Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bias

Theodor Herzl's perspective on how the Jews should settle the lands of Palestine are painted in a very dovish manner. He encouraged the emigration of the indigenous population from Palestine through the encouragement of employment elsewhere, AND the refusal to employ them locally. (America And The Founding Of Israel, p. 49, Righteous Victims, p. 21-22)

He also advocated deceit in purchasing lands from the original owners. This article makes it seem as though Herzl WANTED to live in peace with the indigenous people, which is definitely not the case. He wanted a predominantly Jewish state.

slaman 25 May 2007

I am writing a study guide for our annual Harvard National Model United Nations conference, in which I will direct the Security Council's discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I took a course in Middle Eastern politics in which we used Ian Bickerton and Carla Klausner's "A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict" which I, along with the vast majority of students, happened to find very well-organized and well-balanced in views. However, upon surfing the net and finding this article, I regret to inform that it appears to be rather biased on the Israeli/Jewish side. I hope you will take this into consideration when editing. Note: I am neither Muslim nor Jewish.

213.175.169.4 18:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to provide any reasoning or examples?

Without claiming expertise at all here, I think the section entitled 'Demographic Outcome' is substantially irrelevant (what do Yemeni policies towards Jews have to do with the 1948 war?) and biased in its focus (the most significant immediate demographic outcome is surely the creation of a large Palestinian refugee population, but this isn't discussed in any detail, and nor are the reasons for emigration). But I'm afraid someone more expert than I will have to alter this... --Marginalistrev 17:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC) (not the original poster on this topic).


This IP address received repeated warnings for vandalism, see User_talk:213.175.169.4. -- Heptor talk 09:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Political objectives of the protagonists" This was interesting, under this subject were about the Arabian side and etc. etc. This should be changed to something more neutral since "protagonists" most definitely means "good guys". Maybe, "Political Objectives of Arabian side" etc. etc.

The Smiter 04:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


An example of bias: The section on the partition plan claims that the Jewish population of Palestine supported the partition plan, but the Arab portion did not, and cited no reference. I deleted the material, and it was restored with a reference to a Frontline website, which itself has inadequate references. Completely omitted was the fact that Jewish militias attacked Arab villages in both Arab and Jewish sectors, in violation of the partition plan, immediately after the UN passed the plan.

Morris, in fact, notes that the period following the Resolution vote was characterized by Arab initiatives and Jewish reprisals. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
If a source is needed for the fact that neither Arabs nor Israeli governments were particularly happy with the partition plan, I believe that there is a quote on the issue from David Ben-Gurion in Avi Shlaim's book "Iron Wall", in the preface. But I'm not near the library at the moment. 131.111.221.240 10:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


Maps...

I wish there were some better maps than these, everything is too small and it's hard to read the labels.

I agree with whoever posted this message. The battle maps are too small and there is too little of them. Also the picture of John Glubb is very small causing the image to be unclear. I recommend these external links for the maps. Its just a suggestion,

I havent really checked if their under a copywrite so i dont really know if we can use them or not. Al Ameer son



WP:MilHist Assessment

I have not read through the whole article, but I would not be surprised if there are tons of neutrality issues lurking throughout the text. I feel extremely strongly on this issue, and I am in no mood to get into an editwar or flamewar over these things. Thus, I leave my comments on the neutrality at that.

(1) There are obviously some sections that need expansion in a major way. There are at least four or five sections labeled as such by the section stub template, but the inclusion of those sections shows potential for an even more thorough and informative article. The Aftermath section needs help, as it seems to totally ignore the elephant in the room - namely, the creation of the State of Israel.

(2) I love the inclusion of the sections for the political objectives of the main participants. However, I do not think "protagonists" is the best word for this. And there is the glaring omission of the Yishuv. Yes, it is true that Israel was not a state until after the 1948 war, and so perhaps they were omitted for that reason. But the political objectives of the British Palestinian Jews living on that land were decidedly different from that of the governments back in London, Washington, etc. This deserves at least some mention. It's like discussing the American Revolution, and mentioning the interests or goals of Britain and France and leaving out that of the colonists because they count as British subjects.

There are obviously some major issues with this article, but overall, it undoubtedly deserves at least a B-class assessment for length, details, images, charts and maps. I have seen very few articles with this amount of well-organized, relevant, and clearly written content. LordAmeth 16:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am confused by writers who allege an anti-Israel bias in this article. If anything I see a pro-Israel and pro-Jewish bias in the early history sections.. for example, the British are accused of wanting to please Arabs and using their national fervor to British advantage, at the expense of Jews.. and Arab killing of Israelis are given prominence. Come to think of it, my impression being opposite to some others' means that the article is probably neutral. [SCG, 07:31 UTC 5 August 2006. The author is a US resident and Canadian citizen born in India]

The article was ignorant about Wingate

Anita Shapira's book Land and Power is inaccurate and misleading about Orde Wingate and the Special Night Squads, and should not be used as an authoritative source about either. Consequently, the section of this article dealing with the same has been changed so as not to be misleading. Citing it while ignoring the mounds of documented information about Wingate is selective historiography and does not serve any scholarly purpose.

After communicating with Dr. Shapira, she stated that her inclusion of the rumors was not intended to be an assertation of fact, and that she did not have actual evidence of Wingate having performed any such atrocities as rumored. See the upcoming English version of her biography on Yigal Allon for clarification. As stated previously, citing her earlier book as authority on Wingate is highly inaccurate and poor scholarship.

There are plenty of other sources available in Google Books. Martin van Creveld makes the same comments about Wingate. --Ian Pitchford 11:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Those books are similarly based upon rumors, and are not factually-based. In contrast, see Akavia, Royle, Oren, et al who provide substantiated refutation. The fact that the myths are widespread doesn't bestow credibility on the,.

Bias against Israel

Bias against Israel (and so ?) and Maghreb Jews

>These entries are biased against Israel.

How is this a reason to reject them ?

>In the 1948 war, approximately 600,000 Jewish refugees were persecuted and expelled from Arab lands including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco -- leaving behind an >estimated $30 billion in assets.

This is for sure nonsense as far as Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco are concerned which were still under French control in 1948 and where Jews were often very well treated (and even granted French citizenship in Algeria, contrarily to abiding Muslims, those respecting the Sharia).

The indigenous people of the earth are the people of the earth. The indigenous life of the earth is the life on Earth. The indigenous essence of the earth is the earth itself.

We are Earth.

abe.wickham@gmail.com

---

About the reliability of “From Time Immemorial” see this:

“Who were the indigenous people of Palestine?

Pro-lsrael propaganda has argued that most Palestinians entered Palestine after 1917, drawn to the economic dynamism of the growing Jewish community, and thus have no rights to Palestine. This argument has been elaborated in Joan Peters's widely promoted book, From Time lmmemorial. However, the book has been shown to be fraudulent and its claim false. The indigenous population was mostly Muslim, with a Christian and a smaller Jewish minority. As Zionists arrived from Europe, the Muslims and Christians began to adopt a distinctly Palestinian national identity.”

This is a quote from an article by Stephen S. Shalom, which teaches political science at the William Paterson University. You can find the whole article here: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Israel/Background_I_P_Crisis.html MichaelTheWise 10:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


These entries are biased against Israel. The problem is, the only solid historical evidence we have for the refugee problem, is what the Arab media said at the time.

In the 1948 war, approximately 600,000 Jewish refugees were persecuted and expelled from Arab lands including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco -- leaving behind an estimated $30 billion in assets. These Jewish refugees were welcomed by Israel, and with their descendants, now comprise a majority population of the State of Israel.

In the same war, according to the UN, approximately 720,000 Palestinians refugees fled to Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and the West Bank and Gaza. The UN estimates that they and their descendents now number about 3.7 million.

The Arab League forbade any Arab country from accepting these refugees or settling them in normal housing, preferring to leave them in squalid camps. Former UNRWA Director Ralph Galloway stated in 1958: "The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders do not give a damn whether Arab refugees live or die."

Again, it was Arabs who resisted efforts by Israel to settle the refugees in normal housing from 1967-95, when Israel administered the lands.

And again in the late-1990s, when 97 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza lived under full jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, the refugees continued to be confined to camps -- despite the millions of UNWRA and international relief dollars which poured into PA coffers specifically for this purpose.

It is important to note, as Joan Peters documents in her seminal work, "From Time Immemorial," that the vast majority of these refugees did not live for generations on the land, but rather came from Egypt, Syria and Iraq as economic opportunities increased during the first half of the 20th century, the formative years of Jewish aliyah.

The United Nations' standard definition of a "refugee" is one who was forced to leave a "permanent" or "habitual" home. In the case of Arab refugees however, the UN broadened the definition of refugee to include anyone who lived in "Palestine" for only two years prior to Israel's statehood in 1948.

The number of 3.7 million refugees is further inflated, given that the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees does not include descendents in its definition of refugees, nor does it apply to a person who "has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality." Under this definition, the number of Palestinians qualifying for refugee status would be well below half a million. Yet the UN has created a new set of rules for Palestinian refugees.

  • * *

A key question is the issue of responsibility: Since five Arab armies launched the 1948 war, logic dictates that they are responsible for the outcome. Yet it is still instructive to know: Did Israel forcibly evict these Arabs in 1948, or did they leave voluntarily?

Though historical sources vary, many statements from Arab leaders and the media support the contention that Arabs created the refugee problem:

The Beirut Daily Telegraph (September 6, 1948) quoted Emil Ghory, secretary of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee:


The fact that there are those refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously...

The London Economist (October 2, 1948) reported an eyewitness account of the flight of Haifa's Arabs:


There is little doubt that the most potent of the factors [in the flight] were the announcements made over the air by the Arab Higher Executive urging all Arabs in Haifa to quit... And it was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades.

Habib Issa, secretary-general of the Arab League, wrote in the New York Lebanese daily "al-Hoda" (June 8, 1951):


[Azzam Pasha, Arab League secretary,] assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade... Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property, and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states.

Former Prime Minister of Syria, Khaled al-Azem, wrote in his memoirs, published in 1973 in Beirut:


We brought destruction upon a million Arab refugees by calling on them and pleading with them to leave their land.

The PA's current prime minister, Mahmud Abbas ("Abu Mazen") wrote in the PLO journal "Palestine a-Thaura" (March 1976):


The Arab armies, who invaded the country in '48, forced the Palestinians to emigrate and leave their homeland and forced a political and ideological siege on them.

—The idea of Arab responsibility for the Palestinian flight has been pretty definitively refuted by Israeli historians such as Benny Morris who have extensively documented the attrocities and forced evictions committed against Arab villages, especially by radical Zionists such as the Stern Gang. In particular, it is impossible to underestimate the importance of the massacre at Deir Yassin, an Arab village within the territory the UN had partitioned for Palestinians, and which happened before the declaration of independence and before the intervention of other Arab forces. This event inflamed Arab public opinion and had a major influence on the subesequent decision to intervene by the Arab governments.--Karma432 12:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • * *

There is a common misconception regarding UN General Assembly Resolution 194 of December 1948. The resolution does not recognize any "right" of return for refugees, but recommends that they "should" be "permitted" to return, subject to two conditions: that the refugee wishes to return, and that he wishes to live at peace with his neighbors.

Even though the Arab states originally rejected Resolution 194, they now misquote it to back the demand of an unlimited right of return to within the borders of the State of Israel. In Yasser Arafat's January 1, 2001, letter to President Clinton, he declared:


"Recognizing the Right of Return and allowing the refugees' freedom of choice are a prerequisite for ending the conflict."

In the summer of 2000, Palestinian negotiators submitted an official document at Camp David, demanding that the refugees automatically be granted Israeli citizenship, and that the right of return should have no time limit. Additionally, the PA demanded that Israel provide compensation amounting to $500 billion dollars. Abu Mazen said that compensation payments should be made by Israel alone, and not from any international funds.

Israel maintains that settling refugees in Israel is a crude political move to destroy the Jewish state through demographics. If the whole point of a Palestinian state is to provide an independent home for their people, why do they insist on going to Israel?

While the political outcome remains uncertain, one thing is tragically clear: Thousands of Palestinians remain in squalid camps, used as political pawns in the ongoing war against Israel.

As Jordan's King Hussein stated in 1960:


Since 1948, Arab leaders have approached the Palestine problem in an irresponsible manner. They have used the Palestine people for selfish political purposes. This is ridiculous and I could say even criminal (Sources: MEMRI, Ha'Aretz, Joan Peters, Moshe Kohn, Prof. Shlomo Slonim, Prof. Ruth Lapidoth) .

The right of refugees to return to their homes is a common sense right, no matter what legal nicities are brought to bear. The only other examples of refugees being refused the right to return to their homes involve Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, not admirable examples.
It is clear from the writings of Isreal's founders that the denial of the right of return stemmed from the opportunity it afforded to have a majority Jewish state. In short, it was an example of what would today be called ethnic clensing. For this reason, israeli historian Benni Morris has said that Israel was born in a state of original sin. --Karma432 22:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


Discussion for the redaction of a new background Alithien 11:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, the background section should begin after the end of World War II, and should deal with postwar plans for Palestine starting with the Anglo-American Committee and the various factors that led to the end of the Mandate and the partition plan. UNSCOP, the formation of the Arab League and the closeness of the vote in the UN should definitely be mentioned. Brian Tvedt 14:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
This is not what I had in mind but that deserves to be thought about. It would start in 1922 to remind British were there. I would add violence of 1929 and 1936 to illustrate communities didn't like each other. I would remind massive immgration to explain where come jews in Palestine. I would remind Shoah because it is one of the key point why Israel were created. I agree
UNSCOP should be mentionned.
Alithien 13:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Christopher, but I would advocate including a brief description of the life under Ottoman rule, and an even briefer sentence or two summing up the most important events of the last two thousand years. This might sound like a lot but I'm only talking about an extra paragraph at most.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


I wonder why everything that deals with Israel/Arab conflict has to be written from the ultraorthodox/zionist point of view?

Karma432 states "Since five Arab armies launched the 1948 war ..." as a matter of fact. The problem is, that's a very subjective opinion/assessment. Are Britain and France generally seen as having launched WWII because they declared war on Germany at Poland's defence? The conflict was effectively started through the unilateral declaration of the state of Israel. Yes, Israelis "accepted" the 1947 UN partition plan - only to significantly expand its borders later. The Arabs rejected the plan because, well, why should they have accepted Jews taking 55% of a territory in which the latter comprised but 10% of the population at the time of the 1917 Balfour Delcation?

pretzelberg

Casus belli?

The casus belli of this conflict is specified as "Arab rejection of the existence of the State of Israel". This issue is obviously subject to debate, but the above phrase is surely a very one-sided summary. Many would argue that the casus belli was the creation of Israel in itself. Is it not possible to have a more neutral explanation, e.g. "dispute over the territory of Palestine"? (I deliberately chose not to write "Palestinan territory")

A dispute is not a casus belli of war. The rejection of the state and the aim of destroying it were the casus belli. —Aiden 23:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
"Casus belli" is a legal phrase that refers to an action. I don't think that rejections or aims can be examples. --Zerotalk 01:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Well the war certainly didn't spawn out of thin air. Rejection of the UN partion plan on the part of the Arab states was the casus belli. —Aiden 04:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
A casus belli is an act which legally justifies war. An act that causes a war is not necessarily a casus belli. If your neighbors violently attack you, that makes it legal to wage war on them so it is a casus belli. Refusing to recognise you might lead to a war but it is not a casus belli. I think we should only use the phrase in its strict legal meaning. --Zerotalk 13:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
What would you propose? —Aiden 14:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any possibility of getting an accurate and npov item into the panel. As it stands "casus belli" is incorrect usage and "Arab rejection of the existence of the State of Israel" is the Israeli point of view only. The Arab point of view would be that the creation of Israel was the cause. We aren't supposed to choose one. --Zerotalk 16:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
this argument is irrelevant... obviously the Casus belli in the Arab states' eyes was the creation of Israel. Israel didn't have any Casus belli because it was on the defense - Israel had no aspiration for a war whatsoever which is why they accepted the UN Partition and planned to start establishing their state according to the UN resolution. The Arab states' Casus belli was illegal, since they had no justficiation starting a war according to the International Law rules of justified Casus belli. Therefore the correct definition is that the unjustified and illegal Casus belli of the war was Israel's creation , because the Arab states denied Israel's right to exist. Amoruso 17:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
in other words, there's simply no casus belli to this war. the war is an example to when starting the war itself, not concerning the rules of the conflict after the war started, is completely illegal and can't be justifed in any way. These are two different doctrines in Internatioal Law. Amoruso 17:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Title of the article

Hello. I noticed recently that few historians used "1948 arab-israeli war" to title the subject but refers much to : the "Palestine War", the first of the arab-israeli conflicts. Here are some recently published :

  • Y. Gelber, Palestine 1948 : etc, Sussex University Press, 2006
  • A. Shlaim, The War for Palestine : etc, Cambridge University Press, 2001
  • Milner, Ending the war of 1948 : etc, 2005
  • T. Reinhart, Israel/Palestine: How to End the War of 1948, 2004
  • E. Karsh, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Palestine War 1948 , 2002
  • D. Tal, War in Palestine, 1948 (Israeli History, Politics, and Society), 2003
  • I. Pappe, The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948, Cambridge University Press, 2001.


In practice, the arab-israeli war start on 15 May, 1948. (It could not start before the existence of Israel) but the War (for - of - in) Palestine (ie, the Palestine War ?) started sooner.
What do you think about changing the title ? Alithien 08:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Palestine war could be very confusing, as there were infinite wars on palestine throughout history. 1948 Palestine war could be a good title but people might see it as the local battle taken before the invasion of the arab armies and there's the problem of defining palestine. In my opinion, best title is Israel's "War of Independence" - it's one side definition but so is yom kippur war title. Amoruso 10:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Amoruso, you are too much :-) Alithien 18:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Well my friend I don't think this title is biased. Independence War is the most common name for the country and like mentioned to me by User Gabi S. it's also the name for other countries' independence wars - it also involved more sides - see croatian, irish, scottish, mexican, romanian, greek, turkish, chilean wars of indepedence, and so on. The title should be Israeli War of independence, and taken into account Israel too was invaded, the only other option will be The holy war to obliterate Israel ... ? Amoruso 04:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Have a look here :

War of Independence is generally used to describe a war occurring over a territory that has declared independence. Once the state that previously held the territory sends in military forces to assert its sovereignty or the native population clashes with the former occupier, a separatist rebellion has begun. If a new state is successfully established, the conflict is subsequently known as a war of independence. War of Independence .

New title for page therefore should be ---> Israeli War of Independence. Amoruso 04:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Shalom Amoruso. I think that this little doesn't take into account the arab point of view concerning the events of 1947-1949.
I don't see any other option than using historians title to this article. That was my motivation to change the title.
Let's keep it like today. Alithien 07:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
But historians do treat it as Israeli war of indepedence. No other country was created in the war. The American Independence/revoultionary war also doesn't take into account the British perspective and so on. Amoruso 07:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep the title as it is. It has faults, but everyone knows what it means and it doesn't represent the point of view of any of the parties to the conflict. --Zerotalk 10:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. It clearly negates the palestinian point of view and nationalism revendication. Between 11/1947 and 4/1948 they fought for their independance but lost because the other two adversaries : Yishouv and Abdallah/UK coalition were far stronger.
Arab israeli war officialy started only on May 15th.
But never mind, everobody knows what the arab-israli war of 1948 means : Israel was invaded by 5 armies and they won. Good for me. Alithien 12:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
This idea that the palestinians fought for their indepedence is.. let's say... highly disputed... Amoruso 12:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... If they are right it would mean that all the 113 british who were killed in Palestine between november and march 1948 were killed by Zionist Jews... But never mind. Let's keep the article the way it is. Alithien 17:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I permit to insist

Maybe you thought about this during these last 3 months. Maybe you didn't change your mind...
The events that are described in this article talked about the "Palestine war of 1948" and not only about the "1948 arab-israeli war". This latter started on May 15. Check the sources. There is few confusion about this in scholars' writings. Only in encyclopedias or on the internet. Alithien 11:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am amazed......saying the cassus belli was the rejection of the state is like saying the indian wars in the US were started by the indians because they wanted to stay on their land or that they saw what happened to other tribes and wanted to prevent it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.219.196 (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Casus Belli as expressed by contemporary belligerents

A Casus belli need not be correct or accurate. Websters defines it as "an event or action that justifies or allegedly justifies a war or conflict" and the 'pedia article Casus belli notes that "Informal usage varies beyond its technical definition to refer to any "just cause" a nation may claim for entering into a conflict."

Therefore we need make no judgements about the validity of the casus belli. We need only to report what the belligerents claimed.

The "claimed just causes" were expressed on 15 May 1948 by the Arab League in their declaration of war [1]. The major greivance was "the aggressive intentions and the imperialistic designs of the Zionists, including the atrocities committed by them against the peace-loving Arab inhabitants, especially in Dayr Yasin, Tiberias and others". The League further argued that "This state of affairs is threatening to spread to the neighbouring Arab countries", and therefore "the Arab League, a regional organisation [under] Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations" was legally justified to intervene in collective self-defense.

The Declaration re-iterated the Arab rejection of any Jewish state; however this was NOT the "claimed just cause" for war. The Arabs said that "it would not be possible to carry [Partition] out by peaceful means, and that its forcible imposition would constitute a threat to peace and security in this area". In other words the foundation of a Jewish state was not the casus belli; it was the "forcible imposition" of a Jewish state.

The argument here is certainly tenuous, but it was made and should be reported so that wikipedia readers can judge for themselves. I will make appropriate changes.

Eleland 11:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

UN

"parts of the resolution were never implemented, resulting in the Palestinian refugee problem."

This is one POV. The other POV is that since the resolution included the provision that "those who wish to live in peace" can come back there was never a way to see if this is implemented or not.

Until the desire to get rid of Israel all tougeter no one would know what could have been. Clearly hundreds f thousands of palestinians remain refugees so that they can claim the "right" to return to israel (and destroy it by their majority) 89.1.173.64 15:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the argument that generations of Palestinians have chosen to live in squalor simply out of a desire to "destroy" Israel is sweepingly paranoid and horribly racist. It is unworthy of serious comment. I should also point out that the right to enter, leave, or remain in one's country is a central plank of international law and does not belong in sarcastic "scare quotes".
Even if one accepts the rest of your argument, the line you quoted remains factual and NPOV. The quoted line doesn't say why the resolution was never implemented, simply that it was not. It ought to stand.
Eleland 18:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Bias in casus of belli

The existting casus of belli: "Arab rejection of "forcible imposition" of a Jewish state in Palestine" is inaccurate and completely ignores basic historical facts. It does not address numerous factors involved in the Partition plan. It also ignores the fact that there was no imposition as the Ottoman Empire lost the war with Britain and France gaining control of the Middle East (particularly in the western part). It also ignores agreements as well as the fact that the partition plan was devised so that there would be no refugees of either Jews or former Ottomans. However, Arab refusal to accept a tiny country for Jews led to war and Israel would have been far smaller than it is today. The Arab countries in essence violated UN Resolution 181.

If my information is in doubt please take the time to study from a history textbook and please read the ACTUAL TEXT OF THE PARTITION PLAN (UN Resolution 181): http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm

In the future, please prove and document with CREDIBLE ACADEMIC SOURCES: not opinions or articles or websites, but actual documents - that is the only way to minimize bias.

Moreover, there was no Palestine as a country. Palestine was a region under the Ottoman Empire. After World War One, the British took over. Then later the United Nations Mandate took into effect.

68.1.182.215 01:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comment indicates that you think "casus belli" means "the cause of the war". It doesn't. Eleland's description above is correct. Amusingly, to put Israel's position in as the casus belli is an imputation that the war was started by Israel! This whole argument is actually pretty silly, and I have solved it by taking that item out of the "war box" altogether. I hope it stays out. --Zerotalk 12:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I have some questions :
  • Where is it written in that text it is a "declaration of war" ?
  • Where do they use the words "casus belli". I would have expected a sentence such as "bla bla bla is considered by us as a casus belli.
  • Who are the scholars who claim the casus belli of that war was UN Partition's vote ?
I think this is the only way to analyse this following NPov (in citing secondary sources and not on performing personnal analysis on (partial) primary sources)
If you claim we can perform personal "fair" analysis, I would claim that they decided to "intervene" only mid of April for some or even later for others after Nachshon, Deir Yassin, the mass palestinian exodus and the defeat of palestinian (and arab volunteers) forces.
Alithien 07:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I underline too that the article start describing events on 1 December 1947 and that the arab forces entered Palestine on 15 May 1948... So, what is the casus belli of the fights that started before ?
This makes me think (once more), there should be 2 articles. One talking about the civil war in Palestine under British Mandate (phase 1 and phase 2) and one about the 1st arab-israeli war (phase 3 to 5 with truces). [as explained above based on scholars' books titles).
The Palestine War of 1948 was divided into two main phase : a civil war (between jewish and arab Palestinians under British rule) and a conventional war (between Israeli and Arabs). Alithien 07:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The text does not say it is a declaration of war, because the Arabs did not want to call it a war -- rather an "intervention". As far as the League was concerned, there was no state to declare war on.
The text does not use the term casus belli, because it is a descriptive term invented by historians. As far as I know, no declaration of war has ever contained 'a sentence such as bla bla bla is our casus belli. The text does clearly argue a justification for the "intervention", which I posted on the page, and which has been constantly altered and reverted, with no justification or citations offered. Blaming this on my "personal analysis on partial primary sources" is a joke, and in any case the alternative versions have had NO citations of ANY kind backing them up.
The only really relevant objection is that the article describes events prior to the Arab invasion, which obviously wouldn't be covered in the casus. On the other hand, the article is called 1948 Arab-Israeli War, which as I understand it refers to the events starting 15 May. If the article is understood to include earlier violence, then there should be no "casus belli" line at all since it's too complex to sum up in a sentence.
Eleland 19:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello Eleland. I agree with your final conclusion.
Note that the article doesn't describe "earlier violence". It describes 2 war that are tightly linked. A civil one and a regular one. The first one clearly started due to UN181's vote.
The second one started for many other reasons.
If the question was asked if the casus belli of the second one could be UN181. I would answer :
bellum (-i when genetive) is latine and means war.
You underline they claim for an intervention. So war -> no bellum ; no bellum -> no casus belli.
That is why I really don't think cassu belli is a good thing here.
Alithien 11:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's put this one to bed -- I'm deleting the line.
Eleland 15:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The casus belli would be the first act of war. That would be Egypt/Syria/Lebanon/Iraq/Transjordan's invasion. We cannot not have a casus belli. Nearly all war articles have them. It essentially has to be stated who started the war.--Shamir1 07:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
That's what every history book ever written lists as the casus belli. --GHcool 01:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. Again: "casus" does not mean "cause", it means "case". If it is correct that the Arab states started the war, then the casus belli is the action they claimed as justification of it (regardless of whether their claim was correct). Since there is no possibility of ever getting agreement on what to write in that box, the correct solution is to write nothing. --Zerotalk 02:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. Excuse my ignorance of Latin, but Websters confirms that you are correct. The Arab states certainly started the war according to every history book ever written. I fear that if we were to list a casus belli, it would have to be Ben-Gurion's Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel and US President Truman's immediate recognition of Israel as an independent state. Phrasing it in this way is a knife that cuts both ways. If one knows the history of the region, it puts the Arabs in a terrible light. If one doesn't know the history, it puts Israel in a terrible light. --GHcool 07:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi
Once for all, if somebody thinks there is a casus belli for that war, he just has to find an scholar that has written "the casus belli is xxx". That's all.
Alithien 09:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There has to be a casus belli. So how is there a war in the first place? I mean, there has to be a starting point or at least several starting points. Wars don't just happen...there is an agenda and reason behind them and that is the case and cause of war.

Also, the casus of belli would have to be Arab rejection and violation of UN Resolution 181. If the resolution were accepted by both former Ottomans and Jews, then there would have been two states created and thus no refugees. That's right no refugees...the outcome of the 1948 war, which was started by Arab countries by rejecting UN Resolution 181 (among other factors), led to refugees as Israel won the war unexpectedly. The 2 states under the Partition plan would have located the 2 states where the major population centers were. And if the Arab countries had not rejected Resolution 181, there would have been two states and most likely peace and no refugees today in the immediate region. 138.16.27.200 05:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Would it be ok with everyone here if we phrase it something like this: casus belli: Arab states' frustration toward the continuing Jewish presence in the region." --GHcool 20:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
No, that would be Original Research. There is nothing that can be put there without being an endless source of edit wars. --Zerotalk 04:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No, as per Zero. I add this is only one (among many) points of view that this is the reason of the arab intervention after 15 mai. So, please, find a scholar quote that states "the casus belli is (...)" Alithien 09:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this passage from Avraham Sela's Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East (copyright 2002) could help: "The failure of the British and American efforts to mediate a truce in Palestine left the Arab leaders with no alternatrive but to take a collective decision to intervene militarily" (pg. 71). --GHcool 19:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
If nobody responds by tomorrow, I'll add this to the article as the casus belli. --GHcool 17:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
OK. I'm doing it. --GHcool 18:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
That was not a sentence such as "the casus belli is..." so that was not acceptable. I will remove this within a few days if nobody else does it before... Sorry... Alithien 21:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
What part of the statement do you disagree with? Perhaps we can use this as a starting point. Don't just delete it because the word "casus belli" isn't in the original quotation. --GHcool 06:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
You can summarize this that way. Sorry for that. All the arguments are explained here above... Alithien 14:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is a blatant manifestation of Zionist propaganda. The Zionists never actually supported the partition in practice manifested by their seizure of lands designated to the Arab state between November 1947 to 15 May 1948 -- BEFORE Arab troops intervened into parts of Palestine designated to the Arab state.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.3.32 (talk • contribs).

The problem you are having is with facts, not with WP. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Other militias

A user added other militias to Israel's side. "Jewish militias: Haganah, Irgun, Lehi" and "Druze militias." The Jewish militias, at least the Haganah, was de facto Israel's army. As far as I know, the Druze did not form separate militias but were a subsect of the IDF. They had their own flag.[2], and you can find that flag pic (and upload it from) here. The Druze sided with Israel and actively fought on their side. I was surprised to see that this was not mentioned. It certainly should be as should the fact that some Bedouin Arabs also joined Israeli forces. --Shamir1 22:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Title

Given this :

  • Y. Gelber, Palestine 1948 : etc, Sussex University Press, 2006
  • A. Shlaim, The War for Palestine : etc, Cambridge University Press, 2001
  • Milner, Ending the war of 1948 : etc, 2005 [3]
  • T. Reinhart, Israel/Palestine: How to End the War of 1948, 2004
  • E. Karsh, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Palestine War 1948 , 2002
  • D. Tal, War in Palestine, 1948 (Israeli History, Politics, and Society), 2003

I want to change the title of the article to "Palestine War of 1948". Does someone mind this ? Alithien 21:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I permit also to refer to this article : 1947-48 Palestinian civil war If this is the first phase of this war, how is named the second phase ?
That is why I suggest to write that
The "1948 Palestine war is divided into 2 phases :

"1948 Arab-Israeli war" gets 57,200 Google hits.
"Israeli War of Independence" gets 22,400 Google hits.
"Palestine War of 1948" gets 1,460 Google hits, and many of those are actually "Palestine War of 1948-49".
The article title is the majority use, and we mention significant minority uses. Extreme minority uses aren't mentioned. Jayjg (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jayjg,
I know but google is not a reference.
Historians are the reference.
And historians who wrote about this period call it "the Palestine War" (see from Karsh to Pappé passing by Gelber...)
I agree to proceed to a "google fight" if it is restricted to books writen on the subject by historians...
I think the "heart of the matter" is due to the fact that "in the past" people considered the war started on May 15 but nowadays, the realized the war started in Dec, 47.
As a consequence there are 2 stages to this war : a civil war in the British Mandate and -after- the arab-israeli war of 1947-1948.
In an article named "arab-israeli" war, events that happened before May 15 should be in the context, not in the main article bec. Israel simply didn't exist yet.
What is your mind about that ? Alithien 06:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The war formally began with the declaration of war on the newly created state of Israel by its Arab neighbours. So "1948 Arab-Israeli war" seems appropriate to me. Gatoclass 11:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
Thank you for you reply but did you read what I wrote or this article ? :-(
This article doesn't start in May, 1948 but in Dec, 1947 !
In fact, you fully agree with what I say.
You perfectly agree with what I say :
The "1948 Palestine war is divided into 2 phases :
and you talk about the second phase !
Alithien 15:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
References by historians for the period Dec 47 - Dec 49 or later
Palestine War
  • Y. Gelber, Palestine 1948 : (...), Sussex University Press, 2006
  • A. Shlaim, E. Rogan, The War for Palestine : (...), Cambridge University Press, 2001
  • E. Karsh, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Palestine War 1948 , 2002
  • D. Tal, War in Palestine, 1948 (...), 2003
  • I. Pappé, The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948, Cambridge Middle East Studies.
Other
  • U. Milstein, History of Israel's War of Independence, University Press of America, 1999


Actually, now I've taken a look at the article itself, I must concede you have a point. About half of the article deals with events leading up to the 1948 war, not the war itself. So the name of the article doesn't really reflect its contents all that well, does it? Gatoclass 16:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(to Alithien) : The sources you have provided use several different names, and in any event are book titles, not names of the events themselves. Wikipedia uses the most common English names for articles. Per WP:NAME "article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" and "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Gatoclass,
Yes. The first part of the article should be sent to 1947-48 Palestinian civil war.
Hi Jayjg,
You are right and I agree with that. But what is described by the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, as is illustrated by Gatoclass's comments just above, are the events following 15 May 1948.
If I ask the people you refer to when the 1948 Arab-Israeli started, what will they answer ?
They will answer on May 15, 48 as everybody thinks and not on Nov 30, 47 as stated in this article.
On the Israel's point of view, War of independance started on May 15 !
This article here mixed two different things.
Another solution is to correct this article in moving events between Dec 47 and May 48 in 1947-48 Palestinian civil war...
Alithien 18:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The entire events are described as the 1948 Arab-Israeli war; the events leading up to Israel's Declaration of Independence, the events immediately following it, and even the events of 1949. It was all one war, and the most common name is "1948 Arab-Israeli war". The War of 1812 took place from 1812-1815, but it's still called the War of 1812. Wikipedia isn't the place to invent names for these things, it just reflects common usage. Jayjg (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
No the entire events are described with another name as proven by the references I gave.
The common usage talks about 1948 arab israeli war for events after May 15.
Just ask around you when this war started and you will conclude by yourself.
Nb: I don't "invent" names. I use the ones of the experts who know what they talk about.
What would be references for "common usage" ? Alithien 21:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
None of the sources you brought actually refer to it that way, and Google is a good measure of common usage. Jayjg (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Good moorning Jay,
I don't understand what you mean when you write : None of the sources you brought actually refer to it that way. Could you precise your mind ?
My point is that the title of these books refer to the events as The War of Palestine but I don't see your point. Would you expect more from them to be convinced ? ...
Alithien 05:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Those are all book titles, and none of the sources refer to the war as "The 1948 Palestine War", which is the title you are advocating for this article. Jayjg (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jayjg,
Do you mean that if you agree that in the title of these books we find "war", "Palestine" and a date referring to the period (1947 or 1948), the precise locution "1948 Palestine War" is never used and that is a problem from your point of view ? Alithien 06:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
"1948 Palestine War" is a name for a war, just as "Six Day War", or "War of 1812", or "American Civil War". There are alternative names for all of these wars, but Wikipedia uses the most commonly used English names for them. Although a small number of sources do refer to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War as the "1948 Palestine War", none of the book titles you mentioned do so, and by far the most common English name for the war is the "1948 Arab-Israeli War". You can't bring a proof about what "academic" names are for a war from sources that don't actually use that name. 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC) [not signed statement by Jayjg]

Hi Jayjg,
Why don't you answer my questions on your talk page ?
I have the feeling you are not of good faith. Unfortunately.
I will provide academic sources (I have them) that use the precise wordings and will proceed to the modifications unless somebody else than you disagrees.
I read many many things about your recent attitude and I didn't believe this but it seems real in practice. I am sorry for that and hope you will come back to a better atttitude. Alithien 08:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have answered your questions. Wikipeda articles go by the common English names, and I have shown here rather conclusively that the common English name is "1948 Arab-Israeli War". Please do not violate WP:CIVIL any further; comment on article content, not other editors. Jayjg (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Here are the answers of my questions you refused to give :
- 1948 arab-israeli war started on May 15, 1948.
- This is indeed the absence of the precise wordings "1948 Palestine War" that you use as argument to reject the most used (only one ?) expression used by historians and scholars to talk about the events of that period
- Of course you see my point but I have to understand that the arab-israeli war title, if not neutral and not accurate refers more to a way of seeing matter that you prefer.
I have answered my questions for you and I have also in mind your "fair" objections :
- even if Palestine War is more accurate, it is not known like that by a wide public but only by historians and scholars
- the titles you showed as references all use different expressions.

I don't see where I don't have been civil (???) but I can see where you are of bad faith. Once more in fact. This is particularly disappointing to see that now on wikipedia some people prefers to use rules rather to make articles evolve. I didn't realize that but even on the french wiki you are told about (and not by me). So let's stop losing time.
I gather more precise "quotes" to answer the little "good faith" part of your comments.
Alithien 14:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
As you may have noticed, the article itself lists two phases of the war before May 15, 1948. As far as I can tell, "most historians and scholars" do not use the phrase "1948 Palestine War" to describe the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and even if they did, it wouldn't be relevant, because Wikipedia goes by the common English name, not the extremely uncommon "1948 Palestine War". I fail to see in what way the name "1948 Arab-Israeli" war could possibly be either non-neutral or innacurate. Your comments about my "attitude" are uncivil; in the future please only comment on article content, not about me - this is policy. Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The 1948 arab-israeli war started on May 15, 1948 and is uncommon to talk about the events before.
The events between Nov 1947 and the end of 1948 are known as the Palestine War.
Argumentum ad google is not accurate for an encyclopedia. So if you think I am not right, please provide proofs from scholars quote that would describe the full period as the 1948 arab-israeli war and not the Palestine War.
Here are mine simply found simply in some of the books I cite above. Note Efraim Karsh is a pro-Zionist scholar and as well as all the other one, they are the references on the topic of this war.
  • Eugene Rogan & Avi Shlaim, The War for Palestine - Rewriting the history of 1948 :
p.1 ! : The introduction of the books starts by The Palestine War lasted less than twenty months, from the United Nations resolution recommending the partition of Palestine in novembre 1947 to the final armistice agreement signed between Israel and Syria in July 1949. The words "Palestine War" is used 8 times in the 4 pages of the introduction.
p.25, Rashid Khalidi writes One of the most recent historian of the Palestine War (...)
p.60, Laila Parsons writes This chapter adresses two questions related to (...) the 1947-49 Arab-Israeli War. (...) The first question is historical : how (...) during the Palestine War ? After she uses only the words Palestine War at least 4 times.
p.228, in the index, the words Arab-Israeli war doesn't not appear. Palestine War appears at least 15 times in different contexts.
  • Efraim Karsh, The Arab-Israeli conflit : the Palestine War of 1948 :
p.8 : On novembre 29, 1947 [-description of the events of that period-] (...). Thus begun Palestine War. He then explains it was divided into 2 phases.
p.8 : Within 2 years after of the end of the Palestine War, King Abdallah (...) was assassinated
p.10 : In the timeline of the events. : 8-17 decembre. Arab League summit in Cairo (...) decides to contribute (...) Palestine war effort.
p.22 : The author starts the chapter : Strenghts and Weaknesses of Arabs and Jews by the words : The 1948 Palestine War was no "ordinary" confrontation between two combattants.
p.69 : The author starts the chapter : Trapped on the battlefield by the words There was no more serious defeat for the IDF during the Palestine War than the failure to (...)
Nowhere in his book he uses the words Arab-Israeli War to refer to the period from Dec. 47 to end of 1948 or any other date.
The question is NOW to provide references accepted by wikipedia.
Alithien 08:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you're missing Jayjg's point. "1948 Arab-Israeli war" is the common English name for this conflict. You may find more cites to support "1948 Palestine War", but it doesn't matter if the vast majority name it something else. <<-armon->> 10:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I didn't miss it.
Where are sources -from historians- that used "1948 Arab-Israeli war" to describe the events from nov 30, 1947 to the end of that conflict ?
My point in answer to Jayjg's is that "1948 Arab-Israeli war" refers to what happened after May 15 and therefore there are 2 conclusions :

(reset indent) I think I understand your concerns but the terminology has changed, whether we agree with it or not. Why would we want to confuse our readers with outdated terms in the title? The Palestinian civil war is what is taking place today between Hamas and Fatah. The current title is adequate. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Humus,
I don't want to confuse reader and I perfectly understand this problem of confusion.
This is rather the only real argument here againt the change of name.
I think 1948 Palestine civil war is not confusing, is it ?
And the 1947-48 Palestinian civil war happened in 1947-48, ... isn't it ?
The question here is how to deal the divergence between "accuracy" and "habits"... Alithien 10:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The current title stayed here since December 2001. The title you offer would be confusing. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
To what article do you refer to when you talk about 2001 ? I don't understand.
And I still don't see how 1948 could make people think we talk about 2001 ??? The dates are different. Alithien 08:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I have just understood what you meant.
Yes, the current title stayed here since 2001 and ?
It is not possible to have made mistakes since then ?
So you mean it will be confusing for "contributors" but what about readers, NPoV and accuracy ?
I still claim the "1948 Arab-Israeli War" title could only refer to events that arose after 15 May. The events before have never focused the attention of western world for "good" reasons. It has not been the case any more in scholar's work for 10 years.
So people here have added the events before May 15 in this article.
In fact, whether these events should be moved to 1947-48 Palestinian civil war and that article and this one should be summarized in an article named 1948 Palestine war or this article should be renamed.
With the first solution, the article 1948 Arab-Israeli War doesn't disappear (of course it can't) but it will deal with what it has to.
Alithien 06:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Some statistics

I'm still unsure about the naming. Here is a survey of scholarship, literature, and news-media. TewfikTalk 15:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Search term Scholarship Literature News-media
"1948 Arab-Israeli war" 337 344 33
"1948 Palestine War" 101 139 0
"1947-48 Palestinian Civil War" 0 0 0
Hi Tewfit,
a google search isn't accurate here.
Indeed, when you looked for : "1948 arab-israeli war" : did it talk about what happens after May 15 of after Nov 30 ? (the answer is in the link you give...)
In practice, most historiens talk about the "(1948) Palestine War" that had 2 phases : a "civil war" and the "first arab-israeli war".
These are 3 different things.
How do you want to name and article talking about the phase of the civil war ?
Alithien 17:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the most proper terms would be :
Alithien 18:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understood your point. Regardless, while this isn't definitive proof, it isn't a Google search either, but rather a search of scholarly works, literature, and news media, respectively. TewfikTalk 18:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tewfik,
You have found, with google.scholar 337 times the words "1948 Arab-Israeli War" and 101 times the words "1948 Palestine War" in many referenced books.
Ok. But these are 2 different things as you would notice it if you read these books (not just looking for words in them)... :-(
The "1948 Arab-Israeli War" is (most of time) the war that started 15 May 1948 and the "1948 Palestine War" is the war that started on 30 November 1947. The first one is a part of the second one. And the difference is a civil war between jewish and arabs inhabitants of Palestine during the last 6 months of the British Mandate between 30 Nov and 15 May.
That's all.
Alithien 21:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
To be convinced :
1. Think about what would mean "Israel" before May 14, 1948...
2. You can find this explained with other words also here : : see the text in black. This is the "back-cover" of a book about the 1948 Palestine War written By Yoav Gelber (who is far from being a new historian). Alithien 21:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Introducction

Seen this warring for a while. The most important and substantial controversy, looked like the introduction. Of course, by the time I had finished writing my version, the other version had reappeared! Both versions have accuracy, citation and neutrality problems. First, Lebanese forces are given undeserved prominence; according to Morris, the Lebanese army never actually entered Palestine! The numbers aren't cited. I replaced them with Morris's, whose prose is quite neutral. The only Arab force that penetrated the borders of the proposed Jewish state to any depth was one of the Egyptian forces crossing the Negev to Beersheba. Complexities like this should not be fought over in an introduction, unless one can find a way to state them very briefly and neutrally.Cowardly 23:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This is simply incorrect. The Syrian army conducted ALL its military operation in the war in the territory allocated to the Jewish state. Lebanese forces took part in the battle to capture Malkiya. Isarig 01:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you about the Syrians. It is just that they never got very far, which is what I meant above "to any depth" in talk. My edit didn't say one thing or another on these points. If you draw a completely accurate picture that incorporates the facts and arguments in the other side's version too, you get something too long for an intro; that kind of productive edit-warring should be done in the body of the article. That's what the body of the article is for. Remember, this article isn't supposed to be read only by experts. According to Morris, the Lebanese army never crossed the border. Lebanese, Palestinian and Syrian irregulars were the ones who fought at Malkiya. They "were backed logistically and with mortars, by regular troops" but "...at the last minute, Gen. Fuad Shihab, and Col. Adel Shihab, the commander of the unit desginated to cross the border, resisted the politicians blandishments and refused to march." (Morris, 2001 pp 233-234). I wrote something that is short and avoids all this. As far as I can tell, the earlier numbers aren't cited anywhere in the article. Do you have any problem with what I actually wrote? - which I tried to make acceptable to the other side too. I was just trying to explain above why I cut out the particular things I did.Cowardly 04:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
yes, i have several problems with what you wrote, which is why I reverted it - as I think your version is worse than the previous ones. Specifically, you introduce POV by saying the Arab armies invaded 'Palestine' - an entity which did not exist - rather than invaded Israel, which is what they did. The Lebanese troops, while smaller in size than some of the other invading Arab forces armies, constituted nearly 1/3 of the full size of the Lebanese army of the time, so describing them as a 'handful' is misleading. Your version further glosses over an important distinction between the actions of the Arab Legion - which fought only in the Corpus Seperatum and the areas alloted to the Arab states, and those of the other Arab armies, which invaded the parts alloted to the Jewish state. Isarig 04:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Labeling previous edits is not the way to resolve issues, please discuss prior to reverting.Traveller75 06:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Traveller75
Isarig, Palestine, on any definition had existed the day before the invasion. It still existed geographically, if not politically. Conceivably it could have had further existence politically. Not using the word leads to circumlocutions. Would "the former Mandate" be better?. I intentionally omitted over the Jordan vs others distinction in order to avoid POV and excessive length. The distinction should be made in the article, not here. If you make that important point, one should supply caveats, as I sketched, or the other POV will try to say something like their version. Do you really find my version more objectionable than the other one you reverted? I am quoting Morris when I say"Palestine" or "handful", and following him closely in general. 1,000 Lebanese troops is simply false, the proper figure being zero, or disputed and so inappropriate for an intro, in any case very unimportant, . Morris is the one who says no Lebanese troops (which anyone would take to mean regular army units) ever entered Palestine/Israel, and only a "handful" of Lebanese irregulars did. Again, where do the other numbers come from? If you need something about that point how about "The Jordanians fought only in the areas alloted to the Arab state and Jerusalem. Of the other armies, only one Egyptian army managed to penetrate more than a short distance into the Jewish state." Since Traveller75 reverted to my version, I'll try to adopt your criticisms as far as I understand them; since both sides before me wanted to say something about where the troops were in relation to the UN plan, I'll use my proposal too, although I think it is too much for an intro.Cowardly 08:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
No, what existed until May 15 was a British mandate, not 'Palestine' - which was a geographic designation with no precise boundries, and as such , does not make sense in the context of an invasion, as those imprecise boundries of teh geographic desigantionincluded part of the terrirotreis of teh countries inavding. The article itself says 1000 Lebanese troops, so calling that false and introducing that into teh intor is not only flase , it is POV. I see tha tyou are quoting Morris, and that's part of the problem. Morris is a controversial revisionist historian, so it is by definition POV to use his words in the intro. Isarig 21:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As everybody knows, the POV is to write "the Arab armies".
Why does nobody try to read a little bit on the subject instead of defending POV he heard ?
We don't have to decide if "Palestine" existed or not. If someone wants to prove it existed, he just has to bring proofs citing primary sources (eg from uno using the word) or secondary sources from historians.
I wonder if it will be hard to find reference about a "Partition plan of Palestine..." :-)
Poor wikipedia. Alithien 08:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The introduction contains significant omissions and misleading claims. First, fighting did not start on 15 May 1948. Before 'Israel' was declared, there was substantial fighting between the Zionists and Palestinian Arabs which resulted in the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians as Simha Flapan shows. Case in point, Zionist extremists attacked attacked Jaffa in April 1948, expelling tens of thousands. The Zionists proceeded to seize territory which they were not assigned by the recommendation of the UN General Assembly. That the version I penned is being systematically reverte is vandalism given how well sourced it is. Collier's Year Book encyclopedia from 1948 writes:

The Arab armies took over the Arab parts of Palestine: Egyptians in the south and in the Jerusalem sector; Transjordanians in the southwest and in Jerusalem; the Legion, Iraqis, and Syrians on the long western front; and Lebanese in the north. But only a very few Jewish settlements fell to the Arabs, and a number of them were later recaptured by the Israelis.
Nemda 23:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
It is true that there was fighting between Israeli and Arab militias before the official establishment of the state of Israel. To say that Jewish militias were the only ones attacking is simply untrue. For example, the worst massacre against civilians of the entire war was perpetrated by Arab militias. It was the attack against the Hadassa convoy on April 13, 1948. Moreover, to say that Jewish militias expelled Arabs is making a very strong assertion. The question of whether they were expelled, or encouraged by their own leaders to leave, or left of their own will or whatever else may have happened is a matter of quite some contention (see Palestinian Exodus). I respect your desire to make the intro more comprehensive and descriptive, but intros are intended to be vague, and by their nature cannot include details such as what I have just discussed. Farther down in the article, this might be appropriate, if carefully worded and well sourced. Screen stalker 00:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The only Arab force that penetrated the borders of the proposed Jewish state to any depth was one of the Egyptian forces crossing the Negev to Beersheba.

Even though Egypt may have crossed what was considered "Israel" in 1948, this is still presented in a misleading way. The Negev desert is a wasteland with extremely low population density: Beershaba and Hebron in 1946 each contained a 99% Arab population in 1946, exceeding even Gaza which at the time was 98% Arab. The only effective way for Egypt to have reached the core of Palestine would have been to cross the Negev.
Nemda 18:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please.
It is not because an army is not well organised enough to fulfil the targets of his politicians that it doesn't attack a country.
Leban and Syrian armies tried to enter Galilee panhandle, Iraki army attacked Gesher, Arab Legion attacked Gush Etzion on May 13 and entered Jerusalem area on May 19. Egyptians attacked Ramat Rachel on May 21 and will control whole Negev up to the end of the year.
Any one of these events is a casus belli but Israel has her own ones too. Alithien 18:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Flags

Does anyone have an objection for me placing the Palestinian flag or the British Mandate of Palestine flag besides the Holy War Army (its membership and leadership is made up of Palestinians)

And the Arab League Flag besides the Arab Liberation Army because it was founded by the Arab League to counter the Holy War Army. - Al Ameer son

For ALA, ok.
For Jihad al-Muqadas, if you place the British Mandate Flag, you should do this for Haganah, Palmach, Irgoun and Lehi too :-)
Note that it was also composed of foreign volunteers from Bosnia but most of them were Arab Palestinians.
Did they have a flag ? I quite sure not.
Note your question is interesting because Jihad al-Muqadas didn't take part of the 1948 Arab-Israeli part but only of the civil war during the 6 last months of the British Mandate of Palestine... Alithien 17:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, ok in that case I will just do that for the ALA, Thanks --Al Ameer son

Mossad

"The SHAI, the intelligence and counter-espionage arm of the Haganah, was the forebear of Mossad.[15]" The SHAI evolved into AMAN (IDF's Military Intelligence) during the war and the SHAI commander Isser Be'eri became the first head of AMAN. The Mossad was only created at December 1949, after the war had ended. I think that changing the line to "was the forebear of Israel's Intelligence Services" is far better. 88.154.135.216 17:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian Civil War

Currently the article Palestinian Civil War redirects to the Fatah-Hamas conflict, and there's no doubt that this is currently the most common association. However, the first phase of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War was also referred to as the Palestinian Civil War, especially at that time. Therefore, for the sake of timelessness, I suggest making Palestinian Civil War a disambiguation page. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 05:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea.
And there was a third "Palestinian civil war" in 1936-1939, which is usually referred as the Great Arab Revolt Alithien 06:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
nb: just wait for a few days because there is a "survey" to change the title 1947-48 Palestinian Civil War in 1948 civil war in the British Mandate of Palestine for the same reasons as you suggest but I think we could do both. Alithien 06:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't even know that there was an article about the 1947-48 war (thought it was part of the 1948 war article). Thanks for the notice. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Replacement

I suggest to replace this section : [4] by this one : [5]
Alithien 14:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I proceed given the lack of reaction... Alithien 07:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pov edits

Isarig, why would my modifications be pov edits ? Alithien 06:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sevral reasons: (1) when one country's military forces "enter" the territory of another, uninvited, that is called an invasion. That's what the article used to say, and you bizzarly changed that into "entered", with an edit suammry that syas they did not invade. (20 You removed a well known photgraph documenting the end of the war with the spurios claim that the photo is "POV" (3) you removed well known and undisputed facts about the course of the war, for no apparent reason. Isarig 17:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
(1) It is more complex. For most of them, they didn't penetrate on the Israeli territory but only on the arab territory. And if some intended to attack Israel, others didn't.
Another problem is the step-by-step process of mutual invasion.
During the civil war (before may 48 and what you called invasion), Yichouv took Jaffa (which was in Arab territory and which is an invasion) but on the other side palestinians blocked traffic on israeli territories and arab volunteers armed by arab league entered (not invaded) palestine (if they had invaded, it wuld have been an act of war against British...)
To go on in the complexity : on May 13 (2 days before 15), Hagannah took Acre and entered all west of Galilea up to Lebanon during operation BenAmi. This is too an invasion, before "arab one" BUT in the context we know.
Let's not forget Kfar Etzion (Arab Legion who attack a jewish kibboutz on arab territory when still under british rule) and Deir Yassin (Jewish milices who attack an arab village on international territory still under british rule).
And finally to end with the picture : Arab legion troops were already everywhere on the territory far before may 15 because they were parts of mandatory police forces (how to interpretate this concerning in the context of Kfar Etzion ?)
Note this is not personal research : I took care to see what scholar write about that. And except Morris (yes, funny), they don't talk about invasion of Israel...
So what ? Do you think "Arab invaded Israel on May 15" is NPoV ? How should we write this ?
(2) This photo is not neutral because it has (unfortunately) been widely used by israeli historiography for propaganda purposes. Note I didn't delete it but put back a former one : a map showing the arab armies movement (invasion, entry, ...).
Do you agree the more neutral the better ?
Do you agree the map is more neutral than the photo ?
If not, why ?
(3) what "well known" fact ? If this is the fact that the officeers were purposedly retired (for this war) I want a source because I never read that and I read many books on the topic . Unfortunately, the one who introduced this material didn't give the source.
Alithien 07:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
(1)This is simply false. The Egyptian army invaded the territory of the Jewish state. The Syrian Army conducted every single one of its battles in the territory of the Jewish state. The Lebanese army invaded the territory of the Jewish state. The only army that did not was the Arab Legion, and even it did not limit itself to the "arab state" - but invaded the corpus seperatum. All of this is spelled out in the version you deleted.
(2)Even if true that the photo was used by some for propaganda (where?) It does not make the photo itself 'POV'. Similar photos (of victorious armies) are in just about every WP war article.
(3) I was not referring to that issue, but rather to your removal of " tens of thousands of Palestinian Arab irregulars fought under the command of Haj Amin el-Husseini , a former Colonel in the [[Waffen SS]". Isarig 15:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
(1) You forgot the Iraki army who tried to enter Israel's territory but didn't succeed. The main column of the Egyptian army entered by Gaza and was stopped at Ashdod in Arab territory; the other column crossed (and invaded) Israel's territory but fixed in Arab territory and in the area of Jerusalem (corpus separatum). We know fot the Arab Legion. The Lebanese didn't participate to the war. Some lebanese troops occupied 2 villages in the north of the country.
But what about the other points I explained you. You didn't comment ?
I ask my question again : what words to use to explain this situation ?
(2) Why this propaganda photo is better than the map ? I explained you why I thought it was worse.
(3a) After May 15, he had no more troops to command. He has been defeated by Hagannah in April and his men where disarmed by Arab Legion or forced enroled by Egyptians. He has far less than 10,000 men.
(3b) Why is the fact he was colonel in the SS is relevant here ? Alithien 07:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
(1) The Syrian forces invaded Israel. The Egyptian forced invaded Israel (the fact that some of their forces were stopped in Arab territory before achieving their stated goal of reaching Tel Aviv does not change that fact). The Lebanese forces invaded and captured two villages. That theirs was a "small scale" invasion does not change the fact that they invaded. Please don't white wash this invasion with the incorrect term "entered". Your other points are irrelevant to the fact that the invasion occurred, as described in the article.
(2)Maps and photos serve different purposes, and are not a replacement for one another. The map is good, and should be included in the article, perhaps in the section describing the 1st phase of the war. But there is no reason to use it instead of an appropriate photo.
(3)There is an entire section in the article about him and his forces, and their (disputed) size is irrelevant. His being a colonel in the SS seems important as there is a claim (made later in the article) that Arab forces, and irregulars in particular, were ill-trained and poorly equipped, so it seems important to note that they were led by a high ranking officer. Isarig 15:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
(1) I agree entered is not better than invaded. But how would you neutralize the current wording that give to readers an image of the situation which is not real" ? Do you want we write just before that Haganah invaded the Arab state in May 13 (BenAmi operation) when they took Acre and Western Galilea ? The picture there is ONE invader and ONE defender is not accurate. There real picture is that there is was mess, a crazy civil war (100 deaths/month on a population of 2,000,000 - just compare with Iraq today) and that Israel had defeated Palestinians (Barouk HaChem).
(2) The map is neutral ; the photo is not (you agreed that)
Both are important : I agree that.
So, maybe the map should be use as the picture #1 in the article and the ohter should be place in the section dealing with Uvda operation... What do you think ?
(3) Do you mean Husseini was a good stratege and this should be pointed out to balance the image the Palestinians were "weak" ? Please ! He was a poor politician and he had given the command of his "troops" to his nephew, abd-al kader al-Huseyni (sorry for the spelling).
Alithien 08:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
(1)I disagree that using the word "invasion" is non-neutral or gives an image of a situation that's not real. 3 of the 5 armies invaded Israel, 1 more invaded the Corpus separtaum, and the 5th tried, but was foiled, in his attempt to invade. "Invasion" is the correct terms,and is used in most texts that describe that war. On May 13th, the territory was part of the British Mandate, there was no "arab state" that the Haganah invaded . Even on the 15th there was no such state - The Arabs rejected the plan, and did not declare a state.
(2)I did no agree that the photo is POV. Many such photos appear al lover WP war articles. See for example Battle of Iwo Jima. The map describes only the first phase of the war, and was placed in the appropriate section. Isarig 14:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
(3) I don't know if Husseini was a good commander, and it's not my place (or yours) to evaluate him. I do know he was a colonel, and that's what the article says. Isarig 14:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
(1) So I can add Haganah attacked first with BenAmi. Ok.
Could you supply a references from scholars where it is written "Arab states invaded Israel" ? Thank you. Alithien 22:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
(2) Why yours rather than mine ? I suggest a vote.
(3) You said it was relevant to say he was rank officeer because Palestinian was described as badly trained. Now you say we don't have to evaluate his ability as commander. Why is it relevant that he was colonel ? Alithien 22:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
(1)No, you may not add that , as it's incorrect. A civil war had been raging form months (since at least Nov 29, 47), and it was the Arabs who fired the first shots in that war. It is a bit disingenuous of you to ask for a scholarly source using the word invasion, having already conceded 3/5 of the Arab armies did indeed invade, bus as such references are trivial to find, I'll humor you:

"from late March until the invasion of the Arab armies in mid-MaY" - Palestine, 1948: War, Escape and the Emergence of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, Gelber, Yoav, p. 85

(2) WP is not a democracy, and not run by votes. If you can't make a case for the removal of the photo, it stays.
(3) Colonels are high ranking army officers, and presumed competent. If there are reliable sources (not you or me) that discuss his competence - feel free to add that discussion in the relevant section. Isarig 22:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
(1) I appreciate that humor. Right.
If I gather several -reliable- sources on that topic, do you agree we respect NPoV and write something in accordance with the different mind ? I would appreciate a "clear" answer.
(2) Funny : ...If I can't make a case... My argument is that is not NPoV and where use for propaganda (which you agree with).
Wikipedia is not a democracy but it is not either a dictature...
Could you summarize your arguments for this image and we ask somebody to mediate this case ?
(3) You don't answer my question, Isarig. Why is this information relevant ? Is it because he is assumed to be "competent" and balance the picture that palestinian forces would have been weak ? Do you think we should work in the introduction to balance the image of the relative forces engaged in the war ?
Alithien 07:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
(1)There is no humor there. You made an incorrect statement, which I corrected, and you asked for a scholarly refernce that describes the Arb armies' action as an "invasion", which I provided.
(2)My case is simple, and has been made here before: This photo is well known and symbolic of the end of the war, and simialr such photos are used all over WP. There is nothign POV about it.
(3)I answered your question. It is factual that he was a colonel, and it is factual that he commanded the irregualrs. What part o fthis so upsets you that you feel it must be excised from the article?Isarig 21:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
(1) your wrote : "I'll humor you" ; you don't answer for source. You don't answer for Ben'Ami. I conclude you agree. I proceed. - (2) you admitted it was used for propaganda. You don't answer about mediator. - (3) you don't answer about why you consider it is relevant. You just say it is true, which I don't contest. Do you see the difference ?
Alithien 08:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is getting bizzare, and I suspect that this is partly due to the fact that you don't understand English very well. (1) "I'll humor you" does not mean I'm going to tell a joke or a funny story. is an English idiom which means "I will entertain a request which really shouldn't be made". You had already conceded at that point that 3 of the 5 Arab armies had invaded, but still required me to provide you with a scholarly source that used the word "invasion. That I promptly did, using a source (Gelber) that you are obviously familiar with,[since you used it extensively in your edits on this article and others related to the 1948 war (see below for some examples)] and so already knew he calls it an invasion. With regards to Ben Ami - I have no problem with you documenting that operation, but you may not call it an invasion, as no country was invaded, and you may not describe it as the Haganah starting a war, becuase a civil war had been raging for months at that point, a war started by the Arabs. (2) I have not admitted the image was used for propaganda, I said that even if it had, this would still not be grounds for its removal. If you want to take this to mediation, go ahead, you don't need my approval for it. I suggest you put up an RfC, as a starting point. (3)I've told why I consider it relevant. You have not answered why you think this factual information should be removed. Isarig 16:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Isarig,
Yes, I didn't know the verb "humor". This is my mistake.
I agree more or less about what you write concerning BenAmi too.
Nevertheless, I come back on Gelber. I knew I could not have been wrong about the "invasion of Israel". Gelber is talking about the invasion of Palestine ! See for exemple the ch.8 titled : "The Arab Regular armies invasion of Palestine". So does Benny Morris in Victims (eg on the map p.241 in French version).
You note that scholar do not agree with your argument that "Palestine" could not have been invaded and so, BenAmi and the fall of Jaffa could be considered as in invasion (even if I will not write such things not to make a WP:POINT).
No you didn't answer Isarig... On my side I already answer : this should be removed because this is not relevant. I assume that if you don't answer, mediator will consider you are of bad faith, what you would not like to make think, isn't it ?
Alithien 17:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
How is the name and rank of the commander of the irregular arb forces not relevant? Isarig 17:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Isarig,
Ask a question to a Jew... :-)
In a pilpoul, not answering a question means "you are right", right ? ;-)
Just look at the table below the picture we discussed about : [[6]], you will see Haj amin was not the commander. It was his nephew... Abd al Kader al-Husseini.
And even. To respect NPoV, that would also mean we should give the rank of all Haganah officeers. We can write an article only with that...
Now we know that Gelber didn't talk about the invasion of Israel but about the invasion of Palestine, I add that in Morris, Victims, he writes that Acre and West Galilea were conquered(!) by Haganah.
I would suggest we don't enter these details and we write something like the arab armies intervened on 15 may in invading Palestine and attacking Israel. What do you think about that ? Alithien 09:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I find your recent personal comments inappropriate. To answer all your questions: there is no shortage of scholarly sources describeing an invasion of Israel . A simple Googel Scolar search will bring up "invasion of Israel by surrounding Arab countries" [S Carmi, H Rosenfeld - International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 1989]; "1948 Arab state invasion of Israel " [J Slater - Political Science Quarterly, 2001]; "the invasion of Israel in May that year" [Arab Armies of the Middle East Wars 1948-73, J Laffin], "the armed invasion of Israel by her Arab neighbours on 15 May 1948" [S Teveth - Middle Eastern Studies, 1990] these are just the first few that come up on the first page of the search. There are hundreds more. So I do not see a goodreason to change this well docuemnted schoalrly term with some whitewashed one. Isarig 17:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Gelber is not a whitewasher historian. You even used him as reference a few lines above.
It is just a question of pov.
There are also hundreds of references with "invasion of Palestine" for 1948 events : [7].
NPoV means all poved must be expressed.
So what ? Do we write "invaded Palestine and Israel" ?
Alithien 19:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
We can write 'Invaded Israel, the Corpus Seperatum and territories alloted to the futire Arab state". Isarig 19:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok. What would you think about something like this :
By the end of May, the arab armies had invaded the territory of the former British mandate. The Transjordanians fought only in the areas alloted to the Arab state and in the corpus seperatum of Jerusalem, while the Syrians, Egyptians, Iraqis and Lebanese invaded Israel
Alithien 20:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions about civil war section

Since the Jewish population was under strict orders obliging them to hold their dominions at all costs

Orders from Whom? I don't have access to the citation given. If there was some supreme authority giving orders to Jews during this period it would certainly be notable. "Jewish Notables" perhaps? 24.64.165.176 05:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, this is more detailed in the main article (this is a synthesis). It is written :
The possibility of evacuating these difficult to defend zones was considered, but the policy of Haganah was set by David Ben-Gurion. He stated that 'what the Jewish people have has to be conserved. No Jewish person should abandon his or her house, farm, kibbutz or job without authorisation. Every outpost, every colony, whether it is isolated or not, must be occupied as though it were Tel Aviv itself' [1].
The source is the French version of Lapierre and Collins. The precise quote states :
"« Ce que tiennent les Juifs doit être conservé. Aucun Juif ne doit abandonner son domicile, sa ferme, son kibboutz ou son travail sans autorisation. Chaque avant-poste, chaque colonie, chaque village, quel qu’en soit l’isolement, doit être occupé comme s’il s’agissait de Tel-Aviv même. »

The traduction here is -I think- completely fair.

I think (am quite sure) that Gelber talks also about that policy when he comments the fall of Kfar Etzion (in Palestine 1948). He explains this policy was valuable against militias but not when fighting regular armies.
Unfortunately, I think neither L&C nor Gelber give the "document" on which they base to say that. This could be verified and is certainly interesting but is maybe not needed at our level.
Hope this helps, Alithien 07:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Due to funds gathered by Golda Meir from sympathisers in the United States

Hi IP24,
The source is in the main article.

  • Lapierre and Collins have a full chapter about the 25,000,000 of US$ gathered by Golda Meir in the US (in December 47).
  • Benny Morris states that among the 129 000 000 $ gathered between october 1947 et march 1949, more than 78 000 000 will be used to buy weapons. (Victims, p.240 in the French version).
  • Here is a primary source about Golda speech named The Speech that made possible a Jewish State. L&C refers to it in their book and a summary can be found there.

More information have been gathered here : fr:Problématique du matériel lors de la guerre de Palestine de 1948 but it is still incomplete and in French. Alithien 07:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The Trans-Jordanian Frontier Force

A little known unit that was disbanded in April of 1948 was involved in some initial fighting. This very interesting unit was composed of local Palestinian Arabs who were trained to do border patrol work during the Mandate, it was modelled on the Arab legion, but was not composed of Bedouin. Michel Issa, a leader in the ALA during the war, led a company of these soldiers in the battle at Jaffa and Walid Khalidi has documented his important role in this battle.

I added a small bit of info about this unit and a link, but it turns out nothing has been written on it, I suggest that someone write a page on it, or when I get aorund to it I will.Seth J. Frantzman 21:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Pov flag

Until reviewed by a neutral scholar, this article will be poved.
It is better for the credibility of wp, to state there is continual controversy on this article.
The discussion here above is an example of some points to correct. Alithien 09:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi. I didn't see a POV flag on article or its history. If still a concern, maybe detail your concerns and/or only flag the smallest subunits feasible. Thanks! HG | Talk 11:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It has been removed after another editor modified the introduction. :-) Alithien 11:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. So much POV in the first paragraph.

"Fleeing or expulsion" implies that all Palestinian Arabs left due to fear or force. As stated in "Demographic outcome," it is not improper to say (although it seems unproven) that most left because their Arab neighbors asked them to. So the first paragraph already assumes one distinct and unproven POV. "Ostensibly" implies that there's a real reason in addition to the given reason. I'd say that security concerns were the reason, but less loaded language would be suitable to say that this was Israel's viewpoint, e.g., "Israel, while accepting the remaining Arabs, banned those Arabs who migrated out of Palestine from returning, citing security concerns." Also, I've heard Palestinians use "al Nakba" to describe the war itself, not just the movement of Palestinian Arabs in the war. If this is an improper use, it is still a widely used one. Indeed Nakba Day marks not the days of migration, but the first full day of the existence of the state of Israel.

Finally, I've heard documentaries claim that Jordan was a winner, not a loser, of the war. They gained the West Bank, including the Old City of Jerusalem; although technically "occupied," it was quite a gain, both in terms of land and in making the holiest site of Judaism both inaccessible to Jews for 19 years and a point of contention among Arabs and Israelis ever since. Contrast this with Egypt's gain of the tiny Gaza Strip and Syria's minor border changes. Calbaer 17:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  • "ostensibly on security grounds" could be removed. simply.
  • concerning al-Naqba, I think we lack source concerning its precise meaning.
  • Jordan was a winner. Indeed.

Alithien 06:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest whole first paragraph is removed. Alithien 18:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Alithien -- Hi. I didn't check the edit history. Facilitation style comment: Current version seems to have had improvements, at least for your concerns. Have you tried recommending or editing "exodus" instead of "flight and expulsion" in line with the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus or Palestinian exodus? HG | Talk 11:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yishuv political objectives - npov

transfer debate

I think we should not use primary sources to support a point when there are controversies. We know that there are many pov and many quotes -particularly concerning the transfer- that contradict each others. What would you think of something such as this :

Palestine initially counts 1,200,000 Arabs for 600,000 Jews(ref). The question of the creation of a Jewish state "sets" a demographical matter(ref). The viability and even the existence of a jewish state with a majority and even a strong minority of Arabs is precarious(ref). If a possible answer comes from the jewish immigration(ref), with the jewish that wait for in the displaced people camps or from the dispora from arab countries, the possibility of the transfer of arab population outside the jewish state has been debated for numerous years among the zionist authorities(ref). The possibility that this debate lead to the establishment of a planified expulsion policy is controversed among historians. This is developed in the article dealing with the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus.

I have all the references indicated (as you have). It is just another synthesis I find more "neutral". What do you think about that ? Alithien 06:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: transfer debate

Hi Alithien,

I think in case of a controversy primary sources are the best, i.e. the most reliable, i.e. facts or comparable to facts. The given quotes can easily be supported by more quotes to the same effect.

Was the matter of 'transfer' pre-1948 debated as a matter of 'exchange', as you state above? Is it more neutral to present 'transfer' as a part of 'exchange'? Were the Jews in Arab countries pre-1948 waiting to be transferred to Israel?

I took care to limit myself to facts, preferably to undisputable facts. I think in my text the most disputable lines are (if disputable):

'However amongst the leaders of Zionism it was clear that if a suitable opportunity presented itself they would take more.'
' 'Transfer' was seen as a solution to this problem'

To the first I would say: isn't this what they did? To the second: this is acknowledged in your proposal.

Your reference to causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus is good.

--JaapBoBo 20:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


  • In case of a controversy primary source is the worse because you just take one. It is not because once somebody would have said or written something that it is what he did or intended to do. We can find quotes from primary sources that will exactly claim the contrary.
when there is a controversy only NPoV is a solution : ie reporting *all* relevant pov from scholars on the matter.
  • I don't say transfer was an exchange ? Why do you say that.
  • No. What is disputable is that not everybody agrees with the transfer. So we have to give all minds and to precise who claims what.
Alithien 06:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Population Figures

There was no such demographic problem, because the part of Palestine allotted to the Jews by the partition had a Jewish majority and about 250,000 additional Jews were waiting in the wings in the DP camps, plus Jews from Arab countries etc. In all the area conquered by the Jews there were probably about 800,000 Arabs in total, and Jewish immigration would soon have redressed even that imbalance. In any case, the Arabs had started leaving of their own accord, and were leaving in massive numbers as early as March of 1948. It is a non-problem that is created deliberately and artificially in order to support a thesis that has no basis in fact. I do not understand the point about ignoring primary documents either. If you ignore the evidence, you are left with nothing but ignoramuses arguing about nothing. It makes no sense. Mewnews (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem

I think the control of Jerusalem was obviously a political objective of the Yishouv and of all protagonists. Quite strangely, scholars focus that much on the "palestinian transfer" nowadays that I think they "forget" to talk about Jerusalem. Shouldn't we talk about Jerusalem and quote Lapierre and Collins to prove this ? Alithien 06:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Weitz

I think reference to Weitz in Yichouv political objectives is irrelevant. The articles talks about a war, this is one man's wish. I think it is WP:UNDUE. Alithien 08:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Reference to Weitz

I think it's relevant. Weitz set up some transfer committees. See also [[8]]

--JaapBoBo 20:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes but when ? And even what ?
Why don't we give Yigal Allon, Yaakov Dori, Yigal Yadin, Menachem Begin and Moshe Sharett's mind. They were far more involved that Weitz.
Alithien 06:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Alithien recommended I drop by. Here's a facilitation-style comment. You're both being civil and substantive. You might try asking for a Wikipedia:Third opinion on both questions. E.g., (1a) To what extent might WP Policy or Guidelines such as WP:V or WP:RS favor primary or secondary sources? (1b) How might the answer apply here? (2a) What kinds of criteria should be drawn from WP:UNDUE or elsewhere to gauge the use of Weitz? (2b) What is your opinion about how the criteria might be applied here? Thanks. Pls let me know if you find this a helpful idea. HG | Talk 11:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No worry. "Problems" are with Isarig and Zeq. Alithien 11:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Demographic objectives

I removed the material concerning who considered there was an master plan, who not and about ethnic cleaning.
The reasons are :

  • it is confusing : Pappé and Khalidi considers there was a plan even before plan Daleth. This last one is rather a proof.
  • we are talking about the "objectives" before the war started and even in the historians that agree there some action equivalent to ethnic cleaning after the 1st truce, this was not "expected" or "programmed" in the demographic objectives.

Alithien 16:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should not be limited to the start of the war; if the objective shifted you can insert a line that it did
I also think the first part you removed is accurate (at least Morris believes in it and I donn't think he is biased in this direction) and relevant:
Zionist leaders avoided this subject in public debate for fear of alienating world public opinion and provoking an Arab reaction (Morris, 'The Birth ... Revisited, 2004, p. 54, 55'), but reacted favorably to it whenever outsiders brought the subject up, as did the Peel Commission in 1937 and the British Labour Party in 1944(Morris, 'The Birth ... Revisited, 2004, p. 47, 54'). The Zionists saw transfer not as bad for the Arabs, e.g. during a closed deliberation in May 1944 Ben-Gurion said: '... it is clear that if the Arabs are removed this will improve their condition and not the contrary.'{Masalha, 'Expulsion of the Palestinians...', 1992, p. 159)
The same for the second and third part. You told me yourself that Gelber believed there were ethnic cleansing operations bij the IDF (see the Tantura discussion)!
The Zionists' position regarding forced transfer of Arab Palestinians prior to the war is a matter of controverse. A majority of modern historians (e.g. Gelber, Morris) holds that there was no Zionist master plan for an expulsion prior to July 1948. A majority (e.g. Gelber, Morris, Pappé, Khalidi) also holds that later mass flights were the result of offensives of the Israeli army (see causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus) and that the Israeli army engaged in ethnic cleansing operations.
After the war Israel did not permit the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes.
Why shouldn't we put the piece back?
--JaapBoBo 21:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
JB : I think it should not be limited to the start of the war; if the objective shifted you can insert a line that it did
Ok. But not at the beginning of the article. The context of this war is extremely important and a major point of the context is that it evolved. So (alleged) modifications of policy must be introduced it the article chronologically when they happened.
JB : Zionist leaders avoided this subject in public debate for fear of alienating world public opinion and provoking an Arab reaction
Yes but this is controversed. A clear difference must be made between what ONE historian thinks and what is thougth globally with controversies. I want to underline that this article is about the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, not about the Palestinian refugee problem. There were many many objectives during the war other that the transfer or Palestinians.
JB : ethnic cleaning
Yes but this arose after in another context after other events arose. The word "ethnic cleaning" should not be in the yichouv objectives before the war because it happened after.
More, Gelber also considers the "ethnic cleaning" if it arose was not programmed. A difference must be made between what some soldiers did and what government ordered, whether soldiers were sued or not...
Alithien 05:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
JB : Zionist leaders avoided this subject in public debate for fear of alienating world public opinion and provoking an Arab reaction
Alithien: Yes but this is controversed. A clear difference must be made between what ONE historian thinks and what is thougth globally with controversies. I want to underline that this article is about the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, not about the Palestinian refugee problem. There were many many objectives during the war other that the transfer or Palestinians.
This is not what ONE historian thinks. It's not one, because e.g. Pappé agrees with Morris ('The ethnic cleansing of Palestine'). It's also not just what Morris thinks, but what he, as a scientist, derives from his sources. In 'The Birth ... Revisited' (p54,55) Morris bases his conclusions on a lot of archival material. E.g. he quotes Sharett and Ben-Gurion in a JAE meeting at 7 May 1944. They say that talking about transfer will subvert its implementation in advance.
Can you indicate dependable sources that controverse this?
--JaapBoBo 12:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I agree with you that "ethnic cleansing" was not an objective before the war, but I'm sure 'transfer' was an objective of the leaders of the Yishuv. I'm sure also that before the war these leaders desperately wanted a voluntary transfer (Morris agrees with this). However for most Palestinian Arabs this was out of the question. What changed during the war was the opportunity to use force and to blame the Arabs.
--JaapBoBo 12:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello JaapBoBo,
JB : Can you indicate dependable sources that controverse this?
??? About the transfer ? Of course. Shapira, Karsh, Teveth don't agree with any idea or will of transfer. Gelber doesn't directly contredict this but the reasons he gives are controdictory with this for events before july 1948. And even Morris is nuanced ! He claims the idea of transfer was in zionists thoughts (i.e. : they knew it was a solution to the problem) but he also add he doens't know at what extent this idea influenced the events of 1948 (i.e. : if the yishuv authorities organised a transfer).
See here for more details : [9]
Alithien 13:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yishuv objectives

JaapBoBo, If you are not able to "write for the enemy" and to introduce all points of views (and not only theirs) don't edit articles.

  • You give all pov's or you give none.
  • You make the difference between "truth" and "mind" or you don't edit.

Alithien 06:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Casus belli

According to Wikipedia it means 'justification for acts of war'. Since the Arabs attacked they should provide this justification. You can find it here: [[10]].

Let me cite some things:

  • they [the Arab States] aim at nothing more than to put an end to the prevailing conditions in [Palestine].
  • First: That the rule of Palestine should revert to its inhabitants, in accordance with the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations and [the Charter] of the United Nations and that [the Palestinians] should alone have the right to determine their future.
  • Second: Security and order in Palestine have become disrupted. The Zionist aggression resulted in the exodus of more than a quarter of a million of its Arab inhabitants from their homes and in their taking refuge in the neighbouring Arab countries.

So the casus belli should be something like: 'disregard by UN of Right of Self-Determination of Palestinians and exodus of a quarter of a million Palestinians from their homes due to Zionist agression'


--JaapBoBo 20:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The casus bellum you listed, while a decent start, was a bit non-NPOV and maybe even a little bit of WP:SYNTH. It's probably a worthwhile place to start from, though. In the interest of encouraging all sides to work expeditiosly toward a common goal, I've removed the casus bellum entirely for now. Let's work toward a properly cited and mutually agreeable wording before relisting. Fair enough? --Clubjuggle T/C 12:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How about something like: End Zionist aggression resulting in flight of Arab refugees, and restore Palestinian right to self determination as guaranteed by the UN Charter. Gatoclass 12:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation? --Clubjuggle T/C 12:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

JaapBobo provided it in the link above but for your benefit here it is again:

"...the Governments of the Arab States declare the following:

First: That the rule of Palestine should revert to its inhabitants, in accordance with the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations and [the Charter] of the United Nations and that [the Palestinians] should alone have the right to determine their future.

Second: Security and order in Palestine have become disrupted. The Zionist aggression resulted in the exodus of more than a quarter of a million of its Arab inhabitants from their homes and in their taking refuge in the neighbouring Arab countries.

...Sixth: Therefore, as security in Palestine is a sacred trust in the hands of the Arab States, and in order to put an end to this state of affairs...the Governments of the Arab States have found themselves compelled to intervene in Palestine solely in order to help its inhabitants restore peace and security and the rule of justice and law to their country, and in order to prevent bloodshed. Gatoclass 13:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Gatoclass gives the goals of the Arabs; the casus belli should give the 'justification for acts of war' given by the Arab states. How about: alleged disregard by UN of Right of Self-Determination of Palestinians and exodus of a quarter of a million Palestinians from their homes due to alleged Zionist agression
@Clubjuggle: I don't think this is synthesis, because there is only one source, also I don't think there are problems with npov because a casus belli neccesarrily represents the view of the attacking side.
--JaapBoBo 21:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
No, that is too much of a mouthful and it would also give the appearance of bias. The "casus belli" section is not designed to reproduce grievances chapter and verse, but only to give a thumbnail sketch of the reasons cited for going to war. Gatoclass 08:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
It needs to be as simple as possible. How about "Safeguard the security and right to self determination of Arab Palestinians"? Gatoclass 08:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the goals can also be the 'justification for acts of war'; I was thinking of shooting incidents etc. that are sometimes used as justifications. I find Gatoclass's proposal okay. --JaapBoBo 15:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Alithien, what exactly is your objection to the above? We have an impeccable source for this and I think the characterization here is a very mild one. One could hardly water down the description any further. And indeed when I look at some of the chapter and verse casus belli given on other pages, I'm beginning to wonder whether I should have shortened and toned down the description here at all. Gatoclass 22:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Alithien, but the stated casus belli, Palestinian self-determination, was belied by the fact that neither Egypt nor Jordan allowed for self-determination while they occupied the terroritories in the aftermath of the war. The real justification and trigger was the declaration of independence of the state of Israel. But, as this might be difficult to "prove," perhaps no casus should be listed. The actual and ostensible justifications, views, and triggers can be listed in the article. Calbaer 01:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the meaning of casus belli. It doesn't mean actual reasons for going to war, it means stated or ostensible reasons. You may well be correct that these weren't the genuine reasons for going to war, but that's not what the casus belli records. Gatoclass 02:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Gatoclass,
I have nothing particular against this... This is the "casus belli" : ie the official motivation.
I just added "on the whole Palestine"
It could be interesting to have an additional section discussing each real motivation but that is something else.
It is funny that discussions here looks more like negociation between pov instead of neutral report of pov.
Alithien 10:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, just reversed Alithiens changes. The original 'casus belli' was negotiated here, so it shouldn't be changed just like that.
This is what Alithien made of it: "Safeguard the security and self determination of Arab Palestinians on the whole Palestine". Why should 'right to self determination' be replaced by 'self determination'? This makes it really strange. Above that its not in line with the source [[11]]'. 'On the whole of Palestine' is also not in line with the source.
--JaapBoBo 18:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
What negociations ? Wikipedia is not a negociations and if any (which shouldn't) it was not ended.
The whole palestine is not reflected in the source ? Arab league didn't accept the partition of Palestine. Alithien 18:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No of course they didn't accept it. They wanted the issue decided by self-determination of all Palestinians, ie, a vote. That's the principle they were upholding (or said they were) when they invaded. Adding "on the whole of Palestine" is redundant, because self determination for Palestinians would automatically mean the extinction of the Zionist state. Gatoclass 18:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

By a vote ??? Do you have a source ? Alithien 18:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Self determination means the people as a whole get to choose what sort of government they want. In other words, what the majority wants is what the majority gets. It usually implies a plebiscite or a vote of some kind.
That is the principle the Arab League upheld in its negotiations with the UN prior to the adoption of the two-State solution. The Arabs wanted a one-state solution because that would mean that Arab Palestinians, with a two thirds majority of the population, would basically get to control the state through the ballot box. Gatoclass 19:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is "on whole Palestine" perturbing ?
Alithien 19:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Well for one thing, it is bad English. For another, it can only obfuscate the issue. By May 15, Israel has come into existence. So what does "on whole Palestine" mean? As far as the Israelis are concerned, half of the former Palestine is now Israel. Likewise for the UN, which has rapidly recognized the new state. So what does "on whole Palestine" convey to the reader? Nothing but confusion. Apart from which, as I've already said, it's completely redundant in any case. Gatoclass 19:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Whole Palestine means that they wanted the "self determination" of Arab Palestinians on the whole country.
Do you mean that in their casus belli they didn't intend to attack or invade Israel but only enter and protect the Arab state ?
Alithien 19:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
see point 9 of the "source" :
When the General Assembly of the United Nations issued, on 29 November 1947, its recommendation concerning the solution of the Palestine problem, on the basis of the establishment of an Arab State and of another Jewish [State] in [Palestine] together with placing the City of Jerusalem under the trusteeship of the United Nations, the Arab States drew attention to the injustice implied in this solution [affecting] the right Of the people of Palestine to immediate independence, as well as democratic principles and the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations and [the Charter] of the United Nations. [These States also] declared the Arabs' rejection of [that solution] and that it would not be possible to carry it out by peaceful means, and that its forcible imposition would constitute a threat to peace and security in this area
Instead of "whole Palestine", maybe rejection of UN resolution 181 could solve the matter ? Alithien 19:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that in their casus belli they didn't intend to attack or invade Israel but only enter and protect the Arab state?

They didn't recognize Israel. So as far as they were concerned, they weren't "invading" anything. They were simply entering Palestine to safeguard the rights and security of all Palestinians. Or so they claimed.

You claim the current version is "pro-Palestinian." How could it be other than that when it's the rationalization of the Arab states for their invasion? Of course it's going to sound pro-Palestinian. Go and have a read of the casus belli for the Six Day War, and ask yourself if it doesn't sound pro-Israeli.

But it seems you're not content with that. You're not content with the fact that wars started by Israel have casus belli which not unexpectedly make the initiator of hostilities sound like the innocent victim. Instead, you want to make the Arab casus belli for a war started by the Arab League, also sound pro-Israeli. You want to tack on a phrase of your own invention about the Arab League wanting "the whole of Palestine". Subtext: the Arabs were greedy. They wanted it all.

Sorry, but I don't find anything remotely NPOV about your proposed insertion. Gatoclass 19:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

For your information : [12]
if you prefer the one I deleted there, no problem with me.
You seem to have forgotten your congratulations to me for 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and its "neutrality".
What is funny is that I reverted Isarig (see discussions here above Pov edits) because I wanted to write "entered Palestine" when he wanted "invaded Israel".
You know, I will not die because you don't behind the words casus belli in a wikipedia article the facts that Arab League rejected res. 181 and invaded Palestine is hidden.
lol lol lol Alithien 21:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Nb: and I know what a casus belli is. Just read Rogan and Shlaim, war of Palestine 1948. You will learn what was the arab motivations and learn they didn't want it at all... Maybe just Abdallah and jsut a part of this but this is not what they declared. Alithien 21:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Alithien, you can argue what you want of what you think the Arabs really wanted, but the casus belli is about the justification they gave. The rejection of UN-res. 181 is a specification of the protection of the rights of the Palestinians. It is already in there.--JaapBoBo 06:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Answer in next section about this topic : [13]. Alithien 10:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

New 'Yishuv Objectives'

I've added a neutralised version of an important pov on the Yishuv objectives. I am a bit familiar with other pov's but I don't know the right references. To achieve NPOV I invite others to add other pov's, including references.

P.S. Alithien: please don't delete this but try to discuss it first in the true Wikipedia spirit; remember: Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it. [[14]]

--JaapBoBo 21:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have always worked in that spirit. Alithien 10:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Shelling photo

The photograph being discussed is Image:1948-Jordanian artillery shelling Jerusalem.jpg.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not an expert), but what is pictured appears to be a long-exposure photograph of parachute flares being used to illuminate part of the city (fired up on the image right, then drifting with the wind towards the left). There may well have been shelling or fighting going on at the time, but I don't see evidence of that in this photo.

I was unable to load the photo's cited source page,[15] and the site appears to be gone, but archive.org has a copy.[16] Does anyone know of a history book or other source which captions this photo? It would be good to find a more specific citation, which credits the photographer or dates the photo. —Michael Z. 2007-09-25 22:55 Z

I have no info about this but what you say sounds logical. Alithien 10:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This edit

This edit [17] is not NPOV and even the calims made by the source ( a biased source the countries that started the war try to justify going into war) do not confirm what the editor has wrote. so the editor is even misquoting a highly biased source.....Zeq 16:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the article is presenting the bias, not presenting bias as facts. But I could be wrong. Beamathan (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Casus

The cause for the war (invasion started on the day the state of Israel declared independence) has clearly been (in this article and in real life): "Arab rejection of the existence of the State of Israel". Now suddeny it is changing....to a quote from the invading party manifesto. Since when wikipedia became so one sided ???? Zeq 21:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

btw, this is how NPOV looks like: [18] Zeq 10:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, that is your own pov. Tarc 12:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
it is a bit repetative to hear this from tarc again and again: "your POV"... Of course - Everything I write in a talk page is my view. The issue here is not what I write in a talk page - rather it is to make sure that both POV will be respresnted in Wikipedia articles. Zeq 12:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, when you claim that your own pov is neutral, you don't see that as problematic? Tarc 12:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
No. My POV is not Neutral. So is your POV. read WP:NPOV. The article has to inlclude all POVs - not just your POV (which you call "fact") and not just my POV (which you call "opinion") . Zeq 13:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting.

  • fact : "Zionism wanted a jewish state. This implies Arab population must be displaced"
  • translation 1 : "Zionism aimed at expelling Palestinians"
  • translation 2 : "As all nations in the world has a state , zionism demand is legitime"
  • fact : "Arab declared war and entered Palestine to control it. This implies the rejection of the existence of a jewish state"
  • translation 1 : "Arabs defended the secury and self determination of Arab Palestinians"
  • translation 2 : "Arabs aimed at destroying Israel".

Is the aim theory finally a pov practice ? Alithien 09:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Alithien,

  1. The 1947 UN decision created two states: One Jewish one Arab. Thus a "jewih state" does not mean aiming at explaing arabs and an Arab state does not mean expelling jews.
  2. Jews accepted the division in two states.
  3. Arab rejected the division.
  4. Arab countries invaded in an effort to control the whole area thus to eliminate the Jewish state. The only reason we are having this discussion is that they failed to do so but the aim is clear. Zeq 09:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Zeq,
Thank you for your answer. I perfectly understand your point.
In fact, I was answering to Gatoclass and JaapBoBo with whom I started the same discussion here above. Maybe we could "merge" both sections. Alithien 09:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


"The partition resolution was never suspended or rescinded. Thus, Israel, the Jewish State in Palestine, was born on May 14, as the British finally left the country. Five Arab armies (Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq) immediately invaded Israel. Their intentions were declared by Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League: 'This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades. '"[19] - this is from the same source JaapBoBo used - so if we are to use this source we should use everything they have not just pick and chosse a POV edit. Zeq 12:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
All parties, please review the above sections Talk:1948 Arab-Israeli War#Casus Belli as expressed by contemporary belligerents and Talk:1948 Arab-Israeli War#Bias in casus of belli. It is amusing that "a quote from the invading party manifesto" is being objected to. Casus belli is defined precisely as such a quote from the invading party. A casus belli is the proclaimed case for the war, declared by the initiating party. Mind you, it is not precisely correct to use the "to safeguard..." language, since this is a general statement of intent rather than a specific point (casus means "case", "incident", or "rupture"). The correct casus based on the linked statement is rejection of the "forcible imposition" of a Jewish State in Palestine. The last time around, it was decided just to cut the casus section altogether, because people who don't know what the words mean and can't be bothered to find out kept deleting the "forcible imposition" language and inserting something else, often something nonsensical. <eleland/talkedits> 19:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
"Safeguarding" is used in the source. Alithien 11:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit

[20] - the fact that Pappe is Jewish has nothing to do with this article. Also: katz is anti-zionist. Branding the exodus "ethnic cleansing" is POV and border on propeganda. Zeq 22:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish exodus in the reverse direction

Certain editors are insisting that no mention be made of it. In their log comments they imply that it didn't even happen, and they are more than wellcome to argue that stance over in the article on the Jewish exodus from Arab lands, and sidle up to the neo-Nazis editting articles on the Holocaust.

But it happened. It happened because of state-sponsored violence that was incited in perfect harmony with the anti-jewish (yes, anti-Jewish) stance taken by the Arab states during the conflict. And it happened "thanks" to incitement from Haj Amin's Arab Higher Comittee.

I.e. the violence that drove "Arab Jews" into France, the UK, the US, and yes, Israel, was a part of this conflict and merits mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.127.67 (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Part and parcel, as the saying goes; closely associated with the war. Agree that it belongs in this article, and not just as a counterpoint to mention of the May 15 protests. Absurd to imply it didn't happen, but then, there are always those, on wiki and otherwise, who are only too willing to rewrite history. The May 15 events came later, and I have shifted the sequence of text to reflect this. Not sure May 15 belongs in a section on demographic outcome at all. Hertz1888 05:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Zeq 05:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course there was a Jewish exodus in the opposite direction, but it mainly occured later (1948-1967), and it is not directly linked to the war. E.g.: which acts, in the 1948 war, caused the Jewish exodus? --JaapBoBo 09:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a primary source that show the link between the war of 1948 and the jewish exodus : [21]
Precises facts have been developed in the main articles.
Alithien 09:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't want the Jewish exodus in this article. Reasons:
  • It mainly happened after the war. I don't know who wrote: 'concurrently, in the three years after the war ...' in the article, but it's an obvious 'contradictio in terminis'.
An IP: The violence that caused the exodus started before the war, and intensified, especially its state sponsored incitement, during the war. The resulting flight was in large part a matter of logistics, some of which indeed had to wait until afterwards.
JaapBoBo: so if it started already before the war it didn't have to do so much with the war. Almost all of the exodus happened after the war.
An IP: and the tit for violence in Mandatory Palestine also started before the war. Did that also have nothing to do with the war? And again you evade the issue. The Arab nations conducting the war also sponsored horrific violence against their Jewish citizens as part and parcel of their policy vis-a-vis the ZIonists. It was a part of their war effort, and thus a part of the war. That the migration it caused took longer is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.187.0.78 (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The changing attitude of Arab populations towards the Jews certainly added to the exodus, but Israel invited the Arab Jews in, was also very happy to welcome them and in some instances organised their emigration.
An IP: And your point is, uh, what exactly? This does nothing to negate the relevance of the exodus to this article. It just shows your own resentment that Israel would have the audacity to commit the "crime" of helping Jews escape the violence.
JaapBoBo: Speaking of Israeli crimes, what about the bombings in Iraq!? My point is that the Jewish exodus was not so much caused by the war as by the result of the war: an Israel that wanted Arab Jews to immigrate.
  • If we allow this we might include a whole range of other topics, like, Israels blocking the return of the Palestinian refugees, Israels dispossession laws, Israels' discrimination of Arabs (and discrimination of Arab Jews in Israel), Israels attacks in 1956 and 1967, the Arab attack in 1973, Israels expulsion of 200.000 Palestinians in 1967-68, etc., etc.. Mentioning the Jewish exodus from Arab countries here is undue weight.
--JaapBoBo 13:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
NB: I am not IP.18 who just added some comments in JaapBoBo's text.
In 1947, Yishuv authorities argued that Palestine had to be shared also to welcome the Jews that were in DP camps. UNSCOP visited these and interviewed them. Their existence was one of the arguments that convinced UNSCOP to recommand the Partition. I think what they became is relevant.
In May 1948, the world feared (rightly or not) for these Jews living in Arab countries. (as proven by the NY Times first page of May 16).
You added yourself that the demography issue was an "aim" of the Yishuv. To guarantee the demographical equilibrium of Israel, Jewish Agency excepected these to settle in Palestine once no more limititation would be impose to immigration.
Alithien 18:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Israel blocking of Palestinian refugee should be added in the article. This happened during the war and the war was the big argument used by Ben Gurion to prevent this.
Absentee properties laws were voted in 1950. The link is less direct but they were already discussed during the war with Weitz. The remaining (I am sure you agree) is not relevent.
Alithien: of course there was a demographic aim, getting rid of Palestinians, but do you think the Yishuv leaders wanted to use the war to get Arab Jews to emigrate to Israel? --JaapBoBo 18:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Some comments on this text I deleted: Concurrently, in the three years following the war, 700,000 Jews settled in Israel, mainly along the borders and in former Arab lands.[2] Around 136,000 came from the 250,000 displaced Jews of the Second World War[3]. The majority, around 600,000[4], was part of the 758,000 to 900,000 Jews who emigrated from Arab countries.[5]

  • 'Concurrently, in the three years following the war' is a contradictio in terminus. The source should be checked.
  • '700,000 Jews settled in Israel, mainly along the borders and in former Arab lands. Around 136,000 came from the 250,000 displaced Jews of the Second World War' is certainly not relevant.
  • 600,000 in three years is a bit high, considering the table in [[22]] which says the number of Jews in Arab countries went from 856000 to 475000 between 1948 and 1958.

--JaapBoBo 19:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

An additional quote from an Iraqi Jew who thinks the Jewish exodus was not so much related to the 1948 war: Certainly it has been easier for the world to accept the Zionist lie that Jews were evicted from Muslim lands because of anti-Semitism, [[23]] --JaapBoBo 19:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Not much of an objective source, a disillusioned immigrant to Israel who speaks of Zionist lies. The eviction of Jews from the Arab world is established fact.
I fail to see that you have gained a consensus here to delete reference to the reverse direction exodus as you have done. If the criterion is concurrency with the war, then it is time to remove the reference to May 15 protests, which began considerably later. Pending further discussion, I am restoring the deleted content for now, without the word "concurrently". I believe some copyediting can bring this paragraph into line, rather than wholesale deletion. Hertz1888 20:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. this must be discussed further. surly an important outcome of the war Zeq 20:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo, 1 controversed scholar claims that "the expulsion" of the palestinian was an aim of the war and to argue his thesis, he gives a context to the war that is quite away from the reality of that time.
At the level reached by current analysis from each side, it is strange indeed nobody ever claimed that the Zionists purposedly made Sepharads expelled from Arab lands... And in fact, it has been claimed :-)
Could you please read precisely what you contest and read the quote you put forward for that purpose :
1. settled <-> expulsion : who talks about expulsions ?
2. no reason given <-> arab antisemism : who talks about antisemitism ?
Concerning the 600,000, you are right. I just took the former text trusting the source given and there is a contradiction.
Alithien 07:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

With what I have in hand, I cannot do better than writing than "most others are from arab lands". With the different numbers given we can guess there are min 165,000 jews who didn't came neither from Arab lands nor from DP camps.
There remain the others who came from Muslims but not Arab lands such as Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistans, Jews from Sweden, Ireland, Switzerland, Spain and Portugal, USA and South America.
Those who were "jailed" in Chypres were not counted yet. All this should give the 165,000 if everybody is reliable. Alithien 09:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

independent state

In the declaration of war, the arab league states : 'The Governments of the Arab States participated in [this conference] and asked for the preservation of the Arab character of Palestine and the proclamation of its independence'
Alithien 09:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

NB: I didn't find in the source where it was talked about "arab palestinians". Alithien 10:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Alithien, I have two reasons not to include 'in an independent state':
  • A fuller quote of your quote says: The Round Table Conference was held in London in 1939 in order to discuss the Palestine question and to arrive at the just solution thereof. The Governments of the Arab States participated in [this conference] and asked for the preservation of the Arab character of Palestine and the proclamation of its independence. So the Arab states said that in 1939. Maybe they wanted it also in 1948, but you should give another quote for that.
  • Even if the Arab states had this objective, its better to keep the casus belli short, and not include things that don't add much anyway.
--JaapBoBo 10:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
JaapBoBo, the document refers to Arab and Palestine independences more than to any other concept. I counted 36 occurence of the words.
Safeguard appears three, and once concerns the safeguard of the independence. Security 8.
All this is summarized here : "The Arab States recognize that the independence and sovereignty of Palestine which was so far subject to the British Mandate has now, with the termination of the Mandate, become established in fact".
This is the casus belli. If this is too long, we can remove what concerns security and self determination.
Alithien 11:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I agree. --JaapBoBo 12:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Term: Palestinian Arabs

During this period of time, Pan-Arab nationalism was the dominant way that the Arabs of the Middle East identified themselves. Further, the term "Palestinian" as a reference to Islamic Arab refugees who live in contested areas of the former British Mandate, is a modern invention. "Palestine" was the term used to describe the land by Jews before declaring the state of Israel. A Palestinian at the time (though the term was not often used in this way) was any person who lived in the British Mandate. Palestinians (as refered to today) have no relationship whatsoever to the ancient Philistines (from which the term is derived). As a result, I fail to see why this article calls the Arab inhabitants of the British Mandate "Palestinian Arabs" when they would have simply refered to themselves as Arabs at the time. There were certainly Islamic Arabs who inhabited the British Mandate and who could trace back their history in the land for many generations. There was also a consistent (albeit much smaller) Jewish presence in the land since Biblical times. [24] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.45.143.226 (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Simply put, the term 'Palestinean Arabs' is used to clarify the situation. Using the term Arab could refer to any person of the Arab World. To say that someone can not be defined as Palestinean, because they are not related to the original inhabitants is ridiculous. That would be like saying that I am not American, because my family immigrated here in the 1800's. Canutethegreat 22:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian nationalism has existed since 1920.
Some "Palestinian Arabs" distinguished themselves from the other Arabs and wanted an independant state in Mandatory Palestine. Alithien 12:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Article lacks focus

Just read through it and it provides a pretty chaotic view of events. Where is the overview of operations? Where is the discussion of grand strategy? It comes across as nothing more than an account of different battles, presented in no particular order. There's room for a great deal of improvement here IMO. Gatoclass 16:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You are perfectly right.
But such a work is not possible on wikipedia.
Alithien 12:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's possible! All we need to do is find an account of overall strategy from a reliable source. And they most certainly exist, I've read a number of them myself. Gatoclass 13:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

labour zionism

I removed:

Other Zionists believed in Labor Zionism, and had strong socialist leanings. They organized the labor movement in Palestine, and joined with the Arab masses in campaigns for improved wages and working conditions.

because it's not sourced and it is contradicted by a reliable source, Zeev Sternhell's 'The Founding Myths of Israel'. I replaced it with:

Other Zionists believed in Labor Zionism, an ideology that wanted to conquer the land, first by Jewish presence and Jewish labour, later, according to Sternhell, if necesarry by force.[6] They organized the labor movement in Palestine.

--JaapBoBo (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's say that both pov's exist. Even if one of them is minoritar.
I removed all comments and material related to this. This is useless in this article. Ceedjee (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The original text was certainly wrong. --JaapBoBo (talk) 12:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Not per my understanding :
Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete, p.412 :
[In a paragraph describing positive links betweens Arabs and Jews] (...). There were cases in which Jewish and Arab workers even went on strike together. A Jew and an Arab were joint leaders of a transport strike. The Histradrut also publiqhed a newspaper in Arabic, which included, among other thingks, translations of (...) [different Jewish writers].
There are other exemples. Ceedjee (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Those were actions of Left Labour I think. Not mainstream. --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I share this mind. But it "shows" that there was some debate. I cannot evaluate the ratio of those who followed this policy, those whose abandoned it (I have another exemple and I understand Segev as considering it is the maintstream) and those who never wanted to follow this... Ceedjee (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Assesment edits

Marshall

I removed: Despite Morris's assertion, Secretary of State George Marshall had told Jewish agency Foreign Minister Moshe Sharret in early May or late April 1948, "Believe me, I am talking about things about which I know. You are sitting there in the coastal plains of Palestine, while the Arabs hold the mountain ridges. I know you have some arms and your Haganah, but the Arabs have regular armies. They are well trained and they have heavy arms. How can you hope hope to hold out?"[7]. Morris is a historian who investigated the case and had access to a lot of information. Marshall was a contemporary, and could very well have been wrong. Which historian says Marshall was right? --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

it doesn't matter which historian says he's right or wrong, "Secretary of State" is a high profile figure with a number of intelligence agencies from which he receives his information. There's no justification to remove high profile accounts of the events... morris is only human. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
JaapBoBo : "rmv Marshal quote: who says Marshall had accurate information?; Do Collins and LaPierre say he was right?"
Yes, they do ;-).
But whatever, I think the "real" balance of force and a better explanation of what was a myth and what was not should be described a better way. Ceedjee (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Are Collins and LaPierre historians or journalists?
If they are reliable we should allow their pov in, but we should not give it undue weight. --JaapBoBo (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
They are journalists but are quoted by most historians and books on the matter.
But they are rather considered as "traditionnal historians" (of course).
I read one negative critics concerning a part of their work in Gelber's by that was not major enough so that I remember what it dealt with.
I agree for (un)due:weight. Ceedjee (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


CIA

Removed: Earlier, a CIA report had predicted that it was unlikely that the Jews could hold out against the Arabs of Palestine without extensive outside help, because a war would disrupt the economy for too long. The CIA did not believe that Arab states would intervene. [8] This is not from a reliable source. --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

i disagree, you have any example of this source being unreliable? JaakobouChalk Talk 16:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
new comment per diff: Eleland, this page is also for you... please interact on it rather than make a rhetorical edit summary+revert. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
First, "zionism-israel.com" is an unreliable source par excellence. You've asked for "any example of this source being unreliable," which shows that you either don't know or don't care how WP:V actually works. Do you realize how frustrating it is to try and edit with you when you simply don't pay attention to polices and community standard practices?
Second, the other information at issue is a long and tendentious quote from George C. Marshall, which is of a certain historical interest, but has essentially no relevance to the 1947–1948 Civil War in mandatory Palestine, which is what the section is about. It's WP:OR#SYNthetically presented as a contrast to Benny Morris's conclusion that the Palestinians were "far too weak", when it is actually a statement about the regular Arab armies. <eleland/talkedits> 21:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Eleland,
  1. i've asked a serious question on the reasons to which you claim zionism-israel.com to be unreliable. the website having some POV that it's ok to live in israel is not an immediate reason to reject facts that are presented by them... do you have an example of a mistake? an example of extremely partisan and improper presentation by them?
  2. the "long and tendentious quote from George C. Marshall" represents the US view at the time which is "tendentiously" in contrast to benny morris (so what?!). Benny Morris stated in his book his belief based on the sources he's read, and Marshall does the same only at a different time period. your assertion that palestinians != arabs back in 1948 (WP:OR#SYN) is (a) contested and (b) also introduced in the CIA related text per "Arabs of Palestine".
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 22:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Your (1) is of no relevance. The site is unreliable because it has no established reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, and is run by a web programmer, two activists, and a retired news correspondent. Even if every single thing ever said on their site was strictly accurate, it's the reputation for accuracy that matters, not the accuracy itself. Verifiability, not truth.
Your (2) is of no relevance. Marshall said "I know you have some arms and your Haganah, but the Arabs have regular armies. They are well trained and they have heavy arms. How can you hope hope to hold out?" Was he talking about the ragtag ALA? No, he was talking about the regular armies of the Arab states, and the section is about the Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, which happened prior to the Arab intervention. His statement is in no way a contrast to Morris's, who was talking about the Palestinians, not about their Arab "allies". <eleland/talkedits> 00:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Eleland,
  1. from my personal experience, that website has a better reputation for accuracy and fact checking than the BBC, Guardian, and other sources that we allow. this article that gives encyclopedic information about a CIA report from 1947 [25] is given with the full information from the source - hence, it is fully verifiable. up to now, you've provided only rhetoric as to why this well sourced encyclopedic information should be rejected.
  2. "No, he was talking about the regular armies of the Arab states" + "the section is about the Civil War in Mandatory Palestine" - this is WP:OR, the text clearly considers them all to be arabs per "Arabs of Palestine".. this is 1947, don't reject material just because the "palestinian" narrative did not exist yet.
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 08:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
p.s. JaapBoBo, i can't help but notice that you, the original objector to the source, have rescinded from discussion and are adding a partisan source (with reasonable but not impressive reliability) into the article [26]. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I have not rescinded from discussion.
Walid Khalidi is a reliable source.
Please make serious edits. Leave Morris' assesment in the Civil war section, as it refers to that (I have the book on my desk and checked it). Please also don't remove Khalidi, as he is a reliable source. --JaapBoBo (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The CIA-text clearly refers to the civil war, and not to the war with the other Arab states. Besides: it's not from a reliable source. --JaapBoBo (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, you do know what the word "reputation" means, don't you? Not to mention "rhetoric"? A reputation is what other people think, not what you think. Rhetoric is persuasive speech (or writing), and is entirely appropriate on talk pages. Of course, poor rhetoric, such as repeatedly asserting something without evidence or argument, and ignoring the arguments made by others, is frowned upon.
I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse when you conflate the Palestinian Arabs with every Arab in the Levant, Egypt, and Iraq, but I really don't care. When Benny Morris says "all observers—Jewish, British, Palestinian Arab, and external Arab—agreed ... The Palestinians were simply too weak," and you contrast this ("Despite Morris's assertion...") with a statement from Marshall about Arab regular armies, what Morris calls "external Arabs" and distinguishes from "Palestinian Arabs," you are making poor quality edits and wasting everybody's time. <eleland/talkedits> 18:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Eleland, please don't delete references because of your singular interpretation of them; and don't presume for a minute that your interpretation of what is a reliable source is normative here. --Leifern (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I think people should not read Morris literally because, just as in the current case, it would make some people claim he is biased. Indeed : at least Montgommery (who fought and defeated Palestinian Arabs in 1938-39 and later Jews in 46-47) nuances this view (even if I think Morris is right because facts talk by themselves). [see the quote in the next section with other comments] Ceedjee (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
To Eleland -Zionism-Israel.com is run by the same guy who started www.Mideastweb.org - ME - and it has the same basic policy regarding accuracy. I admit that have a doctorate in neurobiology and I am only self-taught about the Middle East as I am self taught about systems design and Web sites (it shows doesn't it?). My experiences in science and engineering didn't teach me about the Middle East, but they did teach me how to evaluate evidence and learn a subject. I also live here and have relatives who know things from personal experience.
http://www.Zionism-Israel.com fairness and accuracy policy is here:
http://www.zionism-israel.com/Policy.htm
We believe that the truth is the most convincing way of presenting our case and the best way of overcoming disinformation. We make every effort to verify the accuracy of our materials. We do not disseminate rumors and hoaxes as if they are facts. If an assertion looks questionable, we double check with independent sources.
Unlike the case for commercial newspapers, at ZIIC this policy extends to assertions made in "opinion" articles as well. We will not publish an article if it makes factual assertions that we know are incorrect, without a disclaimer, unless we are citing "bad examples" and publishing materials to refute them. In that case, the context is made clear.
If you find errors or omissions in our materials, please do not hesitate to contact us
The address is zio-web-owner(at)yahoogroups.com so that all editors get the mail.
I am as much for Zionism as I am for peace, but above all I respect the truth. Political opinions should be based on truth. In your case, you want to base "truth" on political opinions. You did not cite any errors in Zionism-israel.com. If you find any, and prove they are wrong, they will be cheerfully corrected. Every historical article has errors of bias and random errors but it is possible to keep these to a minimum and we are open to corrections. "Answers.com" writes that the IDF was formed on May 31, 1948, for example. That is incorrect. Palestine-Israel procon believes I am an authority. I am also the same person who wrote the article on Deir Yassin that is here: http://www.ariga.com/peacewatch/dy . It cannot be suspected of prettifying the Zionists or trying to hide the truth. I wish it were not true, but we have to tell the truth as we find it. Wikipedia has regulations about slander, and so has the US government. I request that you will remove your assertions about Zionism-israel.com and myself and apologize immediately. Likewise I request that every place that someone has marked Zionism-israel.com as a biased source this should be correct and the smears removed. Wikipedia doesn't write such comments next to references to Palestineremembered or Al-Jazeera, but the bias of those sources can be proven. Given that you have not produced any evidence that zionism-israel.com is inacurate, while your characterization of me and my fellow editors of Zionism-israel.com is gratuitously demeaning and inaccurate, your charges are irresponsible and malicious slander. Mewnews (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
In any case, the debate about Zionism-israel.com regarding the CIA is totally absurd. The CIA report was produced in 1947. I was 1 year old then and had no hand in it. CIA believed the Jews would lose. Moreover, according to Morris himself, the peak enemy force concentrations were 55,000 active combat troops inside Palestine/Israel, not counting the Palestine irregulars and the village militias which organized ambushes. At the conclusion of the war, the IDF had 12 active combat brigades that are listed in various places including http://zionism-israel.com/dic/war_of_independence.htm . The largest of these had no more than 3000 troops, so IDF combat manpower could not be more than about 36,000 at the END of the war. The evidence that the Jews were outnumbered and outgunned at the beginning is massive. In almost every critical battle - Nirim, Yad Mordechai, Negba, Degania, Mishmar Hayarden, the Arab side enjoyed decisive superiority 5-1 or more in manpower and in firepower. Jews had no artillery at all until May 20 and no airforce until May 29. Hagannah told Ben-Gurion they had a 50% chance of winning. A scret Haganah report of March 1948 was rather pessimistic: http://mideastweb.org/jeruint.htm. The ARABS were sure they would win. It is a fact that until October, Israel had lost the entire Negev - cut off by the Egyptians - that is why the Bernadotte settlement looked realistic. The most optimistic assessment was that of Ben-Gurion after the first bombing of Tel Aviv by the Eyptians Eyleh Ya'amdu - he looked at the people and said these will stand.
The trick of Benny Morris and Ilan Pappe is based on a fake reckoning - They count all the support and logistic and training troops of the IDF and those assigned to guard duty in villages as well as front line troops, but they do not count the rear support troops of the Egyptians and Syrians and Jordanians, nor the Arab manpower that was defending villages. So of course, it looks like there were more Jewish "soldiers." However, if you read Pappe, you will see that he also charges that because of shortages of manpower, immigrants were taken from the boats without knowing how to handle a gun and thrown into the battle of Latrun. He said hundreds of people were killed. Only about 77 were killed actually, but Pappe believes facts are for pedants. They can't have it both way. Either the Jews had a vast military machine, or the IDF was so pathetic that they had to employ concentration camp victims just off the boat. The latter is true. Such "historians" will go to any lengths with absurd claims. One man wrote in Palestine-Israel Journal that while it is true that the Jews had no weapons except PIATs and rifles and Bren guns, while the Arabs had tanks and airplanes, the weapons of 1948 were not very powerful anyhow so this didn't matter. It is an absurd claim. I think that the Polish army had a quite different experience fighting the Germans with 1939 weapons. The Arab-Israeli wars article and the statement by Morris is grossly misleading. Mewnews (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
In discussions I had with the late Baruch Kimmerling, we agreed that Morris contradicts his own conclusions in every other paragraph of Birth of the Refugee problem and in Righteous victims. Efraim Karsh has demonstrated how Morris misquoted Ben-Gurion, and Morris admitted that he may have '"misinterpreted" Ben Gurion (he deliberately omitted key sentences). Morris himself has "clarified" many of his earlier opinions in interviews in Haaretz and a recent letter to Irish times.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/386065.html
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/380986.html
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=25102&docId=l:747971771&start=2
The above should be taken into account whenever discussing Morris's opinions -- they are Morris's opinions about Morris's opinions. :::So according to Morris, Morris is not a reliable source! I have provided the information above. Unbiased editors can check that it is all true in any books they like, and if they value accuracy, they will correct this article. There is no point in wasting time fixing the bias of Wikipedia if Eleland and others will simply revert any edits that don't agree with their political bias and say I am only a webmaster. Eleland, what are you qualifications as a Middle East expert and who are you?? Where do you get the audacity to slander others?? Sorry for long comment. Ami Isseroff, D.Sc. Mewnews (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The "no chance" assessment

I think there is a misunderstanding here that cause this "edit war".
I think it is due to was is called the "myth of David vs Goliath".
Relevant analysts (see below) at the time considered the Jews had no chance to win against the Arabs (and even the Palestinians) and there were not stupid.
The myth is that Israel miracuoulsy won the war. It is not that Israel was weaker or had few chances to win.
Historians explain the "victory" of Haganah due to the facts that :

  • The Arab leaders thought that the Arab Liberation Army would be enough to defeat Jews (Gelber)
  • The Arab only prepare for war at the last minute (end of April) (Gelber but certainly all)
  • The Arab leader didn't involve all their forces (Laurens)
  • The Arab armies were not coordinated and their leaders were not trusting each other (all)
  • Yishuv mobilised massively (Morris, Pappé)
  • Ben Gurion organized Balak operation to be supplied in weapons (all)
  • Stalin supported Yishuv (Khalidi but all others too)
  • Haganah succeedeed in countering the embargo (Gelber, Shlaim, ...)
  • Arab armies didn't succeed in countering the embargo (Shlaim, Gelber)

That is the reason why the minds eg from British officeers (but that is also true for CIA etc) are relevant. I found them in Sachar, History of Israel from the rise of Zionism to our time, p.297 : "On december 17, Bevin arned Marshall that the Jews would get their "throats cut". The foreign secretary's appraisal was entirely shared by military leaders. In March of 1948, with hostilities no begun, Field Marshal Montgomery offered his opinion that "the Jews had bought it" - that they were unable to protect their lines of communication. The reports of British officers in Jerusalem, Amman, and Cairo sustained this view. The following month General Sir Gordon Marmillan, commander of British forces in Palestine, stated flatly taht the Arab armies would have no difficulty in taking over the whole country." I suggest this material (with references) could be introduced in the article. Ceedjee (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets split this into civil war and war with other Arab countries.
Morris states very clearly that all observers agreed that the Palestinians stood no chance in the civil war. Morris (p.11 of Birth), Ben-Ami (former Israeli cabinet member who wrote a book) and R. Khalidi say the Palestinians were actually beaten in the 1936-39 Revolt.
For the war with the other Arab states all the arguments off Ceedjee are right. Probably there are even more:
  • Yishuv had better organisation (Morris)
  • Yishuv had better quality of men, more experienced officers (WWII) (Morris)
  • etc.
We could add this. We could add that many outsiders and insiders had their doubts about the survival of the Yishuv. Personally I think the Yishuv leaders had not much doubts. --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Dominique Lapierre et Larry Collins (1971), p.163
  2. ^ Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, chap.VI.
  3. ^ Displaced Persons] retrieved on 29 october 2007 from the US Holocaust Museum.
  4. ^ "Jewish Refugees of the Israeli Palestinian Conflict". Mideast Web. Retrieved March 16, 2007.
  5. ^ Stearns, 2001, p. 966.
  6. ^ Z. Sternhell, 1998, 'The Founding Myths of Israel', ISBN 0-691-01694-1, p.3
  7. ^ Collins and LaPierre, 1973 p.315
  8. ^ THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE PARTITION OF PALESTINE, CIA, November 28, 1947
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1948_Arab–Israeli_War/Archive_11&oldid=1211785705"