Talk:Nakba Day

Ban

This ban is a clear violation of the probation policy. Admin should misuse his privilage against policy and I expect for this ban to be removed.

Why did tony Sideway misused his admin powers ?

According to probation policy admin are expected to take the time to look into an issue before applying any bans.

I am not editing this article out of my own decision

If Tony would have taken the time to read the talk page he would find this message from me (placed before he applied a ban): "

*I don't think this article is the place to fight over these issues. It is a "nakba day" and all facts about what is "nakba" should be moved to article Nakba. ramllite I left you a personal note.

*I put a proposal to return this article to sanity and avoid discussion of what was the "truth".

*There is more than one "truth" and it is found in other articles. This article is about a day not about the whole 1948 war. think about it before you revert me.

*I will not participate in this edit war so if you revert me you will "win" . I suggest we find a meditor instead. Zeq 18:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC) "

So it clear that I did not want to partcipate in the edit war that Ian started in this article about what did or did not took place in 1948. Ian has threaten on this talk page) that he plan to use my probation to ban me from this article (or something with similar results) and Ian editing pattern show he was trying to "trap" an editor under probation who was trying to avoid this article turnning into another battle-ground for 1948 events.

I expect that the ban be removed, that Ian will not start another edit war. In anycase I have decided (at least for a while) not to edit this article and I am looking for a mediator to help resolve the issues here. Zeq 05:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trying hard to get other people experienced in the subject matter to review a ban from editing this article that I placed on Zeq under the conditions of an earlier arbitration case.

Meanwhile I am rescinding it because Zeq and others have raised several legitimate points that case doubt on my original decision. I've removed the ban notice and will place an update on all other relevant notices. If he really needs to be banned from this article then some other administrator will be just as capable of imposing it. In the meantime I apologise to Zeq. --Tony Sidaway 18:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appology accepted and there is no need for it since Tony did what ia have asked him to do: Look deeper at the real issues.

As I have stated here: [1] , [2] and in the edit summary here: [3] - I do not plan to enetr any edit war, I think this article should be mediated and I plan to stay away from this article for a while anyhow.

I suggest that everyone will look at this talk page, it starts by asking Ian to use talk instead of reverts. Nothing that occured on this talk page has caused Ian to change any of his editwar/reverts. this is the real problem

Zeq 18:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use talk

Ian,

There are ways to solve edit conflicts. You should read the text it refer to palestinians in israel. many events oversees also take place during the whole month of May at about the same time that srael indpendence is celebrated.

I have included your text and refernce to nakba where the rest of the information is found. If you want to change the text I suggest you carefullt review the sources given and discuss issues here. Zeq 18:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another source(s)

Ian, I suggest you use carefully read this source to the end to understand more about "nakba day" in Israel:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/712089.html

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=102914

http://english.alarabonline.org/display.asp?fname=2006%5C05%5C05-03%5Czalsoz%5C929.htm&dismode=x&ts=03/05/2006%2004:06:41%20%C3%A3

From CSM: "Israelis celebrate Independence Day on Wednesday while Palestinians mark it solemnly as "Al Nakba," the Catastrophe" [4]

and more: http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?id=36949

Zeq 19:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone who still needed proof

see this source, clearly showing that palestinians in israel commerate Nakba day on th exact day israel celbrates independence:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3246809,00.html

banners held at demo reads:

""We mustn't renounce the right of return – their independence day is our day of tragedy."

article text:

"About two thousand Israeli Arabs chose to mark Independence Day in a different way Wednesday, opting to mark 'Nakba Day' commemorating the Arab disaster that results from Israel's establishment. "

Zeq 03:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are just wrong Zeq. Palestinians organize protests about the "Nakba" on and around Israeli Independence Day (May 14 in the Gregorian calendar) and there are other protests around the world on various dates, but Nakba Day itself is on 15 May, we have multiple Israeli newspaper sources (provided by you) saying this, as well as confirmation from peer reviewed books. Also, here is the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas himself confirming, just two days ago, that Nakba day is 15 May: [5]. --Ian Pitchford 14:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Right. Sources are wrong and you are right. The bottom line is that the memeorial is "celebrated" in Israel on the same day or close to the day Israel celebrates it's idependence.

Abrod, where for example around May 15 of each year there is the NY parade of "salute to israel" they declared the same date for "nakba day".

Either way it is all about countering the celbartion of Israels' independence day with a memorial to the palestinians who suffer from israel's independence.

The sources show that. !!!!

You were given a chance to revert your one isded POV edits which contradicts the sources given above. Zeq 18:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Palestinian president knows when Nakba Day is. You are just confusing "Nakba" protests with Nakba Day. --Ian Pitchford 19:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get it: You are right and the sources I brought are wrong.

These sources inculde a wide range:

Israeli press (including Ha'aretz, Ynet and NRG/Maariv i.e. "the big 3")
American press
Al jajeera
Arab members of Knesset
Arab intelectuals
and more....

They are wrong and you are right and that gives you the right to revert. Zeq 03:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, from your sources there's no doubt that the protests are organized on a very flexible schedule to coincide with, and no doubt disrupt, Israel's celebrations, but that doesn't alter the fact that Nakba Day is officially 15 May and Israel's Independence Day is officially 14 May. --Ian Pitchford 13:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Israel they are (every year) on the exact day of israel independence day. Zeq 16:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article in Haaretz, that you placed into the article, says clearly that they are not on the same day. --Ian Pitchford 16:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was a theoretical article, about the possibility that one day the may 15 will become an official memorial day in Israel based the date set by Arafat. The reality however, is very different (as can be seen from all the other sources).

In reality, every year on the exact day of Israel independence day, the Palestinians in Israel commemorate "nakba day".

Is it puzzling to you that they use the Hebrew calendar to commemorate a Palestinian memorial ?

It is puzzling to me as well. but this is the reality

So yes, be my guest mention that Arafat set the date as may 15 but make sure the reality is what this article is about.

PS, I saw that arafat is already mentioned as the one who set may 15 but the reality (as seen by the sources) is different. Zeq 18:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the reality that Independence Day is 14 May and Nakba Day is 15 May as Israeli government, Palestinian government and western academic sources confirm. Please respect the sources. --Ian Pitchford 19:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes right, read the article, it is about a theoretical proposal about making may 15 an israeli national meorial day called "citizen day". The reality is that they use Independence day (based on the Hebrew calander) to mark "nakba day" in israel. All sources show that. It is time that you start respeting the reality, even when it is not to your liking. Zeq 04:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the quotation from Haaretz one more time: "The following day, May 15, markes the official end of the British Mandate in Palestine and the date the Arab armies invaded. This is the day that the Palestinians and Arabs mark as Nakba Day, "The Catastrophe."--Ian Pitchford 07:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This just prove my point: This is a theoretical article, the reality, as we have it from many news sources, is different: They use the Hebrew calander (and i don't bother quoting sources to you as you have seen them all already). Clearly, this article written last year which is the 19 year cycle when may 15 5 in I'yar meet on the same day. The reality is that not every 19 years (but every year) they decaler nakba day in israel on the same day as independence day - this is the difference between the theory (that you quote) and the reality. Zeq 08:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in your editing the English Wikipedia if you can't read and write English. --Ian Pitchford 08:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First you insult me, later you make comparisons to nazis (see Godwin law) next you make more WP:PA. Someone who might look at this from the side might think you have nothing better to support your arguments. But I am waiting for you to bring a source that show that the reality (not the theoretical date) is indeed what youi claim it is. I have broght between 5-10 sources to supprot my claim so I guess the ball is in your court now..... Zeq 10:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said there's no point in your editing the English Wikipedia if you can't read and write English. --Ian Pitchford 10:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said there is no point for to continue violating WP:PA when the propensity of evidence from most sources does not go the way you want it to be. 11:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This article

I changed the intro. As previously written, it looked like it was referring to all the narrative of the events of 1948 from a certain POV but without defining 'NAKBA DAY' itself!! Nakba day commemorates two things: The 1- expulsion of Palestinians from Palestine and 2- the destruction of their villages, as came about with the establishment of Israel. If these two things are not in the intro, then this article needs to be deleted. Nakba Day does not commemorate the Arab invasion of Palestine, or the rhetoric of crazy Arab leaders, or the reasons why the War occurred, or the anniversary of the famous Ben Gurion burp during a toast on July 13 1949. Also, Palestinians stick to the Gregorian calendar, so even though some events are scheduled during the 5th of Iyar, most events center around May 15. This will be evident on ... May 15. Ramallite ^(talk) 05:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. We can't have an article on a Palestinian national even described primarily in terms of a narrative they don't accept. --Ian Pitchford 09:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article cannot state as fact some ahistorical nonsense. As it is, the intro is factual, accurate, and NPOV. Pecher ^Talk 10:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. It must be factual and state exactly how the Palestinian government describes the commemoration. It's no more appropriate to define this event from an Israeli perspective than it would be to re-write Yom Ha'atzma'ut from a Palestinian perspective. --Ian Pitchford 10:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, we must define the historical facts from a neutral perspectives. If you want to quote quote some Palestinian rhetoric, then fine with me, but rhetoric must be stated as what it is: rhetorics not as facts. Pecher ^Talk 11:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, obviously, and Ramallite's version describes exactly what the day commemorates, not how others would like to describe the event in order to make it compatible with their own narratives.--Ian Pitchford 12:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The palestinian narritive of the nakba is an important one, as one of the POV along the way to make the Nakba article NPOV (which it is not after 3 years attempts). The issue of Nakba day is an important one and off course the palestinian POV is important here as well.

However, nither Ramalite nor Ian represent the palestinian people. The sources must speak. So we have brought sources. The sources are actually clear on the facts, there is no disagreement between the various sources:

While the offcial date was set at May 15 (a date which is considered by many to be the date of the declaration of independence of Israel, although the correct date is may 14) the actual date for Nakba Day in israel is every year on the exact date in which according to the Hebrew calander the indepence day is celebrated.

Elsewhere in the world, the evenet is celebated over a month which overlaps the date of Israeli independence date.

But the issue is not just the date The sources are clear that many palestinians see "your independence as our catastrophe" and I tend to agree with them. This is what this article is about. It is not about Nakba, it is about Nakba day. (and maybe these articles should be merged) Zeq 12:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, the article is about Nakba Day, 15 May, and what it was designed to commemorate, "the catastrophe" of Palestinian dispossesion; not Israel's independence day; not the war and the not the invasion of Arab states. The sources are quite clear. --Ian Pitchford 12:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's rhetoric, which we cannot state as fact. Instead, giving a neutral historical background is entirely appropriate. Pecher ^Talk 13:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources again the easiest thing to do would be to prepare a chronology since the event was devised in 1998. --Ian Pitchford 12:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about 'Nakba Day', which by definition is a POV. That's why it has to be described for what it is. The intro that Zeq/Pecher are pushing is ridiculous. It's like describing Israeli Independence Day as the day when "thousand of villages were destroyed and the Palestinian exodus occurred". Nakba day means something to the group of people who came up with it - and this article, since it exists with the title 'Nakba Day', needs to clearly state what it means and not what some foreign right wing agenda thinks it ought to mean. Okay? This is a Palestinian comemmorative day, not an Israeli one, and by definition needs to be at least INTRODUCED from a Palestinian perspective. Neutrally of course. And by the way, Pecher, that the exodus occurred and villages were destroyed is not 'rhetoric', but facts not even Kahane disputed. You are being completely insensitive and malicious in your regarding them as 'rhetoric'. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is your POV. I think you need to read the sources. It is shamfull that you and Ian have turned this isnto an edit war.

It seems that everything that has to do with Nakba, it is impossible to get an NPOV balanced article. Read the sources provided and you will see that Nkaba day is about palestinians but it is the name palestinians use for Israel independence.

Please check what NPOV is. When a day is on one side "independence day" and on the other 'Disaster day" why is it so hard to include both meaning. See the original revision of this article. Zeq 15:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that's my POV, Zeq? Both meanings are included - but what does the 'Nakba Day' commemorate? Just that Israel was established? Nothing else? You and Pecher are trying (erroneously) to push the POV that Nakba Day is a "Palestinians hate Israel" day, but that is not what sources say. All sources about the 'Nakba' refer to what the tragedy is: dispossession and destruction. That is not my POV. Stop this shameful denial, its sickening. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that hate israel, I let their own words speak on their behalf. Zeq 15:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC) PS, no one deny the Nakba, there is an article about it. This article is about celebrating "nakba day" on israel's independence day (that is what takes place in Israel at least, every year in the last 7 years) Zeq 15:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the problem - only 10-15% of all Palestinians live in Israel, so what they do is not exactly representative of all the Palestinian people. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article now contains a false statement in the first sentence "15 May, the day Israel declared its independence in 1948", it has a wikilink to an article we don't have 1948 War and the sources have been deleted yet again. I ignored your Nazi jibe above Zeq, but if you revert this article one more time I'll ask the Arbitration Committee to regard your actions here as a breach of the terms of your probation. --Ian Pitchford 15:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian is right... the eve of May 14 was the actual declaration. My apologies. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, You have reverted almost any edit I did on the last 2 weeks. This is harrasment. Please stop it. Zeq 16:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ramallite: read the sources. The may 15 is common error. In any case in israel nakba day is always in "Yom ha'atzmaout". Zeq 16:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology

What does the chronology has to do with anything ? it is soooooooooo POV that it better be removed. No point fighting over it in this article.

also this articl;e still include much that belong in other articles. A ref to Nakba is enough and all the material is there.

The important thing about Nakba day is that it is associated with israel's founding. See more source here:

http://www.nkusa.org/activities/demonstrations/alnakbaDC03.cfm

I suggest we shorten this article considerably to be about Nakba day only.

If this is too hard I agree to go to mediation about it.

what do you say ?

Zeq 04:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was obvious that I included this stuff in order to demonstrate that Nakba Day doesn't coincide with Israeli Independence Day, although it's also useful information about what does actually happen during the commemoration. I don't see what's POV about it. However, I did describe it as a partial chronology because the sources seem to be very limited. --Ian Pitchford 12:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian wrote: "to demonstrate that Nakba Day doesn't coincide with Israeli Independence Day"

How exacvtly can you demonstrate that it does not when it does ?

Zeq 12:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we should mention the holocaust in this article ?

I don't (for now). The holocaust has it's own article. So does nakba. This article is about nakba day but maybe , because palestinians established it to draw parallele beyween the Jewish holocaust and their Nakba we should mention that. What do you think ? Zeq 11:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a good source for the fact that a parallel is drawn? --Ian Pitchford 12:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can start here but there is more: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3246376,00.html http://www.ramallahonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=2201 (this was on Yom hatzmaout last year) Zeq 12:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another source that gives 15 May for Nakba Day, i.e. not Yom Ha'atzma'ut. It refers to the Nakba as a 'Palestinian Holocaust' but doesn't draw a comparison with (or even mention) The Holocaust. --Ian Pitchford 12:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This edit

[6] is not correct. They did invade the area allocated to jews.

I wonder if ian also falsify the article about the war (in this aspect of it)

I also repeat my call to mediation , instead of Ian style of edit wars. Zeq 12:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any comment before I revert this ? Zeq 12:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which area are you talking about? --Ian Pitchford 12:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=420090

Israeli Arabs to mark Nakba Day with march

By Eli Ashkenazi

Israel's Arab community, for whom the anniversary of Israel's establishment is Nakba ("catastrophe") Day, will again mark Independence Day with a march through one of the Arab villages abandoned during the War of Independence.

This year, the march will be through the former village of Andur, near Kibbutz Ein-Dor in the lower Galilee.

According to Abed Anbatawi, a spokesman for the Higher Arab Monitoring Committee, some 418 Arab villages ceased to exist after their residents fled or were driven out during the War of Independence. "Israel's Independence Day is our Nakba Day ... It's our Holocaust Day," he said.

Officially, Israeli Arabs commemorate Nakba Day on May 15, the day the state was established according to the English calendar (Independence Day is the anniversary of that date according to the Hebrew calendar).

Nevertheless, a march is always held on Independence Day, as well, to underscore their view of Israel's establishment as their catastrophe.

"Our goal is not to call for Israel's destruction, but to recall that there is a people that has not only not obtained its national rights, but whose very existence is under attack," explained Anbatawi.

Zeq 12:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this is already covered in the article: "Palestinians and their supporters around the world coordinate some Nakba Day events to coincide with the celebrations of the independence of Israel." --Ian Pitchford 12:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Monday it is...

Pecher,

Some villages were abandoned, but there is also documented expulsions. Deir Yassin is a famous example. You need to stay neutral. Okay?
Do not remove the part about some people fleeing/being expelled before the war, because that is true. The fleeing did start at some level before the war. Try to read what you are reverting.
Whitewashing my ass - it is mentioned directly in the paragraph that follows... again, read first.
Try to desist from just reverting every time you see a Ramallite edit, it's getting annoying.

Ramallite ^(talk) 15:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Some villages were abandoned, but there is also documented expulsions." Reasonably, it was the other way around: there were some expulsions, but the overwhelming majoeity of them were abandoned voluntarily. Like Arab propagandists, you keep mentioning Deir Yassin, where there was no epulsion BTW and the circumstances of which are notoriously vague, just because there is little else to talk about. I will ignore your incivilities, like "Whitewashing my ass". Pecher ^Talk 16:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I constantly regard your unreasonable and insulting attitude towards me, which somehow seems to be personal, as uncivil, as well as accusing me of 'whitewashing' or calling me a 'propagandist' but lets leave that aside. The main part of my edit dealt with the fact that some refugees started flowing out before the war, but you reverted that part without addressing why. Now you acknowledge there may have been 'some' expulsions yet you wanted to maintain 'abandonment'. I could not have been whitewashing when I was eliminating a redundancy that is actually explained in as much detail, if not more so, a couple of sentences later! Lastly, there is no such thing as becoming a refugee voluntarily. No Palestinian just happened to be taking a walk outside the house one day and decided what a great idea it would be to just take a nice permanent stroll across the Jordan River. Use of the word 'voluntarily' in such situation is, if I may, highly propagandistic. As I always use as an example: maybe I should fly over to New Orleans and take over some of the abandoned rich houses because, hey, those owners all left voluntarily!! Deir Yassin is infamous because of the massacre that took place there, but stories of bloodless expulsion, where trucks arrived and people were expelled at gunpoint, are only recently starting to come out in 'reputable' sources even though Palestinians who lived through it have known it throughout their lives. Rabin's memoirs are one place to look, as well as some recent documentaries with former Israeli generals, and their memoirs. I won't mention Palestinian publications, since we are not regarded as reputable apparently.

Would you prefer 'depopulation' instead of 'abandonment'? Would that sound more neutral? Let me know. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article is the place to fight over these issues. It is a "nakba day" and all facts about what is "nakba" should be moved to article Nakba. ramllite I left you a personal note.

I put a proposal to return this article to sanity and avoid discussion of what was the "truth".
There is more than one "truth" and it is found in other articles. This article is about a day not about the whole 1948 war. think about it before you revert me. I will not participate in this edit war so if you revert me you will "win" . I suggest we find a meditor instead. Zeq 18:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq,

You are ignoring all the discussion above where you have been told that Nakba Day is not 5 Iyar but 15 May.
You have the quotes by Azmi Bishara but removed the ones by Abbas. That is POV.
The quotes by Bishara (and by Abbas that you removed) have no place under a section entitled 'Origins'. These quotes were in 2006. What do they have to do with 'Origins'?
You have a lot of grammatical mistakes.
Lastly, and most importantly, you insist on adding reference to Yom Ha'atzmaut but delete any other reference about what makes the Nakba a Nakba.

So I don't like it when you try to convey a message of conciliation but revert the text to what is entirely your POV. Remember something I told you before: More than 50% of the time on Wikipedia, I right stuff I don't agree with. Have you EVER done that? The POV you are trying to push is that Nakba Day is purposefully aligned to disrupt or interfere with Israeli independence day, when you know there is a lot more to it than that. The fact that you are unwilling to even concede that it's commemorated on May 15 and not Iyar 5 does not convince me that you are trying to be helpful. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramalite,

I tried to create a new baseline. If you think it is POV please add what ever I left out. Just don't go back to fight over "what occured in 1948 and why" in this article. Please do it in one of the articles where I banned so i don't have to waste my time it this endless fight. Zeq 19:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, it was your colleague above who added the part about Arab armies invading and Palestinians 'abandoning' their villages and Arabs voluntarily 'fleeing' their homes and all of that. I tried to make it more accurate and you jumped all over me. If you want my personal opinion, this whole article can just be one line in the Nakba article, that would be enough. You are not banned from Azmi Bishara, so if you hate him so much, go edit that article, and don't forget to add how uncle Avi wants to kill him. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ramalite. I don't want to fight with you, not here, not elsewhere. And don't give me this Liberman shit cause I am against most of what he sais. I do agree with him on the general idea that people who coopreate with the enemy should be brought to justice but I am against the death penalty.

This whole history thing started from Ian, who correctly pointed out that May 15 is not may 14. I hope my clarification below will help .

PS trying to deny the linkage between nakba and Israel or Nakba day and establshment/founding day of Israel is laughable. We know the facts about NAKBA DAY. We have enough sources on what occured in Israel just few days ago in Yom ha'atzmaout and on similar events lasy year and on the year before. We also know now why israel was indeed founded on may 15 (see below) altogether we can make a dissent article about the day called Nakba day. (without fighting on what took place in 1948) we do not deny that an exodus took place, that it was connected to the war and establishment of israel and to an invasion by arab forces and that palestinians (rightly so) regard this event as their disaster while Israelis see this as a day to celbrate on creating a jewish state. See it was not so hard. Zeq 19:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Important clarfiication

I read the text of Israel declaration of independence.

The British Mandate ended on Midnight between the 14 and 15 of May.

According to the decalration (given on H I'yar, May 14, 1948 at 5:00 PM at night) as soon as the British mandate ends (May 14 on Midnight) Israel takes soviregnity over the area allocated by the U to a Jewish state.

As such, Israel was founded (started to exist as a state) on May 15, 1948 on 00:00 .

Hope this clarify the misconceptions. (I know it buffeled me since it was always May 15 as I was told and read as the day israel was founded)

Zeq 19:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, this confuses a lot of people, but the Declaration of Independence was on 14 May and that date is Israeli Independence Day. The state was formed on 15 May, see The Palestine Post 16 May 1948, 'State of Israel Is Born'. --Ian Pitchford 13:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology

What does this (for example) " Israel carries out missile and artillery attacks on targets across Gaza on the eve of Nakba Day" - has to do with the article ? Zeq 12:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
or this: "Israeli army launches a large-scale offensive in the Gaza Strip" Zeq 12:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could read the articles in question! --Ian Pitchford 13:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
what ? Zeq 13:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could read the articles cited. They all discuss Nakba Day - hence the relevance. --Ian Pitchford 19:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutly no connection to the events mentioned in the chronology to "Nakba day" itself. Newspaper sometimes pack into one article two venets that happend to occur in the same day. We are an encyclopedia not a daily news paper. Zeq 03:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the chronology section as material was being added just because it happened on or around that date. Every year is marked by violence and there's not a whole lot more to say than that. We don't need: "2003: marked by violence; 2004: marked by violence; 2005: more violence." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source query

Could we have another source for this edit, please? I see the WP page is sourced entirely to the same author. "Events in ... resulted in ... the destruction of 418 Palestinian villages. (Khalidi, Walid (Ed.). (1992). All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948. Washington: Institute for Palestine Studies) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although I didn't add this source, may I ask why? What's wrong with Khalidi? Besides, the Khalidi ref applies only to the number of destroyed villages since he is an authoritative figure who actually documented this. The expulsion/fleeing is referenced to Benny Morris. Ramallite ^(talk) 03:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's the Institute for Palestine Studies and it's heavily contested so we shouldn't stay the figure as a fact. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what are the "events" so delicately referred to in the intro? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Events" is a link, so a delicate click on the mouse button will take you to the events in question. This was added because there were certain inaccuracies that were being added to the intro, namely that Palestinian refugees started flowing out only after the Arabs invaded, which was not the case. But instead of summarizing all the crap that happened in the forties in the intro of an article such as this one, I thought I'd make it just a link, since otherwise it would be POV battling and irrelevant. Of course, you're welcome to try and replace 'events' with a summary of the actual 'events' if you can muster something up. Ramallite ^(talk) 03:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks, Ramallite. "Events" sounds good to me. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the key here is :
Any term that can just be wiki-linked to another article we should avoid dealing with it's specifics here.
Zeq 04:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted the number as it seems to be based on a list copied from palestineremembered. com, a propaganda site. I've left it as "the abandonment and destruction of Arab villages," which is more neutral. The more detail we add, the more POV it's likely to become, unless an account exists that both sides of the conflict agree on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that aproch, "Less is more". This is what I wrote Ramallite on his talk page: [7]. Zeq 04:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still see problems (back to the original arguments):
"Abandonment" is clear Pecher-style POV. People either fled from them or were expelled from them, expecting to return in either case, and 'abandonment' is quite a malicious term to describe this. Slim, while not indicating so in the edit summary, took out the citation request I had added. I ask again, would people agree to 'depopulated' instead?

The intro sentence has wound up returning to what the problem was: that Nakba day commemorates first and foremost Israel's establishment, instead of what it could equally be (and is): Palestinian dispossession. I don't like these veiled insinuations that yet again try to paint Palestinians as the only haters in this conflict. I view this as horribly non-neutral, not to mention non-factual. Just ask those loving settlers.

The IPS apparently is the publisher, not the author. I must point out that, in any other nationality including our Israeli friends on the other side of the fence, members of that nationality seem to be the most reliable source for the narration and data of tragedies pertaining to themselves, but Palestinians are deemed the least reliable source in narrating the tragedies of the... Palestinians. I'm sorry, this is highly prejudiced and very offensive to me. But as I always say, who am I if not the WP laughing stock right now, evidently.... Ramallite ^(talk) 04:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what "pecher style" is but to the point: 'Abandonment' and 'depopulated' are equaly POV (each of them apply a different person took the action, in one it is the rafugee who were active in the other those who "depopulated" them). So we should focus on a fact that we can all agree that the Palestinian have left - we should not get into the reason in this article.
It is clear from all sources that indeed Nakba day commemorates Israel's establishment and events resulted from the creation of Israel. Bishara says it clearly: "your independence is our disaster"
It is not about "who should tell about their own misery". If you have a good source for holocaust, for 1929 riots, for anything: use that source . In Wikipedia, Palestinians have no extra right to tell about Palestinian misery much the same way that jews don't have extra right to tell about the misery they went through (from anyone) Zeq 05:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Institute for Palestine Studies is an independent academic centre and perfectly respectable as a source. Rashid Khalidi is a distinguished scholar in the field of Palestinian and Arab history of the twentieth century. Any insinuations to the contrary are more likely to cast doubt on the good faith of those making them than on the sources. Palmiro | Talk 13:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Palmiro but he is a Palestinian scholar, so by definition he is not a reputable source on Palestinians.... Ramallite ^(talk) 13:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zeq says "'Abandonment' and 'depopulated' are equaly POV" - so why are you defending one of these POVs? Because you agree with it? Look up the word 'abandon' in a dictionary. I think its usage here stinks of propaganda and is also factually incorrect. Either come up with a neutral word, or remove it. You cannot agree that something is POV on Wikipedia and then proceed to defend its usage.

Since you bring up the Palestinian vs Jew 'misery' debate, I'm not saying that anybody has extra rights (and you know I'm not saying that). What I'm saying is that if a Jewish source says something about Jewish suffering (or an Armenian about Armenian suffering or a Croat about Croatian suffering, etc), it is normally accepted as an admissible source (and usually the best source), even if it is fabrication like camera.org or complete garbage like Itamar Marcus. But if a Palestinian source says something about Palestinian suffering, it is normally dismissed as propaganda and needs to have thousands of other sources in order to back it up. THAT's the problem, and I'm disgusted and offended by it. This is not about 'extra rights', and you know this. Fix this abandonment thing, or remove it. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]