Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War

Arabic for "nakba"

There seems to be an edit war over this and someone mistakenly thinking we should add the foreign-language form of all proper names. That isn't the case. We only do it for article subjects. A simple compromise is to say 1948 Palestinian exodus ("Nakba"). Itsmejudith (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. It's fine the way it is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I find the inclusion of the English translation unusual as most sources I know that refer to it by a formal name use Nakba, as opposed to its English translation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You can switch the English and Arabic. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

German & Yugoslav volunteers

According to Zeev Schiff, Benny Morris, Leslie Stein and Chaim Herzog, German ex-Nazi types as well as Bosnian Muslims and some Bosnians who fought with pro-Axis forces during the WW2, served as volunteers with Arab forces and not in insignificant numbers. According to Stein, as many as "500 Yugoslavs" fought as well as a "number of Germans," (Stein @ 44-45) I have therefore restored the edit.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Dozens of pro-Axis partisans and a handful of ex-Nazis is an obvious case of insignificant numbers when it is a war involving nearly 200,000 soldiers. That you are emphasizing the Nazi connection and inserting the flag of Nazi Germany in the belligerent section to represent a handful of Germans is emblematic of the various issues with this article I have been aching to correct. Expect me to elaborate more soon.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is what Morris has to say about foreign volunteers in 1948:

"Of the Arab states, only the Jordanians, who increased their roster of Britons during the war, managed to recruit and deploy foreign military experts to any real effect. The handful of ex-Nazi Germans or Bosnian Muslims recruited by Syria, Egypt, and the Palestinian Arabs proved of little significance." (Page 403)

If reputable secondary sources do not consider this contribution to be significant, it really doesn't belong in the info box. GabrielF (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC) (copied from my post on Jiujitsuguy's talk page)

A discussion on the matter was held on our (GabrielF & JJG) respective talk pages and agreement as to the precise text concerning German and Yugoslav volunteers seems within reach. I'll formulate something over the weekend. Regards,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Serious issues with article

This article is replete with several severe issues that are in need of attention. To elaborate:

• WP:NPOV is not being respected by the inclusion of material relating to the Nazis, the Holocaust, and antisemitism. The most recent offense has been the insertion of the flag of Nazi Germany in the belligerents section due to a handful of ex-Nazis fighting on the Arab side. It also emphasizes that out of several hundred Yugoslavs a few dozen were members of pro-Axis fascist groups. However, this is far from the only NPOV issue involved.

The political objectives section starts out by describing the Yishuv "fearing a repeat of the Holocaust" and simply looking to survive without making mention of any other objectives. In a subsection about Husseini it starts out by mentioning his collaboration with the Nazis and adding an allusion to the Holocaust, without providing any context as to why he was collaborating with the Nazis and what he actually knew of the Holocaust at the time. This, mind you, in the "political objectives" section. Even more significantly there is no mention in the background section or political objectives about the history of Jewish settlement or Arab opposition to the way in which it lead to their expulsion from certain areas of the territory as well as widespread discrimination against them by the settlers.

Further down in a section on British diplomacy there are references to the British thinking all Jews are communists, wanting to cut Israel down to size, and evacuating without considering the consequences. Again comments without context, like the fact the leading Zionists were self-described socialists or the fact the Soviets thought Israel would be a major ally for the same reason.

Then you have the section for the demographic outcome. In the second paragraph it falsely asserts that "Arab nations refused to absorb Palestinian refugees" when it is widely-known that Jordan gave every refugee citizenship in its territory and it is also known that Lebanon gave some of the refugees citizenship as well. On the Jewish exodus the section claims "many of these immigrants were forcibly expelled" despite evidence suggesting a significant amount left voluntarily, something that is mentioned after that in a manner that implies it is not significant. What follows from there is a rather butchered run-on sentence that starts out by mentioning antisemitic violence and pogroms. It then mentions government persecution due to the war or "political instability" without elaborating and only after mentioning this does it point out the rather significant matter of many just wanting to settle in Israel or the West. Obviously, it does not go into any of the unique details related to the flight of Jews from each of these countries. Even more problematic is the sentence starts out without clarifying whether this applies just to immigrants from Arab and Muslim countries or whether it also includes European Jews who are mentioned earlier in the paragraph.

• All of the above come together to violate WP:SYNTH by pushing a propaganda notion that the enemies of Israel do not have any legitimate reason for opposing it, but instead just hate Jews with some even wanting to have a redo of the Holocaust. Context is rarely given for the sides opposing/not supporting Israel, while the context given for Israelis ignores the less high-minded reasons for their actions. Honestly, this reads like something you would get from CAMERA or Arutz Sheva. The political objectives section heavily implies with the bit about Husseini that the Palestinians only wanted to kill the Jews and that the Yishuv were just stoically trying to survive. Throwing in the ex-Naxis mention and the Nazi flag in the belligerents section adds on to that little association game being played with the article. Amazingly the source provided for Husseini is a book about antisemitism written by an Israeli. With all the issues in the section about the British and the demographic outcome included, the obscenely incendiary and propagandistic nature of the resulting synthesis of material stands out plainly. I would say it easily reaches WP:COATRACK proportions.

• There is also a somewhat less serious issue for fixing, merely by comparison, and that is the poor referencing in the article. Paragraphs and sometimes entire sections go without a citation at times. It is not strictly a case of minor or uncontroversial material either. A section on Operation Shoter mentions accusations of massacres without providing a single reference either way. Another paragraph in the section "Anglo-Israeli air clashes" is a huge block of text, it could easily be split into two or three paragraphs, with two citations tacked on at the end. The first two paragraphs of the background section have no citations either, though someone has at least added some citation tags there.

Looking over all this I am perplexed at how this article can still have a B-class ranking. This article is in need of some serious work to even be worthy of a C-class ranking, in my opinion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Some of the things you mention have merit, some I disagree with. It was very difficult to get anything done with this article for a while (you can see why if you check the archives). If you have any specific changes you want to make please either bring them up here or just go ahead and edit. Worse case you'll get reverted and then we can discuss. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

(1) I think there was a clear consensus that the addition of Nazi Germany to the combatant list was not appropriate. Its a recent change that has been reverted, so I don't think it has any bearing on your argument. (2) Your statement that "The political objectives section starts out by describing the Yishuv "fearing a repeat of the Holocaust" and simply looking to survive without making mention of any other objectives" is simply false - this section, which cites a highly-respected source, lists three additional war aims beyond survival. (3) The text appears to imply that the quote "to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy" is from a statement by Husseyni. Searching for the quote in Google Books, the earlier reference that I found was to a 1970 book by Jon Kimche, who was known as a critic of Israel. There are some later uses of the quote by dubious sources. I think that the quote does need to be tracked down and verified. The general point that Husseyni sided with the Nazis during the war is frequently made in secondary sources about the period and it was crucially important in 1948. I am sure that we could do a better job of presenting this. (4) I'm not opposed to adding some context to the statement that the Foreign Office thought that the Jews were communists. This is, however, a complex and nuanced subject - plenty of leading Britons in 1948 would have considered themselves socialists and a great many leftists in the West had not yet broken with Stalin. (5) I agree that a reference is needed for the section on Operation Shoter. The article Operation Shoter has a discussion of the allegations of massacres that appears to be well sourced. I will have to read through some of your other points carefully. I'm not convinced that the article is making the implicit point that you believe it is making - for instance the article makes it quite clear that King Hussein was willing to make a deal with the Yishuv to avert war and that the motivation of several Arab leaders was not hatred of Jews but a desire to expand their own territory and influence. GabrielF (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Point 1 is a nice sentiment, but that edit is symptomatic of the broader issue with this article. The second point is not really addressing what I said. It does mention other goals, but that is what it starts with so what I said was not false. Also, the parts after that are not any more respectful of NPOV. WP:V does not circumvent other policies. Can you honestly say that it is universally agreed by all major historians that the Yishuv were just looking to establish "defensible borders" and "reduce the size" of an Arab fifth column? Points three and four are welcome responses, though on the fourth point I think you are overlooking the recurring theme of antisemitism in this article. In fact, that is the main problem with your response. You do not see the obvious picture being painted. I have read enough on the conflict over the years and had enough debates about it to recognize that many of these points I am mentioning are very common claims amongst those who try to paint Israel's opponents or non-advocates as antisemitic or blind to antisemitism.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

@TDA, when your neighbor is raped, robbed or killed in a pogrom as part of official government policy and because of your status as a Jew, you are arbitrarily denied employment, the ability to conduct a livelihood, are subject to random beatings, robbery, imprisonment or worse, leaving under those conditions is certainly not voluntary. Arab pogroms against their respective Jewish communities, some of which had been in existence for 2,500 years is a well documented fact as is the Arab connection to Nazi Germany during WW2.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Fleeing oppression is voluntary, even if that may seem horrible to say. That Jews were oppressed by these governments does not mean you can claim in the article that the governments expelled them, unless they did just that. Certainly there were cases where Arab governments expelled their Jewish population (Egypt is the only definitive example I can think of at the moment) and we can back that up with sources. Sources also back up that there were just as many, if not considerably more, who made Aliyah out of nationalistic fervor following Israel's declaration of statehood. In certain cases sources back up that it was due to unique political circumstances like in Algeria, where Jews had been given French citizenship and were for over a hundred years essentially equal in status to French colonists. There is also the fact that the Arab League explicitly forbid emigration of Jews by member states, with countries like Iraq and Yemen seeing sudden mass emigration soon after the war mainly because Israel and Zionist groups conducted military-scale evacuations. Morocco is particularly unique in that leaders have even called on the Jewish population that fled to come back and there is still a sizable Jewish minority there. All these nuances are lost in the current wording that downplays the voluntary parts as well as the very long period of time over which it elapsed. Compared to the Nakba, which happened over a year or two, the Jewish exodus was like a dripping faucet. Your insistence on keeping things like this, together with your attempt to make associations with the Nazis is exactly the problem with this article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You have quite a few factual errors in the above statement, but never mind. I don't think many sources claim that most Jews decided voluntarily to emigrate from Arab countries without any pressure from the government and locals. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite a few would back up that a sizable amount that left for Israel did so for ideological reasons as much as anything else. After all, various Jewish organizations around the world actively encouraged Jews to make Aliyah so that the Jewish population could grow in Israel. The impression created by the current wording is that the Jewish community was being forced out of the Arab world because the Arab leaders were Nazi-loving Jewhaters. It really is a horrifically butchered spin on the actual history.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have a source that says most Jews left the Arab countries for ideological reasons, I'd like to see it. Not all the Arab leaders were Nazi-loving Jew-haters, but some certainly were and I don't agree that the article creates the impression they all were. Can you quote the exact text you think gives that impression? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘There is no one quote that lays it out. As I said, it is the material sprinkled across the article when taken as a whole. For instance, in the political objectives section this quote by itself is biased but does not imply a lot:

Initially, the aim was "simple and modest": to survive the assaults of the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab states. "The Zionist leaders deeply, genuinely, feared a Middle Eastern reenactment of the Holocaust, which had just ended; the Arabs' public rhetoric reinforced these fears".

However, when you take that and combine it with the first paragraph on Husseini a little further down in the section it takes on new meaning:

In 1940, he asked the Axis Powers to acknowledge the Arab right "to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy."

While I was looking over the British diplomacy section I also noticed that all the material in that section is backed by a single book from Karsh. That section includes some choice quotes:

Moreover, it was an article of faith for most British policy-makers that most Jews were Communists . . . General Sir Alan Cunningham wrote to Creech Jones at this time to complain "It appears to me that H.M.G.'s policy is now simply to get out of Palestine as quickly as possible without regard to the consequences in Palestine" . . . British officials regarded the prospect of an Arab invasion favorably as offering an excellent chance to overturn the UN partition resolution and cut Israel "down to size".

After that you have the demographic outcome section that makes sure to first assign antisemitic violence and pogroms as causes for the Jewish exodus and then mentioning government persecution as another before getting to the fact that there were people who actually left for socioeconomic or ideological reasons. You also have various omissions about the actual motivations of the Palestinian Arabs and what the Yishuv had been doing that incited so much hostility. Separated these bits of information say very little, together they paint a picture of the innocent Jewish population being beset and threatened at every turn by vile antisemites who seek their destruction.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Antisemitic violence and pogroms were indeed a major factors in the Jewish exodus from Arab countries. I can recommend a few books on the subject if you're not familiar. It's also true that British policy was to get out of Palestine without regard to the consequences, and that's being generous and not taking into account their subtle and not so subtle sabotage of the Partition Plan. We had a discussion about that which included other sources such as Pappe. Like I said, it was hard to improve this article for a while.

You can always add information to balance things you think are too one sided. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Bevin, the British foreign secretary, did think that the partition plan was fundamentally unfair and refused to involve the British government and armed forces in implementing it. Prior to the partition plan, attempts had been made to get the Jewish and Arab leaders to make peace agreements. Bevin said that if they didn't reach an agreement, the problem would be handed to the United Nations and the British would withdraw from Palestine. No agreement was reached; the Jewish leaders thought that Bevin was bluffing and the Arab leaders were quite happy that the problem be referred to the United Nations, where they thought that they would prevail. Bevin wasn't bluffing, so what he said would be done was done.     ←   ZScarpia   14:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit simplistic. The British deliberately did not cooperate with the UN in the implementation of the Partition Plan, including now allowing the UN Palestine Commission to enter the area to do its work of marking borders and trying to set up temporary governments. They also refused to transfer any functions of government (like the police, the post, the railway authority, etc) to anyone. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote, British Government policy was to refuse to involve the British government and armed forces in implementing the partition resolution. That included refusing to allow various UN bodies involved in implementing partition to enter Palestine. It also included, rather than a refusal to hand over power (as far as I know, no bodies were demanding that power be handed to them), a refusal to organise a transferral of power.     ←   ZScarpia   19:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

So, part of the problem looks to be that sections of the article are sourced to single texts so that things which should be presented as viewpoints, if they are presented at all, are being presented as facts? I broadly support what you've written.     ←   ZScarpia   14:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to find the discussion we had about this. Pappe and Karsh say basically the same thing about the British. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, here it is. It's long and meandering but you'll see there are several sources, from both sides (although we didn't find one describing the British POV) that support what currently only Karsh is used for in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell that was a discussion about one point of possible agreement with Karsh on the British role at the UN Partition Plan article talk page, the section on British diplomacy in this article has a much broader scope than the material that was the focus of the discussion you mentioned. Please, do not misrepresent a discussion in another article to try and sway discussion in this one.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? You said you had a problem with a section of the article because it was sourced only to Karsh, then bolded part of a quote to show what you had a problem with. I pointed you to another discussion that has another source from someone with opposing views to those of Karsh, that supports the part you bolded. Now I'm "misrepresenting" another discussion to "try and sway" this one? You've gotta be kidding me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You were responding to someone else who objected to the section being sourced to one book and I was clearly not raising the material about them not "considering the consequences" of evacuating as my only objection to the material, which actually isn't addressed in that discussion anyway. By saying that the various sources "say basically the same thing about the British" and "support what currently only Karsh is used for" you are implying that all of my objections, as well those of other editors, were addressed by that discussion when they were not. So, yes, you were misrepresenting that discussion to try and sway this one. Anyway, focusing on the British diplomacy section in general I think a source like this should be considered: http://books.google.com/books?id=UcSUgrDsD_sC&pg=PA10&dq=Israel+British+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KqoTT7z9PNLogAek6ODAAw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Israel%20British%201948&f=false. It is still a partisan source, but that makes the implication of British inaction actually serving to harm the Palestinian Arabs more significant. Similarly, the British pressuring Arab countries against taking Jerusalem provides yet another example of how this section currently presents only one very biased side of the question.

That source goes to another point that I haven't raised. The background section at the top of the article says "Jews would get 56% of the land, of which most was in the Negev Desert" implying that somehow they were getting stiffed by mostly receiving a barren wasteland for a state, a typical claim from pro-Israeli propagandists. Of course, the Zionist leadership and President Harry Truman made the Negev's inclusion in the Jewish state a redline for their support despite it having little to no Jewish population. They were so insistent on it the Yishuv established small settlements in the territory during the negotiations so as to lay some claim to the Negev. Only after the Negev was included did the Yishuv finally support the U.N. Partition. This point comes up with the 1948 War when Gelber notes the British were pushing this idea of having the Negev included in the Arab state, which would then be included in Transjordan, and describes motives that are clearly more about geopolitical maneuvering to build up its biggest ally in the region as opposed to being motivated out of any desire to oppose Israel as the current wording implies.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You have clearly either not read that discussion or not read the sources. Also, in the future, perhaps you shouldn't bold stuff if you don't want people to address it specifically.

Anyway, I'm starting to see a pattern here. You think certain things "imply" all kinds of stuff which you personally object to or that you have "had enough debates about" or whatever. How about you add whatever it is you think would balance what's currently in the article (none of which you seem to object to as not being reliably sourced) and we can go on from there? This kind of forumesque back and forth isn't really helping if you don't say what exactly you want to change and how.

For example, the fact that most of the land was in the Negev is noted in many if not most sources that discuss this topic. So the way to fix whatever "implication" you think this has (other than the fact that a large chunk of the proposed state was not arable land) is to go ahead and add more information and spare us your opinion about "pro-Israeli propagandists" or whatever. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I object to bias on Wikipedia in general and beyond that my opinion on the subject itself only serves to inform my edits in the sense that it is a result of sympathetically reviewing the information and arguments from both sides. What I can say is that the material included in this article and the information omitted make this article fit the classic pro-Israeli narrative of the war. As for suggestions, I just provided one in my previous comment on a possible second source to use in the British diplomacy section. My intention is to make changes to the article, but I would prefer some input first.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

What page is Negev stuff on?

What kind of text do you want to add regarding British diplomacy? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The bit about the British push for Jordan annexing the Negev should be on the page that pops up when you click the link. It does not mention there what I said about the Zionist leadership seeking the Negev, so that might need a different source, though I think one is provided on another article. As far as text, my ultimate desire would be a change so significant that suggesting it would be more complicated than just making the change. However, any ideas about how to bring material in from the source above or any source you may find would be helpful. If can think of ways to make the changes yourself that would also be good.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it would hurt if we summarize the Karsh stuff and move some of the quotes from British officials to the footnotes, for example. Then you can add other sources that elaborate on the British support to Transjordan (not that I think it really changes the essence of what Karsh is saying). I don't think anyone contests the fact the the British supported the Arabs diplomatically and to some extent also militarily (for example the Arab Legion). The reasons they did so are open to some debate which we can elaborate on. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Karsh's viewpoint is a bit one-sided and it would be a good idea to balance it with that given in other sources.     ←   ZScarpia   11:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

List of belligerents - Pakistan

I've searched Benny Morris's 1948, A History of the First Arab-Israeli War (2008) and can't find any mention of Pakistanis, let alone Pakistan (which only came into being on 14 August 1947), being involved in the 1948 war. Nor can I remember having seen Pakistan mentioned as a belligerent in any of the other reading that I've done. Perhaps the person who included Pakistan could quote exactly what the source paper says and also list what major sources mention Pakistan? I think that the list should be pruned down so that it shows only the countries (not political parties etc) who were officially involved in the fighting.     ←   ZScarpia   18:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)