that leaving the Arab population in place would pose a permanent danger of a fifth-column in the Israeli rear"
  • Marte Heian-Engdal, Palestinian Refugees after 1948 (2020): "In essence, Morris’s conclusion is that ‘war, and not design, Jewish or Arab,gave birth to the Palestinian refugee problem’. With the flights of the third and fourth waves of Palestinian refugees, the total number to an estimated 700,000 to 750,000 people had fled their homes since December 1947. [..] One of Morris’s main antagonists was Shabtai Teveth, the author of a biography of one of Israel’s founding fathers, David Ben-Gurion. But this was not the only position from which Morris’s work was attacked. From the other end of the spectrum, representing the Palestinian narrative, historians Nur Masalha and Norman Finkelstein took issue with Morris’s ultimate conclusion – that the refugee problem was a product of war – rather than Zionist design.[...] Shlaim elsewhere points out that Masalha undermines a good case ‘by over-stating it’ and focusing too narrowly on one aspect of the thinking within a multifaceted and complex Zionist movement. [...] There is little added value in a detailed blow-by-blow account of every article and op-ed published in relation to this debate. Suffice it to say that at some point the debate was no longer stricktly about what had happened, it was highly charged, accusatory and political dispute. However, despite the disagreement over the degree of responsibility and the interpretation of the meaning of Plan D, Morris’s version and the Palestinian narrative had much in common." She goes on to use Morris as her primary reference in this chapter.
אקעגן (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@אקעגן, the changes you made are not merely adding a tag. This discussion is ongoing and it is not apparent that you have consensus for your changes. TarnishedPathtalk 22:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was merely adding a tag. I said it was adding tags and an uncontroversial remark about how in some cases, Arab leadership told Palestinians to leave their residences.
I restored my tags, and left off the latter. I will ask you both though—do you not think this is a fact? אקעגן (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no consensus for the NPOV tag either. What exactly do you suggest should be changed to comply with NPOV? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also we probably should say something along the lines of "Many Palestinians fled or evacuated to avoid the escalating violence, planning to return after the cessation of hostilities, but they were then prevented from returning to their homes after the war by the newly established State of Israel."[17]
You say your remark is uncontroversial, but I believe it is promoting the Arab leaders' endorsement of flight" explanation:
"Israeli officials, sympathetic journalists, and some historians have claimed that the refugee flight was instigated by Arab leaders, though almost invariably no primary sources were cited. Since the 1980s, historians have increasingly dismissed the claim as devoid of evidence." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@אקעגן, your most recent edit is a breach of WP:1RR. Please remedy. TarnishedPathtalk 02:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please restore my tag, which you removed in violation of WP:DETAG. אקעגן (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that tagging articles in order to push for your preferred version is appropriate, so no. TarnishedPathtalk 14:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, you can remove any tags you like when you don't like the requests or discussion? אקעגן (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re the only one claiming this neutrality issue. إيان (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is that enough? Could you show me where that principle is outlined? אקעגן (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was also the survey the Israelis did themselves, in June (July?) 1948, showing why each village was depopulated. It was "secret", until the late 1980s, when it was published by Benny Morris, if my memory is correct. User:Zero0000; do you have the ref? There was also a Haaretz-article, Huldra (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Morris' article "The causes and character of the Arab exodus from Palestine: the Israel defence forces intelligence branch analysis of June 1948" was published in the journal Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Jan., 1986), pp. 5-19. Available here or here. That article does not reproduce the report itself. After Morris' article was published, the document was withdrawn from availability (as often happened with documents that didn't support the official narrative). The full report was published by Akevot: Hebrew, English. Zerotalk 01:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, User:Zero0000, for those links, Anyone can download the English version, and see that the Israelis themselves knew that the propaganda that "the Palestinians left of their own accord" was just that: Propaganda. Huldra (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the disputed text: (1) citations are not needed in the "See also" section. (2) The wikilink to Hebraization of names could move to the "See also" section as it wasn't central to the expulsion and flight. (3) The text "In some other cases, Arab commanders instructed locals to flee combat areas or potential combat areas." is completely unacceptable as it is actively misleading. The sources speak primarily of temporary evacuation of non-combatants, but readers will not understand that from the text. There is only one sentence in the two quotations that refers to complete evacuation in "several areas". "Several" means what? It isn't clear that temporary evacuation of non-combatants is even relevant to the page, as all sides in all wars do that if they can and the Jewish side did the same in 1948. The only relevance I can see is that most such temporary evacuees were not allowed to return, but that needs a source to support it. Zerotalk 01:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I don't remember asking for citations for "See Also"; what are you referring to? (2) This is fine with me. (3) This is a statement of fact, and your framing is not accurate. See, for example, in this quote from Morris: "And, starting in December 1947, Arab officers ordered the complete evacuation of specific villages in certain areas, lest their inhabitants ‘treacherously’ acquiesce in Israeli rule or hamper Arab military deployments." "Several," in this case, means at least 5 towns in which people were unable to return after. אקעגן (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To argue, in 2025, that the majority of Palestinians who were cleansed from their homes did NOT due so due to direct violence or threat of violence is beyond bad faith. Morris disagrees (note: edited many hours after this comment to correct my typo) with the facts now? Well, bully to him. The overwhelming majority of scholarship disagrees with him. As does the historical record.Dan Murphy (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Morris never argued this position, not now, nor in the 1980s. אקעגן (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@אקעגן, to make this discussion more productive, what exactly would you suggest changing in the article?
I think that no one argues here that the expulsion and flight were not due to the conflict, but there were important differences in how events unfolded in different places which should be reflected in the article. Alaexis¿question? 21:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few issues I identified:
Sidebar:
  • The body cites 700,000 Palestinians who were expelled or fled; the sidebar increases this to 750,000. Later in the article, Masalha's expansionist "90 percent of the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed" is cited.
  • "Motives" and "perpetrators" don't make sense in the context of flight (to avoid violence, etc.). Morris and others describe the, or perhaps one of the primary reasons for the refusal to allow Palestinians back as the Israelis not wanting a hostile element within their own borders after the Arab world declared war on Israel and resoundingly rejected its existence. This reason does not appear, but we find the un-sourced and contentious list "Anti-Arab racism, Zionism, and Settler colonialism" as the motivations.
Introduction:
  • There were many reasons for Palestinians leaving their homes, including Arab leaders encouraging flight in some localities, as discussed above. No mention of this is made.
  • The use of bacteria as a weapon was minimal and its effect was as well: "The use of bacteria was apparently fairly limited in Israel/Palestine during April-December 1948, and apart from Acre, seems to have caused no epidemic and few casualties." Yet this is considered important enough to appear in the very first paragraph (and again in the third paragraph).
  • The third paragraph lists causes of flight. As discussed already, the majority of Palestinians left due to fighting and fear of fighting. Yet the reasons given in the paragraph are (in order): 1) direct expulsions by Israeli forces, 2) destruction of Arab villages, 3) psychological warfare including terrorism, 4) massacres such as the widely publicized Deir Yassin massacre which caused many to flee out of fear, 5) crop burning, 6) typhoid epidemics in some areas caused by Israeli well-poisoning, and 7) the collapse of Palestinian leadership. None of these directly describe the flight due to "influence of a nearby town's fall" or "fear (of being caught up in fighting)." "Destruction of Arab villages" may have been meant to imply "influence of a nearby town's fall," but that is not the straightforward reading of it.
אקעגן (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@אקעגן, you've restored some of your edits even though there is still no consensus for them. I'd recommend proposing changes here on the talk page before implementing them. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot simply remove POV tags because you disagree with them, nor do we need consensus to add tags. The whole point of them is to refer to a case in the talk page where consensus has not yet been reached. I refer you to Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems#Disputes_over_tags and Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems#Removing_tags.
A few salient quotes:
"If the person placing the tag has explained their concerns on the talk page, then anyone who disagrees should join the discussion and explain why the tag seems inappropriate."
"Some tags, such as {{POV}}, often merely indicate the existence of one editor's concern, without taking a stand whether the article complies with Wikipedia policies. It is important to remember that the POV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is a current discussion about whether the article complies with the neutral point of view policy."
Please restore my POV tag pointing to this thread. אקעגן (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've self reverted out of an abundance of caution. I'd ask you to do the same and to engage in discussion instead of unilaterally reimplementing disputed edits. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any consensus here that there is any POV issue. Restored removal. TarnishedPathtalk 14:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of a POV tag is that consensus has not been attained. The quotes I cite above demonstrate that you don't need to agree with the tag for it to be up. It seems, at this point, that the POV tag is being removed by you both as a means to "push for your preferred version." אקעגן (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a clear consensus against the tag. One editor disagreeing doesn't imply lack of consensus. There is also the matter of quality of argument, which weakens your case further. Zerotalk 14:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one has actually substantively impinged on the quality of my arguments, which are backed by quality sources. In any case, I repeat again: a tag indicates a lack of consensus — you don't need consensus to add a tag!
WP:DETAG is clear about when tags may be removed. "Lack of consensus" is not one of the reasons. A fortiori, if lack of consensus were enough for a tag to be removed, the entire DETAG section would be irrelevant, since anyone who doesn't want the tag up would simply be able to remove it, no strings attached. אקעגן (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zero, didn't state that there was a lack of consensus for it. They clearly stated that there is consensus against it. I agree with their assessment. TarnishedPathtalk 01:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree both with that assessment and with your rights to remove the tags, in opposition to WP:DETAG. I still have not heard a justification of why DETAG does not need to be satisfied. אקעגן (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Vpab15 (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:TAGGING: the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved. There is consensus here that the tag doesn't apply and thus it has been resolved. Your disagreement is irrelevant. TarnishedPathtalk 15:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@אקעגן, note also that consensus does not have to be (and is usually not) unanimous. See consensus and rough consensus. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Plantbaseddiet: appears to back at least several of my views here. @Alaexis: agrees with my assertions about Morris being reliable. Consensus isn't reached when you three decide it does, unilaterally. אקעגן (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find it concerning that the same editors consistently appear on pages related to specific topics, often advancing a particular point of view. It's unfortunate that Wikipedia has, at times, become a platform where editors from around the world promote specific worldviews—especially given that the project itself seems to reflect certain political leanings. This is particularly evident on pages related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, where a distinct editorial stance is noticeable. I agree with @אקעגן. WP:NPOV is a major issue here. Plantbaseddiet (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will restore the tag. There are enough people here to confirm that significance of POV issues. אקעגן (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the POV tag, at least three editors consider the current version non-neutral, so it seems warranted. As to the citation needed it should never be removed without adding a source, so I've restored it. Alaexis¿question? 18:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tags aren’t a badge of shame to sit there indefinitely, if noones actively trying to address the issues then it should be removed. If there’s consensus, make the changes, if there’s a dispute, use dispute resolution. Kowal2701 (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evacuation

Am I right that the discussion largely concerns this addition. To me it appears appropriate and WP:DUE. This wasn't the main reason of the flight/expulsion but it took place and deserves to be mentioned in one sentence of a fairly long article. Alaexis¿question? 18:32, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see why this edit is considered controversial in the first place. It clearly took place and didn’t play a minor role, so why should it be left out? Plantbaseddiet (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested above we say something like "Many Palestinians fled or evacuated to avoid the escalating violence, planning to return after the cessation of hostilities, but they were then prevented from returning to their homes after the war by the newly established State of Israel."
Also as I mentioned above we should be careful to avoid promoting the denialist myth that "the refugee flight was instigated by Arab leaders". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 TarnishedPathtalk 11:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's described in detaile in the very next sentences (starting from Later, a series of land and property laws passed by the first Israeli government prevented Arabs who had left from returning to their homes or claiming their property), so no reader would leave the article not knowing that this happened. Alaexis¿question? 19:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite unsatisfactory. It wasn't land laws that prevented the return of Palestinians who fled outside the borders of the state, which was the largest number. It was the decision of the government to prevent their return by armed force. Land laws of course had an effect on the issue of regaining or retaining property, even of many Palestinians who became Israeli citizens, but that is not quite the same issue. Zerotalk 02:44, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it's kind of evident that these laws were enforced with armed force, as laws usually are. But what exactly would you like to add? And based on what sources? Alaexis¿question? 15:20, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "What happened in Palestine/Israel over 1947–1949 was so complex and varied, the situation radically changing from date to date and place to place, that a single-cause explanation of the exodus from most sites is untenable. At most, one can say that certain causes were important in certain areas at certain times, with a general shift in the spring of 1948 from precedence of cumulative internal Arab factors – lack of leadership, economic problems, breakdown of law and order – to a primacy of external, compulsive causes: Haganah/IDF attacks and expulsions, fear of Jewish attacks and atrocities, lack of help from the Arab world and the AHC and a feeling of impotence and abandonment, and orders from Arab officials and commanders to leave. In general, throughout the war, the final and decisive precipitant to flight in most places was Haganah, IZL, LHI or IDF attack or the inhabitants’ fear of imminent attack." (Morris 2004)
  2. ^ "The facts that Palestine’s Arabs (and the Arab states) had rejected the UN partition resolution and, to nip it in the bud, had launched the hostilities that snowballed into fullscale civil war and that the Arab states had invaded Palestine and attacked Israel in May 1948 only hardened Jewish hearts toward the Palestinian Arabs, who were seen as mortal enemies and, should they be coopted into the Jewish state, a potential Fifth Column." (Morris 2004)
  3. ^ Sachar, Howard. "Palestine Betrayed Reviews". Yale University Press. Archived from the original on 22 January 2012. Retrieved 6 June 2011.
  4. ^ Morris, 1996, "Undeserving of a Reply", The Middle East Quarterly
  5. ^ Benny Morris, "Refabricating 1948", review of Fabricating Israeli History: The "New Historians." by Efraim Karsh, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 27, No. 2. (Winter, 1998), pp. 81–95.
  6. ^ I. Lustick, 1997, 'Israeli History: Who is Fabricating What?', Survival, 39(3), p.156–166
  7. ^ I. Lustick, 1997, Survival, 39(4), p.197–198
  8. ^ Slater, Jerome (2020). Mythologies Without End: The US, Israel, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1917-2020. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. ISBN 978-0-19-045908-6. “There is no serious dispute among Israeli, Palestinian, or other historians about the central facts of the Nakba. All of the leading Israeli New Historians—particularly Morris, Shlaim, Pappé, and Flapan—extensively examined the issue and revealed the facts. Other accounts have reached the same conclusions. For example, see Ben-Ami, "A War to Start All Wars"; Rashid Khalidi, "The Palestinians and 1948"; Walid Khalidi, "Why Did the Palestinians Leave, Revisited"; Masalha, Expulsion of the Palestinians; Raz, Bride and the Dowry. Reviewing the evidence marshaled by Morris and others, Tom Segev concluded that "most of the Arabs in the country, approximately 400,000, were chased out and expelled during the first stage of the war. In other words, before the Arab armies invaded the country" (Haaretz, July 18, 2010). Other estimates have varied concerning the number of Palestinians who fled or were expelled before the May 1948 Arab state attack; Morris estimated the number to be 250,000–300,000 (The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, 262); Tessler puts it at 300,000 (A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 279); Pappé's estimate is 380,000 (The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 96). In another recent review of the evidence, the Israeli historian Daniel Blatman estimates the number to be about 500,000 (Blatman, "Netanyahu, This Is What Ethnic Cleansing Really Looks Like"). Whatever the exact number, even Israeli "Old Historians" now admit that during the 1948 war, the Israeli armed forces drove out many of the Palestinians, though they emphasized the action as a military "necessity." For example, see Anita Shapira, Israel: A History, 167–68.
  9. ^ Abu-Laban, Yasmeen; Bakan, Abigail B. (July 2022). "Anti-Palestinian Racism and Racial Gaslighting". The Political Quarterly, Vol. 93, Issue 3, p. 511: "Palestinians have long known what happened to them in 1948 and its very human costs. However, the work of the ‘new’ (or revisionist) Israeli historians from the late 1970s also challenged the official state narrative of a miraculous wartime victory through access to material in the Israeli archives. This has established what Ilan Pappé has summarised as the ‘ethnic cleansing of Palestine’, a process involving massacres and expulsions at gunpoint. In light of the ever-growing historiography, serious scholarship has left little debate about what happened in 1948. [...] However, Nakba denial remains a political issue of the highest order.
  10. ^ Slater 2020, p. 350, "It is no longer a matter of serious dispute that in the 1947–48 period—beginning well before the Arab invasion in May 1948—some 700,000 to 750,000 Palestinians were expelled from or fled their villages and homes in Israel in fear of their lives—an entirely justifiable fear, in light of massacres carried out by Zionist forces.".
  11. ^ Khalidi, R. R. (1988). Revisionist Views of the Modern History of Palestine: 1948. Arab Studies Quarterly, 10(4), 425–432. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41857981 — "Segev's was the first account published in book form to use the Israeli archives to show that mass expulsions of the Palestinians by the Zionist forces, before May 15, 1948, and in succeeding months by the Israeli army, were the main cause of their flight."
  12. ^ Petersen-Overton, Kristofer J.; Schmidt, Johannes D.; Hersh, Jacques (27 September 2010). "3. Retooling Peace Philosophy: A Critical Look at Israel's Separation Strategy". In Carter, Candice C.; Kumar, Ravindra (eds.). Peace Philosophy in Action. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 49. doi:10.1057/9780230112995. ISBN 978-0-230-11299-5. As scores of historical documentation has since revealed, the Yishuv encouraged the flight or directly forced 750000 Palestinians (more than 80 percent of the population at the time) from their homeland in 1948 and destroyed 531 Palestinian villages
  13. ^ Laila Parsons, McGill University, 2009, Review of Ilan Pappé's 'The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine', "Ilan Pappe has added another work to the many that have already been written in English on the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the expulsion of more than 750,000 Palestinians from their homes. These include works by Walid Khalidi, Simha Flapan, Nafez Nazzal, Benny Morris, Nur Masalha, and Norman Finkelstein, among others. All but one of these authors (Morris) would probably agree with Pappe’s position that what happened to the Palestinians in 1948 fits the definition of ethnic cleansing, and it certainly is not news to Palestinians themselves, who have always known what happened to them." [1]
  14. ^ As one of many examples, he writes "For most Palestinians, the date of 15 May 1948 was of no special significance at the time: it was just one more day in the horrific calendar of ethnic cleansing that had started more than five months earlier" with a footnote "In fact some of the books we have mentioned, notably Khalidi (ed.), All at Remains, Flapan, Birth of Israel, Palumbo, Catastrophe and Morris, Revisited prove this point very convincingly"
  15. ^ In Palestinian Identity: "The standard work on the subject is now Benny Morris [...]. Based on Israeli sources, this work has put to rest some of the most tenacious fabrications regarding the Palestinian refugee problem. See also Morris's 1948 and After [..]. For problems with some of the conclusions Morris draws from evidence he presents, however, see Norman G. Finkelstein [...]." He continues to cite Morris' works numerous times.
  16. ^ E.g. in Imperial Israel: "Israeli historian Benny Morris argues that in the 1950s Zionist territorial maximalism and expansionism had been espoused for both ideological and strategic reasons: " followed by a lengthy quote.
  17. ^ Pappe 2006: "Members of the Palestinian urban elite were leaving their houses and moving to their winter residences in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt. This was a typical reaction from the urbanites in moments of stress - moving to safety until the situation calmed down. [...] But they left with the full intention of returning to their homes again later, only to be prevented by the Israelis from doing so: not allowing people to return to their homes after a short stay abroad is as much expulsion as any other act directed against the local people with the aim of depopulation."

Small typo (widesprea)

If somebody got a trusted account, fix the typo in the "Economic damage" section (please) "looting by Jewish forces and residents was widesprea." Zlatak1782 (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you very much. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hebraization of Palestinian place names

I'll make an RfC if it becomes necessary, but I think we can obtain consensus without one. Hebraization of Palestinian place names has been marked as non-sequitur or removed despite ample RS on the page pointing out that it was a direct consequence of the expulsion and flight.[1] (See sources below.) We discuss it as part of the process this page describes on the main page for the topic as well.

@אקעגן can you please provide RS for why this topic is not relevant to this page? Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My intro to this issue was by one of the books by Meron Benvenisti, "Sacred Landscape", if I recall correctly. Of course this issue deserves mentioning on this page, Huldra (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My reversion to status-quo was re-reverted after this discussion began. Please self-revert in accordance with. WP:STATUSQUO: do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. אקעגן (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:STATUSQUO is only an essay, not policy, and nobody else is voicing a support for your views. I am actually surprised this hasn't been mentioned earlier, thanks to User:Smallangryplanet for adding that paragraph! Huldra (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article's subject is the exodus of Palestinians from their homes during and around the 1948 war. The Hebraization took place as part of the aftermath of the exodus, but also took place place before. Hebraization was a policy that held for any land that was obtained, whether by UN parition, through conquest, or through purchase. In these ways, Hebraization is not "direct consequence of the expulsion and flight" and is an orthogonal matter. Even if viewed as a direct consequence, it is not notable enough with respect to this subject to warrant inclusion in the lede, let alone in an entire section.
The non-sequitur label in the lede was due to the fact that Hebraization was mentioned out of the blue. There was a list of causes of Palestinian exodus and this was immediately followed by "Other sites were subject to Hebraization..." as though there were some connection to be made there.
Hebraization was carried out to restore the nature and names of older Jewish sites (that had been Arabicized). This was meant to emphasize historical continuity and Jewish connection to the region, for a Jewish and Hebrew-speaking country, not as a sort of colonial punishment.[2][3][4][5][6]
I am not opposed to this concept being "mentioned" on this page, but, to be clear, I don't think it deserves its own section, or to be in the lede. אקעגן (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be the only one who considers it irrelevant. I also agree with Smallangryplanet and Huldra. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, no one actually wants to engage with the points, but are more eager to push a contentious non-WP:NPOV... אקעגן (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be snide or make accusations here, please remember to WP:AGF. The sources provided do not make the case that Hebraization is not relevant here, just that it happened in other circumstances too. I've updated the Other sites... line as it's a bit oddly phrased indeed. I think that This was meant to emphasize historical continuity and Jewish connection to the region, for a Jewish and Hebrew-speaking country, not as a sort of colonial punishment is itself a contentious POV that we can definitely mention, but to maintain NPOV we can't then ignore that many RS take issue with the notion that it wasn't a colonial punishment. I'm all over the place today IRL and might not be able to keep a close eye on this but I plan to improve the dedicated section some more and have added the POV you describe in short already: diff. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hebraization of place names was part of the parcel of dispossession. I can't see how anyone would think it's not relevent to the discussion of the topic of Palestiniant expulsion. TarnishedPathtalk 00:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support inclusion of this issue in the article. I'm not sure about the first paragraph though, and the wording is not great ("Other sites.." — other than what?). Zerotalk 09:24, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the wording on that sentence to be less ambiguous, I hope the current version makes more sense. 😅 Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not that certain if the Hebraization of toponyms is particularly relevant here. It was not a new policy during the 1940s. Per the main article:
    • "In 1925, the Directorate of the Jewish National Fund (JNF) established The Names Committee for the Settlements, with the intent of giving names to the new Jewish settlements established on lands purchased by the JNF.[7] It was led directly by the head of the JNF, Menachem Ussishkin.[8] The Jewish National Council (JNC), for their part, met in parley in late 1931, in order to make its recommendations known to the British government in Mandatory Palestine, by suggesting emendations to a book published by the British colonial office in Palestine in which it outlined a set of standards used when referencing place-names transliterated from Arabic and Hebrew into English, or from Arabic into Hebrew, and from Hebrew into Arabic, based on the country's ancient toponymy.[9] Many of the same proposals made by the JNC were later implemented, beginning in 1949 (Committee for Geographical Names) and later following 1951, when Yeshayahu Press (a member of the JNC) established the Government Naming Committee.[10]" Dimadick (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with you on this. The concept of "transfer" was also a thing well before 1948 but it is obviously relevant to this article. In this case the program of replacing Arabic names by Hebrew names, not only for settlements but for hundreds of springs, mountains, rivers, etc etc, was an intentional program of erasure of the Arab past. So I believe it is deserving of a mention. As I said before, I'm not sure about it being in the first paragraph, though. Incidentally, thanks for finding a source for old issues of Reshomot, which I couldn't find at gov.il last time I tried. Zerotalk 05:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^
    • Bardi, Ariel Sophia (March 2016). "The "Architectural Cleansing" of Palestine". American Anthropologist. 118 (1): 165–171. doi:10.1111/aman.12520.
    • Sa'di, Ahmad H. (2002). "Catastrophe, Memory and Identity: Al-Nakbah as a Component of Palestinian Identity". Israel Studies. 7 (2): 175–198. doi:10.2979/ISR.2002.7.2.175. JSTOR 30245590. S2CID 144811289. , Al-Nakbah is associated with a rapid de-Arabization of the country. This process has included the destruction of Palestinian villages. About 418 villages were erased, and out of twelve Palestinian or mixed towns, a Palestinian population continued to exist in only seven. This swift transformation of the physical and cultural environment was accompanied, at the symbolic level, by the changing of the names of streets, neighborhoods, cities, and regions. Arabic names were replaced by Zionist, Jewish, or European names. This renaming continues to convey to the Palestinians the message that the country has seen only two historical periods which attest to its "true" nature: the ancient Jewish past, and the period that began with the creation of Israel.
    • Pappe, Ilan (2022). A History of Modern Palestine (3 ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 198. ISBN 978-1-108-41544-6. Retrieved 2 August 2025. Half of the villages had been destroyed, flattened by Israeli bulldozers which had been at work since August 1948 when the government had decided either to turn them into cultivated land or to build new Jewish settlements on their remains. A naming committee granted the new settlements Hebraized versions of the original Arab names: Lubya became Lavi, and Safuria Zipori, although Iteit retained its original name. David Ben-Gurion explained that this was done as part of an attempt to prevent future claim to the villages. It was also supported by the Israeli archaeologists, who had authorized the names as returning the map to something resembling 'ancient Israel'.
    • Salvatore, Armando; Ḥanafī, Sārī; Obuse, Kieko (2022). The Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of the Middle East. Oxford University Press. p. 108. ISBN 978-0-19-008747-0. Retrieved 2 August 2025. The Nakba was manifested in the elimination of the Arab features of the country and destruction of the Palestinian landscape. Alongside the Nakba, a dual process of Hebraization and Judaization was launched. ... Indigenous Palestinian names were wiped out of official records and replaced by new, biblical, Zionist, and Jewish toponyms. ... the striking of Arab names from official records and maps and their replacements by Hebraized and Judaized place names was a tool to reconstruct the landscape in line with an imagined biblical Jewish chronology.
    • Musleh-Motut, Nawal (15 May 2023). Connecting the Holocaust and the Nakba Through Photograph-based Storytelling: Willing the Impossible. Springer Nature. p. 9. ISBN 978-3-031-27238-7. Retrieved 2 August 2025. Second, since 1948, multiple "[s]cenes of [e]rasure" (Swedenburg, 2003, p.38) were created by the Israeli state to remove the ghosts of the landscape's former inhabitants-a process Israeli scholar Ilan Pappe terms "the memoricide of the Nakba" (p. 225). This form of forgetting was most often enacted through the de-Palestinization or de-Arabization and then Hebraization and/or Judaization of the Israeli landscape and history (Benvenisti, 2000; Masalha, 2012; Pappe, 2007). Land formally owned and/or inhabited by Palestinians was confiscated, depopulated, and/or destroyed, and then built upon by Israelis, who replaced Arab names with Hebrew ones.
  2. ^ Cohen, Saul B.; Kliot, Nurit (1 September 1981). "Israel's Place-Names as Reflection of Continuity and Change in Nation-Building". Names. 29 (3): 227–248. doi:10.1179/nam.1981.29.3.227. Thus, place-names in Israel reflect the Jewish nationhood of the past by imprinting the landscape with Ancient-Biblical and Mishnaic-Talmudic place-names. These names emphasize the continuity of culture in the land of Israel for more than 3,000 years, and enhance the perception of Israel as the "land of the Bible" in the eyes of its settlers and outsiders"
    "[...] While the Zionist and military-heroism origins of place-names symbolize change and innovation in the cultural landscapes, Arabic-origin names, as with the Ancient-Biblical, strengthen the sense of cultural continuity.
  3. ^ Azaryahu, Maoz; Golan, Arnon (April 2001). "(Re)naming the landscape: The formation of the Hebrew map of Israel 1949–1960". Journal of Historical Geography. 27 (2): 178–195. doi:10.1006/jhge.2001.0297. Conceived of as a restorative measure, the introduction of the official Hebrew map challenged the status of existing Arabic toponymy as the only authoritative and legitimate rendition of the landscape. From a Zionist perspective, the Hebraicization of the landscape may be praised as a restoration of the Jewish past of the land and as an aspect of Jewish national revival. From an anti-Zionist perspective it may be condemned as symbolic erasure of the Arab past. However, as it became apparent, the Hebrew map of Jewish Israel has not replaced the Arabic map of Arab Filastin. Arabic toponymy further persists in the form of Arab folk geography and in Arab-Palestinian maps that assert the validity of Arabic place names.
  4. ^ Yaar-Waisel, Tal (2023). "The Mystery of Hydronomy in the Land of Israel". Place Naming, Identities and Geography: 147–164. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-21510-0_7. The reasons for the complexity of names are varied: The revival of Hebrew, Zionist settling in the Land of Israel and the desire to preserve the history of the Jewish people in its territory and cultural landscape are the primary factors in the preservation of ancient Hebrew names. This is why the name Eilat was given to the Gulf, although the name was not accepted anywhere else in the world. The same is true for the naming of the northern lake Kineret, even though the Sea of Galilee is common throughout the world. Lastly, a mixture of the Israeli-Arabic every-day language is reflected in geography teaching, too. Despite implied rigidity, Israel has often been found to be flexible, patient with its neighbors and refraining from hurting their feelings, because of a desire for good neighborliness and at the same time fear for the fragility of peace agreements. Even when signing peace agreements, and in day-to-day conduct, both in the military and civilian spheres, Israelis refrain from calling the gulf Eilat Gulf, to avoid issues with the neighbors and use the term that is common outside of Israel.
  5. ^ Medzini, Arnon (2012). "THE WAR OF THE MAPS: THE POLITICAL USE OF MAPS AND ATLASES TO SHAPE NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS – ISRAEL VERSUS THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY". European Journal of Geography. 3 (1). ISSN 2410-7433. When the Jewish people "returned to Zion," most geographic sites had Arabic names. Thus, at the same time the land was being settled and a Jewish-Zionist community was coming into being, this national rebirth also found expression in the Hebraization of the landscapes of the new-old homeland, with the nationalistic idealistic goal of representing the space of the land of Israel as a Jewish-Hebrew space. One of the ways of achieving this goal was to choose names for the localities on the map.
  6. ^ Kadmon, Naftali (2000). Toponymy: the lore, laws and language of geographical names (First ed.). New York: Vantage Press. ISBN 9780533135318. Included in this literary codex the Old Testament (comprising the Pentateuch, the Writings of the Prophets and the later Scriptures), the Mishna and the Talmud-were hundreds of ancient toponyms. Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, lists 983 biblical toponyms in his Onomasticon compiled in the early 4th century. These toponyms enabled scholars to trace the ancestry of many Arabic place names in Palestine to Biblical (chiefly Hebrew) and talmudic (mainly Aramaic) origins. Some of these names passed through intermediate stages. Thus, the ancient city of Shechem (Shekhem in the official romanization system), named in the Old Testament already in the 2nd millenium BC, became Neapolis [=New City] under Hellenistic rule in the 2nd cent. BC, and this name was corrupted later, in the 7th cent. AD, to the Arabic Nabulus. The Government Names Commission of Israel maintains, as one of its terms of reference, the principle of reviving those biblical names - for both natural and man-made topographic features - which had not been preserved "in the field". But such names may be re-introduced only if there is archaeological or documentary evidence supporting identification of the site. [...]
    The exchange of toponymic accusations between Greek and Turkish cultural factors quoted above (having its sequel at the 4th, 5th and 6th Conferences), was highly charged politically, but hardly supported by specific examples. Similar exchanges have been going on within the same setting-namely UN conferences and meetings of the Group of Experts on Geographical Names - between Arab countries and Israel. Thus, at the 6th UN Conference on the Standardizaton of Geographical Names, 1992, the delegate of Jordan, in presenting his country's national report, listed among other recommendations "Making the United Nations and UNESCO aware of the fact that the Israeli authorities in the occupied territories are trying to efface and abolish the ever existing Arabic names of locations in the occupied territories in Palestine and replace them by Hebrew names".
    In reply, Israel retorted with examples and documentation. All Arab towns and villages in Israel carry their Arabic names, and these appear in official Israeli maps. Where these sites had carried a former Hebrew name, one appearing in the Bible or the Talmud, these allonyms are shown, too. On the other hand, Israel asserted that "Jordan has done just this kind of obliterating ancient Hebrew names [mentioned already] in the Bible, and particularly in the Old Testament. Ancient biblical names such as Jericho and Hebron are well known. They appeared thus in British Mandatory maps of the Holy Land. But since Jordan occupied the so-called West Bank in 1948/49, it printed the Arabized names Arikha and al-Khalil instead. Other examples are [the biblical] Bethel, changed to Bitin, Eshtemoa' (to as-Sammu'), Adorayim (to Dūra), Teqoa' (to Tuqu'), and others. Even the capital of Jordan which, some 3000 years ago, was recorded in the Bible as Rabbat Benei Ammon (Hebrew: the metropolis of the children of Ammon) had its name Arabized and changed to 'Amman after the Arab conquest of AD 635." An interesting case is provided by the name Shechem (or Sichem, in the King James translation of the Bible) briefly mentioned in para. 4.7. This ancient town is mentioned in the Old Testament as existing under this name some 3300 years ago. Under the Hellenistic occupation of Israel (4th - 2nd cent. BC) its name was changed to Neapolis, i.e. New City. This name, in turn, was only much later (in the 7th cent. AD) Arabized to Nabulus. The expression "ever existing names" in the Jordanian document, whether Arabic or other, should therefore be regarded cum grano salis. All this is, of course, part of the process of historical toponymy. It is a "fact of life" that geographical names and their manipulation can be used as arguments by either side in a political conflict.
  7. ^ Ettinger, Y. (25 August 1925). "Determining the Names of the Settlements acquired by the Jewish National Fund" (in Hebrew). Davar.
  8. ^ Benvenisti 2000, p. 26.
  9. ^ Maisler et al. 1932, pp. 3–5 (Preface) "Just as they write in Hebrew 'Shechem' rather than Nablus; 'Ḥevron' rather than al-Khalil; 'Yerushalayim' rather than al-Quds, so, too, it is necessary to write [in Hebrew] 'Dor' instead of Ṭanṭūrah; 'Adoraim' instead of Dūra; 'ʻAin Ganim' instead of Jenin; 'Naḥal Sorek' instead of Wadi eṣ-Ṣarār, etc."
  10. ^ "State of Israel Records", Collection of Publications, no. 277 (PDF) (in Hebrew), Jerusalem: Government of Israel, 1953, p. 630, The names of the settlements were mostly determined at different times by the 'Names Committee for the Settlements,' under the auspices of the Jewish National Fund (est. 1925), while [other] names were added by the Government Naming Committee.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1948_Palestinian_exodus